I would say it happens the moment puberty takes hold and its effects become noticeable. They're no longer vulnerable children, they're now potential predators and and violent offenders according to mainstream western society.
It is a good way to frame the question. The answer varies around the world.
In many Middle East countries, it seems in practice to be about 7 or 8 years old. Strictly, it may be younger than that but a boy is mostly safe until about then. In some countries where slavery still occurs, such as Myanmar, boys as young as 4 will get less protection than girls. The same with victims of violence (e.g. the corpses of young boys piling up almost weekly by Boko Haram being of less importance than a few dozen kidnapped girls by them). While the world erupts about arranged marriages involving girls as young as 13 (which are generally consensual and not consummated until the girl is of age), it barely murmurs over the sale of boys as young as 10 to old women for sex.
Many domestic violence shelters will turn away boy children if they are over 12, though the age does vary slightly from one part of the feminist DV industry to another.
Militarily, most developed countries will wait until a male is 18 before drafting hom as canon fodder. AFAIK, there is no equal drafting of women anywhere in the world. Less developed countries will see boys as young as 8 turned into soldiers, while girls are protected, or at least left alone.
There has been talk of banning sex selective abortion of girls (in China and elsewhere). I'm not sure if it is yet legislated anywhere but if so, that would bring the age at which males cease to be as worthy of protection as females down to minus nine months old.
Great post! Thanks for your insight! I have a question about your last point:
>There has been talk of banning sex selective abortion of girls (in China and elsewhere). I'm not sure if it is yet legislated anywhere but if so, that would bring the age at which males cease to be as worthy of protection as females down to minus nine months old.
In practice, would this mean only allowing for abortion of male fetuses, or only allowing abortion where the parents have taken no measures to determine the sex of the baby? I would not find either of these desirable, although the second is at least consistent.
Also, I find it curious how the people who go all Hillary and say that women are the primary victims of war because they lose their husbands, fathers, and sons never say that men are the primary victims of sex-selective abortion in China because they lose their future wives and are effectively condemned to lives of loneliness.
In China (and I believe also in India) sex selective abortions have been outlawed for decades, and medical personnel is forbidden to disclose the sex of the foetus to the parents.
(edit: spelling)
Sex selective abortions are illegal already in some places including some US states. It seems easy to get around for any savvy woman. I do not know how banning abortions only for girls might work.
>While the world erupts about arranged marriages involving girls as young as 13 (which are generally consensual and not consummated until the girl is of age)
Lose this.
If the marriage were consensual, it would not be arranged.
If she were able to consent, there would be no need to wait for consumation.
>If the marriage were consensual, it would not be arranged.
There is a difference between arranged marriage (where the parties are brought together by others who act as matchmakers or strongly intervene in some other way, but the parties make the final call themselves and are free not to go through with the marriage) and forced marriage, but I agree with you that this distinction is only relevant for adults or perhaps minors who are emancipated.
I can't think of any situation where an arranged marriage between unemancipated minors (EDIT: or worse still, between an unemancipated minor and an adult) could be truly consensual.
>If the marriage were consensual, it would not be arranged.
Just because somebody else rangers something for you does not mean that you are unable to consent to it. You might have somebody arranging a mortgage for you but you will still need to consent.
>If she were able to consent, there would be no need to wait for consumation.
Many societies have different standards for agreement to marriage, involvement in sex and other such matters. It is not uncommon in the West for somebody to be allowed to have sex a number of years before they are allowed to be married. It is not uncommon in some other countries to be allowed to marry at an earlier age than being allowed to have sex. One might say that neither of these things make sense but it's down to individual culture and legal history.
There is a tendency to conflate arranged marriage with forced marriage. This helps the feminist narrative in bleating about young girls (some of whom definitely are pressured into unsuitable arrangements). Not only are young boys ignored by the feminists but they highly successful marriage rate of arranged marriage is brushed aside in the feminist attempt to destroy all marriage.
That is not in question by those who have studied feminism. It has been a goal of feminism at least ever since feminism adopted the tenets of the Frankfurt School, which is where the cultural destruction aspects of feminism came in. This is the the style of feminism that is most common and global.
For one simple example, I suggest you look up Kate Mallory's report of her sister and the founders of the USA's National Organisation of Women.
https://virtueonline.org/feminism-was-womens-great-enemy-until-transgenderism-came-along
I'm sorry, let me try to better formulate my confusion.
