# Mens issues or misogyny?



## soliloquy (Feb 27, 2013)

this is an interesting article written in today's news paper. i'm glad i'm not the only one that has similar views on it.

yes, i classify myself as a feminist. however, i find that feminism was created to mean/symbolize one thing; since its birth/creation, it has been deformed into the quiet opposite to what it was supposed to suggest. 

it was created for equality among genders. what its turning into is any/everything with penis's is evil by birth, anything with vagina is good. 

yes, boys are falling behind in school. its no secret. yet, if we rise a single word about it, its considered 'hate crime'. if we say 'women need more of this and that' its perfectly acceptable. 

yes, shit has happened to women in the past. yes they are rising fast, which is great. but it isn't fair if boys are being left in the dust and inherently considered evil. why would they be encouraged to continue education when the very subjects deem them as evil and worthless? 

yes, i am generalizing. yes, i know there are some really fucked up men out there. however, it isn't fair that women can get away with far more than men in our society. 

man touches woman inappropriately, he is tackled by by 8 different people within seconds. woman abuses and humiliates man and all he gets is 'he had it coming, you go girl, destroy him'. i'm saying this from first hand experience.

why is it that before, in the olden days, it was fine to consider man as everything in the patriarchal society; and now, its considered fine for woman to be considered everything while downsizing man? this isn't equality. 

source:Men


----------



## TemjinStrife (Feb 27, 2013)

And yet you forget that, no matter how "unfair" it may seem, even in 2013:

-women are raped more often than men (and are often shamed and blamed as a result)
-women are sexually assaulted and sexually harassed more often than men
-women earn substantially less than men
-women occupy far fewer positions of political and economic power than men
-women potentially face far greater legislative limitations on their freedoms than men do

Awfully nice living in a system that benefits and coddles you, isn't it? Maybe we can complain about "feminism" once there's actual inequality swinging the other direction. 

This is like white people complaining about how blacks can have a "black power" movement, yet whites can't have a "white power" movement. Men already have the power, so whining about feminism's attempts to correct inequality comes off as a disingenuous attempt to discredit and marginalize those who push for equivalence in society and under the laws.

Plus, the effects and influence of the "reverse misogyny" described here have been GREATLY exaggerated. Such beliefs are hardly pervasive or significant within the feminist movement, much less in actual society.


----------



## soliloquy (Feb 27, 2013)

/\ i do agree with all of that, and this still isn't there.

however, men are raped and/or abused. most definitely far less than women. however, most of those cases are not reported. sure, women's rape cases aren't reported 100% either.

yes, women do have that glass ceiling on them in the work force. 

yes, they have hardly any recognition as far as politics is concerned. 


however, a lot is changing. look at the education system of today. university/colleges for example have more women entering, and graduating and entering work force (not true for some subjects, but generally speaking). men on the other hand have a higher drop out rate. they also are more disengaged with education. at a younger level (kg-grade 8ish), girls are excelling more than guys in most subjects (speaking from family and friends that are teachers in schools)

its almost as if the next few generations come after us would have gender roles reversed. once the boomers and gen x and y begin retiring out of those CEO positions, women would be qualified to gain those positions, which could potentially reverse history. 

reversing history wasn't the original goal for feminism. 
rioting/protesting against men wasn't the goal of feminism. 
revenge/vindication wasn't the goal of feminism. 
pushing men out wasn't the goal of feminism.


----------



## Breakdown (Feb 27, 2013)

TemjinStrife said:


> -women earn substantially less than men



I can't cite a source but I do remember reading that this is because women often choose to pursue careers that pay less than those men usually go for (I.E. Social Work VS Engineering).


----------



## Jakke (Feb 27, 2013)

I do not consider myself a feminist, because what the third wave feminism is doing is just something I cannot get behind. 

Feminism has actually been in third waves; we had the first wave in the 10's and 20's with women suffrage (fun fact: women had universal voting privileges in Sweden before men had them), and the second wave was in the 60's (the right of a woman to her sexuality).
After that... We had the third wave in the late 80's/early 90's to today. 
But... Since feminism is defined as a social movement to give women equal rights to men, they were without a cause. I dare you to name a civil right here in the west that men has, which women has not. 
They have also taken it to bitch (no pun intended) about things in the periphery, such as gendered insults (with usual double standard); apparently calling a woman a "frigid cunt" is borderlining hate speech, while a woman calling a man a "limp-dicked motherfucker" is kosher. Well, he just makes her so angry sometimes....

The women's study departments (hypocritically named gender studies in Sweden) obliged of course, they discovered a new enemy for the feminist movement: The Patriarchy.
As an enemy it is perfect, it's kind of like David Icke and his space reptiles; there is no empirical evidence of the patriarchy actually existing, it does however give feminists the right to look down on men and tell them to "check their privilege" (so I guess that was a right won by the third wave).

Well, I have checked my privilege, and I have come to the conclusions:
-Women are sentenced to significantly less prison time than men for the same crime.
-Women are almost always the winners in custodial disputes, regardless of the age of the child
-An employer, male or female, has been found to be more likely to hire a female applicant over a male applicant, this is of course after adjusting to equal merits.
-It was discovered here in Sweden that boys are significantly more likely to get a worse grade in school than what the national standardized tests says they should have, there is no such gap among girls. Nothing has been done of course, but that's just the nature of the beast.
-Women has been discovered to be the cause of almost half the partner violence, and are more likely than men to use a weapon against their partner, yet this is completely ignored, and "men's violence against women" is a term everyone with a PC quota to fill up have to learn.




TemjinStrife said:


> -women are raped more often than men (and are often shamed and blamed as a result)



And I am three times more likely to get physically assaulted, and far more likely to be murdered because I am male. Yet when it comes to men, this is not seen as a gender issue, but as a criminal issue. Stop seeing rape as someting "men" do to women, and instead see it for what it is; "criminals" doing it to women.



TemjinStrife said:


> -women earn substantially less than men



We had a whole discussion about this in another thread. There is a 23% discrepency, all but 5-7% can immediately be explained by social factors, and the unexplained numbers are called "the unexplained gender wage gap". There is no indication that sexism is the cause of these numbers, and I find it unlikely, as that would imply a conspiracy by males on females.
What has been seen however is that women are eight times less likely to ask for a pay raise.




TemjinStrife said:


> -women occupy far fewer positions of political and economic power than men



Politicians represent the people, and therefore should every segment of the population be heavily represented. However, it is only when we view the world through the feminist view of "us Vs. them" that the lack of "power" is a desparate issue. How about we see people as gender second, and human first?

Second, evolutionary psychology has already proposed why there are more men than women on top of society. The role of most males in most mammals (including our closest ape relatives) is to amass status, primate researchers has even noted that it is impossible to work with male chimps in a setting other than 1 to 1, because he is obsessed with showing his status. Now, how do we show status among homo sapiens sapiens? 
- Through money and social influence. 
We show ourselves to have a pack dynamic very close to chimps (chimps even wage war on each other), is it too far to assume that men are driven to achieve success due to our biological imperative?

One should also remember that while there are more men on top, there are also far more men on the bottom, when are the feminist calls coming to have an equal representation men-women in the local bum population?



TemjinStrife said:


> -women potentially face far greater legislative limitations on their freedoms than men do



How so?



TemjinStrife said:


> Awfully nice living in a system that benefits and coddles you, isn't it? Maybe we can complain about "feminism" once there's actual inequality swinging the other direction.



As I have shown, there is. Mocking people for speaking up is awfully close to what the reactions to the feminist movement was.




TemjinStrife said:


> This is like white people complaining about how blacks can have a "black power" movement, yet whites can't have a "white power" movement. Men already have the power, so whining about feminism's attempts to correct inequality comes off as a disingenuous attempt to discredit and marginalize those who push for equivalence in society and under the laws.



