wtfantisjws:

permutationofninjas:

wtfantisjws:

permutationofninjas:

wtfantisjws:

pastygod:

shaynthehero:

That’s how all women should feel about their body.

This is how everyone should feel about their body

I understand your point, but almost all men already do feel this way about their bodies and hardly any women do

-Stephen

Actually, you may be wrong on that one.  When surveyed, men and women report similar levels of dissatisfaction with their bodies: from 15% to 40%. They also have similar rates of several eating disorders, and much higher rates of muscle dysmorphia.  While the forms of disorders which affect men are often less directly visible, they’re just as unhealthy as the eating disorders which more commonly affect women.

Body dysmorphic disorder is a genderless condition.

You linked a source that had an entire section on its website for males but no section for females. That’s a significant sign of a biased source.

Not to mention, they talked about eating disorders, not bad body image. they are not the same thing.

-Stephen

Next you’ll be telling us they’re biased against straight people because they have an entire section on their website for LGBTQ people but no section for straight people.

Good catch, though, noticing that the website focuses on eating disorders!  Oh, wait: 

Large scale surveys concluded that male body image concerns have dramatically increased over the past three decades from 15% to 43% of men being dissatisfied with their bodies; rates that are comparable to those found in women (Garner, 1997; Goldfield, Blouin, & Woodside, 2006; Schooler & Ward, 2006).

Hmmm.  Could the study they cite regarding men and body image issues maybe have something to do with, uh, body image issues?  It’s literally the second fucking bullet point on the page.

Your attempt to refute my statement that it’s a biased source is in no way assisted by pointing out that it has a section on LGBTQ+ people but not straight people. In fact, their LGBTQ+ inclusion is, like, a good thing because that’s an oppressed group, unlike men. What I mean is that their pandering to a privileged group while neglecting its oppressed counterpart(s) is a major sign of bias.

Stop embarrassing yourself.  The reason they have an LGBTQ section is that most people with eating disorders are assumed to be straight.  The reason they have a men’s section is that most people with eating disorders are assumed to be women.  ”Oppression” (regardless of how you redefine the term) has nothing to do with it.

And even if it were relevant that your source lacks a straight people section, you’d only serve to further discredit the source which you just quoted, again, after I already explained why it’s not a good source to use.

You don’t understand the concept of sarcasm, do you?  We assumed you would be smart enough to recognize, upon seeing that, that the reason there were a series of demographic-specific pages was that those demographics have traditionally been ignored in the address of eating disorders.  We hoped that, upon having that wonderful revelation, you would realize how completely and hilariously baseless your reasoning was.  Sadly, that doesn’t seem to have been the case.

Your only other avenue of argument basically seems to be that “this site talks about eating disorders, so it’s wrong about body image,” despite the fact that page in question not only specifically addresses the issue of body image, it literally cites independent scientific evidence when doing so!

Do you see the problem here? See, I want to actually learn something from your arguments but every rebuttal is so flawed, unreliable, under-supported, and collapsible that you’re hurting your cause.

-Stephen

First, we linked you to a site which contained peer-reviewed scientific evidence supporting our point.  Then, when you accused the site of bias (on absolutely ludicrous grounds), we pointed you directly to the scientific evidence itself.  You have not so much as acknowledged the studies mentioned, let alone given even the slightest shred of evidence to indicate that they may be “flawed, unreliable, under-supported and collapsible,” instead trying to tangentially discredit them by unjustifiably claiming bias on the part of a group which cited them.

You are making a fool of yourself because you are too childish to acknowledge evidence even when it is literally waved under your nose.  We sincerely hope that you’re feigning ignorance, because frankly the alternative is just plain sad.

A Note On Selective Service

mustyoshi:

permutationofninjas:

We here at PoN oppose Selective Service in the United States and consider the system to be an example of institutional misandry.  Furthermore, we see the Selective Service system as a critically flawed institution that should be shut down.  While this extends more generally to conscription around the world, here we’re going to talk about some issues that are particular to the case in the United States.

