PDA

View Full Version : Some are more equal than others?



Pages : [1] 2

whispous
January 24 2013, 05:08:35 PM
No doubt exists that among ethnicities and genders there is still a large amount of prejudice, and the inequality has definitely not been solved.

However among people fighting for their rights, there is the occasional person who goes beyond and behaves in a way that appears as if they feel they have more rights than they should.


Personally I see a worrying amount of over-entitlement, particularly from militant feminists, and no-one dares contradict them, because they would instantly be labelled sexist. It also appears that even daring to bring that kind of observation up is in itself, sexist.

Smegs
January 24 2013, 05:42:35 PM
Kinda like black people can't be racist .......

Meh. Self serving narcissistic dickhead bigots exist in all races. Unfortunately, they seem to make it to the top of the local pile and become surrounded by other self serving narcissistic dickhead bigots playing their own meta game. It could very well be that we all harbour a self serving narcissistic dickhead bigot ready to make a break for others freedoms ...

whispous
January 24 2013, 05:45:11 PM
Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from

Synapse
January 24 2013, 06:49:05 PM
Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from

It's true, but I've had to chalk this up to a limitation in human capability to grasp situational complexity.

You have some genuine racism remaining, and because that's there, it's nearly impossible for people looking for that racism to give a white male the benefit of the doubt in a questionable circumstance. The assumption is always racism/sexism.

Minorities in discussions of sexism often mention how white people can't understand their experience of living in a life of constant low level implied racism, I think there is a (not necessarily equal) unseen side in which nonwhites don't understand living a life of constant implied/assumed guilt.

I've given up trying to explain these concepts or defend them to most people. I think its too nuanced for the average person, and instead society needs to just resolve one and then the assumption of racism will go away when people realize there isn't racism left to assume. I feel we're within a generation of that time.

theBlind
January 25 2013, 09:57:19 AM
Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from

It's true, but I've had to chalk this up to a limitation in human capability to grasp situational complexity.

You have some genuine racism remaining, and because that's there, it's nearly impossible for people looking for that racism to give a white male the benefit of the doubt in a questionable circumstance. The assumption is always racism/sexism.

Minorities in discussions of sexism often mention how white people can't understand their experience of living in a life of constant low level implied racism, I think there is a (not necessarily equal) unseen side in which nonwhites don't understand living a life of constant implied/assumed guilt.

I've given up trying to explain these concepts or defend them to most people. I think its too nuanced for the average person, and instead society needs to just resolve one and then the assumption of racism will go away when people realize there isn't racism left to assume. I feel we're within a generation of that time.

I'd guess a big part of this is Fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error), basically you ascribe someones actions to their basic disposition instead of their current specific situation - Basic example: Guy cuts you on the road -> You think: "he's an asshole", meanwhile he's late to fetch his kids or whatever.

Now since this is a pretty basic behavior, good luck trying to get others first to notice it in themselves and try to counteract it once they notice it. Especially in emotion laden contexts like sexism / racism.

Regarding constant life of implied guilt - try being a white german and offer criticism of eg israeli actions in palestina. It's a political taboo here and any politician who does offer such criticism won't be in office much longer.

Synapse
January 25 2013, 11:47:37 AM
If I were a rich white german male from an aristocratic family, I would probably hire someone to speak for me just in case. Opening my mouth at all could be a minefield.

Keorythe
January 25 2013, 05:32:30 PM
Racist, sexist, homophobe, gun nut, islamaphobe, anti-semetic, etc.

It's just a method of shutting down a conversation. Puts the person instantly on the offensive when you declare them something that is unpopular or has negative undertones. Then instead of having a debate, the speaker has to defend themselves personally rather than the topic at hand. If they choose not to, then they risk coming off as having irrational ideas despite being perfectly rational because who would want to associate themselves with XXX group/person/ideal? It also works in reverse as you can attribute positive connotations to your argument and thus making the other side look bad. E.g. - "this is common sense XXXX legislation". "My opposition view of the subject incorporates sane principles."

Wiki example:


Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.


Halo effect - The halo effect or halo error is a cognitive bias in which our judgments of a person’s character can be influenced by our overall impression of him or her. It can be found in a range of situations from the courtroom to the classroom and in everyday interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

Sacul
January 27 2013, 11:54:28 AM
Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from

I agree but i also learned early in life to just not give a fuck about that. I have a simple antidote against it all. A simple question: 'Why?".

Sounds retardedly simplistic but meight its like kryptonite to self-entitlement, feminists, ethnic minorites etc.
The amount of discussions i had with all groups (polisci major so comes with the student years) were allways enlightening but just a very small group can answer the why question.

In Holland:
The only racial rioting in the last 40 years: Between Marocans and Indonesians (molluca exiles from the colonial days).
Turks hate Marocans with a vengeance, Surinams hate Indians with a swag, Dutch see Belgians as inferior etc etc

Bartholomeus Crane
January 27 2013, 02:39:15 PM
Racist, sexist, homophobe, gun nut, islamaphobe, anti-semetic, etc.

It's just a method of shutting down a conversation. Puts the person instantly on the offensive when you declare them something that is unpopular or has negative undertones. Then instead of having a debate, the speaker has to defend themselves personally rather than the topic at hand. If they choose not to, then they risk coming off as having irrational ideas despite being perfectly rational because who would want to associate themselves with XXX group/person/ideal? It also works in reverse as you can attribute positive connotations to your argument and thus making the other side look bad. E.g. - "this is common sense XXXX legislation". "My opposition view of the subject incorporates sane principles."

Wiki example:


Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.


Halo effect - The halo effect or halo error is a cognitive bias in which our judgments of a personís character can be influenced by our overall impression of him or her. It can be found in a range of situations from the courtroom to the classroom and in everyday interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

Unless you are, say, Wayne LaPierre from the NRA, and you throw out a lot of, say, already debunked (strawmen) arguments, and then shout 'ad hominem' really loud so as to quickly kill the discussion, when they are debunked yet again. Basically exactly like Whispous said with the militant feminists and sexism: if you don't agree it me your arguments must be based on a logical fallacy. Well, it doesn't work like that.

It is basically a variant of Karl Rove's strategy for all political discussion in the US: blame the other guy first for all the things you are doing wrong. And it was quite successful for a time because it killed all serious political discussion, polarised everything and everyone, and nothing gets done anymore. But the people wised up to the tactic, and now the favourables of all people who use it are in the toilet.

It also has a connection with the Hitler/Goebbels 'Big Lie' theory: if you're going to tell a lie (or make an outrageous statement): make it a really big or outrageous one, then repeat it over and over and over again. People will never believe a small lie they can comprehend it or reason about it. But if a guy on a stage says something truly outrageous, no matter how outlandish, and keeps repeating it as if it is truly an insight. People will think that he surely wouldn't be stupid enough to keep repeating such an outrageous lie if there wasn't some truth in it. And they start to question themselves? Again, it does work, but only for a while.

Any way, the whole ad hominem fallacy is often misunderstood and abused. If someone like Wayne LaPierre shows up and starts to talk a lot of crazy nonsense, then it is not an ad hominem to say that Wayne LaPierre must be crazy for bringing up a lot of crazy nonsense. The size of the lie or outrageous statement is not a guard against that either. If someone tells a lie or an outrageous untruth, it is not an ad hominem to point out that he is a liar, or, in fact, to point out how and why he is one.

An ad hominem is simply going after the messenger and not the message. If you go after both the message and the messenger, it is not an ad hominem. It is only when you leave the message out of your counter-argument entirely that it is an ad hominem. People who claim to be the subject of ad hominems, when in fact they aren't, are actually using a strawman fallacy to win the discussion. They prefer to discuss the ad hominem over the arguments, perhaps because they can't see a way to win with the latter.

Example: If it is a property of 'militant feminists' to call all counter-arguments 'sexist'. Then it is not an ad hominem to call someone who calls all your counter-arguments 'sexist' a 'militant feminist'. In fact, if the 'militant sexist' doesn't address those counter arguments beyond calling them 'sexist', then the 'militant feminist' is guilty of both an ad hominem (an attack on the messenger and not the message), and a strawman fallacy (arguing a position you'd like to have been made instead of the one actually made). In general, if in a discussion one side starts to call ad hominems on everything, and starts using strawman arguments on a regular basis, it is usually a sign that they lost the argument.

And it is the same with Wayne LaPierre. If he brings up, yet again, another outrageous and debunked diversion, it is not an ad hominem to say that he constantly brings up outrageous and debunked diversions instead of addressing the real issues. The size and outrageousness of the diversion are no counter against that. Nor is it a defence to say that everyone is constantly committing ad hominem against him. If someone persistently brings crazy statements to the argument, and you point this out, it is not an ad hominem to at one point say that he surely must be crazy to keep doing so.

And no, saying that you hold a position, or that you support a piece of legislation because it appeals to your common sense is not a way to cut down a discussion. It is merely the expression of your opinion on that position. If you, as the opposition, do not believe some argument appeals to common sense, then there is nothing stopping you from saying so. It doesn't kill a discussion. That is the discussion.

Ampoliros
January 27 2013, 03:38:54 PM
No doubt exists that among ethnicities and genders there is still a large amount of prejudice, and the inequality has definitely not been solved.

However among people fighting for their rights, there is the occasional person who goes beyond and behaves in a way that appears as if they feel they have more rights than they should.

whose rights, and what rights?


Personally I see a worrying amount of over-entitlement, particularly from militant feminists, and no-one dares contradict them, because they would instantly be labelled sexist. It also appears that even daring to bring that kind of observation up is in itself, sexist.

Contradict them on what? What arguments were used?

Also, do you think that you cannot possibly be sexist? Why?


Sometimes it just feels that, while there ARE still racist/sexist people out there, being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from

If having to watch what you say is the worst of your problems, you're doing pretty well mate.

Rakshasa The Cat
January 28 2013, 03:12:44 AM
Some retards are more equal than others?

Is this kinda like how the Jews in Norway always seem to be yelling about anti-semitism and the holocaust when ever the subject of human rights and not mutilating little baby penises comes up, when I can't even remember ever meeting anyone who gives two shits.

Lallante
January 28 2013, 05:38:23 PM
No doubt exists that among ethnicities and genders there is still a large amount of prejudice, and the inequality has definitely not been solved.

However among people fighting for their rights, there is the occasional person who goes beyond and behaves in a way that appears as if they feel they have more rights than they should.


Personally I see a worrying amount of over-entitlement, particularly from militant feminists, and no-one dares contradict them, because they would instantly be labelled sexist. It also appears that even daring to bring that kind of observation up is in itself, sexist.


Classic Whispous:

http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=341


Arguing on the internet about how "radical feminism" goes too far is literally the most ridiculous strawman possible. What radical feminists? Apart from a tiny backeddy community on the internet approximately about the size and relevancy of the community that advocates legalising man-animal marriages "radical feminism" doesn't really exist anymore.

I guarantee there is less than one "radical feminist" for every 10,000 angry white intenet nerd outraged at "radical feminism".


"Hey guys the existance of this incredibly tiny irrelevant political group justifies me not giving a shit about all these moral issues and going on and on about how oppressed I am even though I've never actually met anyone from the subset of people that is supposedly oppressing me".

Straight Hustlin
January 28 2013, 06:23:01 PM
To be fair Lal they do exist though. Last summer a woman reamed me out for holding a door for her at the dunkin donuts near where I work. The woman was like 4 or 5 steps behind me, so I figured I would hold the door open for her, if I'm not mistaken they call that manners. So I open the door and hold it for her, she says you dont have to do that. I said it was no problem and she freaks the fuck out going on this tirade about how no it isnt a problem she can touch and open adoor all her self and that I'm some kind of misogynistic asshole sexual predator because apparently holding a door open means im trying to fuck her, Keeping in mind this is a rather frumpy looking middle aged chick and I'm 25 and a pretty good lookin dude. Anyway so I'm still standing outside D&D still holding the door for this bitch who is tearing apart my soul, and a young woman with a small child walks up, I'd imagine she could hear this verbal assault from clear across the parking lot; so she gets to the door and says thank you for holding the door for us sweetie, and she just looks at the woman who was freaking out on me. To this day I wish I could've seen the look she gave her, because the woman immediately shut the fuck up and went inside.

So while I guess one incident in the thousands up thousands of times I've held doors open for people isn't bad at all, it was defintely a shock to me to have such a common act of decency turn into some kinda afront to her womanhood. Now unfortunantly I find myself questioning wether or not I should hold a door for someone.

whispous
January 28 2013, 06:45:48 PM
Lal, to say that there are no overzealous over reaching sexist women hiding under the banner of feminism is just as wrong as the assertion that there is no-one out there who holds genuinely racist views about white people. You're just agreeing with the "women can't be sexist" and "non-white people can't be racist" lies. I think you severely underestimate how many of these people actually exist.

Tarminic
January 28 2013, 07:19:11 PM
I don't think he said there were none, just that they were such a tiny minority as you're more likely to be mugged in Portland than you are to deal with one in real life.

I've only ever encountered one, though I had the misfortune of having to live with her for 6 months. But she was a horribly unhappy person whose untreated mental issues alienated everyone around her.

Sacul
January 28 2013, 07:37:41 PM
hahahhahahha Lall you have clearly never met any female anthropology students.

I once followed a course in that while in uni (12 ects). It was just amazing how angry they all were. I didnt know what trolling was back then but fuck me i trolled the shit out of those girls. Best part was when we had to write a column and i wrote it about the ISI (pakistani intel and the connection to the Taliban) way back in 2000. srsly none of them knew what a column was, they were just bitter raging about some history shit on how women were oppressed. If it was 2010 i would have just made my piece a 5 minute best of madmen

e: just realised you would call a column a editorial or op-ed.

Ampoliros
January 28 2013, 08:43:57 PM
I don't think he said there were none, just that they were such a tiny minority as you're more likely to be mugged in Portland than you are to deal with one in real life.

Yeah, this. There are definitely people out there with prejudicial views towards men and masculinity. That said, they're not in positions of power nor are their views represented in society at large. Modern feminists (third wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism)) typically don't like them either (too much focus on middle class white women, trans*-exclusionary, etc), so they're not exactly representative of the entire movement.

Lallante
January 29 2013, 09:18:58 AM
To be fair Lal they do exist though. Last summer a woman reamed me out for holding a door for her at the dunkin donuts near where I work. The woman was like 4 or 5 steps behind me, so I figured I would hold the door open for her, if I'm not mistaken they call that manners. So I open the door and hold it for her, she says you dont have to do that. I said it was no problem and she freaks the fuck out going on this tirade about how no it isnt a problem she can touch and open adoor all her self and that I'm some kind of misogynistic asshole sexual predator because apparently holding a door open means im trying to fuck her, Keeping in mind this is a rather frumpy looking middle aged chick and I'm 25 and a pretty good lookin dude. Anyway so I'm still standing outside D&D still holding the door for this bitch who is tearing apart my soul, and a young woman with a small child walks up, I'd imagine she could hear this verbal assault from clear across the parking lot; so she gets to the door and says thank you for holding the door for us sweetie, and she just looks at the woman who was freaking out on me. To this day I wish I could've seen the look she gave her, because the woman immediately shut the fuck up and went inside.
That anecdote has literally nothing to do with radical feminism. The woman was a stupid bitch, like there are millions of stupid bitches and equally stupid assholes in the world. Its nothing to do with philosophy - people like that will find an excuse to get pissed off at you.


So while I guess one incident in the thousands up thousands of times I've held doors open for people isn't bad at all, it was defintely a shock to me to have such a common act of decency turn into some kinda afront to her womanhood. Now unfortunantly I find myself questioning wether or not I should hold a door for someone.
You should. Its trivially obvious that its polite to hold open the door for anyone immediately following you, and hold it open for longer for anyone who is less able to open the door than yourself. This isn't a feminism issue, UNLESS you make a massive show of leaping in front a perfectly able woman to hold the door open for her, in which case you are being weird / showing off, albeit mildly.

Its also funny in these threads how everyone seems to have (what they think is) a relevant anecdote that fits their argument perfectly :P

Lallante
January 29 2013, 09:22:57 AM
hahahhahahha Lall you have clearly never met any female anthropology students.

I once followed a course in that while in uni (12 ects). It was just amazing how angry they all were. I didnt know what trolling was back then but fuck me i trolled the shit out of those girls. Best part was when we had to write a column and i wrote it about the ISI (pakistani intel and the connection to the Taliban) way back in 2000. srsly none of them knew what a column was, they were just bitter raging about some history shit on how women were oppressed. If it was 2010 i would have just made my piece a 5 minute best of madmen

e: just realised you would call a column a editorial or op-ed.

Again, what does this have to do with feminism?

Are you saying that anyone who takes an interest in the documented historical oppression of women is a radical feminist?

When you research and write a paper about slavery you don't get a little annoyed/outraged about how they were treated? Does that make you a black-power advocate?


ITT lots of people who know fuck all about feminism and even less about radical feminism. Apparantly a radical feminist is any woman who is angry and references gender.

Chrien
January 29 2013, 11:20:55 AM
I know quite a few women who could be considered feminists under some of the definitions throw about here. Most of them just want a fair shake in a world that is still heavily stacked towards men. They want the same career opportunities as male counter-parts; they want to be paid the same as men who are doing the same job. They don't want to be sexually harassed just because they're easy on the eye. They may not have the same sense as humor as you, and they may get offended at the sexual joke you and your mates would normally share. None of this makes them militant, or anything to fear. It just means like you and I they're human beings who deserve to be treated with respect. You should always be thinking before you opening your mouth and speaking... who is my audience and will they be offended by what I say. If they're going to offended do I really care... you get to make a choice and then they get to make some value judgements about what type of person you are.

Are there woman out there whose beliefs go far beyond these basic demands... yes; but they're such a minor part of feminism and they're nothing to fear. There are plenty of male misogynists out there who vocalise radical views of their own.

Synapse
January 29 2013, 11:51:19 AM
I know quite a few women who could be considered feminists under some of the definitions throw about here. Most of them just want a fair shake in a world that is still heavily stacked towards men. They want the same career opportunities as male counter-parts; they want to be paid the same as men who are doing the same job. They don't want to be sexually harassed just because they're easy on the eye. They may not have the same sense as humor as you, and they may get offended at the sexual joke you and your mates would normally share. None of this makes them militant, or anything to fear. It just means like you and I they're human beings who deserve to be treated with respect. You should always be thinking before you opening your mouth and speaking... who is my audience and will they be offended by what I say. If they're going to offended do I really care... you get to make a choice and then they get to make some value judgements about what type of person you are.

Are there woman out there whose beliefs go far beyond these basic demands... yes; but they're such a minor part of feminism and they're nothing to fear. There are plenty of male misogynists out there who vocalise radical views of their own.

Too bad this thread isnt specifically about femisim _or_ logical fears.

It's about looking over your shoulder as a member of a class known for holding a majority of racists/sexists/homophobes etc and always having to defend onesself as a member of that class rather than as an individual.

It has a lot more in common with equality campaigns than not.

The whole point of this thread is how hard it is to be considered as an individual and look how quickly we're saying "feminists are all nice girls who just want simple equality and there are so few of the others you might as well treat them as if they dont exist." Which is exactly the point. You're ignoring the individual merits of people and judging based on the class instead.

If you point out that this is a lost cause, I'll refer you to post #2 in the entire thread. Doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

Lallante
January 29 2013, 12:03:06 PM
Synapse when that becomes a problem even 1/1000 as significant in objective severity and frequency as the residual anti-women discrimination, anti-minority discrimination etc then you'll have a point.

Until then, this is just another argument primarily used by white western guys to justify not having to scrutinise their indifference to discrimination against others by reference to the bogeyman of straw feminists in the closet (http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=341).


We can all agree that the incredibly small minority of misandrists are as bad as misogynists. But how is this salient, relevant or otherwise interesting?

Synapse
January 29 2013, 12:40:38 PM
I'm reading that as an attempt to shut down the conversation by saying my points (however valid) are not as important as some other (HEY LOOK OVER HERE, INSTEAD!) points. We can have an anti-discrimination ragefest thread. I predict it will be boring because we all agree with each other. Vehemently so. This is not that thread.

Also you've managed to insinuate without actually saying so that anyone who disagrees with you(read: whispous, myself, others) is at best indifferent to injustice and inequality, and potentially hiding feelings in support.

That's an unfair way to treat individuals but I guess you're doing a wonderful job of illustrating what the thread is about. The strategy goes like this: First, associate some group of arbitrary people with a group of objectively bad people -> Second, you can shut down the opinions of anyone from that arbitrary group regardless of the validity of what they say, because they are associated with bad people now.

Edit: For comparison - Lallante, when anything you post about becomes a problem even 1/1000 as significant in objective severity and frequency as the tens of thousands who die yearly in wars and armed conflict then you'll have a point. Until then post only about armed conflict or you don't have a point.

Lallante
January 29 2013, 12:56:20 PM
I'm reading that as an attempt to shut down the conversation by saying my points (however valid) are not as important as some other (HEY LOOK OVER HERE, INSTEAD!) points. We can have an anti-discrimination ragefest thread. I predict it will be boring because we all agree with each other. This is not that thread.

Also you've managed to insinuate without actually saying so that anyone who disagrees with you(read: whispous, myself, others) is at best indifferent to injustice and inequality, and potentially hiding feelings in support.

That's an unfair way to treat individuals but I guess you're doing a wonderful job of illustrating what the thread is about. Associate some group with bad people -> shut down the opinions of anyone from that group regardless of the validity of what they say.

That's not far off my point, but you are missing the key follow up. People, a LOT of people, work themselves up into indignation about this, a very very minor, but legitimate, point ON PURPOSE as an excuse (conscious or unconscious) for not giving a fuck about the corrolary discrimination against minorities/women.


edit: I've re-read the thread and realised I'm reading a bit too much into this. I'll back down and finish just by saying that my experience is that a large proportion of people who, when presented with the issue of gender inequality, get really angry at "those damn radical feminists" are either closet misogynists or else dont know what radical feminism is. But of course its legit to discuss it in its own thread

PS: Modern radical feminism (opposition to the patriarchy) is really, really dumb and most of its adherents are trolls or misandrists.

Lallante
January 29 2013, 01:27:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!

This is a perfect case in point. I shouldn't have to mention how many millions of t-shirts you can get that include references to "bitches" or other women-denigrating (and fairly harmless) slogans which were not remarked upon by the organisers of this campaign.

Tarminic
January 29 2013, 05:47:48 PM
It's about looking over your shoulder as a member of a class known for holding a majority of racists/sexists/homophobes etc and always having to defend onesself as a member of that class rather than as an individual.
How many times in your life has this actually happened?

KathDougans
January 29 2013, 05:50:31 PM
Have you considered the possibility that instead of "over-entitlement", it is something else ?

There have always been people with the attitude that someone else is to blame for whatever misfortune occurs. Real or imagined.
You know, things like, "that other guy got promoted instead of me, must be because of (imagined reason)".

