~ archived since 2018 ~

"What Will We Concede To Feminism": UPDATE

AlexReynard

July 3, 2013

927 upvotes

A while ago I posted a thread with that title. The response to it was... disappointing.

Someone in the comments wanted to know whether I had asked the same thing over on r/feminism. What would they concede to the MRM? I thought that was a fair point, so I went over there, saw that they had a whole subreddit just for asking feminists stuff, so I did.

I attempted twice ( Here and here ) to do so. Time passed without a single upvote, downvote or comment. These posts did not show up on their frontpage or their 'new' page, and searching for the title turned up nothing. I wasn't even aware this kind of thing could be done to a post. I sure as hell don't know how.

And now, after asking some questions at r/AskFeminism, they've banned me. Both subs. No explanation given. To the best of my knowledge I broke no rules.

So, congratulations MRM. Even though most of you defiantly refused my challenge/experiment/whatever, you nevertheless win because at least you fucking allowed me to ask it. I sure as hell prefer being insulted and downvoted, because at least that's direct. At least you're allowing me my view and responding with yours.

I'm absolutely disgusted with them. There are few feelings I hate more than expecting people to act like adults and being disappointed 100% completely.

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	"What Will We Concede To Feminism": UPDATE
Author	AlexReynard
Upvotes	927
Comments	1470
Date	July 3, 2013 8:19 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1hk1cu/what_will_we_concede_to_feminism_update/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-will-we-concede-to-feminism-update.1169629 https://theredarchive.com/post/1169629

Comments

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 43 points44 points45 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]girlwriteswhat 120 points121 points122 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

What I find absolutely hilarious is that the question "What are feminists willing to concede to the MRM" in /r/AskFeminists was removed/ignored not once, but twice. Yet this thread seems to be overrun with feminists.

What the heck does that tell you about the difference between feminists and MRAs?

It seems apparent that feminists aren't prepared to concede anything to the MRM, since they won't even allow the question to be considered, but judging by their comments in this thread, they feel entitled to all kinds of concessions from MRAs, and despite excluding MRAs from their own space, are willing to barge into an MRM thread to do it.

Not only an MRM thread, but an MRM thread specifically dedicated to the fact that feminists appear unwilling to make any concessions to MRAs.

Just finding it funny is all.

[–]giegerwasright 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lrpg 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Workchoices1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrBackpack 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Green_armour 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LordIntrepid 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I will admit to a slight giddiness at attracting your attention. Thank you very much for all your videos; you are a huge reason why I'm an MRA. I feel like asking for an autograph. ;)

I have seen at least one feminist answer the challenge and give a rather nice list of things they agree with MRMs about, but you're right that they're the exception.

I still stand behind my original intentions; that we can't let ourselves slip into seeing feminists as this nebulous 'other'. In one of my conversations on the original post, someone told me that he believes that hardcore feminists are "insects", then added, "not even human." We can't be like that. I'll agree with RBK's video that some anger and distrust towards women is allowable. I'll agree that it's fine to hate the everliving shit out of feminism the ideology. But we can't tolerate pseudospeciation. As I've said, if we don't want to become them, we've got to recognize the warning signs. And dehumanizing your opponents is probably the biggest one. (Another is, 'The behavior we hate when it happens to us is okay when we do it to them because they deserve it'.)

In my experience, the best way to handle an opponent that cheats is to steadfastly stick to civility and let them act more and more juvenile towards you. They'll get their 'win', and also expose their true self in front of anyone watching.

[–]hallashk-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hey GWW,

First of all, I really do appreciate your videos. Your one on male disposability was excellent, and really did change my view. I really appreciate your scientific and measured approach in your critiques. That said, he wasn't blocked due to his viewpoints. I express MRA-like viewpoints all the time there, and I have not been blocked.

/r/AskFeminists is designed such that you ask a question, and then it gets answered by feminists, and then those answers can be discussed by anyone.

A top level comment isn't the comment with the most upvotes, it's a comment in direct response to the question. I made a diagram below to explain.

Question by anyone

-->Reply by Feminist

---->Reply by anyone

------>Reply by anyone

---->Reply by anyone

-->Reply by Feminist

He broke the top level comment rule, due, I believe, to miscommunication.

[–]girlwriteswhat19 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm friendly with the person who started that subreddit, and was involved in several discussions as to what the purpose and theme of it would be, before it was even launched.

What it has become is NOT what its original purpose was in the vision of its creator. She wanted to divert feminism vs MRA arguments away from /r/feminism, after several long time /r/feminism subscribers had complained they didn't want to participate or even read anymore because of all the MRM invasions.

It was supposed to be an arena of open debate between feminists and MRAs, gloves off, no holds barred. The name of the subreddit was unfortunate, as it gave feminists the idea that it was their space, where they could dictate the rules of engagement, rather than an open forum.

I participated there a few times. I recall one thread that sat unanswered for days, then I posted a reply and was reprimanded (by users, not mods) for having the gall to be an anti-feminist not allowing feminists to speak first in /r/askfeminists. Eventually, the users coerced the mods into tighter moderation that pandered more and more to the feminist subscribers.

The creator of the subreddit seems to no longer be affiliated with it. I'm not sure whether that was because it has strayed so far from her original vision due to pressure from feminist subscribers, or whether it was a doxxing threat she received a while ago.

But I want you and everyone to know that the rules as listed in the sidebar are NOT what the creator had in mind when she launched the subreddit. Not by a long shot.

She's a feminist (nominally, anyway), but an honest one (as far as all my dealings with her are concerned), and I have a great deal of respect for her. That sidebar is pathetic, given her original vision for the subreddit, and what it could have been.

Edited for clarity and context

[–]pocketknifeMT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hallashk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]avantvernacular 42 points43 points44 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thedevguy 166 points167 points168 points 13 years ago* (73 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 122 points123 points124 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]NorthernSpectre 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 94 points95 points96 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]intrepiddemise 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it's a very human inclination to brand someone who is part of your in-group but decides to leave it and fight against what you are fighting for a "traitor". Of course, many women don't find a natural kinship with other women in as much as they see their entire sex as on the "same side". Calling a woman a "traitor" for fighting against feminism only makes sense if you accept that all women are naturally bonded and are expected to fight for a common cause.

This also tends to explain the hatred by many feminists toward male-to-female transexuals; male-to-female transsexuals are often treated as "infiltrators" or "pretenders" and ostracized. They are not part of the "in-group", and are no longer an easily-identified enemy. Almost like a "spy".

On the flip side, many men who fight the MRM and advocate feminism are called "traitors" by MRAs, as well. To me, the difference here is that "feminism" has many meanings and is a loaded word. I do not think many MRAs would call a man who considers himself an "egalitarian" a traitor to his sex. At the same time, I doubt many feminists would call women who are egalitarians "traitors", either; only those who go over to the side of being an MRA.

In the mind of many feminists, MRAs are "anti-woman". In the minds of many MRAs, feminists are anti-man. The real question is the degree to which either of the above beliefs are objectively true.

edit: changed a few acronyms for clarity

[–]chaz345 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]4man 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaz3451 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]4man1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz3451 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 36 points37 points38 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnPeel 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reallynow33 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnPeel 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]reallynow33 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]portll1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DatToolbox 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbignate 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]4man 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Admiral_Nowhere 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sunbiscuit 56 points57 points58 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jenycroispas 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]4man2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]4man1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jenycroispas1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jenycroispas1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jenycroispas1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]johndoe421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bumwine-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bumwine-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bumwine-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bumwine1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have read it. I have looked at it a dozen times for my own personal curiosity because it encapsulates so much about the MRA movement.

If one has a solid ethical basis they know there is no such thing as "asking for it." Bottom line. As in, if they even question this, they need to start over. You pretty much fuck yourself in the head with a paradox where you literally believe that the person with the most power in the situation, really doesn't, and the victim really holds the cards. Its a bad position cognitively, filled with lots of unpleasant dissonance.

As for you personally, no disrespect but I don't think you are either a trained Psychologist or Sociologist to know any of that beyond an ideological need to put the blame on the recipient of the violence. If you are, please, please offer me something a tiny bit substantial than what you've given me.

[–]AceyJuan0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem with a "solid ethical basis" is that you're coming at the problem with preconceived notions. If you really, really want to understand why people do the strange things they do, then you must approach with a clean mind. Look at the behaviors, and try to imagine some possible reason or benefit. Test your theory by looking at animal behavior. See if you can find any corollaries. Only then can you hope to understand.

Now, I don't have the answers. I haven't seen a study which explains the things I've seen. But I've certainly seen behaviors I can't explain any other way than "asking for it." I've also seen those people change those bad behaviors, but I can't say that everyone would.

Until I see the research I'm open to this being a mental disorder or an adaptive behavior I don't understand. You're taking the strange approach of denying that it exists. Perhaps you should get to know more people, and stop bringing your preconceptions into their relationships.

[–]AlexReynard[S] 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]owlbi 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Douggem0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blinderzoff 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Byarlant 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]VoodooIdol-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Baqtobassix1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRMRising 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noel_S_Jytemotiv 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]4man 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JLBlast 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KRosen333 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Good on you for trying to figure things out. I'm gonna look at that now, I am curious. I do not have much hope (I'm pretty antifeminist) but I like to give everyone a fair shake :)

edit:

They weren't banned for their threads/questions, but for repeated crossing of our posting rules, in particular: top level comments must come from feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective.

This rule is repeatedly stated in our sidebar.

Edit: this thread is currently being brigaded - temporarily removed until tomorrow.

eh.. yeah. no use.

edit2:

I'm sorry but from the sound of it you didn't even read AlexReynard's original post regarding this and have a poor understanding of what he was trying to achieve.

I can see why the threads were closed now.

I'm going to leave before I hit my head on the ceiling anymore.

It's been my.......privilege.

HA!

[–]AlexReynard[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

There are a lot of men's rights activists who grew up feminists, so it's not like we don't know what feminism is. The fact is, feminism is wrong in a fundamental way and that extends to just about every aspect of the movement or activism done in it's name.

The only things that you could concede to feminism is this ideal of gender equality, which they themselves do not actually follow or strive for(gender equality, under the premise of feminism, is not even close to being equal), and the positive changes/support it has accomplished for women(which not only could have been accomplished by any other means or any other movement but that still went too far in many regards and were often at the expense or detriment of men).

The fact is, feminism promotes itself through sexism and chauvinism(something which is allowed from women and yet never truly addressed in society); purposefully excludes, demonizes, shames and alienates men(despite selling itself as a movement for equality); and it warps the ideals of equality and the realities of life to further fit their own misandric/gynocentric ambitions.

The fact that there are "good feminists", who generally don't really understand what feminism is, what it has accomplished, what it is founded on, and who have taken on this delusional ideal of what they want feminism to be(typically out of a sheer sentiment of gender solidarity, sexism or this desire to be within a female majority at all times), does not mean that feminism is good or that it needs to be defended.

At best, those people are closeted gender egalitarians that are being obstructed by this false flag of feminism. At worse, they aren't genuine at all and couldn't care less about men or their problems, and are actually trying to portray feminisms in a light that isn't even remotely close to what it actually is. Either way, feminism needs to end and make way for genuine gender equality actually to move forward.

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]masterofthehaus0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]masterofthehaus0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except that feminism has never fought for any of these things for men, and in a lot of ways still gets in the way of equality and progress for men. Gender equality under the lens of feminism, that is patriarchy and the systematic oppression of women by men, is not really equality, it is a justification for misandry and female favoritism. Ending violence and rape for women is something that feminism has done for women but that has completely ignored and belittled for men historically.

Same thing for providing shelters. It's something that feminism has advocated for and made possible for women but actually pursued the complete opposite for men; if not even barring all access for men from those shelters to provide a "safe space" and projecting men as the enemy(rather than abusers). Feminism has also done nothing during it's life-time to end gender roles, education gaps and judicial gaps that were detrimental to men or beneficial to women(because that would men pissing off or alienating women), and instead defended or glorifying them.

All these goals, viewed from a gender egalitarian perspective, are completely contradictory to feminism's base ideology and history. Decades worth not only doing nothing for men but vilifying men and monopolizing all gender discourse so that everything male suffering/experience gets ignored or dismissed demonstrates that feminism has no interest in gender equality. As long as the gynocentric/misandric aspect of feminism exists, which is a core tenet of feminism, it will never be a movement for equality.

What we need a equality, incorporating both men and women's rights. As long as feminists continue to cling on to this old, sexist and harmful label, they are a detriment to that cause of equality, and they demonstrate that they are more interested in supporting a label, or female solidarity, than actually doing something about gender inequality. Men's rights supporters have already established that they support equality, feminists need to do the same by shedding the title of feminist and moving forwards with gender equality.

[–]EricDisco1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But, again, still focusing on women's issues only. Men, even back in the 60's and 70's, had just as many issues and they were just as important(like, conscription, the only reason men had the right to vote in the first place). The right to vote for women, I think, would have come around eventually(just like it did for ethnic minorities). Workplace discrimination and reproductive rights were also fought for but only for women, only in ways which help women(no feminist ever fought against the glass cellar, where men still take the brunt of that, or for men being discriminated against in the workplace) and often even at the expense of men(like, overzealous workplace practices that vilify men and ruin lives, or further reproductive resources for women to alienate, hurt or pursue unwilling or unknowing fathers). The motivation and justifications from feminism has always been the same, and that is where the main issues lie, and all these chages could still have been accomplished by any other egalitarian effort.

[–]theskepticalidealist3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While women were not getting the vote millions of men were fighting and dying for their country many of which were not even eligible to vote either. Women ended up getting the vote without any of the social obligations men had. In 2005 Kuwait only then gave women the vote, but now women have more voting rights than men do since men are still forced into military service and in that service they cannot vote but you dont hear anything about that from feminists. And so it is with feminism generally, advocating rights for women but not the obligations and responsibilities that were tied to those rights, and revising history so we only see men as oppressing women for apparently no other reason that they just want sex slaves and baby makers. They are so exclusively focused on the needs of women its completely blinkered them and they have built entire theories of social dynamics around it.

[–]masterofthehaus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I eventually realized that feminism was not even coming close to living up to the promises it had made, and that I had been raised to believe(in a sense, feminism is kind of a religion in that it tends to target young and bully you into it; convincing you that if you don't follow it, you just hate women), or the goals it had allegedly established. That while it continued to put forward this notion of equality, its motivations, interests and actions were about as unequal as they could ever be. Every time a men's rights issue was brought up it was simply shoved under the carpet or used as a justification to call us misogynists. Every time I suffered as a result of being a man, because of sexist double-standards or misandry, I was told that it didn't matter, that I was on my own, to suck it up and/or that my problems didn't matter because of patriarchy. Every time there was misandry, it was defended by feminism. I also got fed up of trying to defend a movement that not only had no interest in defending me, because I am a man or a male feminist, but that would also continue to perpetually misrepresent, vilify, attack and harm men(romantically, sexually, judicially, socially, professionally and systematically).

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All it took for me was stumbling onto some MRA sites after getting out of a moderately abusive relationship with a women. At first I had a really hard time agreeing with a lot of the sentiments I was reading, but I stayed around since I was also seeing some new opinions that I found very compelling, and hearing stories from other men who had had similar experiences with women to the ones I'd had. In time I came to agree with pretty much all of the MRM's main issues.

I think the biggest difference between my views now and the feminist views I held earlier is that the feminist views were more or less something that I had been 'programmed' to believe since childhood by my mother, teachers, and especially college instructors. I was always a 'good student' and more or less regurgitated what I was taught in order to get good grades. Whereas when I actually started applying critical thought (10 years after graduating college) I saw that I agreed more with the MRA's.

[–]TheJollySatan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 69 points70 points71 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

I'd like to point out that both your thread, and answers (including my own) that did list things the commenter considered women's rights issues had more upvotes than downvotes. You had a bad response but that bad response, though close, was not the majority.

I think a major difference between the MRM and Feminism is that in the MRM those with power - be they respected bloggers (or youtubers), mods in this very sub, or 'IRL' advocates tend to be moderates with egalitarian goals who simply consider MR to be far more important to true equality from where we are in society now.

In feminism, on the other hand, while a lot of the community are moderate those with the power (like the mods you've experienced) tend to be vocally against men's rights, often to the point of open misandry. The moderate community is then afraid to speak out or question this, lest they be labelled 'one of them', or simply excluded from the space in question.

The result is exactly what you experienced - ask the MRM about women's issues and you'll get a mixture of opinions. Ask feminism about the MRM and you'll get shit flung at you.

[–]AlexReynard[S] 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'd like to point out that both your thread, and answers (including my own) that did list things the commenter considered women's rights issues had more upvotes than downvotes. You had a bad response but that bad response, though close, was not the majority.

Here's the thing; when I made that edit to my original post, the current top comment was near the bottom. In the last twelve hours or so, that thread has gotten a SHITLOAD more activity and, to my happy surprise, some of the comments have changed places.

I think a major difference between the MRM and Feminism is that in the MRM those with power - be they respected bloggers (or youtubers), mods in this very sub, or 'IRL' advocates tend to be moderates with egalitarian goals who simply consider MR to be far more important to true equality from where we are in society now.

True, and I'm glad for it. A little anecdote: when I was first starting out exploring gender issues I made posts on both the Atheism+ forums and AVFM forums, pretending to be from the other side in each place, and wanting to see how both of them would deal with civil disagreement. At AVFM, Paul Elam openly hated the shit out of me. Called me a hopelessly brainwashed feminist and said it was useless for anyone else to even talk to me. ...But he didn't use his admin power to forcibly shut me up. I admire the hell out of someone who opposes me totally but does so with honor.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My experience at the Atheism+ forums was like hearing about a party in a neighborhood that's rumored to be pretty hostile to your kind. But you go anyway, hoping that people will act like adults. And for a while, you're pleasantly surprised. Good, solid discussion. Civil disagreement. But then some bullies arrive. Bullies who bump into you and talk about how offensive your presence is to them. And then more people who act like this show up, and they kind of herd you into a corner, and suddenly the only topic being discussed is you as a person; how you must have had a secret malicious motive in coming here. Everything you say to these people is used as evidence of what a hostile and dangerous person you are. The people who you were having intelligent conversation with a little while ago are now either nowhere to be seen, or they've joined in with the bullies in picking you to shreds. They don't actually force you to leave, they just do everything in their power to make the atmosphere so excruciating that you'll leave on your own. But you think to yourself, "Fuck that! Screw these rude dishonest bastards!" and you stay despite them, taking their insults and letting themselves show more and more just how ugly they can be. When the host of the party finally does kick you to the curb for being 'disruptive', it's a relief.

edit:grammar

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]satanicwaffles 13 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

You have hit the nail on the head. The vocal members of the feminist community fight back against anything that the MRM views as important, whether is is important or not. If a feminist agrees with the MRM on anything, they are now "helping the patriarchy." While most don't have this view in the feminist movement, this is what the general public sees.

This view is damaging to feminism as a whole. There are very real issues that face both women AND men. Belittling a section of the community for trying to tackle problems that both genders face doesn't help anyone.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeorgeMaheiress0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think another difference between the darlings of the MRM and the darlings of feminism is that those of the MRM don't look for every reason they can find to catch a case of the vapors and call for their fainting couch. For example, were I to say to GWW "Bitch, you cray. What you just said is wrong because blah blah blah," she would not derail the conversation into accusing me of misogyny and rape apology for calling her a crazy bitch. She might address it, she might say "Bitch, who cray now?" but there would be a lengthy and informed response to the "blah blah blah" part and at most a perfunctory response to the "bitch" part. Because she stays on topic. As do most of the more recognizable figures here. But if you say that to a feminist, she will ignore everything else and focus on the "bitch" part. Because she doesn't actually have a reasonable position against the "blah blah blah" part.

Did that make sense?

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noel_S_Jytemotiv 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]KRosen333 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Klang_Klang 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]CameronNemo 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Space_Ninja1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CameronNemo1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Space_Ninja1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klang_Klang16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klang_Klang9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sillymod6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sillymod2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sillymod5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sillymod1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BIGSEXYBALLS 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AeneaLamia1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pikk 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I have yet to see even a rather extreme MR forum that is equally restrictive of free speech as an average feminist forum.

I did once do an experiment when I was first starting to explore gender issues where I went to the Atheism+ forums and the AVFM forums, wanting to see how both of them dealt with civil dissent. I eventually got banned from both, both times for dishonest reasons, but the whole experience at A+ was far worse. Five days worth of being personally attacked and insulted until it felt like my chest was carved out empty, as opposed two days at AVFM with mostly productive dialogue and one loud bully who a mod believed over me.

I don't know if it's a man/woman thing (men being more comfortable with conflict while women seem to prefer consensus) or a faith/reason thing (feminism is based on unflinching loyalty to the theology, MR started out by questioning established doctrine) or a combination but for some reason feminists have a real problem with free speech.

I really like Howard Bloom's observation that when you've got an either/or question like that, the answer is usually 'both'. Guys do seem more comfortable with conflict, in my observation, and feminism is built to encourage ideological thinking. Whereas the MRM may have ideologues, but at least we don't have something like Patriarchy Theory justifying it.

If they could "pull the fire alarm" on the internet and shut down conflicting speech as readily as they can in real life they would.

That, I do not doubt. I've seen some articles about how women simply do not understand the concept of personal honor. Like, 'Why it is wrong to win by cheating'. It's the kind of ugly idea I don't want to be true, but it's hard not to given what I've seen with my own eyes.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MS2point01 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1786 points1787 points1788 points 13 years ago*4 (1139 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the MRM is much less into speech-policing than the institutionalized feminist movement.

Probably because the latter has totally been binging on the social-linguistic-constructivism Sapir-Whorf kool-aid for decades. Also, because they see any attempt to talk about "teh menz" as an attempt to reinforce the Patriarchy (this is due to their basic characterization of the gender system as a Class Struggle). According to their worldview, talking about Teh Menz is distracting people from the "fundamental" oppression of women by men, which just obstructs any attempts to get rid of the Patriarchy.

Hence, their ideology cannot coexist with free speech (and why they mock "free speech" as "freeze peach"). To be fair, "free speech" in a LEGAL context simply means not prosecuting people for their statements (as long as these statements are not coercive/fraudulent)... but "free speech" outside of a legal context can ALSO mean open and robust discussion and debate - and as you've just seen, this kind of free speech can't coexist with the kind of feminism that dominates the gendersphere.

But you know what? I'll answer your question re. concessions to feminism. Keep in mind that I answer only for myself.

I actually AGREE with the Classical Liberal feminists. I also agree with the early (non-radical) Second Wave feminists who simply argued that gender stereotypes were constraining women's indivduation. The Feminine Mystique had a few excesses (like comparing the 50's household to a concentration camp in a particularly hyperbolic metaphor, as well as the economic reductionist explanation that Friedan offered for gender stereotypes), but it wasn't a misandric text (indeed, it expressly condemned seeing men as "the enemy").

The basic case which these two kinds of feminism made were: 1. Men and women are both equally human and thus deserve equal treatment/status in the eyes of the law (and society generally). 2. Cultural stereotypes and gender norms are limiting and anti-individualist.

In my opinion, almost all MRAs would actually agree with both of these statements.

The common thread that the kinds-of-feminism-I-support (the kinds of feminism which simply promoted the above two propositions) were methodologically and culturally individualist. The Classical Liberal goal of equality under the law and the cultural goal of self-empowerment to live how one wants to (screw stereotypes) are key components of the Western Enlightenment-Individualist line of thought.

But today's feminist movement? They've utterly abandoned it.

The Radical Second Wave was the turning point - they are the feminists who invented Patriarchy Theory. They took Marxism as a template and cast gender issues as a Class Struggle - an oppressor class (capitalists/men), an oppressed class (workers/women), an all-pervasive social system forming the base of our society which institutionalizes and perpetuates the dominance of the oppressors over the oppressed (capitalism/patriarchy), etcetera.

The key point of divergence is that the Radical Second Wave were outright methodological collectivists. They believe we're all indoctrinated social constructs who only think we think, that we're just mindless conduits for the greater "systemic" social forces that REALLY pull the strings.

And it is THESE feminists who basically siezed control of the feminist movement, the academy, etc. The third wave feminists are their watered-down intellectual descendents... sure, the Third Wavers don't see Patriarchy as the fundamental social system (this is the whole "intersectionality" thing) but otherwise they're pretty much Diet Radfem.

Methodological Collectivism is a complete rejection of the Enlightenment-Individualist attitude. And the feminist movement of today is based upon it. Look at how these feminists attack classical liberal feminists, look at how these feminists all have the same progressive-left politics, etc.

The MRM, in many ways, is actually the true inheritor of the legacies of the methodologically individualist kinds of feminism. Warren Farrell's case in The Myth of Male Power is the same argument made by the non-radical Second Wavers, but applied to men. Also note the strong presence of libertarians/classical liberals in the MRM - libertarianism/classical liberalism is invariably predicated upon methodological individualism. An interesting point is that Warren Farrell has also worked with the individualist feminist Wendy McElroy, a Rothbardian free-market anarchist (and a sex-positive feminist who has written multiple book-length critiques of anti-porn feminism (the school of thought that included such infamous radfem loony-luminaries as Dworkin and MacKinnon)).

So, what would I concede to the Radical Second Wave or Third Wave feminists? Only a few incidental points. I agree that culturally, we seem to be very used to seeing sexual penetration as an act of conquest and defilement... but I don't think that is exclusively misogynistic and I don't think that it is a product of androsupremacist attitudes. And I don't think that sexual attitudes are inevitably like this in our society.

I also think that the Third Wave definition of "rape culture" (cultural expectations/tropes/stereotypes which can enable/incentivize/encourage rape, even if unintentionally) denotes a valid concept, however most Rape Culture which affects women is challenged regularly. Rape Culture that affects men gets glossed over far too often, and is rarely socially opposed.

I also think that, used in the purely technical sense, there is some level of "male privilege." However, I think that the same is true of female privilege. I also believe that feminists greatly overuse/overstate, and often MISuse, the concept... "male privilege" has become a silencing and shaming tactic. Additionally, a lot of so-called "male privilege" only applies to gender-normative men, thus it is in fact "'real man' privilege" rather than male privilege.

That said, these are minor points of limited agreement. I basically reject the entire theoretical underpinning of Radical Second Wave Feminism, and by extention Third Wave Feminism (which is somewhat different but not hugely since they share most of their intellectual DNA).

So any concessions I'd make to (R2W/3W) Feminism would be superficial. "Rape is bad," "DV is bad" etc. etc. are all things I absolutely agree with, but they're hardly the essential components of the beliefs of the institutionalized Feminist movement.

I hope that answers your question.

[–]ToraZalinto 825 points826 points827 points 13 years ago (619 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 59 points60 points61 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rattatoskk 146 points147 points148 points 13 years ago (616 children) | Copy Link

Right?

I'll concede a hell of a lot to the early feminist movement's work.

The right to vote? To own property separate from a woman's husband? Bodily autonomy? Entry to the workforce? Access to higher education?

I agree with all these things. But see the problem? These goals have all been met.

So, what is left of feminism? Mostly it's just complaining about bad things happening in places we can't go, or a general "feeling" of oppression.

And the endless parade of farcical statistics and lies.

One of the few areas that I would agree with feminists is the surface desire to have greater research done on social problems.

But, I do not approve of the sociological quackery that all modern feminist studies are based upon. I would like some real science, with some fair controls and variables be used.

Hrmm.. My concessions basically go "If it sounds common sense and just, I agree with the sentiment, but require the sentiment to actually be carried out in practice, rather than a self serving ploy."

What feminism says and does don't match, you know?

So.. I agree with the idea of equality and egalitarianism. The rest is nebulous goal-shifting, lies, and self-victimizing. So.. how can I agree with any of that?

[–]0xD153A53 152 points153 points154 points 13 years ago (119 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomTheNurse 59 points60 points61 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedanleave 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lostprophet83 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]evaphoenix66 64 points65 points66 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

As you say this is a problem of all "career" activists. In my experience it manifest itself most strongly in political activists rather than feminist. For example in my country (El Salvador) the current goverment used to be a revolutionary guerrilla force a few years ago. And despite the fact that they "won", have a president in office and they control congress, they are always talking about this "huge capitalist goverment-industry" that undemines the people, the revolution this and that, like they can't wrap their heads around that they are in charge now, and they can and should back up all the crap they used to preach. I have come to believe that indeed winning and actually making a change is not their real goal, their personal goal is to always be Luke Skywalker fearlesly fighting the Empire.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lazydragon69 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]duloz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bugontherug 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]evaphoenix66 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRighteousTyrant 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ljog42 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bugontherug 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]logicaldreamer 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRighteousTyrant1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ljog421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]evaphoenix661 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bugontherug2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I just cannot agree. Right-wing institutions in America do the same thing, if in different ways.

American movement conservatives love to depict themselves as "misunderstood rebel outsiders" fighting against a leftist behemoth they imagine controls government.

Conservative Christians ceaselessly cast themselves as victims of "persecution." In a society that's still over 80% Christian! In Tennessee, they claimed with no hint of irony that they were being percecuted because the First Amendment forbade them to deny on religious grounds permission to build a mosque.

And have you read Ayn Rand? Astonishingly, she paints the wealthiest industrialists in the world as the victims of persecution by the almighty masses of politically powerful poor people!

I'll never forget in the early 2000s when Fox News portayed the ANWR controversy as "politically megalithic environmental lobby against heroic put upon oil and gas industry." Use some common sense. Who do you think has more money to spread around DC. Exxon corporation? Or the Sierra Club?

Then there's the delusional rightist propaganda portraying labor unions, which are at a historical nadir of influence, as bullying around poor oppressed multinational megacorporations without a friend in the world.

Do you live in America? The idea that anyone could say rightist institutions "don't have this permanent dichotomy that they are the small David fighting a big bad goliath" is well... wow.

My friend, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

edits several, for style and grammar

[–]space2531 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]JustRuss79 13 years ago* [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

As an American reading this, Obama was a long time social agitator who preached "hope and change". Following the edicts of "Rules for Radicals" until he got into power.

He spent his life fighting against "the man", now he IS "the man" and much of what we have seen is the fallout of a man who only knows how to fight "the power" not wield it.

[–]tanstaafl90 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]maBrain 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Bush had full command? One of the strongest narratives of his Presidency was that Cheney was really holding the reigns. That could have totally been an illusion, but my guess is that your perception is just as based on illusions as those who subscribed to that narrative--because those kind of judgements go through so many abstractions before they reach the public. And Clinton powerful? His health care plan got blasted to smithereens and, though he still won reelection, Gingrich and his 'Contract w/ America' homies came in and kicked his nuts across DC.

It's been a while since we've had a 'strong president' and that idea itself is something of a myth. Presidents are either 'strong' because they have the luck of a cooperative Congress or because they illegally overstep the fuck out of their power, a la Lincoln and FDR (and sure, Obama has done the former in some respects, but not in a way that makes him look like an imposing figure). I think that Obama being 'weak' and having been assimilated into the machine is a very poor way of explaining his apparent reversal.

[–]tanstaafl901 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Each President holds the power of one third of the federal government and the ability to talk directly to the american people about policy. Presidents have used this power and ability to shape policy and move the country in new directions. Congress has been forced to comply with presidents despite opposition of either policy or party, sometimes both. weak Presidents find themselves making endless compromises while strong ones tend to have Congressmen/Senators making the compromises. In most cases, it is some combination of both, with the balance of who is directing policy by who is actually backing away from their ideology.

This is simply an observation of power, not an political appreciation of one party/president over another. The Lincoln/FDR example you give is only the extreme end of the scale, though there have been strong, powerful Presidents who haven't led during time where such breaches of the Constitution needed to be explored.

I will, though, state once again that Obama is not as effective or as in command as earlier Presidents. If you want to call that weak, it's your choice, but I think of it as ineffective.

[–]maBrain6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tanstaafl903 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustRuss792 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maBrain3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]proweruser1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bugontherug 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]beardscratches 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]fostulo17 points 13 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wallsie1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fostulo1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zeddikus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]onthefence928 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zeddikus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Images in the media. You mean those images that say all men and dads are idiots and are just going to screw up anything they attempt, while all moms and women know best, are smarter, are more capable, and are constantly correcting dads/his mistakes. What you seem to be recalling is the media in a bygone day. It isn't women portrayed in the media as out to kidnap your kid, out to rape any chance and any where, out to kill you every step you take. Men are both all the boogeymen and butt of every joke on TV. Do you watch the media? It doesn't sound like it.

Oh, and get this... if women are more sexualized in the media, it is because unlike men, women are equally affected by that type of advertising. Tell me, which magazine has more sexually charged images of women? GQ or Vogue? It is not a conspiracy to control women. It is because women eat it up. And they always have. Whether through the reading of mommy porn (from 50 shades of grey to any trash book in a supermarket with a guy on the cover without a shirt) to all the tabloids and celeb gossip rags. All of that is directed at women because women buy it in droves. Women need to change their tastes. The media is out to make money, not be the moral arbiter for tempforfther's taste.

[–]tempforfather1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]onthefence9282 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quickclickz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bugontherug 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, there's no scale where we can precisely weigh the value of different social institutions relating to gender equity. But in the United States, at least, it's less than clear in moderate to progressive parts of the country whether various gender inequalities favor men when viewed in the aggregate.

1) Family courts still heavily favor women. And they do so in ways that leave many many fathers feeling officially devalued by the state.

2) Assigned gender roles restrict men more than women. Women can realistically choose to pursue careers, or to be homemakers. For most men, the homemaker option just isn't realistic. Yes, I know there are some. But even in New York state, female homemakers vastly outnumber male homemakers.

3) Women retain control of their reproductive destinies post conception. Men do not.

4) Women have more and better birth control options available to them than men.

5) Gender norms governing dress restrict men more than women. In the business world, male apparel options consist in suits with ties. Women can wear pant-suits, skirt-suits, or even appropriate and colorful non-suit attire like certain dresses.

Outside the business world, it is perfectly normal for women to wear clothes once thought to be appropriate only for males, like blue jeans and t-shirts. Yet men cannot, without marking themselves socially deviant, wear clothes long thought appropriate only to females.

Don't take this list as comprehensive. But it clearly covers some central aspects of life where gender inequalities favor women.

[–]Ripowal-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1) Fathers get custody of their child/ren 50% of the time... when they actually ask for it (they frequently don't, which is why women get custody in the majority of cases).

2) You wouldn't consider that this has anything to do with desire? Like, more women choose to be homemakers and more men choose to have careers?

3) Women actually carry a fetus for 9 months in their bodies. Men do not. Their bodies will be permanently damaged, some of them will be gravely injured and some will even die. Men will not.

4) Men's birth control options can usually be picked up for free from health clinics, while women's birth control is much more expensive.

5) This is relegated to the business world, and honestly seems like a non-issue, especially compared to the rest of your points.

Outside the business world, it is perfectly normal for women to wear clothes once thought to be appropriate only for males, like blue jeans and t-shirts. Yet men cannot, without marking themselves socially deviant, wear clothes long thought appropriate only to females.

This is because it's good to be a man and bad to be a woman, so women can dress like men, but men can't dress like women. This is not a bias in favor of women, it's derived from feelings of female inferiority.

[–]bugontherug4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fathers get custody of their child/ren 50% of the time... when they actually ask for it (they frequently don't, which is why women get custody in the majority of cases).

It's case selection. The same reason prosecutors almost always win criminal cases even though they bear a much higher burden of persuasion than defendants.

Men don't ask for custody because their attorneys advise them that seeking custody would be a wasted effort. When they do ask for custody, it's because they have exceptionally strong evidence of maternal unfitness. And I don't mean that in a purely moralistic way: a seriously depressed and suicidal woman would be unfit for custody, even though I personally wouldn't condemn her morally.

You wouldn't consider that this has anything to do with desire? Like, more women choose to be homemakers and more men choose to have careers?

First off, you're completely discounting the impact of gender role enforcement in shaping those desires, if desire is the driving cause. I am a loving, nurturing male by nature. I adore my little boy, and dote over him like crazy. I might very well have been a good homemaker.

But because of the time and place of my upbringing, it just wasn't an option I could even consider. Never mind finding a compatible woman with a "desire" to support a man who doesn't work outside the home. And and whose family and friends wouldn't vehemently object to her taking up with such a louse.

Remember: we're not just asking her to support her husband and kids, but to also take on the risk usually assigned to males of continuing to support them even if the marriage ends. A handful of women would consider that arrangement. The vast majority of women find the idea of supporting a homemaking man ridiculous, even offensive. Men increasingly see what a terrible deal it is for them too, which is why we've seen so many articles in recent years by women griping about the unwillingness of men to "grow up" and just support them already.

So maybe "desire" is the driving force, much as "desire" kept women out of careers in law, science, and management in 1960.

Women actually carry a fetus for 9 months in their bodies. Men do not. Their bodies will be permanently damaged, some of them will be gravely injured and some will even die. Men will not.

Which in no way undermines the proposition that women retain control of their reproductive destinies post conception, while men do not. Or that women may engage in sexual activity without risk of losing control of their reproductive destinies, while men cannot.

But since the desire to avoid unwanted parental responsibilities--a desire roundly condemned when expressed by men post conception--plays no role in why women want the abortion right, I propose a law. A mostly symbolic law, enforceable only against women willing to admit violating it. Specifically, that before obtaining an abortion, a woman swear out an affidavit declaring that her purpose is primarily to avoid the physical burdens of pregnancy, and not to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood.

If the desire to avoid unwanted parental responsibilities isn't a major impetus for abortion, there's no legitimate objection to this law. Women who need it would still be able to obtain abortions to protect their lives and their health. But those unwilling to swear out a false oath would be in the same position as men post conception.

But I believe the desire to avoid unwanted parental responsibilities is the major impetus for most abortions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that either. In fact, I'm part of that unheard segment of America who believes abortion is the most responsible choice for pregnant women who aren't ready to become parents.

And let me be clear too, I'm not saying it's an inequality which can or should be resolved. I'm just saying it is what it is, and that it's part of the picture of gender equity in modern America. It's a big deal, it's a major inequality, and it favors women, not men.

Men's birth control options can usually be picked up for free from health clinics, while women's birth control is much more expensive.

And you get what you pay for. A less reliable method of birth control that interferes with physical sensation, diminishes spontanaity, and undermines intimacy.

Never mind that this, once again, fails to undermine the initial proposition or its social or ethical consequences.

This is relegated to the business world, and honestly seems like a non-issue, especially compared to the rest of your points.

Men who seek to express themselves through their appearance have far fewer options available to them than women. It's not just in clothes either.

Women can choose to wear earrings or not. Men can wear earrings, but risk professional impairment in most occupations if they do so. Women can choose to wear their hair long or short. Men can wear their hair long if they want--and be viewed as presumptively irresponsible. Women can wear makeup or not. Men can wear makeup, and risk being ridiculed as excessively vain or effeminate if they do. And should men seek to express themselves through colorful or adventurous clothing, they can expect to be viciously mocked, stereotyped as homosexual, or worse.

Do social restrictions on male expressiveness matter as much as inequality in life options, family life, and reproduction? Absolutely not. But they matter. And they symbolize a reality taken for granted, which is that in very many ways, men in first world countries are increasingly less free than women.

Do you think requirements elsewhere that women where veils, or scarves, or whatever are part of the picture of gender inequality there? They matter here for men too.

This is because it's good to be a man and bad to be a woman, so women can dress like men, but men can't dress like women.

Weird how that works out to give women more freedom than men.

This is not a bias in favor of women, it's derived from feelings of female inferiority.

Feelings enforced primarily against men.

[–]lulutugeller2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bugontherug1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lulutugeller1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bugontherug1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ripowal1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men don't ask for custody because their attorneys advise them that seeking custody would be a wasted effort.

Citation?

First off, you're completely discounting the impact of gender role enforcement in shaping those desires, if desire is the driving cause.

Don't worry, I agree - that one was just kind of a test, because most often I see MRAs saying that gender roles aren't really at play, and women are just XYZ because of biotruths.

The vast majority of women find the idea of supporting a homemaking man ridiculous, even offensive.

Citation?

So maybe "desire" is the driving force, much as "desire" kept women out of careers in law, science, and management in 1960.

It's still doing that today - except it's gender roles, and all I've seen is MRAs calling women weak and impressionable for letting "opinion" keep them from what they really want.

And let me be clear too, I'm not saying it's an inequality which can or should be resolved. I'm just saying it is what it is, and that it's part of the picture of gender equity in modern America. It's a big deal, it's a major inequality, and it favors women, not men.

I would agree that it may not be reolvable. It's just that men aren't being told what they can and can't do with their genitals by half the population, or told to "keep their legs together" if they don't what a kid, or called murderers/babykillers/sluts, or given extraordinary hurdles like having to go over 200 miles to the nearest clinic, have the doctor be legally forced to lie and tell you that abortion causes breast cancer and that post-abortion syndrome is a thing, and then have to obey whatever arbitrary waiting period that state may have in place (can you be away from your kids that long? from your a job? a woman took medical leave for her abortion and the next two days for recovery, and her pro-life boss fired her because he didn't accept it as a medical procedure, but as murder.) and then have to come back to the clinic, where you may have to wade through a group of pro-life protesters telling you that you're a murderer/going to hell/a monster and throwing pamphlets and hurling insults at you.

I think that reproductive laws as a concept definitely favor women, but I do not think that abortion does "favor" them - yet.

And you get what you pay for. A less reliable method of birth control

Condoms are over 90% effective for free (or very very cheap). Pills are over 95% effective for an average cost of at least $30 a month, IUDS are upwards of $800, and then you get to the hysterectomy/vasectomy range, where it equals out.

undermines intimacy

I don't think most people would say that using a condom makes them less intimate. I could be wrong, but that seems a bit extreme.

Women can choose to wear their hair long or short. Men can wear their hair long if they want--and be viewed as presumptively irresponsible.

And women with short hair are assumed to be lesbians.

Do social restrictions on male expressiveness matter as much as inequality in life options, family life, and reproduction? Absolutely not. But they matter.

Agreed - it just seems so small, especially considering that men are only limited by the stigmatization of the feminine and not a direct attack on their clothing choices.

men in first world countries are increasingly less free than women.

I'm just gonna leave that there.

Weird how that works out to give women more freedom than men. Feelings enforced primarily against men.

Yes, because society subconsciously says "hey, masculinity is good, everyone can dress like a man. But femininity is bad, only women dress like women - men, dress manly because that's good." Men may have fewer choices in their dress, but it's due to the negative connotations of being female rather than a punishment for them.

Also, can I say thank you so much for actually having a rational discussion? You're the first person on this subreddit who's shown more than an ounce of respect or critical thought toward me, and I appreciate it.

[–]bugontherug1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Citation?

I have some personal knowledge of this from my occupational background. I can even explain one major reason the custody system favors women that isn't related to anti-male bias. That's the "possession is 9/10ths of the law" principle.

An attorney will advise a male client inquiring about custody that courts favor awarding custody to whoever the primary caregiver already is. There has to be some good reason for a court to want to break up that established relationship. And because women are usually the primary caregivers, that's one factor that favors them. So in a family where the mother is already the primary caregiver, the male is already disadvantaged at the outset.

that one was just kind of a test, because most often I see MRAs saying that gender roles aren't really at play, and women are just XYZ because of biotruths.

Though I sympathize with many "mens' rights" issues, and feel some grievances are real and worth resolving, I'm uncomfortable with the misogyny in the movement. I don't see why mens' rights advocates should cede gender role enforcement though, because it's pretty clear that gender roles today really do give American women more options than men.

Citation?

I don't know whether you're male or female. I haven't looked at your other posts for clues to figure it out. If you're male, I'm astonished you would pretend not to be aware that earning potential figures prominently in female mate selection, especially in America (less so in countries with less economic inequality though). Some women sort of tend to be in denial about this, so I'd be less astonished to have this proposition questioned by a female.

I haven't done an empirical study, no. I can tell you when I've heard women talk about the idea of supporting a man, they've universally expressed disdain for it. I've never heard a woman speak about the notion positively.

Having switched sides on the "low earning potential/high earning potential divide almost overnight at one point in my life, I can also tell you this: on the low side of that divide, women avoid contact with you. They don't even want to know you. Even the nice ones only talk to you because they feel sorry for you.

But the day my earning potential changed to the "high" column," I had, I kid you not, scandalously young, beautiful women--I want to say "throwing themselves at me"--that's what it felt like to me. Maybe that phrase is too much. It was evident, though, that I had gone from the "unthinkable" to "somewhat of a catch" department very suddenly.

This isn't a "women are whores" complaint. I don't think that any more than I think I'm a cad for preferring scandalously young, beautiful women. Once again, I'm just saying it is what it is, and it's one of those things I'm surprised can't be conceded as common sense.

It's just that men aren't being told what they can and can't do with their genitals by half the population, or told to "keep their legs together"

I vehemently disagree. Let's take a look at some of the comments from another forum discussing the idea of "Roe v. Wade for men," or the proposition that men should be made to assume paternal responsibilities post conception only by consent. However you feel about the idea, this conversation absolutely and completely obliterates your thesis that people aren't about imposing controls on male genital activity.

Some choice quotes, directed at the guy advocating Roe v. Wade for men:

Keep it in your pants, cover it or snip it. Men have choices.

That they didn't want a child to result from it is of no particular moment. It's a very real consequence, which if unpalatable to some particular man, the solution is obvious: don't screw.

Notice too how quickly the comments became personal, with no provocation at all, and progressively moreso as the thread progressed.:

I'm sorry that this is a burden for you because of your unwillingness to take appropriate steps to render a pregnancy so unlikely that it is statistically impossible to result. The methods are there; you just want to whine about them

Excuse me? What does he know about the author's willingness to use birth control? And if you'll read the thread, I don't see him doing much "whining."