“Why?” others may ask, “Why do you care about something that’ll never happen to you?  People haven’t been conscripted for 40 years!”

Within the United States, at least, this statement is true.  It’s unlikely that we will begin forcing random men to serve in the army any time soon.  While this may in some ways make Selective Service less of a problem, it certainly doesn’t make it unproblematic; at best, it just changes the reasons.

For those who don’t know, most males between 18 and 25 residing in the U.S. are required by law to register for possible military conscription under the Selective Service system.  Those who do not register could be subject to fines of up to $250,000, though this is rarely enforced.  More importantly, those who do not register or do not consistently inform Selective Service of any changes regarding the contact information are denied various federal programs and benefits including student loans, job training, federal employment, and even naturalization.  Furthermore, numerous states apply additional penalties to those who do not register, or fail to keep their Selective Service information up to date.  Perversely, those who fail to register before they turn 26 are no longer allowed to register, and as a result are often permanently barred from federal jobs and other benefits despite no longer being eligible, unless they can somehow prove that the failure was not their own fault.  This can even apply to those who were neither required nor even allowed to register when they “should” have - namely, trans men.

If conscription were a real possibility, the misandry inherent in Selective Service would be far more obvious; we’re sure we don’t need to explain why a gender-biased conscription system would be sexist and wrong.  Even in the current day, though, at a time when conscripting people would be political suicide, Selective Service is still a clear example of institutional discrimination against men.

Besides its direct effects, the SSS also contributes to male disposability by influencing societal attitudes; simply by existing, it strengthens the notion that men have a responsibility to put their lives on the line in order to protect people who are not men.  Men today are legally required to say: “yes, the government, any time it wants to, may toss me in front of an enemy with guns.  I accept that those who are seen as women have no obligation to do the same.  I also accept that it’s my responsibility to ensure that the government will always have the ability to toss me in front of an enemy with guns when it wants to, and so I must constantly keep the SSS informed of any address or name changes.  If I don’t, I accept that I’ll have rights stripped from me — rights that are granted to women without restriction or stipulation.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean that we support a gender-egalitarian Selective Service.  While a gender-egalitarian Selective Service would be an improvement in terms of gender equality, that wouldn’t make it a step forward overall.  Rather, it would just mean that twice as many people would be subject to an old, obsolete, unfair program that serves to help no one.  The Selective Service is an institution that costs taxpayers $24 million (not that much on the federal scale, but still hardly insignificant) whose only real modern purpose is to prevent individuals from accessing government services to which they are rightfully entitled — and to perpetuate its own existence.  There’s little reason to keep it, and there’s no reason not to eliminate it.  Selective Service may be a glaring example of gender inequality, but in this case the real solution is retirement rather than equalization.

I am against selective serivce, our military industrial complex, and misandry (all of which I believe to be real).

But I do not believe that SS is misandry, because it was made by men.

Misandry is still misandry, regardless of where it comes from.  The gender targeting present in the SSS is the result of politicians and military leaders acting based on cultural values which emphasize the disposability of men and the protection of women.  These values were not solely created, nor solely perpetuated by men.

The figureheads really aren’t terribly relevant.

loganjamesn:

permutationofninjas:

We were first going to make a transcript of the speech in order to deal with it point by point, but then we realized just how long it would take and how much time it would waste.

This speaker states that men are largely removed from the conversation about domestic and sexual violence, and that’s a bad thing.  We agree with him that far.

He then goes on to say that the reason the reason this removal is bad is because, as the perpetrators of almost all domestic and sexual violence are male, men are really at fault for these problems and that they should be made more aware of what they’re doing wrong.  This we can’t agree with, for one simple reason: it’s completely incorrect.  Within the U.S. and most other first-world countries, rape and domestic violence display gender-symmetry in victimization.  What that means, in short, is that men are just as likely to be victims as women.  Likewise, roughly half of all perpetrators of domestic violence are women, and they make up about 40% of all rapists outside of prison.

