Sloppy Zhang

Mine's late .

Stop trying to slut shame vortex! People can have rape fantasies without endorsing rape.

Projection? Perhaps. Self fiction? I wouldn't say so. People aren't "making this up." It is imprinted in them from real life encounters from real life people. A girlfriend who cheated on a boyfriend. A boyfriend who hit their girlfriend. A wife who divorced her husband and took the house, the car, the kids, and most of the paycheck. A husband who killed his wife. Feminists/MRAs aren't projecting their self fiction onto a gender/sex. They you might say they are projecting their past experiences onto the whole gender/sex (a woman who thinks all penetrative sex is rape, a man who thinks all marriage is a scam). But fiction? I can't say I agree. I think Marblehead called it right. It's not about money. It's about power. Right now, money and power can be rather synonymous. Even if you took away the money aspect from politics, you still have people in positions of power and influence. And there will always be people willing to exploit their power and influence, and there will always be people looking to be exploited. Any thoughts on the questions raised in this post? http://thetaobums.com/topic/35303-what-can-feminism-do-for-men/?p=557166

I tend to agree. It's a person issue, not gender/sex issue. I think it may point to a difference in how men and women approach new situations? (whether by biology or sociology) Men tend to (or are socialized to) jump into a new situation and establish themselves. Steady eye contact, firm handshake, loud voice, funny stories, etc. So they jump straight into the locker room talk. Women tend to (or are socialized to) hang back and get a better feel for the group before jumping in (don't want to rock the boat). Of course, plenty of guys (myself included) are rather introverted and take a while to warm up to the group, taking the "let's feel it out" approach. And plenty of women jump right in there. So maybe it's an introvert/extrovert kind of thing (but plenty of ways you can break that down too). I've known plenty of girls who can sling locker room talk with the best of them, but that only tends to happen after they feel really comfortable with the group. Yeah, well, there are plenty of situation in which women abuse power too, so I'm not entirely sure that a women run/matriarchal society/country would make all our problems go away. Some problems? Sure. But I'm thinking there would be different problems that crop up and we'd be back to square one. see stuff like that blows my mind.

Yet another complication... In a 5 against 1 situation, is the 1 person in a "feminine" position? Does feminine mean weak, outnumbered, defenseless, unable to resist? Rather than arguing that "men hate women," you might go further by saying that "men have perverted the definition of femininity." But, is that as far as it goes? As BKA has mentioned, what about the definition of masculinity? Is it exploitative, violent, prone to outbursts? In a 5 against 1 scenario, are those 5 guys acting "masculine" by taking advantage of that one person? Maybe men (the "patriarchy") has perverted the definition of men so it can exploit women (startin to sound like some feminist literature yet?) But, is that as far as it goes? If men were looking to exploit women (for the benefit of the men) then what about the men that don't benefit by this definition? The men who aren't prone to violence, the men who aren't looking to exploit, and the men that don't develop the "masculine" traits- height, strength, success, etc. In my opinion, there is the limitation of feminism. Because feminism, despite what some might say, is about helping women. Yes, there are situation that might benefit some men, but it's fundamentally about women. It expresses itself in some of Yascra's posts, where she talks about women being inherently disadvantaged in a physical encounter. Well, guess what, there are plenty of situations in which men are disadvantaged (sometimes in the same ways as women, sometimes in others). But those situations are not inherently addressed by feminist arguments because feminism is about women. Similarly, there are plenty of situations (hence MRA groups) in which women take advantage of men. Are women in a "masculine" position and men in the "feminine" position? In some feminist arguments, yes (and that explains the "anger" and "hate" MRAs have towards women, it was brought upon by the cognitive dissonance created by that situation). But I think that's forcing the terms to fit the situation. Just take a step back. A person was exploited by another person (but look at that passive verb tense! Feminine? Shifting the blame to the victim?) A person exploited another person (there we go). Feminist groups focus on women victims. That's great and they totally have a right to do so. But why demonize men? MRA groups focus on men victims. That's great and they totally have a right to do so. But why demonize women? It's that last step that gets these groups hated, IMO.

