Men's rights movement - opinions

[ThisDinosaur]

I think the issues of "asymmetrical divorce" and "can't get laid" are, at best, minor contributors to the MRA movement. The Straw Man Feminism reaction may be closer to the truth, but that straw man is constructed from real statements of real self-labeled feminists.

If you define feminism as a belief that people of all genders and races should have equal access to resources, jobs, education, etc., then I'm pro-feminist. OHOH, if feminism involves giving certain institutional advantages to non whites, non males, etc., then I think its a form of discrimination that leads to a backlash by the so-called "privileged".

"Patriarchy" might be a misleading term to describe the fact that men and women are treated differently for reasons that are both biological and cultural. Sometimes you benefit from your gender, and sometimes you get screwed by stereotypes about your group. We tend to disproportionately notice the times when we get screwed. Also, its very difficult to tease out which differences are biological, and which aren't.

[C40]

The guys have taken risks since the beginning of the relationship. The man is the person who kneels down in front of the woman. This is real oppression.

Heh... Are you serious? A man who kneels down for a proposal is on his knees for 10-30 seconds. By this point in the relationship, the woman has likely knelt in front of him for many many hours (or should have) . Of course, a man should be kneeling for the same reason sometimes, but likely fewer hours as kneeling works better for fellatio than cunnilingus.

If you haven't already read Sex At Dawn, and want to read about this, he (Chris Ryan) discusses what you're talking about quite a bit in the book (and also bonobos a lot)

Can you show us this argumentation?
I heard the gist, but I don't buy it. More data about humans (not bonobos), please.

Yep. Here you go. Only ~5% of the book is about bonobos.

[Riggerjack]

I'm 46, white, male. My entire adult life, women have had solid advantages in the work place. I've seen women promoted, with men artificially removed from consideration. Still working after behavior that would get me fired, I have personally been held back from promotion for being white male. I have read the introduction resume of an incoming HRVP that stated her goal was to hire and promote everyone except white males. (Although her words were "minority, women, and disabled veteran", white males were even excluded from her statement!)*

Now, all my life, I have also worked in male dominated fields. And while this screwed me over, a few times, it helped my wife, which has made my life better, overall. And those male dominated fields are far less so now, so it seems to have worked.

With that said, while there is no safety net, there is far less resistance to the top. The right for men to compete is undisputed, just not in the corporate arena. Fine. If you want equality, go your own way. Start your own business. Working within any hierarchy means accepting inequality. There is no equality between you and your co-workers, you and your boss, certainly not you and your boss' boss. Genitalia has nothing to do with it.

When I was young and single, going to bars was one of many ways to meet women. But more importantly, it was a place to be rejected. Of course, that was never the goal, but looking back, that was the important thing to take away. Learning to be rejected, that it is NOT the end of the world, hell, not the end of the night, is a vital part of growing into manhood.

As for not being a man that women flock to, well, that is under your control. Up to this point, what you have been doing isn't working for you. I recommend you change that. I'm not a pretty man, but I did alright when I was single. I didn't in high school. The improvements came as I learned to deal with rejection (big confidence boost to lose that fear) and again as my career progressed, became a foreman, got used to ordering people about (politely). Then internet dating came along, and I married the first date I found on the internet. (So in my mind, Internet dating was great, my wife has other memories...)

In short, life is fair, it screws over everyone. Tracking inequities keeps your focus away from where you should focus, solutions.

We all make our own deals. This applies to everyone in your life. If you don't like to terms, change them. The act of changing the terms of one deal, develop the skills to make better terms next time.

This is all so much clearer to me at 46 than it was at 26.

[Scott 2]

The mission seems like it would select for a very low quality membership base. The most capable males aren't going to feel disenfranchised and join. People looking for a disadvantaged group to help will go elsewhere. I'd expect what's left to be bitter men I don't want to spend my time around.

So, I guess they are discriminated against and have a point?

