they never can say. And when they do, it never has any credible source to back it up. They all seem to get their stats from Warren Farrell and dont see an issue with this.

Ha! One of my friends was sitting by that dude at the Blogging Feminism talk and he told her that he was there for the sole purpose of schooling you guys about Dr. Laura.

hmmm areas where men are currently underrepresented.....k-12 education especially k-5, college campuses, any age demographic over 30, gender-specific medical research (check the numbers from the early-90's till now), domestic violence and rape treatment (as victims, funding and activism for), control of spending power, and a bunch of other things, does it do any good to say men are never underrepresented if, without going into real specific things, one could easily point to college campuses or retirement? it sucks when peoples kneejerk reaction is 'what about the men" but i see this less as an issue of the patriarchy and more an indicator of the innate sense of fairness most reasonable people have, especially people unaware of what is really going on in this country. the cartoon is a classic one but when i read it it speaks more to me about class/wealth than gender.

"control of spending power"

Umm... not in the world I live in, whether you're talking about govt, business, or family. At least when it comes to the big-spending items...

"gender-specific medical research"

perhaps that is because all medical research was done on white males for about a hundred years, and they had to actually do some studies with women to get the results on the same stuff they have been studying with men.
k-12 education - because the first job women were ever allowed to have outside of the home was teaching, and for decades it was seen as more fit for women, while college professorships were more fit for men.

I'm pretty sure, when men bring up why feminists leave out men, it is about the patriarchy, and not about any innate sense of fairness. And most discrepancies for men can probably be explained by the influence of the patriarchy, even lack of treatment for rapes and domestic violence. (real men can't be raped, real men can't be beaten by their partners, etc.)

This cartoon echoes my doctoral advisor these days - everytime feminism is brought up, he needs to discuss how men (and particularly he) are influenced by it. A few years ago he showed up with 2 other men to a conference on women's issues in our field, and all he got out of it was how uncomfortable he felt. But he thinks he supports women because he went and he's looking out for them. Grrr - paternalism cloys.

Feminism, and this site, have made me a better man -- I can truthfully say that. And I can understand that when you hear some men say "what about the men?" you would cringe because it suggests that you are seeking advantages over men, and it suggests that men are not more privileged than women. I do believe that it is easier being a man than a woman in America -- sadly still, and almost assuredly everywhere. And I am really a guy.

That doesn't mean there aren't SOME areas where the unfair gender stereotyping that feminists have raised awareness about doesn't hurt men. It is unfortunate that some may feel a need to minimize whatever unfairness touches men simply because men are more privileged. I see that as a reaction to the men's rights advocates who espouse that women are the devil personified.

I am involved with a prostrate cancer charity, and it's true that government funds for breast cancer research outpace funds for prostate cancer research by nearly two to one. Does that mean I think breast cancer gets TOO MUCH attention? Hell, no! It's great that breast cancer gets the attention it does and it should get more. I'm trying to help do the same for prostate cancer.

I invite the men who are so concerned about "female privilege" to join me in fighting prostate cancer. Then we can talk about young male suicide rates, male crime rates, the male life expectancy gap. Let's actually DO something, guys, instead of moaning about how privileged the women are. Women have led the fight to tackle problems that affect them, because they are more familiar with them (Duh!). Men need to quit whining and do the same thing.

Are you kidding? Gender-specific medical research? Could have something to do with the fact that research into medical issues that affect men is rarely considered gender-specific, and women have historically been considered men with uteruses when it comes to medical research, i.e. research done primarily on men and male cadavers was applied to women. But everything that affects women is considered gender-specific.
If they are even making a dent now into understanding women's health by funneling more resources into women's health (which I find hard to believe) then it's about fucking time.

Women's health issues are still rarely taken seriously. A glance through Feministings archives shows how often women's health is put at risk by misogynist attitudes. I'm thinking of, for example, how much activism has been required to even start to address pelvic exams in which women's pain and discomfort is completely ignored.

Femidancer, all of your points are about the way things used to be. "The first jobs women WERE allowed to have," and "all the medical research WAS done on white males."
I don't believe it is the women's job to stick up for men in areas where they feel like they are being ignored. But it does not mean that it doesn't happen. Male victims of rape are very often brushed to the side. Blame it on the patriarchy all you like, it doesn't make the reality of it any less important.

And a great big "RIGHT ON!" to Noah! You fu*king rock! You read my mind!

control of spending power...personal spending, look it up or I'll find some links for you. Whether they make it or not, the numbers do show women controlling well more than half of the personal spending power.

gender-specific med research, yes there was a terrible lack of medical research specific to females for a long time. primarily for sexist reasons but also because some men unfortunately thought anything that worked on them would work on women. One of the main things that kept women out of the studies in numbers equal to men was keeping women out of a lot of studies due to not knowing what effect the study might have on their reproductive system, a reasonable if short-sighted error. This was changed in the early 90's and now you have situations like breast cancer versus prostate cancer as one example of the overall shift in spending priorities. Are past sins, such as the spending/focus on medical research and the dearth of female college entry "made up" for by the current and projected stats which show men, as a group, being underrepresented?

K-12, true women had teaching as a viable option for a long time but if you'd like, go back to the 20's or any time around them and see what the male % of k-12 education was and the barriers keeping men out now, a lot of them are the same for all, low pay, bad conditions, but also a gender bias. I did find it interesting when my male friend was accused of being a pedophile because "why else would a man want to be around 8-year olds?

I find it fascinating, at what point is it not "ok" for women to outnumber men greatly on college campuses and to live longer and have more resources allocated to their medical well-being? If it wasnt ok once, why is it now? If some person, male or female, asks you a "what about the men" type question, why respond with "cite me an example" instead of, "thats not what im focusing on right now/speaking about right now" or even "check out this fem101 blog or these links they will answer your questions".

Believing its mostly patriarchy and not fairness is cool, we all see things differently but whats the answer to "why dont feminists attack the patriarchy in all its forms, especially how it affects men as doing so could bring in tens of millions of more allies?" im not asking that question literally, i went through that years ago but its not a bad question to ask but usually gets a heated response or none at all. How about "why is the patriarchy allowing women to abuse children so much? why do we have to live in a child abuse culture?" Or this cartoon, as has been done before, change the characters to two white women and ask about the naacp, get the opp olympics off and running. Sure, its the patriarchy that hurts men so much and keeps them down as far as healthcare, suicides, education and so on but how do we move on from that assertion? What to do now? Gah sorry for the rant.

dananddanica, you fu*cking rock as well!!!!!!! That was one of the best comments I've ever seen. I think it's awesome to hear a level-headed male response to these issues. They do, after all, affect all of us.

Noah, that was beautiful and well said.

dananddanica, the brand of troll that was discussed in the post is one I have come across before. You explain to them that the things they are worried about are all parts of the patriarchy, yes, even the things that are bad for men, and they look at you like you've grown a second head and start talking about how its lies told by the feminists to bring down western civilization. I doubt anyone is arguing that the things that happen to men are not bad, or not gender based. We are questioning why it is that feminists are expected to "prove" how we are for equality by dropping anything that is woman specific to focus on men's problems, when if these trolls really cared about what happened to men, they would become activists for it,instead of attacking women who choose to work on issues regarding women. Noah has it right on.

Back in the day, I was a staff member at Truman State's Women's Resource Center, and we'd always have smartass guys asking "Where's the Men's Resource Center?"

I liked to give them directions to the library.

We did, once, have a group of men put up posters for an informational session about a men's resource center, and we attended. It was mostly whining about how the university was being sexist by providing a WRC but no MRC.

We explained that we were started by students and run by students, gave them the history of how that worked, and offered to help them start a Men's Resource Center if they were interested, but once they realized how much work it was, they seemed to lose interest.

Which is too bad, because there are a lot of men's issues that need addressing. A lot of violence prevention, for example, depends on education of men.

And put me on Noah's list as another man made into a better man by feminism. As far as I'm concerned, feminism is a crucial part of the transition from "guy" to man.

Noah, that was beautiful and well said.

dananddanica, the brand of troll that was discussed in the post is one I have come across before. You explain to them that the things they are worried about are all parts of the patriarchy, yes, even the things that are bad for men, and they look at you like you've grown a second head and start talking about how its lies told by the feminists to bring down western civilization. I doubt anyone is arguing that the things that happen to men are not bad, or not gender based. We are questioning why it is that feminists are expected to "prove" how we are for equality by dropping anything that is woman specific to focus on men's problems, when if these trolls really cared about what happened to men, they would become activists for it,instead of attacking women who choose to work on issues regarding women. Noah has it right on.

I agree with many of the comments that cite examples of male under-representation, particularly in the teaching profession. I think what we all need to realize is the subordination of women and the dominance of hegemonic forms of masculinity are all part of the same structure of relations. Granted, it is true that men have suffered less as a result of traditional gender relations. They may have seen or experienced less ugliness because of their masculinity.

However, new waves of feminism, or what we should now term possibly an alliance politics, should acknowledge pro-feminist men and a critical examination of masculinity as part of the process. A critical evaluation of masculinity, as well as pre-conceived notions of femininity, are part and parcel of a similar process towards greater gender social justice for all.

chefmatt and danandanica: I was mainly trying to point out that the discrepancies where men are underrepresented are ALSO due to the patriarchal structure of society now and in the past. So, since feminism is attempting to dismantle patriarchal structure, the problems in those fields/areas would also change.

"to live longer and have more resources allocated to their medical well-being"

On the living longer: That's a strange thing to bring up, as women living longer is a composite of a million other social/medical/environmental/job issues. Also, women tend to have a more negative life experience (sick/injured more often) even though they live longer. I'd rather live for a shorter period of time and have fewer illnesses.

And I'm not sure how you are getting that women have more access to medical resources, is your only figure to back that up the prostate/breast cancer difference?
"About 40,910 breast cancer deaths are expected in 2007."

"About 27,050 deaths are expected in 2007."

Perhaps breast cancer research gets more funding because more people die from it than prostate cancer. that and the viral pink ribbon marketing campaign

I'm not trying to say that there are not issues specific to men (encouraging performance in school, push to go to college, male suicide rates, other things you mentioned :)) But I agree with pillarofsalt that the kind of person being brought up by the OP doesn't actually give a damn about helping male issues. They just want to whine that feminists are unfair.

Good for you Noah. I hate when people complain too much about any issue, personal or political, and then do nothing about it. I get annoyed with these men because generally it is all about women's power without a clear argument for what men's issues they are concerned about or what they plan to do about it.

I've read many times that women attempt suicide more than men and women are more likely to be depressed than men. Still, I see a lot of things like education, depression, relationship violence etc more as people issues than gender issues when I am looking for solutions.

Dananddanica, you bring up a few good points, but in the end the responsibility is put back on women to educate men on why we should be equal.

And I’m sorry, but is there some study that you can site proving the patriarchy allows women to abuse children? Is there some disparaging difference between the stats how many women vs. men abuse children? I find that hard to believe.

I think attention should certainly be paid where men are underrepresented, it just seems that in this context, men are asking “what about us� when an obvious imbalance that has yet to be remedied still exists. Men and women should be working together to create better understanding of gender and equality. I resent the assertion that feminism isn’t being sensitive enough to men’s issues. It should be a group effort, it should be a human effort, but it isn’t.

As many have said before, the person at the OP wasn’t being proactive, he was just blaming feminism for his inability to understand how complex and imbedded sexism is in this country.

As for the under-representation of men in Elementary Education? It's funny, because even though there are LESS men applying for teaching positions at the K-5 level, they are MORE LIKELY to be hired over women because there are so few men. (This phenomenon also happens with nursing and other traditionally "female" jobs.) Thereby taking jobs away from women. Nice that.

As for breast cancer research. WOMEN took it upon themselves to raise awareness around an issue that affected their lives and to get the medical community to do something about it thereby there is a lot of funding that goes towards it. If you men want more money for prostate cancer research, etc...then you start some new foundations, and lobby for more studies and awareness of the issue.

IMO, some of this is turning into another "What about the menz?!" thread. As FemiDancer said: Blame the patriarchy, not the feminists/women for the discrepancies in fairness.

Another important aspect of the question "where are men under-represented and what should we do about it?" is that those professions where men are under-represented--like childcare, education, most social work professions like elderly care and nursing, non-wage parenting, clerical work--all of that work is undervalued in our society. Men aren't being systematically excluded from this work--often they historically LEFT the profession, and the jobs became "pink collar" and wages went down accordingly. I'm all for encouraging men into jobs and life-work that is traditionally seen as feminine, but it's not usually a question of letting them into traditional spaces of authority (like, in the cartoon, congress). Rather, feminists have been calling for more equal gender representation in these areas for decades, and little has shifted. This isn't just the fault of individual guys--the system, well, systematically discourages men from choosing those jobs.

i'm an engineering student. i'm constantly invited out to WIE (women in eng) events, yet there's no Men in Early Childcare Education presence on campus. it's considered tragic when girls can't become engineers, because being an engineer is a great job to have, but when a man can't be a nurse, that's not a big deal since being a nurse isn't a good job anyway, so why bother actively recruiting men into that field. in general, we need to start putting more value on the "women's" jobs. i don't think i'm going to end up working any harder than a nurse, so why is my starting salary straight out of university going to be twice as much? at this point, i don't know if those jobs are poorly paid because they're women's work, or they're women's work therefore they don't need to be paid well.

i've tried talking to my male friends about the discrimination against them, and they don't care. they say they could have been nurses if they had wanted to be, they just didn't want to. these days a girl can be an engineer if she wants to, so why is WIE so huge on campus? and why didn't they want to? were they perhaps never encouraged to consider a career in nursing? i'm waiting for the day of the Men's Liberation Movement when they declare they can be fantastic childcare workers and nurses, have emotions and occasionally cry, are not necessarily interested in just having sex with every girl they see, can be bad at sports and still be a man, and whatever else "masculine" is supposed to be. whereas women's liberation was about declaring we have all those "masculine/good" traits (we can be intelligent, strong human beings), their revolution will involve declaring they have all those "feminine/undesirable" traits, (they can be sensitive, weak human beings). i hope society will start recognizing the diversity of human qualities from person to person, rather than as two subsets of male qualities and female qualities.

