Men's Liberation: An Overview and Discussion.

[Steampunkette]

So. As a companion piece to my thread discussing the history and intentions of feminism, I thought I'd bring forth another sidebar worthy of discussion: Men's Lib.

Men's Lib was born as an adjunct to Feminism. Male feminists who wanted to help battle against damaging masculine stereotypes and toxic patriarchal masculinity. Specifically the idea that men weren't fit parents, that emotional expression should be avoided, and similar very simple truths that were the basis of the understanding of patriarchal harm for men.

At the same time, Feminists battled against the same oppressive gender roles and modes of thinking. Men's Liberation and Feminism were complimentary and two sides of the same coin fighting against patriarchal social roles.

However, in the mid 80s, Men's Lib took a sharp turn. It fractured into two pieces each using the name of Men's Lib for themselves. The first half remained true to the ideals of the founding principles: Breaking the shackles of oppressive patriarchal gender roles and embracing a greater freedom and health for men. The second was comprised of Masculinists.

Masculinists, in the second-wave of Men's Liberation, were intent on correcting any political issue which favored women while not seeking to alter any issue that harmed women. Rather than focusing on the toxic gender roles and stereotypes, Masculinists turned to legislation to try and force a consolidation of power in the hands of men, they fought against conscription, divorce court proceedings which they erroneously assumed were biased against men, and other issues while doing their best to push feminism aside.

Men's Liberation's original values have been scattered to the wind, more or less, as the side which held to the core ideals of Men's Lib was silenced and broken by the Masculinist movement through the 90s and into the 2000s. This gave rise to a new breed of Masculinist: The MRA.

The MRA is the new name of the Masculinist movement. It's little concerned with equality or the breaking down of patriarchal gender roles that harm men and women alike. It is concerned with fighting feminism tooth and nail. Through the use of Dog Whistle Politicking and Recentering of Discussions they do their best to push Feminists into a position in which anger and frustration causes them to lash out. At which point context is carefully removed and the anger and frustration is held up as the "True Face" of feminism.

You can see this most notably in the handful of actual activism that the MRAs get into which are often accompanied by the lambasting of feminists. Actions are framed as "Reclaiming" things from women, or being done by MRAs because "Feminists refuse to get involved" or any number of other taunts that seem perfectly acceptable unless you're aware of the connotations involved. This, in turn, leads to feminists being put into a defensive position, a bit of baiting ensues, and then the baiting and taunting are quickly turned into "Pointing out a problem" "Logical debate" or "Just asking questions"

As for their online presence... well. It's a different story. Online, MRAs troll forums and do their best to recenter conversation of women's issues towards men, even if those same MRAs have shown no interest in discussing the men's issues involved prior to the interaction.

All in all, the Masculinist movement has been incredibly toxic and angry at feminism and lead many to believe that feminism itself is to blame for every problem men, as a group, face. Well... White middle class or higher cisgender heterosexual abled men.

But even within Masculinism (Or masculism if you prefer) there is still some measure of the original Men's Liberation groups. The issue is that now they are the fringe, Radical Masculinists still work to break down the toxic stereotypes that define so many men. And they are the ones who need to be heard.

Embrace the Radical Masculinist. Reject the Radical Feminist. Odd, isn't it?

[Orange Marmalade]

It doesn't look like you're wanting to have a discussion, but rather you simply want to paint a picture that anybody who wants to acknowledge and fight for the issues that men face is basically a hater of women.

I feel like I'm on tumblr.

To clarify - you've essentially painted only two valid options. The first is your idealist feminist view of what you think a men's right activist should be. And the other is a dude who hates women.

[Steampunkette]

An interesting perspective that is patently false by even a cursory reading of my post...

Men's Rights Activism to the detriment and attack of women is shitty, is the thrust of my argument. And that Men's Liberation was a better method and goal than what we have now. I also went over a bit of the history behind it that you're free to research elsewhere, if you like.

I even specifically made mention at the end of my post that Radical Masculinists are people who should be embraced and supported, as they adhere to Men's Lib's goals and ideals rather than seeking the consolidation of socio-economic and political power in the hands of men at the specific expense of women.

Also: Please don't bother with the dog whistle of "Oh no! Tumblr!" it's rude and misrepresenting.

[Valthazar]

Embrace the Radical Masculinist. Reject the Radical Feminist. Odd, isn't it?

A statement I often hear is that "feminists are working for the equality of all people."  If that is the case, then why is a "Radical Masculinist" cause even necessary? 

If indeed feminism is not in fact working for the true equality of all people (and only focusing on women), then I would imagine that those criticizing feminism for this very fact may have some traction in their arguments.

