[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

lunchbox12682 wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

The idea that the commercial might be calling out physical play is drastically misplaced, IMO. Physical play has rules. When you put your hands on another person in a dispute, that's not play.

I mean the following as way to generate discussion and not as an attack.

Please define all the rules of childhood socialization and in a way children at various ages can understand them and generally implement them without significant oversight (From this I mean to avoid helicopter parenting versus laziness or neglect) from adults.

It is not difficult for play to go out of bounds, and while we do need to observe and teach our children, they have to be given the space to try out their understanding of the rules.
I am not defending "boys will be boys", but throwing out physical play outside of formal sports is not the correct answer, in my opinion.

Finally, youtube sucks as I was unable to find a non-reaction version of the video by searching youtube. I had to go through other sites first.

Beating someone up because of a dispute isn't play.

Beating someone up without prior consent isn't play.

Don't beat people up outside of agreed-upon rules, formal sport or otherwise. Seriously.

If you're being assaulted physically, you are being attacked by a hostile force. No more rules. Use whatever you've learned to create an opening, then run.

DO NOT engage an attacker on their terms. If you didn't premeditate the assault or murder of your playmate, then you are at a disadvantage, so you should run.

Running from an encounter where you do not know all the variables is sound strategy, not cowardice.

Initiating serious combat without first making absolutely sure you will win is foolhardy, not brave.

If your kid has a history of violently breaking rules of behavior, do not allow them to interact with other children outside of your direct visual supervision, or that of trusted supervisor. This includes instructing the kid that they are not allowed to be outside the eyesight of a teacher at school.

Bfgp wrote:

Hold on, there's so much that is wrong in the bullying scenes from that clip.

Like there's no physical of that kid getting chased by the mob of boys until right at the end where they corner him. Assault doesn't require physical contact.

Letting boys wrestle to the point one is in mount position and beating down the other is also ridiculously bad. Since when is violence the answer to dispute resolution?

There's a place for physical contact and to control aggressive tendencies. That's sports, martial arts, and the like. In controlled environments with rules.

Resilience and mental fortitude aren't things we should be teaching through aggression and violence. It's sending the wrong signal about what constitutes strength. It's signalling that the big tough guy is the ideal man.

I am not at all defending the chasing scene. That's flat out bullying. I think the resolution to that storyline(?) is well done.

I am only talking about the boys wrestling on the ground. And yes, I will state that I think the commercial is insufficiently showing that the boys are out of control. I rewatched it to make sure. There are two small scenes of the boys through the commercial. Nothing I see in either is different than what I see in my community, including youth wrestling where the kids of similar age barely understand the rules and are mostly doing what is shown in the video. I think the point could have been better made with either less fast cuts or different positioning of the kids. Or go with the "cliche/trope" (I couldn't think of a better term) of the boy pulling the girls pigtails and call out that type of behavior.

I also want to restate I am glad Gillette made this commercial and agree with the message. I am being pedantic, because this is a discussion forum.

The problem is that the young boys are wrestling and the parents elect not to intervene. No. Once kids are playing violently, you need to set rules on what is acceptable and what is not. Frankly, even if they're quarreling nonviolently, you should do that, too. There's a way to fight without burning bridges or causing permanent bodily injuries.

lunchbox12682 wrote:

I am only talking about the boys wrestling on the ground. And yes, I will state that I think the commercial is insufficiently showing that the boys are out of control. I rewatched it to make sure.

Watch again. Those kids aren't having fun - one especially. I also answered your question above. "We use our words." is the fundamental core of all socialization recommended in NAEYC accredited teaching programs worldwide. It is the default for when children don't yet have the fine motor skills for physical play, and is something they carry forward.

I think the whole concept of big strong men defending themselves is one of the core problems with toxic masculinity. In modern society there is frankly no role for physical altercations. We need to teach our boys that the response to physical assault is to flee until you can contact authorities. There is literally no scenario where exerting violence on another human being is going to be to your benefit. I don’t even buy the military example, I’ll take technology over big and strong on the battlefield any day.

