I just want to take a minute to thank femwanderluster and everybody for approaching this in such a civil fashion and in the spirit of intellectual inquiry. The only ad hominems have been analyses of how things can turn ad hominem. This is amazingly welcome.

@92: so, what you are saying, is we should forget our experience of our own lives: here, you will helpfully tell us what our lives are actually like. How do women react when men tell you that your experiences don't tell you the truth about your lives, here, we will helpfully tell you the truth about your lives? So why doesn't a huge red flag wave when you try to do that to us? And haven't you noticed that your very convenient sophistry boils down to "here, I will dictate the social contract, I will get what I want to have, and you will get what I want you to have, too: that's just fair?"

Our "perceived" "lack of available and willing sexual partners"? I guess it's OK if abortion is banned then: we can just talk about women's "perceived" lack of control over their bodies.

And how convenient that "priviledge" isn't meaurable, but is all in the eye of the beholder. So you perceive men as more priviledged than you, which justifies you in treating us badly to your own advantage. And no matter how much your situation improves or "ours" worsens, you will ALWAYS perceive us as more "priviledged" than you, and you will always have a self-justification for continuing to treat us badly.

I read "Self-made man" and, as a straight male, thought it basically useless.

@100: Wouldn't you agree that part of the problem is the fluidity of the definitions and application of the term "feminism"? I'd say (and I admit I'm oversimplifying) that we can fairly define feminism as:
1. A core philosophical view that women and men are equal and that society should be ordered around equality.
2. An often confusing multitude of ideologies of varying views and intensity (sometimes often in conflict or Venning) which analyze inequality and assert views regarding women's advancement.
3. A set of ideas that function de facto as a trade union or advocacy group for women, with all of the advantages and limitations of such a role: it's there for women's advancement, period, and that's its job.

The fluidity, I think, does create some backlash. One of the things I've noticed over the years is that men tune out "feminism" when they're getting the shaft from 3 while 3 is singing the song of 1.

@92: so, what you are saying, is we should forget our experience of our own lives: here, you will helpfully tell us what our lives are actually like. How do women react when men tell you that your experiences don't tell you the truth about your lives, here, we will helpfully tell you the truth about your lives? So why doesn't a huge red flag wave when you try to do that to us? And haven't you noticed that your analysis boils down to "here, I will dictate the social contract, I will get what I want to have, and you will get what I want you to have, too: that's just fair?"

Our "perceived" "lack of available and willing sexual partners"? I guess it's OK if abortion is banned then: we can just talk about women's "perceived" lack of control over their bodies.

And how convenient that "privilege" isn't measurable, but is all in the eye of the beholder. So you perceive men as more privileged than you, which justifies you in treating us badly to your own advantage. And no matter how much your situation improves or "ours" worsens, you will ALWAYS perceive us as more "privileged" than you, and you will always have a self-justification for continuing to treat us badly.

I read "Self-made man" and, as a straight male, thought it basically useless.

Ack! Sorry about the double post.

@100 ok, I think I understand what you're saying. And I'm pretty sure we agree on most things, but i have to object to your objecting to my supposedly not owning what I say. I do own (what a weird phrase) everything I've written in this thread. I think you think I'm saying something I'm not, and you're objection is to that misunderstood statement. Seriously, click my username and read some of my old comments from other threads at random. Or don't, it's cool.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I'm not saying NEVER to tell men their behavior is a problem and they need to change it because feminism. Also, radical feminist right here, hi, how ya doin? I just think that's one option of many. I did not go with that particular option today because I was enjoying actually engaging in a reasoned non-alienating discussion about gender performance with straight men on SLOG--doesn't happen too often.

Anyway, trying to understand.

"I was enjoying actually engaging in a reasoned non-alienating discussion about gender performance with straight men on SLOG"

I'm hopin' that you don't realize that you essentially said that when we start talking gender roles the straight men here are usually not reasonable and are alienating. It's kinda like hearing, "wow, normally when I talk to negroes you get all excited and pushy, but you're different today, so thanks!" ;)

@104 No, no that is not at all what I'm saying. What I wrote above, that? That is what I'm actually saying.
Though you certainly perceive a whole helluva lot of malice coming from me where there is none.

