Male problems only ever come up as a counter-argument

[Phasmal]

It is sexist of me to not want to be beaten by a woman.

Your aggressive use of language made me instantly confrontational, and I leapt to, before thinking about what you said.

But it can't change on a dime, that sort of thinking. I can't just accept that sort of change just because reasons. I'll need some time to come to terms with it, if ever, because I still see the actual event, getting bested in a physical altrercation by a woman, as unacceptable.

I would like to note that it is the only way I see things like this- as an illustrator, for example, I met and worked with many brilliant artists, successful artists, men and women, many who had vastly more talent than me, and aside from perhaps a little envy, I was happy to acknowledge their skill. Perhaps this is because the area of illustration hasn't got the same gender stigma?

See, this is something that has always, always confused me.
I'm not trying to put you on the spot or be an asshole, but why should it matter?

Personally, I have a lot of male friends. And I have had more than one occasion where I have done something better than one of them (beaten them in a poker game, won a game of MtG when it seemed certain I would lose), and they honestly had to go away for five minutes and have a little strop because I `emasculated` them.
It's really very insulting.

Now I'm not saying you're trying to be insulting, at all, but being on the receiving end of someone being not okay with you besting them because you're the wrong kind of person is really pretty crappy.

I don't get `emasculation`. Traditional masculinity seems far too invested in outside forces. If I carry a heavy shopping bag, that doesn't make my boyfriend less of a man. If he cooked a meal, it doesn't make me less of a woman.

Now, as I said I'm not targeting you personally, it's just something I don't get at all.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It is sexist of me to not want to be beaten by a woman.

Your aggressive use of language made me instantly confrontational, and I leapt to, before thinking about what you said.

But it can't change on a dime, that sort of thinking. I can't just accept that sort of change just because reasons. I'll need some time to come to terms with it, if ever, because I still see the actual event, getting bested in a physical altrercation by a woman, as unacceptable.

I would like to note that it is the only way I see things like this- as an illustrator, for example, I met and worked with many brilliant artists, successful artists, men and women, many who had vastly more talent than me, and aside from perhaps a little envy, I was happy to acknowledge their skill. Perhaps this is because the area of illustration hasn't got the same gender stigma?

See, this is something that has always, always confused me.
I'm not trying to put you on the spot or be an asshole, but why should it matter?

Personally, I have a lot of male friends. And I have had more than one occasion where I have done something better than one of them (beaten them in a poker game, won a game of MtG when it seemed certain I would lose), and they honestly had to go away for five minutes and have a little strop because I `emasculated` them.
It's really very insulting.

Now I'm not saying you're trying to be insulting, at all, but being on the receiving end of someone being not okay with you besting them because you're the wrong kind of person is really pretty crappy.

I don't get `emasculation`. Traditional masculinity seems far too invested in outside forces. If I carry a heavy shopping bag, that doesn't make my boyfriend less of a man. If he cooked a meal, it doesn't make me less of a woman.

Now, as I said I'm not targeting you personally, it's just something I don't get at all.

Now can't speak for him and I'm kind of hypothesizing here in general, but I think it's the same kind of thing as any sort of learned shame. Society says X is something to be ashamed of and you just kind of learn that to be true, even if there's no other real reason to it.

 

[Phasmal]

Now can't speak for him and I'm kind of hypothesizing here in general, but I think it's the same kind of thing as any sort of learned shame. Society says X is something to be ashamed of and you just kind of learn that to be true, even if there's no other real reason to it.

I suppose. I find it very hard to relate to. There isn't really an equivalent if you're a girl, or at least I can't think of one. I can't say I ever felt shame for a guy beating me at a traditionally female thing.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Now can't speak for him and I'm kind of hypothesizing here in general, but I think it's the same kind of thing as any sort of learned shame. Society says X is something to be ashamed of and you just kind of learn that to be true, even if there's no other real reason to it.

I suppose. I find it very hard to relate to. There isn't really an equivalent if you're a girl, or at least I can't think of one. I can't say I ever felt shame for a guy beating me at a traditionally female thing.

Well I mean I can't really either. I'm a guy but don't feel any shame if I lose to a woman. I just figured it would be the same as any other kind of shame that boils down to 'Society says this is bad'. People will feel negatively judged for it because they learn that others judge it negatively.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The term "MRA" is used as an insult despite being a generic designation referring to anyone supporting the rights of men.