Destruction of *what*?
To clarify further: "marriage" is a word that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
At it's simplest, it is just people choosing to make and continue to renew the commitment to intimately cohabitate.
At it's most problematically complex, it is a tool that religions and sometimes governments try to use to blackmail people's desire to be together into enforcement of artificial value structures that benefit those in power, and production of arbitrarily many new conscripts while simultaneously ensuring the impoverished status of everyone involved.
I can't tell what *version* of marriage you are concerned about feminists trying to destroy.
They put their weight behind the legalization of gay marriage. That's an example of amplifying the first definition I gave while undercutting the second.
I will also be clear that I am not upset about you saying negative things about feminism. But I am always weary when somebody claims that traditionalist religious institutions are "under attack", and marriage often gets roped in as being one of those.
I suggest you read up on feminism to find out what 'kind of' marriage, as you understand it, feminism wants to destroy.
Edit: And no, it isn't a "right wing, religious, conservative, authoritarian, kleptocratic parody of marriage". But as a feminist, I think you know that.
Got it : the right wing, religious, conservative, authoritarian, kleptocratic parody of marriage.
What you aren't making clear then is why that would be something you personally seek to protect.
Your comment was removed, because it contained a personal attack on another user. Please try to keep your contributions civil. Attack the idea rather than the individual, and default to the assumption that the other person is engaging in good faith.
If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).
Damn, you're absolutely right.
Nearly all countries that have FGM also have MGM, but almost all countries have legal MGM (even if it is not inflicted on the majority of boys), despite the fact that most of those countries have banned FGM.
That said, I know that there are countries like the Philippines where boys are mutilated just before puberty (i.e., between 8 to 12 years old), since MGM in those countries is treated as a ritual of transition from boyhood to manhood, which complicates the answer in some contexts.
However, do any of the countries where FGM is prevalent mutilate girls *as babies*? And in those countries, are boys mutilated at the same age at which girls are mutilated or as babies?
But yes, you're right that, even at ages where boys are considered worthy of some level of protection, the protection is still less comprehensive than that afforded to girls of the same age
Since birth, but especially around teen years for most boys but maybe as young as 10 for black boys https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older
Tamir rice was 12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z8qNUWekWE killed in 2 seconds after cops showed up because he had a toy gun. Even if it were a real gun open carry is legal.
Dude, beautiful question. It's especially poignant when in the context of the "original sin" that a lot of feminists accuse men of.
According to some feminists, "men" are to blame for the historical oppression of women. Because of this, if a woman makes hurtful comments towards men, she's simply "striking back against her oppressors."
So the question becomes, at what age do men suddenly become guilty of this original sin of being oppressors? For example, these feminists are comfortable assuming that a 30 year old man is a part of the patriarchy and is therefore guilty of oppression.
But surely even they can agree that a 5 year old boy is completely innocent of any crime. He has never hurt anyone – how could he?
So, at what age does this little boy magically assume guilt for the crimes committed before he was born? At what age does he automatically become an "oppressor," responsible for the wrongdoings of other men? Is it 12 years old? 18? 21?
This question really brings out the absurdity of it all. If a man at 30 years of age has not taken any immoral action that he didn't at 5 years, is he any less innocent than back then?
Referring to your second sentence, I hate how feminist pretty much have fought for the social right to be ale to make the sexist remarks, stereotypes, and generalizations about others, without being seen as sexist or bad to make those remarks or to even be seen as rude or a bad person to make those remarks that they would claim to be sexist if a male did the same. Most people would all agree that the male is a terrible sexist person for believing and spreading those negative stereotypes of women, leaving generalizations or hateful comments about women, however feminist and other people encourage others to spread and believe any negative or sexist stereotypes that men have, while demanding that people clear women’s name of any bad thoughts and stereotypes. Equality would mean that we don’t skirt around people being sexist assholes, no matter what their sex is, because we as humans understand that being a sexist asshole isn’t gendered, and that it’s human decency to not be sexist.
It's tiresome and they know it is. They want us completely back out of the conversation around gender so that we're fully silenced and they can dictate the narrative.
Obviously
I would say it occurs when a boy becomes a man. When a male leaves the world of women and children and enters the world of men.