I mean, he's typing long paragraphs, but all I'm getting out of it is "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! I don't WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANA wear a condom! I want sex with no responsibilities at all!"

The thread's misandry was thick, personal, and vicious. Take note too of how many variations on the theme for men to "keep your legs closed" we can see. They're everywhere. Can you even imagine someone saying these kinds of things to women in an abortion rights discussion?

The only way to make sure that you don't become a parent is to abstain from that activity.

Your argument really does boil down to "I wanna bareback and have no responsibilities." Who do you expect to take you seriously?

Do you notice how none of the involuntary paternity advocates could argue the issue without resort to personal attacks? Whatever you have to say about the issue, at least the voluntary paternity guy avoided becoming personal. And he made some incisive points, too:

The double standard, as has been demonstrated throughout the thread, is rooted in an archaic and misandric notion that the female libido is noble and worthy of "liberation," while the male libido is sinister, depraved, and must be subdued at all costs, even if that means punishing with babies men who dare to have sex.

It's way past my bedtime, so I can't respond to all your points. But it is nice to have a civil discussion about some of these issues.

[–]Ripowal1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

An attorney will advise a male client inquiring about custody that courts favor awarding custody to whoever the primary caregiver already is. There has to be some good reason for a court to want to break up that established relationship.

This really makes sense – that in cases where custody is disputed, it’s probably less disruptive for kids to stay with the parents they’re already spending the most time with. Unless, of course, that parent is an unfit parent (in which case you probably shouldn’t have had them raising the kids most).

So in a family where the mother is already the primary caregiver, the male is already disadvantaged at the outset.

Yes, but they still win 50% of the time they ask for custody, and since surely the previously discussed gender roles wouldn’t allow the number of mother and father primary caregiver homes to be so evenly split, they’re clearly not as disadvantaged as I’ve seen many MRAs claim – bandying about the “over 80% of mothers win custody cases” figure without mentioning that fathers usually just don’t ask.

Though I sympathize with many "mens' rights" issues, and feel some grievances are real and worth resolving, I'm uncomfortable with the misogyny in the movement.

This exactly. There are very important men’s rights issues, such as the erasure of male victims of rape, male victims of domestic violence, etc. Friendzoning (or as MRAs call it, “dating fraud”, lol) is not an issue. Not having women hit on you when you’re in your work uniform is not an issue. Calling a women’s DV center pretending to be a male victim with a son, having the help line direct you to a hotel for male victims, repeatedly insisting to be housed in a women’s shelter, and then claiming they refused to help you because you were a man is not the honest way to address issues. Trying to take away women’s rights is not the way to address issues (I saw it on this subreddit the other day, when an availed MRA said that (instead of trying to do some activism for men’s reproductive/custody rights) MRAs should just be pro-life so that women won’t have any choices either).

it's pretty clear that gender roles today really do give American women more options than men.

I would have to disagree. Sure, women can choose to have careers or be homemakers, but it’s an either or. If you have kids and a career, society shames you for not raising them. If you really try your best to do both, society derides you for trying to “have it all”. If you stay at home to raise your kids, society says you’re lazy or unambitious. And god forbid you’re a single mother, for which you’re excoriated while single fathers are praised as heros, oh, what bitch could have done this to you?

Some women sort of tend to be in denial about this, so I'd be less astonished to have this proposition questioned by a female.

I am female, I just have trouble seeing this as a major issue. Personally, my boyfriends is dirt poor, especially in comparison to me, but that didn’t affect my decision to date him. Women still talk to him, curiously – could it be that women don’t treat poor men/people as pariahs?

Also, on a less personal note, psychological research shows that women of course do care about wealth… about as much as they care about traits such as attractiveness or sense of humor. It initially seems like they care more about wealth because, in another study of speed dating trends, it was found that men spend the great majority of their time talking about their status (education, job, wealth) while women talked about their values and interests more. Men’s interest in women (via rating system of 1-10) also increased comparably when the woman was wealthier. In another study, researchers found that women were a little more generous with ratings, spreading the importance of different characteristics around more, while men were more unforgiving about an unattractive-looking woman, regardless of her wealth or personality.

Now, this was a series of studies they discussed in a documentary about dating and love, so I don’t have these sources – I understand if you don’t regard them highly.

Let's take a look at some of the comments from another forum discussing the idea of "Roe v. Wade for men," or the proposition that men should be made to assume paternal responsibilities post conception only by consent.

Those comments really are bad. I’ve rarely seen comments like this directed at men in abortion debate. Regardless of whether it’s a cited study or one individual’s story, or whatever, there’s a flood of comments about how women are sluts these days, women do need a pill – an aspirin to hold between their knees, etc. If you actually confront these people about the fact that they aren’t telling men to keep it in their pants, they either straight-up ignore the question, dance around it, or answer along the lines of “but men are supposed to want sex, you can’t tell them to be responsible!”

completely obliterates your thesis that people aren't about imposing controls on male genital activity.

I said that they aren’t being told what they can and can’t do by half the population, not that no one says men should keep it in their pants. There wasn’t a hypothesis there to obliterate.

Can you even imagine someone saying these kinds of things to women in an abortion rights discussion?

Oh boy, buster, are you in for a treat. Honestly, I was floored that you asked this question, as the whole anti-abortion movement is absolutely rife with misogyny and outright hatred. Let me go harvest some comments… and just to help illustrate the depth of “these kinds of the things” they say to women, I’ll limit it to comment in one thread… by one guy… directed only at me.

Hold on to your hat.

Killing your own child is NOT bodily autonomy, it is careless, selfish behavior. Too bad for you that you're so sloppy with your sex life and know nothing of responsibility.

There has been no mention of anyone’s sex life until now, just for clarification.

The rest of your comment was basically just, "bla bla my vagina". Since you're the one who has to worry about pregnancy maybe don't put an ejaculating penis in your vagina and you won't have to worry about killing your babies so you can return to sticking your ass in the air like a cat in heat.

Here he disgustingly absolves men of any responsibility for choosing to have sex and places all of it on women. And is further a disgusting ass.

Don't blame men for what you and other careless women let them do inside YOUR vagina.

This was in response to me pointing out that men also were responsible for their choice to have sex just as much as women.

There's no such thing as slut-shaming, that's just whiny pro-choice rhetoric. If you feel like you're a "slut" and that you should be ashamed there's a reason for that.

Give it a rest with your childish melodrama will you? SMH.

This was in response to research showing that Live Action’s “investigative” videos praised by the pro-life community are dishonestly cobbled together to take phrases out of context after clinic workers are baited by a woman pretending to seek an abortion.

So boo-hoo to your body argument. Saying that a fetus is worth more than a grown woman is really just another fit over your twisted idea that being able to kill your child is the only thing that makes you a priority.

Someone selfish enough to murder a baby, deserves the coat hanger… better yet, how about all abortions is just a bullet to the mothers head? There, problem solved, no unwanted baby, and no selfish whore.

But it is nice to have a civil discussion about some of these issues.

Agreed.

[–]bugontherug1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

they’re clearly not as disadvantaged as I’ve seen many MRAs claim – bandying about the “over 80% of mothers win custody cases” figure without mentioning that fathers usually just don’t ask.

My whole point is that the question of whether or not they asked isn't really probative to the question of disadvantage. I don't ask for blowjobs from total strangers I find attractive. It's not because I don't find the prospect desirable sometimes. It's because I'm pretty sure it isn't going to happen, and that I'll pay some social price for doing so.

For men seeking custody, there is less social price (though there is some to seeking custody and losing), but the significant financial costs of trial, and the possibility of drawing the court's ire and being prejudiced in other ways provides a similar deterrent.

Friendzoning (or as MRAs call it, “dating fraud”, lol) is not an issue.

I'm not acquainted with what MRA people say about this precisely. I do think that women exploit and emotionally abuse men in sometimes subtle ways in the dating world. I would say that when women lead men on to get them to buy them things with no actual romantic interest, that's one of those times.

"Dating fraud?" I don't know. A little melodramatic, I suppose. But I can tell you being taken advantage of does hurt. And yeah, it matters. It's not the end of the world by itself, but it does form a tile in the mosaic, if you will.

I would have to disagree. Sure, women can choose to have careers or be homemakers, but it’s an either or

Women aren't totally unrestricted. But they're less restricted than men. Men don't even have an either-or option available to them practically speaking.

If you have kids and a career, society shames you for not raising them. If you really try your best to do both, society derides you for trying to “have it all”. If you stay at home to raise your kids, society says you’re lazy or unambitious. And god forbid you’re a single mother, for which you’re excoriated while single fathers are praised as heros, oh, what bitch could have done this to you?

A man can't choose to be a single father in most cases without some kind of evidence of maternal irresponsibilty. In the absence of other information, the inference of some maternal misconduct is usually a reasonable one.

But with the exception of some divorcees who became single mothers when their marriages split, no woman is a single mother except by choice. And no, I don't think it's a very responsible choice for a woman to have a baby outside of a healthy family environment. Single women who find themselves pregnant outside of a healthy family environment should make the responsible choice to get an abortion early in pregnancy rather than subject a helpless child to a bad situation from the very outset of life.

And there are people who criticize men for their choices too. If you pick a high paying career, society shames you as a greedy narcissist. If you pick a low paying career, or just decide to have a job instead of a career, society treats you like a contemptible beta. And men who stay home with the kids to be homemakers... You cannot possibly think they're subjected to less shaming than women.

I am female, I just have trouble seeing this as a major issue. ersonally, my boyfriends is dirt poor, especially in comparison to me, but that didn’t affect my decision to date him.

Hard to comment on your situation without details, and without the risk of something being taken as a personal attack.

Women still talk to him, curiously – could it be that women don’t treat poor men/people as pariahs?

Like this, given my description above of having shifted from rags to riches. You might be insinuating there's something else wrong with me if I had trouble dating when my income was lower...

And the answer is, while I wasn't terrifically athletic or good looking, I wasn't fat and ugly either. While I probably could have dated women I found unattractive, that option was open only because they had few dating options themselves (am I subtly insinuating there must be something wrong with you if you couldn't land a high status man?--not intentionally). Not because they found me any more attractive than other women did.

Also, on a less personal note, psychological research shows that women of course do care about wealth… about as much as they care about traits such as attractiveness or sense of humor. It initially seems like they care more about wealth because, in another study of speed dating trends, it was found that men spend the great majority of their time talking about their status (education, job, wealth) while women talked about their values and interests more.

Men’s interest in women (via rating system of 1-10) also increased comparably when the woman was wealthier

I'm going to have to ask for a citation for this proposition. I'm aware of a study in which women in one group were asked to rate the attractiveness of uncaptioned photographs of males, while women in another group were shown the same photographs, only with captions declaring the man's income. The results were dramatically different. Men who the uncaptioned group rated as unattractive were rated as attractive by the second group, and vice versa, the only variable being the caption.

I find it very difficult to believe male evaluation of female photos would vary nearly so much. Yes, I'd expect some variation. But without citation, I'm not going to buy that men's evaluations varied "comparably" to women's.

men were more unforgiving about an unattractive-looking woman, regardless of her wealth or personality.

Ahhh. See, this is incompatible with the claim that male evaluation of female attractiveness varied with wealth "comparably" to female evaluation of male attractiveness. Wealth can make a pretty or at least average girl a little more desirable. But it's not going to do much for an ugly girl.

Those comments really are bad. I’ve rarely seen comments like this directed at men in abortion debate.

Well that makes sense, because abortion discussions are usually about evaluating female choice. This one was about evaluating male choice. When you usually debate abortion, it's about women trying to avoid punishment for sex. When it's Roe v. Wade for men, it's about men trying to avoid punishment for sex.

Oh boy, buster, are you in for a treat. Honestly, I was floored that you asked this question, as the whole anti-abortion movement is absolutely rife with misogyny and outright hatred. Let me go harvest some comments… and just to help illustrate the depth of “these kinds of the things” they say to women, I’ll limit it to comment in one thread… by one guy… directed only at me.

Okay, fair point. But at least we can see the invective flows both ways, depending on who is perceived to be advocating that sex go unpunished. And that yes, there is definitely a desire out there to control what men do with their bodies too.

[–]ANUS_CONE 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANUS_CONE1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghallo0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghallo1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LordIntrepid2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempforfather1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zeddikus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]frog_gurl22-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know a guy who works on an oil rig. He's crushed his hand twice and had to have it rebuilt, and is missing a piece of his skull. But he still works on an oil rig.

Why? Because he's divorced, and he pays $5000 combined child support and alimony every month, and working on an oil rig pays enough to do that. Why can't he get the amount adjusted down so he can quit? You can't do that in advance--if you're working in that job, they will make you pay according to what you're earning. Why can't he quit and go work a regular job, and apply to have it adjusted down? Well, because by the time his application (which may or may not be approved) is seen by a judge (it can take months, and again, may not work), he'd be so far in arrears he'd be put in prison.

Comedian Dave Foley is in a similar situation. He divorced during season 2 of the sitcom News Radio. His family maintenance payments were set at $17,000/month. He needs to earn a minimum of $40,000 per month before agent commission and taxes just to pay that. That means, if he earns $40,000 per month and pays his $17,000 per month, he keeps exactly $0.

Since News Radio was cancelled, his income is much less than it was, and unreliable. Some months, he earns nothing at all. Despite more than one attempt, he's been unable to get the amount lowered either concurrently or retroactively.

Despite the judge knowing this, and being able to see every penny of his earnings accounted for, and requesting of the maintenance enforcement agency SOME other option, the MEA said they had not been authorized by their "client" (his ex) to offer anything but the, "come up with $500,000 today or spend 6 months in prison, and 30 days in prison for each additional month it went unpaid."

The judge delayed his decision, giving Foley time to remove himself to the US and is now unable to return to Canada. If he does, he'll be put in prison for 6 months, plus an additional 30 days for every month he can't come up with money he doesn't have--essentially for life.

I don't think women are the only people with issues around bodily autonomy and the products of sex.

[–]frog_gurl220 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What I'm getting at is that women are not the only people at risk of being forced into the burdens and risks of parenthood, but they ARE currently the only ones with an option post-conception (and arguably post-birth, through adoption and safe havens) to maintain their autonomy.

Yet whenever I broach the subject, with feminists, of eliminating coercive mandatory child support from men who never intended to become fathers, I typically get a song and dance about how it's not a matter of men's bodily autonomy (even though it clearly is, on multiple levels), usually peppered with all the same justifications pro-lifer's use to argue against abortion rights.

I also have a hard time getting behind a bill that would limit abortion to 20 weeks gestation, given that if I decided to abort someone else's fetus against the mother's will, I could be charged with homicide. Which clearly means that the person who determines if a fetus is a person or an unperson is the mother--which is a matter that does not sit well with me, from a logical, principled standpoint.

None of it is a "solved" issue.

[–]frog_gurl221 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]focusinertia0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Asmodeus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And yet, not long ago two academics from Australia published an article in the British Journal of Medical Ethics (I think?) arguing in favor of what they called "post-birth abortion". The premise was that if one human being is cognizant (the mother) and would be distressed by the existence of another human being (the child) who was not cognizant (they used "awareness of what one was losing as a metric--we're talking age 2-3 years), the rights of the mother to be free of distress trumped the right of the child to continued life.

The rights of the child's father weren't a factor.

Personally, I think the point at which a fetus is viable is the point where it becomes a "person". If it's a person, it doesn't matter who kills it--the mother, or her violent boyfriend, or a militant terrorist brutalizing a hostage, or whatever. That person is responsible for the death of a person--homicide.

There IS such a thing as justifiable homicide--self defence in the case of a threat to the mother's life seems entirely reasonable. And possibly mercy killing in the case of catastrophic birth defects like anencephaly. But after 20-24 weeks, those should be the only reasons to allow it. Unless, of course, we're willing to decide that the violent boyfriend or brutal militant are only committing aggravated assault against the mother when they kick a full term woman in the stomach and cause her to miscarry.

[–]Zeddikus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I wonder why that is? Is it because no where near 100% of women are in favor of abortion? Here is a little secret. Women are the majority electorate in every state in the US. The reason abortion is still in flux all this time later is because feminists made the worst mistake possible and sold abortion as a women only issue, and men should "butt" out. Well get this. That is exactly what men did. Abortion is not a voting issue to men in the US. It is not in their top 20. And your feminist sisters are who deserve the blame for that. Do you even understand that all parts of the country are not carbon copies of themselves, and in many parts, more women are against it then for abortion?

I myself am mildly pro choice, but women don't and have never seemed to give a damn about my right to have a choice to opt out of the financial as well as mental aspects of being a parent... why should I make a candidates view on abortion a deal breaker for me? Abortion has no bearing on me and I don't get any say in it. *I see below that you agree with this sentiment. But can I ask you. Do many of many of your sisters, and what is in it for guys to be pro choice when so many women are ardently against giving men the equivalent right.

The solution is to tie abortion and the male equivalent together. That would instantaneously make them untouchable voting wise, as men would immediately make that an issue worth voting for. But women, women never seem to want to give up that power, and the state sure doesn't like the idea of not being able to deduct from a mans wallet.

[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spauldingnooo-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Freeman0012 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]0xD153A535 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As someone who comes from a country with ridiculously low gun violence and a decent firearms licensing system (a license which I have, both for unrestricted and "restricted" weapons), there's little question that gun control can and does work. The problem in America is that gun control advocates think gun control will solve all the problems, and gun rights advocates think any control will do nothing. Thus, you have two opponents refusing to concede anything to each other, and the problems continue unabated.

Gun control won't do anything to deter criminals. That's obvious, but it's not even the issue gun control advocates have. Gun control can, however, impose mandatory education in responsible firearm handling, use and storage, which does reduce the chances of mishaps in the home. Establishing controls on gun sales (in particular recording owner/serial numbers, etc), and making gun stores responsible for inventory (and subject to spot checks...enforcement needs to be part of it) helps ensure shady gun shops aren't selling gear out the backdoor. If anything, reputable gun shops should be demanding these kinds of controls, since the reputable ones are who benefit the most...It also cuts down one vector for legitimate weapons making their way to the streets.

None of these suggestions are particularly infringing on Americans' 2nd amendment rights, but even the very suggestion of these things gets the rabid gun rights activists freaking out. Fortunately, there are moderate gun rights activists that see no problems with some imposition of restrictions, and most gun control advocates aren't calling for a complete ban on firearms...But, as usual, those on the fringes are the ones that make the most noise and get the most attention...

[–]Triptolemu53 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

None of these suggestions are particularly infringing on Americans' 2nd amendment rights

See, here's where you're missing the point. Americans consider gun ownership a right, not a privilege, and it's a very different perspective than the one in your own country, so if you want to actually understand the argument from a constitutional perspective, you have to treat it like other constitutional rights. The second amendment is not about self defense from criminals, it's about 'the people's' defense against tyranny.

How would you feel if we applied the same requirements for speech or religion? In order to worship your god, you must register with the government and carry a license. Go to the wrong church or an unrecognized one and you'll get your license taken away. Every church is subject to spot checks by government officials to ensure the clergy are preaching the proper message.

In order to criticize those in power, the government must be able to keep a record of every statement you have ever made, to ensure that you're not abusing your right to speak freely, or plotting against it, your neighbors, or the rule of law.

You cannot deny that such a system would make people safer, but the cost is fairly high, and in fact it gets to the very center of the whole PRISM and NSA affair.

Remember, the perspective is not that gun ownership is a privilege (like driving a car), but an inherently born natural right (like due process).

Gun control can, however, impose mandatory education in responsible firearm handling, use and storage, which does reduce the chances of mishaps in the home.

That isn't gun control, that's gun education. Much like how being educated on what your constitutional rights are and are not, are not restrictions of your constitutional rights.

[–]0xD153A531 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The difference between comparing the 2nd Amendment to the 1st is that the government already restricts gun ownership. Children, by and large, cannot purchase firearms, but are generally afforded freedom of speech and religion (okay, this depends on the school board's policies, but free speech never gunned down a school). Felons are also barred from purchasing firearms. As such, some gun control already exists in the US, despite gun ownership being a "constitutional right".

(I will concede that children are not afforded full rights until the age of majority, however this doesn't deter from the fact that they're afforded the full rights of the 1st Amendment even as children).

The argument that the 2nd Amendment reflects "the peoples' defense against tyranny" is a bit overused and not particularly well thought out. If this were, in fact, the case, then it wouldn't be a crime to take up arms against such a tyrannical government. So, who decides if the government has become tyrannical? Let's not forget what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It explicitly states that a "well regulated militia" is necessary to the security of a free state. I will never argue against that clause, but it's that first part that reflects the responsibility of the individual, while the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" confers the actual right. The right and responsibility of the gun owner, as well as being "well regulated", is in plain black-and-white.

For your last point, how would you know if an individual has received appropriate gun education and is not a threat to themselves or others? You issue them a card, generally with a picture and their name, and a number that's plugged into a database...In other words, a license. It's no different than your driver's license...while you don't necessarily have to take Driver's Ed, you do have to show you understand the rules of the road and re not a hazard to yourself or others (alright, some people pass the test and are still hazards...the system's not *perfect).

To further elaborate, you also have the equivalent of a license that does afford you your constitutional rights: your citizenship. As a Canadian, visiting the US, I cannot be expected to be offered the rights the Constitution confers on American citizens. Since I don't hold a "license" granting me the privileges of the US Constitution, I'm not afforded those rights.

[–]Triptolemu52 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

how would you know if an individual has received appropriate gun education and is not a threat to themselves or others?

Without a database of gun owners? Easy. Make it mandatory education for every American citizen. Operating a gun is fairly simple, and doesn't actually require a very high IQ to operate safely. Chainsaws are more dangerous from an accidental harm to self perspective.

Besides, the 'threat to others' is far far more common with malicious intent rather than negligence. Accidents happen and are bad, but the numbers don't really pan out. We both agree that more gun control will not change malicious intent.

they're afforded the full rights of the 1st Amendment even as children

Actually, they aren't, but that's a different discussion.

some gun control already exists in the US,

It sure does. So why exactly do we need more? Statistically, more people are killed by police officers every year than those who die in mass shootings with 'assault weapons'. Why isn't there a big push to "do something" about the police?

Further, we also already have restrictions on assembly, speech, religion, due process etc. I'm also against further restrictions of any of those rights too.

you also have the equivalent of a license that does afford you your constitutional rights

That's a great point, but you don't have to pass any tests to get it, if you're born on American soil, and it cannot be used to single out a particular portion of the American population.

a bit overused and not particularly well thought out.

Just because the constitutional argument has been completely misrepresented by people like Jon Stewart, and you yourself haven't thought it out, doesn't mean it's an invalid argument. Especially since your argument against it relies on missing the point entirely.

An armed populace makes certain tyrannical actions very difficult to impossible to execute. It doesn't require 'the people' to be in open revolt against it. It merely requires the presence of a large enough group of armed citizens to take certain tyrannical options off of the table. Options like, rounding up and disappearing large portions of the population.

It is a passive insurance against tyranny, not an active one. Why do you think the black panthers were so insistent about their 2nd amendment rights? It wasn't because they wanted to kill everyone. It's because they wanted to ensure their own defense.

See: Cambodia. The same government officials who enacted gun registry lists were the same ones who were killed by the Khmer Rouge years later. Why? The group that came to power had this handy list that someone had compiled beforehand of who owned and where the guns were.

The tyranny argument is not that Obama is a tyrant. It is that tyranny, much like life, finds a way, and it is what the constitution was designed to prevent.

[–]0xD153A531 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Make it mandatory education for every American citizen.

Where would people get this education? High school? A passing grade lands in your record forever in a database. I don't have a problem with mandatory education for responsible firearm handling, but do you really think that kind of government intervention won't be rallied against by the pro-gun lobby?

More gun control, when enforced, should have a significant impact on legal guns making their way into the hands of criminals, not to mention a reduction in the production of the weapons in the first place (which is where a LOT of the lobbying against gun control comes from).

Why isn't there a big push to "do something" about the police?

There is. Adoption of non-lethal means (Tazers, teargas, etc) provide a non-deadly force alternative. Now, there are many cases where this leads to lazy policing, using a Tazer to force a person to comply with simple demands, but that's a different issue entirely.

An armed populace makes certain tyrannical actions very difficult to impossible to execute.

Do you really think that it's the armed citizenry that keeps the government from going door-to-door to take weapons away? If the edict were signed tomorrow, there's not much a group of weekend warriors at the range are going to be able to do to deter the government from taking your weapons. Yes, you can shoot back when they come rolling up your drive way, you might even get lucky and take some with you, but at the end of the day, even with the 2nd Amendment firmly in place, the citizenry are no match for the most militarily-advanced nation in the world.

Cambodia's a horrible example. The Khmer Rouge came to power as a result of the Cambodian civil war. Of course the victors would disarm the citizenry, in order to maintain their victory. Without disarming the citizenry, the civil war would've continued. Yes, in a way it did, under the labour camps of the Khmer Rouge, but those camps certainly weren't directed specifically at the gun-toting opponents of the regime, but at opponents, intellectuals, and even members of Pol Pot's CPK party. And let's not forget that there were armed assaults against Pol Pot that were unsuccessful.

The context of Cambodia, in comparison to contemporary America, make it a ridiculous example of "what happens when Big Brother takes our guns!!"

[–]Triptolemu52 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

High school?

Sounds good.

A passing grade lands in your record forever in a database.

Well you certainly don't have to pass sex ed. to have children, but that doesn't stop us from teaching kids about the subject. Education is fine. Pass/fail to human rights is not.

More gun control, when enforced

That's the thing. When enforced. "more gun control" isn't going to change anything, because most of the gun crime is committed by people who are already breaking the law to start with. Even if you are successful in 'more gun control', what exactly will that do to stop a criminal from breaking the law?

should have a significant impact

It certainly doesn't seem to have that effect in areas with stricter gun control laws in the US. (I'll readily admit it has more to do with demographics than actual guns though)

In regards to the police, there isn't nearly the push to change policing like there is to change gun laws.

Do you really think that it's the armed citizenry that keeps the government from going door-to-door

Yes.

I do.

But not in the way that you think I do.

I want you to think about that, because it's important.

The point isn't the 'weekend warriors', it isn't about the 'local militias'. They are good things constitutionally, but they don't have the numbers. This isn't about the gun nuts. It's about the ~52% of the population being armed. It's about the 200-300 million guns in America. If you think it's about the local militia, or the armed individual, you are thinking far too small.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that there are more guns in the US than cars, and yet cars still kill more people than guns. Not only that, but gun homicide is today, half of what it was in the 90s. Surprised? I know I was.

the citizenry are no match for the most militarily-advanced nation in the world

To say that means you still don't actually understand the argument, and how actual tyranny works.

Libya is a good example of how humans behave under certain circumstances. The ones in Gaddafi's military who would not shoot civilians were summarily executed by the soldiers who would.

The reason you think Cambodia is a ridiculous example of contemporary America is because you don't actually think Cambodians are human beings like Americans are. "that would never happen in America, because Americans are special and different".

No, they aren't. At least not in the big picture, and not when talking about basic human nature. Basic human nature is why the constitution was written the way that it was, and it's why so many people on the pro-gun side cite things like Cambodia, Libya, Hitler, etc, because the fundamental mechanics are the same, and human nature doesn't change. It's what people talk about when they say that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. The only real difference from a human nature standpoint is that Americans have been well fed for a long time.

you might even get lucky and take some with you

Which is the point entirely. If enough people are armed, the military soon runs out of people to follow the orders. (this of course does not even get into the fact that if 'the edict were signed', a large portion of the US Military would immediately resign, and take up positions behind their own front doors)

Again, there is a reason why people talk about the 2nd amendment in regards to endgame scenarios, because the constitution was designed to prevent endgame scenarios from occurring. One of the lynchpins of it is an armed populace. Without it, the government gains the complete monopoly of force, and with that, absolute power. If you think the US military already has absolute power, then I must not be explaining it sufficiently.

If you think that endgame scenarios are somehow unique to defenses of the 2nd amendment, then you probably have never heard defenses (or attacks) of the 1st. The media's entire existence depends on the 1st amendment, which is why the arguments in support of it are so well ingrained that most people don't even think about them. Almost nobody has to explain why freedom of speech is important, because it's the media's job to ensure it's importance is foremost in the minds of the people.

[–]0xD153A531 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are competing opinions on whether "gun control states" have higher violent crime. You'd need to provide some source material on this one, and more than just a single right-wing think-tank...

Americans aren't any different than the Cambodians...I don't see how you could draw that from my statement. But that's rather moot, since it's not even an issue of taking guns away from people. "Gun control" doesn't just mean taking all the guns away from the people. It means, in much larger part, making people responsible for how they handle the guns they have. It means reducing accessibility to firearms to those who have shown themselves mentally fit to possess them. We already limit the rights of the mentally unfit, so I don't see how this would be much of an issue to extend it to other rights.

Yes, criminals will still get firearms, but if we make the legal owners accountable for their storage so that criminals can't easily acquire them then that reduces the number of guns available for criminals to use to commit crimes. Criminals, by and large, aren't importing firearms into the US to use in crime, so, where are they getting them? Through legitimate channels, being used illegitimately, and those legitimate channels not being held accountable. The government tracks inventories of pretty much anything that can cause mass carnage (try buying a ton of high-nitrogen content fertilizer, for example) but the gun lobby decries suggestions by the government to track gun store inventories?! That's quintessentially irresponsible gun ownership.

There's no single-pronged approach to reducing gun violence. Responsible users aren't the ones that are even committing the gun violence in the first place. However, they are a key source for the weapons that are being used for criminal purposes (be it from theft, easy access by family members, etc). Close off that vector by holding owners responsible, and cut down the violence. Educate people in the proper, safe storage of weapons to ensure they don't fall into the hands of criminals (not to mention to reduce the number of "accidents").

Unless, of course, keeping both an armed citizenry and and armed criminal element are both necessary parts to defending against tyranny...I wouldn't trust Crips to come to your aid, though...

[–]Freeman0011 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think many pro gun people would be willing to concede a few things IF the opposing side were to as well (unrestrict FA, sbr, sbs, national CCW), but as you pointed out, the gun control advocates have never been willing to concede. The issue pro gun people have with registration is that so many times, in other countries as well as America, registration leads to confiscation OR government uses emergencies as an excuse for confiscation (see California sks confiscation, Katrina, Canada's registry debacle as well as flood confiscations, Australia after their massacre, etc). I would LOVE to see mandatory firearms safety and defense training offered as a course through a highschool/college partnered up with local LEO's, but that gets rejected by gun control advocates as well because it would be seen as encouraging violence.

This basically leads us to the situation where we are in today where, because of the refusal to compromise (in the true sense of the word) both sides are forced into polarization and immediate refusal of the others legislation.

[–]0xD153A531 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have to take it a step further, though. In Australia, after guns were confiscated, what happened to gun violence? A steady decline in gun deaths. Sure, there have been blips in the numbers, but that's expected. Since 1979, the most gun deaths per yer in Australia only amounted to 679 (GunPolicy.org), down to 236 in 2010. In the United States, you're looking at numbers in the 30,000s.

In Canada, the debacle was with the cost overruns of the gun registration program. Personally, as a gun enthusiast, it was a good idea, but with poor implementation (like most government endeavours, no?). The registry was primarily used by the RCMP and other police departments in order to mount appropriate responses to calls where firearms were known to be. Responding to a domestic dispute where there are known firearms requires a different tactical response than not knowing. Is this good enough reason to make hunters register their long guns? I dunno...Probably not...wielding a shotgun in close quarters is a difficult thing to do, even by trained professionals, but I doubt a cop wants to take that chance.

[–]Freeman0012 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In Australia, it's easy to point to the drop in gun deaths because that medium was mostly removed, but deaths by other means of violence filled the hole, the crime rate increased as well. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul statistics. Is being beaten or raped to death morally superior than being shot to death? The 30,000 US figure includes suicides, homicides are now under 12k.

The big point is that when gun control is implemented in states, the crime rate increases. In areas where there is less, with very few exceptions, the crime rate lowers. In fact, gun crime has dropped 69% in the last 20 years, 39% drop in gun homicide and that figure drops because of the states with less GC. You'll find that Illinois, Washington, D.C., California, and Michigan lead the US in 'gun crime' which 60% of is gang/drug related. Clearly there are more variables than just guns, but their availability to law abiding citizens helps negate the criminal element. Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI state that a minimum of 108,000 'reported' defensive uses of guns are average (conservative estimates of unreported+reported uses are around 3x that). So it can be demonstrated that at a minimum, gun use by law abiding citizens save 10x as many people who are murdered from all manner of crime, including murder.

[–]0xD153A531 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

With gun suicides at nearly 20k for 2011, one has to wonder if implementing background checks into the mental stability of individuals acquiring firearms wouldn't have reduced that. Sure, it's possible that those suicides would've been accounted for elsewhere, such as hanging or pills, etc, but gun-related suicides tend to be more "successful" than other methods. Not to mention, the availability of a handgun, for example, short-circuits any possible intervention. A person hanging themselves has to find a rope, find a reasonable place to off themselves, etc, providing opportunity to reconsider their action. I would be interested to see how many of those gun-related suicides were by persons other than the owner of the firearm. A properly stored firearm is of little risk to a suicidal third party.

It's inaccurate to assume that "defensive use" of guns has a 1:1 relation to saving people's lives. That's a huge leap of faith, and one that I don't think is particularly sound logic. I can pull a gun on you and demand your wallet, and I'll be deterred if you pull your piece, but that doesn't mean that you prevented me from killing you, since that was never my intent in the first place.

The gun control issue focuses a lot on reducing individual gun ownership, on taking away something from the people. I think this is a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the problem. Gun control should reflect the promotion of responsible gun ownership, with penalties for those who are irresponsible. Most illegal guns on the street were, at some point, legal guns; stolen from homes, gun shops, etc. This is a direct result of irresponsible gun ownership. Also, while I lack the numbers, I bet a lot of guns make it to the street from shady gun shops. These are easy vectors to close, in terms of limiting the guns on the streets.

Now, I don't worry so much about suicides, as I'm unlike most people and have really no qualms with someone taking their own life. If we negate suicides from the numbers, Australia's gun homicide rate dropped from 104 in 1996 to 30 in 2010 (0.57 to 0.13 per 100,000 people). Comparably, in the US, when only looking at gun homicides, the nation is still well above 3 deaths per 100,000 people (and actually increased over the same time frame, with only recent drops).

I'd be interested to see your sources for the argument that gun control states have higher crime rates, since I've seen various think tank reports stating everything across the board, from the complete opposite, to agreement with your statement to "inconclusive". Hell, even the first page of a Google search will show wildly varying opinions on that.

[–]Freeman0011 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am absolutely for stemming the numbers of suicides by mentally ill people by them using guns. I have no idea how to do that. One day a person can be completely normal, the next day they can become suicidal and there's no switch that alarms authorities. Sure, there are plenty of cases where people are depressed/manic/suicidal and can/should be mentally adjudicated, but the current system fails at that miserably, but even if it was successful, what happens if there is systemic abuse?

It's inaccurate to assume that "defensive use" of guns has a 1:1 relation to saving people's lives

I'm not saying it does. I said bare minimum 10x the number of people who are murdered (11k murdered, 108,000 DGU) are saved from crimes that include assault, rape, murder, etc. Obviously it isn't 1:1 for murder (it may be more or less), but it prevents many forms of personal assault.

I can pull a gun on you and demand your wallet, and I'll be deterred if you pull your piece, but that doesn't mean that you prevented me from killing you, since that was never my intent in the first place.

Relates to above statement.

Gun control should reflect the promotion of responsible gun ownership, with penalties for those who are irresponsible.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

This is a direct result of irresponsible gun ownership.

I knew of someone who's 400lb safe full of guns was wheeled out of their home, many lockers and handgun safes can be removed with a little effort and broken open later, saying that equals irresponsible gun ownership isn't a fair equivalence. Even blaming someone for having their gun stolen from their home if it was in a drawer or closet isn't fair, their home was broken into.

I bet a lot of guns make it to the street from shady gun shops.

You should probably figure out numbers before you start making bets like that.

I'd be interested to see your sources for the argument that gun control states have higher crime rates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

Washington State, Texas (very populous btw), New Hampshire, and Montana have very low gun control and very little gun crime as compared to many of the high gun crime states like California, Illinois, Michigan, and D.C. Lousiana would be the outlier, where they have less gun laws but more crime.

Edit: Recent CNN article showing the massive drop in gun crime overall.

[–]0xD153A531 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I knew of someone who's 400lb safe full of guns was wheeled out of their home, many lockers and handgun safes can be removed with a little effort and broken open later, saying that equals irresponsible gun ownership isn't a fair equivalence. Even blaming someone for having their gun stolen from their home if it was in a drawer or closet isn't fair, their home was broken into.

I'd say having your weapons in a 400lb safe is taking reasonable precautions. If I go on vacation and someone was able to take a 400lb safe, then odds are there wasn't much more I could do. However, if I leave a firearm in my underwear drawer for some random goon to break in and take it, yeah, that's definitely irresponsible on my part.

The "shady gun shop" issue is just common sense. Otherwise, most illicit guns are acquired from homes through robberies, etc. As such, it makes EVEN MORE sense to impose regulations on gun owners to properly store their weapons, if this is the case.

Percentages are not a good metric...Homicides per 100,000 persons is better. From the site you provided: Illinois had 452 homicides, 83% involving guns, resulting in about 375 gun-related murders...Texas had 1,089 homicides, 64% involving guns, resulting in 697 gun-related murders. Fewer restrictions on guns, lower percentages of gun-related homicides, yet Texas still has 1.86x the number of gun-related murders than Illinois.

I'll acknowledge the awesomeness of "massive" drops in gun crime overall...but that's a wholly relative statement. If gun deaths (include or exclude suicides, whichever you prefer) dropped by 50%, the US would still be far above the rest of the developed world. I expect gun violence in places like Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, etc..some pretty lawless places. One shouldn't expect it from the beacon of civility the US likes to be thought as.

[–]iongantas1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]electriclights 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HypnotikK 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BigHeadDad 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HypnotikK1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well I live in Canada, and my dad actually took the maternity leave for a year when I was a child, not my mom. So guys definitely have the option, my understanding was that women were coming out on the bottom on averages of wages, time off, that stuff. But when you factor in the fact that out of a large selection of women, there are going to be more women taking the leave than there are men, and it makes it less "uneven", maybe evening it out almost completely. I don't have the book with me so I can't check what it is I'm remembering.. but YES. Men should definitely have these benefits anywhere in the world.

I think my main point was, women will take statistics, use them as reasoning or evidence for "inequality" towards women, when they are grossly misunderstanding or leaving out vital information to the study. It's not because they are women that things were lower, it was that being a women has certain aspects that men can't or usually do not have that separates them.

[–]BigHeadDad2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub 40 points41 points42 points 13 years ago (119 children) | Copy Link

I understand what you're saying, and I do agree with most of what YetAnotherCommenter says, but please don't insult the last 30 years of academic feminists by acting like they're stupid. They are familiar with everything you just said, and they are aware that statistics would be nice.

One of the key points of one of the most influential texts, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center by bell hooks (yes, she spells her name all lower case), is that men love statistics and dismiss arguments that can't be expressed through them. She basically quotes the post you just made and then asks, "but what if the problem is with the statistics?"

For example, suppose hypothetically (no one is saying that this is true) that currently only 10% of women report threats of violence used by their husbands or boyfriends to intimidate them into acting a certain way. Picture the world you live in now, only that practice is actually 10 times as common as it you think it is, but 90% of women keep it to themselves and let their men get away with it. Would you not agree that this is a problem? How exactly do you gather statistics on how many women are refusing to contribute to the "threats of violence by men" statistic? What percentage of women would you say will refuse to tell the police, their friends, their church, etc. about it, but will report it on a random phone survey?

According to hooks, the best solution to problems like this, where society has accidentally prevented these women from reporting this conduct (whether by shaming them, making them afraid of reprisal, or whatever), is to be aware of the underlying systems and take note of the fact that women would be expected to hesitate in reporting, then solve that problem. But because men wield the power and men like statistics, such arguments are invariably dismissed.

Yes, she's a radical, Marxist feminist coming out of the movement YetAnotherCommenter described. But she's not an idiot.

[–]Epicrandom 64 points65 points66 points 13 years ago* (47 children) | Copy Link

How else are you supposed to show inequality without statistics? Anything without them is just wild unsourced speculation. In your hypothetical situation, you'd take the new statistic that only 10% are reported and combine that with the already known numbers to get the real numbers.

Sorry if I've missed the point of your post, but if you don't have any statistics to prove something, then yes - (as far as I can see) your argument deserves to be dismissed, or else anyone can claim anything with no proof.

Perhaps I've missed the point of your post, if I have or if you have another example, please tell me.

Edit: If you mean that sometimes statistics are incomplete, inaccurate, or unavailable - that's fine. Get some better statistics. If you mean that valid arguments can be made with no statistics at all - I completely reject that.

[–]GreatDanish 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Epicrandom 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Ah - I (think) I see the confusion. When I say statistics I don't (necessarily) mean stuff like police reports, and the like. Acceptable statistics could include you reporting this to a feminist group, or anything along those lines, just so that a record of what you've been through exists.

Hypothetically, what should happen is this: Someone has a logical idea but no statistics are available or they believe that existing statistics are flawed. In this case, they believe statistics of threatenings are underreported. So, they make a survey, or a random polling sample, or something along those lines, asking people if they ever had an ex threaten them, and if so, did they tell the police, and if so, did the police file a report. With this survey, statistics now exist, we have proof the issue exists, and we can solve said issue.

I'm sure my idea isn't perfect, but what's the alternative. Someone stands up and says, "It seems logical to me that ...(well meaning, logical, but wrong idea with no proof)..." and they receive funding and recognition with no way to know if their idea was valid or not. How do you even know if you've succeeded, in such cases?

If you think anything I've said is fundamentally wrong or stupid, please say so.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Rattatoskk 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

This. This is exactly what I was getting at. Feminism does science in reverse. It starts with the conclusion and works it's way back to the facts.

And when the facts don't match, they simply manufacture them, or create the fact-finding in such a way that the figures they are looking for come out.

For instance, 90% of school children are the victims of neglect or other forms of injuries. Is this a real fact? Well, it soon will be. Watch.

First, I find that 90% of children have scraped knees at one point or another. Now, I bundle neglect into the mix.. and.. voila. 90% of children experience neglect or other preventable injuries.

I'm not technically incorrect, but that fact is going to be used as a bludgeon by the people I've fooled. They will think we have an epidemic of child neglect!

Another method I can use is to also only ask one group leading questions. As in previous domestic abuse studies, where men and women were asked seperate questions. These questions assumed that males were perpetrators and women were victims.

So, when the question appears for men "Do you ever strike your significant other?", you will get some proportion that say yes. When this question is missing on the women's side of the questionnaire, you can't make any meaningful conclusions in regard to the ratio of male vs. female perpetrators of domestic violence.

An oft cited study is the wage gap (Which suspiciously hasn't changed from 77% since I was a child.)

This study is fallacious on many, many levels. It is a piece of pure propaganda. Even the number that is settled upon is faulty, because they do no adjustments for women working less hours than men.

They just chalk it up to patriarchy™ at work. So, even if women do make less than men, it is portrayed as a fairness issue. Well, should I make as much as someone that works 6 hours more than me a week for the same job?

According to feminism, yes. An employer should pay women the difference because.. being a woman is hard? The logical disconnect becomes hard to bridge at this point.

So, yes. Sociological studies. We do need them. But any study that begins with the answer and works backwards is bound to show bias.

And that's a huge problem, because feminism brings tons of baggage to these studies. It begins with the premise of proving patriarchy and female oppression. It also delights at finding huge gaps. When it can't find those gaps, it goes into manufacturing mode. It will simply create them whole-cloth using devious methods.

Meanwhile, there ARE issues that need attention. There ARE inequalities. there ARE problems that need to be seen accurately. Because if we push too hard in one direction, we unbalance another facet of society. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

Good intentions are not enough. We need precise science (or the best we can manage while respecting human privacy), not opinions twisted by faulty methods into studies that we base our policies on. That's what I mean when I talk about feminist quackery.

[–]GreatDanish1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think your idea is a good one! But I still don't agree with the need for stats on everything.

The lack of good, reliable statistics is not just limited to issues like feminism, it's a common frustration in any "social justice" problem. For example, we know a certain number of people in jail are innocent. How many? No idea. How can we find out? We can't. Does this mean we ignore potential flaws in our justice system that put innocent people in jail? No! We acknowledge that this is a problem, regardless of the fact that it is impossible to get reliable statistics on it, and we try to make the world a better place by reforming whatever flaws we find in our justice system.

I think it's inappropriate to dismiss an argument just because statistical data is impossible to gather reliably and consistently, or because we are unable to accurately quantify the scope of the problem.

[–]Palsgraph1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think that's the main problem with what the feminist movement is saying (at least as reflected through my sister, the radical Berkeley student). These statistics are inherently unknowable for two reasons. 1) because statistics are a 'male' form of knowledge, and will therefore automatically slant against women, and 2) because there is a social pressure against women talking out that will always cause an underrepresentation of the actual numbers.

Ultimately, the problem (DV, assault, etc...) is real, and deserves attention, because no one should be forced endure that. I give massive props to the feminist movement for bringing attention to it, but without relying on actual information about the problem will result in waste and, ultimately, reinforce the anti-male animus that permeates the modern feminist movement.