I think using the word "perceived" (which you will note does not mean obviously untrue or completely invalid) in the potential title for a study about men's own subjective experiences in regard to what they see as or experience as or gasp perceive as a lack of willing and available sex partners is simply much more succinct than that mouthful of a sentence I just wrote.

Perception is also a philosophical term in regard to how we use time, space, and our physical senses to interpret as much as we can (but never fully) of objective reality. We perceive only our subjective reality.

That's why I'd much rather hear about your own experience, you might prove me wrong and I'm open to that. My own subjective experience tells me that's not likely, but I can't know if you don't share.

@108: In fairness, I don't think that malice is being ascribed to you. I think that people are saying "there is no way you can take position X without recognizing the human impact on us in general, or me personally, and it's an academic's verbal game to try and depersonalize the personal, to speak of actions whilst trying to be above inevitable impact".

@107 I hear you. But, usually that is the case and why my patience isn't often in as good form as it is today.

I actually think its due to attacking characters and not specific language or behavior from both straight guys and us feminists who are also sometimes straight guys, and then the guys feel defensive and the discussion stops or gets off thread.

As a feminist, I get wrathful at attacks on women's rights to bodily autonomy so I start off defensive in those discussions of, say, the newest fetal personhood law or gang raped to death Indian women. In those cases, it is frustrating when men commenters, themselves defensive, derail the conversation so that it becomes about men in regard to feminism, or just about men in general, which happened in the thread about those Ohio sports players who made that awful video joking about how dead the girl they raped was: most of the commenters were guys and their comments were about sports and the guys were one-upping each other for most of the thread. In that instance, I commented about that. That wasn't the space to talk sports. The girl who was raped? Nowhere on their radar. Sure, sports culture and the institutions that support that culture and the privilege it fosters, in regard to the issue of those boys raping that girl? Fair game. But that's not what happened.

That's an example of male privilege on SLOG. I honestly don't think the guys were aware of what they were doing and I don't think they did so purposely or spitefully. And I wasn't very nice about telling them either. Oh feminist rage, always burning bright.

Sometimes it's a redux of intro to feminism 101, so I won't even bother commenting; the guys I would talk to don't have a context or knowledge of feminist theory and that shit gets repetitive and old so fast, not to mention insulting--they care so little about half of the population they don't bother to learn the basics of women's rights.

Then there are threads like this one that directly engage the idea of straight men and their place in kyriarchy and how that affects their quality of life. In which case, discussing men in regard to feminism is the topic du jour. I think that took the poison outta my fangs from the get go.

I agree with @101, btw ^_^

Ya win some, ya lose some, other times its a draw or a non-starter.

@109 ok that's a fair point. @104 attributed a justification to treat men badly to me, thus my perception that @104 thought my intentions malicious.

I don't think I'm trying to say its not personal. I'm saying it is personal, but it's also concurrently systemic and I think shifting the focus of the ideas from the personal to the abstract can be more effective. To take the personal and contextualize it in the system, in the abstract. I guess my point is that since these discussions can so easily get heated and side-tracked, it can be helpful to point things out in a way that doesn't make the other person defensive from the start and maybe give each other permission to say the wrong thing in hopes that we'll get things right.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but I would only add this: one must be careful when one "take[s] the personal and contextualize[s] it in the system" one must also take the system and contextualize it in the personal. It is a sad fact of social change that often those most in need of change insulate themselves from it, and force action on those who are lower on the power scale. I remember the nasty and often racist debates over busing in Boston in the 1970s. Frequently the moral values of "how do we make things better for black kids?" and "how do we integrate schools" and "how do we improve education as we do those things" turned into "hey! let's take white kids and put 'em in shitty, shitty schools in black neighbourhoods [that we don't actually want to pay to improve] and call that a win!" It made a lot of rich liberals with power feel good about themselves without actually doing much of anything to help black kids, and giving it to poor whites right in the neck. The moral imperative (the context) was in its response turned into the personal (the impact on those without power).