I definitely agree that there are some issues specific to men that could use scrutiny. Something I tend to agree with the MRAs on (very, very narrowly, since the sensible part is almost inevitably proceeded by utter nonsense) is that dads get an unfair rap in family court. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt about that. What they are *unwilling* to acknowledge is that a huge part of the reason the system is unfair to dads, is because society has the bizarre view that women are inherently better parents, because we're the ones pushing the kids out through our vaginas. I think this is stupid -- both sexes have an equal capacity for the love and self-sacrifice that goes into caring for and raising a child. The thing that grates on me like tabasco on my eyelids is how the MRAs will talk out of two sides of their mouths. On the one hand, men can be just as good at parenting as women (hooray! More people need to say this!). On the other, men and women are inherently different sorts of people, such that they are inherently suited for completely different things, which is why it's okay that women are underrepresented in certain areas like the military and politics. Uh? That they can't see the sheer illogic of these contradictory views is either bitterly hilarious or deeply depressing.

Anyway, sorry to get a little sidetracked. I think people like Noah have it right on. In terms of winning converts (and, let's face it, given how unpopular it is nowadays to be against sexism, we really need to focus on recruiting), it certainly wouldn't hurt to be a little more clear on the point that patriarchy hurts men, too. PATRIARCHY, and not women, is what tells men they must earn the money and pay for everything. PATRIARCHY, and not women, is what tells men that they must sacrifice their bodies for women, children, and the elderly and infirm (i.e., through military service). PATRIARCHY, and not women, is what tells men they aren't welcome in jobs like Kindergarten teacher. PATRIARCHY, and not women, is what tells men they're supposed to be "chivalrous" and "gentlemen."

I agree, obviously, that these harms don't compare to the harms inflicted on women daily, simply by virtue of being women. But, to be frank, we need to work on our image, and talking a little more about men -- as much as it's ridiculous that we *have* to in order to be taken seriously -- might be the key to reminding people of feminism's value and necessity.

Also, as to the medical research stuff, I find it really interesting that men are complaining about how unfair it is that *their* medical research is funded less relative to women's (in a handful of cherry-picked fields), when the real losers in all of this funding inequity are nonwhites, men AND women. Feminists at least bring this up, even if we're not always great about addressing it the way we've addressed woman-specific (and, to be fair, mostly white-woman-specific) complaints. I don't see the MRAs pointing this out at all, which makes zero sense, since if they're *really* about fairness they should be at least as bothered by racial inequality, which is way way waaaay worse than the perceived injustices to men.

I have discussed with a few close male friends their feelings about stereotypes men endure and how they feel hurt by them. For example, the word 'emasculated' to refer to a feminine man, expectations of physical prowess, the use of derision by other males to force non-gender-conforming men & boys into roles they aren't comfortable with.

I would like to reiterate that feminism does not exist to advance women ahead of men. It exists to correct historically-rooted discrimination against women in order to create a more equal society.

I support feminism being open to all issues of gender discrimination. I have to say I look askance at these attempts to claim that empowered women fighting for their equal rights are actually spreading insidious inequality for men. It makes these particular men seem afraid of women's increasing power.

I hope that feminism supports any and all sincere attempts by men to tackle the ways patriarchy hurts men too. I know I do at the personal level. I do not support the whiners.

The salary question...

Why do we pay what we do for certain jobs? Who's to say that one job is "worth" more than the other? To me this is a strange concept. I guess it is based on the Christian unworthiness and sinner principal of control. You are a wonderful being if you are a VP or Prez of a company but not if you are just a cashier.

I agree with you The Law Fairy! This is what I mean about the pay gap between men and woman and between one job and the next. I also feel that the "worth" was constructed based on PATRIARCHY as well.

“What About The Men…?�

By Anita Roberts (founder of the SafeTeen: Powerful Alternatives to Violence program)

Less than 100 years ago, women in North America were not considered people under the law – they were in the same category with criminals, crazy people and animals. A global “snapshot� of the conditions for women gives us a current picture of how far we’ve come: In current times, women are burned in Indian (the leading cause of deaths for women in India is “kitchen fires�), mass raped in Bosnia, infibulated in Africa, robbed of their human rights in Afghanistan, gunned down in Montreal. In China so many girl babies are killed at birth there is now a shortage of marriageable aged women and young girls are being kidnapped and sold as brides. In Nigeria, young women are stoned to death for becoming pregnant outside marriage. In Pakistan 90% of women are abused by their husbands and are considered to have the same value as a shoe. Honor killings are common in many Middle Eastern countries and a woman can be killed by her male family members for shaming them by committing the crime of infidelity or losing their virginity outside of marriage – even if she has been raped.

In Canada, one out of every four women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Eighty-five percent of these assaults will happen by someone known to the woman. In Canada, two women are killed every week by their husbands or boyfriends (or ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends.) This is the leading cause of injury for women in this country – including car accidents, stranger rapes and muggings combined. [Why don’t we know this?] According to a 1999 Statistics Canada report – based on the largest Canada survey ever done on violence against women – over 50% of Canadian women are being abused within their relationships.

The degradation, mutilation, abuse and even murder of women is so common – such an everyday experience , that it begins to be experienced by men, and by women themselves, as normal. The patriarchy is the only experience we, as humans have, within the context of our memories and our parents’ memories, and our grandparents’ memories. The books we read, from infant nursery rhymes to childhood fairytales – from adolescent fiction to adult literature, have been written primarily by men, about men and from a man’s point of view. The vast majority of TV programs – from cartoons to soaps – reflect this same viewpoint. The films, videos, magazines, newspapers, comic books…the bible, history books…all (his)-story.

We live in a world where the language makes females invisible. We are told that gender neutral language is awkward and unnecessary – that “mankind� really means women too. We live in a world where males commit 89% of violence of any kind. Suddenly when male violence is the issue, the language magically becomes gender neutral. The newspapers report: “Domestic Violence�, “Family Violence� and “Youth Violence�. Or perhaps, Asian gang violence… but we never head, “White Male Violence.� But if a woman is involved in violence is makes the front page of TIME magazine.

We live in a world where our very reality is defined by male thinking. What is normal/abnormal, good/evil, funny/not funny, beautiful/not beautiful, valuable/not valuable, true/untrue… all defined within the context of the patriarchy.

We even define the female body by how males experience them. A female child is told that she has a vagina. This is as bizarre (and anatomically incorrect) as describing the mouth as a “throat� without naming the lips, teeth and tongue! The parts of a little girl’s body that she can see and touch – that are important solely for her pleasure – her vulva, her labia and her clitoris – remain unspoken. Medical books commonly describe female sexual organs as, “uterus, ovaries and vagina� – everything necessary for procreation and male sexual pleasure.

When we speak up about women’s issues – especially violence against women – (why is Violence Against Women considered a “women’s issue� to begin with?) – we are accused of being “anti-male.� Women have been shut out of the educational, political, religious and corporate worlds but when we dare to have women only meetings or marches or intimate relationships we are perceived as, leaving me out. The consistent, persistent, insistent message is: “What about the men?�

When I wake up one morning and discover that Santa Claus is a woman, that all the world leaders are women, that the law makers and the law enforcers are women, that Baby Jesus was a little girl, the Pope and in fact God is a woman, I will listen when someone says, “What about the men?�

Until then, every time I hear those words, I see red. The red blood of all girls and women who are emotionally, spiritually and physically dying all over the world. I can’t hear those words. The blood is pounding in my ears. I can’t see that point of view. I am blind with rage.

Are past sins, such as the spending/focus on medical research and the dearth of female college entry "made up" for by the current and projected stats which show men, as a group, being underrepresented?

I am truly for equality. But frankly, I am really tired of hearing how it's a huge tragedy when men slip slightly behind women for one reason or another (none of it due to systematic abuse of power by women over men, I might add), and that feminists need to be spending our time and resources dealing with this ASAP, when women are STILL not experiencing genuine equality even in the areas in which men are statistically underrepresented. That's what these arguments always seem to miss. That women in those professions are still at a disadvantage, both within those positions and by virtue of those jobs being undervalued.

Wow. Thank you for that, latarasoff.

By the way, with more females than males going to college---compared to the previous generation, more men are going to college than ever before. There has been no decline. It is just that the increase among women has been higher.

ojibwayangel, I completely agree that patriarchy is why certain occupations are unfairly devalued. Although, I would note that valuing a VP/CEO/etc. over a cashier is definitely NOT a Christian ideal. If anything, Christ's message was that the least among us -- the poor, the widows, the children -- are often the most worthy (likely because they don't have their money to distract them from goodness). Remember, Jesus is the one who said that, for a rich man to get into heaven would be more difficult than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Jesus was no panderer to the wealthy and powerful.

We even define the female body by how males experience them. A female child is told that she has a vagina. This is as bizarre (and anatomically incorrect) as describing the mouth as a “throat� without naming the lips, teeth and tongue! The parts of a little girl’s body that she can see and touch – that are important solely for her pleasure – her vulva, her labia and her clitoris – remain unspoken. Medical books commonly describe female sexual organs as, “uterus, ovaries and vagina� – everything necessary for procreation and male sexual pleasure.

From a medical point of view, definining the [b]reproductive system[/b] of the human body, involves detailing the parts necessary for [b]reproduction[/b].

The vulva, clitoris, and labia are irrelevant when it comes to these things.

You might not like that, but too bad, really. Fact of the matter is that the reproductive system exists for reproduction. Pleasure is a secondary, if not tertiary, concern.

Sex exists to further the species. The fact that it's enjoyable doesn't mean that that is somehow it's primary and most important purpose.

Sexual education doesn't cover any of the non-reproductive male erogenous zones, either, for the record. It covers the parts used in reproduction. The penis and the testes. Is it somehow sexist, simply because ours is dual-purpose, in that regard?

That, and we tell young female children they have a vagina, because, gasp, they do. Amazing, no?

Dammit. Screwed up my tags. Was used to BBcode, not html. Sorry.

Though, I should add, when I was in sex ed. in school, which was quite a few years ago, we were taught about the labia, clitoris, and vulva.

Just for the record, thought I'd throw that in there.

Right on, Law Fairy. And idyllicmollusk. Men are confined to our little gender-constricting box -- men don't cry, men are the primary breadwinners, men are not stay-at-home dads, men must dress in a certain limited way, men must pretend to be "into" the "big game" -- because that's the way it is. Society ordains it. Most men buy into it, and most individual women buy into it, too -- most would not tolerate a stay-at-home dad, etc. (Hey, men are supposed to be ambitious, right?) We just saw a national female TV commentator ridicule a football player for crying when he announced his retirement. I think that attitude is a lot more common than any of us would care to admit. We've got our work cut out for us with INDIVIDUAL men and women because, let's be candid, most people of both genders buy into the patriarchy.

I'd just ask that we don't denigrate men of good will for pushing for prostate cancer funding or testicular cancer funding or seeking better treatment in family law court or other legitimate issues, because there are a few things that do hurt men just because we are men.

Mild Ennui, then I suppose all discussion of birth control, condoms, abstinence, etc., should also be irrelevant in a sex ed class since, hey, it's just about the reproductive system, right?

Also, if we're gonna get really technical about reproduction, sex isn't even necessary. All that's necessary is to extract semen and get it in the right place. Whether that's with a turkey baster, IVF, or regular old sex, if all we're talking about is reproduction, shouldn't matter, right? Why don't we teach just as much about these other options?

For that matter, why aren't we teaching kids about the research that suggests that, someday, men may be one hundred percent irrelevant and unnecessary for reproduction? You can take one woman's DNA and implant it into another woman's egg, and studies suggest the likelihood that fertilization would be possible in this scenario. They've done it successfully with rats. Maybe we should start teaching kids that men will be irrelevant someday, huh?

Or maybe cultural norms have a lot more to do with "biology" education than you're willing to admit.

Great quote, Latarasoff!

I don't have much to add to this, except to say that I think it's best to emphasize how important these matters are to ALL of us, not just what's important for women vs. men, or to weigh whose injustice is greater. We live in a society where we all depend upon each other in some fashion or other, and what affects you directly affects me indirectly to some degree. Framing things as a you-vs-me battle for resources tends to be a turn off for a lot of people, and that's a very bad thing. These problems aren't going to solve themselves, and they are much easier to take on when more people understand the burden we all bear because of them.

For example, I don't think anyone would disagree that a young woman dying of breast cancer is a tragedy, and that it affects not only her, but her family and friends, her place of work, etc. For obvious reasons, we tend to focus our attention on those most directly affected by such problems, but I think it's important to try and frame these matters in a much broader context. Saying "we're more oppressed than you, so your oppression doesn't count" may motivate those already on board, but it isn't going to win over any supporters.

"The vulva, clitoris, and labia are irrelevant when it comes to these things.

You might not like that, but too bad, really. Fact of the matter is that the reproductive system exists for reproduction. Pleasure is a secondary, if not tertiary, concern."

It's so easy for men to write off the clitoris so long as they have their reproductive/pleasure organ stuffed into something.

Fuck off, Ennui. You're an MRA and need to go.

We've got our work cut out for us with INDIVIDUAL men and women because, let's be candid, most people of both genders buy into the patriarchy.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. We have our work cut out for us, all right.

Ennui,

I'm probably as young as anyone on this thread, and I don't remember being taught about the clitoris in school. (I may have been... I learned about it somewhere. Certainly though, the general meme among kids, male and female, at my school was "female masturbation is gross... vulvas are gross... penis-in-vagina sex is what's 'normal'"

Either way you look at it though, if it wasn't for vulvas women probably wouldn't want to have sex as much, and that would definitely be a detriment to reproduction of the species... So I think your argument falls in on itself. Although TLF also did a pretty good job of arguing that...

Mild Ennui, then I suppose all discussion of birth control, condoms, abstinence, etc., should also be irrelevant in a sex ed class since, hey, it's just about the reproductive system, right?