[Caehlim]

A statement I often hear is that "feminists are working for the equality of all people."  If that is the case, then why is a "Radical Masculinist" cause even necessary?

Despite having doctors who are general practitioners, we still have cardiologists and oncologists to treat specific issues. The goal of all of them is to promote health, but they tend to address that issue in different ways and have a risk of tunnel-vision in focusing specifically on one aspect of the issue to the possible detriment of others.

If indeed feminism is not in fact working for the true equality of all people (and only focusing on women), then I would imagine that those criticizing feminism for this very fact may have some traction in their arguments.

Is any cause so perfect that it doesn't require criticism? Constructive criticism should always be a part of political discussion.

[Valthazar]

Despite having doctors who are general practitioners, we still have cardiologists and oncologists to treat specific issues. The goal of all of them is to promote health, but they tend to address that issue in different ways and have a risk of tunnel-vision in focusing specifically on one aspect of the issue to the possible detriment of others.

Is any cause so perfect that it doesn't require criticism? Constructive criticism should always be a part of political discussion.

I know, I agree with you, and your post about humanism in the other thread.  This 'humanism' idea is interesting, but at the same time, like you noted, one consequence to that is that feminism may indeed come to be viewed as a 'fringe' extremist movement that isn't focusing on equality issues facing both men and women. 

Ideally, many of these Radical Masculinist issues should be incorporated into feminist discussions, and that itself would reduce much of the 'MRA trolling' that Steampunkette discusses in the original post.  Much of this backlash is likely due to issues facing men not factoring into mainstream feminist dialogue.

[Steampunkette]

I'd really prefer not to derail this thread into a discussion of feminism and suggest that the discussion be moved to the other thread.

That said: Feminists want to bring about equality. And right now, that means elevating those who are politically and economically below white cisgender heterosexual abled men up to equality with those guys.

You don't reach equality in a situation where things aren't equal by adding +1 to both columns.

5+1=/=2+1

No matter how many times you add +1 to both sides you're still going to wind up with a 3 point discrepancy.

As for the latest post: Feminists DO talk about toxic masculinity, just like Radical Masculinists. In turn we're yelled at for "Attacking Men" Such is the nature of the beast.

[Caehlim]

As for the latest post: Feminists DO talk about toxic masculinity, just like Radical Masculinists. In turn we're yelled at for "Attacking Men" Such is the nature of the beast.

It may be worth considering that this might be an unintentional dogwhistle.

Part of what closes men down in talking about their emotions (what's referred to as toxic masculinity) can be in part the perception of men's emotions as being dark, agressive, sick or toxic. Many men can feel shame in their gender, with songs like "what are little boys made of, snips and snails and puppy-dog tails" not helping.

They're told that Testosterone, the male-associated hormone, is literally a toxic substance and responsible for all sorts of horrible things.

Describing their sexual identity as toxic... well, yeah, it causes a reaction.

[Braioch]

I'm with Orange in that the OP seems to dance in and out of following the Black and White fallacy. It's limiting to take a social group and split them into two and say "that's what there is, your choice, choose one!" It completely negates the idea that there is definitely room in the MRM for more than the two mindsets that Punkette mentioned.

However.

There are several issues about being male that aren't often times addressed in society, or have even been mocked. If a repeat of the other thread is preferred, I can dig up plenty of sources. One of those things is this 'toxic masculinity' which is one of the more abhorrent phrases I've ever seen uttered before, and made worse by the way it's painted as well-meaning. If you want a good idea of what rigid male gender roles actually do to boys and men, I suggest reading 'The War on Boys' by Christina Sommers or even 'Real Boys' by William Pollack which addresses the issues of such rigid, masculine gender roles without painting men as some dark monster waiting to burst.

Personally, I consider myself egalitarian rather than feminist or part of the MRM, both genders have their respective problems but I don't think one set deserves precedent over another. I think the biggest problem is that lines are being drawn in the sand and people are no longer paying attention to facts or reason, it's becoming about who is the most emotionally right and who is the most emotionally wrong. This shouldn't be about who has it worse, it should be about actually working together and fixing things based off what we know.

[Caehlim]

There are several issues about being male that aren't often times addressed in society, or have even been mocked. If a repeat of the other thread is preferred, I can dig up plenty of sources.

I think that could be good. These are issues that aren't identified or discussed enough, and this is a thread in which they're relevant and it couldn't be accused of derailing a feminist discussion.

If you want a good idea of what rigid male gender roles actually do to boys and men, I suggest reading 'The War on Boys' by Christina Sommers or even 'Real Boys' by William Pollack which addresses the issues of such rigid, masculine gender roles without painting men as some dark monster waiting to burst.

