Post by: Angle on July 23, 2014, 05:25:53 pm
It started when I was playing league of legends, and I began analyzing the various champions on the basis of how Masculine or Feminine I thought they were. There are several different roles in League (These are specifically about Teamfighting, not Laning), but they basically break down to Tank, Support, AD Carry (Sustained Damage), and AP Carry (Burst Damage). The tanks job is to get in the front of the fight, take damage, and keep the enemy team from blowing past him to kill the carries. Supports usually either use disables and debuffs to impede the enemy team and buffs and heals to boost their own team. Right now, there are very few pure supports- It's usually paired with either tank or AP Carry. AD Carries are responsible for dealing sustained amounts of damage to whittle the enemy down. They rarely have good defenses, and so need a tank or support (or both) to stick around and defend them. AP Carries are responsible from dealing large amounts of damage all at once, usually with the intent to instantly kill an enemy carry. Various champions fit into these roles to varying degrees, and there are other considerations- some champions have capabilities that step outside this rubric, while others can fit multiple roles depending on how the player builds them.
Anyway, I was analyzing champions, and I came to the realization that I could in large part categorize how I felt about their Masculinity/Femininity based on their role. I feel Tanks are the most masculine- their job is basically to go and break peoples fists with their face. AD carries are the most Feminine- they have poor defenses, and are thus very vulnerable, especially to AP carries, but are also very powerful, and are usually the most important person to keep alive/murder horribly. AP Carries fall in the middle. They're not as physically tough, and can't take as much damage, but they can do more damage, and generally don't need to be babysat (because usually they can kill fragile opponents and ignore low damage ones, which rules out either AD Carries or Tanks going after them alone). Supports are hard to quantify, because there are very few pure ones. They'd probably also fall somewhere in the middle, depending on their specific kit/build/stats.
This has some interesting implications. For example, my Rubric for Masculinity/Femininity (at least when it comes to champions in league) is based almost entirely on how much a champion is geared towards being punched in the face. This might seem strange to you, (Indeed, it seems strange to me), but do keep in mind that gender is a very subjective topic. Different societies at different points in time have had different views on the topic, and if you take into account the different views of the people and populations, it gets even more complicated. Thus, I find myself curious- How would you gauge Masculinity/Femininity?
It also brings to my mind the idea that perhaps we need not be limited to two gender roles. If we wanted, we could reorganize our society to recognize however many seemed appropriate, or if we really wanted to make things complicated, could instead recognize a continuum or multi-dimensional spread. Personally, I don't think they even need to be related to your biological sex. This may seem obvious to some, and like complete madness to others, but I find the idea interesting. What do you think? Do you have a particular set of roles to propose, or some other take on the idea?
Also, if you wish to post saying that I got my league roles wrong, you may do so, but I'd prefer you did it in the League Thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84446.13785;topicseen), so as not to clutter this one up. That seems like a better place to discuss league mechanics and meta-game in detail.
Post by: Eagle_eye on July 23, 2014, 06:46:31 pm
Post by: Angle on July 23, 2014, 07:06:54 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 23, 2014, 07:18:45 pm
Isn't the classical archetypical masculine stereotype basically an anthropomorphic donkey? Someone who puts everything on their back because they can take it?
Post by: Angle on July 23, 2014, 07:27:50 pm
I never really agreed with the "Big dumb guy who punches people and can take a lot of punishment" as even archetypically masculine.
Isn't the classical archetypical masculine stereotype basically an anthropomorphic donkey? Someone who puts everything on their back because they can take it?
In the context of league, those are pretty much the same thing, minus the being dumb and the punching people.
I'm not sure about the classical archetype- what time and location would you cite for that? Ancient Greece or Rome?
Post by: LordBucket on July 23, 2014, 08:25:05 pm
How would you gauge Masculinity/Femininity?
The masculine is that which acts upon. The feminine is that which is acted upon. Masculine does. Feminine is.
Quote
perhaps we need not be limited to two gender role
Then allow me give you an alternative.
* Sulphur is the force which acts upon
* Mercury is that which takes shape
* Salt is inertia
Without the action of sulphur or salt, mercury is liquid. It is formless. When sulphur acts upon mercury, mercury can take shape, but it is unable to sustain it. As soon as sulpur stops its action, mercury falls back into a liquid. But through the application of salt, the preservative, mercury can hold its shape. This can be applied so as to resist sulphur, or to sustain its action. For example, when sulphur tries to give shape to mercury, salt might resist that change. This is inertia. Or, once form has been given to mercury by sulphur, salt can maintain that form without continuous application of sulphur. This too, is inertia.
I think you will find this model more usefully descriptive than masculine/feminine.
Quote
I feel Tanks are the most masculine
Quote
AD carries are the most Feminine
No. Dps is the most sulphur. It's role is to affect others. The tank is the most salt, as its more important role is not to do...but to resist being done upon. Toughness might be "masculine" but it is not sulphur.
Post by: Neonivek on July 23, 2014, 08:30:02 pm
Quote
The masculine is that which acts upon. The feminine is that which is acted upon. Masculine does. Feminine is.
I've seen people argue that about classical femininity but I honestly don't buy into it either.
Masculinity isn't all about being the "actor" and Femininity about being the one "acted upon".
After all a lot about Masculinity is about being the person who is "put upon" and shouldn't complain (Hense why I equate it to being a donkey)... while a lot of femininity is about being compassionate and wise, something that can be quite active.
Sure, gender roles pretty much doomed women to a passive role in society (well back then... a bit more nuanced but basically yeah)... but there was always more to being a woman.
Mind you I only go as far back as the 1950s, maybe a bit to early-late industrialization. So my viewpoint is from where women actually started taking on larger roles and where there were a lot of pushes to "remasculate" men (the 1950s was one of the big ones)
Post by: Angle on July 23, 2014, 08:33:51 pm
Then allow me give you an alternative.
* Sulphur is the force which acts upon
* Mercury is that which takes shape
* Salt is inertia
Hmm. That's an interesting way to look at things. How would that correlate with other gender roles? What league role, if any, would be high in Mercury?
Post by: Neonivek on July 23, 2014, 08:36:36 pm
That is the old "Create, Change, and destroy" dichotomy.
Mercury would be any character whose main strength comes from being able to switch roles and tactics on the fly. (I cannot remember his name, but there is a character who uses melee and ranged... and can switch between physical and magical damage)
Sulphur would be any sort of high-damaging character
Salt is any sort of defensive character made to avoid damage
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 23, 2014, 08:42:59 pm
Post by: Angle on July 23, 2014, 08:46:34 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans
Yes, that would be the topic at hand. Do you have anything to actually add?
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 23, 2014, 08:52:23 pm
I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.
Post by: Neonivek on July 23, 2014, 08:55:23 pm
Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.
Lord Bucket is basically saying that instead of seeing "roles" in male and female we should instead use these three entirely non-gender related ones.
If I am understanding Her/him correctly.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 23, 2014, 08:59:02 pm
Oh, okay.Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.
Lord Bucket is basically saying that instead of seeing "roles" in male and female we should instead use these three entirely non-gender related ones.
If I am understanding Her/him correctly.
They also don't make any sense, but whatever.
Post by: Angle on July 23, 2014, 09:01:23 pm
Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
But what about all the details of gender roles unrelated to physical activity? If that was all there was to it, then shouldn't we see the overwhelming majority of men holding jobs that required physical labor, and most other jobs, including politics and management, left to women?
I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.
He's making some complicated symbolic metaphor. I don't yet fully understand it, but hopefully he'll return and elaborate.
Post by: Neonivek on July 23, 2014, 09:02:18 pm
Oh, okay.Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.
Lord Bucket is basically saying that instead of seeing "roles" in male and female we should instead use these three entirely non-gender related ones.
If I am understanding Her/him correctly.
They also don't make any sense, but whatever.
Let me change it so they are less... "Lets make a bomb"
The three virtues are:
-Assertion
-Adaptability
-Resistance
Post by: Leafsnail on July 23, 2014, 09:25:18 pm
If you're talking about "multiple defined societal roles, not necessary linked to sex" then what you're describing seems to be a caste system like they have in India.
I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.LordBucket actually defines "masculine" and "feminine" in very weird ways, and then tries to use those definitions to justify sexist attitudes. This new chemical one seems to be a minor variant.
Post by: Angle on July 23, 2014, 09:41:23 pm
I am really confused as to what point the OP is trying to make. The only thing I think it gives any insight into is what Angle thinks gender roles are.
I'm trying to discuss peoples different ideas on the subject, whether they're necessary or useful, and what they should be.
If you're talking about "multiple defined societal roles, not necessary linked to sex" then what you're describing seems to be a caste system like they have in India.
Vaguely similar, except not based on birth or parentage and entirely opt-in.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 23, 2014, 09:43:53 pm
Post by: LordBucket on July 23, 2014, 09:55:10 pm
Hmm. That's an interesting way to look at things. How would that correlate with other gender roles?
I'm not sure I understand the question. It's its own model. If you're looking for "sulphur is like X, mercury is like Y, salt is like Z" that doesn't always work. Imagine if you were comparing checkers and chess and somebody asked which chess piece corresponded to a red checkers piece. Somebody who only knew checkers might ask that question, but the question is flawed.
Or do you mean something else? Examples?
Quote
What league role, if any, would be high in Mercury?
If they are capable of being acted upon, they contain mercury. More specifically, they all contain mercury because they're capable of being acted upon. But like Neonivek says, any change-oriented class, or high regeneration/self healing class could be described as high in mercury. Regeneration would be closer. The ability to quickly and easily change roles would be more mercury+sulphur, since the "causing of change" and "doing the change" are different qualities.
Lord Bucket is basically saying that instead of seeing "roles" in male and female we should instead use these three entirely non-gender related ones.
Well, I'm not saying we "should" do anything. But it is an alternate model that's available, and it does describe reality better than masculine/feminine. It might be unfamiliar, but look at all the anger and disagreement over gender roles. Look at people argue over what a man or woman is "supposed to" be or do. That makes sense if you reduce people to nothing but masculine/feminine, but people are more complicated than that. Identifying as "I'm a masculine macho man! Rawrr! Women are weak and beneath me!" makes about as much sense as saying "I'm made of oxygen and I'm awesome because of it! You have carbon in you! That makes you weak!"
If you want to be feminine, then yes: do what you're told. Smile and demurely accept what you're given. If somebody wants sex, give it to them. If somebody beats you, accept it. You're accepting what they're giving you and giving them what they want. That is what "feminine" is.
But if you hear that and interpret it to mean "this is what LordBucket believes is the proper role for women" then you're totally missing the point.
Random example: ask yourself honestly, if a girl sees a hot guy in a bar and asks him out, is that feminine behavior? No. But some that somehow make it "wrong" for her to do that? Of course not. But it being "ok" for her to do doesn't make the behavior feminine just because she happens to be a woman.
If we want to talk about biological male and biological female, we can do that. But if we're going to talk about masculine/feminine, let's not be confused and assume that masculine=biologically male and feminine-biologically female. They're different things.
Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
Cultural conditioning.
But let's remember to distinguish between "male and female" and "masculine and feminine." Biological male/female does not necessarily mean "exclusively masculine/exclusively feminine."
I think if you divorce the concept of masculine/feminine from biology, and think of them as impersonal forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang) the give/receive, actor/acted upon, dichotomy makes sense. It's simply popular for people view these things in terms of biology because biology is familiar.
I suggest that it makes more sense to conceive of fundamental forces with an explanation that is internally self-consistent, and suggest that individual humans are complicated entities that are a mix of those forces...than to arbitrarily say that "masculine/feminine" are an inconsistent mix of traits that we apply to biological male/female...sometimes, and not very consistently. Thinking of our perception of masculine/feminine as purely a result of culture and habit, just doesn't make a very useful model.
Which is at the heart of the angst and confusion surrounding the issue.
It makes sense, to conceive of "that which acts upon / that which is acted upon." It's an internally consistent way of looking at things. If I use a pencil to write on a piece of paper, I am acting upon the pencil and the pencil is receiving my action. In this relationship, I am male and it is female. The pencil, in turn, is acting upon the paper. In this relationship the pencil is male and the paper is female. Nobody gets angry over this.
But once you try to pigeon hole people into "you're a guy so you're supposed to do X and you're a girl so you're supposed to do Y" that's when people get angry.
He's making some complicated symbolic metaphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
The three-way mercury/suphur/salt model is simply more usefully descriptive than the two-way masculine/feminine model. We can have all sorts of arguments about "what's masculine and feminine" and "proper roles" and so forth, but we're unlikely to come to a consensus. The model is flawed, and often doesn't describe things very well. For example, if a guy beats up all the other guys and tells women to take their clothes off and they eagerly do, one might tend to think of him as masculine. Think James Bond. But what if a guy "white knights" and protects the virtue of women...but never sleeps with them? Is that masculine? Well...you tell me. Is it feminine? Well...probably not. But the behavior is a common behavior of "biological males." But is that behavior masculine or feminine? Tough to categorize. The masculine/feminine model just doesn't accommodate it very well. But it's easy to categorize as salt.
LordBucket actually defines "masculine" and "feminine" in very weird ways,
and then tries to use those definitions to justify sexist attitudes.
I request fewer accusations and more courtesy.
Post by: Tiruin on July 23, 2014, 10:12:17 pm
I agree that gender roles are subjective, but I also think they serve some purpose, or can, at least. I also think that they should be entirely optional, and decoupled from sex and gender (Which I suppose would make them something other than gender roles- just roles, I guess?)Whatever gender roles exist have no usage other than to give an appropriate meaning used by the roles itself as a utility or as a description of a function.
Meaning: At this age and time, we can perfectly live without any cut-out roles by a gender as a generality. They serve some purpose in giving a basic idea of what a person can do, but not define a person by telling who they are in all holistic value. They are terms representing an idea. :P
Biologically, this speaks about the differences in male/female. Prior knowledge goes only so far as to prove it stems purely physically--mentally, psychologically or whatever else, the differences are few, if any, to make any significant factor to separate both or give an advantage of one over the other.
Any ideas of about one kind of role being better than any other are born out of the self, out of the ego-mind that seeks to create hierarchies of "superior" and "inferior". These concepts do not exist in nature and the potential of the person to which such roles are attributed.
Though I'm breaking off into a tangent here :P Those roles you see used in LoL describe the basic ideas about the character in question (and basically what they did to develop themselves into such), and are not supposed to be used as a generalizing idea towards a populace...the tangent part is a poke on generalizing terms. ._.
Post by: Neonivek on July 23, 2014, 10:48:17 pm
Quote
If you want to be feminine, then yes: do what you're told. Smile and demurely accept what you're given. If somebody wants sex, give it to them. If somebody beats you, accept it. You're accepting what they're giving you and giving them what they want. That is what "feminine" is.
even classically your job is to say no because men can't help themselves. Your job is to control both your and your SO's sexuality.
As well you are not meant to "accept beatings" either.
I think you are confusing "feminine" with "Pimp Whores"
Don't get me wrong, I know where you are coming from... It is just that... what you are describing is about 10 levels beyond the source. Transforming villainy into super villainy like some sort of break up song.
Post by: Angle on July 23, 2014, 11:12:32 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 12:45:57 am
Eh, there are some versions of femininity that sound like that. There are more that don't, however. In particular, I think you'll find most of the various western Feminine roles have been much closer to what Neonivek describes.
There are some that get REALLY close to that don't get me wrong.
It wasn't that long ago where the basic view is that if your wife is giving you gap you should slug her or that it is the Wife's job to keep the husband sexually satisfied. Heck some of these views still persist today in our own society.
It is just that... what Lord Bucket said takes these, and amplifies them well beyond even that. Which is as I said turning villainy into super villainy.
I cannot think of any examples of a society that honestly believed that a woman's job is to accept terrific abuse for no reason other then it is her job to be abused... Nor many societies, other then possibly a tribal society, where a woman is expected to accept and reciprocate all advances.
Maybe sub-cultures... or individual groups... but for the life of me I don't know of any.
Post by: Chagen46 on July 24, 2014, 02:41:50 am
Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
Oh go fuck off back to r/MensRights and bitch about the evil wimminz over there, and please don't bring your MRA bullshit over here.
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 02:50:56 am
You brought the tumblr first. You lose.Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
Oh go fuck off back to r/MensRights and bitch about the evil wimminz over there, and please don't bring your MRA bullshit over here.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 24, 2014, 03:40:39 am
No, that's not all there is too it. And I haven't really studied the subject to any extent, so I'm afraid I can't really contribute any further.Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
But what about all the details of gender roles unrelated to physical activity? If that was all there was to it, then shouldn't we see the overwhelming majority of men holding jobs that required physical labor, and most other jobs, including politics and management, left to women?
I mostly wanted to stamp on the "men and women are the same, and any differences are oppressive social constructs" nonsense before anyone decided to try that one.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 03:45:16 am
Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
Oh go fuck off back to r/MensRights and bitch about the evil wimminz over there, and please don't bring your MRA bullshit over here.
What aspect of this is "objectionable" anyhow?
The idea that PERHAPS gender roles originated from these gender differences is hardly a shocking or sexist idea and the logic behind it is rather straight forward.
As for why people say it is false... It is because it isn't necessarily true from a historical standpoint, or rather it isn't "obviously true". Some people go by the theory that the reason why gender roles first arose had more to do with pregnancy and the fact that men don't have to go through that (or rather because of biology). Others go by men psychology in that they are much more possessive and thus they had more inclination to create these roles to ensure their dominance (or that women have less inclination to do so).
But really the source of gender roles doesn't really matter. If we wanted to get truly historical then there is a lot of gender role aspects that seem ridiculous on all fronts.
Quote
I mostly wanted to stamp on the "men and women are the same, and any differences are oppressive social constructs" nonsense before anyone decided to try that one.
That is only something you get from radical feminism and not a lot of people here practice it. Sure they have enough swing to rewrite Wikipedia pages, but otherwise no they are aren't that wide.
Mental capacity though... that has real controversy.
As well socially there are aspects of it that can be looked at as well.
Post by: Eotyrannus on July 24, 2014, 03:47:42 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 03:49:52 am
As a note of interest, scientific studies have shown that the male face and the ability to punch people in the face both evolved simultaneously. So there might be some reasons for 'men punch things'.
Wouldn't that say it evolved with women too? I mean to my knowledge the strongest punch (Per square Inch) is currently held by a woman.
Post by: Eotyrannus on July 24, 2014, 03:52:33 am
Both genders are able to punch people, but the male face is the one best at being punched. Apologies if I wasn't clear. :)As a note of interest, scientific studies have shown that the male face and the ability to punch people in the face both evolved simultaneously. So there might be some reasons for 'men punch things'.
Wouldn't that say it evolved with women too? I mean to my knowledge the strongest punch (Per square Inch) is currently held by a woman.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 03:54:16 am
Since we are ABOUT the only creatures who punch. At least the only that we deal with.
Though what part of it makes it better able to withstand a punch? More fat stored? different muscle structure? bone structure? Lack of nerve endings? more cranial cushioning?
Post by: LordBucket on July 24, 2014, 04:50:05 am
It is just that... what Lord Bucket said takes these, and amplifies them well beyond even that. Which is as I said turning villainy into super villainy.
I cannot think of any examples of a society that honestly believed that a woman's job is to accept terrific abuse for no reason other then it is her job to be abused... Nor many societies, other then possibly a tribal society, where a woman is expected to accept and reciprocate all advances.
I think a miscommunication has occured somewhere. I was not at all suggesting that. In fact, if youread the very next line after the statement of mine you quoted earlier:
But if you hear that and interpret it to mean "this is what LordBucket believes is the
proper role for women" then you're totally missing the point.
I think you are confusing "feminine" with "Pimp Whores"
...no, I think you're confusing "feminine" with "is a woman." They're not the same thing.
Think of it this way: If I am to whittle wood, I require wood with which to whittle. Would you rather whittle wood that easily accepts the shape you intend, or wood that resists you and tries to whittle you back?
It's silly to call the wood a "pimp whore" for accepting what it's given.
If you're an employer who has an employee, you would prefer to be able to tell them what to do and have them accept it and act upon it without arguing. If you're a sculptor working with clay, you would prefer to be able to work the clay and have it easily take the shape you intend. These are all masculine/feminine relationships, and they don't change if the sculptor is biologically female or the employee is biologically male.
When a guy says he wishes his girlfriend would "be more feminine" what does he really mean? Does he means he wants to beat her? No, of course not. Does he mean he wants her to respond to every sexual advance made on her by any random guy? No, of course not. He means that he wants her her to be more receptive to him, more passive, more accepting...more willing to accept what he wants. When a woman says she wishes her boyfriend would "be more manly" does she mean she wants to be beaten? No, of course not. Does she mean she wants to sleep around? No, of course not. She means she wants him to take charge. To not pander to her. To decide where they're going to eat dinner without trying to appease her, to stop caring so much what other people want and to do his own thing so that she can be the woman.
If you look at this basic thing, and separate it from the cultural haze surrounding gender issues...at its core, the thing that is "masculine" is to act and to do, and the thing that is "feminine" is to be acted upon and to be.
Applying judgement calls to this...talking about "villainy" and " is like trying to suggest that gravity is "unethical" because it can squish you if you jump off a cliff. Gravity pulls masses towards each other. If that has unfortunate consequences, that doesn't doesn't change what gravity is, and unfortunate implications don't change what masculine and feminine are. Human beings are not pure examples of these forces, and I think that even people who disagree with me on this topic will generally agree that men aren't 100% masculine, women aren't 100% feminine...and that's ok.
I thought I'd made it clear that I was distinguishing between "masculine and feminine" and "biologically male and female in my previous post. For example:
Look at people argue over what a man or woman is "supposed to" be or do. That makes sense if you reduce people to nothing but masculine/feminine, but people are more complicated than that.
If we want to talk about biological male and biological female, we can do that. But if we're going to talk about masculine/feminine, let's not be confused and assume that masculine=biologically male and feminine-biologically female. They're different things.
let's remember to distinguish between "male and female" and "masculine and feminine." Biological male/female does not necessarily mean "exclusively masculine/exclusively feminine."
I think if you divorce the concept of masculine/feminine from biology, and think of them as impersonal forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang) the give/receive, actor/acted upon, dichotomy makes sense.
I think you fell into the very pattern of thought I pointed out:
Quote
It's simply popular for people view these things in terms of biology because biology is familiar.
In any case, I will repeat my previous assertions that masculine/feminine duality is not the greatest way of describing relationships, and people tend to get distracted by the habitual argument of "what is proper for man/woman in our society." If we speak of impersonal forces, it's much easier to describe relationships without that baggage. If I say that it's "masculine" to know what you want from life and to set out to make it happen without letting people dissuade you...I think that's not in especially inflammatory idea, and probably a good portion of people would more or less agree with it.
But if, immediately after agreeing with me, I then say that both the person who builds and gives away dog wheelchairs and ignores people who advise him against it, because that's what he wants to do, and the person who clubs baby seals and ignores people who advise against it because that's what he wants to do...if I say they're both acting masculinely...suddenly people aren't so eager to agree. "What do you mean it's masculine to beat baby seals? Are you some kind of sicko?!?!?"
But then if I say that both the guy building dog wheelchairs and the guy beating seals are "acting upon" the world around them...who would disagree?
Let go of the baggage.
Post by: LordBucket on July 24, 2014, 05:06:42 am
western Feminine roles
See, that's the thing. I think western culture is confused about what masculine/feminine are in the first place. I think a large portion of westerners think of these things are arbitrary lists of behaviors that evolve with time. They think that wearing pink or blue was feminine and masculine 100 years ago, and now it's reversed...and that's all that "masculine and feminine" are. Social convention.
If that's the way one sees it...I guess I can't argue with it, but clearly the person who means that, means something very different when they use those words than I do. And all I can really say is that an eastern yinyang worldview makes more sense to me personally than a "what do these words mean this particular generation" sort of view. No wonder people are so angry and confused about "gender roles" if their social concepts of masculine and feminine change every couple years.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 05:11:07 am
QuoteThe masculine is that which acts upon. The feminine is that which is acted upon. Masculine does. Feminine is.
I've seen people argue that about classical femininity but I honestly don't buy into it either.
Masculinity isn't all about being the "actor" and Femininity about being the one "acted upon".
This. Take a look at German, it's a prime example of classical thinking. The Sun is a female noun in German. And the sun is definitely an actor, not "acted upon". Whereas a garden is Der Garten (masculine), and a garden is definitely something "acted upon" by people and the (feminine) sun. So this idea that the classical roots of gender in society stem from the object/subject dichotomy really doesn't stand up when you look at examples.
Rivers in German also have gender, and it totally depends on what river you're talking about. The Rhine is masculine, the Danube is feminine. Is the Rhine an Actor and the Danube "acted upon"? I don't think so.
In English, our nouns don't have gender so we can talk about gender in the abstract. But English is the anomaly, not German: almost all world languages have gendered nouns. The gender thing is definitely wider than the English-speaking world so this is all relevant - any theory has to take into account gendered nouns in the world's languages.
Post by: DJ on July 24, 2014, 05:30:36 am
Post by: LordBucket on July 24, 2014, 05:31:08 am
I hesitate to use language as the basis for an argument on this topic. There are too many of both examples and counter examples for and to any argument anyone would could possibly choose to make.
For example:
Quote
The Sun is a female noun in German.
And it's a male noun in Spanish (http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/sun) and most other romance languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender).
Or what about this:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/sungodsgoddesses/a/070809sungods.htm
13 male sun gods, 5 sun goddesses. 6 if you include my avatar. Why conclude the sun "is feminine" based solely on German grammatical gender?
Quote
the sun is definitely an actor, not "acted upon".
Depends on how you look at it. I could just as easily suggest that the sun is feminine because it provides energy for others to use in their own manner. The sun does not decide how plants use the energy it provides. The plants do. The sun does not choose whether we use solar energy to power our homes or to build lasers.
Sort of like a woman brestfeeding her children, yes? She provides the energy which we use.
Post by: DJ on July 24, 2014, 05:33:19 am
Post by: LordBucket on July 24, 2014, 05:41:35 am
Sun is neuter in Croatian and AFAIK most other Slavic languages.
As I said: "too many of both examples and counter examples for and to any argument anyone would could possibly choose to make." I suggest that "the sun" is a complex entity that isn't easily pigeonholed into "is exclusively associated this primal force."
...just like people.
That doesn't change the validity of primal forces. The earth can have both gravitational and magnetic properties. Men and women can have both masculine and feminine qualities. It's silly to claim that "the earth is gravitational!" or "the earth is magnetic!" as if they were mutually exclusive. They're not. It's just as silly to claim that "men are/have to be masculine!" "Woman are/have to be feminine!" They don't. But the fact that entities are not in possession of exclusively only one type of property doesn't mean that those properties don't exist.
I don't understand why this is such an issue.
Post by: DJ on July 24, 2014, 05:52:44 am
Post by: LordBucket on July 24, 2014, 06:01:11 am
We could just stop using masculine/feminine to describe things that are neither. It really has no place beyond
describing body shape, voice, fashion style and similar obvious outward features.
I acknowledge that my worldview is not consensus, but I don't think what you're saying here is either. Let's go back to the example I gave earlier. If a guy says he wishes his girlfriend were more feminine, or a girl says she wishes her boyfriend were more masculine...are either of them talking about body shape, fashion, or any of the other things you list?
I don't think they are.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 06:10:02 am
Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.
Oh go fuck off back to r/MensRights and bitch about the evil wimminz over there, and please don't bring your MRA bullshit over here.
This is a whole load of straw man and ad hominem (and plain offensive language disguised as righteousness) aimed at shutting down anyone you disagree with. It has nothing to do with "mens rights" or "bitching about the evil wimminz". Exactly where did he cite even one Men's Rights point? This form of argumentation is just one step from Godwin's Law: "you know who else believes that gender roles have a biological component ? MRAs!" is very close to "You know who else believed X? Hitler!".
Saying that men have generally much more powerful physique, and that gender differences in physique played an important role in shaping gender roles during the development of human society is plain common sense, backed by the evidence of our own eyes.
A lot of the reason why certain social traits become the norm is because they promoted group survival. This is Darwinian. Nietzsche says the same about morality. There is no true right or wrong, there's what worked and what didn't. The societies that survived did what worked, and that's why certain "universals" came to exist. On the gender issue, imagine an historical society which decided that a womans' role was to fight in the frontlines of all battles. Population drives warfare, and the limiting factor for population growth and recovery is the number of women. Also fighting melee battles is clearly more suited to men than women for biological reasons of strength and endurance. So there are numerous non-sexist reasons you'd prefer that only men fought in the frontlines of war, and societies with different ideas just wouldn't have survived.
Men just don't have to even try to be stronger than the average woman. I'm a devote couch potato / keyboard jockey, my family are all indoorsy-types, my last girlfriend was a sports fanatic coming from a "sporty" family, and she's even a couple of inches taller than me. Guess who asked whom to open jars etc? If strength differences in gender were only due to environment I should be asking her to open jars. I'm only able to be the jar-opener because of biology.
We have separate male/female events in the Olympics for the same reason, not because of anti-woman bias. Hell, if you want an anti-woman bias we could merge all the Olympics into non-gendered events and blame women's lack of motivation or something for never winning.
Post by: JoeJoe on July 24, 2014, 06:40:06 am
Quote
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.--George E.P. Box
Otherwise, just posting for popcorn.
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 06:45:27 am
what about making people be able to switch between genders at-will?
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 06:48:27 am
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 06:58:32 am
Pure nature (genes) and pure nurture (environment) both fail to explain all the variations in a way that isn't somewhat offensive. I think they're both flawed models and that a flawed model somewhere along the line will lead you to conclusions which are contradictory.
for the "nurture" model that says gender identity is 100% imposed by society, transgender people are actually the counter-example: these are people who grew up with the same "100% overpowering" social conditioning as the rest of us, yet they "somehow knew" they were always male or female.
It's contradictory to allow that transgender people "know" their "true gender" whilst also holding that cisgender people are really non-gendered people who have been shaped with society's "fake gender". In other words, if you allow that transgender people have a "true gender" then why can't the rest of us?
Post by: LordBucket on July 24, 2014, 07:02:18 am
what about making people be able to switch between genders at-will?
I think this would solve a lot of problems. "Walk a mile in a man's shoes." Literally in this case. Don't like what you are? Feel the other gender has a better deal? Switch. Done. Eat the grass see just how green it is.
While we're at it, I propose complete morphological freedom. Why stop at being able to change genders when we could be anything we want at all? Fly to the park, swim as a dolphin, be beautiful, and watch with amusement as teenagers rapidly switch between monocular and binocular vision to get high. Then waltz in with a set of spider eyes and laugh.
Completely in favor.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 07:15:17 am
http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1239263
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 07:30:38 am
...teenagers rapidly switch between monocular and binocular vision to get high...I, um, don't see how doing that would make you get high. I'd expect something more like "a giant headache".
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 24, 2014, 07:46:39 am
We could just stop using masculine/feminine to describe things that are neither. It really has no place beyond
describing body shape, voice, fashion style and similar obvious outward features.
I acknowledge that my worldview is not consensus, but I don't think what you're saying here is either. Let's go back to the example I gave earlier. If a guy says he wishes his girlfriend were more feminine, or a girl says she wishes her boyfriend were more masculine...are either of them talking about body shape, fashion, or any of the other things you list?
I don't think they are.
Yes, they could be talking about any of those things. I regularly see people described as masculine or feminine solely on appearance, often with no knowledge of how the person acts (or is acted upon). And there are plenty of other things they can describe that haven't been listed.
When your average person uses masculinity/femininity, they're using the definition with the cultural baggage. Look how much difficulty everyone here has dropping that baggage when this is a thread explicitly for analysis of gender issues and you're actively explaining the system to them. I can't believe that your average person who has never heard of this is somehow better at using the "true" definitions.
...teenagers rapidly switch between monocular and binocular vision to get high...
I, um, don't see how doing that would make you get high. I'd expect something more like "a giant headache".
Go back to the 1800s and tell someone to stick this crystal in this crappy little glass pipe, apply fire to it, and then to inhale the foul-smelling vapor that comes off. They won't expect to get high off that either.
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 08:13:07 am
if that got people high we wouldn't need drugs
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 24, 2014, 08:30:44 am
Post by: DJ on July 24, 2014, 08:54:20 am
Let's go back to the example I gave earlier. If a guy says he wishes his girlfriend were more feminine, or a girl says she wishes her boyfriend were more masculine...are either of them talking about body shape, fashion, or any of the other things you list?They're talking too vaguely to say what they actually want. What they probably want to say is they wish they were more/less sensitive, obliging, assertive, or any number of traits that aren't exclusive to either gender.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 24, 2014, 09:02:48 am
Post by: Glowcat on July 24, 2014, 10:39:01 am
for the "nurture" model that says gender identity is 100% imposed by society, transgender people are actually the counter-example: these are people who grew up with the same "100% overpowering" social conditioning as the rest of us, yet they "somehow knew" they were always male or female.
It's contradictory to allow that transgender people "know" their "true gender" whilst also holding that cisgender people are really non-gendered people who have been shaped with society's "fake gender". In other words, if you allow that transgender people have a "true gender" then why can't the rest of us?
This is a dangerous simplification, because trans people don't always fall neatly into gender categories either. Especially when it comes to preferences and aspects of personality, and not that sense of association with a broad set of people (who might be a reference point more than the person's actual gender). How one trans person experiences their dysphoria can vary greatly from another person's. There is a range of transgender "internal sense" that forgoes binary gender categories entirely and people can see themselves as neither male nor female, or even sharing from each of those categories only partially.
I do think people have an internal sense of their gender but due to social conditioning our perception unnaturally lumps together various aspects of a person under a single simplistic label that fails to account for reality's nuances. We call certain behaviors "masculine" or "feminine" without realizing that they might have nothing to do with each other, such as how lesbian relationships do not base themselves upon how heterosexual men behave. Under such a system it is very difficult for cis people to understand their own gender without the sort of exploration that being trans typically forces upon a person.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 10:52:15 am
Different parts of the brain, or different stage of brain development can be exposed to different hormone levels. There could also be genes which block or enhance the effect of hormones on particular brain structures or functions. So, by it's nature the hormone model does not assume any of this is an "all or nothing" deal.
For example, lesbianism correlates highly with relative finger-length between the index finger and middle finger, which is an in-uterine biological trait determined by testosterone:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm
Then there are gay males: previous studies found that males with older brothers are more likely to be gay, but it makes no difference whether you grew up with them or not, and adopted older brothers make no difference. Only biological older brothers from the same mother change the odds, so the logical assumption is that there were changes in the body of the woman between pregnancies leading to different hormone-related environments.
Right there, you have a scientific prediction about the "older brothers" study. If the model assumes that the noted difference is from hormones, then there should be signs of hormone-related physical differences in people who meet the criteria vs a control sample. And that is exactly what the "finger length" study found in these cases:
If you look at the finger study, they found that gay males with older brothers have different finger-length ratios than the straight males and gay males without older brothers (the latter two groups having the same average finger-lengths). This suggests whatever is causing the "older brothers" effect is in fact in-uterine testosterone, which can change over the course of multiple pregnancies for an individual mother. It implies that the older-brother effect is a real, biological effect, though not the only "form" of determining sexual orientation in males, it's quite a real one.
Now, neither the "gene" theory or the "socialization" theory explain all the above observations.
Post by: Angle on July 24, 2014, 11:28:04 am
...OK. *Rolls up sleeves* Here we go...
Oh go fuck off back to r/MensRights and bitch about the evil wimminz over there, and please don't bring your MRA bullshit over here.
Aaaargh. I recognize that you've probably had some negative experiences in this area, and I do agree with you on MRA's in general. That said, you are seriously overreacting here, and in any case I can't condone that kind of language. Please practice more awareness in the future, and less flaming. Thank you very much.
I mostly wanted to stamp on the "men and women are the same, and any differences are oppressive social constructs" nonsense before anyone decided to try that one.
Sexual dimorphism DOES exist, and it will until we turn ourselves into a genderless species that reproduces via cloning. Choosing to ignore it doesn't make you... un-sexist, it just makes you ignore it. Not that you should use sexual dimorphism to say women or men deserve less rights, though.
Yes, but so does Intra-Sexual Dimorphism. Saying that all men or all women are he same is almost as silly. Thus, restricting people to two roles based on gender is also rather silly. That's why I had proposed having multiple roles that people could opt into depending on their personal preferences. I'd also like to emphasize that the largest difference, muscle mass, has less and less bearing on our modern society.
While we're at it, I propose complete morphological freedom. Why stop at being able to change genders when we could be anything we want at all? Fly to the park, swim as a dolphin, be beautiful, and watch with amusement as teenagers rapidly switch between monocular and binocular vision to get high. Then waltz in with a set of spider eyes and laugh.
Completely in favor.
Yeah, I like the idea. I don't think the technology is there yet, though...
It does promise to make things interesting for us soon, though. I think it also adds emphasis to our need for a better set of gender roles.
Though first, we should probably discuss whether we need particular gender roles in our modern society. What do you say?
Post by: DJ on July 24, 2014, 12:07:39 pm
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 12:29:09 pm
There are a lot of traits, both physical and mental, where men tend to be either really crap, or really good (statistically speaking), compared to women who have that trait clustered more in the middle of the spectrum. If you take a sample based on one of these traits of "middle or better" you get statistically more women than men (which would explain more female undergraduates, as a fair thing), but if you take a sample of "only the best", or "only the worst" it skews more and more towards males as you take smaller samples, explaining more men at post-graduate levels, which are more competitive. Since men tend to have more concentration at both the top and bottom of such traits, if you say it's all due to social bias, what exactly is happening? the system is both biased for and against males at the same time?
Similarly for traits that require great strength. If you need strength X to do job Y, the more competitive it is, assuming strength translates to productivity, you're going to find way more men than women. The "top 5%" of strength is going to have a larger percentage of men than e.g. the "top 10%", and so forth. Explaining why so many jobs like construction, mining, furniture removal, are heavily male-dominated. You just can't be strong enough to do these jobs.
I'll wager that there are many jobs where the "optimal" strength is actually WAY higher than the actual maximum human strength. The odds of a task having an optimal strength exactly close to the human maximum is close to zero - it's really unlikely. Think about a job: "would Superman be better at this job than a strong human?". If, so then, strength is highly relevant to performance for that job, and you can't have enough.
Post by: Glowcat on July 24, 2014, 12:37:18 pm
Different stage of development control different things. The pre-natal hormone model can easily account for what you observe there.
No it can't... even all the attempts to prove physical differences indicate alternative sexual orientation (which by itself says nothing about gender identity) only seek to establish a correlation and their results are so shoddy that just focusing on the limits of their hypothesis is dubious enough, but going further to extend a method that doesn't even reliably indicate sexual orientation to all aspects of a person is asinine. Judging a person's orientation by finger length, hair whorl direction, sibling number, or handedness is nothing more than media clickbait at this point.
Even studies attempting a more in-depth exploration of prenatal endocrinology haven't come up with better correlation results than "Can happen... sometimes... maybe" and it certainly doesn't point to any universal influence over a person that pushes them into a single one of the binary gender categories. There is no gradient between "male" and "female". The human brain is too complex for that sort of simplification and the way hormones interact with each individual is so varied that you can't really point to anything that would indicate sexuality or gender identity, or why some people don't identify as either binary gender or why some people are completely asexual. That model is bullshit not because there isn't any element of truth to it, but rather that it doesn't even begin to explore what makes humans do and think the things we do.
Yeah, clearly the pure biological and the pure socialization theories are nonsense, but more often than not it's biological essentialism that makes claims far beyond the evidence at hand and typically to justify a pre-existing bias that dominates the proponent's society. It's also the basis almost universally used to discriminate against people, such as preventing women from serving in armed forces, or in sports disqualifying intersex candidates such as Caster Semenya for having too much testosterone as well as disqualifying transwomen (who typically have far less testosterone due to androgen blockers) due to whatever other reason they can use to justify them not "really being a woman." If people would actually try to find better categorizations for these things instead of thinking everything about performance is explained by two insipid gender categories that are largely arbitrary then there wouldn't be so many imbecilic controversies over nothing.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 12:44:49 pm
Quote
There is no gradient between "male" and "female".No gradient? There are countless traits that show a gradient related to pre-natal testosterone. Both within a single gender, and between genders. Just hand-wave away hundreds of separate studies which have actual data, though, and you're sweet. Having outliers in the data doesn't make a correlation any less real.
Quote
t's also the basis almost universally used to discriminate against people, such as preventing women from serving in armed forces,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
Quote
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.By the same logic we should all convert to Christianity because bible-believers are less likely to steal or murder people, and we should reject Darwinism because it is the basis for eugenics.
===
Also talking about traits that vary based on pre-natal chemistry offers a view that explains variation both within a gender and between genders, it does the opposite of forcing people into distinct categories. That's a straw man.
Here's another study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19175758
Quote
Mammals, including humans, show sex differences in juvenile play behavior. In rodents and nonhuman primates, these behavioral sex differences result, in part, from sex differences in androgens during early development. Girls exposed to high levels of androgen prenatally, because of the genetic disorder congenital adrenal hyperplasia, show increased male-typical play, suggesting similar hormonal influences on human development, at least in females. Here, we report that fetal testosterone measured from amniotic fluid relates positively to male-typical scores on a standardized questionnaire measure of sex-typical play in both boys and girls. These results show, for the first time, a link between fetal testosterone and the development of sex-typical play in children from the general population, and are the first data linking high levels of prenatal testosterone to increased male-typical play behavior in boys.
Note it's a link between "fetal testosterone" and later behavior types, not "having a dick" and those behaviors. Either girls or boys can have high "fetal testosterone" in the womb, explaining variance both within a gender, and also between genders. This is precisely moving away from the idea that you need to be in a binary category to have these traits.
True genetic determinism is "boys are like X, girls are like Y because of genetic programming", whereas social determinism is "boys are like X, girls are like Y because of social programming". Those are binary theories. The fetal testosterone theory isn't a binary theory. It can be high or low in anyone. There are definitely a spectrum of these traits, and they just happen to correlate really well with the hormone measurements from before you're born.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 01:04:44 pm
It is just that... what Lord Bucket said takes these, and amplifies them well beyond even that. Which is as I said turning villainy into super villainy.
I cannot think of any examples of a society that honestly believed that a woman's job is to accept terrific abuse for no reason other then it is her job to be abused... Nor many societies, other then possibly a tribal society, where a woman is expected to accept and reciprocate all advances.
I think a miscommunication has occured somewhere. I was not at all suggesting that. In fact, if youread the very next line after the statement of mine you quoted earlier:But if you hear that and interpret it to mean "this is what LordBucket believes is the
proper role for women" then you're totally missing the point.
You were talking on a historical, geographical, and social basis. I am saying that your assessment of gender roles in other societies (whether in different locations or the past) is exaggerated far beyond reality.
Quote
...no, I think you're confusing "feminine" with "is a woman." They're not the same thing
Feminine means "pertaining to a woman", it would be a set of traits associated with being either a woman or the idealized woman or a stereotypical woman.
Quote
When a guy says he wishes his girlfriend would "be more feminine" what does he really mean? Does he means he wants to beat her? No, of course not. Does he mean he wants her to respond to every sexual advance made on her by any random guy? No, of course not. He means that he wants her her to be more receptive to him, more passive, more accepting...more willing to accept what he wants. When a woman says she wishes her boyfriend would "be more manly" does she mean she wants to be beaten? No, of course not. Does she mean she wants to sleep around? No, of course not. She means she wants him to take charge. To not pander to her. To decide where they're going to eat dinner without trying to appease her, to stop caring so much what other people want and to do his own thing so that she can be the woman
While I'd argue against these individual points (And I really do want to). I see more clearly where you are coming from and that is important enough.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 24, 2014, 03:28:27 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 03:29:20 pm
Oh, wow. This thread multiplied rapidly. I can't even tell what you're arguing about any more.
I can barely tell what the topic post is all about... Actually I can't.
I always thought it was a mental exercise or something.
Post by: miauw62 on July 24, 2014, 03:45:37 pm
but genderless species would be too boringReminds me of a short story I read recently ("Changes" by Neil Gaiman)
what about making people be able to switch between genders at-will?
The problems in this story are most prominent in two areas:
Chinese families save up all their money for a "reboot" so they can change female babies into males,
And people that cannot prove they were male at birth are killed and raped (the example here is in the middle-east, but I'd expect less severe versions of this to exist elsewhere)
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 04:02:38 pm
1) The china gets depopulated in one generationbut genderless species would be too boringReminds me of a short story I read recently ("Changes" by Neil Gaiman)
what about making people be able to switch between genders at-will?
The problems in this story are most prominent in two areas:
Chinese families save up all their money for a "reboot" so they can change female babies into males,
And people that cannot prove they were male at birth are killed and raped (the example here is in the middle-east, but I'd expect less severe versions of this to exist elsewhere)
2) And the people who prove that they were female at birth... are killed and raped anyway?
Post by: Angle on July 24, 2014, 04:26:54 pm
2) would suck, but the middle east already has a whole boatload of problems.
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 04:38:49 pm
The best, most mature, most civilized and sophisticated individuals? They all converge on a single set of characteristics. The ideal is the same for both/all genders.
- Compassionate
- Elegant and polite
- Trustworthy
- Tolerant
- Emotionally stable
- Educated (as in knowledgeable about the world, which could come from formal or informal education and/or life experience, and best of all, all of the above combined)
- Responsible and accountable for your actions
- Passionate about (constructive, healthy) thing(s) / having a strong purpose in life
These are characteristics I think of when conceiving of either the best of the best of alpha males OR the best of the best of alpha females. These characteristics make the best friends, parents, civic community members, etc. from either gender.
It's only when you start drifting away from the ideal and into the realm of the somewhat more petty and less ideal masses that gender roles start to diverge and become apparent. The strongest actual divergent gender stereotypes I see often have to do with the ways that different genders behave when they are at their lowest, not their highest points. Such as the ways that men versus women (identified individuals, not biological), lie, cheat steal, fight, act vain, show their intolerances, etc.
Post by: Tiruin on July 24, 2014, 08:26:51 pm
Post by: LordBucket on July 24, 2014, 08:30:29 pm
we should probably discuss whether we need particular gender roles in our modern society. What do you say?
"Need?" No. But there's nothing particularly wrong with it, either. It's valid and ok for there to be gender roles. But if people don't like them, I don't see any tremendous benefit to sticking with systems people don't like.
Thing is...some situations exist as natural consequence of more fundamental conditions. If I pour sand out of a vase onto the ground, the pile it forms will tend to resemble a cone. If I go to Mars and pour gravel out of a dumptruck...the pile it forms will tend to also resemble a cone. Different materials, different place, different tools, different components...similar result. Why? Because gravity is a constant.
Gender, I suspect...is also a thing that is probably result of basic conditions. No, it's not an absolute result. Yes, life can exist without two genders. And if you pour water instead of sand you don't get a cone. Nevertheless, it's a common, likely, probable result. As evidence I give you the majority of multi-cellular life known to our species. Two genders is the most common reproductive arrangement known to us.
If a condition like gravity tends to like to produce cones from poured material, and certain properties of life tend to life to produce gender...it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suggest that the specific condition of human gender might tend to produce certain trends as well. It's not unreasonable to suggest that "gender roles in society" might be one of those things that tend to fall into certain patterns.
I think it would be silly to suggest that those patterns are "natural, and therefore morally correct and anything else is wrong!" But nevertheless, these trends probably exist for reasons. Being angry about those trends probably isn't especially productive. Any more than being angry about gravity would be productive. If you don't like it, then build a rocket ship. Or a ladder. Poof, you've overcome gravity. But for most people "overcoming gravity" doesn't really need to be a huge focus in their day to day life.
I think it would be healthy to view gender roles in a similar light. It's ok if there are gender roles. Fighting against them solely for the sake of fighting against them is rarely a good use of energy. But attaching too much significance to them can also result in error. Like claiming that it's "god's will" that mankind be confined to earth by gravity and that it' therefore "sinful" to build rockets to fly to other worlds. It's just as silly to say that "you are a male, therefore it is morally imperative that you ask the girl to dance, and anything else is sinful!" Don't misunderstand. It's ok, if the convention is that guys ask girls to dance. But can't we do away with all the anger and angst and guilt some people attach to these issues?
I think human morphological freedom would be a healthy situation for humanity. People who don't like their gender can change. No big deal. People who feel the other side has it better can change, no big deal. And maybe some of those people will change...and with the benefit of having seen things from the other side, they'll understand better and see that the "grass is not so much greener" and change back. And some people would change back and forth as casually as they change clothes, for aesthetics and convenience.
And that would be ok.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 24, 2014, 09:04:38 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 09:08:22 pm
Man, I'm reading up on the origin of sex and one of the theories is that organisms could have evolved sex to become more resistant to parasites. Sexual reproduction causes much more varied offspring than asexual reproduction (which makes near-clones of you), so a parasite would be less likely to infect as many of them. Wouldn't that be lame? I hope the truth is something cooler than that.
No it is rather accurate.
Post by: Putnam on July 24, 2014, 09:10:08 pm
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 09:17:03 pm
Quote
Man, I'm reading up on the origin of sex and one of the theories is that organisms could have evolved sex to become more resistant to parasites. Sexual reproduction causes much more varied offspring than asexual reproduction (which makes near-clones of you), so a parasite would be less likely to infect as many of them. Wouldn't that be lame? I hope the truth is something cooler than that.Not only parasites, although that's a big one. Also things like congenital defects.
If you have a homogenous gene pool, and it happens to include weak hearts, then no matter what you do, the community is going to keep having weak hearts until somebody mutates a less weak one, which could take tens of thousands of years, or never.
If you have a heterogenous gene pool, then some of you might have weak heart genes but good livers, whereas other of you might have strong hearts and bad livers, and your population is able to change its ratios of genes much more quickly than via mutation, as the risks change from fatty foods to poisonous water and back again. MUCH MUCH more quickly. ...not the best example. For a better and more classic one, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution Basically, one wing color of the same species was better for blending into healthy trees, and another was better for blending into sooty, polluted trees. Then later when ecology got better in industry, peppered moths were back in favor. It was important to the species to have that variability in their gene pool all along, just in different ratios.
OR if you have a defect that requires two matching alleles to show up, then your chances of exhibiting the defect go up if there are more nearly identical people in your community. Whereas even the same number of bad alleles is safer if they are a mixed bag that don't all line up. So let's say, in our very overly simplistic genetic model below, randomly chosen sperm and eggs look like this, where X = bad, O = good alleles:
XOOOXOXOXOXOOOOX
XOOOXOOOXXXOOOOX
XOOOXOOOXXXOOOOX
XOXOXOOOXXXOOOOO
In this population, the bad ones all line up mostly, so you're very likely to get lots of crippling or deadly pairs at once and die.
XOOOXOOOXXXOOOOX
OOXXOXOOXOOXOOXO
XOOXOOXOOXOOOOXX
OXOOXOOXOOOOXXOX
In this population, there are the same number of X's, but they're more widely distributed and thus you're much less likely to get as many matching pairs from any two parents, thus you have fewer defects despite just as many "flaws" in the gene pool.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 09:50:23 pm
Think of teams of scientists around the world, all trying to invent the same thing, but never communicating. That's like asexual reproduction. Then, think of the same scientists but constantly swapping data back and forth, that's like sexual reproduction.
There's also data recovery - in an asexual species, you need a really large population to ensure the best genome survives. Over time, genetic drift pretty much ensures a lot of "bad" genes mutate and propagate - thus lowering the overall population survivability and pushing the average genome away from the "optimal" one. This is called Mullers Rachet. If the population is small, the chance of keeping the "best" current genome is very low, and there's a general drift away from "good" genes.
Sexual reproduction though allows two flawed organisms to give birth to a better one: basically by cutting and pasting different genes together, you can end up back at the "perfect" genome far more often than asexual organisms with genetic drift. Sexual species predictably converge on the perfect genome: asexual ones do not (Mullers Rachet).
Because of recombination, sexual species can bounce back from very large disasters / population drops and "recreate" lost information: even if only genetically flawed individuals survived, by exchanging genes around it only takes a few generations to rebuild the "database" of genomes. Asexual ones have a big problem with this scenario.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 09:52:11 pm
Much more often are you going to create inferior candidates for reproduction from what were stellar ones.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 10:01:56 pm
Recombination is a really efficient way of maintaining data persistency: it's like a RAID array for genomes. Even if every member of the population is heavily mutated, it only takes a few generations to regenerate "ideal" organisms that are at or near the optimal genome.
Muller's Ratchet has been shown to heavily degrade asexual species in the lab. So this idea that they "should" be more persistent doesn't actually work. Asexual species suffer much more from genetic drift in other words. Which pushes them consistently AWAY from the most efficient genome for their niche.
Well technically Reelya sexual reproduction is a lot more inefficient and a lot more prone to mistakes then asexual reproduction.You forgot about the benefits of paired genes, that redundancy makes it harder for a single gene loss to cause catastrophic failure. Plus, diploid organisms use copy/repair to copy lost good genes onto damaged chromosomes. Back-up copies, in other words. That's something asexual species can't do.
Much more often are you going to create inferior candidates for reproduction from what were stellar ones.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 10:03:49 pm
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 10:08:29 pm
A population that breeds together converges on an "ideal" genome. You only get significant drift away from that if the groups are separated and do not interbreed often. It's why all humans have 99.999999% identical genes to all other humans.
Well, look up Mullers Rachet. Pure asexual species just don't work according to the theory and labwork. only some form of stealing genes from other organisms even makes them viable. This idea you brought up how asexual organisms have this low rate of genetic defects is plain wrong and at odds with all the research.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 10:11:21 pm
No, that's just how evolution works. -_-
A population that breeds together converges on an "ideal" genome. You only get significant drift away from that if the groups are separated and do not interbreed often. It's why all humans have 99.999999% identical genes to all other humans.
That is actually because of how genomes work...
.000000000000000001% of a change can just create a pile of mush.
Well ok not REALLY because the genome isn't that large... but still
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 10:12:12 pm
The research states that asexual species CANNOT even maintain any form of genetic purity.
Sexual reproduction can recreate the "ideal" form even if all members of the population have copy errors. It would take thousands of years for asexual reproducing entities to re-mutate all the copy-errors they accumulate back to the proper genes. This is something sexual populations can reliable do in a few generations, without needing further mutations.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 10:13:47 pm
What are you even arguing now? I'm just not following how this backs up your idea about sexual vs asexual. show me citations.
The fittest Reelya, not the strongest.
Post by: Lyeos on July 24, 2014, 10:14:45 pm
You're... Literally making no sense, now.What are you even arguing now? I'm just not following how this backs up your idea about sexual vs asexual. show me citations.
The fittest Reelya, not the strongest.
Not trying to be rude, but since I've been watching this thread for a bit...
What you're saying doesn't make much sense. Sorry.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 10:15:46 pm
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 10:17:26 pm
Well technically Reelya sexual reproduction is a lot more inefficient and a lot more prone to mistakes then asexual reproduction.This is evidently false simply from the large number of counterexamples in existence. I.e. ff that were true, then why did anything ever evolve to stop being asexual? It's one thing to say "Oh well, XYZ might be more adaptive, but we just didn't happen to end up with it." But it's quite another to claim "We already HAD the better thing, and then stopped doing it, on a massive scale" That should pretty much never happen in evolution.
Much more often are you going to create inferior candidates for reproduction from what were stellar ones.
Sexual reproduction has a large number of different mechanisms in place to protect the proliferation of the stellar genes if/when they are found. For example, alpha males fighting each other and the winner being the stud for an entire community of individuals in species like elephant seals.
And as mentioned above, sexual attraction does this as well. Which may sometimes overlap but not always with fighting methods.
Another point to keep in mind is that there IS no such thing as an always and objectively "best" set of genes. You might think "oh that's a really good specimen. ALL of them should be like that" and for the time being, maybe it is the best. But then 10 years later, some new disease pops up, that your "best" specimen turns out to be really weak against, and BAM. All your d00ds are dead all at once. Game over.
(^This is the most glaring and dangerous aspect of big business GMO crops, for example. Not potential danger to your body, but susceptibility to new blights that can wipe out half a country's homogenous food crops. They're extremely fragile compared to natural variety, and several exploited African nations are finding out how true this is already)
Whereas the mix and mash and minced up gene pools of a sexual species may not have full proliferation of the best of the best at all times, but they will be BIASED heavily toward better genes (due to the sexual attraction etc.) and the remaining variability of the rest of them also protects the species by acting as a "gene bank" that provides for unknown future contingencies.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 10:20:22 pm
Sexual reproduction isn't a magic bullet. It actually came at a cost.
Efficiency is not sexual reproduction's advantage.
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 10:26:57 pm
I was arguing why the quoted statement "Asexual is more efficient and less mistakes" is wrong. Saying so does not imply the opposite. I am not claim sexual is always better instead. Only giving counterexamples to the quote.
For MANY situations (not all) and species, sexual reproduction is less error prone and more efficient, as evidenced by the fact that many (not all) species evolved explicitly away from asexual into sexual reproduction. There should be nearly zero examples of any species having done that, if sexual reproduction was less efficient across the board.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 10:32:27 pm
Quote
In evolutionary genetics, Muller's ratchet (named after Hermann Joseph Muller, by analogy with a ratchet effect) is the process by which the genomes of an asexual population accumulate deleterious mutations in an irreversible manner.
Basically there are many ways to get a bad mutation, but for each bad mutation there's only one possible mutation that "fixes" the problem. Say each base-pair has a 1/10000 mutation rate, and you have 1 million base pairs. Now, *each* offspring of that asexual organism will get on average 100 mutations: there will be no perfect copy, because that is, while not theoretically impossible, less likely than 1 over the number of atoms in the whole planet. So it's practically impossible.