[–]joenangle2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maBrain2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not an expert, but I did take a bunch of gender studies classes, so I'll do my best:

Essentially, there are two parts. The first holds that the way science has been conducted since the European Enlightenment--that is, by men--has in various ways marginalized women and non-European cultures, which were largely seen as 'objects' within science, and not subjects themselves. Note that they more often mean the social sciences than, say, physics, notably anthropology/psychology/sociology. It's kind of hard to disagree with their position on this, and IMO it's more of a first/second-wave feminist claim. Science has totally been dominated by Eurocentric males for the majority of the time since the Enlightenment, and there are countless cases of the objectification of other cultures and of women (phrenology is a quick and easy example of this). But even if there is an historical legacy of masculine science, the practitioners of science are becoming more diverse both culturally and according to gender and science itself has become more empirical than the old days of social darwinism and phrenology and Freud.

The second part, that science is inherently masculine is much harder to explain, partly due to its deeper philosophical approach and jargon-filled, esoteric arguments, and partly because I don't agree with much of it as far as I understand it. Basically, it's a kind of nihilistic argument that there's no such thing as 'truth' or no essential way of 'knowing', only an endless number of differing perspectives. Science is unique in claiming a monopoly on 'truth'/'knowledge', and therefore seeks to invalidate other forms of knowledge (which, according to this line of thought, cannot be put in a hierarchy). Because Empiricism attempts to create a hierarchy with itself at the top, what it actually does is try to dominate other forms of knowledge, and is therefore 'masculine'.

I think it's a valuable idea to think through, but I don't agree with much of it--namely the total nihilism, the idea that Empiricism isn't inherently superior to most other ways of knowing, and the claim that dominance/hierarchy=masculine. The philosophy behind some of it is fun to follow, the political movement not so much.

[–]Epicrandom2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can accept that science has traditionally been done by men. But this doesn't mean it is inherently masculine. And even if it was inherently masculine, this has no effect on the validity of its findings.

Science claims a monopoly on knowledge because it is a monopoly on knowledge. Of course there is such a thing as 'truth' - even for the less obvious things. Even our evaluation of art (for example) can (theoretically, if not practically) be explained through the structure and function of the brain. Any claims otherwise are absurd and false. Empiricism is inherently superior, and frankly claiming that dominance/heirarcy=masculine is insulting and smacks of sexism.

Honestly, my brain hurts trying to wrap my mind around the idea that feminists genuinely believe what you said. Is it only some (crazy) feminists, or is that really the view of the majority?

Sorry, not trying to be insulting or anything, but it honestly baffles me. If you have a good counter argument I'd love to hear it.

[–]maBrain1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you read my comment, I said that I do not agree with their position for many of the reasons you stated. I wouldn't say it's anything like the majority of feminists who hold this position, but we were talking about the more extreme intellectual leaders of third-wave feminism.

I don't know what their counter-argument would be (like I said, I only encountered these ideas in a gender studies course), but I would say that the whole dominance/hierarchy = masculine to many gender theorists would not be sexist. That's because 'masculine' does not equal 'male' to them. 'Masculine' is a gender, a performance, a social construct, while 'male' describes anatomy. So saying masculine=dominant is technically not sexist, because they're not talking about human beings with penises, they're talking about the social construct in Western society that has always held those playing more masculine roles in a dominant position.

I'm new to r/Men'sRights and I'm not sure how often Gender Studies are discussed here or what the general familiarity is like, but I think many here would find that division of philosophy very useful. To me, men's rights means the erasure of traditional gender roles as much as anything else, and for our society to stop prescribing behaviors to individuals based on their sexual anatomy. The basic underlying tenant of Gender Studies is that gender is socially constructed and not inherently linked to our sex parts, so I think people here would find it useful.

[–]KnowL0ve2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fireproofjeans1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

One of the problems with this, though, is that it isn't usually society that dissuades abused people to report abuse, but the abuser.

A certain degree of it rests on the shoulders of law enforcement, and its appalling to me that they just wrote off your allegations without any kind of investigation, but on the flip side there are women who cry wolf and seriously fuck with their S.O... some don't even have to cry wolf. (tbf, I'm sure guys have done it too)

A family friend had a divorce, is now the sole caretaker for the kids, and has to pay a sizeable chunk of his income to his ex because his income was several times hers and she "became used to a higher standard of living". I would like to call bullshit on that.

But yeah, I don't disagree with you. The system is just hopelessly broken - sometimes it really fucks someone over, regardless of gender.

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oxencotten-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GreatDanish5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Yes, this is exactly the argument that hooks is addressing. You can't combine the "statistic" that only 10% are reported with anything, because the point is that it's impossible to obtain that statistic. Imagine that you suspect that threats of violence are underreported because women are ashamed to admit that they happened. This shame is deep enough that they will lie to police and even anonymous pollsters.

Serious question, not being smug or anything. What is the research model you would use to try to discover the exact percentage of underreporting, or at least try to confirm your theory that the percentage is quite large? I am not aware of any method that could accurately measure this.

So hooks is arguing that if you can provide a compelling, logical argument as to why such an non-measurable thing is likely, that should be enough to start a discussion on how to solve it. It's not fair to just dismiss all non-measurable problems as irrelevant simply because we should only try to solve things that we can measure with the statistical models we like to use.

[–]DisplacedTitan 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]labcoat_samurai 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Russell's Teapot is more about unfalsifiability. It illustrates that even absurd statements with no rational basis can often still be immune to disproof.

This idea, on the other hand, is plausible, and it probably isn't unfalsifiable in principle, just in current practice. So it might be true to some extent, and there might be something we could do to detect or address the problem. If so, the only reason why we should ignore it is if we have good reason to believe the problem doesn't exist or if the problem would be trivial if it did exist. I think neither of those is the case.

Consider deadly asteroids as an analogy. Right now, we have relatively little ability to detect and virtually no ability to deflect deadly asteroids. We also know of no asteroids that are going to impact the planet in the near future.

We could therefore ignore this deficiency, since the conjecture that there's an unknown deadly asteroid strikes us as akin to Russell's teapot, or, knowing that such things are plausible and legitimately deadly, we could try to do something to improve our detection and prevention mechanisms.

We'll probably do nothing... but there is a decent case to be made for doing something.

[–]djscrub-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, to be clear, what you are saying is this:

Suppose that threats of violence for intimidation against women are 10 times more prevalent than we think. The measure and funding currently in place to protect women from this behavior are woefully insufficient. Society has created a culture, inadvertently, that makes women refuse to report this to anyone. Currently, our statistical methods simply cannot prove that this problem exists. Several professors have gotten grants to do it, because of some much-publicized and highly compelling arguments that this problem is very likely to be the case, but they have published results saying that the problem simply defies measurement because the subjects will not report. Therefore, we should take no action, because this is just conjecture, and even though we're pretty sure that this is a problem, we can't "prove" it with statistics so we have to pretend that it's not a problem until we can?

[–]DisplacedTitan13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub-10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You were kind of putoffish, and many of the commentators here responded as if not more aggressively.

My issue with your statements, and I believe /u/displacedtitan would agree is a few fold.

First, the "even though we are pretty sure it's there". Now that burden is ridiculously hard to meet when we don't assume it. As a result, if you don't put the burden of proof on the person responding to the statistics, it allows anyone to just say oh we are measuring stuff wrongly.

For two examples of how this is problematic. Look at how unskewed politics worked in the last presidential election. You had several dozen people with a rudimentary understanding of statistics who were arguing that all national polls were inherently skewed Democrat. They were "pretty sure" of this, and got hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to help identify with these ideas. Then you had Nate Silver on the other side saying they were wrong, and well... look how the election turned out. He was right on the money and all the unskewed people continued their rant by saying the election was a fraud, IRS suppression etc.

Now a more relevant example. Men's Rights activists often argue rape is nearly equivalent between men and women. They argue that MEN are the ones who aren't reporting being raped, because of the societal standards and such and that women overreport rape for a variety of reasons. Now if we accept your burden of proof, it puts the onus on you to prove them wrong. Do you see why this becomes an issue?

[–]Arashmickey3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll clear up what I'm talking about, then.

All of this began as a response to a user who apparently thinks that feminists are not aware that many of their arguments are not backed up by statistics. I presented the fact that they are, in fact, aware of this, and have made attempts to explain why that does not make their arguments irrelevant.

Since then, numerous people have mischaracterized and insulted straw man versions of the argument I presented (not as my own thoughts, but as the theories of certain feminist authors). I have attempted to clarify this argument to people who seem staunchly committed to misinterpreting it as a way worse argument than it is.

At no point have I attempted to advocate any reform or policy whatsoever. I have been attempting to clear up why bell hooks, Carol Hanisch, Cathy McCandless, etc., aren't troubled by the lack of statistics to back up certain claims, which they contend to be inherently non-measurable by polls or panel studies, because they are inherent to the system and not to individuals. You are free to disagree, but I would like it if people could disagree with the actual argument, rather than the weak, stupid ones they keep making up and attributing to me or these authors.

[–]Arashmickey5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are asking for an example of a real problem, that currently exists, that these feminists are currently arguing exists, but it's difficult to measure, so it's getting ignored? I'm sorry, I'm just not that involved with the movement. I'm a lawyer who studied these theories in school and have written on feminist legal theory, but not this kind of stuff directly.

The book I mentioned in my first post, by the way, is a theory book, not an empirical one. It isn't talking about a specific issue and giving advice on how to fix it. It's talking about problems with the type of debate that is going on, trying to explain the framework for a way of thinking about feminism that can be more productive and useful. One way (among many) she espouses is getting rid of the notion that only provable claims are worth discussing.

[–]Arashmickey2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]benji10082 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Serious question, not being smug or anything. What is the research model you would use to try to discover the exact percentage of underreporting, or at least try to confirm your theory that the percentage is quite large? I am not aware of any method that could accurately measure this.

Not a sociologist or psychologist but I would look for questions with answers that are correlated to the answer to the question you would actually want to ask (preferably, but not necessarily, correlated via a causal mechanism that you understand) and which do not have the same stigma attached to it.

You might still lose entire groups of victims which do not match the profiles of those out-of-the-closet victims that you could examine to discover correlations at all, but that's something you can start to worry about if your methodology fails to show a large dark figure.

So instead of "Does your husband rape you?" you might ask a questions such as "My husband respects my decisions." (in a block of questions not directly related to sexual activities), "When was the last time you did visit a gynecologist?" (victims of violent rape might avoid doctors in order to avoid uncomfortable questions), "My husband has a lower/higher sex drive than me", ...

Of course these examples are purely speculative and probably poorly worded (psychology undergrads always complain that they do nothing but learn how to design proper questionnaires during their first year) but I hope you get the idea. Ask about everything but, no single question gives you anything close to definite answer but when enough answers that are typically correlated with rape situations are piling up then you start to get a probability for this interviewee being a rape victim.

If you were to discover that rape victims tend to prefer strawberry ice cream and are convinced that this is not due to some extreme bias in your sample then you would ask about strawberry ice cream.

You could also include questions that test for honesty in (less stigmatized) private matters (use questions that you have a solid statistical foundation for, if the answer deviates far from the median then there is a corresponding likelihood the interviewee is lying) or which test for tendencies towards self-blaming and other common rationalization/coping strategies. The answers to these questions could have an impact on how you have to evaluate the answers to other questions.

You don't need an exact percentage of under-reporting (you just need a lower bound that you can explain and which is large enough to impress) and you don't have to determine with any certainty for each interviewee whether she is or is not a rape victim, "given her answers there's a 30% chance she is a rape victim" is still valuable information (just count her as 3/10 of a rape victim in your statistic).

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

Firstly - to answer your question. Not sure, possibly some sort of random sample polling. You're right, it's tricky.

Secondly - I think there is an important difference between non-measurable and tricky to measure. This hypothetical situation is (very) tricky to measure, but not inherently non-measurable.

Thirdly - I understand what you are trying to say, but I still fundamentally believe that without evidence/statistics to back up your argument then said argument isn't worth a damn.

Lastly - A question. How do you know that something is a problem without the statistics. In this case - where has the 10% figure come from (I know it's made up here, but hypothetically). If studies have been done that find underreporting - that's one thing. But if it's just a gut feel (or even a logical argument) then without evidence there is no proof that such a problem exists. The most you can do with your gut feel/logical argument is try to find statistics that prove what you think is the case, and then use those statistics to argue your point.

I've changed my view slightly, as a result of this (so that's something). There is certainly a place for those statisticless arguments - it's just that that place (in my opinion) is being targeted to find accurate/relevant statistics so that stuff can be done.

[–]iongantas 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]djscrub1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sir_Derpsworth 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, this is exactly the argument that hooks is addressing. You can't combine the "statistic" that only 10% are reported with anything, because the point is that it's impossible to obtain that statistic. Imagine that you suspect that threats of violence are underreported because women are ashamed to admit that they happened. This shame is deep enough that they will lie to police and even anonymous pollsters.

But you can't make up your own story for these people either. If people don't want to talk about it, or feel they can't, you have no right to assume there is an actual problem until you know for sure. Otherwise it's pure conjecture you're basing your 'findings' on.

Serious question, not being smug or anything. What is the research model you would use to try to discover the exact percentage of underreporting, or at least try to confirm your theory that the percentage is quite large? I am not aware of any method that could accurately measure this.

Ok, no smugness taken then. But the onus isn't on me or anyone else to prove. It's on feminism to prove that there is under reporting because they are the ones making that claim. Or better yet, to find a better method to measure things if they want to make a claim that what we have now doesn't work. The basis for our current system is the scientific method. There is a reason all serious scientists around the world use it. It works well to show validity in the findings of the research. If feminism has a problem with that, find something better that can be shown independently to be valid.

So hooks is arguing that if you can provide a compelling, logical argument as to why such an non-measurable thing is likely, that should be enough to start a discussion on how to solve it. It's not fair to just dismiss all non-measurable problems as irrelevant simply because we should only try to solve things that we can measure with the statistical models we like to use.

Start a discussion, sure. I'm all down for discussing facts and figures in a mature manner. My problem is that few feminists will discuss these things with me. When I try to point out flaws or problems I may see with the information they present, I'm told consistently that men just don't understand or are the problem. That because I'm white, cis, and male, I'm part of the problem too. Most of this thinking is bred into and prevalent in the current feminist rhetoric which is why I and a lot of people want nothing to do with it. I'm not looking to dismiss your claims for no reason, I just want proof of them. If you can not provide that without baseless extrapolation to justify them, I will dismiss it just as I would a claim of unicorns existence. That's not to say that these problems don't happen obviously. I just want discussion based on the facts. If even 10% of women are raped in reality, I see that as a problem. I don't need to be told that it's all the patriarchy's and/or men's fault for it happening.

tl;dr: Be honest in your statistics and stick to the facts and you would be surprised how many people would be willing to help you with your problems. Demonize people, make it ok to dismiss them for having a penis, and exaggerate information without basis, don't be surprised when people tell feminists to fuck off.

It's nothing personal, but people don't like being treated like shit and manipulated or lied to when they find out.

[–]djscrub-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sir_Derpsworth3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheAtomicOption1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownawaylesbian-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can't combine the "statistic" that only 10% are reported with anything, because the point is that it's impossible to obtain that statistic. Imagine that you suspect that threats of violence are underreported because women are ashamed to admit that they happened. This shame is deep enough that they will lie to police and even anonymous pollsters.

Then you sample women and, without suggesting they have been a victim of domestic violence, find out if they are in a relationship or dating and if they have ever been injured during that time period.

If the rate of injuries for single women differs from women who are dating/in a relationship, then you can estimate the reporting rate of domestic violence. The same tactic is used to estimate reporting rates of gay/lesbian rape, some forms of child abuse, and other things that the victims might view as "having deserved it".

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BeeRayDee1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iongantas1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheAtomicOption1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]djscrub 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Arguing that she has made a sensible statement, that statistical surveys should (as they often do) discuss known limits of the method of collection, does not mean that they (feminists as a whole) do not quite often make crap up, and create their own self-serving statistics through willfully poor methods.

The 1 in 4 myth, is one example. The myth that a difference in median wages between the sexes as a whole indicates sexism, rather than simply differences in choices made by men and women is another.

As a note, the field of education in statistics does discuss sampling problems, and how to adjust statistical models to account for them. It is a point of interest and concern for actual statisticians, if not the politicians who lean on purposefully biased statistics more like foundational pillar than a crutch.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Linsolv 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not impossible to get that statistic. I'll suggest a simple metric: When doing your study, look at a statistically significant percentage of DV cases, in a limited enough time period to make it doable. Now ask their friends and coworkers, what percentage of those people knew that this was occurring before it was reported? Now we have a yardstick by which to measure DV by something other than DV reports.
Actually, anonymous surveys tend to get lots of unreported cases of criminal activity. Because there's the certain knowledge that your husband isn't going to jail over it, and it was just one time--whatever the excuse is for not reporting, and mind you that these women are CHOOSING not to report DV, not many are being forced. If they're concerned about their husband's wrath, and there is no other factor, then they have protective custody.
If we don't have statistics, then I could just as easily say "what if the problem is actually ten times SMALLER than you thought? And that many women, 90% of reports, are self-inflicted?" It would be absurd. I just made that up. But we can't go look at the real truth of the information, so it is just as likely as your case.

There is no problem with statistics. There's a problem with misleading statistics, certainly. But the bigger problem is with people who want to be living in a world that doesn't exist around them, and when the statistics don't turn out the way they want it must be the statistics' fault.

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]djscrub0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mpaffo 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]djscrub1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]djscrub1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Your definition of "stupid" or what makes someone an "idiot" is your problem here.

Clearly someone who has studied for years and has many academic qualifications is not "stupid" in the classical sense. However, I had a lecturer at college a few years ago who held a Phd, was the head of department, was well respected in academic circles etc etc but he was without doubt the biggest idiot I have ever met in my life. For example he refused to believe in evolution not for any religious reason but because, in his exact words, "I have nothing in common with a monkey."

I could go on for hours with the idiotic comments he came out with but to this day he will be asked to appear in the media because he is a 'smart person'.

Today's academic life is in my opinion a complete joke. You can get as many qualifications and letters after your name as you like so long as you do two simple things; memorize information and agree without any dissent to what the elite group of academics are saying.

[–]djscrub3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oxencotten3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zfolwick2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wrwight1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zfolwick1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]djscrub 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The point of my post is that radical feminists are aware that men like Rattatoskk want more stats and hard evidence, and they have refuted this point by saying that some problems defy statistical evidence or representation.

Please explain to me how men refusing to report getting raped makes that moot?

Is it possible that you are responding to my hypothetical, the one I explicitly said was just a hypothetical and not something I was claiming to be true?

And, on the point of what bell hooks and her contemporaries actually have to say on your subject (even if it has nothing to do with what I said), they would say that men failing to report rape because of the Patriarchal gender roles is also a bad thing.

Something hooks points out is that many would-be feminist men actually just want gender roles changed in a way that benefits them more. They argue for women to have careers because they want men to escape the burden of having to be the sole breadwinner. They advocate neutral child custody laws because they want access to their own kids. But she is not saying that everything these men have to say is wrong or counterproductive, just disingenuous. She criticizes other feminists who are, quote, "ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexist oppression," who just try to flip the oppression on men. I'm not aware of her writing on the subject directly, but I have 100% confidence that hooks would be in favor of efforts to eliminate the social forces preventing men from reporting rapes.

[–]ArciemGrae 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I can't understand the point of a claim like "many 'feminist' men are just wanting to help themselves out" without context. It reads as an insult to a demographic that means well. I don't doubt there are a few weirdos out there who advance feminism for their own gain, but unless it's some observed epidemic that there are far more feminist male advocates who are self-serving than there are females, why make this observation?

It's like me saying "many pro-minority whites support equal rights because they don't like scholarship money going to other races." I mean, okay, those guys might exist, but is it actually any more than a handful of crazies? Because we're gonna be here all day if we point out the loons in every ideological movement...

I dunno. Hopefully context clears it up. It seems like a cheap shot at the men hoping to advance feminism, and I can't wrap my head around the meaning or point of it.

Edit: I guess her willingness to point out feminists guilty of the same thing ameliorates the gender-tone some, but it's confusing nonetheless, given that self-serving women understandably have more to gain from radical feminism than self-serving men do. I can see why the movement would attract misandry, but I don't see how men who want to benefit for themselves would rather sign up for radfem ideology than the current and more prevalent mainstream sexism that already favors them.

[–]djscrub1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArciemGrae2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You will not like some of what she has to say. In particular, she does a lot of "essentializing," basically saying that "black woman" is a resume that gives you credibility to talk about race and gender issues, and whites and men are somehow less qualified. She also says that, while men sometimes suffer from gender stereotypes, they all benefit from them and perpetuate them, without exception. She is a radical, and she does see race and gender as "classes" with strong relevance to identity and credibility. I hate this aspect of her writing, and you probably will too.

But she's smart, she makes a lot of good points, and you probably change at least one of your opinions by reading that book. I would also advise that you familiarize yourself with Marx and the American academic Marxist movement during the 70s and 80s, if you have not already, because she is partially a product of that tradition, as well. Some of what she says will make more sense in that context.

[–]ArciemGrae3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]illuminatus_emeritus2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oxencotten1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saregos 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sir_Derpsworth1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You could absolutely argue that we need to fix the underlying issue here. The problem with the argument though is two fold. That it assumes there is a FAR worse problem than what is reported. And that because of that assumption, there is some form of problem we need to solve that may not even actually exist.

It's quite a common practice for statisticians to extrapolate from the data collected the actual amount of whatever they're testing to the population as a whole. Even the best, most well funded studies can not account for every person in a certain population so you have to be able to generalize to the whole. If you read the actual studies that these people put out, you'll actually realize that this is true as they specifically mention the problems with the study and where it could lead to error and how they've accounted for that fact. But really this is besides the point.

For anyone to look at a study or statistics, and say (like for example in your hypothetical) and state with certainty that something is 10x more common than what the statistics show is a bald face lie at best, and a political manipulation to garner support at worst. The only things we do have are the hard facts and to look at something and say that this is what we found based on the evidence. To try to take something that might not be a problem and make it into one without basis is a form of manipulation and one commonly seen in the feminist rhetoric.

No, I'm not saying that the statistics we've gathered thus far account for all cases of rape/murder/suicide/DV/etc etc but we can't go making up our own facts and truths just to say there is a problem we must deal with. That is the problem I have with feminist rhetoric is that it consistently look at studies and then makes up their own conclusions to suit their own goals. (much like the 1/4 women in college being raped thing. Simple math proves that wrong, but most people don't even think about it and go along with it.)

The reason PEOPLE like statistics is because it's something that can be proven and when done right and has no bias (or has bias that is accounted for). But to sit there and say that studies don't tell the whole story is technically true, that doesn't mean you can extrapolate whole other stories and scenarios out of the air and provide them as basis for feminism's 'facts' of patriarchy. Your case was a hypothetical, but people use those types of 'hypotheticals' and push them as truth all the time.

tl;dr: So while Bell Hooks has a point, you could just as easily be swinging at shadows as you are real issues if you follow their solution provided. It's better to live in the realm of hard facts than the realm of 'soft maybes'.

[–]crackchimychong1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MySubmissionAccount0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dspeyer0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whinemoreplease0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iongantas0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's a ridiculous overstatement. You are invalidating entire academic disciplines, such as philosophy, art, and literature. Hell, anything subjective, under your definition, is not even nominally related to reality. What about moral ethics? Please show me a statistical model that proves (or disproves) utilitarianism, that making the most people the happiest should be the goal of society. Or maybe you think Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill just made all of that up, and could just as easily have said that morality is equal to eating as many cheese danishes as possible? After all, without stats, we aren't talking about reality, we're just making things up as we go along. There is no logic without an empirical model, even when the logic is discussing something with no relevance to anything objectively measurable. Only objectively measurable thing are real! What a novel concept!

[–]iongantas0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kygardener10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kygardener10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]djscrub1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kallikanzarid 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kallikanzarid1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sickamore0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kallikanzarid2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kallikanzarid0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]not_a_troll_for_real 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]not_a_troll_for_real1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]helicopter777 39 points40 points41 points 13 years ago (197 children) | Copy Link

The right to vote? To own property separate from a woman's husband? Bodily autonomy? Entry to the workforce? Access to higher education?

I agree with all these things. But see the problem? These goals have all been met.

We know for a fact that, while women have access to higher education, they do not have the same type of access as men, since it's been shown that in many cases, girls in high school are discouraged from taking STEM classes, as one example. We also know that while women have been given "entry" to the workforce, they do not have the same access to C-level jobs. When you break down senior managers by gender, you see 50/50 male to female (or close) in most industries. When you look at C-level jobs, the next step up the ladder, they are overwhelmingly held by males. I think your argument oversimplifies the gains that have been made and the work that is still left to do.

[–]kf4ypd 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dropcode 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This has never been 'shown' -- this is exactly the kind of BS we talk about when we talk about 'social quackery'. You all make a statement (Women have less access to STEM fields), you show that this statement might be true (there are fewer women in STEM fields), and then you act as if you've proven it!

You haven't shown anything. You just made a supposition, and acted as if it was true, because, you know, it might be.

Edit: To prove what you all say, you have to show that the reason women are underrepresented in these fields is because of discrimination. Showing that there are fewer women doesn't actually prove discrimination, it just proves that fewer women enter these fields. That could be due to the well documented differences in IQ between the genders (as males are more likely to pop up at the extreme ends of IQ division, it seems natural that they will be overrepresented both in fields requiring a very high IQ, and those that don't even require an average IQ. Which is exactly what the data shows) -- particularly when those fields involve math or spatial reasoning (which most STEM fields do).

Prove what you say, don't just prove a correlation and call it causation.

[–]moserine-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

First of all, while there may be discouragement, there is also active encouragement, to the point that the active encouragement has become harmful to men. It is also shortly to become more so.

If men get kicked out of University becuse not enough women are enroled in STEM, as Obama wishes it, it shall harm the entire country.

Further, it is not only STEM jobs, and C-level titles that are mostly male, it is also positions that involve bodily danger, and out of doors jobs that involve dirty or unsatisfying working conditions.

Men make up the vast majority of workplace deaths and injuries. As I recall, the figure was over 90%.

Studies of the sexes have shown that the male bell curve is wider than that of the woman. This is one reason why so many more men find themselves in jail, and why so many more find themselves in position of particularly high authority.

Another reason is that, generally speaking, testosterone makes one more willing to take risk, including measured and calculated risks. These behaviors result both in higher highs, and lower lows in one's life.

Further, let us use Wal-Mart as an illustrative example. They have more male managers than female managers. When the reasons for this were broken down, it included the fact that men were more often willing to work poor hours, move for their jobs, and most particularly, to take management positions in unfavorable locations... such as moving to frozen Alaska to take a position, in some cases.

As it stands, young women entering the work-force in the same positions as their male companions tend to make more money, not less.

While I may be wrong, as I recall, C-level positions belong to people who have been in the work force for quite a long period of time.

If you presume that women were not entering managorial positions at equal numbers for quite some time, would it not make sense for there to be a time lag, which will invariably result in more female C-level positions?

Finally, I will point out that there is far more difference in position and power between a CEO and a man sitting in jail (of whom, we must remember there are far more than women), than between a CEO and a female clerical worker.

As a result, by looking only at the apex of human power, you are missing the larger picture of differences in power and position. This is not a male/female thing. This is a human thing.

[–]beetlejuice021 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I logged in just to thank you for your comment. It was one of the only responses to some of the differences in stats between men and women in work force that didn't make me want to hit something. I really enjoyed being asked to look at the whole spectrum as a whole issue rather than two seperate issues.

And just my a little of my own input, because I'm interested in what you may think on the topic: As far as I remember from a grad social psych class last year, most modern studies disprove the whole general intelligence difference itself and as an explanation for adavancement and STEM selection and success. And even though they have continued to find spacial reasoning performance in males slightly better, it's only at the highest levels of mathematics, ect. They also found that this part of the brain developes earlier for males than it does for females, right around when most of us start algebra and geometry in school and could explain the whole men are better at math than women. Men are better sooner, so they get the encouragement and self-confidence that women may not get at that age when you're figuring out what you want to do and what you like to study. And this may contribute to further development of using the brain this way for males than females, explaining the higher levels in adulthood. Anyway, I'm bored at work and was glad to actually get to think for bit reading this thread. Thanks!

[–]JoshtheAspie3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're very welcome.

That's a very interesting tidbit of neurology. I may need to look into that more later.

Men do have advantages in spacial reasoning, and sometimes when I'm working out a complex problem, I use the 3-d white board I have in my head to move equations and facts and bits of data around. As someone studying higher level mathematics, and who has worked with computers, being able to do this is quite helpful, particularly when working with geometries or layouts.

And it's not just that it helps in mathematics, but men are more likely to, for example, toss a set of keys (a complex object) across the room, to another guy, who then catches it out of mid-air, and goes on to a vehicle, casually. My mother sometimes expresses amazement at this particular male talent.

So I doubt that the development ever entirely evens out. However, pathways and skillsets are forged and strengthened in the brain by continual use, so if boys get a head start on a skillset over girls (or visa-versa), it makes them more likely to perform the task, and continue to strengthen the pathways involved.

Personally, as I love mathematics, I would encourage anyone to study them. Were I to have children of my own some day (unlikely), I'd insist that the girls, as well as the boys have some firm foundation in logic, at least, before they left my care.

It's my understanding that girls develop understanding of the social skills needed to care for children much sooner than boys do, as well... while boys develop an appreciation for the social aspects of a rough-and-tumble much sooner than most girls.

Edit:

After a little further thought, if boys develop spacial reasoning earlier, and have a natural propensity to enjoy games that enjoy throwing, that could cause them to develop, over time, better spacial skills, even if girls did eventually catch up.

[–]beetlejuice021 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thanks for the response. I'm going to have to go back and look up the articles now and re-read them.

I got both sides of the spectrum growing up, so I can definitely see where different people are coming from. My mom and dad epitomized the whole men are good at math and women are good at english to the extreme, but my grandma was a college calculus professor, so she evened it out.

When I was studying calculus, that 3-d mental white board really ruined cal-3 for me. I could intuit my way through calc 2 in 2-d and limted 3-d, but hit a wall I wasn't willing to work through in calc 3. It was hard! I also had a lot of personal issues going on at the time and rarely attended class, but I can still recognize that spacial reasoning in any kind of serious math came much easier for my brother than for me. He's doing physics right now for Lockeed Martin and I'm soo jealous.

The sports thought is definitely interesting. I wonder how it might relate to other types coordination sports like wrestling or ballet.

Anyway, thank you for the conversation; have a good day!

[–]JoshtheAspie2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thechort 27 points28 points29 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SerPuissance 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

She will just point to one tiny sub-field and scream, "Hey look, over there!" the way she's already done with STEM.

Why do we even hear these people out? They outright ban us from their forums, so it's not like we owe it to them. It doesn't actually lead to any kind of understanding -- they act on their best behavior until something pisses them off, then they start to get snarky and rude. They always ignore every salient point of their critics, preferring instead to nutpick the most obnoxious statements to respond to.

When dealing with people this blatantly dishonest, you can't project your normalcy onto them. You can't assume that they are sane, rational actors -- that just lets them use the rules of the game to push, push, push. We saw that in the Bush administration, if nowhere else. We have to realize that the rules of change, and we have to adapt.

Being the better man means you lose.

[–]themountaingoat 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dropcode 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ristlin 92 points93 points94 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManDrone 32 points33 points34 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ristlin 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lulutugeller 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TylerPaul 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

A long long time ago, men worked hard to provide and got themselves killed but, as a gender, were rewarded for it with high positions. Women took care of the home and passed on the genes. It was mutually beneficial for our survival as a species. Men receive a bunch of rights. First wave feminism comes in and successfully get's women the same rights. Alls good. Technology advances and the house work becomes easier but women now feel trapped with nothing to do. Enter the second wave feminists who want to tear down the gender roles. They succeed and it's awesome, but not as awesome because the male role is still to work and provide. If you have more people competing for the same job then it's harder to get and will pay less. This forces people to 2 jobs if need be. We come to this crossroad where the role of the man has to change as well, but it doesn't. Instead we get lies, disrespect, anger and further expectations. Not just socially, but legally and nobody will listen. But I digress, feminists got what they wanted with a majority of the male sex on their side. That brings us to today. Women can take care of the home, make a successful career, or do both. All men are expected make a successful careers but only some should be allowed to a top position. All men are expected to be providers but with less respect for the role. All men are expected to live up to a pedestal but are talked about like they're scum. Men must pay and sacrifice and the idea of getting any less from the male gender is impermissible. The one thing men aren't expected to do is have a problem with this.

[–]4man 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lulutugeller 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]4man 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lulutugeller1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, not particularly. I will never be a woman in a top level job, but that's because I'm not interested, not because I listened to my mom. But, considering she divorced my dad when I was two and developed some health issues, she could never prevent me from taking the traditional male role in her household. She seemed to need it. By that, I mean fixing things and other manly responsabilities. This didn't happen with my much older sister, who grew up with a father, is a lot more feminine, but ditched chores to do her homework and mom didn't insist. I, on the other hand, can fix a chair, do some light plumbing, cancel subscriptions and open jars without tools. I used to take those responsabilities usually asigned to men. I only needed to fix flat bike tires since I moved with my boyfriend, though. I don't know what I wanted to say with that. Maybe "don't listen to your parents".

[–]4man2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ristlin2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ristlin1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]equilshift1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quickclickz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BewhiskeredWordSmith0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because boys are taught how to run billion dollar companies when they're growing up?

The disconnect between the skills taught to children and the qualifications needed for C-level jobs are so far removed from one another that learning how to cook and clean or how to build and fight has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you'll ever be a chief of anything in a global corporation.

If anything, the lack of women in C-level jobs is more likely to be biological than social. It takes a certain kind of person to head a multi-national company; I certainly couldn't do it - in fact, I don't think I personally know a single person who could. Perhaps the traits necessary to work in a C-level job are more commonly found in men? Perhaps the need to make decisions without feeling is more difficult for women?

[–]jbkjam 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ristlin 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SickNarsh1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

One problem with the argument that constraints on individuals are self-imposed is that it does not take into account that people interests are constituted in reference to gender stereotypes. The same way a lot of women did not have any interest in having the right to vote, a lot of women do not have interest in getting C-level jobs. Gender equality cannot be fully reached if we do not try to break those stereotypes and have people desire anything without regards to their gender.

That being said, I also think this is important to aknowledge the different problems of both genders. We could try to argue about which of the women or men are the better off, but this is counter constructive in my opinion. It is as important to consider women's limited access to decision taking positions as it is to consider violence problems related to the strong competivity between men, for example. Both genders are interelated abd stuck in a system that is detrimental to them. We are together in this bullshit and should work at it together.

[–]ristlin1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]szthesquid 45 points46 points47 points 13 years ago* (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]Indolence 39 points40 points41 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[+]JustRuss79 13 years ago* [recovered] (34 children) | Copy Link

There are good arguments for why these jobs are male dominated though. Specifically the military, women will be required to meet the exact same guidelines as men for physical fitness and health to be on the front line. In all other aspects of the military women get a pass on physical fitness (easier weight and bodyfat standards, less sit-ups/pushups, longer to run the same distance, dead hang time instead of pullups, etc).

If a woman is capable of doing the same physically demanding job as a man at the same level, then she should be allowed to do it. But there simply ARE differences in the type of work that men and women are "typically" suited to do.

[–]nickcorvus 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Specifically the military, women will be required to meet the exact same guidelines as men for physical fitness and health to be on the front line. In all other aspects of the military women get a pass on physical fitness (easier weight and bodyfat standards, less sit-ups/pushups, longer to run the same distance, dead hang time instead of pullups, etc).

You're right, and it saddens me. Look at the noises Dempsey has been making lately.

They're going to make the standards for men and women the same, by lowering them.

ArmyGen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that if a service wants to keep a job as a male-only occupation because of its high physical demands, the service will have to show why those tests should not be lowered to accommodate women.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/special-operations-forces-are-worried-about-adding/

Lowering standards so that women qualify doesn't make combat "easier". We lose too many warfighters in combat as it is. Now we're going to lower our standards so that we can lose more?

Ultimately, I guess they will be equal, in death. Because a corpse is a corpse.

Note carefully what I'm saying. I absolutely support women being allowed into combat MOS's, providing they can meet the current standards.

I am categorically against lowering those standards. Even if they were keeping those MOS's for men only, I'd still be against lowering them.

My objection isn't about the chromosomal pairing of the candidate, but the standards they'll be expected to meet.

[–]callthebankshot 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nickcorvus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't mind this argument as long as you are also willing to concede that military fatalities will continue to be predominantly men and you don't consider this sexism.

I'm good with this. It's pretty compelling logically that if the majority of the participants are male, the majority of the injuries and fatalities would be male. I've never complained about the imbalance of male to female combat related fatalities or injuries.

This can also be extended to include dangerous physical labour.

I've not nothing to say on that subject. As a former active-duty US Marine, it's the military aspect which concerns me.

I don't care if there are women oil riggers or working on the crabbing boats.

You can't exclude women the vast majority of women on the basis of their inherent genetic abilities, then turn around and claim male oppression.

Was this directed specifically at me, or was it a general "you"?

[–]callthebankshot1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nickcorvus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]spauldingnooo 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]inlatitude 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spauldingnooo3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]uncleoce 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jianadaren1 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]equilshift 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TastyBrainMeats-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]equilshift4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustRuss790 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BigHeadDad 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but what you're describing is the exact thing that feminism is fighting against. That's the problem I have with MRM. You don't want equality. You want the status quo. You're fighting against any change to the status quo.

Feminists don't want men to be kicked out of teaching or child care. Far from it. Feminists don't want women slut shamed by men or women. Feminists don't want different standards for men and women. They want access, the chance to meet the same standards. In so many cases, they don't get that. And yeah women should be allowed to stay home and have kids. Or not. SAME FOR MEN! I'm a dude. I'm a feminist. I would love to stay home with my kid. But you know what? Our society is organized in such a way that it's very difficult to do that. There is intense pressure against men to chose a non-career oriented path. Your job as a man is to work and provide. The woman's job is to stay at home. Guess what? That's what feminism is fighting against.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Sickamore1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quickclickz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bramblesnatch0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I disagree. There are literally no jobs (at least that I can think of and that do not require the use of reproductive organs) that members of either sex cannot perform. As to whether one sex might perform better at specific tasks, that's another question. As already stated, perhaps a random male will perform better than a random female in jobs requiring large reservoirs of physical strength or endurance. By the same measure, there are other jobs, such as those requiring acute fine motor skills, that may be better suited to females. In short, we could have a fighting force composed entirely of women, or rely solely on men for the assemblage of our most intricate devices, and most likely both pursuits would prove effective. Would that be the best distribution of our available resources? Probably not, but they'd still get the job done.

Falk D. Brain lateralization in primates and its evolution in hominids. Am J Phys Anthropol 2005; 30(S8): 107-25

yeah, yeah--moure (I wish the British spelled it like this) sources would probably be better but it's Wednesday

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]gdneye 13 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Prison too. If having less women in stem jobs is by itself proof of sexism against women, the same argument would conclude that male dominated prisons are proof of sexism against men. Obviously men and women act differently. Personally I think men take a lot more risks in life, this results in more of them at the top of the social ladder (c level jobs) AND more at the bottom (garbage men, fishermen, oil, prison).

[–]missedit22 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BigHeadDad0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xtelosx1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]beetlejuice02 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think sometimes when we talk about these issues we get caught up in an arguement about blanket equality, and if the feminists arn't fightig for equal access to everything, then their arguemnt is invalid. To a degree, I definitely agree that this is true. However, I think a different perspective also needs to be considered. The jobs and positions we see feminists arguing over today are not only the good paying jobs or simply "better" jobs, they are the jobs with power in the public sphere, a position women have long been kept out of or limited too. From out of an atricles someone else posted about women doing better in school: "At a time when men are still hugely overrepresented in Congress, on executive boards, and in the corridors of power." This is what the old school feminists wanted (I honestly haven't read much stuff after the mid 1900s, it bugs me). They wanted equal access to decision making and power in the public sphere, not necessarily in everything. And honestly, I think anyone would be hard presses to look in this area and say we have reached equality and don't need to do anything more about. Just my own two cents and I know probably doesn't apply to a lot of the very legitimate anti-feminist arguements.

[–]ManicParroT 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]cogitoergosam1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SFWlunchaccount1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rufert 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]N64TOLKIEN 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tigrrbaby1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArtDuck 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]4man1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArtDuck1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]4man1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArtDuck1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jerzeem0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fibonacci35813 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2011/gender-gap-in-education.aspx

On the feminization of education. Additional data on this is easy to find.

And perhaps there are more men in STEM fields because of discrimination against them in every other program.

I am going based upon personal experience, since I found in every field other than STEM I needed to learn anti-male feminist propaganda.

There is little to no evidence that women don't have access to these jobs.

Well I can't really have a source for the absence of data, but many female CEO's, and Margret Thatcher, have said that feminism didn't help them/ they didn't face discrimination.

The data suggests that women simply aren't willing to sacrifice as much for their careers as men are.

Many of the reasons that explain the wage gap (career choice, hours worked, willingness to relocate, job security, and so on ) would also influence the number of people in high positions. Ĥere is a paper outlining many of the reasons.

There are additional areas in which men sacrifice more, from commute times, to the danger of the work they are willing to do, to how much they value job satisfaction over pay that would also influence how many people would be in the highest positions. Googling the gender difference in these areas will find sources.

[–]moserine-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reddidd 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 13 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManicParroT0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious36 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

lack of drive or ability. Since girls are discouraged from going into heavy business and STEM courses at a young age, they lack the skills later in life to access these positions. If they had the appropriate abilities and experience, it would not be as much as an issue.

As for discouragement in school, much of this is done by the parents or individual, not the school. As a female that took upper level Calculus and Physics courses in high school and entering college without having to take a math course, I can say that the school never once discouraged me.. in fact, they applauded me, offered to pay for my exams and the like. The most discouragement I got were form other GIRLS, and the media image that women that when into science and math as unattractive, unwanted, odd women.

My mother holds a C-level job and you would amazed about the number of self declared "feminist" criticized her for leaving the home, despite the fact that she was the best mother out of the group of them. My mother herself, states that she would not hire another woman if they did not have the skills necessary for the job and it has nothing to do with their gender. She says the same for men.

[–]SerPuissance10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's really interesting, and I know that my gf could relate to being criticised for her goals and choices. She's often said that all the way through school, university and now the world of work (where she is highly respected) she has never once felt held back by men. She has however come up against the occasional raised female eyebrows when she says that the thing that would make her happiest is raising a family and providing a stable home. This is the choice she wants to make to live a happy and fulfilled life, but some women have told her it's "wrong" and that she's been "brainwashed."

She often tells me that she feels like modern feminism isn't fighting for her right to choose the life she wants, rather it's pushing her into just another set of archetypes that she "should" live up to. She's pretty sick of people telling her what to do and what she should be, and most of those people are women.

I don't know if that's just chance, but I would be interested in hearing whether anyone else feels the same way.

Me I just support her in whatever she wants to do, she's bright, hard working and I know she can achieve whatever she wants.

[–]BigHeadDad2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SerPuissance5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jianadaren11 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SerPuissance1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rakeandsteelyard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is what I'm used to seeing. After one of my friends graduated from college, she moved in with her fiancee and was unable to find a job, despite plenty of effort and concessions about where and when and what she would do. Partly she was frustrated because such a situation sucks, but she was extra hard on herself because she felt as a feminist that she was being a "bad woman" for relying on her fiancee's income at the time. I tried to tell her her situation had nothing to do with being a woman, she and her partner weren't struggling financially, and she was in a good place and making the most out of her situation with freelance work and portfolio building, and who gives a crap what other people think when they see the surface of the situation. I happened to talk about my concerns with a coworker, and her response was "she should feel bad, she is being a bad woman." I just flushed and sat there stunned, too angry to say anything civil. To her it would be better for my friend to be collecting unemployment or living with parents instead of living where she wanted, just to keep from being tangentally supported by her male fiancee.

Later at my job, one of my female coworkers got pregnant and, after maternity leave, decided she wanted to stay at home with her child full-time and give up her lead technical position. We were sad she left because of her experience and work, but everyone was supportive of her decision; except a few of the young women, who badmouthed her behind her back for setting a bad example for her gender and "succumbing" to pressures to hold her back. Such a load of crap, she was the most dedicated employee, and now she wanted to be a dedicated mom, the best she could be to her children. She'd never let "gender roles" keep her from doing what she wanted, and she was happy, and they just couldn't respect her choice as a person, only scoff at it as a woman.

[–]SerPuissance1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nerdrhyme6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BigHeadDad1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GunOfSod2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]valhath4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ManicParroT3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jianadaren11 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sarapeno1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As for discouragement in school, much of this is done by the parents or individual, not the school. As a female that took upper level Calculus and Physics courses in high school and entering college without having to take a math course, I can say that the school never once discouraged me.. in fact, they applauded me, offered to pay for my exams and the like. The most discouragement I got were form other GIRLS, and the media image that women that when into science and math as unattractive, unwanted, odd women.

While I am really happy that you didn't have a stifling experience, I did, and so did many other female friends who attended school with me. Despite my top honours grades in advanced level biology, physics, and chemistry classes, I was told that "math classes are probably a waste of time for you" and that "jobs in science and math are going to be very hard for you to get" and "maybe even community college is an ambitious goal for you". By teachers, and almost exclusively male ones. For comparison, my male friends who struggled through standard level sciences were encouraged to take calculus and consider careers in engineering. It boggles the mind.

There are still teachers who think girls are not as good at math, or that men are more capable of logical/analytical thought... It seems to be less common, and certainly your experience is nice to hear about (given my own opposite one), but it's still happening.

[–]uncleoce1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sarapeno1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So women were discouraging you as well?

Out of the seven or eight teachers I encountered in grades 1-12 who I feel actively discouraged me from STEM fields/learning, only one was female. She had many other philosophical eccentricities also.