So, you encounter N women that have that attitude, and one of the reasons they claim they're hard done by is "oppression by men."
And because that's a common reason given, then you see what looks like a pattern, because you've forgotten the other women that don't fit the pattern.

So, instead of there being "militant feminists with over-entitlement attitudes", you've just encountered a number of angry women that your brain has noticed ?

DrumWithMe2012
January 30 2013, 01:34:21 AM
Just throwing in my two-cents for this one. I'm a band director for high school. I absolutely love to teach and make music every day for my career. May not be paid much in the teaching field but it's what I love. As far as teacher demographics, the majority of teachers in today's society are female. However, in the field of music, high school band directors are predominately male. I'm an oddball for my field and I love it. I don't get paid less because I'm a woman, and I didn't get my job simply because I have a rack. I have never understood why women get so angry about men in the work place or men in general, saying that they are oppressed by men. I'm an independent woman and can take care of myself. I don't need to bitch about anything to get my way. I've also grown up being "one of the boys" and don't take crap. No one should, regardless of your sex, sexuality, or race. I had a professor who was a HUGE feminist. If there was something going on in the world in which women were being put down, we'd hear about it. There will aways be racism or sexism. se la vie, I suppose.

Lallante
January 30 2013, 05:40:40 PM
Just throwing in my two-cents for this one. I'm a band director for high school. I absolutely love to teach and make music every day for my career. May not be paid much in the teaching field but it's what I love. As far as teacher demographics, the majority of teachers in today's society are female. However, in the field of music, high school band directors are predominately male. I'm an oddball for my field and I love it. I don't get paid less because I'm a woman, and I didn't get my job simply because I have a rack. I have never understood why women get so angry about men in the work place or men in general, saying that they are oppressed by men. I'm an independent woman and can take care of myself. I don't need to bitch about anything to get my way. I've also grown up being "one of the boys" and don't take crap. No one should, regardless of your sex, sexuality, or race. I had a professor who was a HUGE feminist. If there was something going on in the world in which women were being put down, we'd hear about it. There will aways be racism or sexism. se la vie, I suppose.

"Guys I don't personally seem to suffer from discrimination in the workplace therefore it doesn't exist and women who complain about it should just man up."

A woman complaining about discrimination in the workplace is "bitching to get their own way" now?

Synapse
January 30 2013, 05:55:57 PM
It's about looking over your shoulder as a member of a class known for holding a majority of racists/sexists/homophobes etc and always having to defend onesself as a member of that class rather than as an individual.
How many times in your life has this actually happened?

I don't keep count. Often enough that "how many times in my life" is an unreasonable number to count. Maybe times per year or times per month.



Just throwing in my two-cents for this one. I'm a band director for high school. I absolutely love to teach and make music every day for my career. May not be paid much in the teaching field but it's what I love. As far as teacher demographics, the majority of teachers in today's society are female. However, in the field of music, high school band directors are predominately male. I'm an oddball for my field and I love it. I don't get paid less because I'm a woman, and I didn't get my job simply because I have a rack. I have never understood why women get so angry about men in the work place or men in general, saying that they are oppressed by men. I'm an independent woman and can take care of myself. I don't need to bitch about anything to get my way. I've also grown up being "one of the boys" and don't take crap. No one should, regardless of your sex, sexuality, or race. I had a professor who was a HUGE feminist. If there was something going on in the world in which women were being put down, we'd hear about it. There will aways be racism or sexism. se la vie, I suppose.

"Guys I don't personally seem to suffer from discrimination in the workplace therefore it doesn't exist and women who complain about it should just man up."

A woman complaining about discrimination in the workplace is "bitching to get their own way" now?

Whoa Lall you're taking this way to adversarially. I think her post was meant to be a more lighthearted "not everyone in today's world needs to be part of the gender wars" sort of post. No need to start fires there.

Ampoliros
January 31 2013, 05:13:33 AM
It's about looking over your shoulder as a member of a class known for holding a majority of racists/sexists/homophobes etc and always having to defend onesself as a member of that class rather than as an individual.
How many times in your life has this actually happened?

I don't keep count. Often enough that "how many times in my life" is an unreasonable number to count. Maybe times per year or times per month.

This just seems like a variation of the 'I have to watch what I say' argument. If the worst thing you have to deal with is accusations (by whom?) of having shitty opinions, I maintain that you're doing pretty well. Everyone has to deal with that. You're not going to show up for a job interview one day and not get hired because 'you could be racist'.

SAI Peregrinus
January 31 2013, 08:15:22 AM
Not every woman is oppressed. Not every black person is oppressed. Not every member of [insert group here] is oppressed. That doesn't mean that none are oppressed, and it doesn't make oppression OK.

Tarminic
January 31 2013, 03:49:11 PM
It's about looking over your shoulder as a member of a class known for holding a majority of racists/sexists/homophobes etc and always having to defend onesself as a member of that class rather than as an individual.
How many times in your life has this actually happened?

I don't keep count. Often enough that "how many times in my life" is an unreasonable number to count. Maybe times per year or times per month.

Who the hell do you hang out with that you have to defend yourself as a member of the male gender on a monthly basis? I can seriously count on one hand the number of times I've ever had a conversation like that.

Rakshasa The Cat
February 1 2013, 03:13:01 AM
Who the hell do you hang out with that you have to defend yourself as a member of the male gender on a monthly basis? I can seriously count on one hand the number of times I've ever had a conversation like that.

Might be similar to how some people seem to keep ending up on the receiving end of domestic violence?

Lallante
February 1 2013, 10:38:33 AM
Who the hell do you hang out with that you have to defend yourself as a member of the male gender on a monthly basis? I can seriously count on one hand the number of times I've ever had a conversation like that.

Might be similar to how some people seem to keep ending up on the receiving end of domestic violence?

Synapse is attracted to women who emasculate him due to childhood sexual/parental trauma?

Rakshasa The Cat
February 3 2013, 06:09:05 AM
Synapse is attracted to women who emasculate him due to childhood sexual/parental trauma?

Sounds plausible to me.

Dorvil Barranis
February 11 2013, 12:52:49 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/US_womens_earnings_as_a_percentage_of_mens_1979-2005.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_womens_earnings_as_a_percentage_of_mens_19 79-2005.gif
Source : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Information and Marketing Services

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

P.S. You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist. I consider myself a feminist because I support equality for women.

Alistair
February 11 2013, 02:31:32 AM
Out of curiosity, what would be required for there to be real "equallity for women" in the U.S. for example, legally speaking. What would be required, specificly.

If you ask me "should there be equallity for women", I cannot fathom anyone saying "fuck no" to that. I know I wouldn't say no.

But what does it mean? In a policy-of-government, legal, standpoint, what does equality for women mean in the specifics?

For a start, equal pay for equal work, is a cornerstone of this right? Certainly gets my support, with some caveats (i.e. no two people are equal, pay should be based on productivity, i.e. merit, without race/gender/etc being a factor).

But what else? Say you're writing the bullet points for a new bill before Congress called the "Equality for Women Act", what are those bullet points?

Shiroi Okami
February 11 2013, 02:37:50 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/US_womens_earnings_as_a_percentage_of_mens_1979-2005.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_womens_earnings_as_a_percentage_of_mens_19 79-2005.gif
Source : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Information and Marketing Services

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

P.S. You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist. I consider myself a feminist because I support equality for women.

Men can't be feminists, they can only be rapists or gay.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 03:22:56 AM
Men can't be feminists, they can only be rapists or gay.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

oh, well, if one woman with a blog said it it must be what every feminist thinks

to be serious, most feminists would disagree with this woman about most of this list. Hell, most feminists would disagree with her on pretty much everything - she hates transgendered individuals, she hates pornography and BDSM, and pretty much hates men in general. she is a literal straw feminist.

Shiroi Okami
February 11 2013, 03:26:47 AM
That's the problem with feminism, it's much too diverse in what they want and believe, but they all identify as feminists. Even ones like this http://i.imgur.com/O58Y1o5.jpg
Still identify as feminists, and if you speak out against one for being a complete retard, you've viewed as being against feminism in general.

Cue1*
February 11 2013, 03:51:09 AM
Men can't be feminists, they can only be rapists or gay.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/


He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was~~ subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.So, if someone has sex with a woman who is horny, it's rape? Yea, this chick is fucking nuts.

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 05:44:54 AM
That's the problem with feminism, it's much too diverse in what they want and believe, but they all identify as feminists.

replace 'feminism' with pretty much any group and you'll see how absurd what you said was. here, let me show you:


That's the problem with christians, it's much too diverse in what they want and believe, but they all identify as christian.

all feminists share the same root: the end of gender inequality. Past that, there's a diversity in opinions, which is not a bad thing. There are feminists who believe pornography is inherently destructive to women and degrading. There are feminists who think that porn and sex are great things when done with respect. The two argue with each other a lot.


Still identify as feminists, and if you speak out against one for being a complete retard, you've viewed as being against feminism in general.

It depends on how you argue and what you're arguing about. In this case, I'd point out that members of marginalized groups have the right (and good reason) to be upset at the people disrespecting their rights and opinions. Calling her 'a complete retard', for example, would be a pretty shitty thing to say.

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 06:10:08 AM
Out of curiosity, what would be required for there to be real "equallity for women" in the U.S. for example, legally speaking. What would be required, specificly.

If you ask me "should there be equallity for women", I cannot fathom anyone saying "fuck no" to that. I know I wouldn't say no.

But what does it mean? In a policy-of-government, legal, standpoint, what does equality for women mean in the specifics?

For a start, equal pay for equal work, is a cornerstone of this right? Certainly gets my support, with some caveats (i.e. no two people are equal, pay should be based on productivity, i.e. merit, without race/gender/etc being a factor).

But what else? Say you're writing the bullet points for a new bill before Congress called the "Equality for Women Act", what are those bullet points?

It'd be pretty impossible to come up with a list. There's obviously some things like equal work for equal pay, abortion, and access to birth control; but like I'm telling Shiroi here, there's plenty of disagreement within feminist groups as to what the best path to equality is, and what should really be included as 'gender equality'. Some feminists might say that equality for women includes trans women and therefore LGBT rights...some will not.

Tarminic
February 11 2013, 06:10:51 PM
It seems like we just need to accept the fundamental differences between men and women before even having a national conversation about equality.
What percentage of the US population doesn't already believe this, though?

Toxic
February 11 2013, 06:21:15 PM
In Denmark a "feminist" group wanted to spend 4 million dollars of tax payer money on setting up female pissoirs (or how you spell it), were women can stand up and piss. All in the name of equality.

:facepalm:

Synapse
February 11 2013, 07:33:40 PM
Some people ( a lot of people ) miss the difference between "equal" and "identical".

Global androgeny is not the solution to gender inequality.

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 10:09:30 PM
I have no problem with womens' rights activists, I think we can all agree that women are largely treated as second class citizens in large swaths of non-developed countries.

Yeah - but don't assume that women being treated like shit is just something that happens in afghanistan. There's obviously a huge difference in degree and repercussions, but that doesn't mean its not worth dealing with ~first world issues~, too.



I will say however that in the United States there are a lot of social double standards that place men in an interestingly negative position relative to the opposite sex.
Low hanging fruit obviously being the double standard against men who have been abused by women. Their often treated like nothing happened, told to "man up", or congratulated.

Sure. If you ask yourself why that is though, you can pretty easily see that this is why men should be feminists; they are harmed by the institutional systems of sexism, too. Sexism says that men are superior to women, that masculinity is superior to femininity, and that both men and women and masculinity and femininity are in direct opposition to one another.

If you understand these as true, you can pretty easily see that men who are abused by women are not viewed as masculine (strong, dominant, aggressive)* and instead are viewed as feminine (weak, deferential, passive)* - and that's where the shaming comes from. You could view it as a type of misogyny; 'femininity is bad, therefore men who are viewed as feminine are also bad'.

*these are societal views, and not my own.

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 10:11:00 PM
Some people ( a lot of people ) miss the difference between "equal" and "identical".

Global androgeny is not the solution to gender inequality.

*androgyny

also, who said it was the solution? the straw feminists?

Alistair
February 11 2013, 10:21:32 PM
It'd be pretty impossible to come up with a list. There's plenty of disagreement within feminist groups as to what the best path to equality is, and what should really be included as 'gender equality'

It would be far easier to address the issue if there was something close to consensus on the issue on the side claiming a lack of equality.

With that said, you did provide some examples to look at.


There's obviously some things like equal work for equal pay,

A given. The only reasoning for a difference in pay between a man and a woman is productivity and attendence, if such a discrepancy were to exist. I would think the vast majority would support this on it's own.


abortion

Forgive me, but can you explain what equality issue exists regarding abortion? Men are incappable of having one, and women can currently have one with only minor restrictions on late term, so how could there be equallity here?


and access to birth control

When you say "access", I assume you mean "State Paid or Health Insurance Paid (by Law) Free Birth Control"? Because access is as easy as going to any super market or 7-11.

I agree in principle that if teh State of a Insurer chooses to cover men's sexual aids such as Viagra, they should certainly cover birth control. Seems very reasonable to me.

On another note...

It will be interesting when the flip of this issue also comes into play down the road.

For example, men getting the same time off benefits as women when they (the man's wife/parner/surrogate) is having a child. Or being given the same flexabillity regarding child-based issues most women get in the modern U.S. office.

Or the massive advantage women currently posess in custody battles and divorce proceedings being leveled out.

Etc.

I'm looking forward to the first woman U.S. President. I had thought it would be Ms. Clinton, but it seems we preferred an African American first over a woman, /shrug. Now I think it's too late, and her work during the Obama Administration has not helped her cause for a possible 2016 in many eyes. Who esle is out there, I wonder, that has a real shot in 2016 who is a woman?

Cue1*
February 11 2013, 10:48:01 PM
Sexism says that men are superior to women, that masculinity is superior to femininity, and that both men and women and masculinity and femininity are in direct opposition to one another.

Actually, sexism says only that one gender is better than the other. It does not specify which gender is the superior one. Sexism from women to men happens, maybe not as often as men to women, but it still happens.

Shiroi Okami
February 11 2013, 10:52:35 PM
That's the problem with feminism, it's much too diverse in what they want and believe, but they all identify as feminists.

replace 'feminism' with pretty much any group and you'll see how absurd what you said was. here, let me show you:


That's the problem with christians, it's much too diverse in what they want and believe, but they all identify as christian.

all feminists share the same root: the end of gender inequality. Past that, there's a diversity in opinions, which is not a bad thing. There are feminists who believe pornography is inherently destructive to women and degrading. There are feminists who think that porn and sex are great things when done with respect. The two argue with each other a lot.


Still identify as feminists, and if you speak out against one for being a complete retard, you've viewed as being against feminism in general.

It depends on how you argue and what you're arguing about. In this case, I'd point out that members of marginalized groups have the right (and good reason) to be upset at the people disrespecting their rights and opinions. Calling her 'a complete retard', for example, would be a pretty shitty thing to say.

Such wide differences are not as prominent (Or extreme) in christianity, to use your own example, and the religious equivalents of militant feminists, like the westborough baptist church, are afaik being classified as hate groups, but god forbid if someone try and label a group which wants to kill 2.7 billion people a hate group, cause then you would be sexist. At the same time though even the most extreme of christian fundamentalists, while like militant feminists support mass genocide, it's not quite on the same scale.

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 11:10:58 PM
Sexism says that men are superior to women, that masculinity is superior to femininity, and that both men and women and masculinity and femininity are in direct opposition to one another.

Actually, sexism says only that one gender is better than the other. It does not specify which gender is the superior one. Sexism from women to men happens, maybe not as often as men to women, but it still happens.

if you pull your definition of sexism from dictionary.com, sure

granted - misandry exists, but it's not institutionalized, it's not ingrained in society, it's not something men fight against every day. A person might be a misandrist and treat men like shit. Society is misogynistic, everyone is subject to social pressures to treat women like shit. To call what men go through 'sexism' is a bit like when people say that paying taxes is like slavery. It's false equivalence.

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 11:31:56 PM
It would be far easier to address the issue if there was something close to consensus on the issue on the side claiming a lack of equality.

there's no disagreement with the lack of equality, there's disagreement as to how that lack of equality should be fixed.



abortion

Forgive me, but can you explain what equality issue exists regarding abortion? Men are incappable of having one, and women can currently have one with only minor restrictions on late term, so how could there be equallity here?

Men have the right to bodily autonomy, to make decisions about their bodies and health without governmental interference. Women do not.

Moreover, there's a constant push back against said rights, and constant attempts to place absurd hurdles throughout the process.



and access to birth control

When you say "access", I assume you mean "State Paid or Health Insurance Paid (by Law) Free Birth Control"? Because access is as easy as going to any super market or 7-11.

I agree in principle that if teh State of a Insurer chooses to cover men's sexual aids such as Viagra, they should certainly cover birth control. Seems very reasonable to me.

p. much. Again, not an exhaustive list, best I can come up with at 3am or whatever.


For example, men getting the same time off benefits as women when they (the man's wife/parner/surrogate) is having a child. Or being given the same flexabillity regarding child-based issues most women get in the modern U.S. office.

Or the massive advantage women currently posess in custody battles and divorce proceedings being leveled out.

I'd be in favor of equal time off benefits, or some sort of shared time off benefit for both individuals; i think most feminists would.

the 'massive advantage of women in custody/divorce proceedings' is of debatable veracity. From what I recall, men and women receive custody roughly equally when both partners try to seek it, and I think most feminists support that too. Again, to paraphrase my argument from a few posts back, the flip side of 'men can't be good caretakers' is that 'all women must be great caretakers', which is sexist.

No idea about divorce, but i don't know how it's unfair to split marital assets in half.


I'm looking forward to the first woman U.S. President. I had thought it would be Ms. Clinton, but it seems we preferred an African American first over a woman, /shrug. Now I think it's too late, and her work during the Obama Administration has not helped her cause for a possible 2016 in many eyes. Who esle is out there, I wonder, that has a real shot in 2016 who is a woman?

Don't think it's too late, but I guess we'll see.

Alistair
February 11 2013, 11:45:06 PM
there's no disagreement with the lack of equality, there's disagreement as to how that lack of equality should be fixed.

What's your preference for corrective action?


Men have the right to bodily autonomy, to make decisions about their bodies and health without governmental interference. Women do not.

Men cannot posess/create another life within them, the key difference in this issue.


Moreover, there's a constant push back against said rights.

Base Politics, and not very successful politics at that. When (R) controlled the Govt. they did nothing at the Federal Level to really effect Roe v. Wade, which is very telling.


p. much. Again, not an exhaustive list, best I can come up with at 3am or whatever.

Aye, understood.


I'd be in favor of equal time off benefits, or some sort of shared time off benefit for both individuals; i think most feminists would.

Employers wouldn't. Hence the issue. With that said, some upper-tier U.S. employers have started heading in this direction.


the 'massive advantage of women in custody/divorce proceedings' is of debatable veracity. From what I recall, men and women receive custody roughly equally when both partners try to seek it

I'd have to see a source on that, one not written by a biased special interest group. Sadly, I myself lack a source as well, but my memory of my State on contested custody was somethign close to 75%+ Pro-Women.


No idea about divorce, but i don't know how it's unfair to split marital assets in half.

Well, one example would be a case where one partner did nothing to aquire those assets, i.e. did no work during the period of the union.

Such a prtner would be entitled to some, but certainly not half.

Also, issues of equaillity in issues like ex-spouse paid alimony would also need looked at. Women do not deserve ongoing fiscal support simply fort being a woman in an equal setting.


Don't think it's too late, but I guess we'll see.

Indeed.

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 11:45:50 PM
Such wide differences are not as prominent (Or extreme) in christianity, to use your own example

uhm, yes, they really are. Christianity is a pretty wide set of beliefs.

Anyhow, we'll go with the more accessable example of political parties. Ron Paul is a republican. George W. Bush is a republican. The two hold vastly different views on many issues, but share some common views too. It's not a sound argument against republicans to say 'Hey, you two have different views on some stuff, what the fuck? I'm going to ignore you'

You don't need to enforce purity of beliefs across an entire group to argue for something. That's absurd.


and the religious equivalents of militant feminists, like the westborough baptist church, are afaik being classified as hate groups, but god forbid if someone try and label a group which wants to kill 2.7 billion people a hate group, cause then you would be sexist. At the same time though even the most extreme of christian fundamentalists, while like militant feminists support mass genocide, it's not quite on the same scale.

where are all these militant feminists? How are they organizing to kill men? How do they expect to get away with it?

DrumWithMe2012
February 12 2013, 01:23:26 AM
It's about looking over your shoulder as a member of a class known for holding a majority of racists/sexists/homophobes etc and always having to defend onesself as a member of that class rather than as an individual.
How many times in your life has this actually happened?

I don't keep count. Often enough that "how many times in my life" is an unreasonable number to count. Maybe times per year or times per month.



Just throwing in my two-cents for this one. I'm a band director for high school. I absolutely love to teach and make music every day for my career. May not be paid much in the teaching field but it's what I love. As far as teacher demographics, the majority of teachers in today's society are female. However, in the field of music, high school band directors are predominately male. I'm an oddball for my field and I love it. I don't get paid less because I'm a woman, and I didn't get my job simply because I have a rack. I have never understood why women get so angry about men in the work place or men in general, saying that they are oppressed by men. I'm an independent woman and can take care of myself. I don't need to bitch about anything to get my way. I've also grown up being "one of the boys" and don't take crap. No one should, regardless of your sex, sexuality, or race. I had a professor who was a HUGE feminist. If there was something going on in the world in which women were being put down, we'd hear about it. There will aways be racism or sexism. se la vie, I suppose.

"Guys I don't personally seem to suffer from discrimination in the workplace therefore it doesn't exist and women who complain about it should just man up."

A woman complaining about discrimination in the workplace is "bitching to get their own way" now?

Whoa Lall you're taking this way to adversarially. I think her post was meant to be a more lighthearted "not everyone in today's world needs to be part of the gender wars" sort of post. No need to start fires there.


It really was meant to be completely light-hearted. I work with a lot of women who constantly complain that the men are getting paid/treated better than the women. I'm a brand new teacher and a band director at that so I'm one of a kind in my career. Ironically enough, most female high school directors are some of the best in the business so I have no complaints there because I work my ass off. Cue* can attest to that. My point of my original post was simply to state that if a person goes into a job with the thought process of "I'm going to work my best and earn all that is given to me," one will find that there's a pretty even playing field out there.

DrumWithMe2012
February 12 2013, 01:40:53 AM
It'd be pretty impossible to come up with a list. There's plenty of disagreement within feminist groups as to what the best path to equality is, and what should really be included as 'gender equality'

It would be far easier to address the issue if there was something close to consensus on the issue on the side claiming a lack of equality.

With that said, you did provide some examples to look at.


There's obviously some things like equal work for equal pay,



abortion

Forgive me, but can you explain what equality issue exists regarding abortion? Men are incappable of having one, and women can currently have one with only minor restrictions on late term, so how could there be equallity here?


and access to birth control

When you say "access", I assume you mean "State Paid or Health Insurance Paid (by Law) Free Birth Control"? Because access is as easy as going to any super market or 7-11.

