gondath

Much talk concerns discrimination- who is perpetrating it, why it is harmful, and what can be done about it. My question is why are men rarely considered as part of a cycle of discrimination and bias targeted at themselves? Society can be argued to be male dominated, depending on how you view things. Is agression so strong in men they are unable to criticize systems they help put in place and continue because that would be admitting weakness in itself? Let me give an example. I see a lot of guys of all ages who attack any male they see as weak, especially in all ways physical. Yet I have never heard anyone speak out against this even once in my lifetime. Women also seem to follow along the same lines that men use to discriminate against themselves. Perhaps it's just so normal no one even considers it. I am just curious what other people think about the emphasis on equal rights for women and empowering women while men are almost wholely ignored except to be viewed as a large part of oppression against women. I had no idea where this fit best, so into general it went.

tecoyah

Almost fits into an unconcious natural selection......almost.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Nachimir

I think feminism, while acheiving a lot of good, also knocked down the gender barrier for a lot of egotistical and abusive behaviour.

I don't think discrimination can be said to run one way or the other on a general cultural level: people now act like dicks to each other almost regardless of gender. In salaries, it seems women are still behind, but in the UK the "stupid man, clever woman" schtick seems to be a mainstay of advertising.

In personal terms, I've noticed more misandry than misogyny among those I've known - but that's hardly an unbiased sample.

anitra

women, after lifetimes, centuries, entire cultures finally spoke loud enough to draw attention to the discrimination. men are the only ones able to begin change for themselves.

sometimes we can admit our wrongs to ourselves. it would be amazing if we could do it out loud and begin the process. just think what we could accomplish.

i don't know if any of this is relevant to what you brought up. it may all be coming from me. some friends are going to be sharing a movie to discuss that kind of fits in with what i think you are saying or at least what i am trying to say. the movie is "final cut" with jude law. have you seen it.

__________________
i'm a monkey just swingin through the trees

bigoldalphamale

there has yet to be a push in the right direction that did not somehow go overboard in protecting the rights of one group while concurrently alienating another group(s). These things gain momentum and then continue with an inertial pattern of overcompensation. was the true intent of affirmative action to make it so that white males who were more capable of doing a job could not get jobs because organizations had to fill a quota of minorities or suffer dire consequences? this title IX horseshit in collegiate sports, where for every male sport there must be a women's version of the sport receiving equal funding? they take away from my beloved NCAA football and basketball to give to some bullshit like field hockey and soccer, but i dont see any fucking NCAA women's football teams!!!!!!! i dont see any men's field hockey teams!!!!!! there are some areas where this shit simply does not apply, but has been irrationally enforced in the name of equality.

there is no such thing as a middle ground in any of these pursuits. in attempting to accomodate everyone, white males have begun to become an underdog in the race to achieve equal rights for all. white males are supposed to live in fear of retribution for speaking thier minds. for getting jobs they are qualified for. end thought before that becomes ugly.

the point is...there is no middle ground in these things. if the feminazis and equal rights activits had thier way...there would be no more white male. to them, it would be the proper punishment for all the years of oppression we have forced upon women and minorities.

bunch of milk sucking crybabies.

lurkette

Er...who's the crybaby?

Sounds like the whine of a white (alpha) male seeing privilege slip away.

True, there are parts of the social movement toward equality that have gone overboard, and there are vocal participants in the movement whose ideas are as bad as the ideology they'd like to replace. But by and large, the movement has been positive. There's always a period of finding equilibrium when institutions are forced to change. And while it's easy to point out anecdotal instances where the system doesn't work, it's just as easy to point to the progress we've made as a society as a whole and say "yeah, that's a good thing!"

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

ARTelevision

There's an old axiom regarding the politics of oppression and victims of same. A dominant, oppressive class, by definition, cannot be considered as victimized. That's basically what you're up against. There's no slack in that position. It is widespread - and essentially not amenable to alteration in the current socio-political landscape.

__________________
create evolution

analog

why is it always the stupid guy, clever woman?

because you can't make fun of anyone who isn't a white male. you can't poke fun at women without the feminazis freaking out, you can't make fun of any race, creed, etc because it would be "racist"... yet we can have a dozen shows about insanely stupid white guys. Everyone likes to laugh at them.

bigoldalphamale

see how our plan has worked out so far? placate the masses of weaker sex and lesser races. let them think we are going to share our world with them. let them have thier tv shows, thier votes, and thier quotas. let them fill 'token' positions in business and government. let them have thier laughs at the expense of stupid white males.

all the while...we still pretty much run everything


-this response is at least half jest...i cant tell you which half though.

