Does male homosexuality relax tensions in society?

[Frank Underwood]

They've done centuries of serving and suffering, only a few years of MeToo.
You all need to get a sense of proportion.

I'm sure all the centuries worth of male soldiers and laborers will be glad to know they didn't "serve and suffer" in service to their family and country.

A sense of proportion indeed.

It goes way beyond villainy and victimhood.

Really? Because all I'm hearing is how women have had it worse than anybody else. The way some people advocate for women feels very patronizing.

Sad, but true. Thankfully, most of those wars are over now, while women never stopped giving birth.

Saying "most of the wars are over now" is like saying "birth control has just about put an end to pregnancies."

The worst thing about being placed on a pedestal is the knowledge that you aren't the pedestal.

I have no idea what that even means.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I'm sure all the centuries worth of male soldiers and laborers will be glad to know they didn't "serve and suffer" in service to their family and country.

I sens a lot of emotion in that comment, and justifiably so, but all the practical issues mentioned here only create some kind of bizarre competition.

More broadly speaking, what does it mean to be a man or to be a woman? Perhaps it makes more sense to ask: what does it mean not to be a man or not to be a woman.
Could we do something with that?

 

[Frank Underwood]

I sens a lot of emotion in that comment, and justifiably so, but all the practical issues mentioned here only create some kind of bizarre competition.

The competitiveness stems from media amplifying women's issues while vilifying men. Men are frequently told they're the root cause of all evil while having no problems of their own, even though society views us as disposable worker bees. The fact that this has put many men on the defensive shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, especially since this myopic view flies in the face of reality. This has led to men sharing their own personal struggles and mistreatment by women to counter today's strong male resentment.

More broadly speaking, what does it mean to be a man or to be a woman? Perhaps it makes more sense to ask: what does it mean not to be a man or not to be a woman.
Could we do something with that?

There are the obvious biological differences which leads to physical and psychological differences. As a result, we have different abilities and expectations placed on us.

There are men and women who subvert the gender norms, of course, but there's always going to be some exceptions to the rule.

We all have a shared humanity, even if our struggles vary. Neither gender is entirely pure nor entirely flawed. Everybody is capable of greatness and evil.

 

[Willie Oleson]

This has led to men sharing their own personal struggles and mistreatment by women to counter today's strong male resentment

This reverse situation is so fascinating because it could make men more understanding of what women had gone through before the situation was reversed.
And yet we're having none of it.
At the same time there doesn't seem to be any intent to simply reclaim our male dominance and put an end to all of this. I mean, just complaining about it won't do.

We all have a shared humanity, even if our struggles vary. Neither gender is entirely pure nor entirely flawed. Everybody is capable of greatness and evil.

Beautifully said, but I have this feeling that we're missing something, something that's right in front of us.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This reverse situation is so fascinating because it could make men more understanding of what women had gone through before the situation was reversed.
And yet we're having none of it.
At the same time there doesn't seem to be any intent to simply reclaim our male dominance and put an end to all of this. I mean, just complaining about it won't do.

Beautifully said, but I have this feeling that we're missing something, something that's right in front of us.

Straw-woman -- or, perhaps, ovular -- argumentation?

 

[Frank Underwood]

This reverse situation is so fascinating because it could make men more understanding of what women had gone through before the situation was reversed.
And yet we're having none of it.
At the same time there doesn't seem to be any intent to simply reclaim our male dominance and put an end to all of this. I mean, just complaining about it won't do.

Why is the onus only on the men? Why are women allowed to speak in generalities about men and vilify us with impunity, but calling it out is considered misogyny?

Giving birth sucks, but is that the fault of men? Perhaps biology is sexist. And nobody's denying that some women have been physically and sexually abused by men. I think most men do have an understanding and empathy for what women have gone through. However, the solution isn't going scorched earth on men and treating us like we're all either violent sexual abusers or enablers. Men that have harmed women should be held accountable, but why do people tense up when that standard is applied in reverse?