Black power today is often infused with racism (especially with the entertaining "Melanin hypothesis), I reserve every right to complain about the new black panthers.



TemjinStrife said:


> Plus, the effects and influence of the "reverse misogyny" described here have been GREATLY exaggerated. Such beliefs are hardly pervasive or significant within the feminist movement, much less in actual society.



As are the actual beliefs of misogyny among men as well, that does not stop the feminists to inflate it to imply that secretly most men hate women.

PS. the word you are looking for is misandry, hatred against men.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 27, 2013)

Misandry is definitely becoming a huge issue. I don't understand why there is this huge cry to pretend it isn't. 

Why not fuck off with all the sexist labels and just have everybody be a humanist?


----------



## WickedSymphony (Feb 27, 2013)

TemjinStrife said:


> Awfully nice living in a system that benefits and coddles you, isn't it? Maybe we can complain about "feminism" once there's actual inequality swinging the other direction.



In addition to everything Jakke said:

-Most work related deaths are male
-Divorce laws (beyond custody)
-Men often need to carry slack for women in some lines of work where they just can't do the job equally as well due to physical differences (police, fire dept., etc.)

I'm sure there are many other examples. Just because you choose to ignore these inequalities doesn't mean they don't exist. 

I'm all for equality here, but feminism isn't so much about equality anymore as it is about giving females an advantage. That is simply not equality.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 27, 2013)

AND 80-85% percent of the casualities due to lightning strikes are men


I just listened to the last episode of Freakonomics Radio, and it was aptly titled "men are not women"


----------



## WickedSymphony (Feb 27, 2013)

Jakke said:


> AND 80-85% percent of the casualities due to lightning strikes are men



Mother nature must be a feminist!


----------



## PeteyG (Feb 27, 2013)

TemjinStrife said:


> Maybe we can complain about "feminism" once there's actual inequality swinging the other direction.



So you think men aren't allowed to complain about discrimination against them based upon their gender until women are absolutely universally as equal as men or when men as a whole are experiencing inequalities equal to those that women face?

Sorry but isn't that just a little bit idiotic?

Discrimination against EITHER gender that is widely and routinely made light of or even seen as being the norm isn't okay in any way, yes women experience more than men but the idea that women have to arrive at the ideal situation of there being no discrimination either first or at the same time as men is a ridiculous idea.

The ideal situation would be where there is no unreasonable discrimination (because there are instances where it's appropriate to have a woman be the preferred person to do a job over a man and vice-versa) for either gender. If men reach that goal first then that's not a bad thing, the bad thing is that it will almost certainly take a long time to get there, if we ever get there at all.

I wouldn't wish to refer to myself as a feminist (or a masculinist if such a thing existed in the mainstream) because this is a label which INHERENTLY favours one side based upon it's name. I actually believe that the more widespread occurrence of misandry today is largely due to the name "Feminism" making it seem like the preferred social norm is to be pro-woman over being just simply pro-human.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 27, 2013)

PeteyG said:


> I wouldn't wish to refer to myself as a feminist (or a masculinist if such a thing existed in the mainstream) because this is a label which INHERENTLY favours one side based upon it's name. I actually believe that the more widespread occurrence of misandry today is largely due to the name "Feminism" making it seem like the preferred social norm is to be pro-woman over being just simply pro-human.



Bingo


----------



## soliloquy (Feb 27, 2013)

Last time i used this term here, i got neg repped by the ss.org army...but on one hand i still believe in the original points of feminism, and still call myself one too. However, feminism labels all men as pigs coz one abnormal (not a social norm) decides to rape. 

Okay.

A small group of women have issues with bonified reason for sexism such as strength in work force- ie: its sexist that its called fireman and not fire person. Its also sexist that the requirement for that job is to be able to lift 250ish lbs over your head with ease. They suggest women can drag that weight out of fire...

Okay...

Due to the skewed sexism, irrelevent of how good the father can be a parent, he hardly ever gets the kid. And not only does he lose the child, but now pays child support (it hardly ever gets paid is another issue...)

Okay.

Also, due to sexism, most divorce cases side with women and force men to pay a monthly sum to their ex wives as they live a more modest life than man.

Okay....



In cases like these, a small group of women still look for more ways to deprive men. This IS NOT feminism! This is 'feminazism'.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 27, 2013)

Equality is about making people equal, not about shifting inequality in the opposite direction (at least not on a permanent basis).


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 27, 2013)

after the last elections here there was a news story about the new women senators who were being sworn in. they got a bunch of them in a room from both parties and starting talking about what its like to be a woman in politics. one republican senator-to-be said she thinks women will do a better job because "we have less testosterone".... i was legitimately sad. 

a few months later im sitting in one of my classes and mentioned that Maryland University released a study that proves biologically why women talk more. i should mention that i brought it up in the context that any medium can be used to deliver a sexist message if framed correctly (the study was about proteins in the brain). My teacher came right back and said "this is why women make better journalists, we know how to talk better".... the chapter we had just read was about how journalism is more about phrasing your question rather than asking many questions.... epic facepalm moment

the best part is the Maryland study said the only advantage to having more communication moments means you're better at small talk. nothing about being more predisposed to careers


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Feb 27, 2013)

Before I got into university, I went to my friend's university women's studies class to chill with her that day (her teacher didn't care). I was the only dude in this room of around 50 or so. Sat down, the teacher started talking.

"[...] Men and women are equal, but we know we're smarter, right ladies?" And the class almost starts a fucking riot in approval. This is why we can't have nice things.

Feminism used to be a driving force for gender equality a looooong time ago. Now it's basically been replaced by Tumblr feminazis or other miscellaneous idiots like chicks on Youtube ranting about how men looked at them while they were wearing tight short shorts that said "juicy" on them and stupid, stupid drivel like that.

I want equality but fuck you if you have a dick, I want to be treated equally but you gotta pay for my dinner, I want to be treated equally but I'm better than you...

You can't have equality AND chivalry at the same time. Make your fucking minds up.


----------



## Watty (Feb 27, 2013)

I thought this thread was going to be about Seth's jokes from his hosting gig...


----------



## soliloquy (Feb 27, 2013)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Before I got into university, I went to my friend's university women's studies class to chill with her that day (her teacher didn't care). I was the only dude in this room of around 50 or so. Sat down, the teacher started talking.
> 
> "[...] Men and women are equal, but we know we're smarter, right ladies?" And the class almost starts a fucking riot in approval. This is why we can't have nice things.
> 
> ...




off topic, i know...but fuck it, its my thread, and i'll hijack it if i want! 


but that chivalry and equality thing really irritates me! on one hand, they want a guy who lets her do what she wants, as 'he isn't the boss of me'. but at the same time, they also want someone to take control and be a prick about it too. and on the third hand (yes, in the realm of where both genders are equal, only two hands exist...) they want someone to pay for the bill, open doors and treat them like princesses. 

you cant have all. and if you blame men as they cant give them what they want, then who is to blame here? men are just as confused...


----------



## renzoip (Feb 27, 2013)

Where can I meet some of these radical man hating feminists? I've met plenty male and female feminist during my time in college and at info shops and communes. I've never encountered anyone hating men because they have penises, or advocating oppression against men. Most feminists I've spoken to are actually pretty smart down to earth people, with a sense of humor; not the uptight hateful individuals that some talk about. Interestingly, most people that I hear complaining about radical feminism, men hating, reverse discrimination, blah blah blah, are right wing reactionaries who hold all kind of negative biases already. The use of word "feminazi" cracks me up since it was originally coined by Rush Limbaugh, who is such a total fascist himself. 

Perhaps people are intentionally misrepresenting feminists. Or maybe radical feminists are some sort of mythical creatures.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 27, 2013)

Or maybe we all have different experiences and just because you haven't personally observed it doesn't mean everyone is FOS.


