Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

My view of men's rights activists is swayed mostly by /r/mensrights.

The title of their subreddit right now is "Earning scorn from bigoted feminists and white knights since March 2008", there are several articles on the front page of it discussing "infant male genital mutilation", a bunch of articles about abusive mothers which i'm not sure are relevant to men's rights beyond "see? women are evil!" and... I think you get the point. My view of them is not particularly positive.

[Sir Finkus]

Finkus, the teaching thing... doesn't really hold up. Traditionally, teachers are male. At all levels. This has really only changed relatively recently.

So it being "wired" seems exceptionally unlikely.

Hmm, bad example then.  I hope you kind of see my point though.

The title of their subreddit right now is "Earning scorn from bigoted feminists and white knights since March 2008", there are several articles on the front page of it discussing "infant male genital mutilation", a bunch of articles about abusive mothers which i'm not sure are relevant to men's rights beyond "see? women are evil!" and... I think you get the point. My view of them is not particularly positive.

Well, I think male circumcision IS genital mutilation, but it doesn't have anything to do with sexism.  That's more of a religion/bioethics issue.  I wasn't circumcised because my mom hates men or anything, I honestly believe she thought it was in my best interests.

[GlyphGryph]

talking about body and development trend dimorphism is fine, but the main strength of humans is our brains natural adaptability and elasticity.

Pretty much any natural tendency you could name, on the mental side, would probably be significantly less powerful than the cultural influences seeking to send it one way or the other, truth be told. Ugh, what's the word I'm looking for... it's, like, there could be some genetic gender-based element pushing it in one direction (which would probably be stronger in the much more primitive parts of the brain), but overall that push is probably going to be insignificant compared to the far more powerful pushes from culture and environment.

[Sir Finkus]

talking about body and development trend dimorphism is fine, but the main strength of humans is our brains natural adaptability and elasticity.

Pretty much any natural tendency you could name, on the mental side, would probably be significantly less powerful than the cultural influences seeking to send it one way or the other, truth be told. Ugh, what's the word I'm looking for... it's, like, there could be some genetic gender-based element pushing it in one direction (which would probably be stronger in the much more primitive parts of the brain), but overall that push is probably going to be insignificant compared to the far more powerful pushes from culture and environment.

In some cases that's certainly true, but consider things like sexuality.  If you're gay, no amount of social pressure (and lord knows gay people have dealt with their fair share) is going to make you not gay. When it comes to gender, there seem to be some rather universal roles that transcend the vast majority of cultures, even ones which have developed separately for thousands of years. I think that would be rather remarkable if gender roles were entirely determined socially.

My main point is that I believe it is a mixture of both.  Granted, I'm not an expert in the field, but based on my reading on the subject it's still up for debate how much of an impact social pressures have on gender roles.

[GlyphGryph]

Actually, for most human beings culture DOES heavily influence whether they are more likely to find men or women attractive (or at least to pursue a relationship with).

Of course you'll get extremes that are more resistant to cultural influence.

Regardless, sexuality is quite primitive. None of the things you've described previously (such as jobs), are anywhere close.

[kaijyuu]

Sexuality's probably a good example of how social pressures DO affect people. In the past, it's not like homosexuals just never married anyone of the opposite gender or never had kids. They did. They just weren't satisfied with it.


Similar things could be said of gender roles. You might be born with (or choose) an inclination toward some hobby or interest or job that doesn't fit social norms. If you're forced out of it, you're not going to be satisfied, though you might continue to do whatever society deems acceptable.


It's conceivable (and likely) that hobbies or interests or jobs have a connection to gender, but it's almost certainly weaker than sexuality is. And hell, isn't ~10% of the world's population gay? Even higher variability is likely for stuff like liking the color blue vs pink.

[penguinofhonor]

Well, I think male circumcision IS genital mutilation, but it doesn't have anything to do with sexism.  That's more of a religion/bioethics issue.  I wasn't circumcised because my mom hates men or anything, I honestly believe she thought it was in my best interests.

Calling it "male genital mutilation" equates it to female genital mutilation, though.

[kaijyuu]

 
Not following.


It's not equating it to anything. Circumcision is genital mutilation unique to men. No ifs ands or buts.

If you're making an argument about the severity of the mutilation, well understand things like castration exist. All of these are under the blanket term of "genital mutilation."

[Frumple]

I feel what you're saying kaij, but part of the thing is a fair amount of the folks hemhawin' about men's rights seem to actually equate the severity of circumcision and female genital mutilation, which...

Well, which, really. I don't really know how to express it. It's a thing which lacks words but may be properly expressed with casual violence upon the expresser, I guess. Some stupid can only be responded to adequately (though doubtfully effectively) thusly.

Then there's castration, yes, but it's not exactly a systematic or widespread thing, unlike the whole female genital mutilation issue.

[ChairmanPoo]

It was, once, though.

It's worth noting that male genital mutilation (of whichever severity) is not particularily advocated by women as some kind of gender-revenge, though. So it can't really be compared as an equivalent. In no small measure both practices were born in simmilar backwards patriarchal societies

[fqllve]

Well, I think male circumcision IS genital mutilation, but it doesn't have anything to do with sexism.  That's more of a religion/bioethics issue.  I wasn't circumcised because my mom hates men or anything, I honestly believe she thought it was in my best interests.

Sexism isn't just about hate, it's also about restrictions and infringements upon a person's rights based on sex.

I feel what you're saying kaij, but part of the thing is a fair amount of the folks hemhawin' about men's rights seem to actually equate the severity of circumcision and female genital mutilation, which...

The most vocal part of a group always seems to be the most radical. Anyone who equates male and female circumcision immediate brands themself an idiot. Just as much as if they'd complained about women always keeping men down.

We should just ignore these people.

[Leafsnail]

There are forms of FGM that are basically equivalent to male circumcision (removing the exact same part even).  It isn't up there with the more extreme forms of FGM (which are more common...), but it falls within the scope so I think the terminology is valid if possibly misleading.