False analogy.

Abstinence, condoms, birth control, are all directly related to reproduction.

As in, they are related to preventing conception, which is obviously a direct result of sexual intercourse, and the reproductive system.

Pleasure is not. Pleasure is a side-effect of sex, but not it's purpose.

Also, if we're gonna get really technical about reproduction, sex isn't even necessary. All that's necessary is to extract semen and get it in the right place. Whether that's with a turkey baster, IVF, or regular old sex, if all we're talking about is reproduction, shouldn't matter, right? Why don't we teach just as much about these other options?

The reproductive system is such that it evolved to create offspring. A person could live on a respirator, but it's not the body's intentional function.

The reason women even have a vagina, biologically, is to stimulate the penis to reach ejaculation, in order to fertilize the egg, and to act as a birth canal for the offspring.

Pleasure is generally irrelevant to this act. Whether or not either partner enjoys it doesn't change the fact that provided it's done in such a manner, a child is the likely result.

For that matter, why aren't we teaching kids about the research that suggests that, someday, men may be one hundred percent irrelevant and unnecessary for reproduction? You can take one woman's DNA and implant it into another woman's egg, and studies suggest the likelihood that fertilization would be possible in this scenario.

Actually, studies suggest the result would not be viable.

Or maybe cultural norms have a lot more to do with "biology" education than you're willing to admit.

Or maybe you're just pissed because sex ed doesn't cover the things you want it to? Sorry, pleasure is not an important factor in teaching biology and the reproductive system. It just isn't. I don't care, honestly, if you think women's pleasure is the most important part of sex, because it's not. Neither is men's pleasure. Nor is pleasure at all.

It's so easy for men to write off the clitoris so long as they have their reproductive/pleasure organ stuffed into something.

Fuck off, Ennui. You're an MRA and need to go.

Oh please. Idiot.

Do I need to cover basic biology for you? The reproductive system doesn't care if you had an orgasm or not. For the purposes of reproduction, your clitoris is irrelevant. The only orgasm essential for reproduction, to a two-sex species is that of the male.

If you want to complain about that, blame evolution. Because it's certainly not the fault of men that whether or not you get off has no bearing on your ability to conceive offspring.

Though, thank you for your incredibly incorrect assumption about me, re: this: so long as they have their reproductive/pleasure organ stuffed into something.

I don't like sex. Sorry.

Finally, I don't see how my pointing out the truth of biology makes me an "MRA". Do explain that to me, would you?

Law Fairy, if we're going with Mild Ennui's argument schools would still teach about birth control because those are health related issues that all young people NEED to know about in order to not fuck up their lives. They need to know the mechanics of how pregnancies are caused and STDs are spread, and how to prevent/deal with these things, to counteract all the middle school rumors they might hear (I knew a girl who thought you could get pregnant from french kissing, and one who thought that virgins cannot contract STD's). I think that Mild Ennui's point is that the school system has no reason to teach students how to pleasure each other.

And yeah, for the record, my school district also taught us about ALL of the related parts, not just the strictly reproductive ones.

Cuddlebot3000:

I agree with you that trivializing the pain of others doesn't attract feminism many supporters, but that's an intrinsic part of feminism. The movement would be a very different one if it presumed that gender stereotypes harmed men and women in a comparable fashion and I think this assumption is the one that most non-feminists have the hardest time swallowing. However, feminism has still been an extremely effective force in shaping society today, despite its members being a small minority. Many people probably appreciate the consequences of the feminist movement even though they disagree with much of its rhetoric. I'm not sure that a PR campaign is what feminism needs. It already is and continues to be effective and important.

That you believe there is "the [only one] truth about biology" is troubling. There is also truth to the outcomes of teaching girls only about vagina (hole) rather than complete reproductive issues. Biology (if it were one whole sentient thing) might care about pleasure or the capacity for pain in those. Why do you believe that pleasure is not important? It isn't as if we need more humans on the planet, so "biology" has long since stopped "caring about reproduction" either. Biologically, humans are able to create pleasure during sexual acts, so it matters.

You are clearly being purposefully dense here or you are willfully ignorant about the ways that culture influences science.

Mirm, are you saying that 5th graders (or whatever age children receive sex ed in your state) should be taught by their science teachers how to give each other orgasms?

Listen to your language, which gives away your real intention.

You claim that "the reason women have a vagina, biologically, is to stimulate the penis to reach ejaculation, in order to fertilize the egg, and to act as a birth canal for the offspring" The vagina is there to STIMULATE the penis, but pleasure doesn't matter. Stimulation has what to do with pleasure? Oh yeah, it is the same thing. You're making a liar out of yourself, my friend.

Oh, and kindly refrain from ever telling women the purpose of their parts again. You do not get to define them - even in terms of "biology."

Nice try though

Mild Ennui:

Category mistake.

"Evolution" does not have a will, and so cannot have a purpose. Thus, without an ultimate actor to have a purpose, to say that the purpose of reproductive organs is to reproduce is meaningless.

QED

Excerpt from Woman: An INtimate Geography by Natalie Angier reveals that the assumption that female pleasure is irrelevant to conception is not the result of science, but biased assumptions:

There is another body of evidence suggesting that the clitoris trades in the currency of power. Recen twork from the British researchers Robin Baker and Mark A. Bellis suggests that orgams offers women a recondite way to control male sperm, either by imbibing it or by repelling it. They propose that the timing of a woman's orgasm relative to a man's ejaculation influences whether or not his semen has a shot at fertilizing her eggs. If a woman climaxes shortly after her partner ejaculates, her cervix, the gateway to the uterus, will do a spectacular thing. As it pushes rhythmically, the cervix reaches down like a fish's mouth and sucks in the semen deposited at its doorstep. This has been shown on video.

. . . .

That absolute stricture [the historical belief that a woman must orgasm to conceive] is false, of course, but if female orgasm subtly enhances fecundity, there are practical implications to consider. For example, a couple struggling to conceive should not become so grimly task-oriented that the woman's climbax is neglected as a discretionary frill.

Becky,

Nope. I'm merely supporting someone else's claim that current norms (not just in sex ed) define women's parts in terms of male pleasure. To say that boys have penises and girls have vaginas oversimplifies in a very specific way. I don't think giving girls a name (clitoris) for "that sensitive bit down there" is a crime. Do you?

Geek, that is an excellent and fascinating point. And as you point out, it is *recent* work, so schools should certainly include it in sex ed lectures from the time that the discovery is made. But I am curious, how recent is it? If it was discovered a few years ago, we can't blame teachers from our childhoods for not teaching it to us. If it has been known for decades that's a different story and should be corrected.

HotblackDesiato -

My point may have been a bit convoluted, but what I'm trying to say is that if the ultimate goal of feminism is to acheive gender equality, how you go about addressing the most important issues has a *huge* impact on how well their importance is received, and thus addressed, by society as a whole. Insulting people is generally not a very proactive way of getting them behind your cause.

See the Anita Roberts essay posted above [by latarasoff], which to me reads less like "let's even things out by helping women", and more like "let's even things out by not caring about men." The end goal may be gender equality, but the hostility towards men in her approach could not be more transparent. I understand her rage, but I question its utility.

Mild Ennui,

I get what you're saying, but it reads incredibly closed-minded. Mainly because the clitoris DOES play a part in reproduction i.e. lubrication. If the female is stimulated the penis has a much easier time reaching orgasm. It doesn't have to be lubricated, and the clitoris isn't the only way to arouse a woman, but just because orgasm necessary doesn't make the clit an irrelevant part of the reproductive system. If you're being strictly biological, female arousal certainly helps with the process.

Listen to your language, which gives away your real intention.

You claim that "the reason women have a vagina, biologically, is to stimulate the penis to reach ejaculation, in order to fertilize the egg, and to act as a birth canal for the offspring" The vagina is there to STIMULATE the penis, but pleasure doesn't matter. Stimulation has what to do with pleasure? Oh yeah, it is the same thing. You're making a liar out of yourself, my friend.

The argument was about the clitoris. Like I said, the clitoris, etc, are unimportant and trivial when it comes to the purpose of the reproductive system, which is, reproduction.

So, basically, yes, as bad as it sounds, female pleasure is irrelevant when it comes to reproduction.

Pleasure comes in more fashion than simple stimulation. When I have sex, yes, an orgasm is achieved, but all in all, I don't terribly enjoy it. The reasons for that are irrelevant to this discussion, but it serves the point that just because that stimulation is present, doesn't mean I got pleasure from the act.

Oh, and kindly refrain from ever telling women the purpose of their parts again. You do not get to define them - even in terms of "biology."

Nice try though

Uh, nice try. You really must be kidding.

I can and will tell women what those parts are for, because they have a clearly defined purpose. Would you be insulted if I said your stomach is for the initial placement of food, and the beginning stages of digestion? Because that's what it's for.

Likewise, disagree all you want, but the evolutionary purpose of a vagina is twofold: To stimulate the penis of the male of the species to bring ejaculation, and to act as a birth canal. If you argue that, you're showing ignorance of basic human anatomy, and really, the biology and anatomy of any mammalian species.

"Evolution" does not have a will, and so cannot have a purpose. Thus, without an ultimate actor to have a purpose, to say that the purpose of reproductive organs is to reproduce is meaningless.

So, were I to say the purpose of your heart is to power your circulatory system, I'd be somehow wrong?

Evolution may not be an entity with a will, but things do evolve to have function and purpose.

That's why you have opposable thumbs, a larger braincase than other mammals, etcetera. Things evolved to have a specific function, to further the species/individual organism.

The purpose of my telephone is to create lines of communication over long distances not reachable with my own voice. But, my phone is inanimate, and has no will. Does that mean my telephone has no function or purpose?

Now, see how silly your argument looks?

Don't be ridiculous and try to argue semantics and create logical fallacies to attempt to make a point.

Geek:

But that by no means says that it is somehow necessary for the achievement of conception.

*I meant to write "isn't" before "necessary." I now notice Geek already said this (better than I did!).

Right on, Geek.

Beckybecks, the book was published in 1999. The research she cites was published in 1996. She points out that it's not flawless, but it certainly reveals how blind sexist thinking is when it comes to understanding things we take for granted. It also shows that science is an ongoing process, and there is still much we don't know.

As in, they are related to preventing conception, which is obviously a direct result of sexual intercourse, and the reproductive system.

Pleasure is not. Pleasure is a side-effect of sex, but not it's purpose.

Wow, Mild Ennui, does it hurt to talk out of both sides of your mouth like that?

If pleasure is not the PURPOSE of sex, then there is never a reason to have sex if it is not for procreation. So basically you're making an argument for abstinence-only education. If a school teaches ANYTHING about any other form of birth control, pleasure has entered into the calculus. Period. Sorry to break it to you, but if you're having sex and actively trying NOT to procreate, then, um, the purpose of the sex is something other than procreation. It's pleasure.

I mean, seriously dude. Duh.

I think everyone else here has showed you why the rest of what you said was equally ridiculous (especially your hilarious supposition that the REASON for the existence of the vagina is to help the penis ejaculate. Man, talk about laughable).

Mild Ennui,

Come on. Get over yourself. You haven't once said "I understand why you might be offended by what I'm saying." So why the hell should we think the implications of your language are anything less than callous and closed-minded. You are not the champion of scientific fact that you think you are. Leave a little room for emotional intelligence, there, Freud.

Except that most sex is had for pleasure not procreation so why are we so afraid to talk about sexual pleasure?

"So, basically, yes, as bad as it sounds, female pleasure is irrelevant when it comes to reproduction."

Uhh, while female orgasm isn't necessary for reproduction I really wouldn't want to try having sex without pleasure first to you know, make me physically ready.

To cuddlebot,

Sometimes the truth is harsh. When "what about the men" arguments are brought up, they are almost never relevant. Unless you believe that improving things for women = making things worse for men, and I don't. So, you can have two responses: (1) we can talk about this later, when we are not discussing feminism, which is about women's equality; and (2) materially, women are worse off than men by almost any measure (poverty, education, power positions) so the problems that face women, in material terms, are more immediate. And when I say education, I am being accurate. Although there are currently more females than males attending school, that doesn't immediately equalize advanced degrees among the entire population.

Mild Ennui:

"So, were I to say the purpose of your heart is to power your circulatory system, I'd be somehow wrong?"

Yes, in the way wrong people are wrong when they are wrong.

My heart powers my circulatory system. Purpose has nothing to do with it because no one designed my heart. (Unless that is the presumption you are making.) If I were to rip your heart still beating from your rib cage ala Indiana Jones, hooked it up to electrodes and had it run a small fountain in my backyard, it would be powering the fountain in my backyard. Would that be the purpose you are talking about? It's the same heart.

Likewise, if I put a condom on my penis and energetically thrust it into my wife's vagina, my purpose is pleasure for both of us, and not reproduction. Sure, if I did not use a condom and did the same thing, there would be a greater possibility of the rudimentary beginnings of reproduction. But that would not be my purpose, just the consequence of certain actions I could make.

Your assumption is that, like with a telephone that has a creator and thus, at least potentially, a first purpose, that biological parts have a single immutable primary use because of how they could be used. However, without a creator to explain his primary use, we are left with, in this instance, you to tell us all what the primary use of our organs are.

You can bang out as many kids as you like, pal. I use my "reproductive" organs for fun and think the vast majority of people do as well. So, some basic instruction on how to use them in that way may be in order, despite your beliefs about the nature of biology.

Mild Ennui, do you actually not understand the arguments presented here, or are you just trolling for flames (I strongly suspect the latter)?

Various commenters have shown you why the clitoris is not "irrelevant" to sex. It may not be *necessary* for procration, but it isn't irrelevant. If what determines what's appropriate to teach kids in school is only what is strictly *necessary* for conception, then tell me why schools should teach about vaginal intercourse instead of turkey basters and IVF. YOU have to show me why YOUR proposed *unnecessary* means of procreation is no more irrelevant than mine. Given that virgins actually *can* be impregnated, clearly vaginal intercourse is not NECESSARY for procreation. Thus, by your rubric, vaginal intercourse is irrelevant to procreation.

