The gender privilege myth

[–]my_name_is_gato 857 points858 points859 points 7 years ago (135 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ex0tictoxic 231 points232 points233 points 7 years ago (81 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 244 points245 points246 points 7 years ago (80 children) | Copy Link

[–]secret_tiger101 71 points72 points73 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 44 points45 points46 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]secret_tiger101 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reliquum 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]secret_tiger101 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]First-Fantasy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedoubleuglies 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Uzrathixius 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hannyu 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately being combative with feminism is a must. They actively try to shut down MRM because they somehow perceive it to take away from their causes.

If their causes were legitimate there would be no need to try and shut down MRM. The problem is very few of their causes, at least in first world countries, are actually legitimate anymore. It's not about women being equal, uts about women being superior. They feel entitled for any past slight that may have possibly occured to any woman ever to be in charge now and that men should be second class citizens just here to lift the heavy things and be a sperm bank for them to reproduce - but only when and if they want, because all reproductive rights apparently belong only to women.

Now thankfully there are women out there, and seemingly an increasing number, who think this is bullshit and are standing up against it. From my anecdotal observation that seems to be largely due to them growing up, having a family, and getting pissed when their sons, husbands, fathers, etc. get the feminist treatment from society. Its like a light switches on about "oh feminism isn't just for equal rights, it's about subjugating men."

[–]secret_tiger101 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AlexTweaks1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (43 children) | Copy Link

Women aren’t taught to see problems besides their own. It’s the education system.

[–]my_name_is_gato 90 points91 points92 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]AlexTweaks1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

I just get frustrated because the people I live with are completely blind to many men’s issues whilst the guys in the house are very aware of things women face.

It’s just frustrating to see that they really believe that they have it worse when they have it so easy. A guy spent £80 on one of the girls buying her drinks at the club, how often does she think that happens to guys lmao. They just dent that they have any benefits.

[–]my_name_is_gato 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AlexTweaks1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it’s crazy but realistically no one really listens to us in media.

Men are silent but they are getting annoyed. It’s either gonna end with us being massively fucked over or a massive backlash.

I once asked a few women if they thought women overall were less risk takers , thought more long term , were more calculated and were more likely to make decisions that are risk adverse. They agreed, I then proceeded to ask them that wouldn’t it make sense if men dominated the financial sector which is always about high risk then ?

They got extremely defensive.

[–]Casual_OCD 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Casual_OCD1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrmensplights2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like many things, I don't think gender is automatically determines a persons capabilities. That said, there are a few biological and evolution based differences between the genders.

Men did evolve as high risk high reward creatures. Genetically, we are far more disposable to a population. We have evolved a better spacial awareness and greater capacity to take blunt force injury.

Women tend to have better linguistic skills, better at reading emotions, less prone to anger and violence, and more risk averse.

These are just very broad trends observed over giant samples. Exceptions abound. I don't think it is sexist to call a spade a spade. Left handed persons have disproportionate representation on both the high and low ends of the IQ scale. I don't think anyone knows exactly why, but it is just a simple fact.

[+]Texas_Rangers1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

My pops grew up poor and worked his ass off and became a surgeon. If he grew up in today’s day and age, he would be compared to an average woman who doesn’t work hard and who gets into Med school because she’s part of an oppressed class.

Feminist is evil.

[–]my_name_is_gato 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Texas_Rangers 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Texas_Rangers 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Diogenes-- 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]WorldController -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

The science suggests this as well. Studies on human infants, some on newborns, and chimp infants as well, show sex-based differences.

Psychology major here. Which studies are you referring to? Based on my research, it's decidedly clear that human psychology is not biologically determined and that biological determinist thought within the field of psychology has been stimulated by politically conservative interests. Additionally we cannot reasonably conclude much about human behavior based on animal studies, as this would be what's called overextrapolation; as humanistic psychologists emphasize, there are striking differences between human and animal behavior, and even the physiology that underlies their behavior, so such conclusions would be gratuitous.

Then there's that huge study of 53 countries that found near-perfect correlation between a country's gender equality and disparity in mens' vs. womens' career choices.

Correlational studies lack the power to establish causation, so any claims about causation here are pure speculation. In order to determine whether some variable causes another, experiments are necessary. This correlation can be explained without resorting to biological explanations BTW, making it more parsimonious. Since virtually all nations in modern society are dominated by neoliberal capitalism, they all share a common culture in many respects, particularly those relating to economic factors such as division of labor. Moreover, since career choices among men and women have drastically changed over just a period of about 50 years, a biological explanation would be indefensible.

Could you cite this study? I'm wondering how it operationally defines "gender equality."

[–]Diogenes-- 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Which studies

I'd have to duckduckgo them and I don't have the time or inclination. It's clear enough that an evolved animal species is highly influenced by said evolution. Kinda funny that so many people aren't comfortable with that, and use their "side's" excuse: Either God put us here 6k years ago, or evolution happened but we're done now and no longer influenced by our biology. Some feminists even claim that women would be as tall and strong as men if not for patriarchy. My sides, lol.

Chimp studies by themselves prove nothing about humans, but when they corroborate the studies done on human babies it's just more evidence in the pile.

Same goes for the other study, if you're genuinely interested you can search for it just as I can. I'm not interested in a back & forth though, it isn't necessary for something so obvious. Might as well spend the next 5 years meticulously calculating how to cut an apple. I'll just do it in 5 seconds, eat it and move on with life.

[–]WorldController -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's clear enough that an evolved animal species is highly influenced by said evolution.

