Male privilege | MensRights

[–]baklavathegreat 76 points77 points78 points 12 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotReallyEthicalLOL18 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]anakinastronaut 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]atwthepig 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]anakinastronaut 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]atwthepig 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]anakinastronaut 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atwthepig 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]anakinastronaut 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nihilist_nancy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Robo_sapien -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]daedaluscapn 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SRSLovesGawker 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]IlleFacitFinem -16 points-15 points-14 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]IlleFacitFinem 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phototoxin 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's shitty logic.

I disagree. If you're not out there giving money & advocating for the issue yourself, how can you possibly be upset that nobody else is?

Secondly, women's groups take redirection of attention as a slight. You are stealing attention - you are stealing help from women - misogyny and violence.

Nothing in life is easy... getting upset because existing women's charities want to maintain and grow their funding base is like getting upset that the sun rises in the east. You start taking money out of someone's pocket (even a cancer charity) and they're going to react. That's life.

If you're passionate about this issue, man up, get some thick skin and do it anyway, even if it makes some housewives & charities angry.

Exactly. It's little but a show. We could do much better than that.

I'm not on the BOD of any of these companies, so I'm powerless to change their advertising strategies. The best I can do is ignore it and/or see it for what it is.

[–]I_am_Norwegian -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. If you're not out there giving money & advocating for the issue yourself, how can you possibly be upset that nobody else is?

Because I have empathy and a brain. Let's say your logic here is good. That would mean that I could only choose to be upset by the number of causes I myself had time to raise funding for. Imagine if I myself was dirt-poor, or sick. Well fuck me, I guess I can't complain. Guess everything is right with the world then.

Nothing in life is easy... getting upset because existing women's charities want to maintain and grow their funding base is like getting upset that the sun rises in the east. You start taking money out of someone's pocket (even a cancer charity) and they're going to react. That's life.

I agree. You said "there's nothing stopping you" though. Womens groups would oppose me. And you know how that goes.

man up

What does that even mean? What do you think that implies? I am my own man, I do what I want because I find what I want to be more important than what morally righteous bigots want me to do.

I can recognize shoddy carpentering even though I'm not a carpenter myself. I don't need to get a carpentering degree to complain about shitty carpenters.

[–]anachronic-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That would mean that I could only choose to be upset by the number of causes I myself had time to raise funding for

Currently, you're upset with people for NOT doing something that you're also NOT doing. Doesn't make much sense.

But hey, most guys don't do anything for prostate cancer either (myself included), so I'm not calling you a bad person or anything... all I'm saying is that if prostate cancer is really that big of an issue to you, get out there and do something.

If you don't have a ton of money, get other people to sponsor you in a walk... volunteer somewhere... I dunno... I'm sure google could return a ton of ideas of ways to raise awareness that don't cost much money.

I agree. You said "there's nothing stopping you" though. Womens groups would oppose me. And you know how that goes.

I don't know how that goes. What I do know is that if I am passionate about something, a little criticism isn't going to stop me from following my heart.

What does that even mean? What do you think that implies?

To me, it means grow some thick skin and do what you want to do and follow your heart, even if someone criticizes you for it.

If you think there's not enough prostate cancer awareness, what's stopping you from getting involved? Surely you're not implying "women's groups" are preventing you, right?

[–]I_am_Norwegian3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But hey, most guys don't do anything for prostate cancer either (myself included), so I'm not calling you a bad person or anything... all I'm saying is that if prostate cancer is really that big of an issue to you, get out there and do something.

That I can accept. Previously your argument basically equated to my opinion being irrelevant and/or de facto wrong since I didn't actually do anything.

I don't know how that goes. What I do know is that if I am passionate about something, a little criticism isn't going to stop me from following my heart.

It's not necessarily just criticism. Womens health issues gets much more funding from the government. You'll be drowned out from the start.

To me, it means grow some thick skin and do what you want to do and follow your heart, even if someone criticizes you for it.

That's just determination.

If you think there's not enough prostate cancer awareness, what's stopping you from getting involved? Surely you're not implying "women's groups" are preventing you, right?

Nothing is stopping me, and I'm not implying that at all. I was just frustrated by your use of the common fallacy that my opinion is moot since I didn't actively try to change the world. It's the same shit when someone says "well, you go and make a music record" when you criticize an artist. It's the logic that since you are not a cook, you cannot taste good or bad.

[–]anachronic0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wordshark -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anotherbluemarlin -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PackmanR 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PackmanR 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]_jamil_ 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phototoxin 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phototoxin 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]_jamil_ -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phototoxin 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]_jamil_ -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]_jamil_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_jamil_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotReallyEthicalLOL1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atwthepig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackShadowRose 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]yodamaster103 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GhostBeezer-1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ZeroError 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]barthqore -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Final_Falcon 37 points38 points39 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IlleFacitFinem 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Redditorial2[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IlleFacitFinem 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackWhoEatsTheFloor 37 points38 points39 points 12 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverendchuck 42 points43 points44 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Coincidentally I just did quite a bit of reading about this the other day. Short answer is that none of the studies I've found show any difference in lethality of intent by gender. The statistics are correct that more men successfully commit suicide, this is due to preference for more lethal methods like hanging and guns. Women attempt suicide at rates almost double that of men but tend to survive as they choose methods like cutting and pills.You'll notice that actually there is no cross-cultural gender norms for suicidal behavior (third quote). So there is definitely not evidence that women are receiving more help the world over.

As a personal aside, I hate it when people play politics with this issue. There is no need to trivialize anyone's suicidal behavior and definitely no need to play victim olympics. Women have hugely increased likelihood of attempting suicide - thats a big problem and indicates some serious issues with medical care for mental illness. Men are less likely to receive help because they're choosing lethal methods. Same conclusion as above.

