men
Hey guys, I just saw this magazine on the front page of Lemmy and decided to check it out. I know this space is not for me, so I hope it's okay that I'm posting here. I just wanted to pop in here and say that I think it's great that you guys have a space to talk about issues that you're facing and it seems to be overall very positive and fair discussions. I just want you all to know that I love and respect all of you for taking a positive approach to masculinity. I do have a question for you, and maybe it can help others visiting here to see if this space is for them: What is one thing that you wish more people knew about men or the experience of being a man?
Men face numerous issues: Violence against men is often accepted, forced conscription, high suicide rates, our life expectancy lags way behind women, and so forth. These subjects have been discussed to death, to the point where saying any new can seem impossible, yet precious little is being done to alleviate these issues. It can often seem that as long as women are doing better, everything is fine. Nothing else needs to change. And so perhaps the biggest problem faced by men at large is the belittling of serious issues. Throughout history, better conditions have always been something people have had to fight for, and so I guess the duty lies on those of us who are able, to do what we can for the men in our lives and perhaps even beyond. And to convince others who are able to do the same. I don't know if this place has died, so this is just in case it hasn't.
When I tentatively suggested dropping out of uni, my parents laughed at the idea. Whenever they would teach me something, they would get offended if I did not succeed within a few tries. They always insist that I should just try harder, and get mad whenever I try to take a break. Those in my writing group are nice, but would they still be if my writing was trash? If I showed up and wasted their time with garbage, if I deluded myself into thinking I was better than I am, or simply did not align with them politically? I only got together with my study group because we figured that it would be a good constellation for studying and get a good semester project going without burning ourselves out in the process. My brothers seem to lose respect for me whenever we do something together and I don't live up to their expectations as the oldest. When I do something with friends, they are either impressed at the speed at which I learn, or we do something they find as natural as breathing where I struggle. And then they wonder if there is something wrong with me. And so I wonder: If I let myself be incompetent, would anybody care? Interfacing with the world is a choice I make, because I care too much about my parents and siblings to leave them and only live in the moment for myself. But if I one day woke up were no longer competent, would anybody care about me? Hope this fit. Figured I would try a mental health post, as I imagine I am not the only one wondering about this.
[\#men](https://kbin.social/tag/men)
I am reading a book about poisons throughout history, and it mentions that throughout the 1800's women were stereotyped as devious people who would murder men using poisons for their own gain, while it was socially acceptable for men to beat their wives and be unfaithful. This struck me as weird, both because the book has not commented on gender issues up until this point, and because it sounds completely wild that men could essentially treat their wives like property with zero repercussions. Still, this book was written by a historian and it is a perspective that I have heard from feminists as well. I was wondering if I could get some nuance on it here.
Who else would sign up? ✋ [\#men](https://kbin.social/tag/men)
I couldn't even make it ten minutes into this video, so hats off to Shoe0nHead who compiled this shitstorm of misandry that people sent her in reply to her previous video on the Male Loneliness Epidemic. It is really heartbreaking to see how many people do not care one bit about men. And then realizing this outpouring of pure hate is just acceptable. What a society we live in! I'm not sure if I will ever watch the rest of this video, but I thought I'd share this for those of you who have a stronger stomach for hate.
*Based on section 3.3 of the [Reference Book of Men's Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/rbomi/wiki/main).* **Overview**: It's hard to underestimate how scary divorce can be for men. This includes financial consequences (the chance of unreasonably high child support or alimony payments) and the personal/emotional consequences (the likelihood that you'll see your children much less, and the possibility that you'll hardly see them at all). This is not to say that divorce is always a nightmare for men or sunshine and rainbows for women, but two factors suggest that divorce is overall harder on men. First, women initiate a noticeable majority of divorces, which would make sense if they have less to lose. Second, suicide rates for men jump after divorce in a way that we don't see for women. **Examples/evidence**: Chapter 6 ("Maternal Rights v. Paternal Rights: The Case of Children") of *Legalizing Misandry* by Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson is a great resource on this subject. I'm providing a few quotes from it here. First we have a general quote on divorce from psychiatrist Robert Seidenberg that was featured in the book, and then some cases of unreasonable treatment of men after divorce. > > > But the largest part of this discrimination [racial discrimination against blacks] is subtle or hidden because no one today would want to be labelled a racist. The discrimination against men in divorce-custody proceedings, on the other hand, is blatant and shameless. Protective orders, which evict men from their homes at a moment’s notice, are issued without evidence; restraining orders are issued without testimony; at times custody is awarded without testimony; and false child abuse allegations against fathers are rampant. [...] > > > > > Consider the case of a Canadian man. He had been married to his employer, a physician who had paid him a handsome salary and wrote off the expenses for tax purposes. When they divorced, he had to take an eight-dollar-an-hour job. Nonetheless, he was required to pay child support based on the much higher salary earned previously. He lost more money by trying to get the payment adjusted to his new circumstances. (Noncustodial parents are forced to spend a lot of money, by the way, if they decide to challenge court rulings.) Once, when he was two days late, his ex-wife tried to have him jailed. Forced to live in his car, he committed suicide in 1999 by inhaling the exhaust fumes. [...] > > > > > Consider the following case, that of a well-to-do household. “Michael” goes to court in the hope of having the judge reduce his family-support payments. On the surface, his case seems preposterous. After all, he earns $158,000. The judge rejects his plea, perhaps not surprisingly, and orders him to continue paying his former wife $7,153 every month. But that amount represents 96% of his take-home pay; after deductions, he takes home $7,455 every month. And after making his family-support payments, he has only $302 on which to live. The fact is that even single men on welfare in his city actually receive more money: $520. His son and former wife, on the other hand, are hardly living at the poverty line. Was Michael evil enough to have deserved this situation? Neither infidelity nor physical violence caused his divorce. Nor, for that matter, did “psychological violence.” It was caused, according to his wife, by the fact that he spent too much time at work. When the local newspaper ran a story on deadbeat dads, nevertheless, his sixteen-year-old son had this to say: “Dad, did you read that article in The Star? Well that’s what I think of you.” > > One interesting fact is that women initiate a majority of