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 s