----------



## glassmoon0fo (Feb 27, 2013)

Thread too long, didn't read, but here's my take any time feminism gets brought up:

The feminist movement is characterized by overly masculine women telling average women to be more masculine, when the typical member of the movement doesn't represent "typical" at all. The so-called "men's movement" is characterized by overly feminine men telling other men that they should be more feminine. This creates all KINDS of problems when dealing with the well-established gender roles. These roles are present in most societies across the globe, because it is who we are. Men occupy more leadership roles because men are typically and have typically been the braves and chiefs of almost every primal tribe found on the planet, not because men think women aren't capable of leading. Women are raped more than men because you can't rape the willing (semi-) and because it's hard to rape a bigass man. I could go on forever, but most of the issues that feminism fights against are common-sense observations of the way our world is. I'm all for being progressive when it's needed, but I feel that both the mens and womens' movements are trying to buck a system that doesn't need bucking, maybe a little more awareness if anything, but it's gotten us this far and made us the dominant force on the planet.

It's my belief that feminism arose and continues to arise because of the lack of strong, secure, and capable masculine leaders. If men were still men, women wouldn't want to take our place.


----------



## Basti (Feb 27, 2013)

Let's face it, we're all guys on here, but I've seen some good points being made. 
The fact is that the afore mentioned "third wave" of feminism, along with a few good points about society not having quite got there in terms of gender equality, also brought with it a skewed sense of vindication on behalf of all women in the past that distorted the initial idea to the point of absurdity. 
Most of this stemmed from their new-found pride in femininity, womanhood, the female body etc etc which, much as I will say "good for them", is something that inevitably renewed society's us-and-them structure and put a big wedge between boys and girls.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 27, 2013)

Like any group that has faced prejudice at some point we as a society typically offset in the opposite direction. It seems middle ground is not achieved quickly.

As for this particular case middle ground can only be achieved when everyone observes their own limitations. If the requirement to be an officer or fireman is to lift 200 lbs. then they should be able to do it. If they are incapable then they shouldn't. It isn't discrimination for that to be the case. 

Chivalry gets mixed reactions from people and I'll never understand some peoples reaction to it. I open doors for men and women alike when it is deemed by myself appropriate to do so, so when I take a girl out and open a door I'm not trying to demean them. Luckily I've only experienced that ridiculous logic only once.

Equality isn't equality when it is forced and over thought. It shouldn't even cross ones mind if we were truly trying to achieve 'equality'.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Feb 27, 2013)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> after the last elections here there was a news story about the new women senators who were being sworn in. they got a bunch of them in a room from both parties and starting talking about what its like to be a woman in politics. one republican senator-to-be said she thinks women will do a better job because "we have less testosterone".... i was legitimately sad.


 
That is indeed an asinine thing to say, but the underlying sentiment, I feel, is undoubtedly true. 

A group of men, when threatened by another group of men, immediately seek to assert dominance whether the scenario your neighborhood softball field or the floor of the UN. Its become a natural male tendency most likely due to the centuries old concept of "honor," which due to societal norms through history, women were not affected by as they were, by and large, treated as second class citizens. Its like every time someone tests a nuclear weapon they're questioning the size of everyone else's dicks, and thats how wars happen.

I have always felt that if gender ratios were reversed in our government a lot more would get done and there would not be nearly as much stupidity. Men are inherently prone to posturing and chest beating, while women, in my experience as a 27 year old man, are not as much. I am not sure why, nor do I speculate as to why, but I think its the truth.

That said, while I am in total agreement that women are subject to tons of disparities and issues that men do not encounter, I do not enjoy, for example, being lectured by my ex's friend when I held the door for my own girlfriend at a restaurant. I spent the rest of lunch that day defending my mildly old-fashioned approach to my behavior in a relationship. I hold doors, I pick up the check whenever possible, I walk on the street side of the sidewalk, I offer my coat in a cold theater, etc. I'm especially polite and respectful toward women because of how I was raised, and that _incensed_ her. She spent all of that meal jumping down my throat for this, because it "perpetuated the view that women are the 'weaker sex," and that they should be treated differently. I mean, I don't exactly order my date's dinner for her or tell her how she should dress.

We had a similar conversation some months later when I did the same thing again (because FUCK you, lady) and it was finally explained to her (by my then-girlfriend) that she was hammering the wrong nail. She wasn't accomplishing anything but making me hate her and everyone like her when I never disagreed with her fundamental views in the first place. THAT to me is the problem. 

The scorched earth policy is not that effective in this situation, because the truth is there are a growing number of young men who know that "their father's" views are stupid and that a human being is a human being. The feminist movement could do well to embrace male supporters instead of immediately assailing them for being male. The normal image of a feminist (if you ask the average ignorant male), however incorrect, is a masculine/severe woman who is pissed off at everyone. In my experience that is NOT the case. 

I very much agree that the feminist movement is necessary. There are social inequalities that persist for women that are frankly pretty fucking unbelieveable, but stop attacking me just because I have a dick. Equality means I can call you an asshole the same as anyone else. Thanks.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Feb 27, 2013)

Here's another gem.

This happened a few years ago. I was going to the bank to deposit my first ever cheque. I get to the door, and this woman is also trying to get in, but she's got her leg in a cast, she's using crutches, her head's all bandaged up and shit too. She was probably in some sort of accident. Knowing that she'd probably have trouble with the door, I opened and held the door open for her and smiled at her and motioned for her to go ahead.

"I CAN DO IT MYSELF YOU CHAUVINIST PIG"

Lol ok good luck, I go inside, deposit my cheque, and by the time I leave she's still trying to maneuver the first door. What a dumbass.

I hold doors open for people because I find it to be common courtesy. It's not skin off my back to hold a fucking door open, regardless of what gender you are.

I'm not sexist. I don't think that women are inferior to men. People who are sexist are indeed fucking ridiculous and ignorant. Gender equality is not yet a fully achieved goal, I will admit. But if you want to achieve that goal, wake the fuck up and realize that the way you approach it is really important. Ignorance is not a solution.

PS: SCUM Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## WickedSymphony (Feb 27, 2013)

@goldensteinat0r

I tend to disagree with the first part of your post. While men do have those tendencies, I also believe women can be just as bad if not worse in some aspects. Whether or not that would play out in a political setting I don't know, but I do know they can be capable of that competitive dick-waving behavior just like we are. 

And as far as there being less stupidity in our government, I don't feel that it's anywhere near as much of an issue with gender as it is an issue with the people in office being completely uneducated about the topics they decide on, or that they are otherwise in the pockets of corporations that tell them what to decide.

Also, color me confused as fuck about how that girl responded to you doing things like that for your girlfriend. I was raised the same way as you, but luckily I've never encountered a girl who's gotten mad over me holding a door open or offering my jacket.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 27, 2013)

goldsteinat0r said:


> I have always felt that if gender ratios were reversed in our government a lot more would get done and there would not be nearly as much stupidity. Men are inherently prone to posturing and chest beating, while women, in my experience as a 27 year old man, are not as much. I am not sure why, nor do I speculate as to why, but I think its the truth.


 
Politics is politics, man, and women don't play together any better than men do. In fact, they may actually be worse at playing nice in these types of situations - just ask any of your female friends or family members.



goldsteinat0r said:


> I very much agree that the feminist movement is necessary. There are social inequalities that persist for women that are frankly pretty fucking unbelieveable


 
Can you elaborate on these inequalities?


----------



## anthonyferguson (Feb 27, 2013)

I was once told "we need positive discrimination to progress towards an equal society"

I hit my face with my palm with great wrath.


----------



## groph (Feb 27, 2013)

Alright I can't not post in here, as bad for my blood pressure as it's going to be.