I'll try to seek these out. I haven't seen a lot of good books on this topic before, so it might be nice to get their insight.

This shouldn't be about who has it worse, it should be about actually working together and fixing things based off what we know.

I agree.

[Braioch]

I think that could be good. These are issues that aren't identified or discussed enough, and this is a thread in which they're relevant and it couldn't be accused of derailing a feminist discussion.

I can do that, here's a bit

Conviction rate
Simultaneously more likely to be victims of crime
Males are floundering in school
The many issues surrounding circumcision.
Eating disorders among males is left untouched too often
Work death rates
Boy sex trafficking victims left behind
Homeless? Much more likely that you're a man.
Bias in Family Courts
Holy crap the suicide rates

For recent events in which males tend to get sidelined, we also have this lovely group that started the #saveourgirls campaign. Wellll, a few things might have been left out of the discussion.

I'll try to seek these out. I haven't seen a lot of good books on this topic before, so it might be nice to get their insight.

The War Against Boys
Real Boys

I agree.

;D

[Valthazar]

Males are floundering in school

This is a very serious issue, as is the fact that 7 out of 10 students who have been officially classified as learning disabled are male.  80% of students who have been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed are male, and the vast majority of children who have been diagnosed as having ADHD or as 'conduct disordered' are male.

http://www.slideshare.net/worldwideww/boys-published

[Steampunkette]

Of those points I only think one should be contended. Gender Bias in Court.

http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm

This article was written from a study performed in Massachusetts in 1990, while Second Wave Feminists were the loudest voices and the yelling and screaming of women being mothers (either for by Radfems who called all men evil rapists, or against by moderates who sought gender role freedom for women) had the biggest impact on bias in court, as it had been around for 30 years and it would be another several before Third Wave Feminism got into the swing of things

Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration

29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody

Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years

67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody

Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years

41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody

Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful

Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)

The actual problem is that most men didn't actually SEEK custody, so most divorce cases ended with the women walking away with the kids. That wasn't a bias in the courtroom it was a decision between two adults based on their social biases and economic positions.

Things haven't gotten worse for men in the divorce courtroom over the past 24 years. If anything they've gotten better because there are significantly less Radfems screaming that all men are evil.

Also important to the floundering in school: Most of those items apply primarily to minority men who also should be looked at, specifically for the racism involved in the process.

On the note of toxic masculinity I can see how it would be perceived that way and I'll avoid using it in the future. No disrespect of masculinity itself is intended, only the patriarchal stereotypes that grind men down on the basis of being considered "Manly". For example: Dr Cox of Scrubs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbPXprKOybw

[Steampunkette]

All other points are serious and important considerations and I wholeheartedly ask people to come on into this thread, weigh in, and get the ball rolling on these things. I'm not a guy and I'm not underneath the thumb of these oppressive issues, anymore.

You guys should be doing the talking. :)

There. I even changed the thread title and with it the thread's intent! Let's work over these issues, guys. Your chance to educate the women around you on the topics that impact your lives in a way we cannot understand due to issues of perspective.

[Valthazar]

To add on to my earlier point, ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, and cultural diversity are hugely stressed nowadays in public K-12 classrooms - which is a great thing. 

However, what is noticeably absent from the gender diversity curriculum is gender diversity.  The public school system is filled an educational ideology that stresses that gender differences are the result of socialization processes only, so any efforts thus far have focused on "training" male children to learn and to behave as their female classmates.  This is despite the fact that studies have revealed differences in brain function between males and females (See table below from link above). 

For example, even though data confirms that the majority of female children read sooner and better than their male classmates, the public school system continues to demand that males follow similar developmental pathways.  If they don't, they will likely be labeled learning disabled or something similar (which is only made worse with standards-based assessment).  Combine this with recess being removed in many elementary schools (and its withdrawal used as punishment for 'bad behavior'), and you have a recipe for male developmental issues.

[Steampunkette]

What could we do to mitigate that issue?

Perhaps we could send boys to school a year later than girls, so that their developmental processes are more closely aligned?

Or should we gender-segregate our school systems, or create Gender-Specific learning regimens that would likely result in more active-time for boys and leave them in school for longer than girls?

Though that does leave trans-umbrella students standing in the cold, doesn't it? How would we handle that issue?

[Braioch]

What could we do to mitigate that issue?

Perhaps we could send boys to school a year later than girls, so that their developmental processes are more closely aligned?

