Gender and maturity

When I was a young child, my friends and I often played games on a boys vs. girls basis. This makes sense, young children don’t have sexual desires for the opposite sex, so it would follow that they’d group with their own gender, since the opposite gender is, well, different. But of course, with maturity all that went away, as boys and girls grow up and stop seeing each other on an out-group basis. But of course, not everyone grows up, most do, but not all. The ones who grew up are called adults, the boys who didn’t are called men’s rights activists, and the girls who didn’t are called feminists.

Advertisements
Standard

9 thoughts on “Gender and maturity

  1. > the boys who didn’t are called men’s rights activists

    A men’s rights activist is (by definition) a man or a woman who actively campaigns for the human rights of men and boys (and babies).

    Do you agree or disagree that males deserve human rights, and deserve the same human rights as females?

    Men currently have LESS rights than women in many key areas like criminal law, divorce law, reproductive autonomy, genital integrity etc.

    Do you agree that gender inequality is bad and that men should have equal rights to women in these key areas where they currently lack them?

    Men also receive far less support and sympathy than women. Men make half of the victims of domestic abuse, rape and they are the majority of victims of physical assault – yet there are virtually no shelters or helplines for men. Men are also 95% of the victims of workplace death. The majority of homeless are men. The majority of suicides are men.

    Do you agree or disagree that male victims of rape, assault, abuse etc deserve the same care and support as female victims?

    Do you agree that tax funded support should be split equally between male and female victims, rather than nearly all of it going to women (as is currently the case)?

    If you agree to men gaining equal rights and equal treatment to women then you are (by definition) a men’s rights *advocate*……. even if you are not an full blown men’s rights *activist*.

    If you DON’T want men to have equal rights and equal treatment as women then you share that desire with feminists.

    Like

    • >Do you agree that gender inequality is bad

      No. Men and women are manifestly different, and it’s insane to treat them as equivalent.

      In the family, it is the role of the father to provide for wife and children, and to be the head of the household. It is the role of the mother to nurture, and to organize domestic life. Divorce should be illegal, and separation limited to extreme circumstances. Women should not exist in the workplace, and anyone having or helping with an abortion should be executed, or at least imprisoned.

      The law should reflect these truths. If you find them abhorrent, as the feminists do, then it only goes to show how like feminism your ideology is. You agree with feminism’s premises (gender equality), you just find actual feminists to be hypocrites.

      Like

    • Well at least we agree that feminists are the worst LOL

      Anyway, here’s my two pennies’ worth….

      The trouble with traditionalism (defining men’s role as stoic, dutiful, strong, self-sacrificing, ‘manly’, workers and protectors and providers of women) is that men’s identities end up revolving around their capacity to serve women in practical ways – providing resources and protection and placing women’s comfort, safety, health, happiness, self expression, and individuality above his own..

      And so when technological progress hits that exponential curve (ie the industrial revolution and now our current technological revolution) and suddenly society becomes super productive and super affluent it ends up becoming super *socialised* as well.

      Government grows and grows and naturally it starts to reflect (and eventually usurp) the role played by traditional men – only now with added guns and the legal right to use them to transfer wealth and generally coerce everybody.

      While some traditionalist women continue to seek traditional husbands, a lot of women view the growing state as the new alpha male in society. Government does not have a job, and it produces no actual wealth …….. but it does have the legal right to steal half the wages of every working man and woman in the country….. and print money out of thin air….. and even take out loans in the names of unborn future generations! So it’s no wonder these women can be so easily convinced to marry the state.

      Feminists are traditionalists….. only they’ve married the state (men with guns) rather than husbands (men with jobs).

      Traditionalism (ideally at least) is centred around the needs of children. Women’s homemaking and men’s resource gathering and protection are both ways to provide a nourishing, safe (or at least survivable!) environment for a child to grow up in – and women’s status and treatment is very much associated with the status and treatment of babies and children. Protecting the mother protects the child….. hence “women and children first”. For most of history they have been considered a single unit.

      Feminism takes the same traditional concept – throws the child away into a day abandonment centre – and rebrands “women and children first” as “He for She”.

      Feminism is traditionalism, minus the concern for children.

      Just as any traditional wife naturally wants her husband’s career/ business/ power and influence to grow, so do feminists want to see their husbands (government) grow in power and influence too.

      Feminism is how traditionalism expresses itself in the modern context of technologically advanced, highly productive and highly socialised societies.

      The practical limits on men’s ability to be of service to women (the plough, horse, shovel, pick axe etc) have now been lifted and women can now demand the Earth from men and get it (at least until the economy collapses) …..thanks to taxation, national debts and money printing.

      When the economy collapses feminists will revert back to being old school traditionalists.