Logically speaking, if you are going to favor one irrelevant act over another, equally irrelevant act, and if you're going to purport to have actual, rational justification for the choice, then clearly the response cannot be "well, your method is irrelevant." It's the same as choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream and justifying this by saying "well, vanilla ice cream is cold, so I choose chocolate ice cream." That's not a rational justification. You can admit that you have none and chocolate is simply your subjective PREFERENCE. But you can't use the illogical justification that vanilla ice cream is "cold," because so is chocolate.

So, what's the actual, rational, legitimate reason for teaching your proposed curriculum instead of mine?

Law Fairy, Yes, most people have sex because of the pleasure it gives. This does not mean that pleasure is the biological purpose of sex, so restating this neither contradicts nor supports what Mild Ennui is saying.

And, schools can acknolwedge that many people have sex for pleasure, and teach students what the consequences are and how to deal with them, without actually giving advice on clitoral stimulation and blowjob techniques. It is possible to teach only the reproductive aspects of something that also involves pleasure.

If pleasure is not the PURPOSE of sex, then there is never a reason to have sex if it is not for procreation. So basically you're making an argument for abstinence-only education.

Slippery slope logical fallacy, really. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't take something I say and run with it to an illogical conclusion.

Like I said, argue all you want, but the purpose of sex is not pleasure. It's main function is reproduction. If you want an act purely for pleasure, masturbate. Masturbation is something done entirely for the pleasure of it. Oral sex is something done entirely for the pleasure of it. There are plenty of acts that are entirely about pleasure. Penetrative sexual intercourse, however, is primarily for reproduction, regardless of how people actually use it.

Sorry to break it to you, but if you're having sex and actively trying NOT to procreate, then, um, the purpose of the sex is something other than procreation. It's pleasure.

As I said, just because some people may do it for other reasons, doesn't change the primary purpose of it, from a biological standpoint.

The reason you have a reproductive system, is to reproduce, not to "get off".

especially your hilarious supposition that the REASON for the existence of the vagina is to help the penis ejaculate. Man, talk about laughable)

How is that laughable? Is your vagina some sort of magical earth-mother goddess power zone? Some other hippie nonsense? I hate to sound condescending here, but it has the purpose of birth canal and area to place a penis to fertilize eggs.

I'm sorry your viewpoint has caused so much educational damage to you, that you believe the vagina has some other purpose than it's biological one.

Except that most sex is had for pleasure not procreation so why are we so afraid to talk about sexual pleasure?

Why should we teach 11 year olds how to pleasure each other? Really, that's not a subject for a classroom.

Uhh, while female orgasm isn't necessary for reproduction I really wouldn't want to try having sex without pleasure first to you know, make me physically ready.

I never said that it would be enjoyable, or recommended to do so. Just that from a purely biological standpoint, whether or not the woman enjoys it won't largely impact her ability to conceive.

Unless you believe that improving things for women = making things worse for men, and I don't.

Men pay more for car insurance than women, for no other reason than because we're male.

Thanks, Geek, for the reference. I knew that I had heard that the clitoris and the female orgasm was important to reproduction (the rhythmic spasming increasing the semen's motility), but didn't post because I didn't know the citation.

But that by no means says that [female orgasm] is somehow necessary for the achievement of conception.

By the same token, then neither is penetration and using the vagina as "stimulation" for the penis. It could be a hand (of either partner) and ejaculation near the vagina. If we're talking about just teaching the bare bones of reproduction (where people are involved in the explanation to the mere extent that they are semen contributors and semen receptacles) that should do.

And as T-Monster said, nothing really happens without lubrication (at least in my experience, if I ain't wet, he ain't getting in). Lubrication is a result of female stimulation, whether or the the clitoris or other body parts.

In my sex ed, we did learn about the clitoris. In the crude drawings we were given of the male and female genitalia, it looked like an upside down U above the opening and was labeled (like the labia) "for female stimulation/pleasure." It took about two extra minutes to read/review in class what parts were for that "female stimulation/pleasure" and we still didn't miss the main points of fertilization, implantation, and gestation.

There's an interesting article called "The Psychomorphology of the Clitoris" that explained that biologists (men) only truly discovered the clitoris in the recent centuries. As explorers were trying to accurately map the world, biologists tried to accurately map the human body and found something they had paid little attention to (because they didn't believe that it was necessary for reproduction). And they found the clitoris. I have a feeling that women since the beginning of time rolled their eyes and said something like, "Well, if they'd have asked, they would have found out about it much sooner."

So, what's the actual, rational, legitimate reason for teaching your proposed curriculum instead of mine?

I already addressed this. Your means are outside of the body's normal function, much like hooking someone to a respirator, while allowing them to breathe, is above and beyond the normal function of the body.

Also Law Fairy, I posted that before I read your most recent comment which I mostly agree with.

I think we should (and I know I was guilty) stop feeding this particular troll; his every post gets more laughable as LawFairy points out.

Mild Ennui, you could really use a course in logic. I mean an actual, college-level-or-higher course in logic, because you're making it increasingly clear that you don't understand the concept.

Saying that pleasure may be a purpose of sex (as opposed to saying that procreation is THE purpose of sex, i.e., there is no other purpose, there are only side effects) is not a slippery slope of anything. It's a barebones disagreement. You need to get your terms straight. You get a "D" on that part of the test. Not an "F" because you did correctly note, at least, that a slippery slope would be a logical fallacy. You just need some more practice at identifying them.

When you talk about something having a "purpose," you are necessarily talking about something beyond strict biology. A purpose is not physical the way the the reproductive system is, any more than your love for a friend or family member is physical, or your affinity for certain television shows is physical. Science explains cause and effect. It does NOT explain purpose. When science is at its best, it leaves the "why" to the philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and the clergy (and these fields, in turn, when they are at their best, don't encroach on science's territory). You're conflating science with philosophy. While I'll grant that in the very VERY early days of science (think Aristotle) the two were intrinsically linked, I remind you that we've come quite a long way since then. Science and biology teach us "how" things work. Sociology and philosophy teach us "why."

I'm curious, then, do you favor teaching intelligent design/creationism in science classes?

Saying that pleasure may be a purpose of sex (as opposed to saying that procreation is THE purpose of sex, i.e., there is no other purpose, there are only side effects) is not a slippery slope of anything. It's a barebones disagreement. You need to get your terms straight. You get a "D" on that part of the test. Not an "F" because you did correctly note, at least, that a slippery slope would be a logical fallacy. You just need some more practice at identifying them.

Apparently "Law Fairy" doesn't mean "Logic Fairy".

When someone takes something I say, and then runs with it, to conclusions that become inevitably worse, and are not even related to the original statement, that's a slippery slope.

Much like when conservatives say "Gay marriage will end up with people marrying their dog!" is a slippery slope fallacy, claiming my acknowledging that reproduction is the primary purpose of sex is somehow me advocating abstinence only education, would be a slippery slope.

Better put away that red pen. You get a gold star for effort though.

When you talk about something having a "purpose," you are necessarily talking about something beyond strict biology.

Don't put words in my mouth, or attempt to divine my intent. You'll fail. Which you just did.

Purpose is a synonym of function. Things in your body have functions. Are you going to argue that the organs of your body somehow do NOT have function?

A purpose is not physical the way the the reproductive system is, any more than your love for a friend or family member is physical, or your affinity for certain television shows is physical.

Again, sorry. You're going to get an F for this one. I guess you aren't the "Biology Fairy" either.

The function, or purpose of a thing in your body, has everything to do with the physical. The function of my heart is to pump blood and act as the center of my circulatory system. What's not physical about that?

Your entire statement is arguing the semantics of my word choice. This is a very poor way to make an argument.

You're conflating science with philosophy.

Most certainly am not. As stated, the parts of the body have purpose, or function, if you will. The words mean the same thing. They are synonyms.

It is not philosophical to say the function of sperm is the fertilization of eggs. It is not philosophical to say the function of my stomach is the beginning stages of digestion.

I'm curious, then, do you favor teaching intelligent design/creationism in science classes?

Out of what hat did you pull that one? I can't even see how you managed to reach that horribly incorrect assumption.

Yeah, mirm, you're right. It had been a while since I'd played with a troll so I got a little overeager.

*puts away troll food, sprays Troll-B-Gone all over comments section*

Mild Ennui,

I've seen you on other Feministing forums. I can't remember if you were just trolling there too. But please, get a life. No one here is even mad enough for you to be getting anything out of this. We just think you say silly, silly things.

Go away now. Thanks.

Men pay more for car insurance than women, for no other reason than because we're male.

Actually, patriarchy is to blame for that, too. It is the accepted stereotype that young men take more risks when driving (speeding, aggressive driving, etc.) that makes insurance companies believe that they are greater financial risks. So they charge higher. I don't have the statistics as to who gets into more car accidents in specific age groups (I know car insurance prices tend to even out in later years), so I don't know if it's accurate. If it isn't, then because society expects young men to behave in certain ways, it punishes the whole gender.

Sucks, doesn't it? Maybe if we fought against societal stereotypes that project differences on people based on their genitalia/race/sexual orientation/class, we'd start to see some equality.

I really love the ridiculous posters here. It's interesting to me.

Anyone that disagrees or doesn't play status-quo is automatically a "troll".

I'm sorry, but fact of the matter is, people will have viewpoints that don't directly match yours, and frankly, I'm insulte at your insinuation that people MUST agree with you 100%, or they are somehow "trolls" or "bad people".

Not exactly a great way to produce intelligent discussion/debate, or to make anyone other than a small clique of people feel welcome.

How juvenile and childish, though, for you to assume that everyone should agree with you 100%, all the time, and if they don't, they should go away.

ellestar, to be fair, statistics DO show that young males tend to be less safe drivers than young females, although the gap has been closing a lot. But, this, too, can in turn be attributed to society encouraging young men to take risks, and discouraging young women from doing so.

And, so we have a complete picture of the statistics (as I understand them), young women now, I believe, cause (or are determined to cause) a higher percentage of car accidents. Young men, however, cause (or are determined to cause) a higher percentage of car accidents resulting in *death*. So, insurers charge more for males.

Let's all keep in mind that no one said that sexual pleasure is a bad thing, or that children shouldn't be taught about it by, say, their parents or older friends or books.

No one said that the clitoris is always irrelevant, I'm sure we can all agree that it has many awesome uses.

No one said that children should not be taught about its existence and function in sex ed, as in "this is the clitoris, it is a center of female sexual pleasure" (no, not even Mild Ennui said that, he was rationalizing why there is *more* focus on reproduction, but didn't say how he feels about continuing to teach these basic facts).

I think there is more common ground here than some of us are seeing.

On another note:
Function and purpose are not the same thing. Function is what something does. Purpose is what it was intended to do. Nitpicky distinction in semantics, maybe, but you're still using these words incorrectly.

And NO NO NO NO just because someone disagrees with you, this does not mean they are a troll.

Actually, patriarchy is to blame for that, too. It is the accepted stereotype that young men take more risks when driving (speeding, aggressive driving, etc.) that makes insurance companies believe that they are greater financial risks. So they charge higher.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the stereotype was "women are bad drivers"?

Also, I'm above the age of 25. I own the exact same year, model, and make of car as a female associate of mine, and we are the same age, within 3 months of each other.

We have the same driving record. That is to say, we have caused no accidents, we have had no tickets, we both took driver's ed, and have the credit for that, etcetera. We also have the same carrier.

I pay more for my insurance than she does.

Sucks, doesn't it? Maybe if we fought against societal stereotypes that project differences on people based on their genitalia/race/sexual orientation/class, we'd start to see some equality.

I've never really seen feminists fight against the sexist things that end up benefitting them. Like men being legally forced to sign up for the draft, and women not.

No one said that the clitoris is always irrelevant, I'm sure we can all agree that it has many awesome uses.

Becky, it seems like semantics to me to say that no one said it's "always" irrelevant. Saying it's irrelevant to sex is enough to qualify as absurd.

Also, no one said Mild Ennui is a troll simply because we disagree with him. Anyone who spends much time on feministing will see there's plenty of disagreement that's not only tolerated, but in many cases which helps all of us gain some perspective on our respective positions.

No, Mild Ennui is a troll because he talks out of both sides of his mouth, intentionally misuses language in order to create confusion and weasle out of the consequences of his own arguments, makes wild assertions using language designed to enflame, and uses an unnecessarily patronizing tone (one which I'll admit I reciprocated in my last comment to him/her/it). That's why Mild Ennui is a troll, and that's why you aren't, even though I disagree with you on some points in this discussion.

Saying it's irrelevant to sex is enough to qualify as absurd.

I said it was irrelevant to basic reproduction. Which, in terms of the function of the parts involved, it basically is.

No, Mild Ennui is a troll because he talks out of both sides of his mouth, intentionally misuses language in order to create confusion and weasle out of the consequences of his own arguments, makes wild assertions using language designed to enflame, and uses an unnecessarily patronizing tone (one which I'll admit I reciprocated in my last comment to him/her/it). That's why Mild Ennui is a troll, and that's why you aren't, even though I disagree with you on some points in this discussion.

I fail to see how I do these things. I state a clear point, repeat my point. The only people arguing semantics, are those arguing with me over my word choice, and use of synonyms that they wish to add more meaning to than what was given to them when I used them.

I have made no "wild assertions".

Ok, I may have misread some of the arguments, but I thought he said the clitoris is irrelevant to reproduction, but not irrelevant to sex/pleasure/whatever else you wanna use it for. Or, that it is irrlevant to sex ed BEYOND what is already being taught about it (because someone said schools should teach much more about it than they do).

Yes, he has said some pretty asshole-y and patronizing things.
The thing is, I have seen many many feminists on here be abusive or obnoxious to others, but I have never seen one of these people called a troll.

ellestar, to be fair, statistics DO show that young males tend to be less safe drivers than young females, although the gap has been closing a lot.