I wish these "men's rights groups" who I've heard about spent more time helping men and boys and less time griping about feminism. I'm not convinced that feminists are waging a conspiracy against men at the institutional level, and I think groups like A Voice For Men are absolutely disgusting. Posting personal information about "man hating bigots" for what, vigilante justice (?) is a terrible thing to do. 

I mean it's hard to stand for any social cause without coming into serious conflict with social institutions like law enforcement or how law functions in our society. I don't think Warren Farrell constitutes "hate speech" nor did the protest linked in the news article sit well with me at all. I consider myself a feminist, but I'm not fully decided on where I really stand on anything here. 

The part I hated the most was when the guy who lost a brother/close friend (dont remember which) to suicide a few years ago, wanting to attend Farrell's lecture was objected to by one of the protestors. Farrell talks a lot about male suicide as far as I understand, whether it's evidence of systematic misandry or not I'm not convinced but the guy was looking for some closure or help of some kind. The protestor gives a canned response "well I don't think it's appropriate *to come into this space* and talk about that (suicide) here." That one really fucked me off.

Oh, so now it's your "space" is it? Says fucking who? "Spaces" IE "safe spaces" in universities where LGBTQ identified people can hang out in an environment that was "made for them" aren't something I can really argue against - I'd never advocate destroying one or decry their existence in a violent sense but I do think it is *very* problematic to assert that within a certain "space" (doesn't have to be a physical room) certain people have a privileged epistemological ground over others. There's a difference between me going into an LGBTQ "safe space" and saying "YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF FREAKY TRANNIES" and me entering said "safe space," try to contribute to a hypothetical conversation they're having and have somebody say "get out, your opinion doesn't matter because you're a cis-male." The former is the (exaggerated) reason such spaces exist, the latter is the nasty side effect they have. A big trend in a lot of womens studies/feminist thought is that knowledge is situated, IE it's known by certain people and certain people, in a sense, come up with certain kinds of knowledge, and said knowledge can benefit certain groups and not others. Knowledge is inextricably tied to power, that's the core of it.

I generally agree with that but it's also pretty easy to stretch this logic to dangerous areas. Because I am white, male, heterosexual and cisgendered it's true that I don't experience any shit for existing as I do, I'm not put down by anybody _because _of any of these things, at least not at an institutional level. Sure, some moron could say DIE CIS SCUM! but that doesn't mean a damn thing to me. But, wouldn't it be a problem assuming that *because* I am that "list" of things, I will inevitably only be able to know certain things? It's like taking my list of privileges and using those, deducing that I can and will only see the world in a certain way and it's impossible for me to understand the world through someone else's eyes.

Like in conversations in the LGBTQ thread, I was called out for taking a position that I understood some kind of "way gay people are," that's an example of what I'm talking about - I fucked it up a bit. How can I say that all gay people, because they're gay and "therefore oppressed in exactly the same way," actually have that common experience?

How can the girl that called this guy out claim any right to the public area they're in as a "feminist space" merely by the presence of a feminist protest? Are all feminists the same in that they, and only they can understand what _really_ goes on and they, and only they have the final say in it?


----------



## Nyx Erebos (Feb 28, 2013)

groph said:


> There's a difference between me going into an LGBTQ "safe space" and saying "YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF FREAKY TRANNIES" and me entering said "safe space"



I pictured you saying both.

Honestly I consider feminism nowadays as a joke. It's not like women are being considered as inferior human being (I'm talking about France and I guess it's the same in the US). Feminist associations spit out stats to prove that they're legitimate but you can say everything and its contrary with stats. Besides most of the arguments sound silly to me. Like "there are more men than women in politics". Well what do you want to do ? Forcing women into politics and limiting men ? Maybe it's that way because people choose what they want to do and because there are more competent men (not because they're men but because they are, you know... competent). About the salary, if an employer want to pay less a woman because she's a woman, he is a misogynist and I don't think any woman want to work with that kind of people. But I think there are differences between men and women salaries because of the choices we make, not because of our gender (the women are maybe paid less because they can be pregnant, it's unfair but it's nature).


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Feb 28, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Politics is politics, man, and women don't play together any better than men do. In fact, they may actually be worse at playing nice in these types of situations - just ask any of your female friends or family members.


 
Lots of merit to what you're saying, but the truth is we will probably never get to see what would actually happen. 



> Can you elaborate on these inequalities?


 
Even in just the US there has been legislation proposed everywhere which limits a woman's access to birth control and abortion. I really don't care what your views are, that is not anything other than a personal decision.

Elsewhere (middle east, parts of Asia), women are still treated as possessions and "things" that must be controlled. They must cover up in public or, in some places, face consequences as ridiculous as stoning and death. In India recently a rock band started by a few girls drew widespread condemnation, forcing them to disband out of fear due to receiving death threats and the like. They were just kids playing music (apparently pretty good, fun rock, too). They were condemned as sluts and whores for appearing onstage dressed quite modestly by Western standards (jeans, t-shirts, and even their hair was covered). I mean does that make sense to anyone?


----------



## liamh (Feb 28, 2013)

Third wave feminists and men's rights advocates are two sides of the same coin. Self-centred parochial whingebags.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Feb 28, 2013)

liamh said:


> Third wave feminists and men's rights advocates are two sides of the same coin. Self-centred parochial *whingebags*.


 
wat


----------



## McKay (Feb 28, 2013)

TemjinStrife said:


> women earn substantially less than men



But not because of discrimination, if you factor in for the inequal decisions men and women make in investing in their human capital women make _more_ than men.



> women occupy far fewer positions of political and economic power than men


See above and stop being so blindly dogmatic. Concern over men's rights doesn't threaten women's.

Men face legal discrimination. While women have a cultural battle to fight, legal discrimination needs fixing first and should take priority. If this bothers you, then you aren't an egalitarian. If you think these issues don't exist, you are an idiot.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 28, 2013)

soliloquy said:


> Also, due to sexism, most divorce cases side with women and force men to pay a monthly sum to their ex wives as they live a more modest life than man.
> 
> Okay....


 
I don't know where your ex-wife lives but, mine lives in a four bedroom house. She has two cars and a motorcycle (as far as my six-month-old information goes). Her entire new family has iPhones, iPads, laptops, desktops, one of every video game platform that has been released since Nintendo 85 (apart from the 3 Wii systems so that the kids can play somewhere else when the living room TV is needed). 

Because I am legally obligated to pay her $800 a month regardless of my wages, I live in an apartment (thankfully because living in my dad's bedroom was getting pretty crowded) paid for in full by HUD. My son and I get food stamps so we can eat. He gets check from WIC because he is a baby. My wife doesn't qualify for anything since she is foreign. I drive a 12-year-old POS Saab that spends at least one week of every two months in the shop. I have a heavy-ass fish-bowl screen TV from the 90s that I got for $15 on craigslist and the picture is kind of sucked in on either side. 

My oldest son who lives with his mother and is the reason I have to pay that $800 wears rags and gets his hair butchered at home for free. Every time I see him I have to buy him new clothes that fit so he doesn't walk around looking like he is homeless. When he was dropped off at my mother's house this past Christmas, she had to get him new clothes and shoes because he was wearing pants that came up to his knees, some ragged ass shirt, and shoes that had been chewed on by the dog and had parts of laces tied to gether holding them on. 

I don't know where you get your information but, I do not know ANY ex wife that lives a more modest life than the husband.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Feb 28, 2013)

possumkiller said:


> I don't know where your ex-wife lives but, mine lives in a four bedroom house. She has two cars and a motorcycle (as far as my six-month-old information goes). Her entire new family has iPhones, iPads, laptops, desktops, one of every video game platform that has been released since Nintendo 85 (apart from the 3 Wii systems so that the kids can play somewhere else when the living room TV is needed).
> 
> Because I am legally obligated to pay her $800 a month regardless of my wages, I live in an apartment (thankfully because living in my dad's bedroom was getting pretty crowded) paid for in full by HUD. My son and I get food stamps so we can eat. He gets check from WIC because he is a baby. My wife doesn't qualify for anything since she is foreign. I drive a 12-year-old POS Saab that spends at least one week of every two months in the shop. I have a heavy-ass fish-bowl screen TV from the 90s that I got for $15 on craigslist and the picture is kind of sucked in on either side.
> 
> ...


