Depressed, repressed, objectified: are men the new women?

Submitted by anthony on Mon, 2008-08-04 16:37

Article here. Excerpt:

"Every week, it seems as if there are new surveys and studies tripping over themselves to paint the grimmest possible picture of modern masculinity. They tell us that men are more neurotic and less fulfilled than ever before; that they are objectified rather than revered; that they are expected to be more in touch with their emotions and yet are criticised for it. Men appear to be confused about what they are and unsure about who they are meant to be. So with more of them feeling disenfranchised, disillusioned and disempowered, is it feasible to think of men as the new oppressed minority? Might men, in fact, be the new women? And, if so, who is to blame for making them feel marginalised?
...
Do these statistics have any bearing on the everyday experiences of ordinary men? 'I don't know if I feel oppressed, but there's a sense in which women can talk about us with impunity,' says a 32-year-old male lawyer from London, who does not wish to give his name in case his female colleagues start pelting him with rotten tomatoes. 'I've been in the office on several occasions where sweeping generalisations have been made about the general crapness of men: "Oh, all men are useless, no wonder he couldn't get the job done in time" – that sort of thing. I don't take it all that seriously – at least, not yet – but I know that I wouldn't get away with saying the same things about women.'"

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I really have arrived at the point in my life that I truly do not care about what women want.

I can like them, I can go to bed with them, I can buy them lunch ...

I just do not choose to care about them beyond that superficial level of emotion.

I have dumped more than a few girls who thought "love" was more than mere affection.

They are really sweet when you say "good-bye."

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Roy on Tue, 2008-08-05 09:42

manonthestreet

Always in this type of article its said that men hold most of the top positions ( no pun implied). But this is superficial since the thinking that drives these men's actions are decidedly feminist. Governments are intrinsically female whether they are composed of men or women. Take for example social legislation in England where I used to live. Women where protected from working underground in mines long before in became illegal to employ boys. Similarly penal reform was for women was about 100 years ahead of that for men. Also who got conscripted and slaughtered in their tens of thousands in two world wars? Not women for sure but men and boys. It's hard to find any area of social activity where an honest assessment would show that men were in the main in a better position than women.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by trotter on Tue, 2008-08-05 14:21

Indeed. Gov't, be it 99% men or 1% men, is about maintaining a society's political infrastructure. To do this you need to produce people and collect wealth from them to finance the beast itself and to give away to others for whatever reasons, just or not, corrupt or not. So what are the factors? Women produce the people. [Of course men do too but just as the article points out, once the new baby is born, the men are "useful" from the gov't's POV as wallets.] The mothers however, that's different. They are the "natural caretakers" and so are basically working for the gov't as baby-sitters. As we know, babies and minors too are basically the property of the gov't. It's like this all over the world. By "property" I mean it in the legal sense. The gov't has final say over their disposition from a legal standpoint. As "property" goes they have a few things going for them. They have the right not to be injured by the gov't even by its own standards (though the "family courts" seem good at this anyway), and the right to decide certain matters for themselves, but otherwise, none at all.

As for men, we can become gov't property by order of a legislature that us unlikely to itself be exposed to the dangers of warfare. How many Congressmen, ministers, secretaries (as in, "of Defense") parliament members, etc., go to war when it is declared? Few if any, and even then, only as volunteers. Did any of our suchwhats volunteer to go during either WWI or II? Not that I am aware of. But they have been known to send their sons off without much hesitation, perhaps for the political boost it gives them.

The best-situated people in the world today categorically are women. Despite the many ways in which there is "less justice" for women, there are many more ways (IMJ) in which there is "less justice" for men. Yet societies focus only on the women, leaving men to themselves. Alas we have not to date done a very good job overall of rectifying this situation.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mcc99 on Tue, 2008-08-05 20:51

No. Women have never in history been treated with the hatred, contempt, and systemic, legalized discrimination that men suffer under today.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Ragtime on Wed, 2008-08-06 01:11