At this point, the rest of his speech basically falls apart.  Without that first, fundamental assumption that men are the overall cause of the problem, little of the rest carries much weight.  It’s definitely true that men are removed from the conversation about domestic and sexual violence, but the greatest removal is not in the discussion of men as perpetrators but the discussion of men as victims.  Society is more than happy to blame men for the ills women suffer (see things like the “White Ribbon Campaign” and “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes”) but equally happy to turn a blind eye to the men who suffer and women who victimize.  The conversation that’s not happening isn’t the one about the men who victimize or the women who are victims (though there’s certainly a benefit to getting men more involved in that one as well), it’s the one about the women who victimize and the men who are victims.  The former may not have as many men involved as it could, but the latter simply isn’t happening at all.

We do need to focus more on the perpetrators of gender violence.  The first step towards doing that is to stop ignoring half of them.

At first I was going to ask how you could completely miss the entire point of this video, but it’s clear through the statistics you provided that you live in an alternate universe.  ”Roughly half of all perpetrators of domestic violence are women, and they make up about 40% of all rapists outside of prison”…. are you serious?  Go find a mirror and repeat that sentence to yourself a few times until the absurdity sinks in and you realize how fucking useless you are.

Unfortunately, the only absurd and useless individual in this thread is you.  As we’ve shown, women are roughly half of all perpetrators of domestic violence and rape outside of prison.  Your beliefs don’t change the facts.

Next time, try actually addressing the content of links containing evidence instead of just ranting.  It’ll get you further.

I've read your analyses of the glass ceiling and the wage gap myth. Do you have any links or information on the glass escalator phenomenon? I saw a post the other day about men receiving higher pay and overall preferential treatment in traditionally female-dominated careers but I can't find much information that isn't biased or anecdotal. — Anonymous

Off the top of our head, we don’t have a huge number of really good studies on the subject.  However, we can still give a basic overview of some of the factors involved.

The basic contention is that men who enter female-dominated careers tend to receive higher salaries and quicker promotions than women.  This is claimed to be part and parcel with the “wage gap,” and a demonstration that the wage gap cannot be attributed to things like differences in field.  (Basically, women aren’t making less money because they enter low-paying fields, but rather fields are low-paying because they employ primarily women.)

It’s not a very good argument, for a number of reasons.  First, it ignores the converse: women who enter traditionally male fields.  This isn’t a surprise, because those cases don’t support the overall contention.  More importantly, though, the “glass elevator” argument effectively ignores every possible explanation for the results other than discrimination, despite several important ones coming to mind.  For example, men and women within female-dominated professions tend to differ in similar ways to men and women in other professions when we look at hours, overtime, travel, relocation, parental leave and so on.  All of these things influence wages and advancement, but “glass elevator” arguments usually don’t take them into account.  This isn’t the end, though, because the way men are socialized leads many to focus on advancement and salary in a way that most women do not.  This makes men in female-dominated careers more likely to actively seek advancement, more likely to enter with (or later obtain) advanced or specialist qualifications, and more likely to engage in aggressive bargaining.  Again, these things all tend to lead to higher salaries and quicker advancement.  Finally, in some female-dominated careers (early childhood education, for example), the threat narrative attached to men can “backfire,” so to speak.  Because men are viewed as threatening or dangerous, attempts are made to force them out….but the nature of the jobs involved (particularly strong unionization) means that “out” tends to instead mean either “sideways” (into support/admin roles which may have greater upward mobility) or even directly “up” (into supervisory positions more removed from daily activities).

Unfortunately, very little research has directly examined these questions, with most investigations focusing almost solely on outcome rather than cause or process.  Until more research exists that directly examines the ways in which such “glass elevator” disparities are created, the notion basically has to go into the same basket as the wage gap itself: somewhat questionable, and certainly not adequately proven.

wtfantisjws:

permutationofninjas:

wtfantisjws:

pastygod:

shaynthehero:

That’s how all women should feel about their body.