A University of British Columbia study sheds important new light on why people attempt suicide and provides the first scientifically tested measure for evaluating the motivations for suicide.

The study, based on 120 participants who recently attempted suicide, suggests many motivations believed to play important roles in suicide are relatively uncommon. For example, suicide attempts were rarely the result of impulsivity, a cry for help, or an effort to solve a financial or practical problem. Of all motivations for suicide, the two found to be universal in all participants were hopelessness and overwhelming emotional pain.

http://news.ubc.ca/2013/06/13/first-major-study-of-suicide-motivations-to-advance-prevention/

While the gender paradox of suicidal behavior is common, particularly in industrialized countries, it is not universal, she said. In China, for example, women die of suicide at higher rates than men. In Finland and Ireland, men and women engage in nonfatal suicidal behavior at similar rates. There are more exceptions to the gender paradox of suicidal behavior when one examines female/male patterns of suicidality by age or culture, she said.

"A broad cultural perspective shows that women and men do not consistently differ in terms of the kinds of suicidal behavior they engage in, or with regard to the circumstances or the motives of their suicidal behavior," she said. "When women and men differ with regard to some dimensions of suicidal behavior, the meaning and salience of these differences vary from one social group to another, one culture to another, one historical period to another, depending on local scripts of gender and suicidal behavior." The cultural variability in patterns and scripts of women's and men's suicidal behavior calls for "culturally situated suicidality research and prevention," Canetto said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100812172040.htm

Data from a psychological autopsy study were used to test the theory that women who commit suicide use less violent means because they are less intent on dying. Although women were significantly less likely to use a violent method than men, there was no difference in the lethality of their suicidal intent.

Method Choice, Intent and Gender in Completed Suicide - Denning, Conwell, King, Cox

The aim of the present study was to characterize the severity of attempted suicide by extracting components of suicidal intent and analyzing levels of suicidal intent by gender, age, and variables indicating the severity of attempted suicide. ... RESULTS: The level of suicidal intent was not gender-dependent, but rose with age. Males and females were also similar in terms of discrete components.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767269

This next one is actually a meta-study analyzing 39 other studies on suicidal intent.

The first intentions mentioned are internal perturbations type: to get relief, to escape, cannot endure situation or thoughts any longer, loss of control. They are often blended with interpersonal intentions: to make people understand what they felt, to seek help, to make things easier for others, while more aggressive, punitive or manipulative functions are seldom reported. Women report more reasons than men, but do not differ in their pattern of intentions. Suicide attempters report varying desire to die across studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22516269

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverendchuck 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is pretty interesting, and it really gets to the core of societal attitudes towards men and women, I think.

If you look at South Korea, for example, according to wikipedia it has the second highest reported female suicide rate in the world. And yet, men still kill themselves twice as much there. Mental health is stigmatized to the point where you can be fired or refused work for seeing a therapist, autism is just considered being a lazy/stupid person, behavioral disorders just mean you're a bad person, homosexuality is considered a contractible mental disease, etc... but at the end of the day the feelings of women are still considered more important than the lives of men, so even with all of that lack of support for anything people perceive to be outside of the "norm", there's still more of a support net for women, because women are valued more.

[–]Phototoxin 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]reverendchuck 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]xXCptCoolXx 12 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

It's really hard to compare these two things because they're really quite different. It's like comparing serial killers to serial attempted murderers. The number could also likely be inflated by women making multiple attempts (since they're alive) while most men only have the one successful "attempt".

Also, a few weeks ago someone made a thread about how they (and everyone in the thread) were unable to find the original research regarding the "woman are three times more likely to attempt suicide" statistic and began to wonder if it was just a Woozle effect. If you do know of the original study (and not just someone referencing the statistic as fact) I'd be very interested in reading it since it was never found before.

Edit: Apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent the thread.

[–]Astrogat 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx4 points 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Astrogat 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]golther 12 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Or possibly women are more likely to be using attempted suicide as a call for attention.

[–]theozoph 36 points37 points38 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hemochromatosis 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozoph 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OmegaDN 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hemochromatosis 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not accurate - and a really frustrating refrain for people who are sick.

A University of British Columbia study sheds important new light on why people attempt suicide and provides the first scientifically tested measure for evaluating the motivations for suicide.

The study, based on 120 participants who recently attempted suicide, suggests many motivations believed to play important roles in suicide are relatively uncommon. For example, suicide attempts were rarely the result of impulsivity, a cry for help, or an effort to solve a financial or practical problem. Of all motivations for suicide, the two found to be universal in all participants were hopelessness and overwhelming emotional pain.

http://news.ubc.ca/2013/06/13/first-major-study-of-suicide-motivations-to-advance-prevention/

[–]Nekrosis13 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Redditorial2[S] -15 points-14 points-13 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]7i77y 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VZPurp -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]cody_au 12 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Re: the cancer statistics I think it was that prostate cancer is likely to hit guys who are older and going to die anyway, so it doesn't get as much funding as breast cancer that can often hit women earlier in life.

That doesn't really help the young guys with cancer though.

[–]IrideTheDirt 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]tjstix -29 points-28 points-27 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]unclefisty 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotTheDave 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]unclefisty 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]cody_au 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Others here said you were wrong, who do I believe?

Also what diseases would you prefer to support?

[–]krashmania 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mythandros -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerberAuner 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suitecake 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerberAuner -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suitecake 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerberAuner 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suitecake 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerberAuner 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suitecake 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you're way out of touch with how this conversation has been going.

