Men Going Their Own Way stand firm against the misandrist tyranny of loose toilet paper rolls

@Mrex: Nitpicky, but I’m going to take issue with the idea that humans don’t like to feel subservient. Some of them do. They just don’t like feeling subservient to the wrong person, and would like the power to choose whoever they would consider to be the right person.

…And then I just re-read it in order to comment on a different part and realized you were talking about certain types of people who tend to turn things into power struggles, not that it’s your own view, necessarily. Never mind then.

@moocow

I see, so it’s like some sort of career specialization. Ok, then yeah, that definitely should be a greater determinant than gender.

Yes, Hambeast covered this well. MOS stands for military occupational specialty. When I was in the army, women couldn’t have basic infantry specialties and couldn’t be rangers or special forces. (I haven’t kept up with whether that has changed.) I always thought, well, you have these physical fitness tests and requirements. If the argument is that women aren’t physically able, why not let them have these specialties (if they want them) if they are able to pass the tests at the men’s level. The push-ups are a bit of a high bar for most women, but some women could do them. Of course, the tests are also scaled by age. I always maintained that if the 37–41 age requirements for men were the minimum requirements to do the job, then they should be the minimum requirements for everyone. If the 37–41 requirements for women were the minimum, then same deal.

@Hambeast

In the AF, if you work in an admin job, you also get trained in a “war skill” AFSC for purposes of, well, war and also to participate in base-wide exercises. I would assume that this happens in the Army, too. Maybe Belladonna can confirm.

I don’t believe there were cross-training requirements in occupational specialties. If you were, say, an Administrative Specialist (71L), you didn’t have to also train as something else. But everyone had to qualify in basic rifle marksmanship (and renew the qualification periodically) and everyone had to pass the army physical fitness test annually. Basic training was all about basic combat skills, too, of course. Bayonet training, grenades, M60s, field first aid, MOPP gear and levels, and so on.

@Scildfreja

I know, it’s a shocking conclusion, and highly contentious. I have a pretty high burden of proof here.

My sarcasm detector is beeping. 😉 I think you are right that you’ve cracked it!

V@ belladonna

the tests are scaled for age

That is a bit weird for the reasons you point out. You can either do the job or you can’t; and the standards should reflect that.

In the UK the tests are officially the same for all ages. I raise that caveat though. It’s been made clear unofficially that in regard to some areas where there’s a shortage of qualified people they’ll allow a bit of leeway for older applicants. The principle is of course ‘Soldier first, (actual job) second’ and that’s not unreasonable especially in modern combat. A truck driver is as likely to find themselves engaging the enemy as an infantry soldier. However they’re willing to take a pragmatic view when there’s a shortage of doctors and the like.

The biggest fitness issue here is between full time and reserves. Theoretically the same selection criteria apply to both branches and everyone does the same tests with the same pass requirements. However full time personnel take the tests on sequential days whereas part time recruits can take them at intervals when their commitments allow the time. So obviously there’s more recovery time which arguably allows for a lower standard. That gap was highlighted in the ill-fated Bravo Two Zero mission. The troopers who died (of ‘natural’ causes) were all from 23 SAS which uses the part time standard and the troopers who survived (who weren’t shot) all came from 22 which had the full time selection standard.

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/ADSC_Fitness_Selection_Standards.pdf

Corollary:

Why men don’t change the roll at home.

Cuz they never kill it. A man looks at what’s left on the roll, knows what he just did, and the cleanup required; if the roll ain’t enough, he’s into the shower for less time than wiping and new roll would take.

Mystery solved. You’re welcome.

@ mrex

I would argue that this is *delegation*, not *subservience.*

Bizarrely enough this cropped up in some legal discussions about Brexit. It was related to the constitutional position of Parliament voluntarily surrendering powers.

It was agreed that a downwards transfer of powers (e.g. to the Scottish Parliament) was a delegation but there apparently isn’t a single word for willingly surrendering powers upwards (e.g. to the EU).

Most words for that direction of transfer have elements of unwillingness or reluctance in their true definitions (aquiesce, accede, submit etc). Presumably because it’s not something people normally like to do. So we have to use qualifying words like voluntarily or willingly etc.