Bill Burr has a great bit about how women generally abuse men differently. They often engage in verbal abuse by using a man's insecurities against him. Women can also be the ones to cheat and ruin the marriage, yet they routinely get custody of the kids and large divorce settlements. Some even resort to physical violence, knowing that it probably won't be taken seriously and that only the man will likely be held accountable if he strikes her back. Of course, few are willing to admit that shallow and abusive women exist.

To put an end to this, it will take all of the rational and decent men and women coming together and advocating for each other. To my delight, that's been happening more and more. This has created a space where everybody's struggles are taken seriously, and nobody is condemned nor deified based solely on their gender. Quite a few women seem to have taken up this mantle lately, likely to show they don't support the anti-male rhetoric that's prevalent in certain circles. These are the women I relate to and appreciate.

Beautifully said, but I have this feeling that we're missing something, something that's right in front of us.

What could it be, pray tell?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Why is the onus only on the men? Why are women allowed to speak in generalities about men and vilify us with impunity, but calling it out is considered misogyny?

Giving birth sucks, but is that the fault of men? Perhaps biology is sexist. And nobody's denying that some women have been physically and sexually abused by men. I think most men do have an understanding and empathy for what women have gone through. However, the solution isn't going scorched earth on men and treating us like we're all either violent sexual abusers or enablers. Men that have harmed women should be held accountable, but why do people tense up when that standard is applied in reverse?

Bill Burr has a great bit about how women generally abuse men differently. They often engage in verbal abuse by using a man's insecurities against him. Women can also be the ones to cheat and ruin the marriage, yet they routinely get custody of the kids and large divorce settlements. Some even resort to physical violence, knowing that it probably won't be taken seriously and that only the man will likely be held accountable if he strikes her back. Of course, few are willing to admit that shallow and abusive women exist.

To put an end to this, it will take all of the rational and decent men and women coming together and advocating for each other. To my delight, that's been happening more and more. This has created a space where everybody's struggles are taken seriously, and nobody is condemned nor deified based solely on their gender. Quite a few women seem to have taken up this mantle lately, likely to show they don't support the anti-male rhetoric that's prevalent in certain circles. These are the women I relate to and appreciate.


What could it be, pray tell?

Awwww -- he's just shameless virtue signaling! Pay no attention to the dude behind the curtain!

 

[Willie Oleson]

I don't feel that my tensions are being relaxed in this thread, despite the overwhelming number of participating homosexuals.

 

[Laurie Marr]

And yet what a lot of the contributions to this thread seem to demonstrate yet never fully articulate is the intersection between misogyny and homophobia. Although I’m not persuaded by all the arguments, a useful summary of this perspective can be found here:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/misogyny-and-homophobia-patriarchy-gender-policing-and-male-gaze/

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Gloria Steinem once said that gay male porn was really just the acting out of male-female sexual power dynamics.

So even when men have sex with each other, especially if a camera is present, it's really all about women.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Gloria Steinem once said that gay male porn was really just the acting out of male-female sexual power dynamics.

So even when men have sex with each other, especially if a camera is present, it's really all about women.

But feminists won't accuse that statement of being at the intersection of misandry and homophobia, will they? Classic narcissism.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And yet what a lot of the contributions to this thread seem to demonstrate yet never fully articulate is the intersection between misogyny and homophobia. Although I’m not persuaded by all the arguments, a useful summary of this perspective can be found here:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/misogyny-and-homophobia-patriarchy-gender-policing-and-male-gaze/

Gloria Steinem once said that gay male porn was really just the acting out of male-female sexual power dynamics.

So even when men have sex with each other, especially if a camera is present, it's really all about women.

But feminists won't accuse that statement of being at the intersection of misandry and homophobia, will they? Classic narcissism.

Of course, the term "misogyny" is tossed around eternally. But is misogyny and "hating women" always wrong?

Many feminists openly admit to hating men. And some may have valid reasons.

But is the flip-side never the case? Should no one ever hate women??

And is that because he has "all the power" and she "has none"?

 

[Frank Underwood]

Of course, the term "misogyny" is tossed around eternally. But is misogyny and "hating women" always wrong?

Many feminists openly admit to hating men. And some may have valid reasons.

But is the flip-side never the case? Should no one ever hate women??

And is that because he has "all the power" and she "has none"?