The asexual organism can only "fix" these gene problems by re-mutating the good gene it lost. Since further mutations are always more likely to harm than help, the best they can hope for is to hover around the point where having any worse of a genome will kill the organism: an equilibrium point where each mutation will either make you a little better or kill you outright. That's because you've only got mutations as the mechanism to fix the problems from your last round of mutations.
On the other hand, sexual species still get the mutations: but they have a different mechanism for repairing the damage. Rather than blindly requiring massively unlikely re-mutations of genes that were already developed, they use parallelization to restore good copies of genes. Since its very unlikely that two organisms got negative mutations in exactly the same place, by recombining two genomes and having lots of progeny, that increases the chance of having offspring that maintain a full set of the best genes. Sexual reproduction actually optimizes the gene pool towards the "ideal" form. So it outcompetes the asexual mechanism which is more like "don't become so crappy that further mutations kill you outright".
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 10:35:05 pm
Post by: Putnam on July 24, 2014, 10:36:50 pm
Have they ever actually observed any adaptive mutations happening in the laboratory yet and becoming established, by the way?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 10:37:33 pm
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 10:43:36 pm
Well, yeah, for example some lab had Amoebas infected with a bacteria, most died, but a few survived so the researchers nurture them. Later, they found that the ameobas partially recovered, but not completely, and they now required the presence of the bacteria in their cells to function properly.Well that's not really evidence of adaptive mutation - it could have been an existing feature that was selected, and stuck in a "flipped on" state by continuous chemical environment passed on through division later, or whatever.
The citrate thing in the E. Coli experiment, however, sounds like a slam dunk, since it sounds like they actually isolated the relevant genes and were much more explicitly controlled about it definitely being a mutation.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 10:46:53 pm
Also, they removed the nucleus of these amoebas, and replaced the nucleus of other amoebas cells with them. The new cells died, but when they added the bacteria to those cells, they recovered. So they can categorically state it's a genetic change, not chemical cell environment. This is how they were able to claim that they "required" the presence of the bacteria, and it excludes cell chemistry.
Post by: Putnam on July 24, 2014, 10:50:48 pm
Also, for a laugh, see the Lenski affair (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair), in which Andrew Schlafly (the founder and proprietor of Conservapedia) disputed the E. Coli claims on the grounds that he doesn't believe them and that he "needs the data".
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 10:53:15 pm
(edited to give only the better of my two examples:)
For example, you could imagine something like a special gut microbe that wiped out all the other gut populations competitively in somebody who consumes it, and then takes over all microbial metabolism roles. If so, that person would now be dependent on the new microbe for life (let's say, for sake of argument, it leaves behind some toxin that inhibits new microbes from thriving even if re-introduced later), whereas he'she was not beforehand. That would obviously not be an example of genetic mutation, since it also happens in a single generation.
That gut microbe could then be passed to a child via breast milk, for example. And so on,, and you would incorrectly identify it by the above logic as an evolutionary mutation adaptation.
if you were to make a clone of one of those people though, and raise it in a different surrogate that wasn't exposed, it would now be able to live without the aforementioned microbe again.
Post by: Putnam on July 24, 2014, 11:00:51 pm
That's impossible to say just from crude observation (i.e. not actually looking into their genes).
I never said anyone says it, only that it's believed. That's certainly not confidence.
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 11:04:15 pm
(with breast milk being replaced with "contamination of cytoplasm full of said bacteria and/or byproducts or toxins or who knows during cell division" as a non-genetic possible mechanism of heredity of the dependence)
Post by: Putnam on July 24, 2014, 11:06:51 pm
Was referring to the amoeba thing, not the mitochondria, sorry for not posting the quote at the top.
i regret nothing
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 11:19:53 pm
That gut microbe could then be passed to a child via breast milk, for example. And so on,, and you would incorrectly identify it by the above logic as an evolutionary mutation adaptation.
that's a flawed analogy. Because we need gut microbes now. So if its one lot of microbes or another you can't prove anything. These bacteria we're talking about didn't "replace" anything, thus making your entire example void.
They took Amoebas that did not require any symbiotic bacteria in the first place, and created a strain which required the presence of the bacteria.
They could tell this by removing the cell nucleus from the "new" amoebas: put them in an uncontaminated cell, the cell dies. If they did not have adaptations, they should have survived this step. Then, transplant the bacteria - which was previously an unwanted invader, into the "new" cell, and it bursts back to life. This bacteria still kills regular amoebas that haven't been exposed, but you replace their nucleus with the "new" type cell nucleus and they survive. So, whatever allows the amoeba to survive the presence of the bacteria is determined to be in the nucleus, hence genetic.
It's not a case of "well it could be bacteria A or bacteria B, what's the difference?" as in the "gut microbes" story, because there was NO "bacteria A" to start with.
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2014, 11:23:01 pm
For example our organelles are required for our cells... and many of them are other organisms, at least in design.
As well "we need gut microbes" can easily be explained by us losing a useless function (the gut microbes do it for us)
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 11:38:55 pm
Quote
These bacteria we're talking about didn't "replace" anythingAnd you know that... how?
Sure, they didn't replace another whole population of bacteria. That's not the same as saying "They didn't replace anything"
The amoeba could have any number of functions that were physically or chemically inhibited, shut down, or flat out destroyed and replaced by the bacteria or byproducts of the bacteria in a way that is too slow or difficult or impossible to reverse when the bacteria are gone, leading to death before any recovery is possible, without genes necessarily being involved at all.
I'm not saying it's impossible to find out, either. It's a question that has an answer, and further scientific inquiry could resolve those ambiguities, but from what you've told me so far, I don't know that the necessary further investigation has been done yet.
Quote
They could tell this by removing the cell nucleus from the "new" amoebas: put them in an uncontaminated cell, the cell dies.Cell nuclei can carry toxins and bacterial RNA and such inside of them, potentially. You don't know that the new cells weren't contaminated.
Post by: Samarkand on July 24, 2014, 11:50:17 pm
This is an interesting, if somewhat unlikely, explanation for this phenomena. Few bacteria rely on excreting RNA, that's mostly a viral thing. On top of this, RNA is not terribly long-lived in vivo. Maintenance of RNA usually requires regular transcription inside of the cell. For this reason the RNA would likely be degraded in the new amoeba before they would die out completely. And as far as I know there is no evidence for reverse transcription occurring from bacterial DNA. Can't speak to toxins, gene regulation is more my thing.QuoteThese bacteria we're talking about didn't "replace" anythingAnd you know that... how?
Sure, they didn't replace another whole population of bacteria. That's not the same as saying "They didn't replace anything"
The amoeba could have any number of functions that were physically or chemically inhibited, shut down, or flat out destroyed and replaced by the bacteria or byproducts of the bacteria in a way that is too slow or difficult or impossible to reverse when the bacteria are gone, leading to death before any recovery is possible, without genes necessarily being involved at all.
I'm not saying it's impossible to find out, either. It's a question that has an answer, and further scientific inquiry could resolve those ambiguities, but from what you've told me so far, I don't know that the necessary further investigation has been done yet.QuoteThey could tell this by removing the cell nucleus from the "new" amoebas: put them in an uncontaminated cell, the cell dies.Cell nuclei can carry toxins and bacterial RNA and such inside of them, potentially. You don't know that the new cells weren't contaminated.
Post by: Tiruin on July 24, 2014, 11:52:41 pm
Erm, could we segue back into a more related kind of imagery regarding the topic at hand? I got particularly lost when we began discussing microorganisms :P
And my studies on them ._. It seems like we're using it as a general analogy in the most recent posts. Which could be fallacious in that a small part missed on these tiny creatures are that they need a desired environment to live and thrive...less so causing the harmful effects towards the human body and stuff.
By which I mean, some of the analogies present would be too general (and probably silly :P but its for giving ideas and whatnot anyway) if we use general terms of microorganisms to represent an idea.
...Unless that is part of the topic. :-[
Edit: Oh hey new page. :-X
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 12:00:05 am
This is an interesting, if somewhat unlikely, explanation for this phenomena. Few bacteria rely on excreting RNA, that's mostly a viral thing. On top of this, RNA is not terribly long-lived in vivo. Maintenance of RNA usually requires regular transcription inside of the cell. For this reason the RNA would likely be degraded in the new amoeba before they would die out completely. And as far as I know there is no evidence for reverse transcription occurring from bacterial DNA. Can't speak to toxins, gene regulation is more my thing.
Well toxins seemed more likely anyway. Example: bacteria releases one small mobile toxin that can pass into the nucleas and hang out. This toxin inhibits, let's say, sodium channels in the cell membrane. Bacteria also emits some protein or whatever that inhibits that toxin and allows sodium channels to work anyway (quite reasonable. After all, it may need to do this just to protect its own sodium pumps from its own waste product toxins!!), but it's too big to get into the nucleus. Thus, when nucleus is transplanted, the toxin that hitched a ride migrates back out in a little while, shuts down the sodium pumps, nothing is there to stop it anymore, new amoeba dies.
Quote
Erm, could we segue back into a more related kind of imagery regarding the topic at hand?Sorry, I brought it up as a complete derail, because it comes up in creationism debates and one of the comments reminded me that I was never able to cite explicit evidence. But now that you (sort of) mention it or lead me there, it is a pretty interesting topic incidentally to ask "What do sexual versus asexual micro organisms have to teach us about gender roles, if anything?"
Post by: Flarp on July 25, 2014, 12:00:34 am
Needless to say, gender roles are culturally-bound, relative, etc. Various disclaimers about how my views are not indicative or representative of the majority's views, or reality.
I'm a guy who likes guys. Femininity doesn't hold much appeal for me, on basically any level. Moreover, femininity, as a concept, seems to be fairly consistently built around the aesthetics that men find attractive on women, not what women actually want to look like - a completely spurious claim that I can't really back up, aside from the fact that traditional femininity has existed basically since the days of Ur, and women had very little ability to influence it (or any other aspect of culture, really) for most of the intervening time.
Aesthetically speaking, since I'm not sure how else you could deal with gender roles, I argue it would be a fundamentally good idea - but obviously a totally impossible one - to abolish femininity as a concept, because if nothing else, many peoples' personal ideas of femininity seem to include aspects of oppression of women's sociopolitical freedom (the whole "stay in the kitchen" is an extreme and oft-parodied example, but you can't deny that a lot of people still view politics, engineering, and business as "improper" careers for a womanly woman).
I can feel the Benadryl starting to kick in, so no guarantees the rest of this will make sense, but:
How implausible would it be to enforce masculinity as the appealing aesthetic on both biological genders? Obviously, for people currently attracted to women/femininity, this is probably kind of undesirable, but the internet has already shown its infatuation with capital-A Awesome, best exemplified in a certain shirtless Australian businessman (http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Saxton_Hale). What if we just simplified everything and made Awesome - which is practically synonymous with a lot of people's ideas of "manliness" - the platonic ideal of sexiness?
Post by: Tiruin on July 25, 2014, 12:03:09 am
o_oQuoteErm, could we segue back into a more related kind of imagery regarding the topic at hand?Sorry, I brought it up as a complete derail, because it comes up in creationism debates and one of the comments reminded me that I was never able to cite explicit evidence. But now that you (sort of) mention it or lead me there, it is a pretty interesting topic incidentally to ask "What do sexual versus asexual micro organisms have to teach us about gender roles, if anything?"
Err...binary fission?
What do you mean by sexual or asexual microorganisms?
Edit: OH, their methods of reproduction! Aha, sorry. Had me confused there. xD
...
I don't think that their...methods of reproduction have any bearing on our gender roles, if anything.
Because for me, gender roles are either a term where certain ideas and expectations are attributed to. Like Angle's example of a LoL 'Tank'. You expect strength, (as in a game mechanic Strength = Health), but +++ Endurance. With their body more or less meeting the idea of it (ie Muscles and large physique. o-o)
Post by: Samarkand on July 25, 2014, 12:05:50 am
That we have to be very careful about confounding gender as sexuality, and understand that one is an emergent semi-biological description and the other is an emergent social-cultural description, neither of which have any ultimate reality?o_oQuoteErm, could we segue back into a more related kind of imagery regarding the topic at hand?Sorry, I brought it up as a complete derail, because it comes up in creationism debates and one of the comments reminded me that I was never able to cite explicit evidence. But now that you (sort of) mention it or lead me there, it is a pretty interesting topic incidentally to ask "What do sexual versus asexual micro organisms have to teach us about gender roles, if anything?"
Err...binary fission?
What do you mean by sexual or asexual microorganisms?
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 12:07:21 am
Quote
I'm a guy who likes guys.No expert, but most gay people I know seem to me to be fairly exclusively attracted to members of the same biological sex. As in that drives their desire more strongly than gender role behavior does. Or is that not actually really true as often as I'm thinking it is? I can think of a couple people I know who DO seem attracted to gender behavior more so than biology, but they are more bisexual identifying (which makes sense logically)
I mean, are you for example attracted to super manly acting women?
Quote
That we have to be very careful about confounding gender as sexualityHence the "if anything" disclaimer. The answer is probably "nothing, because micro organisms or simple invertebrates or whatever don't really show any gender type behavior separate from sexual identity" But maybe they do! Or something! Dunno, just thought it was worth floating out there.
Post by: Tiruin on July 25, 2014, 12:08:51 am
Personally, Gender for me is biological and...also seems to stem from thought. Hard to explain here, but when I say 'thought' in this context, it is somewhat more along the 'nature' path (if I've to reference that Nature vs Nurture thing :v) or...err, something more on how the person perceives themself, regardless of cultural or preference factors.
Sex is...err, biological sex. Male/Female = Biological Sex. Completely different from Gender.
Post by: Samarkand on July 25, 2014, 12:11:17 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 25, 2014, 12:11:41 am
Post by: Arcvasti on July 25, 2014, 12:19:05 am
Post by: Flarp on July 25, 2014, 12:20:38 am
QuoteI'm a guy who likes guys.No expert, but most gay people I know seem to me to be fairly exclusively attracted to members of the same biological sex. As in that drives their desire more strongly than gender role behavior does. Or is that not actually really true as often as I'm thinking it is? I can think of a couple people I know who DO seem attracted to gender behavior more so than biology, but they are more bisexual identifying (which makes sense logically)
I mean, are you for example attracted to super manly acting women?
That's an interesting question, and one I don't think I could fully answer. One problem is that I find facial hair attractive, and even the most manly woman will have biological and social difficulties growing a beard. Now, a beard has nothing to do with how you act as a person - but I did specify earlier that I was referring to aesthetic gender roles, i.e., how aspects of femininity and masculinity are consciously expressed by a person's physical appearance (and by the choices they make in shaping how they look, to the extent that they can).
The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make was that - relative to behavior, not appearance - "manliness" is associated with things that both sexes can and have every reason to do (with a few clichéd exceptions), whereas "womanliness" is oft associated with being demure, compliant, and submissive, things that, were there not outside factors encouraging it, neither sex would want to have anything to do with. With that considered, what if we shifted manliness (and obviously started calling it something else) to become an appropriate behavioral "style" for both genders?
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 12:32:19 am
It's a physical reality that "too many chefs can spoil the broth" in actual practical situations. Everybody trying to constantly be the alpha mover and shaker all the time can lead to a useless cacophany of conflict that doesn't get stuff done as efficiently.
Take, for example, ants -- if worker ants were not subservient to queens, for example, colonies would collapse almost instantly. And furthermore, their submissiveness objectively can't be relevant to sexual attraction, because they're sterile and don't even participate in the sexual reproduction of the species!! It's a counterexample in both directions.
In human society, if everybody tried to be a king, then nobody would be farming the fields and we'd all die. etc. etc.
I don't think that it is necessary for subservience and bravado to have much correlation to biological sex... at least not for reasons I can think of at the moment. But they are both necessary qualities for portions of the population to have, somewhere, divided somehow. Both are admirable in certain circumstances.
(note that my first contribution to this thread was that "the best or at least most alpha amongst us converge on a single set of qualities that don't speak to gender roles much" and I still think that's true, but to clarify with respect to this post: not everybody CAN be the best of the best of the alphas, and if we all acted like we were, things wouldn't work out so well)
Post by: Flarp on July 25, 2014, 12:52:55 am
I disagree that compliance and submissiveness have no functional role outside of sexual attraction and gender constructs.
It's a physical reality that "too many chefs can spoil the broth" in actual practical situations. Everybody trying to constantly be the alpha mover and shaker all the time can lead to a useless cacophany of conflict that doesn't get stuff done as efficiently.
Take, for example, ants -- if worker ants were not subservient to queens, for example, colonies would collapse almost instantly. And furthermore, their submissiveness objectively can't be relevant to sexual attraction, because they're sterile and don't even participate in the sexual reproduction of the species!! It's a counterexample in both directions.
In human society, if everybody tried to be a king, then nobody would be farming the fields and we'd all die. etc. etc.
I'm gonna address this part only, for now, because my ability to formulate arguments is rapidly collapsing, and I have an exam and unresponsive potential employer to worry about.
I - as per my sig - think that hierarchies are pretty okay, and our society would have some major problems without a longitudinal structure. However, I think the formation of these hierarchies (and thus, implicitly, the formation of interpersonal relationships in which one person has power over the other) has little to do with the gender roles we've discussed. I can assert this because A. human political structures were built by and populated with (almost) exclusively men in most of the world for a very long time and B. the existence of (extreme) nationalism and other ideologies along the continuum of xenophobia shows that bravado and dominance can coexist with submission to a political entity.
I don't think our ability to submit to and identify with authority is couched in gender roles; the former is almost certainly a biological imperative, while the latter is arguably grounded in our current culture.
To be more direct, it's possible to embrace masculinity without competing (even subconsciously) for that "alpha male" spot.
Since my arguments have been extremely abstract thus far, let me give a fairly trivial concrete example:
It's a common stereotype that woman make poor comedians. It's been suggested that, in addition to plain confirmation bias, this is because, for various (mostly sexually selective) reasons, men are encouraged to tell jokes, and women are encouraged to laugh at them. Under the system I'm advocating, this would be overturned; there would be no cultural pressure on either gender to be the giving or receiving partner when it comes to jokes.
Post by: Neonivek on July 25, 2014, 12:58:28 am
Gender is generally understood to be a social construct that helps (citation needed) us relate to ourselves and others. Sex is biologically determined (but only sort of…). Layered on top of this is sexual and romantic attraction, which are not always related or present, and can occur regardless of the other two identifiers.
Ugh... I always groan when people take two synonyms and separate them... I feel like I am back in the "noob and newb are two entirely different things" situation. It just feels forced like people are trying to make there be a difference rather then having it occur naturally through language...
Ohh well they been separated for... well technically they are still synonyms but still... Its been quasi-sort-of-not-really separated for 20 years now. So I should get used to it.
Gender is also biologically determined according to my info, at least partially. The "Man trapped in a woman's body" actually has a biological source (according to current theory unless that has been stricken down) and not entirely psychological. Evidence more strongly co-related that gender isn't completely unrelated to biology.
----
As for videogames and gender role. I will say that generally speaking you can tell the difference between the male and female characters.
Females tend to be faster more area oriented characters then the male ones.
In Soul Calibur the only exception to this was Hilde, in Tekken the closest to an exception is Michelle/Julia.
It is rare for a female character to be the "slow heavy character"... unless it is a joke (or she is a mage OR she is the AoE)
Smash Bros is MOSTLY an exception but that is because their female characters follow a different stereotype... in that all female characters are light characters.
Post by: Jelle on July 25, 2014, 02:27:00 am
Mostly what bothered me is how anorexic all the female characters are. Back when I played the game I modified all the female models to look more realistic and more according to the type of hero they were. Couldn't stand watching all those stick figures. Modified some of the male characters to, shouldn't all be muscleheads hehe.
About gender roles in general, well they make sense biologically in a natural environment. We have for the most part outgrown their usefulness, but the need for them is still rooted deep in our nature. I don't think we'll ever be completely rid of them.
Also as far as fighting styles go for male and female characters, it makes sense for a female warrior to be more lithe and for a male warrior to be more brawny, simply because of biological differences regardless of gender roles. It's just a simple fact that higher testosterone levels promotes more muscle growth. This difference is often depicted way exaggerated though.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 25, 2014, 02:29:47 am
Gender is a fairly new concept that refers to a person's idea of themselves. The "man trapped in a woman's body", to use the vernacular.
The confusion arises when people say "gender" when they should say "sex", because apparently sex is a rude word.
Post by: Samarkand on July 25, 2014, 08:19:48 am
Sex is determined by the bits dangling between your legs, or the lack of said dangling.Gender is new and old. It's current use became understood around the nineteen fifties, but female thinkers had been grappling with the idea that most of their identity is imposed rather than innate for centuries before that. Gender is the man/woman dichotomy while sex is the male/female dichotomy. Both are treated as binaries in most cultures, which can be extremely damaging to many individuals. You only understand yourself in the context of your culture, in its language, so if your culture lacks a way to describe you it can prevent you from understanding yourself for a long time/ever.
Gender is a fairly new concept that refers to a person's idea of themselves. The "man trapped in a woman's body", to use the vernacular.
The confusion arises when people say "gender" when they should say "sex", because apparently sex is a rude word.
Post by: Reelya on July 25, 2014, 09:13:03 am
I'm a guy who likes guys.
<snip>
How implausible would it be to enforce masculinity as the appealing aesthetic on both biological genders?
It would be exactly as successful as forcing straightness on the gay population. So, we basically already tried this concept, and can we all agree it doesn't work? You can't force people to be attracted to just anything you want. If you could, we wouldn't have sexual orientation in the first place.
Typical straight guy is physically repulsed by the idea of sleeping with a woman who looks manly. And that's just as innate as gay men not wanting sex with women.
Culture never told me what to be attracted to, I just was. Sure, there are variants in ideals of beauty, but even those fall into a number of patterns that can be fairly well predicted by the material circumstances of a civilization. i.e. the more social disruption, stress, food scarcity, danger, the larger women come to be viewed as attractive. The more stable and controlled societies, thin / younger women come to be seen as more desirable. So it's a variable, but it's not an independent variable that just exists in a vacuum, all sorts of social factors shape this without our realizing it.
Sure, there are also personal variations but there are also studies showing those are on a sliding scale with the personal rates of stress etc.
The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make was that - relative to behavior, not appearance - "manliness" is associated with things that both sexes can and have every reason to do (with a few clichéd exceptions), whereas "womanliness" is oft associated with being demure, compliant, and submissive, things that, were there not outside factors encouraging it, neither sex would want to have anything to do with. With that considered, what if we shifted manliness (and obviously started calling it something else) to become an appropriate behavioral "style" for both genders?
Ok, maybe i misconstrued your first post, but I'll leave my response there because it's still on-topic, and has relevant observations for the thread.
Well, trying to force both genders into the typical behavior of one gender is probably just as problematic as the appearance thing. Take for instance schooling. The way girls approach schooling is much different, boys have many more behavioral problems etc. The type of manipulation you're talking at has to start at a very young age, so if you're going to reeducate little girls to be little boys, expect to see more of the same sorts of behavioral issues to pop up in girls that you see in boys now.
Assuming they're maleable in this way, what does that suggest for future violence? Men commit more violence than women, training women to be just like men, well, expect a spike in violence down the track. You can expect to see gender-equality in the murder rate, prison rate etc.
To be serious "feminize everyone" is much more viable that "masculinize everyone"
Post by: Samarkand on July 25, 2014, 12:04:30 pm
As for educating girls to be boys, the truth is it's not fundamentally different from what we're doing right now, educating them to be girls. Any child's understanding of their own gender is deeply informed by the way adults talk to and about them. Females aren't born liking pink princesses. "One is not born, but becomes, a woman."
Post by: Reelya on July 25, 2014, 12:49:10 pm
The physical stress factors are less important than you make them out to be in determining attraction. See rubenesque paintings. Stable time, in the ways you're referencing, but thin want of prime importance. And young is as much related to the desire to dominate as any economic factor.
idk if I'd call the 17th century "stable, in the way I'm referencing". There was plenty of social instability going on. Influxes of loot from the New World led to a massive sustained inflation spike, and you had stuff like The General Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Crisis) going on.
What I'm really getting at is the idea that in times of high infant mortality, shorter life span, strong competition for resources or disease, this is going to affect both conscious and subconscious decisions about mate selection. There are studies which show these effects in individuals by altering stress, hunger etc, and the effects are noted to be small: but if you take a small difference, then magnify that by social interactions, you can get a big difference in overall social preferences. So it's not saying this is 100% biological or 100% social, it's the interplay between the factors, on both the individual and group level.
As an interesting note, there's also evidence that women can biologically skew the gender of their offspring, based on a number of environmental and genetic factors. These mechanisms seem to be multi-generational, that is, they exist to produce offspring with a greater reproductive success.
Attractive people have more daughters.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201101/beautiful-people-have-more-daughters
"Being physically attractive at age 7 increases the odds of having a daughter by 23% or decreases the odds of having a son by 19%...being physically unattractive at age 7 decreases the odds of having a daughter by 20% or increases the odds of having a son by 25%". From the UK's long-running "National Child Development Study", this tracked 17000 individuals born in 1958 over their lifetime.
Economically well-off mothers have more sons. a study of 50 million people. They've also studied this bias in many animal populations including "insects, birds, pigs, sheep, dogs, mink and deer", plus there was another study of zoo animals (not referenced here), which found the same thing. This is not infanticide or anything: it happens in all cultures, and across the animal kingdom, is biological and replicable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3302799/Rich-mothers-have-more-sons.html
Basically, boys are a bad biological investment if you're resource-poor, you get a weak male who still has to go out and compete for mates. Whereas girls have lower infant mortality than boys and girls are the limiting factor for reproduction, so they're a better bet for gene survival, if you lack resources. If you have good resource stability though, a boy is a better investment as a strong male can potential produce more offspring than a strong female (by having multiple mates).
Post by: Jelle on July 25, 2014, 12:55:54 pm
Females aren't born liking pink princesses. "One is not born, but becomes, a woman."
I disagree. Gender roles are not determined soly and entirely by nurture or soly and entirely by nature. It's perfectly possible for both to come into the equation, though in what relative proportions is another question.
Hormones influence our disposition and behavior significantly. If I were to throw some numbers at it, I'd say for us humans nurture makes up 4/5 of the equation and nature 1/5, but that's just my rough estimate.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 25, 2014, 01:04:15 pm
Speaking of which, why should we educate our children to be masculine or feminine? Why not just plain educate them and let them come to their own decisions regarding their gender and role?
Post by: Samarkand on July 25, 2014, 01:10:09 pm
Post by: Reelya on July 25, 2014, 01:35:47 pm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/200902/why-we-cry-movies
Quote
In research that will soon appear in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, those who saw the highly emotional part of the video had a 47% increase in oxytocin as measured in blood...women released more oxytocin and were more empathic than men.http://www.serenedoulas.com/5-awesome-things-about-oxytocin-you-probably-dont-know/
"Have a good cry. Did you know oxytocin is one of the hormones that regulates emotional crying? If you are feeling stressed, let yourself have a nice long cry and you can give yourself an oxytocin boost."
Well, it's back to a chicken-and-egg thing here. Do women produce more oxytocin because they've been conditioned to express their emotions, and men inherently suppress oxytocin production because they've been trained not to? Or is the oxytocin system geared for differing levels of production. Could be either one, and selecting either scenario is down to ideology right now, not science.
Post by: Jelle on July 25, 2014, 03:11:30 pm
And hormones dictate that little girls like princesses?
Gender roles are not determined soly and entirely by nurture or soly and entirely by nature.
Hormones influence our disposition and behavior significantly
Hm, a rather stranger conclusion to take from that. Let's not go down the road of hyperbole, shall we.
Post by: Neonivek on July 25, 2014, 03:20:46 pm
And hormones dictate that little girls like princesses? Before a certain point, there is no real distinction between genders in the minds of small children; they don't need to differentiate. So, while, yes, women are more likely to be nurturing because of hormones and the like, it has nothing to do with gender roles. Besides which, natural does not equal good. Sexism is natural, and if one looks at chimpanzees you can see it. That doesn't make it okay. Dying to plagues is also natural. Our strength as sentient beings is the ability to overcome that.
Speaking of which, why should we educate our children to be masculine or feminine? Why not just plain educate them and let them come to their own decisions regarding their gender and role?
I thought both genders like pink princesses.
And one of the main reasons children, especially young girls, pick up on them is because they are introduced to them around the same time it matches their worldview and panders to them. (Honestly look at Princesses... they fit young children quite well.). So who are these Pink Princesses? They are women. Who are these children? Girls. Who are the only two Disney princess of any real importance? Aladdin and Simba... MAYBE Eric if you want to stretch things.
As well as the female maternal instinct seems to hit girls at incredibly young ages, I've yet to hear contradictory evidence towards this but I am open to it existing. It is why I say that baby dolls, for example, are a toy that is enforced by biology. At least as far as I know... A lot of this psychological gender studies go back and forth or are misleading. I still remember the study that tried to prove videogames make children violent, but showing them violence and giving them a punching toy...
Post by: Telgin on July 25, 2014, 03:27:12 pm
For what it's worth, studies have been performed on chimps that show that their children seem to have gender specific preferences on what toys they like to play with. You could probably find any number of arguments against the study or its conclusions, or even claim that chimps have culture of a sort, but it leads me to believe that there probably are some small innate differences between the genders well before puberty ever kicks in. Hormones aren't the only thing that affects behavior.
Wish I had the link to a better overview of that study. It's probably not hard to track it down though, so if I find time I might look for it.
Post by: LordBucket on July 25, 2014, 03:39:31 pm
I thought both genders like pink princesses.
Nobody likes pink princesses (http://rebeccahains.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/pretty-princess-problems-the-case-of-princess-celestia/) :P
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 03:44:03 pm
Quote
I disagree. Gender roles are not determined soly and entirely by nurture or soly and entirely by nature. It's perfectly possible for both to come into the equation, though in what relative proportions is another question.Pink was a masculine color in Europe for quite some time.
Hormones influence our disposition and behavior significantly. If I were to throw some numbers at it, I'd say for us humans nurture makes up 4/5 of the equation and nature 1/5, but that's just my rough estimate.
It was believed to be a slightly less aggressive version of red, which was blood and war, this even the diminuitive was masculine.
Pink was also associated with healthiness (like nice rosy pink skin versus sallow sickly yellow skin) which was a gender neutral aspect.
Some (actually many, likely most) things are indeed entirely learned. No combination of proteins contributes anything whatsoever to the concept of what the word "carburetor" means, for example. it is biologically laughable even to suggest they might.
Color categories I wouldn't call laughable at all, but they definitely have little biological evidence.Different cultures around the world have dramatically different color category divisions (Russians can compare blues faster and more accurately than us, consistent with their language categories), and there is significant inconsistency of color meanings or associations over time. There's an excellent Radio Lab podcast about color where they discuss a man who decided to never tell his daughter that the sky was blue, and instead just asked her what color it was occasionally (only asking when the sky was blue to him). She refused to answer for 2 months, then eventually said "white." (again, on a day when he say it as brilliantly blue)
They also discuss that in the Odyssey, Homer never refers to anything as blue, and that Greek authors in general all say weird stuff like violet sheep and hair and ox blood oceans. Another guy found the same thing in ancient Chinese, Icelandic, the bible in original Hebrew. No blue. Weird other colors (red is used most normally to modern tastes). Tribal people alive today with no blue color look at a screen with 11 green squares and 1 blue one (very obvious to us) just stare blankly. And that this has nothing to do with their vision / being colorblind, or anything like that.
The hypotheses put forth have everything to do with blue things being rare in nature, bright reds being common. And blue dyes being very advanced, red dyes being easiest, etc. I.e. not eye pigments at all. Total overwhelmingl experience driven behavior.
Gender roles as a high level behavior also make little obvious sense to postulate as a product of genes. Far more complicated than color labeling as a behavior, even less reasonable to ascribe to specific proteins. Which proteins, exactly make you like trucks or unicorns? Or can you point to any scientific evidence that genes code for gender roles?
Quote
studies have been performed on chimps that show that their children seem to have gender specific preferences on what toys they like to play with.Chimps interact hugely with their children. That's irrevocably contaminated with learning. It is still definitely interesting as a chimpanzee cultural observation study, but really tells you nothing about genetic gender roles.
Post by: Samarkand on July 25, 2014, 03:47:52 pm
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 03:48:26 pm
Only genes are clearly "innate."
Hormones are very significantly influenced, triggered, and regulated by events in your environment. Everything from birth control (or potentially any other drugs) to your diet to the crazy chemical storm of your mother's body during pregnancy and her actions and diet and diseases and whatever influencing it, and your level of activity, and blah blah. So even if you showed hormones led to gender roles, that doesn't necessarily prove the desired conclusion. You really need straight up genes to make such a claim (and ones that cannot be influenced meaningfully by epigenetic influences, at that)
Post by: Neonivek on July 25, 2014, 03:52:13 pm
Also by the way, hormones are not necessarily "innate" or "nature"
Only genes are clearly "innate."
Hormones are very significantly influenced, triggered, and regulated by events in your environment. Everything from birth control (or potentially any other drugs) to your diet to the crazy chemical storm of your mother's body during pregnancy and her actions and diet and diseases and whatever influencing it, and your level of activity, and blah blah. So even if you showed hormones led to gender roles, that doesn't necessarily prove the desired conclusion. You really need straight up genes to make such a claim (and ones that cannot be influenced meaningfully by epigenetic influences, at that)
And you know... your body parts. >_>
I mean I know TECHNICALLY males are fully biologically capable of breast feeding and we have the psychological capacity for giving birth. Yet I think we still have a stronger testosterone producer.
Though to admit I don't know if after hormone therapy if your body produces elevated levels equal to that of the gender you got (or of your gender, as is the case of some people who need a hormone pick me up)
Post by: Reelya on July 25, 2014, 03:56:02 pm
Hope this hasn't been mentioned yet since I don't have time to read the whole thread, but...
For what it's worth, studies have been performed on chimps that show that their children seem to have gender specific preferences on what toys they like to play with. You could probably find any number of arguments against the study or its conclusions, or even claim that chimps have culture of a sort, but it leads me to believe that there probably are some small innate differences between the genders well before puberty ever kicks in. Hormones aren't the only thing that affects behavior.
Wish I had the link to a better overview of that study. It's probably not hard to track it down though, so if I find time I might look for it.
In humans, similar things. But not "gender specific". This study measures testosterone from the amniotic fluid of 212 prenatal babies, and correlates that with measures of "male typical" play-style in infancy. In both boys and girls there is a positive correlation between the prenatal testosterone and the play-style measure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778233/
Note: this stuff is WAY beyond those old "boys like things, girls like faces" type studies from before, now, we can actually link that to a chemical rather than something subjective like biological gender, it's much harder to brush it off as inadvertent experimenter bias or something.
Post by: LordBucket on July 25, 2014, 03:58:59 pm
Some (actually many, likely most) things are indeed entirely learned. No combination of proteins contributes anything whatsoever to the concept of what the word "carburetor" means, for example. it is biologically laughable even to suggest they might.
That might be true. But it's equally laughable to suggest that a dog could be taught to understand that same concept simply by giving him the right upbringing.
Quote
can you point to any scientific evidence that genes code for gender roles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavior_genetics
It seems rather arbitrary to acknowledge that genetics influence behavior, acknowledge that genetics influence behavior in humans...but to then insist that the presence or absence of an entire chromosome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome) can't have any affect.
To which I predict that your response will be "oh, but well of course genes can infleunce behavior...but we're not talking about behavior in general, we're talking about gender roles. So give me "scientific evidence" specifically that genes can influence that. Not just behavior in general."
To which my response is that you need to be more specific. Are we talking "liking princesses" or are we talking about preference for different types of social interaction?
I mean...if you want simple, obvious evidence that genetics can influence "gender roles" I could point out the obvious: women breastfeed. Men don't. That's a gender role. And that's genetic. But I assume that's not what you mean. So you need to clarify. We know genes influence biology. We know genes influence behavior. We know that men and women have significant genetic difference.
So what exactly is it you're having a tough time seeing how it could be affected by genetics?
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 04:01:39 pm
Also by the way, hormones are not necessarily "innate" or "nature"
Only genes are clearly "innate."
Hormones are very significantly influenced, triggered, and regulated by events in your environment. Everything from birth control (or potentially any other drugs) to your diet to the crazy chemical storm of your mother's body during pregnancy and her actions and diet and diseases and whatever influencing it, and your level of activity, and blah blah. So even if you showed hormones led to gender roles, that doesn't necessarily prove the desired conclusion. You really need straight up genes to make such a claim (and ones that cannot be influenced meaningfully by epigenetic influences, at that)
And you know... your body parts. >_>
I mean I know TECHNICALLY males are fully biologically capable of breast feeding and we have the psychological capacity for giving birth. Yet I think we still have a stronger testosterone producer.
Though to admit I don't know if after hormone therapy if your body produces elevated levels equal to that of the gender you got (or of your gender, as is the case of some people who need a hormone pick me up)
What's your point? I'm explaining why you cannot label something as "innate" unless you link it exclusively to genes. Or even a part of it as innate unless you can link that part of it exclusively to genes. You don't know what portion of hormones come from sex chromosomes versus the bazillion other things, many of them are conflated on top of that (people changing your environment on purpose based on your sex chromosomes, thus making correlation untrustworthy), AND you don't even know whether hormones contribute linearly? Or on their own? Or do they need to combine with other things? In non-linear fashions perhaps (1 unit = nothing, 5 units = nothing, 7 units = nothing, 8 units = suddenly you like trucks! 9 units = back to nothing, etc)? Or of course, whether hormones even have anything to do with gender roles at all, which hasn't actually been established here.
Nor can you label things are nurture confidently without equivalent almost impossible information. Which is why "nature vs. nurture" is a pretty useless, counterproductive distinction that more and more people in my field of psychology shun now. Especially since even if you could establish it, it doesn't even lead to anything very useful aside from some discriminatory legal policies and things. You're much better off simply investigating and explaining whatever influences on behaviors you can demonstrate in labs clearly and learning as many as possible involved processes.
Post by: Neonivek on July 25, 2014, 04:04:23 pm
We also know what they do.
We also know that what part produces them MORE in males and females. >_>
"Biological" doesn't mean "GENES ONLY!"... because there is no "produce more testosterone gene"
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 04:10:49 pm
Quote
"Biological" doesn't mean "GENES ONLY!"I don't know what YOU mean by biological, but "genes only" is the only way to draw an actually consistent, scientifically meaningful line in a nature vs. nurture dialogue. Nothing else makes sense, because everything else is hopelessly cross-contaminated. Every. single. thing. about your body other than that is steeped in untold amounts of influence of your environment, and everything about your environment and experiences is steeped in the influence of yours and others' bodies and chemicals and internal processes. And back and forth between billions of times.
Which is why it's generally more efficient to just stop talking about things from that perspective, which most researchers have done.
Quote
We know where these hormones come from GavJ >_>No, we don't. We know some rudimentary basics about each of those, that is all. But hormones, especially nowadays, can come from all sorts of places, the many drugs we eat, food we eat, runoff in the water we drink from our neighbors urinating birth control into the sewage, etc. etc. Their production from our own organs can also be heavily influenced again by drugs, by our diet, by our exercise, by our experiences of every kind.
We also know what they do.
We also know that what part produces them MORE in males and females. >_>
We have very little idea how much we know about what they do, either -- hormones are implicated in sex characteristics like growing breasts, sure, but also strongly involved in super esoteric things we don't understand at all, like lupus. And again, I point out that nobody in the thread has even posted one study showing gender roles linked to hormones yet... so to claim that's part of our "absolutely known for sure" knowledge base is more than a little ambitious at this point...
Post by: LordBucket on July 25, 2014, 04:18:32 pm
I point out that nobody in the thread has even posted one study showing gender roles linked to hormones yet...
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5510988#msg5510988
"if you want simple, obvious evidence that genetics can influence "gender roles" I could point out the obvious: women breastfeed. Men don't. That's a gender role. And that's genetic. But I assume that's not what you mean. So you need to clarify. We know genes influence biology. We know genes influence behavior. We know that men and women have significant genetic difference.
So what exactly is it you're having a tough time seeing how it could be affected by genetics?"
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 04:22:08 pm
Your links: Notice the dates that start tapering off around the 1970s, and notice also the lack of any mention of gender roles, for purposes of the topic of this thread.
Post by: Samarkand on July 25, 2014, 04:26:38 pm
Breast feeding is genetic? News to me. I'd love to hear which gene makes you breastfeed.To clarify this point, genes make it possible to breastfeed, they do not cause action.
Your links: Notice the dates that start tapering off around the 1970s, and notice also the lack of any mention of gender roles, for purposes of the topic of this thread.
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 04:31:36 pm
1) Genes --> behavior. In terms of this line, "making something possible" =/= innateness, not even by the most cowboyish, radical spokespeople in history for the innate side of the nature/nurture debate. On reflection, though, i don't think that's what he/she was getting at.
2) Hormones --> gender role behavior. Largely separate part of the discussion, sorry if I focused on the wrong one. But for this one, I wouldn't call breastfeeding a "gender role." It's more of a "sex role," going by the same distinctions made by several people earlier in the thread between sex and gender. Gender roles being characteristic ways of acting that do NOT have to do with your physical organs and bits, and could potentially be exhibited either way by differently sexed people. A link between hormones and gender roles would be something that anybody could physically do, but which (hypothetically) hormones have a direct influence in causing people with more of that hormone to do those things particularly more often.
Post by: Reelya on July 25, 2014, 04:33:04 pm
Because you have one side saying every difference boils down to socialization. No biology allowed.
I don't know what YOU mean by biological
Ok where do you stand exactly on the causes of behavior variation between male/female, and how do studies like the one i linked before (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778233/) fit into that view?
If an prenatal chemical causes changes in behavior of the grown organism do you agree that's not just a social construct?
Of course, we on this side are not saying socialization doesn't exist or anything. But even slight biases from biology can cause large changes in behavior, especially once you bring groups into the picture. The behaviors in the study (which correlate with prenatal testosterone) influence both style of play and playmate selection, showing how small biological differences in behavior can lead to complex social dynamics, and creation of peer groups, even without external biasing from adults.
Post by: LordBucket on July 25, 2014, 04:33:34 pm
Breast feeding is genetic? News to me. I'd love to hear which gene makes you breastfeed.
Sometimes miscommunication is amusing. You do understand that men lack functional mammary glands, yes?
Google 'boobs.' Revel in the enlightenment it brings.
Quote
Your links: Notice the dates that start tapering off around the 1970s, and notice also the lack of any mention of gender roles, for purposes of the topic of this thread.
I also notice that I've now twice asked you to clarify what it is you're asking for evidence of, yet both times you've neglected to do so. Nobody wants to go looking for evidence you could easily look for yourself knowing full well that you're being deliberately vague about what you mean so that as soon as we post evidence you can move your goalposts.
I assert that breastfeeding children is an obviously genetically-influenced "gender role." Breastfeeding children is something that only women do. Because, you know...only women have the biological capability of doing that.
But you're obviously going to insist that's "not what you mean." Ok, great. So tell us what you mean. What would qualify as a "gender role" Define "gender role" in the context that you're asking for. Give us examples of this thing that you're insisting isn't genetically influenced. If your'e claiming that there isn't a gene that makes people like or dislike pink princesses, I doubt anyone will disagree with you. But I doubt anyone thinks that's what you mean. So what do you mean?
We need clarity before the discussion can progress.
Post by: Neonivek on July 25, 2014, 04:39:31 pm
Quote
You do understand that men lack functional mammary glands, yes?
Odd I thought they do actually. Just rather reduced ones.
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 04:41:27 pm
Quote
Nature vs nurture in this context means biological vs social causes.No there's nothing special about this topic in terms of this.
Because you have one side saying every difference boils down to socialization. No biology allowed.
Everybody in every topic wants to think of it in the terms you are. But you can't, because when you analyze the causal reality professionally, it just doesn't make sense to do that. It's intuitive to lay people, but in actuality useless. Because it is based on a false conception of how organisms work -- especially in America where this is most rampant, people are lured into this notion that we are our own little isolated temples and that our biology is a somehow meaningfully contained thing intimately tied to our individuality.
That's all bollocks. Your matter and cells and causal influence and even your ideas and cognition (you export them by writing on post it notes and import by reading or looking things up on google instead of bothering to remember, etc. etc.) are leaking out of and into you every second in a super fuzzy impossible to distinguish way, and there is no truly meaningful distinction between your body and not-your-body, "biology" versus "socialization" or anything like that. There are colloquial distinctions of these sorts, but there aren't any that withstand scrutiny when you actually start zooming in and following causality around in an attempt to answer the initial questions.
The only place where there is an actual, hard, scientifically meaningful cutoff that remotely approaches what people want to talk about with nature vs. nuture, and which could actually be feasibly controlled for and tested, is genes vs. not genes.
Quote
Sometimes miscommunication is amusing. You do understand that men lack functional mammary glands, yes?::) Yes.
My snarkily presented point was that "growing mammary glands" is a world away from "being unavoidably compelled to have sex, carry an infant around for 9 months, give birth, put them to your breast, and also have THEM suck milk out of it (do genes now mind control other organisms, too?)"
The breats are (partially!) genetic (partially reliant on not being malnourished, not being on hormone drugs, blah blah, so actually not even breasts are innate).
The behavior is clearly not at all innate, by any crazy stretch of the imagination.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 25, 2014, 04:47:25 pm
Now, I'm going to ask what the point of this part if the discussion is. Are we trying to convince one another whether biology versus social environment define gender roles? Because I'm pretty sure it's a combination of the two; I have doubts as to whether, in a perfect non-gender conformist world, half of female-sexed individuals would identify as male/masculine, and half of male-sexed individuals would identify as female/feminine.
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 04:47:39 pm
Quote
I also notice that I've now twice asked you to clarify what it is you're asking for evidence of, yet both times you've neglected to do so.I DID clarify:
Evidence of a behavior which COULD physically/logically be done by any normal human (not dependent on having certain sex organs, following the distinction made by almost everybody in the first pages of the thread of gender versus sex!), but which is significantly heightened in proportion to the amount of a hormone present in any given individual.
For example:
Man with 5 parts (low) testosterone = shows the behavior once a week
Woman with 10 parts testosterone = shows the behavior twice a week
Woman with 15 parts testosterone = shows the behavior 3 times a week
Man with (normal) 50 parts testosterone or whatever = shows the behavior 10 times a week.
Obviously that's super unrealistically perfect and cute-sy data, but hopefully you get my gist.
Quote
As well, a gender role implies that someone who is transgendered can fill it just as easily as someone who is cisgendered.Yes, that. I.e. not breastfeeding, which would be a sex-role behavior, following the distinctions made by the great majority of people in the thread.
Quote
Are we trying to convince one another whether biology versus social environment define gender roles? Because I'm pretty sure it's a combination of the two"Biology versus social environment" is a frustratingly useless distinction that was abandoned by most researchers decades ago, and most often is injected by annoying reporters into news articles when you do see it, not from papers itself (although there are a few holdouts).
So I'm trying to argue against people focusing on that angle. But also having a separate discussion about hormones in particular and whether they might influence gender roles.
That's the way people do things now scientifically the majority of the time. You make specific, well definable claims, like "HORMONES --> XYZ" A hormone is a specific set of particular chemicals, and this claim can be clearly tested and controlled. "Biology versus social" cannot, since social interaction is itself almost 100% biological, and biology is less completely but still largely social.
Post by: Reelya on July 25, 2014, 04:51:24 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 25, 2014, 04:57:41 pm
I just say we treat people as people and leave gender out of the equation until they can make that decision for themselves.
Unfortunately, that's a society wide issue that can't be solved simply by parent intervention; everyone would have to be in on it, effectively, and that's...unlikely, to say the least. Which is sad and unfortunate.
Basically I'm curious as to what the point of the current argument trail is, really.
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 05:03:25 pm
The article I linked was exactly evidence of that kind. Maybe you can comment on it.Thank you Reelya, that is indeed such an article.
However, I don't understand where, if at all, they controlled for the confound of other children or adults coercing or influencing a certain type of play BECAUSE of physical differences brought on by testosterone differences.
It certainly does show a correlation hormones <--> gender role behavior. But not necessarily a directional hormones --> gender role behavior, as far as I can tell? (they might only be TRYING to show a correlation, some studies only attempt to do that).
They mention controlling these factors:
Quote
Gestational age at amniocentesis, maternal age, maternal education, and child’s age at PSAI assessment were included for control purposes.The first and last are just to screen out preemies, the next two presumably an attempt to get roughly controlled culture and parenting types.
But making sure your parents have similar parenting types does not ensure that the parenting style they all have is not one of "encourage kids into our pre-existing gender role assumptions"
Note:
IF they could establish that parents were unable to even intuitively distinguish children of varying testosterone levels, then this paper would become much more interesting. But parents might be able to. Perhaps more amniotic testosterone leads to faster muscle development or something like that, and so they kick a little bit more or whatnot, and parents go "oh look at them! Gonna be such a soccer player" blah blah... so it begins, before you're even born.
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 05:07:41 pm
Quote
Well, I just don't see why it matters, honestly, whether hormones or shit influence behavior.it matters because what we want is what's healthiest for children. We can't know what is healthiest if we don't study the causes and outcomes and alternatives.
I just say we treat people as people and leave gender out of the equation until they can make that decision for themselves.
Equal treatment MIGHT be what's healthy.
Or it might turn out that children need guidance about their roles and will get super frustrated and develop unhealthy tendencies if unguided, perhaps. *shrug*
Science can help determine answers to those options. Assumptions don't do as good of a job.
(edited quite a bit, sorry)
Post by: Neonivek on July 25, 2014, 05:11:14 pm
That way people can believe whatever the heck they want...
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 05:14:37 pm
Quote
That way people can believe whatever the heck they want...Which like I said (in my edited post, maybe you responded earlier), is not necessarily a noble goal, if children are frustrated to the point of developing disorders and pathologies due to missing something that they crave and depend on. or are dysfunctional later in their lives, etc.
Children unarguably REQUIRE lots of direction about lots of things, and in most cases, it would be considered clearly abusive to deny that direction to them. For instance, refusing to tell them what different words mean, because "you want them to believe whatever the heck they want" about English language. You would probably get arrested for that.
I'm not claiming that gender roles are the same, and that they need guidance. but they MIGHT. We need to study it further. Not just assume out of thin air that a hands off approach is best without any data.
(it could also certainly be a gray, not black or white case, such as "you should give them direction if they don't exhibit any strong personal opinions contrary, but if they do, let them go with it" sort of thing. Doesn't have to be a one-stop-solution for everybody as for what's healthiest. Again, needs research)
Post by: Jelle on July 26, 2014, 03:35:42 am
Theres sort of two lines of discussion going on here, and it is a bit confusing:I'm a little confused as to this division. While hormonal balances are influenced by external factors as well, and genes influence more than just the production of hormones; given that genes are pretty much blueprints for the production of proteins and stuff, which includes the production of cellular produced hormones as well as the formation and functioning of larger hormone producing organs (most notably the thyroid and gonads I think?), it stands to reason 1 very much influences 2.
1) Genes
2) Hormones
That isn't to say genetics by themselves do not influence behavior, I mentioned hormones in my previous post because it's the obvious example. Excluding the influence of hormones, I guess the only other way genes determine our behavior is through the direct functioning of brain/nerve cells? By which I mean inborn instinctive behavior and minor differences in how neurons connect. I must admit, I wouldn't know the first thing about that stuff.
Here's a good read (http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/01/21/scientists-look-to-burrowing-mice-to-understand-genetics-of-instinct/) to show what I'm trying to say here, since I know I'm not exactly the most articulate and verbose of persons. It talks about some interesting experiments, to.
Post by: Eagle_eye on July 26, 2014, 12:21:10 pm
Post by: Angle on July 26, 2014, 12:24:41 pm
Post by: Sergarr on July 26, 2014, 12:31:27 pm
But they might need some kind of gender roles, even if they're completely different from ours.MMORPG already have these:
Tanks, Healers and DPS.
They're not exactly gender roles, but they're roles nonetheless.
Post by: Angle on July 26, 2014, 12:38:55 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 26, 2014, 01:58:01 pm
That actually gets back to my first post, where I propose that it might be worthwhile to consider alternate sets of roles. You would eed to translate those into real life terms, though.Tank: Person who takes all the shit from customers and the company and deals with it handily.
DPS: Person who gets shit done
Healer: Person who makes sure no one goes insane from stress
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2014, 01:59:13 pm
Post by: LordBucket on July 26, 2014, 02:17:05 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2014, 02:19:08 pm
Would somebody explain to me which precisely are the "gender roles" that people are so upset about? I see a lot of people speaking as if it's known and assumed that these are bad(tm) things, but I see very little explanation of what it is we're even talking about.
I think people are just against gender roles in general. Imposing upon people roles that they may or may not want to fulfill or teaching them to live up to them.
Post by: Putnam on July 26, 2014, 02:47:02 pm
Would somebody explain to me which precisely are the "gender roles" that people are so upset about? I see a lot of people speaking as if it's known and assumed that these are bad(tm) things, but I see very little explanation of what it is we're even talking about.
Malibu Stacy? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftde81QNXDY&channel=lordofheck)
Post by: LordBucket on July 26, 2014, 03:47:02 pm
I think people are just against gender roles in general. Imposing upon people roles that they may or may not want to fulfill or teaching them to live up to them.
...like what? Examples, please.
Sometimes people expect me to deal with bugs or open jars because I'm male. Is that really so terrible? I have long hair. A couple times in my life somebody's mistaken me from a girl from behind. Because "girls have long hair." 10 seconds of awkwardness later, these events have passed.
I think it's fair to say that these are not major social problems.
Malibu Stacy? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftde81QNXDY&channel=lordofheck)
...ok, but I note that your video is a parody from 20 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_vs._Malibu_Stacy). 20 years ago, it was mainstream to make fun of the stereotype being referred to.
Here is what that episode was a parody of: "Math class is tough" Barbie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE)
I think the phenomenon there is that some elements of corporate america are still living in pre-1960s. Which is why girl's toy aisles in stores are pink, and why "queens are evil, princesses are good." And why the first run of Princess Celestia toys were pink (http://www.mommyish.com/2012/02/15/my-little-pony-princess-celestia-hasbro-sexist-248/) despite the character being white. In the case of "Math is tough" Barbie, despite controversy, Mattel didn't recall it (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/21/business/company-news-mattel-says-it-erred-teen-talk-barbie-turns-silent-on-math.html)...presumably because people were buying them.
So I guess the question becomes: are people upset because corporations make this stuff...or because parents buy it? Because if parents didn't buy it, corporations would would stop making it.
Post by: Samarkand on July 26, 2014, 04:08:21 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 26, 2014, 04:21:24 pm
Women stay home and take care of the children, men go out and work
Women want children, men don't
Women are sluts, men are players
Women are passive, men are active
Women cry and are generally more emotional, men don't show their emotions and are generally more stoic
Women are supporting characters, men are main characters
Girls like dolls/dresses, boys like action figures/trucks
It's okay for women to dress in masculine clothing, but men who dress in feminine clothing are ridiculed
Women are nurturing, men are reserved
Examples of gender roles without dichotomies:
Women don't play video games
All men want sex
Women can't abuse men
Women shouldn't want sex
Women are subservient
I think it's fair to say that these, especially when these stereotypes are prevalent throughout a culture, are major social problems.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 26, 2014, 04:34:22 pm
Would somebody explain to me which precisely are the "gender roles" that people are so upset about? I see a lot of people speaking as if it's known and assumed that these are bad(tm) things, but I see very little explanation of what it is we're even talking about.
There is a male role and a female role held by society as a whole, which is not official or recorded anywhere but far too consistent within a given society to be personal opinion. There, that's a mostly correct one sentence summary.
Your "male acts, female is acted upon" is a single facet of gender roles as a whole. And one of the more abrasive ones at that.
Anyone who talks about gender roles in terms of sexual dimorphism is giving you the correct answer to a different question. It can help us guess how gender roles developed and it is relevant to questions of their validity, but ultimately it can answer neither of those questions. How gender roles developed is a question that can only be answered with some degree of guessing*, while the question of validity is a moral/political question not one of strict fact.
*because gender roles are based on older gender roles, repeating into pre-history. So without a time machine or unethical multi-generation psychology experiments, we won't know how sexual dimorphism contributed to the earliest gender roles.
Post by: GavJ on July 26, 2014, 05:52:14 pm
Quote
It's pretty clear that children don't need to be encouraged to adopt most of the behaviors we associate with one gender or the other, because there are other cultures with very different gender roles that seem to be doing just fine, psychologically.By this same logic, it's clear that children don't need food, because other cultures with very different food than ours seem to be doing just fine... :-\
It MIGHT be the case that even though a child doesn't need any particular gender role, they may still need some gender roles of some sort provided to them, and that simply ignoring the issue completely and giving them no guidance whatsoever might be bad for them.
I have no evidence this is necessarily true, but neither have I ever seen any evidence that gender roles AREN'T needed, so we shouldn't assume either way unless research is done on it.
Quote
I guess the only other way genes determine our behavior is through the direct functioning of brain/nerve cells?I'm no super expert on hormones, but I am an expert on psychology, and I do know FOR SURE they don't do that (cause behavior via direct influence on brain organization). Almost everything about your brain's organization is much more context driven than gene driven. Genes stop somewhere at the level of like "here are some basic lobes and maybe some substructures, and here's a set of different cell arhictectures to work with. Beyond that, they don't do much for any brain detail. As one dramatic example, your visual cortex doesn't actually know how many eyes you have until it starts actually getting input from X many eyes. And if you graft a third one into an animal, it will organize itself perfectly logically for 3 eyes with 3 ocular dominance column types.