      While I agree with certain aspects of traditionalism, especially where it recognises that men and women are different and children NEED proper parenting (what is now called ‘full time’ parents – as if there is any other kind!)…. I also think it is suicide for society to carry on promoting and enforcing traditional roles on men and women in general.

      When I talk about equality, I just mean equal legal rights… and not the idea that men and women are ‘the same’. Currently men have far fewer human rights than women, and far less resources and sympathy is directed at helping them when they face their hardships (rape, domestic violence, abuse, divorce, homelessness etc).

      It is men’s traditionalist view of themselves and of women which means most men will STILL view women as the downtrodden class, and themselves as privileged, even when they live wretched lives while the women around them never even get their hands dirty.

      It is the traditionalist mentality which stops men (and women) from calling feminists out on their BS and demanding men be afforded equal rights to women in dozens of key areas ( criminal law, domestic violence, divorce, reproductive rights, genital integrity etc).

      Ironically, the result of keeping a largely traditionalist mentality in 20th/21st century society is the destruction of the family unit… in favour of the new ‘he for she’ model consisting of woman wedded to state….. with men marginalised and children under control of the state, learning to be good little comrades and ‘socialist justice warriors’.

      Also ironically, even if our aim is to simply ‘save women and children’ the only way we can hope to achieve this now is to save men….. or at least make it socially acceptable for men to save themselves.

      The idea that men standing up for themselves (for their own legal rights and humanity) is ‘unmanly’ is …… to invent a new phrase ….. ‘toxic traditionalism’.

      Not only is a man being strong when he fights for his own rights, he is also respecting women by not giving women special treatment and special leeway just for being women.

      It is precisely men’s eagerness to appease women – and his traditionalist view that he is so strong and invulnerable that he can AFFORD to appease women all the time – which has created the monster which is feminism.

      Feminism is based around a male power fantasy, and to a great extent so is traditionalism. For thousands of years we had to raise men to really BELIEVE they were strong and powerful and invulnerable … otherwise they would not have been mentally equipped (full of themselves, if you like) to go down the mines, fish the seas, plough the fields, work in the factories etc.

      Had men cared about their safety, health, vulnerability even half as much as women then they’d to have been able to get society out of mud huts and into wifi hospots and shopping malls.

      And women had to tell men they were privileged so they would not resent being shoved out the front door to work all day under the sun or in a hole in the ground while the women stayed around the relative comfort and safety of the home.

      For feminists / traditionalists to continue this male power fantasy will mean the end of men…..which we are already seeing… and as men continue to be marginalised and broken and thrown to onto the streets or into battle zones we are already seeing the devastating effects this is having on women and children.

      And who do they run to when they cannot cope? To men? No….. they run to feminism/ to government/ to the UN. The very institutions which are usurping men’s traditional role in society.

      Like

    • Your point about women being able to live off the government is true, but the solution isn’t to make it equally easy for men to live off the government, i’s to make it so women can’t.

      Your point about women having the “right” to kill their children is true, but the solution isn’t to make it legal for men to “financially abort” their children, it’s to make it illegal for women to do so.

      Your point about women being able to abandon their husbands, take the kids, and still demand their husbands support them, is true, but the solution isn’t to make it so men can do the same thing, it’s to make it so women can’t.

      The problem with equality isn’t that it’s being implemented incorrectly or insufficiently, it’s that it’s being implemented at all. The solution is to roll back the gains it has made, not advance it further.

      And you point out that men still view women as downtrodden, well that’s the thing, women are physically weaker, which is an entirely traditionalist and sane attitude. It’s only because of feminism that you think weaker=oppressed. This really goes back to the original point of the post, it is silly to view society as men vs. women, as feminists and MRAs do. While it often can be thought of as group vs. group, it is childish to consider “men” and “women” as groups one belongs to in the sense that one should seek their interests, as men and women are both vital parts of any social group.

      In summary, you’ve identified a number of ills feminism has inflicted on society (e.g. broken homes and screw up children). If your ideology were fully implemented in the law tomorrow, would it fix these problems?

      Like

    • > Your point about women being able to live off the government is true, but the solution isn’t to make it equally easy for men to live off the government

      I never said it was.

      > Your point about women having the “right” to kill their children is true, but the solution isn’t to make it legal for men to “financially abort” their children, it’s to make it illegal for women to do so.

      Making abortion illegal only drives it underground and falls into the same category as prohibition of alcohol. It just doesn’t work. If men had the right to ‘financially abort’ unwanted pregnancies then the sort of women who get pregnant by accident or ‘by accident’ (to ensnare a man) would lose all incentives to do so. Men having this right would effectively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (which should definitely be the goal), in much the same way that making everyone drive strapped to the front of their cars would make everyone drive a whole lot safer.

      “….Your point about women being able to abandon their husbands, take the kids, and still demand their husbands support them, is true, but the solution isn’t to make it so men can do the same thing, it’s to make it so women can’t….”