Sorry, but I just don't buy this concept. Why would a teacher discourage a gifted student? If I was a parent and heard something like that being said to/about my child, I would have the teacher fired if it was the last thing I did.

Because there are bad teachers. There are teachers who are sexist, teachers who are racist, teachers who have a wide range of preconceived notions which affect their interactions with parents and children and colleagues. Being in a profession where you SHOULD care about encouraging children to be the best they can and help them learn, doesn't mean everyone who gets into the job behaves that way.

As well, not all parents are involved enough in their children's lives, (either through necessity of circumstance or choice), to know when an educator is providing their kid with poor guidance, and not all kids know enough/have the confidence to filter out bad advice from someone in a position of authority and may not even feel the conversation is worth mentioning to their parents. Say what you want about taking justice into your hands and getting a teacher fired... Maybe you are the type of parent who would know every detail of their child's school days and have the time to investigate every issue, but that's not the case with all parents. Most parents I know are good parents, but overly busy to provide the attention that perhaps they should.

There was one gentleman in particular who was my grade 10 math teacher who systematically pulled aside every girl in his classes and, at some point in the school year, suggested we would do better to focus on humanities and take an extra history or language class rather than the follow up to his math class. His high level math classes were almost exclusively male, with only one or two girls each semester in classes of 30-40, compared to other teachers with far more even ratios.

When confronted by a friend's parents (mine were supportive but not particularly involved and as such weren't the ones to approach him), this teacher claimed he saw us "struggling" and wanted to help us find the right path. Strangely the boys in class got help when struggling, and weren't encouraged to become secretaries or librarians or social workers. He claimed that the evidence suggesting his behavior was sexist was a "statistical anomaly" and that he treated all students the same. The principal didn't really believe him but he had tenure and was planning to retire in a couple years, so they let him be and just reduced his class load by 25%.

I'm not saying it happens often, and I'm not saying it happens everywhere, but to try and pretend it doesn't happen at all because it's also happening to boys (in other ways) or because it's not happening as often as it used to, or because you have no personal experience with it, erodes the cause of equality. Some of my male friends were discouraged from cheer leading and gymnastics and home economics classes. That wasn't okay either. People need to pay attention to issues where any person is discouraged from doing what they want or are capable of based on a metric they have little or no control over.

[–]quickclickz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sarapeno1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AmadeusMop0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think everyone should take measures toward changing this. I am not saying that there does not exist discrimination but I believe that the individual choice makes a big difference too. In my experience, women that want to succeed and are willing to fight just as much as any other person do not have too much trouble moving up. I cannot speak for others, this is just what I have observed.

I think the number one way to start changing this is to stop portraying the businesswoman as a bitchy, prudish freak that cares nothing for the plights of others. Think about movies and TV shows that depicts women climbing to the top only to loose her family and friends and love life. Men in the same position are seen to gain these things and have a more fulfilling life.

Young girls go off what they see many times and if I saw that consistently, I wouldn't want to do it either. Stop the media portrayal of successful women in work and business and being unsuccessful in their personal lives and then see when young women go with their lives.

[–]hamsalamibacon-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BenoirBALLS1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They drop out of the workforce.

That's what people like you ignore: personal choice. You believe that men and women are instinctually, chemically and biologically the same. You are completely wrong on all counts, and blatantly so. But you all believe that, and it colors everything else you do.

But women leave the workforce more often than men do, and not just to have kids. You posit some massive conspiracy -- The Patriarchy -- as being behind this, but it could simply be due to our different instinctual drives. You refuse to even acknowledge that possibility, because your field is not data driven. It doesn't follow even the modified form of scientific method most social sciences follow. It makes a claim, then it goes out and specifically attempts to prove that claim -- which is exactly the method that stick science in the dark-ages for so fucking long.

Try disproving what you think from time to time. It would do wonders for the honesty of your field.

[–]ManicParroT0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MsManifesto0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But women leave the workforce more often than men do, and not just to have kids. You posit some massive conspiracy -- The Patriarchy -- as being behind this, but it could simply be due to our different instinctual drives.

I'm inclined to believe that you haven't read much feminist theory, and so I'd like to explicate the notion of Patriarchy in order to hopefully demonstrate the argument for why Patriarchy may result in more women leaving the work force.

Patriarchy is a system that relies on gender binary. The gender binary is composed of the social meanings of what it means to be a man and to be a woman--that is, how society understands and the differences between men and women and the roles for each gender--and individuals manifesting this binary through their beliefs and actions. Looking, then, at the fact that more women leave the workforce, and that in our cultural history, there exists a long-lasting expectation that women['s roles] be in the home and that men['s roles] be in the workforce, it could be argued that this behavior is the result of gender binary, and hence Patriarchy.

but it could simply be due to our different instinctual drives.

Sure, but things really don't look good for Biological Determinism, given that culture has been shown to shape human destiny in tandem with human physiology and chemistry. I think that this is probably the real reason for the rejection of the position. Regardless, I have a hard time seeing whether differences between the genders are biological or cultural as a real point of contention. This is because social inequality is not born from difference alone, but rather the interpretation of those differences.

[–]Seesyounaked8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oxencotten6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Seesyounaked1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Goldreaver0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SerPuissance3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]L_Zilcho 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]marco2621 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is a very sad state of affairs in the general culture that teenage girls are raised in, true. And a solution is going to have to come from both sides of the gender gap.

When I was in college, the STEM departments were slavering to try and get more women into their courses. Now, there was a decent amount of guys (mostly undergrads) in the department who were a little baffled by the idea of girls being into engineering, and would speak up about it in a mocking sense. But then, in my experiences with girls who weren't in the STEM courses, they expressed much of the same disdain.

People feeling limited to particular fields by the expectations of the people around them is definitely still an extant problem. But for the most part, it's a problem that affects both genders equally, and its causes come from both sides of the gender gap. We'll need EVERYONE to change their behavior to truly overcome these issues.

[–]bramblesnatch1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]akpak1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kommissar_chaR1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bitbith 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The right to vote? To own property separate from a woman's husband? Bodily autonomy? Entry to the workforce? Access to higher education?

The goals haven't all been met -- or they were, and we're backpedaling, particularly in the bodily autonomy front.

That I as a woman, have very little control over what I can and cannot do with my body once a clump of cells form inside (regardless of whether or not that formation was planned, by accident or by force) signals that the bodily autonomy goal hasn't been met. That depending on the state where I live, I can be presumed pregnant by virtue of having sex, and possibly denied rights to prevent such pregnancies (IUDs) signals that what semblance of control I have is based on the whims of a politician.

When people (see what I did there?) get out of what I do with my own body, in my own bedroom, then I'll give you that feminism has done its job, and I'll move on to bigger and better things. Until that day, I think that there's solid ground for men (and the MRAs in particular) to concede bodily autonomy to feminism.

[–]DerpaNerb 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bitbith1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, there's been a huge 'It starts with men/men's issue' push that's occurred within the last few months that has made this a 'people' issue. I wholly support this, and think it's a HUGE step forward.

Jackson Katz for instance, has one of the BEST TED talks I've ever heard. http://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue.html (seriously, totally worth a listen, and a huge mind-changer)

He argues that in fact, calling things like DV, rape and abortion 'women's issues' gives men an unconscious excuse to downplay or ignore the issues, which affect both men and women. Instead, he argues that men, in particular non-abusive men, need to speak up, and make the abuse environment unacceptable in peer culture.

Here's more on that same subject: http://www.policymic.com/articles/29411/steubenville-rape-case-sexual-assault-prevention-starts-with-men

As I've mentioned before, if MRAs want to get past all this and actually do something central to end the feminist/androist dichotomy, these issues NEED to be human issues. Period.

[–]DerpaNerb2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bitbith2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nickcorvus 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

NO.

How fucking dare you. OUR WHOLE ISSUE is that we are not being treated fairly as people. You want us to address this by taking away the autonomy of other people? And worse, abortion rate is not affected by legality, only the safeness of the abortions is affected. Asserting that we should violate another group's human rights as strike back for their bigotry makes you exactly like them. And getting women to die because the drano and coathangers forced into her uterus in a back alley by an immigrant who's never been to any school instead of allowing them to have a doctor safely preform the operation is psychopathic. I entirely reject this idea, and unless I'm missing something very glaring and misunderstand you, you should be ashamed of this position.

You are essentially saying that you advocate policies causing women to die as strikeback for their non-support.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]suspiciousface 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would argue that most of one's lot in life is determined by birth. How much money your parents have, what race and religion they are, etc, are not things that you are solely responsible for.

Most criminal clients you deal with are probably not model citizens and probably a great deal of the blame for that does rest on them. But these problems perpetuate themselves. In a poor area with a lot of black gangs, police will pay more attention to black people. People with the means to get out of such an area will, and people who don't may have to resort to co-operating with or joining a gang for their own safety.

I'm not saying they're right entirely, I'm saying it is certainly a contributing factor. If you have enough money to invest, that money can make more money for you. If you're living paycheque to paycheque, the situation becomes more and more difficult to get out of.

[–]pocketknifeMT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]missedit220 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jiveturtle 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]walkthepath 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vehementi 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]juvegirlbe 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theJigmeister 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theJigmeister 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]graveyard_shifts0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]graveyard_shifts1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

After SB2 is passed into law in Texas, the number of available providers will reduce from 47 to 5. Many women in the state will have to take multiple 10 hour trips to their nearest clinic in order to be able to see a care provider. You can read here for more information if you are genuinely interested. http://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1h5zzd/ive_seen_a_lot_of_confusion_as_to_why_the/ If you don't read the link, this quote is particularly telling "Beyond that there is a provision in this section that says women who seek abortions because of miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy aren't really having "abortions" and are therefore exempt from the new "safety standards". Now why in the hell would they exempt the women who need the procedure the most from the new "safety standards" if they were worried about safety?"

You can say that these laws aren't killing Roe, but how would you feel if the state decided that you could only buy firearms at one of five state licensed dealers. Would you say that that's not technically a violation of the 2nd amendment? Roe determined that a woman's right to bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus's right to life until such point as the fetus would be viable. Adding these additional restrictions is an attempt to erode this right as much as possible until such time as judicial remedy can be sought. If the people responsible for these bills were acting in the interest of women's health, as they claim, why are they limiting access to birth control and advocating for sex education that stresses abstinence until marriage? (yes the language was struck from the bill, but that was what they originally attempted to get passed ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/83R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00300_SB00399/SB00310I.htm)

I agree that parts of the TX law will be struck down, but after how long and at what expense? I imagine our definitions of "post haste" are not quite the same. In the meantime, countless thousands of women will be saddled with unwanted pregnancies and the state gets to pick up the tab for the whole thing. Try telling them that they aren't being attacked by their lawmakers.

[–]bitbith0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You probably should read up on your facts.

Texas is currently attempting to pass a bill (after a very popular filibuster by Wendy Davis) to effectively shut down nearly all Planned Parenthoods, on the grounds that they should meet the exacting standards of a hospital. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/02/19256802-public-input-limited-as-texas-anti-abortion-bill-comes-back-up-for-debate?lite

The North Carolina senate recently snuck in a bill (attached to an anti-Sharia law for some reason) that would do the same (and a bit more): http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/07/north-carolinas-anti-sharia-bill-now-also-anti-abortion/66812/

North Dakota bans all abortion (regardless of reason, health or welfare of the mother) after a fetal heartbeat is discovered (in some cases, within six weeks well prior to the viability standard established in Roe): http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=39113&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=daily2_

Nine states in the country require such onerous 'waiting periods' that many women are effectively denied abortions in any practical sense: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

Numerous states (including Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin) are floating bills that require transvaginal (penetrative) ultrasounds: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/12/2141521/scott-walker-abortion-clinics-ultrasound/

As a woman, those sound like pretty serious 'challenges to Roe' as far as I'm concerned.

[–]logrusmage3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Texas is currently attempting to pass a bill (after a very popular filibuster by Wendy Davis) to effectively shut down nearly all Planned Parenthoods, on the grounds that they should meet the exacting standards of a hospital.

Nothing to do with bodily autonomy. This is the result of involving government in medical procedures.

North Dakota bans all abortion (regardless of reason, health or welfare of the mother) after a fetal heartbeat is discovered (in some cases, within six weeks well prior to the viability standard established in Roe):

How much money would you like to bet the part that violates Roe gets struck down within the next five to seven years?

Nine states in the country require such onerous 'waiting periods' that many women are effectively denied abortions in any practical sense:

...Except they can all eventually get said abortions. The waiting time is no more banning abortions than the cooling off period is banning buying a handgun. (I don't agree with either fyi).

Numerous states (including Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin) are floating bills that require transvaginal (penetrative) ultrasounds

These are incredibly wrong and horrible, but they aren't banning abortion in any sense. Once again, a result of involving governments in medical issues.

As a woman, those sound like pretty serious 'challenges to Roe' as far as I'm concerned.

Are you a constitutional lawyer/scholar? Being a woman doesn't qualify you to determine whether or not a law that is in process of being created is a threat to a Supreme Court legal precedent.

One of those laws directly contradicts Roe, and it will probably be knocked down because of that. The other's are terribly immoral, but do not come close to disregarding Roe directly.

Abortion is a serious issue. It is an issue that deserves to be treated carefully and thoroughly. These bills are clearly immoral (for the same reasons the ACA is immoral), but to say these bills represent Roe having "one foot in the grave" is a gross overstatement. I'll believe that Roe is seriously threatened if and only if Roberts comes out against it or the next Republican President gets to put up a judge or two who are against it. Alito isn't even a lock to vote against the precedent set by Roe.

The Robert's court recent string of decisions points to this court favoring social progression as well.

[–]bitbith0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

With regard to your points:

If you really think that the medicalization of abortion clinics isn't an attack on bodily autonomy, you're simply not paying attention. Put it this way: If there was a requirement that prior to sperm donation, you had to get counselling, the facility had to be hospital grade, and a waiting period existed prior to donation, that would be an infringement on your right as a man to bodily autonomy (control of your sperm). Even better -- if before you engaged in a little self-love, you had to do so in a controlled, medically-supervised way, that would be an infringement of your bodily autonomy. The only difference here is that it's involving a woman and pregnancy.
FWIW, I am a lawyer, and have probably studied more Constitutional law than the average redditor (both in the course of study and professionally). Not that it matters (way to red herring an argument, BTW!) That the courts may strike these laws down as unconstitutional does not preclude the fact that politicians will keep trying to pass this rot, and in many cases, these laws are already in play, affecting real women on a daily basis.
Waiting periods, particularly in states where abortion clinics have doctors that rotate (due to hospital privilege requirements, lack of medical doctors generally, etc) do mean that many women, particularly poor women, will not have the ability to obtain a legal abortion. If you're a rural woman who has to take a day off work to drive 2 miles to a major metropolitan area in order to go through the first day of counselling/ultrasound procedures, and have to wait a week (or more) for the next follow-up because the one and only doctor in that facility must divide their time to other hospitals in the state, you might just miss the viability window. Particularly in a state such as ND, where the standard is fetal heartbeat.

I don't know if you're a woman or not, or have ever been (or with) someone who has gotten pregnant, but that time period is extremely squishy. So yes, in practical terms, it can (and will) prevent abortions. THATS WHY IT WAS PASSED AS A LAW.

If you really think these laws are designed with medical fitness in mind, I suggest you re-read my first point again.
The Roberts court decisions (notably in Shelby County v. Holder (VRA) and Gonzales v. Carhart (late-termination abortion)) also point to a court favoring a return to restrictive social policies.

EDIT: There is weirdness that is duplicating the first and second points in the thread. Not my doing.

[–]logrusmage2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you really think that the medicalization of abortion clinics isn't an attack on bodily autonomy, you're simply not paying attention. Put it this way: If there was a requirement that prior to sperm donation, you had to get counselling, the facility had to be hospital grade, and a waiting period existed prior to donation, that would be an infringement on your right as a man to bodily autonomy (control of your sperm).

Ok then, do you agree that literally every law involving medicine or drugs is limiting bodily autonomy? If so, we're in agreement.

way to red herring an argument, BTW!

Says the person who thought referring to her gender made her an authority on threats to Roe. lol.

That the courts may strike these laws down as unconstitutional does not preclude the fact that politicians will keep trying to pass this rot, and in many cases, these laws are already in play, affecting real women on a daily basis.

And they are absolutely wrong and should be beaten/repealed. But they are not proof Roe is dying.

Waiting periods, particularly in states where abortion clinics have doctors that rotate (due to hospital privilege requirements, lack of medical doctors generally, etc) do mean that many women, particularly poor women, will not have the ability to obtain a legal abortion. If you're a rural woman who has to take a day off work to drive 2 miles to a major metropolitan area in order to go through the first day of counselling/ultrasound procedures, and have to wait a week (or more) for the next follow-up because the one and only doctor in that facility must divide their time to other hospitals in the state, you might just miss the viability window. Particularly in a state such as ND, where the standard is fetal heartbeat.

I will concede this point entirely, thank you for the detailed explanation.

if you really think these laws are designed with medical fitness in mind,

Intent is not meaningful. Results are meaningful, hence I conceded the point when you logically proved the result was prevention of legal abortion.

I consider striking down that part of the voting rights act to be socially liberal, and late-term abortion is an incredibly iffy subject to begin with so i don't think that can really point to the direction the court will generally take.

[–]bitbith1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

'nearly every law...' is far too vague a statement to agree with. Do you have an example?

Referencing gender in the context of my perspective does not a red herring make. I don't claim to be an authority on matters related to Roe. I have, however read the case a number of times, and more importantly, tracked the gradual eroding of Roe ever since. (See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992); Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (8th Cir)).

FWIW, the real test will be the cases currently pending before the various courts. If the courts adhere to most SCOTUS decisions post-Roe, you're right--Roe won't be on death's door. But my guess is, the legislative body is pushing for these laws now for a reason--they know that recent crop of jurists, particularly those at the Appellate level, are conservative in their views.

With regards to intent: I suggest you read up a bit more on jurisprudence generally. Intent is in fact, frequently one of the major criteria used by courts in adjudicating legislation.

[–]logrusmage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The Food and Drug Act, all laws criminalizing possession or ingestion of any substance, all laws prohibiting any kind of voluntary labor (minimum wage, etc), the Selective Service Act, the Civil Rights Act (particularly the portions that deny freedom of association, a direct result of bodily autonomy), the Affordable Care Act, the Social Security Act... I could go on.

Referencing gender in the context of my perspective does not a red herring make.

I didn't say it was. I said it was ironic that someone who referenced their gender as authority was citing fallacies.

FWIW, the real test will be the cases currently pending before the various courts. If the courts adhere to most SCOTUS decisions post-Roe, you're right--Roe won't be on death's door. But my guess is, the legislative body is pushing for these laws now for a reason--they know that recent crop of jurists, particularly those at the Appellate level, are conservative in their views.

I agree with this much, we shall indeed see.

With regards to intent: I suggest you read up a bit more on jurisprudence generally. Intent is in fact, frequently one of the major criteria used by courts in adjudicating legislation.

That doesn't make it correct to do so.

[–]bitbith1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Innes_Eh0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vehementi-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vehementi1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vehementi1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vehementi1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nulspace2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whathttildeath1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theJigmeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whathttildeath1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theJigmeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whathttildeath1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theJigmeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whathttildeath1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whathttildeath1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]drakeblood41 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dudeguy12341 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

|These goals have all been met

The thing is, some of them haven't. Just look at the ongoing tug of war between SCOTUS' decision in Roe v. Wade and the efforts of state governments all across the country to limit or overturn it; look at the pay gap between the genders, often starting right after college and continuing throughout the rest of their careers; look at the disparity between men and women in high-profile jobs (especially politics) -- even though more women than men are now graduating from college.

On top of that you still have to take into account cultural factors like over-sexualization from an early age and how the importance placed on a woman's appearance effects her livelihood, among others.

Claiming that there is no longer any difference between the genders and all that's left is a "general 'feeling' of oppression" is simply factually incorrect.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz3450 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rhyskrispies18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say 'these goals have all been met.' There are still vast pay differences between men and women in most Western countries, there are still condescending attitudes regularly thrown towards women and there are still vastly more female victims of domestic violence and rape.

I completely agree with the above posts that current ideologies within large parts of the feminist movement are more to do with a fictionalised class struggle between men and women than equality. However the inequalities in pay, in treatment of women and the attitudes that they face in public are all still there. Perhaps the movement has developed into a radical image of itself because society accepted that their goals were achieved when really they weren't? Perhaps if people (men as well as women) started campaigning for equal pay and legislative gender equalities under the name of Feminism it could be reclaimed to represent the post-enlightenment individualist ideals that men have enjoyed for the past 300 years.

I've just seen a lot of men in this thread saying 'I'm a feminist and I don't agree with that'. Well if you're a feminist get out there and show the world that you're not ok with unequal pay, you're not ok with the way lots of men talk to and treat women, you're not ok with the unequal ideologies that modern feminists promote and actually do something to advance the equality you claim to endorse.

[–]logrusmage12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theg33k3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pay inequality is mostly a myth at this point. The last thing activists want to hear is "wait" but all you have to do is look at higher education right now. In a generation's time the high skilled labor pool in the US will be totally dominated by women. They're the ones succeeding in all of the STEM fields at universities across the board. When you look at the statistics of pay right now you are still looking at a LOT of baby boomers in the market. Those female baby boomers largely did not go to college and never felt the self confidence enough to demand a raise or leave jobs that weren't offering advancement.

Once those baby boomers die off and all of the people who went through college in the last decade or so start making their way into management you'll wonder where the men went.

[–]themountaingoat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]limbictides2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]i7omahawki0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

there are still condescending attitudes regularly thrown towards women and there are still vastly more female victims of domestic violence and rape.

The key to the former is open and frank debate, something which is not typical of the 'feminist movement' as represented on the internet. Nobody knows they're wrong. If someone makes a sexist comment you can calmly explain why it is so. If they don't care - there's not much you can do. If they do care, a rational and compassionate explanation will do.

The latter, I don't know what you want. Males are generally stronger than females - even in an egalitarian society women would be overrepresented in this issue because they are generally weaker. I'd hazard a guess that vastly more short people are the victims of domestic abuse. Would it actually be better for males and females to be equal (edit: in terms of incidence rates for these sorts of crimes), or would it instead be much better to reduce the overall amount?

[–]Goldreaver1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]i7omahawki1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaisAuFait0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TragicLackofTiming11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TragicLackofTiming3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But I think, much in the same way that society discourages men who want to be stay at home dads, it also discourages women who want to go into STEM

I don't think 'society' particularly discourages stay-at-home dads. So right off the bat I don't think the comparison is relative. I think the reason most dads work is because most dads WANT to work, and NEED to work. Yes, there is a social expectation for men to work, and that might be why men choose to want to work but that doesn't remove the fact that they made that choice.

I'm not saying that women are confined to gender boxes and men aren't, just that society does try to shove people into their gender boxes.

This is far less true today than ever before in history to the point where I would say it is totally overcomable and not relevant for any person even slightly determined to do a socially-discouraged activity (in most cases, there are exceptions like women in hard physical labor jobs or men in childcare). [Edit: Also I meant this only relative to gender, homosexuals and transgendered peeps still have some serious hurdles to overcome, unfortunately].

And, on occasion, I think men will hear a legitimate complaint by women (like "I was discouraged from being on the math team, because I was a girl") and write it off as though things like that don't happen, when, of course, they do.

Yes, they do happen, but they happen to everyone about a multitude of things. How often do you think girls actually choose NOT to be on the math team because some asshole made a stupid sexist comment? I'd bet a pretty penny it isn't very often, just like I don't think many men who wanted to be stay at home dads chose not too because some asshole told them it would make them less of a man.

A The reason I might write it off isn't because I think it didn't happen, but because I'm well aware that an assholes opinion doesn't actually put any kind of real barrier in front of anyone. So when a girl tells me some douche said she couldn't write an app because she's female, I don't view it as any worse than someone telling me I can't tutor children because I don't have a teaching degree. That person telling me I can't or they can't is wrong and should be ignored. If you take that kind of bull to heart it is your own damn fault for caring about a douchecanoe's opinion.

Now when an English teachers clearly gives better grades to girls' papers or when a CS teacher is overly picky with his female students, THEN I think outrage is 100% justified and necessary (and I've seen both of those things happen). Because that is ACTUAL discrimination, not some ephemeral, "societal" pressure that cannot be quantified and who;s effects can be easily avoided. The pressure is still wrong, it just isn't a legitimate barrier to entry in most cases (in the modern world in developed nations).

Gender bias is absolutely real.

Absolutely, I just don't think it has a statistically significant effect on gender ratios in the vast majority of occupations.

[–]MsManifesto1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think 'society' particularly discourages stay-at-home dads.

I would argue that society discourages stay-at-home dads in the way that it tends to be overly-critical of a father's ability to provide adequate childcare. For example, I have seen several thread here in /r/mensrights where fathers complain about the treatment they receive from teachers: asking "where is the child's mother" at parent-teacher meetings, children bringing home forms that ask explicitly for the mother's or grandparent's signature (but not the father's), and looks from teachers and other parents when people find out they are single or stay-at-home fathers. That's just one example. I've also read a journal article that interviewed several families to assess how childcare duties were split up in the home. Several families interviewed held the belief that men were naturally inferior to childcare, which was why the woman in their families was the one who assumed most childcare responsibilities.

[–]TragicLackofTiming1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think it's hard to quantify how much societal expectations have on the choices we make in life. You make relevant points, but I don't think it's that clear cut. Saying that a man who wants to stay home and work, or a woman who wants to go into the sciences WILL is akin to saying that a person from a poor background who really strives to better themselves will manage to do so. It's absolutely possible, but the deck IS stacked against them, and that starts from the very beginning, when we give the girls pink kitchens and the boys blue constructor sets. If the girls want to build things, or the boys want to cook, they're being told from the very beginning that this doesn't match our expectations of them. And I don't think you can just brush that aside. Just because things are better now does not mean they are fine.

[–]Sir_Derpsworth1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MsManifesto1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TragicLackofTiming1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sparklefuck-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz3453 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sparklefuck0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz3452 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can stick with your belief all you want, but until or unless you care to provide a source to a credible study, that's all it is, your belief.

And no we don't agree that a significant wage disparity exists, or did you miss the part where I said that the studies that conclude that there is a 20% gap are deeply flawed.

The problem is that such studies simply look at the median wages of men versus women, without accounting for different professions and without accounting for the fact that women tend to take time out of the workforce to have and raise kids. Now if one wants to argue that women shouldn't be "forced" to take on that role, that's fine, but it's a different argument. Looking at man and women who spend an equal amount of time in the workforce, and who are in the same position, there is virtually zero wage gap. Women as a group, choose lesser paying positions that allow more time with family/kids, and choose to take time away from work for kids. That's what makes up the vast majority of the so called wage gap.

But please, go ahead and provide a source for your fantasy 40% number. Something where I can look at the methodology by which they came to that number.

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sparklefuck0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xonze2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]philthehumanist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sparklefuck1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]philthehumanist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz3451 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MsManifesto0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MsManifesto1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mtzlrlzbth0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What studies and false statistics are you refering too? 1/5 women have been raped? Women comprised 9% of directors and 15% of film writers in the top 250 grossing films of 2012? The United States is 90th in terms of women in national legislatures? Women hold 18% of the seats in Congress (the equivalent body in Rwanda is over 50% female)? Women are merely 4% of Fortune 500 CEOs? Or my favorite, there is an r/mysogony sub and an r/rapingwomen sub (not specified as a sexual fantasy sub) but none of the contrary that i have found? Orrr there are 8 million women with eating disorders vs 1 million men in the us?

Ive been told things at work that a man probably would never hear from their boss. Example - "you have to be sexy and smart to make it in this industry and you have one of those."

I was working in one of the most progressive cities in the world, in NY, working directly with major companies, im talking cartier, victoria secret, bloomingdales, target etc. And in the entire company I worked with 6 other women, two being receptionists. And about 40-50 men.

This general "feeling" of oppression is real, and i personally feel it very strongly in my day to day life. I cant fully understand how someone of another race feels opressed, but I still see that its there.

Feminism means understanding that we have a real and prevelant issue with equality in our culture and wanting to fix that. Just like most muslims arent radicals who want to killl everyone, most feminists arent man haters, and in fact a lot of them are men. All i want is equality and i feel and see quite a bit more work to do.

Edit- i cant spell

[–]cultfavorite-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cultfavorite-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]walkthepath6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]philthehumanist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]philthehumanist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

feminism actively fights against men trying to get equality in areas

It swings both ways. Most people say they're not racist or homophobic and yet I constantly have to watch white people cringingly over compensate for the fact they haven't spent enough time around people of different colour to be cool about the fact there's a black guy at the party or Denise in accounts is lesbian.

Whatever the right path is - it's wrong to get mixed up in the messaging. Communism is an absolutely fucking splendid idea... on paper. If you think feminists are running about saying the wrong thing then the lines of communication aren't working. But turn on the TV and male dominated sexism, puerile objectifying and petty chest beating oozes out of it. The sad fact is that some of this is actually created by women.

[–]themountaingoat2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]philthehumanist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

TV is actually incredibly sexist against men.

May in some instances yes, but you're spotlighting. As a whole TV is dominated by male sports, gender stereotypes (of both kinds) and male presenters.

Competition among men is a bad thing.

Spend a year in a different country. You'll realise how pathetic and dumbed down US TV is. It's REALLY bad in comparison. Oh and WWE is not "competition among men". It's just very low IQ bags of muscle being extremely childish with ugly, orange, hormone wrecked women putting in the odd appearance. What are you going to compare that to - women's synchronized swimming?

The rest of the world has F1 which is at least difficult, in the US all we do is drive around in a circle whilst guys who didn't listen at school and who always vote republican talk over the top for three hours.

I've yet to see a female equivalent.

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As a whole TV is dominated by male sports

Yea, because men are more interested in sports.

gender stereotypes (of both kinds)

Are you joking? The women on TV tend to be very competent, and the dads bumbling idiots. Violence against women is see as a huge deal, and every time there is a female victim of something it is exaggerated, but people openly laugh about men getting their dicks cut off. It is just generally acknowledged on television that women are better than men.

and male presenters.

Do women even prefer female presenters? Because I don't really think this is evidence of TV favoring men.

You'll realise how pathetic and dumbed down US TV is.

So bad TV is somehow a gender issue? There are plenty of female oriented bad TV shows (look at reality television). In fact I would say they far outnumber bad TV shows targeted towards men.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cerialthriller13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownawaylesbian2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Narrenschifff3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cultfavorite1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaisAuFait2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaisAuFait1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here are two articles. I've a hard time finding direct statistics but those exists.

The Engineer

Whatever the reasons for this, it certainly has little to do with any gender-based predisposition. In the world’s industrial superpower China, more than a third of the engineers are female, while here in the UK female students regularly outperform their male peers in STEM subjects at GCSE.

Some random website

The low numbers of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields isn’t unique to the U.S. either. Numbers are similarly low in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.

However, many Asian nations have a better record of producing female engineers: in China, 40 percent of engineers are female, and the number of female engineering graduates in India has doubled in recent years. Over the same period, the number of female engineers in North America has dropped. The U.S. is also behind 13 Muslim countries in the percentage of women graduating with STEM degrees, including Bahrain, Brunei, Lebanon, Qatar, Turkey, and Morocco.

There is also the case of Norway, where gender equality is a serious matter, but despite all efforts of the government, the STEM gender gap isn't closing.

[–]pickup_sticks1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spauldingnooo2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theJigmeister1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cultfavorite-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]suspiciousface2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]songofrebellion0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 155 points156 points157 points 13 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious 50 points51 points52 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the biggest surprise for me was that many of these people know that my mom is a business women and that both my sisters are studying business in college, one doing management and the other human resources. I know the value of these positions and that they tend to be very lucrative occupations but I also know myself and that I would not do well in these jobs. I am not the kind of person who can walk on people if I have to and be detached if the job calls for it. I would not be happy as a business professional.

And yes, they don't agree with my art career either, I'm currently studying education as well because i understand that just doing what I love won't give me a fulfilled life. I need money too, and I may not be able to work at home. However, I found another occupation that I love that I will not feel as if I'm sacrificing my happiness for money. Art ed is something that I will not regret doing and if I can support myself though art, all the better.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fucking_hilarious 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 75 points76 points77 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arlieth 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TragicLackofTiming 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wanked_in_space 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TragicLackofTiming 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]peachtiny 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is being able to CHOOSE to be a housewife, not being RESIGNED. I have little understanding of why someone would preach about empowering a woman and letting her go her own way and then get angry and act as if she's a 'traitor' because she's CHOSEN to be a housewife or some other traditionally 'female' occupations, or her husband makes more, or whatever. I think this is a big dividing factor between different types of feminists... I would definitely consider myself a feminist, but I think some people are definitely suited to being housewives/homemakers and if that makes them happy, and it's their choice, they're utilizing their own form of female empowerment. I personally enjoy the domestic life, but I'd resent it if I were trapped there. Because I know I can choose to take on this role or not, it's a lot easier and things feel more harmonious in my relationship because we worked out our roles together.

But I guess I'm a shitty feminist because I like keeping up the household, fuck me, right?

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peachtiny2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hm... Well, my mother stayed at home, but she always encouraged me and my sisters to try to follow the path of what we wanted. I didn't really grow up to feel like I needed to get married, have kids, anything like that. I actually come from a very small family where two of my grandparents are adopted, though... so perhaps their views on what made a family (that you don't have to be related and that you aren't less loved) were a little different and there wasn't that much pressure to 'carry on the family line'... My sisters and I all grew up to be very different... one is a stay-at-home mom and had two children, the other lives in another country and has her own small business, and I leaned more toward art and staying at home more for the sake of household affairs and having time to myself, not for the children (I have none, and probably won't, at least for quite some time)... Hm, I guess we were raised to be somewhat 'girly' (lots of dolls, pink things), but if we expressed interest in something boyish it wasn't really dissuaded (I liked my action figures and x-men more than my barbies, so my dad usually got me a cool figure instead, and we both liked video games and bonded a lot through that).

Not sure if you actually wanted all that, but I think I was raised in a pretty open, 'go your own way' household, but obviously my opinion of what that is exactly is totally subjective.

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marauderp1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]avantvernacular 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Goldreaver 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arlieth2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darth-penguin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThunderGyra 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nickcorvus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaliYugaz0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just to play the devil's advocate here (I'm no radfem), consider another viewpoint:

The equality of any population is related directly to the amount of political, social, and economic influence that they control in the society. People are selfish, so if you don't have leverage, you will be exploited by others; that's how reality works. Housewives have little to no social influence outside their limited circles, no political influence beyond mere voting (which is a rigged game anyways in our current political climate), and are economically dependent on others. So what do you imagine will happen to women in general if the vast majority of them, or even a substantial minority, choose to raise children when they would otherwise have become influential political, social, and economic players outside the home? It may not happen immediately, but women will eventually become an oppressed class again under those conditions, having lost the leverage needed to fight back against a potential reactionary conservatism.

Basically, you have way too much trust that people in power will continue to respect feminist desires even if women do not have anything substantial to back up their equal status with.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KaliYugaz3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is all true. I'm just saying that the radfem anti-housewife argument does have reasonable points, and is basically equivalent to the free rider problem. Women are the group, womens' rights is the collective good that they want, and housewives (or really any woman who accepts a position with considerably less power and influence than her potential allows her to achieve) are the free riders, who enjoy the benefits of equality without paying the cost of working to accrue power and influence. If there are too many free riders, the group is unable to achieve its goals and womens rights are lost.

Indeed, in this particular scenario even a few free riders can destroy the group's goals, because differences in social power increase exponentially according to the law of accumulative advantage (rich get richer, poor get poorer in comparison); if anti-feminists start out with even a bit more power than feminists, feminists will eventually be left behind, assuming that both groups invest their power into creating more power at a similar rate. Thus, it doesn't matter that most women don't want to be housewives, because if even a suitably substantial minority does, the future relative power of the group is compromised, and women will eventually lose their rights down the road. Its all really interesting stuff.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not even that "straight, white, male = lowest difficulty setting" is entirely wrong... it's just that it's incredibly flawed.

One could easily say: "Being a straight, white, male offers the best chances of having a "privileged life" ". That's fine, and honestly, probably fairly accurate. As you said though, socioeconomic status is still the greatest indicator.

The problem though, is when someone takes these probabilities and averages, and applies them to every single individual in that group. A straight, white male who happens to be born in a poor family and ends up homeless, is just deserving of help as a black person that ends up in that same situation. And it sure as hell doesn't mean that it was "harder" for the straight white male to end up in that position.

People who think that statement is true, put race/orientation/gender before the person as an individual.... that's basically the textbook definition of a racist/sexist.

[–]zebediah49-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zebediah491 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourunconscious 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So any concessions I'd make to (R2W/3W) Feminism would be superficial. "Rape is bad," "DV is bad" etc. etc. are all things I absolutely agree with, but they're hardly the essential components of the beliefs of the institutionalized Feminist movement.

Exactly! It feels like there isn't any proper discussion in r/feminism, more like just demonisation of men. Any time I have tried to have a discussion, there I either get ignored, downvoted or people just think I am trolling. It's pretty annoying because if you genuinely want to discuss these things a lot of militant feminists give you the exact same treatment that women often have exerted onto themselves by a typical patriarchal society. The point isn't to 'counter' such poor behaviour with more poor behaviour because then it just turns into war. People need to be able to talk, and listen. Especially if someone is offering to.

[–]JasinNat 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinkFixerJr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darth-penguin1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yourunconscious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 74 points75 points76 points 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[+]niels_henrik_abel 13 years ago* [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

This thread is giving me the warm fuzzies right now. Maybe it really is possible for people to disagree politely about gender issues.

[–]Maschalismos 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]aLadyJane-19 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]letheix16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fyacin13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aLadyJane-11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fyacin11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PebblesRox9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SRSmachine7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fireproofjeans5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arlieth1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'll admit I mostly stick to the philosophy department, which has very little tolerance for anything but respectful debate and it's members will gleefully direct you to any logical fallacies you have incorporated into your argument. They are also not fond of jargon which hasn't been defined within the debate it is used in.

If you go down to the student union office looking for a debate, then yeah you're going to get a bunch of girls with colorful hair and really skinny dudes who dismiss your point of view off-hand because you disagree with them. These people run the student government and it's one of the reasons they are so visible. In my experience though, U of T skews remarkably conservative considering it's image, poli-sci department notwithstanding. Even there I'm able to have a good respectful debate, but there is a large professional activist vein.

[–]pocketknifeMT 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nickcorvus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SOAR211 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ruddahbagga 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HawkEy3 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]freckledcupcake6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ruddahbagga3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright-17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ruddahbagga4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is a disappointing foil to the masterpiece I responded to.

I told the person I responded to what I did because I can read their post and realize, clearly, that their grasp on this subject far surpasses mine. Insofar as it relates to a debate on the matter, my point was it would make no difference whether or not I was right or wrong about the points I disagreed with, I would still be unequipped to establish them in face of this person's superior understanding of feminism and its history.

It is poor reasoning at best to make the case that I am a feminist because I am not smart (or vice versa).

It would also be unwise to assume I don't regularly pursue intellectual pursuits beyond feminism. Or that I agree with anything in feminism other than the select areas that make sense to me and are copacetic with my understanding of the world, logic, and justice.

I did not come here to tell people that they are unintelligent for having a mindset that doesn't even oppose mine, I came here for intelligent, thoughtful debate on a matter that I find intertwines with my understanding of the world in important ways (or, failing that, graciously admitting when I have no further debate to give). I would expect behavior of the same caliber from you.

[–]diarmada3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, the MRM is much less into speech-policing than the institutionalized feminist movement.

I'd love to give this a thorough response, but the fact is I already agree with a ton of it. Though I'll definitely thank you for giving some history and context to individual floating factlets I knew.

Hence, their ideology cannot coexist with free speech (and why they mock "free speech" as "freeze peach").

I hadn't heard that term before. It'd be amusingly clever if it wasn't mocking the foundation of civilized human interaction. :/

But you know what? I'll answer your question re. concessions to feminism. Keep in mind that I answer only for myself.

Excellent! All your examples are fine. I really didn't intend for this to become so complicated. You say later, "So any concessions I'd make to (R2W/3W) Feminism would be superficial. "Rape is bad," "DV is bad" etc. etc." and that's fine! That's literally all I wanted. It wasn't about finding some way to agree with the things we disagree on, but just pointing out the areas where we already do. It was about that 'biting the lemon' moment of just naming something you agree with your opponent about. Acknowledging that they're not some completely alien 'other'. That's what breeds ideologues; pseudospeciation.

Of course, after I've had a dozen arguments about it I can see plenty of ways I wish I'd written my initial post to get that point across better. :/

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]primitivenerd 30 points31 points32 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shortchangehero 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jdog20504 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sigh. As a black male, I don't even know how to interrupt this fucking circle jerk. But here goes (mind you, I've had two bottles of Chimay so fuck your downvotes).

Personally, I think that feminism at this moment, is going through a very similar moment as the U.S. African American struggle/movement/whatever. There's a vagueness to everything. As Rattatoskk quite eloquently put it there's a kind of "feeling" of oppression as opposed to an overt case of it. Umm, the pretty much hits the argument on the head (even if you don't agree with it).

Examples: We live in a time where a black man is president, and yet the war on drugs has destroyed black communities. A woman was PM of Pakistan, and yet women are attacked weekly with acid as retaliation for being improper and girls' schools are suicide-bombed.

Is this "feeling" of oppression any less valid than actual oppression? In my opinion, it's a giant no.

This entire thread is telling a portion of humanity that has been oppressed, fairly uniformly, for the at least past 1000 years (let's not go into massively ancient examples of Matriarchy) and has only regained a decent chunk of their rights to just "get over it".

Look at that last line again. That is why no one, not even most other males, are ever fucking going to take Men's Rights remotely seriously. You can come up with as many justifications as you want, but you're essentially telling women to get over it. Are there problems with feminism? Yeah, no shit. Are there problems with affirmative action? Of course. But guess what, sometimes you need extremism because the people who oppressed you, are still fucking alive. And they will fight tooth and nail to take back what you've earned. Sadly extremism is sometimes the only way to ensure that what you've gained stays a gain.

Extreme feminism and even affirmative action will go away when all the original players are dead. But, again, as a black male, I'm not going to give up AA when people like Strom Thurmond only died a few years ago.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter22 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sigh. As a black male, I don't even know how to interrupt this fucking circle jerk.

I'm not an American and I'm not familiar with American race politics to a particularly high degree, so I'm not sure I can comment particularly well on your response, but I'll try.

But here goes (mind you, I've had two bottles of Chimay so fuck your downvotes).

I'm drinking right now too. Cheers!

Personally, I think that feminism at this moment, is going through a very similar moment as the U.S. African American struggle/movement/whatever. There's a vagueness to everything. As Rattatoskk quite eloquently put it there's a kind of "feeling" of oppression as opposed to an overt case of it. Umm, the pretty much hits the argument on the head (even if you don't agree with it).

Examples: We live in a time where a black man is president, and yet the war on drugs has destroyed black communities. A woman was PM of Pakistan, and yet women are attacked weekly with acid as retaliation for being improper and girls' schools are suicide-bombed.

Is this "feeling" of oppression any less valid than actual oppression? In my opinion, it's a giant no.

I have to disagree. For one, with respect to the still-ongoing war on drugs I think it is fair to say that the African-American community is still oppressed in that respect.

But are "feelings of oppression" just as valid as actual oppression? If someone feels oppressed even if they have equal treatment under the law, are reasonably economically comfortable, etc.. are their "feelings" just as valid as someone dying in a concentration camp?

Yes, extreme example. I can understand "minority-group power" movements can be VERY theraputic for people that feel oppressed. You could argue this is true of MR as well. But the key difference... MR isn't trying to create legal privileges for men. Nor does MR have a huge variety of politically-connected lobby groups fighting for it. Nor is MR a political constituency pandered to by any specific political party.

Certain movements can be very theraputic, but when they start undermining equality under the law, they need to be criticized.

This entire thread is telling a portion of humanity that has been oppressed, fairly uniformly, for the at least past 1000 years (let's not go into massively ancient examples of Matriarchy) and has only regained a decent chunk of their rights to just "get over it".

My post certainly is not telling women to "get over it." The post explicitly stated that I support certain kinds of feminism. Women DO have legitimate issues they should address, and they SHOULDN'T just "get over it."

I am criticizing, in particular, two strains of HIGHLY influential feminist theory - the Radical Second Wave and the Third Wave. The influence weilded by feminist organizations which accept these theoretical bases is significant, to say the least. You are implicitly package-dealing radical-second-wave and third-wave feminism with "women dealing with the unfairness that the gender system inflicts upon them" (and I've NEVER argued or believed that women today "have it easy").

Sadly extremism is sometimes the only way to ensure that what you've gained stays a gain.

So Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse is somehow okay because it is... somehow... necessary to preserving women's right to own property?

Really?

[–]dilloj6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sadly extremism is sometimes the only way to ensure that what you've gained stays a gain.

So Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse is somehow okay because it is... somehow... necessary to preserving women's right to own property?

Really?

As someone who has studied radical thinkers, I can say absolutely yes. Malcolm X advocated for the murder of every white person who tried to oppress a black man. Absolutely radical, yet he is still deep in the pantheon of civil right's heros. Radicals move the "Overton Window" in the direction they want. Booker T. Washington, a devout moderate, was highly ineffective in repealing Jim Crow laws, but after W.E.B Dubois started writing radical literature 20 years later did people go back to Washington and say "well, this guy is much more reasonable".

You create a spectrum of thought, and be advocating for the extreme you push the discussion the way you want. No radical advocate ever believes their dream, they create a space where it can be talked about.

