What does a male president has to do with depression? Were UK women immune to depressions during the period of Elizabeth II?
I can see how rigid and restrictive gender role can impact the rate of depressions in a demographic, especially when societal pressure and expectancy has a amplify effect. The existence of a trophy title, generally given only to people who are born very rich, give very poor comfort to the rest of that demographic.
Some of us aren’t political aspirants, we just want our kids, or safety from violent partners, or fair government protections, or to not be discarded when we come back from war broken, dignity without being mocked.
For all the good every male president we’ve ever had has been in those departments.
Yes, there are many problems that are unique to men that society does not address. I would not say that is because men are not adequately represented in the halls of power, or because society does not adequately cater to men's needs. "Second class citizen" is patently absurd.
What is patently absurd about men’s problems, that aren’t patently absurd in regards to women’s problems? Do men not suffer every indignity that everyone does?
We don’t currently or adequately cater to woman’s needs and it shows. It only follows that men are even more underserved.
You seem to treat men as a solidary group while it is not. It's absolutely regular for a man to be treated as a second class citizen, by men. We are not "represented" in the halls of power, what an absurd idea.
But certainly not because they are a man, you understand? To claim that the "Class" in "Second Class Citizen" is "Men" - that the set of "Classes that do not contain men" constitute a "First Class" - is hilariously out of depth and not worth taking seriously as an idea. This is the idea treating men as a single group, "Men are second class citizens".
A man can be disadvantaged. And there are some areas of life where, as you say, men are put at a disadvantage due to the actions of other men. This is not because "Men are second class citizens", it is a systemic issue of gendered preference that disadvantages men and women but has traditionally been a system set up to benefit men.
There are injustices in the world that are unique to men, and deserving of correction and justice. That is not in question. What is in question is looking at the state of the world and saying "You know who really has it tough? Men."
I say men are treated based on their gender, not just happen to be disadvantaged. Don’t put words in my mouth please.
For the rest of the argument I understand it, but don’t agree, for two reasons. First is that there’s enough man-only targeted demands and judgements, all well known. Second reason is that the world has supercharged the terms “man”, “manly”, etc so much, that discriminatory statements with these may sound absolutely natural to some.
There’s absolutely a majority of cases of people who get all the downsides but can’t entertain the upsides of “being a man”, for not behaving “like a man”, despite being one (as in, being born this way and not having a strong dispreference to this biological fact alone).
Men have it though and that makes them men who have it easy — I’m curious if you see a problem in this statement.
Men are overrepresented at both ends of nearly all bell curves. Men have fatter tails in most distributions you can think of. More presidents, but also more suicides.
You are effectively saying that because men are more likely to be president, CEO, Nobel Prize winner, etc, we should tell the men who are more likely to be homeless, murdered, etc, that they deserve it, and they should shut the fuck up.
The second-class citizen terminology in modern usage is generally used to highlight all cases of systemic discrimination or unequal access to material or social needs. Commonly thought examples of second-class citizen like apartheid is historical important but very far from modern use of the term. In some cases second-class citizen is also used to describe immigrants that has not received citizenship.
Modern use of second class citizens is generally ridiculous, but words do change meaning over time.
Are you really saying there are no situations where men are not treated as second class citizen? Especially around child rearing activities?
When the women around you treat you as a potential child molester and are vary about your every move simply because of your gender, you don't think that counts as being a second class citizen in those environments? Of course it does! In child care men are absolutely discriminated against and treated as lesser or evil, as just the stand in for the real parent: the mother.
Here’s a soft opener. What is the absolute difference between someone who is allocated a higher level of government assistance in time of need, not considering children at all?