You might be new here (and if so, welcome), but this isn't a new statistic. It's rather common knowledge in /r/mensrights that the proportion of all successful suicides is skewed heavily toward men. We've talked about the reasons why this might be, and there's a good amount of conversation/literature out there on the subject as well (Warren Farrell's talk Why Love is Such a Mess is a particularly insightful treatment).

Which is to say, this sub-reddit produces a lot of discussion. There's significant shared knowledge that feeds into those discussions. Some people drop in and don't have the benefit of that context, but many do. So when I say 'I find the statistic concerning,' I say it not in shock that it's true, but as an ongoing concern based on what I've seen and think about the way our society functions.

[–]Nekrosis13 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyguy 89 points90 points91 points 12 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 173 points174 points175 points 12 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyguy 51 points52 points53 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingamabobby 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AsteRISQUE 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thingamabobby 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyguy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thingamabobby 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 75 points76 points77 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

so her argument boils down to women failing to compete by offering a better skillset for competitive pay ?

brilliant.

completely blowing the shit out of the "equal pay for equal work" mantra for decades as it descends into "we want more money but don't want to work for it".

equal pay, but not equal accountability it seems, or the easier way to see through the bullshit: "cake and eat it".

An excellent example of this is when women in Wimbledon Tennis demanded equal pay to the men, despite the fact men played 5 sets while women only played 3.

the women complained of "inequality" and ignored the other half of the equation (the men worked more hence earned more) and eventually the women got their equal pay.

when the women were asked to play the same 5 sets, the women refused.

Even now, male tennis players are speaking-out, asking women to also play 5 sets, but the women are conspicuously silent about "working equally hard", seeing as they already got their "equal" pay.

Maybe next time those women demand equal pay for something, men shouldn't give in so quickly by giving the reward before the effort is given.

next time, maybe men would be wise not to let themselves be scammed, and instead let the women prove they're willing to work "equally hard", and then let them earn their "equal pay".

Fool me once, shame on me.....

so, again, "equal pay for equal work" being complete bollocks. They only want "equality" when it means "upgrades".

http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/tennis-reveal-dishonest-of-feminist-belief/

http://do-feminists-kno.tumblr.com/post/40773323820/source-2009-championships-prize-money-aeltc

they just want the perks, citing oppression and discrimination nonsense. The irony and hypocrisy is lost on them.

shouting they're mentally and physically equal to men, while simultaneously demanding men solve their problems by lowering barriers to entry for women and giving women more pay without the same amount of work.

fucking hypocrisy at it's best.

[–]Edna69 34 points35 points36 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

An excellent example of this is when women in Wimbledon Tennis demanded equal pay to the men, despite the fact men played 5 sets while women only played 3. the women complained of "inequality" and ignored the other half of the equation (the men worked more hence earned more) and eventually the women got their equal pay. when the women were asked to play the same 5 sets, the women refused.

This is based on a fallacy. Female tennis players did not refuse to play 5 sets. Female tennis players were never offered the opportunity.

It's also a bad example to use. Men only play 5 sets at the Grand Slams and the Olympics. At other tournaments they play 3 the same as women. If your equal work for equal pay argument is valid then it should only be the grand slams with a difference in prize money between men and women. Yet at most tournaments women still win less.

The simple fact is that advertisers are prepared to pay more to advertise during/around/on men's tennis than women's. You can blame that on whatever you want, but for whatever reason advertisers feel that an audience is more interested in men's tennis than women's so advertising opportunities are valued accordingly.

[–]p3ngwin 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is based on a fallacy. Female tennis players did not refuse to play 5 sets. Female tennis players were never offered the opportunity.

Men's tennis attracts more viewers, and hence the sponsorship money goes to the entertainers. Women demanding equal prize money for less work means men are subsidizing women's handicaps. This has been the case since Billie Jean King started the inequality movement in tennis back in 1973.

2000 MARTINA HINGIS threatens boycott over equal pay for tennis players, yet conspicuously says nothing about equal work.

2007 when the Women's Tennis Association (WTA), in carefully couched terms, let Wimbledon know that its players were perfectly willing to boycott the tournament if they couldn't get the same money as men, Wimbledon acquiesced.

Female tennis players were never "offered the opportunity" to have equal pay, but they seemed quite adamant they deserved it enough to threaten boycotting the tennis tournaments.

Strange how female tennis players were similarly not "offered the opportunity" to play the same number of sets, yet they conspicuously neither raised a single voice nor finger to address that particular inequality.

"equal pay for equal work" indeed, or more like they wanted their "cake and to eat it", as earning more money for less work is desirable, but who wants to work more for less?

working more for less, is for men.

But when it came to demanding equal prize money, Feminists wanted that, and the rest caved-in.

If women think they can compete with male soldiers and fight equally well on assault courses and real war, then those same women can damned well prove their physical equality and play the same amount as men's tennis.

Plenty of women have believed they can play equally to men, and had their asses handed to them, most famously when the Serena sisters challenged Karsten Braasch, when they claimed they could beat any 200-seed male tennis player.

He was seeded 203, was post drinking night-out, smoked and drank beer between rounds and beat them handedly.

Serena fell 6-1, Venus 6-2

Serena Williams said:

"I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily".

"Men are just stronger than ladies. I even have trouble reading my hitting partner and he is not professional, although he would make a good professional player. It really is comparing apples to oranges."

http://www.mid-day.com/opinion/2010/jul/060710-Serena-Williams-Wimbledon-Tennis.htm

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=21533

Meanwhile male tennis players want women to play the same as men, challenging women tennis players to meet the men on equal grounds, but no female tennis players are meeting the challenege. In fact, the female tennis players saying men should play less sets !

Andy Murray challenges Serena Williams and says: women should play five sets

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/09/murray-women-should-play-best-five-sets/49047/#.UmUeYPmGqjs

Australian former Wimbledon champ Pat Cash says women should play five sets

Meanwhile....

