The traditional family

[stevevw]

have to disagree with that as boys do need to follow the rules & co-operate at school & on the bus
on the bus, it's a safety issue

the boy across the street keeps acting up on the bus
it's half-way through the school year & he should be able to ride 20 min on the bus w/o acting up

our child was very upset one day last week because several boys were acting up in class & in gym as well
instead of pulling the boys aside to speak to them, there were consequences for the WHOLE class

I wish teachers knew that "peer pressure" doesn't work because 5th graders won't say anything to those boys

they're frustrating kids who are quiet & not acting up

So what do you think is the answer

 

[Paidiske]

Then why is there so many people even feminists themselves saying that feminists have created this narrative about masculinity for which I have posted support for. Why is it so easily acknowledged by many people that this is the case to the point that feminism has lost support because of the perceived harm done to men. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge this.

You can find support for all sorts of untrue and destructive narratives online - anti-semitism, racism, patriarchy, economic and environmental exploitation, consumerism, and on and on it goes - but that doesn't make any of it true.

I am not acknowledging your point because I believe it to be completely false. And I say that as someone who has significant exposure to feminism as an academic discipline and as a cultural praxis.

Then why is their wide agreement that society and men are being feminized. It is the "

masculinity needs to be idealised" that worries me because ideology is something based on feelings and pseudoscience and not facts.

Oh the burning irony. And yet here in this thread you are pushing a very particular ideology indeed.

Humans idealise things in all kinds of ways. We can create ideals which are either healthy or unhealthy. "Toxic masculinity" speaks to unhealthy ideals about masculinity; I am arguing that in place of those unhealthy ideals we need healthier ones.

Then why was she awarded an OBE by a panel of 19 independent people assessing her work including a past member of the anti-discrimination board.

First, it was an AM. Secondly, beats me why it was awarded to her; I certainly don't think her work merits it.

Also this is another logical fallacy to say that the association of a person discredits the fact or truth about what they say on other matters.

No; the point is that they are related matters. The person who defends a rapist and blames the rape victim is unlikely to see the problems with other abuses of power (such as occur in patriarchy) either.

The statistics speak for themselves which show men suffer nearly as much DV as women and in some cases there are more women perpetrators of DV. Yet there are over 500 refuges for women and less than 20 for men.

Citations please. I've done a lot of work on DV and everything credible I've read says otherwise; women suffer DV at a far higher rate than men, and most DV is perpetrated by men.

It is true that we don't have sufficient emergency accommodation for men, but that's hardly a case of "feminism gone too far." That's a case of state governments not doing their job, bluntly, when it comes to government housing.

Men suffer higher mental health,

Not true. From here: "Overall rates of psychiatric disorder are almost identical for men and women but striking gender differences are found in the patterns of mental illness."

And further, emphasis mine: "Depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms and high rates of comorbidity are significantly related to interconnected and co-occurrent risk factors such as gender based roles, stressors and negative life experiences and events.

Gender specific risk factors for common mental disorders that disproportionately affect women include gender based violence, socioeconomic disadvantage, low income and income inequality, low or subordinate social status and rank and unremitting responsibility for the care of others.

The high prevalence of sexual violence to which women are exposed and the correspondingly high rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following such violence, renders women the largest single group of people affected by this disorder."

suicide,

Sort of. Women attempt suicide more than men, but men are more often successful. I'm not sure we can chalk that up as a point in favour of either gender.

job losses,

Not once we control for which industry those job losses occur in.

poor education,

Nope. "Worldwide, women are more educated today than at any point in history, but we are still not as educated as men."

homelessness

This does seem to be true, but you can't blame men's homelessness on "feminism gone too far." The blame lies at the feet of state governments who do not provide enough emergency and long-term government housing (as well as coordinating that housing with addiction and mental health services).

Many men lose out in the family law courts which has been feminized to ensure women get the better deal in divorce

I'm not sure here whether you're referring to custody or asset split, but either way the claim is questionable.

and many men have been falsely accused of harassment of women which has resulted in loss of jobs and reputations.

Given that men who are truly do harass women generally suffer no penalty, I'm finding it hard to believe that this has occurred in more than perhaps a very small number of isolated cases. Which doesn't make it right, but also doesn't support your narrative of "feminism gone too far."

Bringing this back to the OP this has contributed to the undermining of men and their role in the family.

The only role I see being undermined was completely unhealthy to start with. I'd say men need to get on with constructing a healthy family life, rather than complaining that they no longer rule their households by divine right.

The facts show that men are losing their roles and identities and this has a major effect on family life especially child well-being.

So what's stopping men constructing new roles and identities; ones in which they embrace all that is good in the new social reality, and rejoice in the true partnership of and benefits to their wives, daughters, sisters and female friends, who are no longer diminished and demeaned?

The main effect on family life has been the enormous positive change for women. Any man who sees that as a crisis in his own identity isn't worthy of the term.

 

[Quartermaine]

Here's another example of how feminism has gone and is going to far. Bettina Arndt was a feminist in the 70's and 80's and a well known media sex therapist. After seeing how feminism has gone to far and is now discriminating against men. She said she was a feminist as it was about a level playing field and equality bit now it has crossed a line and is causing men problems. She began to advocate for men's rights in the last 20 years a s a result. For this she has been awarded a Australia day honor with an OBE. But this has sent feminist crazy demanding her sacking all because she says that feminism has gone to far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P7einU--xg

no it s an example of a nut case with a platform

 

[stevevw]

no it s an example of a nut case with a platform

Do you even know her and her history. I don't think it is fair that the conversation has descended into personal attacks on people rather than discussing the content.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[stevevw]

school has recess so boys run around & play with balls but it's only 20 min.

parents need to get boys into physical activities to get that energy out and/or take them bike riding, hiking, etc

our girl has always had lots of energy & we've had her in various physical activities & husband takes her bike riding

there's no reason why kids should be on devices so much
parents need to get ALL kids active-boys and girls

Do you think the main responsibility lies with the parents such as activities but also effective discipline ie setting boundaries when they are younger.

