~ archived since 2018 ~

Does anyone else think it's a bit biased that the name given to gender equality has the name of one of the genders in?

frebbie

September 9, 2015

26 upvotes

/r/MensRights

/r/MensRights/comments/3k8tjk/does_anyone_else_think_its_a_bit_biased_that_the/

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	Does anyone else think it's a bit biased that the name given to gender equality has the name of one of the genders in?
Author	frebbie
Upvotes	26
Comments	47
Date	September 9, 2015 2:14 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3k8tjk/does_anyone_else_think_its_a_bit_biased_that_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/does-anyone-else-think-its-a-bit-biased-that-the.971721 https://theredarchive.com/post/971721

Comments

[–]XenonCeilingFan 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]frebbie[S] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhirlingPervish 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Azothlike 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shinarit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lafielle 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]frebbie[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]lafielle 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Sorry but I disagree on most points.

You don't have to apologize for that :) I welcome discussion and if I am wrong, I hope you'll point out where and how I am, so that I can consider your views and perhaps adjust mine!

The gender bias is definitely in favour of males

I strongly disagree. Can you name me one single legal right that men have which women do not in the western world?

I can name you three legal disadvantages which men face that women do not.

Men are subject to the draft / selective service in the Netherlands (my own country) as well as the United States. Most won't be called upon currently since there is no war, but should Russia decide it wants Estonia, as NATO allies, we might very well be subjected to Russian machine guns. Women, not being subject to the draft, do not have this obligation.

Men are not protected from genital mutilation as women are. Even a symbolic female circumcision which consists of nothing more than a pin prick with a sterile needle that draws only a single drop of blood is entirely illegal. Amputating the foreskin of a young boy is perfectly allowed and paid for by various insurance plans.

Men do not have the right to decline parenthood after conception without permission from their partner. Women have the legal right to give their child up for adoption, without a need for permission from the father. This has nothing to do with biology, but is purely about the obligation to be a parent after the child is conceived.

The vast majority of people I've met that identify as feminist are in support of the actual definition which is equality.

Likely the vast majority of people you've met who identify as feminists do not know what feminism is actually about. Have you studied feminism? What are your thoughts on Patriarchy Theory, on Rape Culture and on Toxic Masculinity? What conclusion would you draw, based on these three concepts?

[–]frebbie[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lafielle 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't name any legal rights but I don't think that doesn't mean there isn't bias.

Agreed and fair point! There can be non-legal biases too.

The gender ratios at top levels is severely in favour of men.

Its true. As I argue in my other post though, men work longer hours and sacrifice more for their jobs. Sometimes they literally sacrifice themselves for their jobs (98% of workplace related deaths in the Netherlands are men)

Why shouldn't the people who work the hardest, and who sacrifice the most for the employer, be the ones who become leaders?

Let me put it another way: which is more important for you in your life? Is it seeing your child's first steps, or securing that deal which will make the shareholders 1 million dollars? Is it reading your child a bedtime story or is it working late to ensure that client gets his documents on time? If your child falls during gym class and breaks there leg, will you go to be with them, or will you go to that important meeting at work?

There are certain answers to the above questions that make you a CEO. I'm not saying those are the right answers. Rather I'm saying that men and women may answer those questions differently. And as a result, the outcome for their carreers may be different.

PS: I'm sorry you got banned from /r/feminism :( Please don't take me arguing with you the wrong way - you have a right to your views, and mine can be wrong as well. Just because we disagree does not mean we cannot have an interesting discussion!

EDIT: I wanted to note additionally: there are issues which men face and issues which women face. Equality is not one-dimensional. Both sides deserve our attention :)

[–]Khorib 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't name any legal rights but I don't think that doesn't mean there isn't bias. The gender ratios at top levels is severely in favour of men.

Same with the bottom levels.

Feminists don't seem to want to change that.

The only industry where women earn more than men is porn which is a prominently male funded industry.

In what industry do women work longer hours, take fewer days off, and take greater risks than men?

Complaining that women are paid less than men without changing the fact that men work more is like complaining that those kids who study at unfairly given higher grades than those who don't.

Your points have made me realise it's not as one sided as I thought though. Also thank you for being seemingly the only reasonable person on reddit. I got banned from posting to /r/feminisms because of this idea.

Well yeah, you can't have independent thoughts in a feminist forum.

[–]Gnomish8 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't name any legal rights but I don't think that doesn't mean there isn't bias. The gender ratios at top levels is severely in favour of men. The only industry where women earn more than men is porn which is a prominently male funded industry.

And the gender ratios at the bottom, in dangerous work, and workplace fatalities is severely against men. In addition, the fact that there are no legal rights women are lacking, yet there are plenty that men are should be an indicator of where work needs to be done.