divorces. According to the article "Why do women initiate divorce more than men?" in *The Telegraph*, women initiate 66% of divorces in the United Kingdom. It calls it a "popular misconception" that this is due to men cheating more, and instead points to custody and cost as the main reasons [1]. > > > On the other hand, it’s possible that women are more likely to initiate divorce than men because in the divorce court, especially where children are involved, the odds are in the female’s favour. Married men who get divorced are generally afraid of losing their kids, with good reason: over 80% of children of separated parents live exclusively or mainly with their mother. Men, often the higher earners, fear the crippling costs of a split. Women raising children and without much income can use taxpayer funds (through Legal Aid – for example) to fight a divorce, only paying the Crown back if they get a sufficiently large settlement. Not to sound crude, but this is like going to the Divorce Casino and playing with the house’s cash. > > *Legalizing Misandry* provides support for the idea that women initiate divorce more is that the process is harder on men. It cites economists Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, who conducted a large study of divorce that analyzed all 46,000 cases in the year 1995 in four states. It dismissed violence and adultery as the main reason for the gender disparity in initiating divorce, finding custody as the major factor. > > > The solution to the mystery, the factor that determined most cases, turned out to be the question of child custody. Women are much more willing to split up because – unlike men – they typically do not fear losing custody of the children. Instead a divorce often enables them to gain control over the children. > > > > > “The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables,” Dr. Brinig said. “Children are the most important asset in a marriage, and the partner who expects to get sole custody is by far the most likely to file for divorce.” > > Maternal preference in custody is widespread, despite generally no longer being official policy. Surveys of judges in at least six U.S. states have found that a preference for mothers is pervasive, and surveys of attorneys have found that they perceive it to be happening as well. One study found that 69% of male attorneys and 40% of female attorneys believe that judges "always or often" assume that children belong with their mothers. Almost all of them said that judges were prejudiced against fathers at least some of the time [2]. CNN commentator Jack Cafferty talks about the issue of suicide rates after divorce on his blog [3]. > > > Experts say suicide rates are higher among divorced men - and lowest among those who are still married. Single men fall in between. One sociologist who studies family structure and suicide rates says divorced men are almost 40 percent more likely to commit suicide than those who are still married. > > He includes the words of one of the divorced men who shared his story. > > > As a divorced man, I can honestly say I contemplated suicide for the first time in my life during the first year or two of my separation. It's incredibly difficult to have your entire family life – children, home and even wife – pulled away from you. Prior to the divorce, I was very happy, making a good salary and living in a nice neighborhood. Soon after the divorce, I was saddled with very high child support payments, debt from legal fees and barely enough left over to pay the rent of my small 1 bedroom apartment. > > *The Second Sexism* (by David Benatar, chapter 2) quotes an even higher figure: > > > While divorced women are no more likely to kill themselves than are married women, divorced men are twice as likely as married men to take their own lives. > > The *Vancouver Sun* article "Men and suicide: The silent epidemic" gives various reasons that the disparity in suicide grows after divorce, including lack of access to children, financial difficulties, lack of social support, getting caught off guard by the divorce (since women initiate divorce more they have more time to process it), men feeling as if they were at fault for the divorce, and men self-medicating grief with alcohol and drugs [4]. An article from the *Smart Marriages Archive* mentions many of the same reasons for the increase in the suicide disparity [5]. > > > "It's still generally the case that when children are involved, the mother becomes the custodial parent," said Hillowe. Generally speaking, "men lose the role of being a father in a way that women do not lose the role of being a mother." > > > > > Compounding the problem: Men often feel like they're responsible for the failure of a marriage, said Alvin Baraff, Ph.D., an expert on relationships from a male perspective, and founder and director of Men Center Counseling in Washington, D.C. > > --- [1] [https://archive.is/rqAON](https://archive.is/rqAON) (The Telegraph article "Why do women initiate divorce more than men?") [2] [http://archive.is/fmNHp](http://archive.is/fmNHp) (Tom James Law post "What Judges Really Think About Fathers: Responses To Court-Commissioned Judicial Bias Surveys") [3] [https://archive.is/SDMBP](https://archive.is/SDMBP) (Cafferty File post "Why does divorce make men more suicidal than women?") [4] [https://archive.is/jXt36](https://archive.is/jXt36) (Vancouver Sun article "Men and suicide: The silent epidemic") [5] [https://archive.is/b3DfE](https://archive.is/b3DfE) (Smart Marriages Archive "Men more likely to commit suicide after divorce, study finds")
I recently watched this [video](https://youtu.be/zJr4rZazQy4?si=Yt7veCWfG1QqDhpM). The guy in the video does a good job of explaining all the ideologies. There are at least 50 ideologies on the left and the right. I identify as a liberal democrat, according to the diagram in the video. It falls under left-libertarian. Then I watched other videos about American [liberalism](https://youtu.be/mCPeNXzf7Dw?si=of5qPSA6j0gfjKS4), [Marxism,](https://youtu.be/BFEeHPYp7sg?si=XBV0vo8S7tHH_FNS) and [wokeness](https://youtu.be/4JX4bsrj178?si=Wdj63xjuwZH8M0My). The video about wokeness said Marxism is against liberalism. Wokeness is rooted in Marxism. As a liberal, I hate Marxism. I think it's a very toxic ideology because it says the upper class is the oppressor of the lower class. In the video, Ryan also talks about feminism in the context of Marxism. Feminism in the context of Marxism is: The power dynamics in patriarchal society necessarily means men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed. I think the core ideology of feminism is Marxist. There are different branches of feminism, but the core ideology is still Marxist in my opinion. There is no such thing as "liberal" feminism. Marxism and feminism are both narcissistic ideologies. According to the DSM, narcissists fantasize about unlimited power and or success. They feel entitled to special treatment without doing anything for it. Marxism and feminism seem like empathetic ideologies superficially, but I don't think they are. They are mostly about acquiring power. Marxism is a type of left-wing authoritarianism in my opinion. I read a [paper](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04463-x?trk=public_post_comment-text), which said left-wing authoritarianism is correlated with narcissism and psychopathy. Some [studies](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=13815841671629714702&hl=en&as_sdt=0,36) say feminists are less tolerant of other perspectives and score higher on narcissism. There aren't too many studies about the correlation between feminism and narcissism yet. As an American liberal, I believe in equality. I think misandry is rooted in Marxism, Feminism, left-wing authoritarianism, and dark triad traits. Those ideologies have no place in liberal societies. It's possible for some people to be misandrist without identifying with those ideologies. I'm talking about cultural/systemic misandry.