That's what I thought. Since I wasn't sure, I tried playing devil's advocate.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the stereotype was "women are bad drivers"?

That's a stereotype, too. In general, women are seen as bad drivers, but not financially risky drivers. And in the case of charging more for young male drivers, it's because they're in more accidents. I think why they have more accidents is the result of patriarchy (expectation to fulfill certain gendered roles while driving).

I pay more for my insurance than she does.

I never said you didn't. But it will even out as you get older. When my boyfriend added me to his insurance, it cost him $7 less a year to have two drivers (me and him) than just himself.

I've never really seen feminists fight against the sexist things that end up benefitting them.

We'll get to those once we are finished fighting the things that are detrimental to us. Promise.

I thought he said the clitoris is irrelevant to reproduction, but not irrelevant to sex/pleasure/whatever else you wanna use it for. Or, that it is irrlevant to sex ed BEYOND what is already being taught about it (because someone said schools should teach much more about it than they do).

Correct. That is what I said.

I also made a comment about how teaching 11 year olds how to pleasure each other is not the task of a sex education classroom in a middle school.

Yes, he has said some pretty asshole-y and patronizing things.

I'm aware that I am abrasive, and at times, very abrasive. It's simply how I am. I apologize if people don't like it, but I refuse to change myself simply because the way I am inconveniences others. It's not the place of someone else to force me to change because they don't approve of my disposition.

The thing is, I have seen many many feminists on here be abusive or obnoxious to others, but I have never seen one of these people called a troll.

Thank you.

I never said you didn't. But it will even out as you get older. When my boyfriend added me to his insurance, it cost him $7 less a year to have two drivers (me and him) than just himself.

The cut-off age for being a "young driver" is 25. That's when the big drop in insurance costs come in. We are both over the age of 25, and frankly, much closer to 30 than I'm comfortable with. ;)

I have publicly, and repeatedly, here and elsewhere, under pseudonyms and my real name, argued that women should be included in the draft.

And I'm ex-military, so I actually backed it up with words.

Also, the biggest fight to get women in combat roles has come from FEMINISTS.

So, you can seriously kiss my butt.

And, as someone pointed out upthread, purpose does not equal function, so your slide to attempt to evade law fairy's takedown just ain't convincing.

And considering the fact that to access the vagina, one must first pass through the lips, which are part of the vulva, and that as pointed out upthread, the clitoris and lubrication do have reproductive benefits, you are just arguing for the sake of argument.

Men learn about the foreskin, which many men do not have and which has no reproductive function, about the prostate, which isn't necessary for reproduction, and about nighttime emissions, which have nothing to do with reproduction other than having them does suggest some sperm production is going on.

And since the vulva is what a girl can actually see, and because you have to be worried about health issues, i.e. bartholin's cysts, follicular cysts, STI's (including ones that can be transmitted non-sexually) OF COURSE children should learn all about their anatomy, whether reproductive or no. (Does anyone else check their throat lymph nodes when they think they might be getting sick? Kinda useful, for me at least.)

You're just manufacturing a disagreement, and making intellectually dishonest arguments.

"Or, that it is irrlevant to sex ed BEYOND what is already being taught about it (because someone said schools should teach much more about it than they do)."

I don't know how much "more more" is but IMO, yes, more does need to be taught about it. I would like to see a sex ed that enables girls to feel like they can be sexually satisfied without men and that when they do have sex it is possible for pleasure to be more equal for both than it often is now. This involves teaching about the clitoris. I realize I have some controversial ideas.

I also made a comment about how teaching 11 year olds how to pleasure each other is not the task of a sex education classroom in a middle school.

Dude, that's like the MOST troll-esque thing I've seen in WEEKS! Dude, you totally outed yourself with that one.

On a lighter note, I'm not at all concerned with feminism's image. It's making a serious comeback, mostly because it's actually fixing things. Unlike the MRA whiners.

Guess what, if I go on a shooter's message board, and start spouting off about feminism, even if I use nice words, I will be a troll.

It isn't about civility, it is about staying on topic and not creating straw men.

The topic was supposed to be about people who derail feminist discussions (which are discussions about equality for women) with ways in which men are treated unequally. Guess what! The two sets of facts are not mutually exclusive! Women being oppressed doesn't mean that men aren't oppressed! So it isn't a counter-argument, it is derailing.

Which is what mild ennui is doing here. This is from his original post, and begins with him quoting another poster:

"'The parts of a little girl’s body that she can see and touch – that are important solely for her pleasure – her vulva, her labia and her clitoris – remain unspoken. Medical books commonly describe female sexual organs as, “uterus, ovaries and vagina� – everything necessary for procreation and male sexual pleasure.'

From a medical point of view, definining the [b]reproductive system[/b] of the human body, involves detailing the parts necessary for [b]reproduction[/b].

The vulva, clitoris, and labia are irrelevant when it comes to these things."

But from a MEDICAL point of view, the poster he was quoting was discussing the sexual organs, not the REPRODUCTIVE organs. So he elides the terms "sexual" and "reproductive" and then limits "reproductive" merely to those that are essential to procreation. That just isn't accurate. By that definition, as I pointed out in my last post, lots of parts of the male sexual organs are not essential to procreation.

So, basically, on a thread about how some people create a false dichotomy between women's and men's rights, and attempt to hijack the discussion to focus on what they want to talk about, ennui plays word games, and does the same thing the post is complaining about.

How very meta.

Credit rating and where you keep your car also factor into insurance.

Isn't Mild Ennui the poster who insisted the penis/vagina sex was penetrative, and could only be penetrative, because the vagina is passive and therefore can't leap off the body and wrap itself around a penis?

I don't know if he's a troll, but he's definitely someone who is so stuck on what he THINKS is how things are supposed to be that he dismisses anything else as stupid and illogical.

I believe the word is "narrow-minded," but this isn't just a philosophical discussion. Biology simply doesn't know enough about the female reproductive system to say what is and isn't necessary definitively with absolutely no room for argument.

"You might not like that, but too bad, really. Fact of the matter is that the reproductive system exists for reproduction. Pleasure is a secondary, if not tertiary, concern."

Mild Ennui, first of all as someone who identifies as bisexual, I am deeply offended by what you said. You are essentially denying the existence in nature of sexual activity for pleasure. Because it does happen in nature and it is a primary function in and of itself. Many animals engage in sexual activity for pleasure as the the primary goal, without the purpose or intent to procreate. I can give you plenty of examples: Dolphins, goats, monkeys, parrots, cats, whales, (and many more) all of these animals have been observed engaging in sexual activity solely for the purpose of pleasure, and not to procreate. And you know what, this is what I do with my girlfriend, physically it is impossible for us to procreate, but we engage in sexual activity primarily for pleasure, just like plenty of animals do in the wild. It is completely natural. But pleasure is secondary? C'mon, so how do you explain the behavior of these animals that I mentioned? Animals, both of the same sex and opposite sexes engage in sexual activities just for pleasure, as do humans. Denying that this happens, to me, is like telling me that any and all homosexual sex is not as important as hetero sex because it doesn't involve procreation. And this is how I feel that sex ed classes are often skewed. They often deny the existence homosexual sex and sex for pleasure and stress procreation as well as the idea that sex can only be the "penis in vagina" kind. And no I was never told about the clitoris or female pleasure in my sex ed class. What all this bias does is alienate many students and spreads disinformation.

So don't tell me that pleasure is secondary to procreation or not biologically important, because that argument that you just made is what plenty of right wing and religious fanatics use to oppress gays (and women) and deny us rights: that homosexual sex and sex for pleasure is dirty, bad, unnatural and wrong and that hetero sex is right, good, natural and clean - that is, as long as it's being used to make babies between two straight married people. Ugh, this is all complete BS.

I know many others have responded to this subject but I just had to add my dismay at this argument stated by Ennui. I also agree with what other commenters said in response, and how the "pleasure is secondary/unimportant biologically" argument hurts women and sex ed and etc. etc...I won't repeat all of it here for the sake of saving space, but I agree agree agree.

And finally, it's great to see men here speaking up about how feminism has affected their lives, I'm very glad to hear this. I absolutely love feminist guys, and I agree with Noah who said feminism has made him a better person...this has been my experience with the feminist men I have met, that they seem happier, more mature, well adjusted, positive attitude, and in general just very good people. I bet that's what having a certain outlook on life can do, namely treating others with equality and respect and by doing so having respect for yourself. So, right on feminist men, I respect you all and thanks for speaking out and setting a shining example for men and women not yet recruited to the cause of equality and justice for all!

Mild Ennui... maybe this will help: In the original post that started the argument, she said "sexual organs," not reproductive ones. A clitoris is indeed a sexual organ. So your original post reacted to something you misread. Problem solved.

Becky, technically, yes, that's what he said. But he also said that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which would mean, in some sense, that nonprocreative sex is itself irrelevant. So, if the clit is irrelevant to any kind of relevant sex (i.e., procreative sex), to me that's pretty much the same as saying it's all irrelevant. Granted, that isn't *exactly* what he said, but you have to parse things pretty finely to be able to say it isn't the clear meaning of his words.

As to people here occasionally being abusive, etc., of course, everyone has bad days, etc. But Mild Ennui is not someone who has balanced out the trollish comments with legitimate ones -- most of the regular commenters here have.

Oh, and I thought of another one (ME does this just a couple comments below yours) -- setting up false dichotomies (i.e., either we only teach about Mild Ennui's Official Basic Essentials For Procreative Vaginal Intercourse, or we teach 11-year-olds how to masturbate each other).

Troll work done. I'm sick of this. The topic has derailed. It's time to go away from the computer...

I wish I could comment on the driving insurance topic, but I'm bleary eyed.

"Isn't Mild Ennui the poster who insisted the penis/vagina sex was penetrative, and could only be penetrative, because the vagina is passive and therefore can't leap off the body and wrap itself around a penis?"

Lolz, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Do men have flying penises now? Nobody told me about those! Damn. So the woman can't place her vagina upon/around the erect penis? Fascinating, just fascinating.

Wow. I realize how poorly worded my above comment is because I meant this topic has derailed so much I can't focus on it anymore. And now I really am getting off the comp.

Ennui,

You are upset b/c you think certain feministing posters call anyone who disagrees with them a troll. Well, I posit that if you acknowledged there points as possibilities and conducted yourself more respectifully, you might not get called a troll. Of course, I'm sure that wouldn't be as much fun for you as trying to p*** off feminists to make them irritated and call you a troll, so then you can run around going "see! see! the feminists don't like other viewpoints". Not to mention, you seem to call anyone who disagrees with you simply "wrong", which is about the only thing more invalidating than calling someone a "troll".

Re: whether or not the clitoris and labia matter for sex and reproduction and should be taught in schools... Becky and Ennui,
/Without/ utilization of the clitoris and labia, one half of the population would have uncomfortable or painful at best reproduction. (as it is, many do). That to me, is a good enough reason (though not the only reason) to require their existence and function to be taught by schools. Unless of course, you want to argue that pain of a large % of the country doesn't matter, in which case /which country are we living in again/?

"Pleasure is not. Pleasure is a side-effect of sex, but not it's purpose."

Okay, TLF already pointed out the flaw of talking about "purpose" in this context. Furthermore, though, sex /does/ serve social purposes. Do you really think humans would have evolved to experience pleasure, if it didn't in some way ultimately benefit our survival? Pleasure creates social bonds and love between people, causes people to want to watch each other's back, etc. And yes you will find all that in plenty of science biology textbooks, though I wouldn't say that is always the definitive source on everything. (Our closest relatives, e.g. bonobos, use sex quite extensively for things other than just reproduction)

Can we all agree to not engage Mild Ennui from here on out? Every time he hijacks the thread, it makes reading the comments really depressing. I value reading this site because it makes me feel empowered, so let's not hand the baton to the trolls.

How about this---sexual pleasure was selected for because it increases the likelihood of procreation.

So, you can seriously kiss my butt.

You're one person. Not the entire movement.

And, as someone pointed out upthread, purpose does not equal function, so your slide to attempt to evade law fairy's takedown just ain't convincing.

Ismone, meet my friend, Thesaurus.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/purpose

As you can see, listed right there in "synonyms" is FUNCTION. Thanks for playing.

I would like to see a sex ed that enables girls to feel like they can be sexually satisfied without men and that when they do have sex it is possible for pleasure to be more equal for both than it often is now.

It is not the public school system's place to teach a bunch of children how to get each other off. I'm sorry if you find that prudish, but they can learn how to pleasure a partner somewhere else.

It's not at all essential to their formal education, or knowledge of the reproductive system.

Dude, that's like the MOST troll-esque thing I've seen in WEEKS! Dude, you totally outed yourself with that one.

Uh...what? How so? Yeah, crazy me. I suppose public schools SHOULD teach 11 year olds how to sexually please each other, huh? Not really, no.

Mild Ennui, first of all as someone who identifies as bisexual, I am deeply offended by what you said. You are essentially denying the existence in nature of sexual activity for pleasure.

No, I'm not. People have sex for pleasure. Of this I am aware. That doesn't change that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is for reproduction. We are a species that reproduces sexually.

So don't tell me that pleasure is secondary to procreation or not biologically important

Explain to me why or how it would be the primary purpose of sex, or how it IS biologically important. Go ahead. Because I don't believe you can. I can show that reproduction is biologically important, because the species needs it to survive. A species, however, does not need a really awesome orgasm in order to survive.

It's like the argument made earlier, that someone could use a human heart to power the fountain in their garden. Sure, maybe, but that's not what it evolved to do. Just like the human sexual organs evolved to facilitate sexual reproduction, doesn't mean that someone can't use them for something else.

For instance, from a biological standpoint, blowjobs are pointless. They serve no purpose. At all. They do nothing for the species as a whole, and exist because someone tried it once.

pleasure is secondary/unimportant biologically" argument hurts women and sex ed and etc. etc...I won't repeat all of it here for the sake of saving space, but I agree agree agree.

Frankly, if you think pleasure is the main reason for sex, you need to go back to school.

The reason humans have a sexual reproductive system is to reproduce. The fact that it feels pleasurable, is of less consequence.