This sort of thing is typical for everything else in your brain. You don't know how many limbs you have or what their range of movement is until you try to move around (twitching in your sleep and reading off the tension has also been demonstrated to provide such feedback data to the brain about its own body's structure). You don't know how many tones you can hear until the auditory organs actually start spitting in input. Think of it sort of like genes building a tomato plant frame, and then everything about where each tiny little tendril and flower grows is dependent upon a dizzying world of contextual influence and input.
Which is great! Because as you might imagine, a non-gene-reliant method is not only more efficient information storage-wise, but also more adaptive, since your brain can learn automatically to cope with defects or injuries throughout your life, versus just one plan where if anything goes wrong, the plan stops working.
Machines that man has made from blueprints usually do one thing - they dry your hair or they move you from A to B. And if you break a gear, the whole thing becomes a paperweight. Any organism, though, built that poorly would go extinct in the snap of a finger. Humans do all of those and thousands of other things, precisely because their blueprints do not limit or determine their behavior. It's closer, if anything, to a computer. And in a computer, do you include in the manufacturing blueprints anything that fully specifies individual programs that will exist on the machine? Nope. You only specify generic mechanisms by which inputs can organize and dictate programs...
It IS hypothetically possible to have a gene-wired behavior, but it has to be super crude and usually reliant on giant, specialized nerve clusters. For example, the leg kicking reflex when hit by a rubber mallet. Yes, genes can do things like that by in that example doing something as crude as making all nerves go through the same spot in your leg. That's the sort of level you're restricted to.
You will see many complex behaviors that appear universal, like walking. But for the example of walking, it ends up being the same because your leg and basic body structure is the same, and you all experience the same gravity, etc. So as you experiment, everybody eventually finds the same maximum efficiency solution given the common context. Not because there's some "walking genes." It's very much a system set up in such a way as to reinvent the wheel every generation. This has a cost in that it takes time to reinvent the wheel. But the savings -- of what would have had to be billions or trillions of base pairs of DNA for such a behavior -- is well worth it.
As this all relates to the actual thread - gender-specific roles are all so subtle and complex that they all fall in the same category as walking or high level vision -- there's simply no realistic way they can be specified by genes. They could be remotely, wispily, through infinite twists and turns, be influenced in part by genes, absolutely. But not specified by them. And therefore, in no sense of the word whatsoever "innate."
Quote
*because gender roles are based on older gender roles, repeating into pre-history. So without a time machine or unethical multi-generation psychology experiments, we won't know how sexual dimorphism contributed to the earliest gender roles.Meh. Gender roles between females across cultures in present day can differ by much larger amounts than gender role differences between genders in one culture.
Which implies to me that there's no solid reason to believe sexual dimorphism actually has much to do with them at all.
It could just be that ANY sexual dimorphism of ANY type merely serves as a convenient visible difference by which to specify two different groups of people, and then that the content of the gender roles you assign to those people have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the specific facts of their dimorphism.
Post by: Reelya on July 26, 2014, 05:55:19 pm
Here is what that episode was a parody of: "Math class is tough" Barbie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE)
I'm just reading up on that, there were 270 phrases and each doll came loaded with a random 4 phrases. 1.5% of the dolls were bad at math. Some of the dolls say "I'm studying to be a doctor" and other stuff though.
According to the company apology, they considered that "maths class is tough" statement to be a "general" teenage thing that could apply or either male or female teens, and hadn't really thought through the implications.
To be fair, they get a bad rap, as there are just as many "studying to be a doctor" barbies as "maths class is tough" barbies. Plus whatever else they say, because i can only find a list of about 20 known phrases.
Post by: GavJ on July 26, 2014, 07:17:14 pm
That's pretty fascinating! Good on them.Here is what that episode was a parody of: "Math class is tough" Barbie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE)
I'm just reading up on that, there were 270 phrases and each doll came loaded with a random 4 phrases. 1.5% of the dolls were bad at math. Some of the dolls say "I'm studying to be a doctor" and other stuff though.
According to the company apology, they considered that "maths class is tough" statement to be a "general" teenage thing that could apply or either male or female teens, and hadn't really thought through the implications.
To be fair, they get a bad rap, as there are just as many "studying to be a doctor" barbies as "maths class is tough" barbies. Plus whatever else they say, because i can only find a list of about 20 known phrases.
Post by: Tiruin on July 26, 2014, 09:21:45 pm
*reads up*
I'm siding with GavJ on the Gender role note, though only a student in Philosophy and Psych. Gender Roles seem more built on previous action than any biological instance (in recent-post-context when compared to what I said before), as in they're a construct built upon a foundation that isn't purely biological at all (pertaining to the behavior of people [ie Women are subservient and stuff like that])
Poke on one part
Quote
As this all relates to the actual thread - gender-specific roles are all so subtle and complex that they all fall in the same category as walking or high level vision -- there's simply no realistic way they can be specified by genes. They could be remotely, wispily, through infinite twists and turns, be influenced in part by genes, absolutely. But not specified by them. And therefore, in no sense of the word whatsoever "innate."That the differences are subtle enough to be confused as biological due to how early some roles (as a generality) are taught.
Post by: Samarkand on July 26, 2014, 09:26:53 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2014, 09:35:19 pm
Quote
Examples of gender roles without dichotomies:
Women don't play video games
All men want sex
Women can't abuse men
Women shouldn't want sex
Women are subservient
Trust me... these also have dichotomies... Just they don't always have direct dichotomies (As in "Women have This and men have the opposite").
For example "Women can't abuse men" dichotomy is "Men are strong and in control".
Same with "All men want sex" with the dictonomy of "Women shouldn't want sex"
"women don't play videogames" goes to "Videogames are a guy thing"
Though I might be mixing things up... since "cause" doesn't necessarily imply a dichotomy.
Mind you the "double" aspect of the Double standard is why I honestly think that handling sexism without handling both sexism towards males and females is pretty much a lost cause... Well that and many male issues directly affect women (The male "be tough and controlling" leading to them abusing women for example) and vise versa. You aren't going to eliminate "women are the weaker sex" until you deal with "men are the strong sex".
Post by: Tiruin on July 26, 2014, 09:42:36 pm
I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
Seems that simple for me.
Aspire.
Post by: Samarkand on July 26, 2014, 09:45:06 pm
But people want to aspire to different things. The point is that positive means different things to different people. Some fall into the nurturing role easily, and see it as a positive. Others do not, at all.I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
Seems that simple for me.
Aspire.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 26, 2014, 09:46:15 pm
*sigh*QuoteExamples of gender roles without dichotomies:
Women don't play video games
All men want sex
Women can't abuse men
Women shouldn't want sex
Women are subservient
Trust me... these also have dichotomies... Just they don't always have direct dichotomies (As in "Women have This and men have the opposite").
For example "Women can't abuse men" dichotomy is "Men are strong and in control".
Same with "All men want sex" with the dictonomy of "Women shouldn't want sex"
Mind you the "double" aspect of the Double standard is why I honestly think that handling sexism without handling both sexism towards males and females is pretty much a lost cause... Well that and many male issues directly affect women (The male "be tough and controlling" leading to them abusing women for example).
Neonivek, you understand that the best way to handle sexism that adversely affects men is to deal with the more prevalent and more harmful sexism that adversely affects women, right?
I didn't want the dichotomy part to become a point of discussion. It was a way of phrasing it, nothing more. Whether it's a dichotomy or not is besides the point.
As well, what suggestions would you have for stopping sexism against men, then? Because a lot of sexism against men portrays it in a positive light, which is the problem; "Men are strong and in control" is positive, while "Women are weak and are controlled" is not. However, "Men are strong and in control" can have negative consequences as well because it becomes believed that if they aren't, they aren't really men. Where this becomes really obvious is in domestic abuse, and rape; the argument goes something like this:
"Men are strong and in control, while women are weak. Therefore, women cannot truly harm men, and any abuse they direct towards men should be simply taken without comment because it can't actually harm them, after all; they're only women! Men who try to bring this up are obviously only trying to get attention. Women are the only ones who can be abused in domestic relationships."
This is, of course, untrue. But the way to solve it is not to promote the idea "Men are not strong and not in control". That's stupid. That's going to be ridiculed by everyone, because you're trying to bring about equality by pulling down one gender rather than lifting up the other. Instead, you remind people that women are strong too(not 'can be strong', but 'are strong'), and are the equal of men in every way that counts(don't bring up fucking sexual dimorphism/athleticism bullshit into this, please). Then, when these cases come up, the woman is not dismissed as too weak to actually hurt the man.
So goodie for you, Neon. You understand that sexism affects both genders. However, unless you have a better idea for how to handle the issue as a whole, the best approach is to start with the oppressed gender.
Post by: Samarkand on July 26, 2014, 09:51:58 pm
-snip-Agreed. I think there are a lot of negative affects of sexism towards men (I'm male and do ballroom dance competitions, and this is often met with mocking from peers). However, the solution to this is to understand sexism towards women as being more than just a woman's problem, and start getting involved as a man. Equality is best sought be elevating women, and by phasing out language like "You throw like a girl".
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 26, 2014, 10:00:03 pm
Not even necessarily phasing it out, though that would probably be the best practical solution, but making it positive instead. Or rather, 'You throw like a woman'. Now, consider your first reaction to that phrase. It seems negative, because of the cultural connotations. Consider the phrase 'You throw like a man'. Now tell me, was your reaction to that the same? Likely not, because being manly is considered good, and being womanly is considered bad. However, I would much rather it be that being either, or neither, or both, were all considered good.-snip-Agreed. I think there are a lot of negative affects of sexism towards men (I'm male and do ballroom dance competitions, and this is often met with mocking from peers). However, the solution to this is to understand sexism towards women as being more than just a woman's problem, and start getting involved as a man. Equality is best sought be elevating women, and by phasing out language like "You throw like a girl".
This is not entirely an altruistic wish on my part; I identify as androgynous, so...
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2014, 10:01:19 pm
Quote
Neonivek, you understand that the best way to handle sexism that adversely affects men is to deal with the more prevalent and more harmful sexism that adversely affects women, right?
It works both ways. You can't affect one without working with the other.
Quote
As well, what suggestions would you have for stopping sexism against men, then? Because a lot of sexism against men portrays it in a positive light, which is the problem
Positive sexism is just as terrible a thing as negative ones. Tear down positive stereotypes, affirm that there is virtue in not having them.
Quote
are the equal of men in every way that counts(don't bring up fucking sexual dimorphism/athleticism bullshit into this, please).
You need to work it on both sides...
Because "Women are equal" but "Men are in control and strong"... = Assert control and dominance over not men... which is women... but doesn't that mean women aren't equal and are weak and need to be help in line? BOOM!
Post by: Samarkand on July 26, 2014, 10:02:26 pm
Both being regarded as good is simply less likely than phasing out the phrase entirely. After all, it links throwing to gender. It implies, whether both are good or not, that men and women throw differently.Not even necessarily phasing it out, though that would probably be the best practical solution, but making it positive instead. Or rather, 'You throw like a woman'. Now, consider your first reaction to that phrase. It seems negative, because of the cultural connotations. Consider the phrase 'You throw like a man'. Now tell me, was your reaction to that the same? Likely not, because being manly is considered good, and being womanly is considered bad. However, I would much rather it be that being either, or neither, or both, were all considered good.-snip-Agreed. I think there are a lot of negative affects of sexism towards men (I'm male and do ballroom dance competitions, and this is often met with mocking from peers). However, the solution to this is to understand sexism towards women as being more than just a woman's problem, and start getting involved as a man. Equality is best sought be elevating women, and by phasing out language like "You throw like a girl".
This is not entirely an altruistic wish on my part; I identify as androgynous, so...
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2014, 10:03:58 pm
I will say that the term "Tomboy" is probably the one phrase I feel has no real meaning anymore. A girl who wears T-shirts, Shorts, and likes sports? What do we call her? Ohh right a girl who likes sports... or even just a girl.
To the extent where I just feel odd whenever I see it pop up. (The last time I've seen a western show bring it up it was Lizzie Maguire... which the episode basically said it was BS and no one really cares... and anime/JRPGs/Mangas are SO OBSESSED with the "Girl who needs to retain her femininity" plotlines that will often take any sort of guy activity as an affront on their womanliness, to the extent where I could count maybe 3 animes who ever did that plotline in a satisfactory way that didn't rely on "but she is a woman and is not meant for this... because she is a delicate white flower on a patch of dew. She should be free to be a woman" garbage)
Post by: Tiruin on July 26, 2014, 10:13:35 pm
Then perhaps we must not generalize a whole populace with the role and instead use the role as a guide--a diagram, if it could be termed so, instead of labels to attribute to people before we know of their intent in regard to the role.But people want to aspire to different things. The point is that positive means different things to different people. Some fall into the nurturing role easily, and see it as a positive. Others do not, at all.I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
Seems that simple for me.
Aspire.
That seems a lot better than assuming. :P
Post by: Samarkand on July 26, 2014, 10:16:00 pm
Every guide places restrictions. But I do see your point. :)Then perhaps we must not generalize a whole populace with the role and instead use the role as a guide--a diagram, if it could be termed so, instead of labels to attribute to people before we know of their intent in regard to the role.But people want to aspire to different things. The point is that positive means different things to different people. Some fall into the nurturing role easily, and see it as a positive. Others do not, at all.I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
Seems that simple for me.
Aspire.
That seems a lot better than assuming. :P
Post by: Tiruin on July 26, 2014, 10:18:14 pm
Gender Roles = Remove the negatives associated with it that may skew any kind of perception to look down upon the other/same gender as something...lesser. Emphasis on the Gender and not the Role.
Like 'You throw like a girl D:<'
Oh I throw very well, sir :I :P
Or other stuffs like that which go deeper into society, like marriage or many things which are more on the personal sphere. .-.
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2014, 10:21:00 pm
Because the thing is that... none of these gender roles, at least few of them, are bad in it of itself.
A strong outspoken person who will put everything on themselves is just as virtuous a person as a soft-spoken person who supports others emotionally without supplying their own judgements.
Instead just supplying people with role models of every sort for both genders... might be a good way to do it.
Instead of saying "lets let my kid decide if they like dolls or wrenches" we can instead give both dolls and wrenches and show how great they both are.
Post by: Samarkand on July 26, 2014, 10:22:12 pm
Ok, um...reword :IThe problem is that removing the connotation of lesser is only a first step. A big one, but a first step. While it liberates those who fit well into the categories of man and woman from oppression by eachother, it does little to alleviate the internal tensions faced by those who don't feel either gender category fits them. They're left feeling as the Other even to their Selves, complete with the scary capital letters.
Gender Roles = Remove the negatives associated with it that may skew any kind of perception to look down upon the other/same gender as something...lesser. Emphasis on the Gender and not the Role.
Like 'You throw like a girl D:<'
Oh I throw very well, sir :I :P
Or other stuffs like that which go deeper into society, like marriage or many things which are more on the personal sphere. .-.
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2014, 10:26:33 pm
It is rare that gender is spoken of in a "we are all part of the same team" way.
It is probably why people who are in between gender stereotypes probably feels so torn between them... because they are expected that if they are one way they have to go all the other way.
It is kind of why this idea of Gender roles is odd in it of itself.
---
As for Sexual Dimorphism my opinion on it is: It exists and is utterly meaningless... Who cares if women have a better sense of smell then men?
I dislike when people try to argue it doesn't exist just as much as people who try to argue it is more important then it really is or use it for any superiority argument. Yeah as if bench presses is the height of human freeken achievement.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 26, 2014, 10:31:56 pm
Because "Women are equal" but "Men are in control and strong"... = Assert control and dominance over not men... which is women... but doesn't that mean women aren't equal and are weak and need to be help in line? BOOM!
*sigh, again*
*also facepalm*
It's not a competition between us on this, stop trying to make it one please. You know what I meant, but I'll reiterate for the benefit of everyone anyway.
"Women are strong". Women are thus equal to men, who are also strong. The 'in control' part would fall away as part of this.
Besides which, you're arguing semantics, in a particularly convoluted and unnecessary manner of doing so that doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, though I think you're trying, at least.
In all honesty, I feel like there shouldn't be any such thing as Gender Roles. Roles, yes. Gender shouldn't have anything to do with them.
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2014, 10:33:56 pm
As well you always want to be careful with positive stereotypes. Even "Is strong" can easily be a noose around someone's neck.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 26, 2014, 11:02:09 pm
Post by: Reelya on July 27, 2014, 10:36:58 am
For example, "throw like a little boy" hardly sounds like a compliment any more than "throw like a little girl". Comparing "X like a man" to "X like a girl" is the same as "X like a man" vs "X like a boy" at some level. There's an age-related implication here layered on with the gender thing so that confounds the straight comparison.
Also for comparison: "girls are 'sluts', guys are 'studs'"
"slut" refers to behavior, whereas "stud" is synonymous with "hunk" and refers to appearance. You can be a Hunk or a Stud without engaging in untoward behavior.
Male "sluts" are not in fact called "studs" they're called a "sleaze" or a "lecher" and these are definitely not compliments.
Female Stud/Hunks are in fact called a "Babe" or a "hottie" and a girl can be a "babe" without this implying any sexual behavior whatsoever.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 27, 2014, 12:29:21 pm
There is basically no language that celebrates a woman being promiscuous, while there is plenty that celebrates a man being so.
In addition, the saying is not 'throw like a little girl'. The 'little' is not part of it. 'throw like a boy' seems very vague as to whether it could be construed positively or negatively, while 'throw like a girl' is almost universally thought of as negative.
Post by: GavJ on July 27, 2014, 01:59:56 pm
Quote
> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.But people do negative things that are sexual in nature, and other stuff relating to sex and gender.
Seems that simple for me.
Aspire.
For example, some DO have sex in a negative fashion (such as when you include routinely having sex with married partners or with STDs that you don't disclose, stuff that causes damage) Or, some people ARE militant and intolerant of members of an opposite gender for various reasons.
It's not entirely unreasonable to have negative, gender-specific or sex-specific labels when those categories are the ones along which people are doing negative behaviors.
I guess you could just still use gender/sex-neutral terms anyway, as a concerted effort, but it doesn't feel very natural, and even if it might theoretically be helpful to always abandon any gendered neutral term, it doesn't seem like a realistic goal.
As long as they aren't completely one-sided (as in their equivalent of the opposite gender is hardly ever used) AND false, negative terms related to gender aren't necessarily the biggest problem.
Quote
Neonivek, you understand that the best way to handle sexism that adversely affects men is to deal with the more prevalent and more harmful sexism that adversely affects women, right?I'm not Neonivek, but this argument sounds absurd. You can and should address more than one kind of related prejudice at once, if more than one exists at once, and there's no guarantee that any prejudice is just going to go away on its own without direct address. Nor is this fair or just to the victims of said prejudice that you are deigning to ignore.
Quote
"Women are strong". Women are thus equal to men, who are also strong. The 'in control' part would fall away as part of this.This is a nice example of how it DOESN'T automatically take care of itself, contrary to the intention of this example.
Two people can be equally strong and yet one still completely in control of the group... do you see how you jumped across two concepts? Strength =/= leadership, control, or power.
Additionally, this assumes that everybody out there is solving logical syllogisms before they speak or think things, which is simply not true. People are dumb and believe contradictory things all the time without thinking twice about them. I have no problem believing that a large chunk of the population could be taught that women are strong, nod yes and sign their name to that, and then a day later, still go around anyway giving strength-requiring tasks to men, and then if you question them, saying "Well I gave it to him because men are strong."
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 27, 2014, 04:12:39 pm
Regarding my statement addressed to Neonivek, I'll ask: do you honestly believe, then, that the proper way to go about handling racism against ethnic minorities in america is to focus on how some members of those minorities call white people crackers? Like, seriously, what kinda of fucked-up logic is that? It's a bit more pressing of a concern to handle sexism against women than sexism against men. Sexism against men doesn't typically result in death. Sexism against women quite often does.
For your first argument that isn't directed towards something I said, I just have to say that this makes no sense. If someone is being promiscuous in an irresponsible fashion, that doesn't need to be referred to be gender-specific terms. We don't even have terms for such right now, beyond 'asshole' or 'terrible person who is trying to spread STDs'.
As well, to your last argument, my point was thus; the typical idea is that men are strong, women are weak, and therefore men are in control of women. If women are also strong, that doesn't mean that men can't be in control, but it means they aren't naturally assumed to be so. That's the ideal. And yes, people can be idiots, but again, what the fuck do you suggest then? That we do nothing and sit on our hands because any action is worse than no action? That we focus on 'man problems' first?
Seriously, Gav, ignore all the responses you want to make to my arguments for the moment, and tell me what you think we should do, then, if all of our ideas are such utter shit.
Post by: Neonivek on July 27, 2014, 04:28:31 pm
Quote
do you honestly believe, then, that the proper way to go about handling racism against ethnic minorities in america is to focus on how some members of those minorities call white people crackers?
Kind of unrelated given that this is the extreme opposite.
Quote
That we focus on 'man problems' first?
Why does this keep coming up? Who ever suggested this?
Post by: GavJ on July 27, 2014, 04:33:37 pm
Quote
do you honestly believe, then, that the proper way to go about handling racism against ethnic minorities in america is to focus on how some members of those minorities call white people crackers?Focus (implied exclusively or majority?) on them? No... You simply condemn anybody who uses racial slurs and fight against all of them where they occur. Look down on people who use "cracker" and look down on people who use "nigger." Why would you just ignore one group of a bunch of racists??
Because NO, it's NOT a more pressing concern to stop this racism or sexism vs. that racism or sexism. A victim of a slur is a victim of a slur... If one is more common, then that just means the number of people you're condemning for one is larger. It's not a reason to ignore or pretend the non-majority slurs don't exist. Why?
Quote
As well, to your last argument, my point was thus; the typical idea is that men are strong, women are weak, and therefore men are in control of women. If women are also strong, that doesn't mean that men can't be in control, but it means they aren't naturally assumed to be so. That's the ideal. And yes, people can be idiots, but again, what the fuck do you suggest then? That we do nothing and sit on our hands because any action is worse than no action? That we focus on 'man problems' first?I thought I was pretty clear about what to do instead: You fight against ALL of the slurs and falsehoods that occur, when they occur.
The example person I described -- if you taught them what was wrong whenever any of the wrong things happened, then they would have been taught that "men are not stronger than women" AND "women are not weaker than men" AND "men are not in control of women" then the person, no matter how dumb or clueless they are, doesn't have to draw those logical conclusions. Because you gave them all of the pieces instead of just assuming that a lifelong trained bigot would work out non-bigoted logic on their own (which is a poor assumption).
This doesn't require any sort of weird or bizarre logic or strategy. It's extraordinarily simple -- is something bigoted? Then fight it. The end.
As opposed to your plan, which appears to be: Is something bigoted? Well then stop and look up whether that thing is the bigotry of the majority or not, and if it is, fight it, if it isn't, just shrug and walk away? ::)
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 27, 2014, 05:44:01 pm
Fight bigotry, yes. But how do you fight stereotypes that are positive? That isn't typically considered bigotry. Bigotry is when stereotypes are negative. My point was basically as such: you have two groups of people, one of whom is being severely oppressed by the other, which is in turn oppressing itself slightly. Rather than trying to split your energies between liberating both groups, you focus first on the group that is more oppressed, and shift your focus to the other group at a later point. It is a more productive use of your energies.
I'm not saying don't fight sexism when you see it. I'm saying it's not worth it to actively seek out sexism against men to fight(yet) because it is far less common and far less hurtful than sexism against women.
Finally, in all honesty, it's rare to find someone who is actively bigoted whose opinion can be changed. Ones who are accidentally so can sometimes be, as can those who have yet to be educated towards either direction. But a life-learned bigot will be difficult to persuade, especially due to the way the human psyche works; when our worldview is challenged, we instinctively oppose the challenge and become more entrenched in our worldview. Humans don't like being wrong.
Post by: Neonivek on July 27, 2014, 06:35:12 pm
Quote
But how do you fight stereotypes that are positive? That isn't typically considered bigotry. Bigotry is when stereotypes are negative.
How many harmful female stereotypes are "negative".
The idea that women are small innocent flowers that need to be protected... IS a "positive" stereotype. It is supposed to be a good thing.
The fact that women who sleep around are "loose" is because "women are pure and chaste"
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 27, 2014, 06:44:54 pm
You consider 'Women are bad at sports' to be a positive stereotype? How about 'women don't like video games'? Or 'women should pure/chaste'? How about 'Women are passive/acted upon'?
Neonivek, please stop focusing on semantics in a childish and rude attempt to get your way and distract from the real conversation. It's insulting to all of us and I am getting sick and tired of your bullshit. Yes, there are cases where it could be considered positive, or negative, or neither, or whatever, but that's not the fucking point. Stop trying to pretend it's the fucking point. God-fucking-damnit, dude. Seriously, you never actually respond to my posts; you just pick out these little tidbits that you can try and dissect instead of actually trying to contribute to the discussion. And it's been pissing me off, and I don't feel like putting up with it anymore. So stop. Make points that address the actual discussion instead of trying to waylay it. If you're going to address my posts, address them in full, with context, and at least fucking try to understand what I'm saying, instead of looking at the surface analogies and shit I use and poking at them to see if they can be broken down and toyed with. Maybe you honestly don't get it. But as it stands, it really just seems like you're being willfully obtuse and purposefully malevolent.
Please just fucking stop that shit, Neon. Seriously.
Post by: Reelya on July 27, 2014, 06:54:32 pm
Most of the sexism projected towards men isn't enforced (or created) by women but men Rolepgeek.
That poses an interesting question. Are things that are sexist to men not real sexism if men are the culprits?
There are definitely cases where girls/women are hindered from doing / achieving things due to peer pressure from other girls/women, for example peer pressure which prevents girls expressing an interest in guy/geeky stuff, whether that's maths, computing, chess etc. I'd argue that peer pressure from other girls is the #1 thing preventing more girls uptaking stereotypically male hobbies.
These cases, a fair chunk of the gender bias is enforced by women themselves, but we don't make the argument that women only have themselves to blame, we argue that patriarchy is entrenched, and that it makes no difference if the enforcers are male or female, it's still culturally-sanctioned sexism.
90-something percent of teachers at the elementary school level are women, we still blame these teachers for inculcating gendered stereotypes. They're not "excluded" from being part of the problem.
We cannot then also say "little boys are falling behind in reading" and then turn around and blame the little boys themselves for this plight. If it's sexist that girls fall behind in maths, which is mainly driven by peer pressure from other girls (and their almost entirely female teachers), then we also should see boys thinking it's "uncool" to read via peer pressure to be an example of sexism.
So, cultural sexism is sexism based on outcomes, not on the gender of the person enforcing the "rules": we can't really allow the "men did it to themselves" unless we also allow "women did it to themselves" as an equally valid line of argument.
Post by: Neonivek on July 27, 2014, 06:57:23 pm
Neonivek, please stop focusing on semantics.
If you think my statement was semantics it means you entirely missed my point.
Post by: TD1 on July 27, 2014, 07:03:29 pm
Post by: Reelya on July 27, 2014, 07:09:48 pm
Actually, I think the data kind of disputes the "harem" idea where only one alph male breeds with all the females in human evolution.
Gorillas seem to be strictly "harem"oriented, but it's much less clear in apes more closely related to humans. In a gorilla group, there's exactly one male, and his "wives". Lions or baboons are similar.
Chimps though, have multiple males which cooperate together to hunt and forage etc. The groups are fluid / dynamic, they have male heirarchy-dominance, but they also form alliances and the such - having more male allies helps a strong chimp maintain his dominant position. This sort of thing precludes what you see with gorillas.
Post by: TD1 on July 27, 2014, 07:14:31 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 27, 2014, 07:19:18 pm
First, there's the fact that the penis may be evolved to scrape out semen of other males (http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep021223.pdf), to ensure the maximum likelihood for their own fertilization. There's the consideration that women tend to take longer to reach orgasm than men, though this is not always necessarily true.
Also, please stop using the 'no evidence against it' fallacy. That's not scientific. You don't assume something to be true until proven otherwise. That's a fallacy.
Post by: Reelya on July 27, 2014, 07:20:02 pm
The problem with that is all known "brood mare" taking species have social groups with only one "alpha" in the herd. Other males basically don't go near the group at all, so there is no "sleeping around" dynamic: Gorillas, Lions, Baboons are examples.
Also, we don't really see that sort of thinking in pure hunter-gatherers, so it's almost certainly an offshoot of settled, agrarian societies.
Chimps are more dominance-oriented than bonobos, but even with them
Quote
Chimp mating tends to be promiscuous, with females mating with multiple males in her community during estrus.
So, in our closest relative with multiple males per group, with a male dominance heirqarchy, they have no instinct that says only the single "alpha" male breeds with all the females. In fact, they're polygamous.
Post by: TD1 on July 27, 2014, 07:24:35 pm
Also, I was just wondering because humanity has a precedent for one man over many women, such as harems. Even men who had mistresses, etc. It was an idle musing.
Post by: Reelya on July 27, 2014, 07:26:31 pm
There is a sleeping around dynamic. There are, as I said, outcast males who try to reproduce despite the lack of a "Herd." The alpha needs to watch out for these, as they won't challenge him.
Also, I was just wondering because humanity has a precedent for one man over many women, such as harems. Even men who had mistresses, etc. It was an idle musing.
We only really see harems in relatively advanced cultures. Hunter gatherers: well there's really no such thing as a harem in any small band. Humans hunt in teams, as do chimps.
Post by: TD1 on July 27, 2014, 07:27:38 pm
Post by: Reelya on July 27, 2014, 07:30:44 pm
The most likely reason for a taboo against women sleeping around has to do with patriarchal obsession with knowing parentage. A matriarchal society wouldn't really care: you know who your mother is. But fatherhood is much more tenuous. Once things like private property, inheritance, social class came in, knowledge of paternal parentage would have become much more important.
Post by: TD1 on July 27, 2014, 07:33:43 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 27, 2014, 07:45:25 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 27, 2014, 07:49:42 pm
I said I wondered if, then said what I wondered. Really, I wasn't expecting so much to-do over it :P
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 27, 2014, 07:53:07 pm
I wonder if women sleeping around is worse than men doing it because, on an evolutionary level, women were once effectively brood mares supposed to mate with one male superior. Any break from mating with the strong, dominant male for the weaker, out cast male would produce lower grades of children.I am sure you really meant 'I wonder if women sleeping around is viewed as worse than men doing it', but the way you phrased it made it sound like you agreed, or that it was true...
Post by: TD1 on July 27, 2014, 07:59:59 pm
Post by: Tiruin on July 28, 2014, 12:35:16 am
Quote"Women are strong". Women are thus equal to men, who are also strong. The 'in control' part would fall away as part of this.This is a nice example of how it DOESN'T automatically take care of itself, contrary to the intention of this example.
Two people can be equally strong and yet one still completely in control of the group... do you see how you jumped across two concepts? Strength =/= leadership, control, or power.
Additionally, this assumes that everybody out there is solving logical syllogisms before they speak or think things, which is simply not true. People are dumb and believe contradictory things all the time without thinking twice about them. I have no problem believing that a large chunk of the population could be taught that women are strong, nod yes and sign their name to that, and then a day later, still go around anyway giving strength-requiring tasks to men, and then if you question them, saying "Well I gave it to him because men are strong."
Just poking in here.
The bolded part is a lie. Or at least shows one idea that without prior knowledge, it may be accepted--on what, however, is where the danger starts.
If you've no problem believing that, then there may be something with what you observe that has caused that to be retained as 'fact' to you, or that you may be falling into that pit of generalizing a population on one subjective attribute wherein the same problem lies with gender roles.
Because it ignores human intelligence and ts foundation lies on people not actually caring about what they learn but rather more on some kind of previous supposition.
Be careful when generalizing, You.
Post by: Neonivek on July 28, 2014, 01:12:22 am
Its a condition called homosapien.
Post by: Tiruin on July 28, 2014, 01:15:33 am
Post by: GavJ on July 28, 2014, 01:44:53 am
Quote
Fight bigotry, yes. But how do you fight stereotypes that are positive?Um, by telling the truth.
I really am not comprehending how you're making this so much more complicated than it is. Somebody says something bigoted, from a positive or negative angle? Correct them. Full stop.
If all of us did that in our own little worlds when we see our own little individual examples of bigotry in action, it would mostly solve the issues. At least in a generation or two, if not in the immediate future.
That's my big intricate plan, dude. Sorry to disappoint, if you thought laser beam James Bond traps were going to be involved, or something.
Quote
Be careful when generalizing, You.I'm not generalizing. I'm sorry if I was unclear in that quote of mine, but I did not intend to mean that ALL people are dumb and believe all contradictory things. Feel free to insert "some" at the beginning of the bolded sentence. The existence of some such people was all I intended to point out and was all that was necessary for that argument.
Post by: Tiruin on July 28, 2014, 01:52:03 am
Well that makes it a lot better :)
Though, point in that statement. Unless there's an idea that goes against the culture or an observation that it may be wrong exists, it may still be followed.
Goodness knows the number of people who were against being restricted by roles and stereotypes in history but were hindered by...many many factors in between. It's all in history there, the proof.. :-\ :'(
Post by: Neonivek on July 28, 2014, 08:22:11 am
Then again I am like 1/4th misanthrope.
Anyhow Tiruin, "roles" will never go away because Culture always has ideas of the virtues it sees as good and people are expected to fall within them.
Even if there is an idea that goes against culture or that it may be wrong... it may still be followed anyway.
Also who says anything about history Tiruin? It is still going on today.
Post by: TD1 on July 28, 2014, 01:26:48 pm
However, if a woman doesn't want to follow a cultural norm they are in every way entitled to it.
And vice versa, the same with males.
Post by: GavJ on July 28, 2014, 01:46:09 pm
Of probably interest here. A nifty cartoon about a few particularly interesting animal kingdom sex/gender roles. I remember this article being about twice as long, but I can't find the rest of it anywhere.
Edit: here are some (maybe not all) additional ones:
http://imgur.com/user/donern/favorites/rOFkS
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 28, 2014, 02:23:48 pm
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D
I've only just started watching it, and there's a lot of material, but already I'd recommend it to anyone even remotely interested in why we act the way we act.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 29, 2014, 10:18:43 pm
The way I see it, is if women want to pursue a cultural norm, that is their right. Hence I dislike feminists who try to force all women to reject cultural norms.
Feminists are generally not opposed to women doing any particular thing, they are opposed to the expectation that women should/shouldn't do certain things.
If a women wants to cook, thats great, but it should not be expected that women cook, nor should a women cook just because they feel they must because of their gender.
Post by: Samarkand on July 29, 2014, 10:24:45 pm
Feminists are generally not opposed to women doing any particular thing, they are opposed to the expectation that women should/shouldn't do certain things.Depends heavily on the feminists, I believe during the second-wave there was a very vocal portion that was calling for women to actively reject gender role activities, even if they wanted to do them. On a related note that we cannot discuss in detail here, the Feminist Sex Wars was a time when feminists argued about what feminists should and should not be allowed to do.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 29, 2014, 10:28:35 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 29, 2014, 10:33:36 pm
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
Post by: Samarkand on July 29, 2014, 10:37:57 pm
My view on the subject. (http://rosalarian.tumblr.com/post/78124344560/feminism-is-having-a-wardrobe-malfunction-does)Props, its the best view to have. Its far from universal (hence the cartoon being made).
Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.Some feminism is still looking for equality. Even legal equality isn't quite there yet (maybe they have the same rights as men, but definitely not corporations). They can vote isn't the end of the story. And other sorts of equality still lag behind. Average full-time wage lowers as more women join an industry. Women are paid something like seventy cents on the dollar, at least in the U.S. I can't speak for the western world, though I heard its worse in Italy [citation needed].
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 10:42:36 pm
They are a diverse group of many philosophies, doctrines, and beliefs.
Some are not egalitarian at all and yes, do not believe in equality. Those people existing is not a myth. They are a minority but they still exist (the belief is also more nuanced then I give credit. They mostly believe that males and females are basically ENTIRELY separate, like separate species. Equality would only be one group's equality)
The myth comes from just sort of putting all feminists together into one group.
To ADMIT it isn't anyone's fault for thinking all feminists think alike.
How many times do you see someone claim to be feminist or to have a feminist show, game, or what have you... and they never really clarify what form of feminism they are under... Or even go as far as to "speak for feminism". This is just how feminists portray themselves mind you, we could write books on how others portray them.
Many feminists go by the "if you are not a feminist you are sexist" type of thinking. Even going as far as to say that if you agree with feminism then you are feminist and saying your not is just being stupid.
So this whole skewed belief is something I fully understand and created from both sides of the debate.
Which frankly adds credence to the "everyone is stupid" argument.
Note: I know I sound like I am vilifying feminism... it wasn't my intent... I just didn't want to fill in all the ways society, media, internet misrepresents them. I am simply saying that people who practice feminism are by no means blameless victims when it comes to their misrepresentation.
Quote
Average full-time wage lowers as more women join an industry.
Honestly this is probably one of the more interesting subjects EVER if you actually REALLY look into it.
Since if you go into it you go by the premise that "Of course women are just getting less pay because they are being picked on for being women or getting pregnant"... And while you will find that, you will also find that... for example... women are more likely to work for charitable/non-profit organizations or go for more fulfilling less paying jobs.
Turning what was once a simple explanation into something much more complex.
It was actually quite the interesting read.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 29, 2014, 10:55:47 pm
And it could well be that they do those things because that's how society has conditioned them to act, keep in mind.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 10:58:05 pm
Well now, that depends, how can you measure job fulfillment?
And it could well be that they do those things because that's how society has conditioned them to act, keep in mind.
Ohh don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you couldn't find issues with even that.
For example maybe non-profit businesses have more relaxed hiring practices.
Only that, what seemed like a question where the problem could be fully and sufficiently answered with "because sexism" became a more complex question.
Post by: Putnam on July 29, 2014, 11:02:55 pm
Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
This is one of those points refuted a thousand times.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:08:52 pm
But really at its heart feminism often just tries to be female side egalitarianism (except the ones that aren't). You could easily argue that it is inefficient or that it does more harm then good... Heck one of my friends openly dislikes feminism and considers it an inferior product to outright egalitarianism, and I accept the premise.
But I don't know if I agree with "there are a bunch of idiots who ruined it forever" premise.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 29, 2014, 11:11:08 pm
Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
I want to argue with this but I can't do it without insulting you.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:12:40 pm
Or did we finally patch those laws?
---
Anyhow InsanityIncarnate most people believe, including me, that women are 'still' being repressed.
Not legally mind you, there is no law that I am aware of that is outright against women... EXCEPT maybe some motherhood laws.
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 11:14:11 pm
Imagine starting a movement that was about equality of religion and naming it "Jew-ism" or a movement that was about equality of ethnicity called "Asian-ism"
*facepalm*
Post by: Putnam on July 29, 2014, 11:15:31 pm
Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
I want to argue with this but I can't do it without insulting you.
It's not hard!
The entire argument is semantics. We're not talking about words, we're talking about concepts. It doesn't add anything to say that a word is dumb.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 29, 2014, 11:15:57 pm
Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.This is one of those points refuted a thousand times.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
Edit: Never mind, you answered that.
But I don't know if I agree with "there are a bunch of idiots who ruined it forever" premise.Not really "ruined". The word I used was "tainted", in the sense that a chunk of the apple is rotten. I was suggesting that throwing the apple away and finding a new one would be more efficient than scraping out all of the rot.
Do it. I don't mind.Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.I want to argue with this but I can't do it without insulting you.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 29, 2014, 11:18:52 pm
Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
Legal rights does not mean there is no discrimination.
There are people who actively advocate women should pursue traditional gender roles because they are women. Rather bizzarely some of the more prominent of these people are women. Hell, there are a non-insignificant number of people who don't see marital rape as rape and other absurdities. They wouldn't be worth mentioning if they diddn't actually have a significant ammount of influence.
Feminism is still very much necessary.
Extemeists exists as they seem to in everything, but measuring the validitity of a movement on the small number of extremeists is absurd.
Quote from: InsanityIncarnate link=topic=141147.msg5524056#msg5524056
Not really "ruined". The word I used was "tainted", in the sense that a chunk of the apple is rotten. I was suggesting that throwing the apple away and finding a new one would be more efficient than scraping out all of the rot.
Feminism is not an apple. As it has already been pointed out, there are many different views and it is a complex movement. It is not one whole.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:23:04 pm
Feminism largely suffers from having a really really stupid name for what it's supposed to promote, and honestly I think probably 50%+ of the movement's troubles and failures are due to using the stupidest possible name for the concept, which actively encourages people to use common sense to misinterpret almost in the opposite direction of what they're trying to achieve.
Imagine starting a movement that was about equality of religion and naming it "Jew-ism" or a movement that was about equality of ethnicity called "Asian-ism"
*facepalm*
Well the thing is that Feminism didn't start off as a equality movement.
It started off as a bunch of rich white women who wanted to vote because they were intelligent, well educated, white women who certainly were smarter than the rabble.
Well ok that was ONE of its starts.
So it couldn't go under any other name.
Quote
There are people who actively advocate women should pursue traditional gender roles because they are women. Rather bizzarely some of the more prominent of these people are women
What exactly is wrong with this? I know what you mean, but as written this is more: "Women advocate that women should try being home makers because as women it is rather fulfilling"
Mind you I know what you mean, not "it is a good idea" as in "If you don't you are doing something wrong".
As for why many of these people are women... Remember... There is no shame in being a home maker and it can be very rewarding and fulfilling. So you are easily going to get women who would fight for it as the ideal.
Remember that the "classical ideals" (as in 1950s) idea of what a woman "Should be" wasn't wrong in it of itself... It was the "But thou must".
Oddly enough the Cosby Show handled this. Their conclusions is whatever a woman wants to be a fine. A homemaker is as valid as being a high-power lawyer, so long as it is what they want to be and neither choices should be admonished.
Post by: Angle on July 29, 2014, 11:25:12 pm
Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
Sees bomb falling... OHSHI- *Boom*
*Goes back to read thread*
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 29, 2014, 11:29:21 pm
I see. I was operating on "feminism == women's rights movement" as opposed to "feminism == fighting discrimination against women".Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
Legal rights does not mean there is no discrimination.
There are people who actively advocate women should pursue traditional gender roles because they are women. Rather bizzarely some of the more prominent of these people are women. Hell, there are a non-insignificant number of people who don't see marital rape as rape and other absurdities. They wouldn't be worth mentioning if they diddn't actually have a significant ammount of influence.
Feminism is still very much necessary.
Extemeists exists as they seem to in everything, but measuring the validitity of a movement on the small number of extremeists is absurd.
Feminism is not an apple. As it has already been pointed out, there are many different views and it is a complex movement. It is not one whole.The purpose of the (maybe not entirely appropriate) apple analogy was about the word feminism. To me (and many other people) the word smells of unhealthy extremism.
Post by: Putnam on July 29, 2014, 11:30:32 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 29, 2014, 11:32:42 pm
There are people who enjoy the show and take it to disturbing levels that prevent the audience the show was actually intended for from enjoying fan derivatives of it. These are known as bronies to the general public.
There are also people who just enjoy the show and aren't creepy bastards who don't even bother to make sure their porn can't be seen with Safe Search on. These people often refer to themselves as bronies unless they realize what the connotations of the word often entail.
The difference here is that the feminists who are extremists are the minority, rather than the majority. They are the vocal, oppressive minority, and thus seem larger than they are.
Plus, Poe's Law.
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 11:33:17 pm
Quote
Well the thing is that Feminism didn't start off as a equality movement.
It started off as a bunch of rich white women who wanted to vote because they were intelligent, well educated, white women who certainly were smarter than the rabble.
Well ok that was ONE of its starts.
So it couldn't go under any other name.
uh, what do you mean "couldn't"?
"Hey, let's go promote these ideals which have absolutely nothing to do with these existing other people's ideals over here that are called feminism!"
"Oh, great idea. Too bad we are bound by the laws of physics to use that other name for something that has nothing to do with us."
"Yeah, that part of it sucks."
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:34:29 pm
It was used derogatory because "Ha ha ha guys watching MLP and REALLY enjoying it".
Post by: Putnam on July 29, 2014, 11:35:00 pm
Also, about bronies: I just asked my brother if he's a Brony. He hmmd and hawed until he said "no". So I guess that's about right.
Post by: Angle on July 29, 2014, 11:36:15 pm
QuoteThere are people who actively advocate women should pursue traditional gender roles because they are women. Rather bizzarely some of the more prominent of these people are women
What exactly is wrong with this? I know what you mean, but as written this is more: "Women advocate that women should try being home makers because as women it is rather fulfilling"
Mind you I know what you mean, not "it is a good idea" as in "If you don't you are doing something wrong".
As for why many of these people are women... Remember... There is no shame in being a home maker and it can be very rewarding and fulfilling. So you are easily going to get women who would fight for it as the ideal.
Remember that the "classical ideals" (as in 1950s) idea of what a woman "Should be" wasn't wrong in it of itself... It was the "But thou must".
Oddly enough the Cosby Show handled this. Their conclusions is whatever a woman wants to be a fine. A homemaker is as valid as being a high-power lawyer, so long as it is what they want to be and neither choices should be admonished.
The thing is that there are people who advocate that women should be homemakers to the exclusion of anything else, and that any women not doing so are doing it wrong and should be "Put in her place". More troublingly, this isn't yet a fringe opinion. This is an opinion you can go around publicly stating, and encounter significant support. I do agree that homemaker is a valuable role, though- I would actually not mind seeing a government program to pay people doing such. That's not to say that I expect such a thing to ever happen, but if it miraculously appeared overnight I would not be upset.
fakeedit- 5 new replies. InsanityIncarnate, what have you done to my nice peaceful thread?
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:38:17 pm
The ONLY way someone could say that around here, without finding the sexism dungeons, is ironically and everyone will just think it is a joke.
Quote
I would actually not mind seeing a government program to pay people doing such.
It has happened before.
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 11:39:01 pm
Quote
Yeah, I'm going to disagree with Hilary Putnam on this one. Meaning is just in the head.Yes, and the meaning that the title of the movement itself PUTS is in the heads of millions of people out there is this:
Quote
I see. I was operating on "feminism == women's rights movement" as opposed to "feminism == fighting discrimination against women". ...To me (and many other people) the word smells of unhealthy extremism.
When the very NAME of your movement - the very first public relations contact you have with anybody about it, immediately causes common sense conclusions that differ from your actual goals, you are constantly shooting yourself in the foot.
And then they spend half their time and energy fighting misconceptions that their own name caused instead of actually promoting ideals.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 29, 2014, 11:40:05 pm
Words don't matter.Hyig jerrum boris wyrtolium.
fakeedit- 5 new replies. InsanityIncarnate, what have you done to my nice peaceful thread?There are heavy
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 29, 2014, 11:42:46 pm
The problem Rolepgeek is I think the "Bronies are just guys who like MLP" came first.
It was used derogatory because "Ha ha ha guys watching MLP and REALLY enjoying it".
No, it became a symbol for a perversion of the fandom once a large group of/a lot of the people who called themselves bronies made it into a disgusting perversion of a healthy fandom that makes me hesitant to even try to get back into the fandom.
Besides which, I'm pretty sure feminists wanting equal rights came first, rather than extremists wanting some sort of Amazonian pseudo-culture.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:46:17 pm
Besides which, I'm pretty sure feminists wanting equal rights came first, rather than extremists wanting some sort of Amazonian pseudo-culture.
Unfortunately... that may not be the case... Though I don't think it matters.
Though Strawmen feminism sure is old. You can even see it in Marry Poppins: "Although we adore them [men] individually, we agree that as a group their rather stupid"
Post by: Angle on July 29, 2014, 11:46:29 pm
There are heavycivilianstrawman casualties on both sides of the semantics argument.
That's what happens when you drop a bomb like that. I'm just glad there's been so little fallout.
On a side note, I still haven't seen these horrifying extremist feminists everyone keeps talking about. Someone drop a link please? I've tried googling, to no avail.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:49:05 pm
There are heavycivilianstrawman casualties on both sides of the semantics argument.
That's what happens when you drop a bomb like that. I'm just glad there's been so little fallout.
On a side note, I still haven't seen these horrifying extremist feminists everyone keeps talking about. Someone drop a link please? I've tried googling, to no avail.
Mansplaining.
Enough said. It will always be the word that will forever solidify the sexism that has been injected into feminism.
On a more serious note, just look up the forms of feminism. "Extreme feminism" I believe is actually its official name" or was it radical feminism? hmm I can never remember. Wikipedia has it.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 29, 2014, 11:52:27 pm
The name is fairly descriptive of what actually happens, though using it where it isn't warranted as a means to forego further argument is a bit childish, of course.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:54:01 pm
Sadly, that word exists because it's an actual thing that happens to people.
The name is fairly descriptive of what actually happens, though using it where it isn't warranted as a means to forego further argument is a bit childish, of course.
No... just no...
Mansplaining simply means a MAN didn't acknowledge that someone was a woman and then tried to "explain" or "say" or "Have an opinion that the woman doesn't agree with" without first saying "I acknowledge you are a woman" first.
No... I am not joking.
It would work as a sort of categorical thing... but when you actually get "Are you mansplaining?" you know immediately what the connotation is...
Post by: alexandertnt on July 29, 2014, 11:55:07 pm
In rather small numbers, of course. But some people who are already convinced that feminism is bad will use them to convince themselves that feminism is most definetely bad. That or "lol Tumblr"
They are going through a crate of apples to find the rotten one.
Mansplaining.
Mansplaining is when someone of higher privelage simply dismisses anothers view. ",I as a male, haven't seen discrimination against women therefore it must not exist". It also applies to other situations (rich people's difficulty in comprehending that its hard for some people to feed themselves etc).
Its fustratingly common.
Post by: GavJ on July 29, 2014, 11:55:58 pm
http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/2014-04-10-pltm196.jpg?w=560
Tired of people repeatedly bringing up a decent point that you don't really have any need to respond to if you weren't being ridiculous, but still feel threatened by anyway because it isn't 100% bandwagon jumping?
Solution: make comics that attempt to make it look silly with sarcastic cartoonishness instead of actually responding, then keep them perpetually on your clipboard to paste in every dusty corner of the internet on a moment's notice ::)
Bonus points for the cartoon indirectly implying that men categorically cannot be right about things as long as they are in the majority position of power.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2014, 11:58:09 pm
Quote
Mansplaining is when someone of higher privelage simply dismisses anothers view. ",I as a male, haven't seen discrimination against women therefore it must not exist". It also applies to other situations (rich people's difficulty in comprehending that its hard for some people to feed themselves etc)
You got the definition incorrect.
Don't fancy it up so it sounds more reasonable. Though... your definition actually shows the problem with the word on its own.
So I am not sure if you are being straight forward or subtly satirical... DANG IT ALEX!
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 30, 2014, 12:01:43 am
QuoteTHESE ARE COMMONLY EXPRESSED OPINIONS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I HEAR THEM CONSTANTLY. PEOPLE, STOP TELLING ME THIS SHIT DOESN'T EXIST AND IT ISN'T A FUCKING PROBLEM. I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIVE IN A VACUUM IN WHICH NO MISOGYNY IS EVER EXPRESSED, BECAUSE THAT IS A BUBBLE, NOT THE WORLD.THESE ARE NOT COMMONLY EXPRESSED OPINIONS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I HAVE NEVER HEARD THESE SAID IN ANY SERIOUS CAPACITY. PEOPLE, STOP TELLING ME THIS SHIT EXITS AND IS A FUCKING PROBLEM. I DON"T CARE IF YOU LIVE IN A BUBBLE WHERE LUDICROUS STRAWMEN EXIST, BECAUSE THAT IS A BUBBLE, NOT THE WORLD.
EDIT: Sidenote: Your definition of mansplaining is not 'the definition'. The Urban Dictionary's definition of it is not 'the definition'. A single feminist's definition of it is not 'the definition'. Semantics are bullshit and you know it so stop it.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 12:05:45 am
Quote
Mansplaining is a portmanteau of the words "man" and "explaining" that describes the act of a man speaking to a woman with the assumption that she knows less than he does about the topic being discussed on the basis of her gender
Quote
to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner
Also WOW... both of these are definition but the congratulations on the sexism.
I mean... I usually don't say the word "Bitching" but APPERANTLY the double standard only works in one direction. So lets bring in the derogatory gender based statements on someone being wrong.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 12:07:48 am
Here is the definition from Wikipedia:
Quote
that describes the act of a man speaking to a woman with the assumption that she knows less than he does about the topic being discussed on the basis of her gender
Some blunt strawmanny examples:
Women: "These parts connect to the crankshaft because *reasonable explanation*"
Man: "Awww thats cute. No they dont"
*car explodes*
Women: "As a women I find it hard to get a job based in engineering"
Man: "Women have equal rights, so your just doing it wrong if its hard to get a job. Or its the economy. Or your just not that good. Or any other possible reason thats not related to gender, since I know it can't be related to gender since I have not experienced it myself."
Poor guy: "I can't afford to feed my family on my meager income"
Rich guy: "Thats silly, poor people have been better off than ever. Stop complaining".
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 12:10:10 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Ohh well I'll drop it... If no one sees it, no one is going to. I'll just wait until the stupid "Its ok if you do it to the majority" phase of society wears off.
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 12:10:25 am
Which of course does happen. However, the term itself is almost never invoked in situations where there's actual, objective evidence that any such intentions existed. Especially when used on the internet when tone etc. are not conveyed. Thus as often as not it is a mirror on the user, not the accused. Coming across strongly as indication of insecurity or aimless rage/frustration instead of in response to any actual attack or paternalism, and thus backfiring by suggesting sexism right back again.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 12:12:32 am
Mansplaining is supposed to mean when a man assumes he is right or takes on an air of superiority in knowledge due merely to being a man talking to a woman.
I actually looked it up. There is more then one definition.
I've also seen it used... And it certainly did NOT follow your definition GavJ... both times.
Quote
However, the term itself is almost never invoked in situations where there's actual, objective evidence that any such intentions existed.
I don't think that definition is being used because it is a very specific situation.
I've seen it used anytime a man tried to explain something to a woman about something involving women (First time)... And where a man contradicted information that a woman presented from personal experience (second time).
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 12:15:38 am
...What?
If you *really* need a non-male example:
Man: "This baby needs feeding because *explanation*"
Women: "Silly man, you can't look after kids".
And as GravJ said, it applies only when someone is assuming they are more knowledgable or right based on their gender. It does not apply when there is fair reasoning involved. It does not mean in any way men can't discuss feminine issues.
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 12:17:21 am
Quote
that describes the act of a man speaking to a woman with the assumption that she knows less than he does about the topic being discussed on the basis of her gender
Quote
Mansplaining is supposed to mean when a man assumes he is right or takes on an air of superiority in knowledge due merely to being a man talking to a woman.
Quote
Mansplaining is a portmanteau of the words "man" and "explaining" that describes the act of a man speaking to a woman with the assumption that she knows less than he does about the topic being discussed on the basis of her gender
Quote
to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner
Quote
Mansplaining is when someone of higher privelage simply dismisses anothers view. ",I as a male, haven't seen discrimination against women therefore it must not exist". It also applies to other situations (rich people's difficulty in comprehending that its hard for some people to feed themselves etc)
The only odd definition out of the bunch is
Quote
Mansplaining simply means a MAN didn't acknowledge that someone was a woman and then tried to "explain" or "say" or "Have an opinion that the woman doesn't agree with" without first saying "I acknowledge you are a woman" first.Which is frankly pretty bizarre by comparison. Who expects you to say "I acknowledge you are a woman" before everything? Certainly nobody i've ever talked to before, as compared to the dozens of people who use mansplaining around me who mean the above communal definition.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 30, 2014, 12:18:00 am
Alright. Be aware that while I am angry, its mostly about our forum culture. What I say to you, I've wanted to say to a lot of people.Do it. I don't mind.Personally, I think we (i.e., everyone involved) should drop this "feminism" nonsense entirely. Initially, when women were actually being repressed - in the Western world, at least - it had a point. Now the whole movement is tainted with the tumblr goings-on and various other extremists. Plus the fact that women actually have all the rights of men, in terms of property, suffrage, and the like.I want to argue with this but I can't do it without insulting you.
Equality I can live with. Equality is cool. Feminism, not so much.
You are to gender debates, what talk-show creationists are to scientific discourse about evolution. You waltz in to this conversation that's been going on since before your parents were born, with a knowledge of the topic at hand that is maybe higher than average human, but nothing impressive by the standards of people who have actively informed themselves. And you say a few things, with a confidence that ignores the fact that you're saying extremely obvious things. You say things like "gender roles will make complete sense if you just look at this wikipedia page about sexual dimorphism" or "it shouldn't be about women, it should be about equality". And all I can think in response is... seriously? You think that there is a single feminist in this thread who hasn't already thought of that?
Like don't get me wrong, its one thing to disagree with feminism. But its another thing entirely to act like you know what you're talking about when your first response to a conversation about gender roles is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans
And nothing else. Even ignoring the naturalist fallacy you're committing there (implying we should be OK with gender roles because they are what we evolved for, not that that's even true) its just so... transparently wrong. Like I want to argue with the implied argument that you're making, which is that gender roles match up with human biology. But I can't be sure that's what you'res aying because from that post its not clear that you even know what gender roles are.