*(Headline edited because the article shows it was his father who called him a legend.)* > > > Joe Stratton's protest at Stafford School in Caterham, Surrey is thought to have seen an alteration to uniform policy, so shorts can be worn in hot weather outside of the summer term. > > With climate change affecting us more and more, dress codes should be revisited and adjusted.
A new study finds evidence that occupational gender bias has consequences for men who may consider entering healthcare, early education, or domestic fields (HEED). The findings indicate that men avoid HEED careers because they expect discrimination and worry about acceptance and judgment of others. The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, sheds light on the complexities of occupational gender bias and its societal repercussions. *Please read the linked article before commenting.*
There was a post on r/leftwingmaleadvocates which asked, "Are incels bad?" One of the comments said the following: "Yea problem is dating is so rigged with the apps and no cultural celebration/rolls for men to be fulfilled and desirable, that about 80% of guys probably fall into the category of incel these days. There are actually whole countries like Japan or China where MOST men are permanently single and have no hope of ever getting a partner or relationship. Feminism has been IMMENSELY vindictive and bigoted culturally, but there are also big socioeconomic factors at play here. There are literally tens of millions of guys out there that could be considered incel, and even if your not an incel dating is still extremely difficult which is just as much a problem. I think the incel label is almost like the label ‘thug’. It takes a social issue and crushes you by making it a -you- thing. Oh you say a lot of women/society don’t even treat you as human, hmmm sounds like there must be something wrong with YOU, work harder and pull yourself up by the bootstraps!" I replied to the comment by saying that 80% of men are not incels. In public, I have seen average looking men with girlfriends. In my experience, what this Redditor said is not true. I was downvoted for saying that. I disagree with this comment because it seems to be "black-pilled." There was also a post on r/mensrights which was about a guy sharing his personal experience. He said he was able to get laid while being broke. He said women don't care about money much. He was also downvoted. Some MRAs (who probably have trouble dating) seem to have black-pilled beliefs. The black-pill says if a man isn't in the top 20% he is doomed. He won't be able to get casual sex or a girlfriend. Some take it to a more extreme level and say a man has to be 6 ft tall, have a 6 figure income, 6 pack abs, and a 6 inch penis. The black-pill is a derivative of the red-pill, but it has less nuance. Rollo Tomassi is supposed to be the inventor of the red-pill. In one of his videos he said, women are attracted to 20% of men. The 20% is subjective for each woman. He never said 20% of men sleep with 80% of women. Someone misunderstood what he said and it spread throughout the internet. By saying 20%, it means women are pickier than men. Maybe some women think less than 20% are attractive, and some think more than 20%. It's not an exact 20%. A man can be in the 20% (attractive) for one woman and be in the unattractive category for another. Some people say 80% of women swipe right on 20% of men on Tinder. I don't know how true that is. I haven't read the data on it. Black-pillers claim this is true. In my opinion, average men are not doomed. I think these black pilled beliefs are harmful to the men who hold them.
We are trying to build something good here, as we did previously on Reddit. It appears we have a wider reach here on Kbin, so let's debate in good faith and with civil manners. Here, in this magazine (i.e. community or subreddit in Kbin-speak) we wish to discuss and spread awareness of various issues that disproportionately affect males. We believe men are not being well-served by either side of the mainstream political spectrum. We oppose the right wing's exploitation of men's issues as a wedge to recruit men to inegalitarian traditional values. But we also oppose feminist attempts to deny male issues, or shoehorn them into a biased ideology that blames "male privilege" and guilt-trips men. We have no objection to the genuinely egalitarian aspects of feminism, but we will criticize feminist ideology wherever it is inegalitarian and/or untruthful, especially now that it holds institutional power. Too often feminism has promoted a one-sided "equality", dismantling male advantages while exploiting, reinforcing, preserving, and downplaying female advantages - particularly in cases involving alleged abuse. In practice this means that most of us are politically homeless. Male advocacy should naturally be able to find a home in the left wing, which professes to be explicitly egalitarian. But in modern practice, men's issues are habitually ignored, denied, or even opposed. We seek to address male issues without falling into the traps of an impossible return to the past or a disastrous sexism. Men and women have equal value, and we need to work together for a better future.
I think learning about men's issues is bad for mental health. If you are a man, it definitely is. Feminists don't care about men's issues. If they did, there would be more positive changes occurring for men. It's a futile exercise to debate feminists. It's better for them to wake up by themselves. I identify as anti-feminism, not anti-feminist. Anti-feminist sounds like I am against a group of people. I'm not against any group of people's rights. Anti-feminism sounds like I am against the ideology, which I am. I guess that's the proper term. I have been reading articles from New Male Studies. It is a journal about men's issues. They are a group of professors and scholars who write about men's issues. Here is their website: [https://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms](https://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms). Abstract: "Masculine identity has become increasingly problematic due to technological and cultural changes over the past ten thousand years, beginning with the horticultural and agricultural revolutions but gaining momentum with the industrial, military and reproductive revolutions. Egalitarian feminists have unwittingly exacerbated the problem by equating sexual equality with sexual sameness, leaving men unable to make even one contribution to society, as men, which is distinctive, necessary and can therefore be publicly valued--that is, unable to establish a healthy collective identity specifically as men. The result of this emptiness is a growing tendency to give up either by dropping out of school and or by committing suicide. Ideological feminists have thrown down the gauntlet, on the other hand, by ascribing to men a highly negative collective identity. The result of this misandry is an increasing number of men who believe that even a negative collective identity is better than no collective identity‚ at all. No solution will be possible without challenging pervasive assumptions about both boys and men." Nathanson, P., & Young, K. K. (2012). Misandry and emptiness: Masculine identity in a toxic cultural environment. New Male Studies Journal, 1(1), 4-18. I read this article. It is very disturbing that there is a lot of misandry in our society. It causes men to commit suicide. The New Male Studies journal goes against everything that feminism teaches.