It's not a generic term, it refers to someone that has self-identified as a member of the Men's Rights Movement. You have other similar groups that aren't made up of MRAs, because they identify differently.

(Not to mention feminists that support the rights of men without being MRAs)

MRA is a designation you can apply to any organization concerned with men's rights. It is a nebulous term without any unifying theme except the focus on men's rights. Unless you're reading a different Wikipedia article than I am. It's one of several groups making up men's movement but this one is far broader than the rest.

What of those groups that expressly state they aren't part of the MRM, though?

I would assume a feminine version of whatever Toxic Masculinity is. I'm afraid I don't know much about the term, my first and only exposure to it was when Anita Sarkeesian basically linked it to a shooting awhile ago.

I think she was the one that coined that term. People have been talking about the harms caused by rigid gender roles, arbitrary ways people are forced to be feminine or masculine, but the phrase was popularised because if you twist what she said, you can sorta make it look like feminists hate men or whatever.

It begs the question if the term refers to the rigid gender roles of both genders why toxic masculinity? Why not toxic femininity? or the non-sexist version toxic gender roles?

Er, it doesn't, it refers specifically to those gender roles dealing with men.

 

[the December King]

It is sexist of me to not want to be beaten by a woman.

Your aggressive use of language made me instantly confrontational, and I leapt to, before thinking about what you said.

But it can't change on a dime, that sort of thinking. I can't just accept that sort of change just because reasons. I'll need some time to come to terms with it, if ever, because I still see the actual event, getting bested in a physical altrercation by a woman, as unacceptable.

I would like to note that it is the only way I see things like this- as an illustrator, for example, I met and worked with many brilliant artists, successful artists, men and women, many who had vastly more talent than me, and aside from perhaps a little envy, I was happy to acknowledge their skill. Perhaps this is because the area of illustration hasn't got the same gender stigma?

See, this is something that has always, always confused me.
I'm not trying to put you on the spot or be an asshole, but why should it matter?

Personally, I have a lot of male friends. And I have had more than one occasion where I have done something better than one of them (beaten them in a poker game, won a game of MtG when it seemed certain I would lose), and they honestly had to go away for five minutes and have a little strop because I `emasculated` them.
It's really very insulting.

Now I'm not saying you're trying to be insulting, at all, but being on the receiving end of someone being not okay with you besting them because you're the wrong kind of person is really pretty crappy.

I don't get `emasculation`. Traditional masculinity seems far too invested in outside forces. If I carry a heavy shopping bag, that doesn't make my boyfriend less of a man. If he cooked a meal, it doesn't make me less of a woman.

Now, as I said I'm not targeting you personally, it's just something I don't get at all.

I think you are a very open- minded person, to be sure, but I suspect that there are some women who would feel humiliated or frustrated( ... well, some sort of equivalent term to emasculated... interesting, I can't think of one... is there one? defeminized? again, I suspect that this is part of the problem) that there were men outperforming them in certain areas that were traditionally thought of as women's, though I'm suspecting that those cases don't crop up as often, not because men aren't necessarily as capable, but because again of societal constraints on the directions men can look to.

With the contests of physical prowess, it has the added edge of having been defined that "men are stronger and more physically able", and that is what society has set as a bar. I believe that this is even technically true, that men on average are stronger than women. But the key term there is the 'average', and that is often ignored in favor of an absolute, I think. Thus, if a man is beaten in that sort of arena, then he has the added burden of having not been stronger or more physically able, ie: not measured up to what is defined as a man. Thus the sense of failure that is compounded by a denial of one's own, perhaps imposed, nevertheless acknowledged, set of male gender defining characteristics (emasculation).

See, I can rationalize my inherent fear of being 'emasculated' in a physical altercation with a woman, but talking about it and experiencing it I suspect would be two different things.

Thanks for posting, Phasmal.

EDIT: Aaaaand you and Secondhand have already hashed it all out- damn my sausage-fingered, slow ass typing!

 

[Something Amyss]

I suppose. I find it very hard to relate to. There isn't really an equivalent if you're a girl, or at least I can't think of one. I can't say I ever felt shame for a guy beating me at a traditionally female thing.

