User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 53

  1. #1

    Default Left Wing Male Advocacy (and the Gender Empathy Gap) Discussion/Resources

    I started following a Left Wing Male Advocates group on reddit. I don't usually post there (social anxiety) but I've found some interesting discussions and perspectives. Usually people associate Male Advocacy and the MRM with the right wing, but 'left wing male advocate' apparently isn't an oxymoron. I find their discussions and perspectives a lot more refreshing and productive than what I've usually seen with MRAs in right leaning groups.

    So this thread can function as a general place to either discuss or post link about those issues through the lens of left wing progressivism--the right has all but monopolized any discussion on these issues, so I'm taking them back. I think male advocacy is (or should be treated as) an inherently left wing cause. If you look at the meat of what male advocates want, it's right in line with the humanitarianism that is supposed to define the left. Saying male lives matters too, while some have tried to frame this as akin to saying "all lives matter", I think it's actually a lot closer to the sentiment behind "Black Lives Matter". My impression is that the male advocates on the left don't want to shift focus from other marginalized groups (as the right, and a good number on the left tend to do), but rather to expand the focus. Empathy doesn't need to be a zero-sum game with various groups competing for attention and empathy. We seem to treat empathy like a limited reserve that has to be rationed out to people and groups rather than to applied to humanity across the board. That is the very essence of humanitarianism, and if a left winger (we can almost expect this by default from the right, but from the left, really?) is making any case to exclude any group from the umbrella of human rights activism, then I'm going to call them out on their incomplete and flawed understanding of humanitarianism.

    In my opinion, most of the issues cited by male advocacy groups can be traced back to a massive, collective empathy gap. It almost always seems to root in the empathy gap.

    Factual data to back any claims or arguments is always a plus, but if you can't find the data to back a claim, please at least try to offer a sound logical argument for said claim or argument.

    EDIT: adding some links to op-eds and statistics

    The Illustrated Empathy Gap | challenging public incredulity on the disadvantages faced by men and boys


    The Gender Gap in Empathy. A path to the end of the gender war? | by Marty Nemko | Medium
    "What conservatives miss is that risking one’s life in hopes of respect and love requires a soldier to be a cog in the war machine, an employee to follow orders quietly and to suppress feelings. That gives the appearance of strength but can mask the toll it’s taking on his self-esteem and mental and physical health.

    What liberals miss is that social and psychological bribes for males to be disposable aren’t mainly about male privilege or male entitlement but mainly about male sacrifice."

    https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprin...rry%202016.pdf


    https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprin...rry%202016.pdf


    Young Men and the Empathy Gap | Psychology Today
    Likes Red Memories, Powehi, RadicalDoubt liked this post

  2. #2
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    BELF
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    45,640

    Default

    I read the first link, there's a lot of stuff there that really needs to be qualified better.

    (For example, I assume by "male genital mutilation" they mean circumcision? But they equate it with female genital mutilation, when it's not actually the same? Total removal of the penis would be equitable to removal of the clitoris, so this is ingenuous comparisons here.

    But yes, there's been lots of discussion of this topic for years, on whether circumcision is necessary, and its religious roots in first-world countries as in whether it's necessary since even the basic data which might show only an increase in disease is in real terms only a few extra cases per 100K men when I dug into it some years ago, pretty negligible... although I don't know data for third-world and whether it makes any sense from a health perspective in those parts of the worlds. Still, it's a pretty drastic measure and I suspect it's primarily a religious holdover that should not longer be practiced in mainstream and likely not at all.)

    I had similar thoughts percolating on a lot of other points that I read, but honestly there's so much shit going on currently in our society, it's no wonder everyone is thoroughly exhausted trying to process it all. BLM, Women's rights, LGBT rights, and so forth, I don't have bandwidth for all that and the other shit, and it's one reason I know I'm exhausted. We're not just dealing with USA problems either, some of those stuff is expanded to global settings. How do we determine where the priorities are in what to resolve first and where focus should be, even if there are problems across the board?

    I think some of the problems are real, obviously -- as noted even recently that RBG made a name for herself in the legal profession by bringing gender-inequity cases forward where the man was at the disadvantage and won cases for equality in those instances. Maybe targeted issues get prioritized -- the problems with the greatest impact (detrimental) and that have a discernible way to approach could get tackled first, rather than a list of 100 items. Most bang for the buck, more quickly resolved, then go from there.