Feminists say misandry is not real. I searched on Google to see if there are any articles about misandry. According to scholars, misandry is definitely real. I read an article today about misandry. It's on scholar.google.com for free. Here is the abstract: > > > No published science paper demonstrates misogyny exists. Data on both implicit and explicit gender attitudes shows males substantially favouring females – philogyny – or, at worst, gender neutrality. This is hidden by elision with the wider notion of sexism; but there’s no evidence for hostile > sexism, and hypothesised benevolent sexism is fatally flawed in operational definition. The mode whereby sexism supposedly causes harm -- stereotyping (stereotype threat) -- has been debunked; likewise inter- > sexual dominance, removing any theoretical basis. Possible male harm by control is belied in women being found the controlling party. Misogyny / sexism in being defined circularly is unfalsifiable, therefore non-scientific conceptualisation: ideology itself actually hostile sexism (misandry, which is shown to be real but unseen). > > Moxon, S. P. "Misogyny has no scientific basis of any kind: the evidence is of philogyny–and misandry." New Male Studies 7.2 (2018): 26-42. I don't totally agree with this article. I think there might be a few individuals who are misogynists. However, I don't think there is any systemic misogyny like feminists claim. The misogynists are probably very few and lack any real power to influence society. A few weeks ago, I took this [test](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/data/quiz/ambivalent-sexism?clear=true). I was accused of misogyny, so I wanted to see if I am a misogynist. I scored a 0 on hostile sexism and very low on benevolent sexism. The items from this test are mentioned in the article too. It is a flawed test.
In the department next to mine, they hired 5 women and 0 men. That made me wonder if there is discrimination against men in job hiring. I found some studies about the discrimination of men in job hiring. Abstract: > > > Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women’s disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere. > > Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund and others, Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment, European Sociological Review, Volume 38, Issue 3, June 2022, Pages 337–354, [https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab043](https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab043) Abstract: > > > Audits of tenure-track hiring reveal faculty prefer to hire female applicants over males. However, audit data do not control for applicant quality, allowing some to argue women are hired at higher rates because they are more qualified. To test this, Williams and Ceci (2015) conducted an experiment demonstrating a preference for hiring women over identically-qualified men. While their findings are consistent with audits, they raise the specter that faculty may prefer women over even more-qualified men, a claim made recently. We evaluated this claim in the present study: 158 faculty ranked two men and one woman for a tenure-track-assistant professorship, and 94 faculty ranked two women and one man. In the former condition, the female applicant was slightly weaker than her two male competitors, although still strong; in the other condition the male applicant was slightly weaker than his two female competitors, although still strong. Faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the more-qualified men over the slightly-less-qualified women, and they also preferred the stronger women over the slightly-less-qualified man. This suggests that preference for women among identically-qualified applicants found in experimental studies and in audits does not extend to women whose credentials are even slightly weaker than male counterparts. Thus these data give no support to the twin claims that weaker males are chosen over stronger females or weaker females are hired over stronger males. > > [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532/full?utm\_source=Email\_to\_authors\_&utm\_medium=Email&utm\_content=T1\_11.5e1\_author&utm\_campaign=Email\_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers\_in\_Psychology&id=147830](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532/full?utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Psychology&id=147830) Abstract: > > > Scholars have documented ethnic and gender discrimination across labour markets since the 1970s by using field experiments (correspondence tests) in which pairs of equally qualified applications are sent to employers with job openings. In these experiments, discrimination is measured by documenting group differences in callbacks. However, the gendered nature of ethnic discrimination has been neglected thus far in this literature. Drawing on the results of a correspondence test, this study presents evidence of extensive ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labour market against applicants with Arabic and North African names but no evidence of discrimination against women. However, the findings also reveal gendered ethnic employer preferences: employers in male-dominated occupations practice gender overcompensation favouring female-named applicants, whereas employers in female-dominated occupations practice both ethnic and gender overcompensation, favouring foreign-named men in particular. > > Moa Bursell, The Multiple Burdens of Foreign-Named Men—Evidence from a Field Experiment on Gendered Ethnic Hiring Discrimination in Sweden, European Sociological Review, Volume 30, Issue 3, June 2014, Pages 399–409, [https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu047](https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu047)
[The Original Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/15vgfhz/the_myth_of_egalitarian_bonobos/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1) I posted this in the other men's issue spaces on reddit and thought I'd share this here, primarily for the purpose of getting new perspectives and I also have seen some feminist roaming around here too, and hope to catch their opinion. I'm also not use to posting on this site, let me know of any formating issues, and if the link doesn't work this time, I'm not fixing it lol. Main Points * Bonobos do in fact have a hierarchal system (men are not necesserily at the bottom of this hierarchy) * 95% of serious injuries are inflicted upon males by females * Bonobo females coerce males, and males express distress during submission * Bonobo female aggression is not retaliatory, it can be even over slight annoyances * infanticide does exist among bonobos, but it often perpetrated by females via kidnapping and alienating the infant from the mother * Dominant males sire 61% of offpsrings, in contrast to the highest recorded sire rate among chimps at 51% * Male dominance is based on the status of the mother, therefore high status mother = dominant son. * Dominant sons do coerce females, and their mothers will help them in coercing females resulting in a 71% success rate * And much like humans and chimps, bonobos express out-group male agression. I'll finish this post with an important message that I'll copy over from the original, I'd recommend reading through the whole original on r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates under the same title: > > > As a side note, the inability for us to see any of this, is a clear indication of how misandry, the lack of empathy for men, and benevolent sexism within academia, inhibits our ability to understand humans and maybe even other primates. Giving us lovely articles like “is that man a bonobo or a chimp?” or the title “the absence of sexual coercion in bonobos” or here and here (these are linked in the orginal), in fact you can google scholar **female bonobo sexual coercion of males** and get the idea pretty fast. > > > > > Anyway, to me this is a really important tool for any MRA or men’s advocate who wants to debate feminist on female aggression and the severity of female aggression against males. With this, maybe we can get feminist to admit whether they are bonobos or egalitarians. > >