I agree in principle that if the State of a Insurer chooses to cover men's sexual aids such as Viagra, they should certainly cover birth control. Seems very reasonable to me.

For example, men getting the same time off benefits as women when they (the man's wife/parner/surrogate) is having a child. Or being given the same flexabillity regarding child-based issues most women get in the modern U.S. office.


Of course, men cannot birth a child. They can have a vasectomy though. No questions asked. A different form of "birth control" if you will but still, there's no baby without the sperm. I think the birth control and abortion stances are what I have an issue with today. It's my body. I should choose what to do with it. I don't feel that anyone else should have the right to tell me that I couldn't have an abortion. Out of the house and the senate combined, only about 20% of them are women so one cannot say that women don't have a voice in congress. But it should be no one's right but my own to choose to take birth control or have an abortion. I stand very firm on that issue.

I have access to birth control. All I had to do was go to the doctor and say "I need to be on the pill." $3.00 later, and I'm set for a month. Some healthcare providers even do them for free. I suppose there's always the issue of obtaining the pill without healthcare but there's always planned parenthood and there are other organizations that have help structures set in place. Also, whatever happened to a condom? Can't be on the pill? Can't afford the kid? No condom? Well, I guess that means no sex for you. Common sense.

I don't want kids. As a teacher, I have about 50 of them and I don't really want one of my own. However, if I ever were to have a baby with future husband and I wanted to go back to work, I would have no issue with him staying home. The issue is that how do you tell a company or employer that your wife just had a baby and isn't taking maternity leave but you're taking it for her while she goes back to work. I'm sure that this isn't unheard of but I can't imagine the reaction on an employer's face. An open-minded one may consider this but they'll have to consider the implications on their company while this man is absent for 2-3 months taking care of a baby. I have to wonder how often that actually happens.

Lastly, equal work for equal pay. I work 10 hours. Mr. Johnson works 10 hours. We do the same job. Accomplish the same tasks. Same quality of work. I expect that we'd both be paid the same. Is my work any different because I'm a woman??? Absolutely not. I can't see how any person could argue otherwise.

Shiroi Okami
February 12 2013, 02:18:40 AM
Such wide differences are not as prominent (Or extreme) in christianity, to use your own example

uhm, yes, they really are. Christianity is a pretty wide set of beliefs.

Anyhow, we'll go with the more accessable example of political parties. Ron Paul is a republican. George W. Bush is a republican. The two hold vastly different views on many issues, but share some common views too. It's not a sound argument against republicans to say 'Hey, you two have different views on some stuff, what the fuck? I'm going to ignore you'

You don't need to enforce purity of beliefs across an entire group to argue for something. That's absurd.


and the religious equivalents of militant feminists, like the westborough baptist church, are afaik being classified as hate groups, but god forbid if someone try and label a group which wants to kill 2.7 billion people a hate group, cause then you would be sexist. At the same time though even the most extreme of christian fundamentalists, while like militant feminists support mass genocide, it's not quite on the same scale.

where are all these militant feminists? How are they organizing to kill men? How do they expect to get away with it?

You're either being deliberately obtuse or have a significant lack of reading comprehension skills

Dorvil Barranis
February 12 2013, 02:55:06 AM
Still identify as feminists, and if you speak out against one for being a complete retard, you've viewed as being against feminism in general.

Sure you can, the #misandry person is a complete retard, and I am a feminist man. If all females (we have a few, right?) on this forum say that I can't hold both viewpoints, then I will believe you. Until then, nothing wrong with criticizing one individual without criticizing an entire group.


It seems like we just need to accept the fundamental differences between men and women before even having a national conversation about equality.

We could argue all day about what, if any, are the "fundamental differences between men and women". Why does that have to be resolved before pursuing equality?


if you pull your definition of sexism from dictionary.com, sure

granted - misandry exists, but it's not institutionalized, it's not ingrained in society, it's not something men fight against every day. A person might be a misandrist and treat men like shit. Society is misogynistic, everyone is subject to social pressures to treat women like shit. To call what men go through 'sexism' is a bit like when people say that paying taxes is like slavery. It's false equivalence.

Women can be sexist, I have seen it, and it is annoying. Sure, they aren't the dominant gender in society, so it does not have as big an impact as misogyny, but I can still call it out when I see it. Not the same as calling taxation slavery, bigotry is always a problem in any form.

Alistair
February 12 2013, 03:07:32 AM
Of course, men cannot birth a child. They can have a vasectomy though. No questions asked. A different form of "birth control" if you will but still, there's no baby without the sperm.

I believe a hysterectomy would be the female equivalent of a vasectomy.


It's my body. I should choose what to do with it.

The Anti-Abortion side would say "you did choose, you choose to fuck and make a new life seperate from your own, and THAT is where your choices end". I don't neccessarily agree with that position, but I can see from where it comes. All boils down to how one defines "life" and what value one places on various stages of life.


I have access to birth control.

Of course you do. Everyone does. As stated, the issue is not "access" but who pays for it.


I don't want kids.

Nor do I.


The issue is that how do you tell a company or employer that your wife just had a baby and isn't taking maternity leave but you're taking it for her while she goes back to work.

In most companies in the U.S., you don't. It's simply not an accepted form of leave or L.o.A.


Lastly, equal work for equal pay. I work 10 hours. Mr. Johnson works 10 hours. We do the same job. Accomplish the same tasks. Same quality of work. I expect that we'd both be paid the same.

A reasonable, if unrealstic, desire. In point of fact, you and Mr. Johnson cannot do exactly the same work at the same quality. One of you will be better. Because people are individuals, not machines on an assembly line.


Is my work any different because I'm a woman??? Absolutely not. I can't see how any person could argue otherwise.

Your work is not different because you're a woman. Your work is different because you are you, he is he, and all them over there are them.

You hypotentical is far too neat for the real world. In the real world, Mr. Johnson smokes, and you do not. He takes 4 smoke breaks a day that you don't. He hence works 40 min. less a day than you do.

But you own a Cat. And it's sick (sad, I know, one of mine is sick). You take at least three days a month off without notice to care for it. So you work 24 hours less there.

Mr. Johnson also likes working late to get things done. You don't.

Etc, etc, etc.

You and Mr. Johnson are not the same. You do not do everything exactly the same. Whomever is more productive deserves the better pay.

In a perfect world.


In the real world, because you have a vagina, you probably start at $8,000 less than Mr. Johnson regardless. And on that, I agree, it's completely bollocks.

Ampoliros
February 12 2013, 03:21:47 AM
What's your preference for corrective action?

legal/governmental changes like the ones above, alongside standing up against injustice and encouraging others to do likewise. nothing particularly radical, no ~shatter the patriarchy~ stuff here

a list would get pretty long (again) and would be be pretty broad.


Men cannot posess/create another life within them, the key difference in this issue.

there's no rational reason why the existence of said life trumps bodily autonomy, in the same way that it wouldn't be right to violate your bodily autonomy to preserve a life


Base Politics, and not very successful politics at that. When (R) controlled the Govt. they did nothing at the Federal Level to really effect Roe v. Wade, which is very telling.

States continually try to do it at their level though, with varying degrees of success. Constitutional amendments, absurd legal requirements for abortion clinics, ultrasound requirements...


Employers wouldn't. Hence the issue. With that said, some upper-tier U.S. employers have started heading in this direction.

Well, yeah, but employees would. It seems like a pretty basic fairness issue


I'd have to see a source on that, one not written by a biased special interest group. Sadly, I myself lack a source as well, but my memory of my State on contested custody was somethign close to 75%+ Pro-Women.

Will have to get back to you on that somewhat, there's some old sources around but getting lots of 404s. Here's an article about NZ, though (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10457584).


Well, one example would be a case where one partner did nothing to aquire those assets, i.e. did no work during the period of the union.

Such a prtner would be entitled to some, but certainly not half.

Also, issues of equaillity in issues like ex-spouse paid alimony would also need looked at. Women do not deserve ongoing fiscal support simply fort being a woman in an equal setting.

just because one partner does not perform actions that resulted directly in financial payment does not mean they did not contribute to the marital assets - raising kids, cooking, cleaning, etc are all contributions, and often significant. The minerals you mine yourself aren't free, basically.

It's also important to note that if one partner has been a homemaker for a number of years, they do not exactly have tons of value in the job market - whereas their partner likely still has their job, experience, and income. Splitting the income or assets in favor of the money maker is not 'fair'.

I'm still in favor of 50/50 splits in most cases, and if you feel you need special protections get a prenup

Ampoliros
February 12 2013, 03:23:54 AM
You're either being deliberately obtuse or have a significant lack of reading comprehension skills

your entire post was two rambling run-on sentences. I would suggest you consider your writing skills before criticizing my reading skills.

Ampoliros
February 12 2013, 03:42:45 AM
Women can be sexist, I have seen it, and it is annoying. Sure, they aren't the dominant gender in society, so it does not have as big an impact as misogyny, but I can still call it out when I see it. Not the same as calling taxation slavery, bigotry is always a problem in any form.

You have to be mindful of the context - you don't know what they have been through. A woman hating men because she was harrassed, stalked, or raped, denied justice, mistreated, abused etc is a hell of a lot different than a guy on the internet getting upset at said woman saying mean things on twitter. Again, it's a false equivalence.

That said, I don't think hating men is particularly healthy - but it is not something I will demand they stop doing.

Dorvil Barranis
February 12 2013, 03:44:27 AM
Women can be sexist, I have seen it, and it is annoying. Sure, they aren't the dominant gender in society, so it does not have as big an impact as misogyny, but I can still call it out when I see it. Not the same as calling taxation slavery, bigotry is always a problem in any form.

You have to be mindful of the context - you don't know what they have been through. A woman hating men because she was harrassed, stalked, or raped, denied justice, mistreated, abused etc is a hell of a lot different than a guy on the internet getting upset at said woman saying mean things on twitter. Again, it's a false equivalence.

That said, I don't think hating men is particularly healthy - but it is not something I will demand they stop doing.

People often have justifications from past experience about why they are racist as well. . .

Ampoliros
February 12 2013, 03:48:39 AM
Of course, men cannot birth a child. They can have a vasectomy though. No questions asked. A different form of "birth control" if you will but still, there's no baby without the sperm.

I believe a hysterectomy would be the female equivalent of a vasectomy.

not a doctor, but you're looking for tubal ligation. hysterectomy is the removal of the uterus, which would probably be most analogous to the removal of the prostate in men.

Ampoliros
February 12 2013, 04:06:02 AM
People often have justifications from past experience about why they are racist as well. . .

there's a significant difference in context, effect, and response.

Cue1*
February 12 2013, 04:28:32 AM
You have to be mindful of the context - you don't know what they have been through. A woman hating men because she was harrassed, stalked, or raped, denied justice, mistreated, abused etc is a hell of a lot different than a guy on the internet getting upset at said woman saying mean things on twitter. Again, it's a false equivalence.

Bullshit. Men can be just as strongly mistreated as women can. Just because someone has had a rough experience once in their life doesn't give them the right to be prejudice against anyone. Be it a woman raped by a man, a man raped by a woman, a black raped by a white, or a 14 year old abused by a 40 year old. Any form of discrimination is wrong, and the fact that it's downplayed from any angle is part of the reason bigotry in all forms will continue to exist.

Tarminic
February 13 2013, 05:56:17 PM
You have to be mindful of the context - you don't know what they have been through. A woman hating men because she was harrassed, stalked, or raped, denied justice, mistreated, abused etc is a hell of a lot different than a guy on the internet getting upset at said woman saying mean things on twitter. Again, it's a false equivalence.

Bullshit. Men can be just as strongly mistreated as women can. Just because someone has had a rough experience once in their life doesn't give them the right to be prejudice against anyone. Be it a woman raped by a man, a man raped by a woman, a black raped by a white, or a 14 year old abused by a 40 year old. Any form of discrimination is wrong, and the fact that it's downplayed from any angle is part of the reason bigotry in all forms will continue to exist.
He never said men can't be just as strongly mistreated as women, and he never said that it absolves them of responsibility for their bigotry. You're arguing against points no one in this thread has tried to make.

Let's try and clarify here instead of lobbing strawmen around: Are you arguing that, in modern Western society, to misogyny and misandry are equally unjustifiable?

And if not, what are you arguing?

Toxic
February 13 2013, 07:58:47 PM
Im with Cue here. Ampoliros just expressed a set of double standards which is what lets sexism survive and thrive to this day.

The context is irrelevant, hating on the other sex makes that woman a sexist, no matter what cards fate or men have dealt her.

Tiny
February 13 2013, 09:38:40 PM
When a black guy will rob anyone who isn't also black, He's racist.

When some one wont trust you beacuse of you gender, they're sexist.

The background is totaly fucking irrelevant, race, sex, we're all human but we are different humans, equal but not the same.

Ampoliros
February 13 2013, 11:45:50 PM
sry, had shit to do. tarm's post adequately represents my thoughts on the matter, though.


Im with Cue here. Ampoliros just expressed a set of double standards which is what lets sexism survive and thrive to this day.

what lets sexism continue to thrive to this day is people's lack of introspection of how their own opinions might be sexist

misandry and other forms of 'reverse bigotry' are distractions said people use so they can continue to ignore the actual problems that exist


The context is irrelevant, hating on the other sex makes that woman a sexist, no matter what cards fate or men have dealt her.


The background is totaly fucking irrelevant, race, sex, we're all human but we are different humans, equal but not the same.

to ignore the context is to pretend that bigotry never existed, to pretend that it doesn't still happen, and to deny the experiences of those who have dealt with it firsthand. It's basically saying to marginalized people 'look, the real problem today isn't bigotry, it isn't ignorance, it isn't discrimination, it's you being upset about having to deal with all those things'

Synapse
February 14 2013, 03:30:38 AM
Actually Ampoliros...

Misandry (and any non-common discrimination) is not a distraction, it's real sexism. Real human failure.

...and ignoring context denies people an excuse for their sexism. Even if a woman had the statistically improbable life of literally being attacked by every man she has ever met, it does not excuse or even render smaller any acts of sexism on her part. Victimhood is a great way for all of us to empathise with someone and be angry at the things they have been through. That's perfectly fine. It can be an opportunity for pity and empathy to set right something that has been wrong or unjust.

It should never be an excuse for someone's flaws.

Cue1*
February 14 2013, 04:37:37 AM
He never said men can't be just as strongly mistreated as women, and he never said that it absolves them of responsibility for their bigotry. You're arguing against points no one in this thread has tried to make.

Actually he did. While he never said men can't be mistreated by women, he marginalized it. He even clarified below. To paraphrase(since I quote it below) 'Misandry is not really an issue and we should ignore it because it takes away from the real issue, misogyny.'


Let's try and clarify here instead of lobbing strawmen around: Are you arguing that, in modern Western society, to misogyny and misandry are equally unjustifiable?

And if not, what are you arguing?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Actually, I take it a step farther. To discriminate against anyone based upon factors that they are forced into due to their birth(age, nationality, skin color, sex) is wrong; and all forms of discrimination that are based upon factors from birth are equally wrong.


what lets sexism continue to thrive to this day is people's lack of introspection of how their own opinions might be sexist

misandry and other forms of 'reverse bigotry' are distractions said people use so they can continue to ignore the actual problems that exist

The fact that you ignore sexism in a reverse direction is part of the reason why sexism exists today. By ignoring the reverse, you are telling women that they are better than men. Men who see this and feel the effects of this then feel that they need to bring women down a notch. Let me be clear, I am not saying that women are the cause of their own sexism, nor are women responsible for sexism that is directed at them. The fault always lies with the person who is discriminating. But the problem is self-perpetrating, and spirals on itself. To properly solve all forms of sexism you must acknowledge that both male to female and female to male exist, and that they are both equally wrong. It is not a distraction, nor is it a justification.

Ampoliros
February 14 2013, 12:58:32 PM
whereas the difference between men and women is both biological and psychological.

tell me more about these 'differences between men and women'

Ampoliros
February 14 2013, 01:22:41 PM
Actually Ampoliros...

Misandry (and any non-common discrimination) is not a distraction, it's real sexism. Real human failure.

to compare misandry to misogyny is absolutely a distraction. It's to say 'yeah, i know misogyny exists, but these are the most important issues I face and they're what's really the problem'


...and ignoring context denies people an excuse for their sexism. Even if a woman had the statistically improbable life of literally being attacked by every man she has ever met, it does not excuse or even render smaller any acts of sexism on her part.

Yes, it does not absolve them of responsibility for their views and treatment, but it's still a very minor issue in the broad scale of things. Again, a woman might be a misandrist. You might even meet and deal with several misandrists throughout your life, and they may treat you like shit - and that may suck. Society is misogynistic. People are subjected to misogynistic views and enforce them on others. To ignore the latter to focus on the problems caused by the former is absurd.

Alistair
February 14 2013, 02:03:12 PM
The fact that you ignore sexism in a reverse direction is part of the reason why sexism exists today.

I agree. Tolerence for any form of raciam/sexism/ethnic hatred/etc. simply because it's not the most common form of that -ism is a huge reason IMO why such tensions continue to exist, and in some case, thrive as a growth industry of professional victims that propagate their or their groups supposed victimhood into a profitable and advantageous benefit, whilst immunizing themselves from any counter-claims that they themselves, in action or deed, are equally guilty of an -ism or that the policies and benefits (advantages) that they demand are themselves a form of that same -ism they (or more usually, their ancestors) were one victim of.

Equallity should mean true equallity, without tolerence for (or excuse making for, or ignoring) ANY form of intolerence or inequality of the kinds we discuss. It does not mean pick and choose, it does not mean "exploit old hatreds for fun and profit while ignoring all other hatreds", and it does not mean that reverse hatred (i.e. hatred revenge) is a permissable thing.

The only appropriate answer in my book is that both misandry and misogyny are equally wrong, period. While one may be more common, commonality does not change the inherant wrongness of either form of descrimination, and one should not be defended whilst the other is prosecuted socially, both should be worked by society to be eliminated.

Ampoliros
February 14 2013, 02:03:26 PM
Actually he did. While he never said men can't be mistreated by women, he marginalized it. He even clarified below. To paraphrase(since I quote it below) 'Misandry is not really an issue and we should ignore it because it takes away from the real issue, misogyny.'

a man (singular) can be treated as badly by a woman (singular) as a woman (singular) can be badly treated by a man (singular) - and they are both bad things. That said, to compare misandry and misogyny as equal problems in society today is absurd.

here, let's put up or shut up again: tell me an example of misandry in modern society


Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Actually, I take it a step farther. To discriminate against anyone based upon factors that they are forced into due to their birth(age, nationality, skin color, sex) is wrong; and all forms of discrimination that are based upon factors from birth are equally wrong.

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on affirmative action


The fact that you ignore sexism in a reverse direction is part of the reason why sexism exists today.

The fact that you focus on 'reverse sexism' instead of dealing with your own biases and the biases of those around you is the overwhelming reason sexism exists today


By ignoring the reverse, you are telling women that they are better than men.

I am telling people that the diffuse misandry of a few women is not equal to the overwhelming drumbeat of misogyny in society


Men who see this and feel the effects of this then feel that they need to bring women down a notch. Let me be clear, I am not saying that women are the cause of their own sexism, nor are women responsible for sexism that is directed at them. The fault always lies with the person who is discriminating. But the problem is self-perpetrating, and spirals on itself.

Mate, you are p. much blaming women for their own sexism. You're suggesting that if women just weren't 'sexist' there wouldn't be any misogyny left, which is absurd. Men have treated women like shit for a very long time, and I guarantee you it wasn't because they all came across a woman that just really really hated men.


To properly solve all forms of sexism you must acknowledge that both male to female and female to male exist, and that they are both equally wrong.

do you acknowledge that they are not both equal in scope?

Ampoliros
February 14 2013, 02:19:18 PM
I agree. Tolerence for any form of raciam/sexism/ethnic hatred/etc. simply because it's not the most common form of that -ism is a huge reason IMO why such tensions continue to exist, and in some case, thrive as a growth industry of professional victims that propagate their or their groups supposed victimhood into a profitable and advantageous benefit, whilst immunizing themselves from any counter-claims that they themselves, in action or deed, are equally guilty of an -ism or that the policies and benefits (advantages) that they demand are themselves a form of that same -ism they (or more usually, their ancestors) were one victim of.

mate, the fact that you marginalize members of groups who speak out as 'professional victims' and dismiss their concerns out of hand is pretty much why bigotry continues to exist


Equallity should mean true equallity, without tolerence for (or excuse making for, or ignoring) ANY form of intolerence or inequality of the kinds we discuss. It does not mean pick and choose, it does not mean "exploit old hatreds for fun and profit while ignoring all other hatreds", and it does not mean that reverse hatred (i.e. hatred revenge) is a permissable thing.

mate, the fact that you pretend that bigotry is over with and minorities are just exploiting it for personal gain is pretty much why bigotry continues to exist


The only appropriate answer in my book is that both misandry and misogyny are equally wrong, period. While one may be more common, commonality does not change the inherant wrongness of either form of descrimination, and one should not be defended whilst the other is prosecuted socially, both should be worked by society to be eliminated.

It's not about commonality, it's about the reflection of those views in society

Alistair
February 14 2013, 02:39:57 PM
mate, the fact that you marginalize members of groups who speak out as 'professional victims' and dismiss their concerns out of hand is pretty much why bigotry continues to exist

You're entitled to your opinions Amp.

You don't seem to want to fix intolerence and hate universally. You want revenge for those you feel are the "worthy" victims, while you ignore completely other victims of the same crime simply because it's a less common form, or it does not fit your worldview of who are and who are not victims. The fact that you're incappable of seeing how victimhood could be abused by some for personal gain is an example of that. You see it as marginalization, which it isn't. I see it as working to stop ALL racism/sexism/etc. equally, not to play favorites that suit our own biases, while creating a new generation of hate going in the other directions.

You seem to me to be completely intolerant of anyone who does not share your belief system. If I don't agree with you down the line about who is or isn't a victim of hate, then you immediately launch into ad hominems about how I must be a part of the hate problem.

TLDR: The Solution is not to stop mistreatement of any one group. It's to stop mistreatment. Anything less only serves to foster and further the problem, not solve it.


mate, the fact that you pretend that bigotry is over with and minorities are just exploiting it for personal gain is pretty much why bigotry continues to exist

I've not said it's over, racism and sexism are still more than alive here in the U.S., although their certainly has been major substantial improvements. What I've said, and will say again, is it hatred and intolerence should ALL be worked against. Not some. All.

Something I wouldn't expect you, given what I've read of you thus far, to understand. You're far too deeply involved in deciding who the good "victims" are, and telling the rest of us how shitty and biased and hateful we are for not siding with you in your very selective objection of hatred, bias, intolerence and violence.

Tarminic
February 14 2013, 03:07:41 PM
Let's try and clarify here instead of lobbing strawmen around: Are you arguing that, in modern Western society, to misogyny and misandry are equally unjustifiable?