      Agreed. Children should have the right to support and access from both parents. Parents have an obligation, but should not have the power to deny their child access to their estranged partner, or deny their partner access to the child.

      Again, once the power is removed couples will tend to stay together, at least until the kids have grown up.

      > The problem with equality isn’t that it’s being implemented incorrectly or insufficiently, it’s that it’s being implemented at all.

      But equality isn’t being implement at all. Equality (human rights) cannot be implemented, it can only be violated.

      Equality just means the absence of a power imbalance in law.

      > The solution is to roll back the gains it has made, not advance it further.

      Society has arguably become less equal today relative to a century ago. A century ago there was less equality, but more balance. Gender roles were distinct.

      Such balance cannot be achieved today without (for example) forcing women out of paid employment and into the home again. And how are you going to do that? The only was is by law (guns).

      And what are women going to do in the home in 2015? There are no allotment to tend, rabbits to skin, stoves to light, carpets to beat, clothes and linen to wash by hand, jam to make, or bread to bake.

      The modern technology we now have means we can never go back (sorry). To continue with traditionalist gender roles AND have modern technology can only lead to one outcome….. feminism.

      However….. we can choose to go back in time voluntarily, and plenty of people choose to live a simpler life, and give up a degree of technology and assume more traditional gender roles and I’m sure this trend will continue. If it’s voluntary then it’s all cool. But when you start getting the state (men with guns) involved it’s just another form of social justice.

      > And you point out that men still view women as downtrodden, well that’s the thing, women are physically weaker, which is an entirely traditionalist and sane attitude.

      But the majority of the population now live in cities and work in offices (or equivalent) women’s physical weakness is no longer an issue. We don’t fetch water in buckets anymore, or hunt food, or even split firewood.

      And people in the country who do some of those things already do assume more traditional gender roles.

      > It’s only because of feminism that you think weaker=oppressed.

      But I don;t think weaker = oppressed. In many ways weaker = special privileges….. which is why feminists do all they can to frame themselves and all women as weak and vulnerable the whole time, inventing new invisible ways they are attacked (‘micro aggressions’ etc).

      > This really goes back to the original point of the post, it is silly to view society as men vs. women, as feminists and MRAs do.

      I agree, men and women have always been ‘partners in crime’, and not opposing armies.

      But measuring QUANTIFIABLE differences between how men and women are treated – in key areas such as law – is not the same as viewing society in terms of men vs women.

      MRA’s do not view society in terms of men vs women. They do view society in terms of feminists vs MRAs, because no feminist has ever supported, let alone actively campaigned, for the rights of men and boys. Pretty much the only thing you can do to get thrown out of the feminist movement is support men’s human rights.

      > While it often can be thought of as group vs. group, it is childish to consider “men” and “women” as groups one belongs to in the sense that one should seek their interests….

      Not when it comes to basic rights. It is not MRA’s who divide society into “men” and “women”, it is the law makers and law enforcers who do that. By campaigning for equal rights under the law MRA’s are helping to erase the notion, and the practice, of ‘men vs women’ (AKA battle of the sexes).

      > ….as men and women are both vital parts of any social group.

      In general, yes…. although both sexes also have their own domains unique to them. It’s unhealthy for men and women to be integrated 24/7 ….. just as it is for children and adults to be.

      > In summary, you’ve identified a number of ills feminism has inflicted on society (e.g. broken homes and screw up children). If your ideology were fully implemented in the law tomorrow, would it fix these problems?

      I’m wary of any ideology. I don’t consider the idea of men and women having equal human rights to even be an ideology…… just as I don’t consider the standardisation of numbers, or physics or language to be an ideology.

      There really is no moral or rational argument *against* men and women being treated equally, with respect to their basic human rights.

      Most ‘gender debates’ are attempts to justify violating another person’s property or person (typically someone of the opposite sex).

      If we accept that violating a person’s property or person is unacceptable then just about all gender issues are simplified to a choice between (a) leaving the other person alone and lying in the bed you made (b) negotiating peacefully to get what you want, by offering something they want in return.

      Feminists want men to serve women (he for she)… and you seem to want to force women back into the home – to do what I have no idea!

      Can’t we just stop trying to coerce each other all the time? 🙂

      Like

  2. I should add that Curiosetta above engages in a sleight of hand. He said since women want resources in the past and present, there is no relevant distinction of traditional female concern that man is a “good provider” and the use of the state to provide. But the differences are manifold and obvious. It’s as if he said men in the past worked hard to make money and now some of them get welfare and disability checks, but they’re both equally masculine, ignoring that the manner in which things are done matters quite a bit, and that pointing out the unavoidable fact that everyone always and everywhere has some material needs does not prove very much that is useful.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s