Intersectionality, Checking Privilege, Policing Language, Equity, Lived Experiences, Critical Theory. These are all concepts and ideas that upon first examination make excellent tools for advancing ideals of egalitarian principles. Human beings as individuals tend to be quite self serving. And in a group can often be even worse. But as a society things run more smoothly when egalitarian principles hold the steering wheel. Because of this, we need tools to help us maintain these principles despite conscious and subconscious (or even unconscious) efforts to infringe upon them. I'd like to add a caveat here, that I may speak nearly authoritatively and I may have thoughtful ideas. But I'm not an expert. These are just my thoughts. When trying to address men's issues from an egalitarian perspective. It seems that many want to vilify the tools that misandrists have been using to vilify men during the last few decades. But some of these tools are the way that they are because feminism has coopted the egalitarian civil rights movement and misandrists have co-opted egalitarian tools vulnerable to misuse for misandrist purposes. So, I'll go over the concepts I've listed and explain 1. My understanding of how they were originally intended as egalitarian tools 2. Why I believe they are flawed. 3. How they are now exploited for misandrist ends. 4. How we may still try to use them, but in a more responsible manner. I can place the concepts in three groups: The first group is **"Checking Privilege, Policing Language, and Critical Theory"** **What their egalitarian purpose is:** These are concepts that mostly started surfacing in the post-Marxist era. The general idea is that the privileged group has such control over communications that they can shape people's ideology. As in, if you ask for 15 minutes breaks every 2 hours, it's because you're lazy. And lazy people get fired. But it takes some time talking with like minded people to recognize that without that 15 minutes break, you have much greater chance of injury and death, so it's a completely reasonable request. But if the boss or a friend of the boss is there every time workers congregate, then there's no room for new ideas to form. Basically, the privileged end up with a stranglehold control through ideology. **Policing Language**: The oppressor's ideology has infiltrated common language parlance. Language has to be reverted back to eliminate that influence. **Checking Privilege**: Those part of privileged groups and who are therefore prone to unwittingly promote oppressor ideology should self-limit their behavior and influence. **Critical Theory**: This one is quite the thing. It's like for those who do debate competition, you're given a topic and told what position to take. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the position, you will debate to defend that position. But you crank it up to 1000%. You spend an enormous amount of effort and research to vilify the ones you've identified as the oppressor and present the ones you've identified as the oppressed as constant innocent victims in all circumstances. This is where the concept of "Everything is misogynist" comes from. Basically, using this tools you can stop the ideology of the oppressors dead in its tracks. **Why they are flawed:** Simply put, these are not egalitarian tools. Then are inherently tools of oppression. If used by they "oppressed" with success then the "oppressed" group become the oppressors and are no longer oppressed. **How they are now exploited for misandrist ends:** **Policing Language**: This is everywhere, in addition to changing all high status job position to be gender neutral without also doing the same for low status job positions. Language like "toxic masculinity", "fragile male ego", "manspreading", "manterruption", etc... have been popularized. All of it ends up demonizing men and masculinity. **Checking Privilege**: This also takes the form of "do better", call your bros out for bad behavior and also "Toxic Masculinity" again. It's all about make sure that men never speak up for themselves. **Critical Theory**: This is how feminism has been turned into such a powerhouse of misandry. Critical Gender Theory is the foundation of misandrist feminist ideology, it is also the foundation of much of sociology, some of psychology and some of institutional policy. I believe that it is the root source of misandrist laws and policies such as the VAWA act (which erases male victims of domestic violence and the prevalence of male victims of stranger violence) and the Duluth model (which effectively puts the presumption of guilt on men during domestic violence incidents even when the woman is the offender). **How we may still try to use them more responsibly** **Policing Language**: I think we need to erase some of the unnecessarily gendered, reductionist and vilifying terms such as: "Toxic Masculinity", "Patriarchy", "manspreading", etc.. etc.. But we should not be trying to introduce "reverse" gendered terms that vilify women. **Checking Privilege**: I see no need for this in terms of popular or political advocacy. Maybe in the context of interpersonal relationships a privileged person may want to "check their privilege" in order to not appear like a douche and be tactful towards those who lack these privileges. But that's not really the topic here. **Critical Theory**: NEVER EVER. Kill it with fire, then nuke it from orbit. Now for the second group: "Intersectionality and Equity" **What their egalitarian purpose is:** In terms of egalitarian purpose they are somewhat different but complimentary. Intersectionality is a great tool to identify and recognize areas where discrimination may happen. If you look at men vs women for a particular statistic maybe you won't see a difference. But if you look at poor men vs poor women, maybe you'll see a difference. Or maybe a small difference that's not a big deal turns into a huge difference that's critical to look into. Once you've identified a difference, then you're faced with understanding the cause and whether action needs to be taken. This is where equity comes in. Equity claims that the outcome is what count. IMO, this is quite a radical claim. But at the same time, equal opportunity is not sufficient. I'll put it this way: being more irresponsible than most while a teenager should not doom you to a lifetime of near slave wages. Which, I suspect is almost the case in France where you must remain on track all the way through from highschool to your career or you're f\*cked. **Why they are flawed:** **Intersectionality**: Intersectionality based on identity groups (gender, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background etc...) and then assesses how discriminated against that intersectional group is within society. It is flawed in soooo many ways: 1. There are too many groups and intersectional groups to account for. And even then, an individual is not the sum of their intersectional groups. You're just not getting the whole story and you're going to leave people out of your analysis. 