Belladonna – Yeah, now that I think about it (the 80s were a long time ago!) we only had war skill training overseas. We also had to do the dreaded gas mask training using tear gas, which was getting controversial way back in the early 80s. Don’t know if they still even do it anymore. We also didn’t have to re-qualify for marksmanship unless deploying overseas, either.

As far as physical fitness, the AF was a bit ridiculous; once a year you could choose to either run a mile and a half or walk three miles, which I always did and could still probably do even in the shape I’m in. They gave you 22 mins. and it was easy-peasy. I mall walk with a friend and we did 3.3 miles in a little less than half an hour the other day, so…

As far as calling out anti-feminism in the Trumpcamp, yeah. Ever since the “pussy grabbing” furor, it’s been pretty quiet.

@A. Noyd

WANT!

@mrex

“Why go to that length to exert power and control? Because that’s what abusers value. Not love, not equality, not intimacy — power and control. It makes them feel big and strong.”

*****************

“Sink pissing” goes far beyond abusers. Any man who has been brought up to “wear the pants”, and “be their own man” will do it until he questions his beliefs. These attitudes are directly antagonistic to attitudes of equality and cooperation, since no-one can “wear the pants”, or “be his own man”, in situations where everyone cooperates and shares. (This isn’t even getting into how much phrases such as “wear the pants” are inherently shaming, because they imply that any man that isn’t in control, isn’t really a man.)

Going on a bit of a rant-

Uncooperative attitudes may be most obvious in guys that play “king of the castle”, but they also play out in guys who act subservient to girls. (“I’m a jerk if I don’t want to do what she says, so I will treat her like a queen.”) Both types of guys always eventually turn to passive aggressive shit, because both types see relationships as power struggles, and all humans, no matter how “nice”, have an inherent dislike of feeling subservient. So they play petty and passive aggressive games because realize that it’s harder for a girl to leave a guy for “petty” differences.

And yes, I do think that pissing in the sink is beyond “petty”, but it’s also possibly “nuts”** enough that the guy will get away with it. Because women making what are viewed as “crazy”** allegations are automatically viewed as being petty and vengeful. (Ie. “He’s too nice to do that.”)

I agree. Society is shot through with displays of power and control — metaphorical sink pissing. Men do it a lot. But women do it too. Ditto children.

The difference between abusers and nonabusers is often one of degree.

As a culture, we pretty much agree that most of the time pissing in the sink is beyond the pale.

So I’m inclined to say that most able-bodied, nonmetaphorical sink pissers who live with others who object to the practice are abusers. For these sink pissers, attempts to grab power and control are a way of life.

Those people who put on displays of power and control but can also be reasoned with — talked out of abhorrent behavior — are less abusive. The behavior of course is still very offputting.

And yeah, nobody wants to feel subservient — except for those who choose to outsource their power in limited ways.

As for allegations that aren’t believed, let’s just say that I’d already heard enough about my friend’s boyfriend to believe every word when she told me he pissed in the sink. It was of a piece with his I’m too cool for middle-class niceties schtick.

I’ve actually heard other feminists make arguments against promoting “empowerment”, because poor people, and stuff. How cluelessly misguided. Power is something EVERYONE has, yes some have more than others, but just about everyone has *some*. Empowerment isn’t just in gaining more power, but in recognizing the power that’s already there- and not giving it away!

I’m not familiar with the argument against promoting “empowerment,” so I can’t comment on that.

But I believe that part of the job of being a human is to recognize and use what power you have, not to hand it over to someone else. That it’s important to step up to the plate. I’m not trying to say that everyone can face up to every challenge in their lives all the time, but I am saying that it’s important to make the effort and to seize the openings.

When a person or group is kept down, that’s terrible for everyone. Talents atrophy, to the detriment of both the oppressed and the oppresser. Resentment builds. Pretty soon, that resentment will be acted upon. Not a pretty picture!

I’ve got friends with and had acquaintances who happened to have terrible aim/hose control when they peed. Since my house has only the one bathroom, cleaning up the wall behind my toilet and the area that said wall abuts, was not my idea of a fun time – solution was yelling at them to either learn to aim or go to the gas station instead of using my bathroom. There is no longer a problem or mess to clean up. 🙂

I’d probably resort to more extreme measures if I fell into the toilet because the seat wasn’t down, or discovered someone was pissing in my sink or bathtub. The toilet paper is stored in the cabinet immediately adjacent to the toilet for convenient access when the free-standing roll holder needs replenishment. I got the free-stander when the one attached to the wall repeatedly had one side detach, leaving a great big hole in the drywall.