The mere fact that we evolved says nothing about the general and specific capacities that our evolution has given rise to. Just because behavior has a biological basis does not mean its specific forms are biologically determined. Similarly, that computers have physical components does not mean these components determine specific output; instead, output is determined by user input.

Either God put us here 6k years ago, or evolution happened but we're done now and no longer influenced by our biology.

This is a false dichotomy. It's possible that our biology potentiates rather than determines specific behavioral outcomes. This is, in fact, what happens to be the case. Indeed, it is our flexible, adaptable behavior that accounts for our ability to survive in a wide variety of environments. If our biology limited us to stereotypical reflexes, like it does in non-human animals, with our vulnerable, relatively weak stature we would not be the successful species we are today.

Some feminists even claim that women would be as tall and strong as men if not for patriarchy.

That's obviously ludicrous. Though physiological traits are not entirely determined by genes either and are instead susceptible to a wide variety of environmental influences, it's fallacious to compare them to behavioral traits like this, whose specific features are not at all determined by particular genes.

Chimp studies by themselves prove nothing about humans, but when they corroborate the studies done on human babies it's just more evidence in the pile.

Nope, because infant behavior is similar to that of non-human animals, in that it's largely biologically determined. Additionally, like animals, infants lack the capacity to acquire culture and think abstractly/symbolically. There really is no comparison between infant "psychology" and that of adults.

I'm not interested in a back & forth though, it isn't necessary for something so obvious. Might as well spend the next 5 years meticulously calculating how to cut an apple. I'll just do it in 5 seconds, eat it and move on with life.

You do you, haha..😅

[–]Zefuhrer45 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zefuhrer450 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WorldController1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zefuhrer451 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]WorldController -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]scotchleaf 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So which cultures have women doing most of the big-game hunting and warfare?

First, keep in mind that "universal" is not the same thing as "natural/biologically determined." Just because some type of behavior is cross-culturally observed does not necessarily mean that it has a genetic basis. In the case of hunting/warfare, such a division of labor could obviously have a rational basis (e.g. "Men are generally larger and stronger and are therefore better equipped to deal with these tasks.").

Second, the idea of men as being exclusively assigned to hunting roles is specious. As this article's abstract explains:

The traditional anthropological view of man as the sole hunter is being questioned today and women's role in hunting is being highlighted. The evidence from India supports the view of women as hunters, no matter how restricted this role may be. The archaeological evidence shows that hunting involved women-men partnerships. Folklore and puranic myths represent mother goddesses as killers of major wild animals. There are many historical examples of queens shooting tigers and panthers. In the colonial period when shooting a tiger became a status symbol, there were sportswomen, both Indian and British, who shot major mammals. Also, women from rural and indigenous communities, with their simple instruments and techniques, killed major mammals to save life and property. A unique tribal hunt that survives as a remnant of women's role as hunters is known as jani shikar, held every 12 years by indigenous women when they go out to hunt wild animals, mainly minor ones today as ideas of conservation seep in. Thus, in spite of general reservations about and prohibitions on women, there is still a role for women in hunting.

In which cultures do men take on most of the child care responsibilities?

The above applies here as well. Universal ≠ natural. This tendency can have also have a rational basis (e.g. "Women give birth to children and also nurse them, so they should continue this relationship with their children beyond the weaning stage.").

Anyway, given that men are increasingly taking on child care responsibilities throughout the West, this is a silly question to ask.

[–]scotchleaf1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Evidence for "Universal ≠ natural?"

Isn't the fact that "Men are generally larger and stronger and are therefore better equipped to deal with these tasks" evidence that men evolved larger size because the gender duties are mostly biological?

"the idea of men as being exclusively assigned to hunting roles..."

I didn't assert that men do 100% of the hunting or fighting, in the sentence "which cultures have women doing most of the big-game hunting."

Do the dominant gender roles of the great apes other than humans stem from nurture as well, in your opinion? If not, why are we different from nearly all other mammals, including our closest relatives?

For example, male chimpanzees make about 90% of the kills recorded at Gombe over the past decade.

Would you contend that elephant seals' gender roles are not biological?

[–]killcat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So the mammalian startle reflex is not determined by biology? How about nuzzling for a nipple in babies (rooting reflex)?

I was specifically referring to behaviors that have psychological significance, not to "instincts" such as the startle reflex, suckling reflex, diving reflex, etc., which have no underlying cognitive component.

Biology and behavior are intimately linked, maybe not deterministic but influential.

When it comes to the specific form and content of psychology (e.g. contextualized VS decontextualized memory styles, collectivistic VS individualistic self-concepts, language, aspirations, desires, beliefs, perception), it's unlikely genes have even an "influential" role. Remember, the primary function of genes is to code for proteins. Since, in humans, psychology is governed by the cerebral cortex, and the cortex does not contain genetically predetermined cortical modules tasked with processing specific psychological phenomena, the idea that genes rather than experience influences the development of specific psychological outcomes seems baseless. How, exactly, is it that particular proteins come to form such outcomes? What specific mechanisms of action are involved? How does this model reconcile with the fact that psychological phenomena are sociohistorically variable?

One way biological determinists have tried to weasel out of these difficulties is to posit the omnigenic model, which holds that psychological outcomes are not directly determined by specific genes but instead flow out of the unique way in which genes are combined in individuals. Such an explanation, though, is tantamount to the reliance on God to explain the unexplainable. "Since it happened and I can't explain it, God did it" is no different from "Since they are individuals and I can't explain their behavior, their unique biology did it." It offers no elucidation whatsoever and is a complete cop out.