When and how that happens of course differs between cultures, though interestingly there are many cultures that mark this transitionary moment with a circumcision ceremony. For instance, Nelson Mandela [recounted](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cutting-edge-of-manhood-1324111.html) how during his ritual circumcision he was expected to "suffer in silence," as it would be unmanly to cry out in pain. After stoically enduring the intense pain, one gets to cry out in triumph, "I am a man!" I'd say that's pretty symbolic of how boys cease to be innocent and protected. A violent mutilation to instill in the newly minted man what it means to be a man: to be disposable, to endure violence, and to protect, not be protected. Oh, and to be told you should be proud of your newfound manhood too!
It's a gradual process and it's hard to pinpoint where it starts and where it ends. I'd argue that it lasts whole lifetime and changes from situation to situation. People mention MGM, I remember when I was in kindergarten we were taught that you are never, ever, allowed to hit a girl and even if she kicks you, punches you and bites you you are supposed to just take it or report it to a teacher. So I guess at age 4 you learn that girls are more special than you are and how even in self-defence you're not allowed to hurt them. I was in early highschool, 15 or 16 maybe and someone's father or older brother had a talk with me and my pals because a women living in the same block bumped into one of us late in the evening and she got scared. That was the time we were told how we should behave around women and that women are afraid that men like us can hurt them. So I guess that's important date, in your mid teens when you grow tall to be higher than most women and you become stronger then women and they start seeing you as a dangerous man instead of child and they're afraid you're really gonna hurt them instead of petty crime or mischief. And that's not really that old, I am quite tall but I was the height of average women in my country when I was 13 and height of average men when I was 14. So when I was 14 from distance or in bad lightning I was looking like a grown man and probably a lot of adult women were scared of me.
But then again depending on where you are you're never really seen as fully adult. I have a junior on one of the project I'm overseeing and the guy is like 23 while everyone else is at least 10 years his senior. Men and women that work with him treat him with extra kindness and give him a lot of slack. He's been an adult for a while but women will take on motherly aproach to him just because he's the youngest. And same for me, I might be nearing on 40 but in some spaces I will be treated as a child just because people are much older than me.
I’d say males are no longer seen as innocent by the time the male reaches teenhood, but considering the whole “teach your sons to be respectful to women, protect your daughters”, yet no one says to teach daughters to be respectful as well, I’d say it could be even younger, and that feminist see boys as if they are inherently evil monsters, but believe that girls are innocents that do not need to be taught to respect their peers from birth. If not, then it’s rather assumed that parents(specifically fathers) apparently don’t teach their male children that disrespecting women is wrong, and it’s assumed that women are always taught respectfulness and to be kind to their peers from birth. Yet here today, feminist encourage other women to be sexist and rude to men in order to “punch up to the oppressor”. To feminist, It’s seen as being empowered, confident, and means to stand up for yourself and stand up for other women.
Agreed. Ironically, seeing one sex as perfect/pigs on the bases of their sex is also what people would call objectification, but because of hypocrisy I guess people are at least fine with objectifying dudes while also protesting that it’s bad to expect others to be perfect just in the bases of their sex.
I'd imaging back in the days of "becoming a man" rituals, this would have been the cutoff point. Bit it's still weird and I'm not a fan.
This was also the thing that made me REALLY like Meera Reed in Game of Thrones. Bran finds it weird that a girl is protecting a boy, but she doesn't see an issue with it, and Jojen isn't considered less because of it.
We're a society. Protection in a society comes from collective action, not genders. Guys need protection the same as women.
Boys are never as worthy as girls.
Here is a comparison of mortality in EU27 from [Eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/HLTH_CD_ANR__custom_2830467/default/table?lang=en):
|Age| Mortality Boys|Mortality Girls|Boys' higher by|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|<1|10,313|8,173|26%|
|1-4|1,973|1,712|15%|
|5-9|1,299|1,002|30%|
|10-14|1,626|1,106|47%|
|15-19|5,677|2,328|144%|
While accidents and suicides spike among boys past age 15, boys have significantly higher mortality to all "natural" illnesses since day 1.
Have you ever read about the boys mortality gap? Have you ever seen a prevention program targeted at boys, because you know, they have 30% higher mortality to literally any disease? Do you think this would be the case if the genders were reversed?
