In fact it can be fun! This goes far beyond the typical double standard of “men cant hit women but women can hit men” which im sure every guy has questioned at some point in their lives, and far too many just shrug if off and say “that’s the way it is”. But we see it move into court cases where women get off easier for vicious crimes from hitting someone with a hammer to running a man over with a car over and over again and then only a 20 year sentence…by the way her kids were in the car
Had it been the other way around there probably would have been a life sentence.
It goes deeper than that and find out how here....
I recently saw this commercial for Dove+ for men. Watching it I just couldn’t help but think, “Wow, this is ridiculously accurate” And why is that? Because its exactly what society expects us to do. Excel physically, have a bit of fun when you are younger (and at the same time be a perfect gentleman), get married, and serve your employer and family for the rest of your life. Congratulations…YOU’RE A MAN!!!!!
This sickens me-not only do they wrap up the expectations in a nutshell. They show how its what we should strive for and they take a shot at men as well when they talk about getting lost because you don’t use a map because….YOU’RE A MAN!!!
After the superbowl (when this was apparently first on) they took out that line and edited it a little and came up with this which isn’t much better.
This is the type of thing we need to be wary of. I don’t want this to be the definition of what a “man” is-or atleast the main definition if you want to live that way that’s fine, but I don’t want to be expected to be the breadwinner before I even consider getting married, or finding someone who id want to start a family with. This cant be the only road other than “the lonely road”.
You would never see a commercial where a woman was told: “be born, play nice, go to a dance, go to school, get married, have kids and start cookin’” or “be the old maid”
If this stuff doesn’t bother you the slightest bit, then you should take a hard look at yourself, and think about the commercial.
Standard feminist theory states that chivalry is a double standard, degrading and devaluing women with the expectation of them doing less, forcing them to be mothers, bribed into sex with goods, and not considered equals.
I understand where this is coming from, there were things women were not allowed to do. And I believe they have the right to do them and the social norms should be broken
but the same social rules sent men to their graves, expected men to fight in wars (still no draft or frontlines for women), defending a woman’s honor; even the little things like opening doors and pulling out chairs are all part of chivalry. Lets not forget paying for meals, flowers, chocolates, etc. While you can argue over the little things the first few are enough to state whos at the real disadvantage as far as im concerned. Which is better? I life where you do not have as much of an influence as you would like, or death? Few people would argue death gives you the benefit
As long as one group dies because of social rules they are at more of a disadvantage
Recently there has been a lot of infighting on the Spearhead . It all started when a man who goes by the name Jay Hammers wrote an article called Studies Show an Increased Likelihood of MRAs to be Pansies Its an interesting article, about toughening up, and sparks flew all over the place after it was published (it has since then been taken down) The debate was interesting and Paul Elam talked about having “more brains than balls” in one of his posts discussing it, which makes perfect sense.
Recently Paul posted an article called Manhood Academy: Special Ed at Best its another interesting read about a different website, and as a result we have created an angry mob. After looking into it the controversy once again grew based on the validity of its ideology and if personal attacks were the motives of Paul’s writings and some heavy criticism from Jay about Paul and a “tirade of lies” made against him
Everyone needs to take a chill pill
As I bring all of this up, I am not trying to fuel the fire, or moderate the movement, but things that think are problematic are coming up, and it is my right to talk about them, and the fact some of the things that I am seeing can be problematic
If you have ever heard that if women ruled the world things would be far better. Well you can always open with that-ok I wouldn’t its not actually true theres no proof Catherine the Great had sex with a horse…but she was utterly promiscuous, as bad as the republicans of modern day only she didn’t try to hide it
Anyways heres a list of all the terrible women that were leaders of countries Ill give you the summary version they all started wars, genocide, and destroyed public services
And here are a some other famous female leaders
Elizabeth Bathory bathed in the blood of 600 female servants-all in the name of vanity
MEK is a female run terrorist organization
Harriet Harman; the great lilith
just reminding everyone women are just as bad as men
Updated 30th-April-2010 at 10:27 PM by zetamale
The answer to both is yes and no
Yes women were oppressed like men stuck into their gender roles, which often had protection over influence (but that was not always true) and it would vary from society to society, but men were just as stuck in their roles, and if you weren’t an alpha male you really couldn’t get much done. So in a way you could argue it is oppression but by the technical definition it does not involve cruel and unusual PUNISHMENT and violence so by dictionary terms it is not. Note-the reason I point out punishment because there are places in china where feet were broken and deformed because small feet were a sign of a good bride and an attractive women-im not ok with that. You could argue there are multiple forms of social oppression and being stuck in a gender role would be one of them, but the same would then apply to men and even if you were to go with the different layers and levels of oppression you would have a tough case to make, as no other group of oppressed people had their masters going off to die in wars to defend them. If you were to argue they were oppressed don’t equate it with slavery or jews in concentration camps, that is an insult to the human race.
Clearly, if you’ve been keeping up with this blog you know what I think, but do some research and think about it for yourself
So why does it matter? It makes us look at history, see what we did wrong (we should have given them more say and less protection from the start) and we see the backlash the future created when traditional roles couldn’t keep up with the times.
Why doesn’t it matter? Its not that way anymore( In the western world), and that’s not what I am here to talk about the advantages or disadvantages of being a women in modern society, and gender based double standards for women, im here to talk about the ones for men, and my point is “We were oppressed for X hundred years” is not a valid argument, and would be similar to the idea of reparations. Also, it does not negate the fact that men have social disadvantages as well. Some just as old as marriage, like the overwhelming majority of suicides, and in western society the expectancy to “be a man” how many times have most guys heard “big boys don’t cry”
The past can be a foundation but it cannot be what we entirely dictate the future on. Modern social issues of all sorts will appear and just because men had the “power” doesn’t mean that it is always true, will always be true, and men cannot have problems. Paranoia of going back to the way things were when power is far more evenly split, and there is generally not a siege for power unless one group feels that it is lacking and demands justice or simply becomes a power hungry mob.