@femwanderluster: I definitely appreciate the reasonable tone here. But to quote you:

"It's not personal...it's the system." (@57)
"I don't think I'm trying to say it's not personal." (@111)

It *is* a messy debate, and it's very personal: people are bound to take offense because you're passing judgment and asking them to change into something you like better. Feminism is essentially saying to men: "Quit being a fucking chauvinist. And give me a slice of that pie." (Legitimately or not is another debate). I'm asking you to own that, rather than trying to soften it with jargon and contradiction. That's all.

And for what it's worth, I'm fucking outraged by gang rapes in India and bizarre abortion laws in the States too; but I stopped calling myself a feminist a number of years ago when I realized I was chopping my own legs off.

@103 Seeker: yes, could be. I can definitely get behind feminism #1, but the devil's in the details, and once it's examined more closely it evolves/degenerates into #2 and 3. Also, as Ricardo observes above somewhere, the goal posts keep getting moved. As far as supportive men were concerned, feminism used to be all about becoming sensitive, child-raising, chore-sharing males. Now those types aren't man enough, say the feminists. Remember the good old days when men used to be real men?

That's about the time I stopped paying attention.

@femwanderluster: No, I don't think you're malicious (though I can see where you got that). I do think you're being patronizing. Also, I was angry when I wrote that post, and that's likely part of what you're picking up on.

How shall I put this. There are two ways in which the type of argument that you are making can end up treating people on the receiving end badly. Sometimes, "you" want "us" to have what you want to have. But "we", collectively, on average, do not want exactly the same things as "you", collectively, on average, do. And so when you try to force on us exactly what you want, and are so sure that you know what we want that you stop listening to us, that is treating us badly. <- IMO, you are doing this, in this thread. Secondly, people sometimes use "you are privileged" as a rationalization for a power grab.

I'm sorry about those other threads: they sound terrible.

My post was a paraphrase of what I was hearing you say. But seriously:

Dan says (extremely paraphrased) "Study says straight guys are more stressed than gays. It must be because of having to enforcement of rigid male constructs." Because, for instance, Dan found pretending to be straight really stressful. (No doubt!)

A whole bunch of straight male commenters write in to say "No. [implied]assuming the study's results are valid[/implied]*, if we're more stressed than gays, based on [my] life experience it's because of our difficulties with getting sex as often as we like it." (Among other things, presenting as straight when you're straight isn't stressful in itself. If, for some reason, I had to pretend to be gay, or bi, for a period of years, THAT would be stressful.)

* Because #43 makes some really good points about this assumption.

Then you write in, quoting "every straight guy who has written in has disagreed and cites to more simple explanation that the lack of available sex partners is the cause of stress." and rebutting that with "What we are saying is that 'rigid male constructs'..." I know what you are saying. Dan is not a poor writer and I understood his case. I just don't think it matches our reality. And yes, you are telling us that our experience is wrong and you are trying to correct us.

As for heterosexual men's "perceived" lack of potential sexual partners, one needn't do a study, just go to your nearest public library and look up some census results. In Canada, and I expect in European-style societies in general, the proportion of adult men who are "single" is not strongly correlated with age: the proportion of 25-year-old men who are "single" is about the same as the proportion of 50-year old men who are "single". On the other hand, the proportion of adult women who are "single" is very strongly correlated with age indeed: the proportion of 25-30 year old women who are "single" is very, very low, while the proportion of 50-year old women who are "single" is much higher. Since people tend to "date" (for want of a better generic term) people of their own age group, a 25-30 year old single heterosexual man will have a very different dating experience than a 25-30 single heterosexual woman or a 60-year old man who's willing to date women in his own age group.

I used to think women could get away with a lot more (and we still can get away with more than straight guys in terms of interests, hobbies, etc), but I find a lot more freedom since I ID as a lesbian. I'm very butch, and when people thought I was straight, I'd get looks and comments for being so masculine, but now people are just like, "Oh, it's a dyke, whatever." It's VERY freeing.

