"Virgin shaming": I know we have a lot of "but what about men's problems?" people out there.

[BiscuitTrouser]

That is a huge lie. It is such a horrible distortion of the truth that I, as someone with a Y chromosome in my genes, am deeply offended by it. I feel very identified by the feminist movement and the changes it strives to achieve directly influence my life, my happiness and my human identity.

Id very much like it if youd reply to my post on this topic about the name not meaning it fights for only one gender but most certainly implying it while being uneccessarily exclusive. And while this shouldnt offend anyone it unfortunately only detracts from the unified following that an equal rights movement deserves, instead prompting the formation of seperate and antagonistic mens rights groups since they feel the name "feminism" doesnt, at face value, represent them. See the example in me previous post about why this is unneccessary and self damaging. There is no good reason that a unified group should have such a name and while i and you dont mind personally i mind since it makes men feel unwelcome and as such splits groups of people who are both damaged by gender roles rather than getting them together. Feminism that fights for both sides should be called feminism and there isnt really an arguement in support of it.

Also in all fairness he was responding to feminists who personally believed feminism only fought for the rights of women so that response is pretty justified in that situation. Cant justify the other shit he said though. And cmon even hitler was right about a few things (like 1 + 1 = 2) which cannot be simply ruled out because he was wrong about so many other things.

 

[geK0]

Spoiler

Most of the replies on this thread seem more like knee-jerking than anything; surely you can see how words like "patriarchy" and "feminist/anti-feminist" used in some contexts can come off as hostile.

Personally, I agree with most of the OP; I just resent the condescending tone and wild generalizations that myself and most of the male contributors to this thread have picked up on.
Honestly, I don't think feminism ever had to be brought up in this thread : \

Yeah, I can see how a lot of it would be knee-jerk reaction. I wish it hadn't come up either.
But it always dooooes. (And generalisations about ladies and saying you hate them is generally acceptable on this forum but meh double standards).

Trust me, I'm quite annoyed by that as well -.....-

Does the whole "I hate women who friendzone me" phenomenon seem sexist to anyone else? : \ Those threads drive me mad!

Less sexist, more stupid misunderstandings and lack of communication on both sides. The friend zone is nothing but a breakdown of communication, where the one giving the rejection doesn't have the guts to give a final no, and the one getting rejected doesn't have the guts to push for a straight answer. What can I say, though? It's what happens when your notions of human courtship rituals come from romantic comedies -- in other words, it's a problem of inexperience and lack of confidence, not necessarily sexism.

Well there's plenty of people who are just awkward and can't communicate effectively; I've always gotten the impression that the ones who are actually making these complaints and creating these memes are either over-entitled or don't value non-sexual relationships with women... Then there's the ones who will call out guys with female friends and claim they are being friend-zoned (apparently I am being friend-zoned by five different women by SOME people's standards : \).

But yea, I guess to be fair, I should clarify that I get the impression that the "friend zone" phenomenon is sometimes sexist.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

That is a huge lie. It is such a horrible distortion of the truth that I, as someone with a Y chromosome in my genes, am deeply offended by it. I feel very identified by the feminist movement and the changes it strives to achieve directly influence my life, my happiness and my human identity.

Id very much like it if youd reply to my post on this topic about the name not meaning it fights for only one gender but most certainly implying it while being uneccessarily exclusive. And while this shouldnt offend anyone it unfortunately only detracts from the following that an equal rights movement deserves.

Also in all fairness he was responding to feminists who personally believed feminism only fought for the rights of women so that response is pretty justified in that situation. Cant justify the other shit he said though. And cmon even hitler was right about a few things (like 1 + 1 = 2) which cannot be simply ruled it because he was wrong about so many other things.

He also did a good job of getting Germany's economy back on track; if you think America was hit hard by the depression, look into post-WWI Germany sometime. It was appalling. That doesn't do anything to diminish the horrible things that Hitler did, but I've heard it said that if he had died of a heart attack sometime in the mid 30's, he'd be remembered as one of the greatest statesmen in European history, and the truth is he probably would have. See also: Caligula, who was by all accounts a great emperor for the first few years of his reign, but who went insane after a nasty fever.