Nothing about Dworkin, who I disagree with. But radicals are absolutely necessary to advance any agenda.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dilloj2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dilloj0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dilloj2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arlieth1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nobody's turning down Tiger Woods' money.

What you're throwing out entirely is the valid argument that there are white people, who come from the same economic caste as black people, who are saddled with the same white guilt as Trump and the like, but denied the inclusion opportunities that are constantly extended to their black counterparts. You were not a slave. Your parents were not slaves. And you just slugged through two bottles of one of the highest quality craft ales on the market. You should have a problem with inequalities that black people face, you should also recognize that a large part of the reason that their skin color relates to those inequities is that their skin color served and serves as an indicator of their caste. High castes hate low castes and see them as chattel. You should also be willing to address how people like Jessie Jackson are part of the problem, not the solution.

It is quite ignorant to think that blacks and only blacks have suffered ethnically based prejudice and mistreatment in this country. It is also quite self serving.

Now extrapolate everything I just said to women v men.

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lightfiend 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I'm familiar with ALF and BHL. I don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING they say but they are always stimulating, IMO.

I don't think I've ever heard ALF use "Patriarchy" though, or even BHL. I HAVE heard BHL use the phrase "white privilege" but in the academic context, where the phrase TENDS to be used more technically and less as the term of abuse that Tumblr SJW's have employed it as. And like I said, I think that there IS such a thing as Rape Culture (by the Third Wave definition), but that it is much more accepted when it affects men.

As for other feminist groups that are individualist-oriented, I wouldn't know. The Independent Women's Forum might be a good place to start, and there's also Ayaan Hirsi Ali (an absolutely heroic woman, even if I have some small disagreements with her, she's overall incredible).

[–]Rishodi 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Excellent, a group that will understand my history lesson.

The word Libertarian exists because the "progressive left" glommed on to and then subsumed what libertarians used to be called, Liberals. Once they figured out the word was lost to them because of the vast number of people who didn't have Liberty in mind started using it. They tried Classically Liberal for a while, but that just some adjective-Liberal and you still get put in the same basket; Hence a new word.

So, I fear the word feminist has been lost to crazy people with a dogmatic fantasy of victimhood, who can't backup claims, and silences anyone who attempts to criticize, or merely prod the logical house of cards their worldview is based on like a child would a sunday school.

I doubt these revival groups can get it back. Its time to move on. There are so many of them, and they are running the show, and have been for decades.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lightfiend1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It doesn't matter. Any talk of "male privilege" without even a single mention of "male oppression" or "female privilege" is too one-sided for my tastes - "academic" definitions or not. At worst, it's blatant ignorance of the facts. At best, it's purposely defining words in a way that fits your "Us and Them" narrative (and sociology is riddled with these).

I used to share men-related issues stuff on ALF and they would never re-share them. As individualists, I thought it was appropriate to share oppression in all its forms, regardless of groups. Feminists themselves are persistent that they are about equality for all, including men, but in practice they don't really want to talk about the other side of the equation. And when you do mention it, they think you are trying to belittle women's issues.

I think gender issues are hugely important to talk about. And that was my first draw to feminism, because even as a libertarian I recognized that "stereotypes" and "gender roles" can have a negative influence on society, even if it's not necessarily a directly coercive one. Unfortunately, while I agree that the topic of the conversation that feminists focus on is one worth having, I greatly disagree with their overall perspective on it.

[–]Lawtonfogle 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith25 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]darth-penguin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arlieth1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kznlol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Damn, Iceman. I like your style.

One point of contention regarding male privilege. Men who actually have privilege (outside of ethnic enclaves, which I will address momentarily) seem to be stratified by class/caste. High caste men have privilege. Low caste men do not. Those high caste men have that privilege because their fathers left it to them. Their sisters seem to have gotten pissed about this. Rather than take that up with their fathers, and demand equity with their male siblings, they have taken their grip to the lower castes (who do not have access to this privilege, let alone the power to change it) and damanded that the workers take responsability for the behavior of the oligarchy. They have conflated their struggle with iternal hegemony among their own higher cast with these workers and convinced lower caste women that the reason that they are not all CEOs is that the lower caste men prevent it. The result? A willing army of uninformed dogmatic stormtroopers that they can use, not to confront their high caste peers, but to try to co-opt all the social and economic power of the lower castes. This seems to be the foregone conclusion of any socialism or bolshevism. Oligarchs competing over who controls the masses for their own profit.

Now, regarding ethnic enclaves, you will find trends that could be characterized as patriarchal. Take a muslim community living in some city. This community may participate in society and benefit from laws, but they also have a second set of social ideals that is self imposed. Neither the government nor society at large demands it. They choose to adhere to their own ethnic traditions. And here's the thing. Nobody's going to change that. You can make sure that they obey existant laws, but ifthat community chooses to adhere to restrictive cultural practices, that is their choice. If you are a member of that community, and you don't like their traditionalism, then the only option you have is to leave that community and stop allowing it to restrict your behavior. You don't get to force that community to adopt your standards given that they are not in violation of law. I used to be catholic. I didn't like their rules. I resigned. Would I like catholics to catch up with 2013? Absolutely. But they won't. And as long as they are not breaking the laws, I don't have a richt to dictate their values to them. I do have the right to engage them in dialogue, but i do not have the right to control their behavior, thoughts, or ideals. Feminism and the left seem to have completely abandoned any amount of cognizance of this principle.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]micmea1 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grubnar 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arlieth 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arlieth 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Anacanthros 48 points49 points50 points 13 years ago (190 children) | Copy Link

OK. I want to ask a question. I am a feminist. I'm a 26 year old man. Whatever difference that makes. Every now and then the topic of r/mensrights comes up in conversation with friends, and we debate whether 'MRAs' are people with legitimate concerns and the ability to see both sides of an issue fairly but who are angry because they feel some of their concerns aren't taken seriously, or single-mindedly misogynistic sociopaths with a persecution complex who are never more than 2 beers away from raping someone. Because I like to think of myself as an open-minded person, I want to hear what r/MR has to say. And because I'm fundamentally an optimist about people, I hope to whatever gods may be that the worst isn't true about you guys.

I understand being angered by those individuals who express opinions such as "women should always get custody" or... I can't think of many other examples. I understand being angry at individuals who use some version of feminist theory (or just the label / flag of feminism) as an excuse to treat someone (male or female) poorly. I know that those people exist.

What I DON'T understand is why (or whether! If this isn't actually what you think, please tell me) anyone wouldn't see a problem with... I don't know, the persistent pay gap, the disparity between numbers of male and female CEOs / congresspeople / etc., street harassment, the hell of not being believed and treated like a piece of shit that SO GODDAMN MANY rape victoms go through on a daily basis, or the amount of vitriolic abuse (incl. rape threats, death threats, etc.) that female writers are subjected to that men aren't (or at least not to a hundredth the degree).

Do the redditors of r/mensrights not see anything wrong with those things? Do you think "women who object to being catcalled should get over it?" Do you think "there are fewer female CEOs / congressional representatives because women are less ambitious or less able?" Do you believe that women who were intoxicated or dressed sexy are probably lying if they report a rape?

If you believe those things, I guess there isn't much common ground. But if you believe the problems I mentioned are real problems that deserve to be addressed, then maybe there's some hope.

Ultimately I think that a lot of modern feminists and modern MRAs probably hold pretty similar fundamental beliefs, and that a lot of the much-hyped conflict between those groups is a result of what basically amount to cultural differences and/or a refusal on all sides to address other sides' complaints first. I don't think I'm going to accomplish anything here, but I'd at least like to know if I should write off MRAs as possible allies or not.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 130 points131 points132 points 13 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for your post!

With respect to the pay gap, multiple studies have actually shown that the pay gap arises due to men and women having different work-life-balance priorities. Women will opt for flexibility, and often fewer hours. Women thus prioritize a work-life balance.

Men, on the other hand, are kind of culturally encouraged to WORK WORK WORK. So the work-life-balance is much more focused towards work, for men.

I think these priorities are due to socialization rather than innate biology (for the most part... those women that have children will often have to take some time off work should they choose to pursue a career). It isn't a matter of 'natural' ambition.

Look at the gender system - men are meant to achieve, strive, work to support a family etc. They're meant to be the breadwinners. In our post-feminist world, however, women were encouraged to go into a career for self-fulfillment. If anything, I think men can actually learn from women on this subject!

Dr Warren Farrell did a book on this subject (so did Christina Hoff Sommers, although it may be a paper rather than a book). Farrell promoted it during a talk at the Cato Institute. Bluntly stated, the "pay gap" is false - on the level of individuals, individual men and individual women are paid identically for the same work. If companies could get the same work done more cheaply by women, they'd hire more women (basic Econ 101 material).

Onto the issue of gender representation. Yes, the upper echelons of power and business are majority-male. So are the lower echelons of society... the homeless, the blue collar sectors, etc. Feminist activism doesn't seem as enthusiastic about gender parity in these sectors!

There might be biological factors that contribute. Read Roy Baumiester's (spelling?) work on the subject here - men biologically seem to have a higher statistical 'standard deviation' (a wider bell curve) on many traits than women - there are more outliers/extremes.

But the point is that gender parity, in and of itself, isn't necessarily good. Additionally, looking only for parity at the top sectors of society is the Apex Fallacy - treating the men at the top as if they represent "men" as a class is a significant error. It is selective sampling.

street harassment,

Street harassment is rude and uncivil. On that we agree. I don't think, however, catcalls should be illegal.

the hell of not being believed and treated like a piece of shit that SO GODDAMN MANY rape victoms go through on a daily basis

This is also a problem, and on this we agree. But there are many resources out there for female rape victims, and that's a good thing.

The problem?

Many male victims of rape have the same experience of being raped and blamed for it. Shamed for it. Mocked for it. And there are far fewer resources out there for them.

This doesn't lessen the significance of women's sufferring. But socially speaking, you have to admit that women's victimization is often seen as far more heartrending and important than men's.

Men's Rights doesn't deny that women have real problems. What we argue is that men have real problems too, and that these problems deserve to be addressed seriously, and that these problems aren't just "side-effects" of women's issues.

or the amount of vitriolic abuse (incl. rape threats, death threats, etc.) that female writers are subjected to that men aren't (or at least not to a hundredth the degree).

This is indeed problematic. However, what most people here would argue is that it isn't necessarily a product of "patriarchy" or "misogyny" per se. That said, I find it loathesome when people make rape threats against female journalists... however, are the ravings of immature 14 year old boys on the internet an accurate cultural barometer of how our society feels about women generally? I don't think so.

Do you think "women who object to being catcalled should get over it?"

Object? No. They can object as much as they like. But I don't think that they should be able to press charges or sue over it.

Do you believe that women who were intoxicated or dressed sexy are probably lying if they report a rape?

No. Not one bit. False accusations of rape are real but just because a woman dresses sexy doesn't mean she was "asking for it."

But if you believe the problems I mentioned are real problems that deserve to be addressed, then maybe there's some hope.

I'd say there is some hope.

I'd at least like to know if I should write off MRAs as possible allies or not.

I hope my reply has given you some basis on which to make that evaluation!

[–]Sasha_ 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]freckledcupcake 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ilikefork1 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gregarianross-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you're a writer, and you write an article claiming that most divorced and separated fathers are abusers who shouldn't be allowed near their children, then it wouldn't surprise me at all if you receive some extremely hostile responses. If you write an article boasting of how you threw your husband out of his home and family because you 'lost respect' for him after he became disabled and turned to looking after your children full-time (as the British writer Rachel Cusk did) then it doesn't surprise me in the least if the response is along the lines of 'you're a fucking horrible bitch' and even if some more volatile people might say you deserve to die.

If you're a politician, like Julia Gillard, who continually complains of 'misogyny' while simultaneously rolling back shared parenting reforms, then it doesn't surprise me if there's a negative reaction to that hypocrisy, especially from men (as indeed was the case). I note that politicians such as Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel don't and didn't ever seem to come in for sexist criticism, in large part because their political philosophies (whatever you may think of them) are gender-neutral.

If you're a woman you can espouse very extreme views quite safely (i.e. Ayn Rand) and people will address you on the ground of your ideas, as they would with a man. On the other hand, if your views basically amount to justifying why you should be able to blame everything on one sex, and demonise that sex, it shouldn't surprise anyone if that sex turns around and tells you to fuck off.

[–][deleted]-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Anacanthros 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to try to reply to as many replies as possible here, rather than making separate replies to each comment.

First off, thank you all for what are mostly pretty well thought out responses. I have to be honest and say I was expecting a lot less from you guys, and it's pleasant to be wrong.

As regards the pay gap: Extracting correlation and causation is extremely difficult here. As a scientist I'm quite familiar with the messy, multi-directional relationship between biology, experience (society), and behavior. As a civil libertarian, I believe that it is necessary to regard certain classes (e.g. people of color, LGBT people) as 'suspect classes' and subject instances of possible discrimination (whether intentional or not) against those people to greater scrutiny because of the long history of discrimination against those groups, and I believe that women are such a group. See this article in PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109 This is the first study that comes to mind for me, because it hits close to home, but there are others. I absolutely understand that there quite possibly ARE underlying and immutable biological differences between men and women that account for SOME of the variance between genders on such measures as pay rates, rates of employment in lucrative fields, rates of employment in STEM fields, etc. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that a substantial portion of variance between genders on those measures isn't due to a lack of female role models (I want more Elizabeth Warrens and Ruth Bader-Ginsburgs!), unintentional discrimination such as in the Moss-Racusin paper, and other factors stemming from institutionalized sex bias. I think that exactly HOW MUCH is accounted for by factors like that is an empirical question, but because of the history of workplace discrimination against women I am EXTEMELY skeptical of claims that most of the existing gaps are due to purely biological factors.

Even among people who agree that there IS a problem in this area, it seems to me that there is considerable vehement disagreement over whether it is OK to address it by actively trying to reduce the disparity by legislation. Affirmative action is a controversial topic. Personally, as a liberal, I think that discrepancies in opportunity that are tied to a history of discrimination SHOULD be rectified legislatively. I think that the government has a compelling interest in affording all citizens a roughly equal opportunity to pursue happiness. It is not enough that a black person or a woman can become a CEO if they work hard enough. They should not have to work ten times as hard as a white man to work their way up through life to that point, IF it's what they want to do, and they should know that it's just as OK and just as doable for them to reach that point as a white man. That is what liberty and justice for all means, to me. Affirmative action is the best and fastest means to that end, in my opinion, because possession really is nine tenths of the law (especially under the Roberts court, as I think we've all noticed). I won't equivocate: I think the ends justify the means here.

I know many of you will disagree. I expect to find a lot of libertarians in here, and I am a civil libertarian, not a libertarian.

As far as rape goes, I can see that many of you DO agree that female rape victims deserve to be taken seriously. I do not believe that victims of any crime have a right to see the perpetrator punished if their guilt cannot be proven, again because I am a civil libertarian. But many feminists, I think, would agree that regardless of how likely a rapist is to be incarcerated, it is still hugely important to treat victims with respect and not subject them to experiences like this: http://feminspire.com/why-my-sisters-rape-was-illegitimate/ This story makes me wish that we had legislation specifically requiring video/audio records of any and all interactions between police and rape victims, and enabling rape victims to use those records as evidence in order to collect damages from police departments that treat rape victims this way.

And yes, I absolutely think that most feminists would agree that the obstacles men face when reporting a rape are horrible and should be fixed. I do think that it's a lot harder for me (and probably a lot of feminists) to make that a priority, though, when stories like the one above are so common, and yet so little is done. I'll be honest: Seeing you say that you think something should be done about the hell women face when reporting a rape makes me ten times more likely to listen to what you have to say about... Well, pretty much every topic. I can't speak for all of feminism; I'm not even female. But I think a lot of feminists would listen to MRAs a lot more if we associated the label 'MRA' with 'Those problems you have are very serious, here are some other problems that are serious also' instead of '99.99% of rape allegations are false! Death penalty for accusations that can't be proved!' Because honestly that's the viewpoint I subconsciously associate with MRAs. Maybe I shouldn't. You see a lot of that, though.

I have to go do science now, but I'll check back later and see what you guys (and/or gals) have to say in response.

[–]See-9 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I think that exactly HOW MUCH is accounted for by factors like that is an empirical question, but because of the history of workplace discrimination against women I am EXTEMELY skeptical of claims that most of the existing gaps are due to purely biological factors.

Hope I can jump in here. The Department of Labor commissioned a study into the gender wage gap, and found that gap after adjustments (meaning overtime, part-time/full-time, motherhood, experience etc) to be ~5-7%. They go further to conclude that

it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and men differently on socially acceptable bases

The rest of the pay gap addressed by /u/yetanothercommenter is attributed to men having a tendency to more aggressively negotiate raises. Basically, the pay gap is a myth. The "15-30%" figure for pay difference I keep seeing thrown around is feminist propaganda.

Here's the final paragraph of the study's conclusion:

As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that collectively determine the wages paid to different individuals makes the formulation of policy that will reliably redress any overt discrimination that does exist a task that is, at least, daunting and, more likely, unachievable.

And link to the study

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]See-90 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]See-91 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]See-96 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]labcoat_samurai1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]See-91 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]labcoat_samurai1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well let's forget about gender for a moment. You think it's ridiculous that your demands are more likely to be met if you are perceived as a more valuable employee?

Also, in my experience, most people don't negotiate raises. They just receive them from management, and they do appear to be tied to the way management values you. I've compared my raises with coworkers and some of them have even gone and asked for more afterward. One guy in particular was told if he wanted a bigger raise, he'd have to improve in a number of specific areas, all of which were bullshit. He wasn't perceived as very valuable, so they gave no fucks about his demand for a bigger raise. And for the record, all he asked for was cost of living.

Studies show that men ask for more, so they get more.

Yeah? I wonder how you'd determine such a thing. Could you link to one of the studies? I'm genuinely intrigued.

[–]See-92 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]labcoat_samurai1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Interesting. So yeah, I think that makes a very compelling argument that men are more likely to negotiate. It's very plausible to me that this would be a significant factor contributing to the wage gap.

Value is still a consideration, though. If women don't ask for higher salaries, typically, you'd expect them to be over-represented unless the men were also perceived as providing greater value. So the men, presumably, are asking for more and still getting hired.

Bottom line, though, is that I'm not really sure what the answer is, and I'm suspicious of anyone who thinks they have it. Some MRAs are willing to handwave at a few studies and chalk the entire gap up to things like this. Maybe they're right, but the evidence doesn't seem sufficient to draw that conclusion. It's one thing to show it's a probable factor, but it's quite another to show it's the only factor.

[–]See-91 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you read the first study? The one commissioned by the Department of Labor? It reduced the "wage gap" to a ~5-7% adjusted after factors like over-time, time off for motherhood, etc. They couldn't account for the other 5-7%. Since that study was commissioned, it's been theorized by other studies that that small pay gap can be largely attributed to the tendency for men to negotiate aggressively

Value is still a consideration, though. If women don't ask for higher salaries, typically, you'd expect them to be over-represented unless the men were also perceived as providing greater value. So the men, presumably, are asking for more and still getting hired.

A company will pay you as little as you can. If you're a skilled worker (i.e. have a college degree, experience) and they really want you to work for them, they'll probably offer you 8-10% less than what they'd be willing to give, their salary ceiling. It has nothing to do with the perceived value of men and women, it's that men ask and women don't.

Some MRAs are willing to handwave at a few studies and chalk the entire gap up to things like this.

I wouldn't call a study commissioned by the Department of Labor to be "handwaving". It was commissioned specifically to meet the feminist propaganda of a 15-30% pay gap. Regardless, it has little to do with what group you're affiliated and more to do with the facts of the matter.

Maybe they're right, but the evidence doesn't seem sufficient to draw that conclusion. It's one thing to show it's a probable factor, but it's quite another to show it's the only factor.

What more evidence do you need? You say MRAs handwave, well I say feminist don't budge. I've given you enough evidence to show you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wage gap isn't real AT LEAST beyond ~5-7%. Given that ~5-7%, I've given you evidence to bring that number down even further, I would argue quite close to 0. At that point, even if it's 1-3%, it's not worth arguing about. One could never prove it was from discrimination, and if that 1-3% WAS from discrimination, the myriad of factors involved in something as complex as wages prevents any legislation from ever rectifying the situation.

You're being hypocritical. You're staring in the face of a mountain of evidence proving that (what I assume is) one of your central beliefs is wrong. I understand, it's hard to be faced with that and admit you're wrong, but now you're being hypocritical. You say "MRAs just handwave meh" when you're...doing just that to me. Every single time you've brought up a point along the lines of "Well, it would still be discrimination if the employer's discriminated!" You're twisting the situation to fit some schema you've bringing to the table, you want to fit discrimination into your world view. You're obviously actively looking for places women are discriminated against. If you look at the world through that lens it's all you're ever going to see, and if that's all you're ever going to see you're going to end up like a crazy psycho feminist you see being bashed around here and in other places. Arguments should come from logic and observation, not from a pre-conceived idea that <x> is a certain way or <y> has it worse off.

[–]labcoat_samurai1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're being hypocritical.

No, I'm being skeptical. Your "mountain" of evidence is not really a very tall mountain. You also seem to misread many of the things I say. I didn't call the study itself handwaving. I said that the conclusions you draw from it amount to handwaving. You pointed to a 5-7% gap that is unexplained, showed a previously unaccounted for effect that is clearly demonstrated within at least one somewhat narrow context (initial negotiation attempts for online job postings of a particular job in a particular sector), and then concluded that it accounts for the entire 5-7% effect.

I'm not even saying it certainly does not. I'm expressing skepticism, because I do not think the evidence is compelling enough to draw that conclusion. You go off on a bit of a tangent, accusing me of seeing only what I want to see, but the reality is that I am seeing only what I have been shown, and I am simply much less willing to extrapolate wildly from that evidence.

Every single time you've brought up a point along the lines of "Well, it would still be discrimination if the employer's discriminated!"

That's not what I've said at all. I've made hypotheses for effects that would influence the wage gap. I do not have evidence for these, but they are plausible, and none of the evidence I have been shown rules them out. That is why I am not yet willing to draw a final conclusion.

[–]CaspianX2 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

But I think a lot of feminists would listen to MRAs a lot more if we associated the label 'MRA' with 'Those problems you have are very serious, here are some other problems that are serious also' instead of '99.99% of rape allegations are false! Death penalty for accusations that can't be proved!'

The most extreme views of a large group are often the loudest. And while those views are often unreasonable, they can certainly come from a place of justified outrage.

Are 99.99% of rape allegations false? I highly, highly, highly doubt it. However, I suspect that there are false allegations made, and that such false allegations have ruined the lives of many people.

Do I think that those who cannot prove they were raped should get the death penalty? Holy shit, no. In fact, I don't think that there should be any sort of penalty for those who cannot prove they were raped. That being said, I do think that given the emotionally-charged nature of the crime of rape, that the identities of both the alleged rapist and victim should be protected, and that revealing the identity of either party before the alleged rapist has been convicted should be considered the most serious form of slander, and should carry with it a significant punishment to discourage it.

Of course, there are all sorts of intricacies and technicalities that would undoubtedly have to be established to ensure that any such rule does not have a silencing affect causing rape victims not to report the crime, but at the same time I feel it is clear that a rape accusation is far too easy to wield as a weapon, and there are too few safeguards against it, and too few repercussions for those who use it in this way.

Incidentally, I believe this to be true regardless of the genders of the parties involved, although clearly women are victimized by rape far more often than men.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]CaspianX21 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]drakeblood4 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GaySouthernAccent 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I am also a scientist, PhD program in Genetics, but my experience seems to be different from yours. I also am aware of the PNAS article, an it was a little surprising. But it had been my experience that there are a fringe few on both sides while most are in the middle. There are the ancient PIs that think women can't do this kind of work as well as young female PIs that only accept females into their labs. Bit the vast majority of people in authority really don't care who you are as long as you are productive (and work weekends, amiright?). Many STEM fields lack women, but biology for example, is upwards of 60% women entering PhD programs.

immutable biological differences between men and women that account for SOME of the variance between genders on such measures as pay rates

I think what he is saying here is that it isn't biological, so much as choice. I think his economics argument stands for itself here. If you could hire 4 women for every 3 men doing the exact same work, an all female company would be absolutely dominant due to wage depression. Women tend to take more flexible jobs, while men are often "all in" for their whole lives. Think of it this way, how many faculty members retire when they hit 65? Very few, it's often not until they are very sick or they die in the lab (only somewhat kidding). Now, you are seeing more women like this, but the vast majority in my experience have been women who want to balance work/life by researching at a teaching university. There is also a huge attrition rate of women from PhD to postdoc as well as postdoc to PI. Is this institutional sexism? Maybe partly, but a lot of it is "I see how those people live, and that is certainly not the life I want."

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Many STEM fields lack women

But in IT at least, this is changing. I've watched it change since I myself started out, green as the pastures (well... Scottish pastures. The only colour we get here in Canberra is that wheat-colour...), working on a contract basis on a Service Desk. I'm now a Team Leader.

I've had men and women managers, had managers of both genders I could look up to and ones I loathed. And there's increasingly more women. More at the bottom levels. More at the upper levels. Hell, our new Account Director is an extremely lovely woman. That's the highest position we have where they're onsite with us. The rest are at various company sites, not client sites. She filled it internally, coming over from another client, and it was less than 6 months ago that we got that client to re-sign a new 5-year contract with us. I think she'll be exceptional in her new role, and nothing at all of it has to do with her gender, but everything about her experience and attitude.

And that's ultimately what I want - I want people chosen on their merit, regardless of gender. And that's ALL I look at when I run interviews - their merit.

[–]Deansdale 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

As a civil libertarian, I believe that it is necessary to regard certain classes (e.g. people of color, LGBT people) as 'suspect classes' and subject instances of possible discrimination (whether intentional or not) against those people to greater scrutiny because of the long history of discrimination against those groups, and I believe that women are such a group.

You will not give a shit about my opinion, fine, but I still can't stand to not comment on this clusterfuck. First of all, a libertarian believes in personal responsibility, not class warfare. For an actual libertarian affirmative action is like holy water to a vampire. Second, people of color or LGBT people are not "classes". That is simply projecting the marxist class warfare idea onto skin color or sexual orientation, which is utter nonsense. Third, women were never actually oppressed the way you think they were, you only look at history through a feminist looking glass, which hides half of the whole picture. Women had it bad for most of human history, sure, but thing is: 1. it wasn't caused by men; 2. men had it even worse. Hard to argue on the side of an oppression where the "oppressor" worked in a coal mine to provide food and shelter for the "oppressed", who meanwhile enjoyed the relative safety and comfort of the home, don't you think? The fallacy is thinking different rights meant "more" for men, based on nothing more than a feminist interpretation of, I have to say it again, only half of the picture. They sure emphasize women's plight but somehow they fail to mention things that were good for women, or things that were bad for men.

I know, I know, you will ignore all this because everybody knows women were oppressed, right? And what better argument one needs to prove his truth? There's no need for scientific rigor on this subject, let's just accept what a political lobby group's propaganda says. Why would they lie?

Wrt pay gap, you admit that there are different factors, and you can't show or prove any actual oppression or discrimination, you just think it's there because "women were historically oppressed".

Personally, as a liberal, I think that discrepancies in opportunity that are tied to a history of discrimination SHOULD be rectified legislatively.

The clusterfuck continues :) Please use the proper nomenclature, actual liberals would never accept any kind of affirmative action, ie. "positive discrimination", ie. simple discrimination against non-polcorrect groups of people based on lies about the past. You might be a neoliberal (=cultural marxist) but you have nothing to do with either classical liberal, or libertarian thought.

The only way to solve any kind of "opportunity inequality" is to base all opportunity on merit. Any form of government meddling just skews the problem in a different direction, no matter how benevolent it might seem to the naive spectator.

I am a civil libertarian, not a libertarian

Which is a funny thing to say, considering the former is part of the latter. And pardon me for saying this but I happen to know what civil libertarians stand for, and it's the minimizing of government meddling in people's lives. Again I see some possible cognitive dissonance on your side... Or just plain bullshit.

it is still hugely important to treat victims with respect

Yeah, this is a 100% true AFTER you make sure they are victims and not false accusers. I tend to think you would not stand behind the idea of "it is still hugely important to treat false accusers with respect". But then again, after a simple accusation, you can't know if it's true or not. The police will have to investigate to determine what happened, and until the truth comes to light that person should not be granted automatic victim status, and should not be immune to questioning or doubting what s/he says. This does not mean disrespecting the accuser, it means respecting the human rights of the accused. Innocent until proven guilty means "accuser until proven to be a victim", if you catch my drift. People lie and the police should not just believe anything anyone says.

when stories like the one above are so common, and yet so little is done.

That these are so common is up for debate, but "so little is done" is demonstrably a lie. Haven't you heard about the Dear Colleague letter? Haven't you heard of the constant changing of the laws and regulations to cater to women and feminists? Don't be disingenuous. You talk like we live in a dark age of the patriarkee where women are hunted and persecuted, when in fact almost the entirety of the first world is controlled by feminist forces. If that sounds preposterous please explain how Obama, Biden and Hillary - all staunch feminists - can be the 3 most powerful figures in US politics, and how Gillard, Harman and others came to power; also please explain why the UN, the EU and practically all international organizations spread feminist propaganda and force feminist laws upon their members. We don't live in countries ruled by men, we live in countries ruled by feminists. Stupid as it sounds, it's just simply true. Prove me wrong if you can.

'Those problems you have are very serious, here are some other problems that are serious also'

Do feminists think like this about men, or the MRM? Even to ask this question is hilarious. Most, and I do mean most feminists don't give a rat's ass about men's problems, if they even acknowledge that men can have any problems at all. Many feminists deny even the possibility of that. You're not one of those feminists? Fine, then tell me what have you done lately to enlighten those feminists? Nothing? "Not all feminists are like that", but you don't actually care that many of them are? Then you're part of the problem because you just stand idly by when radicals stomp on the human rights of other people.

[–]matthewtheninja 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kommissar_chaR 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnFerriss 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As a scientist

I have to go do science now

You try too hard. Notice how nobody else needs to pad their arguments with what they do for a living? It just makes your post seem weak because they can't stand for their own merits.

You then layout your hyperbolic and bigoted view on all MRAs. MRAs usually argue that false rape accusations are considerably above the commonly and falsely purported 2% rate. But nobody has ever said 99.99%.

When it comes to false rape accusations, the most MRAs argue for is when it's proven that the woman was lying, they should go away for as long as the man would have gone away if he had been falsely convicted.

You go on to claim the gender wage gap still exists like some conspiracy nut, when studies show it does not exist, and women with undergraduate degrees actually get paid more than their male counterparts. Oh I forgot, you can defy statistics and studies in scientific journals because you're a "scientist". You are in denial.

[–]DeanOnFire 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_mail1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I find it loathesome when people make rape threats against female journalists... however, are the ravings of immature 14 year old boys on the internet an accurate cultural barometer of how our society feels about women generally? I don't think so.

Except we aren't talking about immature boys on the internet. We're talking about grown men writing such comments in to newspapers and magazines, or tweeting rape threats. I agree that it is obviously not indicative of how all men feel about women, but I do feel that it is an issue and you've unfairly dismissed it.

Other than this point, I have really enjoyed reading your comments. You gave a fair criticism of feminism which was refreshing. I am really glad to see that at least a few other people realise that the feminist movement and the MRM have a few goals in common and should afford one another a little more respect. I'm tired of all the "hurr durr patriarchy" and "hurr durr feminazis" rubbish that gets spewed back and forth.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

there are assholes on both sides of the fence

I see you conveniently ignored the part where I said that and said that I'm tired of it.

when a wife cuts her husband's penis off, there are cries of 'You go girl!' and 'That will show him!'. this is a view held by many and publicly, in society.

I ... just ... what? 1 - this has nothing to do with what I've said. 2 - you're using one example from the news in the last week to make a sweeping generalisation about women and society, a generalisation which I find highly suspect considering that I've seen precisely zero cries of "you go girl!"

The problem is, there are far more women shouting 'you go girl!' than there are men makign rape threats

Got the numbers on that, have you?

Hypothetically, the number of rape threats put out on female journalists could be a very dedicated set of asshole trolls, whereas the latter is a view held by many and publicly, in society.

I could make exactly this argument, in reverse, and it would be just as valid. Your "you go girl!" shouters could be trolls, whereas people thinking it's ok to make rape threats could be "a view held by many and publicly, in society". See how that also works both ways? I personally don't think either version is true.

This fact is, as I have already acknowledged, there are people of both genders who treat the other gender like shit. I have not argued that women have it worse, I only requested that the issue of rape threats - against anyone - not be dismissed out of hand.

If you are going to carry on arguing, I invite you to respond with a proper counter argument as to why you think rape threats can be dismissed out of hand. (edit; and no, I'm not talking about anonymous internet threats, I'm talking about public ones on twitter) Otherwise, please don't waste my time.

[–]Mr_Rivers1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First off, I have to call you up on the rape threats. If there was a genuine, public threat of rape directly towards an MP's twitter, the suspect would be arrested. What we actually get when we follow your link is one or two admittedly sexist quotes, such as:

"Mensch. Unfortunately, I would."

which, I suppose given a feminist imagination could be turned into a rape threat. and stuff like this:

"I'd love to hit Louise Mensch in the face with a hammer."

Which is neither sexist or a rape threat. I have heard the same kind of things said against male politicians.

And the "you go girl!" thing was nowhere near a sweeping generalisation. Unlike your atricle, here is one which supports what I'm saying pretty well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muuFygvXPAM

Oh hey look, an entire room laughing about hilarious it was.

now, let us actually switch the genders, and wonder how quickly all those men in the audience would be laughing about a woman's tits getting cut off.

So when I say it is a view held by many, sand publicly in society, that is exactly what i meant. People making rape threats publicly would, and have, been locked up.

The internet, as a platform is INFESTED with trolls. making an anonymous rape threat behind a pseudonym completely different to actually running up into someone's face and shouting IM GON RAPE YOU BITCH. The reason the ones which are dismissed are dismissed are because the vast majority of the people making rape threats have actually no intention to rape whoever they are threatening. I'm not going to make an argument as to why they are dismissed. If you have lived on the internet for any amount of time, you should know why.

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"You would, wouldn't you? .... you strangle her." Sexual? Yes. Violent? Also yes. No, not a rape threat, but still not acceptable. To be truthful I remembered the comments as being much worse than that, and they were described again and again in the newspapers as "sexually violent" and "possibly illegal". Re-reading it, I realise you're right and they aren't tantamount to rape threats, so I apologise for the exaggeration. I reacted a little heatedly to OP's assertion that it's "only 14-year-old's on the internet", which I did not feel was strictly true. I agree with you that anonymous internet threats are to be ignored (barring extreme stalker-y cases, of course) - I was not suggesting that you should defend those.

I appreciate you providing a source for the "you go girl" thing, but I still question whether you can say this example is the same as the views of society at large, when this seems to be a tv personality going for shock value and leading the audience on, more than anything else. Notice the audience booing the perpetrator at the beginning? They strike me as not being on her side, even if they do laugh at Sharon Osbourne's jokes.

Here is an example of people joking about a woman's tits getting cut off. Here is Frankie Boyle making a tasteless joke about it. 1315 retweets, 738 favourites. It just comes back to what we've both already said; there are assholes on both sides. I'm pretty sure that for any example either of us comes up with, the other can find an example of the same thing happening the other way around.

[–]Mr_Rivers2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I can go off-tangent a second, and observe that it's interesting how you noticed that those 'rape threats' were in fact nothing of the sort. Sexist? yes. Violent? yes. But not rape threats. Perhaps there are other people doing the same thing you did, which potentially inflates people's views on how many rape threats are actually put out. I have actually seen it before but not thought of it like that.

As for the "you go girl" thing, it's not strictly that statement, but the mentality that goes with it. I had a facebook 'friend' laugh that cutting a man's balls off was a moderate response for a sexist remark, which got a whole bunch of replies and likes. I think that kind of comment is more common in our society, and actually acceptable, than rape threats and violence against women. I'm not saying people won't make the comments, but in a public space, one is more likely to get you shot down than the other.

I feel the Angelina Jolie case is not relevant in this situation. The fact she chose to get the operation done, and many people I know see her in a positive light because of it; many more than the comments I have heard objectifying her because of it.

I think most of the comments linked in that article are actually mild forms of objectification, rather than actual violence threats. For example: "floating a pair of chinese lanterns down the east river in memory of angelina joliee's boobs. rip." Not exactly violent, actually I would argue if anything, this person is clearly against women getting their breasts cut off.

And the Frankie Boyle joke, meh. Not exactly violent. I don't find it funny, but it is a joke, and jokes can't be taken seriously. I won't say any more about that because jokes and sexism are who ahole different kettle of fish.

And yes I still agree, there are assholes on both sides, but I would argue that, in contrast, there are far less vocal assholes in the MRM than there is in feminism. Most of the MRA assholes get lanced.

[–]themountaingoat2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

a) I don't consider that acceptable either ... in fact I've never actually seen it, can you give me an example? Genuinely curious because I can't think of a time when I've seen jokes like that on tv.

b) we're also not talking about people making jokes, we're talking about threats made in anger. They are perhaps not the sort of threat someone is likely to actually follow through on, but still not a joke by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't really see that there's a parallel here. Edit; You could argue that it's a parallel with rape jokes that specifically target women, but that's a different thing from a rape threat.

c) I wasn't going for the "women have it worse" argument - I simply don't consider it acceptable to make rape threats against anyone, and I didn't think it was fair to dismiss it as something "only 14 years old's on the internet" do when that clearly isn't the case.

[–]AryoBarzan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fireproofjeans1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except we aren't talking about immature boys on the internet. We're talking about grown men writing such comments in to newspapers and magazines, or tweeting rape threats.

You do know people say bad things over the internet on a daily basis, right? Why is it that suddenly "rape threats" are some horrible commidity that we have to get behind and cry over? There are REAL issues facing men, yet we're supposed to bend over backwards over someone getting butthurt over mean words on the internet?

I am really glad to see that at least a few other people realise that the feminist movement and the MRM have a few goals in common and should afford one another a little more respect.

There is a big difference between what people claim are "issues" and what they actually do about them. If you actually analyze feminism, you'll see how big this difference really is.

[–]marauderp1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StealthMarmot0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fireproofjeans1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1of42 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Onto the issue of gender representation. Yes, the upper echelons of power and business are majority-male. So are the lower echelons of society... the homeless, the blue collar sectors, etc. Feminist activism doesn't seem as enthusiastic about gender parity in these sectors!

This doesn't address the point. You may or may not be right about feminism being selectively concerned and are definitely right about the Apex Fallacy, but that doesn't address the wild gender imbalance at the top levels of business and politics. Really, you don't attempt to address it except by sort of half-heartedly offering the very, very vague argument of men having wider variability on IQ type tests. That may or may not be true but really doesn't suffice as an argument in the face of empirical studies proving gender bias exists in promotion in the workplace (and I don't mean studies that show aggregate promotion differences but rather studies that show groups of men rating different identical individuals' competencies differently on the basis of gender).

I see a lot of the same issues arising on both sides of the movement. Both sides abandon inconvenient parts of the argument for parts that are more compatible with their views. The incredible gender imbalance in places of power is inconvenient with MR's views, so you'd rather talk about the incredible gender imbalance among the poor. Conversely, the gender imbalance among the poor is not something that feminists would like to talk about, compared to the gender imbalance at the top.

I find it difficult to take the self-identified vanguard of either movement seriously. Both sides display exactly the same kind of biased thinking, as you are here.

However, what most people here would argue is that [female writers disprportionately experiencing gender attacks] isn't necessarily a product of "patriarchy" or "misogyny" per se.

So what is it? As a man, outside of some very extreme parts of the radical feminist spectrum, if someone wants to insult me they'll quite likely choose something other than my gender. Conversely, if a female writer is going to be attacked, odds are it's going to be by using a gender attack. This is empirically very common, and it's hard to rationalize the pattern outside a context in which gendered attacks on women are effective.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]1of42 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

With respect to the gender attacks, it is quite possible people are just being lazy and going for something which can easily cause offense. They don't actually BELIEVE women should just "stay in the kitchen" but they use it because its a cheap shot.

No doubt. But that then begs the question: why are gender attacks such an effective cheap shot in our society? That's the point I'm getting at. Outside of very specific contexts like radical feminism, nobody really tries to attack my male gender as a cheap shot, because it doesn't work as a cheap shot. So why is it that that female gender seems so much more effective as a cheap shot?

Also just wanted to say you've seemed quite reasonable in this discussion even if I don't agree with everything you're saying. It saddens me that it is so often so difficult to find the non-ideologues in ideological movements.

[–]kabab2 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]1of421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

neckbeard

I think that's very Reddit-specific because I've never heard that used as an insult outside of the very particular context of Reddit/Reddit-associated MRM and feminism people. That said, you may have a point.

On the other hand, neckbeard isn't really so much an insult based on gender, but rather on gender roles, no? The same is true of

virgin

These aren't insults that operate based directly on the gender of the target but rather rely for their insult power on the target's deviation from what are generally considered societal expectations for men.

The problem I have with the argument that this represents a problematic issue for both genders which both sides of this MRM/feminist dichotomy are addressing is: most of the people I know who identify as feminists (in real life) have always argued just as stridently against male gender roles (the source of neckbeard- and virgin-shaming) as they have against female ones.

Now, I know that Internet Feminism and SRS contain lots of horrible people who like to employ virgin shaming and "yeah you're just weird!" type tactics, but the reasonable mainstream parts of the movement I've seen would absolutely deplore those tactics as totally contradictory. How can someone argue against gender roles while simultaneously insulting opponents for deviating from them?

Fundamentally, most notionally anti-man insults I've seen are actually insults about deviating from "manhood".

[–]equilshift5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1of421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kabab22 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First of all, thank you for your well thoughout and level headed arguements. Cheers!

You've convinced me that the "vigin" insult when thrown at men is different from the sort of insults you listed women commonly face. Indeed, it insults men's deviation from their expected gender norm.

However, I think "neckbeard" deserves some closer examination. I dont know about you but I run in circles where that insult in very common. Some examples from my personal life include online gaming communities and I have encountered it away from the keyboard as well in places like the pub and bar. But thats my personal experience, so take that as you will.

In my opinion, "neckbeard" is a fairly recently conceived insult thrown at men to imply they are overweight and unkempt. Overall, the insult is completely based on personal apperance which in the insulters mind implies a male of low value which is a very gendered insult in my opinion.

It strikes me that "neckbeard" is an insult which is very similar to the ones women face. However, women do indeed face alot of cheap shot attacks which are based on gender.

Cheers!

[–]1of421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hmm. I wrote about 3 posts to this. Originally I was going to argue that neckbeard is somewhat different and non-gendered, but I think you're actually correct. Neckbeard is in much the same vein as insults about women not shaving their legs or armpits - it's insulting someone for deviation from a gender norm. So it's as gendered as insults about women not meeting gender norms are. Neither are okay.

I guess the one point I'd make is that women in general seem to face a more harmful set of gender norms in today's society. No gender roles are correct, but the traditional gender roles of man as provider and head of household and woman as subservient homemaker seem more harmful to women than men to me, and all of these insults spring from those. That said, one doesn't fix one set of gender expectations because they're unhelpful but not fix another; all must be addressed.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1of421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

A better argument against the statement that discrimination causes women to be a minority at the top of fields is that men typically make more of the sacrifices in every area that one would expect to be required in order to be the absolute top of a field (working more hours, being more willing to relocate, taking jobs with more risk, choosing jobs based upon advancement opportunities and pay rather than satisfaction)

in the face of empirical studies proving gender bias exists in promotion in the workplace

I know there are some of these, but I don't know that there are that many. And if you do studies enough you can get any result you want, and there are entire departments devoted to proving women are discriminated against. I have seen studies that show men are discriminated against in the same way be HR departments.

[–]1of421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You know it's interesting, you kind of display a perfect example of the problems I have with ideology. Half of what you said here is totally reasonable, and half is totally not:

A better argument against the statement that discrimination causes women to be a minority at the top of fields is that men typically make more of the sacrifices in every area that one would expect to be required in order to be the absolute top of a field (working more hours, being more willing to relocate, taking jobs with more risk, choosing jobs based upon advancement opportunities and pay rather than satisfaction)

Potentially very reasonable. I don't know enough about the data for this as specifically applied to "top of the field" jobs, but it could be true.

But then, after that very reasonable point, your next is:

I know there are some of these, but I don't know that there are that many. And if you do studies enough you can get any result you want, and there are entire departments devoted to proving women are discriminated against.

This is just a really, really bad counterargument. In fact, it's not really a counterargument. It's more of a generalized protestation that not every study is true. And granted, not every study is true. And? The studies that have shown this (for example the scientists study) are using pretty clear methodology and their results aren't really all that controversial in and of themselves.

I see, quite often, a problem on both sides of the MR-feminism continuum with disregarding inconvenient evidence.

[–]themountaingoat3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is just a really, really bad counterargument.

I am making an argument that bias in a field means that you cannot really take the statistics that come from that field all that seriously. This is common statistical stuff. Even in the medical field huge numbers of the published studies are thought to be incorrect source. All of the problems outlined in the above paper are likely to be even greater in the field we are discussing.

The studies that have shown this (for example the scientists study) are using pretty clear methodology and their results aren't really all that controversial in and of themselves.

But the fact that it isn't controversial to claim that women are paid .7 times what men earn due to discrimination shows that something not being controversial is not a good guide to it being true in this field.

Do you honestly think that there isn't a huge degree of bias in women's studies departments, and that they would publish their results even if they didn't get the result that women were discriminated against? To me, the huge number of provably false claims that have been supported by the feminist movement indicate the movement has little to no evidence of objectivity.