Mild Ennui... maybe this will help: In the original post that started the argument, she said "sexual organs," not reproductive ones. A clitoris is indeed a sexual organ. So your original post reacted to something you misread. Problem solved.

We reproduce sexually. Ergo, one could easily infer that sexual organ is more or less synonymous with reproductive organ.

Becky, technically, yes, that's what he said. But he also said that the only purpose of sex is procreation.

False. I said "primary purpose". Not "only purpose".

So, if the clit is irrelevant to any kind of relevant sex (i.e., procreative sex), to me that's pretty much the same as saying it's all irrelevant. Granted, that isn't *exactly* what he said, but you have to parse things pretty finely to be able to say it isn't the clear meaning of his words.

Or, you let me illustrate the meaning of my words, instead of telling me what I mean.

I said the clitoris is irrelevant to the primary function of the reproductive system. Which it is.

But Mild Ennui is not someone who has balanced out the trollish comments with legitimate ones

Or perhaps you just haven't seen my other comments.

Isn't Mild Ennui the poster who insisted the penis/vagina sex was penetrative, and could only be penetrative, because the vagina is passive and therefore can't leap off the body and wrap itself around a penis?"

The discussion was around the language used. Such as "the penis enters the vagina", instead of "the vagina envelops the penis".

You are upset b/c you think certain feministing posters call anyone who disagrees with them a troll. Well, I posit that if you acknowledged there points as possibilities and conducted yourself more respectifully, you might not get called a troll.

As stated, I am aware I am abrasive in the presentation of my opinions. I will not alter this to make people more comfortable around me.

Of course, I'm sure that wouldn't be as much fun for you as trying to p*** off feminists to make them irritated and call you a troll, so then you can run around going "see! see! the feminists don't like other viewpoints".

I think you're reading waaaay too much into it.

Do you really think humans would have evolved to experience pleasure, if it didn't in some way ultimately benefit our survival? Pleasure creates social bonds and love between people, causes people to want to watch each other's back, etc

I very much care about my close friends, and would stop a truck with my face for them, and naturally would watch their back.

Yet, gasp, I don't much care for sex! I'm a freak, apparently.

If you think sex is what creates bonds and love between people, you have a strange view of humanity.

That's what I'm saying, nerdalert. There's really no point in arguing with someone who, less than a month ago, said this:

Penis entering vagina. Which has nothing to do with "men as active and women as passive". When you go through a door, are you entering a room, or is the room "enveloping you"? Naturally, you're entering a room. You're putting an outside body into an empty space.

Similarly, when you drink a glass of water, is the water going into your body, or do you consider your body to be enveloping the water?

It's not as though the vagina leaps off the woman's body and wraps itself around the penis. There's nothing inherently sexist in calling a spade a spade.

For context, I direct you to this thread: Feminists are "language rapists"

I'd say it starts about three quarters of the way down the page.

Alright let's have a pleasant change of subject friends...

since this thread is originally about men, I would like to pose a question to everyone that is related to men's roles in feminism...kinda. My boyfriend is a pretty ardent feminist and is trying to get opinion pieces published in various online feminist journals and publishing groups. Unfortunately to this point, every site he's sent his work to has rejected him citing they refuse to publish any writings by men, only women are allowed. My first question is practical....does anybody here know of online journals or groups that welcomes writings of people regardless of gender?

I guess another question I have is why do some people totally discount the male feminist perspective? Early in this thread people like Noah and TheLawFairy made great points about how patriarchy hurts everyone, and how feminism is a wonderful tool to see how this plays out in society. In the case of my boyfriend, whose writings have been excluded and discounted from feminist circles thusfar, isn't excluding men just creating reverse inequality?

Also props to danandannica, who echoed my sentiments earlier as well =)

mizz.rush,
It's very hard for women to get published and have their voices heard.

The point of this post is that men want to complain that they're being left out because feminism isn't working on their problems. They don't want to do anything to actually help themselves. They still want women to do it for them.

Women had to create their own spaces. They created those online journals. If your boyfriend wants to write about it, he can create his own space. Tell him to start a blog of his own where he can publish his writing. If it's good then people will read it and maybe he'll be invited to join other online publications.
There are two other male feminist blogs that I know of - No Cookies for Me and Feminist Allies.

I have little trouble injecting feminism into my writings. Of course, I'm just publishing things in more mainstream journals and non-peer reviewed stuff to allow more intelligent and eloquent feminists to get their stuff in the vanguard journals. If anything, the patriarchy is damaging because it constantly tries to frame these important venues as being marginal and unimportant. I, for one, would like to see this work get its due, and give me some serious coattails for stuff I'm already doing.

But I like being a "kept" feminist man.

Just because purpose is a synonym for function does not mean that the two words are identical. They are not. Purpose, in the original context, implies direction, function implies what the thing does.

I notice you did not respond to the fact that with regard to "sexual" and "reproductive" you elided two different words with two different meanings, and took the writer's argument out of context. And you patronize me about a thesaurus.

And I am not the only feminist who is pro-women being drafted.

You are also still wrong about reproductive organs or sexual organs only being those necessary to procreation. You have not responded to my point that many parts of the male anatomy that we describe as "sex organs" or "part of the reproductive tract" are not necessary for reproduction.

You do not, because you cannot.

Guess what---the clitoris ain't part of any other organ system. It is a sexual organ. So you are wrong.

And you still derail!

Let's get back to the topic at hand. Mizz.rush, I do think it is important to discuss how the inequality hurts men, and I am grateful for everyone's different experience. But when we are discussing feminism, which is how inequality hurts women, we are not hurting men. If people bring up "it hurts men too" as a way to invalidate arguments it is just irrelevant. (I.e., like saying, "starvation hurts too." Of course it does.) But if they are bringing it up to say feminism also has benefits for men, that is just fine, although when they do, why do we swing the topic around to men and male feminists? Why not have that discussion when someone talks about men and male feminists, instead of EVERY TIME FEMINISTS TALK!

I get that if, for example, you're taking a class on economics, it isn't totally crazy to bring up critiques of capitalism. But if someone were to do it every day, in every class, the teacher would put a stop to it. Because the class is about economics, and you can't learn about economics if you spend the entire time critiquing capitalism. Same thing here. These discussions are about feminism, and you can't learn a lot about feminism, if every time someone says "what about the menz" it is treated as a valid argument that requires us to drop the discussion of feminism.

Just like when it comes to civil rights, my experiences may have some tangential relevance, but I shouldn't make the conversation all about me.

Sex also has a purpose aside from procreation. It adds to emotional health with a partner, releases endorphines, and reduces stress. Intercourse certainly evolved for procreation, but it also evolved for non reproductive reasons. If making babies was the only purpose of sex, there wouldn't be a clitoris to begin with, pleasure could only occur from penetration. As others have pointed out, if sex wasn't pleasurable for women, we would not want to reproduce. Saying pleasure isn't necessary for reproduction is like saying a bat isn't necessary for baseball. Theoretically, I could hit a home run with my glove if I swing it hard enough. Though it'd be very unlikely.

The fact that we are able to pleasure each other without penetration is an obvious indication that sexual pleasure evolved for a reason all it's own. Even our ape cousins don't just get jiggy for reproduction. And our caveperson anscestors would have died out if they had popped out too many kids. And thinking that human beings wouldn't be having sex whenever they get the chance is just laughable.

P.S. I am a biology major. Just figured I'd throw that out before anyone accuses me of pulling stuff out of my ass.

But even biology students know that the purpose of the female "void" is to please the male "thunderstick" and "make it rain."

Anything more and you'll just get an elementary school orgy.

These are facts. Look them up on the wikipedias.

Arggg didn't post the first time....

Thanks a lot for the input, slowpokegonzales and Ismone, it's well appreciated!
P.S. DocDiddyO, I'm really new to the online blog community, are there any mainstream sites you'd recommend my s.o. (and myself!) check out??

Thanks, MLEmac. I too was almost a biology major, once, and I have known, been taught by, and worked with some very intelligent scientists studying things like evolutionary biology and animal behavior.
So even with its flaws, I still respect science overall.

And it drives me nuts when dimwits oversimplify and misconstrue scientific knowledge for the purpose of supporting their political agenda...
Happens /way/ too often for my taste -and since so much of the American public is not educated in the sciences, too many people misunderstand the way it is supposed to work and eat up the oversimplified, politicized rhetoric w/o thinkinig critically about it and w/o knowing better.

Arggg didn't post the first time....

Thanks a lot for the input, slowpokegonzales and Ismone, it's well appreciated!
P.S. DocDiddyO, I'm really new to the online blog community, are there any mainstream sites you'd recommend my s.o. (and myself!) check out??

P.S. MLEmac, I like the fact you managed to incorporate the phrase "getty jiggy" into your post... haha.

Honestly, I must wonder whether if Ennui didn't have his individual issues regarding sex and not getting pleasure from it, whether he would not take such a sensitive tone w/ people pointing out biologicial and social benefits of sexual pleasure...

Another thing I wonder is whether Ennui has any good female friends (since we know he's not in a relationship)...

But for realz, if he doesn't start making an effort to be respectful I'll e-mail Jessica.

DocDiddyO, thank you for making me laugh out loud.

I'm hardly the biggest expert here. What field are you in/looking for?

NWSA, the National Womens Studies Association http://www.nwsa.org/publications/index.php is a decent place to start.

I find that co-writing with women can help you get in the door if you are a man. Once you actually contribute useful insight, there is seldom a problem. I have personally written articles in a range of journals, from business, to rhetoric of science, to even the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) journals. Journals across a range of disciplines are often receptive to articles that explore disciplinary issues with feminist lenses. There are a lot of strategies for contributing to these conversations. Sometimes it takes a bit more bridge-building, as these scholars are wary of the "bull in the china shop" approach. These journals are conversations, and there are many ways to get in the conversation.

Purpose, in the original context, implies direction, function implies what the thing does.

I would appreciate you NOT telling me my own context. As I used "purpose" interchangeably with it's synonym, function.

Theoretically, I could hit a home run with my glove if I swing it hard enough. Though it'd be very unlikely.

That's a rather false analogy. Children have been conceived through rape, which is most certainly a painful, frightening experience for a woman, and one she absolutely will not enjoy.

Pleasure is not by any means necessary for reproduction.

Yes, I'm sure it helps, because it makes people want to have sex, but that doesn't mean the main purpose of sex is pleasure.

And it drives me nuts when dimwits oversimplify and misconstrue scientific knowledge for the purpose of supporting their political agenda...

I'm not trying to push any sort of "political agenda", sorry.

Honestly, I must wonder whether if Ennui didn't have his individual issues regarding sex and not getting pleasure from it, whether he would not take such a sensitive tone w/ people pointing out biologicial and social benefits of sexual pleasure...

I don't bring personal/emotional things into it. At all. Which is why I said the reasons behind such things were not relevant, and would not be mentioned.

We'll just say I don't find sex important, and leave it at that.

You act as though I'm somehow unaware that people use sex for pleasure. I fully aware that they do. That doesn't change that the primary purpose for the system is reproduction. I know feminists are opposed to that line of thinking, because they apparently feel it means they are "baby factories" or something, but that's not the case.

The primary purpose of my lungs is the inhalation, of oxygen, (and all the wonderful benefits that provides), and the exhalation of carbon dioxide.

I also happen to use my lungs for the inhalation and processing of nicotine-laced smoke. To me, that act is quite enjoyable, but it is most certainly not the reason I have lungs. Just because I can use them for something other than their normal function, does not suddenly transform said normal function.

But for realz, if he doesn't start making an effort to be respectful I'll e-mail Jessica.

I will make no efforts to be respectful. Respect is earned, not given. However, I will make some effort to be a bit more civil, provided other people do the same.

Expert or not, I appreciate any resources that can be suggested. I'm sure he'll be encouraged, thank you =)

Turned into a very interesting thread. I dont really have any comments on things later than in the thread other than insurance being a business and the actuarys playing the numbers for the most profit, steretypes matter not to them. If I had my way we'd get rid of car insurance and add the cost of it and its regulation as a tax on gasoline but thats something that will never get any traction.

What I reacted to I guess was calling some guy a troll because he asked "what about men?". Yes I know we all encounter true trolls and people who are willfully ignorant but we dont know why that guy was asking that question and I can think of a lot of good reasons he would. Either the overall education thing, incarceration rates, or more importantly a single issue that has touched his life, usually in my experience that is a horrible experience with the family court system. For your average joe, especially a oollege student, to ask something like "what about the men" makes perfect sense to me and is often a first step in making a feminist out of a male, to call someone like that a troll when we dont know his motivations bothers me as I was in the same position 10 years ago. Think about it, no click moment, no conscious awareness of the patriarchy so when you see things that dont jive with your innate sense of fairness you react, whether that be a bad beatdown in a divorce case, a title IX loss (losing your team or a spot on your team) or any number of other things. There are a lot of issues that negatively effect men, the original post said the guy couldnt think of one so my reaction to that was to put things that did but again, sure the odds might favor him being a clueless troll but then again he might be the next great feminist, who knows? Are women responsible or party responsible for dealing with these issues men face? I'm not in a position to say that but I dont see how women will resolve any of the issues at hand without the help of men. People define it as they like but for me feminism is striving for equality of the sexes and anything we can do to help achieve that, on either "side", should be done.

OT: As far as the MRA's go, they were mentioned in the thread, I do agree with some of their specific ideals such as shared parenting and prosecuting people who make quantifiably false accusations (no matter how rare they might be). I support them in their struggle to have men be viewed fairly and free of the constraint of the patriarchy, even if they dont use that word. Finally on the MRA folks, I enjoy glenn sacks most of the time and really enjoy his new feature, feminist dissidents and am all for overhauling the child support practices in this country but also support many, many feminist positions, crazy huh?