 

[stevevw]

You can find support for all sorts of untrue and destructive narratives online - anti-semitism, racism, patriarchy, economic and environmental exploitation, consumerism, and on and on it goes - but that doesn't make any of it true.

I am not acknowledging your point because I believe it to be completely false. And I say that as someone who has significant exposure to feminism as an academic discipline and as a cultural praxis.

Then how come this topic is talked about everywhere. By academics, social media, and the like. It is a hot topic so I cannot see how you cannot acknowledge that there is divided opinion on this.

I have posted around 18 various sources that say the same thing. They can’t all be wrong. It is OK to say that maybe one or two sources have got it wrong but not many sources especially some that come from reputable organizations like Universities, government research and prominent feminist themselves. Yet you keep denying that this is an issue without any evidence. It begins to sound like your concocting some conspiracy theory.

But even if we disregard these the strongest evidence comes from several surveys from reputable organizations. One survey commissioned by Hope not Hate which is an advocacy group that campaigns against racism and done by YouGov found that 33% of people between ages 18 and 24 agreed with the statement "Feminism is to blame for making some men feel marginalized and demonized in society".
A New Poll Has Found A Third Of Young British People Think Feminism Is "Demonising And Marginalising" Men

Another couple of surveys one commissioned by equality charity The Fawcett Society and the other done by the University of Chicago found that less than 1 in 5 women in the UK and US supported feminism. One reason found was that they felt the term feminism was associated with man hating.
Why so many young women 'aren't feminists'

Humans idealise things in all kinds of ways. We can create ideals which are either healthy or unhealthy. "Toxic masculinity" speaks to unhealthy ideals about masculinity; I am arguing that in place of those unhealthy ideals we need healthier ones.

The idea of toxic masculinity is part of an ideology that tries to demonize men. The problem is there is no such thing as toxic masculinity as masculinity is a natural part of being a male. There is no bad or toxic aspect of masculinity.

What feminism does is take natural traits of men like aggression, compulsion, violence, dominance and defiance and say they should be expunged from men/masculinity. But these traits have positive sides to them such as aggression is good when used on the sports field, violence is fine when used in combat or defending oneself or their family. These traits have helped humans make discoveries and overcome great odds. Once again, I like what Peterson says about this.

CMV: There is no such thing as toxic masculinity.
Where I take issue with this is the "vice" traits can very easily be positive in the right setting. It depends entirely on how the behavior is perceived.

For example, a football player's aggressive behavior on the field is perfectly acceptable, but it's obviously unacceptable in a grocery store.

A Navy Seal needs to be violent and to be highly reactive, but it's again obviously unacceptable if directed at his family.
CMV: There is no such thing as toxic masculinity. : PurplePillDebate

Jordan Peterson on the 'backlash against masculinity' - BBC News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShS4uEY2Jw8

Also, women display the so-called toxic masculinity as well. The stats show that women are just as much and, in some cases, even more aggressive and violent then men. So toxic masculinity is not something to be expunged form men it is toxic behavior that needs changing. By saying that a normal part of men is bad and need to be eliminated is stereotyping and damaging to men and promotes inequality that feminism says they support.

MALE VICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE
One in three victims of domestic violence are men
One in Three Campaign - Male Victims of Family Violence

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals
More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals

First, it was an AM. Secondly, beats me why it was awarded to her; I certainly don't think her work merits it.

This is the bias and lack of empathy as well as a lack of equality that feminism claims that are concerned about. It should work both ways. You and certain other people choose to highlight and focus on a dubious statement that even if true should not define a person and their work. The same position is taken when anyone including feminist highlight the issues faced by men to balance the situation. They are attacked for doing so such as with Cassie Jaye's Red Pill documentary where she has been hounded.

Bettina Ardnt is a feminist and has been working to support men for over 20 years and before that she was a sex therapist help couples. She was awarded because of the work she does in helping men who are suffering and should not be defined by one or two controversial statements.

No; the point is that they are related matters. The person who defends a rapist and blames the rape victim is unlikely to see the problems with other abuses of power (such as occur in patriarchy) either.

That is still a logical fallacy and an assumption might I add based on perhaps a preconceived idea that may be tainted in the same way that another feminist attack anyone who says anything contrary. Which to me exposes the fact that it is more than just about equality but is also an ideology with an agenda.

Citations please. I've done a lot of work on DV and everything credible I've read says otherwise; women suffer DV at a far higher rate than men, and most DV is perpetrated by men.

I am not saying women do not experience DV at higher rates. I am saying that women also commit DV and are violent. But the main concern for me is the lack of info and support for men who experience DV.
MALE VICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE
One in three victims of domestic violence are men
One in Three Campaign - Male Victims of Family Violence

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals
More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals

It is true that we don't have sufficient emergency accommodation for men, but that's hardly a case of "feminism gone too far." That's a case of state governments not doing their job, bluntly, when it comes to government housing.

We could say that about women's experience. A lack of specific emergency accommodation for male DV victims is directly related to the DV issue and not housing. This is another example of rationalizing things away when it comes to men experiences and to be honest helps create the discourse that men are the bad ones. Do a search on DV and you will be pushed to find anything about men victims or any support.

Not true. From here: "Overall rates of psychiatric disorder are almost identical for men and women but striking gender differences are found in the patterns of mental illness."

And further, emphasis mine: "Depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms and high rates of comorbidity are significantly related to interconnected and co-occurrent risk factors such as gender based roles, stressors and negative life experiences and events.

Gender specific risk factors for common mental disorders that disproportionately affect women include gender based violence, socioeconomic disadvantage, low income and income inequality, low or subordinate social status and rank and unremitting responsibility for the care of others.

The high prevalence of sexual violence to which women are exposed and the correspondingly high rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following such violence, renders women the largest single group of people affected by this disorder."

Stats on mental illness are complex. You can find stats that show greater or less suffering in different aspects for men or women and should not be overlooked. But my point is that generally men have greater mental health problems, it impacts on them greater such as men have greater incidences of health problems from mental illness and there is less support. The point is society has often overlooked men's health and it hasn’t been until recently that campaigns such as for men’s mental health have begun.