[The Old Man]

+1 Riggerjack (or perhaps +100)

[7Wannabe5]

I think part of the problem is that our culture hasn't done as much to get men up to speed on the skill sets that were previously classified as "feminine." I have known a number of men who have suffered serious difficulties with custody issues post-divorce, and IMO much of this was due to simply not possessing a level of social or household management skills. For instance, I knew a divorced dad who put himself into crash and burn mode at work because he chose equestrian camp as his summer daycare option. Most women would know that was just an activity and it wouldn't work without a nanny as primary care provider. Also, men are only slowly realizing that when women have their own money, they expect men to pay more attention to their own appearance. I'm bored with pointing out to man-plainers that the reason why they think women are hard to get or hard to please is that they don't even see 70% of the female population in the first place. Like, "Okay, she's way more attractive than you, and the only reason she dated you in the first place is because you practically made it a part-time job to kow-tow to her, and you think the terms of contract are suddenly going to change for the better if/when you lock it down?"

[Stahlmann]

...

[SilverElephant]

I don't believe that these alpha males exist. What constitutes the alpha male. The big tough fighter. The smart guy. The rich guy. It's a stupid concept. People are complex and go for people that appeal to them. The Alpha male concept is just another stupid load of crap some moron came up with.

Different people want different things. Basically everyone can get laid if they don't have stupid unrealistic standards for them personally. I think the world is a great place and these whiners need to start taking responsibility for their lives.

I had a much longer response typed up that the forum swallowed. My basic premises are:

"Alpha" and "beta" male are presented as dichotomy - e.g. you're either in one camp or in the other. In reality it's a gradual curve. But what you present as "standards" is simply an honest appraisal of one's attractiveness - and here it seems very, very clear to me that a highly attractive individual (high perceived fertility and beauty for women, high perceived amount of resources for men - which can manifest as either high physical prowess or high income, depending on what's valued more locally) will have more options than an unattractive individual. This is not simply "wanting different things", it's a clear case of more or less options. You can be picky if you've got options - you can't if you don't. Most commonly the "alpha male" is simply taken to be an arbitrary percentile of men at the top.

[steveo73]

If you define feminism as a belief that people of all genders and races should have equal access to resources, jobs, education, etc., then I'm pro-feminist. OHOH, if feminism involves giving certain institutional advantages to non whites, non males, etc., then I think its a form of discrimination that leads to a backlash by the so-called "privileged".

Exactly but a couple of points of qualification.

1. It's not that bad for men. One thing that should be recognised is that men can have great lives.
2. It was never that good for men. The idea that there was some golden age where men went to work and were respected and women stayed at home is I think crap.
3. I am personally offended to think that my daughter or my wife should not be able to vote or have great careers if they want too.

We should though as a society state that there should be no privileges given people because of the gender or colour. We should have equal opportunity and that is where it should end.

[Stahlmann]

...

[steveo73]

I'm bored with pointing out to man-plainers that the reason why they think women are hard to get or hard to please is that they don't even see 70% of the female population in the first place. Like, "Okay, she's way more attractive than you, and the only reason she dated you in the first place is because you practically made it a part-time job to kow-tow to her, and you think the terms of contract are suddenly going to change for the better if/when you lock it down?"

I hate the word man-plainers but this is 100% correct. Some guys can get good looking women without an issue. Some guys can pull the occasional good looking woman. Most guys can't. Some of the majority of guys think that they are entitled to the good looking woman and simply don't change their perspective.

I married a good looking woman. I definitely have never kow-tow'ed to her. If anything I've become nicer as we've been together longer. My wife does everything - cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids, she works, she doesn't spend money.

Guys need to realise that a woman's worth is based on more than looks. They also need to realise that they can get a woman if they start looking for a good woman rather than a good looking woman.

[steveo73]

And why do we install so much self-entilement in women as society?

I simply don't believe this. I think that this is specific women. There is a very very simple way of dealing with women like this. You next them.

I also don't believe in hypergamy. This is again some men and some women who are going to cheat if something better comes along. It's normal but it's not everyone.

[Stahlmann]

...

[Ego]

But what you present as "standards" is simply an honest appraisal of one's attractiveness - and here it seems very, very clear to me that a highly attractive individual (high perceived fertility and beauty for women, high perceived amount of resources for men - which can manifest as either high physical prowess or high income, depending on what's valued more locally) will have more options than an unattractive individual.

To add extra levels of complexity to it, we are seeing a shift in what is considered "attractive". Once upon a time the man was the breadwinner and the woman the nurturer so it was natural that male resources and female perceived fertility were the yardstick. Today, 40% of households have female breadwinners. Additionally, a lot of people specifically do not want to have kids. So it would stand to reason that the 1950s model is no longer the heterosexual beauty standard for either gender.