Well, no, but guys are supposed to be better[footnote]within these cultural parameters[/footnote], so you wouldn't necessarily be expected to feel shame because you lost out to the superior sex. Culture doesn't necessarily dictate that you should be better at something even if it does fit in your supposed gender role.

Not that women aren't free from being "shamed" in one sense or another. Sexuality, body image, even on grounds of assertiveness. And not every woman absorbs those things, but neither does every man absorb this attitude that they can't be beat by a girl. I will say, however, that even being treated like a boy, I absorbed a lot of those messages.

...god, I'm depressed now.

Anyway, boys are supposed to be dominant and successful. Girls are supposed to be supportive and nurturing. The latter traits are often non-competitive in the first place, and that's sort of where I think the disparity comes in. Competitive women? Might as well talk about women wearing pants!

<..>

Yeah, sorry, this topic has been depressing me of late, and it's also particularly frustrating because the people who need to be onboard with it are virtually unapproachable.

Well I mean I can't really either. I'm a guy but don't feel any shame if I lose to a woman. I just figured it would be the same as any other kind of shame that boils down to 'Society says this is bad'. People will feel negatively judged for it because they learn that others judge it negatively.

Yeah, but I mean, you can actually watch the difference between guys who get pissed off over losing and guys who get pissed off over losing to a girl! And that's sort of the question of the day/issue with this in the first place. That someone's whole sense of self can be so tied up in being, effectively, better than women. But again, like I said, we're talking about cultures which say that men are empirically better.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The general mindset is that men- especially white men- have it so easy in almost every facet of life that complaining about any difficulty they might face is akin to complaining about a hangnail in an amputee ward.

 

[Nailzzz]

I think it comes back to men having a certain stoic tendency when it comes to our own problems, regardless how bad they really are. That and we have a certain amount of self-awareness in regards to the possibility that as bad as things can be for us, there is probably someone out there who does have it worse, that is in the back of our heads. So we tend to keep our problems, our problems. We often learn to maintain pretty low standards when it comes to what we expect life will grant us, and just consider ourselves lucky to be alive.

Then feminists enter the room and tell us all about their first world problems. How they are entitled to have everyone else take their complaints seriously. It is usually at about that point where they create resentment with us for expecting things from us that the world has never granted us as a matter of course.

No one gave a damn when I was raped. I had to deal with that on my own, and I did. No one cared how long I was in prison, I had to deal with that on my own, and I did. No one cared when I was homeless, I had to deal with that on my own, and I did. No one cared when I was suicidal, I had to work myself out of that, and I did. No one cared when I was being beaten by my parents regularly because my upkeep was costing them drug money.

But somehow I'm supposed to care about some guy on the subway taking up too much room on the subway. I can't imagine why people react the way they do to feminists.

 

[Mouri Kogoro]

I used to consider myself an MRA, but it's a hopeless cause. I now consider myself more MGTOW, which basically mean live life for yourself without guilt or shame and without falling into a marriage trap.

From my view most of the issues MRAs bring up are actual legal discriminations against men in family and legal court. There's also a disturbing erosion of due process in college campuses when it comes accusation of sexual misconduct. These things affect a lot of men and the consequences are dire.

Feminist (not all, just the ones that get the attention) on the other hand drone on and on about problems that aren't real like Beach Body ads and sexist air conditioning. Or they use made up stats like the "women make 77% of men for the same work" pay gap. That's completely bogus, just google it. You could make an intelligent argument that there is a 5% pay gap, but they don't. They shove that stat down everyone's throats and if you call them on it you are misogynistic (internally so if you're a woman).

The fact is in the 1st world western countries there is very little legal discrimination against women like there was 50 years ago. You could argue taxes on tampons are one area. I seem to remember hearing about pregnant students getting yanked from high school because they didn't want other students to be influenced. I don't know if that still happens. But the problem is you have multiple sites and publications dedicated to feminism. The run out of real problems to talk about, so they have to make up problems or grasp and ampliphy anything that might be considered a problem (#ShirtGate).


If you want places to issues you pretty much have to go to the MRA or MGTOW communities (Reddit is a good place to start). Don't bother anywhere else, the conversation dissolves into shit pretty quickly.

 

[Animyr]

Stereotyping is fun.