 

[BabySinclair]

A lot of guys seem to really erroneously think that men are a minority because because all areas of law like pushing babies on women(the "child custody" anti-feminists, for instance). And that feminists don't care about men's problems at all just because they realize society is a patriarchy and women are a minority(being a minority isn't about numbers. It's about social status. See: apartheid South Africa).

Well, I'm here to say that I hate slut shaming. And that is has another, also horrible counterpart for men: virgin shaming. Sad thing about double standards is, men don't get much slut shaming, as they get virgin shaming.

This is as common on the internet as anywhere. Of course, most virgin shaming comes from guys at other guys. Guys really go after other guys when they start arguing with other guys, that the other person is a "pathetic virgin". Seriously, how many times have you seen this insult on the internet? I've probably seen it several thousand times.

There are guys in high school who have started admitting they aren't actually super interested in having sex right now, they just want to have sex with a popular girl so that they can brag to friends about "getting laid", to be loved by their male peers. Because a man often literally feels judged for not sexually conquesting women. It's a disgusting pressure men should not have, and I know I'm going to take flack for this, but quite honestly, quite a bit misogynist.

*trim*

Furthermore, I think that virgin shaming and slut shaming are directly related to each. And as a feminist(or at least a woman heavily influenced by it), I am, quite frankly, disgusted by the situation of gender both ways. Women should not be expected to not have sex, and men should not be expected to have sex.
*snip*

So the quick and anthropological answer to why this occurs is simple. Way back in early societal evolution people realized that women give birth to babies that need to be fed and are largely useless for several years. That led to society pressuring women to avoid having pre/extra-marital sex because it could lead to an economic burden on the woman's parents (if unwed) or her husband (since it wasn't his kid.) {side note, same reason why dowries were around to a degree.} This made female sexuality stigmatized and "excessive" female sexual practices more-so.

Men conversely, had no such economic issue with fathering children so long as they could avoid having to raise it and without paternity testing it was all hearsay. Since female sexuality was a taboo, males, who dominated their culture, could shape the narrative for male sexuality, as man ruled politically/economically, he could as well sexually. That and well, men are horny and without social taboos from keeping them from engaging in sex, they could act in a manner opposite of the "weaker" sex that remained "pure."

Times have changed a bit but female abstinence is still a virtue in most cultures mainland Eurasian decent while males often have no stigma and are expected to act like older men and engage in sex. Could have spent more time working through the theories but I'm a little tired from a busy day. Hoped this gives a rough idea, read up on some sex and gender anthropological theories if you want a better idea since it's not my forte (archaeologist myself.)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

A lot of guys seem to really erroneously think that men are a minority because because all areas of law like pushing babies on women(the "child custody" anti-feminists, for instance). And that feminists don't care about men's problems at all just because they realize society is a patriarchy and women are a minority(being a minority isn't about numbers. It's about social status. See: apartheid South Africa).

Well, I'm here to say that I hate slut shaming. And that is has another, also horrible counterpart for men: virgin shaming. Sad thing about double standards is, men don't get much slut shaming, as they get virgin shaming.

This is as common on the internet as anywhere. Of course, most virgin shaming comes from guys at other guys. Guys really go after other guys when they start arguing with other guys, that the other person is a "pathetic virgin". Seriously, how many times have you seen this insult on the internet? I've probably seen it several thousand times.

There are guys in high school who have started admitting they aren't actually super interested in having sex right now, they just want to have sex with a popular girl so that they can brag to friends about "getting laid", to be loved by their male peers. Because a man often literally feels judged for not sexually conquesting women. It's a disgusting pressure men should not have, and I know I'm going to take flack for this, but quite honestly, quite a bit misogynist.