I would like to unpack this quote and hopefully show how the issue is not so clear cut, despite what various quips and witticisms seem to indicate... First I'd like to ask 1) What does "treated like shit" mean? Is it about getting paid less in the workforce? Is it about being viewed sexually? Is it about not being viewed sexually (because of lack of conforming to sexuality)? Is it about being trapped in the sexual dichotomy in the first place? Limited career opportunities because of the societally ingrained ideas of femininity? Is it about violence towards women because women are perceived as weaker, more exploitable? (Please note how I did not assume that this violence towards women is perpetrated by men, but rather, is perpetrated towards women, thank you) These are just a few sample questions, I'm sure we can come up with more. Regardless, I would like a clear definition of what "treated like shit" means (and for the sake of debate, if you only would like to pick one we can just discuss one, then switch, or list them, but that makes posts long and in my experiences causes a lack of reading. I can personally handle long posts though, so go for it). I ask because my next question is this: 2) Are people treated this way because they are women? Or are men treated this way equally? Perhaps the crux of the issue is not that "women are treated like shit (by men or otherwise)" but (and this is my personal opinion) people are treated like shit by people because people are shitty. People are selfish and greedy and tend to exploit whatever opportunity arises. I'll take an example: A man is walking down the street and is mugged by a group of other men. The other men perceive their target as being weak physically and the group has a numbers advantage. So they beat and rob him and leave him to live or die by his wounds. In my opinion, this is merely human criminal exploitation. But there are strains of feminist thought which would indicate that the male victim was targeted because he was in a "feminized" position. As in, the target was seen as weak and less likely to put up meaningful resistance, mainstream "feminine" qualities. And so this male on male crime was actually an expression of misogynist views. In my opinion, that's taking it a little bit far. If women want to form up and make a movement to stop treating women like shit, that's fine. Because no one deserves to be treated like shit. My main issue is where many feminists attribute the source of the problem: the inherent contempt men hold for women. I posit that is simply not true. And I think that's where a lot of feminists garner their own contempt from, say, mens rights groups, because that group is composed of men who have been treated fairly horribly by women. Certain strains of feminist thought would posit that those men are really just butthurt because of their lost patriarchal dominance. I think that's warping the scenario a bit too far around. But I am beginning to digress from my original point: Are women mistreated because they are women, or because they are people living in a fucked up world, and happen to be women?

Oh, haha, sorry. Maybe the answer is no and your answers are wrong Here's one woman's viewpoint:

[edit] not zanshin's thread] Maybe the answer to this thread title is: Nothing. Maybe feminism isn't FOR men. Maybe it's for WOMEN, and men just BENEFIT. Or maybe... men don't benefit at ALL. I think that's why this thread got "derailed." Too many people stated discussing ideas that were upstream from the OP.

Call me a cynic, but I think no matter HOW many movements happen, I don't think anything will ever change. Not until humans PHYSICALLY, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, whatever, EVOLVE. Why? Because the "movement" resets to zero as soon as a woman realizes she can trade sex for power, and the movement resets to zero as soon as a man realizes he can trade power for sex. As SOON as a woman realize she can sleep with a man (or lead the man to believe she will sleep with him) to get stuff, she will. I know girls who started developing in 6th grade that realized they could get boys (and even older men) to be sweet to them, give them stuff, give them a pass, etc. Why. The. Hell. Would you work for something when you can get it for free? (literally, in the opinions of these women I know, they do *nothing*, just show up and look pretty, so any "trade" that happens they don't perceive) As SOON as a man realizes he can get a woman to sleep with him, chances are very high that he'll try. Yes, there are some men who are still burdened by a sense of "duty" or "responsibility" to "not sleep with women" or "sleep with only one woman." But the temptation will ALWAYS be there, and all he needs to do is trip up once. It can start as early as 6th grade, when he realizes that girls start following him around for being on the basketball team. It can go all the way up until his 50's, when he's a senior executive in a company and the svelte, 19 year old college intern starts giving him the flirty eyes (because she realizes that she can get something by sleeping with him, or by letting him think she'll sleep with him). Or maybe he's a professor, and she's trying to get a pass. Or maybe he's just a punk rocker and she's in her rebellious phase. Or maybe he's a black guy and she's never been with a guy with a huge dick. Each generation the movement resets to zero. Because humans haven't evolved.