And yet here you are, helping fulfill them.

and all you need to think to qualify as an MRA is that Feminism has overshot its goals in some areas in a way that harms men and actual equality

You didn?t contest my assertion that MRAs are oriented around anti-feminism; you just argued that antifeminism was justified.

In fact, you went further than I did! I merely asserted that in practice many MRAs end up being anti-feminist; you say they all are in principle, to the point that anti-feminism is their one unifying factor. It seems I was too cautious in my assessment.

The moment we start talking about the concept that modern feminists have overshot in certain areas then instantly we're designated as anti-feminist which carries the notion of being anti-equality and anti-women's rights which doesn't necessarily follow.

You assume the distinction between anti-feminist and anti-woman is obvious. It?s not. One easily and often blends into or follows behind the other. For instance, criticisms of feminism?s possible excesses are often used to castigate not the excesses, but feminism as a whole.

Then, of course, there is the question of whether or not feminism has, in fact, overshot.

Finally, many of the people you (and I) would castigate as ?anti-equality? will probably contest that label and argue that they merely think that feminism has gone too far, like you. They just have different conceptions of what ?equal? and ?fair? are.

For example, why should women be hired at a 2:1 ratio in STEM related areas just because they're women? Why should single women under the age of 30 make more money than single men under the age of 30?

Citations? I don?t mean to condemn you for not including them, but I'm not sure what you're talking about.

What's more is any time anyone says anything which a feminist disagrees with, then it is automatically placed in the misogyny category even though it may just be a difference of opinion, difference of philosophy, or even just plain ol' ignorance on a topic.

But more recently we've instead begun to hear more and more of the fringe elements?counter to the original principles of pursuing equality.

the agenda of established groups are currently using their prior success to press ahead beyond equality into superiority.

For someone who doesn?t stereotyping and strawmen, you start appealing to both awfully quick.

 

[CaitSeith]

You could try ManKind Initiative. They specialize in domestic male abuse and put an interesting social experiment video:

Spoiler

 

[Callate]

It's been said, but I'll chime my agreement: men aren't supposed to complain when they're hurting. "Crying doesn't help" is one of the earliest lessons I internalized, and I came from a fairly progressive family. (I have a vivid memory of being told as much by mother as a child, and of repeating it to a crying girl and being punched by one of her friends.)

So, (broadly, of course,) men don't complain... They just kill themselves more often, live shorter lives, and are less likely to seek medical assistance for health problems.

Among other things.

And the frustrating thing is that addressing certain masculine problems is possibly the best way to simultaneously address certain problems women face. Again, I'm sure it's come up in the six pages before here, both mentioned and in some sterling examples of proof in action, but because the problems that men face are both only likely to be brought up in a "hey, men have problems, too" way, and many self-described feminists respond to the idea with a hostility every bit as toxic as the "real men would man up and tough it out" attitude upheld by those (both male and female) who adhere to a more "macho" notion of positive masculinity, we're locked into a zero-sum game that presumes attention given to male problems is either attention wasted or taken away from the "real" feminine issues.

There's an awful lot of "conversation" that never goes beyond "You do this, and it's terrible. It's a terrible thing, and you're terrible people. If you were decent people, you would stop doing that." Going as far as wondering why (with the dangerous implication that those participating in such actions might have reasons, even reasons related to injuries of their own that might warrant sympathy) rarely seems to enter into it.

Unsurprisingly, given what many males internalize in growing up, being caught between "you're a terrible person" and "you're the kind of spineless non-person who lets women tell him what to do" is a completely untenable position. One not infrequently leading to the worst of both worlds- you get to be a weak "non-person" and a terrible human being.

 

[Gorrath]

Stereotyping is fun.

And yet here you are, helping fulfill them.

and all you need to think to qualify as an MRA is that Feminism has overshot its goals in some areas in a way that harms men and actual equality

You didn?t contest my assertion that MRAs are oriented around anti-feminism; you just argued that antifeminism was justified.

In fact, you went further than I did! I merely asserted that in practice many MRAs end up being anti-feminist; you say they all are in principle, to the point that anti-feminism is their one unifying factor. It seems I was too cautious in my assessment.

The moment we start talking about the concept that modern feminists have overshot in certain areas then instantly we're designated as anti-feminist which carries the notion of being anti-equality and anti-women's rights which doesn't necessarily follow.