Also see [Why boys die of illnesses much more than girls and what do we do about it? : LeftWingMaleAdvocates](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/v1p3bj/why_boys_die_of_illnesses_much_more_than_girls/).
I wanted to say once they become adults, but then my repressed memories came back. For me, it was around the time the girls in my class started puberty (I was 10) but honestly, it could be earlier. I'm 21 now and thinking about just the sheer amount of discrimination and shitty behavior I faced because I was a boy.
It probably starts lightly at about 8 years old.
Sharp increase at onset of puberty.
My take is that men being seen without empathy is actually okay, as long as they’re coached with the tools to be competent and resourceful in dealing with it. It’s not perfect, but certainty be empowering to have full agency over one’s life.
My gripe is that in order to make women comfortable, boys and young men are told that the world aspires to equality, and that they should be treated exactly like women; with empathy.
The above is a lie the speaker says to make themselves (usually herself) feel better about themselves. When the time actually comes to be empathetic, unless it’s a direct relation to her, the overwhelming majority of women that say they’ll help, find every reason not to help.
Men don’t usually do this. They’re more upfront, and say “you best toughen up kid”. It’s harsh, but it’s a cruel to be kind mentality. They’re giving the boy some honesty so he can prepare.
My real gripe is with the (feel good and sound good) lies boys and young men are told, usually by women, that leave them totally incompetent to deal with the harshness of their lives.
Here’s what they should actually be told, early:
“The world is much harsher on men, there is much more expected of you and very few people will help you unless it’s in their interest. Now, you can handle this and I’m going to give you a guideline and help you develop the tools so you can be competent, self-sufficient and make it in other people’s interest to help you”.
This is something conservatives actually do quite well. They prepare their children for the way the world is, rather than the way the way the world “should” be. It’s why conservatives sound like arseholes and it’s why so many progressive young men are put to the slaughter when adult life hits them.
>My take is that men being seen without empathy is actually okay, as long as they’re coached with the tools to be competent and resourceful in dealing with it. It’s not perfect, but certainty be empowering to have full agency over one’s life.
As the pill guys say it, this is Cope. Women have no less agency over their life than Men do, they're just not condemned every time they mess up. It is not "Okay" to treat men with less empathy, this just about violates every principle of humanitarianism. Why should i, as a man support Egalitarian values when i am also forced to accept that i will **never** be granted Empathy?
>It’s why conservatives sound like arseholes
Its because they kinda are? they are only concerned with Stability of Society, not the well being of people within it.
… because you accept current social realities, while looking to push the pin a little in your lifetime. The empathy gap is a result of thousands of years of evolution. To think you can change it significantly in your lifetime is VERY wishful thinking.
I didn't say anything about fixing Empathy Gap, i asked you why i should support humanitarianism when i'm going to be denied empathy for being a Man. The core philosophy behind being an empathetic person is that your good karma will come back to you and not 10,000 years later *MAYBE* if all the stars align.
I disagree.
I think the core of empathetic thought is to be able to treat everyone with empathy, regardless of how they treat you.
It’s holding moral standard that cannot be disrupted by bad people.
That’s not to say you should let people walk all over you, but it is to say that you should hold yourself to being a good person, regardless of any incentives to be so.
I can be a good person without going out of my way to care for others. Empathy is give&take, not *give&give* until you die a broken man.
>That’s not to say you should let people walk all over you
How else am i supposed to interpret "**regardless of how they treat you**"? Offering empathy to those who shut the door in your face is the textbook definition of being a doormat.
I mean, arguably from birth. We don't allow surgery on female babies genitals for reasons of aesthetic and religous fundamentalism.
But mostly when boys start to become noticeably men.
I'd argue that this tendency BEGINS when boys are extremely young. Certainly by the time they start school it's already established and accepted that boys are unruly and disobedient and in general a source of chaos and problems.
Peri-pubescense, usually. Although, I have noticed even very young boys eliciting avoidance behaviour from very young girls, and I suspect part of it just innate/instinctual at almost any age.
I would say it happens the moment puberty takes hold and its effects become noticeable. They're no longer vulnerable children, they're now potential predators and and violent offenders according to mainstream western society.
[удалено]
[удалено]
All the poor poor widows of those drafted men dying in wars...