While mental illnesses affect both men and women, the prevalence of mental illnesses in men is often lower than women. Men with mental illnesses are also less likely to have received mental health treatment than women in the past year.
NIMH » Men and Mental Health

Part of the reason why men suffer higher rates of health problems has been suggested that the health system is feminized and needs to be more gender related. This notion has some merit.

Are mental health services inherently feminised?
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-24630-006

Are men struggling through a feminised health system?
Are men struggling through a feminised health system?

Sort of. Women attempt suicide more than men, but men are more often successful. I'm not sure we can chalk that up as a point in favour of either gender.

I don’t think it is a competition as to which side is worse. Society recognizes that men abused women and their position and we are now changing things. What seems to be hard for some to recognize is that things may have gone a bit too far the other way and we now need to recognize that men need help. You are right that men suffer higher suicide in fact it outnumbers road deaths at around 6 out of every 8 suicides every day. Yet sadly it is hardly acknowledged or campaigned for.

But there is a direct link between men's suicide and relationship and family breakdowns.
Male suicides are more commonly linked to a range of distressing life events such as relationship separation (28.3%); financial problems (17%); relationship conflict (15.7%); bereavement (12.3%); recent or pending unemployment (10.5%); familial conflict (9.5%) and pending legal matters (9.0%).
10 Surprising Facts About Men's Mental Health
The Homeless Dads: The Bad Deal Divorce
23% of men who have divorced or separated experience mental illness and are more likely to commit suicide.
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/16501/1/Helen_Margaret_McKeering_Thesis.pdf

Not once we control for which industry those job losses occur in.

I think this is another example of how men are treated differently. Feminist don't allow for any controls when talking about the wage gap and equality in employment. When men mention this, it is mansplaining. I don't think there a consistent and level playing field when it comes to Feminism.

Nevertheless paper is quite old considering the recent changes with industry after the GFC and the improvements in women’s employment opportunities and women’s rights regarding dismissals. The paper also mentions the controls may not take into consideration that in the same way that industries have become female dominated this may also be why women are not being dismissed which is an unfair comparison.

A potential concern is that the disaggregated specification may ‘over-control’ for occupation and industry. In particular, many occupations and industries are dominated by one sex at this level of disaggregation. In the same way that it has been argued that occupational and industrial sex segregation has led to feminized industries and occupations being underpaid, it may be that feminized occupations and industries are less prone to dismissals simply because they are feminized.
http://ftp.iza.org/dp6225.pdf

Current information mentions that both men and women will be affected by job losses but ultimately men will be most affected. It makes sense as women is the fastest growing area of employment and with the hard fought wins is equal employment rights they will not be easily sacked. It will come down to job areas and women tend to work more in industries that are not as subject to job losses like care and human services ass opposed to manufacturing, trades and industry for men which change with economies and technology (automation).
Job automation will hurt women first but will ultimately hurt men more
Job automation will hurt women first but will ultimately hurt men more

 

[stevevw]

Nope. "Worldwide, women are more educated today than at any point in history, but we are still not as educated as men."

I was talking more about western nations as a major reason for poor education in many 3rd world countries isn’t about a patriarchy but rather poverty.

The point I was making that it is in the western nations that feminist make a big noise about inequality in education and employment, yet they are catching up and taking over. But there is little attention and recognition that men are now beginning to suffer inequality in education in most western nations.

This does seem to be true, but you can't blame men's homelessness on "feminism gone too far." The blame lies at the feet of state governments who do not provide enough emergency and long-term government housing (as well as coordinating that housing with addiction and mental health services).

You could say that about many things where women suffer inequality ie DV is not about patriarchy but stress on men from a lack of government support with mental health and anger therapy etc. But more housing has nothing to do with why it happens in the first place.

The fact is men are becoming homeless mainly because of family breakups and easy divorce laws. Feminism discourse is that marriage and family are oppressive to women’s independence and freedom, so this has contributed to more women wanting a divorce. Not just because of a patriarchy but various reasons including infidelity and convenience and changing lifestyles.

The family court and society are geared against men where they lose everything including custody of their kids and their homes. They are usually the ones who leave the family home and most of the time the women in the family home gets the kids. Fathers must fight for their rights in these areas

Divorce and separation for men can be directly related to mental health and homelessness and for men there is little support compared to women (ie women are given higher priority with housing) which makes it worse.

The Homeless Dads: The Bad Deal Divorce
The typical divorce is actually pretty painful. The standard DEAL is almost an assault to fatherhood, and we need to fight to change it. In the most common arrangement, Mom gets the kids and house, dad gets the child support payment. It’s how things used to work. But today, unfortunately, the courts still go by this structure unless there is significant fight to something difference. Shouldn’t we start with 50/50 in both financial responsibility AND parenting time? This is the fight we are fighting in the courts today.
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-homeless-dads-the-bad-deal-jmac/

More than just me: Supporting fathers who are homeless
There is a notable absence in the literature about homeless fathers and the challenges they face or how homelessness affects their parenting and family relationships. Very little is known about homeless men and their children, let alone their needs or ways to work with them to respond to their needs.

The presence of children in men’s lives and the meaning that men make from this can be a motivating factor to improve the conditions of their lives, especially when provided with support. However, the structural barriers and the lack of acknowledgement of their father role and identity and the absence of support, all add to a sense of futility and denies them an important aspect of their identity which can lead to further despair and anguish.

However, for these homeless fathers, some of the most significant factors that contributed to their homelessness included family and relationship breakdown and couple conflict and alcohol and other drug (AOD) issues. These issues do not just lead to homelessness but continue to impact on their relationship with their children.

The structures and policies of homeless services can mean that homeless fathers are not recognised and acknowledged. This, in turn, can be a barrier to accessing services or even acknowledging their identity as fathers.
https://www.launchhousing.org.au/si...st-Me-Supporting-fathers-who-are-homeless.pdf

Bringing things back to the OP this is part of the undermining of men in the family and the breaking up of families. It is not just because of feminist discourse but a number of factors that contribute to the breakup of the family but easy divorce is the biggest one.

I'm not sure here whether you're referring to custody or asset split, but either way the claim is questionable.