Ditto for feminism. One part of me wants to say "no, its a varied movement and individuals within it believe different things, plus AFAIK if you asked the vast majority of them if they want equality for men and women the answer would be an enthusiastic yes" but the other, increasingly dominant part of me wants to say "no, and no to the five dozen people who said this before you, and stop acting like you're adding to the conversation".
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 12:21:33 am
And it is still a terrifyingly sexist term... At least to me.
Quote
It does not mean in any way men can't discuss feminine issues.
It doesn't have to be used correctly.
Just pop it out whenever a man assumes they are correct and the opponent is a woman.
Quote
Which is frankly pretty bizarre by comparison. Who expects you to say "I acknowledge you are a woman" before everything? Certainly nobody i've ever talked to before, as compared to the dozens of people who use mansplaining around me who mean the above communal definition
It isn't meant to be reasonable.
If you are talking to a doctor about medicine and they present information... now you aren't a doctor and you think you know differently.
If you say "No, this is true" you are mansplaining. If you go "Well I know you are a medically trained doctor with years of experience, but I still think this is true" you are not.
Now, this is just one definition at play... But honestly that alone will get you out of most mansplaining accusations. So long as you acknowledge that the person you are speaking to is the expert.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2014, 12:22:34 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 30, 2014, 12:37:04 am
Bitching is something that basically everyone needs to do from time to time, because it relieves pent-up stress that is usually completely natural and okay to have, and bitching usually ends up getting rid of it in a way that harms no one except maybe your pride.
Mansplaining is necessary in exactly zero ways. And it does happen. And that is what is truly terrifying. For example, nearly any debate on abortion ends up turning into this at some point if men are involved. I don't mean to say all men do this, I'm just saying that at some point, at least one man will probably try to assume he knows what's best for them there womenfolk getting those tiny persons stuck inside their vagina-whatzits. Women can be total idiots too on the subject, and men can be very intellectually nuanced and give a valid argument against the practice that doesn't stem from religious fervor or worries about continuing to control the reproductive processes of the opposite gender. There was a woman claiming that the wage gap should be increased to benefit women because women like marrying men who make more money than them(I don't even). But in a discussion about sexism against women? Well...
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 12:52:45 am
I think the term "bitching" is derogatory especially if you say that a woman is "just bitching". But according to your info Rolepgeek it isn't and is perfectly acceptable to say that a woman who is complaining is simply "bitching".
If that is true, then I'd have to accept that Mansplaining is an acceptable term as well.
So I accept your argument by your own terms.
I don't agree with your premises, but if your premises are right, I accept your conclusion.
Post by: Angle on July 30, 2014, 01:24:37 am
Anyway, any more examples of extreme feminism?
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 01:27:55 am
Though I have little idea how one would argue that "bitch" is or isn't an engendered derogatory term that when applied to males is emasculating or not...
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2014, 01:30:24 am
Anyway, any more examples of extreme feminism?Anita Sarkeesian? Rebecca Watson?
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 01:44:18 am
Anyway, any more examples of extreme feminism?Anita Sarkeesian? Rebecca Watson?
Thats your benchmark for extreme? No wonder you see so many extremist feminists ::)
Video games are sexist? How extreme!
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 01:57:24 am
Sure her examples are lame... and I doubt anyone agrees with everything she says...
But since when was "Says things I don't agree with" send someone immediately to extreme?
Anyway, any more examples of extreme feminism?Anita Sarkeesian? Rebecca Watson?
Gave me a good laugh, especially Anita. Video games are sexist? How extreme!
Well lets not misrepresent her. That isn't what she is saying.
I am not going to link any extreme feminism... >_< the last time I looked up something intentionally because it is bad that was political... it cheesed me off (Thanks extreme Christians)
Quote
No wonder you see so many extremist feminists
I think in my own life I've met only two... but both had reasons for being so. One was clearly mentally unstable, and the other been though... troubling times.
So yeah they are clearly in the extreme minority.
But a link? hmmm... yeah I broke my promise and tried... But goodness no matter how sexist a statement you punch into google you always get the Best case scenario in there. Dang it reasonable people get out of my way!
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 02:03:52 am
That isn't what she is saying.
Your quite correct, it was an intentional strawman designed to highlight a point. But I swear some of the hate towards her (and seeminly as a result, the view that she is somehow an extremist) comes from some sort of "How dare you insult Video Games!" line of thought.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2014, 02:05:50 am
Yeah, pretty much. Everyone's an extremist until proven otherwise.Thats your benchmark for extreme? No wonder you see so many extremist feminists ::)Anyway, any more examples of extreme feminism?Anita Sarkeesian? Rebecca Watson?
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 02:06:59 am
Well lets not misrepresent her. That isn't what she is saying.
Your quite correct. But I swear some of the hate towards her (and seeminly as a result the view that she is somehow an extremist) comes from some sort of "How dare you insult Video Games!" line of thought.
Feminists just get no respect on the internet... It was pretty much going to happen no matter what. Add in that this is a criticism of videogames that are good, and WOOSH! She might as well have been Jack Thompson.
I mean, I don't exactly like her... but that is because I find that she jists too much, takes the audience acceptance for granted, often doesn't see great avenues of exploration, and her examples are weak and sometimes even misleading... making all her videos seem like extended intros... and that alone.
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 02:25:45 am
Quote
So long as you acknowledge that the person you are speaking to is the expert.Except if the reason they're wrong is because they haven't done as much research on the topic as me, then they AREN'T the expert... so that would just be lying.
Similarly, acknowledging that somebody is a woman before making a claim that doesn't require you to be a woman to make, is misleading/almost like a kind of lying as well, by implying that it matters when it doesn't.
Quote
at least one man will probably try to assume he knows what's best for them there womenfolk getting those tiny persons stuck inside their vagina-whatzits.I don't know exactly which arguments you're talking about, but stereotypically, arguments against abortion rarely are about the well-being of women. They tend to be about the well-being of the fetus. And being a woman doesn't really give you any better insight into the perspective/needs of a fetus than men have. We were ALL fetuses, and NONE of us remember it, so arguments made from that perspective are fairly sex-neutral and I don't see why men would have much reason to defer on the issue to womens' experience.
Post by: LordBucket on July 30, 2014, 04:22:30 am
Feminism is still very much necessary.
Continuing to push a pendulum towards its rest state right up to the very moment it reaches it rarely results in a pendulum at rest.
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 04:25:11 am
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 30, 2014, 04:25:27 am
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 04:26:03 am
This robot disagrees:Feminism is still very much necessary.
Continuing to push a pendulum towards its rest state right up to the very moment it reaches it rarely results in a pendulum at rest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6vr1x6KDaY
Post by: Jelle on July 30, 2014, 04:30:58 am
Absolutely agree. People are kinda bipolar like that, always pushing for one extreme in reaction to another.Feminism is still very much necessary.
Continuing to push a pendulum towards its rest state right up to the very moment it reaches it rarely results in a pendulum at rest.
As for my opinion on feminism. I'm all for gender equality, feminism...not so much.
Pendulum would imply human history has been a cycle between male dominated and female dominated.There have, however, been plenty of cultural shifts that fit the description. Just look at all the cultural movement in history (e.g enlightenment -> romanticism).
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 04:39:44 am
Post by: LordBucket on July 30, 2014, 04:42:14 am
Throughout this thread people have framed feminism is "extreme" and just as frequently failed to explain why.
Attempting to do so leads to 'No True Scotsman.'
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 04:53:09 am
Throughout this thread people have framed feminism is "extreme" and just as frequently failed to explain why.
Attempting to do so leads to 'No True Scotsman.'
Plus as with most things.. how many times have you saw something really distasteful and your first instinct is to bookmark it for prosperity?
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 05:35:31 am
Throughout this thread people have framed feminism is "extreme" and just as frequently failed to explain why.
Attempting to do so leads to 'No True Scotsman.'
Quote from: Google Define:Feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes
So anyone promoting the superiority of women/inferiority of men is quite literally not a Scotsman.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 05:57:59 am
Well to admit there are always multiple definitions... and that definition has no room for "feminist theory".
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 06:04:11 am
Quote
Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending a state of equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women
Post by: Jelle on July 30, 2014, 06:13:21 am
Post by: alexandertnt on July 30, 2014, 06:19:16 am
Ultimately you could define it however you wanted, I suppose. It is just a word, but all that will do is make your arguments harder to understand.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 06:46:52 am
Then again... I always could go back far enough... but then again the definition never said "All women" so going back to when women hated other women who weren't their brand of woman... doesn't affect that definition.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 30, 2014, 11:35:05 am
I'm sure you're just trolling at this point, because it's nigh impossible to 'disprove' extremism, but prove you aren't an extremist. After all, you view Anita as being extremist; that must mean you are, since you haven't disproven your own extremism yet, and by your logic, that means you are an extremist.Yeah, pretty much. Everyone's an extremist until proven otherwise.Thats your benchmark for extreme? No wonder you see so many extremist feminists ::)Anyway, any more examples of extreme feminism?Anita Sarkeesian? Rebecca Watson?
Also, LordBucket; the analogy is not, properly, a pendulum. It is a spring-coiled tube. There is innate resistance to equality from sources outside of the specific battleground, and there are people pushing down. To get it high enough, we have to push back.
Research =/= experience. Statistics are not the same as individuals, and it goes both ways; for the same reason you can't use anecdotal evidence, you can't say 'well this study shows only 3% of women actually get abused by blahblahblah so you probably weren't actually hurt'. Besides which, what gives you reason to suspect that you've done more research than they, when the issue strikes much closer to home with them and thus they have more reason to so research than you?QuoteSo long as you acknowledge that the person you are speaking to is the expert.Except if the reason they're wrong is because they haven't done as much research on the topic as me, then they AREN'T the expert... so that would just be lying.
Similarly, acknowledging that somebody is a woman before making a claim that doesn't require you to be a woman to make, is misleading/almost like a kind of lying as well, by implying that it matters when it doesn't.
Quote
at least one man will probably try to assume he knows what's best for them there womenfolk getting those tiny persons stuck inside their vagina-whatzits.I don't know exactly which arguments you're talking about, but stereotypically, arguments against abortion rarely are about the well-being of women. They tend to be about the well-being of the fetus. And being a woman doesn't really give you any better insight into the perspective/needs of a fetus than men have. We were ALL fetuses, and NONE of us remember it, so arguments made from that perspective are fairly sex-neutral and I don't see why men would have much reason to defer on the issue to womens' experience.
[/quote]
Don't wanna get into a separate debate about this so I'll just say: it's a woman's body carrying that fetus, and her reproductive system that has to bear the strain of it. She's the one for whom it will affect her life for a long-ass time, if the dad ain't around. Don't give me 'child-support' bullshit either, you know it's not the same.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 11:40:58 am
Post by: Angle on July 30, 2014, 01:19:18 pm
As for bitching, it may have been insulting at one point, but now it's cycled around to be more a mild way of making fun of yourself than anything else. "Yeah I'm just bitching, dude. Don't worry bout it."
Anyway, I promise not to use the no true Scotsman on you. If a person persistently identifies as something, I'll assume they are that something.
I really appreciate the name of this thread, some of the ideas mentioned here have indeed been quite strange.
Samarkand, your passive aggressiveness befuddles me. Why don't you make an actual argument?
Post by: LordBucket on July 30, 2014, 01:46:29 pm
Quote
LordBucket; the analogy is not, properly, a pendulum. It is a spring-coiled tube. There is innate resistance to equality from sources
outside of the specific battleground, and there are people pushing down. To get it high enough, we have to push back.
What is your criteria by which you judge when it's time to stop pushing?
A few examples:
* More women are accepted into college than men (http://collegestats.org/2013/05/why-men-are-falling-behind-in-higher-ed/)
* More women graduate with degrees (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/women-now-33-more-likely-men-earn-college-degrees)
* Women usually win child custody battles (http://walllegalsolutions.com/edu/how-often-do-fathers-get-child-custody-compared-to-mothers/)
* Women control the majority of money in the US source 1 (http://she-conomy.com/report/marketing-to-women-quick-facts) source 2 (http://www.supportingadvancement.com/vendors/canadian_fundraiser/articles/womens_affluence.htm) source 3 (http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2) source 4 (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/u-s--women-control-the-purse-strings.html) source 5 (http://marketingzeus.com/infographic/the-purchasing-power-of-women)
* Women live longer than men (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827162,00.html), yet despite this the majority of healthcare money is spent on women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/), and for example, more than twice (http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/) as much money is spent on breast cancer vs prostrate cancer research, despite similar numbers of afflicted.
Meanwhile:
* Men are 12 times more likely to die on the job (http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0238.pdf)
* Men are twice as likely to be homeless (http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html)
* Men are three times as likely to commit suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide)
...but, oh. There are more men in politics. And more male CEO's. And
"In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, "
So is your goal to keep pushing until everything favors women over men? Is that equality? After all, even though female CEO's make 40% more than male CEOs (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/women-ceos-salaries-caught-men/story?id=10630664), there are still more male CEO's than female CEO's. Shall we keep pushing until they not only get paid more, there are also more of them too?
Or maybe what you want is social equality? Why not go to a bar with a female friend and see which of the two of you gets more free drink purchased for you. Or have your car break down on the side of the road and see which of you receives more offers of help. Try being a male or female assaulted by someone of the opposite gender and see who garners more sympathy. Go to the mall and do a quick count of how many stores cater to women vs cater to men. Have a female friend wear a boys are stupid throw rocks at them t-shirt (http://weheartit.com/entry/group/28429372), and then try custom printing a "girls are stupid throw rocks at them" t-shirt and wearing it and let us know who people are nicer to. Imagine a man and woman on a sinking ship competing for the last spot on a liferaft and tell me who gets it.
I ask again: what is your criteria by which to judge when it's time to stop pushing for women's "equality?"
Post by: Angle on July 30, 2014, 02:28:20 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2014, 03:20:52 pm
I would like to apologise for any and all of the stupid things I have said on this thread.
It is an interesting topic, so I will continue to follow it and may contribute in future. I will, however, think a little bit more before posting, and with any luck I'll look like less of an arse than I have thus far.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 03:52:10 pm
Hello, everyone!I love bay12. Thank you insanity, for a wonderful example of rational discussion being able to influence people's behavior.
I would like to apologise for any and all of the stupid things I have said on this thread.
It is an interesting topic, so I will continue to follow it and may contribute in future. I will, however, think a little bit more before posting, and with any luck I'll look like less of an arse than I have thus far.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 30, 2014, 03:58:31 pm
I don't get angry easily. These issues are some of the few things that do. Congratulations, LordBucket. You've been added to the list of maybe five people who've managed to make me this mad. Two of the others did so by causing me physical harm. Congratulations.
Post by: Angle on July 30, 2014, 04:16:33 pm
Hello, everyone!
I would like to apologise for any and all of the stupid things I have said on this thread.
It is an interesting topic, so I will continue to follow it and may contribute in future. I will, however, think a little bit more before posting, and with any luck I'll look like less of an arse than I have thus far.
Eh, they weren't that stupid- this is the internet, you're not even eligible to register for that race. :P
I look forward to your future contributions.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 04:17:06 pm
Speaking of rational discussion, I really hope someone else responds to LordBucket's post because it has caused such great levels of anger within me that if I have to be the one to show him how wrong he is, I don't know how civil I'll be able to keep it. Logical, I think I can manage, I just worry about the whole bloody thing getting deleted by Toady because I can't keep my temper.I was just gonna let that one get buried.
I don't get angry easily. These issues are some of the few things that do. Congratulations, LordBucket. You've been added to the list of maybe five people who've managed to make me this mad. Two of the others did so by causing me physical harm. Congratulations.
Also true.Hello, everyone!
I would like to apologise for any and all of the stupid things I have said on this thread.
It is an interesting topic, so I will continue to follow it and may contribute in future. I will, however, think a little bit more before posting, and with any luck I'll look like less of an arse than I have thus far.
Eh, they weren't that stupid- this is the internet, you're not even eligible to register for that race.
I look forward to your future contributions.
Post by: Angle on July 30, 2014, 04:24:04 pm
Speaking of rational discussion, I really hope someone else responds to LordBucket's post because it has caused such great levels of anger within me that if I have to be the one to show him how wrong he is, I don't know how civil I'll be able to keep it. Logical, I think I can manage, I just worry about the whole bloody thing getting deleted by Toady because I can't keep my temper.Lemme take another crack at it. I posted once, but I think I rather missed the point.
I don't get angry easily. These issues are some of the few things that do. Congratulations, LordBucket. You've been added to the list of maybe five people who've managed to make me this mad. Two of the others did so by causing me physical harm. Congratulations.
So is your goal to keep pushing until everything favors women over men?
First, this isn't a zero-sum game. We've been working to remove the things that disadvantage women. If you're concerned about men being disadvantaged, you can go and tackle those problems yourself. Here (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/)'s an example of a person who tries to do just that.
Or maybe what you want is social equality? Why not go to a bar with a female friend and see which of the two of you gets more free drink purchased for you. Or have your car break down on the side of the road and see which of you receives more offers of help. Try being a male or female assaulted by someone of the opposite gender and see who garners more sympathy. Go to the mall and do a quick count of how many stores cater to women vs cater to men. Have a female friend wear a boys are stupid throw rocks at them t-shirt, and then try custom printing a "girls are stupid throw rocks at them" t-shirt and wearing it and let us know who people are nicer to. Imagine a man and woman on a sinking ship competing for the last spot on a liferaft and tell me who gets it.
Those are rather poor examples. Try going to any social event and see which one of you get's more unwelcome advances. See who's more likely to get molested. For that matter, try comparing old unattractive men and women, and see who comes out ahead in those examples above.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 04:53:54 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 04:54:58 pm
Yes, those are true, but I would blame them more on the attitudes of men than on women or feminism.
Dang blameless women and their ability not to contribute to society! (joke)
I always find it funny when people essentially transpose women out of society in these discussions and give them perfectly progressive minds.
Yeah because no women put pressure on women to succeed more and if they do it is because a man told them. *sarcasm*
Post by: Reelya on July 30, 2014, 04:58:18 pm
Speaking of rational discussion, I really hope someone else responds to LordBucket's post because it has caused such great levels of anger within me that if I have to be the one to show him how wrong he is, I don't know how civil I'll be able to keep it. Logical, I think I can manage, I just worry about the whole bloody thing getting deleted by Toady because I can't keep my temper.
I don't get angry easily. These issues are some of the few things that do. Congratulations, LordBucket. You've been added to the list of maybe five people who've managed to make me this mad. Two of the others did so by causing me physical harm. Congratulations.
All of what he wrote are true things, the logical error was to link them to feminism.
Although, women live longer is a fact, as is women's health gets much more attention and funding. It doesn't matter WHY that is, it's still a bias.
Women advocated more for more health funding, so it's fair? Let's apply that logic to the wage gap then. Tons of studies show men are more proactive in asking for pay raises and promotions. If the health funding thing is fair because women fought for it, then so is the pay gap.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 05:01:53 pm
I do agree that there is a limit to how far you can push "Equality" without it becoming inequality. Whether or not that point has been reached is debatable, of course, but it is there.When you use quotations around equality you mean the word empowerment. It's important to keep words straight as best we can, so we can find common ground. For example, I think most everyone here will agree that equality is good, and those who don't will likely offer very interesting reasons (Nietzsche is a fun one to read on that... Though clearly not a feminist). If we clarify that what we disagree about is current empowerment efforts, nobody needs to defend equality, they just need to demonstrate further empowerment is needed.
And some of them are actually resulting in accepting men over women, particularly in certain academic fields. There aren't enough men applying to Psychology Ph.D. programs. There aren't enough women applying to Physics Ph.D. programs. I think feminism can help solve both of these by deconstructing commonly understood gender roles and allowing people to pursue fields that interest them equally, as opposed to many young women being discouraged from doing things related to engineering, and young men being mocked for getting involved in a soft science. That deconstruction is the part that I find most fascinating about feminism.Speaking of rational discussion, I really hope someone else responds to LordBucket's post because it has caused such great levels of anger within me that if I have to be the one to show him how wrong he is, I don't know how civil I'll be able to keep it. Logical, I think I can manage, I just worry about the whole bloody thing getting deleted by Toady because I can't keep my temper.
I don't get angry easily. These issues are some of the few things that do. Congratulations, LordBucket. You've been added to the list of maybe five people who've managed to make me this mad. Two of the others did so by causing me physical harm. Congratulations.
Al of what he wrote are true things, the logical error was to link them to feminism.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 05:03:10 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 05:07:11 pm
I like to write, and have on more that one occasion been told that "Women like poets, but poets don't like women."
I don't care, or let it effect me in any action I might take. If someone wants to take the job, there are law imposed that will let them. They may succumb to a bit of peer pressure not to do it, but, really, no one is going to stop you with pitchforks and mobs.
If you want to do it enough, you will and can do it.
Post by: Angle on July 30, 2014, 05:07:12 pm
Yes, those are true, but I would blame them more on the attitudes of men than on women or feminism.
Dang blameless women and their ability not to contribute to society! (joke)
I always find it funny when people essentially transpose women out of society in these discussions and give them perfectly progressive minds.
Yeah because no women put pressure on women to succeed more and if they do it is because a man told them. *sarcasm*
I do no such thing. I just think that such things are best fought by men because we're the ones who have the most thorough understanding of the issues. I also think that feminism should be primarily pushed by women, as they have the understanding of the issues at hand.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 05:08:03 pm
I'm gonna start writing this, 'cause someone will ninja me I'm sure.
I like to write, and have on more that one occasion been told that "Women like poets, but poets don't like women."
I don't care, or let it effect me in any action I might take. If someone wants to take the job, there are law imposed that will let them. They may succumb to a bit of peer pressure not to do it, but, really, no one is going to stop you with pitchforks and mobs.
If you want to do it enough, you will and can do it.
Well, damn.
A second away from the required ninja :)
Post by: Reelya on July 30, 2014, 05:09:45 pm
And some of them are actually resulting in accepting men over women, particularly in certain academic fields. There aren't enough men applying to Psychology Ph.D. programs. There aren't enough women applying to Physics Ph.D. programs. I think feminism can help solve both of these by deconstructing commonly understood gender roles and allowing people to pursue fields that interest them equally, as opposed to many young women being discouraged from doing things related to engineering, and young men being mocked for getting involved in a soft science. That deconstruction is the part that I find most fascinating about feminism.
Really? boys are as a whole falling behind in education at all levels. I have not seen any feminist proposals to fix that. They're more or less hostile to the idea of doing anything that focuses on boys problems, with the general argument that it takes the focus off girls problems. I see a lot of flip flopping : when it suits them, feminism is about equality, but when you bring up a "boy problem" feminism is just for the girls, so get your own movement / advocacy going, who's stopping you? We got our movement, get yours.
But, as soon as some pro-boy education advocacy comes up, then that gets stomped on for being outside feminism, because feminism is about equality and has everyone covered. Except when it doesn't.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 05:19:54 pm
Depends heavily on which feminists you talk to. I know some who are very concerned that boys are lagging in education. They see it as a feminist issue, because they believe part of the problem to be that boys are being told that doing things like reading are "girly." And these feminists, they just think that word is a toxic part of our lexicon. There are certainly feminists that act as you described, but don't confuse them with all feminists. BTW, I haven't seen a single decent proposal to fix that problem, because nobodies got a freaking clue what all is causing it, and that includes me. How to fix our education system is the multi-billion dollar question.And some of them are actually resulting in accepting men over women, particularly in certain academic fields. There aren't enough men applying to Psychology Ph.D. programs. There aren't enough women applying to Physics Ph.D. programs. I think feminism can help solve both of these by deconstructing commonly understood gender roles and allowing people to pursue fields that interest them equally, as opposed to many young women being discouraged from doing things related to engineering, and young men being mocked for getting involved in a soft science. That deconstruction is the part that I find most fascinating about feminism.
Really? boys are as a whole falling behind in education at all levels. I have not seen any feminist proposals to fix that. They're more or less hostile to the idea of doing anything that focuses on boys problems, with the general argument that it takes the focus off girls problems. I see a lot of flip flopping : when it suits them, feminism is about equality, but when you bring up a "boy problem" feminism is just for the girls, so get your own movement / advocacy going, who's stopping you? We got our movement, get yours.
But, as soon as some pro-boy education advocacy comes up, then that gets stomped on for being outside feminism, because feminism is about equality and has everyone covered. Except when it doesn't.
Also, I'd like to clarify the "feminism is about equality" thing. Most definitions do not state this. Its a common misconception. Feminism is often many things, but its usually "approaching an issue from the point of view of the female rather than the culturally dominant male," "empowering women," or "deconstructing gender norms." Lack of equality is the number one motivator, often, but it is not what the movement is.
Post by: Heron TSG on July 30, 2014, 05:22:58 pm
That is the old "Create, Change, and destroy" dichotomy.A Trichotomy is what that is.
And with that point of pedantry, I'm going to sit and watch where this goes before butting in.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 05:24:11 pm
Besides that, this doesn't depend. It's dependent on the action of the entire movement, which I do agree, doesn't give a fig about boy rights. It is a feminist movement, and focuses on that, which is fine of course. But, were there to be a movement advocating equality for boys, it would be persecuted by feminism as being anti-feminine.
Post by: Glowcat on July 30, 2014, 05:31:07 pm
It is a feminist movement, and focuses on that, which is fine of course. But, were there to be a movement advocating equality for boys, it would be persecuted by feminism as being anti-feminine.
The "Men's Rights" movement has only been opposed due to how it focuses primarily on detracting from feminism, or, as has been the case anytime there's an argument around feminism on these boards, there are people who, instead of caring about men's issues as something on their own, use them to attack feminist advocacy without ever dealing with the problems themselves. Instead they seem eager to point at problems men are suffering from and say "See! There's no problem!" and help absolutely nobody.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 05:32:20 pm
"Depends heavily on which feminists you talk to" seems to be a go to response. Why is it even a movement if it can't decide what it wants?
Besides that, this doesn't depend. It's dependent on the action of the entire movement, which I do agree, doesn't give a fig about boy rights.
Nope! Everybody I've talked to both online and offline who's described themselves as feminists have been interested in equality between members of both genders.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 05:32:32 pm
"Depends heavily on which feminists you talk to" seems to be a go to response. Why is it even a movement if it can't decide what it wants?"It would be" is a dangerous series of words by which you mean you have condemned them without seeing their action first.
Besides that, this doesn't depend. It's dependent on the action of the entire movement, which I do agree, doesn't give a fig about boy rights. It is a feminist movement, and focuses on that, which is fine of course. But, were there to be a movement advocating equality for boys, it would be persecuted by feminism as being anti-feminine.
As for "why is it a movement?" Its actually a crapton of movements, some formally named, some not. Tiny variations all over the place. Simone de Beauvoir championed feminist existentialism. Not all about equality, more about the self, and what womanhood meant. Second wave feminism was lots of legal rights stuff, the "equality" mantra that you now associate with all feminists. These are not the same movements, despite the fact that they are both feminism. Feminism is a broad term, just like moral positivists do not all agree on what is moral.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 05:52:45 pm
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 05:56:58 pm
I'd say I'm correct in assuming
You assume that your assumption is correct. Unfortunately, you are still assuming things with no evidence that such a thing would happen.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 06:00:01 pm
As you say, "it depends on the feminist." I'd say I'm correct in assuming that any proper equivalent of feminism for men would be called a home for misogyny by a sizable number of women. "That man says we should educate males more in some areas than they do for women! Why are the boys get preferential treatment?"Calling for more education of one than the other is preferential treatment. And not even remotely the solution. So there's that.
The male equivalent of feminism is terribly difficult to define, namely because, and I can't emphasize this enough, we are under entirely different social pressures. If you mean asking for males to be given more education then women, yeah, you'll get a few accusations of misogyny. If you mean men trying to deconstruct social norms without identifying with the feminist movement, nearly every feminist I know would love that.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 06:11:53 pm
I don't want a male-movement. Nor do I want a female-movement. But, as that doesn't seem likely, I want considerate feminists. They exist, of course, but are being drowned out by some very loud...well, feminists. They are so loud that the movement, like it or not, is being defined by them.
Em. Yes. I have no evidence on a hypothetical situation, sorry to disappoint.I'd say I'm correct in assuming
You assume that your assumption is correct. Unfortunately, you are still assuming things with no evidence that such a thing would happen.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 06:14:44 pm
The feminist movement is baying for better education prospects for girls in things such as maths. Were a male-based organisation to say they wanted resources used to further the education of boys in, say, home economics or English, it would not go down well.Half the time the "better education for girls", especially in math, is organized around convincing people that it is appropriate for girls to be good at math, and that it shouldn't merely be bitten of as above them, not specifically giving more time to girls than boys.
I don't want a male-movement. Nor do I want a female-movement. But, as that doesn't seem likely, I want considerate feminists. They exist, of course, but are being drowned out by some very loud...well, feminists. They are so loud that the movement, like it or not, is being defined by them.Em. Yes. I have no evidence on a hypothetical situation, sorry to disappoint.I'd say I'm correct in assuming
You assume that your assumption is correct. Unfortunately, you are still assuming things with no evidence that such a thing would happen.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 06:19:46 pm
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 06:23:37 pm
Sure. Then do the same for boys, and you have the same issue. You are using energy and resources, which almost anywhere you look are sparse, on boys when it could be used on girls.I took the liberty of actually seeing what people are recommending to help girls succeed in math. This site (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=5) was the first that came up in my search. Now the only recommendation which would only help girls is listed as having less support. By and large the things which help girls will help boys.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 06:30:05 pm
No need for feminism or gender to come into it.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 06:31:35 pm
You assume that your assumption is correct. Unfortunately, you are still assuming things with no evidence that such a thing would happen.Em. Yes. I have no evidence on a hypothetical situation, sorry to disappoint.
Your argument is that this situation would occur. If you're saying all hypotheticals are impossible to prove, disprove, or even be shown as more or less likely why the hell are you even using them?
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 06:34:00 pm
"But, were there to be a movement advocating equality for boys, it would be persecuted by feminism as being anti-feminine."
I even start off in the hypothetical.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 06:34:39 pm
In that case, just improve education standards.There is, but we'll ignore that momentarily. Regardless, you are the one who got obsessed with feminist educational recommendations. I'm just pointing out that they don't involve flogging young boys so the girls can be smarter, as you soared to believe. They involve recommendations to make subject matter more accessible and build confidence.
No need for feminism or gender to come into it.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 06:37:11 pm
I'm saying that should such a situation arise, the feminist movement...(etc.).
"But, were there to be a movement advocating equality for boys, it would be persecuted by feminism as being anti-feminine."
I even start off in the hypothetical.
Yes, you're being hypothetical. I clearly understood that. You need evidence to say that such a thing would happen. It is entirely possibly to provide evidence that points towards a hypothetical situation being likely.
Spoiler: Definition of Evidence (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 06:54:14 pm
I'm...not obsessed with it. I just, ya know, replied post by post to your argument. I never said that feminists promote flogging young boys so girls can be smarter, either. The entire point of what I'm saying is that, were boys to get as much interest in education as women, quite a few loud feminists would disagree heartily.
I am going by what the feminist movement believes in, which is the furtherment of women. Whether this surpasses equality or not, as has been said, depends on the feminist. An effort to take away from this is obviously going to be met with dislike/opposition from many feminists. Take, for example, your imagined response to telling a feminist movement that the amount of women teachers were being cut down, because there were too many women in the teaching profession to cater appropriately for young boys.I'm saying that should such a situation arise, the feminist movement...(etc.).
"But, were there to be a movement advocating equality for boys, it would be persecuted by feminism as being anti-feminine."
I even start off in the hypothetical.
Yes, you're being hypothetical. I clearly understood that. You need evidence to say that such a thing would happen. It is entirely possibly to provide evidence that points towards a hypothetical situation being likely.Spoiler: Definition of Evidence (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 06:57:07 pm
I am going by what the feminist movement believes in, which is the furtherment of women.
And here we get to the fundamental issue, I suppose. You're wrong- this is not 'what the feminist movement believes in'.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 06:58:07 pm
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 06:59:50 pm
Alright, then, do educate me.
Spoiler: Definition of Feminism (google did this for me!) (click to show/hide)
Although you could argue that it goes beyond merely advocating for equal rights, and also encompasses equal social standing.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 07:00:38 pm
Alright, then, do educate me.Most of it is about deconstructing gender roles.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 07:08:08 pm
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 07:10:11 pm
Gender roles wasn't mentioned in what Cheeetar defines as feminism, at least not as a main aspect. It is the rights of women. Hence, the furtherment of women, whether or not it is capped at anything.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Equal social standing would mean gender roles didn't exist (if one gender has a specific role, then the genders are not equal socially).
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 07:16:22 pm
Well, forgetting my misinterpretation (I hope :P) of Cheeetar's post, I'd have to say that that sounds good in principle. In reality, feminists do not all conform to the views expressed as that of the movement. A clear indicator being the rise of the stereotypical feminist. Unfair to many feminists, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Also, unfortunately, numbers do not matter. It is who is louder, and who has more media coverage, and that is what defines the feminist movement to many of it supporters and opponents.
A basic enough definition that does, to me anyway, work is the futherment of women. Because that's what most feminists do agree on, that women are being mistreated in some areas, so they should be furthered along certain paths.
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 07:21:16 pm
Quote
Equal social standing would mean gender roles didn't exist (if one gender has a specific role, then the genders are not equal socially).Standing =/= behavior. Standing is an amount of respect and power. It does not imply equal individual behaviors.
For example, two different senators might wield what happens to be an equal amount of respect and power, but one does it by applying such and such amount of fearmongering and another one does it by applying such and such an amount of money. These would have different roles and behaviors entirely but (for the time being) equal standing.
Which means that there's no magical melding of souls that happens when equality is reached that somehow makes overshooting impossible or something. The people getting more influential using role X can end up passing by people using role Y, while remaining completely distinct, and then ending up overshooting and becoming the new majority powers.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 07:22:57 pm
Urg, yes, of course. My apologies :P
Well, forgetting my misinterpretation (I hope :P) of Cheeetar's post, I'd have to say that that sounds good in principle. In reality, feminists do not all conform to the views expressed as that of the movement. A clear indicator being the rise of the stereotypical feminist. Unfair to many feminists, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Also, unfortunately, numbers do not matter. It is who is louder, and who has more media coverage, and that is what defines the feminist movement to many of it supporters and opponents.
A basic enough definition that does, to me anyway, work is the futherment of women. Because that's what most feminists do agree on, that women are being mistreated in some areas, so they should be furthered along certain paths.
You're right that feminism is quite often misrepresented- I don't agree that because it is misrepresented that we should then focus on the misrepresentation as the most accurate portrayal of it simply because that is what is currently believed by many to be the movement.
Your simplified definition is technically accurate at times- to extrapolate from it (to say that because the definition of feminism is the furtherment of women, they are thus anti-men) is intellectually dishonest, however.
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 07:25:09 pm
Quote
equal social opportunitySimilarly, two different types of people, using two totally different behavior sets or strategies, can achieve the same set of opportunities available to them.
I don't think there IS a word for what you seem to want to conclude, because I don't think it's a physically realistic situation you're describing (what seems to be some concept that equality = indistinguishability, or something)
I also don't think it's something that any group of feminists desire. Neither equality seeking ones nor militant ones want women to be equal to AND act indistinguishably from men.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 07:31:16 pm
Quoteequal social opportunitySimilarly, two different types of people, using two totally different behavior sets or strategies, can achieve the same set of opportunities available to them.
I don't think there IS a word for what you seem to want to conclude, because I don't think it's a physically realistic situation you're describing (what seems to be some concept that equality = indistinguishability, or something)
I also don't think it's something that any group of feminists desire. Neither equality seeking ones nor militant ones want women to be equal to AND act indistinguishably from men.
Alright. I wouldn't say that my concept is that genders would be indistinguishable- just interchangeable, I suppose. Anything you can do, I can do, sort of thing. I'm not sure how I would phrase my own definition, but feel free to more properly explain it seeing that mine is lacking.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 07:32:53 pm
I didn't say in said definition that they are anti-men, I said they were pro-women.
So, I used this definition in order to demonstrate that feminists wold react negatively to anything perceived to be against the female gender. For example, laying off female teachers so male children can have more male teachers.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 07:38:26 pm
So, I used this definition in order to demonstrate that feminists wold react negatively to anything perceived to be against the female gender. For example, laying off female teachers so male children can have more male teachers.
I would react negatively to laying off any teachers who weren't guilty of misconduct- as I understand it, education is lacking severely in many countries. If you did lay off female teachers, there probably wouldn't be male teachers to replace them.
Are there any cases in the current world where you've seen things occur that have been both 'against the female gender' and positive in general to the human race, and that feminists have reacted negatively to?
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 07:44:12 pm
Quote
Are there any cases in the current world where you've seen things occur that have been both 'against the female gender' and positive in general to the human race, and that feminists have reacted negatively to?Voting against affirmative action for women in science and engineering fields is I'm sure a real life example that many individual universities have gone through. Which I think fits the description. Bad for women, clearly -- it's always bad for your group not to get as much free stuff, that seems clear. I argue good for society, though, since we want our national experts in things to be the best experts they can be, and affirmative action can undermine that.
I'm not saying women can't make good scientists and engineers. I'm saying that some individuals could make brilliant ones, but they can ALREADY get accepted without affirmative action.
Whereas the majority could also potentially have made great engineers, but the culture in the home from their parents convinced them they can't be and to make different choices of classwork and extracurriculars and hobbies and by the end of high school it may be too practically late. That's where the problem is and where it would need to be solved. Not by just pretending that people were raised differently and prepared for fields differently than they were.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 07:49:47 pm
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 07:51:41 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 07:55:55 pm
I was, in a rather roundabout way, going to mention the exact point GavJ made, right down to the engineering.
Meh, I don't mind the ninja. He probably put it better than me.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 07:57:37 pm
College kids protest everything on their campuses. They'd protest chocolate versus rainbow sprinkles in the cafeteria. It's an abstract example, sorry, but surely that's not difficult to imagine.
It's not hard to imagine that, but it's hard to imagine anybody taking the reaction seriously. If one were to say that the feminist movement is harming things, this isn't a concerning example.
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 08:10:35 pm
Quote
it's hard to imagine anybody taking the reaction seriously.Why's that?
I'm not imagining they're gonna bring in the national guard or something. But they might give them what they want and change a policy again, that has happened many times -- that's why people protest in the first place. It occasionally works.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 08:11:27 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 08:14:25 pm
Sorry to dig this up, but it was buggin' me while I was reading through the thread.That is the old "Create, Change, and destroy" dichotomy.A Trichotomy is what that is.
And with that point of pedantry, I'm going to sit and watch where this goes before butting in.
Its no problem, I don't mind corrections. xD
Post by: Cheeetar on July 30, 2014, 08:14:45 pm
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 08:16:51 pm
IT'S no problem XDSorry to dig this up, but it was buggin' me while I was reading through the thread.That is the old "Create, Change, and destroy" dichotomy.A Trichotomy is what that is.
And with that point of pedantry, I'm going to sit and watch where this goes before butting in.
Its no problem, I don't mind corrections. xD
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 08:19:26 pm
QuoteAre there any cases in the current world where you've seen things occur that have been both 'against the female gender' and positive in general to the human race, and that feminists have reacted negatively to?Voting against affirmative action for women in science and engineering fields is I'm sure a real life example that many individual universities have gone through. Which I think fits the description. Bad for women, clearly -- it's always bad for your group not to get as much free stuff, that seems clear. I argue good for society, though, since we want our national experts in things to be the best experts they can be, and affirmative action can undermine that.
I'm not saying women can't make good scientists and engineers. I'm saying that some individuals could make brilliant ones, but they can ALREADY get accepted without affirmative action.
Whereas the majority could also potentially have made great engineers, but the culture in the home from their parents convinced them they can't be and to make different choices of classwork and extracurriculars and hobbies and by the end of high school it may be too practically late. That's where the problem is and where it would need to be solved. Not by just pretending that people were raised differently and prepared for fields differently than they were.
My opinion on engendered and racial laws (as in laws that apply ONLY to specific races and genders) is that they exist to be removed.
That should always be the goal whenever one of those are enacted. It might take years or decades but still.
Some people have this idea that things like that should be permanent.
also WOW this has so far been the most civil gender discussion we ever had... >_>
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2014, 08:35:24 pm
Anyway, protests only really effect change when said change is already in the public mindset. When a major protest is an expression of how a significant number of people think or feel, it will have a much more powerful effect than if the protest was organised by a vocal minority.
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 09:20:20 pm
That's because I stopped posting :P
Anyway, protests only really effect change when said change is already in the public mindset. When a major protest is an expression of how a significant number of people think or feel, it will have a much more powerful effect than if the protest was organised by a vocal minority.
This particular issue though is a great example of how that might not quite be true though.
Women are always the majority. Yet will never be much MORE than the majority, because biology.
So it's an especially interesting example of where "voting for/lobbying for group specific interest" might be able to pass bills consistently without ever necessarily being in the actual full national interest (pretending that women's political power is equal per capita here for a moment in a hypothetical future)
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2014, 09:43:24 pm
Women are always the majority. Yet will never be much MORE than the majority, because biology.Not necessarily. It's entirely possible for birth rates (or infant mortality) to shift in favour of males. Again, never much more than the majority, but majority nonetheless.
It's also important to remember that any major change will always have groups opposing it. See abortion/gay rights/apartheid etc., and though those movements succeeded, there always were (and are) people wanting them to fail.
Communism in Russia was very successful (at least before Stalin came along) because it heavily favoured the blue-collar worker, who made up the majority of the population.
So if we apply this principle of majorities overwhelming the minorities, I wouldn't trust he chances of any kind of female-supremacy based social shift getting off the ground. As others have said, the feminists/women/people who make up that group are largely insignificant.
Post by: GavJ on July 30, 2014, 09:47:38 pm
But regardless, you can still easily run into this issue just from getting more women to vote proportionally, etc. Or men. It's been a fundamental concern throughout history that "majority vote" doesn't always mean "best choice for the nation" because sometimes the majority vote represents a majority voting group that is just voting to help itself knowingly at the expense of other groups.
So protests only being successful when the majority power bloc agrees with them isn't terribly comforting or a great guarantee of them being just causes.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 10:13:57 pm
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 10:23:04 pm
I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.Yup, as addressed up above, backup genetic code is a huge advantage. Two of each chromosome is for more than just introducing genetic variation; crappy mutations can get buried. Men are missing 1/23 of the defense.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 10:32:14 pm
On the plus side, no man has ever died during childbirth. I think.I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.Yup, as addressed up above, backup genetic code is a huge advantage. Two of each chromosome is for more than just introducing genetic variation; crappy mutations can get buried. Men are missing 1/23 of the defense.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 10:44:42 pm
On the plus side, no man has ever died during childbirth. I think.I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.Yup, as addressed up above, backup genetic code is a huge advantage. Two of each chromosome is for more than just introducing genetic variation; crappy mutations can get buried. Men are missing 1/23 of the defense.
I am going to assume you are excluding the baby.
It just depends on your definition of "man" anyhow. I still remember the "man who gave birth" but who, to my knowledge, was a hermaphrodite.
Post by: Samarkand on July 30, 2014, 10:52:00 pm
I... I'm not even sure how to respond to this... Is no woman ever died of prostrate cancer appropriate? And... what are you arguing with me about?? It was a factual statement about population ratios, mostly unrelated to the feminism discussion...???On the plus side, no man has ever died during childbirth. I think.I thought that so long as women have access to good medical care and aren't preyed upon in some fashion that they will ALWAYS be the majority.Yup, as addressed up above, backup genetic code is a huge advantage. Two of each chromosome is for more than just introducing genetic variation; crappy mutations can get buried. Men are missing 1/23 of the defense.
I'm terribly, terribly confused.
Post by: TD1 on July 30, 2014, 10:55:34 pm
Not everything's an argument, lol.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 11:35:03 pm
I'm not arguing :P
Not everything's an argument, lol.
Welcome to my world!
To admit it is my fault because sometimes I'll just go "well this isn't true, it actually is this" and it is just one point of someone's incredibly long speech.
Doesn't help that sometimes I'll just pick apart a few premises and go "there, thus your argument is invalid"... And that I havn't had a few irrational outbursts before >_>
I've considered whether or not I should be trying hard to be an intelligent held-together person on this forum... or whether I should just be closer to myself and say what is on my mind unfiltered because it is more honest... and I tend to go with the second :P
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 30, 2014, 11:39:33 pm
Also, in all honesty, I've always wondered if the gender ratios were like that because men were more likely to serve in a military capacity than women.
Then I remembered that more women die of domestic abuse each year than die in military service and law enforcement combined.
And then I realized that probably wasn't the case.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2014, 11:49:18 pm
But yeah I do honestly believe things like "laws that prevent hate crimes" are laws that exist to be removed, I do believe that laws that ensure women who are equal to a male applicant are hired is a law that exists to be removed.
Don't get me wrong I am not arguing against the necessity... I am saying I never saw these laws as permanent laws but rather temporary.
Note: I have a feeling I might have to explain what "exist to be removed" means later... but whatever.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 30, 2014, 11:52:01 pm
Spoiler: For Reference (click to show/hide)
edit: fixed the pic
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2014, 11:55:36 pm
Laws that prevent hate crimes... can I have some examples, perchance? I assume you mean legal-type laws...
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 30, 2014, 11:59:07 pm
Anyway, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States) would be a good start for hate crime stuff.
Post by: Lyeos on July 31, 2014, 12:00:55 am
...you're just pretending to be that ridiculous, right? Please?Hey, I have an idea!
Anyway, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States) would be a good start for hate crime stuff.
Instead of ragging on someone that doesn't know what you're talking about, tell them about it without being rude!
It's a pretty radical idea, I know, but it apparently works wonders.
...
This is why I hate watching these threads.
Post by: Arcvasti on July 31, 2014, 12:02:54 am
Mmmmm...what's your view on maternity leave?Spoiler: For Reference (click to show/hide)
edit: fixed the pic
Canadia gives 50-week maternity leaves? Well. Looks like we have something besides no insects half the year to endear us to people.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 31, 2014, 12:03:35 am
Not hate crimes.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 12:04:35 am
Quote
Men filing for maternity leave makes no sense. It boggles the mind.There is paid Paternity leave in many places in the world
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 31, 2014, 12:05:15 am
I was referring, Lyeos, to the comment about men filing for maternity leave.
Not hate crimes.
And you were still being condescending and rude.
Post by: Neonivek on July 31, 2014, 12:07:54 am
Men filing for maternity leave makes no sense. It boggles the mind.
What? Men can't take care of new borns? You do know how intensive they are right?
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 31, 2014, 12:10:14 am
I was making a statement that I hoped he understood what I was actually talking about, and was being joking as his tone implied he was. If you think it was being condescending, oh well. Maybe it was, if I thought he honestly didn't understand, but I thought he was being joking, yet I wanted to confirm. Beyond that I will speak no further, as I don't want this to get off-topic into some sort of discussion regarding etiquette.I was referring, Lyeos, to the comment about men filing for maternity leave.
Not hate crimes.
And you were still being condescending and rude.
That said, paternity leave also seems interesting and also stresses the issues the US has as a first world country in comparison to other first-world countries.
Post by: LordBucket on July 31, 2014, 12:48:17 am
I really hope someone else responds to LordBucket's post
No such luck. Four thread pages and not one single person has answered the question I asked:
"what is your criteria by which to judge when it's time to stop pushing for women's "equality?"
Yes, those are true, but I would blame them more on the attitudes of men than on women or feminism. Really, we men need a movement to reevaluate our gender constraints, and slip them, if necessary. For example, men have a lot of cultural restriction on being feminine, even when that's to their advantage. This can severely impede our ability to function in society. Women, on the underhand, have significantly slipped their restriction from acting masculine. This, I feel, largely accounts for women's better performance in school and professionally. As for medicine, women have gone and campaigned for better treatment. Men? Nope can't do that, it's not macho. I do agree that the funding is unbalanced, but you can hardly blame women for that.
1) Not really interested in placing blame. I'd rather we have a clear view.
2) I'm skeptical that social acceptance of "men acting femininely" is productive at all. Don't misunderstand. I'm the guy wearing the pretty pony princess avatar here. I'm not saying "rawwr guys must be macho rawwrr!" I just don't think that cultural acceptance of "women acting like men" is the cause of women having it better, and I don't think "men acting like women" is going to make life particularly better for men either.
I think it's far more likely than men tend to want to protect women, so they're generally willing to try to make things better for women where they perceive unfairness. We're talking about he western world here, not Saudi Arabia. Combine that with the recent historical push from women to make lives for their gender better, and you end up with a lot of concerted effort to make life better for women. Hence, life becomes better for women. Cross-gender behavioral acceptance isn't really part of that. If you want to champion for social acceptance of men wearing dresses in public, or working as nurses and secretaries, I guess I'm not going to fight you on that...but I just don't think it would result in longer male lifespans and so forth. There's just no connection between these things.
Those are rather poor examples. Try going to any social event and see which one of you get's more unwelcome advances. See who's more likely to get molested. For that matter, try comparing old unattractive men and women, and see who comes out ahead in those examples above.
No, they were excellent examples. And others have pointed out that they were accurate. You just don't like them because they don't support your conclusion.
Quote
try comparing old unattractive men and women, and see who comes out ahead in those examples above.
"Older, unattractive men" find dating easier than "older, unattractive women." Primarily because men die younger which leads to not enough men to go around. Are you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a bad thing for women? I mean, yes...I see how it could be inconvenient. But painting men dying as a women's problem seems a bit twisted to me.
I do agree that there is a limit to how far you can push "Equality" without it becoming inequality. Whether or not that point has been reached is debatable, of course, but it is there.
Yes, it is debatable. Which is why I asked what the criteria is for evauluating "equality." Women's rights movements and feminism have been around for quite a few decades. How are we supposed to know when they've "succeeded" and can stop now? If we never have any definite criteria, and just forever keep making things "better for women" to the exclusion of men...again, that's pushing the penduluum past the rest point.
I gave a long list of quantifiable ways in which women have it better here. And some of those items used to be goals of feminism. Voting rights, safe and legal access to abortion, parity in education...these things have been accomplished. But the goalposts have been moved.
So maybe we're reached the point, or maybe we haven't. But in order to evaluate whether we have, we need some criteria to look at say "if X is true, we've succeeded and we're done. If X is not true, then we haven't yet succeeded."
Alright, then, do educate me.Spoiler: Definition of Feminism (google did this for me!) (click to show/hide)
Although you could argue that it goes beyond merely advocating for equal rights, and also encompasses equal social standing.
That definition is clearly silly. Which "rights" do you suppose that women lack? The only "rights" western women lack that I'm aware of is that they can't be conscripted or serve in some military combat roles.
Feminism is obviously not about women's rights. It's about...and I'm speaking loosely here because we don't all agree on definitions..."making things generally better for women." And there's nothing wrong with that. But I think this notion that "men have it better" is no longer very accurate. Again, I gave a long list of verifiable and quantifiable ways in which "things" are clearly better for women.
I don't see feminists pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality." I don't see feminists pushing for longer male life expectancy "for equality." I don't see women rallying to move funds away from breasts cancer research in favor of spending on underfunded men's health issues..."for equality."
If people want to rally to make life better for women, that's ok. But stop it with the illusion that it's "for equality."
Equal social standing would mean gender roles didn't exist (if one gender has a specific role, then the genders are not equal socially).
If this is one's view, then it's somewhat improbable that mere social reform will ever result in "equality." As has been mentioned, there are biological differences that influence "gender roles." Obvious example: women give birth and breastfeed children. Unless you're proposing we start growing children in vats, things like this are unlikely to change.
Then I remembered that more women die of domestic abuse each year than die in military service and law enforcement combined.
Doing some checking, the numbers appear to be similar enough that it depends on which year you look at. But in general the numbers are "low" in both cases.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250g.pdf
"Every year in the United States, 1,000 to 1,600 women die at the hands of their male partners"
Those numbers increase if you include "suicides motivated by domestic abuse" but even so, male suicide rate is three times as high (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide).
Whereas according to:
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/2013/07/24/annual-deaths-in-the-us-military-1980-2010/
Military deaths range from 800-2500/yr or so.
In any case,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
"In terms of gender, males were more likely to become crime victims than were females, with 79% percent of all murder victims being male."
To which, I predict your response will be that women are raped more often than men. Which is true if you ignore prison rapes. However, I repeat that above wiki link which claims that males are more likely to become crime victims than females. Which is corroborated by lots of sources.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/victims-victimization/Pages/welcome.aspx
"Men become crime victims more often than women do"
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv12.txt
"In 2012, males had higher rates of violent and serious violent victimization than females."
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html
(http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83534ac5b69e201156f478bf8970c-pi)
Picking out one thing that's worse for women and ignoring all the things that are worse for men...I question your impartiality. Women live longer, they get more degrees, they get more health funding, they receive legal favoritism, they receive social favoritism, they control more money overall, businesses cater to them more than men...the list goes on. We don't need to be continually cherry picking the few things that men still have better and forcing those to be better for women too.
No. I think it's time to stop championing for women and start making life better for everybody.
If feminism is really about "equality," then let's prove it.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 12:51:45 am
It would put additional burden on an already stressed system, for little to no gain other than to let the father see the child... but he'll have a lifetime to do that.
Mister Bucket, you've been busy :P
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 12:52:17 am
Quote
"what is your criteria by which to judge when it's time to stop pushing for women's "equality?"You speak as if there's a global stopping point or something.
It's not that hard in actuality -- you look at any individual issue, and if there's still disparity, keep pushing. Disparity in different domains likely has to be measured by experts in those domains. The natural result being that as you get closer to equality, more and more individual issues start falling off the table, and it tapers down slowly.
Quote
Paternity leave would just make little sense.Paternity leave, as well as maternity leave for any amount of time beyond maybe a couple of weeks, is for taking care of needy newborn babies, which men and women can both do and either one may NEED to do, depending. (I.e. if the woman is the bigger breadwinner, then she might go back to work as soon as physically able while the dad takes off 2-3 months for the newborn care)
You even realized this yourself in your own post ("If being with a newborn can be called rest") but then didn't apply it...
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 12:54:03 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 31, 2014, 12:59:31 am
Never. Equality is not something which will be maintained once it has been achieved without effort. There will always be racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.. This is not an invitation to stop as if our efforts were useless, but rather a matter to which to devote more attention to to ensure the problem is quelled as much as is humanly possible. And it is a problem. I need only link to domestic violence (http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/) statistics to make that abundantly clear. Besides which, the goalposts will always move. That's how equality and social rights work.I really hope someone else responds to LordBucket's post
No such luck. Four thread pages and not one single person has answered the question I asked:
"what is your criteria by which to judge when it's time to stop pushing for women's "equality?"
To respond to a somewhat incredulous comment of yours; do you honestly believe that men, on average, dying approximately 7-8 years younger affects any of this? That it has relevance regarding dating(which is somewhat irrelevant anyhow)? You're twisting the facts to make it seem as if men are the ones being abused, when this is demonstrably not the case.
I can't finish a sizable enough post at this time due to the late hour, but if you insist on twisting facts and finding specific examples in a twisted attempt to prove that somehow, men are the victims here, I'll have to do so in the morning.
Dw4rf, it's about taking care of the child, not simply about giving birth.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 01:14:26 am
Quote
do you honestly believe that men, on average, dying approximately 7-8 years younger affects any of this?Uh, I do. Any significant sexual dimorphism is a good candidate for likely impacts on this discussion, and that's a fairly major one.
Quote
in a twisted attempt to prove that somehow, men are the victims hereAnd men ARE sometimes the victims. The world is not "EVERYBODY from group A wins!" or "EVERYBODY from group B wins!" There are local pockets and swirls that go against the global trend in anything.
(http://i.imgur.com/zaHz0Q8.jpg)
If you imagine this is an abstract map of a subset of situations in the world,
Pure white = the strongest anti-female discrimination.
Pure black = the strongest anti-male discrimination.
On AVERAGE it might be skewed fairly strongly toward white overalll, but locally, there are instances of moderate to strong male victimization.
For a real life example, female on male rape is actually not uncommon at all (not AS common as the reverse).
Post by: Neonivek on July 31, 2014, 01:25:34 am
Where is something isn't pure white or pure black... that it is immediately grey...
Something grey can go either way... it isn't "grey morality" when the decision is the right thing to do but there is a cost. >_<.
It is as odd a view as people who think that everything is 100% good or 100% bad.
sorry tangent.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 01:35:27 am
I never liked this new "Everything is grey" mentality.
Where is something isn't pure white or pure black... that it is immediately grey...
Something grey can go either way... it isn't "grey morality" when the decision is the right thing to do but there is a cost. >_<.
It is as odd a view as people who think that everything is 100% good or 100% bad.
sorry tangent.
If I'm reading correctly, the summary of your post is basically "People thinking that things are not 100% good or bad is as odd as people thinking that things are 100% good or bad"
That's a logical contradiction.
(well not strictly. You can just think everything in the universe is "odd" i guess, but it implies that there is something you think isn't odd, yet does not allow for any such thing)
Post by: Neonivek on July 31, 2014, 01:37:13 am
People who say everything is in shades of grey are as weird as people who say everything is in black and white.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 01:40:15 am
(this was confusing, since black and white ARE shades of gray, but whatever. Terminology confusion, not worth worrying about).
In that case, I agree and I'm not sure who you're arguing against. The example image I posted DOES have areas of both pure white and pure black in it. Representing the fact that in some areas of life, there is 100% pure victimization of men, and sometimes you will find 100% pure victimization of women. In most areas of life, both happen to different degrees, but I am not claiming that's true of all areas of life.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 31, 2014, 01:44:24 am
And another tangent, I'm afraid:
...you're just pretending to be that ridiculous, right? Please?Ridiculous? Maternity != fathers.