Martina Navratilova says men should play less sets because 5 sets is too much and like a marathon, and it's too much for the body to handle.

Sorry, fitness/stamina is a competitive component of the sport; it's up to the players to be fit enough to play. If female tennis players are complaining 5 sets is too much, then maybe it's conspicuous how men aren't the ones complaining about the endurance.

It's cute how a female tennis player is claiming "5 sets is too much", not for women, but for the men, as if the men can't speak for themselves, because it's really the women saying they can't compete.

It's the women looking out for the men's health, because the men are apparently too stupid to realise they're hurting themselves.

So while male tennis players would love for women to prove they can match men's tennis, by actually playing the same mount as men, the women are saying they can beat men, failing, and then saying men shouldn't play so much.

In summary female tennis players are saying men should play less, while men are saying the women should play more.

not a single male tennis player is complaining about playing too much tennis over more time in more sets, etc. Only that if women want the money, they should play for it.

[–]Edna69 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

you'r missing the point of the tennis spectator numbers.

Men earn more because they play more, the ticket prices reflect that viewers want to watch the men's games more.

But women tennis players want to have the same pay for less sets played, hence women demanding equal pay while doing less work.

It's not complicated.

I also find it interesting that you persist with the 5 sets argument when men only play 5 sets in 4 tournaments each year.

So it's irrelevant when inequality happens in a minority of tennis ?

I'm sure if women were getting screwed by inequality on a similar scale, the men's claims of "oh be quiet, it's only happening a little bit"* would be met with similar "interest".

oh wait, women were screwed by tennis on a similar scale, and Billie Jean King decided it was enough to cause a ruckus in 1973.

apparently when it's men being screwed the same way it's not a problem ?

women only play 3 sets, then go on to play doubles elsewhere, etc.

All the while Men are playing 5 sets and getting paid the same as the women playing just 3 sets, while the women also play Doubles in the rest of the time men are playing 5 sets, and get paid for that too.

It is truly puzzling that you expect women to fight to give up what you perceive as advantages.

you're confused why male tennis players wanting women to be paid the same per-set as men?

you don't expect women to give up their "advantage" of getting paid for less work, but you expect men to give up their advantage of getting paid for more work?

So when women suffer wage inequality it's discrimination that should be addressed, but when men suffer wage inequality it's a "woman's advantage they shouldn't give up" ?

got it. i guess that explicitly demonstrates your idea of equality then.

Would you tell your boss you want to work 12 hour days from now on because that's what the Chinese have to do and you don't want an advantage? I don't think so.

what?

you're somehow equating the work and pay done by me as the same as a Chinese worker?

you've demonstrated you don't understand the concept of equal pay for equal work, so this conversation has lost any value it once had.

thank you and goodbye.

[+]Didalectic 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

"But for whatever reason advertisers feel that an audience is more interested in men's tennis than women's so advertising opportunities are valued accordingly."

Because more people watch? More people buy tickets? Isn't this all just about supply and demand: there is a greater demand for male tennis, therefore they get paid more.

[–]p3ngwin 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

yep, prize money and ticket prices for men's tennis dwarf female tennis prices.

considering there are statistically more women than men, shouldn't it be easy for women to support female tennis to tip the scales back to what they believe is appropriate equality?

if women aren't interested in supporting themselves, i don't see why feminists demand men solve a problem that doesn't belong to men.

There's a problem men aren't causing, so why should men be held responsible ?

It's as if those women are saying they can't do things for themselves, so men should help them make the world according to women's rules.

errr, no.

how about those women arrange themselves to make the world they want, instead of asking the other gender to do it for them ?

that's what men do after all, and now those women are crying discrimination, sexism, misogyny, etc because they lost despite being equally smart AND strong AND with larger numbers ?

So they're "equal" in every way, and even have the advantage of sheer numbers, yet still lost ?

and that's a man's problem ?

if women can't sort their own problems out when they're already the majority and equally intelligent and physically strong, then something doesn't add-up.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Saerain 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wisty-4 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ripperofbongs -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DDownageXD -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nevermind4790 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mdp2525 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]p3ngwin -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mdp2525 -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mdp2525 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]orfane 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zyguy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bosh-head2 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyguy 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I am totally for women being CEO's and making her own way up the ladder, but its not a woman's fault that there are these obstacles. Just like it is not a man's fault that he took advantage of opportunities he was given that weren't available to everyone. Should we not accept a scholarship, grant, or subsidy because not everyone gets one. Should we take a higher interest rate on a loan because someone else's bank didn't have such a good deal? No. We cannot blame someone for taking the opportunity to succeed. Our fight lies in how those opportunities are given. We should tell the college to give out equal scholarships if its a problem, we should ask the bank to match another banks' lower rates, and we should take our fight to the people who hire and promote a man when a woman was more deserving.

My problem with this issue is that she was mad that "all the CEO's" "weren't females." That's not the right angle to take to this issue.

[–]bosh-head-4 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]davanillagorilla 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyguy -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Intaanettoman 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]fatleg 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]roadhand 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SRSLovesGawker 12 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

I'd love to get into these "mens clubs" and "good ol' boy associations". Sure as hell haven't encountered any of that in my career.

[–]thingamabobby 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SRSLovesGawker2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingamabobby 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingamabobby 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingamabobby1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingamabobby1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingamabobby1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saerain 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Death_To_Your_Family -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Saerain 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]davanillagorilla 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]davanillagorilla 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]davanillagorilla 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnmarkley 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wasabichicken[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why is it so shocking to people that each sex has its own set of problems, setbacks, and difficulties? Men are more likely to commit suicide, but women are less likely to get promoted at work and are generally paid less at similar skill levels. I'd like both sets of problems to be addressed, not for us to sit around and belittle straw-women.