I don’t encourage my son or daughter to engage in any type of play where they are physically trying to dominate someone else including playful wrestling. I also don’t encourage them to participate in any sports where they are physically trying to overpower another person directly (football etc) as I don’t think there are any worthwhile life lessons to be learned there. They can learn team work in music or drama or learn competition through non contact sports like tennis (or Fortnite for that matter).

lunchbox12682: My wife and I also parent with the philosophy that "kids resolve their own issues first, only help when necessary". I appreciate how important it is to allow the child to feel their own autonomy first in deciding how to tackle a problem, include a problem with other kids being overly aggressive/physical. So I've got a minor point and a major point about the wrestling shown in the video. Minor point is the same as has been said already I think about when physical play is out of bounds.

Major point: That wrestling/bullying happened at a social event. There were people standing all around, some of them watching. The bully here is learning that they can hurt people without repercussions. The victim is learning that no one will help even if they know what's going on. And EVERYONE ELSE is reinforcing the message that it's not necessary to step up. Which I feel is the better point the video makes about men's ability to influence other men.

My point isn't that the behavior was out of control (although it looks like it was to me). My point is that a social space where you would face social consequences is clearly not the right place for roughhousing and someone (the adult) needs to step in and enforce those consequences / provide support and defense to the victims.

Gotta say, gents, I'm baffled that we're taking issue with that part of the commercial. I think - I think - it's clearly intended to show one boy beating up another one. The fact that one boy isn't actually beating up another one is because it's kids on TV.

Standing idly by while one boy beats up another kid isn't ok. Saying that men should intervene in that situation is not the same as saying physical play isn't ok.

This is my quick reply to state I am not ignoring all of the responses and I appreciate all of them.
I am thinking hard about this and will post more when I am comfortable with my full response.

lunchbox12682 wrote:

This is my quick reply to state I am not ignoring all of the responses and I appreciate all of them.
I am thinking hard about this and will post more when I am comfortable with my full response.

I'm in the same boat. Lots of fires at work so didn't get a chance to respond till now, and I will likely want to say more when I have more time.

First, I want to thank everyone for some great responses. I also want to clarify that I don't personally believe that the commercial showed normal rough housing vs bullying, only that is a complaint I've heard in other circles. I also wanted to clarify that I'm not talking about boys stockpiling real weapons. I'm talking more about parents being freaked out about durburger shotguns in Fortnite and nerf pistols. (Yes, this is definitely a thing, at least here in Seattle).

I see valid points about patriarchy driving a lot of bad behavior, but as I said before I'm not sure how to best balance sweetness with toughness in my son. I honestly don't think it's realistic to expect most men to go their lives without having to fight at some point. My lesson at school was the teachers didn't really give a sh*t so I was picked on until I got a growth spurt, lost 30 pounds, and was able to swing back hard. I also feel that we are in an age where some freak ISIS allegiant or alt right psycho could attack at any moment, and I'm not sure that the police will be there to help. As my LE friends always remind me, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

I'm not saying to start fights or not get away if you can. Only that I'm not sure straight pacifism works, at least not any more.

My kids were raised with "We use our words." They also took self defense classes. How are those ideas incompatible? (Rule number one of self defense is still: The best fight to have is the one where you're not present.)

jdzappa wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:

This is my quick reply to state I am not ignoring all of the responses and I appreciate all of them.
I am thinking hard about this and will post more when I am comfortable with my full response.

I'm in the same boat. Lots of fires at work so didn't get a chance to respond till now, and I will likely want to say more when I have more time.

First, I want to thank everyone for some great responses. I also want to clarify that I don't personally believe that the commercial showed normal rough housing vs bullying, only that is a complaint I've heard in other circles. I also wanted to clarify that I'm not talking about boys stockpiling real weapons. I'm talking more about parents being freaked out about durburger shotguns in Fortnite and nerf pistols. (Yes, this is definitely a thing, at least here in Seattle).

I see valid points about patriarchy driving a lot of bad behavior, but as I said before I'm not sure how to best balance sweetness with toughness in my son. I honestly don't think it's realistic to expect most men to go their lives without having to fight at some point. My lesson at school was the teachers didn't really give a sh*t so I was picked on until I got a growth spurt, lost 30 pounds, and was able to swing back hard. I also feel that we are in an age where some freak ISIS allegiant or alt right psycho could attack at any moment, and I'm not sure that the police will be there to help. As my LE friends always remind me, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

I'm not saying to start fights or not get away if you can. Only that I'm not sure straight pacifism works, at least not any more.

Wow. That's interesting. I live in the Philippines, and unfortunately, we are currently known as a place where people get shot in the head in broad daylight for reasons. It's true. That happens. But that's not a fight. That's an assassination, and most of the time, if you can foil the attempt before it happens, it's as good as done. Assassins don't fight. They kill. If they can't get the kill, they usually back off and try some other time.

I have never had any reason to fight. I'm 43. I've been involved with exactly one fight in my life, and that was my fault. I hit him and took him down. After a while, he came at me and hit me back. After that, it was fine. Our friends intervened, saying it wasn't his fault and that having hit back already, fair was fair and things were squared up. I agreed. We remained friends afterwards.

Note how I said that - my MALE friends were intervening outside of teacher influence to deescalate a fight. I suspected that he wanted more than one hit, but he came at me with a lot of people present, and they only allowed him one hit back. That was it.

It is horrific to me that teachers anywhere would allow a fight to go on without intervention. Do you guys hold yourself back or something? Because even boys as young as 7 can wield a knife, and it will be dangerous. Kids can kill other kids. Even a rock or a wrench can be remarkably dangerous. How is it none of your schoolmates died?

Now, if all you're using are intentionally less-lethal violent attacks, then I really don't see the point. Why would you hit someone outside of regulated rules if you weren't planning on killing them?

@ LouZiffer - I was speaking more to some of the other posters but you make a good point. I still worry about my sons ability to fight back and stand up for himself even though I’ve enrolled him in self defense courses as well. I’m talking more of how can I protect him from the daily anguish I endured.

@ Larry - I guess one silver lining of growing up in the 80s is there were fewer school shootings, but I did witness a stabbing in the cafeteria. On the other hand, bullying was definitely seen as part of growing up or in some cases actively encouraged. If you were at the bottom of the social pile, nobody really stuck up for you there.

I am glad at least that bullying is taken much more seriously.

Jayhawker wrote:

Really fun segment with Steve Young on PTI yesterday. Yes, part of it is his unadulterated enthusiasm for Pat Mahomes. But the end of the segment, when he talks about other things he is jealous of, in relation to the modern game versus his day and age, is pretty good.

"You telling me I can just put the ball into the belly of a back and just wait and watch the safeties to see what they are gonna do? Come-on, it's cheating!"

He comes on at 11:35:

Sorry for the double back-to-back quote but I just saw this and was confused.

jdzappa wrote:

I guess one silver lining of growing up in the 80s is there were fewer school shootings, but I did witness a stabbing in the cafeteria. On the other hand, bullying was definitely seen as part of growing up or in some cases actively encouraged. If you were at the bottom of the social pile, nobody really stuck up for you there.

I am glad at least that bullying is taken much more seriously.

I think it's because of the flawed idea that the way to stop bullying is to stand up for yourself. This definitely doesn't stop bullying. It just shifts the target. The way to stop bullying is to stand up for everyone else. You become anti-bully. You don't only stop the bully from bullying you, you actively intervene when they're bullying other people, whether or not they're your friends.

When held as a virtue in the community at large, this is effective at stopping bullies, because it obligates everyone who isn't being bullied to defending the weakest members. It is the only way that works on a practical level.

I am not sure I have all the answers.

I grew up in a rough area. Saw my share of bullying, was even targeted a few times. I was training in martial arts at the time and could hold my ground. Or at least the hotheaded youth I was thought he could. That bravado was not really helpful. Every time it was at flashpoint, fortunately someone from the peer group stepped in to de-escalate. Later on I figured out boys just do it so they don't get targeted. Most boys grow out of it. I didn't see it in senior years, by then everyone realised time was precious and stopped the infighting.

These days, we live in a very privileged area. Kids are from families in the upper quartile income group and multicultural backgrounds and there's no physical bullying. Fights just don't happen in our children's school. Rough play happened once at YMCA after school care. One boy went berserk after losing a sport match and started shoving all the other boys to the ground. A couple of them were crying including my boy. This happened under supervision by a male worker. That night I wrote an angry email to YMCA about duty of care and bullying. Within the week they had run an urgent training session for their staff across the entire district and rolled out sessions for the kids. I'm pleased to say it hasn't happened again. That was three years ago.

Jdzappa, I know where you're coming from even though the likelihood of occurrence in my children's school is very low. Initially I worried about the self defence thing and tried teaching my kids a few moves for self defence. They've not needed it, and honestly, I'm doubting they'll ever need it. In saying that, I'm conscious that not every community and school is as fortunate as ours, and so, I can appreciate a higher level of vigilance and preparation may be warranted. However the lessons my sensei imparted about knife/gun defence and his wisdom about running the hell away from danger rings true even today. Who knows what a kid in this day and age will bring to a schoolyard fight. Getting away and staying away may be the best answer in addition to fostering environments where zero tolerance is given to any bullying so any would-be bullies feel too uncomfortable to attempt it.

“Bfgp” wrote:

Rough play happened once at YMCA after school care. One boy went berserk after losing a sport match and started shoving all the other boys to the ground.

Can we not call this “play”? It isn’t. Play is consensual; unilateral aggression isn’t.

Thanks guys for letting me unpack this. My upper middle class friends in tech don't get it because they never experienced it, and a lot of my working class/military friends and family feel that it's just the way it is. Life sucks, get a helmet, do unto others or get done. Sadly, it's one of the reasons they love Trump so much because he embodies their world view.

I'm trying to navigate between the two worlds and prepare my son to have a better childhood than I did. Reading Bfgp's post, I also recognize that I may be overanxious about what my son will have to face. I guess all I can do is be supportive and try to make sure the adults and teachers around me do their jobs, which so far is working.

One last note Bfgp - I've also had some bad situations at the local Y but it's good to hear that the staff took things seriously.

jdzappa wrote:

Thanks guys for letting me unpack this. My upper middle class friends in tech don't get it because they never experienced it, and a lot of my working class/military friends and family feel that it's just the way it is. Life sucks, get a helmet, do unto others or get done. Sadly, it's one of the reasons they love Trump so much because he embodies their world view.

I'm trying to navigate between the two worlds and prepare my son to have a better childhood than I did. Reading Bfgp's post, I also recognize that I may be overanxious about what my son will have to face. I guess all I can do is be supportive and try to make sure the adults and teachers around me do their jobs, which so far is working.

As part of that you can ensure he gets every opportunity possible to let him figure out who he is, what he likes, and what he wants to be in life. As he figures things out, connect with other families with kids who share in those things. He'll get a lot from that, potentially including friends that will last a lifetime.

I'm a straight, cis, white male. In December I stood on a pride float in a Christmas parade in rural Florida with my son and his group of teens. For three hours we were waving and wishing a genuine Merry Christmas to people - some of whom cheered, and others of whom gave us thumbs down and stinky faces. Being a parent took me there because it's so much less about who I am than who my kid is.