No worries mizz.rush. A lot of gripy men have it backwards. We're not supposed to cruise feminism like its some sort of gravy train. Unlike our now-permanent troll, men who give a rip about feminism need to carve more places out where feminist discourse can exist and maybe even thrive. My experience has been that if you do your work, most honest academics will read your work for its strengths. If they penalize you for taking a feminist stance, then they probably give give out articles to their buddies anyway. Good work gets trashed all of the time thanks to patriarchy.

Let him know there are lots of us out there trying to clear more ground, and that he's got a place in the fight if he wants to make a difference. It's really pretty easy compared to the what the women deal with every day, but man is it rewarding when new voices get heard.

"For your average joe, especially a college student, to ask something like "what about the men" makes perfect sense to me and is often a first step in making a feminist out of a male, to call someone like that a troll when we dont know his motivations bothers me "

i completely agree with this.

i have been following feministing (and occasionally commenting) for some time now, and lately i've been very disappointed at the quickness with which regular commenters and readers are using to denounce dissident commenters as "trolls".

this post especially bothered me because of it's portrayal of feminism as some kind of inside joke. oh, yeah, what about the men (ha, ha, men just don't get it). i think dan and danica has a great point - this should be a starting place.

i realize that it can be frustrating but feminism isn't ONLY about how inequality hurts women (as one commenter said). it's about equality of *both* sexes - and i don't think that can be achieved by rolling our eyes at the silly boys who don't get it...

As a teenage boy in the 80s, I know there was a certain amount of peer pressure to drive stupid. Result? Two accidents before age 18.

So stats or not, we can still blame the patriarchy.

Cuddlebot3000:

I agree with you that the the Anita Roberts essay posted above isn't going to attract many men to feminism, but so what? I think it will attract more women, certainly.

Feminists have always made up a tiny minority of the population, but have always been politically effective. Look at the strides mentioned in that essay above. I think this is, in part, because of the outrageousness and emotion of many arguments feminists put out there. I think this intellectual audaciousness and more visceral style bring attention to the issues involved in those arguments. Also, having an "us versus them" mentality promotes unity and creates devotion to the cause.

For myself, I am not a feminist. I would say reading this site, and other sources changed me from a feminist sympathizer at an ardent non-feminist. But, no matter how much I disagree with almost all arguments put forth here insofar as abstract rhetoric goes (e.g. the patriarchy, male privilege, etc.) the acts that are supported by many feminists (breast cancer research, equal pay for women, rape awareness etc.) are create a better society. These issues would not be talked about as much if feminism were less vitriolic. I think pissing people off is part of the shtick and is effective.

Abby: "What about the men," is sort of an inside joke, because, yes, there are men who seriously don't get it, and don't want to. We make light of it, b/c every time feminists want to discuss the world as it pertains to women someone chirps up, what about the men??? It's obnoxious. I agree that the patriarchy hurts men too. But that's generally not what we're discussing, and we are not required to discuss it, b/c while feminism is about making the world equal, the fact is that things are worse for women. So to make things equal, we have to work harder on the world as it pertains to women. Simple fact.

I have long ago gotten over diplomacy for men who are too busy boo-hoo-ing over higher auto insurance costs to get over themselves and look at the big picture. I'm so sorry that you feel underrepresented in fields like teaching. It's not because women are shutting you out, unlike the situation for women trying to enter male dominated fields. Cry me a river, and then when you're done and feel like helping yourself, then I'm more than happy to talk to you about that.

"Also, having an "us versus them" mentality promotes unity and creates devotion to the cause."

It promotes unity? I am wondering how? Or do you mean unity among people in each group but not between groups? I hate the "us versus them" mentality.

"I think pissing people off is part of the shtick and is effective."

Are you, perhaps, a man?

B/c I can tell you, that the feminist "rhetoric" you are blaming for turning people away from feminism, is a lot of the same "rhetoric" that helps me, as a young woman, to understand my experiences, feel better about myself, and in general lead a happier life.

As a teenager I did not fit the stereotype for a girl in my rural community. I was smart and did well in school, but I didn't act the way girls were "supposed" to act, or look the way girls were "supposed" to look. I got harassed quite a lot. I developed low self-esteem, eating disorders, and had difficulty sticking up for myself in a coercive sexual situation (of course, I had also been taught that female sexual pleasure was not as important or as expected as male's, that boys will be boys and have trouble helping themselves, etc.)

Thanks in large part to feminist "rhetoric" which helps explain the way women are expected to look and act certain ways and how those are not "natural" but instead cultural, and how they are often not even good (i.e. the explanation of the patriarchy) I ultimately was helped A Lot.

And I think that's what a lot of men can't accept -feminism exists foremost to help women. It's not trying to raise women above the status of men or anything... it's just trying to help women in fundamental ways, and the philosophy/rhetoric does that, as well as the actions.

Now if folks could humor Mild Ennui that yes, technically, the function of sex is for reproduction- just as the function of teeth is to masticate food prior to digestion.
However, not all people who have sex reproduce and many of us have sex primarily for pleasure. So to insist, "it's for reproduction!" over and over again is technically true, but it's also completely irrelevant especially to the original content of this thread.
You know, according to the laws of my state, the function of my glass pipe is for tobacco-smoking purposes only. That doesn't mean that I'm not getting high.
So, honestly, Mild Ennui, what is your point and how does it relate to the original content of this thread?

I was starting to feel bad because he came to me one day recently saying with all the rejection he'd been experiencing, he was beginning to feel kicked out of the movement. I've sent your advice and links to him, and he gives you a warm "thank you", DocDiddyO =)

I'm also going to give a hearty "amen" to lyndorr for that last comment. My work here is done! Goodnight!

Feminism *could* help men, but they would have to forgo a lot of privilege at the same time, and most are (reasonably) unwilling to do so.

For example, in order to change the fact that men die earlier, they would have give up the privilege which culturally allows them to drink more, smoke more, eat more shitty food (because they don't have to starve themselves, er eat well to look good), take risks (or have fun) and avoid doctors. Women are encouraged to go to doctors. If that doesn't work, they are forced to go (if het) to get decent birth control.

I could go on, but you get the point.

When I hear, "What about the men?" I think, what ABOUT them? Why is it always about them? Why can't the men who ask that question ever put themselves in my shoes? Oh, right, I am not as important as they are. And if I dare to think such a thing, I'm a shrill feminazi.

13lesslee,

His point, I think was that by his (misinformed) argument and (unfortunately bleak) opinion, girls should not be taught about their clitoris and labia in schools. And so feminists have no right to complain of unfair treatment of women when girls are not taught about those things in school.

But re: the whole "what sex is for" from a biological perspective thing, MLE and I did some redressing of that already.

Really though,

he's said he has no desire to respect feminists (at least the ones on this site; i.e. no desire to act in a respectful manner on this site). He isn't here to learn, either, b/c he thinks he knows better than us already.

/What/ is the definition of troll again??

I just want to add my voice in to say that Noah rocks. I know and have known a LOT of men who not only were hurt by the patriarchy but recognized that they were. It would be awesome if they could all get together and work towards making things better for men. Not only would that be better for them, I think it would help advance a lot of feminist ideals as well. So Noah, if you do decide to start a group or blog or something, please let me know so I can forward it to my friends.

That was weird, I tried posting something and I got an error message saying that my comment was being help by the administrator...hmm maybe it was the links, I don't know...
let me try again...

Roy has a good posting over at his feminist blog - No Cookies for Me concerning "what about the menz" issues. It was good to read a male's perspective regarding this issue, I suggest anyone who's interested check it out:
http://nocookiesforme.blogspot.com/2007/10/this-post-really-is-about-menz.html

As a woman I'm actually very interested in what feminist men have to say because I think it's essential for changing the problems in society, that men get involved in feminism. But, I think a lot of my frustration actually has to do with the fact that I know so few feminist men, and I know so few that have an understanding of the issues. Most of my male friends and acquaintances take most of their queues about women from popular culture and when I start to talk about some of it to these friends, I can kinda see that I start to loose them because what I'm talking about it so different from what they already "know" about women from pop culture (i.e. gender stereotypes). And sometimes I just don't know where to start. I do have guy friends that are genuinely interested though, which is great, but I still have problems trying to talk to them.

For example, one friend, who genuinely tries to understand, has literally read to many Cosmo magazines. He reads them because he thinks it helps him understand women. But he doesn't realize that Cosmo is probably the worst place he could go to try and learn about women (I have told him that before). I find because of this he has a lot of ingrained stereotypes and talking to him is really hard because I find myself constantly going over really basic stuff (i.e. periods aren't "gross" they are natural and normal). He bought into the "Cosmo body image" idea that women's bodies need to be constantly primped and preened and that natural women's bodies are "icky". Sometimes I get really frustrated when he tries to tell me how women are. I don't even want to get into what he's learned (and told me) from these magazines about women and sex. Oh Geez, that was an interesting conversation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I just don't know that many feminist men. I wish I did, but I don't. You know something I'd be really interested to know from some of the feminist men that have been posting here, how did you become feminists in the first place, how were you introduced to the issues, and did it come naturally or were you resistant or felt threatened at first. I'm also trying to talk to some of my male friends about these issues and I think some of them feel like feminism is only for women. Which is so untrue, because these issues affect everyone. So how did you come to realize that feminism was also important for men to get involved in too? I'm just curious and trying to understand how I can talk about feminism to my male friends better, they are genuinely interested, I just think they get a little "lost" sometimes in all the pop culture crap that's out there. Cosmo's not the best place for learning about feminism. Ha ha.

Lyndor:

I mean unity among people in each group but not between groups. Feminist vs. Patriarchy, for example.

Ninapendamaishi:

Yes, I'm a man.

I am not suggesting that you stop believing what you believe. In fact, I am saying that you should tend to ignore people who challenge feminism (especially on a feminist web site) because the outcome of your beliefs, regardless of their truth, is good for you personally and for society in general.

Really though,

he's said he has no desire to respect feminists (at least the ones on this site; i.e. no desire to act in a respectful manner on this site).

Don't put words in my mouth, or attempt to alter what I say to fit what you want it to mean.

I simply said that respect is not a given right, it's an earned privilege. To that effect, I offered more civility.

It has nothing to do with "not respecting feminists", as my respect is not freely given to anyone, be they male, female, black, white, Asian, Martian, or what-have-you. Anyone that wants it, has the same obligation to earn it.

He isn't here to learn, either, b/c he thinks he knows better than us already.

I was here to present an opinion. In the group of "think they know more than someone else", you could easily also fall.

mirm,
I get your point but I take issue with, for example, your claim that men dont have to starve themselves or eat well to look good. To me this shows a lack of understanding of the body issues men face. Am I comparing them to the ones women face? No but on their own they account for a lot of problems. Men cannot starve themselves or eat poorly if they wish to fit the ideal. There is incredible pressure to fit a certain type or at the very least have that 6 pack or large biceps. In my opinion thats one of the reasons steroid use is so prevalent among young men. Men as a group face pressure to look a certain way though they have enough privilege to cancel out some of that pressure, its still there though and causes anxiety, depression and a host of other issues we usually only associate with women.

On a personal note when I was younger and a lot less wise I was envious of some of the girls as they only had to maintain a certain calorie intake to look "good", they werent starving themselves but werent really working at looking "good", kind of hated that when I'd trudge down to the gym or the track for my 30th and 31st hour of the week trying to reduce my body fat and build my muscles so i could look like eric nies (anyone remember him?). not saying one is as bad as the other as I do believe the body image problem is far worse for women but its still there for men. I do wonder though about the complexities of the body image issue here in the states, ive seen many obese females embrace their weight and be proud of how they look, rarely see males outside of sitcoms or preemptive self-deprecation doing that.

Also for a lot of the points related to living longer, yes it is privilege as you say but again just from personal experience, a lot of it comes from a feeling of we dont really matter, we are disposable, a feeling given us by the patriarchy if we arent in the right social class or look the right way so fuck it, why not load up on marlboro 100's and party every night?

Probably I shouldn't participate in this train wreck, but what the hell.

The truth about car insurance: boys are worse drivers than girls. Much, much worse. So much worse that in some places the insurance companies charge boys SIX TIMES what they charge girls. This trend does not start to alter until you hit 25 or so. It's not based on stereotypes; the insurance companies have the actual data as to who caused accidents, when, how old they were, how much they drive, where they live, and so forth, and their entire business model is based on crunching those statistics to get reasonably accurate estimates of the risk involved.

The Johns Hopkins study found that women over the age of 35 (but this was 10 years ago) were worse drivers than men, by a ratio of 5.7 accidents per million miles driven to 5.1 accidents per million miles driven. However, men drive 74% more of the time. The conservatives interpreting these statistics missed the fact that the rate *already* includes the mileage and said "Well, men are on the road more so you'd expect more accidents!" No. FAIL. The mileage is in the rate. The correct way to interpret these statistics is to say "Even though men get 74% more driving experience than women, the difference in their driving skill is less than 1 accident per million miles driven." In other words, men suck. They suck hard, they suck so bad that it takes getting 3/4ths again more driving experience than women to make them even marginally better drivers than women. At all ages they found that men are 3 times more likely to be involved in a *fatal* accident, and the age cohort thing, where male driving starts out sucking really bad and then improves whereas women's driving starts out much better than male and then gets worse, is probably mostly explainable by the experience discrepancy. 16-year-olds have equal driving experience, ie, none. The older a person gets, the more driving experience they get, but if a woman defers to always letting a man drive her, she won't get driving experience and he will.

Now, is this unfair? All insurance is unfair, because it's based on aggregate statistics. It's unfair that a good driver pays more because they live in a neighborhood with a lot of people who have accidents. Is it based in biology or patriarchy? My guess is patriarchy, because when young men get married their accident rate goes way down. There's nothing biological about marriage that should make men into better drivers; it's code for "socially expected to be more responsible, party less and settle down more." Our expectations as to what teenage boys and young men should be doing with their lives is part of wht makes them really bad drivers. So yes, the patriarchy is causing young men to be really bad drivers, and probably the patriarchy has a profound influence on why men cause fatal car accidents three times more often (my guess is, actually, that women are discouraged from becoming truck drivers, and most of that stat comes from truck drivers who fall asleep at the wheel because truckers are paid by the mile and not incented strongly enough to get enough sleep. But I could be wrong.)