[–]killcat0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You think evolution stops at the neck? Many animals exhibit instinctual behavior, humans are no different, just more complex, evolution is going to select for behavior that increases reproductive success, just like other animals. That's going to lead to underlying behavior, and different behavior between men and women, as we had very different roles in pre-agricultural society (hell realistically until the last 100 years or less). Things like mate selection are primary drivers for evolution, and that's going to influence behavior, what traits increase reproductive success, and it's not just biological traits.

it's unlikely genes have even an "influential" role. Remember, the primary function of genes is to code for proteins. Since, in humans, psychology is governed by the cerebral cortex, and the cortex does not contain genetically predetermined cortical modules tasked with processing specific psychological phenomena, the idea that genes rather than experience influences the development of specific psychological outcomes seems baseless.

The term your looking for is "epigenetic" factors that influence the animal which are not solely genetic, like hormones, given the number of hormonal receptors in the brain, and the amounts of hormones that the developing fetus is exposed to, sex specifically is going to influence the development of the brain. Which makes sense, the behaviors that would produce the greatest level of success in males would be different from those in females, different social roles. We can see these differences in other animals, why is it so odd that humans exhibit them to?

[–]WorldController1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Many animals exhibit instinctual behavior, humans are no different, just more complex, evolution is going to select for behavior that increases reproductive success, just like other animals.

Humans are very different, especially in terms of behavior. Our behavior is governed by the cerebral cortex, which is relatively larger than those of other species, whose behavior is largely controlled by subcortical regions. The cortex does not contain genetically predetermined modules tasked with processing specific psychological phenomena. It is highly adaptable and constantly evolving in response to experience.

This behavioral adaptability of our species is what we owe our survival to. Our weak, vulnerable bodies could not secure our survival in its absence. As humans, we are the only species that isn't tethered to biologically determined reactions. We are incredibly unique.

That's going to lead to underlying behavior, and different behavior between men and women, as we had very different roles in pre-agricultural society (hell realistically until the last 100 years or less). Things like mate selection are primary drivers for evolution, and that's going to influence behavior, what traits increase reproductive success, and it's not just biological traits.

First, keep in mind that all you're doing is parroting evolutionary psychological theory. Though it's prima facie plausible, this doesn't mean it's true.

That evolution selects for behavior that increases reproductive success does not suggest anything about the specific behaviors that will manifest. It does not necessitate all species will exhibit distinctive, sex-specific behaviors. Further, as I explained above, non-human animal behavior is incomparable to that of humans. The former is, for the most part, biologically determined, whereas specific outcomes regarding the latter are not determined by biology but instead have sociohistorical roots.

"Mate selection" is not really a concept that applies to humans in the same way it applies to animals, because human sexuality, like human psychology in general, is fundamentally cultural rather than biologically determined. You're coming from a hetereonormative perspective, even though heteronormativity is historically novel. For most of human history, a person's biological sex has not been particularly relevant as regards sexual encounters.

The term your looking for is "epigenetic" factors that influence the animal which are not solely genetic, like hormones, given the number of hormonal receptors in the brain, and the amounts of hormones that the developing fetus is exposed to, sex specifically is going to influence the development of the brain.

Epigenetics refers to heritable changes in the expression of genes sans changes in the genes themselves. What you're talking about here doesn't really have much to do with epigenetics.

Regarding the role of hormones in behavior, refer to my post here:

The behavioral effects of psychoactive compounds (including alcohol, drugs, hormones, etc.) are context-dependent. For instance, while alcohol may produce feelings of warmth and happiness when consumed in the company of friends, it may induce aggression if consumed in uncertain situations around strangers. The same applies to hormones. Their specific behavioral effects depend on context. As is already common knowledge, set and setting are paramount when it comes to psychoactives.

Hormones do not produce specific behavioral outcomes regardless of context. Instead, their behavioral effects entirely depend on context.

Moreover, that the fetal brain is bathed in hormones says nothing about how this specifically affects the brain, or how these effects influence behavior. In order for these hormones to have lasting, sex-specific behavioral effects, they would have to alter the cortex in such a way to produce these behaviors. But, again, the cortex isn't modular. It does not contain static, specialized units that control specific behaviors. Additionally, the infant brain undergoes marked synaptic pruning, which is the elimination of redundant or unnecessary connections. So even if prenatal hormones did alter the cortex in a particular fashion, the effects of this alteration would be obliterated by this pruning.

There is a whole lot more to the story of human behavior than you seem to appreciate here. I encourage you to keep an open mind and consider that biology, in fact, does not have a deterministic role when it comes to us.

[–]killcat1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're coming from a hetereonormative perspective, even though heteronormativity is historically novel. For most of human history, a person's biological sex has not been particularly relevant as regards sexual encounters.

Most people are heterosexual, and ONLY heterosexual sex leads to reproduction, therefore heterosexual drives are going to be strongly linked to reproductive success. There is clear evidence that there are overall physical traits that people find attractive, that's mate selection, women prefer men that are taller than them, men prefer women with a .7 to 1 waist to hip ratio. While society may add the bells and whistles the basics of sexual attraction are more or less universal.

There is a whole lot more to the story of human behavior than you seem to appreciate here. I encourage you to keep an open mind and consider that biology, in fact, does not have a deterministic role when it comes to us.

OK so homosexuals are a product of culture? I suspect you wont agree with that, but you seem to think that heterosexuality isn't a product of biology. How about gender? If gender is "a social construct" then transexuals are made, not born, gender and gendered behavior being biologically determined (typically) then there is no issue, biology fucks up, otherwise you have to explain how homosexuals and transexuals are "made" by society.

