This message was self-deleted by its author

[William769]

This message was self-deleted by its author (William769) on Fri Jul 13, 2012, 06:59 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Scuba]

1. "men ... suffer an astonishing 92% of fatal occupational injuries"

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. This is an interesting article.

Right down to the title; the sneering subject line of countless DU posts is actually a legitimate question. Thanks William.

I was with you right up to this point:

We spent quite some time attempting to find MRMs who could be engaged in a constructive manner, but eventually gave up. If men’s rights are to be addressed on any kind of serious level, it will have to be by feminism.

Disagree in the strongest possible way. Men cannot outsource the process of liberation from the things that oppress us.

Use the example (from the article) of sexual abuse of men. It is unrealistic in the extreme to expect feminism to deal seriously with the issue when so much is invested in the idea that it's nonexistent. Suggesting that it is a problem gets you ostracized from progressive circles. Suggesting that there should be battered men's shelters is met IMMEDIATELY with howls of indignation that it's impossible that women batter men with equal or greater frequency.

It is one thing to say that the knowledge, methodology and techniques of feminism are useful to the "masculist" movement. It is something else to say that feminists should be in charge.

What is needed is a progressive alternative to men's rights organizations.

It's an extremely thought provoking article, despite my major reservations about large sections of it.

Based on this, we have proposed a rule of thumb called Ozy’s Law: It is impossible to form a stereotype about either of the two primary genders without simultaneously forming a concurrent and complementary stereotype about the other.

Or, more simply: Misandry mirrors misogyny.

[4th law of robotics]

4. I think in fairness then feminism should be left up to men

men will decide if there are any women who can contribute in a constructive manner and if failing that test they will be excluded and their problems will be dealt with by men on their behalf.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Right.

"We tried to find a women's organization that was willing to engage the topic productively, but eventually gave up. If women's rights are going to be addressed in any serious way, it will have to be by male suffragists."

Could be a quote from a turn of the century newspaper article, couldn't it?

[4th law of robotics]

6. And I'm fairly certain that the author

while being immediately aware of how offensive your quote would be if said earnestly is completely and genuinely unaware of how offensive and matronizing her comments were.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. It's the kind of pandering which is necessary to look serious. n/t

[Swede]

3. K&R

I'll have to read this later.

[libodem]

8. Thank you for the cross-post

This is good stuff. Well thought out, reasoned, and readable.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. My overly simplistic answer is, as always, for people to think for themselves, define themselves as

they see fit, follow their own bliss, don't let other people tell you what you're supposed to be, and if anyone doesn't like it, fuck 'em.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. I still think this is a good article...

... but it is fatally crippled by two concepts that are impossible to reconcile

1) Stereotypes about one gender are mirrored by stereotypes about the other.
2) Creating equality should be outsourced to feminists.

A vocal contingent of feminists are heavily invested in the idea that men are inherently aggressive and violent. This stereotype requires accepting the opposite as also true; women are weak and helpless.

One who believes that these are true can't and won't design a system of equality because that would be a bad outcome.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I also take issue with the idea that anyone -men, women- inherently "needs fixing".

That seems a subjective, sort of idiotic assumption.

If people want to change and ask for help in changing, fine. "You need to be someone besides who you are" is an inherently presumptuous thing to say.

I hear a lot about how "men are expected to stuff their emotions" and "men are forced to be blahblahblah", usually from the same gibber-slingers who try to tell us that we are "programmed by the Patriarchy" to enjoy looking at attractive naked women (or men).

If I thought someone was expecting me to stuff anything, I would tell them to stuff it. Apparently I'm real weird because I don't give a shit what other people think nor do I spend a whole ton of time worrying about society's alleged "expectations" of this that or the other.

It's sort of like the "self-help book". Isn't THAT an oxymoron?

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. "self help book"

My favorite is "read XYX and educate yourself". If you're telling me what to read, it isn't autodidactic, now is it?

That said, people ARE vulnerable to social expectation, especially when we're children. I really don't give much of a shit what other people think... now, but it's unreasonable to think that it's always been thus.

Example: lots of boys in single gender school bands choose to play the flute.