Part of the way patriarchy hurts men is that it encourages men to be irresponsible in certain ways, and then, of course, men pay the consequences. Just as patriarchy encourages women to be irresponsible about money and taking care of their cars, which leaves many widows and divorcees in the lurch because they left all the money management to their man and now he's gone, patriarchy encourages men to be irresponsible about their own health and risk of death. Men are 80% of all murder victims (and 90% of all perpetrators), but you never hear about murder as a problem affecting men the way you hear about rape or domestic violence as a problem affecting women. (Part of this is probably due to the fact that when men are murdered, it's by other men, so there's no sexy "War of the Sexes!" tag you can put on the concept; but part of it is also because men are invisible as a gender, because they are treated as the default for humanity, so when something actually *does* disproportionately affect men as a gender, no one analyzes this. Only women have gender; men are just people. This usually ends up hurting women but it does go both ways at times.) Men take risks women have been trained not to, and often, die for it.

From mild ennui, quoting me and responding:

"'Purpose, in the original context, implies direction, function implies what the thing does.'

I would appreciate you NOT telling me my own context. As I used 'purpose' interchangeably with it's synonym, function."

I am NOT telling you your own context. I am telling you how you ignored Law Fairy's context (she originally brought up purpose, you ran with it, and then elided the term with function.)

You are being flatly untruthful.

I do not mind curmudgeons. I do mind people who are intellectually dishonest, and you are extremely intellectually dishonest.

she originally brought up purpose, you ran with it, and then elided the term with function.

I originally brought up purpose, actually, and then someone, I guess it was Law Fairy, attempted to tell me that a thing cannot have a purpose, if it had no creator.

That's what I refer to. I used purpose originally, to be synonymous with function.

You are being flatly untruthful.

I do not mind curmudgeons. I do mind people who are intellectually dishonest, and you are extremely intellectually dishonest.

Intellectually dishonest is taking things out of context, skipping entire statements, and cherry picking discussions to attempt to prove your point.

Which is what you're doing.

You skip over my earlier statements, take things out of order, and apparently have trouble following the conversation to such an extent, that you can't find who said what and when they said it.

I don't think Mild Ennui is a troll because he disagrees with me or some Feminist ideals, but because he uses circular language to inflame and confuse. His arguments are borderline incoherent.

That said, Mild Ennui, I feel bad dismissing you as a troll. But the only alternative to that is that you truly don't understand the arguments made to you.

No one is saying sexual organs aren't for reproduction. I disagree that the primary function for sexual organs is reproduction and the existence of sensitive areas such as the clitoris seems evidence of that. I find language that states differently to be archaic. And that's where everyone comes in with their arguments of purpose vs. function.

I disagree. So do a lot of other people. And if you're going to jump all over that with confusing, unclear, pedantic arguments, then it's a free country, but I'm frankly bored.

And that brings me back to the main topic on this thread, which is why men interject in feminist discussions with what about us. On the one hand I'm resentful of that, on the other I know I have been instrumental in my boyfriend and my brother calling themselves feminists.

And many of us have been sitting here explaining over and over again to mild ennui why we feel a certain way, and he's not getting it or doesn't want to get it. Is it so wrong to assume he's here only to rile us up for a good laugh? That assumption is not so far fetched. Why should we be coddling this behavior? I feel ashamed that I've been doing it.

Sure, we can take it upon ourselves to educate, but not all the time. Sometimes it doesn't work. And I don't think there's anything unnatural about being frustrated. Men aren't the only ones not getting it.

Like I said, argue all you want, but the purpose of sex is not pleasure. It's main function is reproduction.

Says who? Why?

If we agree that our sexual reproductive systems are a product of evolution, and that there isn't a creator who decided what purpose and function our parts would have, then who are you do declare that any particular part of the body has a particular function over any other function? That's like suggesting that the sole function or purpose of the mouth is to process food for digestion, ignoring that it's also used to breathe, talk, and express emotion.

One function of sex is reproductive, but you can't just ignore and pretend that the pleasure aspect isn't there, too. Human beings have been given the ability to have sex that is pleasurable. Even if you want to strip it down to the most biological aspects, there's a reason that we evolved this way- it must have been advantageous to our species that sex feel good. Furthermore, patently ignoring that the majority of human beings will have far more non-reproductive sex than reproductive sex, but choosing to focus on the later? That's idiocy of the highest order. You're attempting to present your argument as being of some sound scientific sense, but it's not. If you were particularly interested in being rigorous about your examination of human sexual habits, you wouldn't pretend that pleasure is incidental or unimportant. Sexual pleasure is a *huge* part of human sexual behavior, and it's a very significant function of our reproductive system.

If you want an act purely for pleasure, masturbate.

Many people do. But, it's also abundantly clear that many people have sex primarily for pleasure purposes, however loosely defined that is. I'd also point out that people have sex for emotional reasons like pair-bonding, too, which is also tremendously important from an evolutionary standpoint, but let's not let that get in the way, right?

Penetrative sexual intercourse, however, is primarily for reproduction, regardless of how people actually use it.

That doesn't even make sense. Again, if we're talking about biological traits and behaviors, it doesn't make sense to say "despite the fact that the preponderance of people use X for Y, X is actually for Z." That'd be like claiming that, despite the fact that the majority of frogs use their legs to swim and jump, the primary function of the legs is actually to provide food for human beings.

As I said, just because some people may do it for other reasons, doesn't change the primary purpose of it, from a biological standpoint.

Actually, it does. You're acting like biology is a person. It's not. The process by which we evolve is messy and complicated, and few things have one distinct purpose. Many of our organs and process have multiple functions. You've choosen to focus on one aspect and are completely ignoring the reality that human beings use sex for multiple purposes, and that evolution has rather clearly favored those functions.

The reason you have a reproductive system, is to reproduce, not to "get off".

Bullshit.
One of the reasons that we have reproductive systems is to reproduce.
Another reason that we have them is to get off.

How is that laughable? Is your vagina some sort of magical earth-mother goddess power zone? Some other hippie nonsense? I hate to sound condescending here

Then stop.

I'm sorry your viewpoint has caused so much educational damage to you, that you believe the vagina has some other purpose than it's biological one.

And I'm sorry that your lack of education has blinded you to the rather obvious and blatant fact that sex is frequently a pleasurable act and serves the function of bringing joy and emotional connection to people- which are biologically important and rather clearly one of the functions of sexual intercourse.

I never said that it would be enjoyable, or recommended to do so. Just that from a purely biological standpoint, whether or not the woman enjoys it won't largely impact her ability to conceive.

Actually, it does. Female orgasm can significantly increase the potential for conception. Further, attempting sex without foreplay can actually cause physical injury to both the man and the woman. Which isn't particularly helpful for encouraging reproduction or ensuring conception. And, as long as we're going on about biology and sex, it should be noted that human beings are unusual in the animal kingdom in that we frequently have sex even when the woman is not at a fertile moment. Women don't give overt signs that they're fertile or "in heat", which lends even more credit to the point that sex isn't strictly for reproductive purposes in humans.

meeneecat:

I think I was primed for feminism by having a lot of strong, independent women around when I was younger, so that when I was older, those were the sorts of women I was attracted to.

There were two effects of this.

First: When I was dating said girls in college, they went to feminist events, and I tagged along. And once I saw the injustices they were talking about, it was hard not to call myself a feminist.

Second: Participating in feminist activities meant hanging out with smart, funny, passionate women. 'nuff said.

I sometimes wonder if guys that pick fights with feminists are just ineptly flirting.

mike,
Interesting, I "pick fights" with feminists all the time, easier to do when you live with one but I also get in heated discussions with feminists outside the house. Your posts makes it seem like all feminists are the same and nearly all men who "pick" on them are the same, that couldnt be farther from the truth. Calling yourself a feminist and espousing feminist views isnt an automatic i-win card in any debate or discussion, some feminists have outrageous ideas and stances just as you would find within any large group. All feminists are not funny, smart and passionate, you will find obnoxious, ill-informed, apathetic feminists most anywhere you look just as you will find knuckledragging men and the great pool of people that dont make up the "extremes".
My issue with a lot of feminists my age and younger is that they buy into the ideals, i do too, but vary wildly on the practice. A very recent example is the man accused of rape who spent 9 days in jail, the charges were found to be patently false, a deliberate lie and the woman who made them was sentenced to 8 days which then was changed to community service, speaking with some feminist friends i did indeed find some arguments in "its a good learning experience for him" strain which just completely boggles my mind, gah sorry again for the rant.

This is a very interesting post, but the discussion that resulted is extremely disappointing. "What about men" or "What about the boys" questions are very timely, recent, and should not be dismissed so easily. I think people on both sides of the "What about the boys or men" question totally missed the point. We should be more interested in an alliance politics of feminist women and pro-feminist men. Restrictive gender roles limit both, not equally, yet in similar ways.

We must grow to accept femininity in masculine bodies and masculinity in feminine bodies, blur the boundaries between sex and gender, and unite in the acceptance of multiple practices at the expense of restrictive norms. Think about how the discussion can be united rather than trying to argue why men or women are charged differently for car insurance. Now that is silly as all hell!

This is a very interesting post, but the discussion that resulted is extremely disappointing. "What about men" or "What about the boys" questions are very timely, recent, and should not be dismissed so easily. I think people on both sides of the "What about the boys or men" question totally missed the point. We should be more interested in an alliance politics of feminist women and pro-feminist men. Restrictive gender roles limit both, not equally, yet in similar ways.

We must grow to accept femininity in masculine bodies and masculinity in feminine bodies, blur the boundaries between sex and gender, and unite in the acceptance of multiple practices at the expense of restrictive norms. Think about how the discussion can be united rather than trying to argue why men or women are charged differently for car insurance. Now that is silly as all hell!

dananddanica, I didn't mean to imply that all feminists were sparkling wits. A lot of them are, well, not. And a few of them drive me up the wall.

And I do think there are some readily identified types of men who pick fights with feminists (in RL or online), but I'm separating the fight pickers out from those who are simply disagreeing.

Not to start another flame war, but it's interesting to me that you say "a lot of feminists my age and younger". I'm more likely to get in arguments with older feminists, generally over terminology. But I'm a cranky old bastard.

Good places where men and boys are underrepresented as compared to women and girls:

College Students
Home Makers
Elementary School Teachers
Librarians
Nurses
Therapists

Bad places where men and boys are overrepresented as compared to women and girls:

Summer Schoolers
Prisoners
High school drop outs
Disabled veterans
Special education students

I agree, shaun, and I think most people (if not all) do too. However, when you've seen "what about the men?" and the inevitable derailing of the thread that follows for the thousandth time, it does get rather tiring. But... well, you really should read the post linked above on the No Cookies For Me blog. I think it explains it really well.

"most people HERE", I meant.

Good places where men and boys are underrepresented as compared to women and girls:

College Students
Home Makers
Elementary School Teachers
Librarians
Nurses
Therapists

Some of those are a bit misleading. It's true that women are currently enrolled in college in greater numbers- 43% of women 18-24 versus 35% of men. But, the reality is that both sexes are attending college in greater and greater numbers. It's not a case of women doing better to men's detriment- it's a case of women and men both improving. In '06, the latest date I could find, 66% of the women graduating highschool were going on the college. 65.5% of men graduating high-school were going to college. That's very, very close.

And when you start talking about representation in occupations, you have to look at the occupations and why there's a disparity. Librarians, teachers, and nurses are all significantly undervalued professions, precisely because they've typically been "women's work". That stigma survives, and is bad.

Bad places where men and boys are overrepresented as compared to women and girls:

Summer Schoolers
Prisoners
High school drop outs
Disabled veterans
Special education students

Again, true. But, those, again, seem to be more the result of the sexism in our patriarchical society than the result of women's actions against men. One would expect most disabled veterens to be men when women are denied the ability to serve in the positions most likely to result in injuries like that.

Sorry if this posts twice, it doesn't seem to have gone through the first time.

I liked the post on No Cookies For Me.

The "what about the menz" arguments are really irritating. Do they think that because men have some problems too, feminism isn't needed or justified? Or do they think that we need to run off and fix their problems before we are allowed the "privilege" of fixing our own? I just don't get their reasoning.

Sorry if this posts twice, it doesn't seem to have gone through the first time.

I liked the post on No Cookies For Me.

The "what about the menz" arguments are really irritating. Do they think that because men have some problems too, feminism isn't needed or justified? Or do they think that we need to run off and fix their problems before we are allowed the "privilege" of fixing our own? I just don't get their reasoning.

For many, the patriarchy is like a slot machine--one that by now everybody at least suspects is broken, but once in blue moon still pays out big.

Many men would rather have the chance of hitting the big time, even though the machine has become rusty and outdated; yet they often resent those individuals who recognize this fact and have walked away from the game.

And instead of looking inward and asking themselves why they still play or trying to dismantle the machine, what it seems like is that they really just want somebody to fix that damn thing.

I keep asking guys why they keep playing and I still haven't gotten an answer; I have my theories though.

Hi, I'm new to the site. I've been following the conversation, and I was little confused as to what we mean by "over representation" and "under representation." What exactly constitutes under or over representation? Sorry, if this has been addressed already in the thread.

doc,

I'm guessing that in general, people are talking about over- or under-representation when compared to the number of women to men (or vice versa) in the population. So, in some ways, a pretty crude measure. And it wasn't discussed upthread.

-Iz

Thanks for the response Iz.

When millions of men get murdered because of their gender, then I'll think about the men.
When men get paid less than women, then I'll think about them. And as someone else said on another post, when men get raped in result of wearing their baggy pants too low, and are presumed to be "asking for it" by the perpetrator, judge, and jury, then I'll definitely think about the menz. Deal with your own issues and Definitely F ck off this blog. Make your own. Just because you have experienced harmful or negative treatment in a few areas doesn't mean you are not part of the privileged class. "What about the menz!" tirade is stupid, getting really old, and boring.