I've often thought about that as well. Discussing bad behavior by women invariably leads to accusations of misogyny, and the male bashing continues.

Conceding that men can be awful too ultimately falls on deaf ears. Plenty of women are misandrists and homophobes themselves, but we're supposed to focus solely on men.

Women have generally held all the power in divorce proceedings, and they've broken the glass ceiling elsewhere as well. Women are routinely in positions of authority now. A woman won the popular vote in 2016, we currently have our first female VP, and Taylor Swift's such a huge star that she's seen as having the potential to decide a presidential election. How much more power do women need? The funny thing is these ladies are likely the first to tell you how oppressed women are. Talk about sticking to the narrative!

The lesbian porn angle mentioned in the article is also funny, considering the performers are willing paid participants. The fact that lesbian porn is geared towards men is irrelevant. I think it's safe to say that nobody watches porn for its "accurate portrayal" of sex and relationships. It's fantasy like rom coms, which are geared towards women.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The lesbian porn angle mentioned in the article is also funny, considering the performers are willing paid participants. The fact that lesbian porn is geared towards men is irrelevant. I think it's safe to say that nobody watches porn for its "accurate portrayal" of sex and relationships. It's fantasy like rom coms, which are geared towards women.

Apparently, gay male porn is quite popular among a certain subset of straight women. Analyze that as you may.

 

[Laurie Marr]

Women are just as prone to poor behaviour as men. Of course they are. Yet we are not talking about behaviours here, but the psychosocial and macroeconomic structures that legitimate unequal distributions of power. Gender, sexuality, and race are potentially counter-hegemonic sites of ‘difference’ and therefore the scene of ideological struggle in often contradictory ways. This is the dialectical materialist perspective that I find most agreeable.

However, what we now call ‘identity politics’ is really just late capitalism writ large: consumer choice reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Women are just as prone to poor behaviour as men. Of course they are. Yet we are not talking about behaviours here, but the psychosocial and macroeconomic structures that legitimate unequal distributions of power. Gender, sexuality, and race are potentially counter-hegemonic sites of ‘difference’ and therefore the scene of ideological struggle in often contradictory ways. This is the dialectical materialist perspective that I find most agreeable.

However, what we now call ‘identity politics’ is really just late capitalism writ large: consumer choice reductio ad absurdum.

I have said that so many times.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Behavior still factors into these discussions. The misconception that men are obnoxious brutes, while women are innocence and light is still quite prevalent today.

Beyond that, yes, white men have typically been the dominant force in positions of power. However, poor and working-class white males have routinely been lumped in with their powerful counterparts. People often lament "white men" in general, rather than distinguish between the powerful and the middle/lower class majority. I doubt this narrative is ever going away, despite the gains that people of color and women have made. The centers of power from consumerism to the government, and even to the military industrial complex no longer care who controls them. Instead of the races and sexes battling it out, it should be the poor and working class against these oppressive forces.

As for identity politics, I tend to think of that in terms of one's personal characteristics being disingenuously used as a shield against criticism of any kind.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Behavior still factors into these discussions. The misconception that men are obnoxious brutes, while women are innocence and light is still quite prevalent today.

Beyond that, yes, white men have typically been the dominant force in positions of power. However, poor and working-class white males have routinely been lumped in with their powerful counterparts. People often lament "white men" in general, rather than distinguish between the powerful and the middle/lower class majority. I doubt this narrative is ever going away, despite the gains that people of color and women have made. The centers of power from consumerism to the government, and even to the military industrial complex no longer care who controls them. Instead of the races and sexes battling it out, it should be the poor and working class against these oppressive forces.

As for identity politics, I tend to think of that in terms of one's personal characteristics being disingenuously used as a shield against criticism of any kind.

I've said before that wokeness is a scam to bring down the Left, to keep the underclasses fighting with each other and to deflect attention and anger away from what the rulers are doing with all the money -- which is the oldest political trick in the book. And it seemed to begin in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

And do I mean a deep state, intelligence black op?

You betchya. In the '60s, they had a significant program to infiltrate the various counter-culture movements to damage their reputations and to bring them down. And to some degree, they were successful.

Would that be so much harder in the era of social media?