*trim*

Furthermore, I think that virgin shaming and slut shaming are directly related to each. And as a feminist(or at least a woman heavily influenced by it), I am, quite frankly, disgusted by the situation of gender both ways. Women should not be expected to not have sex, and men should not be expected to have sex.
*snip*

So the quick and anthropological answer to why this occurs is simple. Way back in early societal evolution people realized that women give birth to babies that need to be fed and are largely useless for several years. That led to society pressuring women to avoid having pre/extra-marital sex because it could lead to an economic burden on the woman's parents (if unwed) or her husband (since it wasn't his kid.) {side note, same reason why dowries were around to a degree.} This made female sexuality stigmatized and "excessive" female sexual practices more-so.

Men conversely, had no such economic issue with fathering children so long as they could avoid having to raise it and without paternity testing it was all hearsay. Since female sexuality was a taboo, males, who dominated their culture, could shape the narrative for male sexuality, as man ruled politically/economically, he could as well sexually. That and well, men are horny and without social taboos from keeping them from engaging in sex, they could act in a manner opposite of the "weaker" sex that remained "pure."

Times have changed a bit but female abstinence is still a virtue in most cultures mainland Eurasian decent while males often have no stigma and are expected to act like older men and engage in sex. Could have spent more time working through the theories but I'm a little tired from a busy day. Hoped this gives a rough idea, read up on some sex and gender anthropological theories if you want a better idea since it's not my forte (archaeologist myself.)

You know what's amazing? That is at least as strong an argument for slut shaming in the feminist sense not being sexist as revolutionaryloser's arguments for why custody battles and longer jail times aren't sexist against men. Personally, I see it all as being sexist and outdated, but then I also take issue with the way "slut shaming" is defined, so obviously I'm a sexist pig.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Protip: If you ever want to be taken seriously don't embed AmazingAtheist videos because we've all worked out by now he is crazy, sexist scum who treats women like shit and thinks rape is hilarious.

And in answer to all your questions A) because certain benefits require certain sacrifices and B) because we have actually come a long way from "women are child-making house appliances" but that doesn't mean we should stop expecting more equality and better citizens.

I was only just made aware of the batshit crazy shit that was said. Part of me doesnt want to believe he said that stuff... however it doesnt make him wrong in this video though. And that would make perfect sense IF the sacrifices had ANYTHING to do with the benefits. I mean we get paid more but why does that have anything to do with more jail time? That explanation makes no sense? What to elaborate? Im not sure what B) is in answer to. Im not saying we should STOP fighting for women anywhere? I just wanna start fighting for everyone. Let there be no disadvantages for everyone. Let sexism against men be taken as seriously as sexism against women while sexism against women is STILL taken seriously. You dont lose ground by taking up both sides and fighting strongly for the rights of all under a new name.

The name always weirded me out since if it claims to want gender "equality" why does it use a gender specific word?

Its like if i made an "equality for all races" group for ALL races who happened to be descrimnated against in an area and called it the "blackenist" movement when it was for people of all races. It makes it seem very exclusive. Im hardly "offended" by it, nono, instead i think it might detract from the total number of supporters it has and quite honestly deserves.

I think intelligent people can look past a simple name, can't they?

If you want me to debunk every single case of percieved "sexism against men" then I suppose I will.

Men often lose custody over their kids because men ignored their obligation to raise them. Seeing that men weren't prepared to take responsibility for impregnating women and so left them to become single mothers, the law had to adapt in such a way that now all responsibility over children is immediately shifted to the mother. So you see, this is a case of men shooting themselves in the foot rather than evil women taking defenceless men's rights aay from them. If men actually started taking responsibility for their children, judges would start trusting them with their children. This is pretty simple, straightforward logic. I don't think there is any room for confusion.