 
Wow.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 28, 2013)

goldsteinat0r said:


> Lots of merit to what you're saying, but the truth is we will probably never get to see what would actually happen.


 
I think we will down the line, just not in the short term. I suspect the reason that there are fewer women in politics than men is simply because fewer women want to go into politics than do men. This is probably largely due to how girls were raised historically, but they are being raised differently today, and I suspect that this will change the percentage of them wanting to get into politics when they grow up.

I live in Texas, one of the most conservative, republican, bible-belt states in the country and we have had female governors, female senators (national and state) and the current mayer of Houston is not only female, but openly lesbian as well. So if these ladies can get elected here, I can't say that there is any type of societal issue preventing women from entering into politics, I have to put it back on individual desire. I mean, complaining that there aren't more women in politics won't get more women into politics. Actually getting more women to run for political office will, but how many of the ladies complaining about this actually take that next step and run for office themselves?




goldsteinat0r said:


> Even in just the US there has been legislation proposed everywhere which limits a woman's access to birth control and abortion. I really don't care what your views are, that is not anything other than a personal decision.
> 
> Elsewhere (middle east, parts of Asia), women are still treated as possessions and "things" that must be controlled. They must cover up in public or, in some places, face consequences as ridiculous as stoning and death. In India recently a rock band started by a few girls drew widespread condemnation, forcing them to disband out of fear due to receiving death threats and the like. They were just kids playing music (apparently pretty good, fun rock, too). They were condemned as sluts and whores for appearing onstage dressed quite modestly by Western standards (jeans, t-shirts, and even their hair was covered). I mean does that make sense to anyone?


 
Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't sure if you were referring to the same issues already mentioned or expanding on the list. Women may not be 100% equal in first world countries ATM, but I agree that they have it particualarly bad outside the first world countries. I'll just leave a couple of quick notes.

Beliefs aside, abortion is not equal, at least in the eyes of the law: a woman can have an abortion because she is doing what she wants "with her own body" whereas if a man kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with two counts of murder. Why is the baby considered a person separate from its mother in one case but not in not the other? This is a double standard favoring women (though I'm not sure its at all relevant to the discussion at hand here).

I have an aunt who is muslim and while she doesn't cover up in public here in the US, she does when she goes back home to visit family. She says that covering up is not a form of oppressing women as many Americans believe, but rather that men are horn dogs and women cover up to prevent men from becoming sexually interested in them. I'm sure this is at least partially based on the sexual repression found in most religions, but as we are mostly all men on this site, I'm sure we can also admit that we are horn dogs, too. So the practice, and any negative connotations associated with it, derive from the men's base desires, not oppression of women.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Feb 28, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't sure if you were referring to the same issues already mentioned or expanding on the list. Women may not be 100% equal in first world countries ATM, but I agree that they have it particualarly bad outside the first world countries. I'll just leave a couple of quick notes.


 
No problem! I feel like another big problem I have with many "feminists" in my age group (mid 20s) is that most of them could give two shits about the third world where women truly endure horrible suffering and oppression (female circumcision, anyone?) and only really care about their own egos and personal concerns....which of course is their right as human beings, but don't bullshit everyone into thinking you're a champion of rights for women everywhere. You're not.



> Beliefs aside, abortion is not equal, at least in the eyes of the law: a woman can have an abortion because she is doing what she wants "with her own body" whereas if a man kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with two counts of murder. Why is the baby considered a person separate from its mother in one case but not in not the other? This is a double standard favoring women (though I'm not sure its at all relevant to the discussion at hand here).


 
The spirit of such a law is a complicated thing to understand, but I think the point is this: a pregnant woman who is being murdered may have had every intention to have that child (and in court you must make that assumption), so in killing her you extinguished her life and the future life of her unborn child. An professionally undertaken abortion is an intensely personal decision usually with a multitude of reasons and, in my humble, bleeding-heart-liberal-opinion, should be treated differently. This is where it gets murky, and why I think it should never have been politicized as an issue in the first place.



> I have an aunt who is muslim and while she doesn't cover up in public here in the US, she does when she goes back home to visit family. She says that covering up is not a form of oppressing women as many Americans believe, but rather that men are horn dogs and women cover up to prevent men from becoming sexually interested in them. I'm sure this is at least partially based on the sexual repression found in most religions, but as we are mostly all men on this site, I'm sure we can also admit that we are horn dogs, too. So the practice, and any negative connotations associated with it, derive from the men's base desires, not oppression of women.


 
See, ok...a man from *any* society should have enough decency and self control to avoid being lewd and creepy to a woman just because she's dressed a certain way. Sexual repression my ass. Catholicism is an incredibly asexual religion and it carries no such ridiculous rule. Not to be confrontational but this is the kind of thinking that needs to change. Catholic women don't go around raping men because they were sexually repressed as children and men wear tank tops or whatever. Sure they may go nuts in college etc, but its not exactly _dangerous._


----------



## WickedSymphony (Feb 28, 2013)

goldsteinat0r said:


> See, ok...a man from *any* society should have enough decency and self control to avoid being lewd and creepy to a woman just because she's dressed a certain way. Sexual repression my ass. Catholicism is an incredibly asexual religion and it carries no such ridiculous rule. Not to be confrontational but this is the kind of thinking that needs to change. Catholic women don't go around raping men because they were sexually repressed as children and men wear tank tops or whatever. Sure they may go nuts in college etc, but its not exactly _dangerous._



I agree with men being able to control themselves, but women that want to dress "a certain way" should know full well what kind of attention they'll attract. I used to have long hair and wear band shirts and I know full well how people viewed me for looking that way. I've since cleaned myself up - short hair, dressing more nicely, getting in shape - and people treat me much differently. People are friendlier and show me more respect right up front. Not saying a woman dressing a certain way is "asking for it," but she should be conscious of her own decision to dress a certain way and how people will respond to it. If the ass on your pants has writing on it, don't complain when someone reads it. 

And bringing religious comparisons into this is a mess. I don't know if Catholicism has any rules on how women should dress, but how you mentioned earlier about laws being proposed limiting women's access to birth control and abortion? Those definitely stem from religious views in this country, so yes, sexual repression from religion is a thing, even over here.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Feb 28, 2013)

WickedSymphony said:


> I agree with men being able to control themselves, but women that want to dress "a certain way" should know full well what kind of attention they'll attract. I used to have long hair and wear band shirts and I know full well how people viewed me for looking that way. I've since cleaned myself up - short hair, dressing more nicely, getting in shape - and people treat me much differently. People are friendlier and show me more respect right up front. Not saying a woman dressing a certain way is "asking for it," but she should be conscious of her own decision to dress a certain way and how people will respond to it. If the ass on your pants has writing on it, don't complain when someone reads it.
> 
> And bringing religious comparisons into this is a mess. I don't know if Catholicism has any rules on how women should dress, but how you mentioned earlier about laws being proposed limiting women's access to birth control and abortion? Those definitely stem from religious views in this country, so yes, sexual repression from religion is a thing, even over here.