[–]1of42-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am making an argument that bias in a field means that you cannot really take the statistics that come from that field all that seriously.

Yes, and that is a really, really really bad argument. It is, in fact, an ad hominem argument. "You are a <practitioner of a certain field> therefore your argument can't be taken seriously."

But the fact that it isn't controversial to claim that women are paid .7 times what men earn due to discrimination shows that something not being controversial is not a good guide to it being true in this field.

Again, I'm not talking about aggregate studies. I agree with you; just demonstrating the pay gap doesn't demonstrate the cause and so a pay gap could exist even with perfect equality if women made different choices than men en masse.

But what I'm actually talking about is studies like this one reported in the NYTimes in which they demonstrate direct and actual bias against women keeping all other factors other than gender equal. (Abstract here)

Do you honestly think that there isn't a huge degree of bias in women's studies departments, and that they would publish their results even if they didn't get the result that women were discriminated against? To me, the huge number of provably false claims that have been supported by the feminist movement indicate the movement has little to no evidence of objectivity.

This quote is, again, full of bad argumentation. Do I think that there is bias in womens studies? Certainly, but to dismiss an argument merely based on the person of its origin is an ad hominem argument and totally devoid of logical value. If a womens's studies person or a feminist makes a bad argument, you should be able to defeat the argument on its own merits without needing to resort to attacking their person.

[–]themountaingoat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]No_Fudge1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This doesn't address the point. You may or may not be right about feminism being selectively concerned and are definitely right about the Apex Fallacy, but that doesn't address the wild gender imbalance at the top levels of business and politics. Really, you don't attempt to address it except by sort of half-heartedly offering the very, very vague argument of men having wider variability on IQ type tests. That may or may not be true but really doesn't suffice as an argument in the face of empirical studies proving gender bias exists in promotion in the workplace (and I don't mean studies that show aggregate promotion differences but rather studies that show groups of men rating different identical individuals' competencies differently on the basis of gender).

I think that this bias towards woman in the workplace is proof towards old gender roles, I'll also throw in the statistic that men receive harsher sentences for similar crimes. The old gender role being, woman need to be protected, so they can safely make babies and what not. And men need to be the catalyst for their struggles. Men were suppose to suck it up and deal with problems so woman would be safe.

This is of course a gender role issue that effects both genders. But I feel feminism is not helping abolish these. The idea that woman are victims of some man controlled institution known as the patriarchy just perpetuates this idea that woman are weak/victims.

[–]red_polo1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gregarianross1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You seem fairly reasonable and honestly I have a much better opinion of /r/MensRights now. My bad opinion came from looking at the front page of the subreddit and seeing more news stories about false rape accusations with more honest legitimate issues sprinkled on the side.

But, I think you are throwing away a lot of issues pretty quickly.

Onto the issue of gender representation. Yes, the upper echelons of power and business are majority-male. So are the lower echelons of society... the homeless, the blue collar sectors, etc. Feminist activism doesn't seem as enthusiastic about gender parity in these sectors! ...

This is indeed problematic. However, what most people here would argue is that it isn't necessarily a product of "patriarchy" or "misogyny" per se. That said, I find it loathesome when people make rape threats against female journalists... however, are the ravings of immature 14 year old boys on the internet an accurate cultural barometer of how our society feels about women generally? I don't think so.

On both these issues you are addressing discrepancy between genders but instead of accepting it as a problem you seem to dimiss it as problematic fairly quickly. More men in the bottom sector of class does not mean it is fine for more men to be in the top sector of class. These are two issues(that may in fact be actually quite connected, I think however a large portion of homeless are veterans and that may have something to do with it, but I won't try to assume what makes these numbers the way they are) that don't cancel each other out.

And when you discuss rape and death threats against female journalists you seem to trivalize it by insinuating that they are entirely the ravings of immature "14 year old boys". And there are two problems with this. The "14 year old boys" are picking primarily on women and not men, I don't see any obvious evolution to suddenly change the criticism "14 year old boys" have for almost exclusively women when they turn 18. So these "14 year old boys" turn into men holding deeper criticism for women than men so even if these threats are exclusively from children that doesn't negate the problems. And the second problem with the statement, is that all these threats don't just come from children and even if they did, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are seriously horrible and damaging to live with no matter your gender.

These are the two that stood out to me the most, again you seem to be fairly reasoned but I think you are throwing these issues that women face away without accepting them as the problematic and often damaging issues they are.

edit: This is an interesting, and although I may disagree with some of YetAnotherCommentor's post, very reasonable discussion as long as I stay near the top and don't read the comments with about 3-10 upvotes that address rape as ok if both are drunk or say men are the biggest group of people that are not believed when accusing rapists which is very not true on pure numbers and amount(very possible on percentage of victims not believed though)

[–]YetAnotherCommenter3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You seem fairly reasonable and honestly I have a much better opinion of /r/MensRights now.

Thank you!

But, I think you are throwing away a lot of issues pretty quickly.

Well I haven't necessarily studied all of these issues in depth. I focus on men's issues primarily because I know more about them - women's issues aren't my specialization since I lack a lot of the necessary experience.

But regarding the 14 year old boys... they do pick on men too. However, the gender system tells men to accept being bullied and take it like a man etc.

Women who come forward about the abuse they suffer? Well, yes, sometimes they get further abuse, and this is bad. However, they ALSO receive a certain amount of victim cred and people who want to soothe and defend them. Women's tears pull heartstrings and sympathy.

Look at the incentive structure. A man gets bullied and complains. What happens? "He's just a wimp, he needs to toughen up, so let's throw him back to the wolves and tell him to man up!" So the bullying doesn't stop for him.

A woman gets bullied and complains. The bullies still pick on her, but other people can rush to defend her or wipe away her tears etc. etc.

This doesn't mean its okay for women to be bullied. It ISN'T. But culturally speaking, you have to concede that women and men face different incentives with respect to showing vulnerability and that women can even gain certain perks from it that men cannot.

Granted - this varies a lot and clearly works best for attractive young white women... aka "Missing White Woman Syndrome."

Rape threats and death threats etc. ARE problematic and offensive and they are truly horrible. I'm not denying that. However, I'm thinking that perhaps the issue might be complicated by the fact that the bullying of one woman is a tragedy that gets TV coverage and the bullying of a million men and boys is just a statistic.

None of this negates the fact that NO ONE should be bullied.

[–]digiacom1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What if women are being systemically rewarded for being in subordinate positions? I think that would have a pretty big effect on paygap beyond life-balance issues. Warren Ferrell's message is that male disposability and social pressure to work hard & provide drive men to get more money at more emotional/social cost, but he hardly said 'that is the whole reason there is a pay gap.' There are lots of women I know who work outside in hard labor and they are regularly being promoted less often and valued less than their male counterparts, despite matching or exceeding their co-workers.

That subordinate reward can be seen in the bad social perception of women in leadership: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK0Q8b6QhDo http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/for_women_leaders_likability_a.html

I'm saying that the pay gap which exists cannot be handily reduced to 'women balance work and home life better, since men are poorly socialized to overwork.' That brings up great points about how too many men kill themselves working, but isn't a holistic approach to the problem. Lack of STEM students, early leadership opportunities, and of course anti-choice policies all contribute, as well as subconscious preferences between equally qualified applicants. Similarly, some women may have an easier social time at the economic 'bottom', but women of color or non-conforming women are hardly represented in that statement, and just because there is a corresponding issue for men doesn't mean an issue doesn't exist for women. The MRM consistently seems to think that pointing out a place where men struggle for being men is the opposite of feminism, when it is precisely feminism - systemic abuses based in gender. Male rape victims, male homelessness, male disposability, 'real man' stereotyping, etc are concerns absolutely compatible with modern feminism & gender studies, and any feminist I know and have studied with would agree those are problems. I don't see why men's rights has positioned itself (with such vitriolic, sexist, hateful language) against feminism, when it would be so much better received and understood as an expression of feminism, since it owes feminism so much for its underpinnings. My prevailing theory has been that true sexists hide out in the MRM because it manages to alleviate their guilt for being sexist, and they drag the movement down.

You know so much, and write so well, but I can't help but feel you are glossing over the complexity of system oppression and modern gender theory, which is more representative of feminism than this 'diet radfem' proposal you've made.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, I'm sorry if I'm being overly simplistic. I'm just getting a lot of replies so I tend to be hasty in my responses.

Thank you for your substantial reply. I appreciate the link too. It will take time for me to digest this material.

I will state one thing - you point out how modern gender studies and the like is absolutely compatible with concerns about male rape, male disposability etc, and you may be right, but unfortunately most people here on MR have encountered plenty of feminists fresh out of women's studies who are more than happy to burst out into a rendition of "Cry Me A River" when confronted by the facts of male suicide.

This doesn't say anything at all about you, not one bit. But if modern gender studies and modern feminism are supportive of men's concerns... frankly, we aren't seeing too much evidence. We do see some - some people here who have taken gender studies courses have said that their professor was fair and discussed men's issues impartially, which is good!

And of course, posts like yours help, too.

And one of my philosophy professors was a Foucault scholar and a feminist and she was eminently fair-minded.

Maybe its an issue of intelligent feminists vs. half-baked radical activist trolls and internet feminists, with the latter simply screaming more loudly, but still. Remember that most people here were once very much feminist-sympathetics. Something must have happened to turn them against feminism, right?

[–]digiacom2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I suppose I feel the same away about 'half-baked radical activist trolls and internet feminists' as you do about about MRM commentors (youtube comes especially to mind) that compulsively say terrible things about women posters and feminists - that they are passionate but frustrated, hasty, and uninformed and unproductively blame and attack.

With a mind that I'd like feminism to be judged upon its successes in revealing and confronting gender centered injustices and gender studies' corresponding rigor as a social science, rather than be judged on half-baked trolls, I'll try to reframe when I read a particularly vitriolic MRM commentator as an activist frustrated at not being heard who may be passionate but under-informed.

As for the 'something' that must have happened, I see modern men's rights in tension between the men's rights countermovement of the 70s and a true adjunct to feminism and gender studies that focuses on issues men face. Anti-suffragists turned into 'pro-family' anti-feminists (Focus on the family anybody?). Their marketing has become slicker, and now among the non-religious crowd there is the 'feminism is misandry' trope that dominates MR discourse and often prevents meaningful collaboration between those focused on feminism in general and those interested in men's issues.

Part of the issue may be nomenclature - Feminism is a movement for gender equality whose name was inspired by women's rights; it is not the opposite of 'Masculinism'. That is a false dichotomy; Feminism isn't only for women's rights, and is not winning while anybody is undergoing harmful and systemic gender socialization and discrimination. The word feminism is a bit of an anachronism because it sounds like its only about women, but it is a movement for broad and deep gender equality, not women's rights in opposition or in tension with men's rights.

In my view, the 'opposition' to feminism in MR is in-fighting, and MR positioned 'against' feminism is like 'white rights' being positioned against 'civil rights'; It's madness. The name 'feminism' feels anachronistic because it sounds like its only about women but it isn't - it is about all people, and it is the term that is in use, so we use it!

I have an interesting thread your article triggered, if you're interested I'll PM it to you. Thanks for having a discussion, I know you're getting a lot of comments right now!

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

With a mind that I'd like feminism to be judged upon its successes in revealing and confronting gender centered injustices and gender studies' corresponding rigor as a social science, rather than be judged on half-baked trolls, I'll try to reframe when I read a particularly vitriolic MRM commentator as an activist frustrated at not being heard who may be passionate but under-informed.

I'm glad to hear that. Ideally speaking I'd agree, and I do my best to separate out theoretical works in gender studies etc. from the misdeeds of many activists.

But most of the MRM's critique of feminism is based on the activists. There's theoretical feminism or dictionary feminism, but the feminist movement unfortunately fails to live up to either of these. I know, this doesn't mean that everything in gender studies is an evil plot (although I often don't agree with most academic analyses of the gender system), but when a culture of academic feminism is breeding people like Big Red, you'd have to be at least a little suspicious.

I see modern men's rights in tension between the men's rights countermovement of the 70s and a true adjunct to feminism and gender studies that focuses on issues men face.

Ahh yes, the traditionalist vs. gender-liberationist schism. If it helps, the vast majority of MRAs, at least here on Reddit, are the gender-liberationist type. Honestly, I haven't seen TOO many traditionalists running about, and here they're downvoted regularly.

Probably because most of my MR work is basically theoretical musings posted on Reddit (mostly over on /r/Masculism), I don't encounter many traditionalists. But as I am a pro-choice, nonheterosexual, gender-nonconforming, militantly antireligious atheist I can assure you that I have no desire to collaborate with traditionalists.

I basically agree with you that theoretically, there is plenty of ground for cooperation between certain kinds of feminism as well as MR. But in real life we're not seeing it because far too many institutionally powerful feminist groups and ideologies are invested in the Radical Second Wave viewpoint, far too many feminist activists are screeching "SHUT THE FUCK UP", and many feminists who DO want an alliance STILL subscribe to the "all men's issues are a product of women's issues" model and who then recommend the 'solution' of becoming a 'feminist ally'... which, at least according to the kind of SJ activism we both hold in contempt, involves (basically) shutting the fuck up and agreeing with everything the women say and never questioning them and being grateful whenever they decide to hand us an Ally Cookie and never EVER talking about "teh menz" because that would be "derailing." And this isn't just in response to the recent activities at UofT... remember what happened to Dr. Warren Farrell when he started talking about men's issues?

Now, none of this says anything bad about you, so I don't want to sound like I'm trying to blame you. I agree with your optimism in theory, but unfortunately in practice there is so much bad blood. And at the very least, MR is inevitably opposed to certain subspecies of feminism.

I'd also be greatly interested in seeing the thread my comment triggered. Thank you!

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ollieohoh0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The tone of your first post made it seem like you believe that the problems feminist fight today are not legitimate, but here you are acknowledging some of them and I appreciate that. Although I believe cat calls should be illegal, on the same level as littering. If a police officer saw someone yelling at some girl on the street, I believe they should be given a $50 fine or something similar. I think that people who do cat calls are socially promoting the idea that women are merely sex objects. If they do it and are not punished they are more likely to repeat their behavior. Women can not always just object in the moment either. I remember walking to the store with my friend with I was 13, and after the 3rd cat call we had gotten during our 1 mile walk I turned around and screamed at the car "Fuck off!". The man whipped his car around came back to threaten us. That moment really stung as a young female because I suddenly no longer felt safe standing up for myself. I also quickly learned that having a male with me meant I would not be catcalled. No, I was not abused, so that man should not go to jail, but I think it should be punished because I think young women should have the right to walk to a store and feel safe and without fear of being harassed, regardless of if they are walking with a male or female friend.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quinoa_rex1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tophernator 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know, the persistent pay gap, the disparity between numbers of male and female CEOs

There is ever more mounting evidence that the pay gap is due almost completely due to occupational and educational choices and not employer bias.

If disparate results come from people choosing different careers and family planning options, who is anyone to say what kind of life people want to pursue?

congresspeople

Actually the issue is that fewer women run. Just looking superficially women make up about 15% of those who run for congress, but make up 17% of those who are in congress. If there is a bias against women it isn't the voters, and if there is a bias against anyone on the part of the voters it isn't against women.

I ran the numbers for the past few congressional elections(2010,2008,2006), and looked at any election where a man and a woman were the front runners. Women won the majority of those, as incumbent and not. When neither were an incumbent due to retirement, death, or ineligibility of the previous holder of the seat, it was close to 50/50.

street harassment

Answering this question would depend on how one defines street harassment. Getting hit on/someone saying hello when you don't feel like it at the time is not the same as someone following you or persisting after you've asked to not be bothered. The latter is problematic, but it would be dishonest to throw all public uncomfortable situations under this umbrella.

the hell of not being believed and treated like a piece of shit that SO GODDAMN MANY rape victoms go through on a daily basis,

I think we should be careful in that going through due process and trying to find out if it actually happened and if so who did it is healthy. There is a big difference between "we will look into this and verify your story and act accordingly" and dismissing them out of hand. The problem with rape is usually a lack of evidence. Women are taken seriously when it comes to counseling and medical care for the most part, but a null hypothesis of it actually happened and X person did it is not conducive to due process.

Do you think "there are fewer female CEOs / congressional representatives because women are less ambitious or less able?"

Partly, or at least it hasn't been accounted for. Another thing that has not been accounted for is that women are presented with a very different set of incentives. They have an expectation of socially and legally enforced support, which means they have the luxury of not having to be as ambitious and still live a comfortable life. This isn't laziness, but basic rational behavior; why not do something more fulfilling and/or safe if you can still live pretty well?

Do you believe that women who were intoxicated or dressed sexy are probably lying if they report a rape?

No, but we should figure out what actually happened regardless.

Ultimately I think that a lot of modern feminists and modern MRAs probably hold pretty similar fundamental beliefs,

They disagree ontologically on pretty much everything. When you disagree on an appropriate definition for oppression, power, privilege, equality, etc., you're not longer fighting for the same things. You're fighting for the same words representing different ideas.

Many of the issues with the MRM and feminism I outline here and here, and possibly earlier. My history is somewhat of a ponderous tome.

I don't think I'm going to accomplish anything here, but I'd at least like to know if I should write off MRAs as possible allies or not.

MRAs are possible allies, but it ultimately depends on how you define things to see who you agree with.

[–]kronox1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireReadyAim 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolSeptem 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm usually not very adamant over either MR or feminism, but what I have seen from both is that I'd probably have more in common with the MR movement than with contemporary feminism. So I'll try to answer your questions, from my personal point of view.

the persistent pay gap

If this pay gap is indeed real, and not the result of weighing figures differently (which I have also seen reports on), then yes, this is an issue of discrimination. Given equal hours, equal experience, equal competence, equal other everything, pay should be the same.

"there are fewer female CEOs / congressional representatives because women are less ambitious or less able?"

Less able: certainly not. Less ambitious: maybe. To give an anecdote, when deciding on the division of workload regarding care for our children, my wife HERSELF said she would rather spend more time with the children than work more. I believe that if such an attitude is more common among women then among men, it might explain some things. I am also opposed to some sort of mandatory 50/50 line on higher paid positions until a compelling case can be made that women are on average not less ambitious (because, from an uneducated observer's standpoint, it does look a bit like women are on average less ambitious).

On rape issues and sexual harassment: Reports on this should always be taken seriously and law enforcement who laughs such complaints off are assholes. However, this goes both ways. Rape should not be frivolously reported, and I've seen a lot of stories here on reddit how a false rape complaints ruined some poor smuck's life. Concerning cat calls, I don't approve, but I also don't really see how we should deal with them. Making them illegal is borderline unenforceable. The best direction there is probably the long term investment of trying to make sure our children won't be assholes.

Just my 2 cents.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the persistent pay gap

It's this right here why so many people have problems with feminists. How many times does fact that the pay gap has almost nothing to do with any sort of societal bias and almost everything to do with personal choices have to be proven.... yet you keep repeating this bullshit. I mean, you are so apparently so incapable of actually educating yourself on the issue, yet you spout this stuff off as fact, while also demonizing the people who oppose it... and then you wonder why people have problems with feminism.

What do you think happens when two things ARE in fact equal... yet one thing keeps shouting that it's unequal and therefore needs more.... what do you think is the actual real-world end result of that? Inequality perhaps?

street harassment

Is this really a serious issue? People making comments? I mean, let's just ignore who the majority of victims of actual violence are... clearly being whistled at is more pressing. And you call MRA's people with a "persecution complex"?

the hell of not being believed and treated like a piece of shit that SO GODDAMN MANY rape victoms go through on a daily basis

Do you understand how the presumption of innocence works? It's fundamental to our judicial system. You are mad about people putting the rights of a person over the feelings of another.

Let's just ignore the fact that it's feminism that has redefined rape in such a way that millions of male victims every year were not even technically raped by said definition. This is actual policy... it's not something that people can just get over.

or the amount of vitriolic abuse (incl. rape threats, death threats, etc.) that female writers are subjected to that men aren't (or at least not to a hundredth the degree).

Want to know how many threats over the internet I've taken seriously? Zero. I think it's also relevant to mention this whole "persecution complex" you were talking about before. Ever notice how none of these writers EVER report these threats to the police?

As for everything else.. YetAnotherCommenter did a better job of addressing them.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bumwine-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]missedit22 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]missedit220 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We know the difference between fake statistics and real ones?

There mere fact that you all feel entitled to 'debate' whether men are real people with real problems says it all about the state of modern feminism.

Edit: Also, I don't believe the vitriol or the rape threats. These are actual crimes -- crimes that feminists claim to take very seriously. Yet, they never report these threats to the police. They never release the e-mails. They only even seem to mention these 'threats' in instances where one of them -- Marcotte, Sarkeesian or Richards -- steps into a big pile of dog shit.

So I just don't believe them. If these threats were real, feminists would be waving them around, reading out loud from what they say. They'd have called the police, the FBI, the justice department. They never do any of that. They just try to milk it all for sympathy. Very telling, that.

[–]Cardplay3r 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

why anyone wouldn't see a problem with the persistent pay gap

Because it's not true, maybe. But this is just a wild guess on my part. The pay gap has been debunked literally dozens of times by dozens of different people. Do you know that the 77% or whatever figure they keep spreading is arrived at by averaging all male wages and comparing that to the average of all female wages? That is, it's not for the same job. It's comparing the cleaning lady to the male CEO. It's stupid. It's dishonest. But as long as someone says "men earn X and women earn 0.77 X in general", that is technically true - only meaningless. But if this someone says "for the same job" it instantly becomes a lie, a demonstrable falsehood designed to spur the flames of the gender war.

And this is an answer to your overarching idea about the MRM too: we're not a bunch of angry guys. That is only your prejudice, your stereotypes. We are - mostly - intelligent and well-informed people, in fact we often know more about feminist issues than the average feminist.

the disparity between numbers of male and female CEOs

The "glass ceiling" also has been debunked on numerous occasions.

street harassment

That is a bullshit issue to be honest. If a woman is actually harrassed, as in, touched in any way, or persistently followed against her wishes, that's already considered a crime and is punishable by law. OTOH many feminists consider looking at someone or trying to initiate simple conversation as "harrassment", which is basically denying basic human rights to other people. I can look wherever I want, at worst I may be impolite but impoliteness shouldn't be punished by law.

the hell of not being believed and treated like a piece of shit that SO GODDAMN MANY rape victoms go through on a daily basis

This is where your ignorance comes to light because your assumptions prove you know a big fat nothing about the MRM. We are all for helping rape victims. That you thought otherwise shows you believe in lies spread by people with dishonest intentions.

the amount of vitriolic abuse (incl. rape threats, death threats, etc.) that female writers are subjected to that men aren't

This is an empty assumption based on hearsay. Men recieve just as many hate and threats from others, if not more - only they tend to not cry victim about it.

Do you think "women who object to being catcalled should get over it?"

I think talking to another human being is a basic human right not revokable by feminists. If you don't like what I'm saying you also have the basic human right to not care, to ask me to stop, to just leave, or to do whatever you might find an adequate answer (as long as it's legal). What you don't have is the right to ban me from talking to you altogether using the power of the government. What fascist idea is that??? Do you not find the idea absurd that men shouldn't be able to talk to women just because some ideologues find men, and their initiations of human contact, repulsive?

Do you think "there are fewer female CEOs / congressional representatives because women are less ambitious or less able?"

No, I think there are less female CEOs because:

It's usually men who build companies because men take more risks. And don't say it's a lie or a "social construct" because feminists base some tenets of their ideology on women's aversion to risk-taking.
It's usually men who invest more time and energy into advancing on the corporate ladder. Considering that it is a well-documented statistical fact that men on average work a lot more hours weekly than women, it would be strange if this extra work was not rewarded with extra promotions. You know, it's not the patriarchy that propels men into higher positions, it's their own hard work. Don't you find it fair to ask that if anyone wants to be a CEO then s/he works hard for it? It's not a christmas present to be just given, it's a reward for what you have done.

Do you believe that women who were intoxicated or dressed sexy are probably lying if they report a rape?

No, I believe that a woman who has been found to falsely report rape a number of times is probably lying if she comes up with an n+1^th accusation. But this does not stop the justice system to jail the man on nothing more than the woman's word, because it's our male privilege to be jailed without any evidence on a vagina-owner's say-so. We certainly need more feminism to fix this...

If you believe those things, I guess there isn't much common ground.

There is no common ground because you know next to nothing about the MRM except for your own misconceptions. You come in here assuming a lot of bullshit, asking loaded questions, pretending to be open minded. I wonder if you'll be able to, well, just listen to what we have to say at all, without resorting to using your misbeliefs to discard what we say in favor of what you think about us.

But if you believe the problems I mentioned are real problems that deserve to be addressed, then maybe there's some hope.

And what about other problems, ffs? Is it only feminists or women who are allowed to have problems? You act like we said women don't have problems when in fact it is you who act like men don't have problems. Does this not cause a bit of cognitive dissonance in you? Will you resolve that by sweeping our claims under the rug? You don't actually have to give a shit about our claims because you knew we were bigots even before talking to us, right?

I'd at least like to know if I should write off MRAs as possible allies or not

We can absolutely be allies IF you are willing to throw away lies in favor of the truth. For example stop spreading the lie that men earn more for the same job. As long as you accept dishonest propaganda at face value there is no meaning behind your good intentions.

[–]sg92i 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

street harassment

Since you bring up street harassment, I'd like to point out that it takes more forms than the stereotypical male construction worker cat calling a girl walking by on the sidewalk. Guys can suffer from street harassment if they're being perceived as gay flamers, and in recent years there's been a number of cases that have made it into the mainstream press where this type of street harassment had spiraled into violent attacks. Even in cities like NYC which are not generally thought of as bible belt hick-towns.

Its sad that child custody is the only example you can think of, in a time when it is socially acceptable for women to wear guy's clothing without even being considered tomboys, while if a guy tries to wear woman's clothing they get insulted, beaten up, etc. Gender expression is just one of many examples; with sexual orientation you can see a double standard in the way the general public views same-sex couples [with gay guys facing a harder time at getting accepted than lesbians].

Its easy to dismiss these problems by thinking that they only effect gender fluid guys & gay/bi guys, but its not wholly unusual for "normal" straight guys to be killed by total strangers in the United States after being falsely "read" as LGBT. There was a straight guy listed on the TDOR some years ago because he was beat to death by a bunch of strangers who saw him standing in public with a purse. The back story? He was just holding it for his wife while she was trying on clothes.

Why is it that so many feminists see no problem with advocating for ending double standards that cause problems for women, but as soon as men do it while calling it "men's rights" its such a horrible thing that they have to be kicked out of public facilities like colleges [by protesting their meetings, disrupting them by barging into them physically, or illegally pulling fire alarms to force everyone out of the building]? This should be proof-positive on its own right that the radical arm of feminism so securely established in academia just doesn't give a shit about guys. Imagine what would happen if a group of men at a college pulled fire alarms to force a feminist event out of the building. All the perpetrating students would have been expelled.

[–]MrDannyOcean 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A quick response -

the pay gap is largely a myth. Men are paid more than women because men work longer hours at their 'full time' jobs and enter more lucrative professions, and women frequently interrupt their careers voluntarily to have children. If you look at younger, childless women, there is no pay gap. That's because the younger generation of women are choosing the high paying fields more often and when they don't have kids, the pay gap is gone.
positions of power like CEO/congress/etc. This is frankly something I haven't thought about that much. I believe part of the problem is that to be a CEO/congressperson you generally have to be pretty old with tons of experience (generally), and people of that generation were more stuck into gender roles. I think the numbers will continue to improve as they have for the last several decades.
street harassment - of course everyone is against street harassment. who argues that it's a good thing?

[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]rocktoV 13 years ago* [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

What I DON'T understand is why (or whether! If this isn't actually what you think, please tell me) anyone wouldn't see a problem with... I don't know, the persistent pay gap, the disparity between numbers of male and female CEOs / congresspeople / etc., street harassment, the hell of not being believed and treated like a piece of shit that SO GODDAMN MANY rape victoms go through on a daily basis, or the amount of vitriolic abuse (incl. rape threats, death threats, etc.) that female writers are subjected to that men aren't (or at least not to a hundredth the degree).

the persistent pay gap

I believe the case is actually that the pay gap is down to different life choices, and two people doing the exact same job will have the same wage, regardless of gender.

the disparity between numbers of male and female CEOs

People should reach these positions based on merit, not to fill a quota. I don't see a problem inherently in having a disparity.

congresspeople

That's democracy for you, people vote for them, and that's that.

street harassment

Street harassment is always bad, of course.

treated like a piece of shit that SO GODDAMN MANY rape victoms go through on a daily basis

I'm not sure what this refers to.

Do you believe that women who were intoxicated or dressed sexy are probably lying if they report a rape?

??? If both are drunk, it's not rape. If one is drunk and the other isn't, then it's rape.

[–]MsRheannaQuinn1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRedGerund4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocktoV2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MsRheannaQuinn1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocktoV1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aLadyJane0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocktoV2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reaganveg1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't read /r/mensrights -- I found this thread via /r/bestof -- but I want to respond to a few of these statements even though I can't speak for /r/mensrights.

Do you think "women who object to being catcalled should get over it?" Do you think "there are fewer female CEOs / congressional representatives because women are less ambitious or less able?" Do you believe that women who were intoxicated or dressed sexy are probably lying if they report a rape?

Regarding women being catcalled, the important thing to realize is that, for most men, this falls into the category of "problems I'd like to have." It's like A-list celebrities complaining about not being able to go anywhere because of their fans, to D-list celebrities who want desperately to have this problem. Of course, the behavior of those fans may well be a genuine problem. However, the problem is basically, ultimately, "I'm too hot." That's not something men can relate to very well.

(The way I relate to it is having been a relatively wealthy white man in the poor areas of Latin America, being constantly approached by people trying to get my money in various ways -- usually trying to sell me things, but also including just grabbing it out of my pockets. I was even mugged at gunpoint and knifepoint, on separate occasions, although never injured. These problems were real, but ultimately caused by my having "too much" money. My attackers had a much more serious problem of not enough money. Basically, first world problems in the most literal sense.)

Eventually, women get older, and the cat calls stop. At this point they might realize that, for all its problems, being "too hot" was not such a bad thing for them.

Anyway, I'm just trying to explain the difference in perspective here. That difference might lead to some rather inappropriate statements on the part of men. But women are also quite mistaken to expect actual sympathy from men, or even from less-attractive women, for their cat-calling problems. (It can even at times be an immature/self-centered lack of social awareness to complain about such things.)

Do you think "there are fewer female CEOs / congressional representatives because women are less ambitious or less able?"

There's a fact here which we should acknowledge right up front. Women have much less to gain in their social lives from professional advancement. In particular, getting a lot of money will let men get their choice of sexual partners. It does not work that way for women. It even works the opposite way: by spending their youths building a career, women forgo taking advantage of the period of their greatest physical beauty. So we should not be surprised that women are "less ambitious." Women just have less to gain from (financial) ambition.

I am not saying that that explains, completely, the reason CEOs are so often men. However, I do believe it is a huge factor. There are many, many men who dream of one day being rich -- so that they can get sex. Their very libido is directed into money-making activity. There just are not women who think that, because it does not work like that for women.

Do you believe that women who were intoxicated or dressed sexy are probably lying if they report a rape?

Well, no.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lrpg1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChildishSerpent0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

(edit: ha ha you got like a billion responses, sorry for adding to the clutter :V)

What I DON'T understand is why (or whether! If this isn't actually what you think, please tell me) anyone wouldn't see a problem with...

I'm not an authority or anything, but I'll try to answer these one at a time. I don't speak for the entire MRM, so I'm gonna be using "I" instead of "we", but from what I understand my opinions are rather common throughout the movement.

the persistent pay gap

The pay gap is kind of interesting because, while it's technically true, it seems to be mostly due to personal choice than due to institutional bias. There's a relatively-recent Department of Labor study which concluded that, while it is technically true that women make less money than men (by about 20%, according to their numbers), most of this can be accounted for by the choices women took to trade higher pay for part-time work or time off work.

I absolutely agree that women should get equal pay for equal work. I don't, however, believe that women deserve equal pay for less work.

Any situation where someone can prove they're being underpaid due to their gender should absolutely be dealt with.

the disparity between numbers of male and female CEOs / congresspeople / etc.

This sort of falls under the same issues as the pay gap - being a CEO or a congressperson takes an absolute shitload of extremely hard life-destroying work. Largely, women don't seem interested in putting the time in for the rewards. Those that do put that work in seem to do just fine.

(Note: I'm not saying that women are making a bad choice here, by the way. I strongly suspect they're actually making a much smarter choice than the men.)

street harassment

Street harassment is a problem. It's somewhat unclear how common it is, and it's somewhat unclear whether our existing tools are sufficient to deal with it or not. Note that the continued existence of street harassment isn't proof that we need stronger penalties - nobody's out there clamoring for the death sentence for petty theft, and yet petty theft continues.

I haven't seen any MRAs claiming that street harassment should be legal, just that it may be less common than claimed. I think this is definitely deserving of more study, overall.

the hell of not being believed and treated like a piece of shit that SO GODDAMN MANY rape victoms go through on a daily basis

Women aren't the only ones who get raped . . . and women aren't the ones whose rape is ignored on a legal level by laws that prevent the crime from being recognized as rape.

Nobody should be raped. Nobody should be treated badly for being a victim of rape. But if you want to find the largest group of people subject to this, it's not women, it's men.

or the amount of vitriolic abuse (incl. rape threats, death threats, etc.) that female writers are subjected to that men aren't

This is another part where I start being a bit skeptical. I can't find the link right now unfortunately, but I've seen a list of "rape threats and death threats" sent to a major feminist figure, which she posted publicly to demonstrate what she had to deal with.

Problem is, the vast majority weren't threats of any kind. Out of the entire list, the worst of the worst that she was able to find, it contained exactly one death threat.

Now, that's not a good thing. The ideal number of death threats, for anyone, is zero. But I'm not at all convinced the problem is as severe as is claimed to be. Death threats are illegal; how many of them have been reported to police? Hell, they could just publicize the threats and that'd do a huge amount towards proving the point!

And it's not like men are never verbally abused online either. This is the Internet. Everyone's an asshole. But for some reason it seems okay for women to claim thousands of death threats without evidence, while simultaneously, men with documented verbal abuse are told to man up.

To me, this also falls into the "deserving of more study" category.

Do you believe that women who were intoxicated or dressed sexy are probably lying if they report a rape?

No. But I do believe that women sometimes lie about reported rapes. And I also believe in innocent-until-proven-guilty . . . and unfortunately, rape is very hard to prove, almost uniquely so among serious crime.

I'm not sure there's a good solution to this. There may be only a least-bad solution, and that solution may still be pretty bad.

Cutting down the burden of proof to guilty-until-proven-innocent is not the least-bad solution.

[–]themountaingoat4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm a little bit torn on that. There is a line where harassment becomes illegal - if you're actively following someone around and yelling about how you want to screw their booty, then that moves over the okay-this-is-legally-considered-harassment-and-here-come-the-cops line.

I think there's also an argument to be made that it's possible for a large group of people to collectively commit "harassment" when the actions of a single person wouldn't count. And maybe there's an argument to be made that, if we were in a situation where literally every man yelled about booty-screwing to every woman nearby, then maybe this should be considered legal harassment and punishable under harassment laws.

And maybe there's the opposite of that as well, where instead of a large group of people en-masse harassing a single target, there's a single person en-masse harassing a large group, i.e. one person walking down the street loudly offering sexual favors to everyone they meet. Maybe that's over the line also.

I definitely don't believe that a single uncommon instance of a catcall should be arrestable, though, and if we ever get to the point where a woman could get a man arrested just because she didn't like him, then we've gone too far.

(And from what I understand, given that previous line, we've already gone too far.)

So, I agree it's not as simple as saying "street harassment should be illegal", but I think it's also not as simple as saying "street harassment should be legal". It's a big nasty gray area.

[–]themountaingoat3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

With how easy it is for women to abuse other laws regarding sexual behavior I am definitely not in favor of making more such laws.

I agree that this is a very slippery slope to go down, and I think we would have to be incredibly careful when doing so. And we may already be "too far", so to speak. But I have a very difficult time saying "all harassment is OK and perfectly legal".

For example:

And really, the worst that happens in the above situation is that someone becomes uncomfortable. Do we really need to law to coddle peoples feelings like that?

Are you saying that stalking should be legal? After all, the worst that happens from stalking on its own is that someone becomes uncomfortable.

I really don't see an objective dividing line between "stalking" and "harassment", and there are plenty of things we disallow even if the worst that happens is that "someone becomes uncomfortable". "Uncomfortable" spans a huge range between "mildly irritated" and "actively fearing for their safety", and I think intentionally pushing someone into the second category should be punishable by law.

And yet, that's still just someone becoming uncomfortable.

I am absolutely not saying that all forms of harassment, no matter how minor, should be a jail sentence. I just think the situation is a lot more complicated than a black-and-white statement can cover.

[–]themountaingoat2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We don't have a problem with women being CEOs or being in Congress. We have a problem with the idea that they can somehow have it all and society should lower the standards of work for women to do so.

We don't have a problem with the idea of a pay gap because when you adjust to women leaving the workplace because of wanting children and choosing jobs that pay less, the gap is significantly smaller and when you look at jobs that statistically pay more with women who have decided to not have children, they often get paid more than their male counterparts.

Regarding the idea of being intoxicated or dressing sexy about rape. Dressing a certain fashion shouldn't be a cause for rape obviously. Although intoxication is an issue that does have a variety of viewpoints. In a society that has a whole section of a population going out to bars and clubs to get intoxicated and get laid, it's a hard sell to say not being sober doesn't equal consent. Mostly because it makes the woman into this character that can't make her own decisions. Somehow drinking makes you into this being unable to make decisions for yourself when you yourself have made the decision to put yourself into that state. On the other hand, the male who is intoxicated should somehow know better. Putting forth this idea of "men should know better and women don't." Look at cases that both were intoxicated, it's often seen as the man's fault. Now, don't get me wrong, sleeping with someone passed out or obviously too gone to the point of not being given able to say no is different and a reason to feel violated.

Feminists don't look at the problems men face as a priority, which is a true barrier towards equality. You don't see women holding signs about wanting tougher prison terms or equal treatment in family or divorce court. They may even say it's an issue, but it's one they'll never get around to. Part of the path to equality is removing the issues that men face in terms of their disposable nature, taking the most dangerous jobs, being part of the draft, having lifetime alimony, having harsher prison terms.

[–]oceanblues1231 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As a feminist, I was curious and interested in your point of view. I would still like to learn more about the threat of lower standards at work, the reasons for the wage gap,

But I have to disagree with you about this:

it's a hard sell to say not being sober doesn't equal consent. "men should know better and women don't."

What you're saying here is that drunk women have no right to refuse. You're saying that because some women who drink want to have sex, all women who drink can be forced into sex. (I'm assuming here that you mean that the woman should have "known better" by not going out and getting drunk in the first place, because that was an open invitation for sexual assault.)

You argue that because the woman is intoxicated, she forfeits her ability to make decisions. First of all, one could say that makes the rape all the more heinous. Forcing a mentally incapacitated person into sex is just low. The same logic you used in your caveat at the end of the paragraph should apply. Second of all, I disagree that being drunk would cause a woman to so completely and utterly lose all decision making abilities. Not wanting sex isn't multivariable calculus or anything. It's a visceral decision. If you don't want it you don't want it, no matter how logical you are at the moment.

This is something feminists refer to as "slut shaming." (Even though you said that women should be able to dress the way they want without being threatened. Thank you.) Slut shaming really means this: no one deserves to get raped. Period. Ever. The behavior of the rape victim is irrelevant. The rapist committed the crime, therefore the rapist is in the wrong. Always.

[–]agiganticpanda0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See, reread that. I wasn't saying that drinking makes you lose the ability to make decisions, but the attitude that any impairment does is itself sexist and treats women as if they can't make decisions.

See the issue with slut shaming, isn't that one blames the victim. It's the idea that there may not be a victim because the woman who makes the decision to drink and makes the decision to have sex while drunk and the people who believe that that decision doesn't count an is thus rape. Again, it makes it out that women can't make decisions about the actions they take. That they need to be protected. It's the total opposite of equality.

Regarding the overall issue of job choices and pay, while there is individual issues of pay if you take into account of the jobs that males take vs women they are often high demand jobs that need sacrifice of time and safety. When you take a woman who has made similar decisions such as no kids and or family or danger, the gap is often much smaller.

[–]mindbane-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So I am not normally a visitor of /r/MensRights but I stumbled upon your comment from a link through /r/bestof to the parent comment. So please don't take my views as necessarily normative of the /r/MensRights group, but I am a supporter of the more moderate tenants of the movement. That said...

To address the issues you brought up

Victim Shaming

I think you will actually find a great deal of support from /r/MensRights when it comes to gender neutral protections for rape victims. While I am far from saying that women have all the necessary protections under the law/social as the victims of rape at the very least they can get a case brought against their aggressor. In many places in this country a man would be ridiculed for even attempting to file a police report. I believe that this is a real issue but it should be tackled as a gender neutral issue and not something that plagues only women.

Catcalling

This is douchey not much to be said on the issue. I have never heard even the most inane of mens right supporters every defend the right to sexual harassment. That said some people could be considered a bit to sensitive but that point has been better addressed by the comment you responded to.

Female Representation/Pay Gap

This is a touchy subject because there is limited unbiased research and the remaining unbiased research points towards more complex issues such as: differing life goals, risk taking behaviors, etc. Which heavily suggest that the representation/pay gap has more to do with psychology and neurology than some sort of culturally oppressive patriarchy. I encourage you to read a bit on the concept of "The Glass Cellar" 1 2; it is an interesting discussion on the disparity between men and women in the most dangerous of jobs and the societal pressures on men to treat themselves as disposable.

The long and short of it is I am not saying that these issues don't exist only that they are far more complex than many radical feminists would like to paint, and that many of the issues they claim as only plaguing women affect men in similar if not identical ways.

[–]Zoesan-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The pay gap is somethint of a myth anyway. A man and a woman in the same cirumstances are within single digit percentages in terms of pay. In certain us cities women under same cicrumstances make more.

As such, women do not get paid less for the same work. They do, however, usually work lower salary jobs (the whole ceo thing).

Is this societal or biological? I'd wager a guess that it is to a large part societal. However, I do not agree that, if there were no gender roles, there would be exactly even representations of men and women in all fields. I do believe that men would still be more prevalent in the 70h week/5m dollar bonus jobs, just to a much, much smaller extent.

That is not to say women are less capable of doing these things, but testosterone does increase aggression and, to a certain extent, competitiveness. I just think the ratios would go from 90/10 (or whatever it currently is) to something along the lines of 55/45.

For the MRA (though I don't consider myself one)... well, you have a similar composition of people as in feminism. Smart, educated people that want to make the world better, people that have been wronged looking for justice and a loud portion of complete and utter asshats.

So, I wouldn't say "the mra are your allies", but I would say "there are plenty of smart mras who's ideologies are not unlike your own".

The rape question. Well, that one is tough, because at the heart of it, it's a problem of the law. In dubio pro reo is the fundament of modern law, but in the case of rape it can be extremely confining. Unlike, for example, battery. When you get the shit beaten out of you it's just finding out who did it.

But rape, in a lot of cases, doesn't leave violent marks. Sure, you can prove sex, but proving the lack of consent? That's really hard to do, because essentially it's the victims word versus the perpetrators. And in this case the only choice is to drop the case, because having guilty until proven innocent is... well, that's even bigger bullshit.

So we have men fearing that the accusation will default to conviction (which in principle is a reasonable fear, especially with the whole shit on campuses doing exactly that).

I hope this came across somewhat neutral.

[–]itscirony 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KRosen333 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stieruridir1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DashingLeech 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Great comment. Incidentally, I think the division here is often termed equity feminism and gender feminism following from Christina Hoff Sommers' 1992 book Who Stole Feminism?.

I would concede one thing more, partially, from an economics point of view. But it will take a minute to explain. It would be helpful if you'll allow the me leeway to simplify equity feminism as a "level playing field" and gender feminism as "a tied score", because this allows the same principles to apply across races, sexual orientation, or any other categorization that is not a direct measure of capability or performance and hence creates an unnecessary bias.

I think almost everybody agrees with a level playing field. Equity makes sense for allowing anybody to do or be anything they want without artificial roadblocks, and there are even great economic reasons why this is the most efficient for everyone to prosper the most in their own definition of prosperity.

Fewer people agree with a "tied score". That is, affirmative action programs to equalize numbers, equalizing income, and so forth. I would, however, concede that some jobs do require a comfort level or set role models, so biases to "tie the score" may be legitimately warranted on some cases, such as police strip searching suspects, TV personalities and characters, and so forth.

Economically, there is also a potential problem with income inequality. It's true that men do make more, and the reasons may all be entirely legitimate personal choices (bigger risk takers, longer hours, less time away from career for family, etc.). An unequal score/outcome is not indicative of a systematic bias; it may even be simple as innate motivations as this is what natural selection would predict as Roy Baumeister points out in his book Is There Anything Good About Men. (I suppose one might argue natural selection is systematically biased, but at some point you can only eliminate differences by literally merging into a single, unisex species.)

The problem is that money actually does buy you more privilege in many areas of life, and a growing income inequality gap is unsustainable in maintaining a level playing field. There are ways to help equalize those numbers, sometimes ones that men (and some women) don't like: equal split in divorce, gold-digging, the design of childcare payments to equalize household living standard. Even the fact that men spend more on women than women spend on men helps to equalize things, but the problem there is still power and independence.