@113 I don't know about Femw, but in my personal feminism, patriarchy demonstrably is NOT just about men behaving badly, and fixing it demonstrably is NOT just about getting men to change their behaviour. I believe that among obvious male behaviours, patriarchy happens whenever women teach little boys to be meatheads and little girls to be wimps, it happens when we trade on looks or helplessness, when we succumb to irrational rape terror instead of questioning it, when we get to a certain point in our careers and cede the responsibility to form opinions or use authority because it's easier and comfier to sit in place and not take additional hits, when we give up on career altogether, when we judge and attack other women on measures of femininity, when we judge and attack men on measures of masculinity, when we continue to let men take care of all the 'hard' masculine stuff in our lives (technology, finances, etc) instead of developing our own skills, when we undermine men in their domestic efforts (either through fatuous criticism or fatuous praise), when we fuck ourselves and other women up about sex by buying into virgin/whore nonsense, when we so exhaust ourselves with trying to be 'good girls' so that sex is a drag, etc, etc.

Beyond men's behaviour and women's behaviour, patriarchy also happens through institutions, where responsibility for the total effect cannot be pinned to individual men or individual women. Unfair family court decisions that cast men as financial providers only and undermine their relational needs for time with their kids are, in my view, perfect examples of institutional patriarchy.

To me the labour (and pleasure) of my 20 years as a feminist has in bulk been in countering and dismantling the patriarchy as it happens INSIDE ME. I probably don't require a medal, but if you think feminism is really and truly only about making men fix it, maybe that's just because are not seeing the rest of the work that individual women do every day to evolve the gender mess we've all inherited.

Diner mo, thanks for the concise and concrete overview. Your feminist goals and methods sound reasonable and laudable. Why would anyone not want to reduce the number of meatheads in the world. And yet...

I just can't get around the fact that, despite my earlier support for feminism, it has probably caused me more stress and confusion than the traditional gender role I'm supposed to resent. This could very well be the result of my misunderstanding feminism, I don't know. Basically, I grew tired of hearing that my sexuality and my gender were a problem, and right or wrong I ascribe that message to feminism. So when Femw tries to spin that message as, "It's not you that's the problem, it's the system," I find that disingenuous and unhelpful.

So, to bring things back to the issue at hand, feeling apologetic about my identity has definitely been one source of stress for this straight guy.

But mostly I just need to get laid more. :)

@118, yeah, I get it. (I think). Maybe it's better not to try to engage with 'feminism' as a sum total, same as it's usually better not to engage with 'men' as being a sum total of ideas/behaviours. You end up fighting ghosts. And righteous anger ends up missing its mark.

About needing to get laid more - @114 too: my stress in life would basically go away if I had about $3m. It's true. Soooo... where to from there?

Males are sexual beings,meaning if he can't lay with that which is natural,he will lay with that which is against nature. The women not only reject the man often,but also move the government to pass laws and regulations to block the male off.
Males did not reject the woman,but the woman rejected him,gay males are always open to have sex with the woman,and a little dirty secret is when a male turn to homosexuality,then they desire to sleep with him. Gay male couples often invite the woman into their bedroom,and they come right on in. The male that just like males don't exist,our heterosexual nature remains with us for life,when around women we easily become heterosexual inclined.
But the woman for ages have willfully rejected the male,then would secretly go behind his back and fornicate with her female friend. This has & is still going on,and women don't care if shes married or unmarried.

find me on twitter @WatersZeus

BISEXUAL VS GAY MALE

I remember a gay male told me that as long as he act like he just like males they enjoy having sex with him,but when his hetero nature come to the surface,it turns them off...women causes confusion.

Again that gay male that just desire males don't exist...its a myth that you women & men are always forcing down our throats. All males are hetero by nature,if he turns to homosexuality,his nature still remains with him,and it easily comes to the surface when around women.We are more heterosexual than the woman gender,its not even close.
Homosexual male means that besides a woman,he will sleep with a man,not he just like men. I liken the woman to gay males,we both perfer women,but if a male is hot,we will sleep with him as well.
I liken women also to heterosexual males,they both will stick with the woman sexually...
......