Or should we gender-segregate our school systems, or create Gender-Specific learning regimens that would likely result in more active-time for boys and leave them in school for longer than girls?

Though that does leave trans-umbrella students standing in the cold, doesn't it? How would we handle that issue?

In terms of brain chemistry, wiring, biological functions and the like, trans people are still going to be biologically hardwired one way due to the chemical processes inherit in the body.

Now, I should clarify in that everyone learns a bit differently and that a good chunk of that is due to the biology of one's mind due to physical sex. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, my tomboy of a mother is a prime example of that and her brain seems to work female one way and male in another. There are always going to be people who buck the trend and there should certainly be trained professionals geared and primed to be able to help people, girls and boys both, who may fall out of the standard, so that they can have a chance to learn and succeed.

[Steampunkette]

You lost me at physical sex. It doesn't exist and is just a social construct put together by old white dudes who wanted an easy way to label sexual reproduction...

And trans people run a massive gamut, Braioch. There are demigender, agender, bigender, and genderfluid individuals, to name just a few. All of them have a chemical makeup that may not fit into the binary assumptions of male/female.

And that's before we get into issues of tomboys and... what's the word for a tomgirl? I kind of feel like "sissy" is the closest approximation but it's used exclusively as an insult.

Of course studies on human gender as relates to interests and study tend to show that the individual variance is massive with a very large shared bell curve and then outliers on either side... Maybe we should try to find out what the "Middle" is and go from there?

It's still going to leave everyone on the outskirts kind of screwed, though.

[Blythe]

You lost me at physical sex. It doesn't exist and is just a social construct put together by old white dudes who wanted an easy way to label sexual reproduction...

....I think you mean that gender binary is a social construct?

Physical sex itself is....uh, rather real. It doesn't play by pure black and white rules like many would like to believe (hurrah XXY, XYY, etc.), but it's very real.

On the other hand, if you have a source that says physical sex isn't real, please share? >_>

(Also, is very late at night for me. Sorry if this post is rather odd/misunderstanding of things)

[Steampunkette]

This quote is from the human identity, sexuality, and romances are complex thread, though the link is wrong.

What is the definition of a creature's sex? Answer:

"either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."

Okay, cool. But what does that actually mean?

The answer is: Not a lot. Practically nothing, really. Sex is a social construct developed for ease of categorizing individuals (whether human or animal) into two distinct groups. However it's poorly defined and basically morphs into whatever the author needs it to be to define what they want how they want to define it. Let's take Ants, just as an example.

Ants come in four varieties. The Queen, the Drones, the Workers, and the Soldiers. According to SCIENCE the Drones are the only "Male" ants, with the other three types all being female. But since Workers and Soldiers have no reproductive functions whatsoever shouldn't they be sexless, by the textbook definition? Technically, yes, but when it came around time to determine what "Sex" ants were the only question really asked was "Does it have a penis?" because that was the bias floating around the world in those social circles. There was "Has a penis" and "Doesn't have a penis" and that was your sexual binary. Admittedly, there were some exceptions: Creatures that had both got to be hermaphroditic!

And while Hank does lightly touch on the idea of Intersex he doesn't really get into the painful (to biological essentialists) truth: Everyone can have any reproductive capability thanks to modern science. Scientists have found a way to transform skin cells into both Sperm and Ovum. Meaning that a Woman could provide Sperm for a Man's Egg and they'd have a baby neat as you please. Or that a single person of any gender could create both a sperm cell and an egg cell and reproduce all by their lonesome with no one else's DNA involved.

Of course there's also the idea of wider hips or higher testosterone or any number of any other tiny details we ascribe to "Male" or "Female" sex, but those things don't always line up, either. And different environmental factors can alter any of those facets during development. But there's one thing that never changes and marks you indelibly as one "Sex" or the other: Your Genetic Code.

Except that it doesn't thanks to a variety of different genetic structures (XXY, XYY, Etc) and the fact that your genetic structure is about as "Set in Stone" as a puddle of muddy water. See, all life on Earth has something called an Epigenetic Structure. This is separate from your "Actual" genetic code which represents who you are, currently. And everything from a cold climate to prolonged stress can alter your epigenetic code in a wide variety of ways. Behind the Epigenetic Structure is the baseline human DNA that doesn't really define who you are in any meaningful way, but simply contains a blueprint for "Build Human"

My case, for example, involved my mother utilizing a set of hormone boosters given to her by her doctor while she didn't know she was pregnant. As the larger twin in a pair I wound up absorbing more of the chemical mixture and it's very it was a big part of -why- I'm transgender rather than a cis woman. The hormone bath I was in resulted in physical structural changes and frelled my epigenetics, but did not alter my brain-layout which had already mostly formed.