    I am definitely interested in seeing the difference between a left vs right approach to men's issues.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"
    Likes Powehi, RadicalDoubt liked this post

  3. #3

    Default

    ^^I think the problem is that too many people, whether MRA or feminists or other, want to frame it in terms of the severity, usually dismissing the male version based on the greater severity of the female version, when it's really an issue of bodily integrity and personal choice. It's really about personal choice, bottom line, and when framed that way, it becomes apparent the immorality of circumcision in any form, regardless of sex or gender.

    Any rationalization used to dismiss or downplay it, especially by comparing to FGM (and I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I do see it used a lot as a general argument by people to overlook or dismiss MGM) is just another example of how the empathy gap manifests in our culture. Typically, I've seen that someone will start to address the topic as it pertains to men, usually not even trying to compare it to FGM, then someone comes along and says "yeah but FGM is way worse". Only usually no one is trying to say it's "just as bad" or downplay FGM, they're just trying to shed light on something completely different, but a problem nonetheless.
    Likes Powehi liked this post

  4. #4
    Endless Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    26,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical Turtleneck View Post
    ^^I think the problem is people want to frame it in terms of the severity, usually dismissing the male version based on the greater severity of the female version, when it's really an issue of bodily integrity and personal choice. Personal choice, bottom line, and when framed that way, it becomes apparent the immorality of circumcision in any form.
    Well, I suppose on a moral level, the vending machine that takes your dollar without giving you the candy bar is no better than the con artist who weasels your grandma out of half her retirement savings. Stealing is stealing, after all (or reneging on a commitment/contract).
    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”– Douglas Adams

  5. #5
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    BELF
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    45,640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical Turtleneck View Post
    ^^I think the problem is people want to frame it in terms of the severity, usually dismissing the male version based on the greater severity of the female version, when it's really an issue of bodily integrity and personal choice. Personal choice, bottom line, and when framed that way, it becomes apparent the immorality of circumcision in any form.
    I don't disagree with that, when framed as body integrity. (and you know I understand that, based on my history -- I know both sides of the fence plus the whole issue of having doctors telling me how my body should be and refusing treatment or making me hop through gates.) There's a big problem when children are operated on to conform to what seems to just be a social convention, whether it's a boy or a girl or an intersexed kid with ambiguous genitalia who is medically binary-ized without being able to make that decision for themselves.

    I am not dismissive of it. It doesn't mean the two are the same, however, in terms of literal impact. As you note, it's mainly in the framework of body integrity where the two are comparable.

    I'm inclined to view circumcision as holdover from the practice mentioned in the Bible... which ironically while couched in religious terms, I think was done due to disease issues at the time, but the Bible coaches it all in religious terms. (Just like it does the "cleanliness" rules meant to prevent contagion.) Is any of that even relevant in many settings nowadays? But people are attached to their damned rituals, so now we've got this mess.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"
    Likes The Cat, RadicalDoubt liked this post

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Totenkindly View Post
    I don't disagree with that, when framed as body integrity. (and you know I understand that, based on my history -- I know both sides of the fence plus the whole issue of having doctors telling me how my body should be and refusing treatment or making me hop through gates.) There's a big problem when children are operated on to conform to what seems to just be a social convention, whether it's a boy or a girl or an intersexed kid with ambiguous genitalia who is medically binary-ized without being able to make that decision for themselves.

    I am not dismissive of it. It doesn't mean the two are the same, however, in terms of literal impact. As you note, it's mainly in the framework of body integrity where the two are comparable.

    I'm inclined to view circumcision as holdover from the practice mentioned in the Bible... which ironically while couched in religious terms, I think was done due to disease issues at the time, but the Bible coaches it all in religious terms. (Just like it does the "cleanliness" rules meant to prevent contagion.) Is any of that even relevant in many settings nowadays? But people are attached to their damned rituals, so now we've got this mess.
    check the edit, I didn't mean for it to seem like I was accusing you in particular of downplaying it or overlooking it.

    Anyway, male circumcision is probably the least of my worries when it comes to 'male issues', although I do think the mass campaign to circumcise men in Africa based on hygiene arguments is troubling. I mean, air drop crateloads of soap if hygiene is really the concern. Increased likelihood of transmitting AIDS? Um, drop crateloads of condoms.