@Belladonna

Wild. I was there from mid October 1995 through the end of February 1996, or thereabouts. It snowed lightly one day, which I believe was odd for Georgia. Were you signal corps? I was 31U.

We were there at the same time! I even remember that one day of snow now that you mention it. I was Signal, 74B to be exact (which had just been created when I got there, they had combined 2 MOS into 1, but we were all basically computer jockeys). I don’t know why I remember this, but my Drill Sergeant’s name was Wandro (well last name, obviously)

@Belladonna:

So here it is. I feel like I’m noticing an almost deafening silence in the mainstream media and even liberal-leaning places like Huffington Post. They talk, for example, about how Bannon is racist, homophobic, and antisemitic. They talk about how he wants to tear down the establishment. Is it just me, or is anyone else noticing how they’re totally leaving something out there?

I’ve noticed it, too. I wonder if outlets are spooked about it because of the (unfounded!) public disdain for the “vagina vote”. There were a lot of people during the election bellyaching about how, supposedly, any criticism of Clinton would immediately get branded as being misogynistic, just because she is a woman and therefore the High Feminist Thought Police won’t tolerate dissent, or something. And of course, that attitude went hand in hand with the suspicion that people were *only* voting for Clinton because she is female.

So now, post election, to turn around and get on Trump and his staff’s case for being misogynists–well. What if people think the news reporting is too *gasp* PC? What if people think the reporters are just sore about Clinton losing (who, as we have already “established”, only apparently had any votes because she is a woman)?

Both candidates are white, straight, and gentile, so talking about racism, homophobia, and antisemitism is safely out of the realm of “You’re just a shill for Hillary!” accusations. But Trump is a man who ran against a woman, and so the Trumplings are hypersensitive to potential accusations of sexism. I wonder if that’s why news outlets are reluctant to touch the subject.

This is not to defend that choice, of course. It’s still cowardly, and I agree with you that it’s deeply concerning. But I wonder if this is (at least partially) why it’s happening.

@Schnookums

I was Signal, 74B to be exact (which had just been created when I got there, they had combined 2 MOS into 1, but we were all basically computer jockeys).

Was 74B any fun? We had one unit on computers, but it was so basic that I was grateful when the instructor noticed how bored I was and asked if I’d like to reformat a stack of floppy disks for him.

I got into all kinds of trouble at Fort Gordon, though. One time I got in trouble for some minor thing or other and my Drill Sergeant told me to write an essay as punishment. So I wrote an essay about how shitty the UCMJ was, and how it was none of the Army’s damn business what I did in my bedroom, and how it wasn’t even any of the Army’s business if I wanted to stand on my car in the middle of a parking lot and fuck myself with a bottle.

I got perilously close to getting a Chapter 13 discharge. My First Sergeant asked me if I would have written such things, using language like that, in college, and I said I absolutely did write such things in college. He seemed taken aback. It was an odd collision of worlds.

@mrex and Kootiepatra
Thank you. I’m glad I’m not the only one feeling this way. Your reasoning makes me feel a tiny bit better, Kootiepatra. Like maybe (I hope) it’s just a temporary sensitivity. Except my problem isn’t just that it’s the mainstream media. When many liberal sites are also acting like they are terrified to mention misogyny or sexism, while accusing Trump supporters of racism, then I know that they are not afraid of being too PC or setting off Trump supporters. They are afraid of bringing up sexist issues to liberals.

I also keep remembering this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/

It doesn’t have anything earthshaking in it. But the fact that Hillary was, all things considered, a pretty conventional candidate is good food for thought. Especially when there are so many supposedly liberal people who want to harp about what a “deeply flawed” candidate she was. And the liberal sites are just ducking the issue.

And then there’s the interesting merchandise that was being hawked at the RNC. And despite merchandise like that, liberal outlets are still afraid to call Trump supporters sexist, while happily calling them racist. The only possible explanation I can see is that it’s also an incredibly sensitive issue with their liberal base.