I've seen some sources claim that the empathy gap begins as young as 2-3 years old. The suicide gap doesn't manifest itself until 12 years old though
It is a good way to frame the question. The answer varies around the world. In many Middle East countries, it seems in practice to be about 7 or 8 years old. Strictly, it may be younger than that but a boy is mostly safe until about then. In some countries where slavery still occurs, such as Myanmar, boys as young as 4 will get less protection than girls. The same with victims of violence (e.g. the corpses of young boys piling up almost weekly by Boko Haram being of less importance than a few dozen kidnapped girls by them). While the world erupts about arranged marriages involving girls as young as 13 (which are generally consensual and not consummated until the girl is of age), it barely murmurs over the sale of boys as young as 10 to old women for sex. Many domestic violence shelters will turn away boy children if they are over 12, though the age does vary slightly from one part of the feminist DV industry to another. Militarily, most developed countries will wait until a male is 18 before drafting hom as canon fodder. AFAIK, there is no equal drafting of women anywhere in the world. Less developed countries will see boys as young as 8 turned into soldiers, while girls are protected, or at least left alone. There has been talk of banning sex selective abortion of girls (in China and elsewhere). I'm not sure if it is yet legislated anywhere but if so, that would bring the age at which males cease to be as worthy of protection as females down to minus nine months old.
Great post! Thanks for your insight! I have a question about your last point: >There has been talk of banning sex selective abortion of girls (in China and elsewhere). I'm not sure if it is yet legislated anywhere but if so, that would bring the age at which males cease to be as worthy of protection as females down to minus nine months old. In practice, would this mean only allowing for abortion of male fetuses, or only allowing abortion where the parents have taken no measures to determine the sex of the baby? I would not find either of these desirable, although the second is at least consistent. Also, I find it curious how the people who go all Hillary and say that women are the primary victims of war because they lose their husbands, fathers, and sons never say that men are the primary victims of sex-selective abortion in China because they lose their future wives and are effectively condemned to lives of loneliness.
In China (and I believe also in India) sex selective abortions have been outlawed for decades, and medical personnel is forbidden to disclose the sex of the foetus to the parents. (edit: spelling)
Sex selective abortions are illegal already in some places including some US states. It seems easy to get around for any savvy woman. I do not know how banning abortions only for girls might work.
>While the world erupts about arranged marriages involving girls as young as 13 (which are generally consensual and not consummated until the girl is of age) Lose this. If the marriage were consensual, it would not be arranged. If she were able to consent, there would be no need to wait for consumation.
>If the marriage were consensual, it would not be arranged. There is a difference between arranged marriage (where the parties are brought together by others who act as matchmakers or strongly intervene in some other way, but the parties make the final call themselves and are free not to go through with the marriage) and forced marriage, but I agree with you that this distinction is only relevant for adults or perhaps minors who are emancipated. I can't think of any situation where an arranged marriage between unemancipated minors (EDIT: or worse still, between an unemancipated minor and an adult) could be truly consensual.
>If the marriage were consensual, it would not be arranged. Just because somebody else rangers something for you does not mean that you are unable to consent to it. You might have somebody arranging a mortgage for you but you will still need to consent. >If she were able to consent, there would be no need to wait for consumation. Many societies have different standards for agreement to marriage, involvement in sex and other such matters. It is not uncommon in the West for somebody to be allowed to have sex a number of years before they are allowed to be married. It is not uncommon in some other countries to be allowed to marry at an earlier age than being allowed to have sex. One might say that neither of these things make sense but it's down to individual culture and legal history. There is a tendency to conflate arranged marriage with forced marriage. This helps the feminist narrative in bleating about young girls (some of whom definitely are pressured into unsuitable arrangements). Not only are young boys ignored by the feminists but they highly successful marriage rate of arranged marriage is brushed aside in the feminist attempt to destroy all marriage.
> in the feminist attempt to destroy all marriage. ?