When a man says he's bi-sexual,the woman from "sun up" to "sun down" search to hook him up with a man,when she realize he's more into her, than she quickly stop associating with him.
In time he decides to play the "myth gay male", you know the male that is supposedly only sexually attracted to males. *Gay males are sexually attracted to women just like women are sexually attracted to women. Anyway when he plays this male,then they allow him to get close to them,and the weird part is when he improve on his outward appearance,then they start desiring to sleep with him.What? We are heterosexual by nature,we yield to the woman...happily.

find me on twitter @WatersZeus

TRANSGENDER MALE

The woman each and everyday is using the male to leave the natural use of the male,to be join with the woman. Women not only sexually reject the man,but push the government to pass laws & regulations to block the man away.The woman also for ages has willfully rejected the man,and went behind his back and fornicated with her female friend aka "girlfriend".
The man seeing this,change his form from male to female,can you imagine that? Once push away as a sexual predator,and a pervert,but now women can't keep their hands or lips off him.
find me on twitter @WatersZeus

Straight guy is stressed,because the women gender is gay as a whole,they often reject him while at the same time go behind his back and fornicate with her female friend. Straight guy is stressed because the transgender male get more women than he does.The straight guy is stressed because he has to have the beauty of women to get a woman. Straight guy is stressed because the woman gender is more into straight guy if he turns to homosexuality. Straight guy is stressed because the woman pefer the woman more than him.
Straight guy is stressed,because he has to pay to have sex with the women,and if caught he's jailed while shes seen as the victim. Straight guy is stressed because he lack the outward appearance to compete against women for the woman. Straight guy is stressed because nomatter how the woman treat him,its seen as his fault.

The gay male are formerly straight males,the male are sexual being and if he's not able to have sex with that with is natural,he will have sex with that which is against nature.The male didn't reject the female sexually,but the female rejected him because of his outward appearance. The wo(man) then being a man also willfully goes behind the mans back and have sex with the woman. She acts like she's not sexual in front of the males face,but for ages has fornicated with her female friend behind his back.

I'm gay,straight by nature,the women love homosexuality and gay males being dominant heterosexual often invite the woman into their bedroom...and they come in.

find me on twitter @WatersZeus

THE WOMAN GENDER

Men,woman is man,when GOD formed woman from man all his desires,likes(beauty) and dislikes(ugly) passed on to her. Man love beauty,but commonly lack beauty. Woman love beauty,and commonly is beautiful.The mystery about the wo(man) is that she is just like man towards the same thing.Woman love woman more because they are beautiful.

When you saw females skipping down the street holding hands,and calling one another girlfriend your intuition told you,thats not natural,but when you saw the whole town of females doing the same thing you encourage yourself with the lie "thats just what females do".
You didn't want to believe that all these females were homosexuals especially when you are there freely ready to be with them....your intuition was right. You know that "man" at the end of wo(man),stop ignoying it,its there for a reason. Woman is man,just the "weaker vessel man".
I'm gay,heterosexual by nature,I liken woman to me,we both pefer women,but if a man is hot,we will have sex with him as well. I liken women to heterosexual man,they both going to stick with the woman.

find me on twitter @WatersZeus

It is funny that many posts admit the high level of difficulty for heterosexual men to acquire sex, yet almost always in media and punditry the issue is treated with mocking.

So a man is either a philanderer, or a pervert, or a pedophile or simply a buffoon, such as Al Bundy in Married With Children, because he seeks to satisfy what is obviously a very primal need. Meanwhile because he is seen as top dog in the social hierarchy he is not able to complain about it.

The number of pornography sites, strip clubs, illicit relationships and Internet scandals should be a clue that there is a huge unmet need for a large portion of society. Yet it is almost never talked about, or else it is presented as a pathology, as in the case here where Mr. Savage contrasts the "healthful" gay lifestyle versus the frustrations of a straight male.

Yes, I agree, turnabout is fair play since our society has demonized homosexuality as a disease, but once we end the game of "I got you back" then what is the answer other than saving up your money for the day that Samsung starts mass producing fembots?

@125 What is the difference between your level of difficulty acquiring as much sex as you need and my level of difficulty acquiring as much money as I need? Why should the rest of society treat it with any more concern than 'big deal, life's tough'? Serious question.