Men have longer jail time because men have a tendency to commit more crimes and need longer to be rehabilitated. Women rarely repeat offend, while it seems to be more the rule than the exception that if a man commits a felony, he will probably dedicate the rest of his life to crime. As such, to make sure men don't commit any crimes in the first place, harsher punishments are set so as to disuade much-more-prone-to-crime men from committing those crimes. This system has been in place for a long, long time and let me remind you that the system was created by men so there was never some hidden agenda against men behind these rules.. More people commit a certain crime, the punishment for that crime ascends. The problem is that with time men have increased their crime rate pretty dramatically, while women have dropped it to negligible levels. Is this unfair? From a very skewed perspective, it isn't totally fair no. Does it work? It has been working for a long time. Is it necessary? The harsh truth is that this is necessary and until a culture arises where men aren't for some reason natural born criminals then the system isn't going to change. It is my belief that feminism holds the answer to cure the criminal impulses of men. Of course we are going to have to accept feminism if that is ever to happen.

They could. But since changing the name to be genderless would remove all negative connotations for good and there isnt a compelling reason to keep it thus far im unconvinced it should stay.

And wow this viewpoint? Really? Lets "disprove" that any sexism toward men occurs at all. Your justifications for why this sexism is ok are very disturbing.

Lets tackle these one by one. First of all you talk about "men" and "women" like some huge blob like entity. This is wrong. Making sweeping generalisation about men and their parenting is wrong and very annoying. The idea that you say "when men learn to look after their kids they can have them" actually sickens me since the idea that a single father, even ONE father, who NEVER shirked his responsibility. NEVER made poor parenting decisions. And who always cared for his kid. That will lose custody over a law made to "generalise" the parenting and responsibility of men is disgusting. You say "Men are shooting themselves in the foot". Wrong. Some men have shot some other innocent men in the foot and they are suffering for it because the law wants to generalise and make sweeping assumptions based on gender.

I thought assumptions based on gender were always wrong. In fact i thought they came under a certain ism? Oh thats right sexism.

define sexism: "stereotyping on the basis of sex."

Men re offend. Men make poor parents. That seems to fit the above bill. It isnt fair to jugde ALL men based on the actions of some. Even if its the majority.

The crime follows this same hypocritical thought process. "Men" do this. "Men" do that.

No it isnt fair in ANY perspective that people should be treated differently depending on gender due to sweeping generalisations made by a jugde. Lets say statistics say that racial minority X tends to re offend or look after kids poorly. Should we give them harsher scentences and make sure they get custody less? No. Thats unthinkable. Its horrific sexism and you admit it but try and hide it.

Question. Do you think "women" should be payed less? But statistics show on average that a sizable proportion of women take leave to give birth and thus any long term job is likely to have an interruption around late 20's - the optimal working age. Thus they payed less. Thats "shooting themselves in the foot right?" and from a "skewed perspective" its not fair. No. It isnt fair at all. And it isnt right. Cmon you cant believe this stuff youre saying. Its a poor attempt to justify different treatment depending on gender and sya its alright. It isnt. And surely you MUST know it.

In what universe by the way is it NOT sexist to have female to male abuse cases ignored and laughed at by society? And treated less seriously. Cmon justify that one. Im shocked and appauled and if i didnt know better this would reinforce the view that feminism only cares about women.

It doesnt hurt your position to admit both sexes suffer. It doesnt hurt to fight for everyone. To say all gender assumpions are bad. That any sweeping generalisation made on the basis of genetalia is wrong. Its fine. I did it. I know sexism toward men occurs. I know sexism toward women occurs. I know neither can be "justified" or "accepted". I know both should be faught with equal effort. It doesnt do your side good to deny the grievences of others while trying to highlight your own or a different groups. At least accept these things are wrong. They are not percieved sexims. They are real. And if you cant see how innocent men dont deserve to suffer for what other men do on the basis that they share the same sex organ i legimately dont know what to say.

If two people commit the same crime fuck statistics. They should get treated the same regardless of race or gender. Anything else is sexist or racist.