Trisk

This doesn't directly answer the original post but...what I think to be one of the main problems regarding descrimination and racism is that...well, at one time, a lot of these that people fight for are very valid fights....but there's a point where the slope begins to even out on the side of the oppressor and the victim but the "victim", in his blind rage, doesn't see this and continues to fight for rights he already has. He keeps calling the opressor on things that were done in the past. He won't let go of it....and this, in turn, leads to reverse racism and reverse discrimination.....and people who should never be targetted become new targets.

For example...in New York City, I see pretty much *no* racism against African Americans from white people. Everyone goes an extra mile to make sure of this. As a matter of fact, most of the white people in New York are only 2nd - 4th generation and weren't around at times when there was racism (and if they were, a lot of them were in the tenemants and considered on the same level as the African Americans...so, although it was around, they didn't participate).
HOWEVER, I've seen groups of 4-5 African American or Hispanic kids beat up on one white kid walking by himself down the street. They surround him and think it's cool that they're targetting a white person who's never done A THING to them in their entire lives...someone who has no chance against 5 bigger people. It's disgusting. And this is not something entirely rare.
I've stood on line in a store and had someone come up behind me and start screaming at the clerk for being racist because they served me first, claiming it's because I'm white and she was hispanic...even though I had been standing there long before the hispanic lady came up behind me. And what's worse is that then, this lady started insulting the nationality of the guy behind the counter and telling him to go back to his own country. I mean, wtf? HOw can you claim to be against racism while spouting racist remarks?

And as someone else sort of mentioned...it's become almost politically incorrect to be a white male. There are a few tough guy shows out there but for the most part, 90% of sitcoms and popular television features a bunch of dumb white guys who can't do shit for themselves. Usually the women in that show have their crap together, are smarter, more capable, etc. Either that or the males are gay. Don't get my wrong, there's nothing wrong with being gay...it just seems like a lot of people only want to see the anti-man (the gay man that's into fashion and shoes and sometimes acts very femenine).


I mean...I doubt any of this will change any time soon, which is sad. But I think people need to choose their battles. Once the other side surrenders, you're not supposed to keep fighting.

kutulu

affirmitave action had great intentions but it was poorly implemented. What the fuck does it mean when a job application says "women and minorities are encouraged to apply" why don't they be honest and say "white men will not be hired, nor considered"

It's not "equal opportunity" unless everyone has an equal opportunity.

unoaman

Trisk...I have no problem with your thinking...probably a lot closer to your train of thought than the following would indicate...but if I had to stand in line and listen to shit like that, I would move and stand in lines somewhere else!

Seaver

Suggestion: Move this to politics?

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

wonderwench

I read an article last year called "The Pussification of the Western Male".

(warning: high political content and very long.)

We have become a nation of women.

It wasn't always this way, of course. There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn't sign the document.

There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like "You all can go to hell. I'm going to Texas." (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.)

There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out.

There was even a time when a President of the United States threatened to punch a man in the face and kick him in the balls, because the man had the temerity to say bad things about the President's daughter's singing.

We're not like that anymore.

Now, little boys in grade school are suspended for playing cowboys and Indians, cops and crooks, and all the other familiar variations of "good guy vs. bad guy" that helped them learn, at an early age, what it was like to have decent men hunt you down, because you were a lawbreaker.

Now, men are taught that violence is bad -- that when a thief breaks into your house, or threatens you in the street, that the proper way to deal with this is to "give him what he wants", instead of taking a horsewhip to the rascal or shooting him dead where he stands.

Now, men's fashion includes not a man dressed in a three-piece suit, but a tight sweater worn by a man with breasts.

Now, warning labels are indelibly etched into gun barrels, as though men have somehow forgotten that guns are dangerous things.

Now, men are given Ritalin as little boys, so that their natural aggressiveness, curiosity and restlessness can be controlled, instead of nurtured and directed.

And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot, lands on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like "swaggering", "macho" and the favorite epithet of Euro girly-men, "cowboy". Of course he was bound to get that reaction -- and most especially from the Press in Europe, because the process of male pussification Over There is almost complete.

How did we get to this?

In the first instance, what we have to understand is that America is first and foremost, a culture dominated by one figure: Mother. It wasn't always so: there was a time when it was Father who ruled the home, worked at his job, and voted.

But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media -- and mostly, this has not been a good thing. When women got the vote, it was inevitable that government was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more "protective" (ie. more coddling), because women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger. It was therefore inevitable that their feminine influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase "s") social security.

I am aware of the fury that this statement is going to arouse, and I don't care a fig.

What I care about is the fact that since the beginning of the twentieth century, there has been a concerted campaign to denigrate men, to reduce them to figures of fun, and to render them impotent, figuratively speaking.

I'm going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture.

In the 1950s, the TV Dad was seen as the lovable goofball -- perhaps the beginning of the trend -- BUT he was still the one who brought home the bacon, and was the main source of discipline (think of the line: "Wait until your father gets home!").