Well... that's all relative, because even for guys it's a dangerous place... By "natural doping" you mean the increase in testosterone production which helps with muscle growth? Even that's relative for men, and not all men develop that way (plenty of skinny guys out there that can't build muscle to save their lives). Not to mention short guys, guys with slow reflexes, guys who don't work out consistently... And that's assuming an all natural, one on one fight. What if you run into a guy with a knife? A guy with friends? Even if it's man on man violence, there's plenty of situations in which just being a man won't make you any more safe. I think this also depends on the context. Trying to find the video, but I saw one that was a huge compilation of guys harassing girls, and then getting their asses kicked by other guys around them.

Yeah if we have to show up in person, I won't be able to sign up under multiple names and argue on my own threads.

MONSTER TRUCKS!!! I need help

Well we were kind of calling each other names at that point, but it was all part of the banter The good news is that (at least in my experience) this happens as the relationship progresses. A lot of girls are still in the mindset of "he asked me out, so he should pay." But once she likes you (and you seem like a catch ) she'll pick up some of the tab on a couple of later dates. The second or third date in with my current girlfriend (we didn't really start with formal "dates" so hard to count ) I would pick up the dinner tab, then afterward she'd pick up the drink tab. We didn't really talk about it, she just kind of went for it (bonus points!!) That is the good thing about dating women with their own well paying jobs and then at some point it turns into her picking up all the tab!! (but then we alternate so we both carry some weight)

What's funny is that (at least in my experience) that's still pretty rare. I was hit on rather aggressively the other day by a rather wonderfully pretty, intelligent young woman. I responded rather flirtily, clearly showing interest in being there. But no more, as I'm currently in a relationship. She was giving me the "ask for my number" eyes, the "I want to see you again don't let us just walk away" eyes. And yet... I didn't. Could she have asked me? Why, yes, she could have. The conversation was all going to that point. But... still, she was leading me on to make the first move. So instead I ended the conversation cordially and walked away. She seemed rather disappointed.

*writes down*

Oh no, ladies first, I insist.

I'm a virgin every time because every experience is my first time experiencing that exact moment. I know. Smooth, huh?

You may be surprised, but for a fair amount of guys the core problem is not about sex. Sex is a symptom, not the root issue. Sure, they can get a prostitute and pop their cherry. For some, it's all downhill from there. For others, it's a lifetime continual reliance of prostitutes because they aren't able to form real relationships with women (which include, but are not limited to, sex). Actually, you'd be surprised. Then again, maybe I'm just thinking about the hot young girls who haven't fully developed yet emotionally and don't know that egoist assholes are not the guys to waste their time on... But I dunno, I get some nice attention from the older birds too but I guess age and maturity do not necessarily correlate... It's interesting, when you get down to it, how much they overlap.

I think we need to investigate something...

I would like to call attention to this point (as good points tend to get lost in the shuffle: What's the worst thing a male 16+ years old can be called? Creep? Weirdo? Stalker? Loner? Loser? How about: virgin. The older you are, the worse it gets. "Why would anyone want to be with YOU?" Must be creepy. Must be a weirdo. Must be a misogynist. Must be abusive towards women behind closed doors. After all, if he wasn't, he'd have a girlfriend, he wouldn't be a 26 year old virgin.

Then you're doing it wrong. What else can get all my fingers workin like only a typewriter can?

They call me MISTER Slopps! "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the morestar systems will slip through your fingers." - Princess Leia

You gotta go with the flow, man You know there are a couple of major areas in the feminism movement that believe men should shut their pieholes. Feminism isn't about men. It's about women. Men trying to get a piece of feminism is just them forcibly inserting their privilege (did you get the penis/rape metaphor?). Sure, feminism could help dismantle the traditionally oppressive ideas of femininity and masculinity. That way I won't feel like I have to get jacked and have sex with a lot of women. And women won't feel like they have to have big boobs and have sex with me all the time (but not too often, don't want to be slutty). And we can all just be people. And that would be pretty swell.

Who is to say that men/women't AREN'T their sweet natural selves at the start, then turn into assholes/banshees because of something that the partner has done? I mean, sure, an asshole/banshee could hide themselves for months.... even YEARS.... But... that's quite a long time to keep your true self under wraps, aint it? Maybe something happened over the course of the relationship which caused them to change.