    I wonder if it isn't more about keeping a cheap supply of fibroblasts for medical researchers and skin cream companies.

    Sorry, tangent. Anyway, this is a lesser concern to me than boys falling behind in education and the enormous gender sentencing gap (prime evidence of an empathy gap staring us all in the face)

  7. #7
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    BELF
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    45,640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical Turtleneck View Post
    check the edit, I didn't mean for it to seem like I was accusing you in particular of downplaying it or overlooking it.
    I didn't mean it that way (not mad), just was clarifying that I am sympathetic overall based on my experiences in life. And I certainly don't want to say that "men just have to deal with having their foreskin removed because clitoral removal is worse," it's more just looking at severity but not attempting to say the male version is not a problem.)

    Rather than me commenting on stuff, could you list 5-10 things from all the issues currently discussed that you think are the most important and you think society should address first? Basically, what do men think are the biggest and/or most unfair issues they deal with, and would like to see dealt with?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"
    Likes Tactical Turtleneck liked this post

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Totenkindly View Post
    I didn't mean it that way (not mad), just was clarifying that I am sympathetic overall based on my experiences in life. And I certainly don't want to say that "men just have to deal with having their foreskin removed because clitoral removal is worse," it's more just looking at severity but not attempting to say the male version is not a problem.)

    Rather than me commenting on stuff, could you list 5-10 things from all the issues currently discussed that you think are the most important and you think society should address first? Basically, what do men think are the biggest and/or most unfair issues they deal with, and would like to see dealt with?
    I know, I appreciate your sympathy and understanding, again, sorry if that seemed a strongly worded post.

  9. #9

    Default

    If I had to pick 5 or 6 issues or goals that I think take precedence, I'd list the following:

    -Sentencing Gap in Developed Nations needs to be addressed. If this gap cut the other way, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be UN task forces, think tanks, et al talking about it. Even when the issue has been addressed, it might still be framed as a female problem, despite the overwhelming data (for instance in the UK, where a similar sentencing gap to the US exists, when MP Philip Davies tried to address this gap, many of his critics reframed his words to accuse him of requesting harsher sentencing for women. In some cases he was straight up called a bigot simply for asking why there isn't parity in sentencing when all considerations or circumstances other than sex/gender are the same)

    -Bringing boys up to parity with girls in terms of quality of education received and overall grades/marks.

    -Expanding the discussion on Domestic Violence in a way that doesn't exclude female victims, rather expands to consider male victims of DV with the same level of consideration as we afford female victims. Based on the available data, there's no good reason to downplay or ignore the male victims.

    I would list this as a separate aim/issue, but I think it goes hand-in-hand with the above on DV: men, and victims in general (including women who feel unable to speak up about their own experiences) need to be taught or encouraged to speak up more when they experience DV in any form. We also need to stop assuming a man had it coming or must have done something bad to deserve DV. That attitude is typically rightly ridiculed if someone wonders what female DV victims might have done to provoke abuse. It's victim blaming regardless of the sexes involved when people take that approach.

    -Addressing 'toxic masculinity' in a way that doesn't throw every aspect of it into the 'toxic' category. But also doing so in a way that doesn't reinforce old and outdated gender norms. Unfortunately no one seems to have been able to find a middle ground here. The right wants to stick to some archaic idea of norms, the left just wants to ignore that sex or gender even exists, so we're left with two very unrealistic and dangerous approaches to the issue.

    -Either abolish programs like the selective service or change them to be gender neutral. In its current state, it is a direct violation of the proposed ERA.

    -Reform the family court system. Due process across the board. For instance, a simple allegation of DV lacking proof needs to be further investigated before being allowed to influence family court decisions. In just about any other form of court, burdon of proof is an important principle. Even if it isn't always followed perfectly (which is itself a problem to be addressed), it should apply to family court proceedings just as much as it applies to criminal court proceedings.
    Likes ceecee, Totenkindly, RadicalDoubt liked this post

  10. #10

    Default

    I'm sure there are more I'll think of later, these were just the ones that jumped first to mind for me.

Similar Threads

  1. Autism, Aspergers, Gender and the Extreme Male Brain (Resources and Discussion)
    By Tactical Turtleneck in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-11-2016, 05:34 AM
  2. Dawkins and Evolution, a discussion (moved to new thread)
    By hereandnow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 11:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO