I decided to raise my ass from the couch and do something real. And then I decided that I could just contribute to a blog (while sitting on my ass) of the only men’s group on the US campus. There is only one University in the US that has a men’s issues group. It’s called Kennesaw State and, frankly, I don’t even where it is in the US. But the man who did IS clearly remarkable and clearly could spend his time on more important things (such as this: http://ksumen.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/sga-spring-block-party/). And my ass could remain on the couch and do low-level work. Like writing up a 500-1000 words based on their weekly video updates. Like this one: http://ksumen.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/news-roundup-march-23rd/
Admittedly Sage greatly revised my original draft. So all of the jokes are gone. And that’s a good thing 🙂
Wow, what a post! Brief summary: it’s about suicide in Ireland which is much higher among men and about the fact
that most (all?) suicide prevention clinics/hotlines provide very little support to gender specific needs. In the
case of men that would be divorce. And the most amazing thing is, well, in the end of the post. Should I move to Ireland, I wonder?
Feminists – they are not victims so I, probably, shouldn’t blame them. Or something.
I’ll be brief: How is this http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/story.html?id=9270200
not victim blaming? I mean how? We have someone murdered and we blame not the murderer but the dead person. At the same time you are not supposed to say don’t walk drunk while dressed provocatively in dark streets. That would be victim blaming and not common sense as one could mistakenly think.
I should repeat it everyday, otherwise it’s so easy to get it wrong.
Feminists – well, read the title.
Heard today on NPR a show where they were talking about what to do is your called bossy? That is boy called bosses and girls called bossy? Negative reinforcement, or whatever.
I am not going to say that it infantilizes (is it a word?) women. Sure, it’s quite infantilizing when apparently the only thing preventing you being a leader is someone calling you bossy.
And I”m not going to say that because it is politically correct BS that has exactly the same goal as the original intention.
What I have to say is that if I ever needed a proof that feminism is for upper-middle class well-off women then here it is. The thing is that there are not so many leaders out there. And those that are potential leaders and were unfortunate enough to be born in a poor or even middle-class household without connections, well, most likely that will not be able to realize their leadership’s potential. Whether boys or girls. But feminism is not about them. It’s not about how to improve inequality in literacy rates, or in inequality in GPA between boys and girls, especially for those with low income. No. It’s about rich girls getting more.
Feminists – I do not like them.
This website: http://areyouafeminist.com/ has a test on whether you are a feminist or not. It takes just two questions. Do you think all human beings are equal? Do you think women are human beings? You answer yes to both of them and you are deemed feminist-y enough.
I think everyone already said lots of things about “feminism is about equality and if you believe in equality you are a feminist”. My personal favorite is Victor Zen who said something like (not a quotation) “I don’t understand why feminism decided that it can monopolize the concept of equality. I believe in equality but let me choose for myself what movement represents me”.
Anyway to the point. Here is my test (I am not German, been there a couple of times):
1) Do you admire German culture, German’s writers, composers, philosophers? Yes/No
2) Do you wish prosperity to German people? Yes/No
If you answered “Yes” to both questions then congratulations – you are Nazi.
Feminists – I dislike them.
Let’s talk about single mothers, shall we. Single parenting is bad for kids. The study below  is one of the thousands (it is the first one I found after quick google-fu) that shows poorer academic achievement for divorced kids. A nice twist is study  that specifically points out that single parenting hurts boys stronger than girls in terms of cognitive development. Why? Because boys are more sensitive to parental input. Single parents, mostly mothers, do not have enough time for proper parental input which disproportionally hurts boys. No time for boys to be boys. We’ll start screwing you as soon as you are out. Anyway, negative effects: earlier pregnancy, depression, drugs, crime, suicide are all there as well.
Where am I going with it? Anjya Eriud pointed out here: http://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/c-u-n-ts/ that these days saying “I’m a single mother” is like some medal of honor. Forget that being a single mother is no longer a matter of circumstances but a matter of choice. Forget that most time the choice is usually selfish and made by the mother who keeps the kid(s) who has full control of whether and when the father (aka non-custodial parent) can see the kid(s) and who cares about it more than kids’ well-being. Forget that because it was said thousand times.
Here is what I’m curious about. After “I’m a single mother” it often goes that “and my kids are doing just great” (or variation thereof). What I do not understand is Where are ALL those single mothers who screw their own kids? They are the majority but I never heard anyone saying: “I should not have divorced the kid’s father. It really disadvantaged my kids.” Never. It’s like every single’s mother kid is blessed by being single’s mother kid.
 Potter, D. (2010), Psychosocial Well-Being and the Relationship Between Divorce and Children’s Academic Achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72: 933–946.
 Bertrand, Marianne, and Jessica Pan. 2013. “The Trouble with Boys: Social Influences and the Gender Gap in Disruptive Behavior.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(1): 32-64.
Feminist – I don’t like them.
Probably everyone watched a movie “The Ring”. When I first watched it, my bed was right next to TV and that was scary. What is that point that I’m making? I liked it so much that I read the book and watched the original, Japanese movie which is called, easily enough, Ringu.
And here is what you have: in the book the two main characters are actually two men, say A and B. They are friends and work together on saving A’s family.
Then: a Japanese movie. A becomes a woman and B becomes her ex-husband. No problem here, because, Nanako Matsushima who played A is SO pretty! Ok, there was a tiny problem: in the book A had to lift baskets of water from the well, while B went down to the well and was filling those baskets with water. In a book A was a man so it does not matter. In the movie it seems weird that A is doing physically difficult work but whatever. Let’s focus on B, ladies and gentlemen: B in a Japanese movie is a very successful professor ata University with a young and pretty girlfriend. It is a hint from B at the very end of the movie that helps A to finally figure out the solution.
Then we have an American movie. What happens to B? He is still A’s ex but he is a COMPLETE loser, unemployed and, well, basically, A does everything while “projecting intelligence, determination and resourcefulness that carry the movie nicely” (Wiki). B, however, becomes almost tangential to the story.
How difficult was it to just leave B as he was? A resourceful man and a father trying to save his own kid and contributing as much as the mother. Nope. Men can only be losers.