I’m referring to both. I think men get the raw end of the deal with less assets, less custody and often must pay high childcare payments leaving them struggling. They have experienced a range of problems as a result including homelessness, mental health and some have committed suicide not being able to cope or believing that they had no life and no hope after losing everything. Though the law has changed, and shared custody and best interest of the child has been introduced men often leave the family home and end up in an unstable situation, so the courts often place children with mother in family home.

Given that men who are truly do harass women generally suffer no penalty, I'm finding it hard to believe that this has occurred in more than perhaps a very small number of isolated cases. Which doesn't make it right, but also doesn't support your narrative of "feminism gone too far."

As feminism has evolved it has moved from the obvious inequalities like voting, employment issues to 4th wave feminism which is more about attacking perceived patriarchy with men’s thinking and intentions. The scrutiny is on minor interactions like flirting which is now regarded as sexual assault hence words like micro aggression's and mini rapes.

What started as a genuine movement to call out abusive men like Weinstein and still continues to allow women to out genuine sexual harassment has been used to make false accusations. This is mostly seen in college campuses and Me-Too. It has now getting to a point where men are taking a step back and avoiding being caught in one on one situations for fear of being falsely accused. So, in a way it has backfired as now men are hesitant to work with women and even some women are concerned about the over reach having an effect on their sons.

Why women are worried about #MeToo
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/5/17157240/me-too-movement-sexual-harassment-aziz-ansari-accusation

The only role I see being undermined was completely unhealthy to start with. I'd say men need to get on with constructing a healthy family life, rather than complaining that they no longer rule their households by divine right.

I don’t think they are complaining about wanting to rule anything. That situation is well on its way to be in the past. The fact is we have a crisis of single parent and fatherless households and it is not all the fathers making.

There are several systemic barriers that I have already mentioned making it hard for fathers. These include easy divorce, fathers suffering several setbacks after divorce as they often lose everything, the resulting mental illness and homelessness as a result and a lack of support already supported in previous posts. So, it is not so easy just like it was not so easy for women and other minority groups. It’s time we recognized that and lend some support.

So what's stopping men constructing new roles and identities; ones in which they embrace all that is good in the new social reality, and rejoice in the true partnership of and benefits to their wives, daughters, sisters and female friends, who are no longer diminished and demeaned?

I agree men should stand up and some are. But as mentioned above there is a lot making it harder for them. Besides what’s mentioned above their identity has been undermined and they don’t know who they are and how to act anymore. Much of this is the result of the new discourse created about men with language like toxic masculinity which makes out their natural traits are bad.

Me-Too is causing men to hesitate about interacting with women. Many are concerned about being falsely accused of harassment. Men feel they are more or less being asked to become more like women. So, they are a bit confused and hesitant now.

The main effect on family life has been the enormous positive change for women. Any man who sees that as a crisis in his own identity isn't worthy of the term.

Yes I agree women have won many victories in regards to their rights which is a good thing. But regardless we have to look at what has happened to the family today. The fact is family life is the crisis with many breakdowns. The massive amounts of families without fathers and the effects it has on children. So while women may have won many victories families need support now.

Bringing things back to the OP topic the research shows that single parents, fatherless families cause children many problems. It also causes society a lot of problems. The research shows that traditional families are the best setup for families which benefit all and society.

The causes of family breakdowns are not just about feminism. There are several issues like gender ideology which now questions parental roles, our attitudes to relationships (casual sex and devaluing marriage which leads to abortion and single parents) and the reliance of materialism rather than putting families and people first. So, the solution is more than just males changing but a fundamental change in our morals and values as a society.[/QUOTE]

 

[pleinmont]

You seem to be obsessed with this topic, which is getting very boring.

 

[stevevw]

You seem to be obsessed with this topic, which is getting very boring.

Yeah sorry I have spent a lot of time on the topic, studied it at Uni and work in the industry with families and kids. That is why I started the thread as I felt strongly about it. It began after I was supporting a single mum and her kids and seen how the mum was struggling and the kids in my opinion needed a father figure. To be honest these are my personal views though some values do underpin my practice. But I accept people as they are, meeting them where they are at and getting people support however that may be.

So if a single mum comes in I don't try and push my beliefs on them. My belief is whatever helps them to a better situation is whatever it takes. Deal with what is in front of you and not what you would like to happen. Maybe somewhere down the track they may end up with a stronger family situation but that is not my concern there and then or is going to happen if they first need practical help to get on their feet. That includes making their current situation better. We do have family and couple counselling which is based on trying to keep the family together as well.

I am also very aware of the need to help males and that this is a neglected area in community work. In fact there is a lack of support across the board and it is a bit frustrating when there just is not enough help out there and there are systemic forces making things harder. But if it wasn't for the non-profit and charity organisations then it would be even worse.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[pleinmont]

Yeah sorry I have spent a lot of time on the topic, studied it at Uni and work in the industry with families and kids. That is why I started the thread as I felt strongly about it. It began after I was supporting a single mum and her kids and seen how the mum was struggling and the kids in my opinion needed a father figure. To be honest these are my personal views though some values do underpin my practice. But I accept people as they are, meeting them where they are at and getting people support however that may be.

So if a single mum comes in I don't try and push my beliefs on them. My belief is whatever helps them to a better situation is whatever it takes. Deal with what is in front of you and not what you would like to happen. Maybe somewhere down the track they may end up with a stronger family situation but that is not my concern there and then or is going to happen if they first need practical help to get on their feet. That includes making their current situation better. We do have family and couple counselling which is based on trying to keep the family together as well.

I am also very aware of the need to help males and that this is a neglected area in community work. In fact there is a lack of support across the board and it is a bit frustrating when there just is not enough help out there and there are systemic forces making things harder. But if it wasn't for the non-profit and charity organisations then it would be even worse.

All a child requires is a parent or parents who love and care for them, married, unmarried, gay or straight, imo.

 

[Paidiske]

Then how come this topic is talked about everywhere. By academics, social media, and the like. It is a hot topic so I cannot see how you cannot acknowledge that there is divided opinion on this.