Moreover, that the fetal brain is bathed in hormones says nothing about how this specifically affects the brain, or how these effects influence behavior. In order for these hormones to have lasting, sex-specific behavioral effects, they would have to alter the cortex in such a way to produce these behaviors. But, again, the cortex isn't modular. It does not contain static, specialized units that control specific behaviors.

And? There don't have to be specific moduals for the brain to be influenced, the way in which the neural connections are formed can be influenced.

That evolution selects for behavior that increases reproductive success does not suggest anything about the specific behaviors that will manifest. It does not necessitate all species will exhibit distinctive, sex-specific behaviors.

Sure, but we are a sexually dimorphic species, why do you think this dimorphysim stops at the neck? For the majority of our evolutionary time frame males and females had different roles, why do you believe this had no effect on the evolution of the human brain?

[–]WorldController1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most people are heterosexual, and ONLY heterosexual sex leads to reproduction, therefore heterosexual drives are going to be strongly linked to reproductive success.

The claim in bold is not actually true. As sociologist Edward O. Laumann observes in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, over 3/4 of men and women experience same-sex attraction, and just over half of men have a homosexual experience at some point in their lives. Interestingly, these figures are not static. They undergo significant changes over just a few years (e.g., their steady increase over the past 50 years). As it takes thousands of generations in order for morphological change to manifest in a mammalian species such as ours, biological evolution cannot possibly account for this shift in sexual demographics, or even homosexuality's prevalence in general. Instead, cultural evolution is responsible.

The explanation for homosexuality's increasing prevalence, then, is probably attributable to its increasing social acceptability. Since homosexuality has become increasingly acceptable over the past few decades, more and more people have become willing to explore homosexual relations.

Just because "heterosexual drives" are linked to reproductive success does not mean that such drives are genetically preprogrammed. The consensus among mainstream psychologists is that humans are born polymorphously perverse, meaning they're capable of deriving sexual pleasure from virtually anything, even inanimate objects. In other words, in its raw, uncultured form, human sexuality is nonspecific. While such a general sexuality certainly allows for "heterosexual drives," thus allowing for reproductive success, it in no way mandates them. The earliest humans most likely engaged sexually with each other for bonding and conflict resolution purposes, regardless of factors such as gender or appearance, much like our closest relatives, the bonobos. This secured the continuation of the species without imposing a biological restriction on sexuality.

There is clear evidence that there are overall physical traits that people find attractive, that's mate selection, women prefer men that are taller than them, men prefer women with a .7 to 1 waist to hip ratio.

There are no features that are cross-culturally valued by beauty standards. Cultural anthropologists have found that "[e]thnocentric values universally play an important part in our perceptions of beauty" and that "cultural differences come into play in favoring particular shapes, sizes, and colors." Beauty standards are ethnocentric, meaning that they are culturally specific. Sure, much of the modern world subscribes to similar beauty standards, but this due to Western culture's widespread influence, not biology.

OK so homosexuals are a product of culture? I suspect you wont agree with that, but you seem to think that heterosexuality isn't a product of biology.

Again, humans are born polymorphously perverse. The role of society is to narrow our general sexuality into specific, socially acceptable "orientations." Often, this heteronormative socialization falls through, allowing for the entertainment of homosexual thoughts, feelings, and desires in some individuals. Rather than homosexuality being something that's "learned," it would be more accurate to describe it as being unlearned in heterosexuals. In heterosexuals, the ability to derive sexual pleasure from homosexual encounters has been suppressed via socialization.

As I explained above, yes, culture absolutely accounts for the varying prevalence of homosexuality throughout history. Like psychology in general, human sexuality is fundamentally cultural.

How about gender? If gender is "a social construct" then transexuals are made, not born, gender and gendered behavior being biologically determined (typically) then there is no issue, biology fucks up, otherwise you have to explain how homosexuals and transexuals are "made" by society.

The same applies to transgendered folk. Several longitudinal studies on ambiguously-sexed infants have demonstrated that gender assigned at birth much more strongly predicts later gender identity than biology. Ethnographic research has also found that, in societies lacking gender-based divisions of labor, men and women, respectively, do not exhibit traditionally masculine and feminine traits. Further, as I'm sure you're aware, gender categories are culturally relative (like beauty standards); there are some societies that don't abide by the traditional male/female binary and which include 3 or more genders.

It's not necessary to come up with a detailed, conclusive explanation for the available evidence once the possibility of biology as a determinant of gender has been ruled out. Remember, science is about disproving, not proving hypotheses.

There don't have to be specific moduals for the brain to be influenced, the way in which the neural connections are formed can be influenced.

Hormones don't really alter neural pathways, at least not to any significant degree. Experience (and to a lesser extent, synaptic pruning) does this. Sure, some hormones play a double-role as neurotransmitters, but they only serve to relay messages in this capacity, not to alter the brain's structure.

why do you think this dimorphysim stops at the neck?

Stops at the neck? Physiologically speaking, men and women are almost identical. For example, aside from our sex organs of course, all our organs function in exactly the same way; this is why cross-sex transplants are possible. There are vastly more similarities than differences between the sexes. And social psychologists have found the same is true behaviorally. Perceptions of differences between the sexes are mostly fueled by stereotypes and don't accord with actual research findings.

Dimorphism doesn't stop at the neck. In fact, it begins and ends with only very few overtly visible features. It does not apply to our organ systems, including the brain.