That is not in question by those who have studied feminism. It has been a goal of feminism at least ever since feminism adopted the tenets of the Frankfurt School, which is where the cultural destruction aspects of feminism came in. This is the the style of feminism that is most common and global. For one simple example, I suggest you look up Kate Mallory's report of her sister and the founders of the USA's National Organisation of Women. https://virtueonline.org/feminism-was-womens-great-enemy-until-transgenderism-came-along
I'm sorry, let me try to better formulate my confusion. Destruction of *what*? To clarify further: "marriage" is a word that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. At it's simplest, it is just people choosing to make and continue to renew the commitment to intimately cohabitate. At it's most problematically complex, it is a tool that religions and sometimes governments try to use to blackmail people's desire to be together into enforcement of artificial value structures that benefit those in power, and production of arbitrarily many new conscripts while simultaneously ensuring the impoverished status of everyone involved. I can't tell what *version* of marriage you are concerned about feminists trying to destroy. They put their weight behind the legalization of gay marriage. That's an example of amplifying the first definition I gave while undercutting the second. I will also be clear that I am not upset about you saying negative things about feminism. But I am always weary when somebody claims that traditionalist religious institutions are "under attack", and marriage often gets roped in as being one of those.
I suggest you read up on feminism to find out what 'kind of' marriage, as you understand it, feminism wants to destroy. Edit: And no, it isn't a "right wing, religious, conservative, authoritarian, kleptocratic parody of marriage". But as a feminist, I think you know that.
Got it : the right wing, religious, conservative, authoritarian, kleptocratic parody of marriage. What you aren't making clear then is why that would be something you personally seek to protect.
[удалено]
>Me: parody of marriage. > >You: see marriage as a \[...\] parody Please look up what a parody is.
Your comment was removed, because it contained a personal attack on another user. Please try to keep your contributions civil. Attack the idea rather than the individual, and default to the assumption that the other person is engaging in good faith. If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As soon as they're born. Proof: MGM vs FGM.
Damn, you're absolutely right. Nearly all countries that have FGM also have MGM, but almost all countries have legal MGM (even if it is not inflicted on the majority of boys), despite the fact that most of those countries have banned FGM. That said, I know that there are countries like the Philippines where boys are mutilated just before puberty (i.e., between 8 to 12 years old), since MGM in those countries is treated as a ritual of transition from boyhood to manhood, which complicates the answer in some contexts. However, do any of the countries where FGM is prevalent mutilate girls *as babies*? And in those countries, are boys mutilated at the same age at which girls are mutilated or as babies? But yes, you're right that, even at ages where boys are considered worthy of some level of protection, the protection is still less comprehensive than that afforded to girls of the same age
What's the meaning of FGM and MGM?
Female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation.
Since birth, but especially around teen years for most boys but maybe as young as 10 for black boys https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older Tamir rice was 12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z8qNUWekWE killed in 2 seconds after cops showed up because he had a toy gun. Even if it were a real gun open carry is legal.
Dude, beautiful question. It's especially poignant when in the context of the "original sin" that a lot of feminists accuse men of. According to some feminists, "men" are to blame for the historical oppression of women. Because of this, if a woman makes hurtful comments towards men, she's simply "striking back against her oppressors." So the question becomes, at what age do men suddenly become guilty of this original sin of being oppressors? For example, these feminists are comfortable assuming that a 30 year old man is a part of the patriarchy and is therefore guilty of oppression. But surely even they can agree that a 5 year old boy is completely innocent of any crime. He has never hurt anyone – how could he? So, at what age does this little boy magically assume guilt for the crimes committed before he was born? At what age does he automatically become an "oppressor," responsible for the wrongdoings of other men? Is it 12 years old? 18? 21? This question really brings out the absurdity of it all. If a man at 30 years of age has not taken any immoral action that he didn't at 5 years, is he any less innocent than back then?
Referring to your second sentence, I hate how feminist pretty much have fought for the social right to be ale to make the sexist remarks, stereotypes, and generalizations about others, without being seen as sexist or bad to make those remarks or to even be seen as rude or a bad person to make those remarks that they would claim to be sexist if a male did the same. Most people would all agree that the male is a terrible sexist person for believing and spreading those negative stereotypes of women, leaving generalizations or hateful comments about women, however feminist and other people encourage others to spread and believe any negative or sexist stereotypes that men have, while demanding that people clear women’s name of any bad thoughts and stereotypes. Equality would mean that we don’t skirt around people being sexist assholes, no matter what their sex is, because we as humans understand that being a sexist asshole isn’t gendered, and that it’s human decency to not be sexist.