This is how everyone should feel about their body

I understand your point, but almost all men already do feel this way about their bodies and hardly any women do

-Stephen

Actually, you may be wrong on that one.  When surveyed, men and women report similar levels of dissatisfaction with their bodies: from 15% to 40%. They also have similar rates of several eating disorders, and much higher rates of muscle dysmorphia.  While the forms of disorders which affect men are often less directly visible, they’re just as unhealthy as the eating disorders which more commonly affect women.

Body dysmorphic disorder is a genderless condition.

You linked a source that had an entire section on its website for males but no section for females. That’s a significant sign of a biased source.

Not to mention, they talked about eating disorders, not bad body image. they are not the same thing.

-Stephen

Next you’ll be telling us they’re biased against straight people because they have an entire section on their website for LGBTQ people but no section for straight people.

Good catch, though, noticing that the website focuses on eating disorders!  Oh, wait: 

Large scale surveys concluded that male body image concerns have dramatically increased over the past three decades from 15% to 43% of men being dissatisfied with their bodies; rates that are comparable to those found in women (Garner, 1997; Goldfield, Blouin, & Woodside, 2006; Schooler & Ward, 2006).

Hmmm.  Could the study they cite regarding men and body image issues maybe have something to do with, uh, body image issues?  It’s literally the second fucking bullet point on the page.

mechfan666:

nekogakawaku:

mechfan666:

permutationofninjas:

We here at PoN oppose Selective Service in the United States and consider the system to be an example of institutional misandry. Furthermore, we see the Selective Service system as a critically flawed institution that should be shut down. While this extends more…

The SSS should exist. We may not need it now, but when war breaks out, there will only be so many volunteers.


I shouldn’t have to exist, but it does, and it will be evident later.

I think it needs to be degendered because it is literally the government championing male expendability.

It’s unlikely that the U.S. will never be in another war where enlistment rates are a primary concern.  If they are, things have probably gone so far to shit that whether or not the SSS exists would be totally irrelevant.

My personal example was WW2. Despite the high volunteer rates, if I’m not mistaken they still drafted people. I have an opinion on its existence, but I plan on never needing it. (I would like to be career military.) So maybe I’m just biased.

The nature of war has changed so much since WW2 that if the U.S. were desperate enough to need a draft, a draft probably wouldn’t help anyway.  Military manpower is not what would win a war involving the modern United States; productive capacity, technology, and public opinion would be far more important.

wtfantisjws:

pastygod:

shaynthehero:

That’s how all women should feel about their body.

This is how everyone should feel about their body

I understand your point, but almost all men already do feel this way about their bodies and hardly any women do

-Stephen

Actually, you may be wrong on that one.  When surveyed, men and women report similar levels of dissatisfaction with their bodies: from 15% to 40%. They also have similar rates of several eating disorders, and much higher rates of muscle dysmorphia.  While the forms of disorders which affect men are often less directly visible, they’re just as unhealthy as the eating disorders which more commonly affect women.

Body dysmorphic disorder is a genderless condition.

You've said that the MRM does a much better job of policing it's movement and removing bigots, but is that really true? One of the MRAs with the biggest voice is Paul Elam, and he's said and done all sorts of terrible things, like try and vilify people on the internet, even after they apologised. I agree the MRM is considerably less problematic than Feminism, but that may come down to power and history. As long as he's a big voice in the MRM, I don't see how the MRM can be better than feminism. — Anonymous

While we’re not particularly fond of Paul Elam, we’re also not sure your characterization of him is truly accurate.  Elam is loud, mean and inflammatory, that we don’t dispute, but there’s also a fairly wide gap between vicious rhetoric and bigotry.  He may not be nice, but yelling at someone on the internet is hardly on the same level as even the most tame of standard-issue radical behavior.  Most importantly, we consider Elam somewhat a product of his position: he’s part of group of MRAs who chose a more controversial path after watching the first group (who employed more conciliatory methods and frequently affiliated themselves with feminism) fail miserably.

We’ve discussed much of this in much greater detail (including the Karvunidis incident) in another recent response of ours.