Are you going to SERIOUSLY sit there now and tell me YOU ARE A FEMINIST who thinks people should be TREATED DIFFERENTLY BASED ON GENDER in a court of law because "most men do x". Wow. Really?

Im just happy i still have Phasmal representing feminists in this thread.

 

[Guilherme Zoldan]

Its interesting how as a discussion progresses, people start becoming even more disrespectfull and becoming worse representatives of their respective sides. I suppose after Godwin's law is broken things just go downhill completely dont they?

Im not taking a side in this bullshit though. To me it mostly seems you guys are disagreeing on semantics.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Its interesting how as a discussion progresses, people start becoming even more disrespectfull and becoming worse representatives of their respective sides. I suppose after Godwin's law is broken things just go downhill completely dont they?

Im not taking a side in this bullshit though. To me it mostly seems you guys are disagreeing on semantics.

Id hardly call disagreeing with the statement, and i quote, " men are natural born criminals" semantics. Apparently im a natural born criminal! All i ever argued and all i ever will argue is fairness for all regardless of gender and the acceptance and solidarity when it comes to recognising eachothers grievences.

Also totally not the one who broke Godwins <

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

You took the time to wall 'o text him, could you answer my simple, one line question please?

"Can you name me 1 thing feminists have fought for to help men other than "fighting gender roles" please?"

Erm, to be honest, what else do feminists stand for? As a man, I hate gender roles and they seriously limit me in my life. Feminism has many specific goals but the most important and final objective is to end gender roles. I don't know what else to say.

I believe they stand for the attainment of equal rights and the end of discrimination towards women.

Definition:

Noun:
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

So you cannot name me one thing than the loose goal of ending gender roles. Not ONE thing? So for a group that has been around for decades and claims to fight for men too, there hasn't been 1 case of fighting for a male centric issue instead of it always being a female one?

Even on the topic of gender roles, I have yet to see 1 thing to help men other than a poster essentially saying "end gender roles" that was posted online, never in real life have I seen a feminist group fight for men.

I like cooking. I make all sorts of things. I spend hours every week planning and preparing food for every day and especially for my family Sunday lunch. I can cook Chinese, Thai, Italian, Mexican, Indian, Traditional French cuisine, Turkish delicacies, Mediterranean dishes, whatever you like. My aunt, who is about 70, is a home economics teacher. She has never taught me anything about cooking, I once visited my aunt and uncle so they could meet my girlfriend. They were very happy to see her and wanted to know everything about her. Eventually the subject of cooking came up and my aunt started asking what she cooked. My girlfriend has never cooked anything in her life.

Eventually she convinced her to make a quiche so she would know how to make one back at home. I've made plenty of quiche's at home over the years. Finally, and I don't blame my girlfriend for it at all, she admitted that she doesn't know how to cook and that I cook everything in the house. There as the most awkward and deadly silence you could imagine for quite a long time. It was really, really embarassing and although I knew this beforehand and my aunt and uncle suspected I liked cooking, it was heartwrenching that two people I dearly love were judging me, and were disappointed in me because of something I loved doing.

I have dreams of opening a restaurant when I'm retired. I want to teach my children, regardless of their gender, how to cook so they can also make meals for their loved ones. For someone to turn round and say to me that I shouldn't do something as natural as cooking because it's something only women should do, that I'm some sort of freak od nature for making a pie. Does this sound ridiculous enough by now? Am I getting accross how redundant and pathetic and insane gender roles are in our society? Am I getting accross how much all of this hurts me?

Maybe my story seems banal and melodramatic to you, but trust me, I have more stories and there are other people with worse stories. Have you seen Billy Elliot? You probably should because it sort of presents quite effortlessly the point I'm trying to get accross. Gender roles are hurtful to people's development and even if we have taken strides to eradicate them there are still children beaten at school because dancing is for faggots and there are still women who eat their lunch alone at the Taxi Depot and there are still people who feel uncomfortable when they are treated by a male nurse and there are still girls who can't go down a street alone because she could be mugged and raped and there are still young boys who will steal and kill because they don't want their friends to think they're soft and there are still those who will look at a figure of authority and will judge their capabilities as a judge or as a senator based on her physique. If you think these are tiny problems that don't affect you and that cause a lot of aggravation just to make a few losers feel better with their pathetic existances then you know what you can do? You can always just turn the other way and leave them alone because seeing as you have so little empathy for those who don't fit comfortably in the archaic roles we are expected to play out I don't see why you should care about anything they say.