Bringing up the earnings gap is interesting, especially since it's been discussed here to death. But alright. Men earn more than women for a few reasons. First off, we work more hours and choose more dangerous jobs. Second, men are less likely to take a break from our career. And third, men tend to be identified by their work and will trade quality of life for money, and women tend to choose a happier/better life over work.

In addition, there are plenty of industries where women make more than men. Modeling, producing and directing, cleaning, wholesale, TSA, social and human services, teaching, most management positions, counseling, etc... Generally, if it's a service job, women will, on average, make more than men. If it's STEM, men will. Why? Look who is actually going into the field... Nearly 2/3 of college graduates are women, yet men outnumber them in STEM by a large margin. Give people a choice and we see them do what they want, and women by-and-large want to go into the service industry. Give this a watch.

[–]rudelyinterrupts 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]frebbie[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]rudelyinterrupts 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The wage gap has been debunked multiple times in several ways. I see someone has already stated that abs sourced it so I'll let them deal with that.

Image is the thing you say is a male privilege? You do realize it is women who push image right? The compete with each other through image, they use it to degrade each other, and they tend to run industries that impact image. Female models rake in way more money than male models. Women also have a greater range of clothing options for all styles. If you want to claim that image is biased for men in the job markets ponder this. If i show up with a scraggly beard, that's a no go. Some companies won't even allow beards at all. You can also bet that five o'clock shadow is a bad thing, but so is razor burn. For me, when i graduate, I will need a suit. That's all I'll be able to wear to my interviews. I don't have much choice. Oh and if I want to work as a teacher I'll need to make sure I don't look intimidating because then I'll just be seen as a danger.

Also because I know how the strategy works, I'm not saying that women face no image problems at all. I'm saying that men and women are, gasp, held to some standards when it comes to their personal appearance.

[–]soulless_ging 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]shinarit 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lasciate 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DAVIDcorn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]windkirby 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulless_ging 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]windkirby 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Again, I ask, do you really think it's the men who give two seconds of thought to Michelle Obama's arms? Or is it possible females just have a tendency, though not a rule, to focus on appearance more than men do? Do you really think women's appearances are scrutinized in the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated more often than the many women's magazines like Cosmo, Elle, etc.?

Regardless, men do have to look good for business-related work as rudelyinterrupts discussed, and in my experience women get plenty of respect for doing work well regardless of how they look, as long as they don't look unprofessional, same as men, except they have more options. And honestly, in all of the things I've seen, read, and watched about Hillary Clinton I have never learned about any pantsuit hullabaloo, regardless of how "famous" that is.

[–]soulless_ging 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lafielle 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zoidbergluver -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I realize you mean legally, but as several people have pointed out, oppression is not limited to only legs issues. The first thing that comes to mind is that men have the right to be sexual beings without scrutiny. Women have stricter dress codes in schools (male students can often wear tank tops, short shorts, and play sports topless), because women are shamed for being sexual. Women's appearance is scrutinized much more than men's. For instance, I was recently told it was "unprofessional" to not wear makeup on a job interview. I doubt a man has ever been told this. Furthermore, women are often discriminated against in their jobs even if they do the same work as men. There have been studies where identical applications with the name "John" and "jennifer" were sent out. "John" got more interviews and a higher salary. The study concluded that this was because women are expected that they will have kids and therefore take pregnancy leave, need more time off, etc. The employers assumed that because the applicant was female, she would be a less efficient employee.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The first thing that comes to mind is that men have the right to be sexual beings without scrutiny.

Er, no they don't.

Ever heard some men criticized for being a creep or pervert?

Also there are vastly different responses when men and women appear nude in public.

Women have stricter dress codes in schools (male students can often wear tank tops, short shorts, and play sports topless), because women are shamed for being sexual.

Women generally have more clothing options. They can wear a dress, or skirt, or pants, or shorts. Men can wear shorts or pants.

And typically the rules come down harder on women because they're the ones wearing shorts that barely cover anything. I'm sure if some boy tried to go to school wearing a speedo and a bra he'd be kicked out too.

Women's appearance is scrutinized much more than men's. For instance, I was recently told it was "unprofessional" to not wear makeup on a job interview. I doubt a man has ever been told this.

There are demonstrated penalties for men who are short or bald in the business world.

Men and women are criticized in different ways. That doesn't mean men get a pass.

Furthermore, women are often discriminated against in their jobs even if they do the same work as men. There have been studies where identical applications with the name "John" and "jennifer" were sent out. "John" got more interviews and a higher salary. The study concluded that this was because women are expected that they will have kids and therefore take pregnancy leave, need more time off, etc. The employers assumed that because the applicant was female, she would be a less efficient employee.