Feminist theory attribute men's problems to the patriarchy too. They argue that if we manage to stow away predefined gender roles, that'd include the gender roles that affect men in a negative way as well.

For example, if we managed to get a 50/50 mix of men and women in dangerous construction jobs, we'd have a similar death rate between the sexes there. If we made it socially acceptable for men to not be large, muscular, successful players etc, we might lower the suicide risk among men that do not live up to that silly "ideal".

[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zyguy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhamBamMaam 42 points43 points44 points 12 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]charlie_gillespie 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xatmatwork 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhamBamMaam 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xatmatwork 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhamBamMaam 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SRSLovesGawker 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The movement isn't about "screwing over feminists and SRS", although quite a bit of exposure here will be about how we're screwed over by feminists. The SRS is just a hateful pack of socially maladjusted outrage addicts who unfortunately enjoy the protection of the admins but, fortunately, have very little power or influence offline so they're a nonissue (yes, I recognize the irony of saying that given my username... this is an old nick from the Adrien Chen / SRS doxx collusion days.)

Keep in mind however that this is not a "feminist safe space". Feminism and feminists directly cause a number of problems for men and despite the MRMs compatibility the idealized goals of feminism, many feminists do not seem terribly interested in pursuing those goals in a way that's man-friendly.

If you're genuinely interested in helping out men, that's awesome and welcome aboard. If you're interested in helping, but only if we discuss things in a "feminist friendly" atmosphere, you may be disappointed.

[–]charlie_gillespie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This movement shouldn't be about screwing over feminists and SRS, it should be cooperation when possible, and ignoring when it is not possible.

Well, cooperation with SRS isn't possible...

But I do think cooperation with feminists is something that should happen. Unfortunately I feel that it will never happen because feminists are unable to question their ideology or accept the fact that someone might disagree with it.

For example, I don't believe we live in a "rape culture." I do believe that there is a lot that needs to change with respect to our perception of rape, but I would never say we lived in a "rape culture." This attitude would cause many feminists to label me as a misogynist, and then disregard anything more that I have to say. I'm not a fan of the whole safe-space, close-minded approach.

Of course, there's also MRM-related reasons why the two movements cannot cooperate, but I believe the close-mindedness of feminists is the main culprit.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's all about definitions. Some academic feminists say there isn't misandry because the academic definition of "which gender gets the short stick" says that only one can exist at a time.

Personally, as a feminist, I think sexism hurts both men and women. Said it all my life.

As for issues - most feminists I know fight for all sorts of issues, facing men and women, the transgendered, etc. Anything having to do with gender issues. But everyone has their area of focus. I wouldn't tell a lesbian fighting for lesbian rights that she has to fight for all women, and I wouldn't tell a lesbian fighting for all women's rights that she has to focus on lesbians.

I, personally, have a general women's focus. But I always support anyone fighting against gender issues - including men. Again, I see that a lot among rank-and-file feminists.

[–]xatmatwork 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SRSLovesGawker 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnmarkley 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhamBamMaam -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lurker_IV 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CyberToyger 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

The cognitive dissonance of your Feminist roomate is astounding. A Patriarchy is a system that benefits men over women, often at the expense of women. That's the textbook definition, that's the logical definition, that's the actual definition. Do you agree? If so, then, why the hell would a Patriarchy also hurt men??? Why would a system designed to benefit men and give them power: imprison them at a higher rate than women? force men to pay child support? not give a fuck about men dying???? Wouldn't that be a Matriarchy, or just a plain-ass Hierarchy run by sociopaths who don't give two shits about anyone? There is no Patriarchy in the US, there is no system designed to benefit men, or else men wouldn't be having all these problems mentioned on the graphic that OP posted.

Saying that we have a Patriarchy because we have mostly male politicians, politicians who were chosen by the voting population who is around 49% male and 51% female I might add, is as illogical and incorrect as saying that black people are all thieves just because a large percent of thieves are black. It's a hasty generalization based on outward appearance. It's not founded in reality or logic.

And there are more male business owners is due to several reasons, none of which include women being oppressed or disallowed; inheriting a business from their father/grandfather/great grandfather, being single and caring more about entrepreneurship than relationships and thus putting all their effort into starting a business, and coming up with a unique idea or capitalizing on an idea in order to support their family. And this is ignoring the fact that the number of female business owners has rapidly been INCREASING. This is also ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter what the gender ratio of business owners is, the only thing that matters is how well the business treats its workers and what the business has to offer us as consumers, and that gender ratios of business owners is a non-issue. No one's rights are being infringed and no one is being oppressed just because people who fall into one arbitrary category are more prone to doing something than people in another category.

[–]billet 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyberToyger 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm not playing these games. I'm using actual definitions, not ones that change everytime someone debunks Feminist bullshit.

"Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination"

Deal with it. Patriarchy is a term coined SPECIFICALLY to describe the Traditionalist (read: outdated and sexist) nature of societies to only allow men in positions of power in Government, and to be the head of their family. We do not have that anymore, ergo, we do not have a Patriarchy.

We have an Authoritarian government that has been gaining more and more power, thanks to both men AND women voting in shithead sociopaths, but we do not have a Patriarchy. Agree to disagree, but I'm getting sick of Feminists and their moving goalposts.