2. It leads to the formation of political interest groups: Men's rights advocates, feminists, BLM, etc... The ultimate effect of such an approach is that if you belong to a group that is well represented in the political space, then your interests are well protected. If you do not, then your interests will lack representation. This is not how egalitarianism works. 3. By far, the greatest source of inequality is economic equality. All of this intersectionality tends to be a distraction away from class inequality. Basically, I think intersectionality is find to try and recognize that a problem exist, but it's not a tool for diagnosing a problem and it is most certainly not a tool for fixing a problem. You do not treat discrimination with more discrimination. **Equity**: Setting aside the inherently radical nature of the concept for the moment. Equity is inherently problematic. A little bit like intersectionality, you can evaluate equity along any number of metrics: Sexual success, life satisfaction, number of children, etc... But people are different and have different goals and desires and values. This makes total Equity literally impossible. There's just no such thing as "Equity" there's only "Equity" along a certain axis. And the same as with intersectionality, interest groups will start to do some tug of war to decide which metrics to use. As I've explained before, equality of opportunity is not enough. But true Equity doesn't actually exist. Still we need to consider equality of outcome to get closer to egalitarian ideals. Just, let's do it in moderation. **How they are now exploited for misandrist ends:** It's pretty simple really. During intersectional analysis, the male identity (and also the white identity, and also frequently the poor identity) is ignored. During Equity analysis, only metrics whose outcomes suggests that more resource and attention need to be given to women are evaluated. Those metrics that suggests that resources and attention need to be given to men are ignored, hidden or downplayed. **How we may still try to use them more responsibly** Just keep advocating for men (and white people, and poor people) to be more prominently included in intersectional analysis. Do the same for Equity metrics (suicide victims, victims of violent crimes, victims of emotional domestic violence leading to suicide, homelessness, life expectancy, etc...) In terms of how to do so responsibly. I think it's more of a systemic problem. In this one you play the game with the rules it has even if you don't like the rules. And if the rules are bad you also advocate to change the rules, but don't act like the rules aren't the way that they are, because then you're just going to lose. In short, in terms of male advocacy, we advocate for men's interests in using these tools. In terms of egalitarian advocacy we advocate to treat the issue, not the identity. In practice, this should usually mean more resources and assistance for poor people. Last, and maybe least? **Lived Experiences** This is the one that I know the least about. But I think it is crucial. When trying to find balance during the creation of institutional policy or the creation of an ideology it can be very difficult to accommodate the perspectives of 8 billion people all of which having their own unique brand of irrationality. But, learning from and respecting the "Lived Experienced" of individuals as it is understood by these individuals is crucial for achieving egalitarian outcomes. Some people may believe that more children is better, others maybe can't stand children. Each individual's perspective should, in principle, be considered. Patronizing a group of people and giving them something they don't want and saying that it's for their own good, they just don't know any better is wrong headed. I might lose many people here, but I think this counts just as much for "These men don't understand that accepting that 'toxic masculinity' is the source of their problems so we're going to have to brainwash them harder" as well as "These anti-vaxxers just don't understand that getting vaccinated is going to save their lives, so we're going to make it so inconvenient for them not to get vaccinated, they'll effectively have no choice". Mind you the anti-vaxxers example isn't perfect because the true motivation isn't to help them, those who can't take the vaccine and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work well. But the point is, you can't claim to be doing it for their own good: you have to respect their lived experience which says they don't want it. **How it is exploited for misandrist ends:** "Women are scarred to be alone with men", "Something, something poisoned M&Ms therefore all men are evil". The lived experience of women is reinterpreted as universal fact and the men's lived experience is erased or minimized. **How we may still try to use them responsibly** Talk about men's lived experiences and make sure that society is just as responsible to accommodate men's lived experiences as it is to accommodate men's lived experiences. However, and I get so much pushback on this one. The ONLY way to do this in an egalitarian way is to give all interested parties a voice (whether directly or indirectly by repeating their talking points) whenever the issue is discussed. For example if you're talking about Title IX witch hunts, you need to acknowledge and address the issue of rapes being so incredibly difficult to prove which is a situation that may lead a rape victim to be forced to go to classes everyday in the same room as with the person that raped them. But also acknowledge, that you just can't let unscrupulous people weaponize institutions against innocent victims through false accusations. In conclusion. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot. Let's not look like fools by advocating against egalitarian principles just because they happen to be successfully misused by bigots today. Edit: I removed some most likely incorrect assumptions about Marxism.
Feminism Was Never About Equality - TFF 2.0 The Fiamengo File 2.0 The Birth of Feminism: [https://youtu.be/V8QgjbPeESgBlog](https://youtu.be/V8QgjbPeESgBlog) --- Great channel from a retired PHD who's been studying feminism and it's affects on modern academia and society. Good info.
This community keeps growing, which is encouraging. We are currently the number 20 [most commented on "magazine" on Kbin](https://kbin.social/magazines/comments). Should we maybe start making a FAQ?
A few months ago, there was a post on the antifeminist sub. The post was a screenshot from an incel website that was posted on the Nothowgirlswork sub. There was a comment from nothowgirlswork which roasted the incel post. The incel said he felt anxiety when he walked on the streets and saw women. The comment from nothowgirlswork was ridiculing him for feeling fear of women. He didn't say anything misogynistic. There are some incels (on incel websites) who condone horrible things like raping women. This post was not like that. It made me think that society expects men to be fearless and brave. Men are human and fear is a normal emotion that everyone has. It's normal to feel anxiety around women, if the man has been traumatized in the past. Maybe the incel was traumatized by a woman in the past. People shouldn't judge someone without knowing them. The truth is women can be just as dangerous as men. Society has to stop thinking women are not as dangerous. If a woman said she felt anxiety around men, redditors would be supporting her. They would say men are rapists and she should be scared of them. She would get all the empathy and sympathy. Reddit shows what people think secretly. Many people in society have this double standard too.