Sure, there's divided opinion. I just don't acknowledge both "sides" to be equally valid. (Like so many other major areas of divided opinion in society).

The idea of toxic masculinity is part of an ideology that tries to demonize men.

No, again this is a misunderstanding of the term.

The problem is there is no such thing as toxic masculinity as masculinity is a natural part of being a male. There is no bad or toxic aspect of masculinity.

Again, toxic masculinity refers to a set of cultural norms and ideals about masculinity which actually harm men and boys, and, by extension, society. From here:

"Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression.

Self-reliance and emotional repression are correlated with increased psychological problems in men such as depression, increased stress, and substance abuse. Toxic masculine traits are characteristic of the unspoken code of behavior among men in American prisons, where they exist in part as a response to the harsh conditions of prison life.

Other traditionally masculine traits such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family, are not considered to be "toxic". The concept was originally used by authors associated with the mythopoetic men's movement such as Shepherd Bliss to contrast stereotypical notions of masculinity with a "real" or "deep" masculinity that they say men have lost touch with in modern society."

What feminism does is take natural traits of men like aggression, compulsion, violence, dominance and defiance and say they should be expunged from men/masculinity.

No. Feminism - insofar as it could be said to have a clear position on that point - would say that whatever traits are natural to men should be expressed in ways which are healthy for men and for the relationships and communities of those men.

By saying that a normal part of men is bad and need to be eliminated is stereotyping and damaging to men and promotes inequality that feminism says they support.

Except absolutely nobody is saying that; quite the opposite.

This is the bias and lack of empathy as well as a lack of equality that feminism claims that are concerned about. It should work both ways. You and certain other people choose to highlight and focus on a dubious statement that even if true should not define a person and their work.

I don't think it is necessarily bias to be aware of a person's work, and not impressed by it. In recent years, Arndt's work has had significant negative aspects and I have not seen anything from her which I consider positive and constructive. I would be willing to acknowledge it if I had.

Bettina Ardnt is a feminist...

By her own admission she no longer considers herself a feminist.

She was awarded because of the work she does in helping men who are suffering and should not be defined by one or two controversial statements.

Has she actually helped, though?

And I'm sorry, but there are some lines which for me, once you cross them do say something fairly strong about your character; and defending someone who's raped children is one of those lines.

A lack of specific emergency accommodation for male DV victims is directly related to the DV issue and not housing.

Why? I have no problem agreeing that there is a lack of emergency accommodation, especially for men, but I don't find that to be a DV-specific issue. In my experience it is far more a mental health issue, actually.

Do a search on DV and you will be pushed to find anything about men victims or any support.

Not really. In the top ten google responses for "support for male victims of domestic violence" I can find five practical, useful links.

But my point is that generally men have greater mental health problems, it impacts on them greater such as men have greater incidences of health problems from mental illness and there is less support.

Even what you posted to support this claim doesn't support it. It says men have a lower prevalence of mental illness.

The point is society has often overlooked men's health and it hasn’t been until recently that campaigns such as for men’s mental health have begun.

And that's got nothing to do with feminism gone too far. It actually has to do with toxic masculinity (the unhealthy cultural beliefs about what a man "should" be) and a belief that men should tough it out and keep a stiff upper lip. As we begin to dismantle that construct and replace it with something healthier we are beginning to see more services provided and accessed.

Part of the reason why men suffer higher rates of health problems has been suggested that the health system is feminized and needs to be more gender related. This notion has some merit.

I'm not sure that it does (have any merit). One of your links is paywalled and the other provides no conclusions in its abstract, though, so I can't assess what you're basing it on.

What seems to be hard for some to recognize is that things may have gone a bit too far the other way and we now need to recognize that men need help.

I have no problem recognising that (some) men need help. I just deny that that has anything to do with feminism.

I think this is another example of how men are treated differently. Feminist don't allow for any controls when talking about the wage gap and equality in employment. When men mention this, it is mansplaining. I don't think there a consistent and level playing field when it comes to Feminism.

Head, meet desk.

Of course there are controls when discussing wage gap and equality in employment. That is where the wage gap discussion is most pertinent; where all the controls show that everything else being equal, there still tends to be a gap. You are completely misrepresenting that whole discussion.

And no, that is not what mansplaining is.

It makes sense as women is the fastest growing area of employment and with the hard fought wins is equal employment rights they will not be easily sacked.

On what planet? Of course women are easily sacked. Happens all the time.

It will come down to job areas and women tend to work more in industries that are not as subject to job losses like care and human services ass opposed to manufacturing, trades and industry for men which change with economies and technology (automation).

Maybe, but the point is the men aren't losing their jobs because they're men, or having more difficulty with employment because they're men. Typical patterns of employment may need to shift over time, but that's been happening throughout human history.

I was talking more about western nations as a major reason for poor education in many 3rd world countries isn’t about a patriarchy but rather poverty.

When a family which can only afford to educate one of their two children, won't educate a girl because she's a girl, that's patriarchy and poverty.

The point I was making that it is in the western nations that feminist make a big noise about inequality in education and employment, yet they are catching up and taking over. But there is little attention and recognition that men are now beginning to suffer inequality in education in most western nations.

Well, I have heard this claim. My first question is why? I mean, in a world where (for example) I can still have had lecturers refuse to help me (their student) because "women don't belong in science" (yes, my genetics lecturer actually said that to my face), I still see problems for women in education.

Most of what I can find on this suggests that men are more likely to favour trades where women favour degrees, and that this has long-term adverse outcomes for men, but is there something there about the way we structure the trades that needs looking at?

You could say that about many things where women suffer inequality ie DV is not about patriarchy but stress on men from a lack of government support with mental health and anger therapy etc.

Except that we have identified the attitudes which drive DV.

- Rigid gender roles/steretypes
- Believe in gender hierarchy
- Acceptance of violence.

That is practically the patriarchy distilled into three neat points.

It's not about stress, it's not about mental health, it's not about anger; and we know this because stressed or mentally unwell or angry men who don't hold the above three attitudes don't abuse their partners.

The fact is men are becoming homeless mainly because of family breakups and easy divorce laws.