[–]billet -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerberAuner -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CyberToyger 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]billet 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]billet 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DerberAuner 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]billet 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]DerberAuner 12 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

really? can you give me a source?

edit: wanted to add this here, ive been looking for evidence to either support or dispute your claim, but so far im coming up blank. the wikipedia page on matriarchy doesnt explicitly mention lesbos, and youd think they would. most mentions are somewhat lacking evidence and based on speculation, suggesting either, that matriarchies were wiped out by patriarchies, leaving you to think, that matriarchies are an evolutionarily inferior model, OR that they never existed in the first place.

im not trying to prove anything here, id love to be proven wrong, im just saying that patriarchies are at the very least the dominant, if not the ONLY system of government, and that there probably is a reason for this.

[–]billet 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DerberAuner 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerberAuner -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Your entire answer is circular reasoning-you're using what is to justify what is without answering my question.

ok, lets say you are run by women now, what would be different?

I don't know.

what evidence do you have THAT something would be different?

None off-hand, simply speculation that things would be different based on different power dynamics.

if matriarchies were viable systems of government, wed have them by now

Why? If something worked for a long time, how much time do you give society to change to reflect the very drastic changes that have occurred in the past 150 years? Women were kept at home not that long ago and couldn't be the ones effecting change. That's changing now.

matriachies dont get that far (based on what ive read), and that is the advantage of a patriarchy (from my point of view)

Your advantage of patriarchy is that it stops matriarchies from forming? This is a non-answer.

in order to debate advantages, you have to know what would be different

That's not even remotely true.

also, lets not forget, modern society IS a patriarchy.

Many people think that that is debatable.

by definition, a matriarchy would be different from "modern society".

Different doesn't mean wrong or worse.

[–]DerberAuner 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

oh boy, this will be a long one...

Your entire answer is circular reasoning-you're using what is to justify what is without answering my question.

your question is based on wrong reading, i said "evolutionary advantage" not "advantage" in my original post, there is a difference. my argument is, that a matriarchal society would be here NOW, if it were a viable form of government. the fact that theyre not, tells me that they either never existed, or have been overthrown or conquered.

what does this tell us? it tells us that matriarchies are either

less respected by their own people or
less martial and hence more prone to being overthrown or conquered

why would we have had them by now? because history didnt start 150 years ago. we have had PLENTY of time to have a matriarchal society dominate in one region or another (this planet is HUGE, remember that). if matriarchal societies are by nature non-dominating, then evolutionarily they are not viable, since dominating societies will overthrow them.

Your advantage of patriarchy is that it stops matriarchies from forming? This is a non-answer.

actually, it is an answer, since i didnt say "advantage", i said "evolutionary advantage" (in my original post), and evolution decides based on what is best fit to survive and procreate (procreation not really applicable here) in a given situation. the sample size of history is large enough for matriachies to have established themselves at some point in time. that they didnt SURVIVE until now tells us, that patriarchies have an advantage in the evolutionary sense.

That's not even remotely true.

are you kidding me? if were debating based off of hear say alone, then our debates are purely hypothetical. so what point is there to them? our base assumptions might be completely wrong. if were to make an EXPERIMENT to gather preliminary data, THEN we could debate this further, but we dont even have THAT. all we have is speculation.

Many people think that that is debatable.

got a source for that? because iirc most (if not all) governing bodies are dominated by men, and by definition, that constitutes a patriarchy. (i.e. political power lies mostly with men)

Different doesn't mean wrong or worse.

youre right, it doesnt, i never said it DID. i just said we lack evidence for one statement or the other, other than that one never existed in the entire history of mankind.

EDIT:

have to point out, i wrote "matriarchies are an evolutionarily inferior model", not "evolutionary advantage", just wanted to clarify that, also: formatting, spelling

EDIT 2:

wanted to adress the "circular reasoning" thing once more:

my argument is not circular for one simple reason: i never close the circle. i make a deduction based off of an observation.

there are no matriarchies, why? -> they probably are evolutionarily inferior

im trying to find a root cause for my observation.

i am NOT using what is (there are no matriarchies), to justify what is. i am deducing what i percieve to be a root cause (the nonviability in an evolutionary sense) to explain what i see (the nonexistance of matriarchies).

are you familiar with the athropic principle? its kind of the same logic. "our universe must be life-friendly in certain spaces, because we couldnt observe it otherwise" <-> "matriarchies must not be viable in an evolutionary sense, or else we would have seen them by now (based off of the statistical improbability of only patriarchies evolving in the probably 100,000 years or so homo sapiens has existed (dont nail me to the number, im not an anthropologist))"

[–]femmecheng2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

your question is based on wrong reading, i said "evolutionary advantage" not "advantage" in my original post, there is a difference. my argument is, that a matriarchal society would be here NOW, if it were a viable form of government. the fact that theyre not, tells me that they either never existed, or have been overthrown or conquered. what does this tell us? it tells us that matriarchies are either less respected by their own people or less martial and hence more prone to being overthrown or conquered

You're talking like we are back in the caveman days. Let me ask you this: in /r/mensrights, people often say that we are living in a matriarchy/talk about examples of matriarchy. Does that mean that it is justified because it exists? If matriarchy does begin to come about more prominently, would you support it then? You're creating an inductive argument which doesn't mean it's wrong, but it also doesn't mean it's right.

why would we have had them by now? because history didnt start 150 years ago. we have had PLENTY of time to have a matriarchal society dominate in one region or another (this planet is HUGE, remember that).

Right, but up until modern changes (Industrial Revolution, technological boom, etc.) most people were very constrained in what they did. Modern-day technology means that women don't need to spend all day washing clothes. They can throw it in the washing machine and head to work.

actually, it is an answer, since i didnt say "advantage", i said "evolutionary advantage" (in my original post), and evolution decides based on what is best fit to survive and procreate (procreation not really applicable here) in a given situation. the sample size of history is large enough for matriachies to have established themselves at some point in time. that they didnt SURVIVE until now tells us, that patriarchies have an advantage in the evolutionary sense.