You assume the distinction between anti-feminist and anti-woman is obvious. It?s not. One easily and often blends into or follows behind the other. For instance, criticisms of feminism?s possible excesses are often used to castigate not the excesses, but feminism as a whole.

Then, of course, there is the question of whether or not feminism has, in fact, overshot.

Finally, many of the people you (and I) would castigate as ?anti-equality? will probably contest that label and argue that they merely think that feminism has gone too far, like you. They just have different conceptions of what ?equal? and ?fair? are.

For example, why should women be hired at a 2:1 ratio in STEM related areas just because they're women? Why should single women under the age of 30 make more money than single men under the age of 30?

Citations? I don?t mean to condemn you for not including them, but I'm not sure what you're talking about.

What's more is any time anyone says anything which a feminist disagrees with, then it is automatically placed in the misogyny category even though it may just be a difference of opinion, difference of philosophy, or even just plain ol' ignorance on a topic.

But more recently we've instead begun to hear more and more of the fringe elements?counter to the original principles of pursuing equality.

the agenda of established groups are currently using their prior success to press ahead beyond equality into superiority.

For someone who doesn?t stereotyping and strawmen, you start appealing to both awfully quick.

I wanted to leave all the quotes intact here since I'm interjecting myself into your conversation and don't want any of your responses to Light to be taken out of context. This will make my reply perhaps a bit harder to figure out, for which I apologize in advance.

First I'd like to clarify something. Light is essentially correct in stating that anti-feminism is a core part of the founding of MRM. THis fact is often sorely misunderstood though, in that MRM is not an outright rejection of feminist ideas or the feminist movement but a specific set of feminist ideas that sprung up in second wave feminism that were, or were perceived as, anti-male. To say that MRM is anti-feminist is true insofar as it relates to these specific ideas/arguments. Which arguments or ideas are rejected can be varied depending on the individual MRA and their own ideas but it is true that MRM was partially founded as a response to and a rejection of parts of feminist thinking.

It is not fair to say that anti-feminism is the sole unifying factor though, as that would ignore the biggest and most important pillar of MRM; seeking equality of the sexes is the other unifying pillar and the most important and worthy part of the MRM just as it is with feminism.

I would agree that there is not always a clear line between being anti-feminist and anti-woman. However being anti-feminist does not automatically make one anti-woman either. I consider myself a feminist and an MRA. I do reject many ideas that have sprung up out of feminism and that rejection does not make me anti-woman or anti-equality. I am an anti-sexist in that I am an activist who works to see that detrimental sexism is brought to people's attention and hopefully abolished if possible. That is not to suggest that I fight against all sexism as some sexism is justified or benign eg. splitting athletic events along the lines of biological sex allows female-only sports to prosper. This is both good for biological women and for the sports they play.

Sorry to interject myself like that but I saw that some of the usual boogeymen were about to be raised and felt the need to step on them. As far as my experiences on this site go, as far as I can tell, I am probably the biggest MRA on here in that I am an actual activist who belongs to an activist group and who helps guide the focus and policy of that group. I am not an arm-chair MRA who thinks feminism is evil and we'd be better off if women were all stay at home moms and sandwich factories. I merely mention this to put my reply into perspective. Cheers!

 

[Gorrath]

It's been said, but I'll chime my agreement: men aren't supposed to complain when they're hurting. "Crying doesn't help" is one of the earliest lessons I internalized, and I came from a fairly progressive family. (I have a vivid memory of being told as much by mother as a child, and of repeating it to a crying girl and being punched by one of her friends.)

So, (broadly, of course,) men don't complain... They just kill themselves more often, live shorter lives, and are less likely to seek medical assistance for health problems.

Among other things.

And the frustrating thing is that addressing certain masculine problems is possibly the best way to simultaneously address certain problems women face. Again, I'm sure it's come up in the six pages before here, both mentioned and in some sterling examples of proof in action, but because the problems that men face are both only likely to be brought up in a "hey, men have problems, too" way, and many self-described feminists respond to the idea with a hostility every bit as toxic as the "real men would man up and tough it out" attitude upheld by those (both male and female) who adhere to a more "macho" notion of positive masculinity, we're locked into a zero-sum game that presumes attention given to male problems is either attention wasted or taken away from the "real" feminine issues.