I'm too young to remember a time before no-fault divorce, but I'm told it was actually very detrimental to men and women. I'm not sure trying to return to that sort of regime is actually going to benefit anyone.

Feminism discourse is that marriage and family are oppressive to women’s independence and freedom, so this has contributed to more women wanting a divorce.

I don't think it's that simple. Particular models of marriage and family are oppressive and damaging to women, but this doesn't mean women don't want to marry, or don't want to stay married. What it perhaps does mean is that women are less willing to stay in abusive or toxic or profoundly unhealthy marriages. I'm not sure I see that as a bad thing.

The family court and society are geared against men where they lose everything including custody of their kids and their homes. They are usually the ones who leave the family home and most of the time the women in the family home gets the kids. Fathers must fight for their rights in these areas

If you have a look here, you will see that (especially for younger children) custody will usually be awarded to the child's primary carer, for that child's benefit. The reason women tend to get custody is precisely because of the male breadwinner/stay-at-home mum arrangement. Where parenting is shared more equally, or the dad is the primary carer, the outcome is likely to be different. So if fathers want to fight for a different outcome, sharing paid work and childcare more equally with the mother is the simplest - and most beneficial to the child - way to go.

The point is that the court is not geared "against men," its concern is the welfare and rights of the child.

Bringing things back to the OP this is part of the undermining of men in the family and the breaking up of families. It is not just because of feminist discourse but a number of factors that contribute to the breakup of the family but easy divorce is the biggest one.

Well, I don't agree that there's any "undermining" going on.

But honestly, what's the alternative to easy divorce? That we go back to the days when women had to stay married to the men who beat them?

No thanks.

I think men get the raw end of the deal with less assets, less custody and often must pay high childcare payments leaving them struggling.

Balanced against higher income and earning potential, though, which is why this happens. It's not because they're men; in cases where the wife is the breadwinner the picture is reversed.

The fact is we have a crisis of single parent and fatherless households and it is not all the fathers making.

Granted. But nor is it a problem caused by feminism. This is also not a good outcome for women. Later in your post you mention casual sex etc; here we are in agreement, but it's not caused by feminism. And calling for a return to the "traditional family" isn't by itself going to do much good in that landscape.

Women are not going back to our cages. We have to find a new way forward together which is about building up men and women, not trying to reconstruct some idealised past.

 

[stevevw]

There has to be a balance. Marriage needs to be teamwork; a husband and wife supporting each other and (if they have children) working together to do what's best for their children. It's not about focussing on self and not others, but about being true to oneself while being in healthy relationships with others.

The problem is you can't be always true to self as far as pursuing what you want and then have time and energy to look after a young family. Research shows that working parents are getting tired and zapped of energy and have little time for anything else. Humans don't have super powers.

Unfortunately modern life conflicts with being able to dedicate enough time to properly look after children. The problem with individualism is that it puts the individual first. So that means in a coupled family someone is going to miss out of being able to be true to themselves. Having a family and looking after them properly takes a sacrifice of some sort.

The problem comes when only one spouse's rights are honoured, and the other spouse's needs are not met.

But how can we in a modern society always cater to individual rights and wants when there are other obligations such as looking after a young family. If one parent has to stay home to look after the children and both want the right to work then someone has to compromise. That is just how it is. This emphasis of putting individual rights above groups and family is what is causing the conflict.

In more native an indigenous nations and areas where they are not pressurized to work because they don't put as much importance of materialism they don't have this conflict. They have a different perspective on roles and value more the women who looks after the kids. She is the matriarch and well respected. So the value of a role depends on what a society values. Putting material value above human and family is always going cause conflicts.

It's not a matter of being free of family commitments - I work full time and I have significant family commitments - but a matter of allowing people to discern how best to fulfill those commitments, in partnership with their spouse, for themselves; not imposing a one-size-fits-all model on every household.

Do you really think it is a matter of letting people discern whats best or that society dictates what we have to do to get by and cope. A generation ago it was a single working family. Now its a two working family and sometimes that's not enough. It seems to be the economy that dictates how we live. Unfortunately that means we have to compromise something.

But you are right in that it is up to people to decide. You can either live basically and work less or work hard to get more bigger and better stuff. Unfortunately secular society pushes the we have to work more to get more stuff and people become enslaved to the system. But as with the last GFC the system is not working and brings false security and happiness.

Oh, bunk. It might be true for some couples, but it's certainly not true for all couples because not everyone is the same. For example, some women have awful post-natal depression and need to go to work for their mental health (and are better enabled to bond with their children by doing so).

yes in certain circumstances things need to be adjusted. But I am saying the science shows that on average that a mother is the best nurturer of children in the early years for creating a secure attachment for health development. Exceptions don't change that. It is like saying that all abortion is OK because some women lives are threatened by the pregnancy and need to stop the pregnancy. That doesnt mean all abortions are OK.

Not that you need a reason like post-natal depression; just that that is one example where your model is just la-la land.

I agree we must accommodate individual circumstances and we need to support people and families however they may be. But don't let that be an excuse to undermine what can be optimally best. We need to have clear standards like anything else to aim for and if there are circumstances that requires things to be adjusted then that's fair enough. But like any change it begins with acknowledging the problem reassessing our values and making the changes.

The model for the traditional family is not my model but scientific fact. It seems that some people want to deny the science nowadays so they can justify their personal ideologies. But we look to the science in everything else why not what is best for the family. We have a crisis in family breakdowns and something needs to be done. But I understand that in a secular rights based society no one can force their values on others and people have the right to choose however they want to live.

 

[stevevw]

All a child requires is a parent or parents who love and care for them, married, unmarried, gay or straight, imo.

Yes that is true, love is important. Anyone that can give love to a child is good.

 

[Paidiske]

The problem is you can't be always true to self as far as pursuing what you want and then have time and energy to look after a young family. Research shows that working parents are getting tired and zapped of energy and have little time for anything else. Humans don't have super powers.

I'm not saying you can become a parent and carry on your life as if nothing has changed. I know that's not the reality of parenting. (Oh, how I know!)