[–]killcat2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WorldController1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]killcat1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your position is that biology has no effect on behavior, which would make us unique amongst animals on earth, we would have to have been "created" specially, regardless of the development of the human brain we still have the brain components of our primitive ancestors. You use extreme edge cases to explain behaviors in humans, it doesn't matter that MORE people are willing to explore homosexual relationships, the VAST majority of people are heterosexual because if we had to learn that we should have sex with the opposite sex the species would run the risk of extinction and again that would require us to have been created without the basic sex drive that all other animals have. In short your position is ludicrous, it is so unscientific that you are either ideologically blind or trolling.

[–]OlofPalmeBurnInHell 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SuperSulf -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlexTweaks7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women in my experience then. Guys at my school are at talks constantly about women’s issues but never has there been a conference about men’s issues.

Whenever guys talked about equality they’d say multiple points about women having certain issues but whenever they mentioned a men’s issue it basically got heavily scrutinised.

The physics department basically told boys they aren’t as great as they think at physics and that women are better (no joke posters on the wall would say this in classrooms).

Same with my house mates, whenever I complain about something shitty about being a guy they just act like I have nothing to complain about , my university also has women’s marches , women’s celebrations , posters all around it about the pay gap and they send notices to all students about women’s issues in the school news as well.

Never has a men’s issue been acknowledged at least in my year at this university.

[–]Sawses 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedoubleuglies 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redditguy1961 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]adomm420 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Casual_OCD 54 points55 points56 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Casual_OCD -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's called egalitarianism.

Oh please. Are you even aware that "egalitarianism" is considered sexist against women?

Stop "picking sides" and fight for equal rights and equal responsibilities from all

I'm sure it makes you feel great about yourself to waltz in with grand claims about standing above all the "picking sides" by being for "equality for all", but it's not exactly how the world works: Should men have the right to abort a pregnancy of their child? Yes or no? There goes your "equality for all" fantasy.

I can beat you even at your own stupid game:

It's called caring. Stop "picking sides" and fight for better life for all - Everyone should have a good life. That's my personal statement at the world. While you only want "equality", I want everybody to have a better life! So I'm better than you! Virtue Grandmaster owns noob yet again!

Now that that's settled, shall we not start talking like adults?

[–]Casual_OCD -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Casual_OCD-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Casual_OCD1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Apolo180 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]adomm420 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Casual_OCD -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Apolo180 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Casual_OCD 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]O7GS 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pablochocobarr1 38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mnemosynyx 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Immortal_carrot 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]vvomit1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Can’t address the others because I don’t have much else to say, but on the topic of suicide statistics: Would you not agree that men being socially conditioned towards acting stoically and masking their depression would be a large contributing factor, as women seem more prone to express themselves emotionally and seek help? Also maybe relevant that men tend towards different methods of suicide which could contribute to a higher “success rate” if you could call it that - women seem to seek methods that would preserve their appearance in some manner and consequently have less chance of entirely working (i.e. ingesting poison) wheras men are less likely to consider this a factor.

Basically I’m wondering - do you think it’s a situation where “men are more stressed/depressed/etc. Than women” or would you agree that other factors contribute to this statistic?

[–]my_name_is_gato 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I think you raise a very good point. There's no doubt that women attempt suicide more often but men are more likely to have fatal attempts. Short answer is that I'm not sure of the causes behind this. I think the social stigma cast upon a male who is struggling versus the comfort and support women are more likely to receive is a major issue.

My profession (law) has an addiction and suicide crisis that no one really wants to talk about. It is there, it is pervasive, but there aren't good avenues for persons to seek help.

I don't have anything other than anecdotal to back this up, but I think women who want to die will often accomplish it. I have known two person who clearly committed suicide, both female. One was by gunshot to the head, the other (who was very obsessed by her appearance) by hanging.

I do think men are more stressed and depressed. I could write an article on why I feel that way. Bullet points would be that we are taught to not show emotion, to be strong protectors, and we are constantly reminded that we are essentially disposable.

There is so much pressure on men to have a successful career in a capitalist world that doesn't want to let anyone non essential in on things. I was happier pushing a broom than I am practicing law, but you can guess what society rewards and pressures a person into.

On the other hand, a young woman has a lot more options. Raise a family (typically with a husband who has a very difficult task of providing when a two income family is necessary for most persons) or pursue a career. If I wanted to be a stay at home dad and not practice law, I don't think I would be well respected.

I've rambled, but there isn't an easy answer. That doesn't mean it isn't something that we need to address asap.

[–]cheshiredudeenema 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]theanchorman05 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]vvomit2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree with a lot of this! And thank you for entertaining this discussion because I think it’s an important one that people often avoid delving deeper into. I definitely think a lot of career paths and job environments men are subject to over women definitely exacerbate stress, particularly ones that are physically laborious or just psychologically droning and repetitive.

I think stress in the workplace can manifest in different ways for both sexes - what comes to mind for me specifically is the social aspect. I work in tattooing and find a lot of the men I work with, while dealing with the same stress of picky clients, maintaining the shop, tools, etc. Don’t experience the added juncture of clients who expect a female tattooer to be more coddling, and to simultaneously treat their tattoo session as if it’s a therapy session. I think women often face the expectation of being emotionally open and able to take on the issues of others simultaneously. It’s definitely stressful to be someone else’s baggage handler haha.

On that note too - As much as I think stay-at-home-parents should be respected for the work they put in, I do think it’s something that faces scrutiny on both sides of the coin. For men it’s seen as effeminate, an unwelcome role reversal, and as a woman who once wanted to be a SAHM, I was told by everyone around me that my lifestyle would be lazy and unsustainable, that it lacks value as a goal entirely, and that I should aspire to something more - for “my” sake. I wish it were as easy as “women can choose this role” but the further we grow from that idea of the nuclear family, that role of stay-at-home parent becomes less socially acceptable, and at the same time less financially sustainable.