So I do concede the difficulty in long-term maintenance of "level playing field" equity without some measure of "tied score" equality. But, that is true across society. Income inequality is balance issue. Too much creases two distinct classes. Too little eliminates motivation. So in that context I concede a level of economic socialism is necessary to maintain even social equality. (You can't have both economic and social libertarianism over the long run.)

But that is limited to a balance rather than an ideology, not specifically a gender issue but rather across all people, and definitely has nothing to do with post-modernist/constructivist/linguistic/androcentric/patriarchial behaviourism of any sort. It is purely due to natural selection and economics, and you can't remove it short of forcing women to do things they statistically don't want to do (bigger risks, longer hours, forgoing families for career); you can only deal with it as best as possible.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Office_Zombie 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You have my complete and utter respect. And you are the first feminist I have ever seen that I NEVER want to argue with because you would hand me my ass...not that I can find a single thing you've said that I disagree with. :-)

I got into Farrell when I was about 19 and Myth first came out; and it really changed my view of the world. (I'm no longer as militant as I was. Not that I was misogynistic; only that I finally understood there was a second side to the coin and I would be damned if I didn't tell everyone about it.)

I discovered most "Feminists" (What generation was feminism in in the early 90's) were equivalent to "Christians" in so much as they seemed to believe feminism (and their world construct) was what they personally thought it should be and any argument was heresy. They were doing nothing more than arguing for rights without responsibilities and trying to show how men were locked into their own socially acceptable rolls was...nonsense and they would not hear it. (You've read Myth; you know where I'm coming from.)

Thank you for reminding me there are sane and reasonable feminists out there still.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]serendipitousevent 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duglock 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Always_Doubtful 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Perpetual_dissident 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PAdogooder 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PAdogooder 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CDanger1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bob3333 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bob3333 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nerdrhyme 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrunkRawk 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]only_does_reposts1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CircilingPoetOfArium 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CircilingPoetOfArium 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmk816 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I feel a bit of trepidation posting here, especially with a different view point, but I am going to give it a go anyway. I think in regard to the idea of free speech that you run into the same sort of problems that any opposing viewpoints do, whether it’s democrats vs. republicans, atheism vs. religion etc.. The people that do the most of the talking fall to the extreme of both viewpoints and the people who are willing to actually debate and listen fall silent because they don’t want to get involved in the crazy rhetoric. So when you talk about “the kind of feminism that dominates” you are really talking about the people who have a platform and have an audience. Those of us who are willing to debate feel like it’s hard to go against the grain, against the thought leaders. They don’t have the support of their own side, so it makes it hard to go up against the opposing side.

Also I feel like this is a problem that comes from BOTH sides. I’m sure both of us could point to example of the other group shutting down debates or creating a really hostile place, where the other side is attacked. I think both sides don’t focus on the good that comes out of the other side. We just focus on the things that prove us right about how bad the other side is.

When talking about patriarchy and the theory of patriarchy, I think one of the most important things for feminists to remember is that MOST men are affected negatively by patriarchy as well (which you talk about, but I just wanted to add my own thoughts on). Maintaining patriarchy mean maintaining the ideal male’s position of power (white, able bodied, straight, in control of the means of production etc.). Even men who fit these particular descriptions have to police themselves intensely to make sure they don’t appear to have any sort of “other” characteristics and these characteristics often are seem as feminine. There are token members of people who have been accepted to prove that it is not a hard and fast rule, but they have to maintain the basis of the archetype as well. Since women are seen as “the other”/secondary/lesser they are allowed a larger freedom when it comes to expression but men are expected to live up to the archetype, even if it is not in their best interest.

Many feminists that I come across understand that men are affected by male privilege and the patriarchy. Do you feel like this isn’t being emphasized enough? I’m wondering if it’s hard for me to see if it is enough and would like to understand how you feel about the acknowledgement of that.

I think this is where intersectionality becomes important as well, because I can see that as a woman I am treated a certain way, but as someone who is white, educated and from a middle class background I have certain privileges that are not given to everyone. To me it seems that some men get caught up in the fact that they can’t see a direct benefit from being a man, so male privilege can’t exist. It is not about the anecdote and it is certainly not that simple. But gender is a component of how you are treated in society. What do you think is the best way to address this?

I disagree with you for the most part about rape culture, that it is challenged regularly for women, but I don’t want to focus on that now (it’s so complicated and this is already getting long). When you talk about men affected by rape culture, for a lot of the cases (saying men can’t be raped, the fact that we have no idea how many men are raped in prison and that no one sees this as a serious issue that desperately needs to be addressed) is because the men it affects have qualities of the “other” or do not fit the archetype promoted by patriarchy. In that sense, these men are “less than” women because women are expected to have the “other” characteristics, while men have not.

Lastly in regards to rape culture, I think we haven’t found a good way to talk about the complicated issues of consent and sex and its role in rape culture. I know feminists want to completely separate the ideas of rape and sex, but I think it’s time now to change that. Obviously both sides know that the “getting attacked in a dark alley” sort of rape is bad, but that we get confused when it comes to talking about anything else. (A lot of these ideas are explored in Yes means Yes! An amazing book by Jacyln Friedman and Jessica Valenti http://www.amazon.com/Yes-Means-Visions-Female-Without/dp/1580052576)

A part of this whole mess is we still aren’t giving agency to women and girls when it comes to their own sexuality. We are still teaching that sex is bad and dirty, and perhaps not as implicitly in some places, but that good girls don’t want sex, and that it should be saved for marriage etc. etc. When it comes to giving consent, we go with the idea of “no means no” because it follows the stereotypes that boys are sex crazed maniacs and women need to be the voice of reason and police sexual behavior (thanks a lot Victorian ideals). If we could implement the idea that it’s ok for women to feel desire, and that there is nothing wrong with someone who has sex on the first date, people could have much more honest conversations about what exactly they want and how they want it. The idea that sex just suddenly happens wordlessly and perfectly, like in the movies, makes the idea of having to discuss the details of a sexual encounter seem unsexy and awkward.

I think this is where a lot of men get angry because they feel like feminism is calling them all rapists when they know they would never do the dark alley scenario. They have been taught to look for the implicit no, instead of really figuring out the yes. Women, on the other hand, are conditioned not to be direct, not to ask for what they want and to be afraid of their sexuality. It is the onus of both genders, to encourage and not shame people over directness and for both parties to stop and explain if they don’t want to continue/feel uncomfortable. There still will be cases where people take advantage of people when they are intoxicated or when people take advantage of others who are unwilling to speak up because of social norms, but it will be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately there is a direct and passive acceptance of the way things are now in regards to sexuality, but that doesn’t mean that individuals can’t start to change things.

Hopefully that all made some sense and it wasn’t too rambly or off topic. It’s been a couple years since I focused on this topic, so I am a bit out of practice explaining these ideas.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think we do differ quite strongly here. Your argument is, roughly, that "the patriarchy hurts men too."

I disagree with this, because it boils down men's issues to side-effects, or epiphenomena, of women's issues. Thus, it logically implies the "solution" is to support feminism, and when the feminists succeed then men's problems will be fixed as a consequence.

This is due to an analytic framework which sees the gender system as a binary and sees a "non-normative man" as an "honorary woman." I don't think that's accurate, since non-normative men are not socially treated as women. They can't access any female privileges, can't appeal to damselling, etc.

"Don't hit a woman" certainly doesn't apply to "wimpy" men. Indeed, the opposite applies, its okay to beat up wimpy men to "toughen them up."

This leads me to argue that "non-normative men" aren't treated as women. Rather, they're kind of treated like a third gender - possessing neither normative-female value nor normative-male value.

I wrote some more theoretical articles explaining this over at /r/Masculism. You might want to take a look!

[–]jmk816 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a really great point about non-masculine men not being able to access the power that women have.

It's interesting to think about, because to some extent, women who want to gain traditionally masculine roles often have to inhabit masculine characteristics and while it might be mocked (I thinking specifically of the word bitch to describe an aggressive woman) they are still given access to power.

I often associate queer/LGBT theory and feminism, so for me the idea of a gender continuum as a replacement for the binary is something I associate with feminism, but now that I think about it, it is probably not emphasized as much in feminism today.

I certainly am saying that patriarchy hurts men, but I think you jump to the conclusion that I am saying that the only success will come from supporting feminism and fixing women’s problems. I wish that there was another term for it, that wasn’t connected with the male gender because I think that it hurts both genders equally but differently. I think part of the problem is that feminism has been the primary narrative in discussing gender in the last 100 years and there hasn’t been that strong of an effort to change that.

I also think that feminists see that if they don’t stand up for women’s issues that no one else will. The fact that we still categorize political issues, social injustices as “women’s issues” still creates a sense that women are the “other.” Of course, there are issues that men deal with that aren’t even on the radar of being discussed.

But an anecdote that I remember is that when the Occupy Wall Street was in full swing, some women felt maligned because when they brought up issues that affected mostly women, they were told that those issues should not be the main focus of the time- that those would be dealt with after the main issues were fixed. It’s the same sort of thing that incited 2nd wave feminists to act. I wouldn’t say for sure if feminism is the answer to that, but I can’t see it being addressed without it.

On a personal level, I thought about being a Women ’s Studies major in college, but I thought it was too limited and perhaps even antiquated so I chose to study Sociology with a concentration in gender and sexuality instead. I think splitting up the genders and trying to understand it, is truly impossible. Though I feel like I can’t abandon the idea of being a feminist, where there are still issues that need to be address and with so many women who say they aren’t feminists.

I’ll definitely take a look at the other things you have written. It seems like you have a really good understanding of a lot of theorists that I know less about.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a really great point about non-masculine men not being able to access the power that women have.

Thank you!

I wish that there was another term for it, that wasn’t connected with the male gender because I think that it hurts both genders equally but differently.

I think I'd agree with you there. I just call it "the gender system" and I agree that it hurts both males and females, albiet in very different ways.

It's interesting to think about, because to some extent, women who want to gain traditionally masculine roles often have to inhabit masculine characteristics and while it might be mocked (I thinking specifically of the word bitch to describe an aggressive woman) they are still given access to power.

Absolutely. As I see it, a woman's womanhood is generally seen as innate - a man's manhood is generally seen as earned/demonstrated (Aristotelian vs. Platonic essentialism). Thus, women naturally have feminine value, they can't lose it generally. It is much harder to socially defeminize than socially emasculate.

Males, on the other hand, naturally lack feminine value. It is impossible for them to attain due to pesky biology.

Males can ONLY hope to provide masculine value. Thus, a man who isn't masculine isn't an 'honorary woman' but rather is socially neutered, possessing neither masculine value nor feminine value.

Women on the other hand can possess BOTH feminine and masculine value. So a woman who emulates certain traditionally masculine traits is not socially "a man" but rather socially androgynous.

This is why women have less to lose from gender transgression - its not because of masculosexism, but because femininity is seen as inherent. Also this is why men have everything to lose from gender transgression - they don't have any 'innate' value to fall back on, under our gender system.

I'm glad to give you food for thought and I hope you enjoy the articles!

[–]hihasu1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree with a lot of what you say.
I agree that “the kind of feminism that dominates” might not be the one OP thinks since there will always be a loud minority and a close to silent majority.
I'd also love it there was no shame in having a sexual desire for a woman. The dilemma between being an equal human being to the man, an individual that of course wants sex like every other and the fear of becoming unattractive if showing this is constant. I'd wish that this went away, both for men and women, but I guess you are right - it's a fight we as individuals and I as an individual have to fight if want change.
I also agree that it seems that the two groups talks past each other. They forget to mention all the things they agree with, unfortunately, since both sides forget, both sides think the other one don't understand and they being to fight about who has it worst - rather than actually fighting for what they believe in. All because of a big, ungoing misunderstanding. These groups could actually do some good in the world if they just stopped competing on who's most valid.

I'm a woman myself and I of course, of course support that men and women should have equal opportunities. I myself have never experienced direct discrimination for being a woman, nor do I know anyone who has. Whether this is due to luck, that I live in a wonderful country or that I'm not old enough - I don't know. But I've always believed that the hardcore feminism belonged in my mothers day - the movement can't keep on fighting as intensely now that the differences is actually getting smaller. It needs to be proportional.

[–]lolzfeminism 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I'd like to direct you to Steven Pinker's Blank Slate, that is, if you haven't read it already. Methodological collectivism is based on Skinnerean classical psychology and is widely accepted in the looser sciences for no better reason than political correctness. These "sciences" and humanities are not subject to outside peer-review and develop in their own echo chambers and have methods to discredit criticism.

The results of Pinker's experimental work and that of other can be explained in the context of evolutionary psychology. In the next decade or so, definitive proof for this model of human behavior will come from neuroscience and neuro-informatics. As we map the "connectome" of the human brain and that of other primates and mammals, we'll be able to compare and contrast the gendered brains of different species just as we do with genomes. The experimental psychology done today strongly suggests that the results of brain mapping will concertize evolutionary psychology thereby leaving a huge gaping whole where social psychology and feminist theory used to be.

I'm guessing feminists will either have to concede or sink to calling science a patriarchal institution whose results are sexually biased and hopefully lose all credibility with mainstream society.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lolzfeminism1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]smearbourbon1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lolzfeminism2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]smearbourbon1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dirtybillclinton 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAtomicOption 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]proletarian_tenenbau 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

As a male feminist, I would like to thank you for providing one of the few well-thought-out arguments I've seen from the MRM.

At one point, I probably would have considered myself an MRA (there was no real "movement" back then, though), but much of what I've seen coming out of the movement has been (implicitly or explicitly) misogynistic drivel. Naturally, I want no part of that.

And while I don't agree with much of what you say, you are spot on about "privilege" being grossly misused in the movement, and how it functions largely as a shaming/silencing tactic. Many of the more radical feminists aren't even secretive about this. They will readily acknowledge that they are seeking out ways to silence anyone in the movement that isn't able to demonstrate they are oppressed in some way (being female, non-white, non-cis, non-straight, etc).

It is a horribly way to foster a healthy political movement, as debate is completely crushed. Despite the fact that I disagree with several of your points, I wish I could see more of this thoughtfulness coming out of the feminist movement, as opposed to reactionary sloganeering.

Similarly, I wish the MRM would do something about the seemingly huge contingent of reactionary misogynists in their ranks who gravitate towards it out of bitterness towards women, and who use feminism as a scapegoat for all the problems besetting them.

tl; dr I kind of hate both movements these days, but good post!

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As a male feminist, I would like to thank you for providing one of the few well-thought-out arguments I've seen from the MRM.

Thank you!

At one point, I probably would have considered myself an MRA (there was no real "movement" back then, though), but much of what I've seen coming out of the movement has been (implicitly or explicitly) misogynistic drivel. Naturally, I want no part of that.

I understand. I admit I haven't seen much misogynistic drivel here, and most of it gets downvoted. That said, I don't like it either. There are plenty of "manosphere" figures I utterly loathe.

And while I don't agree with much of what you say, you are spot on about "privilege" being grossly misused in the movement, and how it functions largely as a shaming/silencing tactic.

Thank you. I am glad you've noticed this practice. It really is beyond frustrating.

Similarly, I wish the MRM would do something about the seemingly huge contingent of reactionary misogynists in their ranks who gravitate towards it out of bitterness towards women, and who use feminism as a scapegoat for all the problems besetting them.

I haven't seen too many of them around here, honestly, and I've seen blatant misogyny get called out several times on this subreddit by MRAs. But yes, there are SOME people here that, well, do seem to fit your description, and I can understand why you don't like them.

Thank you very much for the feedback!

[–]Arlieth 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CycleAsAVehicle1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]proletarian_tenenbau0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mossdale 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mossdale 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sui_generic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ristlin1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here's an awesome report with hard data to help clear the air about opportunities women have in the workforce.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/womenreportnew.pdf

EDIT: Here are some key findings:
-"Women and men both desire to advance, but few women aspire to the C-suite."
-Q: Why are you not interested in the C-suite? A: "My ego aspires to make it happen, but my authentic self is not sure if it is worth it. It would require me to do more and more politics, and I don’t want to. I don’t enjoy that.”
-"Early in the pipeline, women and men are distributed across line and staff roles at similar levels, but women begin a steady shift into staff roles by the time they reach the director level. Structurally, women do not have the same opportunities to benefit from sponsor discussions, and so they lack support to stay in the line. Line jobs are less flexible than staff jobs, so as women form families, staff jobs look more appealing; well- intentioned leaders often do not even ask mothers to consider a tough assignment. And women know that line jobs carry greater pressure."
-Two out of the four "barriers" are self-imposed by women. These are, individual mindsets and lifestyle choices. Of the other two, institutional mindset and structural obstacles, only structural obstacles suggests a "lack of trying" on part of males at the top.

[–]Angrant961 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Phobos_Deimos1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]belaballer1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]belaballer2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]akpak1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all_you_need_to_know1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jrweekes0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pwnslinger0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orsonames2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mischiffmaker1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WN5h0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CycleAsAVehicle1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]foamster0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hageshii010 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This might not have anything to do with this post, but I thought of it suddenly do I guess I'll post it.

I've always wanted to conduct an experiment, but am afraid to due to the possible repercussions of it.

Basically it entails a couple, male and female, both talking to separate groups of people. Some friends, some not as well known. And both would say the same thing; they would explain that they and their SO had an argument last night, and the SO slapped them. Just once. Slapped them and then apologized and left.

My curiosity is twofold. One; how would people react if the man said his gf slapped him compared to if the girl said her bf slapped her? Two; how would men react compared to women when told this by either SO?

My standing hypothesis is this; in the case where the bf slapped the girl both genders would tell the girl to end the relationship, as he "will do it again" and is abusive. In the case where the gf slapped the boy men would probably tell the boyfriend that he was overreacting and "shouldn't be such a wimp." Women may react more similarly to the first situation, or they might tell the boy that he deserved it.

This us just a thought I've had floating in my head. Double standards are a known practice, but I wonder how prevalent they really are. And yes I am aware that a similar-ish study was conducted in a park, but I'm a bit more curious about this more "intimate" situation about a person going to his acquaintances with the information.

[–]tubbo0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Seeing sexual penetration as an act of conquest is not really a bad thing. It's kinda natural, right? It's what has evolved in men, that "I did it!" conquest feeling is supposed to make you feel complete, because you're contributing to the continuation of your species. If there ever was a true meaning of life, I'm pretty sure "fucking a woman and having a baby so your DNA propagates through the species" is the closest we're ever going to get without devising our own meaning.

One thing I think would be a great thing to "concede" to feminists is our over-use of the word "rape". For example, in an online game someone might say "I totally raped those faggots!", and while it may not offend anyone in direct earshot, it's still pretty offensive to just blurt out loud. But we do this, and I think that's a bad thing. I live in Philly (where 80% of the population is black), and while people here might be pretty cool with using the word "faggot" out loud, you won't hear ANYONE go "those niggers in clan XYZ are so fucked up" out loud. Because you might get into a fight. You might even hear "yo we totally raped those kids on the court yesterday" from kids walking down the street. Why is that cool? Are we allowed to say that because we're not afraid of a bunch of girls coming up trying to start a fight? Realistically, men should be MORE afraid of that because from a respect standpoint, men aren't even allowed to fight back!

The major problem is this: A lot of men, mostly undereducated or younger men with less experience, don't respect women as equals. Perhaps it goes back to the conquest thing, how can you conquer something of which you find equal or even more powerful than yourself? But the relationship between man and woman is like a puzzle, they're supposed to fit together (you can guess which piece has the protrusions if you wish), not be clashing with each other and fighting for power. We fight "rape culture" but realistically it's just an evil-sounding term for a natural occurrence in our psyche that humanity as a whole needs to deal with. As a man, I'm going to feel like I conquered something when I fuck a woman, regardless if I love her or not. It's unavoidable, and part of the fallacy of many of these third-wave feminists are that they do not understand the chemical reactions occurring in the brain that force you to deny your own humanity ("manliness") in order to avoid thinking that way. What women need to do is appreciate and accept this in men, and what men need to do is appreciate and accept that women are not just conquests, they have their own set of complex chemistry occurring inside that is directing many aspects of their personality.

edit: Incidentally, in areas where the homosexual population is much larger, like in San Francisco, I hear yelling out "faggot" might get you beat up too...

[–]chaz345-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JordanLeDoux4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]doomsought0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz3453 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Benallica2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are right to a certain extent, yes. But I do not think the appeal to nature argument is a particularly good one when applied to today. Men used to go out and act as the hunter-gatherer, obviously providing the food whilst the women stayed at home. This was perfectly reasonable back in the paleolithic days where specialisation according to each's attributes maximised the lives and security of a family.

Things stayed this way, however, right through to the 21st Century in many ways. So women are seen as being naturally better than men at caring for children, and men are seen as naturally better workers, simply because of out-dated modes of tradition. This is obviously not true, men are just as capable in looking after children, and the fact that going out and being the breadwinner is less about chucking spears than it is about sitting at a computer in the 21st Century, it would seem natural to see, in the broader scheme of things, 50% of men doing childcare and 50% working, the same applied to women.

This is not the case, however. Because in the past traditional gender roles were probably indeed delegated to the sex that was most suited for it. This is no longer the hunter-gatherer age, however these gender roles have still spilled over into the 21st Century, reinforcing from a young age the idea about who is best in child-rearing and who is best in working.

Point being that one's gender/sex should have no role in this whatsoever today. Yet we see courts still offer longer maternity leave to women, reinforcing ideas that women are only naturally better in parenting, and men are still seen as the ones deserving most respect in the work place (I taught at a school recently where a good number of students from an asian background paid me way more respect simply because I am a man). These sorts of gender roles are damaging to the fundamental ideas of a meritocracy. They hide under the fallastic guise of pre-historic notions of what is 'natural' in order to perpetuate principles which are simply idiotic.

[–]chaz3450 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not necessarily even talking about nature though. I'm talking about average physical capability. There will never be, for example, as many female firefighters as there are male ones simply because there are fewer women physically capable of the job. Of course no individual who is physically capable should be prevented from doing whatever they want because of their gender but that's not enough for today's feminists. They look at the fact that there are fewer female firefighters or soldiers, and use that as proof that oppression of women is still a huge everyday problem.

In terms of societal respect, the problem is that we've come to a place, largely because of the teachings of feminism, that being at home doing the child rearing is seen as less respectable than going out and working. I agree that anyone of either gender should be able to freely choose whichever role they want. But look at the modern feminist movement's reaction to women who freely choose to stay at home. Heck one leading feminist thinker even called such women a danger to society. Modern feminism isn't about the ability to freely choose, it's about the ability to choose what they want you to choose.

[–]Benallica1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's one of the great misunderstandings I think. A lot of the media will feature these (obviously) nut-job 'feminists' who aren't actually feminists at all. Feminism is all about choice, and anyone who decries women choosing to stay at home whilst calling themselves a feminist is a bullshitter. In fact, Okin proposed a system where the person who works (whether that be a man or a woman) should have their employer split the wage bill, so that half goes to the spouse staying at home, precisely because staying at home is a form of work. The way capitalism operates reduces a person's workload to being whatever their returned pay is - if you don't earn anything, you supposedly do not work for some reason. Some feminists, such as Okin, propose splitting the wage for that reason.

I agree, as many feminists will, that the strongest, most able person should take the role of a firefighter etc. However women can be strong as well, all it takes is going to the gym - obviously men would find it easier, but if a woman works extra hard she can be just as capable. Feminism, in general, wouldn't say "let's pick random women off the streets and put them into firefighting jobs", rather, I suspect they would suggest ending the stigma to female bodybuilding, and stop reinforcing messages that women are weak.

That way, men will still probably find it easier to fill those positions, and feminists are fine with that - they just don't want social constructs to play a part in that, where a woman doesn't even contemplate becoming one in the first place because society tells her she isn't naturally as capable of it as a man (and heck I've seen some strong, butch women who could take me out in a second!)

I agree though, that the feminists you mention who, for example, stigmatise women who choose to stay at home are very stupid, and I would argue aren't even feminists at all.

[–]misterknowitmost-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"They took Marxism as a template and cast gender issues as a Class Struggle"

Who's engaging in hyperbole now?

You are ascribing generalizations to a group and suggesting all members of that group subscribe to them. No matter the context you choose to pigeonhole people into, you will never get a nice neat homogenous cross section of the population. That's because the majority of any classification of people you assign definitions of behavior to will be moderate in those definitions, with the population of said group declining exponentially as you venture off to either side.

The problem here is not what individuals who lean different directions on an issue have said or believe, the problem is that this has been made into an issue of women's rights and men's rights instead of basic human rights.

[–]theskepticalidealist-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]heya4000-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]absurd_olfaction-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]canondocre-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rygarr88-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SuperToaster93-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sugarball-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sugarball-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peoplesuck3571 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zangestu1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]See-91 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]falaqa-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Point of order:

I like Pussy Riot's style. I appreciate what they're going for. While I have some criticism for the bourgiose circle jerk that artsy groups tend to be, I'm cool with the confrontational street style.

But Pussy Riot and their compatriots are hypocrites.

For example; the ladies of Pussy Riot did a public "exhibition" where the went around Moscow kissing female police officers. They were essentially committing sexual assault. Repeatedly. How would Pussy Riot have reacted to reading a story of a bunch of men running around Moscow sexually assaulting female police officers? And why did they choose only to target women? Could it be because they were confident that women were less likely to press charges against other women for sexually assaulting them? Could it be because they are women that they consider themselves incapable of sexual assault? Sounds like rape culture to me.

Another example of the schick that raises my hackles is their whole "come taste freedom with us," thing. Who says that they are the authority on freedom? Where do they get the authority to gatekeep freedom? Do the men that want to join them get the same freedom as the women?

Finally (for now) is their arrest. As of today at least one of them has been freed. They were arrested because they trespassed on a private venue, took over the stage, interrupted the show, and damaged property. How would they like it if Orthodox priests trespassed at a club they were playing, interrupted their show, took over their stage, and damaged their gear? My guess is that they would portray it as an example of the patriarchy keeping them down and demand that the priests and the church be convicted just as they were. I'm fine with street theater. I'm not fine with entertainers ruining other entertainers show. Nobody really seems to comprehend this hypocrisy, though, and it drives me fucking batty.

Their music isn't all terrible but their perspective needs a lot of work.

Sidenote: It's funny to watch the HBO doc and spot the producers trying hard not to be obvious about focusing o the hot one, giving the smart one some air for credibility, and having no clue what to do about the dikey one.

[–]falaqa1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You use a lot of terminology, but you use it, on the most part, wrongly.

Further, you have the trait (which many find objectionable about the MRM) of turning these misunderstandings, augmented with selective reading, to create strawmen.

Firstly, a class struggle is exactly that - a struggle between classes. Marxist feminists have never claimed otherwise. The idea that all men are capitalists or that all women are workers has never been advanced, because it's stupid.

Further, I don't know where you're getting all this information about the feminist movement. I know many people who are feminists. I know some people involved in campaigning for feminist causes. I have no idea what you mean by the 'institutionalized feminist movement', but I don't believe any such thing exists to answer that name.

Other than that, as I see it, your argument addresses social constructivism, which achieved a sort of accademic hegemony for a few years in the 90s and early 2000's, and lives on in the relative importance of a certain reading of people like Michel Foucault, or Nietzsche, or Latour. That's not really that crucial to feminists I know, although a lot of people are social constructivists in any case.

I think the reason why people like me aren't sympathetic to the MRM is because it targets a lot of phantom 'institutional feminists', usually only present in the fevered imaginations of men who feel like their rights have been impinged, and marshals a lot of half-thought through, half-heard facts to defend the importance of this struggle. In many ways, it's like a conspiracy theory. Except instead of lizards, or jews, it's vaginas.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Firstly, a class struggle is exactly that - a struggle between classes. Marxist feminists have never claimed otherwise. The idea that all men are capitalists or that all women are workers has never been advanced, because it's stupid.

That's a misinterpretation. I never said that feminists believe all men are capitalists or all women are workers.

What I was doing was explaining, admittedly in a condensed manner, how Radical Second Wave feminists (for example, Catherine MacKinnon, who called herself "Post-Marxist") took the pattern of Marxism. Men are the oppressor class (like capitalists in Marxist theory), women are the oppressed class (like workers in Marxist theory), and there is an all-pervasive social system which exists that perpetuates this oppression (Patriarchy in the Radical Second Wave, Capitalism in Marxist theory).

I have no idea what you mean by the 'institutionalized feminist movement', but I don't believe any such thing exists to answer that name.

Politically connected lobby groups, their associated activist groups, the vast majority of gender studies departments, etc.

I know many people who are feminists.

As do I. They're usually the kind of feminist whom the feminist "establishment" calls "not true feminists" because they don't embrace Patriarchy Theory or Methodological Collectivism or economic leftism.

Other than that, as I see it, your argument addresses social constructivism

To an extent. But as I am a biosocial interactionist, I don't entirely reject the importance of nurture. What I reject is methodological collectivism in the social sciences.

I think the reason why people like me aren't sympathetic to the MRM is because it targets a lot of phantom 'institutional feminists', usually only present in the fevered imaginations of men who feel like their rights have been impinged, and marshals a lot of half-thought through, half-heard facts to defend the importance of this struggle. In many ways, it's like a conspiracy theory. Except instead of lizards, or jews, it's vaginas.

I think that quote says everything I need to know about your argumentative methodology.

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_-13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JohnPeel2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]no_en-13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Probably because the latter has totally been binging on the social-linguistic-constructivism Sapir-Whorf kool-aid for decades.

Strawman fallacy. There is no such thing as the "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis". They never formulated such a hypothesis and never wrote a paper defending it. You also conflate the extreme position that language determines reality with the much more reasonable one that language use influences behavior.

"According to their worldview, talking about Teh Menz is distracting people from the "fundamental" oppression of women by men"

You mean like how the Right isn't trying to suppress a woman's right to control her own body? I think that's pretty fundamental. Maybe every man seeking a Viagra prescription should have a forced proctology exam. Just to be sure ya know. (wink wink, nudge nudge) And the video of it should be put up on the internet so that Janeane Garofalo can masturbate to it.

"Hence, their ideology cannot coexist with free speech"

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, even if they were true it still would not be a valid conclusion.

"To be fair, "free speech" in a LEGAL context simply means not prosecuting people for their statements"

Has the government restricted the free speech rights of the MRM? Or are you simply butt hurt because you got banned from an internet forum?

"The Feminine Mystique had a few excesses (like comparing the 50's household to a concentration camp in a particularly hyperbolic metaphor......."

When my mother was a child she was beaten by her grandfather. Sometimes so severely that she could not walk to school. My aunt reports having seen her grandmother strung up by the attic rafters and beaten with a logging chain. My mother's mom, extended families were the norm then, abandoned my mom and aunt and fled for Chicago because she feared for her life and there simply were no legal options available to her and no shelters where she could be safe and get legal help.

Yeah, life in the 50's was sweet!

"they are the feminists who invented Patriarchy Theory."

Wait... so you're telling me men are not the primary authority figure central to social organization? That it was never true that the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property were held by men?

"The key point of divergence is that the Radical Second Wave were outright methodological collectivists."

When ever I hear someone use the word "collectivist" I think they are likely a nut-case Libertarian wailing about how taxation is theft!!!

"sure, the Third Wavers don't see Patriarchy as the fundamental social system"

Wait...... wait...... huh? Now all of a sudden 3rd wave feminists don't see Patriarchy as the fundamental social system?? Don't you proof read these?

"Methodological Collectivism is a complete rejection of the Enlightenment-Individualist attitude. And the feminist movement of today is based upon it."

Citation needed.

"I also think ... "rape culture" ... denotes a valid concept"

Congratulations. You're a third wave feminist!!

"I also think ... there is some level of "male privilege." "

Yay!!!! Amen sister!!!

"I basically reject the entire theoretical underpinning of Radical Second Wave Feminism"

Translation: "I accept everything third wave feminists are fighting for politically but I reject my strawman version of their philosophical underpinnings."

"I hope that answers your question."

It does. Though probably not the one you thought you were answering.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is no such thing as the "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis". They never formulated such a hypothesis and never wrote a paper defending it.

Whatever term is used to denote the proposition, you clearly knew what proposition I was referring to.

You also conflate the extreme position that language determines reality with the much more reasonable one that language use influences behavior.

The early part of the essay was written quite casually, so I didn't get into much depth. Yes, I know that the proposition has both harder and softer variants. And yes, I think the softer variant has some truth to it, at least in certain circumstances.

You mean like how the Right isn't trying to suppress a woman's right to control her own body?

The religious right certainly is, and I am pro-choice. I accept a woman's right to choose up until fetal viability.

But "the religious right" is not "men as a class."

Maybe every man seeking a Viagra prescription should have a forced proctology exam. Just to be sure ya know.

Anti-abortion advocates believe that abortion is immoral because, according to their theology, it involves killing a fully human being. I strongly disagree with their theology (including its implied metaphysics/epistemology) but I don't think its just a religious rationalization for a desire to control female sexuality.

Viagra doesn't involve anything which, by their theological standards, constitutes terminating a human life. Your comparison of Viagra to abortion is false equivalence.

Has the government restricted the free speech rights of the MRM? Or are you simply butt hurt because you got banned from an internet forum?

I wasn't banned. I am not the OP. It is the OP that was banned. But the point I am making was that heavy-handed moderation of forums is bad for open, robust discussion and debate. I was using "free speech" in an explicitly non-legal way to refer to that open, robust discussion and debate.

I am quite aware that free speech in the LEGAL sense doesn't mean forums can't ban people.

When my mother was a child she was beaten by her grandfather. Sometimes so severely that she could not walk to school. My aunt reports having seen her grandmother strung up by the attic rafters and beaten with a logging chain. My mother's mom, extended families were the norm then, abandoned my mom and aunt and fled for Chicago because she feared for her life and there simply were no legal options available to her and no shelters where she could be safe and get legal help.

Yeah, life in the 50's was sweet!

First, I am absolutely shocked and appalled to hear about the abuse your relatives suffered. You have my condolences.

I never said that life in the 50's was good. I wasn't attempting to say that. I was simply saying that the average housewife in the 50's was scarcely living in a concentration camp. That doesn't mean they had nothing to complain about, that doesn't mean there weren't horrible cases of abuse, and that doesn't invalidate their sufferring.

Wait... so you're telling me men are not the primary authority figure central to social organization? That it was never true that the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property were held by men?

No. I agree that these were all true. I was talking about the specific Patriarchy Theories used by Radical Second Wave Feminism and by Third Wave Feminism. Actual Patriarchy, the kind of historical conditions you describe, was clearly an historical phenomenon across a huge number of societies for the great majority of human history.

When ever I hear someone use the word "collectivist" I think they are likely a nut-case Libertarian wailing about how taxation is theft!!!

Well, I am a libertarian. But "collectivism" is a legitimate term in the social sciences. "Methodological collectivism" is the proposition that the group is the core unit of social analysis, and that individuals are just epiphenomena of the collective.

Wait...... wait...... huh? Now all of a sudden 3rd wave feminists don't see Patriarchy as the fundamental social system?? Don't you proof read these?

Radical Second Wave feminists saw "Patriarchy" as the fundamental social system, of which all other social systems were epiphenomena. Patriarchy was the "base" and all the rest was the "superstructure" (to use Marxist terms).

Third Wave feminists see "Patriarchy" as one of many social systems that all interact/intersect.

Whilst both waves subscribe to a kind of Patriarchy Theory (each of their theories are different, however), only the Radical Second Wave saw Patriarchy as the "base" system.

Congratulations. You're a third wave feminist!!

Since I reject methodological collectivism in the social sciences and since I reject third wave Patriarchy Theory, I am not a third wave feminist.

The essential proposition of Third Wave Feminism isn't "there are some ideas/memes/tropes/expectations in our culture which can encourage, incentivize or enable rape, even unintentionally." If that WERE the essential proposition of Third Wave Feminism, then most of the people here at MR would be Third Wave Feminists.

Translation: "I accept everything third wave feminists are fighting for politically but I reject my strawman version of their philosophical underpinnings."

Since I'm a libertarian, that isn't true.

[–]no_en-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Whatever term is used to denote the proposition, you clearly knew what proposition I was referring to.

Actually I don't know. I have to guess that you mean to refer to the belief that language determines reality. I don't know too many feminists who would say such a thing. Do you have any non cherry picked sources?

"And yes, I think the softer variant has some truth to it, at least in certain circumstances."

Welcome to the sisterhood.

"I don't think its just a religious rationalization for a desire to control female sexuality."

I think their theological beliefs are a rationalization of their emotional priors. They want to control women's reproduction because they are frightened little men so they latch on to the theology because it validates their need to control and dominate.

"Your comparison of Viagra to abortion is false equivalence."

It's sarcasm. The forced ultrasounds promoted by the Right have no medical basis in fact. They are completely arbitrary so I made up an arbitrary counter example because I thought it was funny.

"I was using "free speech" in an explicitly non-legal way"

So I was right. You are just butt hurt over getting banned on an internet forum. Thanks. Let me know when your constitutional rights are actually infringed upon.

"First, I am absolutely shocked and appalled to hear about the abuse your relatives suffered. You have my condolences."

As a woman I can assure you that a statistical majority of women have been sexually abused or molested at one time in their lives. Second, that was mild. I could recount abuse that would curl your hair. Third, while men are indeed also abused it is no where near the same rates as women. Yes, you are right, being a wife in the 50's was not literally a concentration camp experience but it was very restrictive for many women. Those women found in Betty Friedan someone who spoke to their condition and how repressive to really was.

"Actual Patriarchy, the kind of historical conditions you describe, was clearly an historical phenomenon"

So it's gone now? Somehow I don't think so and I think I can point to the massive attempts going on right now to restrict women's reproductive freedoms as an example.

"Well, I am a libertarian. But "collectivism" is a legitimate term in the social sciences."

It is but rarely as Libertarians use it. The libertarian notion of what constitutes collectivism is as flawed as their notion that taxation is theft. Hence my suspicion that your use of the word "collectivism" was not likely to be an actual collectivist notion but merely something to the left of your Neo Feudalism.

"Third Wave feminists see "Patriarchy" as one of many social systems that all interact/intersect."

As apparently so do you if what you've said above is to be taken seriously.

Where I disagree with 3rd wave feminists is in their adoption of critical theory, postmodernism, Lacan, Zizek, feminist epistemology etc...... Where I agree is that gays, women of color, trasgenders and other sexual minorities deserve better access to rights enjoyed by those in the majority. Third waves feminist are sex positive, for empowering those traditional without power, against a binary view of human sexuality, reject the opposition of 2nd wave feminists to pornography and sex workers but do not want to see them exploited.

How much of that is truly objectionable? Well for me I am sympathetic to American analytic philosophy so I don't care for the connection to continental phenomenology but other than that there is much to like for me. I am capable of reading what people say and picking out what I like and rejecting what I don't like. You can do that too. I give you permission. :)

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]no_en-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The idea of an embryo being insouled at conception has a huge philosophical and theological basis over which tomes have been written (literally).

Thomas Aquinas didn't think we were insouled at conception. The idea that life begins at conception (fertilized eggs are full human beings with property rights) is very recent.

These things don't strike me as ridiculous. I agree with Hume that reason follows the passions. Basically that most people rationalize their feelings. If religion is mostly a construct that allows the priestly class to rule (which I think it is) it isn't much a leap that their beliefs about reproduction are just more of the same.

"To be honest, given you've described my politics as "Neo Feudalism" (a completely irrational notion)"

That is what pure Libertarianism really is. Libertarian economic "theories" if they can laughingly even be called that, would have as a consequence a neo Feudalistic economy. Particularly as they would give rise to a class of landed aristocrats who's rent seeking would impoverish everyone else. I thought that was obvious.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]no_en-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-25 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers 30 points31 points32 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]moonphoenix 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]moonphoenix1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindtaker-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While there are two sides, nothing is ever going to change.

Until people are fighting for equality. Flat out equality. That means giving up the things for both sides, because both sides have power in places others do not. Its just going to get worse.

If you are fighting for either side you are wrong. The reason neither side will ever win is because neither of them are right. The right thing is for equality between the two genders period. In all ways we can do it.

No matter what side you fight on you are pulling further from the only group you need to be closer to, and it goes for both sides.

I am a single dad who has equal custody of my kid, I have seen the whole ugly ass system and its no one sides fault its everyone's fault.

It would be easier to fix if we were not all so human.

[–]AlexReynard3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mindtaker0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mindtaker0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DougDante 47 points48 points49 points 13 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dancing_bananas1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz3452 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alaysian 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Since I missed your first post, I'll go ahead and list my concessions:

I am a adamant supporter of the right of women to get abortions.
I would love to see women break the glass ceiling and take on equal roles and responsibilities in powerful positions, and realize there are still barriers to this. I have a friend whose family got audited every other year because her mom was the primary supporter of the family, filed their taxes as such, and the IRS for whatever reason just could not comprehend that.
I would love to have insurance cover all forms of birth control (though this is mostly due to my more liberal side regarding socialized healthcare).
I know that women still avoid engineering programs far more then men. This is first-hand experience.

That being said, I would have a lot more to say on some of these, but your initial question didn't ask for that. It merely asked for the concessions, so there they are.

[–]Lightfiend 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bassman1805 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DatToolbox 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alaysian 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fireproofjeans1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alaysian1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zosimasie1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virr 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DefinitelyRelephant 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]itscirony 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]itscirony1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tammylan 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Someone in the comments wanted to know whether I had asked the same thing over on r/feminism. What would they concede to the MRM? I thought that was a fair point, so I went over there, saw that they had a whole subreddit just for asking feminists stuff, so I did.

I'm pretty sure that I am the "Someone in the comments" you're referring to. And I'll just reiterate what I said to you in that thread: "I think you may have overestimated your own importance in the larger scheme of things."

The reddit users over at /r/AskFeminists didn't address your posts because in their worldview your dissenting opinion has no importance or relevance whatsoever.

None. Nada. Zilch.

It's actually kind of cute and adorable that you thought that they'd care.

That is why /r/MensRights exists in the first place. That is why the feminist meme of "We don't need any stinkin' MRM because feminists are valiantly and selflessly addressing those gender issues that negatively effect both females AND males" is pure and unadulterated bullshit.

[–]AlexReynard[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KRosen333 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]erenthia 26 points27 points28 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]non_troppo 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There are a precious few things that the MRM and Feminism agree on. Things like, "Women get sexualized in the media/video-games/etc" and they all pretty much have to be that obvious.

Something I've learned from this is that sometimes the obvious becomes invisible. You, right now, just aced my challenge by naming something you agree with the other side on. That turned out to be the hardest part, and I think a lot of people were considering a ton of things too obvious to mention: 'rape is bad, DV is bad, abortion should remain legal, babies shouldn't have their genitals cut up, etc.'. Both sides would likely add all sorts of qualifiers to those statements, but at least there's a tiny kernel of agreement there.

What Feminism does, unfortunately, is completely recontextualize that one tiny fact into a parallel universe, where men are somehow never objectified and where sexualization is always destructive.

Very much agreed. And that's also part of why I made this challenge; to remind us that it's good to take an occasional look away from men's issues and acknowledge the things that suck for women. Not the feminist spin on them, but the actual problems we might not see because we're men (Gack, I hate to even come that close to using 'male privilege'). I guess it comes down to, if they won't see our pain, we should make an effort to see theirs, if nothing else than to prevent ourselves from becoming blinded like they are.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TwirlySocrates0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]moonphoenix 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hallashk-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hallashk0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hallashk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BillC618 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ze1da 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I would like to answer your initial question to feminists, it wasn't posted in 2X so I never saw it. And I don't believe you should take moderator's zealotry to represent the whole of feminism.

Feminism has made it harder for men to voice concerns about biases against their own gender
The draft is completely unfair, if they are going to draft it should be everyone
The school system as it stands doesn't allow for differences in the mental development of the genders, it also doesn't allow for different types of intelligence, but that's beside the point
Circumcision is ridiculous and awful but I think most all feminists will champion that one
Media portrays a stereotype of men that is just as hard to live up to as the stereotypes for women
Rape of men is treated deplorably in our culture, it is pushed to the side as not eve possible sometimes and that is something that has to change
Child custody is something that in most states(not NC where I live) is completely biased and unfair
Our culture has a vision of men that they can't be good parents without women which is completely untrue

There are many more I'm sure but I'm not as informed on the subject as you guys are here. Every ideology can be taken too far. Whether it's mens rights or feminism you have to remember there are real people on the other side of that fence, and hating people, or refusing to see the other side never does anyone any good.

[–]giegerwasright 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ze1da2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are totally right about the availability social resources for men and men with children. I forgot about it in the moment. I don't think it's a lie that these women love and want to help men. I think there is a gap in understanding on both sides that needs to be crossed.

Many of the men here believe that feminism should be dead. As a woman in engineering, I have seen my fair share of sexism and sexual harassment in the workplace I don't see it that way. Seeing the way they are trying to pass anti-abortion legislation in NC, I see a major need for it.

On the other side of the fence there are tons of feminists who believe mens rights is a non-issue. They aren't informed and they don't have the same life experiences as you do.

TLDR: Both sides are made up of (fairly) ordinary people and are much more alike than they want to admit.

[–]giegerwasright5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think it's a lie that these women love and want to help men.

If you don't think it's a lie, then watch how vicious these women become when men dare to disagree with them. Vehemently vicious. It's a typical abusive relationship. Reward them for capitulation and agreement, punish them severely for recalcitrance.

Many of the men here believe that feminism should ~~be dead~~ grow up and become egalitarianism.

ftfy

As a woman in engineering, I have seen my fair share of sexism and sexual harassment in the workplace I don't see it that way.

As a man who works in a STEM field where women are rarely willing to carry their own weight, I think you might see less of that if there was less damselling in the workplace and more working in the workplace.

Seeing the way they are trying to pass anti-abortion legislation in NC, I see a major need for it.