But you seem to be advocating a model where men get to carry on very much as before (working life continues; domestic life is handled by their spouse), while women carry all the cost of that. I'm pushing back against that and saying a more equitable model will see each spouse having to change and each spouse being supported in what's most important to them.

Unfortunately modern life conflicts with being able to dedicate enough time to properly look after children.

In my experience, modern life is what you make of it. If you want to prioritise being at home with children, that is very possible.

So that means in a coupled family someone is going to miss out of being able to be true to themselves. Having a family and looking after them properly takes a sacrifice of some sort.

The difference between your position and mine is that you're pushing a model where the women make most of the sacrifices, and I'm arguing for something where that burden is more shared.

If one parent has to stay home to look after the children and both want the right to work then someone has to compromise.

Sure. But that compromise is possible. I may have mentioned this in this thread already, but when our daughter was small, her father and I each worked three days a week and shared hands-on parenting equally. We both got to work and our daughter was cared for. It was completely possible for us to do things in a way which wasn't completely one-sided. Many couples find similar possibilities.

So the value of a role depends on what a society values. Putting material value above human and family is always going cause conflicts....You can either live basically and work less or work hard to get more bigger and better stuff. Unfortunately secular society pushes the we have to work more to get more stuff and people become enslaved to the system. But as with the last GFC the system is not working and brings false security and happiness.

You seem to assume that people's only reason for working is to earn money, but that's not true at all.

But I am saying the science shows that on average that a mother is the best nurturer of children in the early years for creating a secure attachment for health development. Exceptions don't change that.

The average is statistically interesting, but when it comes to particular households structuring their life together it's pretty meaningless. The needs, goals, gifts, personality etc of those people will be the best basis for making those decisions, not a statistical average which may bear no relation to the reality for those people.

But don't let that be an excuse to undermine what can be optimally best. We need to have clear standards like anything else to aim for and if there are circumstances that requires things to be adjusted then that's fair enough.

It's not an "excuse," because your model isn't a good standard for everyone. The idea that we can set one model and say, "This is the clear standard, and you may not deviate from it without good (socially approved) reason," is horrific.

The model for the traditional family is not my model but scientific fact.

No. Science says some things about how people are; it cannot tell you how people ought to live. Science is not an ethical discipline. The model you're building also cheerfully ignores many facts.

It seems that some people want to deny the science nowadays so they can justify their personal ideologies.

That seems to me to be how your argument is functioning.

We have a crisis in family breakdowns and something needs to be done.

Apparently the leading cause for divorce is infidelity. So, how might we help people to build stronger marriages which are less prone to infidelity?

 

[Quartermaine]

Do you even know her and her history. I don't think it is fair that the conversation has descended into personal attacks on people rather than discussing the content.

So you know her and her history?

She has defended child molestation as "a loving and pleasurable act" and that children who have been sexually molested are all right because being raped by an adult is "such minor abuse rarely has lasting consequences" and blame for the abuse rests on the child and little girls should "behave sensibly and not exploit their seductive power to ruin the lives of men".


I don't think it realistic that the views of such a disturbed person and claim her support of child molestation is somehow showing that feminism has gone to far

 

[stevevw]

So you know her and her history?

I remember seeing her on TV giving sex advice and education as a psychologist. She was involved in sex education in the early part of her career. She was a feminist and advocated for womens equality. Now she does the same thing but for men after seeing that the feminist movement had gone too far and men's rights to equality were being affected.

She has defended child molestation as "a loving and pleasurable act" and that children who have been sexually molested are all right because being raped by an adult is "such minor abuse rarely has lasting consequences" and blame for the abuse rests on the child and little girls should "behave sensibly and not exploit their seductive power to ruin the lives of men".

That is absolutely ridiculous. Can you provide support for this. Why would the panel of the Australian of the year that includes human rights advocates award a person who supports that. This shows how silly this is. It is more or less saying that the Australian awards panel and the Queen who the awards are on behalf of also advocate the same thing. People have blown things way out of proportion.

I don't think it realistic that the views of such a disturbed person and claim her support of child molestation is somehow showing that feminism has gone to far

1) That's only if you believe such rubbish. (2) that is a logical fallacy as it has nothing to do with whether feminism has gone to far. They are separate issues. Arndt uses a number of supports for why feminism has gone to far and that support is backed up by other sources besides Arndt. What other actions Arndt has done good or bad does not negate this especially in that she has support form other independent sources.

The same attacks on Arndt credibility have happened to many people including feminist who have said similar things that feminism has gone to far. Feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye's who made the film the Red Pill is a prime example. She has been the subject of horrific abuse, had death threats and feminist have physically blocked people from seeing the film.

Feminist film-maker criticised for making 'balanced' men's rights documentary
Feminist film-maker criticised for making 'balanced' men's rights documentary
MEETING THE ENEMY A feminist comes to terms with the Men's Rights movement | Cassie Jaye | TEDxMarin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY

Cassie says a couple of things that hit home for me. The first was after releasing the film the Red Pill and waiting for the reviews to come in she realized how engaged the media was in group-think around gender politics. How they had taken one side (a leftist view) and believed they were right and everyone else was wrong.

The other was that when someone humanizes a situation as in Cassie telling the stories of men's inequality the media dehumanizes that person. This was relating to the attacks on her for basically telling a truthful story about men's experiences around gender inequality.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not saying you can become a parent and carry on your life as if nothing has changed. I know that's not the reality of parenting. (Oh, how I know!)

But you seem to be advocating a model where men get to carry on very much as before (working life continues; domestic life is handled by their spouse), while women carry all the cost of that. I'm pushing back against that and saying a more equitable model will see each spouse having to change and each spouse being supported in what's most important to them.

No if men were regarded as the best nurturers for early childhood then I would say that they should fulfill this role. I am saying that the family setup should be based on what is best for the child and family and not the individual wants or rights, for the few important years of child upbringing. The father can still do the housework and help with the child as well.

In my experience, modern life is what you make of it. If you want to prioritise being at home with children, that is very possible.