[–]AloysiusC -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Prengelbengel 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Those are all great goals to aspire to and I agree with virtually everything you said. I don't blame feminists, I just don't think most have their priorities in the right place. Lets take male deaths alone, be it shorter life span, workplace, homicide, or suicide. Isn't that a bigger crisis than even the "me too" movement?

That's not to discredit those movements at all; it's very important that all persons be protected from harassment and have adequate and fair venues to address the matter.

If feminists truly care about fixing the problems that exist, I want to see more of that in the news, more of that on my well diversified facebook feed, more of those articles getting published. Further, I want to see the feminists admitting that these types of problems impact men at a disproportional rate. As of yet, I haven't seen a single major feminist campaign that is designed to alleviate some of the major problems facing men.

Catcalling videos go viral while another homeless male vet sleeps in the cold. But it is a shocking statistic that the female homeless population is up to 25%!!. What about the other 75%.

I don't mean to come off as an ass, but if you can share with me some insight into what feminism is doing to combat some of these issues I really, really want to better understand. I don't want to view men's rights vs. feminism as a zero sum game. It shouldn't be, because as you mentioned, the persons with power love divide and conquer.

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

[–]Fuckoff555 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You blame feminists when the true enemy of us men are the people that are responsible for and profit from the system.

Well how about both huh? Caring about men's rights and thinking that feminism is not an enemy of men is just ignorance, an ignorance about the real history of feminism with men, and even the examples that I'm about to show you doesn't even cover the half of what they have done or said:

Domestic violence:

_ 2nd wave: Erin Pizzey, who became internationally famous for having started the first domestic violence shelter in the modern world, Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971, the organisation known today as Refuge. She has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists.

_ 2nd wave: She wrote an article in which she talk about male domestic violence, how feminist journalists and radical feminist editors in publishing houses controlled the flow of information to the public, and how the feminists in America, their strangle hold over the shelters and access to government and state resources was almost absolute. She talked to about how the feminists shot her dog to threaten her.

_ 2nd wave: Richard J. Gelles, along with, Murray A. Straus, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz formed the team at the Univ. of New Hampshire that first researched family violence in the early 1970s. He is today one of the nation's foremost researchers into family violence. After finding out that the rate of female-to-male family violence was almost equal to the rate of male-to-female violence all three of them received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where they were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks - individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant funding be rescinded.

_ 2nd wave: At the University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached the conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses. So the feminists leveled threats against Steinmetz and her children. Sponsors of her speaking engagements started to receive threatening phone calls. Finally, a bomb threat was called in to a meeting where Steinmetz was scheduled to speak.

_ The duluth model which is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States. It completely neglecte male victims and female perpetrators of abuse. The program insisted that men are perpetrators who are violent because they have been socialized in a patriarchy that condones male violence, and that women are victims who are violent only in self-defense.

_ Before the VAWA(violence against women act) There was Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, it was replaced in 1984 by the VAWA, in which until now they didn't bother to include men as victims in the title. And even though the language that they used in the VAWA is gender neutral in addressing victims of domestic violence, the domestic violence programs discriminate against male victims.

The Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) is the principal federal agency that administers VAWA funds. On several occasions the OVW has issued directives or established funding mechanisms that openly discriminatory in nature:

• In 2002, the OVW instructed the Delaware Domestic Violence coordinating council that, “states must fund only programs that focus on violence against women.”

• Department of Justice (DoJ) research solicitations have explicitly excluded applications that focus on male victims. One Solicitation for Proposals from the DoJ National Institute of Justice specifically prohibited “proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of males of any age…

_ the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, said about domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls.", [2]

_ Feminist and american sociologist Dr Michael Kimmel, who runs the Stony Brook University's Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities. NOMAS, the organization that he founded and leads, claims that men are not victims of domestic violence or abuse..., and even though he's one of the most prominent feminists that talk about ''toxic masculinity'', In 2018 he was publicly accused of sexual harassment by professor Bethany coston

_ Feminists Disrupt a Forum About Battered Husbands

_ The Canadian federal government’s The Transition Home Survey (THS) “identified 627 shelters for abused women that were operating across Canada on April 16, 2014”. There was one for men and it closed due to lack of funds and support which led to his suicide, [2]

_ Feminist and University of Ottawa law professor Elizabeth Sheehy, wants to place battered women above the law. Professor Sheehy’s thesis is that battered women should have the right to kill their husbands pre-emptively — in their sleep, say, or when they least expect it — without fear of being charged with murder. [2]

_ An article about how feminists abused and distorted statistics and data on female victimization so that we believe that domestic violence is the most common cause of injury to women, or how battered-women's advocates claim that those women who kill their husbands do so only out of self-defense.

Battered-women's advocates claim that those women who kill their husbands do so only out of self-defense. But in an extensive study of women imprisoned for murder, researcher Coramae Richey Mann found that over 40 percent did not claim they acted in self-defense and 30 percent had previously been arrested for violent crimes.

[–]Fuckoff555 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rape and child molestation:

_ Feminists in Israel are against charging women with rape because then according to them, women would be afraid to charge men with rape.

The Knesset Law Committee on Tuesday decided to postpone a vote on second and third reading of a bill to add the crime of rape by a woman to the statute book after women’s organizations warned that it would lead to a situation where women would be afraid to charge men with rape.

_ Feminists in India oppose making rape laws gender neutral

Mumbai-based women’s rights activist and lawyer Flavia Agnes believes that rather than helping any community, the law will leave the judiciary confused.