Again, recent technological advances are changing things.

are you kidding me? if were debating based off of hear say alone, than our debates are purely hypothetical. so what point is there to the? our base assumptions might be completely wrong. if were to make an EXPERIMENT to gather preliminary data, THEN we could debate this further, but we dont even have THAT. all we have is speculation.

Let me ask you this: do you support child support and alimony? Many people here don't, but they are going off of speculation alone and have no idea what would happen if those things were removed from society. There needs to be consistency.

got a source for that? because iirc most (if not all) governing bodies are dominated by men, and by definition, that constitutes a patriarchy. (i.e. political power lies mostly with men)

The definition of patriarchy is not simply about political power (although it is definitely a part of it).

From wiki:

Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination.

If you believe we live in a patriarchy based simply on more men being in control of political power, do you believe that men also have privilege whereas women are simply subordinate to men?

[–]DerberAuner1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

im not gonna quote anymore, instead im going to go through your post, by numbering them, one number represents one paragraph, starting from the top.

1)im not sure what you mean by "justified". i hope this clarifies a bit: im not trying to say matriarchies are better or worse forms of government, im saying they are probably less viable in a n evolutionary sense. what this means, is that PROBABLY matriarchal societies wont survive, even today.

technically my argument is DEductive (im not exactly sure what the difference is here, but im pretty sure there is one). the reason it is deductive is because there is no evidence to support either claim, other than the nonexistance of matriarchies.

2) little funfact here: they didnt need to do it before that either. they did it, because societal rules dictated they were the ones to do it. if they had lived in a matriarchy, maybe things would have been different for women there (gender roles might have been different).

if i understand you correctly you assume that technological changes empowered women to take a more politically active role. i would argue this is a false assumption, since there have been women in power before then, the oldest one i can think of being sparta in ancient greek (according to the wiki page on matriarchy), long before the technological revolution.

3) see second paragraph on 2)

4) depends very much on the situation. i will grant you that child support is a neccessity (unfortunately some might say), alemony im afraid i havent thought about too much, so i cant answer your question. i would not say, that these are idiotic principles alone, i would say they depend very much on the specific situation.

5) this definition is new to me, especially the last part "fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination". it seems like a veeeerry strict definition of patriarchy and personally i would disagreee with the last part being essential to a society fitting the description "patriarchy". by this definition we are NOT living in a patriarchy imho. it is also noteworthy, that this last part is NOT included in the wiki definition of "matriarchy" (link above). whoever wrote this was very subjective/biased imho...

[–]Astrogat2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually history really isn't long enough that we can draw many conclusions based on evolutionary advantage. There are plenty of animals that have matriarchies, so it's not really evolutionary disadvantageous. The reason we end up with patriarchies might just be a coincident.

That said, do we really need to draw evolution into this? Evolution isn't capable of keeping up with todays world. Things are changing to fast. And we don't really need to be more fit to survive. Not as people (maybe as a species, but that's speculation and really not that interesting to this discussion). So arguing based on an "evolutionary advantage" seems silly to me.

That said: The Iroquois had clear matriarchal tendencies. The ruling council of woman could at any time sack the chief. The woman owned land. The woman were free to divorce their husbands and throw them out. They were matrilineal. Etc. They might not be a clear matriarchy in that there were men in positions of power, but at the same time there are women in places of power in most patriarchies . Why doesn't it qualify?

[–]DerberAuner1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

were talking about humans here, humans are somewhat unique in the animal kingdom, i actually never thought about animal examples, cause imho they are not relevant to the discussion at hand. also arguably, we are dominating the animal kingdom, and we are (or were) for the most part patriarchal.

we have lets say.... 10,000 years of recorded history? (im not an historian) in all that time there are so few examples of matriarchies, that we are arguing today if there ever were any. so, lets say on the order of 10-20 (im basing this once again on the wiki page "matriarchy"). based on the number of current countries alone, and assuming each country had been divided into smaller bits of on average 10 we get a sample size of at least around 2000. now lets assume for the moment, that every thousand years or so society changes, and were have a sample size of 20,000. so we end up with 20 out of 20,000 that would mean only ONE in 1000 societies is matriarchal. that to me spells an evolutionary advantage.

if my assumptions here are wrong, or you got contradicting evidence feel free to post it.

evolution is everything in this case, since i never argued based off of anything else in this thread. i did not state "patriarchy is better because xxx" i stated "matriarchies are an evolutionarily inferior model", big difference.

are the Iroquois still matriarchal? are they still there? i assume this is a native american tribe, im not exactly privy to top tier knowledge there. imho it doesnt qualify because 1) source? 2) i would assume the top guy was still the chief? again, not an expert here. 3) matriarchy would imply female dominance, im not sure what youre discribing is truely dominance.

[–]TheGDBatman -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]billet -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]charlie_gillespie -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eulabeia 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhamBamMaam 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SRSLovesGawker 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eulabeia 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhamBamMaam 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm aware of what actual patriarchy is, and it's completely different from what feminists claim it is. Patriarchy is a system run by men for the benefit of the species (women and children, basically, but ultimately just women, since you can always make more children if you have women), that frequently develops as a result of human nature. While our society is no longer patriarchal, we still see the patriarchal ideal that women should be protected and advantaged present throughout most aspects of society, because this is an average human ideal. In patriarchy, women are not objects to be desired, they are treasures to be protected. Men are not violent criminals, they are disposable objects that must constantly prove their value (which can result in becoming, or being labeled as, a violent criminal).

In order to become truly egalitarian we must shed the belief that women inherently deserve protection and men don't.