*Based on [section 3.2 of the Reference Book of Men's Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/rbomi/wiki/main#wiki_section_3.3A_legal.2C_governmental.2C_or_institutional_policies_and_practices)* If a woman doesn't feel she's ready for the responsibilities of parenthood, she has various options after the act of sex (in most of the Western world). This includes the morning-after pill, abortion, adoption, and safe-haven laws. (Yes, we are aware that in parts of the US these rights are under attack or have been severely limited. That does not take away from the main point here.) Men have no comparable legal rights. If you're a man in the same situation and you're not ready for the responsibilities of parenthood, you can only hope that the woman decides to take one of her options. As Karen DeCrow (previous president of the National Organization for Women) [put it](https://archive.is/Np7Jk): > > > The courts have properly determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one, should she so choose. Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice. > > [The New York Times article “Is Forced Fatherhood Fair?”](https://web.archive.org/web/20220709162423/https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/) explains the problem: > > > Women’s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture. In places where women and girls have access to affordable and safe contraception and abortion services, and where there are programs to assist mothers in distress find foster or adoptive parents, voluntary motherhood is basically a reality. In many states, infant safe haven laws allow a birth mother to walk away from her newborn baby if she leaves it unharmed at a designated facility. > > > > > If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments. [...] > > > > > The political philosopher Elizabeth Brake has argued that our policies should give men who accidentally impregnate a woman more options, and that feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory. In a 2005 article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy she wrote, “if women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.” At most, according to Brake, men should be responsible for helping with the medical expenses and other costs of a pregnancy for which they are partly responsible. [...] > > > > > Court-ordered child support does make sense, say, in the case of a divorce, when a man who is already raising a child separates from the child’s mother, and when the child’s mother retains custody of the child. In such cases, expectations of continued financial support recognize and stabilize a parent’s continued caregiving role in a child’s life. However, just as court-ordered child support does not make sense when a woman goes to a sperm bank and obtains sperm from a donor who has not agreed to father the resulting child, it does not make sense when a woman is impregnated (accidentally or possibly by her choice) from sex with a partner who has not agreed to father a child with her. In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity. > > > > > Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These “fathers” are not “dead-beat dads” failing to live up to responsibilities they once took on — they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child. We need to respect men’s reproductive autonomy, as Brake suggests, by providing them more options in the case of an accidental pregnancy. [...] > > If we agree that men and women deserve equal rights, and have equal agency, then this is an area that urgently needs to be addressed. Trapping men into a parenthood they never wanted, and never signed up for, is cruel and unjust.
I'm still trying to get used to kbin, but it seems to me that it's doing OK. Which is a huge relief. Way back when, I tried Voat to get away from reddit, but it barely had any traffic and the traffic it did have got weird very quickly. The other aggregator sites I found seemed to have similar issues. The last time I logged into Minds, it read like my 80 year old mom's Facebook page. This mag is my central interest, but please tell me what cool places/people/interests you have found. Particularly if they seem applicable to the m/men audience. Thanks in advance
*I have noticed previous reposts from [RBoMI](https://www.reddit.com/r/rbomi/wiki/main) did not get much engagement if at all, so I am going for a single topic per post now.* Men make up a large majority of the prison population: 93% in the United States (2006) [1] and 96% in England & Wales (2013) [2]. Men do commit more crime overall, but numerous studies show that even accounting for legally relevant factors (like crime and criminal history), men receive substantially harsher sentences. Crimes with women as victims also receive harsher sentences. **Examples/evidence**: Sonja B. Starr of the University of Michigan controlled for legally relevant factors and found that men receive 63% longer sentences on average. In addition, women were more likely to avoid charges, convictions, and incarceration in the first place [3]. David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia controlled for similar factors and also found that men (and blacks) receive harsher sentences [4]. > > > Last, blacks and males are also less likely to get no prison term when that option is available; less likely to receive downward departures; and more likely to receive upward adjustments and, conditioned on having a downward departure, receive smaller reductions than whites and females. > > A group of researchers at the University of Texas at El Paso summarize previous research and explain that women receiving milder sentencing "may be one of the best established facts regarding criminal justice outcomes". It has been found in a wide range of studies since the 1980s, and in numerous different jurisdictions in the United States. They add to the research by looking specifically into different types of crime, finding some differences [5]. > > > For both property and drug offending, females are less likely to be sentenced to prison and also receive shorter sentences if they are sentenced to prison. For violent offending, however, females are no less likely than males to receive prison time, but for those who do, females receive substantially shorter sentences than males. > > Cassia Spohn of Arizona State University provides an overview of many other studies showing similar sentencing disparities (in sentence length and likelihood of getting jail time in the first place) [1]. She also cites interesting work on the perception of gender by judges as the reason for these disparities. > > > The explanation offered by Spohn and Beichner (2000) also focuses on judges’ perceptions and stereotypes of men and women. They suggest that the findings of their study lend credence to assertions that court officials attempt to simplify and routinize the sentencing process by relying on stereotypes that link defendant characteristics such as race or ethnicity and gender to perceptions of blameworthiness, dangerousness, and risk of recidivism. They note that criminal justice officials interviewed for the study admitted that they viewed female offenders, particularly those with dependent children, differently from male offenders. > > Another study from the group of researchers at the University of Texas at El Paso looked at the gender of the victim, finding that crimes against women receive harsher sentences than crimes against men [6]. Cassia Spohn cites Williams, Demuth, and Holcomb (2007) who controlled for legally relevant factors and found that offenders convicted of crimes against women were more than two-and-a-half times more likely to be sentenced to death [1]. Another study looked specifically at vehicular homicide and found gender bias [7]. > > > In particular, victim characteristics are important determinants of sentencing among vehicular homicides, where victims are basically random and where the optimal punishment model predicts that victim characteristics should be ignored. Among vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women get 56 percent longer sentences. Drivers who kill blacks get 53 percent shorter sentences. > > The harsher treatment of men in the justice system has effects on men long after they do their time. From *The New York Times* article "Out of Trouble, but Criminal Records Keep Men Out of Work" [8]: > > > The share of American men with criminal records — particularly black men — grew rapidly in recent decades as the government pursued aggressive law enforcement strategies, especially against drug crimes. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, those men are having particular trouble finding work. Men with criminal records account for about 34 percent of all nonworking men ages 25 to 54, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News/Kaiser Family Foundation poll. > > --- *[1](http://bit.ly/1MTUhRa) ("Sentencing Disparity and Discrimination: A Focus on Gender", chapter 4 of "How Do Judges Decide? The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment" by Cassia Spohn)* *[2](http://bit.ly/1rZzdEZ) (British House of Commons Library document “Prison Population Statistics”)* *[3](http://bit.ly/1oQpDRS) and [alt source](http://bit.ly/1CeCy5Z) (“Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases” (2012) by Sonja B. Starr)* *[4](http://bit.ly/1pnZ2vD) (“Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts” (2001) by David B. Mustard)* *[5](http://bit.ly/1wygU9Y) (“Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?” (2006) by S. Fernando Rodriguez, Theodore R. Curry, & Gang Lee)* *[6](http://bit.ly/1x9HxSs) (“Does Victim Gender Increase Sentence Severity? Further Explorations of Gender Dynamics and Sentencing Outcomes” (2004) by Theodore R. Curry, Gang Lee, & S. Fernando Rodriguez)* *[7](http://bit.ly/1ElrYfa) (“The Determinants of Punishment: Deterrence, Incapacitation and Vengeance” by Edward L. Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote)* *[8](https://archive.is/llmfn) (The New York Times article "Out of Trouble, but Criminal Records Keep Men Out of Work")*
Men get so many mixed messages in today's society, from being called toxic to being pushed to be top dog (or else you're a loser). There are lots of expectations put on men, and various ways men rebel against those. What can be done to address society's negative views of men and masculinity? And how can we formulate what healthy masculinity looks like, so we can teach that to our boys?