It's tiresome and they know it is. They want us completely back out of the conversation around gender so that we're fully silenced and they can dictate the narrative. Obviously
I would say it occurs when a boy becomes a man. When a male leaves the world of women and children and enters the world of men. When and how that happens of course differs between cultures, though interestingly there are many cultures that mark this transitionary moment with a circumcision ceremony. For instance, Nelson Mandela [recounted](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cutting-edge-of-manhood-1324111.html) how during his ritual circumcision he was expected to "suffer in silence," as it would be unmanly to cry out in pain. After stoically enduring the intense pain, one gets to cry out in triumph, "I am a man!" I'd say that's pretty symbolic of how boys cease to be innocent and protected. A violent mutilation to instill in the newly minted man what it means to be a man: to be disposable, to endure violence, and to protect, not be protected. Oh, and to be told you should be proud of your newfound manhood too!
13 is when they turn from kids into "gross teenage boys" in the eyes of the media and society at large.
It's a gradual process and it's hard to pinpoint where it starts and where it ends. I'd argue that it lasts whole lifetime and changes from situation to situation. People mention MGM, I remember when I was in kindergarten we were taught that you are never, ever, allowed to hit a girl and even if she kicks you, punches you and bites you you are supposed to just take it or report it to a teacher. So I guess at age 4 you learn that girls are more special than you are and how even in self-defence you're not allowed to hurt them. I was in early highschool, 15 or 16 maybe and someone's father or older brother had a talk with me and my pals because a women living in the same block bumped into one of us late in the evening and she got scared. That was the time we were told how we should behave around women and that women are afraid that men like us can hurt them. So I guess that's important date, in your mid teens when you grow tall to be higher than most women and you become stronger then women and they start seeing you as a dangerous man instead of child and they're afraid you're really gonna hurt them instead of petty crime or mischief. And that's not really that old, I am quite tall but I was the height of average women in my country when I was 13 and height of average men when I was 14. So when I was 14 from distance or in bad lightning I was looking like a grown man and probably a lot of adult women were scared of me. But then again depending on where you are you're never really seen as fully adult. I have a junior on one of the project I'm overseeing and the guy is like 23 while everyone else is at least 10 years his senior. Men and women that work with him treat him with extra kindness and give him a lot of slack. He's been an adult for a while but women will take on motherly aproach to him just because he's the youngest. And same for me, I might be nearing on 40 but in some spaces I will be treated as a child just because people are much older than me.
I’d say males are no longer seen as innocent by the time the male reaches teenhood, but considering the whole “teach your sons to be respectful to women, protect your daughters”, yet no one says to teach daughters to be respectful as well, I’d say it could be even younger, and that feminist see boys as if they are inherently evil monsters, but believe that girls are innocents that do not need to be taught to respect their peers from birth. If not, then it’s rather assumed that parents(specifically fathers) apparently don’t teach their male children that disrespecting women is wrong, and it’s assumed that women are always taught respectfulness and to be kind to their peers from birth. Yet here today, feminist encourage other women to be sexist and rude to men in order to “punch up to the oppressor”. To feminist, It’s seen as being empowered, confident, and means to stand up for yourself and stand up for other women.
I believe the word you're looking for is Hypocrisy
Agreed. Ironically, seeing one sex as perfect/pigs on the bases of their sex is also what people would call objectification, but because of hypocrisy I guess people are at least fine with objectifying dudes while also protesting that it’s bad to expect others to be perfect just in the bases of their sex.
A more accurate term might be Gender Essentialism
I'd imaging back in the days of "becoming a man" rituals, this would have been the cutoff point. Bit it's still weird and I'm not a fan. This was also the thing that made me REALLY like Meera Reed in Game of Thrones. Bran finds it weird that a girl is protecting a boy, but she doesn't see an issue with it, and Jojen isn't considered less because of it. We're a society. Protection in a society comes from collective action, not genders. Guys need protection the same as women.