 

All valid points.  I wholeheartedly agree with the first part, I'm mainly referring to parts of the world where women are often blamed for sex crimes against them because of their dress. This happens in the US even. I'm not talking about checking out a girl with great legs in a miniskirt and 4" heels as she walks by, I'm talking about attacking her or straight up harassing her (maybe even using it as justification for rape) because of how she's dressed. Basically we agree I just wanna be clurrrrrr.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 28, 2013)

goldsteinat0r said:


> The spirit of such a law is a complicated thing to understand, but I think the point is this: a pregnant woman who is being murdered may have had every intention to have that child (and in court you must make that assumption), so in killing her you extinguished her life and the future life of her unborn child. An professionally undertaken abortion is an intensely personal decision usually with a multitude of reasons and, in my humble, bleeding-heart-liberal-opinion, should be treated differently. This is where it gets murky, and why I think it should never have been politicized as an issue in the first place_._


 
As I said, its not particulalrly relevant to the discussion at hand, and I don't pretend to understand the logic behind the law, but it has practical ramifications. A person convicted of murdering someone in Texas will almost certainly receive a sentence of life in prison, which is equal to a 30 years max sentence in Texas, whereas a person convicted of murdering two people in the same incident will receive the death penalty. So practically, the difference is one of being ass raped for 30 years and then released into society or being ass raped for twenty-plus years and then executed.




goldsteinat0r said:


> See, ok...a man from *any* society should have enough decency and self control to avoid being lewd and creepy to a woman just because she's dressed a certain way.


 
I don't disagree. In fact, its so basic I thought it went without saying. However, that doesn't stop it from happening in the real world. Sometimes what should be and what actually is aren't the same thing.



goldsteinat0r said:


> Sexual repression my ass. Catholicism is an incredibly asexual religion and it carries no such ridiculous rule. Not to be confrontational but this is the kind of thinking that needs to change_. _Catholic women don't go around raping men because they were sexually repressed as children and men wear tank tops or whatever. Sure they may go nuts in college etc, but its not exactly _dangerous._


 
No one said anything about women raping men - I'm not sure where you got that from. Islam prohibits sex before marriage, and people are stricter about this in the middle east, for example, than in the west, leaving an unmarried man even more of a horn dog than elsewhere.

Having said that, the point of my previous post was that people of the Islamic faith believe that women should cover themselve in order to protect themselves from men's prurient interests. You don't have to believe it yourself, that's just what they believe. I don't see this as the systematic oppression of women, but rather, on a larger scale, religion being used as a means of controlling the population, just as it has been since humans have had leaders and the ability to speak.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Feb 28, 2013)

goldsteinat0r said:


> All valid points.  I wholeheartedly agree with the first part, I'm mainly referring to parts of the world where women are often blamed for sex crimes against them because of their dress. This happens in the US even. I'm not talking about checking out a girl with great legs in a miniskirt and 4" heels as she walks by, I'm talking about attacking her or straight up harassing her (maybe even using it as justification for rape) because of how she's dressed. Basically we agree I just wanna be clurrrrrr.



Yea, I agree with you man. Things like that happening in this and other countries are definitely unfair and need to be changed. I was responding mainly to you saying how men act "lewd and creepy to women" in my last post, which I think goes without saying people need to be more considerate with how they treat others in general.

And don't get me wrong on this part, but as Jakke said earlier in this thread, we need to look at rape as a thing that criminals do, not as something that men do. Harassing and rape are absolutely not ok and there is never any justification for either. But when people look at it as something that men do, it demonizes all of us, even though the majority of us would never do such a thing. 

Just an aside, but I think that view of it being something that men do to women is what has made it so easy to make false rape claims. I think just recently a girl finally got sentenced to 16 months in prison for making 13 false rape claims. And last year some girl finally admitted she lied about it after sending some kid to jail for 5 years and getting $1.5 million, and nothing was done to her so as to not put off other girls from confessing about false claims, meanwhile that dude's life is ruined for having a false rape charge on his record.


----------



## MFB (Feb 28, 2013)

Misogyny? 

Uh, am I the only one who finds it a little odd that the root of this word is "mis" as in missing one 's' from being the word "miss" short for "missus" referring to - you guessed it! - women?!

Misogyny, I think it's time for a little _man_sogyny!



Spoiler



Please understand this all sarcasm, I just came up with brunt of it on the spot and only really wanted to post that last line


----------



## renzoip (Feb 28, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Or maybe we all have different experiences and just because you haven't personally observed it doesn't mean everyone is FOS.



Maybe, but it actually seems like the a lot of you have had very negative experiences with "radical feminists". That's why I was asking, where/how exactly do you experience this negative anecdotes, so that I can see exactly what you guys are talking about. 

Also, excuse my ignorance, but what is FOS?


----------



## renzoip (Feb 28, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Equality isn't equality when it is forced and over thought. It shouldn't even cross ones mind if we were truly trying to achieve 'equality'.



This, I do really not agree with. IMO equality is almost always forced, as it must. It is very unlikely that a group of people benefiting from inequality will want to give up its privilege willingly and peacefully. And even if they would, just shaking hands and hoping for the best does very little without some actual legislation addressing the inequality issue. And the moment you introduce legislation, you are already forcing equality. 

There is a reason desegregation in the US schools and armed forces did not happen voluntarily and had to be forced.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 28, 2013)

renzoip said:


> Also, excuse my ignorance, but what is FOS?


 
Just a guess, but Full Of Shit.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 28, 2013)

MFB said:


> Misogyny, I think it's time for a little _man_sogyny!


 
Next you'll bring up _men_opause.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 28, 2013)

renzoip said:


> Maybe, but it actually seems like the a lot of you have had very negative experiences with "radical feminists". That's why I was asking, where/how exactly do you experience this negative anecdotes, so that I can see exactly what you guys are talking about.
> 
> Also, excuse my ignorance, but what is FOS?



haha FOS means full of shit.

No worries, on a personal level I haven't experienced any extreme cases. The last page or so has been mostly about how it isn't so one sided though as well.

The law favors women in probably just about as many circumstances as it 'discriminates' against them. Women typically get the kids in a divorce, more child support, rape and harassment are actually taken seriously (in comparison to a male being raped or harassed), they get the final say about abortion (nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is in their favor currently), there are less poor women, women can not work for a decade and still manage to get a job (good luck being a guy and doing the same), women are typically given less harsh punishments in court cases, etc. If we are reaching for all the bad stuff to disappear (and it is all legitimate and needs resolution) then some of the other things needs to be resolved too. 

In the process they will lose just as much as they gain if we actually reach true equality.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 28, 2013)

This is a really weird thing to read. Granted women have gained a LOT of ground since just prior to the founding of the US, but we're still not quite even yet. It's strange though because there are still double-standards that negatively affect men as well. For instance, if a man is raped (not a common thing, but it does happen), he is mocked and scorned, or looked down on for complaining in the first place. These things need to be challenged for sure. I don't like how the author of the article is basically implying that women are now demanding for superiority as opposed to equality. This is the same argument that has been used for centuries now in regards to women seeking any kind of equality, and it is usually (not always, but usually) made by misogynists that want to soothe the cognitive dissonance of their misogyny. It's along the lines of "Oh, you want to be treated with respect? How DARE you demand any kind of special treatment!" This argument is made not just against women either, but any kind of "minority" that just wants to be seen as equals, and for the exact same reason. 

Coincidentally enough, I just read this after I got out of my Women in American History class a few minutes ago and we were having this EXACT discussion about how the double-standards in regards to the interaction between men and women began. I believe my teacher called it "The cult of industrialization".


----------



## flint757 (Feb 28, 2013)

renzoip said:


> This, I do really not agree with. IMO equality is almost always forced, as it must. It is very unlikely that a group of people benefiting from inequality will want to give up its privilege willingly and peacefully. And even if they would, just shaking hands and hoping for the best does very little without some actual legislation addressing the inequality issue. And the moment you introduce legislation, you are already forcing equality.
> 
> There is a reason desegregation in the US schools and armed forces did not happen voluntarily and had to be forced.