To add even more complexity, it used to be the case that very successful men married women who were content to stay home and take care of the kids. Today, those men marry women who are successful in their own right. This social shift towards assortative mating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating) is responsible for some of the income inequality we see today. Power couples vs traditional couples.

So, if you are looking for a future power partner stop looking at the beach or the bar and start looking in the AP Biology classroom.

ETA, Stahlmann, if you are having such difficulty then you've got to change your standards. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

[Stahlmann]

...

[steveo73]

And why do we install so much self-entilement in women as society?

I simply don't believe this. I think that this is specific women. There is a very very simple way of dealing with women like this. You next them.


I also don't believe in hypergamy. This is again some men and some women who are going to cheat if something better comes along. It's normal but it's not everyone.

I mean when I have standards I am labelled as misogynist. Women can have horrendous standards... and nothing happens (at least when they are at their peak years, then they lower standards).

And when we talk about hypergamy. Who recovers faster after breakup? Who has options to choose? Who has next partner after 2-3 weeks? 40% women have backup plan (another man). How many guys can afford it?

Man are disposable. Personally, I am not going to follow this trend.

Women are also disposable. It's the human condition.

Honestly my take for you personally is to ignore all of this stuff. You can create a great life for yourself. Women aren't against you. If you get lucky and get a good woman it is fantastic. If the relationship ends it ends. There is no need for a conspiracy theory to rationalise how life works.

I basically agree that feminism is evil. No specific group of people deserve specific advantages.

At the same time the majority of men and woman meet, fuck and have kids if they choose too. All you have to do is be a good man on your terms not on what you think women want. If you do that and give it a shot I think you will get lucky.

[C40]

Ah shit. I just typed a reply for you, Stahlman, and it got lost in a circle of forum login page... So I'll retype a shorter/blunter version.

First, I see you live in Poland. I don't know how different the sex/dating/relationship landscape is there. It could be that your opinions are completely true there, and mine are completely true here in the U.S. But really, it appears that you just want to be mad. It also appears that you're having a very hard time understanding women's side of the current sex/dating/relationship landscape, and that is causing you some trouble. Because then your side- the men's side, is all you understand so it feels unfair. This happens for a lot of women, too, who don't understand what a burden it is, for example, for men to make the first move, to ask them out, to puruse them, etc.

Spartain Warrior:
OTOH, I believe there is evidence that sex is more common and more available to all in societies that are considered more egalitarian or "matriarchal". Even outside humans--aren't bonobos matriarchal?

C40:
You are right, ATMO. If you haven't already read Sex At Dawn, and want to read about this, he (Chris Ryan) discusses what you're talking about quite a bit in the book (and also bonobos a lot)

Stahlman:
Can you show us this argumentation?
I heard the gist, but I don't buy it. More data about humans (not bonobos), please.

C40:
Yep. Here you go. Only ~5% of the book is about bonobos

Stahlman:
Could you provide some personal insight to the discussion about this book?
I have spent so many hours with MSM psych-evo, that's a little bit difficult to grasp that ,,weee, there were cultures were people had sex like bonobos!". And you brought this counterargument .

I have heard that's difficult to ,,overthrow" MSM psych-evo (as stated on wiki about reception about ,,Sex at dawn").

So, Spartan says there is more sex when things are more matriarchal, and I confirm. You ask for "Argumentation" so I, again, direct you to a book that describes multiple cultures which are more matriarchal than the current U.S. one and where sex is more common. Now you're saying, what, that you won't believe it? Ok, that's your problem.

You need personal insight? Fine. In my own experiences (which are many), aside from standard compatibility stuff, there are two factors that when present make (good) sex more likely. One is if the woman is sexually submissive. The other is if she's a Feminist. It's most likely if she's both. It's least likely if she is religious and conservative (which generally correlate with more Patriarchy).

Riggerjack's advice to not be scared of rejection is probably the best thing for most guys your age (college/university). The other is to understand women better. In our current sex/dating/relationship landscape, there are both pros and cons for men and for women. Understanding them helps you navigate that landscape with more success. You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the cons and burdens that currently exist for women. You're comparing the cons for men to the pros for women and declaring that it's not fair. First, you're wrong. And second, even if the scales are tipped a bit one way, whooptie-fucking-do, it doesn't matter that much.