I don't believe it's creepy for two consenting adults with a large age gap to date. If a 25 year old woman dates a 50 year old man, I don't think it's creepy. It's none of my business. I don't judge them. A man who dates younger women is called "creepy." A woman who dates younger men is called a cougar. Leonardo DiCaprio was judged harshly for dating a 19 year old woman. Most older women are not judged for dating younger men. Sometimes it's hard to find a partner of the same age. For example, if a man divorces at 50, it would be hard to find a 50 year old woman. He would have to date someone younger. The double standard is that men get judged harshly. Society has to change it's attitude.
I'm not sure if anyone else is getting explicit gay sex images for "related posts", but they are showing up for me. I'm not opposed to pornography, but in this context it doesn't need to be here. I've been using the website [https://kbin.social/m/men](https://kbin.social/m/men), perhaps a different client would be better? Or maybe there is some other way to limit recommendations? Anyone else seeing this?
> > > Cory Clark is an Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, a social psychologist and an author. > > It's a long video and they discuss a range of commonly held misconceptions. I must admit I haven't seen all of it yet, but they go into the often unacknowledged bias people have towards women. People do not want to hear when men are better at something than women, but celebrate things women are better at than men. > > > The idea that society is sexist against women probably stems from the fact that we care so much more about women than we do about men. > >
Sometimes I enjoy talking to feminists and misandrists. It helps me to understand their viewpoints. Some feminists are open to debate and some are not. I don't try to change their minds. It can be pretty toxic. I was messaged by feminists on reddit. They read my post history. I haven't said anything misogynistic. They called me an "incel" and a "misogynist". I remained calm when they hurled insults. If I lashed out, it would prove to them I am a misogynist. They want their opponents to get angry. One woman who messaged me said she is proud to be a misandrist. She said men are worthless, driven by hormones, and many other nonsense things. She also said women don't perpetrate domestic violence. Eventually I got her to calm down and she became more respectful. I think a lot of feminists misunderstand what MRAs believe in and want. There was a question in the r/askfeminists sub if feminists would collaborate with MRAs. Many of the feminists said no. One commenter said MRAs are misogynists. Another said men are not oppressed, so there's no need for MRAs. Some people hate us for doing the right thing. Some feminists have told me there's a difference between feminists and misandrists. Most feminists think they're normal people. I think some misandrists use feminism to their benefit. Governments and corporations definitely use feminism against men. I don't know too many feminists in real life. I don't talk about feminism or politics with the women I know. It is silently understood that most people believe in equality. I'm also an egalitarian. After knowing about men's issues, I don't want to pretend like they don't exist. If I started dating a feminist, I don't think my political views would align with hers. I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to talk about men's issues. Do you think it's better to avoid dating women who identify as feminists? If you date a feminist, is it a good idea to talk about men's issues?
This is an excellent article by Cathy Young, exposing some of the widespread misandry within feminism. I don't agree with every point she makes. I think the 1848 demonizing of men is way more serious and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. But that doesn't take away from her main point: feminism is full of misandry, and if they want to be taken seriously by men, they need to address that.
Jobs in which you directly care for other people, like teachers and nurses, have traditionally been dominated by women. However, several parts of the world seem to experience a shortage of workers in these areas. The usual left wing answer to this problem is to argue for better wages and working conditions. I was thinking that we could brainstorm solutions for the gendered aspects as well. Since the majority of people working in these fields are women, it stands to reason that men are a potentially untapped source of labor. In addition, the successful push for more women in STEM has shown that it is possible to make certain fields more attractive for a specific gender through political means. Getting more men into these fields would obviously be good for society, as these are critical areas that need to be staffed properly. It would potentially be good for men as well: * These are the kinds of jobs that provide people with a sense of meaning and purpose in their life, something I believe is an increasing problem for many men. * Men have an increasingly hard time finding success in classical education. This could serve as an alternative career path for those whose strengths do not lie in academia. * Young boys struggle a lot in school, and male teachers might have a different perspective on this that female ones. * It would provide children with more male role models, showing them the breath of what men are capable off. Now, I know that this is a small space without much political pull, consisting of people from different parts of the world. But if we want to differentiate ourselves from menslib on reddit and mensliberation on here, I think it would be prudent to not only address inequalities, but also brainstorm solutions. So imagine for a moment that you have a seat in your government, or are an advisor for someone with political power. What would you suggest in order to convince men to join women dominated fields?
Let's bring some positivity into this place.
You will be no better than the people you'll fight against. I've seen it happen on every pro-men subreddit, and if this place isn't aggressively moderated to dispel hopelessness, negativity, and prejudice, it'll just turn into hate. Incel, mens-rights activist, red-pill, black-pill, MGTOW, etc. don't let the haters join otherwise this community will end up just like the aforementioned. Egalitarian from a male perspective is what we should be, **not** pro-male (I say male because of sex and gender). Be excellent to each other.
Eat your fiber kids, digestive health is no joke [\#men](https://kbin.social/tag/men)