In the process of forcing equality it is no longer equality. It is the equivalent of when Romney made that binder full of women gaff. In the process of trying to 'make' things equal we begin to ignore other factors in favor of singling out gender/race. It is now less about performance/skill and another factor is taking priority.

As an example, one of my friends in high school got a high grade on his PSAT. On the general statistic he was close to the top, but far from being top dog. When rated against Hispanics, however, he was #1 and received all kinds of scholarships and financial support. I hold nothing against him and it is absolutely great, but he was not the smartest person in the room (not even the second) and yet he won just as much help as the actual smartest. This means everyone who scored better, but was not Hispanic were in some ways screwed.

In another example, my college offers women a lot of money to become engineers (because there aren't many) and yet it hasn't changed much of the demographic. This is a prime example of women actually getting a huge leg up and it actually accomplishing nothing. The majority of women in my college still choose something else. 

It is also an example of not rewarding people based on merit which is the opposite of equality. I do agree that, in our current state, equality cannot be achieved without some help, but until that is no longer a factor it just isn't equality.

Back on the women and engineering, I think this is also a prime example of why women (when taken as a group) appear to make less. Engineering is a high paying field, if they aren't bothering to get the degrees then they aren't going to be getting the jobs.

When I was in my business classes (business minor) they also seemed to apply this hyper focus on women success in the workforce. I think it is great, I really do, but in a weird way it is also implying that it is amazing they have succeeded which also lends the counterpoint that women normally don't succeed. College is always one step behind society so at the point that is no longer the case (where I live it really isn't the case) it lends the mindset of sexism in the workforce when it has ceased to exist.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 28, 2013)

flint757 said:


> In another example, my college offers women a lot of money to become engineers (because there aren't many) and yet it hasn't changed much of the demographic. This is a prime example of women actually getting a huge leg up and it actually accomplishing nothing. The majority of women in my college still choose something else.



Sociologists has a name for it; it is called the equality paradox (when women gets to choose whatever they want, and even are actively encouraged to go into "male fields", they still pick traditional "female fields", and sometimes even to a greater degree than in societies where they are not actively encouraged.).

However, it is only a paradox if one assume a socialconstructionistic world, where nurture always beats nature. But actually, this can be explained with very simple evolutionary psychological research. The key is one very simple:
Women are not men. Simple as that. We are finding more ways that we at a population level are different between the genders, and there is pretty solid evidence to point to that what we choose to work with often is tied to our sex, it also seems to be attached to our sexual orientation.

Sociologist who study gender are of course not very fond of evolutionary psychology, many researchers in the field has been called, well the usual suspects; misogynists and homophobes, most often at least. But one cannot really move past that sociologist are still working from one hypothesis, the patriarchy hypothesis, and have been doing that for 40 years almost, while the evolutionary psychologists have been coming up with objectively testable results in a significantly shorter time....


Being a university student, I would love to study some evo psych, but my university does unfortunately not offer courses


----------



## groph (Feb 28, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Sociologists has a name for it; it is called the equality paradox (when women gets to choose whatever they want, and even are actively encouraged to go into "male fields", they still pick traditional "female fields", and sometimes even to a greater degree than in societies where they are not actively encouraged.).
> 
> However, it is only a paradox if one assume a socialconstructionistic world, where nurture always beats nature. But actually, this can be explained with very simple evolutionary psychological research. The key is one very simple:
> Women are not men. Simple as that. We are finding more ways that we at a population level are different between the genders, and there is pretty solid evidence to point to that what we choose to work with often is tied to our sex, it also seems to be attached to our sexual orientation.
> ...



I'm going to take a stab and say that's probably not true. First off, what is "the patriarchy hypothesis?" I've never heard the term. I've heard of "patriarchy" of course but never framed as a hypothesis in that strict scientific-method sense. It strikes me as more of a descriptor than anything. We can see that for the most part, men run the world - they hold the most political office and control the most property/material wealth. What actual effects that has is something of another matter.

Second, I'm sure there are other perspectives given "patriarchy" is a pretty broad and probably too simplistic way to understand or explain or even think about power dynamics in the world today. Even old sociology like Max Weber doesn't describe society with some kind of overarching, top down flow of power; it's a complex interaction between bodies of power. The philosophy (not strictly sociology) of thinkers like Michel Foucault complexifies things even more. Personally I don't think it's enough to say "fight the patriarchy," it's only really useful as a rhetorical tactic to inspire some kind of solidarity.

Also, social constructionism is concerned with (from Wikipedia) how "social phenomena or objects of consciousness" are formed in a social context IE how they are understood amongst individuals and groups/institutions. Masculinity, for example, is a social construct because everybody has an idea of what masculinity is that we can confer with one another. The idea of it has also changed over time and it varies culturally; it's not the same everywhere. Saying that isn't implying that there aren't any ways to understand masculinity in a biological sense, it's not saying that what we call "culture" definitely isn't in some sense a manifestation of biology, it's just saying that some things are understood in a social context.


----------



## renzoip (Mar 1, 2013)

flint757 said:


> In the process of forcing equality it is no longer equality. It is the equivalent of when Romney made that binder full of women gaff. In the process of trying to 'make' things equal we begin to ignore other factors in favor of singling out gender/race. It is now less about performance/skill and another factor is taking priority.
> 
> As an example, one of my friends in high school got a high grade on his PSAT. On the general statistic he was close to the top, but far from being top dog. When rated against Hispanics, however, he was #1 and received all kinds of scholarships and financial support. I hold nothing against him and it is absolutely great, but he was not the smartest person in the room (not even the second) and yet he won just as much help as the actual smartest. This means everyone who scored better, but was not Hispanic were in some ways screwed.
> 
> ...



Well, it depends then how one exactly views equality. Equality of opportunities, or equality of results. I don't think anyone is really against equal opportunities, but what are equal opportunities in theory without actual results in practice? If the goal is to have diversity in college campuses, in a way that is representative of society, then I think it's going to take more than just blindly judging performance in standardized tests. 

Which takes me to my next point. I believe it is no secret that we live in an unequal society, and that not all education is equal. Education in minority and low income concentrated areas tends to lag significantly behind that of non minorities and high income areas. In this sense, in an unequal society, merit-based reward systems further reinforce the existing inequality. Another issue with "merit" is that it is a moralistic and subjective concept that can hardly be measured by test scores alone. Who decides what constitutes a "merit"? Do circumstances not matter when evaluating merit? This is where things get a bit problematic for me.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 1, 2013)

renzoip said:


> Well, it depends then how one exactly views equality. Equality of opportunities, or equality of results. I don't think anyone is really against equal opportunities, but what are equal opportunities in theory without actual results in practice? If the goal is to have diversity in college campuses, in a way that is representative of society, then I think it's going to take more than just blindly judging performance in standardized tests.
> 
> Which takes me to my next point. I believe it is no secret that we live in an unequal society, and that not all education is equal. Education in minority and low income concentrated areas tends to lag significantly behind that of non minorities and high income areas. In this sense, in an unequal society, merit-based reward systems further reinforce the existing inequality. Another issue with "merit" is that it is a moralistic and subjective concept that can hardly be measured by test scores alone. Who decides what constitutes a "merit"? Do circumstances not matter when evaluating merit? This is where things get a bit problematic for me.



I actually completely agree with you, but it seems there'd be far more effective ways of going about it. In that particular case resolving the 'inequality' is a source problem. Minorities, in your example, typically coexist in densely populated groups. To fix this one problem in a meaningful way (I don't think affirmative action has had that dramatic of an effect honestly as the pie chart hasn't shifted significantly) would require clearing up the crime in inner cities and improving k-12 education across the board. Inner city schools typically have bad teachers which plays a huge part into getting or not getting into college (then there is peer pressure too). The problem is financial, though, not racial in a lot of cases. Many feel discouraged by the sticker price and then even if they can get a grant or scholarship some can't go still because they are forced to help make sure ends meet for their family. Grant money is quite limited for college and college isn't cheap. These are the problems we should be tackling not arbitrary factors like the color of someones skin. Not everyone from a low income area is a minority either.