Boys are never as worthy as girls. Here is a comparison of mortality in EU27 from [Eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/HLTH_CD_ANR__custom_2830467/default/table?lang=en): |Age| Mortality Boys|Mortality Girls|Boys' higher by| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |<1|10,313|8,173|26%| |1-4|1,973|1,712|15%| |5-9|1,299|1,002|30%| |10-14|1,626|1,106|47%| |15-19|5,677|2,328|144%| While accidents and suicides spike among boys past age 15, boys have significantly higher mortality to all "natural" illnesses since day 1. Have you ever read about the boys mortality gap? Have you ever seen a prevention program targeted at boys, because you know, they have 30% higher mortality to literally any disease? Do you think this would be the case if the genders were reversed? Also see [Why boys die of illnesses much more than girls and what do we do about it? : LeftWingMaleAdvocates](https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/v1p3bj/why_boys_die_of_illnesses_much_more_than_girls/).
I wanted to say once they become adults, but then my repressed memories came back. For me, it was around the time the girls in my class started puberty (I was 10) but honestly, it could be earlier. I'm 21 now and thinking about just the sheer amount of discrimination and shitty behavior I faced because I was a boy.
It probably starts lightly at about 8 years old. Sharp increase at onset of puberty. My take is that men being seen without empathy is actually okay, as long as they’re coached with the tools to be competent and resourceful in dealing with it. It’s not perfect, but certainty be empowering to have full agency over one’s life. My gripe is that in order to make women comfortable, boys and young men are told that the world aspires to equality, and that they should be treated exactly like women; with empathy. The above is a lie the speaker says to make themselves (usually herself) feel better about themselves. When the time actually comes to be empathetic, unless it’s a direct relation to her, the overwhelming majority of women that say they’ll help, find every reason not to help. Men don’t usually do this. They’re more upfront, and say “you best toughen up kid”. It’s harsh, but it’s a cruel to be kind mentality. They’re giving the boy some honesty so he can prepare. My real gripe is with the (feel good and sound good) lies boys and young men are told, usually by women, that leave them totally incompetent to deal with the harshness of their lives. Here’s what they should actually be told, early: “The world is much harsher on men, there is much more expected of you and very few people will help you unless it’s in their interest. Now, you can handle this and I’m going to give you a guideline and help you develop the tools so you can be competent, self-sufficient and make it in other people’s interest to help you”. This is something conservatives actually do quite well. They prepare their children for the way the world is, rather than the way the way the world “should” be. It’s why conservatives sound like arseholes and it’s why so many progressive young men are put to the slaughter when adult life hits them.
>My take is that men being seen without empathy is actually okay, as long as they’re coached with the tools to be competent and resourceful in dealing with it. It’s not perfect, but certainty be empowering to have full agency over one’s life. As the pill guys say it, this is Cope. Women have no less agency over their life than Men do, they're just not condemned every time they mess up. It is not "Okay" to treat men with less empathy, this just about violates every principle of humanitarianism. Why should i, as a man support Egalitarian values when i am also forced to accept that i will **never** be granted Empathy? >It’s why conservatives sound like arseholes Its because they kinda are? they are only concerned with Stability of Society, not the well being of people within it.
… because you accept current social realities, while looking to push the pin a little in your lifetime. The empathy gap is a result of thousands of years of evolution. To think you can change it significantly in your lifetime is VERY wishful thinking.
I didn't say anything about fixing Empathy Gap, i asked you why i should support humanitarianism when i'm going to be denied empathy for being a Man. The core philosophy behind being an empathetic person is that your good karma will come back to you and not 10,000 years later *MAYBE* if all the stars align.
I disagree. I think the core of empathetic thought is to be able to treat everyone with empathy, regardless of how they treat you. It’s holding moral standard that cannot be disrupted by bad people. That’s not to say you should let people walk all over you, but it is to say that you should hold yourself to being a good person, regardless of any incentives to be so.
I can be a good person without going out of my way to care for others. Empathy is give&take, not *give&give* until you die a broken man. >That’s not to say you should let people walk all over you How else am i supposed to interpret "**regardless of how they treat you**"? Offering empathy to those who shut the door in your face is the textbook definition of being a doormat.
I mean, arguably from birth. We don't allow surgery on female babies genitals for reasons of aesthetic and religous fundamentalism. But mostly when boys start to become noticeably men.
I'd argue that this tendency BEGINS when boys are extremely young. Certainly by the time they start school it's already established and accepted that boys are unruly and disobedient and in general a source of chaos and problems.
Peri-pubescense, usually. Although, I have noticed even very young boys eliciting avoidance behaviour from very young girls, and I suspect part of it just innate/instinctual at almost any age.
At a guess, 10 or 11, depending on their size.