And if not, what are you arguing?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Actually, I take it a step farther. To discriminate against anyone based upon factors that they are forced into due to their birth(age, nationality, skin color, sex) is wrong; and all forms of discrimination that are based upon factors from birth are equally wrong.
I differentiate between the degree to which something is morally acceptable and the degree to which it might be expected behavior given the circumstances, and I think it's a little bizarre to not to take that into account at least to some degree.

I don't think anyone here is defending misandry, but while we can and should pay attention to both, we also have limited time and intellectual capital to spend.

For example, according to a 2010 survey by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/index.html) one in seven men experience physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner. That's kind of a big fucking deal, because that's a lot of people and it's something we should be speaking about more, especially because society denigrates men who appear to be victimized by women. But instead we're talking about someone posting with the misandry hashtag on twitter?

Tarminic
February 14 2013, 03:12:11 PM
And let's not get into ridiculous ad-hominum's. Trying to tell everyone how the other really feels is a waste of everyone's time and energy.

Ampoliros
February 14 2013, 04:45:19 PM
You don't seem to want to fix intolerence and hate universally. You want revenge for those you feel are the "worthy" victims, while you ignore completely other victims of the same crime simply because it's a less common form, or it does not fit your worldview of who are and who are not victims. The fact that you're incappable of seeing how victimhood could be abused by some for personal gain is an example of that. You see it as marginalization, which it isn't. I see it as working to stop ALL racism/sexism/etc. equally, not to play favorites that suit our own biases, while creating a new generation of hate going in the other directions.

I don't want people to have 'revenge hate', I'm just not going to treat the people who do as if they are that they are equal contributors to the bigotry and ignorance that persist in society. They aren't.


You seem to me to be completely intolerant of anyone who does not share your belief system. If I don't agree with you down the line about who is or isn't a victim of hate, then you immediately launch into ad hominems about how I must be a part of the hate problem.

The degree to which i am intolerant of peoples opinions is in direct proportion to how shitty I perceive their opinions to be. I can do polite disagreement. I can do reasoned discourse. I'm not going to pretend that your opinions aren't awful when they are.


I've not said it's over, racism and sexism are still more than alive here in the U.S., although their certainly has been major substantial improvements.

good. Whether there's been major improvements is debatable - there's certainly more legal protections now, but that hasn't fixed society by any means


What I've said, and will say again, is it hatred and intolerence should ALL be worked against. Not some. All.

Tell me how you think 'reverse bigotry' should be fixed, then. Tell me how you think regular bigotry should be fixed, too. Do you try to examine your own opinions to see how they are shaped by your biases? Do you think you have any biases?

Alistair
February 14 2013, 05:04:19 PM
I'm just not going to treat the people who (engage in revenge-based hatred, bigotry, racism, sexism, etc.) as if they are that they are equal contributors to the bigotry and ignorance that persist in society. They aren't.

Says everythign that needs said about your viewpoint. And your own deep seated bias on the issue.


I'm not going to pretend that your opinions aren't awful when they are.

Yes, being against all forms of bigotry and intolerence, and for true universal equallity, is sure an awful viewpoint.


Whether there's been major improvements is debatable

Again, exposes how deep seated your bias and your own hatred is. To claim racism and sexism in the United States is not materially better than it's been is almost laughable in it's level of ignorance. Our two most popular leaders are a Black man with an Islamic name, and a Woman (Obama and Clinton). Ask yourself what the odds of that were just 50 years ago.

I get it, mate, you have an Axe, and by God you're going to grind it, and if anyone disagrees, you're going to label them an ignorant stupid bigot who doesn't see their own bigotry like YOU can see it. Best of luck changing society with that tactic.

Mate.

Tarminic
February 14 2013, 05:10:25 PM
I'm just not going to treat the people who (engage in revenge-based hatred, bigotry, racism, sexism, etc.) as if they are that they are equal contributors to the bigotry and ignorance that persist in society. They aren't.

Says everythign that needs said about your viewpoint. And your own deep seated bias on the issue.

Just to clarify, are you saying that all instances of bigotry are equally bad in all respects?

Straight Hustlin
February 14 2013, 05:15:11 PM
I'm just not going to treat the people who (engage in revenge-based hatred, bigotry, racism, sexism, etc.) as if they are that they are equal contributors to the bigotry and ignorance that persist in society. They aren't.

Says everythign that needs said about your viewpoint. And your own deep seated bias on the issue.

Just to clarify, are you saying that all instances of bigotry are equally bad in all respects?

Are you saying they are not? How is a white person hating blacks any worse then a black person hating whites? Hate is hate, and attempting to justify one group's hatred for another only serves to perpetuate and reinforce it.

Toxic
February 14 2013, 05:39:14 PM
Im with Cue here. Ampoliros just expressed a set of double standards which is what lets sexism survive and thrive to this day.

what lets sexism continue to thrive to this day is people's lack of introspection of how their own opinions might be sexist

The irony, its too strong. :lol:

I completely agree with your statement btw. Its just that reading your above discussion with Alistair, it is clear that you lack this very introspection yourself, and you are in fact a sexist.

Tarminic
February 14 2013, 05:40:59 PM
I'm just not going to treat the people who (engage in revenge-based hatred, bigotry, racism, sexism, etc.) as if they are that they are equal contributors to the bigotry and ignorance that persist in society. They aren't.

Says everythign that needs said about your viewpoint. And your own deep seated bias on the issue.

Just to clarify, are you saying that all instances of bigotry are equally bad in all respects?

Are you saying they are not? How is a white person hating blacks any worse then a black person hating whites? Hate is hate, and attempting to justify one group's hatred for another only serves to perpetuate and reinforce it.
I'm claiming, explicitly, the following:

1. Degrees of bigotry exist
2. Different degrees of bigotry cause quantifiably-different levels of harm
3. The attention given to combatting bigotry should be equivalent to the harm caused

I don't see how that can be interpreted as justifying or supporting any form of bigotry.

Straight Hustlin
February 14 2013, 06:51:04 PM
Because you are saying that it is more important for us to address one form of bigotry over another. That one group deserves to have their right to happiness ensured before another. Ironically, this in of itself is bigotry.

What is the quantifiable difference in harm for someone hating a group of people base solely on skin color vs someone hating a group of people because of their religious beliefs. What is the quantifiable difference in harm for a man treating women like shit vs a woman treating men like shit. Or Sexual preference, Or nationality, or Social-Economic status, or Age? Seriously how does one quantify the difference in pain of those in the LGBT civil rights struggle vs those in the civil rights struggle for minorities?

And while the difference may be quantifiable by you using what ever metrics you choose, I assure you that to those on the recieving end it is all the same. Its hatred plain and simple. And by saying that one form of bigotry is somehow more harmful then another is simply belittling to all those who have to endure it. Your basically saying fuck you, we are ignoring your right to liberty and happiness because the rights of another group is a bigger priority to me. How do you not see the hypocricy and the dangerous precedence such an attitude conveys.

Tarminic
February 14 2013, 07:06:03 PM
You're interpreting a degree of bigotry as being the same thing as a type of bigotry. That's not what I'm trying to say.

Examples of types of bigotry:
1. Being bigoted against a specific race
2. Being bigoted against a specific gender
3. Being bigoted against a specific country

Examples of degrees of bigotry:
1. Hating that group enough to treat strangers of that group derisively
2. Hating that group bigoted enough to loudly mock said group in public
3. Hating that group enough to vandalize their property

I'm saying that regardless of the target group, treating strangers of that group like shit causes a different amount of harm than vandalizing their property, and that the effect is at least to some degree quantifiable.

Ampoliros
February 14 2013, 07:41:25 PM
I completely agree with your statement btw. Its just that reading your above discussion with Alistair, it is clear that you lack this very introspection yourself, and you are in fact a sexist.

If you think i'm arguing that 'women should totes get away with all the misandry they want', then you should probably read my points again.


Says everythign that needs said about your viewpoint. And your own deep seated bias on the issue.

Tarm responded better here, so for sake of argument I'm just going to go lol


Yes, being against all forms of bigotry and intolerence, and for true universal equallity, is sure an awful viewpoint.

complaining about 'professional victims' and 'minorities exploiting their past oppressions for profit' are both shitty opinions


Again, exposes how deep seated your bias and your own hatred is. To claim racism and sexism in the United States is not materially better than it's been is almost laughable in it's level of ignorance.

better? sure. Drastically improved? I mean, we've corrected some of the worst rights violations legally, but socially there are still a lot of shitty opinions out there

a Black man with an Islamic name

who continues to face a torrent of racism, either thinly disguised (birtherism woo) or overt


I get it, mate, you have an Axe, and by God you're going to grind it, and if anyone disagrees, you're going to label them an ignorant stupid bigot who doesn't see their own bigotry like YOU can see it. Best of luck changing society with that tactic.

I'm sure you'll do much better by demanding that women and minorities stop being upset about mistreatment, while also complaining about all of their 'professional victims' and how they need to 'stop exploiting past hatreds'. lol

Synapse
February 14 2013, 07:48:50 PM
You're interpreting a degree of bigotry as being the same thing as a type of bigotry. That's not what I'm trying to say.

Examples of types of bigotry:
1. Being bigoted against a specific race
2. Being bigoted against a specific gender
3. Being bigoted against a specific country

Examples of degrees of bigotry:
1. Hating that group enough to treat strangers of that group derisively
2. Hating that group bigoted enough to loudly mock said group in public
3. Hating that group enough to vandalize their property

I'm saying that regardless of the target group, treating strangers of that group like shit causes a different amount of harm than vandalizing their property, and that the effect is at least to some degree quantifiable.


Hey Tarm I hear you and I think that approach makes great sense for a government or anti-hate nonprofit. However on an individual scale I think it causes more problems than it solves. People don't really spend time on bigotry to the limit of their resources. Their position is to simply approve or disapprove and vocalize that. Some people will expend more energy but then it will be in the arena of work done by govts or nonprofits.

Basically, as individuals, we should announce our disapproval of all bigotry equally because that's not a significant resource drain for us to do, and moderating our responses to it based on either type or degree creates an impression of condoning.

Straight Hustlin
February 14 2013, 07:50:48 PM
So what your saying is the few hundreds of dollars worth of property damage to a jewish familys home that is vandalized by a bunch of skin heads spray painting swastikas is more harmful then psychological & emotional pain caused by the verbal harrasment and hate speech that many spew against them? For another example, afew years back a gay man in Alabama was dragged behind a pick up to his death. While a heinous crime no doubt, are you suggesting that we make moves to prevent another homosexual from being dragged behind another truck? or do we make moves to prevent the hate of another human being simply for their sexual preferences?

What exactly is it your suggesting we do? It would seem your suggesting we focus on the Crime part of "hate crime". We have laws for dealing with criminals already, thats why there are different penalties for vandalism and verbal harrasment, and even modifiers if either are done as an act of a hate crime. What we need to work on is preventing that hate from ever being seeded in someones mind.

Tarminic
February 14 2013, 08:29:12 PM
...
I wasn't making any specific statements about whether I personally believe that X is worse than Y, only that it's possible to reasonably judge the relative harm caused by X vs. Y.

Obviously you can't eliminate bigotry via law enforcement - hate crimes are the symptoms, not the disease. Education and critical thinking is probably the best way to fight bigotry in all kinds.

That being said, I do believe that to at least some extent we have to pick our battles just because our time and energy isn't infinite. I don't believe that's a zero-sum game, where being most vocal about X is tacitly supporting everything not X.

Alistair
February 14 2013, 08:51:52 PM
Tarm responded better here, so for sake of argument I'm just going to go lol

Tarm's posts are quality stuff, whilst yours was de facto tacist support for hate and inequallity and a direct claim that some hate is ok because it's less common, less histroic, or (lets be honest) is against heterosexual white men, who you clearly prejudge as a group as worthy of hatred, of having earned the revenge hatred you seem to support above.

If you think it's funny to be a bigot, have at all the lol'ing you like.


complaining about 'professional victims' and 'minorities exploiting their past oppressions for profit' are both shitty opinions

Once again you explose your own bias and bigotry. I judge individuals, and amongst individuals there are unquestionably those who use their race/gender/sexuality/whatever's historic victimization as a means to benefit personally.

You, on the other hand, see only groups, and you judge those groups as a whole, ignoring individuals and basicly sterotyping ALL of that group as rightious victims (if the right color/gender/sexuality) or hateful oppressors (if the wrong color/gender/sexuality) as a group.

Textbook steotyping and bigotry. I'll say it again, no form of hate or bigotry is acceptable. None. Equallity is always preference to inequallity.


better? sure. Drastically improved? I mean, we've corrected some of the worst rights violations legally, but socially there are still a lot of shitty opinions out there

Yes, drasticly better. Room for improvement? Absolutely, plenty of room. But that does not negate whats been gained.


who continues to face a torrent of racism, either thinly disguised (birtherism woo) or overt

When you see racism behind every shadow, and see all members of a group as automatic victims, I guess it's not suprising you come to these kinds of conclusions. Let me guess, any Republican policy differences with the President is really just poorly veiled racism only, right?


I'm sure you'll do much better by demanding that women and minorities stop being upset about mistreatment, while also complaining about all of their 'professional victims' and how they need to 'stop exploiting past hatreds'. lol

And once again in your speedy desire to attack, you miss the mark. I would never tell any group not to be upset about their mistreatement, nor to be silent about it. I support free speach and free expression and the right to air ones grievances to your Governemnt absolutely.

But I would judge that claimed mistreatement on an individual basis or the merits of the specific argument, not simply assume (as you do) that because person X is of race Y, he MUST be a victim, and because person Z is of gender B, he MUST be an oppressor and hence hate and bigorty towards them is ok.

It's amazing that you cannot see that tolerence or support for bigotry in ANY form is a keyfactor in the generational proagation of more hate.

Alistair
February 14 2013, 08:56:43 PM
That being said, I do believe that to at least some extent we have to pick our battles just because our time and energy isn't infinite. I don't believe that's a zero-sum game, where being most vocal about X is tacitly supporting everything not X.

It's not an illogical position Tarm, but I'll just say this:

Efforts to teach/enforce that all bigotry is wrong is, by definition, an effort to teach that specific bigorty is wrong as well, and has the added side-effect of not propagating hate to the next generation. When you start pickign whose hate you will stand against, and whose hate you will remain silent (i.e. tacitly supportive of), you've already lost the cause.

All bigotry or acts of hate/violence/abuse in civil life, regardless of the races/genders/ethnicities/sexualities involved, is wrong. Equallity (absolute equallity under the Law) is always the right and best thing to strive for.

Cue1*
February 14 2013, 10:31:32 PM
Actually he did. While he never said men can't be mistreated by women, he marginalized it. He even clarified below. To paraphrase(since I quote it below) 'Misandry is not really an issue and we should ignore it because it takes away from the real issue, misogyny.'

a man (singular) can be treated as badly by a woman (singular) as a woman (singular) can be badly treated by a man (singular) - and they are both bad things. That said, to compare misandry and misogyny as equal problems in society today is absurd.

Because, you know, problems that are similar in scope and solution shouldn't be compared?


here, let's put up or shut up again: tell me an example of misandry in modern society

Misandry is simple, I think you're looking for an example of sexism from a female against a male.I was refused promotion even though I was the far superior candidate; my competition was an under-qualified, often problematic, regularly late woman. I was even told I would receive the promotion by everyone up the line except for the big boss, and yes, they did have a say in the matter. She received the promotion because Mrs. Top-of-the-Hill browbeat everyone else to agreeing to promote her. She was later reprimanded, demoted, and eventually disappeared into the void(not fired due to being female). She was replaced by another female. I will at least grant that this new female was more qualified than me.



Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. Actually, I take it a step farther. To discriminate against anyone based upon factors that they are forced into due to their birth(age, nationality, skin color, sex) is wrong; and all forms of discrimination that are based upon factors from birth are equally wrong.

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on affirmative action

What affirmative action? As in, what specific laws? The idea that you must hire a black for every seven whites you hire is absolutely ridiculous. If you are hiring eight people, then you hire the eight most qualified people that you feel will fit well with your company's culture. If that means that you hire eight blacks, who gives a fuck?

As affirmative action exists in my state, if you can prove that you were not hired or were fired due to some form of bigotry, then you can win some big bucks. I will be the first to say that the area I live in is not free of bigotry. My highschool had fights fairly often because, and I'm quoting one of the people who often started those fights, "niggers don't belong in school". However, if you reverse the racism, it is STILL racism.



The fact that you ignore sexism in a reverse direction is part of the reason why sexism exists today.

The fact that you focus on 'reverse sexism' instead of dealing with your own biases and the biases of those around you is the overwhelming reason sexism exists today

Now you're making assumptions. Who the fuck are you to call me biased? I grew up in a household with a stay at home Dad. My mother graduated from college years before I was born, and was the only breadwinner up until I started highshcool, and even today, makes at least 4x what my father makes. I watched my father graduate from college. My girlfriend is a college graduate, I am not(yet). None of these are facts that bother me. I pride myself on being very fair and unbiased, it is after all, a requirement of my chosen profession. You just made an assumption that because I am male, I am sexist. That assumption does more to hurt the fight against sexism than any misogynist could. Once you realize that, then we can discuss what can be done to combat sexism in society.



Men who see this and feel the effects of this then feel that they need to bring women down a notch. Let me be clear, I am not saying that women are the cause of their own sexism, nor are women responsible for sexism that is directed at them. The fault always lies with the person who is discriminating. But the problem is self-perpetrating, and spirals on itself.

Mate, you are p. much blaming women for their own sexism. You're suggesting that if women just weren't 'sexist' there wouldn't be any misogyny left, which is absurd. Men have treated women like shit for a very long time, and I guarantee you it wasn't because they all came across a woman that just really really hated men.

Holy fucking shit dude. Who taught you to read?


I am not saying that women are the cause of their own sexism, nor are women responsible for sexism that is directed at them.

You even quoted it yourself. Women are not responsible for sexism directed at them. They are, however, part of the problem if they aren't part of the solution just as much as men who passively believe that women are lessers, but does not act on it. Hint, attempting to tell men that they are wrong for having a penis is not part of the solution. Your argument boils down to "men suppressed women for years, so for things to be fair, men need to be suppressed by women for an equal amount of time". Not only is that not true, but it's also part of the reason that sexism will continue to remain in society today.



To properly solve all forms of sexism you must acknowledge that both male to female and female to male exist, and that they are both equally wrong.

do you acknowledge that they are not both equal in scope?

Ah, but they are. While male against female sexism might be more prevalent, or at least more exposed; they are not different in scope. A woman who sexually assaults a man is just as much of a rapist as a man who rapes a women, even though the law doesn't actually recognize that in the US. Sexism is equally wrong, no matter what direction it goes in.


Tell me how you think 'reverse bigotry' should be fixed, then. Tell me how you think regular bigotry should be fixed, too. Do you try to examine your own opinions to see how they are shaped by your biases? Do you think you have any biases?

Ok. I want actual equality. I want women to pay just as much as I do for car insurance. I want the 24 year old woman who forced herself on a 15 year old boy to be charged with first degree rape of a minor and assault then executed for her crimes(as would happen if the genders were reversed) instead of her being charged with sexual assault and sentenced to 10 years. I want women to receive the same pay that men do, so far the military and law enforcement are the only professions that have gotten that right. I want men to be able to take maturity for their newly born child instead of the mother. I want laws to affect women and men equally, and laws that attempt to even the playing field work both ways. I don't think that's too much to ask for actually.

As to if my opinions are shaped by my biases, they aren't. Do I have biases? You're goddamned right I do. I'm biased against people who believe they are better than me because they are born differently than me. I'm biased against people who feel they are above the law, or are better than regular citizens. I'm biased against people who are lazy and refuse to pull their fair share. I'm biased against people who exploit other people at the expense of those who they've exploited to better their own position or to make themselves better. However, one thing I am not biased against is someone's sex, color, race, creed, religion, or disability.

Cue1*
February 14 2013, 10:39:50 PM
All bigotry or acts of hate/violence/abuse in civil life, regardless of the races/genders/ethnicities/sexualities involved, is wrong. Equallity (absolute equallity under the Law) is always the right and best thing to strive for.

I spent a good thousand words arguing this point that you put into a pair of sentences.

Ampoliros
February 15 2013, 01:11:45 AM
Tarm's posts are quality stuff, whilst yours was de facto tacist support for hate and inequallity and a direct claim that some hate is ok because it's less common, less histroic, or (lets be honest) is against heterosexual white men, who you clearly prejudge as a group as worthy of hatred, of having earned the revenge hatred you seem to support above.

If you think it's funny to be a bigot, have at all the lol'ing you like.

:roll:

cool strawman bro


I judge individuals, and amongst individuals there are unquestionably those who use their race/gender/sexuality/whatever's historic victimization as a means to benefit personally.

Oh, sure. There probably are, somewhere, some people who are exploiting bigotry against them somehow. They're a political boogeyman though, and not worth noting or mentioning.


When you see racism behind every shadow, and see all members of a group as automatic victims, I guess it's not suprising you come to these kinds of conclusions. Let me guess, any Republican policy differences with the President is really just poorly veiled racism only, right?

Nah, people can disagree with the president all they like, I'm sure many democrats do too. But if they wanna call him a kenyan muslim, assert that he's somehow not a true american/christian/whatever, or crack some racist humor, they are being pretty bigoted.


I would never tell any group not to be upset about their mistreatement, nor to be silent about it. I support free speach and free expression and the right to air ones grievances to your Governemnt absolutely.

do you think criticizing members of a group as 'professional victims' is going to make other members of said group comfortable speaking out?

Ampoliros
February 15 2013, 02:17:20 AM
Because, you know, problems that are similar in scope and solution shouldn't be compared?

They're not similar in scope.

Again, misandry is individual. A woman might treat someone like shit for being a man. Of course, she also might treat them like shit because her neighbors were screaming at each other last night or because her car wouldn't start or because she knew a person like you when she was younger and they were an asshole. Basically, it's shittiness, but not a lot of shittiness. Doesn't mean that it's right or fair, and it still sucks a lot.

Misogyny is societal. Shitty opinions reverberate around society and are impressed onto others; eg, when women do anything out of the ordinary, they are assumed to be doing it for male attention ('girl gamers' and the like). Men spread this bullshit belief around to other men and collectively treat women like absolute shit because of it. What do you think that men have to deal with that's on the same scale?


Misandry is simple, I think you're looking for an example of sexism from a female against a male.

I'm actually looking for something bigger - I can't speak to anything about your situation.

too tired to deal with the rest, may bother tomorrow

Tarminic
February 15 2013, 02:20:26 AM
Well Alastair, I guess we're all just harboring a deep-seated hatred of white people and white culture. Thank god you were able to reveal how we really feel about the Caucasian scourge. I can't wait to hear your opinion on my marriage.

Alistair
February 15 2013, 03:49:57 AM
Well Alastair, I guess we're all just harboring a deep-seated hatred of white people and white culture. Thank god you were able to reveal how we really feel about the Caucasian scourge. I can't wait to hear your opinion on my marriage.