There's an awful lot of "conversation" that never goes beyond "You do this, and it's terrible. It's a terrible thing, and you're terrible people. If you were decent people, you would stop doing that." Going as far as wondering why (with the dangerous implication that those participating in such actions might have reasons, even reasons related to injuries of their own that might warrant sympathy) rarely seems to enter into it.

Unsurprisingly, given what many males internalize in growing up, being caught between "you're a terrible person" and "you're the kind of spineless non-person who lets women tell him what to do" is a completely untenable position. One not infrequently leading to the worst of both worlds- you get to be a weak "non-person" and a terrible human being.

Hey, cheers on this post! You've articulated a lot of what I often run into as a person and as an activist for the MRM and as someone who supports feminism in word and deed. I greatly appreciate what you write here.

 

[Yuuki]

So why the Hell is all of this only ever brought up to shut up someone else up?

You answered yourself - that's the point. To shut people up.

Males deal with the problems they face and women need to do the same. Life isn't fair.

Both MRA's and third-wave feminists need to realize this.

 

[Joccaren]

1. Depends on where you are. There is, or rather WAS, a reasonable amount of discussion about men's suicide rates and depression down in my part of the world. There was a bit of focus on it for a while as its a real problem. Even today, where its backed off a bit, there are still posters around some areas talking about it... occasionally. So it does get talked about outside of counter-arguments. Not on the internet though. Why not on the internet?...

2. As soon as you bring it up, even not as a counterargument, others will accuse it of being a counter-argument, or not as important as female issues because in some areas females have it worse. ATM the Internet, and growingly society, is very, very focused on just the female perspective due to a lot of... I'll say 'bad' feminists who tend to not care about feminism as a whole, but only the parts that benefit them. See the reaction Emma Watson got for saying some of the best feminists are men. That's not a counter-argument, its a statement, and it gets shot down in flames by a lot of people because it isn't a misandrist stance, and that's what they view feminism as. Yes, there are also a lot of people that are proper feminists and push for improvements to both sides. They're often drowned out by the others though on the Internet, and growingly also in society. Its just not worth bringing up the issue, when it'll just get turned into a feminism debate anyway.

3. Its a symptom of the problem as a whole. You don't talk about men's problems. Its not manly. Or its not cool. The problem is part of the reason that the problem isn't discussed. This is, thankfully, slowly changing.

4. A lot of men's problems revolve around mental health, at least the more major ones. Society has a problem with addressing mental health in general, let alone focusing on men for it. You've got to fix the first problem before you can hit the second here.

 

[hentropy]

The issue usually pops up between the "manosphere" types and second-wave liberal feminists, though some rads can be thrown in there as well. Many MRAs simply bring up the idea of men's problems as a red herring to distract from women's problems, or claim that because men have problems it is okay that women also have them. Having problems of some sort is basically the human condition, after all, and one can't possibly address all sources of problems at once, and it's not a competition.

There are some feminists- usually the liberal feminist types that are more interested in immediate political strategy than principle -who will do things like oppose men's shelters or try to claim that men's issues really aren't that pressing, because it is strategically problematic for them. You will occasionally here patriarchal aggressions against men from some of these, "be a man" or "real men do x" or some kind of BS about chivalry. They tend to be same sorts that don't mind benefiting from the patriarchy when it suits them. That's not to say liberal feminism is without its uses.

The issue of course is that patriarchy (and by extension, its class mandates) hurts everyone, just not always equally. Some may point out that the anti-feminist boogeyperson Andrea Dworkin indeed did put emphasis on rape in prisons, long before the internet made feminism into a football match about which gender has the right to complain and when. Radical feminists like myself maintain that true equality can only be one through the weakening and dissolution of a patriarchal culture, which will indeed help both men and women as men will no longer be required to "be a real man", whatever the hell that means this week. Some rads will naturally fall into the same traps as cited above, but it's important to separate the two if anyone care about, you know, important details and differences.

 

[Zen Bard]

But you're right. It's a tough mental shift to make. And there are no "Men Only" classes for those who have a hard time making it. It's that old double standard. Unfortunately, though, that impetus to change our thinking is on us menfolk.