Personally I don't feel there is anything wrong with your concerns, jdzappa. I should add that when I emailed the YMCA, I was so angry I did it using my work email (I'm a lawyer with my own firm). Full of threats about if they didn't investigate the incident and develop staff/children to mitigate further incidents then I'd be reporting it to higher authorities. That probably made them take it more seriously than they might have otherwise. I took advantage of my legal "privilege" but hey it got positive results for the kids and that's what I was focusing on.

As much as I'd like to hope the adults will be there to prevent these kinds of things, there will be times they won't. The system fails children all too often. I'm not holding it out as any shining beacon of moral lessons (and it's got a ton of toxic masculinity content and other crap which I didn't like) but the Cobra Kai film series (it's a continuation of the Karate Kid movies in the millenial age group) is a good example of the bullsh*t kids may experience, both physical assault and cyber bullying. Aside from its entertainment value (YMMV) it's worth watching just to try and understand how kids are these days, because it's vastly different to the 90s I grew up in.

I can empathise with jdrappa as I am similarly a case of breaking out of my humble beginnings and seeing the hopelessness of those who haven't been as fortunate and those who were never subjected to the same environment. The former haven't had the luxury of being able to be complacent and the latter are complacent on the issue.

I would advise that no one look to fictional media to get a feel for what kids deal with today. One because it would suck if Flash Thompson were a self-fulfilling prophecy. Two because media about kids seems to better represent kids at least one generation back, and even then it is more informed by other media rather than, you know, real kids.

Nevermind

I just thought it was a "had multiple tabs open and posted in the wrong thread" thing.

Stengah wrote:

I just thought it was a "had multiple tabs open and posted in the wrong thread" thing.

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt - deleted.

I just watched that commercial for the first time. It’s hard to believe that anyone would take issue with it. I showed it to my wife and she loved it.

And yes, the ad reps at Gillette are probably primarily concerned about getting as many eyes on their ad as possible. But I’d rather see an ad like that one than one featuring red ass hats and tiki torches.

I've seen the ad being called "anti-male" which is pretty silly.

I'm still waiting for these redpill alpha male folks to start accusing feminists for the gradual disappearance of the y chromosome. Or maybe they are, I haven't done too much digging yet.

Well, for what it's worth, I did my semi-annual round of the worst sites I can tolerate, and I can say with some satisfaction that Roosh's Return of Kings website has been shuttered because of lack of funding from the public at large and probably because he can't get anyone else to touch him with a ten foot pole. In addition, I think Milo is heading down a similar path, so good news on that front.

Milo (or was it his company) still owes the Victorian Police here something like $60,000 in security fees for his events in Melbourne. I'd say good riddance except he hasn't paid his debt to the police. Same thing as that lady Canadian extremist, Laura Southern (??) whoever whatever (all I remember was that she tried to get a rise out of random white Aussies in Melbourne but they called her out on her bs). Those hate speech kinds have that same common denominator as far as I'm concerned, they're happy to cause a nuisance at a cost to the public but won't pay for protection fees to maintain public order.

A former family law client was really into that redpill / MRA stuff. I tried to steer him into proper counselling but he found solace in it. He wasn't a client for very long, went on to sue every single one of his lawyers and not pay their fees. Not dissimilar to the extremists I mention above.

The situation at large is evolving and I think that particular part of the toxic male cultural sphere has just about reached the end of its rope. MRA and MGTOW are possible end-points for some people, but that only appeals to a particular subset of people. Many men do not have appropriate role models or structures to learn from or hang their hats on so they were looking. Redpill and PUA were there to exploit them, but on the whole, those approaches were always doomed to failure.

Particularly in the book, "The Game," by Neil Strauss, which is probably already embellished beyond belief, many readers and possibly even the author himself, fail to note that the end game for Mystery (the supposed protagonist) is not a happy ending. Even when it "works" trying to fool a woman into having a relationship with you only ends up with you shacking up with a fool.