Have no idea who or what you may hold prejudice against Tarm, nor any idea of your marriage status.

What I know is that bigorty and race/gender/sexual hatred/violence/mistreatment, of ANY kind, is wrong. Sterotypes and prejudice is, generally, wrong. Striving for true, universal, equallity and tolerence, and judging people as individuals not faceless members of some group, is a truly worthy goal.

I'm happy to stand by that position.

Cue1*
February 15 2013, 11:10:54 AM
Well Alastair, I guess we're all just harboring a deep-seated hatred of white people and white culture. Thank god you were able to reveal how we really feel about the Caucasian scourge. I can't wait to hear your opinion on my marriage.

Have no idea who or what you may hold prejudice against Tarm, nor any idea of your marriage status.

What I know is that bigorty and race/gender/sexual hatred/violence/mistreatment, of ANY kind, is wrong. Sterotypes and prejudice is, generally, wrong. Striving for true, universal, equallity and tolerence, and judging people as individuals not faceless members of some group, is a truly worthy goal.

I'm happy to stand by that position.

Tarm's post was sarcasm directed at Ampo.

Tarminic
February 15 2013, 01:47:06 PM
Well Alastair, I guess we're all just harboring a deep-seated hatred of white people and white culture. Thank god you were able to reveal how we really feel about the Caucasian scourge. I can't wait to hear your opinion on my marriage.

Have no idea who or what you may hold prejudice against Tarm, nor any idea of your marriage status.

What I know is that bigorty and race/gender/sexual hatred/violence/mistreatment, of ANY kind, is wrong. Sterotypes and prejudice is, generally, wrong. Striving for true, universal, equallity and tolerence, and judging people as individuals not faceless members of some group, is a truly worthy goal.

I'm happy to stand by that position.

Tarm's post was sarcasm directed at Ampo.
No, it wasn't.

I like to think I've done a decent job of sticking to the facts and not getting dragged into inflammatory rhetoric, but the whole debate in this thread seems centered around the idea that militant feminists and "reverse racism" (for example) are as much of a problem in society today as misogyny and racism. And so far the only evidence presented to that fact has been:
1. An anecdote where someone got a dirty look when they tried to hold the door open for a woman
2. How one person feels like they are constantly defending themselves as a white man but cannot reference any specific incident
3. An angry woman on twitter posting a bunch of stuff about the evils of men with the misandry hashtag
4. An blog by someone who is obviously mentally ill and thinks that men are raping the air with every breath they take

And then I presented actual data demonstrating an example where discrimination against men is causing real harm and it's been summarily ignored because that is apparently less compelling than the fact that I care far more about calling out institutionalized racism (which, conveniently, does not rely on anecdotes or my personal feelings about race-baiting and ambulance chasers) than defending my gender to the barbarian hordes of militant feminists waiting to storm the gates and make me feel guilty about being a man.

Alistair
February 15 2013, 04:17:45 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/opinion/ghitis-pistorious-women-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

On-Topic, timely, article on the subject of violence against women.

So the question, is the "Blade Runner" killing of his live-in girlfriend a symbol of global mistreatment of women by men, or is it not, or (perhaps) do we not yet have enough information on the individuals, specifics and circumstances to make any such judgement as yet?

Victoria Steckersaurus
February 15 2013, 04:29:03 PM
This particularly instance, it's hard to say yet because we don't know what's going on. And it's (usually, not always) hard to point to an individual act and say "this is an example of an overarching problem" because we don't know the circumstances or motivation. More telling, of course, are the statistics re: domestic violence, the idea that men can/should use the threat of violence to exert control. Globally, this is obviously a huge problem.

So it's certainly possible that Pistorious, after growing up in a society that doesn't place as much value on womens' lives and teaches men that they can and should exert power over them, felt, subconsciously and in the heat of the moment, that he should attack and kill his wife.

Or, it could simply be that he was angry/drunk etc and the fucked-up, mysogynistic nature of society didn't contribute at all to his decision.

Toxic
February 15 2013, 07:13:21 PM
Iirc one out of ten, or one out of seven?, men in Denmark who is in a marriage gets beaten by their wife.

So yes, it goes both ways.

Tiny
February 16 2013, 06:56:23 PM
whereas the difference between men and women is both biological and psychological.

tell me more about these 'differences between men and women'

Do you think it sexism thst keeps women from taking the lead in boxing, rugby, frontline combat and a whole lot of other stuff. There is also a load of stuff that women are better at than men, things that require spit focus, looking after young childen and stuff that needs alot of talking. The sexism comes in with the rating of things the sexes are good at.

Trying to pretend everyone is the same dosn't help anyone, we're diverse, value that.

The diversity manifests in many ways, individualy, racialy, sexualy, it's the same kind of thing. The world we're living in was defined by a certain type of highly driven north-west european male. Deal with it or work to change it, just don't expect every one to be able to win by the rules the sociopathic white men write.

Steph
February 20 2013, 07:20:07 PM
Do you think it sexism thst keeps women from taking the lead in boxing, rugby, frontline combat and a whole lot of other stuff.

There's a difference between affording everyone equal rights, opportunities and privileges, and assuming that everyone is capable of performing any given task to the same(no higher, and no lower) level of competence. It's not sexist to give a job to someone with better qualifications and more experience over someone of the opposite gender, but it IS sexist to deny someone the opportunity to qualify for that job because of gender.


There is also a load of stuff that women are better at than men, things that require spit focus, looking after young childen and stuff that needs alot of talking. The sexism comes in with the rating of things the sexes are good at.

Kind of like you just did there?

Cool09
February 20 2013, 08:55:40 PM
Agreeing with Tarm's "bigger fish to fry" argument. Or "low hanging fruit" or whatever. Basically, the most widespread and harmful injustices deserve the most attention right? Simply to put available resources to use in the way that helps the most people who are most in need.

Therefore sexism in the west is a far inferior cause to devote effort and money to than sexism in other cultures. As just brought up, South Africa has a high incidence of violence against women. As does the middle east and other areas. Acid attacks on schoolgirls in Pakistan, the lethal gang rapes in India, ect ect.

Synapse
February 20 2013, 09:44:56 PM
Agreeing with Tarm's "bigger fish to fry" argument. Or "low hanging fruit" or whatever. Basically, the most widespread and harmful injustices deserve the most attention right? Simply to put available resources to use in the way that helps the most people who are most in need.

Therefore sexism in the west is a far inferior cause to devote effort and money to than sexism in other cultures. As just brought up, South Africa has a high incidence of violence against women. As does the middle east and other areas. Acid attacks on schoolgirls in Pakistan, the lethal gang rapes in India, ect ect.

Ugh you're being derailed by the wrong thought.

This is NOT about how government or an NGO spends resources. This is about how EACH OF US treats sexism. In that light, they all need to be equal. Don't be derailed by thinking this is a resources question, it seems to bear repeating that IT IS NOT.

If you donate to anti-sexism causes then you can start to apply it but on the street and in your own life they need to be treated as equally bad.

This is because the quality of your response to actions in the world is not a resource to be spent or conserved. It doesn't help anyone to say nothing when you see misandy just so you can say something later when you see mysogeny. You see what I mean?

Tarminic
February 20 2013, 11:59:01 PM
I get it, I've just seen or been subject to misandry so rarely it usually gets lost in the background static of my social experience. I speak up when relevant, but that's...a couple times a year, maybe?

If I'm talking about the cultural problems faced by men, it's almost never related to misandry, it's usually about emotional expectations.

Lallante
February 21 2013, 10:50:21 AM
data[/i] demonstrating an example where discrimination against men is causing real harm and it's been summarily ignored because that is apparently less compelling than the fact that I care far more about calling out institutionalized racism (which, conveniently, does not rely on anecdotes or my personal feelings about race-baiting and ambulance chasers) than defending my gender to the barbarian hordes of militant feminists waiting to storm the gates and make me feel guilty about being a man.

Brilliant post, couldn't agree more.

Lallante
February 21 2013, 10:51:22 AM
Iirc one out of ten, or one out of seven?, men in Denmark who is in a marriage gets beaten by their wife.

So yes, it goes both ways.

"unsupported anecdote therefore moral equivalence"

:rolleyes:

Lallante
February 21 2013, 10:58:21 AM
I get it, I've just seen or been subject to misandry so rarely it usually gets lost in the background static of my social experience. I speak up when relevant, but that's...a couple times a year, maybe?

If I'm talking about the cultural problems faced by men, it's almost never related to misandry, it's usually about emotional expectations.


Another often overlooked point is a lot of the classic "examples" angry guys give of misandry are actually just the side-effects of culturally hardbaked misogynism:
- custody-bias and divorce settlement bias towards women, unequal maternity pay ("men are the providers, women are nurturers who cant provide for themselves")
- stigma against male nurses etc ("women should be in the subservient role")
etc.

The armchair warriors who get so angry about these kinds of things and claim to hate what they think of as feminism often don't realise that combatting these kinds of inequalities is literally the main point of feminism. Unjustified or one-size-fits-all gender roles hurt both sexes.


Misandry ISNT really comparable to misogyny because the whole "point" of what makes misogyny bad is that it is subconsciously hardbaked into social norms. What people point at as misandry is either merely the flipside of this as I describe above, or its individual antipathy towards men by disturbed women, which isn't a gender reversed misogyny equivalent at all.

Alistair
February 21 2013, 02:44:00 PM
I get it, I've just seen or been subject to misandry so rarely it usually gets lost in the background static of my social experience. I speak up when relevant, but that's...a couple times a year, maybe?

If I'm talking about the cultural problems faced by men, it's almost never related to misandry, it's usually about emotional expectations.


Another often overlooked point is a lot of the classic "examples" angry guys give of misandry are actually just the side-effects of culturally hardbaked misogynism:
- custody-bias and divorce settlement bias towards women, unequal maternity pay ("men are the providers, women are nurturers who cant provide for themselves")
- stigma against male nurses etc ("women should be in the subservient role")
etc.

The armchair warriors who get so angry about these kinds of things and claim to hate what they think of as feminism often don't realise that combatting these kinds of inequalities is literally the main point of feminism. Unjustified or one-size-fits-all gender roles hurt both sexes.


Misandry ISNT really comparable to misogyny because the whole "point" of what makes misogyny bad is that it is subconsciously hardbaked into social norms. What people point at as misandry is either merely the flipside of this as I describe above, or its individual antipathy towards men by disturbed women, which isn't a gender reversed misogyny equivalent at all.

This definition of "mysogyny" is seemingly so broad, that it would include things like holding a door open for a woman, or showing any form of respect/chivalry to be a unconscious assault of mysogynistic hatred upon the women so cursed by such an action/unwanted attention.

Your argument is basicly that every man in an irredeemable socially hardwired mysogynist, and every woman a victim of same.

This is exactly the problem. Going too far in a noble cause. If we follow your logic, when we go to the pub, unless we flirt with all woman (and men, can't descriminate can we) based only upon the content of their characters and in a gender neutral manner, we're a sexist pig mysogynist engaging in socially hardwired hate and inequallity.

Again, toleration of inequallity under the law is the problem. Individuals will be individuals, and while we can certainly work to educate that men and woman are equal in most ways and both equally deserving of human rights/protections/pay/treatement/etc, going further than that is too far. The day I am a sexist pig for holding a door open.....

Lallante
February 21 2013, 04:16:48 PM
What a straw man.

Something being misogynistic doesnt mean it is hateful. Noone is claiming holding a door open is unconsciously demonstrative of hate towards women.

There's nothing irredeemable at all here. Reinforcing negative stereotypes is obviously not a GOOD thing, but I'm not going much further than that.

You are the one going too far. Classic straw man. Classic straw feminists. "If we follow your logic"? Don't make me laugh. What you are doing isn't applying logic (mine or anyone elses).

Misogyny is about hard-backed culturally ingrained attitudes towards gender based on thousands of years of history. There simply isn't an equivalent against men.

Fighting inequality is about so much more than fighting inequality under the law, its about fighting it culturally at its very route. You have a very simplistic view of the problem.

Alistair
February 21 2013, 07:34:48 PM
What a straw man.

The most meaningless and overused phrase on the internet.


Something being misogynistic doesnt mean it is hateful.

Misogyny (pron.: / (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)m (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)s (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɒ (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)dʒ (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)n (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)i (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)) is the hatred or dislike of women (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Women) or girls (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Girls). Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Sexual_discrimination), denigration of women, violence against women (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Violence_against_women), and sexual objectification (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Sexual_objectification) of women.[1] (http://failheap-challenge.com/#cite_note-Code2000-1)[2] (http://failheap-challenge.com/#cite_note-Kramarae2000-2) Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Western_philosophy) have been described as misogynistic.[1] (http://failheap-challenge.com/#cite_note-Code2000-1) The male counterpart of misogyny is misandry (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Misandry), the hatred or dislike of men; the antonym (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Antonym) of misogyny is philogyny (http://failheap-challenge.com/wiki/Philogyny), the love or fondness of women.

Wikipedia being what it's worth, I'd be glad to read a sourced definition of the word that does not include hate or mistreatment as a core component.


Noone is claiming holding a door open is unconsciously demonstrative of hate towards women.

No one here. But yes, some people do. You do not get to simply ignore that portions of Feminism believe such things are, in fact, mysogyny as you described it, "cultural hardwiring", and stand opposed to it.


Reinforcing negative stereotypes is obviously not a GOOD thing, but I'm not going much further than that.

When you describe mysogyny as "culturally hardwired" that goes quite a bit further than simply saying "reinforcing negative sterotypes isn't good". It implies that people are guilty without having taken any conscious individual action, simply by being part of the culture. Sounds alot like Original Sin, tbqh.

By the way, since you specified "negative" sterotypes, is reinforcing positive sterotypes ok? If so, why not just say "reinforcing sterotypes isn't good"?


Misogyny is about hard-backed culturally ingrained attitudes towards gender based on thousands of years of history. There simply isn't an equivalent against men.


Sure there is. Hate is hate. Descrimination is descrimination. Violence is violence. It doesn't become acceptable based on previous wrongdoing, it's always wrong.

None are acceptable or tolerable or permissable simply because of their minority status in the grand picture of world history victims.



Fighting inequality is about so much more than fighting inequality under the law, its about fighting it culturally at its very route. You have a very simplistic view of the problem.

I agree, in part. Fighting inequallity is primarily a job for education and enlightenment and cultural shift-over-time. With that said, it is the responsabillity of Government, right now, to enforce that all are treated fairly under the Law first and foremost, and most vitally, even BEFORE the culture is ready to shift as far as we'd like. It is one of the most imprtant roles of the State, to protect all it's citizens from harm based on race/gender/ethnicity/etc. under the Law.

My view is not simplistic , it's realistic. You will never stamp out all hate via education. You can and should certainly try, but there will always be hate.

Which is why it is most vital that equallity be mandated under the law in all aspects where it applies, without exception or tolerence for it against anyone.

Tarminic
February 21 2013, 09:50:33 PM
Noone is claiming holding a door open is unconsciously demonstrative of hate towards women.

No one here. But yes, some people do. You do not get to simply ignore that portions of Feminism believe such things are, in fact, mysogyny as you described it, "cultural hardwiring", and stand opposed to it.
How many people are "some people"? What percentage of the female population believes this? I have never heard this viewpoint expressed in real life, and I've never heard it expressed on the internet except when someone is citing some random wordpress blog as evidence of its alleged pervasiveness among feminist thought. I've been asking for something more concrete than since page one and no one has yet been able to answer me.




Misogyny is about hard-backed culturally ingrained attitudes towards gender based on thousands of years of history. There simply isn't an equivalent against men.


Sure there is. Hate is hate. Descrimination is descrimination. Violence is violence. It doesn't become acceptable based on previous wrongdoing, it's always wrong.

None are acceptable or tolerable or permissable simply because of their minority status in the grand picture of world history victims.
I've tried to get this point across a few times before without success, but you keep assuming that a qualitative difference between misandry and misogyny is being argued. What's being argued is that there's a quantitative difference. Historical context can answer the question of why X is more common than Y or vise versa, but it is not necessary to measure it.

Last page, I made this post:

For example, according to a 2010 survey by the CDC one in seven men experience physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner. That's kind of a big fucking deal, because that's a lot of people and it's something we should be speaking about more, especially because society denigrates men who appear to be victimized by women. But instead we're talking about someone posting with the misandry hashtag on twitter?

And here we are, still talking about why it's so terrible that some mysterious, unquantifiable percentage of women are enraged by the fact we might try and hold a door open while they walk through it.

Alistair
February 21 2013, 10:19:35 PM
I've tried to get this point across a few times before without success, but you keep assuming that a qualitative difference between misandry and misogyny is being argued. What's being argued is that there's a quantitative difference.

If thats your criteria of priority, you would never discuss mysogyny in Western (US/EU) Civilization, as you'd be far too busy working on the quantitative diffiference between our cultures and those of African/Asian/Middle-Eastern cultures to bother with the relatively petty issues involved in Western culture.

Yet, here you and others are, telling us how we're all "culturally hardwired" hateful sexists.

IMO you folks are quite entertaining in your zeal to be MORE against inequallity than anyone else, while tacitly supporting many forms of it in your thinking and arguments. Racism against whites like affirmative action is ok, because of history. Sexism against men (like domestic violence) is ok, because of history. Toleration and tacist support of both and more is ok, because of quantitative differences is history.

Selective outrage over these evils is wrong. Descrimination and inequallity based on sex, race, or other factors is wrong, period. It's very telling how difficult it seems to be for you folks to simply see this statement, and agree with it.

Cool09
February 21 2013, 10:39:40 PM
I've tried to get this point across a few times before without success, but you keep assuming that a qualitative difference between misandry and misogyny is being argued. What's being argued is that there's a quantitative difference.

If thats your criteria of priority, you would never discuss mysogyny in Western (US/EU) Civilization, as you'd be far too busy working on the quantitative diffiference between our cultures and those of African/Asian/Middle-Eastern cultures to bother with the relatively petty issues involved in Western culture.

Heh. The argument Tarm makes to marginalize mysandry is the same that is used to marginalize mysogyny in the West.

Tarminic
February 21 2013, 11:31:11 PM
I've tried to get this point across a few times before without success, but you keep assuming that a qualitative difference between misandry and misogyny is being argued. What's being argued is that there's a quantitative difference.

If thats your criteria of priority, you would never discuss mysogyny in Western (US/EU) Civilization, as you'd be far too busy working on the quantitative diffiference between our cultures and those of African/Asian/Middle-Eastern cultures to bother with the relatively petty issues involved in Western culture.
And how do you propose I do that, exactly? Pack my bags and move to Africa where I can pick a street corner and start preaching? I'm not from Africa, I do not live in Africa, I do not know anyone living in Africa, and moving there tomorrow would not magically give me an understanding of how to effectively forward the goal of gender equality in Africa. I live in America and am a member of American society and culture. When someone I know says something bigoted in my presence I can step up and call them out on it.


Yet, here you and others are, telling us how we're all "culturally hardwired" hateful sexists.
I'm not accusing any individual of anything. Are we incapable of acknowledging issues with ourselves as a society without that accusation being personally leveled against every member of it?


IMO you folks are quite entertaining in your zeal to be MORE against inequallity than anyone else, while tacitly supporting many forms of it in your thinking and arguments. Racism against whites like affirmative action is ok, because of history. Sexism against men (like domestic violence) is ok, because of history. Toleration and tacist support of both and more is ok, because of quantitative differences is history.
I brought up a cited number about the degree to which men are subject to domestic violence and it was never acknowledged because apparently accusing each other of being bigots was the more productive avenue of discussion.


Selective outrage over these evils is wrong. Descrimination and inequallity based on sex, race, or other factors is wrong, period. It's very telling how difficult it seems to be for you folks to simply see this statement, and agree with it.
I've personally agreed with that sentiment three times in this thread, but it the conversation keeps going like this:

-"Murdering kittens is terrible, yes, but puppy murder is a problem we need to talk about in this country."
-"Yeah, but kitty murder is just as evil as puppy murder, don't you agree?"
-"Of course it is, but our houses are fueled by vast quantities of puppy blood and I don't think kitty murder is terribly relevant by comparison."
-"Are you saying that kitty murder isn't as evil as puppy murder? That killing kittens is okay?"
-"No, and I would obviously not allow someone to hurt a kitten, but given the scope of-"
-"Look, this person posted a bunch of tweets about how she hates kittens and that they deserve to be killed"
-"Okay I understand and that's obviously bad but our national powergrid is comprised of puppy turbines..."
-"Why are you unwilling to condemn kitten murder? By not holding kitten murderers to the same standards as puppy murderers, you are tacitly supporting them. Why do you hate kittens so much?"
-"I don't hate kittens! I'm just saying that scope of the two problems is not the same!"
-"Yeah, that's just what a kitten murderer would say."


At this point, I don't really know how else to possibly convey my point, because apparently a serial killer and genocidal dictatorship create the same number of coffins.

Alistair
February 22 2013, 02:11:26 AM
Descrimination and inequallity based on sex, race, or other factors is wrong, period.

I've personally agreed with that sentiment three times in this thread

Then done and done. We agree.


At this point, I don't really know how else to possibly convey my point, because apparently a serial killer and genocidal dictatorship create the same number of coffins.

As long as you can agree that the victim of the dictator, and the victim of the serial killer, are both equal and equally victims, that the crime was the same on that individual level, then we don't have a disagreement.

Unless you're a kitten murderer, in which case I'm coming to Tenn to see you. It's not that far from here.

Ali loves kittens.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 11:21:11 AM
Yet, here you and others are, telling us how we're all "culturally hardwired" hateful sexists.


You write the same stupid shit every post. Noone here has claimed this. Noone.

Lots of modern societies have lots of features that exhibit hardwired, cultural sexism.

Those two statements are in no way equivalent or even similar.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 11:27:55 AM
Heh. The argument Tarm makes to marginalize mysandry is the same that is used to marginalize mysogyny in the West.

Misandry isn't a major problem. Its just not. It's rare, its pretty mild and its an individual rather than a cultural problem when it does exist. This isn't unfairly marginalising it - ask any anthropologist, social historian or anyone else with any expertise in this subject and they will agree.

Misogyny on the other hand is pervasive, reinforced by people of both sexes, by social institutions, by governments, by the very fabric of society. There are loads of examples of misogyny that most normal people dont even consider to be offensive because "its normal" - the man being "head of the household" or in charge of family finances, the father sitting at the head of the table, asking a woman's father for her hand in marriage etc..

I'm not saying we need to stamp all of these things out, or people who perpetuate them are evil or wrong, I'm just pointing out that they do exist and they are reflective of cultural attitudes towards women that most people would agree are wrong (women as property, women as attendants or subservient to men). Sometimes "tradition" is a good enough reason to do them anyway, sometimes its not. That doesn't change the fact that they are misogynistic in origin and implication. There are lots of historic things that modern society views as morally wrong now, that at the time were defended by people saying it was "just how things are", "tradition", "normal", "the natural way of things", "harmless" and similar arguments to those being posted in this thread. Those pleas to inertia, to tradition etc have ALWAYS been used to attempt to justify maintaining morally flawed social structures.

