Reddit reviews Men's Lives (9th Edition)

I've never really seen the need for a men's "rights" movement, because that would imply that men, as a social category, are somehow lacking in rights or protections. We aren't. But we are affected by the same rigid constraints on gender that women and GSM folk (gender and sexual minorities) are. Those gender "boxes" definitely harm men's self-image, expressions of self, and emotional well-being, and ought to be done away with. And there are men's groups and men's movements out there that strive to do just that.

Local groups, like the Canadian-based Anti-violence Project acknowledge the damage that gender roles can have on men and boys and work alongside feminist and other anti-violence groups to do something about it. They are often supported at the national and international level by organizations like the White Ribbon Campaign that engage in positive activism aimed at re-configuring society's views about men, boys, and the sorts of gender roles we are supposed to play.

Academically, these activist initiatives are reinforced by a fairly huge amount of social science research on men and masculinities. There are a number of different research journals and textbooks that focus exclusively on men and men's lives (see here, here, here, and here for example), and all of these help researchers, policy-makers, students, and citizens from all walks of life better understand men and men's issues.

We don't need a "men's rights movement"; we never did, because the pro-feminist men's movement is already shining a light on the issues that men of all kinds face.

Sorry for the rant!

I took a number of women's studies courses. When I worked on my 2nd bachelors, I completed almost all of the requirements for the degree with women's studies classes.

If that is out of your price range (I had a lot of needed pre-reqs for a masters degree I had to hammer out anyway), perhaps they have some advice for a reading list.

Some books you may find interesting to read (your local library may have them):

Being Boys; Being Girls. This one is about how boys and girls learn masculinity and femininity as various ages.

Men's Lives. I had an earlier edition in one of my sociology courses. This one is about the construction of masculinity - how boys become men.

Gender Trouble. I had an earlier edition of this book in my gender courses. Butler's argument is basically that gender is a performance. We're all copying something of which there is no original. Could be confusing to read.

Whipping Girl. I recommend this one because it is a very readable book about becoming a transwoman. One way to understand how our society treats men and women differently is to see how things change as someone changes gender. It is the same person, but now how we treat them based on what is/isn't between their legs.

Ain't I A Woman. One of the influential works on Black Feminism. Some black feminists feel that the feminist movement is a bit too much focused on white women. The word "intersectionality" is frequently used to describe situation where racism and sexism collide - and that things get more complicated than just sexism or just racism happen.

As others have mentioned, I would recommend staying away from most blogs/tumblrs and sticking to published books and papers.

Sure, since blog posts don't count I suggest you head on over to Amazon or your local university bookstore and pick up a copy of the 9th edition of Michael Kimmel's Men's Lives. It's a good introduction to actual gender studies focused on men's issues.

> What?

My point was that by holding First Nations to treaties that were signed under duress, you are upholding the actions of colonialists as legitimate and the consequences of these treaties disproportionately affect First Nation people in negative ways. It's an old problem but it has never really been "solved," the burden has simply been moved onto First Nation people.

>But boy are they loud, and naturally don't consider themselves fringe feminists.

Thankfully TERFs have been written off by most feminists as a hate group. They are loud and their views are deplorable, but they also have no power nowadays.

>Who maintains the structure of the Patriarchy?

Not who, but what. Economic inequality between men and women is at the historical root of patriarchy. Hunter-gatherer societies were gender-egalitarian and some times included 3 or more genders. All food, tools and land were held in common, with all having an equal share regardless of gender. Women were gatherers and tended home, men were hunters and tended livestock and small farms (generally), and these roles balanced in power because women and men created the same amount of food, clothing, etc. for the community. This changed with the rise of larger-scale agriculture, when livestock and farming became increasingly important economically. This meant that suddenly men's work role put them in control of the vast majority of production and surplus in society, thus edging women out of social and political life and confining them to the domestic sphere. This power differential created patriarchy and continues to perpetuate it to this day, with women as a group having less wealth and therefore having less power in society.

(I know there are a lot of claims here and they aren't cited, but all of the information is from the book Men's Lives. It goes into the issue in greater detail than I presented here and of course with lots of handy citations. It's a great book and it deals extensively with the relationship between men and feminism if that topic interests you.)

>If privilege is invisible to the people who have it, who is distributing this privilege?

The short answer is that privilege and power are not "handed out" in a conscious way, but that existing structures of power are reproduced automatically by people who see these structures as natural, good or inevitable. For example, almost all countries have longer maternity leave than paternity leave. Men are expected to get back to work and women are expected to take care of the baby on their own. These laws are based on preconceptions of what men's role in society is and what women's role is. The people who passed these laws didn't create patriarchy or privilege, they are merely reproducing a power differential that they grew up learning was the right and just way to organize a society. And it's not just politicians, everyday people act in ways that privilege some and not others. People watching men and women do the same job tend to rate the man more favorably even when performance is the exact same. They are not consciously "distributing" privilege to the men, they simply have a more positive attitude to seeing men in a work role because that is the default outlook in our society.

>What explains the high number of homeless men?

Not 100% knowledgeable on this topic but I'll try to give an answer to my best knowledge. Many homeless folks are combat veterans and/or have disabilities. By and large most veterans are men. Two of the most common disabilities among the homeless are schizophrenia and addiction, both of which disproportionately affect men over women. This could be at least a partial explanation of why men are more likely to be homeless.

Of course, these are also examples of men's issues which are generally overlooked in society. Despite the existence of patriarchy, not all men are equally privileged (Men's Lives does a great job of covering this topic). Lower income men tend to be the largest casualties of war. Men overwhelmingly die by suicide compared to women, showing the vulnerability of disabled men in our society. Men make up an overwhelming majority of the prison population, especially men of color. All of these are serious issues that can be understood and addressed by using feminism to understand men's roles in society, but also touching on the intersectional issues of class, disability, race and so on.

"Feminist advocates collude in the pain of men wounded by patriarchy when they falsely represent men as always and only powerful, as always and only gaining privileges from their blind obedience to patriarchy." -- bell hooks (famous intersectional feminist)

Patriarchy can and DOES hurt men. Any feminist who claims that all men are equally privileged by patriarchy is incorrect. Any feminist who claims that men are only empowered by patriarchy does not understand the nature of patriarchy.

>Feminism discovered the Patriarchy, but can't explain its structure, can't influence its output, and can't dissipate its effect [etc.]

The structure of patriarchy has been explained, by many different feminists. I already mentioned the historical development of patriarchy. I can get into the social-psychological aspects of patriarchy more w/ you if you want. I like this conversation but I'm tired and need to go to bed soon. But yeah, my point is that feminists can explain the structure of patriarchy. Any feminists have definitely influenced patriarchy for the better-- everything from voting rights to abortion rights reflect this.

>they can see the effect (which men cannot)

Men can see the effects if they study women's issues, listen to women's lived experiences, consider feminist theories, etc. Many women understand these issues based on their own life stories, but men have to approach it from a perspective of not knowing what it means to be a woman in this society.

>I have a substantially different theory regarding these difficulties.

What would those be?

>What about the men that like being aggressive, competitive, industrial, and stoic? Will they be welcome in this new women's paradise?

In a society that has accomplished the goals of feminism, those traits would no longer be "men's traits." Anyone could be as aggressive or competitive or stoic as long as their aggression doesn't hurt anyone. It would be a society where someone's gender is never a barrier to what they want to do or who they can be. And it's not just for women. Women and non-binary people will benefit most from the goals of feminism, but men will benefit too.