I've noticed in a lot of lists of men's issues, and in ideas for campaigning, that circumcision is often used as one of the top causes. It might be social conditioning, but circumcision doesn't seem like it could ever catch on as a primary cause, that it would require greater awareness that men face issues in general before that would be possible, so it's sort of shooting the cause in the foot to start off with that, because people can roll their eyes at it so easily. Suicide, education, — Anonymous

, male abuse and rape victims, all strike a much clearer chord. Maybe circumcision is so widespread and such a violation that it strikes a chord with those people who get it, but I think it would require a greater change in the dialogue and society before the average person would feel that way.

To a certain extent, we agree with what you’re saying.  The issue of circumcision can be a tricky one to address: there’s a certain cultural blindness toward circumcision that comes with tradition, and this blindness isn’t as easy to make blatant as double standards toward domestic violence.  Most people affected by circumcision won’t remember the actual process, and are predisposed to accept it as normal in the absence of any experience to compare it to.  Finally, even though circumcision is generally perpetrated on children, the clinical setting it’s usually performed in strongly affects perceptions of acceptability.  All of these present barriers to the address of circumcision.  

Why, then, does circumcision end up at the forefront of men’s issues advocacy?  Simple: in absolute terms, circumcision is one of the least ambiguous issues that falls under the men’s rights umbrella.  There may be traditional and cultural barriers to its address, but those barriers are hardly any worse than those affecting other issues such as violence against men, homelessness, and gender profiling.

The simplicity of circumcision comes from three main factors: worldwide perception, medical understanding and legal treatment.

First of all, most non-US cultures do not accept circumcision, and many developed nations consider it an outright barbaric practice.  This has the potential to strengthen anti-circumcision pushes, and is a rare advantage among men’s rights issues.  Furthermore, the worldwide situation creates some level of urgency: while most developed nations have rejected infant circumcision, the U.S. has begun to show a troubling interest in spreading its own cultural penchant to less developed areas.

Second, even in countries where infant circumcision is legal, the medical establishment is generally far from supportive.  Virtually no reputable medical organizations recommend prophylactic infant circumcision, with most labeling the practice as unnecessary or outright condemning it.  Even most of the ardent supporters in the medical community acknowledge that the case for circumcision is far from clear-cut.  This limits supporters’ ability to rely on medical justifications, especially because the few arguments they can make end up sounding very similar to those used by proponents of (universally acknowledged as barbaric in the U.S.) female circumcision (FGM).

Finally, within the U.S. the disparate situations of male and female circumcision present an interesting legal case, one which (particularly in the face of the medical consensus) leaves male circumcision with little ground to stand on.  At present, all forms of female circumcision are universally illegal in the United States.  While groups targeting female circumcision are quick to argue that many forms of female circumcision are far more drastic than male circumcision, U.S. law bans even those forms which are effectively analogous to male circumcision, and even some (such as “pricking”) that are substantially less harmful.  Without sufficient evidence to justify male circumcision on medical grounds, this makes it effectively impossible to support the legality of male circumcision without creating an obvious double-standard in law.

These three factors combine to make circumcision a particularly attractive target for people advocating on behalf of men.  With many nations worldwide agreeing that circumcision is problematic, it’s hard to dismiss men’s advocates as crackpots.  With the medical community largely condemning the practice, it’s relatively hard for proponents to defend on rational grounds.  Finally, it presents a double-standard in law that is clear, pressing, and current.  There are many issues where one or more of these things are present, but very few with all three.

So yes, anti-circumcision can be a difficult position to advocate for.  But — and we fully admit that this is speculation —  it’s somewhat unlikely that a greater visibility of men’s issues in general would actually help much.  Male circumcision is already among the more clear-cut men’s rights issues, and given its current position it’s hard to support making a conscious and active decision to prioritize other issues first.  That said, we’re not perfect: there’s always a chance we may be wrong.

Thank you for your input!  Do you, or does anyone else, have more to say on the topic?

A Note On Selective Service

We here at PoN oppose Selective Service in the United States and consider the system to be an example of institutional misandry.  Furthermore, we see the Selective Service system as a critically flawed institution that should be shut down.  While this extends more generally to conscription around the world, here we’re going to talk about some issues that are particular to the case in the United States.