[–]InLoveWithKueppers -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saint2e 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]posting_time -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can understand the point you're making here, and I do think the infographic could be more broadly-acceptably shared if that language were different, but I also understand the anger towards the subject. False paternity strikes me as a genuinely despicable, dehumanizing, fraud that can be perpetrated against a man and against which the man has no recourse whatsoever: once named as the "father," (an automatic process in many locales--linked often simply to marriage or even just relationship with the mother) a man has no legal capability to relinquish the title and is obligated to continue supporting the child even when and if he discovers the fraud. It's a joke perhaps beyond any other cruelty to convince a man that a child of another's is his own, and to allow him to spend his life believing in such a lie is a cosmic kind of fraud; a subversion of the singular motivation shared by all known forms of life--procreation.

I somewhat recently learned that, very bizarrely and sadly, paternity tests are banned in France, and that the legality of this ban was upheld by the French supreme court. France has decided that its men neither need nor deserve to know whether they are biological fathers, and that attempts to determine this truth can be punished by weighty fines and potential prison time. It may have been this article that convinced me of my belief that men truly need an effective advocacy movement to speak on their behalf, much in the way that the Feminist movement advocates on behalf of women.

[–]Frankly_No 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NecroBumpist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spamallthethings 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JaydenPope 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhamBamMaam 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]metalocality 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThrownByTheWind 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FG_SF 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]physics-teacher 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FG_SF1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]nonservator 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MeNoGotName 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BigD1970 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]clockworkgirl21 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SJW_Scum 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It costs money to go to a doctor who may help. You also lose money when you're not working.

I felt guilty for going to a doctor about a UTI I had. I went because it was there for a week and some OTC antibiotics hadn't killed it. I don't have insurance, so I pay out of my dad's pocket.

The doctor told me I had…a urinary infection. Thanks, Captain Obvious. He then wanted to charge me a few hundred for STD testing. He also refused to write me a prescription for antibiotics despite the fact that whether it was a UTI or any of the STDs which he suggested it could be are would all respond to antibiotics. He treated me like an idiot that runs around having unprotected sex with unknown partners.

Then he uses a univariate statistic from the CDC: men < 35 are more likely to have a STD than a UTI to determine that I had a STD to upswell testing. Despite the complete lack of any other STD symptoms (discharge, bumps, tenderness), and the filling in every box for UTI symptoms except kidney pain (I read the chart while he stepped out).

I declined and got some stronger antibiotics from someone else. 1 week later and it's gone.

Meanwhile, my dad is running the family business with an aching back, major loss of hearing in one ear (he had a surgery for that, 66% chance improvement 33% reduction in hearing—guess how that turned out), and chronic insomnia. But he can't afford to go to the doctor, because my mom can't deal with the stress. There's a household of 6 he's supporting, including my sister who us in college. If he doesn't manage the business, who will?

I've got multiple diagnosed mental disorders and a mom who is on/off toxic. I could easily file for disability and mooch along in life. But I'm not going to. Because someone else needs to step up to plate to run the business. I don't want to see my dad working until he's on his deathbed.

If not me, then who? Some must suffer in life so others may have the freedom to enjoy it.

[–]GodOfAThousandForms 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nonservator 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthewmora 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocketman0739 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]matthewmora -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]punxpunx54 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frankly_No 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FG_SF 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salm9n 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phrodo_00 26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AtheistConservative -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fucking assholes like you can never be happy about posts here, can you?

Do you really think the numbers have swung substantially? Not some minor variation, but a swing large enough to discredit the point?

This is a fucking poster not a goddamn doctoral dissertation. OP is under no obligation to satisfy you and your ilk's infinite standards.

Christ, how do you even function? "I was planning on following these google map directions, but then I remembered that Google didn't cite any studies proving that this route is correct. Oh well, I guess I'll just stay home and have some OJ. OH SHIT! That study showing that natural fruit juices are good for you was like 10 years old. Even though I have a study that backs common sense and general human consensus, I can't be sure. Time to petition the FDA to do another study."

[–]matthewmora -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]vinpannn 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

She has a point. These statistics should be taken from as recent as possible lol. don't know why you fucking idiots are downvoting this person

[–]matthewmora 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]somekidonfire -14 points-13 points-12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]hugged_at_gunpoint -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Bubuloo -17 points-16 points-15 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cravf 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bubuloo 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Verius 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRadBaron 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Breast cancer does receive slightly disproportionate funding (mostly from public fundraising campaigns), but is a very common cancer, and it lends itself fairly well to study. It's a much bigger deal than prostate cancer and should receive more funding. Colorectal cancer (and to a lesser extent, lung cancer) is grossly underfunded compared to breast cancer, though.

Also, the disproportionate hours worked by males roughly equals out to the disproportionate childcare/homework done by females. The common narrative that women work double shifts and have it harder than men is wrong, but your statistic there is misleading/useless.

And to be fair, there are more male homeless but more female in poverty.

Otherwise, it could be presented a lot less vitriolically in order to actually educate people. Keep the opinionating out, just leave the statistics, which you did a good job with.

[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Astrogat 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saurabh1996 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hoogles 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tsuketsu 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]billndotnet 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wanderingartist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theamorouspanda 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xanthan81 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sonaht23 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intensely_human 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Indrid_Cold23 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]veyron1001 -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Szechuan221 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Astrogat 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]whitey_sorkin -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]VolumeZero 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gragoo 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]VolumeZero -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mrkickling -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]bluekirara -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gragoo -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Parralyzed 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TwiceBakedProduction 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]comhcinc -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Dullahan3470 -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Male privilege
Author	Redditorial2
Upvotes	1621
Comments	314
Date	October 21, 2013 3:42 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ovo6u/male_privilege/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/male-privilege.1160789 https://theredarchive.com/post/1160789

Comments