Similarly the old chestnut "you can't possibly stop all people being [morally wrong prejudice] so therefore we shouldn't try" or "[morally wrong prejudice] is worse in [other country] so we shouldn't tackle it here" - how anyone can even make this argument without realising how stupid and self-defeating it is I still don't understand.

There's a lot of black and white thinkers ITT. Stop thinking with you gut and start using your brain.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 11:36:10 AM
-"Murdering kittens is terrible, yes, but puppy murder is a problem we need to talk about in this country."
-"Yeah, but kitty murder is just as evil as puppy murder, don't you agree?"
-"Of course it is, but our houses are fueled by vast quantities of puppy blood and I don't think kitty murder is terribly relevant by comparison."
-"Are you saying that kitty murder isn't as evil as puppy murder? That killing kittens is okay?"
-"No, and I would obviously not allow someone to hurt a kitten, but given the scope of-"
-"Look, this person posted a bunch of tweets about how she hates kittens and that they deserve to be killed"
-"Okay I understand and that's obviously bad but our national powergrid is comprised of puppy turbines..."
-"Why are you unwilling to condemn kitten murder? By not holding kitten murderers to the same standards as puppy murderers, you are tacitly supporting them. Why do you hate kittens so much?"
-"I don't hate kittens! I'm just saying that scope of the two problems is not the same!"
-"Yeah, that's just what a kitten murderer would say."


At this point, I don't really know how else to possibly convey my point, because apparently a serial killer and genocidal dictatorship create the same number of coffins.

Another absolutely golden post. Well put.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 11:39:13 AM
Descrimination and inequallity based on sex, race, or other factors is wrong, period.

I've personally agreed with that sentiment three times in this thread

Then done and done. We agree.


At this point, I don't really know how else to possibly convey my point, because apparently a serial killer and genocidal dictatorship create the same number of coffins.

As long as you can agree that the victim of the dictator, and the victim of the serial killer, are both equal and equally victims, that the crime was the same on that individual level, then we don't have a disagreement.

Unless you're a kitten murderer, in which case I'm coming to Tenn to see you. It's not that far from here.

Ali loves kittens.

This isn't about victims or the right to victimhood (obviously the gender of victim makes no difference to the severity of an otherwise identical wrong), its about solving the social problems that create victims in the first place, which are in no way equal across the genders whatsoever.

Misandry is so minor a social problem in relative terms to Misogyny, its not proportionate to dedicate anything like the kind of energy, resources or time to tackling it. In any event in most cases tackling Misogyny will have the knock on effect of curing misandry too.

This leads back to my original point, that people who seem to dedicate a lot of energy to the problem of Misandry and try to minimalise or even criticise people (e.g. feminists) for tackling misogyny seem to me to be implicitly motivated by some prejudice.

Alistair
February 22 2013, 02:22:40 PM
This leads back to my original point, that people who seem to dedicate a lot of energy to the problem of Misandry and try to minimalise or even criticise people (e.g. feminists) for tackling misogyny seem to me to be implicitly motivated by some prejudice.

You were doing so well.....then you had to fall back on the same old tired attacks.

Hint: talking on a forum isn't "putting alot of effort" into anything, it's less than a seconds effort to pass the time. You have no idea what I work for int he real (i.e. not interweb) world, nor I you. No idea how I behave (nor I you).

Making your point is fine (and I do get it btw, even if you don't get mine), but resorting to calling me a closet sexist is just laughable in it's utter ignorance and assumptiveness. Like calling someone a closet serial killer for expressing a pro-gun-ownership position on the internet.

The reason it musty always be reminded that all descrimination is wrong, is because for a good portion of the U.S. politically active community, the answer to past sins of descrimination, is to reverse it, and descriminate against today's groups for the sins of past groups. And that, IMO, only serves to continue to the problem, not solve it.

Hast
February 22 2013, 02:27:16 PM
The reason it musty always be reminded that all descrimination is wrong, is because for a good portion of the U.S. politically active community, the answer to past sins of descrimination, is to reverse it, and descriminate against today's groups for the sins of past groups. And that, IMO, only serves to continue to the problem, not solve it.

The political climate in the U.S. today can hardly be described as discriminating against men. The so-called war on women by the religious right is fairly well documented.

Victoria Steckersaurus
February 22 2013, 02:52:07 PM
I think I have a real problem with efforts to say that misandry is as bad as misogyny. It looks like an end around way to make misogyny look like less of a problem. This is why I don’t like the above comparison between a serial killer and a genocidal dictator. As Alistair said, in both cases the victim is dead.

If we say that the victims of misandry suffer similarly to the victims of misogyny, that leads very easily to the following argument:

Premise A: Victims of misandry and misogyny suffer similarly and should not be considered unequal, because hate is hate and is always bad.
Premise B: My experience of misandry consists of dealing with a handful of hateful radical feminists who get angry if I hold the door for them. While annoying and sometimes upsetting, this doesn’t have a massive impact on my life.
Conclusion: Your experience of misogyny must be similarly trivial.

That conclusion is obviously false. Therefore one of the premises must be false.

As Lall said above, misandry is primarily an individual problem – you encounter a misandrist person or three. Misogyny is societal. It can impact literally every interaction someone has.

In a purely abstract sense, they could be considered equal – mysandry is defined as the hatred of men, misogyny as the hatred of women. But as soon as you start to look at the real life impact, that equality is gone in every way.

Cool09
February 22 2013, 03:32:09 PM
X isn't a major problem. Its just not. It's rare, its pretty mild and its an individual rather than a cultural problem when it does exist. This isn't unfairly marginalising it - ask any [expert] in this subject and they will agree.

Where have I heard this before? Slippery slope that.

I agree with you and tarm that mysogyny is a larger issue today than mysandry. BUT that gap is narrowing (a good thing?), and both are real issues. To dismiss either one would be a mistake.

Alistair
February 22 2013, 03:36:25 PM
The reason it musty always be reminded that all descrimination is wrong, is because for a good portion of the U.S. politically active community, the answer to past sins of descrimination, is to reverse it, and descriminate against today's groups for the sins of past groups. And that, IMO, only serves to continue to the problem, not solve it.

The political climate in the U.S. today can hardly be described as discriminating against men. The so-called war on women by the religious right is fairly well documented.

You'll be hard pressed to get me to support the American Religious-Right or anything like their social policy agenda.


I think I have a real problem with efforts to say that misandry is as bad as misogyny. It looks like an end around way to make misogyny look like less of a problem.

Huh? Saying both are wrong is really a devious plot to make one look not as wrong?


If we say that the victims of misandry suffer similarly to the victims of misogyny, that leads very easily to the following argument:

Premise A: Victims of misandry and misogyny suffer similarly and should not be considered unequal, because hate is hate and is always bad.
Premise B: My experience of misandry consists of dealing with a handful of hateful radical feminists who get angry if I hold the door for them. While annoying and sometimes upsetting, this doesn’t have a massive impact on my life.
Conclusion: Your experience of misogyny must be similarly trivial.

Except thats not true at all, is a very shallow bagful of generalizations and non-specifics, and fails to take into account any individuals, specific circumstances or scenario specifics.

Again, it is very telling that the reaction to a basic declaration "all descrimination is equally wrong" is outage and conspiracy theories about attempts to trivialize one form of descrimination.

I don't think an end to descirmination or equllity for all is what you folks really want.


As Lall said above, misandry is primarily an individual problem – you encounter a misandrist person or three. Misogyny is societal. It can impact literally every interaction someone has.

All problems start with the individual. While there may be more individuals engaging in one form of descrimination that another, it's still an individual issue. This is part of the problem as well, so many of you don't see people as individuals, you lump people into group classes and then judge them that way, in effect doing exactly what you claim you're against.

By describing mysogyny as a "societal" problem, you're finding guilty all men of mysogyny, as all men are members of society. It's as rediculous a proposition as the one above.

Hast
February 22 2013, 03:36:47 PM
I have yet to meet misandry in practice. Any examples? And no, you getting yelled at for holding the door is not an example.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Cool09
February 22 2013, 03:41:47 PM
I have yet to meet misandry in practice. Any examples? And no, you getting yelled at for holding the door is not an example.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

I was abused by my mother while my sister was not?

Good enough example for ya?

Lallante
February 22 2013, 04:08:24 PM
X isn't a major problem. Its just not. It's rare, its pretty mild and its an individual rather than a cultural problem when it does exist. This isn't unfairly marginalising it - ask any [expert] in this subject and they will agree.

Where have I heard this before? Slippery slope that.

I agree with you and tarm that mysogyny is a larger issue today than mysandry. BUT that gap is narrowing (a good thing?), and both are real issues. To dismiss either one would be a mistake.

Tarm says the difference is quantative and so from his perspective he should agree with you that the gap is narrowing. I disagree. I think its quantative AND qualitative as I've said multiple times - misandry to the extent it exists is largely either individual or else the flipside of misogyny. Misogyny on the other hand is societal (as Victoria explains really well above). This qualitative difference means that the gap isnt really narrowing in any meaningful sense, unless you think that there are misandrist views that are being incorporated into social attitudes generally, which I don't.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 04:11:11 PM
I have yet to meet misandry in practice. Any examples? And no, you getting yelled at for holding the door is not an example.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

I was abused by my mother while my sister was not?

Good enough example for ya?

If it was in fact because you were male (rather than any of the infinite other reasons why a parent may abuse one child rather than another), then yes, this is a good xample of individual misandry. But the argument is either (per Tarmanic) about scale of problem or (per myself or Victoria) about the problem being ingrained in society.

PS: I'm sorry to hear that. I hope it hasn't left you with lasting irrational prejudices or emotional trauma.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 04:16:32 PM
blah blah blah

There hasn't been a single post by you in this thread that hasn't repeated straw man arguments that have been explicitly decried countless times already. In this latest bullshit post you've YET AGAIN claimed "societal misogyny" = "all men are 'guilty"" which is just complete bollocks and has been deconstructed by three different people already. You've also claimed that we are disagreeing with the claim "all discrimination is equally wrong". It is. But that statement DOES NOT IN ANY WAY equate to "the effects of, or seriousness, of all forms of discrimination are/is equal".

Alistair
February 22 2013, 04:27:00 PM
You've also claimed that we are disagreeing with the claim "all discrimination is equally wrong". It is.

Lets use a common (in the U.S.) real world example then. Affirmative Action, which is by any definition a form of descrimination and inequallity.

Do you support it, despite it being a state-sanctioned form of descrimination in employment? Does it's aim, to erase past descrimination and inequallity via the reverse today, make it ok?

Or no?

Tarminic
February 22 2013, 04:30:17 PM
I think I have a real problem with efforts to say that misandry is as bad as misogyny. It looks like an end around way to make misogyny look like less of a problem.

Huh? Saying both are wrong is really a devious plot to make one look not as wrong?
...


-"Yeah, but kitty murder is just as evil as puppy murder, don't you agree?"
-"Of course it is, but our houses are fueled by vast quantities of puppy blood and I don't think kitty murder is terribly relevant by comparison."
-"Are you saying that kitty murder isn't as evil as puppy murder? That killing kittens is okay?"



Except thats not true at all, is a very shallow bagful of generalizations and non-specifics, and fails to take into account any individuals, specific circumstances or scenario specifics.

Again, it is very telling that the reaction to a basic declaration "all descrimination is equally wrong" is outage and conspiracy theories about attempts to trivialize one form of descrimination.

I don't think an end to descirmination or equllity for all is what you folks really want.
...

-"Why are you unwilling to condemn kitten murder? By not holding kitten murderers to the same standards as puppy murderers, you are tacitly supporting them. Why do you hate kittens so much?"
-"I don't hate kittens! I'm just saying that scope of the two problems is not the same!"
-"Yeah, that's just what a kitten murderer would say."




All problems start with the individual. While there may be more individuals engaging in one form of descrimination that another, it's still an individual issue.
Individuals are not born and raised in a vacuum. Our thinking and feeling at very basic levels are influenced and intermingled with that of the society in which we're raised.


By describing mysogyny as a "societal" problem, you're finding guilty all men of mysogyny, as all men are members of society. It's as rediculous a proposition as the one above.
You've brought this specific point up twice before in this thread and both times it's been refused, but you continue to believe it anyway. Claiming that something is a societal or cultural problem does not mean that every member of that society is guilty of intentionally doing that thing. In the early 20th century, anti-semitism pervasive in western society. Does that mean that every individual who lived in that time period hated jews? Did everyone living in the South in the 1950's hate blacks? Did everyone living in the early 1800 hate the Irish? Of course not.

Cool09
February 22 2013, 04:31:15 PM
X isn't a major problem. Its just not. It's rare, its pretty mild and its an individual rather than a cultural problem when it does exist. This isn't unfairly marginalising it - ask any [expert] in this subject and they will agree.

Where have I heard this before? Slippery slope that.

I agree with you and tarm that mysogyny is a larger issue today than mysandry. BUT that gap is narrowing (a good thing?), and both are real issues. To dismiss either one would be a mistake.

Tarm says the difference is quantative and so from his perspective he should agree with you that the gap is narrowing. I disagree. I think its quantative AND qualitative as I've said multiple times - misandry to the extent it exists is largely either individual or else the flipside of misogyny. Misogyny on the other hand is societal (as Victoria explains really well above). This qualitative difference means that the gap isnt really narrowing in any meaningful sense, unless you think that there are misandrist views that are being incorporated into social attitudes generally, which I don't.

There are however, mysandrist (is that a word?) social attitudes and stereotypes. The classic is the fat lazy sitcom husband (he's dumb but he has a heart of gold!) who got lucky with the brilliant wife. Or the stubborn lost man who won't ask for directions. The idea that men are shallow and only want sex whereas women want intimacy and meaning. Just listen to a female comedian for more (thankfully many are not playing this card anymore).

Again... I am not saying that the problems are equal quantitatively or qualitatively. I agree that mysandry is not nearly as large an issue in our society today. Just that both exist on the individual and social level.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 04:32:10 PM
"all problems start with the individual".

This statement is fundamentally wrong

Obviously the the "manifestation" of a problem is at an individual level. But the cause of the problem could be at a societal level, and if it is, it is much much more serious than a problem that is caused by at an individual level.

Straight Hustlin
February 22 2013, 04:32:34 PM
Lets get real here. You jackasses going back and forth trying to quantify and or qualify the harm of hate are really missing the fucking point. The only way to address discrimination & hate, be it sexism, racism, ageism, intolerance for sexual preference or religious affiliation; is to raise and educate our children to be better then we have been.

You dont achieve this by teaching your children to be especially nice to girls or people of color, or any of these petty differences; your just perpetuating the boundaries that already seperate us by doing so. You achieve it by teaching them to be accepting of everyone regardless of these things, because we are all human beings and we all deserve to be treated as such.

Tarminic
February 22 2013, 05:22:10 PM
Lets get real here. You jackasses going back and forth trying to quantify and or qualify the harm of hate are really missing the fucking point. The only way to address discrimination & hate, be it sexism, racism, ageism, intolerance for sexual preference or religious affiliation; is to raise and educate our children to be better then we have been.

You dont achieve this by teaching your children to be especially nice to girls or people of color, or any of these petty differences; your just perpetuating the boundaries that already seperate us by doing so. You achieve it by teaching them to be accepting of everyone regardless of these things, because we are all human beings and we all deserve to be treated as such.

There are however, mysandrist (is that a word?) social attitudes and stereotypes. The classic is the fat lazy sitcom husband (he's dumb but he has a heart of gold!) who got lucky with the brilliant wife. Or the stubborn lost man who won't ask for directions. The idea that men are shallow and only want sex whereas women want intimacy and meaning. Just listen to a female comedian for more (thankfully many are not playing this card anymore).

Again... I am not saying that the problems are equal quantitatively or qualitatively. I agree that mysandry is not nearly as large an issue in our society today. Just that both exist on the individual and social level.
I can agree with both of these things.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 05:29:23 PM
Lets get real here. You jackasses going back and forth trying to quantify and or qualify the harm of hate are really missing the fucking point. The only way to address discrimination & hate, be it sexism, racism, ageism, intolerance for sexual preference or religious affiliation; is to raise and educate our children to be better then we have been.

You dont achieve this by teaching your children to be especially nice to girls or people of color, or any of these petty differences; your just perpetuating the boundaries that already seperate us by doing so. You achieve it by teaching them to be accepting of everyone regardless of these things, because we are all human beings and we all deserve to be treated as such.

Unsurprisingly its a little more complicated than nice banal truisms like " be accepting of everyone regardless". For a start most people believe that but don't realise that they are failing to implement it.

Victoria Steckersaurus
February 22 2013, 05:30:50 PM
IÖ I donít even know how you managed to misread my post that badly, Alistair. It feels like you didnít actually read it, you just assumed what it said based on the fact that it doesnít completely agree with what you said.

First off, how did you take ďI donít think A is as bad as BĒ and turn it into ďI donít think A is badĒ ? You say both are bad, I say sure but I donít think theyíre equal. Iím not saying itís not bad, Iím saying itís not the same. Saying I donít think theft is as bad as murder doesnít mean I donít think theft is bad. Seriously, what the fuck.


Again, it is very telling that the reaction to a basic declaration "all descrimination is equally wrong" is outage and conspiracy theories about attempts to trivialize one form of descrimination.

WEíRE NOT SAYING THAT DESCRIMINATION ISNíT WRONG. WEíRE SAYING THAT ONE OF THESE THINGS IS A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM THAN THE OTHER.

Nor am I accusing you of attempting to trivialize misogyny. I would, however, love to know where you live that you can consider misandry to be a problem even measurable on the same scale as misogyny. It sure as hell isnít in America.



All problems start with the individual. While there may be more individuals engaging in one form of descrimination that another, it's still an individual issue. This is part of the problem as well, so many of you don't see people as individuals, you lump people into group classes and then judge them that way, in effect doing exactly what you claim you're against.

IÖ donít even know what to do with this. Sure, you can say that all forms of discrimination start with the individual, but guess what societies are made of? Large groups of individuals. Where do people learn racism/sexism/etc from? Other individuals. When enough of the individuals in a society possess a certain prejudice and continue to teach it those around them, itís perfectly fair to say that you have a societal problem with that particular prejudice.

Unless you would like to argue that racism in the southern US wasnít/isnít a societal and cultural problem but merely an individual one.


By describing mysogyny as a "societal" problem, you're finding guilty all men of mysogyny, as all men are members of society. It's as rediculous a proposition as the one above.

No, saying that misogyny is a societal problem does not mean that I think every man is a misogynist. You seem to get really defensive regarding any perceived implication (real or otherwise) that you might be misogynist. No one is saying that.

That said, I think it would be a challenge to find a male in this country over the age 10 that hasnít been exposed to enough sexist/misogynistic belief to have begun to accept some of it as simply true because so many other people believe it. I certainly have, and identifying and challenging sexist beliefs and thought patterns is an ongoing battle.
Iím a bit slow to respond as this thread seems to be taking off. Iím stuck at work.

Lallante
February 22 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Lets get real here. You jackasses going back and forth trying to quantify and or qualify the harm of hate are really missing the fucking point. The only way to address discrimination & hate, be it sexism, racism, ageism, intolerance for sexual preference or religious affiliation; is to raise and educate our children to be better then we have been.

You dont achieve this by teaching your children to be especially nice to girls or people of color, or any of these petty differences; your just perpetuating the boundaries that already seperate us by doing so. You achieve it by teaching them to be accepting of everyone regardless of these things, because we are all human beings and we all deserve to be treated as such.

There are however, mysandrist (is that a word?) social attitudes and stereotypes. The classic is the fat lazy sitcom husband (he's dumb but he has a heart of gold!) who got lucky with the brilliant wife. Or the stubborn lost man who won't ask for directions. The idea that men are shallow and only want sex whereas women want intimacy and meaning. Just listen to a female comedian for more (thankfully many are not playing this card anymore).

Again... I am not saying that the problems are equal quantitatively or qualitatively. I agree that mysandry is not nearly as large an issue in our society today. Just that both exist on the individual and social level.
I can agree with both of these things.

Well yes obviously, as they are both practically truisms.

Alistair
February 22 2013, 06:40:03 PM
Lets get real here. You jackasses going back and forth trying to quantify and or qualify the harm of hate are really missing the fucking point. The only way to address discrimination & hate, be it sexism, racism, ageism, intolerance for sexual preference or religious affiliation; is to raise and educate our children to be better then we have been.

You dont achieve this by teaching your children to be especially nice to girls or people of color, or any of these petty differences; your just perpetuating the boundaries that already seperate us by doing so. You achieve it by teaching them to be accepting of everyone regardless of these things, because we are all human beings and we all deserve to be treated as such.

Agreed. +Rep, well said.

Alistair
February 22 2013, 06:51:04 PM
No, saying that misogyny is a societal problem does not mean that I think every man is a misogynist. You seem to get really defensive regarding any perceived implication (real or otherwise) that you might be misogynist. No one is saying that.

As a white male American, active in politics and political debate, I've been told regularly (albeit not here at FHC) that I am a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot on a regular basis for holding policy positions. So yes, I am sensative to the implication as I see it, and can admit, perhaps, that I see it now where it does nto exist. For example, if you believe in enforcement of immigration law as is, you are roundly called a racist, nativist bigot in political discourse.

With that said, I stand by my basic positions thus far, while one form of descrimination may be more common, that should not result in policy that itself engages in descrimination.

I'll give a real world personal example.

My African american male friend and I both applied for the same college in H.S. I had superior grades, test scores and extracurriculars. He was accepted, I was not.

Now, I fully agree that descrimination against African americans is a vastly larger issue than that against Euro-born Americans. Thats obvious.

Where I take exception, is with policy that (in an attempt to fix it) simply reverses descrimination victims creating a victim-class who gets superior considerations, and desriminates against individuals who themselves did no wrong, but who are the same color or gender as those in the past who did. Like my example above.

Is hate (in it's many forms) towards women a larger issue than towards men? Of course it is.

But beyond education, and equal protections under the Law (both of whcih I strngly support), what is the solution? As long as those solutions do not themselves sterotype or descriminate, I can probably agree with them, as well as agree with prioritizing them (in terms of policy) over minimalissues like "hate against men".

But.....with THAT siad, issues like inequallity in divorce and child custody proceedings are a legitimate issue of descrimination against men, and I would not agree that it should ignored simply because descrimination against women is more common. I would say again that all forms, of all levels of frequency, should be stopped. Even ones some would consider insignifigant.

Hast
February 22 2013, 08:38:30 PM
As a white male American, active in politics and political debate, I've been told regularly (albeit not here at FHC) that I am a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot on a regular basis for holding policy positions.

To be fair, this is the impression I have of you.

XenosisReaper
February 23 2013, 12:19:27 AM
As a white male American, active in politics and political debate, I've been told regularly (albeit not here at FHC) that I am a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot on a regular basis for holding policy positions.