So you recognize why this:

Protip: If you ever want to be taken seriously don't embed AmazingAtheist videos because we've all worked out by now he is crazy, sexist scum who treats women like shit and thinks rape is hilarious.

And in answer to all your questions A) because certain benefits require certain sacrifices and B) because we have actually come a long way from "women are child-making house appliances" but that doesn't mean we should stop expecting more equality and better citizens.

I was only just made aware of the batshit crazy shit that was said. Part of me doesnt want to believe he said that stuff... however it doesnt make him wrong in this video though. And that would make perfect sense IF the sacrifices had ANYTHING to do with the benefits. I mean we get paid more but why does that have anything to do with more jail time? That explanation makes no sense? What to elaborate? Im not sure what B) is in answer to. Im not saying we should STOP fighting for women anywhere? I just wanna start fighting for everyone. Let there be no disadvantages for everyone. Let sexism against men be taken as seriously as sexism against women while sexism against women is STILL taken seriously. You dont lose ground by taking up both sides and fighting strongly for the rights of all under a new name.

The name always weirded me out since if it claims to want gender "equality" why does it use a gender specific word?

Its like if i made an "equality for all races" group for ALL races who happened to be descrimnated against in an area and called it the "blackenist" movement when it was for people of all races. It makes it seem very exclusive. Im hardly "offended" by it, nono, instead i think it might detract from the total number of supporters it has and quite honestly deserves.

I think intelligent people can look past a simple name, can't they?

If you want me to debunk every single case of percieved "sexism against men" then I suppose I will.

Men often lose custody over their kids because men ignored their obligation to raise them. Seeing that men weren't prepared to take responsibility for impregnating women and so left them to become single mothers, the law had to adapt in such a way that now all responsibility over children is immediately shifted to the mother. So you see, this is a case of men shooting themselves in the foot rather than evil women taking defenceless men's rights aay from them. If men actually started taking responsibility for their children, judges would start trusting them with their children. This is pretty simple, straightforward logic. I don't think there is any room for confusion.

Men have longer jail time because men have a tendency to commit more crimes and need longer to be rehabilitated. Women rarely repeat offend, while it seems to be more the rule than the exception that if a man commits a felony, he will probably dedicate the rest of his life to crime. As such, to make sure men don't commit any crimes in the first place, harsher punishments are set so as to disuade much-more-prone-to-crime men from committing those crimes. This system has been in place for a long, long time and let me remind you that the system was created by men so there was never some hidden agenda against men behind these rules.. More people commit a certain crime, the punishment for that crime ascends. The problem is that with time men have increased their crime rate pretty dramatically, while women have dropped it to negligible levels. Is this unfair? From a very skewed perspective, it isn't totally fair no. Does it work? It has been working for a long time. Is it necessary? The harsh truth is that this is necessary and until a culture arises where men aren't for some reason natural born criminals then the system isn't going to change. It is my belief that feminism holds the answer to cure the criminal impulses of men. Of course we are going to have to accept feminism if that is ever to happen.

Is absolutely wrong then. I left it unspoilered to drive the point home.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I dont think anyone is "unpure" or "corrupted" if they have had sex

Bah, and I was all set on charging in yelling "Corrupt me, defile me, make me unpure, PLEASE!"

Well, you can still do that. In fact, put on some fake elf ears, wave an inflatable sword around, and call me "Kirkronicus the Terrible" while you do it, and you've got yourself a date.

........Wait, did I say that out loud?