I agree that people can choose to compromise and dedicate more time with a child by perhaps giving up some material wants. But I am not sure if this will be the case. The pressure of modern life to earn money and buy things can force people to make work the priority. Also modern ideology doesn't necessarily believe the science and has its own beliefs about what is good and bad. Most have no problem with putting their kids in state child care to be brought up so they are free to work.

The difference between your position and mine is that you're pushing a model where the women make most of the sacrifices, and I'm arguing for something where that burden is more shared.

I agree with sharing no matter what the setup. But I am not pushing any model and that is the problem with feminism in that it always views all situations as patriarchal. It is about what is best for the child not whether one person is more oppressed than the other. By feminist making everything about a patriarchy it automatically assumes everything as a power play causing conflicts and making family life divisive.

My position just points out what the science says is best. It doesn't not force anyone to do anything. We should be able to state what is best without people getting upset about rights. If any rights need to be considered it is the child's. This is how we undermine the family and a child's development and this contributes to the high rates of family breakdowns and child problems.

Sure. But that compromise is possible. I may have mentioned this in this thread already, but when our daughter was small, her father and I each worked three days a week and shared hands-on parenting equally. We both got to work and our daughter was cared for. It was completely possible for us to do things in a way which wasn't completely one-sided. Many couples find similar possibilities.

I agree and people are smart and can work smarter and find ways to make it work. This is the reality of today's family life. I think we need more support for ideas outside the box that all parents to have the best of both worlds. Some people work from home.

You seem to assume that people's only reason for working is to earn money, but that's not true at all.

Ideally people can choose their career and work in what they like. But basically the idea of work is to make money as part of a system that uses materialism as its worth. If you look at collective societies that don't have our system and all the stress. The reality is it would be great to be able to do something you like for the love of it but most people work to live and not live to work. People are lucky to get a job period let alone one they love.

But the fact is neo-liberalism (individualism) causes a class divide where a small group have and many have not much. Collective societies put the group first before individuals. We need to reassess what is important and not become slaves to a system. We think it gives us freedom and happiness but it really makes us unhappy. That is why we have increasing sadness and mental illness.

The average is statistically interesting, but when it comes to particular households structuring their life together it's pretty meaningless. The needs, goals, gifts, personality etc of those people will be the best basis for making those decisions, not a statistical average which may bear no relation to the reality for those people.

Also the economic conditions will dictate what happens which is probably the main factor which causes people not to be able to choose what is best as they are forced to get by. I agree and the reality is in modern society whatever it takes to manage your life is what needs to be done. What I am talking about is an optimal best setup that can be put out there for people to aim for. Just like most things where people talk about what is scientifically best but not everyone is in a position to get there.

We have to put out there what is best and try to create a situation where more people can achieve this. But is we don't make clear what is best then people don't know and are wandering in the dark. The problem I see now is that modern ideology claims a lot of things are OK that are perhaps not really good for us.

Some of these have to do with the family like there is no mother or father anymore. Kids don't really need a father, any setup for a family is just as good. IMO this undermines what is best according to research. This ideology is promoted because it is in line with allowing people to be free of their responsibility and they can do what they want. Individualistic culture and all about me. This is the new reality.

It's not an "excuse," because your model isn't a good standard for everyone. The idea that we can set one model and say, "This is the clear standard, and you may not deviate from it without good (socially approved) reason," is horrific.

No one is saying we have to implement this by law or force. People can choose what they want to do in a democratic society. But like anything else say a healthy diet the CSRIO will say this is the best diet according to the science. They put that out there and its up to people to follow. People will have various circumstances where they cannot follow it and some may compromise and mostly follow it, while some follow it completely.

It is just putting out there what is best for the family according to the science and giving people something to aim for if they choose. If they don't there is no crime. But just like they put out what is best for a diet the reason is to help people have a better life. As the science says with traditional family setups it is best for longevity, health, child development and even better economically. This is important as we have a crisis in family breakups which is affecting many children. Just like the CSRIO will be trying to limit the poor health situation of people.

No. Science says some things about how people are; it cannot tell you how people ought to live. Science is not an ethical discipline. The model you're building also cheerfully ignores many facts.

I haven't said anything about forcing people to adhere to this family setup.. As explained above we use science for many things to help people know what is best. Even climate change is a big one where people are actually telling us we need to change how we live or we and the planet will die. The government even implements taxes and policies that force people to conform to environmentally friendly ideas. The government has anti friendly policies now that causes families to suffer. That is the reality.

That seems to me to be how your argument is functioning.

How, I am supporting the science as I believe that it provides evidence for what is best. If we do research and find that kids who sit in front of the computer have worse health outcomes we trust that and use it to try and fix the problem. Science helps us find what is best so we can minimize the problems. The same thing with the science about families. It tells us certain setups are best based on the research.

The conflict with this particular topic is it clashes with secular societies ideologies around gender where men and women are not really men and women anymore. There are many forms of gender and families and they are all good. People don't want to be told what to do and want the freedom to do what they want. That's OK but there is nothing wrong with putting what the science says out there for people to know as we do it with everything else in life.

Apparently the leading cause for divorce is infidelity. So, how might we help people to build stronger marriages which are less prone to infidelity?

That is a good example. I like what Ben Shapiro says about this when he talks about how secular society sets itself up for problems. Hollywood sets the standard about sex in which it just becomes a bodily function like eating or a trade or exchange the value is taken out of it as a sacred act. Everyone supports sexual freedom and we see it in all the reality shows around sex and marriage with the high ratings.

Shapiro says well then don't start complaining when people get hurt and things go wrong. If we treat sex, marriage and people like it is some disposable thing and devalue it then expect to have a lot of fall out. If we really want to change things rather than just outing people and complaining on has tag we need to fundamentally change the way we value relationships and marriage.

But people don't want to do that because it means giving up their right to do what they want. In a free society they have the right to choose. You can only put it out there. But I think it is important to stand up and put it out there. I also thing we need to have more support for relationships and families perhaps by way of marriage and family friendly policies and supports. Teach young people the value of relationships. But its hard against a backdrop of constant images devaluing relationships and access to all sorts of degrading things online.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7suSOTBbh4

 

[pleinmont]

stevevw, your overlong posts are not convincing me that you have a case, nor others I suspect.