"I oppose the proposal to make rape laws gender neutral. There is physicality in the definition of rape, there is use of power and the victim has a stigma attached to her. If made gender-neutral, rape laws will not have the deterrence value and it will make it more complicated for judges in court,"

_ Influential rape researcher and feminist Mary Koss; claims that male victims of female rapists aren’t real rape victims in radio interview

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”

_ The feminist and journalist Barbara Ellen said in an article in the Guardian that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is not on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil, and that the female teacher doesn't deserve prison.

do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don't.

_ During the second wave feminism, feminist Kate Millett was a leading figure in the women's movement, a committee member of National Organization for Women and a spokesperson for the feminist movement following the success of her book Sexual Politics. Millett was also a pedo apologist

In an interview with Mark Blasius, Millett was sympathetic to the concept of intergenerational sex, describing age of consent laws as "very oppressive" to gay male youth in particular but repeatedly reminding the interviewer that the question cannot rest on the sexual access of older men or women to children but a rethinking of children's rights broadly understood. Millett added that "one of children's essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well" and that "the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution ... if you don't change the social condition of children you still have an inescapable inequality".

_ Feminist Avital Ronell, a world-renowned female professor of German and Comparative Literature at New York University, was found responsible for sexually harassing a male former graduate student, Nimrod Reitman. So a group of scholars from around the world, including prominent feminists, sent a letter to N.Y.U. in defense of Professor Ronell. One of them even was disturbed cause according to her and her colleagues Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.

Diane Davis, chair of the department of rhetoric at the University of Texas-Austin, who also signed the letter to the university supporting Professor Ronell, said she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.

_ Michele Elliott OBE is an author, psychologist, teacher and the founder and director of child protection charity Kidscape. Due to her work in exposing the issue of child sexual abuse committed by women, she was subject to a lot of hate and hostility from feminists

Elliott's work in exposing the issue of child sexual abuse committed by women has also resulted in hostility from feminists. While compiling Female Sexual Abuse of Children, Elliott organised a conference in London concerning sexual abuse by women. After publishing the book, Elliott was subject to a "deluge" of hate mail from feminists.

[+]Prengelbengel -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cell-el 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, so does feminism.

Yes, but not all movements have the same bad actors. There is a difference, for instance, between a Muslim extremist and an Amish one. A difference bourne out of the different ideologies that shape their world views.

Can you find, for instance, anyone in the mens rights movement who says that we must reduce the population of women down to 10%? Because it isn't hard to point out a feminist who says that.

And feminism isn't one movement, it has hundreds of different subgroups with different ideas.

You realize that's basically just a roundabout way of admitting that feminism is useless right?

If feminist ideas had any resemblance to reality then there shouldn't be all of these groups. Because they are all making claims which (for the most part) should be testable and verifiable.

[–]Prengelbengel -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Can you find, for instance, anyone in the mens rights movement who says that we must reduce the population of women down to 10%?

Who does that, can you give me a source? I have read of many men's rights activists that claim that women are inferior to men, that want to go back several hundred years to subjugate women again.

If feminist ideas had any resemblance to reality then there shouldn't be all of these groups. Because they are all making claims which (for the most part) should be testable and verifiable.

No, all social science and even many hard sciences have several different strains and views. Some things are purely subjective and some are just hard to prove and nail down completely. The nature vs nurture debate, which divides many feminists will probably never be completely answered for example.

Also feminism isn't science, it's a social movement.

[–]Cell-el 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Who does that, can you give me a source?

Sally Miller Gearhart for one. The woman who founded gender studies.

I have read of many men's rights activists that claim that women are inferior to men, that want to go back several hundred years to subjugate women again.

Such as? Besides, that wasn't what I asked. I asked if you could find anyone who wanted to reduce the population to 10%.

She wrote it in her essay "The Future is Female".

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”

She's not the only feminist to have such a sentiment.

No, all social science

Not real science. There's a reason that actual scientists prank them with hoaxes for fun.

have several different strains and views.

Which is one of the reasons why social science is not real science.

The hard sciences do NOT have different strains and views. They have different disciplines (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.) and there are some different theories where holes in the information exists, but this is not what the social sciences and feminism have.

Some things are purely subjective and some are just hard to prove and nail down completely.

Saying that some things are purely subjective is just another way of saying that its being made up. Which is what I just said.

The thing is, that feminists portray their beliefs as factual representations of reality. At least until it's convenient for them. As you just demonstrated.

If feminism accurately represents reality then there cannot be all of these conflicting feminist ideas with no verifiable claims. There should be an easy method to know which groups are correct. Because you would have things like evidence, proper definitions, consistency, etc. But there aren't, at least not within feminism. So it has absolutely no truth value. Feminists may as well just be forming words at random for all the worth they have.

Also feminism isn't science,

I didn't say it was. I didn't even mention science. I said if feminism bore a resemblance to reality. Which is exactly what feminists do. Make claims about reality.

it's a social movement.

No. It's an ideology. That's why there's an "ism" at the end of it.

[–]Prengelbengel -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cell-el 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aChileanDude 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prengelbengel -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cell-el 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prengelbengel -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cell-el 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cell-el 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SuperSulf 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I wonder if homelessness has much to do with military vets and PTSD, and correlates with other things men tend to do or pick as a career only to get really messed up, therefore they end up being the majority of the homeless. There are also other questions to ask. Why are men the majority of homeless? Do they have fewer support networks to hold on to when it gets that bad for them? Are men more likely to abuse drugs and suffer from the kinds of issues that would lead to homelessness? Or mental illness untreated? Are women actually seeing homelessness at similar rates initially but recover faster? Or have other places to go? Or just die faster and you see more homeless men because they're the majority of what's left?

