Misogyny? How about men sit out the next two world wars and let women fight them? Lots of living people are still recovering from the loss of men in our grandparent's generation.
Men and women each have a genome and my point was if heart disease runs in the family, it affects your family whether you are male or female. It seemed like you were trying to sweep men's shorter lifespan under the genetic carpet. I know about breast cancer in men. I only mention breasts because while men and women both have them, the incidence of disease is dramatically different given the difference in interaction between hormones and breast tissue in men vs. women. Firstly that difference is a function of our operating genes. Secondly, nobody expects women with breast cancer to "just suck it up because that's how their genes work." To the degree to which men's lifespans are shortened by genetics, I expect something to be done about it. Yours is a classic example of indifference towards men in suggesting that is just how men age.
Now let's talk lifestyle. The lifestyle used to be for women to promise to obey their husbands as part of their wedding vows. Women used to willingly say that! Lifestyles change, however, hopefully for the better. At the moment, men are socially encouraged to accept the kind of lifestyle that allows them to be exploited in other ways for the "betterment" of society, which is no less awful than expecting women to obey their husbands. One of those socially engineered choices is military service. If anyone wants to bring up misogynist imagery in the media, how about the warped images of men, who are supposed to be brave robot protectors with no regard for their own lives.
Feminism has had 80 years to open up new pathways for women, but it hasn't done much of anything for men's options, except maybe indirectly. The benefits have not flowed both ways. We still need a few decades of masculism before equality will be shared...well...equally!
Yeah, misogeny. It's alive, well, and unfortunately thriving. Used to be in the wedding vows? To the best of my knowledge, it's still there, unless you change your vows or write your own. For war, well, you might very well ask who's started the last couple thousand years of war, and what they were fighting over. Women were, and often still are, considered a spoil in war. Rich, politically affluent men for the most part start wars. Not that I think women would be kinder or gentler in office, we'd most likely have the same amount of war. You want people do die in equal numbers, get rid of mysogeny. Few women are going to join up when they have to prove themselves twice as hard to every man they interact with and still come up in relations with a shorter stick, just isn't worth the effort. They're not going to join when specific jobs are roundly denied and they don't get the good sign-on bonuses either.
For lifestyle - no, all diseases don't affect you the same whether you're male or female if it runs in your family. They're not cookie cutouts, sex and hormones make a difference as well. It really depends on the disease. My point was that men are getting treatment for the diseases they do have, say, heart disease (which women have as well (well, treatment unless they're poor or have no insurance, but that's a widespread problem with everyone, unfortunately) so if people on both sides of a rather ridiculuous 'divide' are getting treatment for ailments (and if it runs in the family, there's a better chance you know to look out for it, even if it doesn't tend to run in the men or women in your family) then it isn't going to affect longevity -discrepancy- one damn bit, since both 'sides' are already getting treatment. If both sides are getting treatment, then no, men are still stuck with that gap. Which is why, again, I said it's pretty useless to rail against genetics. And for future reference, by lifestyle I meant illness, eating habits, drugs (both prescription and non), surgery, exercise, stress, and other things I'm most likely forgetting. Having a woman chained to the home as an example of a lifestyle choice is disingenuous since I was talking about free range actions. Women chained to the home in history, no choice involved. Had severe trouble owning property, getting jobs, pay rates (and look, that one is still there) et cetera. Tell me, how do you 'choose' if the - only - other prospect was no roof, no food, constant derision from everyone and most likely had children you were expected to care for at a young age? It's not as if they paid enough most times for you to even rent a place. "Women used to willingly say that!" is ridiculous. There wasn't a will for the longest time to say it with.
Feminism wa/is supposed to be an equality movement. There's shitty feminists like there's shitty everything else. There's also many, many strains of feminism and intersections (and other movements with the same kinds of goals that - aren't - called feminism. Womanism, for example, which from the little I've read about it seems much better at addressing issues) and several different waves. You might be interested to know the traditional feminism is often sneered at by other branches because all it kept in mind was affluent white women, which is what you've been referencing in your posts, dunno if you realize it. You notice that damn near - all - those missing women that you complain about hogging the media attention are all able bodied and white? From good homes, or at least not the dumps I grew up in? Disabilities, race, poverty, age, feminism had/has a hard time incorperating those, as if you can separate them in a human being. When you say 'things have gotten better!' I don't know whether to bang by head, keep typing, or just say fuck it with this thread and move on. Because for people with disabilities, people of color, the very young, the very old, poor people - Feminism hasn't made things anywhere near as 'better' because the biases are in the movements themselves. So - some - women almost have equality. Not do, but almost. Because if they - did -, I can garauntee that the things your complaining about wouldn't be an issue, at least not for you, unless you have intersections I'm aware of, which is entirely possible. People don't 'favor' other people that they see as equals.
As for masculism, the title always sucked. The feminist movement (on a macro scale) has a nasty habit of believing all things feminine aren't as valuable as masculine pursuits, especially considering the rest of the world doesn't consider them as valuable, either. Setting up for a fall calling it masculism, if for no other reason that masculinity isn't what you want to shore up and that's what the word brings to mind. You're complaining about the restraints of masculinity, calling it something that immediately brings to mind He-man doesn't bode well. Unfortunately Men's Right's Activists is already taken - the great majority that I've seen suck, not sure the term can be reclaimed. They complain about things that're caused by misogeny while claiming 'women have it better'. Still haven't figured out why objectification and condescension are better, but eh. Better luck focusing on what - directly - harms men if you want to get a nice rolling movement going. The idea that showing any emotions other than aggression is a horrible flaw, the Hero! complex so damn many are encouraged towards, the rife objectification men are demanded to participate in, the utter ban on femininity, male on male violence (along with female on male violence. Feminism has the same problem, seems like female on female violence is often ignored when it comes to intersections), child custody issues (though I don't know much about them, I don't have children. Child custody and adoption are a mess all around for a lot of groups), lack of domestic abuse support (which is a problem), really the entire concept of what 'Real Men' are, since it all falls into that anyway.
But if people are going to continue to claim women have it better, then no, it's not going to get off the ground since people aren't actually focusing on issues men face. They're just complaining about the backlash of mysogeny. Which yes, does hurt men, but since equality isn't here yet, let alone for people with multiple intersections in life, the idea that the backlash of mysogeny encompasses anywhere near all of men's actual problems is a bit null and void.