But why is the impetus on us to change how we think in this instance- why not have actual, male-only venues? And, why were you paired with an expert, if you were a beginner- never mind the genders? This often seems like it's just set up to force some sort of humility narrative on men, and empower the women, and aside from possibly, potentially getting better and able to hold your own against your better opponent, which you apparently did do, and assuming that that opponent isn't also improving as well or, worse, holds back at some points to make you feel better, then you do become a bit of a joke, right?

A lot of martial arts schools let students of varying skill levels spar each other. The idea is to push the boundaries of less skilled students and let the more senior students "give back" by mentoring beginners. And it works both ways. When it was my turn to spar/train the newbs, I enjoyed it.

See, this is how my mind works when presented with a story like this, especially seeing as how Muai Thai is even more like an actual full-on fight than BJJ (EDIT: Or seems to be more like an actual fight- I know nothing of the rules, this is just me spouting here, and I am aware of this.)

I don't know if this is going to work for me... I don't want to just be some feel-good story for women about kicking men's asses. I want to be a feel good story for me, and that kind of humiliation might be too much for me to overcome.

Well, I'm of the belief that a little humility is good for us...especially in martial arts. For me, there's no shame in being defeated by a more skilled opponent. If they're good teachers, they'll hold back just enough not to clobber you, but not enough to let you get too full of yourself.

EDIT: Ohmygod, how selfish of me- thank you for sharing your story, Zen Bard. I should have said that from the start. And I am in no way implying that you are weakened by your encounter- I hope I didn't offend you with my rambling.

No worries, mate! I enjoyed the discourse. And I'll bring it back to the topic at hand (and why I can relate to your post);

The owner of the muay thai studio was actually a BJJ teacher. He and his students had won several titles, trophies and medals. He also had an insanely hot wife who was quite good at Jui-Jitsu as well. Every so often I'd see her training with one of the male students and it just caused this weird conflict in my brain. On one hand, here's this hot sexy redhead rolling around the mat grunting and groaning on top of some dude. But on the other, she could probably break his arm.

All the other BJJ students swore they didn't see her as anything other than another student (not a hot redhead...not the owner/teacher's wife).

I couldn't do it, though. I'd be too embarrassed that I'd either a) grab something I shouldn't or b) become inappropriately aroused.

Given the risk factor...muay thai boxing seemed safer.

 

[1981]

As to experience, when we're talking about civilization-scale issues, the only useful things to discuss is the best evidence we have to work with. Competing anecdotes is unhelpful, and at bets could only coincidentally be somewhat accurate. Anecdotes are fun, but they are not useful.

That kind of thinking promotes generalizations. "I've heard a few men say they like their steaks well-done" vs. "men tend to like their steaks well-done."

There are cases where the discussion is mainly about currently accepted truths and not someone's own experiences. "Science tells us how addictions work, and gaming is known to be addictive" vs. "I'm not addicted to gaming and I consider myself strongwilled, therefore those who claim to be addicted are just weak". But often it's those debates where personal bias comes into play.

[...]

If I play a multiplayer or co-op game with a man and he gets more kills, he takes screenshots and rubs it in my face. If I get more kills, I have to find someone else to play it with. Initially I found it slightly hurtful. It's not really that he can't stand losing to a woman but the overall attitude. After a while you learn to tell yourself it's not about you. It wasn't always like that. I could beat a boy in a NES game and he'd say "good job" and he could beat me and I'd say "FUUU..." (just kidding).

Now that we've all whipped it out, I may as well say that my boyfriend once sent me a link to this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr9GgHthGAk] and said "you could really use one of those books". I know I can be... assertive, but I probably try too hard not to step on men's toes and probably come off as insincere.

Two things wrong with what Kara said.

1) She tells women how to treat men in terms of not emasculating them. The advice she gives has nothing to do with emasculation. If you switched the pronouns, you would see. The advice is all about treating your partner with caring respect. It is not necessary to blame it on emasculation and the fact that Kara, an advice-giver, believes it necessary to do that is an indictment of how women think, or of how Kara thinks they think. In addition, this condescending approach enables the women out there to confuse the showing of caring respect, with condescension. Your respect is inauthentic when it is borne of condescension. Bad recipe.

2) Men do not need women to make them feel like a man. They want to feel like "the" man. He already knows he's "a" man. He wants to know he is "the" man. The man in her life, that is. One change of article makes all the difference here. Again, it is not a matter of trying to prop up a fragile male ego. This needs to be recognized.