And I've seen the opposite proven in various fields.

[–]Zoidbergluver -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Who says men can't wear skirts and dresses? It's not women, that's men. Women are allowed to wear traditional "men's" clothes because masculine things are seen as a step up while feminine things are a step down. It is negative for a man to do feminine things while it is not negative for a woman to do masculine things because femininity is seen as inherently weaker and negative. You can see examples of this in the way being called a girl is an insult. By placing such a negative connotation on feminine things, men are only hurting themselves and limiting themselves.

Also, to add to my earlier point, women are disproportionately extremely under represented in politics and as CEOs and other leadership roles. They are also disproportionately victims of violence. Male violence towards women is very high, women against women is fairly low, and women against men is extremely low. It is almost completely one gender perpetuating violence against the other.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who says men can't wear skirts and dresses? It's not women, that's men.

Ah the old "nothing against men counts because patriarchy" routine.

Well most "slut shaming" comes from other women. So that's OK.

Women are allowed to wear traditional "men's" clothes because masculine things are seen as a step up while feminine things are a step down.

So then Butch women would be praised over feminine ones?

It is negative for a man to do feminine things while it is not negative for a woman to do masculine things because femininity is seen as inherently weaker and negative.

Nope. It's because woman are held less strongly to their gender roles.

You can see examples of this in the way being called a girl is an insult. By placing such a negative connotation on feminine things, men are only hurting themselves and limiting themselves.

So being called a dick is a compliment?

Also, to add to my earlier point, women are disproportionately extremely under represented in politics and as CEOs and other leadership roles.

And prison and overpasses...

They are also disproportionately victims of violence.

That's just an outright lie.

Men face far more violence than women.

Male violence towards women is very high,

I can see by all those stats you cited...

women against women is fairly low,

Or underreported.

and women against men is extremely low.

Or massively underreported.

It is almost completely one gender perpetuating violence against the other.

Perhaps because we only treat it as a real crime when it goes one way but not the other.

[–]Gnomish8 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

(male students can often wear tank tops, short shorts, and play sports topless)

Working for a school district, I assure you, false. Both genders are held to the same dress code. Women can wear tank tops, just like guys, but neither can wear "spaghetti straps." Guys can't be shirtless, neither can women. Shorts/dresses/skirts/pants have to cover 3/4 of the thigh. Guy or girl. And this is standard across the state. Dress codes are not about repressing sexuality, but about promoting at least semi-professional dress, a requirement just about everywhere in the real world.

Women's appearance is scrutinized much more than men's. For instance, I was recently told it was "unprofessional" to not wear makeup on a job interview. I doubt a man has ever been told this.

I've been told a lot was "unprofessional" in an interview. Appearance is a factor when you're making a first impression, like in an interview. Makeup is generally used to make people look better. Helps with first impressions. I don't consider not wearing it unprofessional, but first impressions are important... I'd also contend that men's appearance is scrutinized just as much, if not more so, than women's.

Furthermore, women are often discriminated against in their jobs even if they do the same work as men. There have been studies where identical applications with the name "John" and "jennifer" were sent out. "John" got more interviews and a higher salary. The study concluded that this was because women are expected that they will have kids and therefore take pregnancy leave, need more time off, etc. The employers assumed that because the applicant was female, she would be a less efficient employee.

And [there have been studies showing the opposite, up to a 2:1 hiring preference for women.](www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full) There's major problems in any "hiring" study. First off, you can't study every hiring manager, so the basis of any of these studies is going to extrapolation. You reach some pretty dangerous territory when you extrapolate data. Sure, it can give insight, but it doesn't definitively "prove" anything. Especially since how the data is read or presented can completely change the meaning.

Take for example, a position can interview 5 candidates. They already have 4, but the tie for the 5th is between "Jennifer" and "John." They flip a coin, "John" gets it, was "Jennifer" unfairly discriminated against? Nah. In addition, these studies fail to accept that there's more data being given than just the applicant's name. For example, changing names from, say, "John" to "Jennifer" isn't controlling for gender. The names themselves could have particular correlations to specific lines of work. People could be biased against the name "Roxanne" for scientific work while being totally more likely to hire "Elizabeth". And far more likely to hire "David" than "Bruno" or something. In other words, there could easily be intra-gender variability. Names can also insinuate an age. And even if the applications stated the ages, a young applicant with a name that sounds older and more experienced will get processed as slightly older and more experienced. Human brains are kind of dumb at times.

[–]I_Like_Spaghetti 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zoidbergluver -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gnomish8 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Zoidbergluver -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tokimer 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shinarit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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