“Why?” others may ask, “Why do you care about something that’ll never happen to you?  People haven’t been conscripted for 40 years!”

Within the United States, at least, this statement is true.  It’s unlikely that we will begin forcing random men to serve in the army any time soon.  While this may in some ways make Selective Service less of a problem, it certainly doesn’t make it unproblematic; at best, it just changes the reasons.

For those who don’t know, most males between 18 and 25 residing in the U.S. are required by law to register for possible military conscription under the Selective Service system.  Those who do not register could be subject to fines of up to $250,000, though this is rarely enforced.  More importantly, those who do not register or do not consistently inform Selective Service of any changes regarding the contact information are denied various federal programs and benefits including student loans, job training, federal employment, and even naturalization.  Furthermore, numerous states apply additional penalties to those who do not register, or fail to keep their Selective Service information up to date.  Perversely, those who fail to register before they turn 26 are no longer allowed to register, and as a result are often permanently barred from federal jobs and other benefits despite no longer being eligible, unless they can somehow prove that the failure was not their own fault.  This can even apply to those who were neither required nor even allowed to register when they “should” have - namely, trans men.

If conscription were a real possibility, the misandry inherent in Selective Service would be far more obvious; we’re sure we don’t need to explain why a gender-biased conscription system would be sexist and wrong.  Even in the current day, though, at a time when conscripting people would be political suicide, Selective Service is still a clear example of institutional discrimination against men.

Besides its direct effects, the SSS also contributes to male disposability by influencing societal attitudes; simply by existing, it strengthens the notion that men have a responsibility to put their lives on the line in order to protect people who are not men.  Men today are legally required to say: “yes, the government, any time it wants to, may toss me in front of an enemy with guns.  I accept that those who are seen as women have no obligation to do the same.  I also accept that it’s my responsibility to ensure that the government will always have the ability to toss me in front of an enemy with guns when it wants to, and so I must constantly keep the SSS informed of any address or name changes.  If I don’t, I accept that I’ll have rights stripped from me — rights that are granted to women without restriction or stipulation.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean that we support a gender-egalitarian Selective Service.  While a gender-egalitarian Selective Service would be an improvement in terms of gender equality, that wouldn’t make it a step forward overall.  Rather, it would just mean that twice as many people would be subject to an old, obsolete, unfair program that serves to help no one.  The Selective Service is an institution that costs taxpayers $24 million (not that much on the federal scale, but still hardly insignificant) whose only real modern purpose is to prevent individuals from accessing government services to which they are rightfully entitled — and to perpetuate its own existence.  There’s little reason to keep it, and there’s no reason not to eliminate it.  Selective Service may be a glaring example of gender inequality, but in this case the real solution is retirement rather than equalization.

y shadowwraiths:

Rape 101- spread this everwhere. We shouldn’t have to explain this stuff but because we do, here is an easy to understand graphic.

We shouldn’t have to explain this either, but men and women rape and are raped at roughly equal rates and your consistent erasure of literally millions of male victims is only making the problem worse.

shadowwraiths:

Rape 101- spread this everwhere. We shouldn’t have to explain this stuff but because we do, here is an easy to understand graphic.

We shouldn’t have to explain this either, but men and women rape and are raped at roughly equal rates and your consistent erasure of literally millions of male victims is only making the problem worse.

I don't understand the problem with "male feminist allies." Like I've seen "no men in my feminism, thanks" and the like. radical-bias is where I saw a few post tagged "male feminism" and how it's a problem. So do I help out or just sit here and be told what to do? I'm so confused. — Anonymous

Our advice?  Just fight back against those people and those ideas; by and large, they represent ignorant and bigoted perspectives which a decent portion of feminists at least claim not to support.

Of course, you don’t have to be a feminist to fight for gender equality.  If you really feel unwelcome in the movement, it’s very possible to fight for gender equality without being part of feminism.  On the other hand, keeping the feminist label probably won’t make you any less effective.

Your gender identity or movement label shouldn’t change your drive or message.  Fight back against those who would erase you.