Edit: To clarify, I'm just being pedantic about paternity leave, which is a concept that makes lots of sense.
Post by: Cheeetar on July 31, 2014, 03:06:33 am
Don't misunderstand. I'm the guy wearing the pretty pony princess avatar here. I'm not saying "rawwr guys must be macho rawwrr!"
I've seen you bring this up multiple times in the past as a defense against you possibly being judgmental in your description of some men- it's not! It's like saying "I have a black best friend, so I can't possibly be racist."
Post by: palsch on July 31, 2014, 07:17:28 am
BTW, with 10 seconds google, feminist pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality." (https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/staff/rmap/lahiridutt/2011/the_shifting_gender_of_coal_-_south_asia_journal.pdf) I know you might not count this because it's India, but women have been systematically pushed out of the workforce by a combination of social/workforce trends and legal restrictions over the last century, and that article is a feminist argument for why this is a problem.
Safe and legal access to abortion... let's not pretend that isn't constantly threatened and attacked, both as a political football and as a practical attack on women's rights. The same often goes for healthcare in general (not to mention the gender specific issues women can have with medical practitioners) and education (albeit in different ways). A lot of the gains have been patchy and not reflected in all areas on all levels, which means some women are still going to get screwed over for their gender. I think that alone is reason to continue to push.
Basically your post seems to boil down to, "If we focus on the things I care about, then there is no need for feminism." Which, well, fair enough. But choosing not to care about certain social inequalities or discrimination doesn't make them go away.
Post by: DJ on July 31, 2014, 07:52:40 am
Paternity leave, as well as maternity leave for any amount of time beyond maybe a couple of weeks, is for taking care of needy newborn babies, which men and women can both do and either one may NEED to do, depending. (I.e. if the woman is the bigger breadwinner, then she might go back to work as soon as physically able while the dad takes off 2-3 months for the newborn care)Breastfeeding. Sure, there's all sorts of baby formulas out there, but they're all inferior to the real thing.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 31, 2014, 08:22:13 am
Post by: Cheeetar on July 31, 2014, 09:21:47 am
Paternity leave, as well as maternity leave for any amount of time beyond maybe a couple of weeks, is for taking care of needy newborn babies, which men and women can both do and either one may NEED to do, depending. (I.e. if the woman is the bigger breadwinner, then she might go back to work as soon as physically able while the dad takes off 2-3 months for the newborn care)Breastfeeding. Sure, there's all sorts of baby formulas out there, but they're all inferior to the real thing.
Men can lactate too.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 09:30:02 am
Post by: Jelle on July 31, 2014, 09:46:05 am
Also there's no reason a mother can't simply bottle some of her milk for the father to use.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 09:47:08 am
Men can lactate? 0_o
I'm not sure if I want to look that up.
Post by: Tiruin on July 31, 2014, 09:48:35 am
I repeat, wha...?Yes :v
Men can lactate? 0_o
I'm not sure if I want to look that up.
But not all.
Look it up == RESEARCH IT. :P
...
...
I think this is part of a derail away from gender roles. ._.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 09:49:35 am
Post by: Lyeos on July 31, 2014, 09:49:51 am
Just sayin'.
So, paternity leave at least makes sense then.
I guess.
Excuse me while I return to vomiting.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 09:54:52 am
...and babies do it too. It's often called "Witch's milk" and was believed to be succour to the familiar of a witch.
Okay.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 01:06:23 pm
1) Two parents at home > one parent at home for a childPaternity leave, as well as maternity leave for any amount of time beyond maybe a couple of weeks, is for taking care of needy newborn babies, which men and women can both do and either one may NEED to do, depending. (I.e. if the woman is the bigger breadwinner, then she might go back to work as soon as physically able while the dad takes off 2-3 months for the newborn care)Breastfeeding. Sure, there's all sorts of baby formulas out there, but they're all inferior to the real thing.
2) Single fathers
3) Inferior formula is better than losing most of your income if the dad works for a more progressive company than the mom and offers paternity leave while hers offers nothing
4) Um... Breast pumps?
5) Most (or many) maternity and paternity leaves are not 100% pay, so in a country with both with, say, 50% normal pay, and she makes twice as much as him, then it may be economically obvious to take the paternity leave and the mother stay at work to get 100% of the larger, more important income figure.
6) Some couples may simply personally decide that the father is a better caretaker than the mother and has more parental instinct, and thus plan, regardless of economics, to have him be the principle caretaker.
7) Gay male couples with surrogates
etc.
Or maybe the entire rest of the western world except America and I are just playing a practical joke by pretending it makes any sense.
Post by: LordBucket on July 31, 2014, 01:08:21 pm
10 seconds google, feminist pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality." I know you might not count this because it's India, but women have been systematically pushed out of the workforce by a combination of social/workforce trends and legal restrictions over the last century, and that article is a feminist argument for why this is a problem.
Going to dismiss this. Obviously the context of the discussion is the western world, and that's been specifically pointed out a number of times. If we're talking about the world at large, a whole lot of what we're talking about changes. For example, there are places in the middle east where being female and outside your house unescorted by a male relative means you might be raped, stoned and put in jail for being in the wrong about it.
That kind of thing renders most everything in this thread fairly trivial in comparison.
Quote
Basically your post seems to boil down to, "If we focus on the things I care about, then there is no need for feminism." Which, well, fair enough. But choosing not to care about certain social inequalities or discrimination doesn't make them go away.
More like..."why is feminism still a thing when so many quantifiable indicators suggest that they already have it better than men?"
I assert that feminism has long since surpassed its original goals, and that life in the western world is already much better for women than it is for men. I've given a number of indicators (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5525724#msg5525724) to this effect
If equality is really the goal, how does it make sense to continue promoting women over men? I gave the analogy a bunch of thread pages ago about trying to "balance" a pendulum to the result of pushing it past the balance point in the other direction. I think that point has long since been reached.
Don't misunderstand. I'm the guy wearing the pretty pony princess avatar here. I'm not saying "rawwr guys must be macho rawwrr!"
I've seen you bring this up multiple times in the past as a defense against you possibly being judgmental in your description of some men- it's not! It's like saying "I have a black best friend, so I can't possibly be racist."
...I can see that perspective, but I think it's a mischaracterization. Consider the full context of the quote you're referring to.
Angle said this:
Really, we men need a movement to reevaluate our gender constraints, and slip them, if necessary. For example, men have a lot of cultural restriction on being feminine, even when that's to their advantage.
To which I responded:
I'm skeptical that social acceptance of "men acting femininely" is productive at all. Don't misunderstand. I'm the guy wearing the pretty pony princess avatar here. I'm not saying "rawwr guys must be macho rawwrr!" I just don't think that cultural acceptance of "women acting like men" is the cause of women having it better, and I don't think "men acting like women" is going to make life particularly better for men either.
A more accurate characterization would be that I'm saying "I'm not opposed to the idea of accepting men behaving in ways that are traditionally viewed as feminine. Case in point: I do it myself. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest that men have to act manly. But, that being the case...I don't think it's a solution for the problem we're discussing."
"what is your criteria by which to judge when it's time to stop pushing for women's "equality?"
Never.
the goalposts will always move.
...wait, seriously? Did you just admit that or am I totally misunderstanding you? Because it sounds to me like you're saying that no matter how good it is for women, it will never be good enough. That you'll always feel the need to keep fighting and championing for them.
I would be fascinated to hear the perspective of an actually female feminist on your statement. Because it sounds an awful lot to me like you're suggesting either that women will never be equal to men and that they need men to forever and always keep protecting them...or simply that you don't care how fair or unfair anything is or how good woman have it already, they're on a pedestal and always deserve more.
Do you really want to take either of those positions?
Quote
it is a problem. I need only link to domestic violence statistics (http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/) to make that abundantly clear.
Sure it's a problem. But from your link (http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/):
"On average, 3 females and 1 male are murdered by their partner each day"
So, three women a day. In comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
"79% percent of all murder victims being male."
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf
"In 2011, an estimated 14,610 persons were victims of homicide in the United States"
(From chart on page 4:)
14,610 homicides, of which 11,370 were men and 3,240 were women.
So, 11,370 men are murdered for every 3240 women. Of those 3240 women who are murdered, according to your domestic violence link, 3 a day, so ~1095 per year.
Why are the domestic homicides the problem here?
I mean...yes, it's a bad thing. I acknowledge that. But why do you look at the 1000 women being murdered by domestic partners and think that's more important than than the 11,000 men being murdered? Even if you look at all 3240 women being murdered by everybody...why is that a bigger problem than the 11,370 men being murdered?
Do you see a certain disparity here? Are you seriously saying that one third as many women being murdered is a bigger problem than three times as many men being murdered?
Keeping in mind that this particular comparison of domestic abuse deaths was started because of this comment of yours:
Also, in all honesty, I've always wondered if the gender ratios were like that because men were more likely to serve in a military capacity than women.
Then I remembered that more women die of domestic abuse each year than die in military service and law enforcement combined.
...let's consider that:
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/2013/07/24/annual-deaths-in-the-us-military-1980-2010/
Military deaths range from 800-2500/yr or so.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/us/22-veteran-suicides-a-day/
"Every day, 22 veterans take their own lives. That's a suicide every 65 minutes."
And yet you apparently perceive the 3 women a day murdered by domestic partners as a bigger problem? Would you care to revise your statements now that you've seen the actual numbers?
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 01:17:53 pm
Post by: Lyeos on July 31, 2014, 02:02:03 pm
LordBucket, I love your points. Not that anyone here that champions feminism as the be-all and end-all to solve all problems will accept them, but I love your points..
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 02:04:00 pm
Post by: palsch on July 31, 2014, 02:06:15 pm
Going to dismiss this. Obviously the context of the discussion is the western world, and that's been specifically pointed out a number of times. If we're talking about the world at large, a whole lot of what we're talking about changes. For example, there are places in the middle east where being female and outside your house unescorted by a male relative means you might be raped, stoned and put in jail for being in the wrong about it.Well, I'd say that India is generally considered a fairly westernised nation within Asia, but assumed you would dismiss this anyway.
That kind of thing renders most everything in this thread fairly trivial in comparison.
So thirty seconds google for a book on women coal miners in Appalachia (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TryRcmUvPBIC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA8&) from a socialist feminist point of view.
But to expand this to a broader point, feminists do push for women to be accepted in dangerous and (often low paying) manual roles all the time.
If equality is really the goal, how does it make sense to continue promoting women over men? I gave the analogy a bunch of thread pages ago about trying to "balance" a pendulum to the result of pushing it past the balance point in the other direction. I think that point has long since been reached.Because you are looking at this as some absurd one dimensional measurement of equality, measured by whatever factors you choose to care about at this given time. If you measure life expectancy, or cherry pick a certain subset of income levels (properly controlled to remove potential inequalities) or look at random violence then sure, you can dismiss feminism as over and say men have it worse.
But if you choose to look at all facets of human experience you are going to find gross discrimination and prejudice against women on many levels in many areas. Areas where, to use the clichéd meme, we still need feminism.
Further , to broadly back up Rolepgeek, it's not a matter of centring the pendulum (or giving it a push and expecting it to find the centre through pure momentum). Abortion and other women's reproductive health topics are a good example. We see push back on this topic year after year, with only active resistance preventing the roll-back of decades of progress. Maybe, in a few decades, anti-woman arguments will be so unthinkable that there don't need to be groups specifically to push back against them, but I honestly don't see it happening in my lifetime.
Finally, dismissing feminism as just a political movement to promote women ignores the wealth of feminist work and writing on gender roles that could well be illustrative of the issues men are facing. Hell, bell hooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks) has written a book on understanding how patriarchy harms men (http://endofcapitalism.com/2009/01/20/review-of-the-will-to-change-men-masculinity-and-love/) (targeted at getting feminists to understand and embrace men) and another (http://www.feminish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/We-Real-Cool-Black-Men-Masculinity2.pdf) on black masculinity with a view to building a more constructive model of masculinity, avoiding harmful (socially and personally) stereotypes. I never see any of this discussed outside (certain) academic feminist circles though.
Post by: LordBucket on July 31, 2014, 03:41:04 pm
So thirty seconds google for a book on women coal miners in Appalachia from a socialist feminist point of view.
What about it? It appears to be a historical fiction novel. I don't think a novel about female coal miners constitutes an example of feminists pushing for parity in numbers of male vs female coal miners.
Now, to be fair...I haven't read the thing...it's possible there's political commentary in there, but reading only brief excerpts, what I get from it is basically "women have worked in coal mines, and they did perfectly well, so don't look down on women and claim they can't do a man's job."
That's all well and good, but I don't think it addresses the point we were discussing.
Quote
feminists do push for women to be accepted in dangerous and (often low paying) manual roles all the time.
Let's go back to the original comment (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5527948#msg5527948) of mine that prompted this particular discussion of coal mining:
I don't see feminists pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality." I don't see feminists pushing for longer male life expectancy "for equality." I don't see women rallying to move funds away from breasts cancer research in favor of spending on underfunded men's health issues..."for equality."
If people want to rally to make life better for women, that's ok. But stop it with the illusion that it's "for equality."
Please read the above quote. In case it was not clear...the point of the coal mining example, like the other examples given, was that so far as I can tell, feminists are not usually interested in equality. They simply want to make things better for women. If there is a desirable position or industry where there are more men than women, or unpleasant things that more women have to deal with than men, they will be perceived as inequalities. But when there are unpleasant things in which there are more men than women or desireable positions held more by women than men...those won't be perceived as inequalities.
Rather than fictional novels based on real-life female coal miners, can you find me example of feminists saying that it's unfair that so many men work in dirty, dangerous, unpleasant positions like coal mining and "to be fair and equal" we need to get women in those positions to relieve men from the injustice of being unfairly represented in them? Can you find me examples of feminists saying it's unfair that women hold the vast majority of highly paid nursing positions, and that we need to get more men into those positions to be fair? Can you find me examples of feminists saying that it's unfair that women live so much longer than men and that we need to spend more research money on men's health issues to make things more equal?
Because that was the point of both the coal mining and the other examples in that quote. That feminists don't appear to be interested in equality. Only in promoting women and calling it equality. When men have an advantage, they will decry it and suggest that women need better. But when women have an advantage, they don't decry that advantage and say that men need better.
Which, like I've already acknowledged (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5527948#msg5527948):
If people want to rally to make life better for women, that's ok. But stop it with the illusion that it's "for equality."
...it's ok if feminism exclusively promotes women. But if that's the case, then be honest about it, and say that it's all about promoting women...and stop claiming that it's about "equality."
Quote
Because you are looking at this as some absurd one dimensional measurement of equality, measured by whatever factors you choose to care about at this given time.
So give me different factors to look at. I've asked for that multiple times.
What criteria do you wish to use to judge this? I've given several. If you don't like mine, that's fine. We can use something else.
I assert, that speaking generally life is better in the US for woman than it is for men. Choose any area you like: finance, dating, social exchange, peer expectation, law, college, health...in most areas, women simply have a better deal than men.
Are there certain specific areas in which men have a better deal? Yes. In my opinion they are both outnumbered and out-how-much-bettered by the areas in which women have the better deal.
Simultaneously, it has been my observation, that "the trend" among those who espouse and vocally self- identify with feminism, is that they tend to perceive women as disadvantaged in comparison to men, and seek to reverse this perceived disadvantage.
If I have a lollipop, an apple and a bruise on my face...and if you have an ice cream cone, an orange and a papercut...and if you then see this and call it unfair...and if you then wage a war "for equality" that results in me having a lollipop and an apple and a bruise on my face and you having a lollipop, an apple, an ice cream cone, an orange and a band-aid on your papercut...did you really make things more equal?
I don't think so.
Quote
dismissing feminism as just a political movement to promote women ignores the wealth of feminist work and writing on gender roles that could well be illustrative of the issues men are facing.
Quote
I never see any of this discussed outside (certain) academic feminist circles though.
Yeah, I don't generally see those things discussed either.
To be fair, I have read articles by feminists acknowledging the US dating culture is unfair to men. They are, however, largely drowned out by the wage disparity complaints.
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 04:17:34 pm
Conclusion: Feminists are women who are interested in being better than men, not equality.
Quote
I don't see feminists pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality."Proposition 1: Feminists don't want women to have low paying and dangerous jobs.
Non sequitur: This does not logically lead to the idea that feminists want to be better than men. That would require demonstrating they advocate for men to have these jobs, which they don't. They'd probably prefer nobody had to do those jobs. Said another way, reluctance to take a shitty job does not imply superiority over the group that takes that job: nobody wants shitty jobs.
Counter-example: Feminists often advocate for women in active military service which is dangerous and often far from lucrative.
Quote
I don't see feminists pushing for longer male life expectancy "for equality."Proposition 2: Feminists have not actively worked to improve male life expectancy.
Counter-examples: Princess Diana was a feminists, and viewed part of this position as helping expand people's social definitions of the AIDs epidemic, helping men (who were disproportionately effected by the disease) seek treatment. The National Organization for Women spearheaded a campaign to expand the definition of hate-crimes, which helped the gay community greatly. Lovisa Stannow, noted feminist, worked in a campaign to stop prison rape; which effects men. All of these have had huge public effects.
Quote
I don't see women rallying to move funds away from breasts cancer research in favor of spending on underfunded men's health issues..."for equality."Proposition 3: Feminists have not redirected funds from their own efforts to help men.
Non sequitur: This does not imply they think they are superior, or that they do not value equality. Redirecting funds is rarely a platform of any group, regardless of their goals.
Counter-examples: See AIDs example in Prop. 2. This demonstrates they have helped with men's health issues, though it does not address redirecting funds.
I'll start with those for now. I have other bay12 things to do. :)
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 31, 2014, 04:41:05 pm
From what I've seen of the US, military service is glorified to a high degree. Coal mining, for example, not so much. In this case, it's less about the danger and money, and more about the patriotism and "freedom".QuoteI don't see feminists pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality."Proposition 1: Feminists don't want women to have low paying and dangerous jobs.
Non sequitur: This does not logically lead to the idea that feminists want to be better than men. That would require demonstrating they advocate for men to have these jobs, which they don't. They'd probably prefer nobody had to do those jobs. Said another way, reluctance to take a shitty job does not imply superiority over the group that takes that job: nobody wants shitty jobs.
Counter-example: Feminists often advocate for women in active military service which is dangerous and often far from lucrative.
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 04:42:48 pm
That's the thing, there is at least some reason to want it. If you asked feminists if they would be fine with women working in coal mines as a result of feminism, they'd say yes. If asked if they wanted women to work in coal mines they'd say no. Because nobody wants to be in those death traps.From what I've seen of the US, military service is glorified to a high degree. Coal mining, for example, not so much. In this case, it's less about the danger and money, and more about the patriotism and "freedom".QuoteI don't see feminists pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality."Proposition 1: Feminists don't want women to have low paying and dangerous jobs.
Non sequitur: This does not logically lead to the idea that feminists want to be better than men. That would require demonstrating they advocate for men to have these jobs, which they don't. They'd probably prefer nobody had to do those jobs. Said another way, reluctance to take a shitty job does not imply superiority over the group that takes that job: nobody wants shitty jobs.
Counter-example: Feminists often advocate for women in active military service which is dangerous and often far from lucrative.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 04:49:10 pm
Quote
Proposition 1: Feminists don't want women to have low paying and dangerous jobs.If true, it might be evidence, yes. But I really doubt it is true. Why would you NOT want job availability? Citations?
The ideal is always to have as many job offers as humanly possible if you're a laborer, it never benefits you to actively shun an industry. You might not go out of your way to court their favor, but that's not the same thing as specifically not wanting to have them as an option.
Quote
Proposition 3: Feminists have not redirected funds from their own efforts to help men.I don't see how this is relevant to your conclusion, whether true or not.
BOTH feminists who wanted infinite female power AND feminists who wanted only equality and no more would act like this, up until the point of equality, at which point they would diverge. Since we aren't at the point of equality yet, this is not a diagnostic measure.
Edit: Or more precisely, it might be evidence in some cases, but not others, and these need to be split apart. For example, Proposition 2 is actually a subtype of this proposition, which has been split off usefully. You need to do that with the rest of this as well.
1) "Things where men are actually behind women, AND where the women are still not diverting funds to help" versus
2) "Things where men are not behind, which are irrelevant whether feminists are diverting funds"
Quote
Proposition 2: Feminists have not actively worked to improve male life expectancy.This is the best of the three insofar as actually being decent evidence of your conclusion. It is a bit esoteric, though. More/ more generic/mainstream examples would be better. See above comments.
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 04:51:31 pm
I agree this was his strongest point, hence it not being labeled as a non sequitur. The problem is there are so many counter examples. Feminism has improved life expectancy some, and quality of life a lot.QuoteProposition 2: Feminists have not actively worked to improve male life expectancy.This is the best of the three insofar as actually being decent evidence of your conclusion. It is a bit esoteric, though. A more generic/mainstream example would be better.
Post by: palsch on July 31, 2014, 04:56:49 pm
It appears to be a historical fiction novel.Wut...
OK, so maybe you didn't glance at more than the first sentence, but from page five;
Quote
The foregoing account is an amalgamation of the stories taken from my interviews with fourteen coal-mining women working in souther West Virginia during the early to mid-1990s.From there forwards it is a straight political history. Even reading brief excerpts I can't believe you could come away with the idea that the (heavily footnoted, academically worded) text is a novel. Hell, even the first four pages don't read particularly like a historical novel...
It charts the history of the feminist workers movement within Appalachia to promote women within coal mines, fighting for both the ability to hold such a job and their rights once in place.
It's also an interesting look at concepts of intersectionality (that other tumblr buzzword) given it deals with race and poverty as well as sex. I'm actually tempted to find a complete copy and read it once I've polished off the latest Stross novel (opens with the abuse of Fortran 77 summoning a minor Old God who has to be suicide bombed by a zombie with a Basilisk gun/mobile phone, then gets weird). I have family in the region and always been interested in Appalachia.
Rather than fictional novels based on real-life female coal miners, can you find me example of feminists saying that it's unfair that so many men work in dirty, dangerous, unpleasant positions like coal mining and "to be fair and equal" we need to get women in those positions to relieve men from the injustice of being unfairly represented in them?Erm, feminists fought to get women into the mines because women wanted to be in the mines. I doubt you could find anyone who believes anyone should be forced into a job they don't want to do. Feminists just want to remove any barriers from jobs on the basis of sex.
Painting this as forcing men into the coal mines is a complete absurdity. It's painting the world as a zero sum game where every female gain comes at the cost of male pain. I've not seen any feminists who buy into this delusion.
Can you find me examples of feminists saying it's unfair that women hold the vast majority of highly paid nursing positions, and that we need to get more men into those positions to be fair?
Men nurses: a historical and feminist perspective (http://folk.uio.no/olegmo/Men%20in%20Nursing/Evans%20J%202004.pdf);
Quote
Understanding the centrality of gender in relation to the history of men in nursing in Canada, Britain, and the USA is essential if nursing is to address longstanding gender inequities that impact on men and women nurses. This examination of the history of men in nursing offers insights, which can increase our understanding of the barriers that impact on the recruitment and retention of men in the profession. Such insights are vital if nursing is to develop not only recruitment strategies focused on men but, more importantly, retention strategies that address current and uninterrupted gender relations that affect all nurses’ lives.It is also worth noting that a common feminist perspective is that nursing is a traditionally under valued career, something that is changing as men gain more acceptance within the field. This article (from the WSJ) suggests male nurses even make more than women in at least some areas. (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/02/25/male-nurses-make-more-money/)
Can you find me examples of feminists saying that it's unfair that women live so much longer than men and that we need to spend more research money on men's health issues to make things more equal?Given that many of the factors reducing male life expectancy are social factors that feminist work for equality in... but you don't seem interested in that.
For reference, it's not like extra lobbying is needed for life extending research. The current trends are towards longer life across the board, with men gaining faster compared to women (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2474859/Life-expectancy-gap-men-women-narrows-years.html) (sorry for Daily Mail link, but as with always with their site it's all about the pretty pictures).
Feminists calling for more work on male-focused healthcare would be redundant given that the default model for all non-sex-specific treatments is male, often to the detriment of female patients. There have been a lot of examples of this. (http://blogs.bluebec.com/the-default-human/) The majority of male medical mortality come from gender-neutral sources, which are already male-biased in the majority of research. Trying to narrow a multi-factor life expectancy gap by making medical research more male focused seems wrong-headed to me.
The exception is feminists supporting male-specific campaigns such as this example of them promoting the anti-prostate cancer movember (http://www.examiner.com/article/prostate-cancer-feminists-support-men-s-health). These things tend to be on the personal or group level rather than the grand political.
I assert, that speaking generally life is better in the US for woman than it is for men. Choose any area you like: finance, dating, social exchange, peer expectation, law, college, health...in most areas, women simply have a better deal than men.And, frankly, I think that you are wrong about every single one of those. But I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of them given you dismiss my sources out of hand. Sorry, but I honestly feel I would be wasting hours in trying to bring together a comprehensive argument about this. Hopefully someone else can bring some of this together? I might have a go once I get a hundred and one other things done.
Post by: LordBucket on July 31, 2014, 04:57:40 pm
Let's do this systematically. Correct me on any point, but please also confirm the ones you agree with so we can establish what it is you believe.
Question:
Do you genuinely not understand and are attempting to understand...or are you deliberately engaging in subtle misinterpretation in order to try to trick me into some sort of literal-phrasing self contradiction?
Because not one of your conclusions or propositions do I agree with as literally phrased. And I'm unsure how much of this is written nuance.
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 05:01:51 pm
Then rewrite them and I'll rewrite my responses. Seriously, I want you pinned down for believing in some particular statements, as opposed to the general vibe of feminism =/= equality. I don't care if its statements as I wrote them or as you write them. So go ahead.Let's do this systematically. Correct me on any point, but please also confirm the ones you agree with so we can establish what it is you believe.
Question:
Do you genuinely not understand and are attempting to understand...or are you deliberately engaging in subtle misinterpretation in order to try to trick me into some sort of literal-phrasing self contradiction?
Because not one of your conclusions or propositions do I agree with as literally phrased. And I'm unsure how much of this is written nuance.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 05:04:35 pm
1) Life expectancy, as mentioned
2) Obstetrics/Gynecology jobs (highly lucrative and 65% female)
3) As recently discussed, paid parental leave (maternity leave more common, longer, higher salary % on average than paternity leave)
4) In some colleges, disproportionately high rates of female students, which has prompted male-favoring affirmative action, because equal mixes are more profitable to colleges (students like even mixes and are willing to pay more) http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2009/11/18/us-civil-rights-commission-investigates-college-admission-bias As is obvious from the article, this one comes with evidence already that feminists are not only helping, but fighting vociferously, lobbying for legal investigations. Which suggests a bias toward female rights, not equality (they should be in favor of male affirmative action at those schools if anything for equality, until numbers get back to 50/50)
5) ?? other examples?
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 05:08:06 pm
Brainstorming desirable things in which men are disadvantaged/behind women. To the extent that women aid men in these examples versus fight them versus ignore it, is a good way to gaugue whether feminism is about equality versus specifically female rights1) Mostly genetics, hard to control
1) Life expectancy, as mentioned
2) Obstetrics/Gynecology jobs (~highly lucrative and 65% female)
3) As recently discussed, paid parental leave (maternity leave more common, longer, higher salary % on average than paternity leave)
4) In some colleges, disproportionately high rates of female students, which has prompted male-favoring affirmative action, because equal mixes are more profitable to colleges (students like even mixes and are willing to pay more) http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2009/11/18/us-civil-rights-commission-investigates-college-admission-bias As is obvious from the article, this one comes with evidence already that feminists are not only helping, but fighting vociferously, lobbying for legal investigations.
5) ?? other examples?
2) That one is really tough... I'll agree this is a terribly difficult point in gender roles.
3) Feminists advocate for paternal leave frequently.
4) As mentioned, affirmative action is swinging back the other way. Also, it has to do with application rates, which are lower for men, drawing from that giant mystery of what-the-hell-is-going-wrong-in-early-education.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 05:23:41 pm
Quote
3) Feminists advocate for paternal leave frequently.Not enough information. It matter whether they lobby for it as much, less, or more than they lobby for maternity leave.
If they are strictly for equality, they should be currently lobbying MORE heavily for paternity than maternity leave, until it catches up.
Lobbying equally or less so for paternity leave, even though it is behind, would be good evidence of motives other than strictly equality.
Quote
As mentioned, affirmative action is swinging back the other way.Direction of swing doesn't really matter. Actual numbers do. If you're for strict equality, you should still be lobbying for male affirmative action exactly to the point of equality. This would not be difficult to do. Laws/policies can include conditional language in them such that they automatically mathematically adjust without squishy emotions or having to touch and tweak them, if that's your goal... For example:
"Our policy or law is that whenever gender ratios amongst the student body differ from the ratios of the actual population, affirmative action will be automatically applied according to XYZ predetermined equation, to more and more strongly favor the under-represented group the further away from 50% the ratio gets."
Something sort of like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/D4UX4QF.png)
(Don't want it to be 45 degrees, because then you're encouraging swing-i-ness. Somewhere between 45 and horizontal will cause you to equillibrate. More horizontal = more precise approach to 50%, whereas steeper = more aggressive and better able to quickly deal with disparities, but less stable. These things don't matter for our discussion, though. The point is that the graph is symmetrical.)
0 = not 50%, but whatever the population actually is (51, 52% or whatever), and the symmetry pivots around this point, not 50%
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 05:29:25 pm
Side note: Nice graph!Quote3) Feminists advocate for paternal leave frequently.Not enough information. It matter whether they lobby for it as much, less, or more than they lobby for maternity leave.
If they are strictly for equality, they should be currently lobbying MORE heavily for paternity than maternity leave, until it catches up.
Lobbying equally or less so for paternity leave, even though it is behind, would be good evidence of motives other than strictly equality.QuoteAs mentioned, affirmative action is swinging back the other way.Direction of swing doesn't really matter. Actual numbers do. If you're for strict equality, you should still be lobbying for male affirmative action exactly to the point of equality. This would not be difficult to do. Laws/policies can include conditional language in them such that they automatically mathematically adjust without squishy emotions or having to touch and tweak them, if that's your goal... For example:
"Our policy or law is that whenever gender ratios amongst the student body differ from the ratios of the actual population, affirmative action will be automatically applied according to XYZ predetermined equation, to more and more strongly favor the under-represented group the further away from 50% the ratio gets."
Something sort of like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/D4UX4QF.png)
On affirmative action, my point was that college admissions being a non-issue (which it mostly is amongst feminists). The system may oscillate a little right now, but that's sorta fine compared to other issues.
In the US men and women get the same amount of mandatory paid time off for giving birth to little demons. None. So they needn't advocate more for one side than the other. In countries with lots of maternal leave and little paternal leave they advocate more for paternal leave, at least if you survey media nonsense. Really little is said in Canada about more maternal leave. Some is said about more paternal leave.
Also, there is a reason for slightly more maternal than paternal leave: pregnancy is tough on your body. There is some time that the woman needs off not only for the child but herself.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 05:32:47 pm
Quote
Also, there is a reason for slightly more maternal than paternal leave: pregnancy is tough on your body. There is some time that the woman needs off not only for the child but herself.True, but this only applies for countries that currently have maternity leave at or below the typical amount of physical recovery time needed to be able to resume an average job's duties.
So in the U.S., for this reason, it might make sense to lobby more for maternity, even if for general equality. But if you're in a country that already has, like, I dunno, 3 months for women and 1 week for men, then you should be lobbying more for men if for equality, because physical recovery is already more than covered.
It sounds like you're suggesting that in those cases, they do in fact lobby more for paternity? (Are you getting this from somewhere specifically?)
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 05:39:44 pm
It sounds like you're suggesting that in those cases, they do in fact lobby more for paternity? (Are you getting this from somewhere specifically?)More anecdotal, because I'm not good enough with computers to leverage google effectively for data collection and analysis. It's much easier to find articles about feminists supporting paternity than maternity leave in countries like Canada, and others not as devoted to barbaric laws as the U.S.
Post by: palsch on July 31, 2014, 05:45:22 pm
4) In some colleges, disproportionately high rates of female students, which has prompted male-favoring affirmative action, because equal mixes are more profitable to colleges (students like even mixes and are willing to pay more) http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2009/11/18/us-civil-rights-commission-investigates-college-admission-bias As is obvious from the article, this one comes with evidence already that feminists are not only helping, but fighting vociferously, lobbying for legal investigations. Which suggests a bias toward female rights, not equality (they should be in favor of male affirmative action at those schools if anything for equality, until numbers get back to 50/50)Don't see any of that in the article. This article even suggests the opposite. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-ticket/court-prepares-affirmative-action-decision-softer-standards-men-182205509.html)
Quote
Interestingly, none of these revelations prompted a wave of lawsuits, or even much outrage, from feminist organizations or other groups. It's even more surprising because the issue is probably more clear-cut, legally speaking, than race-based affirmative action.It goes on to point out that the legal case for sex-based affirmative action is near impossible to make, but even so... It has some analysis from Gail Heriot (the woman quoted in your article and the one in charge of the challenge, a conservative law professor) as to their political and social motivations in not challenging the near legally indefensible affirmative action in this case;
Quote
Liberal, feminist groups tend to support affirmative action for racial minorities and could be wary of attacking gender preferences for men lest it leads to attacking racial preferences.They also note non-AA efforts being made to target boys (many of which seem a bit weak to me, but still...) by admissions boards and colleges.
Meanwhile, conservative groups that reject race-based affirmative action would rather draw attention to the "boy crisis" they believe harms men than seize the chance to deal a blow to both race and gender admissions preferences.
Heriot began a commission investigation into whether colleges were discriminating against female applicants in 2009, but the eight-member panel voted to end it at the suggestion of a Democratic appointee in 2011. Several schools had refused to hand over their admissions data to Heriot, which made the investigation difficult.
Not enough information. It matter whether they lobby for it as much, less, or more than they lobby for maternity leave.Paid maternity leave is (in my view) considerably more critical than equal maternity and paternity leave. Both are desirable, but particularly in the US where paid maternity leave is all too often denied it's important to focus on the goal of primary importance first.
If they are strictly for equality, they should be currently lobbying MORE heavily for paternity than maternity leave, until it catches up.
Lobbying equally or less so for paternity leave, even though it is behind, would be good evidence of motives other than strictly equality.
For me the baseline is mandatory paid maternity leave. Then equal (or near equal; there is always going to be some medical difference here) paternity leave. Until the baseline is met I'd give any group a pass for focusing on the essentials before the desirable. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that. My experience of the debate in the UK is that we have passed this point and now many feminists are arguing that equal (paid) paternity leave is critical to avoid stigmatising child raising as women's work alone. I can't find it now but I saw one argument that men should have mandatory paternity leave because they tend not to take it otherwise...
EDIT: still can't find it, but think it was advocating the Norwegian system (http://anewlifeinnorway.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/norwegian-parental-benefits-vs-british-parental-benefits/) of 2 weeks paid initially, then 14 weeks mandatory before the 3rd birthday. The leave is split with the mother at 49 weeks full pay or 59 80% pay. The mother has 9 weeks mandatory; 3 before the due date and 6 after.
As to the other part, given the above story and the extremely like illegality, I'd argue that no group should be publicly lobbying for affirmative action for sex at schools. Maybe support for targeted recruitment though.
For the record, going to feminist writings again (http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/why-we-should-care-when-college-women-outnumber-men/), a lot of the blame is placed on social trends among men combined with historical trends in employment. Men have traditionally had more high paying or high prestige jobs available with a high school diploma, making a working man without college a viable option. Women haven't traditionally had as much access to such roles, so college is more the apparent required path for a woman who wants to support herself through work. How true this holds today (in both cases) is disputable, but then ideas about what is required educationally tend to lag a generation.
Post by: LordBucket on July 31, 2014, 06:25:43 pm
Then rewrite them and I'll rewrite my responses. Seriously, I want you pinned down for believing in some particular statements, as opposed to the general vibe of feminism =/= equality. I don't care if its statements as I wrote them or as you write them. So go ahead.
I don't think this is likely to be productive, but I'm wiling to play the game and see where we go.
Quote
Conclusion: Feminists are women who are interested in being better than men, not equality.
I disagree as it is phrased. Yes, certainly there are individual feminists who are interested in being better than men. And some feminists who just want their lives to be better. But overall your statement appears to be an attempt to trick me into some sort of 100% application fallacy. No, it's not that simple.
Yes, I would agree that on the whole the movement of feminism is not about promoting equality. It's about promoting women.
I don't understand why this is such a point of contention.
Quote
Proposition 1: Feminists don't want women to have low paying and dangerous jobs.
Non sequitur: This does not logically lead to the idea that feminists want to be better than men. That would require demonstrating they advocate for men to have these jobs, which they don't. They'd probably prefer nobody had to do those jobs. Said another way, reluctance to take a shitty job does not imply superiority over the group that takes that job: nobody wants shitty jobs.
Counter-example: Feminists often advocate for women in active military service which is dangerous and often far from lucrative.
It's plausible that this proposition might generally be true, but it's somewhat missing the point. The following quote of yours is more accurate:
If you asked feminists if they would be fine with women working in coal mines as a result of feminism, they'd say yes. If asked if they wanted women to work in coal mines they'd say no. Because nobody wants to be in those death traps.
It's not that "feminists want women to not have low paying dangerous jobs." I'm sure that in most cases if feminist A believed that woman B genuinely wanted a low-paying and dangerous job, she'd generally approve. However, in most cases in woman B had the low paying and/or dangerous job because it was expected of her or it was the best she could do, I suspect feminist A would disapprove. However, if man C had that same low-paying and/or dangerous job because it was expected of him or the best he could do, regardless of the personal feelings or preferences of feminist A, the movement of feminism itself is not about opposing him being stuck with it.
Which I would think is obvious.
But to be more clear...
If (person of unstated gender) has a low-paying and/or dangerous job he/she/it doesn't want but it's either expected or the best he/she/it can do...feminism as an institution is not about helping or improving the life of that person of unstated gender.
But....
If you replace "person of unstated gender" with "woman" then it is about improving her lot in life.
Which again, I would think would be fairly obvious, and I don't understand why this is such a point of contention. The goal of feminism is to promote women, not to promote equality. It might happen to promote equality in cases where women are at a disadvantage. But the goal isn't equality. It's promoting women.
Quote
Proposition 2: Feminists have not actively worked to improve male life expectancy.
Counter-examples: Princess Diana was a feminists, and viewed part of this position as helping expand people's social definitions of the AIDs epidemic, helping men (who were disproportionately effected by the disease) seek treatment. The National Organization for Women spearheaded a campaign to expand the definition of hate-crimes, which helped the gay community greatly. Lovisa Stannow, noted feminist, worked in a campaign to stop prison rape; which effects men. All of these have had huge public effects.
Just because an individual who is a member of a group engages in an activity, does not mean that that activity is representative of the goals of the group. For example, I am a member of the bay12 community. I enjoy skiing. This does not mean that the bay12 community enjoys skiing or that skiing is an identifying characteristic of bay12.
It is possible that individual feminists have engaged in activities that have benfitted group of which men are a part. It's possible that individual feminists have engaged in activities that have directly benefitted men. That doesn't make it what feminism is about. Nor does it mean that the overall "goal" of feminism is equality.
Quote
Proposition 3: Feminists have not redirected funds from their own efforts to help men.
Non sequitur: This does not imply they think they are superior, or that they do not value equality. Redirecting funds is rarely a platform of any group, regardless of their goals.
Counter-examples: See AIDs example in Prop. 2. This demonstrates they have helped with men's health issues, though it does not address redirecting funds.
Of the three proposotions, this is the one that I'd most agree with. It's possible there might be isolated examples of this thing happening, but on the whole it's certainly something they probably haven't done much. But...I don't expect that feminists should "redirect funds from their own efforts to help men." It's probable that they haven't done so to any significant degree, but I agree that the interpretation you appear to be attempting to apply does not support the conclusion above that I also don't agree with.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 06:28:19 pm
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 06:29:17 pm
Post by: LordBucket on July 31, 2014, 06:58:29 pm
maybe you didn't glance at more than the first sentence, but from page five;
Sorry, all you gave me was a link without explanation. I read the first page or two of the introduction, which reads like fiction. And then I read a summary on another site which didn't lead me to believe otherwise.
I apologize if you expected me to sit down and read the entire book before replying.
Quote
It charts the history of the feminist workers movement within Appalachia to promote women within coal mines, fighting for both the ability to hold such a job and their rights once in place.
Ok. So then it still doesn't counter the point I was making for reasons I already gave. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
Quote
Erm, feminists fought to get women into the mines because women wanted to be in the mines. I doubt you could find anyone who believes anyone should be forced into a job they don't want to do. Feminists just want to remove any barriers from jobs on the basis of sex.
Ok, so...feminists fought to get women into mines because women wanted to be in mines? That's entirely consistent with what I've been saying. I can only conclude that you didn't understand the statement that spawned this sub-topic about coal mines and recommend you re-read the explanation I already gave (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5529865#msg5529865):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That women fought to enable women to do what they desired to do is completely consistent my position. Giving examples of women fighting to enable women to do what they desired does not counter what I have said.
Quote
Painting this as forcing men into the coal mines is a complete absurdity. It's painting the world as a zero sum game where every female gain comes at the cost of male pain. I've not seen any feminists who buy into this delusion.
I agree it would be absurd. Fortunately that's not at all what I was saying, and I really have no idea why you thought that I might have meant that.
Quote
And, frankly, I think that you are wrong about every single one of those. But I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of them given you dismiss my sources out of hand. Sorry, but I honestly feel I would be wasting hours in trying to bring together a comprehensive argument about this.
Fairly certain I've cited more sources than anyone else in the thread. And I agree that this entire conversation is likely to be futile. There appear to be massively more petty semantic misunderstandings going on that actual communication.
I agree that there is a certain subjective quality to the discussion. For example, is it worse to be expected to ask a girl to dance and deal with the fear of rejection, or is it worse to be expected to sit around waiting to be asked but not dancing because the guys are too afraid you'll reject them? That's difficult to judge. It's probably not the same for everyone. Evauluating that society-wide is difficult.
But stuff like life expectancy and college degrees and so forth...that's easy to compare, and so I gave examples on that topic.
Quote
I think that you are wrong about every single one of those
How can you?
Nobody disputes that women live longer. Nobody disputes that more women are earning degrees. Nobody disputes that women usually win child custody battles. I don't understand how you can turn around and claim I'm wrong when I say women have these things better. Who has it better in terms of cultural dance etiquette? Yes, that's subjective. This stuff? Not so much.
Post by: LordBucket on July 31, 2014, 07:15:22 pm
I'm still not sure what your conclusion is, or your supporting propositions. Could you explicitly write them out?
Succinctly?
1) Feminism intends to be about making life better for women.
2) In my opinion, life in the US is already better on the whole for women than it is for men.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 07:17:24 pm
But for number two I'd say that the limit has been reached, but I'm still not convinced women have it better...they have it at least as good as men, though.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 07:47:49 pm
Quote
2) In my opinion, life in the US is already better on the whole for women than it is for men.I missed the actual list of this way back earlier. Addressing now.
First of all though, most of the points seem to rely not on UNJUST inequality with merely NUMERICAL inequality. I think you have to consider the question potentially both ways. Because somebody can fight for mere face value equality, sure. Or one can fight for equal justice. You can discuss either, though personally I think justice is the deeper and more meaningful version by far.
1) Custody - The main reason women win custody is because by far women are the primary caregivers of children, which is the main considered criteria. If and when a father is the one that actually spends more time with the child, they can and do win. You can't just look at the percentages and claim it to be an unequal bias. It's unjust inequality only if you take men and women with all things equal in every way (from caretaking hour ratios to their partners down to earning potential ratios) and still find a bias toward women. Is this the case? Maybe, maybe not, we don't have any data in the thread on that, and I don't know where to find it.
2) College - Depends how many people are applying, and how good their grades are, etc. If more women get in because disproportionately more women apply, then that's unequal but not necessarily unjustly so. Or if equal numbers apply, but men have worse applications, same deal. Or a blend. Not enough data in the thread to say.
3) This is unequal, but if they're earning more because they're better employees and actually earn more promotions and things, then that's not necessarily unjustly unequal. This is why the rhetoric is always about "equal pay for equal jobs" not "equal pay for giant demographic groups whose work circumstances might not remotely resemble one another" ... HAS pay for equal, parallel jobs begun favoring women? Maybe, but I don't see it in any of the links in the thread.
4) Living longer - This depends. Hypothetically, imagine this situation: There are 4 people in the world, 2 men 2 women. And I dunno, a robotic doctor. The men die at ages 45 and 55 from multiple gunshot wounds and sudden catastrophic heart attack. The women die at ages 65 and 70 from long, protracted cancer and from Alzheimers.
In this hypothetical example, the women are dying from characteristically more elderly diseases, which also happen to be vastly more expensive to treat, whereas the men died earlier, but it wouldn't have made sense to spend more money on them, because there's not much medicine could have done.
Does this have anything to do with the reality in America? No idea, but I'm pointing out that dying earlier and having less money spent on your healthcare do not, in and of those numbers themselves, guarantee unjust inequality. You need more information.
5) Homelessness and suicide are not even relevant to the discussion on either level - unjust or numerical inequality, unless you have associated data that less is being spent on their mental health, etc. Which might be the case, but I don't see it in the thread.
(I mean, more dying is numerically unequal in a sense, but only biologically so potentially. Not nec. from any sort of third party human decisions)
Post by: Neonivek on July 31, 2014, 08:00:10 pm
Quote
Homelessness and suicide are not even relevant to the discussion on either level - unjust or numerical inequality, unless you have associated data that less is being spent on their mental health, etc. Which might be the case, but I don't see it in the thread
Really? Why not?
Quote
but only biologically
Ahhh ok because "double standard"
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 08:08:42 pm
Quote
Ahhh ok because "double standard"?
Since all of the included examples that have to do with biology in that post are about women having an advantage, I'm not sure where you could possibly be noticing a double standard, even if I had one.
Post by: Neonivek on July 31, 2014, 08:11:21 pm
QuoteAhhh ok because "double standard"?
Since all of the included examples that have to do with biology in that post are about women having an advantage, I'm not sure where you could possibly be noticing a double standard, even if I had one.
Because now that it is biology favoring women it is perfectly acceptable to trot that out. When its biology favoring men you might as well be singing a song about hating women.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 08:16:38 pm
Quote
When its biology favoring men you might as well be singing a song about hating women.I didn't say anything about such situations or respond to any or cite any such examples... How do you have any idea what song I would sing?
Are you even responding to me? Rather confused.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 09:12:46 pm
@LordBucketYes they do, because mainly they have 2 XX chromosomes with redundancy, instead of XY, scroll back a couple pages and there is discussion.
Don't women live longer due to their biology? Something to do with the hormones, IIRC.
Although also men have more violent deaths, though, as lordbucket posted.
Do (whatever women die of + more violent deaths + more congenital defects) on average cost the medical system less then (whatever women die of)? Quite possibly - the congenital and violence might just be more likely to kill you dead versus dragging out and racking up medical bills. Just hypothetically. If so, then it does not seem unjust to be spending more on women. It just seems like common sense if they're the ones getting more expensive diseases.
It might not be "Oooh there's a woman! let's treat her better!" but rather "huh, a lot of women seem to be coming in with expensive problems. But whatever, we'll treat what we get."
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 09:20:56 pm
So, even at the time I knew that didn't sound right, so I settled on a different version of it "Men are more stressed than women over money, work etc."
I now know it's not the main factor. Still, I'm sure it comes into it even in some small way.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 09:23:39 pm
Quote
"Men are more stressed than women over money, work etc."Why would this be the case?
Yeah sure, stress kills, but I'm not seeing your reasoning for assuming they are more stressed about money or work.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 09:30:38 pm
Post by: Cheeetar on July 31, 2014, 09:45:21 pm
There are more housewives than househusbands.
Looking after a house doesn't mean you're immune to not having any money.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 31, 2014, 09:48:26 pm
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 09:52:42 pm
There are more housewives than househusbands.
Looking after a house doesn't mean you're immune to not having any money.
Indeed, nor do I see why it implies less stress. Nowadays, I can't say I know any women who stay home just to do their nails. They tend to either have a job also, or the reason they're staying home is young children, which if you're claiming to be not stressful... lol.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 10:02:45 pm
Working at home is as stressful as working in an office with a harsh schedule, a stack of tasks that MUST be done, a boss breathing down your neck, having next to no flexibility?
I understand children are stressful, but they have school, after school activities, friends, etc. and eventually they grow up.
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 10:13:19 pm
Quote
they have school, after school activities, friends, etc. and eventually they grow up.Yes, and by the time any of the things you just said become true (~5 years old), all of the mother friends I have were back at work again. (or had another kid younger than that) They stay home for toddlers and babies, not when they don't need to be home anymore. I.e. crazy balls of stress and human waste. Way the hell more so than any normal office.
* "Harsh schedules" do not include being woken up routinely at 3am and then 5am, and then...
* "tasks that MUST be done" implies that by comparison, it's totally cool to just completely ignore hungry, screaming, poopy babies?
* Breathing down your neck sounds a lot more relaxing than literally screaming in your damn ear for 12 hours straight.
How much time have you personally spent with babies and toddlers, I'm curious?
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 10:17:03 pm
* "tasks that MUST be done" implies that by comparison, it's totally cool to just completely ignore hungry, screaming, poopy babies?
* Breathing down your neck sounds a lot more relaxing than screaming in your damn ear for 12 hours.
How much time have you personally spent with babies and toddlers, I'm curious?
Quite a bit, I spend a lot of time with my nephew.
Anyway, the man goes through all that too. He doesn't get a proper night's sleep because he was "being woken up routinely at 3am and then 5am." He then comes home from a stressful day of work to "screaming in [his] damn ear."
Post by: GavJ on July 31, 2014, 10:19:57 pm
Anyway, bottom line: if you don't actually have data or something that men experience more stress, I'm not buying it. Not strongly claiming the opposite, just saying we have no idea / it's not at all obvious without actual research.
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 10:25:00 pm
fair enough about getting woken up at night.Although there has been some data that women, on average, cope with the cellular damage of stress better, because they tend to find social circles to discuss it in. Social activities help repair DNA damage among other things. Which is weird as hell, but true.
Anyway, bottom line: if you don't actually have data or something that men experience more stress, I'm not buying it. Not strongly claiming the opposite, just saying we have no idea / it's not at all obvious without actual research.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 10:28:41 pm
"ccording to a number of recent studies, women and men experience, and respond to, conflicts at work in very different ways. First, women tend to feel conflict more deeply. A survey by the American Psychological Association found that women consistently report higher levels of work stress, tension, and frustration than men. More than men, they are inclined to feel underappreciated and underpaid."
So lower stress levels helping in longevity doesn't seem realistic.
Post by: Rolepgeek on July 31, 2014, 10:51:53 pm
It's time for me to take the long-ass time to go through all of LordBucket's posts and compare them to his claims, and see if the two A. match up and B. actually mean something in regards to whether feminism is still relevant!
This'll be rather large, I warn you.
But before I begin, I must ask; LordBucket, are you a member of the MRA? Because whether or not you are, the type of things you're saying and claiming lead me to believe you're one.
Never. You never stop pushing. Quality of life is not something you simply give up on improving. Ever.QuoteLordBucket; the analogy is not, properly, a pendulum. It is a spring-coiled tube. There is innate resistance to equality from sources
outside of the specific battleground, and there are people pushing down. To get it high enough, we have to push back.
What is your criteria by which you judge when it's time to stop pushing?
Quote
A few examples:True. However, the correct response to this is to ask why more women are in and graduate from college than men. Skimming the article, I find some interesting tidbits. Or really, some interesting paragraphs. Specifically, the bit that that attempts to explain the disparity. You know, rather than simply glossing over the surface details? Yeah.
* More women are accepted into college than men (http://collegestats.org/2013/05/why-men-are-falling-behind-in-higher-ed/)
Quote
* More women graduate with degrees (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/women-now-33-more-likely-men-earn-college-degrees)Huh. Interesting. But you know the real interesting thing about it? It's pretty easily explained in the above article you linked, and I did the math, and while I may be misinterpreting the data they give, as the way it's worded is confusing, but 46% divided by 70% is about 0.657. Meanwhile, 39% divided by 61% is about 0.639. Which is an incredibly minute difference, in the end. Of course, perhaps they mean 46% of the number that equals 70%. It certainly fits the numbers. But once again, it's explained by the above article for why such might be the case! I would quote the whole bloody thing here, but this post will already become long enough as it is.
Quote
* Women usually win child custody battles (http://walllegalsolutions.com/edu/how-often-do-fathers-get-child-custody-compared-to-mothers/)This, interestingly enough, is, in fact, due to the gender role bias that pervades our society, that feminism is trying to stop. Women are seen as more nurturing and caring for their children, while the men are often seen as abusive, if abuse is in question as to the reason for a need of child custody arrangement. Wherever would they get that idea? I mean, it's not like the vast majority of domestic violence victims are women, after all. Oh wait... (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf)
Quote
* Women control the majority of money in the US source 1 (http://she-conomy.com/report/marketing-to-women-quick-facts)Hm. Now, I went into this expecting to find some government surveys or something as many of the other articles you linked have. I found...sites intended to market to women. Now, this is also a fact influenced by gender roles and bias in the economy; women are typically seen as the ones who take care of the home, take care of the kids, buy things like groceries, as compared to men, who are expected to bring in money. For example, if you look at the population-employed ratio here (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm), you'll see men have a higher employed to populated ratio. And that's before the pay gap! And yes, in doing research about it I found that it's not as significant in some ways as a result of direct gender bias...but it is a result of gender bias. Women becoming mothers affects it in ways that becoming a father doesn't. Women are culturally encouraged towards lower pay jobs while men are urged to make the most money they can. Which creates an 'input-output' situation like we see. And that's before companies preying on social insecurities women have about self-image and the expectations placed on women that they look pretty.
source 2 (http://www.supportingadvancement.com/vendors/canadian_fundraiser/articles/womens_affluence.htm) source 3 (http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2) source 4 (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/u-s--women-control-the-purse-strings.html) source 5 (http://marketingzeus.com/infographic/the-purchasing-power-of-women)
Quote
* Women live longer than men (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827162,00.html), yet despite this the majority of healthcare money is spent on women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/), and for example, more than twice (http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/) as much money is spent on breast cancer vs prostrate cancer research, despite similar numbers of afflicted.Well, let's take a look at why that might be the case, hmm? Oh, lookie here. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-life-expectancy-lo/) As for healthcare being spent on women, all I had to do was look in the article you linked for the answer; the longer lifespan is one reason, and the other, based on the data, would be that women can get pregnant; "The difference is greatest through the childbearing years and then diminishes continuously thereafter." The explanation for itself is also found in the last article! "Women, Johnson says, tend to be acutely aware and outspoken about their health concerns, while men shy away from such discussions." So, ya know, women participate actively in it, while men don't as often. Besides which, prostate cancer seems to affect more people, but there are less deaths from it! Even with less funding! So amazing wow!
Quote
Meanwhile:1. False correlation, or at least exacting numbers; yes, men are more likely to get more dangerous or risky jobs(hey look this ties back to that whole gender roles thing we've been talking about funny isn't it), but women also tend to work less, as I've shown, and that lists total fatalities; not fatalities per capita of each gender of worker, or in each different risk level of job. An issue, certainly, but in the sense of 'fewer people should die at work, period', not 'more women need to die at work before I'm willing to acknowledge that there is still sexism against women'.
* Men are 12 times more likely to die on the job (http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0238.pdf)
* Men are twice as likely to be homeless (http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html)
* Men are three times as likely to commit suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide)
2. I apologize for using a second-hand source, here, but the original source it used seems to be missing for whatever reason. Still, this (http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/why-are-men-more-likely-to-be-homeless/) can explain that sufficiently for you, I hope? Gender roles and such can come into play here, as well as just some rather sad circumstances of life.
3. I...I don't really see how you can even make this as an argument. Men are more likely to succeed at committing suicide; women are, meanwhile, more likely to attempt it. Before accounting for the gender roles that end up telling men they shouldn't try to go for help. All this data coming from your own source, by the way. If you want to prove a point without having it shown to be a misleading presentation of the facts (at least not this easily), you should really screen them more.
Quote
...but, oh. There are more men in politics. And more male CEO's. AndAnd again, it explains why, going back upwards to other points you've made, and my refutations of them, or explanations thereof for why feminism is neither causing these issues to worsen, nor is unnecessary.median male income is still higher than women's. Oh, apparently even that's starting to change (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192):
"In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, "
Quote
So is your goal to keep pushing until everything favors women over men? Is that equality? After all, even though female CEO's make 40% more than male CEOs (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/women-ceos-salaries-caught-men/story?id=10630664), there are still more male CEO's than female CEO's. Shall we keep pushing until they not only get paid more, there are also more of them too?Oh, that's a good one! I get it now, you see it as a contest! It's only fair that there's more male CEOs than female ones, is it? Interestingly enough, this is actually for once caused by the whole pro-feminism debacle. Not that it matters. With the sheer amount of money a CEO in the top 500 makes, differences as measly as 40% are window-dressing, essentially. Yet...if you go down to the bottom of the article...where it talks about their assistants still being restrained by the glass ceiling? Yeah...