In your own personal life, what do you want with respect to sex/dating/relationships? (Serious question). And how are you currently trying to make it happen? Are you hoping that the entire cultural landscape of sex/dating/relationships will adjust to make it feel more fair for you, so then so then you can get what you want? That's not going to happen, and wishing for it is going to make you feel worse and worse.

As I stated earlier in this thread, Chris Ryan (author of Sex At Dawn) has a very good understanding of the current plight and frustrations that you seem to have. He voices a ton of frustrations with the current landscape, many of which are probably aligned with yours. And he has good advice. well, not really advice fed out like you may expect. He has thoughts and life experiences and so on that will help you.

[steveo73]

ETA, Stahlmann, if you are having such difficulty then you've got to change your standards. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

This is my advice to Stahlmann. The problem with discussing these topics is once you are into it you are probably creating a self-fulfilling philosophy.

I use the story of my friend. He was always ugly and dumb. He is a great guy but he was always in the bottom classes at school. I remember going to the pub years after school and there were these moles there paying him out for being ugly.

Fast forward a number of years and he does something about it. He tries Internet dating. He is now married with 3 kids. Yes his wife isn't attractive but who cares.

[Ego]

Well, I don't care. I want to present in this topic that men are discriminated nowadays more than women before 70's.

I think it says a lot about the state of the world that you think this is true. I can't speak for Poland because I haven't been there since the early 1990s but I can speak for the US because I grew up here in the 70s. Not even close.

[SilverElephant]

The problem is women set so high standards that there is no entry for many men. There are no ,,virgin neckbeard women who live in parents' basement". Now you can see how gender stereotypes affects men too.

Or there are many men who opt out due to the fact they see no benefits in relationship with another gender (like herbivore men in Japan).

I get the feeling that you're complaining about women somehow being shallow for not being attracted to virgin neckbeard men who live in parents' basement? You're still seeing this in terms of agency or rational thought, and, what's more important, you're somehow offended by this (judging from the tone of your post).

The female equivalent of "virgin neckbeard men who live in parents' basement" isn't "virgin neckbeard women who live in parents' basement". What you describe is basically "unmanly man", so what we're looking for is "non-female female". This will, in all likelihood, and as harsh and politically incorrect as it sounds, simply mean ugly girls. Or girls that act in thoroughly un-female-like fashion, i.e. they completely fail to trigger circuits that signal "female" in a guy's brain.

I'm convinced that modern gender stereotypes have nothing to do with this. Sexy beautiful women have always been considered attractive, and what counts as sexy and beautiful really hasn't changed all that much in the last 10,000 years (big eyes, symmetrical face, long hair, 0.7 hip-to-waist-ratio, medium-to-large breasts, etc.). Same for guys (has resources in terms of money or strength or whatever is considered an energy cache in that culture).

The reason women aren't attracted to virgin neckbeard men who live in parents' basement is because the vast majority of these men simply offer no value as a provider. That this might be because of overpopulation resulting in diminished opportunities for these men is of no consequence to women.

I've always been of the opinion that men are getting the better end of the deal in this specific case. Assuming average intelligence, it's entirely possible for a homely overweight neckbearded guy living in his parent's basement with no education and earning prospects to shave, get into shape, get a degree at the local community college, move out of his parent's basement and land a girl. A woman's looks are more or less fixed (unless she spends liberal amounts of money on multiple plastic surgeries) and deteriorate more or less rapidly (depending on how much care she's taking of her body).

Another important point is that this is a highly dynamic situation. At 15 I was literally invisible to girls because I was the nerdy scrawny guy with weird glasses who spent all his time coding and playing video games. At 20 I got a tiny bit of attention because I was pursuing a physics degree (considered to be of high earning potential) and had honed my wit vis-à-vis girls (teasing and the likes). At 25 I was doing OK because I'd gotten into great shape as well, had just obtained what is considered a valuable degree and had a few notches in my belt, giving me some confidence. At 29 I'm getting tons of attention because I take good care of myself physically and mentally, can confidently talk to and tease girls and am additionally exuding the confidence of a guy who's in a very good position financially and generally in control of his life - on the other side, girls have passed their zenith when it comes to fertility, beauty and attractivity. Time is actually in favor of men here, but it very, very much depends on how you spend your twenties (much like your finances depend a lot on what you spend in your twenties).

(I'm aware there's more to a woman then her looks; and a charming and caring nature with decent brains will go some way when looks can't. What I'm talking about are the basics. The edges are somewhat fuzzier.)