To be fair, this is the impression I have of you.

F*** My Aunt Rita
February 23 2013, 12:29:39 AM
As a white male American, active in politics and political debate, I've been told regularly (albeit not here at FHC) that I am a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot on a regular basis for holding policy positions.

To be fair, this is the impression I have of you.

That was my first impression as well.

Alistair
February 23 2013, 01:28:30 AM
Typical and unsuprising.

You folks couldn't cite a single opinion, or especially public policy, that would back such an horrible accusation. My position all along has been "all inequallity or descrimination is bad", but no worries, just like any other Politics forum, the easiest dismissal is to simply call someone a racist/sexist/homophobe.

Serious Business indeed. Two mods even, lol. Love it.

XenosisReaper
February 23 2013, 01:31:26 AM
Typical and unsuprising.

You folks couldn't cite a single opinion, or especially public policy, that would back such an horrible accusation. My position all along has been "all inequallity or descrimination is bad", but no worries, just like any other Politics forum, the easiest dismissal is to simply call someone a racist/sexist/homophobe.

Serious Business indeed. Two mods even, lol. Love it.

>gets mad at unsupported rage
>plusreps with reason "sister fucker"

Huehuehuehue

(disclaimer, I cannot actually see who reps me, it might be somebody else)

anyway, I'm out of this thread

Ampoliros
February 23 2013, 03:37:10 AM
There are however, mysandrist (is that a word?) social attitudes and stereotypes. The classic is the fat lazy sitcom husband (he's dumb but he has a heart of gold!) who got lucky with the brilliant wife. Or the stubborn lost man who won't ask for directions. The idea that men are shallow and only want sex whereas women want intimacy and meaning. Just listen to a female comedian for more (thankfully many are not playing this card anymore).

Again... I am not saying that the problems are equal quantitatively or qualitatively. I agree that mysandry is not nearly as large an issue in our society today. Just that both exist on the individual and social level.

*misandrist

while I agree that there are stereotypes in society that harm men - I would note that they are the reflections of sexism in society, and were created and enforced largely by men. it's not women who portrayed men in sitcoms as dumb slobs unwilling to ask for directions, it's male writers (and the women might be portrayed as smart, but it's usually in a 'wise domestic goddess' way). It's men who paint themselves as shallow sex fiends ('We can't help it' and the like) and portray women as the intimacy-needing gatekeepers of sex - although some women enforce this in their own way too.

Ampoliros
February 23 2013, 03:52:48 AM
You folks couldn't cite a single opinion, or especially public policy, that would back such an horrible accusation. My position all along has been "all inequallity or descrimination is bad", but no worries, just like any other Politics forum, the easiest dismissal is to simply call someone a racist/sexist/homophobe.


It intrigues me how you repeat the mantra that "all inequality and discrimination is bad" (and it is, no doubt) as if believing it somehow disqualifies you from having problematic opinions

Hast
February 23 2013, 07:25:47 AM
Typical and unsuprising.

You folks couldn't cite a single opinion, or especially public policy, that would back such an horrible accusation. My position all along has been "all inequallity or descrimination is bad", but no worries, just like any other Politics forum, the easiest dismissal is to simply call someone a racist/sexist/homophobe.

Serious Business indeed. Two mods even, lol. Love it.

I think people have tried for eight pages now to tell you that you are wrong, but you just dismiss it out of hand, and go on some weird equality before the law crusade and saying that misandry and misogyny are equal problems in our society. Which they clearly are not. The reason there are no public policies against misandry is because IT IS NOT A FUCKING PROBLEM, misogeny is deeply engrained and hence you need public policies like affirmitive action. This does not in practice infringe on any of your "rights" other then the right to be a misogynist bigot.

Like we have discussed in every other serious business thread with you, being a white male in the 20% is not particularly hard.

Here is a good example of gender inequality:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125998232


It is a provable fact that misogyny is a big problem, and while in theory misandry is just a serious issue, it just does not happen. So your opinions are a-ok in theory, but when you put them to practice where misandry is basically non existing it falls flat on its face. And this is what both Tarminic and Lallante (and others) have put in plain text infront of you, and you have handwaved it away with "BUT IN THEORY THEY ARE EQUALLY BAD".

shit just does not fly, stop trying to make it.

Hast
February 23 2013, 07:30:52 AM
unsurprisingly I live in a country with low inequality index:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Table4.pdf

The United Nations Development reports, trusted body or militant feminists?

Synapse
February 23 2013, 08:18:51 AM
As a white male American, active in politics and political debate, I've been told regularly (albeit not here at FHC) that I am a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot on a regular basis for holding policy positions.

To be fair, this is the impression I have of you.

That was my first impression as well.

Did I really just see two mods call alistair a sexist, racist, homophobe and a bigot?
How is this not attacking him as a person?
Do we have a discussion forum here or an insulting people forum?

How is this Ok with either of you mods? Your position should be promoting discussion, not berating people you disagree with into silence. Seriously.

IMO you should be all ashamed for posting & quoting such a thing. Even if you think all of the above, I believe you owe him an apology for saying so out loud.

Yes, I'm holding you to a high standard of civility. That's what we all should do here.

Synapse
February 23 2013, 08:38:13 AM
It is a provable fact that misogyny is a big problem, and while in theory misandry is just a serious issue, it just does not happen.

Why do you say it doesn't exist? It does.

Men are clearly discriminated against in Domestic Violence, Rape, and Adoption. All pretty solid examples.

Everyone else was saying "it's less" (which everyone agrees one) and you suddenly went to "it doesn't exist at all" which simply isn't true.

whispous
February 23 2013, 08:51:16 AM
Imo, saying it doesn't exist at all is itself sexist. Yes, men can be sexist against men, it's part of the "some are more equal than others" politically correct indoctrination.

This post is not stating that it's a bigger problem than male to female discrimination. It is just trying to show awareness that sometimes fairness goes too far.

telephone

Hast
February 23 2013, 08:54:33 AM
It is a provable fact that misogyny is a big problem, and while in theory misandry is just a serious issue, it just does not happen.

Why do you say it doesn't exist? It does.

Men are clearly discriminated against in Domestic Violence, Rape, and Adoption. All pretty solid examples.

Everyone else was saying "it's less" (which everyone agrees one) and you suddenly went to "it doesn't exist at all" which simply isn't true.

If you bothered quoting my entire post you would see that I wrote that I did not write that it never happens, what I said is that in scale it is basically nonexistent compared to the amount of women paid less for the same work and so on.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

whispous
February 23 2013, 09:08:49 AM
The fact that, by comparison, it's very small, does not make it okay in any way whatsoever.

telephone

Hast
February 23 2013, 09:14:32 AM
The fact that, by comparison, it's very small, does not make it okay in any way whatsoever.

telephone

Who here has claimed that? Of course it is not ok. And I'm not gonna go another round in this circus.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

whispous
February 23 2013, 09:35:13 AM
Ok hast, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

telephone

Hast
February 23 2013, 09:45:00 AM
Ok hast, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

telephone

My point is the same as Tarm and Lallante: Yes, misandry happens, but both militant lesbians and their effect on society is minimal at best. Yes, in some cases such as custody cases (haven't seen any statistic produced though) ther can be a gender bias towards women.

However the effects of misogyny are many and well documented, as you can see from the articles I linked earlier.

So I stand by my previous statement: misandry is bad, but its effect on society is minimal and it rarely happens. Misogyny however is more common. Both are bad, but I don't consider misandry to be a problem in society, and it has never really been. Feel free to prove me wrong, you would however need more then anecdotal evidence about some woman who yelled at you for holding the door.

KathDougans
February 23 2013, 10:03:34 AM
what about societal pressures making young men substantially more likely to commit suicide ?

Synapse
February 23 2013, 10:31:10 AM
It is a provable fact that misogyny is a big problem, and while in theory misandry is just a serious issue, it just does not happen.

Why do you say it doesn't exist? It does.

Men are clearly discriminated against in Domestic Violence, Rape, and Adoption. All pretty solid examples.

Everyone else was saying "it's less" (which everyone agrees one) and you suddenly went to "it doesn't exist at all" which simply isn't true.

If you bothered quoting my entire post you would see that I wrote that I did not write that it never happens, what I said is that in scale it is basically nonexistent compared to the amount of women paid less for the same work and so on.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Ok hast here is every part of your post where you mention it:


IT IS NOT A FUCKING PROBLEM,

while in theory misandry is just a serious issue, it just does not happen.

misandry is basically non existing

Sounds pretty clear to me that you're saying it doesnt exist. If you don't want me to think that, maybe you shouldnt say it. Basically non existing means doesnt exist....seriously read it.

whispous
February 23 2013, 10:44:19 AM
It's nit just militant lesbian feminists. The bad attitude about men filters down and infects more and more young women. You don't have to find a militant feminazi to find prejudice against men.

telephone

Hast
February 23 2013, 10:49:18 AM
I have yet to see either of you provide any statistics or tangible to back your statements.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

whispous
February 23 2013, 10:57:25 AM
I don't know where I can find for you an official list of all the times men are regarded as rapist pigs unfit to care for their child when they are decent people in reality.

telephone

Lallante
February 24 2013, 12:36:52 PM
As a white male American, active in politics and political debate, I've been told regularly (albeit not here at FHC) that I am a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot on a regular basis for holding policy positions.

To be fair, this is the impression I have of you.

Me too

Lallante
February 24 2013, 12:40:11 PM
The fact that, by comparison, it's very small, does not make it okay in any way whatsoever.

telephone

Are you trolling or is Alastair your 2nd account. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.

Tafkat
February 24 2013, 12:44:12 PM
ITT we learn that a police department with limited resources and money in a town plagued by one petty thief and one axe-wielding mass murderer should spend equal amounts of time and effort trying to catch both of them because they are both bad.

Lallante
February 24 2013, 12:49:43 PM
I dont normally get annoyed by shit on the internet, but this thread has really done it for me.

"Guys, X is so much more of a serious problem than Y, that you can effectively disregard Y when considering social responses to the problems"
"So you are saying Y doesnt exist and are against equality for all"
"...."


There is an incredibly important need to tackle misogyny deep-rooted in social norms.

There is no such need regarding "misandry".

End of discussion.

Pacefalm
February 24 2013, 01:38:56 PM
Look what you guys have done, you made Lallante mad.

Also this entire debate can be simplified as large scale problem x compared to small scale more severe problem y.*
We see the same thing pop up with alcohol vs. Heroine abuse. Even though on an individual basis, heroine addiction is much worse than alcoholism, due to the difference in scale alcoholism is a much larger overall problem than heroine abuse.
There are many more cases where this issue pops up (ever hear a car speeder say "why dont you do your job and go after the real criminals?!", same thing).
The fact of the matter is that you can argue these issues until you are blue in the face and still not come to a concensus. The only thing this thread mostly agrees on is that both misandry and misogeny exist. There is, however, no way to enforce equality.
This entire thread came from the question whether "corrective discrimination" (i.e. discrimination one way to compensate for general case discrimination the other way) is a good thing or not. I would say it is not.

*(I think it is fair to say that discrimination in child custody & rape allegiation issues is more severe than "I get paid 10% less")

Alistair
February 24 2013, 01:59:36 PM
Also this entire debate can be simplified as large scale problem x compared to small scale more severe problem y.*
We see the same thing pop up with alcohol vs. Heroine abuse. Even though on an individual basis, heroine addiction is much worse than alcoholism, due to the difference in scale alcoholism is a much larger overall problem than heroine abuse.

There are many more cases where this issue pops up (ever hear a car speeder say "why dont you do your job and go after the real criminals?!", same thing).

The fact of the matter is that you can argue these issues until you are blue in the face and still not come to a concensus. The only thing this thread mostly agrees on is that both misandry and misogeny exist. There is, however, no way to enforce equality.

Well said.


This entire thread came from the question whether "corrective discrimination" (i.e. discrimination one way to compensate for general case discrimination the other way) is a good thing or not. I would say it is not.

Agreed. Which is my point as well, and why the "All descrimination is wrong" point IMO need emphasized. Because do-gooders often resort to simply flipping descrimination around and calling it a day, problem solved.

Inequallity and descrimination is never the solution for other inequallity and descrimination.


*(I think it is fair to say that discrimination in child custody & rape allegiation issues is more severe than "I get paid 10% less")

Agreed, these are one example of systemic descrimination against men under the Law, and needs addressed just as much as the Wage Gap (which also does need addressed).

End of the day, I think the best tactic to fight these issues, is to fight them all, the "big common" issues and the "small, not as common" issues all at once.

Hast
February 24 2013, 02:28:35 PM
*(I think it is fair to say that discrimination in child custody & rape allegiation issues is more severe than "I get paid 10% less")

Agreed, these are one example of systemic descrimination against men under the Law, and needs addressed just as much as the Wage Gap (which also does need addressed).

End of the day, I think the best tactic to fight these issues, is to fight them all, the "big common" issues and the "small, not as common" issues all at once.

Are you talking about the fact that about 3% of rapes actually end in conviction?

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

Pacefalm
February 24 2013, 02:50:02 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

Alistair
February 24 2013, 02:57:48 PM
*(I think it is fair to say that discrimination in child custody & rape allegiation issues is more severe than "I get paid 10% less")

Agreed, these are one example of systemic descrimination against men under the Law, and needs addressed just as much as the Wage Gap (which also does need addressed).

End of the day, I think the best tactic to fight these issues, is to fight them all, the "big common" issues and the "small, not as common" issues all at once.

Are you talking about the fact that about 3% of rapes actually end in conviction?

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

First, your 3% is a theoretical all claimed rapes. Not all rapes.

Second, it starts with ~50% being unreported. It's hard to fault the law or law enforcement for a crime that goes unreported.

Third, it assumes that every claimed rape IS a rape under the law that would result in a conviction, which is clearly not the case.

To pull from Facepalm's link above:


Once a rape case reaches the courts, almost 60 per cent of defendants are convicted – a rate higher than some other violent attacks.

Rape is not an easy crime to prosecute, by the very nature of the crime and circumstances in many reported cases. The same could be said for other crimes as well (take a look for example how little white collar crime if actually prosecuted to successful conviction vs. the number of crimes committed, for example).

What is your suggested solution the problem Hast? Rape is clearly wrong, is clearly violence towards (almost universally) women. We all agree it should be eliminated (right?) and prosecuted to the fullest when it happens (right?). But we also have a responsabillity to provide a presumption of innocence to the accused as well, and a fair trail for him, and a roper system to determine if a rape did indeed occur.

So what is your solution in policy to the 3% conviction rate figure? And how to you balance that and make whole those tried for rape and not convicted, but who suffer the lifelong stigma attached with such an accusation, even when found not-guilty?

Hast
February 24 2013, 03:34:26 PM
Reread lallantes post.

What I'm saying is that unreported rape and unwillingness in law enforcement is a bigger problem then false accusations of rape, and by a long mile.

I have yet to see any form of statistics or proof in other forms pointing to that men are in any form threatened by women, militant, lesbian or otherwise.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Alistair
February 24 2013, 04:01:42 PM
What I'm saying is that unreported rape and unwillingness in law enforcement is a bigger problem then false accusations of rape, and by a long mile.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Every rape should be reported, on that we agree, correct? Why do women not report? Stigma? Threat of violence from the rapist? Something else?

How do we solve those issues then? Stigma should be the easiest, as we (imo) do not generally view victims of violent crime with stigma in western culture, we view them with compassion (speaking broadly and generally). Education is clearly the key on that count.

But the other factors, how can they be best addressed Hast? By definition, the system (law) cannot prosecute something the victim chooses not to report.

As for "Unwillingness in Law Enforcement"? If you believe the issue is that cops are not willing to enforce the Law due to a hatred of women (mysogyny), and not due to lack of evidence or other factors, I cannot agree with that. Law Enforcement is not unwilling (here in the U.S.) to prosecute rape if the evidence exists to do so. The problem is not hate of women by the legal system, it's lack of tangible supportive evidence and timeliness of reporting primarily.

whispous
February 24 2013, 04:18:16 PM
My intention of this thread was to acknowledge that it's not just men that can be sexist/not just whites that can be racist, and to discuss that.

Tafkat
February 24 2013, 05:36:39 PM
My intention of this thread was to acknowledge that it's not just men that can be sexist/not just whites that can be racist, and to discuss that.
The thing is that in the absence of large scale social consequences, racism/sexism are kind of meaningless. Sexism isn't a problem because some people say unpleasant things about women or crack offensive jokes about rape, it's a problem because of things such as the wage gap and the lack of women in senior positions. Similarly, the fact that nigger_hunter1488 is mouthing off about pakis isn't what makes racism a problem, it's things like black men getting much harsher sentences than white men for the same crimes and job applications from people with "non-white" names being 50% more likely to be rejected before interview than applications from otherwise identical candidates with "white" names. Without large-scale systemic discrimination, all you have is people being arseholes; while that isn't nice, it's also not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. There is no evidence that white men are meaningfully discriminated against in the labour market, the workplace, the criminal justice system, or any other important aspect of modern society, so it's daft to get upset when some lunatic with no meaningful power or influence says something like "set all men on fire."

Lallante
February 25 2013, 07:51:09 AM
Look what you guys have done, you made Lallante mad.

Also this entire debate can be simplified as large scale problem x compared to small scale more severe problem y.*
We see the same thing pop up with alcohol vs. Heroine abuse. Even though on an individual basis, heroine addiction is much worse than alcoholism, due to the difference in scale alcoholism is a much larger overall problem than heroine abuse.
There are many more cases where this issue pops up (ever hear a car speeder say "why dont you do your job and go after the real criminals?!", same thing).
The fact of the matter is that you can argue these issues until you are blue in the face and still not come to a concensus. The only thing this thread mostly agrees on is that both misandry and misogeny exist. There is, however, no way to enforce equality.
This entire thread came from the question whether "corrective discrimination" (i.e. discrimination one way to compensate for general case discrimination the other way) is a good thing or not. I would say it is not.

*(I think it is fair to say that discrimination in child custody & rape allegiation issues is more severe than "I get paid 10% less")

This thread has never been about positive discrimination. The opening posts and first 5 or 6 pages were about this:

being a white male is to be always having to watch what you say lest someone try and extrapolate something to take offense at from

What has that got to do with positive discrimination?

Lallante
February 25 2013, 07:57:04 AM
[Agreed. Which is my point as well, and why the "All descrimination is wrong" point IMO need emphasized. Because do-gooders often resort to simply flipping descrimination around and calling it a day, problem solved.
That's not "your point" - that's not something people are disputing so how it can be the core of your argument I don't know. Why not throw in that the sky is blue while you are at it. Or murder is bad.

BTW this is semantics (and we all agree with the sentiment you actually mean) but not all discrimination is actually wrong. If you prefer chocolate icecream to bannana then you discriminate between them. If you employ a guy who is amazing at maths to be your accountant over someone who cant read, that's discrimination. The issue is not discrimination per se its discrimination either based on irrational factors or due to generalisation based on a protected characterstic, the first of which is just plain stupid and the second of which is wrong for public policy and fairness reasons.


Agreed, these are one example of systemic descrimination against men under the Law, and needs addressed just as much as the Wage Gap (which also does need addressed).

End of the day, I think the best tactic to fight these issues, is to fight them all, the "big common" issues and the "small, not as common" issues all at once.
A single womans word re: rape is never enough to convict if there is no other evidence. I dont know what "rape allegation" issues are being referred to here? Perhaps the fact that almost all rapists get away with it?



End of the day, I think the best tactic to fight these issues, is to fight them all, the "big common" issues and the "small, not as common" issues all at once.
There's an infinite number of problems. You CANT fight them all, or at least not equally. You have to prioritise the problems that will make the biggest difference. That's the whole point.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 08:05:28 AM
First, your 3% is a theoretical all claimed rapes. Not all rapes.

Second, it starts with ~50% being unreported. It's hard to fault the law or law enforcement for a crime that goes unreported.
We are faulting society's attitude to rape. Victim blaming, rape culture. Slut shaming. Stuff like wearing a short skirt meaning men are within their rights to slap or pinch as you walk past. The police have an INCREDIBLY bad record for treating rape victims and often going to them is worse than traumatic, its scaring because you are basically told its your fault you were raped and you probably wanted it because you had a drink and wore a skirt.

50% is probably a GROSS underestimation. Reporting rates are even lower for sexual assaults.



Third, it assumes that every claimed rape IS a rape under the law that would result in a conviction, which is clearly not the case.

While that is true the number that aren't reporting at all is vastly higher.


To pull from Facepalm's link above:


Once a rape case reaches the courts, almost 60 per cent of defendants are convicted – a rate higher than some other violent attacks.

Rape is not an easy crime to prosecute, by the very nature of the crime and circumstances in many reported cases. The same could be said for other crimes as well (take a look for example how little white collar crime if actually prosecuted to successful conviction vs. the number of crimes committed, for example).
Facepalms link is the telegraph, a right wing, very conservative paper read by rich white males. What a fucking surprise that they downplay rape. The problem with rape is it doesnt go to court, the police mostly don't prosecute without witnesses. If you have a credible witness and the victim claiming it was rape it should be open and shut except for mental state of the accused.


What is your suggested solution the problem Hast? Rape is clearly wrong, is clearly violence towards (almost universally) women. We all agree it should be eliminated (right?) and prosecuted to the fullest when it happens (right?). But we also have a responsabillity to provide a presumption of innocence to the accused as well, and a fair trail for him, and a roper system to determine if a rape did indeed occur.
The solution is to change social attitudes. Everything from Builders whistling at women walking past ("harmless" I hear you say? Bollocks.), ass-slapping of strangers, sexual assault of half-conscious girls at parties, etc. We need to crack down on that shit and trust me, rape figures will drop.


So what is your solution in policy to the 3% conviction rate figure? And how to you balance that and make whole those tried for rape and not convicted, but who suffer the lifelong stigma attached with such an accusation, even when found not-guilty?
Fix society. Fix the police's attitude to women who report rape (its pretty fucking ugly for the most part right now). Do the latter at least and reporting rates will go up. Probably conviction rates too when police stop dismissing claims with "well you were drunk so you were probably up for it at the time". Which they do, unbelievably.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 08:07:53 AM
My intention of this thread was to acknowledge that it's not just men that can be sexist/not just whites that can be racist, and to discuss that.

No one has ever denied that in this thread. There are probably a few hundred people in the entire western world who even believe the opposite.

What an insight!

SAI Peregrinus
February 25 2013, 08:19:51 AM
Really, this is very similar to risk/security modeling problems.

You have a certain item, say the inauguration of a President.
You have certain event risks, of varying severity. Say rain, snow, earthquake, meteor, terrorist attack with suicide bomb, and lone sniper assassin.
You try to figure out the chances of each of the events. Say 20%, 5%, 0.01%, 0.00001%, 0.000000001%, and 0.0000000000000001% respectively.
You then assign a cost to each event, say $10, $50, etc.
You then multiply the cost times the chance to get the amount of resources you should spend trying to defend against the risk event.