Quote
Or maybe what you want is social equality? Why not go to a bar with a female friend and see which of the two of you gets more free drink purchased for you. Or have your car break down on the side of the road and see which of you receives more offers of help. Try being a male or female assaulted by someone of the opposite gender and see who garners more sympathy. Go to the mall and do a quick count of how many stores cater to women vs cater to men. Have a female friend wear a boys are stupid throw rocks at them t-shirt (http://weheartit.com/entry/group/28429372), and then try custom printing a "girls are stupid throw rocks at them" t-shirt and wearing it and let us know who people are nicer to. Imagine a man and woman on a sinking ship competing for the last spot on a liferaft and tell me who gets it.First, I'll ask if you are honestly so resentful of the few 'advantages' women get from gender roles in these issues that you would attempt to use them as part of an argument. Now I'll address your questions in turn, sometimes with questions of my own. 1. Why not go to a bar with a female friend and see which gender of waiter gets groped more often? Which of you is leered at more often? This all depends entirely on the women being attractive to men, which forms part of the pressures on women being pretty; not to get free drinks, but as a symptom of the underlying problem. 2. Again, she'd have to be attractive, and if someone did offer to help, which of you is more likely to be sexually assaulted? 3. Ties back into gender roles, women are seen as weak and unable to harm men. And honestly, unless you're referring to strangers? If you both have good friends and approximately equal numbers, odds are your friends would be supportive regardless of gender of you or the assailant(try being sexually assaulted as either by a member of the same gender and see who gets more sympathy, as well, huh?). That's before all of the various double standards regarding rape come into play, but that's partially because we're part of a victim blaming culture(in fact, I'd argue your entire rant and opposition is evidence of that!).
Next post! Hope we don't reach the character limit...
It...it kinda is, though. If a women wants to dress in a typically masculine fashion, that's her choice. It used to be socially unacceptable, just like crossdressing men is nowadays. Why are so focused on men having shorter lifespans? I mean really. It's kinda weird for you to focus on this. Are you being fatalistic and resentful that you might not live as long as you could if you were a woman? And in the process forgetting the egregious number of problems a woman has to go through during said life?Yes, those are true, but I would blame them more on the attitudes of men than on women or feminism. Really, we men need a movement to reevaluate our gender constraints, and slip them, if necessary. For example, men have a lot of cultural restriction on being feminine, even when that's to their advantage. This can severely impede our ability to function in society. Women, on the underhand, have significantly slipped their restriction from acting masculine. This, I feel, largely accounts for women's better performance in school and professionally. As for medicine, women have gone and campaigned for better treatment. Men? Nope can't do that, it's not macho. I do agree that the funding is unbalanced, but you can hardly blame women for that.
1) Not really interested in placing blame. I'd rather we have a clear view.
2) I'm skeptical that social acceptance of "men acting femininely" is productive at all. Don't misunderstand. I'm the guy wearing the pretty pony princess avatar here. I'm not saying "rawwr guys must be macho rawwrr!" I just don't think that cultural acceptance of "women acting like men" is the cause of women having it better, and I don't think "men acting like women" is going to make life particularly better for men either.
I think it's far more likely than men tend to want to protect women, so they're generally willing to try to make things better for women where they perceive unfairness. We're talking about he western world here, not Saudi Arabia. Combine that with the recent historical push from women to make lives for their gender better, and you end up with a lot of concerted effort to make life better for women. Hence, life becomes better for women. Cross-gender behavioral acceptance isn't really part of that. If you want to champion for social acceptance of men wearing dresses in public, or working as nurses and secretaries, I guess I'm not going to fight you on that...but I just don't think it would result in longer male lifespans and so forth. There's just no connection between these things.
Quote
But there are equally excellent examples that demonstrate the opposite effect. Which I'm sure you don't like because they don't support your conclusion; that feminism is actively detrimental or at the very least unnecessary.Those are rather poor examples. Try going to any social event and see which one of you get's more unwelcome advances. See who's more likely to get molested. For that matter, try comparing old unattractive men and women, and see who comes out ahead in those examples above.
No, they were excellent examples. And others have pointed out that they were accurate. You just don't like them because they don't support your conclusion.
Quote
Are you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a good thing for women?!? And this somehow has anything to do with the above? But let's look at other issues with your point. First off, you completely ignored the unattractive part, focusing only on the old(and apparently the very old, at that). Second, you twist things around by coming up with rationales to support a conclusion, then act as if Angle was the one positing that conclusion in such a manner as to make their position look worse. For shame. The point was about society's expectations of beauty in women as compared to men; look at Hollywood, for example; media is a great example of the bias between genders. Women aren't supposed to age, in Hollywood. What's the median age of male actors as compared to female actors? And for that matter, what are the proportional numbers of each gender still getting parts and getting main roles after 30? 40? 50?Quotetry comparing old unattractive men and women, and see who comes out ahead in those examples above.
"Older, unattractive men" find dating easier than "older, unattractive women." Primarily because men die younger which leads to not enough men to go around. Are you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a bad thing for women? I mean, yes...I see how it could be inconvenient. But painting men dying as a women's problem seems a bit twisted to me.
Quote
No. You are never 'done' with trying to get equality or improved conditions of life. Ever. If you must, I'll share an analogy I stumbled upon several months ago in my musings. I was in choir, so the analogy is thus: Life is like a song. No matter how nice it might be, there is always a way you can improve it. Some parts might be more skilled than others at different points, and rather than saying 'well overall they're about equal' or 'well this part is better than that other one, sometimes, so we'll just be done here', you always work on improving it, at every point and every level. And you work on keeping it as good as it is. It is not something you ever finish. There's no true such thing as 'good enough'. There is 'good', 'great', even 'excellent'. But there is no 'flawless'. Not in real life. Not consistently, in song. You never stop trying.I do agree that there is a limit to how far you can push "Equality" without it becoming inequality. Whether or not that point has been reached is debatable, of course, but it is there.
Yes, it is debatable. Which is why I asked what the criteria is for evauluating "equality." Women's rights movements and feminism have been around for quite a few decades. How are we supposed to know when they've "succeeded" and can stop now? If we never have any definite criteria, and just forever keep making things "better for women" to the exclusion of men...again, that's pushing the penduluum past the rest point.
I gave a long list of quantifiable ways in which women have it better here. And some of those items used to be goals of feminism. Voting rights, safe and legal access to abortion, parity in education...these things have been accomplished. But the goalposts have been moved.
So maybe we're reached the point, or maybe we haven't. But in order to evaluate whether we have, we need some criteria to look at say "if X is true, we've succeeded and we're done. If X is not true, then we haven't yet succeeded."
Ever.
Quote
You know, I think I'mma ignore this one for the moment until I can be rational about your obvious dismissal of women's practically available access to basic human rights, rather than the merely legal definition of having them. Maybe I'll just pretend you weren't being this awful of a person. Yeah.Alright, then, do educate me.Spoiler: Definition of Feminism (google did this for me!) (click to show/hide)
Although you could argue that it goes beyond merely advocating for equal rights, and also encompasses equal social standing.
That definition is clearly silly. Which "rights" do you suppose that women lack? The only "rights" western women lack that I'm aware of is that they can't be conscripted or serve in some military combat roles.
Feminism is obviously not about women's rights. It's about...and I'm speaking loosely here because we don't all agree on definitions..."making things generally better for women." And there's nothing wrong with that. But I think this notion that "men have it better" is no longer very accurate. Again, I gave a long list of verifiable and quantifiable ways in which "things" are clearly better for women.
I don't see feminists pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality." I don't see feminists pushing for longer male life expectancy "for equality." I don't see women rallying to move funds away from breasts cancer research in favor of spending on underfunded men's health issues..."for equality."
If people want to rally to make life better for women, that's ok. But stop it with the illusion that it's "for equality."
Quote
I feel like we've been over this before. Weird. Oh right, because that's a sex role, not a gender role.Equal social standing would mean gender roles didn't exist (if one gender has a specific role, then the genders are not equal socially).
If this is one's view, then it's somewhat improbable that mere social reform will ever result in "equality." As has been mentioned, there are biological differences that influence "gender roles." Obvious example: women give birth and breastfeed children. Unless you're proposing we start growing children in vats, things like this are unlikely to change.
Quote
Two problems with the logic train here. First off, you forget that 85% of domestic abuse victims, or at the least, 60%(it varies by source), are women. And that only counts deaths, not the, you know, emotional scarring and sheer terribleness of the situation there. I mean, are you seriously fucking ignoring that it's domestic abuse? As in, they probably suffer for years before dying, and there's countless who don't die and still suffer?Then I remembered that more women die of domestic abuse each year than die in military service and law enforcement combined.
Doing some checking, the numbers appear to be similar enough that it depends on which year you look at. But in general the numbers are "low" in both cases.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250g.pdf
"Every year in the United States, 1,000 to 1,600 women die at the hands of their male partners"
Those numbers increase if you include "suicides motivated by domestic abuse" but even so, male suicide rate is three times as high (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide).
Quote
Whereas according to:Cute. I see how you ignored the 'cause' of the purported incidents. The article you link to? It talks about how "the military comes with all the ordinary everyday occurrences of life that have nothing to do with war or combat and some of those – accidents and homicides – lead to the death of its residents." And used hugely varying numbers, from, oh, about 4 years ago at the most recent. It's really goddamn difficult to find full numbers for all deaths caused while on active military duty as a result of active military duty, apparently. Most of the sources only give the results for Afghanistan and whatnot. 2013 (http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByYear.aspx) had about 130 or so (http://projects.militarytimes.com/valor/search?year=2013) dead. Meanwhile, I used a different (http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013) database to find law enforcement deaths.
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/2013/07/24/annual-deaths-in-the-us-military-1980-2010/
Military deaths range from 800-2500/yr or so.
Quote
In any case,Whilst, of course, ignoring the reasons behind such, as usual. Or, more accurately, your failure to establish what that actually means. So I guess I'll have to read into the sources myself. Which isn't helped by having to look at wikipedia and then go to it's source in turn. But, if you want it to be a competition, also look at the perpetrators of these crimes; mostly men. Gender roles in society place a 'greater wrong' on harming a woman, because they are seen as weak, vulnerable, and helpless, as compared to men, who oughta be able to defend themselves. After all, if they can't, they're not a real man! And thus the victim-blaming continues. But no, I'll take a look at it. Robbery is likely because men are more likely to run businesses, for example. Aggravated assault possibly because men are more likely to provoke people than women. Simple assault could be a similar reason, or more likely, simply the above reason I gave: people are more likely to restrain themselves against a women versus a man. But you act like this is something done on purpose. And then look at how much more likely women are to be victims of a crime perpetrated by someone close to them. But no, you can't. Instead, you act as though the number of people being murdered is an excuse to not do anything about it. Jeezus christ man, you sound like a fucking sociopath, in all honesty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
"In terms of gender, males were more likely to become crime victims than were females, with 79% percent of all murder victims being male."
To which, I predict your response will be that women are raped more often than men. Which is true if you ignore prison rapes. However, I repeat that above wiki link which claims that males are more likely to become crime victims than females. Which is corroborated by lots of sources.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/victims-victimization/Pages/welcome.aspx
"Men become crime victims more often than women do"
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv12.txt
"In 2012, males had higher rates of violent and serious violent victimization than females."
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.htmlSpoiler: large image (click to show/hide)
Quote
Picking out one thing that's worse for women and ignoring all the things that are worse for men...I question your impartiality. Women live longer, they get more degrees, they get more health funding, they receive legal favoritism, they receive social favoritism, they control more money overall, businesses cater to them more than men...the list goes on. We don't need to be continually cherry picking the few things that men still have better and forcing those to be better for women too.
No. I think it's time to stop championing for women and start making life better for everybody.
If feminism is really about "equality," then let's prove it.
[sarcasm=on]Right, because rape is anywhere near the level of, *ahem* 'social favoritism'. And we should totally stop trying to prevent domestic abuse and rape from happening to women and in general. That sounds legit, LordBucket. I'm sure you took this stuff into account when proposing your obviously perfectly valid plans.[sarcasm=off]
If you think feminism is about anything other that equality, then you still need to prove it, 'cause you've sure done a shitty job so far.
Next post!
...The fuck is wrong with you? Why the fuck are you so focused on all this danger shit? You know why women aren't hired in coal mines? They aren't seen as strong. They aren't viewed as capable of handling it. Why the fuck would a feminist focus on whether women are working in coal mines, when there's shit going on that far outstrips anything of that sort in areas that aren't ludicrously contrived as an 'example' of sexism against men? Why the fuck would they focus on who's working in a goddamned coal mine when there's women being blamed for their own rape? I mean, what the fuck, dude. A. It's not a goddamned contest of 'who has it worse', and B. even if it was, women still win that contest.So thirty seconds google for a book on women coal miners in Appalachia from a socialist feminist point of view.
What about it? It appears to be a historical fiction novel. I don't think a novel about female coal miners constitutes an example of feminists pushing for parity in numbers of male vs female coal miners.
Now, to be fair...I haven't read the thing...it's possible there's political commentary in there, but reading only brief excerpts, what I get from it is basically "women have worked in coal mines, and they did perfectly well, so don't look down on women and claim they can't do a man's job."
That's all well and good, but I don't think it addresses the point we were discussing.Quotefeminists do push for women to be accepted in dangerous and (often low paying) manual roles all the time.
Let's go back to the original comment (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5527948#msg5527948) of mine that prompted this particular discussion of coal mining:I don't see feminists pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality." I don't see feminists pushing for longer male life expectancy "for equality." I don't see women rallying to move funds away from breasts cancer research in favor of spending on underfunded men's health issues..."for equality."
If people want to rally to make life better for women, that's ok. But stop it with the illusion that it's "for equality."
Please read the above quote. In case it was not clear...the point of the coal mining example, like the other examples given, was that so far as I can tell, feminists are not usually interested in equality. They simply want to make things better for women. If there is a desirable position or industry where there are more men than women, or unpleasant things that more women have to deal with than men, they will be perceived as inequalities. But when there are unpleasant things in which there are more men than women or desireable positions held more by women than men...those won't be perceived as inequalities.
Rather than fictional novels based on real-life female coal miners, can you find me example of feminists saying that it's unfair that so many men work in dirty, dangerous, unpleasant positions like coal mining and "to be fair and equal" we need to get women in those positions to relieve men from the injustice of being unfairly represented in them? Can you find me examples of feminists saying it's unfair that women hold the vast majority of highly paid nursing positions, and that we need to get more men into those positions to be fair? Can you find me examples of feminists saying that it's unfair that women live so much longer than men and that we need to spend more research money on men's health issues to make things more equal?
Because that was the point of both the coal mining and the other examples in that quote. That feminists don't appear to be interested in equality. Only in promoting women and calling it equality. When men have an advantage, they will decry it and suggest that women need better. But when women have an advantage, they don't decry that advantage and say that men need better.
Which, like I've already acknowledged (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5527948#msg5527948):If people want to rally to make life better for women, that's ok. But stop it with the illusion that it's "for equality."
...it's ok if feminism exclusively promotes women. But if that's the case, then be honest about it, and say that it's all about promoting women...and stop claiming that it's about "equality."
Quote
First, I'll address the analogy. It's a poor one. Here's probably a more accurate one: If you have a lollipop, an apple, a bruise on your face, and an ice cream cone, and I have an ice cream cone, an orange, and a gash across my right bicep, and I manage to get a lollipop, an apple, and some bandages for my gash? Yeah, you still have a bruise on your face, and no you don't have an orange yet. The paramedics were a little busy, bub. You're next. And as for the rest:QuoteBecause you are looking at this as some absurd one dimensional measurement of equality, measured by whatever factors you choose to care about at this given time.
So give me different factors to look at. I've asked for that multiple times.
What criteria do you wish to use to judge this? I've given several. If you don't like mine, that's fine. We can use something else.
I assert, that speaking generally life is better in the US for woman than it is for men. Choose any area you like: finance, dating, social exchange, peer expectation, law, college, health...in most areas, women simply have a better deal than men.
Are there certain specific areas in which men have a better deal? Yes. In my opinion they are both outnumbered and out-how-much-bettered by the areas in which women have the better deal.
Simultaneously, it has been my observation, that "the trend" among those who espouse and vocally self- identify with feminism, is that they tend to perceive women as disadvantaged in comparison to men, and seek to reverse this perceived disadvantage.
If I have a lollipop, an apple and a bruise on my face...and if you have an ice cream cone, an orange and a papercut...and if you then see this and call it unfair...and if you then wage a war "for equality" that results in me having a lollipop and an apple and a bruise on my face and you having a lollipop, an apple, an ice cream cone, an orange and a band-aid on your papercut...did you really make things more equal?
I don't think so.
Well, you're wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Finance: Pay gap. Dating: Date Rapes, who doesn't love those? Oh, and if you mean 'how easy is it to attract a member of the opposite gender', do you mean any member, or a member that isn't liable to beat you when you don't do what they say? Social Exchange: I barely even know what you fucking mean by this, honestly. Peer Expectation: Oh, right, let's ignore the eating disorders women get saddled with due to the social expectations of beauty. Right. Law: As in, practicing it, or as in, the law favors them in cases? Because guess what? It typically has to, for there to be any justice whatsoever! And even then, it fucks up all the goddamned time. College: You're really sore about this, aren't you? You act like there's an immeasurable number of obstacles blocking men from getting into college versus women breezing through, when it's slight differences on a national scale. Health: Yes, because that's totally women's fault and they're purposefully trying to outlive men just to spite you. Those darned womenfolk! *snaps fingers*
Next post! Ooh, fourth already? And I've only been working on this for two hours!
Actually this one (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5530364#msg5530364) I think I can skip since I think Samarkand would have handled Bucket's response to their post. This one (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5530558#msg5530558), in the end, I've effectively answered above, throughout.
So I suppose I'll finish up by responding to the one after that.
I'm still not sure what your conclusion is, or your supporting propositions. Could you explicitly write them out?
Succinctly?
1) Feminism intends to be about making life better for women.
2) In my opinion, life in the US is already better on the whole for women than it is for men.
1) At this point, yes, because women have some shitty lives sometimes.
2) Well, your opinion is wrong, because it relates to factual evidence, and the factual evidence is annoyed at being misrepresented. You. Are. Wrong.
Post by: TD1 on July 31, 2014, 10:56:30 pm
Let me grab my popcorn. :P
LordBucket, I love your points. Not that anyone here that champions feminism as the be-all and end-all to solve all problems will accept them, but I love your points..
Post by: Lyeos on July 31, 2014, 11:00:09 pm
Funnily enough, I just made popcorn in meatspace...Let me grab my popcorn. :P
LordBucket, I love your points. Not that anyone here that champions feminism as the be-all and end-all to solve all problems will accept them, but I love your points..
Post by: Samarkand on July 31, 2014, 11:01:01 pm
I have chocolate cake with peanut butter icing. I win. All homemade.Funnily enough, I just made popcorn in meatspace...Let me grab my popcorn. :P
LordBucket, I love your points. Not that anyone here that champions feminism as the be-all and end-all to solve all problems will accept them, but I love your points..
Post by: LordBucket on August 01, 2014, 01:32:10 am
LordBucket, are you a member of the MRA? Because whether or not you are, the type of things you're saying and claiming lead me to believe you're one.
No. Even my guess as to what it stood for wasn't correct. Than you google for the correction. Though I did guess two of the three letters right.
So...I've read your post. A lot of it not very well thought out. I conclude that you're approaching this from a very emotional place. Which...you confirm a couple times. So, it is what it is. i notice that you seem so very enthusiastically excited about having "refuted my points." But you really haven't done that.
Quote from: I said
More women are accepted into college than men
Quote from: you said
True. However, the correct response to this is to ask why
Quote from: I said
More women graduate with degrees
Quote from: you said
Interesting. But you know the real interesting thing about it? It's pretty easily explained
Quote from: I said
"In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, "
Quote from: you said
And again, it explains why
...so...you're agreeing with me...and then attempting to explain why these things are the case. Ok...but giving reasons for why I'm right doesn't refute my position. I mean...you're agreeing with me that these things I'm saying are in fact true. Ok, umm...thank you? Next?
Quote
it explains why, going back upwards to other points you've made, and my refutations of them
What refutations? You do understand that agreeing with me and telling me why I'm right...pointing out that the articles explain why the things I'm saying are the case...you do understand that's not a refutation of what I'm saying...right?
Quote from: you said
Gender roles in society place a 'greater wrong' on harming a woman, because they are seen as weak, vulnerable, and helpless, as compared to men, who oughta be able to defend themselves. After all, if they can't, they're not a real man!
Ok, yes. Thank you for making one of my points for me. It's perceived as a greater wrong to harm women. I would call that a gender role/cultural perception where women have the better deal. Men are perceived as "not real men" if they can't defend themselves, whereas it's ok for women. Again, I would call that a gender role/cultural perception where women have the better deal. Being "perceived as weak" just doesn't like such a terrible thing to me when it's compared to "society doesn't care as much if you're harmed, and if you are...it's your own fault for not being manly enough to stop it."
Quote from: I said
No, they were excellent examples. And others have pointed out that they were accurate. You just don't like them because they don't support your conclusion.
Quote from: you said
But there are equally excellent examples that demonstrate the opposite effect. Which I'm sure you don't like because they don't support your conclusion; that feminism is actively detrimental or at the very least unnecessary.
I've on many occasions acknowledged that there are things women have to deal with than men don't, and that there are some things that men have better. For example:
Are there certain specific areas in which men have a better deal? Yes.
There are more men in politics. And more male CEO's.
I've also repeatedly acknowledged that there are some issues that are more difficult to conclusively say who has it better, and. For example:
I agree that there is a certain subjective quality to the discussion. For example, is it worse to be expected to ask a girl to dance and deal with the fear of rejection, or is it worse to be expected to sit around waiting to be asked but not dancing because the guys are too afraid you'll reject them? That's difficult to judge.
So if you're trying to paint me as unreasonable here...you're not doing a very good job of it.
Honestly, I get the impression that you're not even arguing with me. You're arguing with the emotional baggage you have associated with this issue, and incorrectly assuming that the things I'm saying correlate with that baggage. And they don't.
Quote
I'll ask if you are honestly so resentful of the few 'advantages' women get from gender roles in these issues that you would attempt to use them as part of an argument.
...umm...what? My thesis here is that women have it better than men. Obviously I'm going to use examples of women having advantages over men as evidence that women have it better than men. Resentment has nothing to do with it.
Quote
I'll address your questions in turn, sometimes with questions of my own. 1. Why not go to a bar with a female friend and see which gender of waiter gets groped more often? Which of you is leered at more often? This all depends entirely on the women being attractive to men, which forms part of the pressures on women being pretty; not to get free drinks, but as a symptom of the underlying problem. 2. Again, she'd have to be attractive, and if someone did offer to help, which of you is more likely to be sexually assaulted? 3. Ties back into gender roles, women are seen as weak and unable to harm men. And honestly, unless you're referring to strangers? If you both have good friends and approximately equal numbers, odds are your friends would be supportive regardless of gender of you or the assailant(try being sexually assaulted as either by a member of the same gender and see who gets more sympathy, as well, huh?). That's before all of the various double standards regarding rape come into play, but that's partially because we're part of a victim blaming culture(in fact, I'd argue your entire rant and opposition is evidence of that!).
1) I've been eating out for 20+ years, and I've never in my entire life seen anyone grope a waitress. Nevertheless, I'll grant you that it happens to women more than men. Leered at? Absolutely that happens to women more than men. Yes, women receive more unwanted attention that men. They receive more attention at all than men. And that's a mixed situation.
You were asking this question in response to my question about "who gets drinks bought for them more often." And so yes, I will acknowledge that this is one of those situations where it's difficult to judge who has it better or worse. Women get more attention than men. Sometimes that attention is unwanted. Is it better to get attention, but sometimes unwanted attention...or to not get attention? It's a valid question. I don't have a definite answer. I suspect this specific issue is a case of the grass seeming greener on the other side. Sure, there are some women who resent getting catcalls and whistles all the time. And there are some guys watching on from the sidelines wishing anyone would pay attention to them at all. Who has it worse? I don't know. Neither do you.
2) No, pretty sure even an unattractive woman stuck on the side of the road would have more people stop to help her than a man stuck on the side of the road.
3. Yes, I agree this ties into gender roles. And I agree that there are some double standards here. Those work both ways.
Quote from: I said
"Older, unattractive men" find dating easier than "older, unattractive women." Primarily because men die younger which leads to not enough men to go around. Are you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a bad thing for women? I mean, yes...I see how it could be inconvenient. But painting men dying as a women's problem seems a bit twisted to me.
Quote from: you said
Are you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a good thing for women?!?
This comment is interesting for a couple reasons. First off...no, obviously that wasn't what I was doing. Even in the section you're quoting, I point out that men dying is inconvenient for women. Why would you ask if I'm painting men dying as good for women...when I just said it was inconvenient for them? I question your reading comprehension. In any case, you seem to be missing the point, which was my response to Angle's claim that older women have a more difficult time dating than men (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5526449#msg5526449)...by pointing out that the reason for that is that men die younger than women.
You see, he was attempting to claim older women's dating difficult was a case of "women having it worse than men." To which my response was that the men in that equation are dying young.
Clearly dying is worse than having a difficult time finding a dating partner, right? And that's why I suggest it was twisted. Angle was proposing that "older women have difficulty dating" was worse than men dying young being the cause of older women having difficulty dating.
Do you get it now?
Quote
you completely ignored the unattractive part, focusing only on the old
Look, I apologize...but have you ever dated? Like, let's ask a very simple question here. Imagine a 20-something ugly guy and a 20-something ugly girl. Who would have an easier time finding a date? Who would have an easier time getting laid? Even if you're still in high school, you should be able to answer this question.
Quote from: I said
We don't need to be continually cherry picking the few things that men still have better and forcing those to be better for women too.
No. I think it's time to stop championing for women and start making life better for everybody.
Quote from: you said
sarcasm=on]Right, because rape is anywhere near the level of, *ahem* 'social favoritism'.
...so...you're not disagreeing...you're basically just saying "Your arguments are invalid because rape!"
Quote
The fuck is wrong with you?
Quote
Well, you're wrong. Demonstrably wrong.
Quote
Well, your opinion is wrong
Quote
You. Are. Wrong.
Simply chanting "You're wrong!" is not a convincing argument. If that's the best you have, you wasted the two hours you spent on this.
Quote
You know, I think I'mma ignore this one for the moment until I can be rational
Well, ok. That's fine. When you're ready to be rational, come back and post.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 01, 2014, 01:41:03 am
Post by: LordBucket on August 01, 2014, 01:41:17 am
@LordBucket
Don't women live longer due to their biology? Something to do with the hormones, IIRC.
It's a bunch of things. But the big ones...if you simply go down a list of top cause of death (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm), several of them do relate to biology, yes. For example:
* The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm) and estrogen has beneficial/protective effects for both cholesterol and heart disease (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15950396). That's just biology.
* Deaths due to cancer are about 50% higher for men than women (http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/cancer-death-rate-by-gender/). According to google it looks like basically nobody knows why yet. But cancer kills more men. Could be biological. Could be greater exposure to cancer agents. Could be a variety of factors.
* Stroke (http://www.uhnj.org/stroke/stats.htm) is a complicated one. Men have more strokes, but the majority of stroke deaths are women...but women live longer, and when people die they have to die of something...so it seems plausible that the higher overall stroke death count for women is because they live longer. But looking at the numbers for age and race...I'm hesitant to make the call on this without looking into it more closely. For example, a lot of strokes are related to heart attacks and blood pressure, both of which are bigger issues for men than women...but while white men have strokes roughly half again more often than white women, black women have strokes about half again more often than white men. That's not uncommon. A lot of health problems affect blacks more than whites, but overall I'm hesitant to make any broad claims here without examining it more closely. This might be more of a racial issue than a gender issue.
Then there are hings like the ~80% of murder victims being men, and ~93% of job-related deaths being men. Those sorts of issues probably have very little to do with biology, but the heart attack thing alone probably causes more of the disparity than all of the obviously non-biological issues combined.
Post by: LordBucket on August 01, 2014, 01:43:45 am
Bucket, given the amazing amount of time you spend on your posts here insisting that women have it better,
I don't see how you can accuse Rolep of being over emotional or spending too much time on this.
Well, citing my sources and not shouting "what the fuck is wrong with you" like he's doing has a lot to do with it. He's plainly stated at least twice now that I've noticed that he's angry.
Or was this not a serious comment and you were simply trying to stealthily insult me?
Post by: Cheeetar on August 01, 2014, 01:46:36 am
Post by: LordBucket on August 01, 2014, 02:08:04 am
My comment was serious- perhaps I should have said instead 'please don't attack Rolep, attack his points', but I thought pointing out the hypocrisy of what you were saying was enough.
I accused Rolepgeek of being emotional. A statement easily corroborated by his own statements. For example:
Speaking of rational discussion, I really hope someone else responds to LordBucket's post because it has caused such great levels of anger within me that if I have to be the one to show him how wrong he is, I don't know how civil I'll be able to keep it. Logical, I think I can manage, I just worry about the whole bloody thing getting deleted by Toady because I can't keep my temper.
You additionally claim that I'm accusing him "spending too much time on this." I have not made that accusation. What I did say was that his two hours was wasted if chanting "you're wrong" was the best he could do:
Simply chanting "You're wrong!" is not a convincing argument. If that's the best you have, you wasted the two hours you spent on this.
And yet you point out that I've spent a lot of time on this, and use that to accuse me of hypocrisy even though you were the one in the same sentence pointing out how much time I've spent on this:
given the amazing amount of time you spend on your posts...
I don't see how you can accuse Rolep of...
spending too much time on this.
Quote
If you think noting that sort of thing is an insult, then you've been insulting Rolep.
You're engaging in a mirroring technique. Basically, attack someone and accuse them of the exact attack you just made. I've seen this many times on bay12. Are you doing it deliberately?
Post by: Cheeetar on August 01, 2014, 02:10:47 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 01, 2014, 02:39:32 am
Post by: Cheeetar on August 01, 2014, 02:43:55 am
I agree with LordBucket and Cheeetar.
Uh, cheers :P
Post by: Reelya on August 01, 2014, 03:34:36 am
Quote* More women are accepted into college than men (http://collegestats.org/2013/05/why-men-are-falling-behind-in-higher-ed/)True. However, the correct response to this is to ask why more women are in and graduate from college than men. Skimming the article, I find some interesting tidbits. Or really, some interesting paragraphs. Specifically, the bit that that attempts to explain the disparity. You know, rather than simply glossing over the surface details? Yeah.
Quote
And that may be one of the things at the heart of the issue of men falling behind in higher education: men simply aren’t applying. What’s more, even when men do enroll, they’re much less likely to finish school and to earn a degree than their female counterparts...
Interest in School
One of the simplest explanations may be that fewer men are interested in going to college than their female classmates.
Some research also suggests that men simply put less value on college than women do, questioning whether it’s necessary or whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Ok, there's no discrimination because men just aren't applying and they're less likely to finish the classes. It's their own fault.
Let's apply that logic to computer science classes, then.
Quote
And that may be one of the things at the heart of the issue of women falling behind in computer science: women simply aren’t applying. What’s more, even when women do enroll, they’re much less likely to finish school and to earn a degree than their male counterparts....
Interest in School
One of the simplest explanations may be that fewer women are interested in studying computer science than their male classmates....
Some research also suggests that women simply put less value on computer science than men do, questioning whether it’s necessary or whether the cost is worth the benefit.
See, no discrimination there, right? Same logic, just gender-flipped with "college" changed to "computer science". But, of course, when presented like that we're quick to point out all these mitigating factors which are not the woman's fault.
So, by the same logic as the female college admissions article women just aren't into computer science. No more questions allowed. [/sarcasm]
Post by: Neonivek on August 01, 2014, 03:36:11 am
Quote
Ok, there's no discrimination because men just aren't applying and they're less likely to finish the classes. It's their own fault.
I am astonished by the sheer amount of "If someone said that about women, you wouldn't accept it"
Maybe the discrimination is because of society pushing gender roles onto them :P
Post by: Reelya on August 01, 2014, 03:37:46 am
Post by: palsch on August 01, 2014, 10:16:11 am
Sorry, all you gave me was a link without explanation. I read the first page or two of the introduction, which reads like fiction. And then I read a summary on another site which didn't lead me to believe otherwise.What summary would that be?
I actually expected you to maybe respect my intelligence enough to assume I hadn't linked you to a fictional novel as a political/historical text. It was silly of me.
the point of the coal mining example, like the other examples given, was that so far as I can tell, feminists are not usually interested in equality. They simply want to make things better for women. If there is a desirable position or industry where there are more men than women, or unpleasant things that more women have to deal with than men, they will be perceived as inequalities. But when there are unpleasant things in which there are more men than women or desireable positions held more by women than men...those won't be perceived as inequalities.My point with this is that you are not a good judge of this. You used coal mining as your example. That example was flat out wrong.
I agree it would be absurd. Fortunately that's not at all what I was saying, and I really have no idea why you thought that I might have meant that.Because it was the plain text reading of your meaning. Quoting the part you used to explain the example above, "when there are unpleasant things in which there are more men than women or desireable positions held more by women than men...those won't be perceived as inequalities." You viewed coal mining as an area that is undesirable and where the lack of women wouldn't be viewed as an inequality, essentially accepting pushing men into the dangerous work while keeping women out.
Anyway, let's go back and have a real go at this stuff. Given I'm sick today, have already gotten what I need to do done and just finished my book, let's give this a bit of effort. If nothing else I can use it as a reference in the future. I've not particularly proofread this so might have to do some editing at a later date.
I assert, that speaking generally life is better in the US for woman than it is for men. Choose any area you like: finance, dating, social exchange, peer expectation, law, college, health...in most areas, women simply have a better deal than men.Taking this one area at a time;
Finance:
I've had lengthy discussions on this before, most recently here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=137725.msg5301532#msg5301532). But to summarise, the gender wage gap is real and substantial and dominant in practical financial differences between the sexes. Comparing like-to-like, full time employment, you have an overall pay ratio of 0.82 (using raw BLS data (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm)). My rough and ready analysis from a few months ago showed men earning more than women in 136 out of 139 categories, with a >10% gap in 109.
Women with similar educational levels to men can expect to see lower pay levels. Some raw data here, easy enough to eyeball (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html). A quick graph that covers more intersectional (race/gender) angles;
Spoiler: Data from Census bureau, 2006-8 (click to show/hide)
Even within STEM fields there are notable pay gaps (http://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/women-in-science/the-pay-gap-in-stem-fields-19116412). This pattern replicates across almost every field and subject (http://careers.theguardian.com/careers-blog/graduate-gender-pay-gap-university-subject).
Which is all to say, comparing like-to-like, women can be expected to be earning less than men in the same or similar roles.
All this is before you take into account women more often taking part time jobs, bringing down their overall income in comparison to men and giving you the classic ~77% raw wage gap.
Dating, social exchange, peer expectation:
Going to try to go through all these at once because I view them all as aspects of the same thing; perception of women and gender roles.
To maintain some continuity with the above point, women face severe social barriers to being taken seriously within the workplace or as equals. These tend to feed into the pay gap through the way they are perceived (the peer expectation part) and treated by their employers and co-workers.
There have been many (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109) different (http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5903.html) studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17963996) demonstrating unconscious bias against women (or those perceived as women) in recruitment/employment/promotion scenarios. These biases create greater social barriers to women trying to enter or progress through a field in comparison to men, who are granter greater benefit of the doubt. (Again, intersectional issues with race come into play here.) This has obvious relevance to the wage gap discussed above.
Further to this, personality traits that are viewed as admirable and worthy of reward in men are viewed as undesirable and punishable in women. The most high profile and obvious of these is aggression, viewed as key to male progression, status and value, but penalised in women (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf). There are even cases where reducing female aggression (not violence, but assertiveness) is a goal of pre-natal hormone therapy (http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140) with the explicit goal of pushing them towards acceptable "heterosexual norms", including reducing "interest in what they consider to be men’s occupations and games". NB: The treatment of the underlying disorder makes sense, but the treatment goals are just... eww.
A lot of this comes down to the classic feminist analysis of gendered traits. Feminine traits are expected from women but valued lowly socially. Masculine traits are valued more highly socially, but are not expected and to be punished when displayed by women.
This often carries over into non-workplace social situations. Women are not expected to be assertive or aggressive in interpersonal relationships, and displaying those traits makes them undesirable or unattractive. At the same time passivity is viewed negatively by wider society and condemned by men who have to 'put in all the work'. Women are caught in a catch-22 situation, where they have to choose between the risks of personal or social condemnation for their action or inaction.
And that's hardly the only social catch-22 they face. Literally any action taken by a woman can be condemned from either side. Wearing makeup or generally spending time on their appearance can be condemned as being 'fake' or trying to trick men into thinking they are attractive. Failing to put in such time or effort is nearly universally condemned, as women are so often valued and judged solely on their attractiveness (or rather, their ability to fall into an acceptable socially acknowledged definition of attractive).
This valuing of women by their attractiveness and nothing else complicates dating further. Men who are after an attractive women - either for casual sex or as a status symbol - are unlikely to place much value on other aspects of the woman. This results both in the absurdities of internet dating spam (http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1uqym6/as_a_guy_i_wanted_to_know_what_it_was_like_to_be/) (I've known multiple women who have abandoned multiple sites because they are made worthless by such users) and a complete disregard for women who can be dismissed as ugly or even just flawed. Pointing out minor flaws in a woman's appearance to degrade and devalue her is such a common trend as to be recognised and satirised even outside feminist circles.
Generalising into non-dating social interactions, women on the internet can expect abuse simply as the cost of existing. This is pretty well documented. (http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/) Comparing with myself, I've been fairly hostile and engaged in politically/emotionally charged debates online, on a range of sites with a range of moderation policies, etc, and never once had a death threat. I think I've been directly threatened with physical violence once, and that was in a League of Legends post-game lobby where it's almost cliché. Women who take far more moderate positions than myself, on less hostile websites, get far more aggressive responses as the norm.
This extends into real life more than might be expected from the usual defences/justifications of internet bad behaviour. I've had unwanted advances before in person, but never felt physically threatened or unable to decline them. Conversely I've had multiple women ask me to serve as a pretend boyfriend to escape someone who either won't accept no for an answer or who they don't feel safe turning down.
Going back to the appearance point for a moment, the tie between a woman's appearance and personal worth is so close that even mentioning a woman's appearance (positively or negatively) can devalue her in other's eyes. Name It Change It's appearance survey (http://www.nameitchangeit.org/pages/4824) showed a negative impact on a hypothetical political candidate's poll ratings based solely on adding a description of her appearance (positive, negative or neutral), actually swinging the pretend election towards her opponent while damaging her ratings in every key trait and favourability rating measured. Actively countering this description repairs the damage done among women but men retain unfavourable views of her regardless.
Combine this with a social and media obsession with analysing the appearance of every woman who comes on a screen or page and you have a recipe for devaluing the contributions and capabilities of women across the board.
Law, health:
Assuming we are solely looking at the USA here I don't think you can detangle the two.
Generally, legislatively, there is near perfect equality now. Sex discrimination laws in the US are written to apply equally, and even previously female-focused laws (eg, definition of rape) are being neutralised at a rather rapid rate when compare to the fixing of past inequalities.
That said, there are still trends that are problematic for women. While women are gaining parity in law degrees, they are nowhere near equally represented in judicial or senior legal roles (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-us).
While this dominance of male views in such positions can benefit women, it tends to only do so when aligned with otherwise harmful stereotypes and gender roles. Women are rewarded for conforming to expectations and often punished for deviating from them. Any advantage they have is conditional on following a patriarchal script. As has been pointed out previously, this is something opposed by feminism in general, even when it may appear to advantage women.
This also carries into state legislative bodies (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/StateLeg-CurrentFacts.php) where women only make up roughly a quarter of all representatives. All too often laws directly primarily at women are being written, voted on and judged/enforced largely (even near exclusively in some areas) by men.
And that results in horrific anti-woman laws in many cases. Anti-abortion and anti-contraception laws are the current weapon of choice. The laws that have come into force have resulted in clinics closing, denying both abortion and general healthcare in entire regions of the USA. Some of the clinics concerned -particularly Planned Parenthood ones - were the only ones available to low income women for any medical purposes, not just reproductive health.
Under the ACA it's been primarily women's healthcare that has been singled out for attacks. From Hobby Lobby's successful challenge on certain contraceptives (very likely to be expanded to all 20 covered under the law) to the complete exclusion of abortion services, its services targeted at women that have become political, legislative and litigation footballs.
As an aside, I would view the exclusion of male contraceptives from the ACA as a policy mistake and a crisis, but one that generally harms women as well as men (http://millspolicyforum.com/2014/03/10/the-aca-contraceptive-mandate-denies-male-responsibility-in-family-planning/). It reinforces the concept that contraceptives are a woman's responsibility and a woman's problem. Here is the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/15/4/gpr150418.html) arguing against that and the generally more limited guidelines for preventative reproductive care for men also mentioned in the Mill's article. I'm going to assume anyone half familiar will Mills or Guttmacher knows why I chose those two sources for this point...
Speaking about health more generally, healthcare tends to come in two flavours; woman exclusive (generally focused on reproductive) and male-focused. I mentioned this before, but the default medical model is the male body (http://blogs.bluebec.com/the-default-human/), often to the detriment of women who are subject to procedures only practised or tested on men. One example that has been broadly shared in recent years is that heart attack symptoms - widely publicised to attempt to improve recognition and treatment - are widely different for men and women. Even many doctors don't recognise the signs in women (http://www.webmd.boots.com/heart-disease/features/her-guide-to-a-heart-attack) because they are taught to look for the male indicators.
The life expectancy is itself a complex topic. I linked this before (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2474859/Life-expectancy-gap-men-women-narrows-years.html) to demonstrate it is closing over time (or rather, improvements for men and women are more rapidly progressing in men). It's not clear to me how much is biological and how much is social, but either way the problem is relatively minor and decreasing over time. And, as I've argued above, is despite a male-focused medical system.
Further the social aspects are primarily topics that are topics of study and criticism for feminists, while often not addressed outside the movement often at all. Where there is social progress in this area I would give feminism at least some of the credit.
Before I linked bell hooks' work (http://endofcapitalism.com/2009/01/20/review-of-the-will-to-change-men-masculinity-and-love/) on the topic (http://www.feminish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/We-Real-Cool-Black-Men-Masculinity2.pdf), but the concept of toxic masculinity (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity) gets a fair amount of play among feminists. It's basically the idea that patriarchal standards of masculinity (or just desirable/admirable/reinforced male behaviour) are harmful to the men who embody them as well as those around them. The examples in that wiki are pretty solid. The obvious example of male violence being expected and anger being the only acceptable emotional response are directly relevant to male health, especially when combined with concepts of emasculation.
This 2006 AlterNet article is a particularly expansive exploration. (http://www.alternet.org/story/41356/the_high_cost_of_manliness) It focuses mostly on the social aspects, but extrapolating to health/lifespan is relatively easy.
I've actually seen arguments that toxic masculinity as a concept came from the mythopoetic men's movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement), which had a drive towards a positive/deep masculinity. I'd disagree strongly with many of their positions and their emphasis on ritual and strong gender roles/essentialism, but some of the positive aspects have relevance today. The emphasis on male socialisation and cooperation over competition and emotional expression are particularly relevant. That said, it is the feminist movement that has taken and progressed the concept, especially through the modern third wave anti-essentialist views.
College:
I'd argue that the primary apparent female advantage in college - more women entering and graduating - are actual representative of completely different issues and that colleges themselves are not biased towards women. Indeed, in many ways they are still biased against them.
Starting with applications, more women than men are applying. As was discussed previously in this thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5530237#msg5530237), there is evidence of (limited and localised, and likely illegal) affirmative action in the favour of male applicants. See also Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/gender-gap-college-admissions), and the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/inside-the-admissions-process-at-george-washington-university/2014/03/22/f86b85fa-aee6-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html). The issue with the numbers of men at universities has little to do with the universities themselves. The leak lies further up the pipeline.
I'd argue much of this goes back to the concept of toxic masculinity, but there is also an economic argument.
Go way back to the charts of women's earnings against men's in those spoilers above. Women have to be more qualified than men to expect similar earnings. A man out of highschool can expect greater earnings and self sufficiency in a wider range of employment options than a woman can. Women simple have fewer options outside university, pushing them to apply in greater numbers. I'd say this is particularly visible in the UK, where rising tuition fees and more vocational/apprenticeship schemes made university a less attractive option. The decrease was considerably higher among men than women. (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/dec/13/gender-gap-university-applications-widens)
Now I personally view this as a problem, and one that needs addressing on both levels; making the barriers to college lower (for everyone, but with a view to especially benefiting men) so that more men see it as viable while also making more jobs available and accessible to women out of high school so they don't feel forced into the one path. But I also see this as largely separate to colleges themselves being biased against women or women having it better, something I don't believe is true.
Talking about colleges more broadly, the employment factors come back with a vengeance when talking about women in academia. Particularly in science where the leak in the pipeline (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/25/1403334111.full.pdf+html) has been receiving particular attention. Essentially women are seen as fine students, but not regarded highly at all as academic faculty or even non-student researchers. Combine this with studies such as this one linked above (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109) which demonstrate an unconscious bias towards male students from faculty and I feel relatively secure in saying that there is a substantive and real barrier to women in academia that men just don't experience.
I hate to get into personal experience, but I have reasons to believe that similar biases and prejudices operate against female students on all levels. A lot of it comes back to men simply getting the benefit of the doubt from educators more often, with women's work being viewed more sceptically or critically. Again, the strongest evidence I have of this are studies like the above. There is also the fact that college admissions test have been deliberately designed to favour men (http://www.fairtest.org/gender-bias-college-admissions-tests) - with sections that favoured women being 'balanced' till men scored higher again - in the past, and many of those who designed such tests are still designing and running college courses and exams. I fully believe in an unconscious and blind favouring of men in course design at college, particularly in fields where faculty representation lags behind being representative of the student body.
I'll admit that I have far less first hand experience in the arts, and what I say is less relevant to areas with greater female representation in the faculty. But given there are broad representation gaps across all of academia (http://iwl.rutgers.edu/documents/njwomencount/Faculty%20Diversity-3.pdf), increasing as you go up in seniority, I would suggest that the issues are the norm with primarily female (or woman designed) courses being a minority at best.
Post by: GreatJustice on August 01, 2014, 01:53:57 pm
Quote
Finance:
I've had lengthy discussions on this before, most recently here. But to summarise, the gender wage gap is real and substantial and dominant in practical financial differences between the sexes. Comparing like-to-like, full time employment, you have an overall pay ratio of 0.82 (using raw BLS data). My rough and ready analysis from a few months ago showed men earning more than women in 136 out of 139 categories, with a >10% gap in 109.
Women with similar educational levels to men can expect to see lower pay levels. Some raw data here, easy enough to eyeball. A quick graph that covers more intersectional (race/gender) angles;
Spoiler: Data from Census bureau, 2006-8 (click to show/hide)
In a similar vein, there is this report, with this graph (annotated version ripped from various blogs);
Spoiler: Slightly easier to read version of similar data, without race taken into account (click to show/hide)
Even within STEM fields there are notable pay gaps. This pattern replicates across almost every field and subject.
Which is all to say, comparing like-to-like, women can be expected to be earning less than men in the same or similar roles.
All this is before you take into account women more often taking part time jobs, bringing down their overall income in comparison to men and giving you the classic ~77% raw wage gap.
The big thing here that you aren't taking into account the fact that women are far more likely to take extended periods of time off of work, particularly to have children and so on whereas men basically continually work the same job and build lots of experience in the process. When you take that into account, the gender wage gap basically becomes irrelevant (http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf).
Oh, and while I don't have the statistics to back it up, I certainly agree with you that employers are probably more likely to hire a man over a woman if they have two identical, equally qualified applicants. Why is that? Because the female applicant can, at just about any time, up and leave the job for several months to raise children, whereas the male applicant can't (accounting for the fact that most countries have mandatory maternal leaves, etc). This is, at the end of the day, a biological issue, not one that is created by employers thinking that women should "go back to the kitchen" or any nonsense like that. There are, of course, a few ways around it; some women simply won't raise children at all while working (though I suspect most businesses wouldn't risk asking about that for fear of being labeled "misogynistic", and there's no chance at all they'd specifically mention it as a factor in hiring), while others would would take significantly less time off of work. Whatever the case, the "gender wage gap" is basically a myth, at least the way it is presented.
Quote
That said, there are still trends that are problematic for women. While women are gaining parity in law degrees, they are nowhere near equally represented in judicial or senior legal roles.
Presumably because women only (comparatively) recently began aspiring for those positions in great numbers, meaning that the parity being reached is between younger men and younger women getting into the field. If that is the case, then the proportion of women in the judicial and senior legal positions will increase over time naturally.
Quote
This also carries into state legislative bodies where women only make up roughly a quarter of all representatives. All too often laws directly primarily at women are being written, voted on and judged/enforced largely (even near exclusively in some areas) by men.
Why does this matter? Some women would rather be represented by men and some men would rather be represented by women, depending on their political views. Laws being directed at regulating business generally aren't written by entrepreneurs, laws aimed at healthcare aren't usually written by doctors and laws relating to agriculture aren't often written by farmers.
Quote
And that results in horrific anti-woman laws in many cases. Anti-abortion and anti-contraception laws are the current weapon of choice. The laws that have come into force have resulted in clinics closing, denying both abortion and general healthcare in entire regions of the USA. Some of the clinics concerned -particularly Planned Parenthood ones - were the only ones available to low income women for any medical purposes, not just reproductive health.
Strange that you call them "anti-woman" laws when support for them is generally evenly split between women (http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/gj9hnbkeoecnbvrk7lsg2w.gif) and men (http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/zpvcpxkiy0w4bujetcfqnq.gif), with the only difference being that women feel more strongly about the issue either way.
Quote
Under the ACA it's been primarily women's healthcare that has been singled out for attacks. From Hobby Lobby's successful challenge on certain contraceptives (very likely to be expanded to all 20 covered under the law) to the complete exclusion of abortion services, its services targeted at women that have become political, legislative and litigation footballs.
This isn't because they hate women, it's because issues relating specifically to women's healthcare in the ACA are much easier to oppose on legal grounds since the Supreme Court decision on the issue of an insurance mandate. If it was easier to oppose legally through attacking the mandate, or requirements for coverage despite preexisting conditions, then it would be opposed for those reasons instead.
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 02:19:02 pm
Quote
The big thing here that you aren't taking into account the fact that women are far more likely to take extended periods of time off of work, particularly to have children and so on whereas men basically continually work the same job and build lots of experience in the process. When you take that into account, the gender wage gap basically becomes irrelevant.Except that it is illegal to punish people for taking or being suspected to take maternity (to the extent that it exists, obviously, not just quitting on your own for however long you feel like) leave by docking their salaries, so no, that doesn't make it irrelevant. All you've done is explain precisely where a large part of the illegal discrimination is probably happening. And in fact the laws SHOULD be much stronger, not weaker.
It's a human rights and national interest (by incentivizing children and their nurture for a future where the world shows us that underpopulation is a potentially looming threat), and mere mundane actuarial considerations do not override those necessarily.
Quote
Laws being directed at regulating business generally aren't written by entrepreneurs, laws aimed at healthcare aren't usually written by doctors and laws relating to agriculture aren't often written by farmers.Which is also a major problem. You shouldn't have people entirely writing laws governing themselves, but you should always have considerable official consultancy and committees for the various interested parties. E.g., a Monsanto bill with industry reps + consumers + farmers + neutral scientists, etc. being in on the writing it.
I would probably have agreed with you about "just vote for women then," but the extreme power and meta-influence of parties significantly undermines that should-be-that-simple logic and possibility.
Post by: Reelya on August 01, 2014, 02:58:36 pm
Making a criticism of men deciding "X" being unfair is only meaningful if you can also show that women would have made a different decision. Perhaps it could be argued it would be more politically palatable if pro-life conservative women made the decision to close Planned Parenthood clinics instead of men, but the clinics still close either way.
Personally, I think it's more about religion, social class and race as gender.
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 03:18:17 pm
Quote
Personally, I think it's more about religion, social class and race as gender.All of these could have your same logic applied to them...
Literally just sub in the words: "Making a criticism of Catholics deciding "X" being unfair is only meaningful if you can also show that Jews would have made a different decision. " etc. etc.
If you aren't willing to talk based on gut instinct for women, then fine, but you don't get to for religion, class, race either then.
Post by: Neonivek on August 01, 2014, 03:22:06 pm
I think the point is that things wouldn't be much different if we did vote for women to decide these matters, since their views don't differ that much from the men. Plenty, plenty of "pro-life" women out there.
Well that is because "Pro-Life" Versus "Pro-Choice" isn't an argument about the autonomy of women anyhow... Nor is it an argument over whether or not a woman has the right to kill another human being.
It is a debate entirely centered around as to whether an unborn fetus/child is a human being and thus has a right to life or not... Period.
It has repercussions involving both... and "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both intentional phrasings to make the other seem wrong... but the debate really just boils down to what you believe.
Post by: Samarkand on August 01, 2014, 03:23:52 pm
It's a little bit more than "right to life" in some cases. There are some terminal diseases not discovered until late in gestation. Those babies never have a chance at life, never mind rights, but "pro-life" proponents will argue against aborting them.I think the point is that things wouldn't be much different if we did vote for women to decide these matters, since their views don't differ that much from the men. Plenty, plenty of "pro-life" women out there.
Well that is because "Pro-Life" Versus "Pro-Choice" isn't an argument about the autonomy of women anyhow... Nor is it an argument over whether or not a woman has the right to kill another human being.
It is a debate entirely centered around as to whether an unborn fetus/child is a human being and thus has a right to life or not... Period.
It has repercussions involving both... and "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both intentional phrasings to make the other seem wrong... but the debate really just boils down to what you believe.
Post by: Neonivek on August 01, 2014, 03:26:15 pm
Mind you, I guess if someone was unconscious from a terminal illness and you could kill them right then and there by tearing out their heart and putting it in a healthy person's... Is that the equivalent?
It still boils right down to what it constitutes.
Post by: GreatJustice on August 01, 2014, 03:40:20 pm
Quote
Except that it is illegal to punish people for taking or being suspected to take maternity (to the extent that it exists, obviously, not just quitting on your own for however long you feel like) leave by docking their salaries, so no, that doesn't make it irrelevant. All you've done is explain precisely where a large part of the illegal discrimination is probably happening. And in fact the laws SHOULD be much stronger, not weaker.
It's a human rights and national interest (by incentivizing children and their nurture for a future where the world shows us that underpopulation is a potentially looming threat), and mere mundane actuarial considerations do not override those necessarily.
But unlike a lot of other kinds of discrimination, this kind is actually grounded in the reality that, ignoring all other concerns and looking at things from a purely logical standpoint, one applicant is an objectively safer bet than the other. This isn't a "mundane actuarial concern" either; one worker on the job for a smaller business can be the difference between getting by and bankruptcy, ESPECIALLY for businesses that can't easily train up new workers (eg. software companies). This also goes beyond the ostensible feminist goal of "female-male equality" in that it requires people to outright ignore actual disadvantages to hiring one worker over the other.
Strengthening the law, by the way, is sort of meaningless unless you go far enough to create a world in which any business that turns down a woman for a job (be she actually more qualified or not) has the legal screws put on it by some judge who can apparently read the mind of the owners and determine whether their motivations were "acceptable" or not. I mean, that basically opens the floodgates for idiots like the "GIANT BOMB IS SEXIST FOR HIRING A MAN" lady to start throwing around their weight legally.
Also, in the case of women not getting paid as much due to taking maternity leave, the issue isn't that women are having their pay cut so much as they aren't getting pay raises while on leave (because they aren't getting the experience their male counterparts are getting, there is a transition in workloads, etc). For women on maternity leave to get the same long term wages as men not on leave, you would have to completely ignore differences in experience and the costs of getting a replacement for a potentially hard to replace job (eg. training up a new programmer).
Quote
Which is also a major problem. You shouldn't have people entirely writing laws governing themselves, but you should always have considerable official consultancy and committees for the various interested parties. E.g., a Monsanto bill with industry reps + consumers + farmers + neutral scientists, etc. being in on the writing it.
I would probably have agreed with you about "just vote for women then," but the extreme power and meta-influence of parties significantly undermines that should-be-that-simple logic and possibility.
Maybe. But then that defeats the point of democracy, since such groups aren't equally represented in the public at large or in the people that are motivated to run for public office. Not to say I entirely disagree, though.
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 04:02:03 pm
Quote
But unlike a lot of other kinds of discrimination, this kind is actually grounded in the reality that, ignoring all other concerns and looking at things from a purely logical standpoint, one applicant is an objectively safer bet than the other.I don't think it IS unlike as many kinds of discrimination as you think.
It's also probably grounded in reality that all of the following groups of people are probably more expensive investments and lead to slightly fewer profits for an average company:
-Disabled people (even in a job where the disability is irrelevant to performance, they often need extra expensive infrastructure)
-Naturalized immigrants (on average less likely to English fluency, for example, and possibly more culture clash with customer service, etc.)
-Old people are going to die or retire sooner and thus run up your costs of training per year you get return on that investment.
And so on. Yet these are all legally protected. That's one of the main reasons WHY they are protected, BECAUSE it makes mathematical pure-profit sense not to hire or promote them, and Congress has decided that national interest of equality and human rights in these cases trumps a few extra dollars.
If it weren't a profit issue, you wouldn't really need most of the laws, now would you...
Again, this just boils down to "numerical equality" versus "unjust equality" which are different concepts. The former can simply be measured, but isn't actually very useful or meaningful. The latter is what most people care about, however, it is inherently more subjective or even if the subjective parts are agreed on, more practically difficult to measure as well.