So sex is, essentially, a meaningless part of the video, and all genital configurations should just be ignored for the purpose of determining whether someone is a man, a woman, or nonbinary. That doesn't mean intersex people don't exist, it just means that we shouldn't exclude them from a given gender due to their genital configuration.

If you're specifically looking at brain chemistry and structure I'll say this much: While the structures of the brain and their interactions are fairly well documented there is enough variation in chemical composition and physical structure that no two people are likely to be identical in makeup. Using the brain to determine sex, therefore, is to create a range of chemical and physical structure variance and declare that it is "Group A" and variations outside of that grouping are "Group B". Though it would be far more accurate to say that Group A and Group B are just constructs for ease of discussion and in reality there are X number of possible variations, we use the two groups for ease of communication.

Nobody wants to run down a list of chemical compounds and physical structures with their measurements and values to identify an individual, so we smush the variance into something easier. Boy and Girl.

Biological Sex is a social construct for ease of categorization, but it means nothing when you actually look at what it includes. Having a penis doesn't make someone a man, and having a relatively large amygdala doesn't, either, as women can have both of those things.

[Blythe]

This quote is from the human identity, sexuality, and romances are complex thread, though the link is wrong.

If you're specifically looking at brain chemistry and structure I'll say this much: While the structures of the brain and their interactions are fairly well documented there is enough variation in chemical composition and physical structure that no two people are likely to be identical in makeup. Using the brain to determine sex, therefore, is to create a range of chemical and physical structure variance and declare that it is "Group A" and variations outside of that grouping are "Group B". Though it would be far more accurate to say that Group A and Group B are just constructs for ease of discussion and in reality there are X number of possible variations, we use the two groups for ease of communication.

Nobody wants to run down a list of chemical compounds and physical structures with their measurements and values to identify an individual, so we smush the variance into something easier. Boy and Girl.

Biological Sex is a social construct for ease of categorization, but it means nothing when you actually look at what it includes. Having a penis doesn't make someone a man, and having a relatively large amygdala doesn't, either, as women can have both of those things.

I will admit, I find this confusing.

I am not sure how this is actually saying physical sex does not exist.

It appears to be saying that there is such a variety to it that trying to make in-depth distinctions that can encompass all types of bodily sex and mental gender configurations is maddeningly tedious and difficult. Just because nobody wants to run down a list of chemical compounds + physical structures doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means those are not as easy to identify as cismale or cisfemale. And it doesn't mean that those barriers between many physical sexes can't be broken down or overcome (you provided an excellent example about transforming skin cells into sperm or ovum), but they do exist.

Your assertion about it 'meaning nothing' when looking at 'what it includes' is a different assertion than 'it doesn't exist,' and probably one that should be separate from the above in it's own right, because those are a little contradictory to each other the way I am reading them. I'm not entirely sure I agree with either assertion, though.

Gah. I just realized I am horribly off-topic.

*smacks himself with his own modly thwapper*

If you would like, we can continue this discussion about physical sex via PM so as not to derail your topic. If not, that's also okay, too, no worries! Either way, thank you for the time replying to me in-thread.  :-)

[Steampunkette]

What I'm trying to say is that the categorical grouping of "Male and Female" is entirely a social construct. It's not terribly accurate and it is an attempt to coalesce thousands of unique combinations into two categories and then make allowances within those categories to cover variation by adding secondary addendums.

The fact that we have two categories instead of, say, five is the social construct. That we divide it in a binary fashion. Does that make sense?

Like... There's the chemical and physical makeup and then there's the social significance we apply to that makeup in our categorization.

[Blythe]

Will reply to you via PM. I genuinely don't wish to detract from the topic here further, which is Men's Lib, because it's an interesting topic that I hope is explored more, as Braioch shared interesting info up-thread.

[Caehlim]

This is despite the fact that studies have revealed differences in brain function between males and females (See table below from link above).

Just for clarity differences on average only. I'm all for schools acknowledging a broad range of neurological differences between individuals and trying to develop a program that can incorporate all neurological types within their curriculum. However if you try to assume that all people will act in accordance with their sex, you're going to have a lot of atypical outliers to wrestle with. (Myself for one).

However it is not necessarily inaccurate to say that current models of education are favouring approaches that will statistically disadvantage males disproportionately to females.

[Steampunkette]

Oh, yeah. There's no argument that boys are at a disadvantage based on current teaching methods. It's just the variance I'm trying to get nailed down.

And, again, I'm sorry for derailing the thread with the discussion of physical traits we attribute to sex.