There are so many more questions that one has to ask (not trying to say you specifically got anything wrong there)

except > but even if you restrict to other methods, men still tend to be more successful, so you'll still have an imbalance.

~~How do you define successful? Without picking anything specific that sounds like you think men just happen to be more successful than women, which does seem a bit sexist.~~

Edit: can't read

[–]wonkifier 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SuperSulf 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prengelbengel -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

What are the policies to reduce the number of male suicides, male homelessness and male incarceration? Well, the very same policies I already pointed out.

I don't think we will ever reach true parity in those issues nor do I think we will ever completely close the wage gap. Men and women are different. Women can get pregnant, they are more likely to care for their kids and men are often more ambitious and aggressive, which often translates to a higher income. But that means that men also commit more crimes. 80% of all murderers are men for example.

It's good to provide the same opportunities but we will never have the same outcome. We are just genetically different. So no, we will never have a 50/50 split in incarceration and homelessness rates or truly equal pay. But we can reduce the overall number and try to give both sexes the same opportunities.

[–]jonnytechno 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prengelbengel -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MitchISU1 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]oscar_s_r 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]Suiradnase -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_name_is_gato 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suiradnase -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 318 points319 points320 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]InformalCriticism 90 points91 points92 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]blueparasites -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sencerb88 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]douglasmacarthur 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emperorerror 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]douglasmacarthur 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Reddevil1143 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]EarthAllAlong -25 points-24 points-23 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]EarthAllAlong -19 points-18 points-17 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sencerb88 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CBU29 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CheesyDorito101 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]skibby 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]PacoBedejo 200 points201 points202 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Texas_Rangers92 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]SuperSulf -18 points-17 points-16 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]boi_dat_comes_here 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]SuperSulf -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CivilianMonty 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steamedhamjob 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucius_Martius 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]torithonuc 127 points128 points129 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Maito_Guy -28 points-27 points-26 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]theninja94 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]puuuuuud 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rumpadunk 49 points50 points51 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mooncow-pie 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]khapout 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skip95 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rumpadunk 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The-Angry-Paddy 81 points82 points83 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Broadside486 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Devidose 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Terminal-Psychosis -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]HonestyOverCivility12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Laniel_Reddit 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skymningwolf 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]FirstEvolutionist 52 points53 points54 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Qualanqui 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]khapout 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]Maito_Guy -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maito_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AreYouDeaf 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blaizken_420 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZombieP0ny 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SuperSulf 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AlexTweaks18 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skymningwolf 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OlofPalmeBurnInHell -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheKingOfPancake 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Broadside486 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealistBrokeBoi 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Broadside486 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealistBrokeBoi 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Broadside486 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]stop_stalking_me 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boi_dat_comes_here -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Broadside486 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mystery-time-lady 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldenmage398 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UsernameIWontRegret 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]khapout 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaquefroid 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]UsernameIWontRegret 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Obliterous 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]littlefilms 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Bezdbefazed 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jostler57 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuperSulf 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoelMahon 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jostler57 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]JD-Queen 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]The-Optimystic 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountingMyDick 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sponge1990 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]genethedog 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think this is great. There are some weird haters that don't seem to understand that its not 100% pure and accurate but neither is the wage gap.

I saw someone say the top should be purple because some women are there too. And I saw someone ask why there isn't some pink at the bottom because of the women that work in fast food. These people are 'black and white' thinkers that take things way too literally.

Each level represents the majority of the people in that social class not 100% of the people in that class. Especially true in the lowest level. 'Homeless' women are never truly homeless. They don't stay at the typical 'homeless shelters'. A woman's refuge is like a dorm room. They have their own room, desk, bed and a fucking door. Men get a cot in a large room in a church or gymnasium.

Women that end up in a refuge will have a stream of social workers that will get them into either a small apartment of subsidized housing within like a fucking month. They will be setup with welfare, at minimum, and there will be more resources for them if they have kids.

/u/Rumpadunk posted a link to one that's a bit more accurate for the sperged-out autists out there.

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

[–]jason2306 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dontcallmeshirlie -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a radical leftist, I'm in the minority who actually pretty much agree with this. I noted in this 5-month-old post that, though patriarchy still exists in some nations today and was in full force in the West not too long ago:

I'm not necessarily suggesting patriarchy exists today in developed Western nations. Personally, I believe claims of patriarchy are exaggerated by feminists and that examples of female privilege are ignored or otherwise not given due consideration. Also, I feel that feminists often use indicators of patriarchy that are irrelevant to the common person (e.g. there being more men in the highest paid positions).

Clearly, since upward mobility has become increasingly difficult over the past couple of decades, the issue of male domination of top-paying positions is more a class than a gender issue, at least as it pertains to ordinary people. For us commoners, the obstacle to these positions is a matter of class, not gender. So, it is not indicative of a patriarchal culture in common society.

I feel like this graph is an oversimplification, though. Among commoners, while women do indeed hold the advantage in some ways, I don't think they are universally of higher status than men. Social status is intersectional and isn't a simple matter of, "you belong to group X, so you're therefore of lower status than person Y, who belongs to group Z." It's a bit more intricate than this.

[+]gabriot -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarterGrund -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IWWPR -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]goldenmage398 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The gender privilege myth

Comments

LUKEWARM ANECDOTE, COMRADE.

Title	The gender privilege myth
Author	swiet
Upvotes	2906
Comments	253
Date	January 27, 2019 1:24 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/akbz67/the_gender_privilege_myth/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-gender-privilege-myth.885143 https://theredarchive.com/post/885143