You're arguing strict numerical inequality by simply pointing out existing rule differences. But whether or not it's unjust depends on the reasons for those rules and if they are good ones, which requires deep debate, not just statistics. Should minor profit differences count more than raising healthy and well-adjusted Americans by promoting early life bonding? I'd say no. Maybe you say yes. Subjective discussion ensues.
Quote
Maybe. But then that defeats the point of democracy, since such groups aren't equally represented in the public at large or in the people that are motivated to run for public office. Not to say I entirely disagree, though.It does not at all defeat democracy. To be clear, the consultants don't VOTE. They advise and educate the elected representatives.
They already do this sometimes. They just don't do nearly enough of it or require it like they should.
Post by: GreatJustice on August 01, 2014, 06:42:33 pm
Quote
-Disabled people (even in a job where the disability is irrelevant to performance, they often need extra expensive infrastructure)
This one gets a bit complicated since a lot of the extra infrastructure is mandated anyway (which is an entirely different discussion I don't want to get into). Regardless, "disabled" can mean any number of things, but quite often the "protection" for them only extends for people with comparatively common disabilities. I mean, I've yet to find anyone working tirelessly to make all facilities available to people with iron lungs, or to prevent hiring discrimination against them. Also, this is one of those issues that tends to become bait for lawyers looking to make easy money off of people that make hiring choices they don't like.
Quote
-Naturalized immigrants (on average less likely to English fluency, for example, and possibly more culture clash with customer service, etc.)
This can easily be ascertained by an interview. In general though, it's pretty damn silly to have someone with an unintelligible accent handle a job like customer service or something else that requires clear communication. This is actually a pretty common form of hiring discrimination, actually, but it extends quite a bit farther since a lot of jobs basically require that the applicant have a fairly clear Midwestern American accent, for the simple reason that pretty much any English speaker in the world can understand them without much issue.
Quote
-Old people are going to die or retire sooner and thus run up your costs of training per year you get return on that investment.
Depends on the job and the circumstances.
Quote
And so on. Yet these are all legally protected. That's one of the main reasons WHY they are protected, BECAUSE it makes mathematical pure-profit sense not to hire or promote them, and Congress has decided that national interest of equality and human rights in these cases trumps a few extra dollars.
A few extra dollars here, a few laws mandating equality there and before you know it even meeting an applicant from a "protected minority" creates a legal minefield in which you can be sued for not hiring them, sued for not accommodating them in specific ways, sued for firing them, sued for docking pay or sued for not giving them a raise. It gets to a point where it actually makes more sense to avoid hiring them entirely if possible because having such an employee is a ticking time bomb if you ever have issues with them.
This is absolutely a subjective argument, but at the end of the day I'd say that the equality that matters most is equality under the law, of which anti-discriminatory hiring requirements go well beyond.
Post by: GavJ on August 01, 2014, 06:56:51 pm
Quote
This is absolutely a subjective argument, but at the end of the day I'd say that the equality that matters most is equality under the law, of which anti-discriminatory hiring requirements go well beyond.I'm sure that all the disabled, 50 year old females will be very appreciative of that privilege while they are starving to death in gutters in a town near you.
OR alternatively forced to live in nearly fully subsidized Section 8 housing on SSI disability payments with food stamps (maximum combined total = about $1400 a month where I live) + possibly vocational rehab assistance (could be thousands more in tax dollars in paying for re-training in other fields in an attempt to find people employability), thus not only having moral implications, but also costing taxpayers (including businesses) far more money anyway than it would have cost to accommodate the minor profit losses from discrimination laws that allow them to be productive members of society. Undermining the entire main purpose you state of repealing them.
Post by: Reelya on August 01, 2014, 07:13:47 pm
There are even cases where reducing female aggression (not violence, but assertiveness) is a goal of pre-natal hormone therapy (http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140) with the explicit goal of pushing them towards acceptable "heterosexual norms", including reducing "interest in what they consider to be men’s occupations and games". NB: The treatment of the underlying disorder makes sense, but the treatment goals are just... eww.
That seems like a bit of a stretch having read the article. You've left out so much detail as to completely bias anyone's understanding of what that issue is.
First, you neglect to mention that it's treating congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which is a condition which can cause "ambiguous" genitalia in female babies. It's related to massive testosterone level spikes in the womb.
Then, you state there are "cases" where the treatment is used to prevent "assertiveness" in female babies when in fact:
Quote
The majority of researchers and clinicians interested in the use of prenatal “dex” focus on preventing development of ambiguous genitalia in girls with CAH. CAH results in an excess of androgens prenatally, and this can lead to a “masculinizing” of a female fetus’s genitals. One group of researchers, however, seems to be suggesting that prenatal dex also might prevent affected girls from turning out to be homosexual or bisexual.
Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University, and her long-time collaborator, psychologist Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, of Columbia University, have been tracing evidence for the influence of prenatal androgens in sexual orientation. In a paper entitled “Sexual Orientation in Women with Classical or Non-Classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia as a Function of Degree of Prenatal Androgen Excess” published in 2008 in Archives of Sexual Behavior, Meyer-Bahlburg and New (with two others) gather evidence of “a dose-response relationship of androgens with sexual orientation” through a study of women with various forms of CAH.
They specifically point to reasons to believe that it is prenatal androgens that have an impact on the development of sexual orientation...
There are no people being "treated" with these goal at all. There is only reasearch into what CAH actually means for the affected children.
All these people did was study the link between CAH hormones and sexual orientation. There's no mythical "treatment" they're dishing out. The only link is researchers who are finding that CAH women have very low levels of relationship-forming. So, because of a genetic hormone malfunction, they'll most likely never have a family. This boils down to a medical issue, not a "choice" issue. You don't "chose" to have abnormal prenatal hormone levels, even if they later influence your life choices.
Personally I don't think the treatment is that important other than the deformed genitalia issue. Nobody wants to put a child through that. If you know why something is happening and can control it, should you be "hands off" or should you change it? At the end of the day, the parents are going to make that decision.
If you told parents "you're having a girl, but we know due to science that she will never wants kids of her own, and we have medicine that, if given now, would change that", how do you think parents would react? Once the science and medicine exists this is going to be a huge issue.
Also, the idea of making them "less assertive" being a goal appears nowhere in the linked article whatsoever.
Post by: TD1 on August 01, 2014, 07:33:18 pm
Post by: LordBucket on August 02, 2014, 12:10:20 am
You used coal mining as your example. That example was flat out wrong.
it was the plain text reading of your meaning.
A misunderstanding occured. What I intended to communicate was clearly not received by you. If you wish to place the blame for that entirely on me, *shrug* ok. Other people understood what was being said. You didn't. I'm over it.
Pro tip, however: reading the "plain text" of sentences in isolation from the sentences around them and ignoring the context in which they exist is likely to result in further miscommunication in your life apart from bay12 forum discussions. That's probably going to be more important in your life than this discussion.
It's Friday night. I have plans. Only going to respond to one of your sections tonight:
Quote
Finance:
the gender wage gap is real
Data from Census bureau, 2006-8
giving you the classic ~77% raw wage gap.
From the title of the graph (http://soc101.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/projected_lifetime_income_by_gender_and_race-ethnicity.jpg) in your first spoiler:
"Work-Life earnings"
Meaning, that graph shows the lifetime earnings.
From the executive summary (https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/cwmx7i5li1nxd7zt7mim) of your link (http://cew.georgetown.edu/collegepayoff):
"no data source exists with a large number of cases that tracks individuals through-out their careers by earnings, occupation, and hours worked per year, this approach is the only viable one to construct even a rough estimate of lifetime earnings. "
Again, your data shows "life time earnings." Go through the chapters. Go through the graphs. It repeats this all over the place. Your study shows lifetimes earnings.
Well, guess what? Women work less over their lifetimes than men.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296
"The Labor Department defines full-time as 35 hours a week or more, and the "or more" is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female ones. According to the department, almost 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week are men. In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers. In other words, the famous gender-wage gap is to a considerable degree a gender-hours gap."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement
"women tend to retire earlier than men"
So, yes. The women who works fewer hours per week and retires earlier than a man makes less money over their lifetimes...regardless of the fact that they both have the same degree.
And incidentally, women don't have the same degrees.:
Also from your report (https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/cwmx7i5li1nxd7zt7mim):
"variations are not just among people of diff erent degree levels or by gender or race/ethnicity. In spite of the obvious returns to more education, the job someone is doing — their occupation — also matters when it comes to earnings. In fact, there is a wide variation in earnings by occupation even among people with the same degree. For example, financial managers with a Bachelor’s degree earn $3.1 million over a lifetime, while accountants and auditors with a Bachelor’s make $2.5 million."
Or, to put it another way:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html
"Here is a list of the ten most remunerative majors compiled by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Men overwhelmingly outnumber women in all but one of them:
1. Petroleum Engineering: 87% male
2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% male
3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male
4. Aerospace Engineering: 88% male
5. Chemical Engineering: 72% male
6. Electrical Engineering: 89% male
7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male
8. Mechanical Engineering: 90% male
9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male
10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male
And here are the 10 least remunerative majors—where women prevail in nine out of ten:
1. Counseling Psychology: 74% female
2. Early Childhood Education: 97% female
3. Theology and Religious Vocations: 34% female
4. Human Services and Community Organization: 81% female
5. Social Work: 88% female
6. Drama and Theater Arts: 60% female
7. Studio Arts: 66% female
8. Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% female
9. Visual and Performing Arts: 77% female
10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55% female"
Here's your chart (http://soc101.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/projected_lifetime_income_by_gender_and_race-ethnicity.jpg) again. Read the labels.
That chart is a chart of earnings by degree. Not by profession. So yes, if the average woman not only works fewer hours per week than men, not only retires earlier then men, but also chooses a less useful degree and then say...gets a job as a preschool teacher instead of an aerospace engineer...it should come as no surprise that she makes less money over her lifetime.
So what happens when we account for these differences?
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
"according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group."
"with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers"
" Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that for the first time, women made up the majority of the workforce in highly paid managerial positions."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2010-09-01-single-women_n.htm
"Women ages 22 to 30 with no husband and no kids earn a median $27,000 a year, 8% more than comparable men in the top 366 metropolitan areas"
"women out-earn men in 39 of the 50 biggest cities and match them in another eight. "
Isn't that interesting? When you remove "married, has kids" and therefore presumbly stuff like "only working part time because is a stay at home mom" from the equation, women make more money than men.
As this forbes article puts it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/
"If you insist that the gender wage gap is a result of discrimination against women, here are a few other claims that must be equally true. By the same logic, young men are discriminated against in favor of young women. Women in their 20s without children out-earn men by as much as $1.08 to every dollar, according to some estimates. It must also be true that white men are discriminated against in favor of Asian-American men, who earn over 5 percent more than white men. To claim either of these as discrimination would be ridiculous, though, right?"
But, since the socially accepted gender role for men is that they be underdogs, and the socially accepted gender role of women is that they must always be protected no matter what, the article does nevertheless acknowledge:
"The reality remains that women, on average, do earn less than men."
Which is corroborated elsewhere. On average, women do make less money. But even so, your 77% figure simply doesn't account for job position, work hours, etc. Once that's accounted for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
"The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%"
A pay gap still exists, but it's between 5 and 7%. Not 23%.
So we know that single childless women get paid 8% more than men. But why is it that if we only account for the job position and work hours difference, but not the single childless bit...why is it that women are paid on average between 5% and 7% less than men? Well, I'm going to take a shot in the dark and speculate:
It's because society expects that men work and provide for their family.
Think about that. Perception is that we have families, men work, women stay at home and take care of kids. This thread is about gender roles, and this is absolutely one of them.
Are you laughing yet? Are you thinking to yourself "Haha! Bucket is totally playing into my hands and admitting there's discrimination here!"
Well, maybe. But I ask you to consider the implications.
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
Civilian labor force participation, 2012:
* Men, 16 years and older: 70.2%
* Women, 16 years and older: 57.7%
70% of men work. Only 57% of women work.
Why is that? Because the perception is that it's ok for women to not work. Whereas the perception is that the "proper place gender role" of a man...is to work and provide for his family.
You can probably see where I'm going with this. Who has it better? The gender who is expected to spend his life working and providing...for a woman. Or a woman, who isn't expected to provide for a man. But can if she wants to. And who can make on average 8% more than men if she chooses to go that route.
I say that the gender who can do whatever they want has it better. The gender who has a choice of getting married and letting somebody else pay their way if they want...or paying their own way if they want...has it better than the gender who lacks that choice, and is expected to spend his life working to provide for a woman.
But it actually gets worse, for reasons already linked and mentioned a dozen or so thread pages ago.
Even though men do the majority of work, women control the majority of money.
Fun fact: I used to sell cars in California. Want to know what they said during their salesperson training? women make the final decision whether to buy. That is part of the official Toyota in California dealership training program: women make the final purchase decision.
But hey, my own personal anecdote probably doesn't mean anything to you. So here's something you can do personally: go to mall. Look at the stores. Count the number of stores that cater to women vs the number of stores that cater to men. Count the number of women's shoe/clothing/etc stores vs the number of men's stores. I think you'll find that women's stores vastly outnumber men's stores. While you're at it, take a look at some allegedly "gender neutral" stores. For example, go to a store that sells both men's and women's clothing. Compare the size of the men's and women's departments. Go to a jewelry store that sells both men and women's jewelry. Compare the size of
Why is this? Because women spend the majority of money. This is well known.
http://www.trendsight.com/content/view/40/204/
"Women Control about 80% of Household Spending"
http://she-conomy.com/facts-on-women
"Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care:
91% of New Homes
66% PCs
92% Vacations
80% Healthcare
65% New Cars
89% Bank Accounts
93% Food
93 % OTC Pharmaceuticals"
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-24/women-controlling-consumer-spending-sparse-among-central-bankers.html
""women account for 80 percent of all consumer- expenditure decisions in the U.S."
http://www.inwomenwetrust.com/resources/just-the-facts/
"Women spend over 70% of consumer dollars worldwide"
So...the gender that does less work...spends most of the money. Again, this thread is about gender roles. The expected gender role for men is that they make the money. The expected gender role for women is that they spend it.
Who has the better deal?
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 02, 2014, 12:15:02 am
So...the gender that does less work...spends most of the money. Again, this thread is about gender roles. The expected gender role for men is that they make the money. The expected gender role for women is that they spend it.Gay men.
Who has the better deal?
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 02, 2014, 12:17:11 am
You understand why I ask? Even from a purely logical viewpoint? And why it isn't usually considered a good thing?LordBucket, are you a member of the MRA? Because whether or not you are, the type of things you're saying and claiming lead me to believe you're one.
No. Even my guess as to what it stood for wasn't correct. Than you google for the correction. Though I did guess two of the three letters right.
Quote
So...I've read your post. A lot of it not very well thought out. I conclude that you're approaching this from a very emotional place. Which...you confirm a couple times. So, it is what it is. i notice that you seem so very enthusiastically excited about having "refuted my points." But you really haven't done that.I 'agree' with facts. Yes. Duh. You presented facts(most of the time). The error you made was in the leap of logic to follow. There were explanations for a significant number of them as to why it wasn't gender bias at work(and thus why feminism doesn't actively worsen said issues). The ones in which it was, other than the CEO salary(and you somehow believe that 16 out of 500 CEOs making 40% more on average than the other 484 CEOs is equal or in favor of women? Seriously?), are pretty much all things that the feminist movement will help reduce, by virtue of trying to break gender roles. And yet you continue to believe it's not for equality! Just because they aren't focusing on your issues.Quote from: I saidMore women are accepted into college than menQuote from: you saidTrue. However, the correct response to this is to ask whyQuote from: I saidMore women graduate with degreesQuote from: you saidInteresting. But you know the real interesting thing about it? It's pretty easily explainedQuote from: I said"In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, "Quote from: you saidAnd again, it explains why
...so...you're agreeing with me...and then attempting to explain why these things are the case. Ok...but giving reasons for why I'm right doesn't refute my position. I mean...you're agreeing with me that these things I'm saying are in fact true. Ok, umm...thank you? Next?
Quote
It's a refutation of your warrants and conclusion, not a direct refutation of facts. Why would I try and disprove facts? They're facts. However, when you purposefully present them in a fashion that doesn't show the whole picture? That's being dishonest. It's being misleading. It's a point against you, because it implies that you can't prove your case without resorting to such methods.Quoteit explains why, going back upwards to other points you've made, and my refutations of them
What refutations? You do understand that agreeing with me and telling me why I'm right...pointing out that the articles explain why the things I'm saying are the case...you do understand that's not a refutation of what I'm saying...right?
Also, are you trying to insinuate that this entire topic isn't inherently emotional? Because I'm not trying to insinuate it is inherently emotional. I'm stating it outright. It is. Being unemotional around subjects like, say, people getting raped and murdered, tends to show sociopathic tendencies and a lack of empathy in an individual.
Quote
I....I'm having trouble following your logic, because it's, to be blunt, insane. You think that being viewed as weak, vulnerable, and helpless, unable to take care of yourself, and thus unsuitable for any number of tasks or positions, is a good thing? Especially considering that women get beaten for trying to go against that stereotype, how can you believe this? At all? I mean, hell, the whole 'not real men' thing applies more to being raped than getting the shit beaten out of you(on the one hand, thank the gods it doesn't apply to getting the shit beaten out of you, most of the time, on the other hand, it's really fucked up the way we view rape).Quote from: you saidGender roles in society place a 'greater wrong' on harming a woman, because they are seen as weak, vulnerable, and helpless, as compared to men, who oughta be able to defend themselves. After all, if they can't, they're not a real man!
Ok, yes. Thank you for making one of my points for me. It's perceived as a greater wrong to harm women. I would call that a gender role/cultural perception where women have the better deal. Men are perceived as "not real men" if they can't defend themselves, whereas it's ok for women. Again, I would call that a gender role/cultural perception where women have the better deal. Being "perceived as weak" just doesn't like such a terrible thing to me when it's compared to "society doesn't care as much if you're harmed, and if you are...it's your own fault for not being manly enough to stop it."
Quote
There aren't 'certain specific areas in which men have a better deal' except by a very literal definition of the terms. They have a better deal in the vast majority of areas -but that doesn't even matter, because it's not a godsdamned contest! You cannot say 'this many more women get raped than men, but this many more men get murdered than women, but this many more women are abused by their spouses, but this many more men can't get a date, but this...' and try to judge them on the same scale.Quote from: I saidNo, they were excellent examples. And others have pointed out that they were accurate. You just don't like them because they don't support your conclusion.Quote from: you saidBut there are equally excellent examples that demonstrate the opposite effect. Which I'm sure you don't like because they don't support your conclusion; that feminism is actively detrimental or at the very least unnecessary.
I've on many occasions acknowledged that there are things women have to deal with than men don't, and that there are some things that men have better. For example:Are there certain specific areas in which men have a better deal? Yes.There are more men in politics. And more male CEO's.
I've also repeatedly acknowledged that there are some issues that are more difficult to conclusively say who has it better, and. For example:I agree that there is a certain subjective quality to the discussion. For example, is it worse to be expected to ask a girl to dance and deal with the fear of rejection, or is it worse to be expected to sit around waiting to be asked but not dancing because the guys are too afraid you'll reject them? That's difficult to judge.
So if you're trying to paint me as unreasonable here...you're not doing a very good job of it.
Honestly, I get the impression that you're not even arguing with me. You're arguing with the emotional baggage you have associated with this issue, and incorrectly assuming that the things I'm saying correlate with that baggage. And they don't.
But on the other hand, let's look at the rejection thing for a moment. There was something interesting I read a while back and I'd been looking for a way to insert it into the conversation for you to look at. Unfortunately, I seem unable to find the article I remember, but in searching I find that the exact article is, perhaps, unimportant. Allow me to instead ask you if you have heard of Schrodinger's Rapist, and Margaret Atwood? Specifically, a quote of hers.
Quote from: Margaret Atwood
“Why are you afraid of women?” I asked a group of men.And you tell me that such is equal, no, advantageous to women. Truly?
“We’re afraid they’ll laugh at us,” replied the men.
“Why are you afraid of men?” I asked a group of women
“We’re afraid they’ll kill us,” replied the woman.
In all seriousness, research these sorts of things, please, particularly Schrodinger's Rapist. If you have not come into this discussion without a firm knowledge of such things beforehand, it is not my responsibility to educate you; it is your own. If you believe the only places women 'have it worse'(as if it were a contest) are in politics and the number of CEOs? Who are not sadly mistaken, but tragically so. To the point that I want to break out into hysterics over it, either with fury that you could even suggest that these aren't issues, or with great sadness that our society has enabled people like you to continue believing such misconceptions.
Quote
1. Lucky you. You must live somewhere nice, then. What about to women who aren't waitresses? Let me put it this way. What would you do if a woman bought you a free drink? Would you instantly start thinking of a way to get into her pants? How many people do you know who would instantly start trying to think of a way to get into her pants? But you know what, maybe you're right. Maybe women only wish they could be as invisible as men because they don't go have to go through being ignored all the time(oh those poor men, it must be so tragic to be ignored by the opposite sex at bars). Maybe men only wish they could get as much attention as women because they haven't had to go through the sexual harassment that often accompanies such attentions. It's not a matter of who has it worse though. It's not a competition with points to be tallied. Life is cooperative, not competitive. Or at the very least, it should be.QuoteI'll ask if you are honestly so resentful of the few 'advantages' women get from gender roles in these issues that you would attempt to use them as part of an argument.
...umm...what? My thesis here is that women have it better than men. Obviously I'm going to use examples of women having advantages over men as evidence that women have it better than men. Resentment has nothing to do with it.QuoteI'll address your questions in turn, sometimes with questions of my own. 1. Why not go to a bar with a female friend and see which gender of waiter gets groped more often? Which of you is leered at more often? This all depends entirely on the women being attractive to men, which forms part of the pressures on women being pretty; not to get free drinks, but as a symptom of the underlying problem. 2. Again, she'd have to be attractive, and if someone did offer to help, which of you is more likely to be sexually assaulted? 3. Ties back into gender roles, women are seen as weak and unable to harm men. And honestly, unless you're referring to strangers? If you both have good friends and approximately equal numbers, odds are your friends would be supportive regardless of gender of you or the assailant(try being sexually assaulted as either by a member of the same gender and see who gets more sympathy, as well, huh?). That's before all of the various double standards regarding rape come into play, but that's partially because we're part of a victim blaming culture(in fact, I'd argue your entire rant and opposition is evidence of that!).
1) I've been eating out for 20+ years, and I've never in my entire life seen anyone grope a waitress. Nevertheless, I'll grant you that it happens to women more than men. Leered at? Absolutely that happens to women more than men. Yes, women receive more unwanted attention that men. They receive more attention at all than men. And that's a mixed situation.
You were asking this question in response to my question about "who gets drinks bought for them more often." And so yes, I will acknowledge that this is one of those situations where it's difficult to judge who has it better or worse. Women get more attention than men. Sometimes that attention is unwanted. Is it better to get attention, but sometimes unwanted attention...or to not get attention? It's a valid question. I don't have a definite answer. I suspect this specific issue is a case of the grass seeming greener on the other side. Sure, there are some women who resent getting catcalls and whistles all the time. And there are some guys watching on from the sidelines wishing anyone would pay attention to them at all. Who has it worse? I don't know. Neither do you.
2) No, pretty sure even an unattractive woman stuck on the side of the road would have more people stop to help her than a man stuck on the side of the road.
3. Yes, I agree this ties into gender roles. And I agree that there are some double standards here. Those work both ways.
2. You have evidence of this? And I see you ignore the sexual assault aspect, as if it was irrelevant.
3. And such double standards, while harmful to both genders, are typically worse for women. This is not debatable. It's been a fact through history. It's a fact now. It's why the feminism movement is trying to get rid of such double standards. Certainly you can agree with that, yes?
Quote
No, because that's not the reason they have difficulty. But in all honesty, this whole discussion is fairly asinine because it doesn't matter who has more difficulty dating when you're old. That doesn't even compare to the shit we're talking about. Plus I answered below first and I don't want to try and do it again up here. And once again, I'll bring up the whole 'this isn't a competition' and the 'apples to oranges' thing. You're trying to connect things that are completely separate; society's focus on women needing to look young and beautiful, and men having shorter lifespans.Quote from: I said"Older, unattractive men" find dating easier than "older, unattractive women." Primarily because men die younger which leads to not enough men to go around. Are you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a bad thing for women? I mean, yes...I see how it could be inconvenient. But painting men dying as a women's problem seems a bit twisted to me.Quote from: you saidAre you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a good thing for women?!?
This comment is interesting for a couple reasons. First off...no, obviously that wasn't what I was doing. Even in the section you're quoting, I point out that men dying is inconvenient for women. Why would you ask if I'm painting men dying as good for women...when I just said it was inconvenient for them? I question your reading comprehension. In any case, you seem to be missing the point, which was my response to Angle's claim that older women have a more difficult time dating than men (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5526449#msg5526449)...by pointing out that the reason for that is that men die younger than women.
You see, he was attempting to claim older women's dating difficult was a case of "women having it worse than men." To which my response was that the men in that equation are dying young.
Clearly dying is worse than having a difficult time finding a dating partner, right? And that's why I suggest it was twisted. Angle was proposing that "older women have difficulty dating" was worse than men dying young being the cause of older women having difficulty dating.
Do you get it now?
Quote
...I find myself at a loss for words, right now. The sheer ignorance inherent in your question baffles me. I mean...alright, let's start from the beginning.Quoteyou completely ignored the unattractive part, focusing only on the old
Look, I apologize...but have you ever dated? Like, let's ask a very simple question here. Imagine a 20-something ugly guy and a 20-something ugly girl. Who would have an easier time finding a date? Who would have an easier time getting laid? Even if you're still in high school, you should be able to answer this question.
First off, it comes from a very masculine viewpoint, and a stereotypically masculine one at that; that the important thing, the thing you're looking for, is a date, or sex, regardless of whom.
Second, it uses the stereotypes of both men and women to try and reinforce itself; that All Men Want Sex, and that Women Are Chaste. I say this because the correlation you're trying to make is that a guy would have a harder time finding a date because girls are far pickier about who they go out with because they're not as interested in sex. Similarly, you think that a girl would have an easy time getting a guy because they can just lower their standards and a guy can't say no. I'll be honest; I'd have a difficult time saying no, myself. But I'd have just as hard of a time if I was a girl; and while I can't be certain of such in our culture means guys are expected to go out and try and have sex, because Real Men Want Sex, while women are cut off from being able to express desires due to Slut-Shaming. If such boundaries could be removed? It would be so much easier for either!
Third, you're completely ignoring gay men and women, which doesn't really surprise me but I can't really say it's disappointing, either. I expected that. But you still shouldn't have.
Fourth, here's the problem with that; what's the quality of their dates likely to be, eh? Even going off your own stereotyping viewpoints, this is true; if a 20-something ugly guy gets a date, odds are it's either out of pity(which I would consider mostly unlikely), or because the girl likes him for who he is as a person(which means she would probably be normally considered 'out of his league'; oh, but sorry, did I forget about the mythical 'friend zone'? Ugh. ::(). Whereas the girl is likely to get either an ugly guy, someone who nobody else will go out with(probably for a reason, though not always), or someone looking to take advantage of her apparent desperation, or, if she's very lucky, a guy who isn't an asshole and likes her for who she is as a person. And then the lopsided focus our society places on beauty between the sexes adds another dimension to the whole discussion...
Quote
There are a couple responses to this, none of which individually adequately convey either my feelings on the matter, or the actual matter at hand. So I'll list them, I think.Quote from: I saidWe don't need to be continually cherry picking the few things that men still have better and forcing those to be better for women too.
No. I think it's time to stop championing for women and start making life better for everybody.Quote from: you saidsarcasm=on]Right, because rape is anywhere near the level of, *ahem* 'social favoritism'.
...so...you're not disagreeing...you're basically just saying "Your arguments are invalid because rape!"
- And you seem to be saying "Your arguments are invalid because emotions!"
- Are you seriously fucking implying that we shouldn't bother with trying to lower the possibilities of a woman being fucking raped, often without consequence to the rapist, because that's one of 'the few things men still have better'? Are you seriously fucking doing that right now? ...I'm going to refrain from saying more on the matter because I feel I would be unable to finish posting if I didn't, but suffice to say that I think everyone here would have serious questions as to the quality of your character if you were in fact, doing so.
- Women are part of everybody! Surprise! Part of making life better for that part of everybody includes all the stuff feminism is doing! So incredibly astounding! Wow! Who would've thought?
- I am disagreeing. I'm saying that if you honestly believe that these issues are on the same level, you have something wrong with you on an emotional level. Free drinks =/= rape. Difficulty dating =/= spousal abuse. Maybe I'm missing something here? Oh right, the crime victim things. I mean, other than how women are more likely to be a victim of a crime from someone they know, arguably far worse than being a victim of a crime from a stranger. And again, quite a few of those issues are solved by feminism trying to get rid of gender roles and put more women in positions of authority; you're more likely to get robbed if you're more likely to be the manager of a store or otherwise the one in charge, yes.
Quote
See, it's when you say things like these that make me think you think of this as a contest, a war of wills rather than an actual issue that happens in real life. "If that's the best you have". I mean seriously.QuoteThe fuck is wrong with you?QuoteWell, you're wrong. Demonstrably wrong.QuoteWell, your opinion is wrongQuoteYou. Are. Wrong.
Simply chanting "You're wrong!" is not a convincing argument. If that's the best you have, you wasted the two hours you spent on this.
But lest that bring me offtopic, I notice you fail to address many of the points I made in a meaningful way, choosing instead to 'cherry pick' the statements I made surrounding such points. Did you just, actually fail to notice them? Or ignore them in hopes that everyone else would too, if you did?
Quote
I've been rational. I've been emotional, too. They are not mutually exclusive.QuoteYou know, I think I'mma ignore this one for the moment until I can be rational
Well, ok. That's fine. When you're ready to be rational, come back and post.
Only replying to this because I feel I must point out some counterpoints with your apparent views;@LordBucket
Don't women live longer due to their biology? Something to do with the hormones, IIRC.
It's a bunch of things. But the big ones...if you simply go down a list of top cause of death (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm), several of them do relate to biology, yes. For example:
* The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm) and estrogen has beneficial/protective effects for both cholesterol and heart disease (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15950396). That's just biology.
* Deaths due to cancer are about 50% higher for men than women (http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/cancer-death-rate-by-gender/). According to google it looks like basically nobody knows why yet. But cancer kills more men. Could be biological. Could be greater exposure to cancer agents. Could be a variety of factors.
* Stroke (http://www.uhnj.org/stroke/stats.htm) is a complicated one. Men have more strokes, but the majority of stroke deaths are women...but women live longer, and when people die they have to die of something...so it seems plausible that the higher overall stroke death count for women is because they live longer. But looking at the numbers for age and race...I'm hesitant to make the call on this without looking into it more closely. For example, a lot of strokes are related to heart attacks and blood pressure, both of which are bigger issues for men than women...but while white men have strokes roughly half again more often than white women, black women have strokes about half again more often than white men. That's not uncommon. A lot of health problems affect blacks more than whites, but overall I'm hesitant to make any broad claims here without examining it more closely. This might be more of a racial issue than a gender issue.
Then there are hings like the ~80% of murder victims being men, and ~93% of job-related deaths being men. Those sorts of issues probably have very little to do with biology, but the heart attack thing alone probably causes more of the disparity than all of the obviously non-biological issues combined.
Having a longer lifespan is not synonymous with 'dying less often'. Just as many women die as men, probably more because birth rates as a whole tend towards women. It's just that the ones dying tend towards being a bit older when it happens. I think you have somehow gotten these mixed up. I'm not entirely sure in either case because it's just so odd and off to one side of the discussion.
As for race and gender, it may be because of the circumstances surrounding such issues; for example, do black women and white women of the same body type, weight, diet choice, environment, etc. and predisposed with approximately equal family histories of how prone they are to heart disease and the like have different chances of being affected? Or is it because of pervading racism in our culture that forces them into positions where other factors contribute to their likelihood to have a stroke? Just wanted to point this out.
Neither what I, nor what the article, is saying. Nor is that the whole of the portion of the article that I was referring to; I referred to the entire section, not merely a paragraph or two.Quote* More women are accepted into college than men (http://collegestats.org/2013/05/why-men-are-falling-behind-in-higher-ed/)True. However, the correct response to this is to ask why more women are in and graduate from college than men. Skimming the article, I find some interesting tidbits. Or really, some interesting paragraphs. Specifically, the bit that that attempts to explain the disparity. You know, rather than simply glossing over the surface details? Yeah.QuoteAnd that may be one of the things at the heart of the issue of men falling behind in higher education: men simply aren’t applying. What’s more, even when men do enroll, they’re much less likely to finish school and to earn a degree than their female counterparts...
Interest in School
One of the simplest explanations may be that fewer men are interested in going to college than their female classmates.
Some research also suggests that men simply put less value on college than women do, questioning whether it’s necessary or whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Ok, there's no discrimination because men just aren't applying and they're less likely to finish the classes. It's their own fault.
Quote
Let's apply that logic to computer science classes, then.QuoteAnd that may be one of the things at the heart of the issue of women falling behind in computer science: women simply aren’t applying. What’s more, even when women do enroll, they’re much less likely to finish school and to earn a degree than their male counterparts....
Interest in School
One of the simplest explanations may be that fewer women are interested in studying computer science than their male classmates....
Some research also suggests that women simply put less value on computer science than men do, questioning whether it’s necessary or whether the cost is worth the benefit.
See, no discrimination there, right? Same logic, just gender-flipped with "college" changed to "computer science". But, of course, when presented like that we're quick to point out all these mitigating factors which are not the woman's fault.
So, by the same logic as the female college admissions article women just aren't into computer science. No more questions allowed. [/sarcasm]
But is that actually true? I mean, leaving aside college as a whole being significantly different than a sub-category within college courses available to them, and the nested nature meaning a more drastic reversal would thus be required lest the reduced interest in computer science be counterbalanced by the overall higher interest in college. Are those actually factual claims, or are you merely reversing the roles in an attempt to undermine an argument wherein you have no true grounds to do so?
I mean, seriously, the article even provides tips and options for how more men can get into college and make it through. Yet you try to make it seem as though the article was trying to sweep away all issues of the sort?
Blagh; while I was writing LordBucket wrote another huge thing on what seems to be a single subject.
...I think I'll leave it to the person he was responding to to respond to him, for the moment. >_>
Post by: Reelya on August 02, 2014, 01:14:46 am
We measure the bias based on outcomes for the girls, not process. Worse outcome for a female person = automatically discriminatory. It's ideologically suspect to then focus in on details of the process for males to "explain away" why they have worse outcomes, unless we also allow those arguments as valid for both genders.
I mean, seriously, the article even provides tips and options for how more men can get into college and make it through.Pointing out that "someone wants to fix it" doesn't make something that happened to a person non-discriminatory. For any women's problem someone wants to fix those too, so it proves nothing. Giving "tips" doesn't say anything about the underlying problem, and it could easily interpreted as a "blame the victim" mentality, i.e. those "don't get raped" tips everyone hates.
As for "is it true":
Quote
And that may be one of the things at the heart of the issue of women falling behind in computer science: women simply aren’t applying. What’s more, even when women do enroll, they’re much less likely to finish school and to earn a degree than their male counterparts....
Interest in School
One of the simplest explanations may be that fewer women are interested in studying computer science than their male classmates....
Some research also suggests that women simply put less value on computer science than men do, questioning whether it’s necessary or whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Which of the bolded statements is not factual?
1. Women are not applying in the first place, rather than being rejected for placements.
2. female graduation rates are in fact low
3. Women and girls do in fact express less interest in computer science
4. women do in fact put less value on computer science career than men do.
Spoiler: Supporting link (click to show/hide)
Post by: Reelya on August 02, 2014, 01:58:11 am
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio
As of 2014, the global sex ratio at birth is estimated at 107 boys to 100 girls (934 girls per 1000 boys).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
In a study around 2002, the natural sex ratio at birth was estimated to be close to 1.06 males/female.[
The sex ratio at birth is actually more skewed towards males for rich countries that have very good data on birth than for poor countries where you'd expect female infanticide.
There's some evidence from human and animal studies that the mother animal can biologically skew the sex of her offspring based on environmental conditions. High health and good nutrition increases the chance of having boys. This could be seen as a gamble based on available resources: if you have poor resources, having a girl is a better guarantee of grand-children than a weak boy, whereas if you have relatively good resources (compared to the average) a strong boy could father a lot of grand-children.
Post by: Neonivek on August 02, 2014, 02:11:30 am
BTW that "birth rates as a whole tend toward girls" is not true
Your... own evidence suggests otherwise...
Post by: Reelya on August 02, 2014, 02:13:30 am
Quote
As of 2014, the global sex ratio at birth is estimated at 107 boys to 100 girls (934 girls per 1000 boys).
Roplegeek wasn't talking about total living proportions, but ratios at birth. Maybe you didn't follow what I was responding to, which was ...
Quote from: Roplegeek
Just as many women die as men, probably more because birth rates as a whole tend towards women.
Which is just wrong. 107 men die per 100 women. Assuming everyone dies once :P
Before anyone jumps in with "but what does that prove": it doesn't prove anything except the statement that births favor girls is plain wrong.
Post by: GreatJustice on August 02, 2014, 11:43:23 am
I'm sure that all the disabled, 50 year old females will be very appreciative of that privilege while they are starving to death in gutters in a town near you.
There is a pretty big difference between "I'd prefer an equally qualified younger, non-disabled male to do this job because of various potential additional costs that I avoid by doing so" and "I'm only hiring young men, ever, regardless of circumstances". For some jobs, going on leave occasionally isn't a problem, installing extra equipment is worth the cost, training is cheap, etc etc. Other times, it can be slightly annoying for the owner, but they can accept it when the person in question is undoubtedly very qualified for the job and/or accepts a wage slightly lower than what they would otherwise get to account for the difference. Quite a difference from "starving to death in gutters", but I guess you can stretch the definition of "gutter" to mean "slightly smaller house than otherwise".
OR alternatively forced to live in nearly fully subsidized Section 8 housing on SSI disability payments with food stamps (maximum combined total = about $1400 a month where I live) + possibly vocational rehab assistance (could be thousands more in tax dollars in paying for re-training in other fields in an attempt to find people employability), thus not only having moral implications, but also costing taxpayers (including businesses) far more money anyway than it would have cost to accommodate the minor profit losses from discrimination laws that allow them to be productive members of society. Undermining the entire main purpose you state of repealing them.
Ignoring the above, comparing the costs of welfare to the costs of complying with byzantine laws is a bit disingenuous. Welfare is paid for by taxes basically as a lump sum by nearly everyone, while laws on businesses like this are concentrated solely on the owners, and generally hurt a few specific businesses in particular, depending on what they focus on and how large they are. So you see either people on welfare or people maybe getting hired (though anyone concerned about hiring a person in a "protected" group is still going to avoid hiring them, simply because they run an even higher legal risk if they find reason to fire them later), but what you don't notice is businesses going bankrupt because of the costs of compliance, or businesses that simply never come into existence because, unlike in the past where getting started was a matter of having an idea, some starting capital and some people willing to work for you, you now need to comply with myriad regulations as to how to run things, while even a single obstructive bureaucrat can basically shut you down. The lost potential is far more valuable than the money spent on welfare, even pretending that qualified people would be rejected outright for every job.
Post by: GavJ on August 02, 2014, 02:49:52 pm
Quote
"I'd prefer an equally qualified younger, non-disabled male to do this job because of various potential additional costs that I avoid by doing so"
But it isn't that. It's definitely worse than that. It's "I'll take a younger, non-disabled male over the other candidate, even if the male is up to 65% more incompetent" or whatever amount.
Only when incompetency = the same handicap as the actual handicaps do they become equally considered.
Quote
and/or accepts a wage slightly lower than what they would otherwise getgreat solution...except when there is a minimum wage in your country. McDonald's doesn't offer lower wages if you aren't profitable below $8 or whatever. Because they can't. They just don't hire you, period. Nobody does, because that is an absolute cutoff, there's nothing else available ANYWHERE if your labor is not worth minimum wage.
i.e. one of the following must happen to such people:
1) Gutter
2) Welfare
3) Laws that force companies to not discriminate
OR the same thing happens if the cost of living in your area is too high to make ends meet at lower than standard or minimum wages, even if there weren't a law. "A slightly smaller house" doesn't work indefinitely. Try it out yourself. Go type in "Seattle, WA" let's say, into google, and find me a house for $30,000, or an apartment for $100 a month. If they do exist, which I doubt, they're probably not appreciably different than living in the gutter in terms of quality. If they don't exist, then guess what? You're homeless, even if somebody offers you such a job. And you'll probably get fired soon anyway for smelling bad or getting sick too often due to being homeless.
Quote
but I guess you can stretch the definition of "gutter" to mean "slightly smaller house than otherwise".Pro tip, by the way, if you don't want to look like a complete and utter ass, you should really not talk about relative scale of HOME OWNERSHIP in the context of discussing the fate of the terribly poor.
Quote
Welfare is paid for by taxes basically as a lump sum by nearly everyone, while laws on businesses like this are concentrated solely on the owners, and generally hurt a few specific businesses in particular,Citation? This is not common sense to me.
Nearly everyone who is not on welfare is part of a business, most of which are large enough to have greater than zero instances of having to make such hires. Therefore it seems quite reasonable to directly compare. Everybody in the nation's wages virtually are directly affected by companies making less money, and nearly all businesses should have a similar share of such cases. Just like everybody in the nation pays taxes.
Pointing out that business X might not have EXACTLY the same burden as business Y is irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate that the differences tend to be larger than the differences between how much taxes person X pays versus person Y, which differs quite a lot as well.
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 02, 2014, 08:33:29 pm
You're missing the point, which is that if you dismiss the idea that there's inherent anti-male bias in the gender gap in college admission because "reasons" you also have to dismiss the idea that there's inherent anti-female bias in the gender gap in computer science admission because "virtually identical reasons".
We measure the bias based on outcomes for the girls, not process. Worse outcome for a female person = automatically discriminatory. It's ideologically suspect to then focus in on details of the process for males to "explain away" why they have worse outcomes, unless we also allow those arguments as valid for both genders.I mean, seriously, the article even provides tips and options for how more men can get into college and make it through.Pointing out that "someone wants to fix it" doesn't make something that happened to a person non-discriminatory. For any women's problem someone wants to fix those too, so it proves nothing. Giving "tips" doesn't say anything about the underlying problem, and it could easily interpreted as a "blame the victim" mentality, i.e. those "don't get raped" tips everyone hates.
As for "is it true":QuoteAnd that may be one of the things at the heart of the issue of women falling behind in computer science: women simply aren’t applying. What’s more, even when women do enroll, they’re much less likely to finish school and to earn a degree than their male counterparts....
Interest in School
One of the simplest explanations may be that fewer women are interested in studying computer science than their male classmates....
Some research also suggests that women simply put less value on computer science than men do, questioning whether it’s necessary or whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Which of the bolded statements is not factual?
1. Women are not applying in the first place, rather than being rejected for placements.
2. female graduation rates are in fact low
3. Women and girls do in fact express less interest in computer science
4. women do in fact put less value on computer science career than men do.Spoiler: Supporting link (click to show/hide)
Reelya, I'm kinda confused as to your point with this.
I never said anything about computer science. That was never one of my points. I mean, I honestly feel that getting people interested in a single subject of study is a different task than getting them interested in college as a whole, but I really don't care about how girls feel about computer science. It sounds harsh, but I mean. There's so many other things to worry about. So I really don't get why you're hacking on this. I never claimed you couldn't explain it for the same reasons. I think maybe it's something that might need to be changed at some point in the future, just like I feel more people should go to college, period(it's getting really damned expensive is the problem, as far as I'm aware). But, I just don't get why you're so focused on this.
Also, there's a fairly significant difference between 'didn't show interest in course or felt it was too difficult' and 'got raped in an alleyway'. >_>
Apologies for getting male to female birth ratio wrong. *shrug* I figured that was the reason for different percentages in the population, but whatever. I fail to see how it makes too much of a difference in the end. It feels like semantics, in all honesty.
Also, my question to you is this: Do you believe that colleges do, then, show unfair bias towards women in admitting applicants? And on what grounds? And what should we do about it? I mean, this isn't really the focus for me, but...
Also, for the whole 'lower lifespan' thing, it's maybe unrelated, but considering the advances in science, and I personally am making it my life's goal to achieve functional immortality for everyone, that could well be solved in the next 30+ years or so. Hard to put a hard number on something like that.
Post by: LordBucket on August 02, 2014, 09:16:35 pm
Reelya, I'm kinda confused as to your point with this.
I never said anything about computer science.
Reelya is pointing out the double standard.
Here, I'll do the same:
You understand why I ask? Even from a purely logical viewpoint? And why it isn't usually considered a good thing?LordBucket, are you a member of the MRA? Because whether or not you are, the type of things you're saying and claiming lead me to believe you're one.
No. Even my guess as to what it stood for wasn't correct. Than you google for the correction. Though I did guess two of the three letters right.
So...you appear to think that:
Women's rights activist = good
Men's rights activist = bad
See, all we do is change the gender and suddenly everything is different to you. You have a very strong anti-male prejudice, and you seem to not even be aware of it. This is why Reelya is pointing out the double standard with the computer science example and you're not even getting it.
What would you do if a woman bought you a free drink? Would you instantly start thinking of a way to get into
her pants? How many people do you know who would instantly start trying to think of a way to get into her pants?
...because...let me guess: wanting to have sex with a woman who buys me a drink is somehow a bad thing? Why?
Are men just fundamentally evil or something? Wanting a woman automatically makes me a villain?
That kind of seems to be where you're going with a lot of things you say.
Quote
there's a fairly significant difference between 'didn't show interest in course
or felt it was too difficult' and 'got raped in an alleyway'
If "because rape!" is your answer to everything, that makes meaningful conservation difficult. Go through the past couple pages and do word searches for rape. You're using it as a response to discussions of college admissions, discussion of social favoritism, you're saying it's ok for society to think it's better for men to be hurt than women because women can be raped...go back a another thread page or two and you were responding to discussion of waitressing, coal mines and dating with "but rape!"
You seem really fixated on this.
Post by: GreatJustice on August 02, 2014, 09:30:45 pm
Quote
great solution...except when there is a minimum wage in your country. McDonald's doesn't offer lower wages if you aren't profitable below $8 or whatever. Because they can't. They just don't hire you, period. Nobody does, because that is an absolute cutoff, there's nothing else available ANYWHERE if your labor is not worth minimum wage.
i.e. one of the following must happen to such people:
1) Gutter
2) Welfare
3) Laws that force companies to not discriminate
OR the same thing happens if the cost of living in your area is too high to make ends meet at lower than standard or minimum wages, even if there weren't a law. "A slightly smaller house" doesn't work indefinitely. Try it out yourself. Go type in "Seattle, WA" let's say, into google, and find me a house for $30,000, or an apartment for $100 a month. If they do exist, which I doubt, they're probably not appreciably different than living in the gutter in terms of quality. If they don't exist, then guess what? You're homeless, even if somebody offers you such a job. And you'll probably get fired soon anyway for smelling bad or getting sick too often due to being homeless.
Okay, I think we've just argued right past each other, so I'm going to clarify something.
From the start, I was making my arguments relating to maternity leave largely with respect to the high paying STEM jobs that women seem to be less likely to take, not minimum wage jobs, because they're entirely different animals. For example, if a software company has 4 programmers and one suddenly leaves while in the middle of a major project, not only is that project unlikely to be completed but the remaining programmers will potentially have a hard time maintaining existing code, never mind training up someone new to use the systems in place. Thus, there is a very good reason to avoid anyone that seems to be more likely to take leave (the flipside being that the workers that actually have jobs likely get great perks and pay). Meanwhile, if I'm Wal Mart or a similar company, someone taking maternity leave is a minor annoyance at worst, and the costs of training up a substitute when necessary are very low.
Actually, I'd say women generally have an easier time getting entry level, low skill jobs, though I'll have to get a bit anecdotal. Where I live, it's fairly common knowledge that girls looking for part time work (or full time work, for that matter) will have a much easier time getting most non-farmwork jobs, and several jobs are well known to be basically female exclusive. Why? Because, generally speaking, people prefer women serving their coffee, taking their order, delivering their flowers, helping their parents at the retirement home or filling up their gas tank. This generally extends to other "protected" groups as well. These jobs have entirely different incentives and logic to their hiring, and the issues we've spent time going over don't really apply in the same way. But the previous discussion wasn't about whether women had an easier time getting a job so much as it was about whether women had an easier time getting a high paying STEM job and about the gender wage gap, which are very different things.
Oh, and while this is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, I find it a bit weird when people complain about costs of living or not enough opportunities where they live when they're perfectly capable of moving to an area with more opportunities or a lower cost of living. I understand that moving is easier for some, but then I worked with several Mexicans that had jack shit in terms of money and moved right through a place filled with people that often hated them, past people actively trying to prevent them from moving, into a country where they knew neither the language nor culture, yet they somehow managed to make the best of things. There are very few circumstances in which moving away isn't a viable option.
Quote
Citation? This is not common sense to me.
Nearly everyone who is not on welfare is part of a business, most of which are large enough to have greater than zero instances of having to make such hires. Therefore it seems quite reasonable to directly compare. Everybody in the nation's wages virtually are directly affected by companies making less money, and nearly all businesses should have a similar share of such cases. Just like everybody in the nation pays taxes.
Pointing out that business X might not have EXACTLY the same burden as business Y is irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate that the differences tend to be larger than the differences between how much taxes person X pays versus person Y, which differs quite a lot as well.
Went over this above. A business with a small, specialized workforce is adversely affected by hiring controls/restrictions significantly more than one with a very large, untrained workforce for very obvious reasons. "Business" is not nearly as homogenized as you make it out to be.
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 02, 2014, 10:27:28 pm
No, the MRA is bad. Look up the shit they do. Seriously.Reelya, I'm kinda confused as to your point with this.
I never said anything about computer science.
Reelya is pointing out the double standard.
Here, I'll do the same:You understand why I ask? Even from a purely logical viewpoint? And why it isn't usually considered a good thing?LordBucket, are you a member of the MRA? Because whether or not you are, the type of things you're saying and claiming lead me to believe you're one.
No. Even my guess as to what it stood for wasn't correct. Than you google for the correction. Though I did guess two of the three letters right.
So...you appear to think that:
Women's rights activist = good
Men's rights activist = bad
See, all we do is change the gender and suddenly everything is different to you. You have a very strong anti-male prejudice, and you seem to not even be aware of it. This is why Reelya is pointing out the double standard with the computer science example and you're not even getting it.
And yes, men's rights activists tend to be ridiculous because men have it better off than women and it comes across, in almost all cases, as wanting to focus on their issues and ignore women's, as if they didn't matter. All of them? No. But there's a reason masculism isn't a movement. Women do not have it 'better off' than men. Feminism is a movement that is beneficial for equality. I've given my reasons for this multiple times, and you have failed to even acknowledge them, multiple times. It's an underhanded tactic and makes me realize this argument is pointless, because you aren't here to try and gain a greater knowledge of the subject, or try to share your knowledge with others. You're here to cause conflict, and you're here to disrupt conversation that could be put to otherwise more creative use. You will never change your opinion, however untrue it is, because you don't want to learn or change. You want to, to be blunt, troll people. And you've been succeeding. It makes me remember why your forum avatar was Trollestia for so long(at least I think that was you...might be getting mixed up). And in all honesty? I'm sick of it. I'm sick of you. Because you're spewing bullshit and refusing to clean it up when people point it out to you, in favor of trying to show that they pointed out the bullshit in the wrong way. You're arguing to win, not to enlighten. Just like GWG.
Quote
Wanting to have sex with someone is not fundamentally evil. If you begin effectively plotting to do so or make it the prime focus of your interaction with someone, it's objectifying them. I dislike using the word, but basically, you're seeing them as a tool, something to be used for your sexual satisfaction, rather than a person who might just think you're a cool dude and want to hang out.What would you do if a woman bought you a free drink? Would you instantly start thinking of a way to get into
her pants? How many people do you know who would instantly start trying to think of a way to get into her pants?
...because...let me guess: wanting to have sex with a woman who buys me a drink is somehow a bad thing? Why?
Are men just fundamentally evil or something? Wanting a woman automatically makes me a villain?
That kind of seems to be where you're going with a lot of things you say.
Quote
Quotethere's a fairly significant difference between 'didn't show interest in course
or felt it was too difficult' and 'got raped in an alleyway'
If "because rape!" is your answer to everything, that makes meaningful conservation difficult. Go through the past couple pages and do word searches for rape. You're using it as a response to discussions of college admissions, discussion of social favoritism, you're saying it's ok for society to think it's better for men to be hurt than women because women can be raped...go back a another thread page or two and you were responding to discussion of waitressing, coal mines and dating with "but rape!"
You seem really fixated on this.
That was in response to Reelya's reference to rape, actually.
Quote
Pointing out that "someone wants to fix it" doesn't make something that happened to a person non-discriminatory. For any women's problem someone wants to fix those too, so it proves nothing. Giving "tips" doesn't say anything about the underlying problem, and it could easily interpreted as a "blame the victim" mentality, i.e. those "don't get raped" tips everyone hates.
It wouldn't have come up otherwise. I was pointing out that tips to help someone make it through a class and 'tips' on how to avoid getting raped aren't quite the same.
Congratulations, LordBucket, you have succeeded in being a troll. I'm done responding to your posts pertaining to this subject, as they are neither useful nor do they make for good debate anymore; you appear to be ignoring any valid points made by those who disagree with you, so I cannot believe you are trying to have a rational debate. If you manage to convince me otherwise, I might reconsider, but from all I can see, the following is the case:
You're wrong.
You know you're wrong.
You know you've been shown to be wrong.
You refuse to acknowledge this, in favor of continuing the argument and (apparently) ignoring what people have shown.
You choose instead to try and find little details you can niggle at, to try and pry at the infrastructure of the arguments, as though it was the entirety of the argument.
So, I think I'm done with you. You aren't worth it. You're a troll, and while I have terrible problems with feeding them, I'm done feeding you.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 02, 2014, 10:42:45 pm
No, feminists are bad. Look up the shit they do. Seriously.
Post by: Samarkand on August 02, 2014, 10:53:11 pm
I'm confused where Rolepgeed said this. Regardless, men in relationships with feminists are happier (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm). So there's that. Really, it's good for men to be on good terms with feminists, regardless of this discussion about their viewpoints.No, feminists are bad. Look up the shit they do. Seriously.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 02, 2014, 11:04:35 pm
Spoiler: Relevant Stuff (click to show/hide)
I brought this up before, that campaigning for the betterment of one gender's situation is not campaigning for equality.
Rolepgeek's argument is that no effort to improve the situation of men will further equality, but the same effort - directed at women - will.
He also says that there is a reason that "masculinity" isn't a movement, but fails to state what that reason is.
Edit: I just read the article you linked to. It's interesting, but clicking on the link to see the sources results in a redirect to another website. So there's that.
Post by: Samarkand on August 02, 2014, 11:07:13 pm
His actual quote was talking about men's rights activists, in response to LordBucket:Ah. Well, the MRA aside, feminists are good partners, in every sense of the word.It's kind of silly, really. In the same breath he claims that the MRA is bad, not all of them are bad (?), and that only feminism is beneficial for equality.Spoiler: Relevant Stuff (click to show/hide)
I brought this up before, that campaigning for the betterment of one gender's situation is not campaigning for equality.
Rolepgeek's argument is that no effort to improve the situation of men will further equality, but the same effort - directed at women - will.
He also says that there is a reason that "masculinity" isn't a movement, but fails to state what that reason is.
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 02, 2014, 11:29:45 pm
His actual quote was talking about men's rights activists, in response to LordBucket:It's kind of silly, really. In the same breath he claims that the MRA is bad, not all of them are bad (?), and that only feminism is beneficial for equality.Spoiler: Relevant Stuff (click to show/hide)
I brought this up before, that campaigning for the betterment of one gender's situation is not campaigning for equality.
Rolepgeek's argument is that no effort to improve the situation of men will further equality, but the same effort - directed at women - will.
He also says that there is a reason that "masculinity" isn't a movement, but fails to state what that reason is.
Edit: I just read the article you linked to. It's interesting, but clicking on the link to see the sources results in a redirect to another website. So there's that.
I was referring to the MRA in particular. People who are advocates for equality coming at it from an angle of getting rid of gender roles and the like with a focus on men are not the MRA. Did you look them up? Or making assumptions?
Also, where did I say only feminism is beneficial? Seriously? I said it was, because LordBucket claimed it wasn't.
Also, apologies, I thought the reason masculinism wasn't a movement was for exceedingly obvious reasons given context and history. >.>
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 02, 2014, 11:43:06 pm
I was referring to the MRA in particular. People who are advocates for equality coming at it from an angle of getting rid of gender roles and the like with a focus on men are not the MRA. Did you look them up? Or making assumptions?I'm using the acronym MRA to refer to men's rights activists in general, rather than any specific organisation of them. My apologies for the confusion. I guess I'll just have to type out "men's rights activists" any time I want to refer to those people.
Also, where did I say only feminism is beneficial? Seriously? I said it was, because LordBucket claimed it wasn't.You say that advocating women's rights is beneficial for equality, but advocating those of men is not. This is a double standard and I'm calling you out on it.
Also, apologies, I thought the reason masculinism wasn't a movement was for exceedingly obvious reasons given context and history. >.>That's fair enough. I was being unnecessarily nitpicky.