Welcome to democracy where you don't always get your way. I am personally pro choice. Therefore, I refuse to live anywhere that is not pro choice. I do, however, respect the rights of those places to decide by democratic majority what their rules are going to be.

On the other side of the fence there are tons of feminists who believe mens rights is a non-issue.

That is because they've never adequately checked their privilege. Nor will they ever.

They aren't informed

And they don't want to be.

they don't have the same life experiences as you do.

Empathy would fix that. They have none.

TLDR: Both sides are made up of (fairly) ordinary people and are much more alike than they want to admit.

Patently false.

[–]ze1da1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ze1da1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen333 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would like to answer your initial question to feminists, it wasn't posted in 2X so I never saw it. And I don't believe you should take moderator's zealotry to represent the whole of feminism.

Thank you for acknowledging the challenge.

But I can't agree to the second part. A leader is literally a representative of a group. And if a group allows mods that act like zealots, that is a reflection on all of them. I'd say the same of any group who allows leadership that they feel they have to distance themselves from, but won't actually oppose them. (For example, I may lean democratic, but fuck Obama for not understanding how the Fourth Amendment works.)

Also, thank you for your list. I'm glad to see acknowledgmeent of issues that are genuinely important to MRAs.

Whether it's mens rights or feminism you have to remember there are real people on the other side of that fence, and hating people, or refusing to see the other side never does anyone any good.

Very well said.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iggybdawg 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ze1da 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iggybdawg 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

hating people, or refusing to see the other side never does anyone any good.

Actually, it does tons of good, that's why humans evolved emotions like anger, and it's cousins hatred, spite and bitterness.

Emotions form the weights by which we make logical decisions. Our hatred of feminism is what supplies us the energy to keep fighting battle after battle against a far larger and better equipped enemy.

And I don't believe you should take moderator's zealotry to represent the whole of feminism.

NAFALT

I swear using this defense should get you ban hammered hear. We've all heard it. There are thousands of counters to it, all available right here. STOP USING IT.

The draft is completely unfair, if they are going to draft it should be everyone

And guess who would scream bloody murder if we implemented complete SS registration?

The school system as it stands doesn't allow for differences in the mental development of the genders, it also doesn't allow for different types of intelligence, but that's beside the point

But the only time you'll hear about differences in gender in schools, is about how more needs to be done to help girls in math and science. Often by lowering the bar somewhere.

Circumcision is ridiculous and awful but I think most all feminists will champion that one

Yep, seems like a hot button issue to a movement that has one of the two US political parties in its pocket.

Media portrays a stereotype of men that is just as hard to live up to as the stereotypes for women

But every goddamn body image campaign from feminists focuses on how women are too skinny on WOMEN'S magazine covers.

Or a few women are put in as eye candy in a video game? TEH RAPE CULTURE! A game where your only enemies are men who you kill by the thousands, all of while having either a physically impossible physique like the Gears or one that would require complete dedication and possibly steroids.

Rape of men is treated deplorably in our culture, it is pushed to the side as not eve possible sometimes and that is something that has to change

Feminists despite wanting to roll out ideas like birth rape, which is literally so stupid that anyone who subscribes to it is in danger of drowning during a light drizzle, refuse to entertain classifying "made to penetrate as rape.

Child custody is something that in most states(not NC where I live) is completely biased and unfair Our culture has a vision of men that they can't be good parents without women which is completely untrue

Gee, who fucking fights against fixing these problems?

In short, that's why feminism is the enemy.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I too wish to express apologies for the insults. A lot of us are really frustrated and cynical about opening dialogs with feminism, because many of us have tried in the past, and been burned horribly about the experience.

I know. I was the only child of a single mother, and she abused me for decades. What I saw in her, I didn't want to become. I realized how easy it would be, how good it would feel to just blame all women for what she did to me. But then I'd be her: blaming all the rest of the world because I couldn't deal with my own problems. We cannot let ourselves dehumanize our opponents. We have to treat them the way we expect to be treated in return. It means we let them speak, we acknowledge common ground, and when we disagree we do it with civility. It not only keeps us from becoming ideologues, but then, if our opponents censor us, refuse to concede anything, or treat us like shit, they come off looking like immature psychos and we look like mature adults. If you can't win a fight with an opponent, win it with the audience.

[–]SpiceMustFlow-mobile 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quarkster 30 points31 points32 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hobbesnblue 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'd point out that, in any community that has a longtime group that is usually seen as being in opposition to it (whether they actually should be in opposition or not), openers like "will you concede" are all too often the halmarks of stealth trolls trying to get attention. (I'm basing this largely on my time in atheist chats) That doesn't seem to be what you were doing, but I hope you can understand which the easy choice is, between 1.) devoting attention and visibility to a debate within trusted members of the community, or 2.) devoting that attention to someone who more than likely is going to turn out to be a drive-by troll with nothing interesting to say. Yes, that absolutely does end up stifling potentially valuable debate sometimes, but I'd think that anyone who's spent any period of time on forums should be able to relate to being so sick of trolls, that you'd rather not waste the time figuring out whether a stranger from the opposing camp is one or not.

Also, keep in mind that anybody is going to see the community they're in as having more shades of grey then the opposing group. The monolithic view of "modern feminism" being presented here (by and large) strikes me as completely contrary to my experience, but then again, my monolithic view of MRA's probably would strike you as highly unfair too.

I am an active part of feminist groups online, and they vary greatly from each other. I left Feministing when that one became too radical, for instance, in favor of more moderate communities. I can't speak to Reddit's feminism/MRA communities because I've never been part of them, but I absolutely can believe that there may be some dogmatic members in r/feminism who push for extreme views and shout moderates down, who you then see as the public faces or leaders of it. But then again, the face of MRA's as I see it is guys who hold circle-jerks where they can call women cheating cunts, or people who spam a Youtube video about how there should be more women in videogames by calling the narrator a hideous bitch who must never get laid. Those people do really exist--as do man-hatey feminists. As usual, in both cases, the uglier, more extreme members shout the loudest.

[–]AlexReynard[S] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd point out that, in any community that has a longtime group that is usually seen as being in opposition to it (whether they actually should be in opposition or not), openers like "will you concede" are all too often the halmarks of stealth trolls trying to get attention.

I will admit that that specific word seemed to cause a hell of a lot of trouble. I honestly never saw any negative connotation to it. Rather an honorable one; having the maturity to acknowledge when an opponent makes a point you agree on.

That doesn't seem to be what you were doing, but I hope you can understand which the easy choice is, between 1.) devoting attention and visibility to a debate within trusted members of the community, or 2.) devoting that attention to someone who more than likely is going to turn out to be a drive-by troll with nothing interesting to say.

The easy choice is not always the right one. And I really don't care how beleaguered a group feels; if you have an open forum it should remain open. If you want a safe space, screen your members. If you want an open discussion of ideas, you have to let in anyone who wants to speak. You do not censor them; you let the other members ignore or downvote them. It's not that difficult.

This is coming from someone with a LOT of unpopular opinions, and I've gotten every type of horrifyingly vitriolic internet comment you can imagine. I still have a personal policy of never censoring my opponents. If I expect a right to express my ideas, I have no excuse for extending that to others. If I want to be allowed to give an opinion someone might not want to hear, I have to allow other people to say opinions I don't want to hear.

Also, keep in mind that anybody is going to see the community they're in as having more shades of grey then the opposing group. The monolithic view of "modern feminism" being presented here (by and large) strikes me as completely contrary to my experience

How many MRM groups are there on campuses? How many nationally-distributed magazines do we have? How often are our issues put before the President? I'm not saying that feminists are a monolithic cult, but I am saying that feminism absolutely dominates the cultural gender conversation.

But then again, the face of MRA's as I see it is guys who hold circle-jerks where they can call women cheating cunts, or people who spam a Youtube video about how there should be more women in videogames by calling the narrator a hideous bitch who must never get laid. Those people do really exist--as do man-hatey feminists.

I'd very much like it if you could link to specific examples of either of those things happening.

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen333 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hallashk-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blitz_omlet 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_ 33 points34 points35 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Statement 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Statement2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What would be going too far is if you start your own concentration camp and put all the Nazi soldiers in it and starve them and gas them to death because you believe it's justified.

All Nazi soldiers, as in regular Wehrmacht, and even a lot of SS who were never connected to the atrocities, would be too far. For the Death Camp guards, or the political figures that made it happen, nothing is too far. They should have considered the consequences of burning so many innocents to death that the ground outside the camps appeared to be covered in a thick snow.

So where does that end? At what point do bad people deserve their human rights?

It's the Golden Rule. Treat others how you would like to be treated. Hamas is not really in a position to bitch about Islamic Jihad firing rockets. Once you start doing something, you open the door for it to be done to you.

[–]chaz3452 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]naderslovechild 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]daguise73 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quarkster 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]daguise73 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KRosen333 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]daguise731 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaz345 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're not willing to concede much because anything that needed to be conceded, things like basic legal and social equality, are the well accepted norm. There is nothing that modern western feminism advocates that should be or even can be compromised on, it's all utter and complete garbage. For example when a modern feminist thinker can look at the fact that college admissions currently favor women nearly 60/40 and claim that equality for women has almost been reached in that area. Or when another, one who was the head of the womens studies department at a major university and who is now co-president of that same university so she's not exactly a fringe extremist, can write a book saying that educated women who choose to be stay at home moms are a danger to society.

There is nothing in modern feminism that we should concede even a tiny fraction on.

[–]boshin-goshin1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]betaprime 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]betaprime1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CycleAsAVehicle 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is probably a small pay gap between men/women in equivalent work (in some fields), but much less than feminism typically claims as many feminists simply blindly compare the average man and average woman who make vastly different choices regarding employment.

Abortion/contraceptive rights for women. Yes, these are being attacked by republicans/conservatives. But men's reproductive rights should be talked about.

Women do get harassed and raped, but I don't see how those kinds of assholes will be persuaded by campaigning.

Fat / slut shaming - yes, a problem. Assholes are the problem, so what are you going to do about it exactly?

Strong, developed women characters in TV/film? Go for it. Stop overanalysing every little thing about gender in media, though.

Make porn less violent - go for it. Good luck influencing popular sites showing free porn.

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]satanicwaffles 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KRosen333 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lazlounderhill 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was just about to comment on how remarkable it was that you didn't get banned and then:

And now, after asking some questions at r/AskFeminism, they've banned me. Both subs. No explanation given. To the best of my knowledge I broke no rules.

In response to your question - it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to concede anything to "Feminism" because their ideology is so fluid and transient and sujective in its precepts and application. How can you concede to a point or issue that refuses to take any definite and final form? I think Feminism, as we know it today, accomplishes this by using a huge brush to paint everything the color of patriarchy, but it doesn't hold up, upon closer inspection. You see that the color achieved is really nothing more than optical illusion, a collection of a thousand tiny pixel-like issues and exceptions that undermine the larger effect. Men, actual men and women (not the caricatures they preent) live in these tiny spaces, and their reality contradicts the larger image being presented. Feminists have mastered the art of filtering out those little inconvenient particles of reality, effectively masking the complexity of the human condition. I believe they started to do this out of a mistaken belief in achieving a greater good and with the intention of creating egalitarianism through over simplification "Men are Oppressors, Women are the Oppressed". Clearly it's not that simple. But something happened along the way - a kind of snowball effect, and the egalitarian intent was quickly eclipsed by hatred - perhaps they "stared too long into the abyss" and became the dragons they imagined they were slaying. Misandry supplanted egalitarianism.

As you've experienced first hand - it's troubling - VERY troubling - when a "movement" denies itself the very valuable and indispensable gift of criticism and even introspection. Judgement, criticism, critical thinking, from within and without, these have become "bad things" to be avoided at all cost, and that is simply destructive and dangerously psychotic.

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In response to your question - it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to concede anything to "Feminism" because their ideology is so fluid and transient and sujective in its precepts and application.

That's true, and it's why I added "and feminists" to that. I wanted to make the critera broad so it'd be easy, but I realize now I should have been as specific as possible; 'What are somethings you will agree on with any feminist discussing any aspect of gender?' perhaps.

As you've experienced first hand - it's troubling - VERY troubling - when a "movement" denies itself the very valuable and indispensable gift of criticism and even introspection. Judgement, criticism, critical thinking, from within and without, these have become "bad things" to be avoided at all cost, and that is simply destructive and dangerously psychotic.

That is extremely well said. I absolutely agree.

[–]LinkFixerJr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaestroLogical 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree with old school feminist ideas that are no longer remotely in contention in the West. Being able to vote, own property, work, all that good stuff. In fact I'd be down like a clown for extending those rights to other places, whether by well thought out essays or well placed shots.

But feminism in the West doesn't fight for women in North Africa. They'll invoke their pain to gain support, but they never do anything for them, and often work against them.

Modern feminism demands to act like they are still the rebels. They refuse to admit that they've been sitting on the throne for years now. One of my biggest gripes about modern feminism, is how often they refuse to do the boring, unglamorous, "city administration" style work. If they want more women in STEM, they shouldn't rail against the "system/Man/Patriarchy" and give females unfair breaks. They should make a case directly to high school girls on why a STEM degree, despite falling in value recently, is still worth more than a degree in Medieval French Art. And if after awhile, girls still refuse to go along with it, they need to drop it and move on to something else.

I guess I can concede the useless affirmations. "Women are people" yup. "Gender equity is good" sure. But I also don't think murder is super great, so I guess I agree with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism.

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sizzletron 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

AlexReynard [+1][S] 1 point 7 days ago (+4|-4)

I find your response kind of frightening.

To make a comparison; I'm an atheist. I recognize that religion is a harmful lie and it is my enemy. But ideas and people are not the same things. A religious person my be indoctrinated to believe bad things, and may even act on those bad ideas, yet I know they're not doing it out of a personal desire to hurt me. They're doing it because their community and their culture have taught them, 'This is what morality means', and virtually all people want to do what's right.

Every feminist is a human being. The vast majority of them are not my enemy. The vast majority of them have faith in a bad idea that was indoctrinated into them before they were old enough to think objectively about it. The bad idea is my enemy. It is what causes men, women, and even feminists too, to suffer.

Did the vast majority take the time to lend mere credence to your questions by responding and not banning you? I trust you better understand the lack of wide-eyed optimism of some of the top comments on your first submission to /MR now.

Edit: PS: I'm a divorced single Dad. There isn't anything you could tell me that could wash away the disappointment and disgust for my ex. She's a good mother but a shitty partner. I have a GF I've known for years, since school. Best woman ever. Never met anyone better suited to put up with me and I seem to have been created to do likewise for her. That's a good feeling.

But women as a whole, in the West are petty, selfish and shallow. I find women to be highly conditioned by their own gender's influence. They'll never be able to pawn that off onto men. The messages they send their daughters will be their legacy.

[–]VoodooIdol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sizzletron 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did the vast majority take the time to lend mere credence to your questions by responding and not banning you? I trust you better understand the lack of wide-eyed optimism of some of the top comments on your first submission to /MR now.

Actually, on the other two discussions I managed to post there, I did have some interesting discussion. There was some crappy discussion too, but it was at least two people talking back and forth. I think it's very likely that one or a couple people got pissy that I didn't treat them like princesses and PMed the mods to 'punish' me. It kinda proves my point: several individual feminists there were fine with having a discussion, but the ones in power ignored them and listened to the complainer.

PS: I'm a divorced single Dad. There isn't anything you could tell me that could wash away the disappointment and disgust for my ex.

I wouldn't try. Only child of a single abusive mother. And even as much as she clawed open my soul and shat into it repeatedly, I still do my best to assume the best of anyone of either gender. (Though of course I still keep alert to warning signs.) I get disappointed sometimes, but I think it's worth it to see the number of people who aren't the stereotype.

[–]literallyschmiteraly 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]gershom45 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinkFixerJr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LinkFixerJr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yself 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMaltese 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LocalMadman 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]misingnoglic 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]hallashk-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hallashk3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hallashk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]niels_henrik_abel5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]niels_henrik_abel4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]only_does_reposts3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AG32872 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]avilavita1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JaxPrat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]levelate2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I really am trying to be respectful, but I feel like people are telling me "feminists think this..." Or "feminists think that..."

It's because you're reading in to things. We're telling you what our actual experiences are in trying to engage feminists on their own turf. And, like it or not, feminism (the movement, not the individuals inside the movement) is moving to remove men from the conversation on many different fronts, and is creating spaces where men are just plain old not allowed. These are facts.

You have to realize that your voice is just one in a sea of voices. In a group as large as "feminists" you're going to have opinions that cover a wide range of ideas. The way that you think isn't the way that the person next to you thinks - and thank god for that (not that what you think is wrong - obviously I agree with most of it - I'm making a statement about it being good that we have diversity of opinions and ideas).

No one is telling you what you think. We're telling you what we've experienced. We, generally speaking, agree with what you think.

[–]AlexReynard4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree, it would be nice if we could all just make peace. But the movements are not the same. If there was a women's rights movement, similar in structure to ours, we'd probably get along swimmingly. But the problem is, feminism presents itself as an "equality" movement. And of course, they control the definition of what equality means. They do not want peace with us; they want total control over cultural conversation on gender. They want to be the only game in town.

And they also have the myth at the core of their ideology: Patriarchy Theory. This is a fundamentally broken worldview. In reality, gender roles created by natural selection and refined and enforced by our culture, give both benefits and disadvantages to both genders. But when you've got Patriarchy Goggles on, you're blind to female benefits and male disadvantages. Any evidence to the contrary is twisted into evidence in support ("Patriarchy hurts men too"). Feminism to a large degree depends on faith. It's for that reason we can't reconcile.

[–]Auralay_eakspay0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We are so far removed from our hunter gatherer roots that it's not fair to even bring it up. Before the written word women were worshiped as goddesses. When people began writing women were not allowed to learn to read or write so men controlled the information given to the public (Source: http://www.livescience.com/2283-writing-changed-world.html). "Literacy remained a privilege of aristocratic males in most societies all the way until the 19th-century"

Women have had to fight to even be allowed to become literate and now that we are, we have access to information and are able to produce our own. We are pushing for more political power and to get rid of this internalized sexism that has plagued our societies for thousands of years. A few decades can't turn that around.

All individuals in society have been hurt by not allowing women to participate as equals and we are just trying to even the scales and find our voice. Maybe we do go too far to an extreme, but we are doing it in the name of equality and social justice, not with the intention of subverting men.

Edit: grammar

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We are so far removed from our hunter gatherer roots that it's not fair to even bring it up.

Not really. We've only been civilized for, what, a few thousand years? That's nothing compared to how long evolution actually takes. On a global timeline, we barely stopped being gorillas a few minutes ago.

Before the written word women were worshiped as goddesses. When people began writing women were not allowed to learn to read or write so men controlled the information given to the public

...And I'll bet women were not obligated to work or support their families either.

We are pushing for more political power and to get rid of this internalized sexism that has plagued our societies for thousands of years.

How much more political power does feminism need? I'm asking that seriously.

Maybe we do go too far to an extreme, but we are doing it in the name of equality and social justice, not with the intention of subverting men.

Intentions aside, if you are striving for the goal of equality, and you are starting from a flawed view of history, you will either fail to reach your goal or instead reach a distorted version of it. Women have not been uniquely oppressed throughout history. Any time you find examples of women being repressed by gender roles, men are being affected by them just as much. Whenever you see examples in history of men having more power, it's almost a guarantee that they are also burdened with more duties. Keep in mind; the reason why men had the right to vote first in this country was because it was connected to the responsibility of being conscripted in wartime. It sucked for women being treated like pets chained at home, and it sucked for men being forced by the state to labor on behalf of their non-working wives and risk death if the state decreed it. In other words, would you rather be a house slave or a field slave? Neither's a very enjoyable position.

[–]AceyJuan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Auralay_eakspay3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Slappy_McDiddles0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IvanDagomilov0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]metsman913-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homelessscootaloo-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paket4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shibley911-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shibley9111 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gutierrezjm6-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gutierrezjm60 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss1000-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you give due diligence here? You could have messaged the mods to make them aware of what you were doing.

I could see, depending on what you posted, your topic being rejected for seeming to break this rules paragraph:

Remember to use common sense when formulating questions; inane / insulting / baiting topics will be removed: /r/AskFeminists is not a space to put guilt by association on all feminists due to the actions done by X persons or groups, especially when such actions are in contradiction with feminism or basic common sense. Come with an open mind and a willingness to consider another's perspective, and build some bridges! Please avoid using loaded questions; verifiable sources should be added for claims included in the title/OP.

Italics mine. If your title was a mirror of this one, without any further context, it is barely distinguishable from the pointed, antagonistic, and unproductive tone of the worst content surrounding this argument. I'm willing to trust you wanted to get some real answers and connections here, but you have to approach the feminist side more carefully. Not because they want to censor and differing opinion (another rule: "all comments are open to challenge/debate, regardless of who initiates the challenge, or their ideological orientation."), but because they are constantly under fire by those that hate their position and them.

[–]AlexReynard3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you give due diligence here? You could have messaged the mods to make them aware of what you were doing.

Yup, did so. Still have gotten no response.

Remember to use common sense when formulating questions; inane / insulting / baiting topics will be removed

Yeah, I noticed that part and my hackles went up. I figured that might be a backdoor for them to get rid of anything they didn't like.

Don't like what an opponent says? Call them a troll and then you don't have to listen!

you have to approach the feminist side more carefully. Not because they want to censor and differing opinion...but because they are constantly under fire by those that hate their position and them.

So is the MRM. Possible even moreso. Do our rules require that people take their shoes off before they come in otherwise we'll refuse to hear them?

I'm an MRA and also a furry and I love discussing unpopular opinions. You better believe I'm constantly under fire by people who hate my positions and me personally. But I would never excuse in myself silencing an opponent's legitimate argument. Even if it's phrased rudely. Because if I expect the right to speak, I have no excuse for denying it to others.

[–]boss10001 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I figured that might be a backdoor for them to get rid of anything they didn't like.

Nevermind. This wasn't as unbiased an attempt as I thought.

Possible even moreso.

Utter nonsense. The amount of shit that gets thrown at women when they speak up about inequality big or small simply dwarfs the amount of radfem hate MRAs receive.

There's actually an infrastructure built up now to save these awful tweets and comments so their amount is not forgotten: http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/archive

Search for "woman" or "women" and take a look. The most recent post is about Wendy Davis.

This is why they have controlled environments. Because so many people also come in and try to take a dump in their spaces. Free speech is a mistaken virtue in a private space. If you start spouting racist language in my house, I'm going to kick you out. Even if we were having a nice, productive conversation before.

I'm happy that you're able to weather the hate furries get. Not everyone wants to or can. So there is great value in safe spaces that don't allow the kind of extreme, vitriolic dissent certain groups get. /r/AskFeminists is somewhere in-between a safe space and a 101, open space.

[–]AlexReynard0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Utter nonsense. The amount of shit that gets thrown at women when they speak up about inequality big or small simply dwarfs the amount of radfem hate MRAs receive.

1) How would you possibly know that? 2) Why do you assume it's just radfems? Plenty of regular feminists, and plenty of the general public, think we're nothing but a bunch of women-hating rape-cheerleaders.

There's actually an infrastructure built up now to save these awful tweets and comments so their amount is not forgotten

That page will not load for me. Sorry, I don't know what to do to make it work.

I'm happy that you're able to weather the hate furries get. Not everyone wants to or can. So there is great value in safe spaces that don't allow the kind of extreme, vitriolic dissent certain groups get.

This is why they have controlled environments. Because so many people also come in and try to take a dump in their spaces. Free speech is a mistaken virtue in a private space. If you start spouting racist language in my house, I'm going to kick you out. Even if we were having a nice, productive conversation before.

A private home is different from a public forum. Kicking someone out of your house for their speech is fine. Having a place whose purpose is to ask questions of feminism, and then not allowing certain questions to be asked, because you think the person asking might have bad intentions, is not defensible.

So there is great value in safe spaces that don't allow the kind of extreme, vitriolic dissent certain groups get.

I think it's a lot healthier to learn how to ignore such comments instead of trying to flee from them.

[–]boss10002 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How would anyone know it? You spend time around the camps and see what kind of reaction people have to it. I've seen a prominent blogger have to leave her position for a several month stretch simply because she spoke loudly and often about feminism in the secular/atheist community:

I don't want to let them win, but I'm human. The stress is getting to me. I've dealt with chronic depression since elementary school, and receiving a daily flood of hatred triggers it. I've been miserable. And this toxic behavior is affecting all parts of my life. With this cloud of hate hanging over my head, I can't focus or enjoy my hobbies or work. It has me constantly on edge with frayed nerves, which causes me to take it out on the ones I love. I spend most of my precious free time angry, on the verge of tears, or sobbing as I have to moderate comments or read what new terrible things people have said about me. And the only solution I see is to unplug.

I can go to a video posted two years ago and still see people making accusations and being vulgar towards a woman who spoke up about what she saw an inappropriate behavior directed at her at a conference. It's something of a sexist Mecca, though you'd have to go back a year to see pages on pages of insults.

Sarkeesian left comments open on her Kickstarter YouTube video last year to demonstrate the critical mass of hate that justified her cause. You can't see them now, but it's so commonplace that it's hardly surprising.

And I tried to show you this, for example: http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54066464186/sexist-creeps-attack-wendy-davis-standwithwendy

There's no way I can present a comprehensive list or quantify completely the extent to which feminists and women are treated worse online and in general, including when they speak up on these issues. But I simply do not see the same level of vitriol or dedicated sexism aimed at men or their advocates.

Because of all of the above, many feminist spaces simply don't waste time catering to leading questions or covering the basics over and over again with people ranging from hostile to the most open-minded. That's what 101 spaces are for. That's where all the basic questions that might even be grossly offensive can be asked openly and hopefully resolved. /r/AskFeminists is somewhere in-between a dedicated topic space and a 101 space because of its moderation. They make those rules clear. I learned lots of feminism from other bloggers in my first link, who answer common objections I see in this subreddit all the time in rational, convincing ways.

I asked a question myself on /r/AskFeminists, which you can see here. It's a touchy subject, but I made sure to approach it carefully and make clear that I'm not trying to run away with a bit quote or pin down feminists, but rather honestly understand the scope of this issue.

Oh, and a subreddit isn't a "public forum". Every subreddit only allows certain speech as decided by its owners. That's it. I think it's disrespectful and irresponsible to allow people to spout racial or sexual slurs in a space you control, for example. But some subreddits tout this as some important, distinguishing, positive factor.

I think it's a lot healthier to learn how to ignore such comments instead of trying to flee from them.

Not everyone can do that. Some people will need trigger warnings for a very long time because of their own traumatic experiences. Some people want to control how they return to being able to handle certain subjects or terms, rather than having to endure it regardless of where they are.

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

With the examples you gave of women recieving nasty comments, what evidence do you have that the reason for these comments was the speaker's gender?

I'll bet Rush Limbaugh gets tons of hate mail. Would you assume it's because he's a man? Or is it because people don't like what he says? I haven't heard of blaghag, but I know I've seen plenty of evidence that Rebecca Watson isn't the most honest person on earth. And Anita Sarkeesian is an outright fraud. Had you noticed that Anita disallows comments on almost all her videos? Which means she had the ability to turn those terrible comments off at any time if they truly hurt her feelings. Yet for some reason she allowed those assholes to spew bile at her, and fortuitously, she was able to ride the sympathy to a $15,000 kickstarter windfall by framing the controversy as 'They hate me because I'm a woman who dares to speak my mind!' I have watched Anita's Feminist Frequency videos: she is an infuriatingly stupid person who starts from whatever conclusions she likes and then tortures the evidence to fit them. She's an ideological hack. My opinion of her has absolutely nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her content.

You make the assumption that these women were unfairly targeted for being women. Do you honestly think that a male senator filibustering an abortion bill wouldn't get nasty tweets from his political opponents?

Because of all of the above, many feminist spaces simply don't waste time catering to leading questions or covering the basics over and over again with people ranging from hostile to the most open-minded.

How hard it must be.

I asked a question myself on /r/AskFeminists, which you can see here. It's a touchy subject, but I made sure to approach it carefully and make clear that I'm not trying to run away with a bit quote or pin down feminists, but rather honestly understand the scope of this issue.

Yeah, and you also started off by saying "I'm a male feminist." You conceded to their ideology. Gee, I wonder if that had any effect.

Not everyone can do that. Some people will need trigger warnings for a very long time because of their own traumatic experiences. Some people want to control how they return to being able to handle certain subjects or terms, rather than having to endure it regardless of where they are.

I will not restrict my speech to cater to hypothetical victims.

It's as simple as that. I do not think that any place should punish the huge majority of its real patrons just because some theoretical person might not be able to handle it. And most of these places simply assume they know what will be triggering and what won't. I'm supposed to just trust their psychological expertise? Funny how their definition of 'triggering' often seems to be 'things I do not personally want to hear'.

If someone tells me directly, "What you said hurt me," I will virtually always apologize. Even if I still stand by what I said, it is almost never my intention to hurt someone. But if someone else wants to tell me what I can't say on behalf of people they think will be offended, I give them the finger. I've learned through plenty of experience that what those people actually care about is control. And in places where content is controlled to make it a safe space, it's funny how civil dissent always seems to get removed along with whatever's labeled hostility.

[–]boss10000 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She's an ideological hack. My opinion of her has absolutely nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her content.

I think you have a grossly hyperbolic and misguided understanding of who she is and what she's doing. And while you don't blame it on her sex, many people do. They use sexist language and slurs to put down this woman that wants to discuss these issues.

I specifically picked these examples and pointed out that they were sexist comments being made. That means they're hating the person, not the content, and therefore hating on them because they are women. Blag Hag didn't receive anywhere near the same kind of backlash on any other topic she had ever written about. Just seeing that someone would go to the lengths of involving her father to dig under her skin says plenty about the state of discourse on this topic.

Regarding Wendy: "she's nothing more than a cunt", "sit this whore down already", "you made your choice when you went slut". Are you blind?! That is targeting a person's sex, not their argument. And I have yet to see the mirror happen towards a man proposing unpopular legislation.

punish the huge majority of its real patrons

What are you on about? People subscribe to a subreddit because they want to be there. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

I will not restrict my speech to cater to hypothetical victims.

Wow. You need to widen your view to include people who haven't had such a lucky time as you. And this isn't about "offense". This is about real people who have no control over their reaction to certain subjects. You have little understanding of what triggering is, and I'm simply not going to go over every detail of everything you're misunderstanding.

[–]AlexReynard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you have a grossly hyperbolic and misguided understanding of who she is and what she's doing.

I don't care what you think. I have watched her videos myself and I see no difference in the quality of content between her and any Fox News pundit.

And while you don't blame it on her sex, many people do. They use sexist language and slurs to put down this woman that wants to discuss these issues.

I'll concede that some of it is sexist morons, because there are always morons everywhere on YouTube. But I notice that this same level of hatred is not directed towards Ana Kasparian of TheYoungTurks. Here's a woman, just as political, who is treated with noticably more respect. Could it possibly be a difference in the quality of their words?

Regarding Wendy: "she's nothing more than a cunt", "sit this whore down already", "you made your choice when you went slut". Are you blind?! That is targeting a person's sex, not their argument. And I have yet to see the mirror happen towards a man proposing unpopular legislation.

Stupid, rude people will use whatever language is convenient. If Wendy were black they would call her a nigger. If she were a gay man they'd call her a faggot. If she were fat they'd call her a whale. If she was [blank] they'd call her [whatever is the laziest, go-to insult for that group]. And I'll bet plenty of them called her a godless babykiller or some form of that. The fact that the insults are targeting her gender does not change the fact that anyone in a public speaking position will inevitably receive hateful comments from morons.

Wow. You need to widen your view to include people who haven't had such a lucky time as you.

I WAS THE ONLY CHILD OF A SOCIOPATHIC SINGLE PARENT WHO ABUSED ME SO BADLY I HAVE PERMANENT MENTAL SCARS. Don't make assumptions, goddammit. It's exactly because I've been through this kind of shit that I know the best thing you can do to control trauma is to confront it. Running away reinforces it. It teaches your brain, 'This is the correct response to this stimuli'. But if you brace yourself and face whatever triggers you, it gets a little easier every time.

You have little understanding of what triggering is, and I'm simply not going to go over every detail of everything you're misunderstanding.

This is called a threat narrative. "These poor victims can't stand to see certain kinds of speech! You can be a good guy by letting us control what you say, but you're a villain if you won't let us." As I already said, if anyone tells me personally to be sensitive to their triggers, I will. But unless you can show me a list of exactly what triggering content is not allowed in a given place, and give me some assurance that this policy will not be used to remove legitimate dissenting opinions, then I will not agree to it.

[–]boss10000 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3330 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boss10002 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko-11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwilke17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwilke5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwilke0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not responsible for proving your claim - but I'm not trying to set you up or trap you, I would honestly like to see more information.

You made a pretty extraordinary claim about most women and all men, so I don't think asking for a little evidence of your claim constitutes fightin' words.

I don't need a thousand-subject research study in Nature. Any source with a decent scientific methodology will do fine.

Edit: I see you changed your post from what I had responded to, specifically the part where you refer to all men as being immune to the effect you described.

Edit2: And now I see you've changed the most recent comment I replied to as well. There's not much point in carrying on this conversation if you plan to change everything you say after I have responded to it. That's awfully suspect for someone making accusations of weasel behavior, innit?

[–]Piroko-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwilke2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwilke3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So I found a little more on the article, including some details about the methodology: Http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/041213.Goodwin.gender.html

Basically, subjects were asked to associate genders with words like "good" or "slime" or "grief," and as you mentioned, women were significantly more likely to associate the "good" words with women and the unpleasant words with men.

However, that's where your claim and the study diverge.

You said:

"Women are predisposed to interpret everything in terms of self or ingroup."

The study only measured positive associations - it did not, as far as I can tell, extend to the length that you have applied it.

"Men seem to have an extra step in cognition..."

Nothing in what I read pointed to an "extra step" in cognition; in fact the abstract specifically says that men "lack" the mechanism for in-group bias. This is a minor point, but it illustrates how you have interpreted the study to mean that men have a superior cognitive ability.

"...as giving deliberate offense is a challenge of dominance."

Unless it's covered in the full article, this seems to be entirely your own addition, and is not supported by what I read.

Additionally, the article pointed out that while men didn't have as much of a predictable bias as women, it didn't mean that individual men had no bias as a default - some men were biased toward men, some toward women. Simply put, women had a predictable bias, men's biases were not predictable (but still existed).

[–]mwilke1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ah, very good! I don't understand why you couldn't have linked to the article initially, since you were already copy-pasting from the abstract, but I'm glad you posted it.

It is unfortunately behind a pay wall (not your fault, they're all like that), so I need to dig around a little bit to find the full text, since there's not much more in the abstract beyond what you already mentioned.

I'm intrigued, and I'm always interested to learn more about our own innate predispositions and logical fallacies, gender-based and otherwise.

There is one piece I'm missing, and perhaps once I read the full article I'll understand more but: how does a female bias toward her own sex preclude her ability to apply the Socratic method? I know we got a little sidetracked, so perhaps that's not what you were suggesting, but if it is, I am curious to hear more about the connection.

[–]Piroko3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwilke1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwilke2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwilke2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3332 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3332 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]r_rships_account-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gershom45-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion42-20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion42-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you are saying that they need to legislate culture.

So the same culture which expels many more males only on the accusation of rape, without the preponderance of evidence. I did a search and only found one example of a student which may be expelled for accusing someone of raping her.

Female politicians are judged based on appearance and persona much more so than male politicians.

Maybe, but that shows that they are on a higher level than men. Men are only seen as what they have accomplished.

84% of people in the entertainment industry are male, and about the same amount of physics doctors are male.

It is about personal choices that people make. Young males are the primary demographic which go to movies, they are the ones who are spending the big dollars to watch male movie stars battle aliens because it is a way of them escaping the reality where they are seen as little more than ants, which are opting out of school, work, and relationships. It makes them feel good for a little while. Men are choosing STEM subjects because they are the ones which pay much more money, they do not offer a good work-life balance. Men do not have the option of being a stay-at-home dad, or taking time off to make the personal choice to have children, then reject coming back to work. They are the ones who work the majority of overtime, and poor shifts.

I've heard teachers tell female students that they shouldn't be in sciences because of their gender, and push them away from potentially doing great work.

Well since 90%+ of teachers are female, this is something which should be brought up to your school board, because teachers should be promoting interesting and different options for both genders. With all the promoting of women in the science and mathematics, why are women not signing up in droves for the STEM subjects, they get preferential treatment even though they are the majority of people who apply to these schools?

[–]Lalaithion420 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because all that preferential treatment is set up to try and counter the invisible ways in which we discourage women from getting into those programs- and the preferential treatment is not working. It's not enough

So when does preferential treatment equal it, as currently female enrollment is 60%, is it 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%? which value would make you happy? Why are women not choosing these professions? Could it be that they want to have a job which will allow them some semblance of a work/life balance? Why are women not choosing to be plumbers, lumberjacks, construction workers, electricians, or any of the death professions?

And that's BS- males are more likely to go to movies because 90% of movies are made for males. looking at the box office right now.... yep. There are 3 movies with female leads, and 30 movies with male leads. That's why more money comes from men; because movies are made for men.

The real question is which movies make more profit, because the marketplace is driven towards male leads which typically bank on making more money, they will make money with male leads. Studios are interested in making movies which will make money, they want to get paid, actors want to get paid, and the production staff want to get paid. Why would they want to make a movie which will not generate enough money to pay for it? It is all about the money...

Obviously people who are going to movie and paying for tickets desire to see these male leads, I know many women who are interested in movies because they are in love with the main actors "Brad Pitt", etc...

Why are feminists not getting together and making a studio and making female friendly movies? Do they see this as a good investment opportunity?

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iggybdawg1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iggybdawg1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iggybdawg6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iggybdawg1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugdr64246 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion422 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion423 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugdr64242 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3335 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How about that rape is rape?

http://i.imgur.com/40ssAFW.jpg

By the way, by claiming feminism as what you identify with, you also identify with the poster above you. Let me give you a taste of what she believes.

Men should concede everything to women. You got banned because you're an ignorant misogynist. You don't understand feminism so you just try to poke holes and act like an idiot.

and

I don't know what this article is talking about. as a woman with a poli sci degree from the best university in Canada I find this appalling. Not only are men more ignorant than women when it comes to politics, but men are willfully ignorant. The men in my school are only good for one thing, and thinking isn't one of them. Leave the politics to the people who know what they're talking about.

We will be here when feminism deems you no longer important.

Take care of yourself until that day comes my friend.

[–]Lalaithion420 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3332 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3332 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And thus you see why more and more people are abandoning feminism.

Myself included.

You really can't complain about people stating that feminism is not for mens issues when feminism admits it is not for mens issues.

And that is fine - I don't wanna force you to do anything any more than you want to force me to do anything. But saying my priorities are bonkers... I consider the suicide rate of males more important than how many women are choosing to go to Engineering school. I do. Blame my mother - she ingrained into me from when I was a child that every life matters.

And thank you - your quote is the most telling, and the most honest. Most feminists use doublespeak to minimize the effect of the truth, but you said it pretty blatantly; Feminists aren't thinking about conceding anything to men because they don't see it as an urgent problem.

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

.... ARE YOU SERIOUS?!

Men are committing suicide at an astonishing rate and you don't understand how that can be related to Mens Rights? ...

Actually I do understand this. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding dealing with the actual name of the movement.

See, many of us would have gone with the name "Mens Issues" - likewise, for Womens Rights, calling it "Womens Issues" would have made more sense as well. Unfortunately none of us were around when the names got made. So while it is called "Mens Rights" - which on the surface has the connotation of some kind of right given by the state (something contested of course by our founding fathers, but that, nevertheless, is our modern time), it encompasses areas where men are having major issues where they shouldn't be.

Likewise, having support groups when you are raped is not a right. Every woman and every man in that position should have access to them though. This is very much something that covers Mens Rights (and Womens Rights) interests.

You can compare it to people who say "feminism isn't for men because it's called feminism - it's even in the name!" - I do not think feminism is for men, but it is not because of its name.

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion422 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree with you. But you have to understand; the people you call evil in the feminist movement - they outnumber you.

I have not a single doubt in my mind there really is an MRA out there who really does want to do something crazy like legalize rape. Hell I have one guy tagged because he wants to literally segregate genders. That's fucked up.

But you gotta look at it from my perspective - from where I'm seeing, the status quo really is feminism. The status quo is shit like this. (New York makes it impossible to call female on male rape as 'rape')

That last one made me quit MensRights for the day - that really depresses me. That is wrong on so many levels. Not the part where it stops rape, but the part where it doesn't stop rape that affects an entire gender.

You seem a decent person. You call yourself a feminist, so I would assume you believe in patriarchy and male privilege - you should know those two ideas are the main things that MRAs contest with feminism (that, and the lobby groups who sign bills and protest making laws gender neutral, but that really isn't something I can fault anybody on reddit with). You and I - we probably are less different than you think.

If you haven't seen my infograph (I spam it quite a bit :p) regarding male rape and the CDC, here it is: http://i.imgur.com/40ssAFW.jpg

I've had a few feminists come out against the CDC stats in light of it. I've had a professor talk to me about what the writers of the study told her when she raised this issue with them. You may think that because people in MensRights are trying to get some attention for male victims, they don't care about women, but that is an immoral thing to assume on anybody.

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are wrong.

The problem here is not our beliefs. I think that the only difference is what we call ourselves. And the reason I call myself a feminist instead of a MRA is because I have had terrible experiences with mens rights activists and pretty great experiences with feminists.

My beliefs tell me that "the patriarchy" isn't real. My beliefs rely on my logic - if you can show me where my logic fails, I would change that belief. But I haven't yet been shown.

Traditional Gender Roles demand that men be stronger than women, and if thats the case, then they would be un-rapeable.

You should know something: The reason this definition is in the CDC isn't because of patriarchy; it's because of feminism. Her name is Mary P. Koss. I don't even have to look it up - I've memorized it at this point. She's a popular feminist writer in womens studies courses, or so I'm told. She might not be the kind of feminism you subscribe to, but when someone like her calls themselves a feminist, they do not go out of their way to explain that her beliefs are different than yours.

That leaves me with the belief that feminism believes I am unrapable. That leaves you and I at an impasse. You are unwilling (I assume) to question patriarchy theory, and I am unwilling to believe it.

And I am very sorry you had a poor experience with MRAs. I do not know what happened - I would be willing to listen, if you wanted to share, but obviously I do not expect or demand such a story. That is yours and yours alone.

That figure regarding male rape is supporting a lot of feminism, specifically the kind I subscribe to.

Do you subscribe to Feminism here at reddit? I welcome you to post that infograph there - I'll even edit out the MensRights info at the bottom (not the rape hotline stuff though - that is important). You should know that when I pm'd the mods of Feminism to see if they would allow me to post it, they ignored me.

You should also know that a feminist here on reddit told me that ... lets see if I can remember it properly.. "It makes sense to bias the law against male victims because that gives more power to women, who are affected by rape more." Think about that for a moment. Because there are 3 times as many female victims as male victims, it is okay to allow female perpetrators who hurt male victims leniency; that makes it fair.

They later backtracked on that sentiment. The only solace I had was that, when I showed it to a friendly feminist (not unlike yourself (she was much friendlier though ;P no offense)), she said I was right, and that even though they may have been particularly nasty, maybe the next time it is brought up, that individual will remember it and have a different opinion to share - and that is the only way we will fix these problems.

If we let each other know that, yeah... it is a problem. One that needs fixed.

And again, regarding feminism and MRA, there are two clashes - What each believes in (academic) and what each side does (real world).

You and I, talking on here - this is academic. What happened at that protest, and what happens with lobby groups - that is real world. We may differ on one front and agree on another, or vice versa. Just remember that both you and I, we are both human beings.

It is easy to forget that.

The people in the MRA who are evil? Guess what: They outnumber you too.

If you could show me that this is the case, I would believe you. I was brought here by a bestof post, and looked around. I made a post or two saying I was new.... The only bad I saw was in the PMs from people telling me that MensRights is the worst and I shouldn't get involved.

Again, you seem somewhat reasonable. If you want to converse on this, I would be open to it. :)

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]levelate2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]levelate1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]levelate1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]levelate1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So let me ask you; what things do you want feminists to concede to you?

As you said, it is far too easy for a man to have his life ruined forever because of a false accusation of pedophilia. I would also like feminists to concede that domestic violence is not a gendered issue, rape is not a gendered issue, and that feminists have knowingly manipulated statistics on those issues for decades to give the false impression that these are crimes where men hurt women; end of story. I'd like them to acknowledge their complete silence on men being the majority of suicides, workplace deaths and homeless people. I'd like them to concede that there is no defensible excuse for opposing female genital mutilation while not opposing male genital mutilation. I'd like them to concede that their movement has had an enormous amount of political power for several decades now, and that their claims that women are ignored or underrepresented in society are irreconcilable with that fact.

That's just off the top of my head. I could come up with lots more.

[–]Lalaithion42-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is basically a feminist organization. Their website states they are for "ending violence against women and children" in several places, while using gender-neutral terminology in only a few instances. I think any study conducted by them - especially in 1989 - is highly susceptible to confirmation bias. Google around and I'm sure you will find more sources showing the opposite of these findings.

Furthermore, I think it's pretty clear that people in general see men as more capable of violence than women, and it follows logically then that men would thus be judged more harshly when accused of committing a violent act. Yes, me saying that 'it just seems more logical' doesn't prove anything, but I think that logically it makes sense that women would generally be given lighter sentences. I think a study showing the opposite is likely to be 'society just hates women' propaganda.

[–]Lalaithion421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kathrynLEV-20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]niels_henrik_abel7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3334 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ugdr64242 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link