From that, we went to this: the Cheerios TV ad.

Now, for those who haven't seen this piece of shit, I'm going to go over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate about the campaign to pussify men. The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this:



Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios?
Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff that's good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that.
LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy?
Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother.
Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother.

Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example.

What Dad should have replied to Mommy's little dig: Yes, Sally, that's true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother.

That's what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that.

But that's not what men do, of course. What this guy is going to do is smile ruefully, finish his cereal, and then go and fuck his secretary, who doesn't try to cut his balls off on a daily basis. Then, when the affair is discovered, people are going to rally around the castrating bitch called his wife, and call him all sorts of names. He'll lose custody of his kids, and they will be brought up by our ultimate modern-day figure of sympathy: The Single Mom.

You know what? Some women deserve to be single moms.

When I first started this website, I think my primary aim was to blow off steam at the stupidity of our society.

Because I have fairly set views on what constitutes right and wrong, I have no difficulty in calling Bill Clinton, for example, a fucking liar and hypocrite.

But most of all, I do this website because I love being a man. Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools -- all the things that being a man entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure.

And it doesn't take much to see when all the things I love are being threatened: for instance, when Tim Allen's excellent comedy routine on being a man is reduced to a fucking sitcom called Home Improvement. The show should have been called Man Improvement, because that's what every single plotline entailed: turning a man into a "better" person, instead of just leaving him alone to work on restoring the vintage sports car in his garage. I stopped watching the show after about four episodes.

("The Man Show" was better, at least for the first season -- men leering at chicks, men fucking around with ridiculous games like "pin the bra on the boobies", men having beer-drinking competitions, and women on trampolines. Excellent stuff, only not strong enough. I don't watch it anymore, either, because it's plain that the idea has been subverted by girly-men, and turned into a parody of itself.)

Finally, we come to the TV show which to my mind epitomizes everything bad about what we have become: Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Playing on the homo Bravo Channel, this piece of excrement has taken over the popular culture by storm (and so far, the only counter has been the wonderful South Park episode which took it apart for the bullshit it is).

I'm sorry, but the premise of the show nauseates me. A bunch of homosexuals trying to "improve" ordinary men into something "better" (ie. more acceptable to women): changing the guy's clothes, his home decor, his music -- for fuck's sake, what kind of girly-man would allow these simpering butt-bandits to change his life around?

Yes, the men are, by and large, slobs. Big fucking deal. Last time I looked, that's normal. Men are slobs, and that only changes when women try to civilize them by marriage. That's the natural order of things.

You know the definition of homosexual men we used in Chicago? "Men with small dogs who own very tidy apartments."

Real men, on the other hand, have big fucking mean-ass dogs: Rhodesian ridgebacks, bull terriers and Rottweilers, or else working dogs like pointers or retrievers which go hunting with them and slobber all over the furniture.

Women own lapdogs.

Which is why women are trying to get dog-fighting and cock-fighting banned -- they'd ban boxing too, if they could -- because it's "mean and cruel". No shit, Shirley. Hell, I don't like the idea of fighting dogs, either, but I don't have a problem with men who do. Dogs and cocks fight. So do men. No wonder we have an affinity for it.

My website has become fairly popular with men, and in the beginning, this really surprised me, because I didn't think I was doing anything special.

That's not what I think now. I must have had well over five thousand men write to me to say stuff like "Yes! I agree! I was so angry when I read about [insert atrocity of choice], but I though I was the only one."

No, you're not alone, my friends, and nor am I.

Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We're sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we're sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on "what is a man"; we're sick of women treating us like children, and we're really fucking sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.

When Annika Sorenstam was allowed to play in that tournament on the men's PGA tour, all the men should have refused to play -- Vijay Singh was the only one with balls to stand up for a principle, and he was absolutely excoriated for being a "chauvinist". Bullshit. He wasn't a chauvinist, he was being a man. All the rest of the players -- Woods, Mickleson, the lot -- are girls by comparison. And, needless to say, Vijay isn't an American, nor a European, which is probably why he still has a pair hanging between his legs, and they're not hanging on the wall as his wife's trophy.

Fuck this, I'm sick of it.

I don't see why I should put up with this bullshit any longer -- hell, I don't see why any man should put up with this bullshit any longer.

I don't see why men should have become feminized, accept that we allowed it to happen -- and you know why we let it happen? Because it's goddamned easier to do so. Unfortunately, we've allowed it to go too far, and our maleness has become too pussified for words.

At this point, I could have gone two ways: the first would be to say, "...and I don't know if we'll get it back. The process has become too entrenched, the cultural zeitgeist of men as girls has become part of the social fabric, and there's not much we can do about it."