Colleges already judge people by merit and most schools have supposedly stopped admitting based on race so it isn't as relevant anymore though. I find the idea of college 'diversity' to be odd honestly. By how we determine diversity my school is exceptionally diverse, but again they are basing that entirely on race and I just don't see how we can truly, 100% move past this without dropping all the labels. I'm speaking ideally of course, I realize that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

As for an analogy I'd look at it like a sphere. The problem starts at the center and yet most solutions are only applied at the surface. If low income areas are the most affected then we already know where the source of the problem is. It seems like it'd be more productive to attack the problem there rather than further down the line.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 1, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Colleges already judge people by merit and most schools have supposedly stopped admitting based on race so it isn't as relevant anymore though.


 
Unfortunately, I think this only holds true with the public schools here in the US. The private schools are (for the most part) still allocating a certain number of slots in each incoming class based on ethnicity, religion, geographic region, etc. in an attempt to create some type of pseudo-diversity.



flint757 said:


> If low income areas are the most affected then we already know where the source of the problem is. It seems like it'd be more productive to attack the problem there rather than further down the line.


 
I have found that most people want to treat the symptoms of an issue rather than the actual underlying problem. I can only guess that this is because the symptom is what is visible/obvious, but in practice, it is tantamount to putting a Band Aid on a stab wound and calling it healed. But most people want to take this (half-assed) approach for whatever reason.


----------



## Jakke (Mar 2, 2013)

groph said:


> I'm going to take a stab and say that's probably not true. First off, what is "the patriarchy hypothesis?" I've never heard the term. I've heard of "patriarchy" of course but never framed as a hypothesis in that strict scientific-method sense. It strikes me as more of a descriptor than anything. We can see that for the most part, men run the world - they hold the most political office and control the most property/material wealth. What actual effects that has is something of another matter.



Well, in an academic context, it's refered to as the patriarchy theory (or patriarchal theory, which is kind of hilarious). It is however not a scientific theory, based on one particular thing:
It can't be falsified.

It's basically a conspiracy theory that has academic cred; men do things for men because they are men, and this disadvantages women in general (if not all women). Compare this to "big pharma is trying to push useless drugs on you to earn money/give you cancer/control your mind" (_they_ are giving _themselves_ an advantage over *you*)

For your second point, it hardly can be called descriptive if there is an unsupported presupposition. It is true that occupy most positions of power in our society, but believers in the patriarchy presupposes that this is because of some deception, or ruse, and if women truly understood how things were going, then they'd want to be in power as much as men. This seems to not be the case, especially considering the equality paradox. It's also consistent with what we see in primate research; our females behave the same way as a primate would, they can pick and choose among the males, while men tries to bolster their attractiveness by bolstering their status. Status in our society means power and money, it is therefore not hard to see why there would be a biological imperative for men to aquire power.
But I've already said that

TL;DR For the patriarchy to exist, one would have to expect men getting favoured by men because they are men, which is very rare (and the opposite is actually more common, there is quite a double standard for women instead). One would also expect men to have right women do not have, this does not exist either.



groph said:


> Second, I'm sure there are other perspectives given "patriarchy" is a pretty broad and probably too simplistic way to understand or explain or even think about power dynamics in the world today. Even old sociology like Max Weber doesn't describe society with some kind of overarching, top down flow of power; it's a complex interaction between bodies of power. The philosophy (not strictly sociology) of thinkers like Michel Foucault complexifies things even more. Personally I don't think it's enough to say "fight the patriarchy," it's only really useful as a rhetorical tactic to inspire some kind of solidarity.



I have aways found that the common power dynamic is not men-women, but instead between those who have, and those who haven't. Rich women has always had influence and power, while the dirt poor farmer has had very little influence, no matter the gender.

Using gender as a qualifier for power is indeed simplistic, and intellectually lazy. It does however allow a big portion of the population to paint themselves as victims, and you know how our culture loves victims..



groph said:


> Also, social constructionism is concerned with (from Wikipedia) how "social phenomena or objects of consciousness" are formed in a social context IE how they are understood amongst individuals and groups/institutions. Masculinity, for example, is a social construct because everybody has an idea of what masculinity is that we can confer with one another. The idea of it has also changed over time and it varies culturally; it's not the same everywhere. Saying that isn't implying that there aren't any ways to understand masculinity in a biological sense, it's not saying that what we call "culture" definitely isn't in some sense a manifestation of biology, it's just saying that some things are understood in a social context.



But there are also pretty universal masculine traits, such as competitiveness, greater sex drive, and (regretfully) a tendency for anger. While it is true what proponents for social constructionism says (actually derogatorily often refering to a position even remotely grounded in biology as "biologism"); that differences on the individual level is greater, it does not discount that we can see pretty clear trends at a populational level.

An interesting thing is that most children has a pretty clear gender identity by the age of one. We don't know how early socialisation works, but a 1-year-old is very early in their development, and as a kid doesn't really have a theory of mind until about age four, I would submit that they probably are quite oblivios to what people expect of them, as they are not aware of that other people have thoughts too. They can certainly not make the connection "dad has a penis, just as I have, I better behave the same way he does".

The development of a gender identity is shown especially clear in a sample group in a particular study. This group was boys who, by account of having deformed genitals, where raised as girls, as their genitals looked like female genitals. When they reached adulthood, only one out of twenty had adopted "female" traits and manerisms, the other where behaving just as we would imagine any man raised normally doing.


----------



## mcd (Mar 2, 2013)

You all sound like a bunch of whiny women in this thread!



*I kid, but interesting read.


----------



## axxessdenied (Mar 3, 2013)

I can't count the amount of times I've been around a group of women and heard some serious man bashing going on...

Also, having employed a bunch of people of various ages / genders... I would much rather employ a male than a female to work. Not saying all women are poor workers... I just find from past experiences for girls to be more unreliable and difficult to work with.


Also, get a group of women together and watch the mayhem unfold... 


But, on a more serious note... I don't think equality should be enforced in some situations. I mean, if a woman can't carry 250lbs over her head to complete a requirement to become a firefighter... well, than you shouldn't be a firefighter... it has nothing to do with being a fire*man*. It just so happens that we are naturally more physically strong. Lets face it... we are not created equally. Everyone is different. But, that doesn't mean we should treat each other any differently than how we would expect someone to treat ourselves.

Empathy and education are really the two big things in my opinion that will lead to drastic changes. With education comes knowledge. And, with knowledge comes power. People are able to open up their eyes more and see the world for what it really is and make judgements based more on reality than the fictional society the media tries to shovel down your throat.

I think it's also silly when people get angry over the usage of Fireman, Policeman, etc. We already have proper naming conventions for them that are not gender specific. Police _Officer_, Fire_fighter_.


----------



## Idontpersonally (Mar 8, 2013)

soliloquy said:


> however, it isn't fair that women can get away with far more than men in our society.
> 
> man touches woman inappropriately, he is tackled by by 8 different people within seconds. woman abuses and humiliates man and all he gets is 'he had it coming, you go girl, destroy him'. i'm saying this from first hand experience.
> 
> ...



Agreed, if women want equal rights, they can have equal lefts as well.


----------



## Gingervitis (Mar 8, 2013)

All men in Finland have a mandatory military service, or civil service. If they don't show up they will be sent to jail. Im currently doing civil service myself, but I would of course rather be doing something a little more useful. Women can choose to go to the army and dropout anytime before 40 or so days. So i guess thats fair.. or?


----------



## McKay (Mar 9, 2013)




----------