The Bible’s Bamboozled Men and Hornswoggling Women By Denise Noe
We commonly think of the society depicted in the Old Testament of the Bible as a classically “patriarchal” one. Indeed, it was a culture in which formal power was largely concentrated in male hands. However, certain stories in the Bible display a great deal of real power wielded by women. Perhaps most interesting is the way prominent women outwit men and are in no sense punished for their treachery.
In Genesis 25:28 we are told of the feelings of Isaac and Rebekah toward their twin sons: “And Isaac loved Esau . . . but Rebekah loved Jacob.” Here the Bible is perennially relevant and realistic. Most people would probably say parents of both sexes should love their children equally but parental emotions are often dramatically undemocratic.
As the official head of the family, Isaac has the power to bestow blessings that Rebekah does not. He wants to bestow a blessing on his favorite son Esau. However, he has become blind in his old age so Rebekah comes up with a plan to foil his intentions and grab the blessing for HER favorite son Jacob. She advises Jacob to pretend to be his brother. When he objects that his father might feel him and realize he is not the hairy Esau, she puts goatskins on his hands and neck (Esau must have been hirsute indeed). Isaac is taken in by Rebekah’s subterfuge and blesses Jacob. We do not read of any comeuppance for the cunning Rebekah. Perhaps the moral of this rather sordid tale is that the son favored by his mother is the son “blessed” both literally and metaphorically.
Genesis 31 is about Jacob’s leaving the home of his father-in-law Laban – a double father-in-law since Jacob is married to both his daughters, Leah and Rachel – accompanied by his wives, servants, and children. He does not inform Laban that they are on their way. Verse 19 tells us that, “Rachel had stolen the images that were her father’s.”
Laban catches up with the crew and remonstrates with them for the sudden departure. Then he searches for the stolen “images.” Verses 34-35 explains, “Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel’s furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not. And she said to her father, Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me. And he searched but found not the images.”
It would appear from these verses that men of the era felt constrained from demanding movement from a woman who was menstruating (or said she was). After all, she might have cramps or be having a heavy flow and need to sit. This is reminiscent of the modern custom of including couches in women’s restrooms but not men’s. I have heard that the supposed reason for making this convenience available to women but not men is concern for the problems of menstruation. The effect is to make these rooms places of literal“rest” for women but not for men, although the latter certainly suffer (non-menstrual) aches and pains and may even perform physically harder labor that leave them more fatigued.
Rachel gets away with her subterfuge and Dad goes away without his images.
Perhaps the outflanking of Biblical “patriarchal” authority by female conniving is illustrated most powerfully by the story of Tamar. In Genesis 38 we read that Judah recruits Tamar to be the wife of his oldest son Er who soon dies. Following the custom of having a brother marry his brother’s widow, Judah orders his son Onan to marry Tamar. The custom also meant that any babies the living brother fathered would be socially considered the children of his dead brother. Onan did not want his children to be regarded as those of Er so he practiced withdrawal with Tamar, leading God to strike him dead and masturbation to be called “onanism.”
Judah is understandably reluctant to have another son marry Tamar as she appears to be something of a jinx. However, his youngest son Shelah is not yet of marrying age and that gives him some room to maneuver without denying Tamar outright. Judah asks her to return to her father’s house and promises that she will marry Shelah when he grows up.
After awhile, Tamar sees that Shelah is all grown up and she is still a widow residing in her father’s home. Since she lives in a time when it is regarded negatively for a woman to die childless, Tamar is determined to continue the line and believes she must do so through the family of her deceased husbands. She hits upon a daring plan.
Tamar learns that Judah is planning a trip to shear his sheep. Genesis 38:14 reads: “And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the
For almost as long as I can remember, men have been the butt of most jokes within the politically correct era. I recently posted a question on the spearhead about this, and thought I would elaborate. This presents a problem for men, as it can move to the point of being misandry and degrading. It gets to the point where we don’t even notice it, such as in the super bowl commercials involving the “green police” where only men were arrested and the Volkswagen commercial where everyone was playing punch buggy, only men were being hit -but between Stevie Wonder and the Amish playing the game, I can let that one go.
This brings me to my point. When do we let go of some of these jokes and not pick a fight?'
keep reading here....
This is something that feminists often argue, that there is a difference between sex and gender. There is controversy over this for a few reasons. One is that it can make the social sciences seem irrelevant, another is it shows how much control over our lives we have. There is no factual basis for this piece, this is my opinion
About 60-70% of gender is biological. There are distinct biological differences on a physical level between men and women, varying from out bodies and the general way we think. There are specific tendencies that are biological such as men being the protector, and more active (most animals in the wild have the men being more physically active and less nurturing towards the children) Its no wonder so many boys are diagnosed with ADD and ADHD they just cant sit still, because its part of who they are.
While there are specific behavior tendencies that are biological, there is still a social aspect.
Sexual harassment occurs against men quite a bit. Most cases of sexual harassment are from men in higher positions of authority (or so people claim). If this is true then sexual harassment has nothing to do with sex, and is an expression of one’s direct power in a degrading manner. This would mean as more women climb the ladder of the working world more women will be the harassers. Seems simple enough, but nothing is ever simple.
This study Power And Sexual Harassment -- Men And Women See Things Differently shows a difference in the definition of power. The study is small but interesting. I wouldn’t say power is as one dimensional as that, as it is often situational and I would say the way it is stated is rather sexist manner, but moving past that we get to the big picture-is sexual harassment just a big misunderstanding?
Let’s play with the ideas in the article and see what we get out of it.