Oh! There's still people here. Diner mo, I discussed your points with the charmingly feminist (and delightfully sexy) Mrs. Bloomer over breakfast this morning. We didn't come to any conclusions together, but it was productive. She shares your views as expressed in 117. Just thought I'd pass it on.

We did have a thorough look at my conviction that feminism, by definition, involves some baseline anti-male...something. Not necessarily agenda or bias but...flavor perhaps? It's feminism after all, not maninism, or peopleism even. It's not supposed to give a rat's ass about men (disingenuous protests to the contrary), because then there's not much femin left in your ism. If you do, then you're shifting your focus onto improving society in general, and that's great, but now you're a humanist.

We agreed to disagree.

Also, it doesn't help that I appear to have an allergic reaction to the terms "patriarchy", "privilege", "dominant discourse" etc. I start to twitch, not sure why. PTSD from my undergrad perhaps.

My reference to wanting more sex was (mostly) tongue in cheek. In regards your own lack: I understand there are several millionaires on seekingarrangements. Good luck!

For further discussion, I refer everyone to the wisdom of mythofgaymales above. Wow.

(disingenuous protests to the contrary notwithstanding)

Christ.

Mr Bloomer, I got that you were being at least a little tongue-in-cheek about not getting enough sex. Others, not so much, so I am curious about that. It's hard to know what kind of social response is wanted or expected about that. A voucher programme?

As for the femin in my ism - this means that I operate from the belief that women have been and continue to be most overtly disadvantaged by our inherited gender roles, and it's worth it for all of us to change this. Men get shortchanged too, but because the system puts them in positions of power and gives them other very tangible payoffs in exchange for limitations, they are less likely to notice or be motivated to change the system, or to want to critique their own role in it - hence the confused/lacklustre nature of various men's rights movements.

Anyway, back to tricking men into being gay so I can have my way with them before escaping to my sapphic love-den.

#126 and #129: Stating that you have an issue in your life doesn't mean you need to have the solution. Anyway, the question was what causes depression and stress to some men - seems like its worth it to listen to the answers.

#125 makes a good point. It seems that that male sexuality is both pathologized and pandered to by the media. Although you could say the same about women's, but in a different way.

@130 - I get that for a lot of men a lack of sex is the most vivid and concrete answer to the question of what causes depression and stress. But I'm still listening for men's thoughts about what the background to that is and where to go with it. If it's being presented as a serious social-structure problem rather than a personal issue or universal given, then it's a symptom, not a cause. A symptom of what? If you're rejecting feminist or gender-role interpretations like Dan's, or femw's, then what do you see as the real problem? Because to say that the real problem is a lack of sex is like saying "the problem is not the carburettor, the problem is that the car doesn't go".

How do you want to see men's sexuality, or the issue of sexual deprivation, portrayed in the media? I'd say the most common representation we see is this: a man is alone, he acts heroically, he is rewarded with romantic connection/sex.

The stress that straight men have getting laid or getting validated as a "real man" stems from a culture that privileges a small group that meets certain socially constructed standards. If women had more power other than withholding their sexuality, they would have the freedom to have more sex with men that don't meet bullshit requirements of masculinity.

Sorry, what? Now patriarchy is forcing women to withhold sex? And to not hook up with the men that they're attracted to? Good lord, is there anything this patriarchy is not capable of? It's super-patriarchy!

Diner mo, the average het joes of the world don't know how to address the lack of sex problem. That's what makes it a problem. If we did know, it wouldn't be a problem, and we'd all be more relaxed. But it's a nice start to just acknowledge it as a huge source of stress for a.h.j. apparently. Savage-Love-anecdotally.

The solution to the problem will not come from analyzing gender roles though. I'm almost certain of it.