But I'm not going to do that. To quote John Belushi (who was, incidentally, a real man and not a fucking woman): "Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

Well, I'm not going to quit. Fuck that. One of the characteristics of the non-pussified man (and this should strike fear into the hearts of women and girly-men everywhere) is that he never quits just because the odds seem overwhelming. Omaha Beach, guys.

I want a real man as President -- not Al Gore, who had to hire a consultant to show him how to be an Alpha male, and french-kiss his wife on live TV to "prove" to the world that he was a man, when we all knew that real men don't have to do that shit.

And I want the Real Man President to surround himself with other Real Men, like Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, and yes, Rice (who is more of a Real Man than those asswipes Colin Powell and Norman Mineta).

I want our government to be more like Dad -- kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions.

I want our government of real men to start rolling back the Nanny State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-protectiveness, intrusiveness and "Mommy Knows Best What's Good For You" regulations.

I want our culture to become more male -- not the satirical kind of male, like The Man Show, or the cartoonish figures of Stallone, Van Damme or Schwartzenegger. (Note to the Hollywood execs: We absolutely fucking loathe chick movies about feelings and relationships and all that feminine jive. We want more John Waynes, Robert Mitchums, Bruce Willises, and Clint Eastwoods. Never mind that it's simplistic -- we like simple, we are simple, we are men -- our lives are uncomplicated, and we like it that way. We Were Soldiers was a great movie, and you know why? Because you could have cut out all the female parts, and it still would have been a great movie, because it was about Real Men. Try cutting out all the female parts in a Woody Allen movie -- you'd end up with the opening and closing credits.)

I want our literature to become more male, less female. Men shouldn't buy "self-help" books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don't improve ourselves, we improve our stuff.

And finally, I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: "to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth."

In every sense of the word. We know what the word "is" means.

Because that's all that being a Real Man involves. You don't have to become a fucking cartoon male, either: I'm not going back to stoning women for adultery like those Muslim assholes do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversion of being a Real Man, gangsta rap artists (those fucking pussies -- they wouldn't last thirty seconds against a couple of genuine tough guys that I know).

Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?

It's a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.

Because only the strong men propagate.

And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator's uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.

And he won't. Because Rummy's been married to the same woman for fifty years, and he wouldn't toss that away for a quickie. He's a Real Man. No wonder the Euros hate and fear him.

We'd better get more like him, we'd better become more like him, because if we don't, men will become a footnote to history.

Seaver

I agree with a lot of the above statements, and disagree with a lot.

IMO being tactful is a trait of a real man. He should spend more time polishing up his argument, and tying up the ends so he would not fall so easily to counters.

His biggest point IMO though is one I've been arguing for a long time. That boys are aggressive and energetic. You dont want to subdue that, but focus it. I'm positive that if I was growing up today I'd be sedated with Ritalin. But what happened instead is my father taught me how to focus my attention and energy, and to find things I felt passionate about. So instead of using it to get into fights I used it to better myself and those things around me. I know all too many kids who are very smart, but have been pushed into mediocraty because their teacher said he was too energetic, and a doctor who knew them for 30 seconds agreed, so they're on the depression pill.

Zeld2.0

Yep guys are energetic and IMO need to focus it on something not in terms of fighting or what not, but to do activities.

I grew up playing sports, biking, etc. and had plenty of time to spend energy. I find many males who don't spend their energy end up lethargic at home watching TV and playing games or end up spending their energy the wrong way (in fights, violence, drugs, whatever).

bigoldalphamale

ahhhh...like beautiful poetry that excerpt was.

TopRamen66

I've always noticed white men getting the short end of the stick. Equal Opportunity my ass, I've seen people get hired at various jobs JUST because they were a woman or a minority, and for NO other reason!

kutulu

I could go through point by point and pick apart that worthless excuse for an article but it would be pointless. I'll leave it with this:

To be a man, I don't need to go around fucking women and beating up wimpy men. Clothes don't make a man, looking at porn (which I do enjoy, btw) doesn't make me a man, and making my wife subserviant to me doesn't make me a man.

What makes me a man is doing what I think it right and standing by my principles.

Back to the topic, although there are cases of white men being discriminated against or losing an opportunity to a lesser qualified minority it's not nearly as wide spread and rampant as some would like to think it is. For the most part, the minorities are still getting the shaft more than white men.

I'm part Filipino, as a result I can claim "Asian or Pacific Islander" on EEO forms sent when I apply for a job. It hasn't done shit for me yet...

Seaver

Where in that article did it say anything about beating up weaker people?

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

gondath

The posted article hits my point home exactly. Where was it written that men have to smoke cigars, drink, or open doors for women? I do none of the three. It appears the writer saw men as only being femine and thus closer to gay or "real men." Part of the battle men fight is constantly having to make the distinction between being gay or being straight, or between being girly or being a "real man." Why is there a lack of any organized protest on man's side against stereotypical and discriminatory practices?