Hacker News Reader

> To say that womens' sexuality is causing a social problem is absolutely unacceptable in establishment cultural spaces.

Woah there, when did I say any of this was a problem? Women should be free to do all of this, in fact I think more needs to be done to give women what they want as it's a market which people aren't giving proper consideration.

> The idea that the men might deserve equal education for themselves isn't even worth considering, because men deserve nothing and their suffering scores zero on the moral-imperative scale. It only matters in how it affects women.

You're not being very charitable to how these issues are handled. Nobody is completely uncaring of men - trying to spin this as "the world hates men" just seems incorrect.

I also agree women should be free, men should be free, etc.

Womens' fantasies are already well-served by a huge mega-genre of literature, writing, and film. It already causes social issues when real men can't live up to Mr. Darcy and Christian Grey. That's part of the deal of freedom though, so whatever.

As for charity - I'm making a point, but generally it's true. We live in a world where women get 60% of the education, but 90%+ of sex-specific scholarships are... for women! Think about that.

There are so, so many examples of this when you actually look at it and read some things by people who have collected the data. It's staggering.

Men aren't free though. If you have an erection in a public space and it's visible (e. g. Public pool), you are at serious legal risk, even if the thing has no "sex" involved (blood circulation and such). Isn't that the case?

Why are you being downvoted? You're right.

Most of what he says is not real.

"Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary" - who is saying this? I understand powerful men abusing people is a hot topic right now, but male sexuality doesn't feel under attack to me. If you think of abuse and manipulation as male sexuality, I suppose I could see it.

"The other side of it is that nobody cares about mens' problems" People do care. You can talk to them and share if you're frustrated. There's lots of doctors, reporters, sociologists, etc writing on that very topic and theres help if men need it.

Anyway this person has taken a few concepts and attached a lot of personal rage. Don't get sucked in to this position.

> "Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary" - who is saying this?

I just took the literal string used by the commenter—"Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary"—and did a Google search with it. What comes up is a mix of pages where people say something to this effect, or else argue against it. My takeaway is that at the very least, it's something that's being said enough to require arguing against.

If you google any sentence you will get some results, that doesn't mean something is to be said for the stated position.

"Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary" - It's not something that's said. It's the assumption underlying every interaction that never gets articulated and is more powerful for that reason. It's so "obvious" and universally accepted that it doesn't need to be said.

Men can be creepy; it is impossible for a woman to be creepy. Male teachers who sleep with with students are "pedophiles" and "rapists"; female teachers who do this "had sex" with students.

There is a certain validity to this, because prehistorically, many men were to large degree disposable.

Now, not so much if you want a functional civic society.

Stop doing this. It's bullshit and it spreads like a disease.

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply.

Are you suggesting that mating success was probably at parity by sex for prehistoric humans? Because I would be very interested to know more about why you think that.

The last time I looked into it , it was thought that similar to many other species, female mate selection was the primary social driver of fitness selection , and that hyper-successful males effectively reduced the mating opportunities of less competitive males, while gestational opportunities were effectively at nearly 100 percent utilisation within a population.

If the thinking on that has changed for prehistoric humans (or pre-industrial ones) the reasons for that change of conjecture would be very interesting.

Or is it that you are suggesting that areproducrive men filled roles in prehistoric society in such a way that made them valued to the group in roles that were lower risk rather than higher risk? Because that would suggest that observed behaviour in modern pre-industrial societies was a newer innovation rather than a holdover from earlier behaviour, which seems like it would be difficult to substantiate. (Not that observations of indigenous peoples has typically been of a very high epistemological rigour)

A anecdotal but interesting perspective came from my grandfather, who spent his youth among indigenous tribes of eastern Oregon in the 1880s. His many accounts of the “Indians” included the idea that younger, unmated, shamed, or less clever men would typically attempt feats of bravery to gain renown and credibility within their tribe, often being killed in the process.

While hardly epistemologically rigorous, this would seem to support the idea that lower status men in precolonial societies would voluntarily engage in high risk behaviour, often disposing of themselves in the process.

When you consider the frequency of death of women from childbirth related complications under such conditions, it makes sense that the mortality rate of men would need to be balanced by similar risks in order to maintain a stable, cohesive society under primitive conditions, and that the ones who would take those risks voluntarily would be the ones who had more to gain by doing so (elevating themselves from a status of comparative irrelevance to improve mate abundance and social status in general)

If these ideas have been contradicted by recent research, I’d love to know more about that. The field of evolutionary psychology is pretty hit and miss, and also really, really poorly understood by the layperson.

Cry me a river. As a disillusioned beneficiary of White male supremacy, and a person who values diversity in culture and perspective (there is so much I don't know or understand yet, if ever, but the journey is engaging and meaningful), it sounds like you are whining.

However. I care about everyone's problems, especially those who are unfairly oppressed (rather than just feeling unfairly oppressed because they've lost a fraction of the excess power they once enjoyed). I wholeheartedly agree that we collectively need to consider how best to help men find a sense of purpose, even if it stings a little bit given all the harm we men have caused. It is not weakness to admit that, by the way. It feels weaker to ignore it, and to not champion dismantling the Patriarchy towards an equitable balance of power.

Patriarchy

noun pa· tri· ar· chy | \ ˈpā-trē-ˌär-kē \ plural pa tri ar chies

Definition 1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power 2 : a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy //For 20 years the country was ruled as a patriarchy.

It's fascinating that your response plays right into what I was saying.

You say I'm 'whining'. Imagine saying this to a woman who is complaining about womens' issues. It's never done.

To say someone is 'whining' is to say he is inappropriately weak. It's a notion that is targeted only towards men to force us into our social role where we can he useful to others. He needs to toughen up, act like a man, play his role. Stop whining! Your problems are your responsibility! Nobody else wants to hear it!

It's exactly what we're used to hearing over and over.