Perhaps the most insightful comment came from the poster upthread who noted the "reward" element. Straight boys have been traditionally told "follow the rules and good things will result". Well, the times they are a-changin' and straight boys face a number of problems: (1) The rules are changing in society, and so you may be 'punished' for following them one day, and the get 'punished' for not following them the next day. (2) Ditto within individual relationships. (3) Straight boys are often held to the "work" part of the bargain, but denied the "reward" part. [Leave aside the fact that the dynamic is fucked up -- it is -- but as long as the dynamic persists in the metaculture you can't only hold one side to the bargain.] (4) Our culture both over-worships and over-criticizes straight male sexuality. (5) The therapy culture pathologizes straight male sexuality. (I have seen therapists write reports criticizing husbands for ... wanting sex with their wives!). (6) [and perhaps the most damaging part] Straight boys are the only ones not allowed to complain, and if they do complain they are dissed as whiners who have no right to complain because, hell, no-one has it as good as they do.

Wrong-a-mundo, Dan. Judy Garland fan here, going to see Soundgarden on Wednesday.

@136: Straight guys can love musical theatre. Ask Seth MacFarlane.

Mr Seeker - Oh, you're allowed to complain. Anyone's allowed to complain. You just have no right to sympathy if the only possible solutions you'll entertain allow you to keep all your advantages. Complain away, but just be aware if you come off like Henry VIII when princesses all over Europe suddenly started wanting not to marry him.

As far as "punishment" goes, a large part of it could rest in whether one saw the changing of times as inevitable and necessary, however individually disadvantageous. Perhaps straight men who give off a flavour of kinda-sorta-partly wishing on some level that things didn't really have to change get punished more often, but it's just an idea.

vennominon @138 - And there's the rub whenever it's a man's issue, whether valid, or invalid, important or unimportant: Our heroic feminist allies look at us and say, "hey, nobody's getting in the way of your right to complain ... just as long as you realize that we think you're a spoiled asshole when you do". (And, btw, if you're going to diss H8 you might want to spend some time reading translations of the Spanish archives and gain some rudimentary insight into how Catherine of Aragon was working hand-in-glove to fuck over both Henry and England and serve Spanish interests. But that's for another day.)

Oh, and you aren't exactly the first to basically stain by passive-aggressive association: if a man brings up an issue then, well, it must be because he really don't want change. You're rather like the poster in the "war on men" thread who defined "ally" as being synonymous with somebody who followed and always sublimated their legitimate goals to your legitimate goals.

Mr Seeker - I was thinking mainly of Christina - was she from Denmark, or the Duchess of Milan? - who said that, if she had two heads, one would gladly be at Henry's disposal. I have relatively little interest in Catharine; if I feel sorry for anyone in the original triangle, it's poor Arthur.

As for the second part, I was speculating that those men who are punished are the ones who give off an air of only wanting their own issues settled. I'll stand by that. As I said in my initial post, my sympathies lie with the non-stone-casters themselves - if there aren't very many of them, it's not my fault.

You have legitimate concers, and I agree that there are those who pretend to acknowledge the legitimacy only to make them Item #14 on an agenda when only twelve items will be considered. But one thing I shall tell you, and of this I am quite certain - if we make straight men's lives wonderful and better than ever as Item #1, then the bad straight men (who are not the whole group, but whose actions will stain the whole group, and I can see it's unfair but I've no capital to spend in correcting that) will take the whole pie and not give anybody else a piece because that's what they've always done whenever they could. If there were a magic way to distinguish which straight men really were in for the whole agenda and which only wanted their own problems fixed... but is there? And, in the end, I do suspect that what would be BEST for straight men (and perhaps to a lesser extent for straight women) is essentially anti-gay. There may be no way to give everybody her or his ideal of the best possible life with all problems solved as far as possible, as sometimes one pie can perhaps be stretched to 1.25 pies, but not to the full two needed. What to do? I'm sure I don't know.

But, if it makes you feel any better, I don't think same-sexers either male or female would be much better off in a matriarchy, as Ms Wander made the usual point that same-sexer problems are entirely a subset of feminist problems, which, while our interests do overlap to a great extent, is so far from true that the 10% or so of disagreement outweighs the 90% of commonality.

Personally, I do feel some SM complaints are legitimate, but legitimacy does not equal automatic entitlement to the #1 spot on the agenda. Yes, you have every right to complain about that, but you have rather dominated that particular position, which removes a bit of the potential sting of the complaint.

Many of us Straight Men do get Rejected by women, and it makes me wonder how many Gay And Bi Women are out there these days.