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 03, 2014, 12:08:17 am
Meanwhile, things like domestic abuse, which disproportionately affects women? It's a people problem too in that men also suffer, but it's one that's been going on for so many years, engrained into people's patterns of thought, into cultures. Murder is not ingrained into culture in that way. It doesn't happen anywhere near as often as something like domestic violence. And it's a case of one gender effectively terrorizing the other, while most murderers are male, not just most murder victims.
Female CEOs getting paid 40% more than their male associates is not a 'problem' in any real way other than the ludicrous amounts all CEOs get paid is a problem(certainly not when it's 16/500 CEOs being women...::)). On The Job Deaths are not perpetrated by women. It's not a gendered issue in the same way rape or domestic violence are(and I use those because they are the most clear-cut examples, but there's many others).
So, when you can come to me and say that the problems men face are inherently gender dependent, and affect them and society as a whole as much as the problems women face do? Then I can believe men's rights advocates can be trusted to do a good job and aren't just people trying to shift the focus back onto them, people trying to make the conversation about what they want, what they 'need'. And to be fair, there's people who manage to advocate these rights without being assholes about it. They find important gendered issues that affect men adversely. A lot of these stem from the same sources the ones that affect women do. But if you're fighting the same causes as feminism, advocating the same things in order to try and reach equality, why try and make a whole new movement? Just join the one that's already there. You'll get less flak, for one thing. >_>
I feel like this post has been more productive in trying to help people understand than all my replies to LordBucket combined. But maybe that's just because I'm not intensely annoyed and frustrated right now like I was. You, at least, InsanityIncarnate, are trying to be reasonable, and that helps greatly.
Post by: Reelya on August 03, 2014, 12:16:08 am
But if you're fighting the same causes as feminism, advocating the same things in order to try and reach equality, why try and make a whole new movement? Just join the one that's already there.
Have you seen the outright hostility people face bringing up any men's issue on a feminist site? Or even men's point of view. Well, you're allowed to have your men's point of view as long as it's affirming the woman's point of view. If not, prepare for flaming.
While there's still outright hostility on women's sites to a man's mere viewpoint (mansplaining, privilege etc), even when you're not bringing up a separate issue for men, then it's really silly to say that it's a movement that has 100% of the population covered, as opposed to 50%.
It's like having a white anti-racism site which doesn't allow black people to have a voice, but still claims to have blacks and whites equally covered. Oh, but we can have token blacks speaking, but if they contradict some group ideology we'll slam them for "blacksplaining".
Post by: alexandertnt on August 03, 2014, 12:25:44 am
Post by: Angle on August 03, 2014, 12:28:39 am
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 03, 2014, 12:35:50 am
But if you're fighting the same causes as feminism, advocating the same things in order to try and reach equality, why try and make a whole new movement? Just join the one that's already there.
Have you seen the outright hostility people face bringing up any men's issue on a feminist site? Or even men's point of view. Well, you're allowed to have your men's point of view as long as it's affirming the woman's point of view. If not, prepare for flaming.
While there's still outright hostility on women's sites to a man's mere viewpoint (mansplaining, privilege etc), even when you're not bringing up a separate issue for men, then it's really silly to say that it's a movement that has 100% of the population covered, as opposed to 50%.
It's like having a white anti-racism site which doesn't allow black people to have a voice, but still claims to have blacks and whites equally covered. Oh, but we can have token blacks speaking, but if they contradict some group ideology we'll slam them for "blacksplaining".
Allow me to demonstrate to you why that's wrong.
First, let's start with the fact that men aren't oppressed. Certainly not in the systematic manner that people of color are. So comparing white people to women, and black people to men? Bad choice.
Second off, do you believe in 'racism against whites'? Allow me to direct you to this article (http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/racist-against-white-people/). Please read it.
Thirdly, in all honesty? They have women's interests, at the moment, because for a lot of men, the current system works just fine. They benefit from the oppression of the opposite sex, often because they're the ones doing the oppressing. The issue is how you present your viewpoint. If you say 'well you're all wrong and actually it's like this and I'm the one being oppressed so stop it', no shit you'll get hostility. They hear that shit all the time and it gets tiring. How do you feel when rich people complain about taxes, when they can afford them so easily, and can effectively get out of taxes completely above a certain income? When you're the rabbit, hearing the wolf complain about a toothache from crunching the bones of your buddy too hard doesn't inspire much sympathy.
Fourth, what men's issues are you referring to? Are they inherently gendered issues, or are they issues caused by men, and felt by men? Because if they are, you're focusing the conversation back on yourself in a discussion regarding gender, rather than participating in the current discussion.
Post by: Lyeos on August 03, 2014, 12:41:59 am
Similar to a woman-led group for "equality", that refuses to let men speak on their opinions or issues if they vary from said group's ideology.
Really, it's pretty obvious to see the point people are trying to make...
You just... Seem like you don't want to.
Edit: I may be missing something here, and he might, in fact, be speaking of a group solely against racism against white people, but it would be one under the guise of removing racism against all whilst not dealing with anything from another side. There are parallels, whether you like them or not.
Doubleedit: I actually do agree with basically what II said in the post below this one, though. Do we >need< a men's rights movement? No. But we also don't >need< a women's rights movement in the Western World.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 03, 2014, 12:48:30 am
Rolepgeek, I see where you're coming from. And for the most part, I agree with you. Personally, I think activism for men's rights is silly, because it's not necessary.
I do not believe that activism for women's rights in the Western world is beneficial to gender equality. I do not believe that activism for women's rights in the Western world is necessary.
Women have the same (in some cases, better) legal rights as men. If anything, what needs to happen is a cultural shift, where people in general expect women to be able to perform as competently as men in a given position. Barring physical differences, like weight-lifting or whatever.
This kind of cultural shift isn't going to happen overnight, but rather several generations. Marching up and down the streets chanting "WOMEN ARE PEOPLE TOO" isn't going to speed it up.
Incidentally, this shift started decades ago. We're likely nearing the end of it.
Rape and murder fall into a category called "crime", and it's not going to be stopped by women being treated in the same manner as men. Crime rates are lowered by better policing, whatever form that may take.
Domestic abuse is not a "woman" issue. It does affect women. It also affects children, and in exceptionally rare cases, men. Activism for generic women's rights is not going to lower rates of domestic abuse. (Or, if it does, it will be indirect.)
Rates of domestic abuse are lowered by harsher penalties and encouraging those who are in an abusive relationship to speak out, not by victimising half the population.
Post by: alexandertnt on August 03, 2014, 12:59:55 am
MRA's are not activists for mens issues, they are people who use potentially legitimate male issues and their name to cower behind when people rightfully accuse them of misogyny. MRA's are not the male equivelant of feminism.
Rates of domestic abuse are lowered by harsher penalties and encouraging those who are in an abusive relationship to speak out, not by victimising half the population.
Part of the problem here is the exact opposite sometimes happens. Women are sometimes blaimed for the abuse they recieve, not victimised.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 03, 2014, 01:04:14 am
I wasn't aware that ever happened. Anyone who does that is an arsehole of the highest degree.Rates of domestic abuse are lowered by harsher penalties and encouraging those who are in an abusive relationship to speak out, not by victimising half the population.Part of the problem here is the exact opposite sometimes happens. Women are sometimes blamed for the abuse they receive, not victimised.
Post by: Angle on August 03, 2014, 01:25:38 am
Post by: Reelya on August 03, 2014, 01:29:34 am
Quote from: Roplegeek
Are they inherently gendered issues, or are they issues caused by men, and felt by men?
So, you're saying something only counts as a gender-issue (for men) if you can show that it's directly caused by the other gender? I think that's a double-standard as we would never apply that to dismiss women's issues. Anti-girl bias in the classroom? Doesn't exist because the teacher is most likely a woman! Gender stereotyping your daughter by a single mother? it's not a "gendered" issue because a woman did it!
I think it's clear that this argument wouldn't fly for even a second if we were talking about girls. Gender roles are maintained by both genders, for both genders, and bringing in "but men did it to themselves" isn't a valid argument, nor is "but women did it to themselves".
Let's look at the pay gap for single people. Ones without kids. (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.time.com%2Ftime%2Fbusiness%2Farticle%2F0%2C8599%2C2015274%2C00.html&ei=hdTdU972HcHt8AWFi4H4Cg&usg=AFQjCNHGsBepM4QxeEmX-GqwUjQ0RGpqAA&sig2=3BKvoFJcNZWMzboMz8CZfA&bvm=bv.72197243,d.dGc)
Quote
in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group.
Ah, but we can say "that's not discriminatory, because more girls go to college, thus increasing their earning capacity! It's all down to personal decisions, so it's not discriminatory!". Well, would it ever fly the other way around: is there any time that men earning more would be accepted as "non-discriminatory" because he made different decisions to a woman? i.e. more men choosing college majors that lead to high-paying jobs? If "going to college" is an equal and fair decision, isn't choosing a major also "equal and fair" or are things only "equal and fair" when they favor a particular side, and for everything which falls the other way it's "unfair"?
Post by: LordBucket on August 03, 2014, 01:39:10 am
I think we need to clear up this idea that MRA = Activists for mens issues.
MRA's are not activists for mens issues, they are people who use potentially legitimate male issues and their name to cower behind when people rightfully accuse them of misogyny. MRA's are not the male equivelant of feminism.
I'd never heard of them until rolepgeek mentioned them. Taking a look...it seems that the wikipedia page with their name contains a redirect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_activism) to a general men's movement page, the website by the name mensrightsactivism.com (http://mensrightsactivism.com) appears to be not be owned by men's activists...but rather by people bashing them...and a google search for "men's rights activists (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=men's+rights+activists) gives me a bunch of results mostly saying that people who champion for men's rights are bad rather than any actual activism or people who say that they do.
Is this even a thing, or is this just some sort of preemptive anti-anti-feminist thing to make men who oppose feminism look bad?
If I do a search for stormfront, I find stormfront. If I look for nambla, I find nambla. Looking for mra, I'm not even finding any groups who claim to go by that name. Only sites saying that the people who do are dumb.
Post by: Lyeos on August 03, 2014, 01:41:20 am
/me shrugs.
Edit: Granted, all of this is from things feminists have said. Sooo.... Yeah.
How trustworthy this is is questionable.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 01:42:01 am
I think we need to clear up this idea that MRA = Activists for mens issues.
MRA's are not activists for mens issues, they are people who use potentially legitimate male issues and their name to cower behind when people rightfully accuse them of misogyny. MRA's are not the male equivelant of feminism.
I'd never heard of them until rolepgeek mentioned them. Taking a look...it seems that the wikipedia page with their name contains a redirect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_activism) to a general men's movement page, the website by the name mensrightsactivism.com (http://mensrightsactivism.com) appears to be not be owned by men's activists...but rather by people bashing them...and a google search for "men's rights activists (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=men's+rights+activists) gives me a bunch of results mostly saying that people who champion for men's rights are bad rather than any actual activism or people who say that they do.
Is this even a thing, or is this just some sort of preemptive anti-anti-feminist thing to make men who oppose feminism look bad?
If I do a search for stormfront, I find stormfront. If I look for nambla, I find nambla. Looking for mra, I'm not even finding any groups who claim to go by that name. Only sites saying that the people who do are dumb.
This one (http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/) took me approximately 1 minute. More time because the 'new reply has been posted' thing kicked my post down the stairs.
Post by: Reelya on August 03, 2014, 01:50:31 am
Quote
I just read the English translation of a Norwegian news article wherein a man was fined 8,500 Kroner ($1,500) because he was raped. While he was passed out in public, two women performed oral sex on him. Four eyewitnesses were ignored.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fmeninger%2Fdebatt%2FVoldtatte-menn-risikerer-boter-og-latterliggjoring-7643980.html&edit-text=
Rape victims should not be punished for their perpetrators crimes. Please help this victim and all other boys and men who are victims of sexual assault and domestic violence in Norway to obtain equal treatment under the law.
That does sound like a legal issue there.
The startling facts on female sexual aggression (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/09/04/the-startling-facts-on-female-sexual-aggression/).
It turns out, women can be just as aggressive with sexual advances as men.
Quote
Aizeman & Kelley, 1988 – 14% of men (and 29% of women) reported they had been forced to have intercourse against their will
Anderson 1998 – Survey of 461 women (general population) 43% secured sexual acts by verbal coercion; 36.5% by getting a man intoxicated; threat of force – 27.8%, use of force – 20%; By threatening a man with a weapon – 8.9%.
Anderson, 1999 – 43% of college women admitted to using verbal or physical pressure to obtain sex
Anderson and Aymami (1993) 28.5% of women reported the use of verbal coercion, 14.7% had coerced a man into sexual activity by getting him intoxicated and 7.1% had threatened or used physical force.
Fiebert & Tucci (1998) – 70% of male college students reported experiencing some type of harassment, pressuring, or coercion by a female
Hannon, Kunetz, Van Laar, & Williams (1996) – 10% of surveyed male college students reported experiencing a completed sexual assault perpetrated by a female intimate partner
Now, this is a legitimate question / issue here, because the tendency is to dismiss these data or question the methodology of these surveys, in a way that would be seen as extremely sexist if it was applied to men-vs-women data.
Post by: LordBucket on August 03, 2014, 01:52:49 am
p://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/]This one[/url] took me approximately 1 minute.
...ok, but if I understand correctly people are apparently distinguising "men's rights activists" as some specific group separate and distinct from men's movements in general. Your link is a generic reddit page, and if I do text search on it the only instance of the word "activist" at all are links to totally other reddit pages.
Also, looking over the content of the page itself...articles about women speaking out against feminism...an article about a man in India who was apparently fined for public indecency because two women performed sex acts on him while he was unconscious from having drunk too much...an article about fake pregnancy/dna tests being sold online to fraudulently trick men into paying child support for children that aren't theirs...
These seem like legitimate complaints to me. I don't get the impression that these are the people being alluded to.
Or are you simply assuming that anything about men's rights is automatically in the wrong?
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 02:07:40 am
p://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/]This one[/url] took me approximately 1 minute.
...ok, but if I understand correctly people are apparently distinguising "men's rights activists" as some specific group separate and distinct from men's movements in general. Your link is a generic reddit page, and if I do text search on it the only instance of the word "activist" at all are links to totally other reddit pages.
Also, looking over the content of the page itself...articles about women speaking out against feminism...an article about a man in India who was apparently fined for public indecency because two women performed sex acts on him while he was unconscious from having drunk too much...an article about fake pregnancy/dna tests being sold online to fraudulently trick men into paying child support for children that aren't theirs...
These seem like legitimate complaints to me. I don't get the impression that these are the people being alluded to.
Or are you simply assuming that anything about men's rights is automatically in the wrong?
Here (http://www.avoiceformen.com/), if you wanted a specific group. Currently classified as a 'hate group' by some such government organisation in America, but fairly mainstream "Men's Rights" stuff.
Post by: alexandertnt on August 03, 2014, 02:17:44 am
Or are you simply assuming that anything about men's rights is automatically in the wrong?
I speicifically went out of my way to differentiate between "groups dealing with mens issues" and "MRA's".
Group dealing with men's issues (http://goodmenproject.com/), MRA's (http://www.avoiceformen.com/)
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 02:25:31 am
Post by: alexandertnt on August 03, 2014, 02:31:02 am
I would also like to point out that the western workd (i.e. arguably more feminist-y than the rest of the world) are more likely to criminalize such behaviour.
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 02:31:40 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 03, 2014, 02:37:16 am
http://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-jensen-iii/2014/08/19-men-share-stories-of-being-raped-by-a-woman-nsfw/For the sake of the argument I hope those are real.
For the sake of the people involved I really, really, hope they're false.
Post by: alexandertnt on August 03, 2014, 02:39:09 am
Post by: Tiruin on August 03, 2014, 02:44:12 am
...Which is pretty much a fact.
*looks at the posters*
And...[continuation, in regard to the thread is]?
Post by: LordBucket on August 03, 2014, 02:46:28 am
p://www.avoiceformen.com/]Here[/url], if you wanted a specific group. Currently classified as a 'hate group' by some such government organisation in America, but fairly mainstream "Men's Rights" stuff.
Or are you simply assuming that anything about men's rights is automatically in the wrong?
I speicifically went out of my way to differentiate between "groups dealing with mens issues" and "MRA's".
Group dealing with men's issues (http://goodmenproject.com/), MRA's (http://www.avoiceformen.com/)
...ok, glancing through their rticles I'm seeing
* An article about how various groups who are trying to encourage men and women to work together on parenting are working together.
* An article about Ukranians protesting forced conscription
* Misc generic site stuff, new moderators, now publishing in Farsi
* Article reporting that there was women's protest against sexual harrassment at comicon
* An article advising men to not be desperate when it comes to women
...yeah, not seeing it. Maybe if I scroll down I'll find the crazy.
* Link to a no longer available youtube video in which Whoopi Goldberg basically said women shouldn't hit men
* Yet more articles from women saying that the feminist movement has gone too far
...oh, here we go. Here's something meaty: "How some feminist shaming tactics discredit feminist theory." Ok, let me read this.
Article summary: "feminists say misogyny runs deep in our culture. Yet you can buy shirts that say 'I hate men' 'men are pigs' etc because that's a thing. Apparently there's a feminist group that goes by the name Society for Cutting up Men (http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm). Why are these things socially acceptable? And yet when that question is asked, and the hypocrisy is pointed out, feminists say that pointing it out only means you're a mysogynist and use that to shut people up from pointing out the double standard."
It goes on, but that's the basic jist of it.
Sorry guys. I'm not seeing it. You guys gave this site as an example of an unreasonable extremist group. Where's the crazy?
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 02:58:18 am
Where's the crazy?
the website by the name mensrightsactivism.com (http://mensrightsactivism.com)
From your own links (http://mensrightsactivism.com/post/90028947303/a-voice-for-men-a-mens-rights-site-that-is-most). Cheers.
Post by: LordBucket on August 03, 2014, 03:20:49 am
From your own links (http://mensrightsactivism.com/post/90028947303/a-voice-for-men-a-mens-rights-site-that-is-most). Cheers.
Ok, so let's look at the crazy:
"In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch month. I'd like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them."
Huh. Ok. If a woman physically abuses you, physically abuse her back. Not exactly cuddly, and I suspect he might be enjoying it too much...but he's basically saying "if she hits you, hit back harder." Still, if we want to call that crazy...ok.
What else?
"The worst aspect of dating from the perspective of many men is how dating can feel to a man like robbery by social custom. Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male variant of date rape."
Meh, ok...I think he's overstating it. Comparing it to rape isn't reasonable, but the thing he's talking about is a real phenomeon.
Go ahead and read the rest on your own. Note that there are a couple women in there too.
Meanwhile, on the crazy side of feminism:
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/andrea-dworkin-and-phenomenon-of.html
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.""
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so."
"...the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."
"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEJfN-jiS4
1:10
"...our movement is about more than just words. It's about actions. About making a difference and redefining the world. It's a proposed global initiative for population reduction that will in a few decades lead to a worldwide male population of roughly 1-10% for the purpose of peace and prosperity around the world.
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87815
"It is my belief (which I consider factual based on my research) that all men SHOULD be castrated."
Wow. That escalated quickly. "If a women hits you, beat the shit out of her. She hit you first, she's fair game." --> "Men are worthless animals. I propose depopulation and mandatory castration of men on a planetary scale."
Huh.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 03:24:02 am
Post by: alexandertnt on August 03, 2014, 03:26:35 am
From AVFM:
What do you do if your wife is abusive? Beat the shit out of them of course!
Quote from: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/if-you-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess.
Women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped (usual blame the victim stuff).
Quote from: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/
But are these women asking to get raped?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it.
Women's apparently universal love of diamonds is killing men. (remember, he isn't blaiming people who buy diamonds, he isn't even blaiming women who buy diamonds. He is just blaiming women)
Quote from: http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/the-earth-mother-is-one-selfish-bitch/
The thing that drives the bulk of pollution, wars, white collar criminality, cruelty to animals, human slavery and the like is consumerism. Consumerism, especially the market of unnecessary, embarrassingly vain and useless goods, is a woman’s world.
And they had a conference too (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/06/20/voices-of-hatred-a-look-at-the-noxious-views-of-six-of-the-speakers-at-a-voice-for-mens-upcoming-conference/#more-12288)
EDIT:
How can anything called "Bash a Violent Bitch Month" not be crazy. What? I mean what?
Quote
"The worst aspect of dating from the perspective of many men is how dating can feel to a man like robbery by social custom. Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male variant of date rape."
Meh, ok...I think he's overstating it. Comparing it to rape isn't reasonable, but the thing he's talking about is a real phenomeon.
Isn't reasonable? This guy is comparing being dumped to being raped. I mean, how can this not be crazy?
Quote
Note that there are a couple women in there too.So?
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 04:00:12 am
I agree, that is a problem. Would you like to elaborate a bit rather than just providing a link?A link is worth a thousand words, and my loathing almost transcends words by itself.
It is a disgrace that such things are often disregarded (And what you see here, no doubt, is but a mere sample. What man would want to talk of being raped by a woman?) while a man has but to hiccup and he is a misogynist. Yes, exaggeration. But a valid point, nonetheless.
Have a story:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Justice, eh. Equality.
A barby house in Berlin, made something other than magical:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
One feminist's view on the matter:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Something not along the same vein:
http://masculistfeminist.hubpages.com/hub/Misandry-And-The-Media-A-Case-Study-Women-Are-Smarter-Than-Men
As we know, women are quite capable of hating men, and to say that only men are capable of hating women is rather sexist.
Here's another term to call such violence.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, a piece on the need for male role models, such as teachers. Something else the all-for-equality-for-everyone feminists never bring up or try to rectify. Why? Well, either they simply don't care (Likely,) don't notice that most of their teachers were and are female (unlikely) or they don't see it as an issue because it doesn't touch on the quality of girls' education, and many female jobs that would otherwise be filled by males.
http://masculistfeminist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Lack-Of-Male-Role-Models-In-The-Classroom-And-The-Home-And-The-Gender-Education-Gap
Any of the inevitable replies won't be responded to immediately. It is 10am, and I think I'd prefer to sleep.
Edit:One last thing. When a woman suffers abuse of any sort, they are catered to by the huge majority of society. This is good, and this should have been feminism's aim. It is good it has been achieved. Now, talk of breaking social norms and promoting equality should extend to the man who is beaten, bullied or even raped by his wife. But it's not. The man has next to no support, and very little sympathy. He is at risk of being ridiculed for something that, if expressed by a woman, would be a source of horror.
Why use feminism to fix a system that isn't broken? Women get what assistance they need, if they admit there is a problem and seek help. Now let's help men to get to that same level.
Post by: Reelya on August 03, 2014, 04:17:34 am
Quote
However, even though it uses a general word, "gender," it is still seen as heavily against women.
No, it's not "heavily against women", it's solely against women, because that's the definition of "gender-based violence".
Which means domestic violence against men is a different category of violence to similar violence against women, which is gender-based violence.
http://www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.htm
Quote
Gender-based violence also serves – by intention or effect – to perpetuate male power and control.
A women lightly chastising her partner does not serve to "perpetuate male power", merely to restrain his excesses, so it's not "gender-based violence".
Post by: LordBucket on August 03, 2014, 04:32:30 am
What do you do if your wife is abusive? Beat the shit out of them of course!
Time for a personal anecdote. When I was a kid there was a girl who had her arm in a cast. One day she walked up and whacked me in the head with it. We're talking ~5 pounds of fiberglass. Think I was about 7 years old at the time. What did I do? I went to the nearest adult and told on her. He basically approached it from the angle of "What do you mean a girl hit you? Are you a wimp? You're a boy. she's a girl. She can't possibly hurt you, so man up!"
So once this girl realized that she wouldn't get in trouble and I wouldn't hit her back she made a game out of beating me in the head with the cast, pushing me up against a wall and continually whacking me while I cried.
That night I went home and told my dad about it. Want to know what he said? "Next time she hits you, hit her back." So the next day when she hit me...I hit her back.
She never hit me again.
You might not like it. You might find the characterization of "beat her to a pulp instead of allowing her to continue to hide behind her cultural wall of 'never hit a girl' as she continues to abuse you" unpleasant. But 'if she hits you, hit her back' has value. It is possible for a woman to be in the wrong.
If you want a unpleasant picture, imagine yourself in that situation and imagine how it would have affected your life if my father hadn't said what he said. Imagine week after week of being held up against the wall, being beaten in the head by a girl with a cast...all while "what are you, a wimp? Man up!" resonates in your head. Think carefully about that.
Fortunately, that's not what happened. To me. It probably has happened to some guys.
Quote
Women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped (usual blame the victim stuff).
Look, I'm not going to defend everything they're saying. Like I said, some of what I saw seemed unreasonable, and I said so. But I'm not going to gush and rally and cry over how unreasonable it is. Yes, some of it looks unreasonable. By all means sort out the reasonable from the unreasonable. But I saw an awful lot of reasonable before we got to the unreasonable.
When we see the guy claiming that dressing provocatively justifies rape (and incidentally I note that that article was deleted from the site) ...let's not make the mistake of automatically ignoring the guy being fined for public indecency because women used him for sex while he was unconscious. Let's not ignore the fake paternity tests or the the guys receiving court orders to pay child support for children who aren't even theirs.
Women are not untouchably holy, pure and just simply by virtue of being women.
I first entered this thread by pointing out that if you keep pushing a pendulum that's offbalanced, it doesn't stop in the middle. It keeps swinging to be offbalanced in the other direction. At one time, women in the US didn't have the right to vote. At one time they couldn't own property. At one time it was considered good conduct for a husband to beat his wife to keep her in line.
Those times are passed, and I think most of us in this thread hadn't even born yet when any of those things were still true. But our society still has inertia from the push that got us to this point, and it's still pushing for more...and more. Where's the middle of the pendulum? Personally I think women have it better than men in this country already. And yet the pushing continues. I rather suspect that "the unreasonable ones" are probably the guys who've been stepped on by women while simultaneously being told that they're not allowed to do anything about it. The guys who've been taught that they need to work their entire lives to support a woman, and then watched as a woman got a promotion instead and their wife left them for somebody with more money. The guys who married for love, were cheated on and then received divorce papers and ended up losing their house and half their income.
That kind of thing does happen. And if too many guys endure that, all while being told that life is unfair to women and that men are oppressors simply by their nature and they deserve everything bad that happens to them...sooner or later those guys are going to start pushing the pendulum back in the other direction.
To any women reading this: yes, women who lived before you were born dealt with a lot of unfairness. I advise you to very carefully evaluate your situation, your society and your daily life before you push too hard on that pendulum. Sooner or later it might push back.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 04:33:58 am
Women get what assistance they need, if they admit there is a problem and seek help. Now let's help men to get to that same level.
Sure, go ahead and set up a shelter for battered men- there's not really anything stopping you. I don't see anybody disagreeing with you here.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 03, 2014, 04:38:41 am
Bucket, anecdotal evidence is looked down upon for many reasons.He does have a point, you know. I'm willing to bet that many of us have seen or heard of (in school, at least) a guy getting in trouble for hitting a girl, even when it's provoked.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 04:41:09 am
Bucket, anecdotal evidence is looked down upon for many reasons.He does have a point, you know. I'm willing to bet that many of us have seen or heard of (in school, at least) a guy getting in trouble for hitting a girl, even when it's provoked.
Yes, he's saying that. What does that have relevance to? We were initially discussing 'Men's Rights Activism' at his request, I don't understand why we should so suddenly change the topic- he merely introduced it to distract from what was being discussed.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 03, 2014, 04:44:30 am
Post by: LordBucket on August 03, 2014, 04:51:29 am
The person talking is fantasizing about being given an excuse to inflict tremendous pain upon a woman- that's not normal. The way he describes it is unhealthy.
Yes, yes. The extreme anti-feminist or whatever we want to call him is fantasizing about having a good excuse to beat up a woman. I agree this is unhealthy.
Meanwhile, on the crazy side of feminism:
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/andrea-dworkin-and-phenomenon-of.html
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.""
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so."
"...the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."
"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEJfN-jiS4
1:10
"...our movement is about more than just words. It's about actions. About making a difference and redefining the world. It's a proposed global initiative for population reduction that will in a few decades lead to a worldwide male population of roughly 1-10% for the purpose of peace and prosperity around the world.
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87815
"It is my belief (which I consider factual based on my research) that all men SHOULD be castrated."
Before we get too caught up with the bad man fantasizing about having a good excuse to beat a woman...let's remember that there are crazies on both sides of this.
I will accept that the women who want to castrate men and keep them in cages and depopulate the world of men...probably aren't representative of the average feminist.
I ask you to accept that the guys fantasizing about having good reasons to beat up women probably also aren't representative of the average male rights advocate.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 04:53:41 am
Before we get too caught up with the bad man fantasizing about having a good excuse to beat a woman...let's remember that there are crazies on both sides of this.
I will accept that the women who want to castrate men and keep them in cages and depopulate the world of men...probably aren't representative of the average feminist.
I ask you to accept that the guys fantasizing about having good reasons to beat up women probably also aren't representative of the average male rights advocate.
Exactly. When people refer to MRA, they are most commonly referring to the crazy people who have hijacked sometimes well intentioned movements with extreme misogyny. I am happy that you have at least claimed to have learnt something.
Post by: LordBucket on August 03, 2014, 04:56:13 am
When people refer to MRA, they are most commonly referring to the crazy people who
have hijacked sometimes well intentioned movements with extreme misogyny.
And that's unfortunate, if legitimate issues are being ignored and ridiculed because of it.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 04:58:27 am
When people refer to MRA, they are most commonly referring to the crazy people who
have hijacked sometimes well intentioned movements with extreme misogyny.
And that's unfortunate, if legitimate issues are being ignored and ridiculed because of it.
I couldn't agree more.
Post by: alexandertnt on August 03, 2014, 05:31:32 am
Quote
personal anecdote stuff
This guy isn't advocating "self defence", he isn't saying you should "standing up for yourself". He is describing in rather hateful detail beating up women, and taking pleasure in doing so.
The rest of the examples continue with the websites rather common trend of blaiming women ("women" not "some women") for seemingly everything they can think of. Rape was blamed on the women, the death of men related to blood diamonds was blamed on women as a whole etc.
Quote
When we see the guy claiming that dressing provocatively justifies rape (and incidentally I note that that article was deleted from the site) ...let's not make the mistake of automatically ignoring the guy being fined for public indecency because women used him for sex while he was unconscious. Let's not ignore the fake paternity tests or the the guys receiving court orders to pay child support for children who aren't even theirs.
The idea that by discussing an issue, we are somehow ignoring another issue is just not true. By discussing people who try to justify rape, we are ignoring female-on-male rape. People have already stated this but these things are not a zero sum game. By discussing one issue we are not losing out on another. About the best thing we can work out here is that both of these issues are bad.
We shouldn't ignore those issues, but people need to learn to actually address those issues specifically, rather than using them as some sort of counterpoint to discussions involving women.
Quote
I ask you to accept that the guys fantasizing about having good reasons to beat up women probably also aren't representative of the average male rights advocate.
Someone calling themselves an MRA is probably going to be some sort of crazy, the name alone doesn't make that false. But there are most certainly people advocating for legitimate male related issues that are good, I linked to one a few posts ago, for example. Most of these people avoid the term MRA because of what the crazies have done to it.
And that's unfortunate, if legitimate issues are being ignored and ridiculed because of it.
MRA's are harming male related issues by associating them with crazies, and by generally being obstructionists. And it is unfortunete because there are legitimate issues here.
@Th4DwArfY1
But feminism has not caused any of this. It's pretty much global, and happens regardless of the effects of feminism in society. These things happened before feminism existed. Unfortunetely, most of these issues only pop up as some sort of non-sequitur counterpoint in discussions related to women rather than actually adressed properly. Which is unfortunete because it is a completely legit issue.
Post by: Sergarr on August 03, 2014, 06:44:48 am
Post by: LordBucket on August 03, 2014, 06:47:41 am
This guy isn't advocating "self defence", he isn't saying you should "standing up for yourself". He is describing in rather hateful detail beating up women, and taking pleasure in doing so.
And apparently people in this thread find that more gruesome and shocking than the feminists advocating castration and murder. Rolepgeek was the one who brought up mra (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5531100#msg5531100), not me. It isn't relevant to my thesis (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5530558#msg5530558), so it's very easy for me to walk away from. But I do notice the double standard.
WTF, this thread is still going on?!
Our tangents have gone on tangents.
Post by: alexandertnt on August 03, 2014, 07:27:33 am
This guy isn't advocating "self defence", he isn't saying you should "standing up for yourself". He is describing in rather hateful detail beating up women, and taking pleasure in doing so.
And apparently people in this thread find that more gruesome and shocking than the feminists advocating castration and murder. Rolepgeek was the one who brought up mra (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5531100#msg5531100), not me. It isn't relevant to my thesis (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=141147.msg5530558#msg5530558), so it's very easy for me to walk away from. But I do notice the double standard.
People don't find it more shocking or gruesome, they find and hear this stuff more often. This sort of behaviour defines the MRA, whereas your feminist example does not define feminism. They are both terrable thoughts.
This is all from a societal "at large" perspective, not individual case perspective. They are both terrable ideas, but one is much more prevalent than the other.
The idea that women are automatically to blame is much more common than the idea that all men should have their balls cut off.
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 08:44:22 am
The point is feminism is misdirecting its efforts, and it can be as uncouth as any Man's rights activist.Women get what assistance they need, if they admit there is a problem and seek help. Now let's help men to get to that same level.
Sure, go ahead and set up a shelter for battered men- there's not really anything stopping you. I don't see anybody disagreeing with you here.
You have evidence of men saying bad things about women. They're beaters, so we should beat them, all that. Feminists are stripping in the streets and burning crucified barbie dolls.
Then, you have the fact that there's little point in women getting much more help. Sure, things can still be improved, but that can always be said. Instead of redirecting their efforts to now help the men, as any true equality organisation that was honest would do, they focus on an ad campaign so women being beaten know it's okay to accept help. This is fine, but it should be a sideline to helping men in need. Why not set up the same services that help women for men? You could even use the same facilities, and it wouldn't be too much of a drain.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2014, 10:06:00 am
Meanwhile, on the crazy side of feminism:I take it you are aware of the fact that the link you posted calls this out as a misleading and selective quotation? How can you be this dishonest?
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/andrea-dworkin-and-phenomenon-of.html
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.""
Out of your other links: SCUM had one member who almost everyone agrees was crazy (she went on to try and kill Andy Warhol), and both of your others are from Femitheist, who is clearly a parody.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 10:17:09 am
The point is feminism is misdirecting its efforts, and it can be as uncouth as any Man's rights activist.
You have evidence of men saying bad things about women. They're beaters, so we should beat them, all that. Feminists are stripping in the streets and burning crucified barbie dolls.
Then, you have the fact that there's little point in women getting much more help. Sure, things can still be improved, but that can always be said. Instead of redirecting their efforts to now help the men, as any true equality organisation that was honest would do, they focus on an ad campaign so women being beaten know it's okay to accept help. This is fine, but it should be a sideline to helping men in need. Why not set up the same services that help women for men? You could even use the same facilities, and it wouldn't be too much of a drain.
Charity organisations are free to work in whichever way they choose, to whichever goal they so wish. Some people donate towards the RSPCA- are you angry or upset that that money could have gone towards helping male victims of abuse?
If you think these organisations are being dishonest by advertising as for equality- an inefficiency in operation does not make them not pro-equality.
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 11:29:04 am
They're not.
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on August 03, 2014, 11:39:28 am
PTW. Keep up the
Post by: Redzephyr01 on August 03, 2014, 11:43:40 am
Post by: Samarkand on August 03, 2014, 11:53:52 am
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 01:23:30 pm
Not that not having read any feminists would disqualify someone from participating in this thread, but I'm curious how many people here have read a book by a feminist author.
Feminists can write? 0_o
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on August 03, 2014, 05:56:00 pm
I hear an awful lot of "Feminists are for equality of all!"
They're not.
You know... Lord Bucket at least explained why he doesn't believe feminism is truly egalitarian in that no matter what you attempt you cannot be egalitarian working from only one side and that feminism is ultimately set up to be "on women's side as opposed to everyone's side" and thus its real goal is to aid women, not to equalize. Which is something that, is fair and a honest criticism you can have about feminism as a whole and is why many egalitarians actually dislike feminism.
This though... I don't see it. There is nothing for me to lock onto or understand.
Also people STOP trolling the thread. I know you are intentionally trying to shut it down... and I hate when people do that.
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on August 03, 2014, 06:01:56 pm
It's entertaining as hell.
Post by: Lyeos on August 03, 2014, 06:03:37 pm
Hey, man, I'm sure any of my fellow vaguely troll-y audience members would agree, we don't want this thread shut down.Aye.
It's entertaining as hell.
Also, LB pretty much covered it, there's no reason for license-plate to restate his points.
/me shrugs.
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 03, 2014, 06:17:27 pm
... Anti-racism as in "against all forms of racism" not "racism against whites", is what I'm assuming he's saying. A white-led group against racism, not allowing blacks to speak.Woman are the primary victims of sexism. Whites are not the primary victims of the systematic racism that occurs in our culture. If he had said a black-led group against racism not listening or wanting to be around whites when they're talking about 'oh, but that guy called me a cracker!', that would be more apt of an analogy. It is in no way the same, as it was, except in the vaguest sense.
Similar to a woman-led group for "equality", that refuses to let men speak on their opinions or issues if they vary from said group's ideology.
Really, it's pretty obvious to see the point people are trying to make...
You just... Seem like you don't want to.
Edit: I may be missing something here, and he might, in fact, be speaking of a group solely against racism against white people, but it would be one under the guise of removing racism against all whilst not dealing with anything from another side. There are parallels, whether you like them or not.
Doubleedit: I actually do agree with basically what II said in the post below this one, though. Do we >need< a men's rights movement? No. But we also don't >need< a women's rights movement in the Western World.
I see the point they're making. However, the problem is that calling it a double standard is an accurate statement; it's just that it's also a false equivalency. Do we need one anymore? No. We don't. Is it helpful, though? Yes. I don't see it as a woman's rights movement anymore, really; from my perspective, it's sorta merged with the LGBTQ identity movements to try and shift ideas of gender roles and stereotypes away by educating people. This is probably biased on my part as to my view due to being a member of the LGBTQ community, and I'm sure there's kooky people calling themselves feminists and I'm sure there's a branch of feminism working on women's rights. However, the only women's rights issues that aren't already almost entirely signed into law as far as I'm aware of is the current debate regarding abortion and perhaps some issues regarding rape. Everything else is just a symptom of corruption in the system and failure to follow through on said laws. So I view it less as a women's rights movement and more as a movement regarding cultural perceptions, which is where I'm coming from.
However, I also know that there is still a great deal of sexism against women in the world and hearing people say 'no there isn't, men are the ones being oppressed', when there's so very much data to prove them wrong, and they choose to look at the bits of data that could be misconstrued to support their argument, is frustrating on a very intense level. How many women are arguing alongside them? How many men are arguing alongside their opposition? It's not evidence in and of itself(FEMINIST CONSPIRACY BLARGHHGHG), but it's still quite telling, particularly when put together with the given data.
Also this was basically a response to both InsanityIncarnate and Lyeos. Sidenote: The problem regarding rape is the way it's handled in general, really; men's problems are dismissed, women's problems are blamed on themselves, the whole system is really fucked up and we basically live in a rape culture(Yes Means Yes, not just No Means No. And if they're drunk or high, it doesn't count even then. Not even if you are too.).
Let me state now, that I'm not an MRA and do not frequent any of their sites.Okay, allow me to ask you a question, Reelya.Quote from: RoplegeekAre they inherently gendered issues, or are they issues caused by men, and felt by men?
So, you're saying something only counts as a gender-issue (for men) if you can show that it's directly caused by the other gender? I think that's a double-standard as we would never apply that to dismiss women's issues. Anti-girl bias in the classroom? Doesn't exist because the teacher is most likely a woman! Gender stereotyping your daughter by a single mother? it's not a "gendered" issue because a woman did it!
I think it's clear that this argument wouldn't fly for even a second if we were talking about girls. Gender roles are maintained by both genders, for both genders, and bringing in "but men did it to themselves" isn't a valid argument, nor is "but women did it to themselves".
How many men want to get rid of the image that men are big and strong and can accomplish things?
How many women want to get rid of the image that women are weak and emotional and can't be trusted to handle things rationally?
As well, I think you're a. being too literal, as gender stereotypes are fairly obviously inherently gendered issues(notice the word 'gender' in the phrase), b. failing to acknowledge the existence of a false equivalency(remember how women have been treated as little better than property for a long-damn time and only got the vote after World War I? Yeah.), and c. purposefully misinterpreting arguments in the hopes that if you dismantle the surrounding points the central thesis will fall apart too. Please stop.
I don't know enough about sexism in the education system to comment on that, but the question is; is the teacher a woman, or only probably one? How many of their higher-ups are women? The principal? The Board of Education? The members of the state government that run the school system?
Quote
Let's look at the pay gap for single people. Ones without kids. (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.time.com%2Ftime%2Fbusiness%2Farticle%2F0%2C8599%2C2015274%2C00.html&ei=hdTdU972HcHt8AWFi4H4Cg&usg=AFQjCNHGsBepM4QxeEmX-GqwUjQ0RGpqAA&sig2=3BKvoFJcNZWMzboMz8CZfA&bvm=bv.72197243,d.dGc)You people like to put words in my mouth, don't you?Quotein 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group.
Ah, but we can say "that's not discriminatory, because more girls go to college, thus increasing their earning capacity! It's all down to personal decisions, so it's not discriminatory!". Well, would it ever fly the other way around: is there any time that men earning more would be accepted as "non-discriminatory" because he made different decisions to a woman? i.e. more men choosing college majors that lead to high-paying jobs? If "going to college" is an equal and fair decision, isn't choosing a major also "equal and fair" or are things only "equal and fair" when they favor a particular side, and for everything which falls the other way it's "unfair"?
I haven't really commented on the pay gap for a reason. It is, in fact, in some part caused by that. I never said that portion of it was unfair. Do I think we should shift the cultural paradigm so that we aren't constantly enforcing the idea of low-paying jobs on women's minds, or low-fulfillment jobs on men's? Yes. Do I think we should shift the cultural paradigm so that more men go to college? Yes.
Also, stop using so many quotation marks, it's making me imagine doing air quotes around each one and it's distracting. >_<
But also, look at how many women do have kids, versus how many men do. I'm thinking the numbers will be fairly equal, somewhat biased towards women, but still.
My question will always be the why of it, the how of it, and the more specific details of it. In the same field, are the median pays equal? What about middle aged single men and women? What about couples without kids? What about single people with kids? What about couples with kids?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandardRapefemaleOnMaleYou're right, this is a problem. Look at all the double standards regarding rape. They're all terrible. We live in a rape culture, and it's an awful thing. The point regarding women is the Schrodinger's Rapist, and the sheer amount of sexual harassment many women face and must be aware of. You've heard of Schrodinger's Rapist? Or how 1 in 6 women will be seriously sexually assaulted at some point in their lives? Yes, 1 in 33 men also will be. But it's not at the front of men's minds, when they're out and about. It's not something they have to worry about on a daily basis. It's really as simple as that; people, not just women, but people in general shouldn't have to live in fear of something like that. It's terrible.
Also, people, really, just ignore LordBucket. By this point, everyone's noticing the dishonest way he's trying to do this, leading me to believe he's either a. trolling or b. 'one of the crazies', to avoid being too insulting with words I might have otherwise used. He's not trying to be honest or stay on topic or address any real points people make. He's trying to wrench the discussion around and act as though his issues are the only ones that matter. If we stop feeding him, he'll go away eventually.
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 06:27:26 pm
Post by: Willfor on August 03, 2014, 06:31:42 pm
A rape is a rape, a crime is a crime. I was speaking of dealing with the after math of an attack, and double standards therein. A woman being raped is as bad as a man being raped, I'm sure everyone will agree. Dealing with the fear a woman has of being raped is a separate matter to the point I was making.When did he dispute this? I don't see it there.
Post by: Neonivek on August 03, 2014, 06:32:33 pm
Apparently you are living in a rape culture if your culture is actively promoting and encouraging rape.
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 06:32:57 pm
Post by: martinuzz on August 03, 2014, 06:33:02 pm
Feminism is a sexist's hobby.
The children pay the price.
Post by: Redzephyr01 on August 03, 2014, 08:03:58 pm
Or how 1 in 6 women will be seriously sexually assaulted at some point in their livesThat came from a study done in 1982. I don't think that statistics from 32 years ago still hold up now.
Post by: Cheeetar on August 03, 2014, 08:14:11 pm
Hey, man, I'm sure any of my fellow vaguely troll-y audience members would agree, we don't want this thread shut down.
It's entertaining as hell.
Quit being an asshole, man. This isn't 4chan.
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 03, 2014, 08:15:57 pm
Oh, sorry.Or how 1 in 6 women will be seriously sexually assaulted at some point in their livesThat came from a study done in 1982. I don't think that statistics from 32 years ago still hold up now.
It's one in five. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html)
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on August 03, 2014, 08:17:03 pm
You uh, do realize that most of this thread has been driven by someone(LordBucket) being an asshole, right?Hey, man, I'm sure any of my fellow vaguely troll-y audience members would agree, we don't want this thread shut down.
It's entertaining as hell.
Quit being an asshole, man. This isn't 4chan.
But hey, I don't wanna distract from the main point here, so I'll just shut up. We good, man?
Post by: Mr. Strange on August 03, 2014, 08:19:04 pm
What, I'm on a wrong site again? Damn it, this hapens way too often.Hey, man, I'm sure any of my fellow vaguely troll-y audience members would agree, we don't want this thread shut down.
It's entertaining as hell.
Quit being an asshole, man. This isn't 4chan.
You uh, do realize that most of this thread has been driven by someone(LordBucket) being an asshole, right?Not sure if joke, but LB is rarely an asshole...
But hey, I don't wanna distract from the main point here, so I'll just shut up. We good, man?
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 08:24:03 pm
Post by: Lyeos on August 03, 2014, 08:25:36 pm
Quote from: Mr. Strange
I have to agree, LB is one of the handful that have kept a level head through this.You uh, do realize that most of this thread has been driven by someone(LordBucket) being an asshole, right?Not sure if joke, but LB is rarely an asshole...
But hey, I don't wanna distract from the main point here, so I'll just shut up. We good, man?
/me shrugs.
Tempted to copy-paste a post from elsewhere, butOh, sorry.Or how 1 in 6 women will be seriously sexually assaulted at some point in their livesThat came from a study done in 1982. I don't think that statistics from 32 years ago still hold up now.
It's one in five. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html)
A.) I can't copy links right now
And
B.) I'm too lazy.
But you're talking about a victimization rate of, what, 20%? In a country with over 100 million females?
Good luck with that, mate.
That post actually addresses the supposed "1 in 5" statistic.
Perhaps I'll get around to it.
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 08:28:32 pm
Post by: SomeStupidGuy on August 03, 2014, 08:30:02 pm
Hope I didn't cause the discussion too much harm.
Post by: Mr. Strange on August 03, 2014, 08:33:10 pm
Quote
An exhaustive government survey of rape and domestic violence ...Is this the same people who did that wage gap thing mentioned earlier, was that on that other gender thread? Because I remember that had people in the actually study saying they found no evidence for wage gap, while press went all "Gender Wage Gap Still An Issue!!!!1!" over it.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 03, 2014, 08:44:51 pm
Spoiler: Off topic, but the general idea is relevant (click to show/hide)
Post by: Reelya on August 03, 2014, 08:46:20 pm
Stuff that girls do to guys, collected with the same survey methodology we use for female victimization - which is no surprise really, they just use the existing surveys as the basis and change the genders in the questions. If you cited any of these data with the genders reversed (women victimized by men) they'd be taken at face value, and seen as "smoking gun" proof of women being victimized due to male patriarchal power.
I've had some people (on Bay12) pick apart the methodology of these surveys in that link, saying they inflate the numbers of men assaulted by women by taking a really, really broad view of assault, but c'mon they're the exact same surveys that they use with women that have also been criticized for giving an inflated view of the problem.
Dismissing this data as "inflated" yet calling out anyone who says the female victimization is "inflated" when the surveys are basically identical is some serious, serious confirmation bias. Hell, the surveys for men are directly modeled on the surveys for women.
What am I saying here? That women aren't victimized? No. That men are "just as big victims". No, again. What I really think is that this proves the "patriarchy model" to explain all victimization is flawed. And relying on a flawed model leads to flawed policies which are ineffective, and don't protect victims.
It's also incredibly sexist when you think of it. The patriarchal theory relies on perceiving men as the active pursuer, and women as the passive pursued. This in itself is a very stereotypical patriarchal view, which the domestic violence and sexual assault lobby have not progressed beyond. Do we really think this is true? Since the entire view is so antiquated and cliched, it should be no surprise that the reality is a LOT more messy.
Post by: Mr. Strange on August 03, 2014, 08:54:53 pm
Quote
Let me bring in an anecdote. When I was at a student party once, around 25 years ago, a very drunk (and physically rather large) woman came on to me, very strongly indeed. I tried to escape with a tactical toilet break. She followed me into the loo, forced me up against the basin, pushed her tongue into my mouth and her hand into my jeans. I had to summon up quite a lot of physical strength to escape. This may sound strange, but my understanding of the incident, then and now, was not that I had narrowly escaped being raped by her, but that she had narrowly escaped being raped by me.Wat.
Post by: Neonivek on August 03, 2014, 09:26:09 pm
QuoteLet me bring in an anecdote. When I was at a student party once, around 25 years ago, a very drunk (and physically rather large) woman came on to me, very strongly indeed. I tried to escape with a tactical toilet break. She followed me into the loo, forced me up against the basin, pushed her tongue into my mouth and her hand into my jeans. I had to summon up quite a lot of physical strength to escape. This may sound strange, but my understanding of the incident, then and now, was not that I had narrowly escaped being raped by her, but that she had narrowly escaped being raped by me.Wat.
He felt like because he was in control that if he got raped by her he was essentially raping her because she would have done something she wouldn't have done under normal circumstances.
Even if he had to basically force her off him.
He isn't taught like most women are in these kinds of situations (Taught helplessness). Though as you can see the exact opposite has its own problems.
-Yeah... I am not happy about how rape is conceptualized. There is such a focus on victimizing the victim that many people honestly believe that it is basically a life ending incident and that the victim should not ever be expected to recover and that it is worse than murder... Which is frankly, to me, tantamount to saying that someone who is blinded in a car crash might as well commit suicide. Not that it isn't terrible, as many things are, but that it is exaggerated beyond reality.
MIND YOU!!! The feeling that your rape is your own dang fault is common regardless of gender. As well it isn't unusual for people to be raped and not realize it is rape.
Post by: Lyeos on August 03, 2014, 09:27:23 pm
Kind of.QuoteLet me bring in an anecdote. When I was at a student party once, around 25 years ago, a very drunk (and physically rather large) woman came on to me, very strongly indeed. I tried to escape with a tactical toilet break. She followed me into the loo, forced me up against the basin, pushed her tongue into my mouth and her hand into my jeans. I had to summon up quite a lot of physical strength to escape. This may sound strange, but my understanding of the incident, then and now, was not that I had narrowly escaped being raped by her, but that she had narrowly escaped being raped by me.Wat.
He felt like because he was in control that if he got raped by her he was essentially raping her because she would have done something she wouldn't have done under normal circumstances.
Even if he had to basically force her off him.
If she regretted it later, should could accuse him of rape and most likely win due to the 'Murrican legal system.
*Shrugs*
Post by: TD1 on August 03, 2014, 09:30:03 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 03, 2014, 09:34:19 pm
Quote
If she regretted it later, should could accuse him of rape and most likely win due to the 'Murrican legal system
While this is TRUE in that if she could prove that this rape took place that he would be sent to jail even though she raped him in this situation. (because he is an abled bodied man and she is an intoxicated woman)
The only reason why "False rape" tends not to be prosecuted is because "rape" is hard to actually prove in court. The only time I've seen a case where I honestly believed the woman in question was false reporting, mostly because her reputation was tarnished and her support basically convinced her it was rape so the accusation was a way to save her, it was recorded by the alleged rapists (and not even hidden) and she was the only one heavily drugged up (though everyone was drugged out)... And EVEN THEN that trial first hit a mistrial and then the defense waiting until the season was right and redone the trail where they were prosecuted. So even if she was telling the truth, which is still possible and likely as well, it took overwhelming evidence.
So as long as there were no cameras in the boy's bathroom he is fine.
So all in all I don't think fake rape accusations are too big a deal. Yes women are given the benefit of the doubt that they could have been raped, but even then they still have to prove it took place and it was non-consensual.
Quote
If she regretted it later
I find it has less to do with "regret". She isn't going to go "I shouldn't have done that" and then charged him for rape.
Mind you hitting him for child support IS an actual and realistic consequence that he might not be able to escape from... because GOOD LUCK proving she raped him (and also... being a rape victim I believe doesn't exempt you from child support).
---
Now mind you, I always like to look at cases the as if it could be "Guilty" or "Innocent" as how I judge how things are handled.
It is why I hate law shows like Special Victims Unit (or some terrible episodes of Law and Order) because they will go out of their way to harass, trick, or incriminate someone who very well could be innocent using tactics that would work on someone who was innocent. The worst being a case where a woman accused this guy of being a rapist, dragging him semi-willingly on stage to do it (semi-willingly in that she dragged him... but he could have stopped her using force), and they go out of their way to ensure he is in jail at all points AND the woman in question (and another person) posted sites that basically say terrible things about him. Honestly I wanted him to innocent, I knew he wasn't going to because the SVU are psychic, because really it could have been an episode about how the law is supposed to be objective and that the SVU put their own views and prejudices above that and harassed an innocent person who is actually the true victim in all of this.
Mind you I'd have no qualms if the SVU didn't harass the guy and the episode happened as normal (would have been a good episode about how the system can hide/cover rape)... But if they are going to harass him, there better be a point other then our LEGAL POLICE FORCE being vigilantes who are harassing someone because "They believe he did it", something the police shouldn't be doing and yet the episode treats it as the correct action.
Post by: Mr. Strange on August 03, 2014, 09:53:39 pm
He felt like because he was in control that if he got raped by her he was essentially raping her because she would have done something she wouldn't have done under normal circumstances.That, is not what a rape is. Rape is when one person forces other into having sex against their will. What either would have done in any other situation or circumstances is irrelevant since they are not in those situations or under those circumstances, what they do there and then is all that maters for the case. If it is done against the will of one participant it is rape, just because person is drunk doesn't mean they are not trying to force themselves on other person, they still attempted to rape someone.
Even if he had to basically force her off him.
He isn't taught like most women are in these kinds of situations (Taught helplessness). Though as you can see the exact opposite has its own problems.
MIND YOU!!! The feeling that your rape is your own dang fault is common regardless of gender. As well it isn't unusual for people to be raped and not realize it is rape.
So as long as there were no cameras in the boy's bathroom he is fine.What fantasy land do you live in? It's all you need to send man to jail, just say he did it. Sheding few tears will almost guarantee it. That's why there are "rapists" released every year when their "victims" come out and tell the truth about having lied, sometimes years after the "rape", years that man has spent in jail being treated as rapist by other inmates and guards and everyone else they know.QuoteIf she regretted it later
I find it has less to do with "regret". She isn't going to go "I shouldn't have done that" and then charged him for rape.
Post by: Neonivek on August 03, 2014, 09:59:21 pm
Quote
That, is not what a rape is. Rape is when one person forces other into having sex against their will.
That isn't accurate. Putting someone, or taking advantage of someone, who is in an altered state of mind FOR sex... Also constitutes rape.
Quote
What fantasy land do you live in? It's all you need to send man to jail, just say he did it. Sheding few tears will almost guarantee it.
I don't know... Canada.
Its pretty hard for a woman to accuse even their actual rapist of being a rapist... Yet alone one who didn't do it. (Mind you, I don't consider that a problem exactly... rape is just an inherently difficult crime to prove)
In his case... YES if there was evidence he really could have been sent to jail... But there wasn't so he is pretty safe.
Though yeah some places the laws are pretty BS when it comes to rape (On both ends of the spectrum... in the being too impossible to disprove and the too easy to prove)... For example if BDSM devices are used it was rape, even if it was consensual at the time for the entire length. (The things you learn reading up on 50 shades of grey) So I can't say other places can't have nonsense laws that basically allow people to be jailed on hearsay... but not here.
I still consider false reporting to be mostly a non-issue... at least where I am. There are a lot of unfair laws that unearned benefit women and unfairly prosecute men (Less so in Canada Yay! Sucks for you USA!) but that isn't one of them. Most of those laws mind you are just hold-overs from earlier times when women had less options and I honestly think, where I am at least, the legal system is getting to them at an appropriate pace so it is mostly a non-issue as well (or rather... its an issue... But it would be like complaining about a broken bridge while the repair crews are on the scene).
And honestly male depiction is getting a bit better as well as is female depiction. Male characters are less afraid to just punch a woman (yes its a big deal) and women are less likely to be instantly disabled because someone lightly grabbed their shoulder. Sure women tend to almost never suffer real visual injuries (my opinion is because people would see it as too much a paralelle to spousal abuse) but they will still be beaten into the ground on an action show. They are getting closer to being considered equal to male characters rather then the female character everyone needs because the male characters aren't allowed to even lightly graze the female ones.
Post by: Toady One on August 03, 2014, 10:43:40 pm
I'd also appreciate it if the popcorn people would refrain, forever, from making posts like that in any thread. It further sours the atmosphere and makes moderating the forum more difficult.