So we have misogyny and misandry. There's a much, much higher chance of misogyny happening, and it tends to have moderate to high costs. Misandry tends to have lower costs, but not 0, and sometimes quite high. Thus, we are generally justified in paying more attention to the problem of misogyny. But because it's a familiar problem it seems to be just the way things are, so many people pay less attention to it.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 08:22:42 AM
So we have misogyny and misandry. There's a much, much higher chance of misogyny happening, and it tends to have moderate to high costs. Misandry tends to have lower costs, but not 0, and sometimes quite high. Thus, we are generally justified in paying more attention to the problem of misogyny. But because it's a familiar problem it seems to be just the way things are, so many people pay less attention to it.

So much this. The number of times I've heard a guy (almost inevitably a guy) saying "yeah but that's not a big deal, she should just lighten up" when one of our female friends is upset that a car beeped its horn and slowed down next to her as she walked home or whatever....

Synapse
February 25 2013, 09:56:41 AM
So we have misogyny and misandry. There's a much, much higher chance of misogyny happening, and it tends to have moderate to high costs. Misandry tends to have lower costs, but not 0, and sometimes quite high. Thus, we are generally justified in paying more attention to the problem of misogyny. But because it's a familiar problem it seems to be just the way things are, so many people pay less attention to it.

So much this. The number of times I've heard a guy (almost inevitably a guy) saying "yeah but that's not a big deal, she should just lighten up" when one of our female friends is upset that a car beeped its horn and slowed down next to her as she walked home or whatever....

So far as I can tell neither myself, whispous, or alastair are posting about how much resources are spent on one or the other.

You're both discussing this topic with the air in front of your face.



[Agreed. Which is my point as well, and why the "All descrimination is wrong" point IMO need emphasized. Because do-gooders often resort to simply flipping descrimination around and calling it a day, problem solved.
That's not "your point" - that's not something people are disputing so how it can be the core of your argument I don't know. Why not throw in that the sky is blue while you are at it.

Lall why not enlighten us with what his real point was if not what he himself said. Maybe you can tell us what other thoughts were going through his mind at the same time? No? Then please _dont_ claim to read minds, and don't post that you can.

Thanks.

Synapse
February 25 2013, 10:49:37 AM
*(I think it is fair to say that discrimination in child custody & rape allegiation issues is more severe than "I get paid 10% less")

Agreed, these are one example of systemic descrimination against men under the Law, and needs addressed just as much as the Wage Gap (which also does need addressed).

End of the day, I think the best tactic to fight these issues, is to fight them all, the "big common" issues and the "small, not as common" issues all at once.

Are you talking about the fact that about 3% of rapes actually end in conviction?

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

Earlier you were asking for people to post some stats and numbers on anti-male bias. I had some time to do so on the subject of rape, so here' you go.

While I think things like giving anonymity to accused rapists until trial is a great thing (you can't convict on an accusation but you can ruin a career by being arrested at work) If anything like 10% of rape accusations are false then that's a huge number of innocent victims.

...I think the bigger story is rape against men. It's less than women, so far as we know (think of the obstacles in front of a man who wants to report though) and even if today's numbers are correct, we're talking about a VERY non trivial number. Between 10 and 25% of total reported rapes.

How about we talk about the fact that rape of men isn't just under-reported, its not even reportable in many cases, due to gender biases and stereotypes in culture and legally defined.

For example, it wasn't until last year that the FBI even tracked rape that didn't happen to women. You wonder why there are few statistics? No one has been counting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/07/men-as-rape-victims-_n_1191154.html

We could talk about the practically universal opinion that if a man is raped or coerced into sex he should be happy about getting free sex.
We could talk about how little women report rape...men's rape reporting is near zero, even though surrounding factors that should parallel it such as domestic violence and abuse show both sexes about equal.
How many stories have you heard about women being raped in african conflicts....have you heard even ONE about how men reportedly are raped even more than the women? No? Here's two:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2011/10/mil-111013-irin01.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
We could talk about how in the US, more men are raped than women....but most of those are prisoners who of course deserve it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women


"In one study they conducted, 51 percent of college-age women polled admitted they had once taken advantage of a man who was drunk or high. "If we were applying the same standards as we apply to men," says Anderson, "these women would be talked about as date-rapists."
http://charmandrigor.com/clips/details-raping.html

About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.1

In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.2
2.78 million men in the U.S. have been victims of sexual assault or rape.1

http://www.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_3800/3838_men-raped-by-women.html
Now if you agree with my data we can look at the cultural perspectives on rape of men, since we have 10% of the US population who are men and victims of sexual assault or rape. In this environment we still have articules asking "can men even be raped?" and honest discussion from uninformed people who think it's not possible. There's a cultural anti-men sexist bias right there. It means that up to 10% of the country can barely admit to what happened to them and be believed.



So, you wanted some misandry data. There's some. We can find more on divorce and child custody if you like. Those should be better documented.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 11:11:14 AM
Lall why not enlighten us with what his real point was if not what he himself said. Maybe you can tell us what other thoughts were going through his mind at the same time? No? Then please _dont_ claim to read minds, and don't post that you can.

Thanks.
He hasnt made a real point. A point implies disagreeing with something someone else is saying for a reason and then backing up that reason with evidence or at least rationale.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 11:12:46 AM
PS Rape, the legal definition that forms the basis of a crime, cannot currently happen to men by women in the UK. (instead its aggrevated sexual assault).

Personally I think that's wrong, but there it is.

Synapse
February 25 2013, 11:35:06 AM
Lall why not enlighten us with what his real point was if not what he himself said. Maybe you can tell us what other thoughts were going through his mind at the same time? No? Then please _dont_ claim to read minds, and don't post that you can.

Thanks.
He hasnt made a real point. A point implies disagreeing with something someone else is saying for a reason and then backing up that reason with evidence or at least rationale.

I don't mean to press the attack, because I appreciate your post above. However...

I'm not sure that's the definition of a point. Anyway it may come as a complete surprise to you that a large number of arguments are actually misunderstandings in which both parties largely or wholly agree.

That's as accurately as I can say it.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 11:52:42 AM
truefax about male rape.


As I've said, explained and evidenced in multiple posts in this thread, this "misandry" is actually just a flipside of the misogynistic social norm that for a man sex with multiple partners is great and for a woman its some huge deal. This isn't anti-men bias even if the results are bad for those men who are raped. This social norm evolved out of the view of women as property.

Rape culture normalises "fucking drunk hos". This makes a man complaining about not wanting sexual intercourse from a woman (i.e. female on male rape) get minimalised / disregarded / mocked. Cos who wouldnt want to fuck sum bitches yo? Again its not misandry its the flipside of misogyny and rape culture. Still not convinced? Who do you picture laughing at / ignoring the raped man's complaint? is it a) angry women who think the guy deserved to be raped or b) other guys who think the guy is being a pussy and wasnt raped because sex is awesome? (hint, its b). Are they doing it out of hatred or even a low opinion of men? No.

Can I also point out - in some of the statistics you are citing the male rape figure includes male on male rape, which are in fact the vast majority of cases.


PS: of course its ludicrous to claim "can't consent if have had any alcohol whatsoever", consent is obviously relevant for both sexes, and the debate about what constitutes consent often gets to fairly extreme rhetorical stances because of the emotion involved. But drawing the line is obviously extremely difficult. Does it make a difference if only one partner is drunk? Is the differential important? If you are both blackout drunk are you both sexually assaulting the other? Its HARD to draw a legal distinction here. Most people would know roughly when something was "shady" and the more obvious examples of a sober girl/guy taking home a staggering guy/girl being wrong. But law is about distinctions - its not obvious where to draw one, hence the heated debate.

Downplaying the need for that debate is just as unhelpful as claiming its all [one gender]'s fault.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 11:58:37 AM
Lall why not enlighten us with what his real point was if not what he himself said. Maybe you can tell us what other thoughts were going through his mind at the same time? No? Then please _dont_ claim to read minds, and don't post that you can.

Thanks.
He hasnt made a real point. A point implies disagreeing with something someone else is saying for a reason and then backing up that reason with evidence or at least rationale.

I don't mean to press the attack, because I appreciate your post above. However...

I'm not sure that's the definition of a point. Anyway it may come as a complete surprise to you that a large number of arguments are actually misunderstandings in which both parties largely or wholly agree.

That's as accurately as I can say it.

If you are debating something, stating something that no one in the debate contests is not your argument, its an undisputed assumption. Your arguement is the claim you make that is disputed (i.e. debated) that you are claiming follows from your assumptions. As far as I can tell the only such claim he has made is that misandry is "just as bad" as misogyny, which we have all hotly contested. Going back to an undisputed assumption and saying "that was my point all along" is disingenuous because it implies we have miscast his argument and he was right all along, when in fact his argument has been dismantled leaving only an uncontested assumption - practically the definition of losing the debate.

Cue1*
February 25 2013, 12:16:07 PM
PS Rape, the legal definition that forms the basis of a crime, cannot currently happen to men by women in the UK. (instead its aggrevated sexual assault).

Personally I think that's wrong, but there it is.

US law acknowledges that rape can happen from male to female or female to male. The only requirement to define it as rape is vaginal penetration. Sexual offense carries the same punishment as rape and doesn't require vaginal penetration, so the law is there. (NC G.S. 14-27) it's been charged before too.

the thing from the buzz buzz

Synapse
February 25 2013, 12:17:55 PM
Lall why not enlighten us with what his real point was if not what he himself said. Maybe you can tell us what other thoughts were going through his mind at the same time? No? Then please _dont_ claim to read minds, and don't post that you can.

Thanks.
He hasnt made a real point. A point implies disagreeing with something someone else is saying for a reason and then backing up that reason with evidence or at least rationale.

I don't mean to press the attack, because I appreciate your post above. However...

I'm not sure that's the definition of a point. Anyway it may come as a complete surprise to you that a large number of arguments are actually misunderstandings in which both parties largely or wholly agree.

That's as accurately as I can say it.

If you are debating something, stating something that no one in the debate contests is not your argument, its an undisputed assumption. Your arguement is the claim you make that is disputed (i.e. debated) that you are claiming follows from your assumptions. As far as I can tell the only such claim he has made is that misandry is "just as bad" as misogyny, which we have all hotly contested. Going back to an undisputed assumption and saying "that was my point all along" is disingenuous because it implies we have miscast his argument and he was right all along, when in fact his argument has been dismantled leaving only an uncontested assumption - practically the definition of losing the debate.

You're missing my point entirely. I'm trying to tell you that what you THINK alastair means is subordinate to what he says he means. You don't get to define his position. Take a step back and stop trying to give him an opinion that you can then bash and claim victory over.

If he's been defending what he thought was a disputed concept, which actually wasn't disputed, and you didn't understand him, then all I can say is you're both at the definition of losing the debate. That's exactly what I think has happened here and in my experience it's par for the course in most heated arguments.

I'm really confused at watching you find out this is all a big misunderstanding. Instead of rejoicing at reaching agreement, you have opted to deny that he meant what he said, so that you can claim victory.
That's just weird.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 12:22:52 PM
Lall why not enlighten us with what his real point was if not what he himself said. Maybe you can tell us what other thoughts were going through his mind at the same time? No? Then please _dont_ claim to read minds, and don't post that you can.

Thanks.
He hasnt made a real point. A point implies disagreeing with something someone else is saying for a reason and then backing up that reason with evidence or at least rationale.

I don't mean to press the attack, because I appreciate your post above. However...

I'm not sure that's the definition of a point. Anyway it may come as a complete surprise to you that a large number of arguments are actually misunderstandings in which both parties largely or wholly agree.

That's as accurately as I can say it.

If you are debating something, stating something that no one in the debate contests is not your argument, its an undisputed assumption. Your arguement is the claim you make that is disputed (i.e. debated) that you are claiming follows from your assumptions. As far as I can tell the only such claim he has made is that misandry is "just as bad" as misogyny, which we have all hotly contested. Going back to an undisputed assumption and saying "that was my point all along" is disingenuous because it implies we have miscast his argument and he was right all along, when in fact his argument has been dismantled leaving only an uncontested assumption - practically the definition of losing the debate.

You're missing my point entirely. I'm trying to tell you that what you THINK alastair means is subordinate to what he says he means. You don't get to define his position. Take a step back and stop trying to give him an opinion that you can then bash and claim victory over.

If he's been defending what he thought was a disputed concept, which actually wasn't disputed, and you didn't understand him, then all I can say is you're both at the definition of losing the debate. That's exactly what I think has happened here and in my experience it's par for the course in most heated arguments.

I'm really confused at watching you find out this is all a big misunderstanding. Instead of rejoicing at reaching agreement, you have opted to deny that he meant what he said, so that you can claim victory.
That's just weird.

I dont understand how anyone able to read could get to page 10 of this thread and still think the concept "All discrimination is wrong" was disputed as literally every third post in this thread contains a statement that no one contests it. That's not a misunderstanding its being unbelievably terrible. Every time he has stated that that is our position we have each quoted him and said its not true, but he keeps stating that we disagree.

In other words pick one:
1) he is being deliberately disingenuous as he is losing the argument; or
2) he is a retard who can't understand simple statements like "no one here disagrees that all discrimination is wrong" or is simply not reading anyone elses posts before replying to them.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming 1), but YMMV.

Synapse
February 25 2013, 12:32:10 PM
Onward to the more interesting post!



truefax about male rape.

As I've said, explained and evidenced in multiple posts in this thread, this "misandry" is actually just a flipside of the misogynistic social norm that for a man sex with multiple partners is great and for a woman its some huge deal. This isn't anti-men bias even if the results are bad for those men who are raped. This social norm evolved out of the view of women as property.

Neither anti-male nor anti-female bias exists in a vacuum. Both are reflections of the other. Focusing on women's gender roles alone is just as broken as the reverse. So, I'd reject your statement that this isn't anti-male bias even while I agree that it's partly anti-female. You can end up just as bad if you go the opposite direction.


Rape culture normalises "fucking drunk hos". This makes a man complaining about not wanting sexual intercourse from a woman (i.e. female on male rape) get minimalised / disregarded / mocked. Cos who wouldnt want to fuck sum bitches yo? Again its not misandry its the flipside of misogyny and rape culture. Still not convinced? Who do you picture laughing at / ignoring the raped man's complaint? is it a) angry women who think the guy deserved to be raped or b) other guys who think the guy is being a pussy and wasnt raped because sex is awesome? (hint, its b). Are they doing it out of hatred or even a low opinion of men? No.
Almost entirely disagree. It's not about "fucking drunk hos". Almost none of my post contained that. It was about "men should like being taken advantage of for sex" Those two are not very similar. It says nothing about the girl being drunk, and only some about the man being drunk.


Can I also point out - in some of the statistics you are citing the male rape figure includes male on male rape, which are in fact the vast majority of cases.
Given that we both agree the social stigma against reporting rape by females is so intense that people discuss whether it's even possible, I don't really trust the quality of the ratio. I also don't think it has any bearing on how much support male victims deserve to get, which was my point.



PS: of course its ludicrous to claim "can't consent if have had any alcohol whatsoever", consent is obviously relevant for both sexes, and the debate about what constitutes consent often gets to fairly extreme rhetorical stances because of the emotion involved. But drawing the line is obviously extremely difficult. Does it make a difference if only one partner is drunk? Is the differential important? If you are both blackout drunk are you both sexually assaulting the other? Its HARD to draw a legal distinction here. Most people would know roughly when something was "shady" and the more obvious examples of a sober girl/guy taking home a staggering guy/girl being wrong. But law is about distinctions - its not obvious where to draw one, hence the heated debate.

Yes consent is fantastically difficult to pin down. This type of question is exactly why I'm not a lawyer. I'm glad one of us enjoys it though, someone has to! Have fun :D


Downplaying the need for that debate is just as unhelpful as claiming its all [one gender]'s fault.
Yep. If anything I'd say that's what this thread is about: social and political downplaying of difficult discussions around sexism.

Synapse
February 25 2013, 12:32:58 PM
Lall why not enlighten us with what his real point was if not what he himself said. Maybe you can tell us what other thoughts were going through his mind at the same time? No? Then please _dont_ claim to read minds, and don't post that you can.

Thanks.
He hasnt made a real point. A point implies disagreeing with something someone else is saying for a reason and then backing up that reason with evidence or at least rationale.

I don't mean to press the attack, because I appreciate your post above. However...

I'm not sure that's the definition of a point. Anyway it may come as a complete surprise to you that a large number of arguments are actually misunderstandings in which both parties largely or wholly agree.

That's as accurately as I can say it.

If you are debating something, stating something that no one in the debate contests is not your argument, its an undisputed assumption. Your arguement is the claim you make that is disputed (i.e. debated) that you are claiming follows from your assumptions. As far as I can tell the only such claim he has made is that misandry is "just as bad" as misogyny, which we have all hotly contested. Going back to an undisputed assumption and saying "that was my point all along" is disingenuous because it implies we have miscast his argument and he was right all along, when in fact his argument has been dismantled leaving only an uncontested assumption - practically the definition of losing the debate.

You're missing my point entirely. I'm trying to tell you that what you THINK alastair means is subordinate to what he says he means. You don't get to define his position. Take a step back and stop trying to give him an opinion that you can then bash and claim victory over.

If he's been defending what he thought was a disputed concept, which actually wasn't disputed, and you didn't understand him, then all I can say is you're both at the definition of losing the debate. That's exactly what I think has happened here and in my experience it's par for the course in most heated arguments.

I'm really confused at watching you find out this is all a big misunderstanding. Instead of rejoicing at reaching agreement, you have opted to deny that he meant what he said, so that you can claim victory.
That's just weird.

I dont understand how anyone able to read could get to page 10 of this thread and still think the concept "All discrimination is wrong" was disputed as literally every third post in this thread contains a statement that no one contests it. That's not a misunderstanding its being unbelievably terrible. Every time he has stated that that is our position we have each quoted him and said its not true, but he keeps stating that we disagree.

In other words pick one:
1) he is being deliberately disingenuous as he is losing the argument; or
2) he is a retard who can't understand simple statements like "no one here disagrees that all discrimination is wrong" or is simply not reading anyone elses posts before replying to them.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming 1), but YMMV.

Yay ad hominem. There's nothing left to say when you start calling people retards. Discussion over.

You may not understand it, but option 3) He's a generally rational person defending a position that he thinks is not totally agreed with and should be.

....is 99% of the time correct, and 1% of the time impossible to know. (edit: this does not apply when trolling or in courts of law)

Lallante
February 25 2013, 12:54:42 PM
I don't know how any of us could make it clearer that we oppose all "discrimination" short of stating it in bold allcaps at the top of every post.

PS: none of what I wrote is an ad hominem. Calling someone a retard for making a terrible attempt at debate is not an ad hom, its an insult. An ad hom is saying his argument is wrong BECAUSE he is a retard, this is the reverse.

Synapse
February 25 2013, 01:01:27 PM
I don't know how any of us could make it clearer that we oppose all "discrimination" short of stating it in bold allcaps at the top of every post.

PS: none of what I wrote is an ad hominem. Calling someone a retard for making a terrible attempt at debate is not an ad hom, its an insult. An ad hom is saying his argument is wrong BECAUSE he is a retard, this is the reverse.

No. It's not different, ad-homs are just a subset of insults, and calling someone a retard for any reason has no place in a discussion forum. Do we need to have a thread on whether insults make good debate contents? I think you'll lose that.

Lallante
February 25 2013, 01:15:55 PM
I don't know how any of us could make it clearer that we oppose all "discrimination" short of stating it in bold allcaps at the top of every post.

PS: none of what I wrote is an ad hominem. Calling someone a retard for making a terrible attempt at debate is not an ad hom, its an insult. An ad hom is saying his argument is wrong BECAUSE he is a retard, this is the reverse.

No. It's not different, ad-homs are just a subset of insults, and calling someone a retard for any reason has no place in a discussion forum. Do we need to have a thread on whether insults make good debate contents? I think you'll lose that.

An insult is just as bad as an ad hom but its not an ad hom.

An ad hom is a debating fallacy that someone's argument is wrong because of [irrelevant personal characteristic].

Saying someone is retarded for believing/arguing in a particular way is definitely not an ad-hom - there is no fallacy as you are not making a claim about their argument.

5 seconds google/wikipedia/dictionary would verify this for you.

Synapse
February 25 2013, 01:23:29 PM
"Yes I see now how the conclusion of mental retardation flows naturally from what was posted." No.

Look I could discuss this with you but I honestly don't care whether we agree on it.

Once you've called someone a retard just stop posting, there's no way to discuss after that. You've killed the thread or at least my interest in discussing anything with you.

Sofia Roseburn
February 26 2013, 12:32:09 AM
Lallante, tone it down a little. Synapse, relax.

SAI Peregrinus
February 26 2013, 05:17:17 AM
The set of all insults is a superset of the set of all ad-hominems. Neither is appropriate in a serious discussion.

On topic:
All prejudicial discrimination is wrong. Not all of it has equal impact on society. The societal impact is a function of the frequency of the discrimination and the severity of the discrimination. Misogyny is both more frequent and more severe than misandry. Thus, misogyny is the larger/more important problem.

Also, not all discrimination is wrong. Once someone has shown themselves through their actions to deserve discrimination it should be applied to that person. EG people who have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to have committed rape should be discriminated against. There is nothing wrong with discriminating against rapists. There is plenty wrong with discriminating against people of a certain gender, skin color, or other involuntary trait. Judging people by anything other than their voluntary actions is the wrong under discussion.

Edit: That should be stating the obvious, but given the last few pages of "discussion" I'm not so certain. Thus the post.

Lallante
February 26 2013, 08:33:56 AM
SAI I posted a reasonably decent general explanation of discrimination a couple pages back. Its a bit more complicated than that.

Discrimination per se is not inherently wrong (I prefer vanilla to chocolate icecream).
Discrimination against people per se is not inherently wrong (I am more likely to ask for help with a maths problem from my friend who studied maths at Uni than my friend who studied English)

Prejudicial or distinguishing discrimination against people for reasons relating to a protected characteristic is generally considered to be wrong:

Protected characteristics are currently considered (by international and domestic law in most western countries) to be:
Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage/Civil Partnership, Pregnancy/Maternity, Race, Religion/Belief, Sex and Sexual Orientation.


Even this statement, which is supported by internaitonal human rights jurisprudence, is problematic - why single out those characteristics? Is it really inherently wrong to distinguish based on those factors, or only if to do so causes objective disadvantage to the person being discriminated against. Is it wrong for individuals to discriminate based on those factors in their private lives, or just in relation to employment, provision of paid goods/services, access to public facilities etc?


For example I don't have many religious friends and have exactly zero friends who believe in homeopathy, crystal healing etc. I wouldnt be friends with those people because in my opinion those beliefs show them to be stupid and I dont like people who cant critically think.

Am I discriminating against them based on their belief, or based on a non-protected characteristic (intelligence) that I infer legitimately from their belief? If I reword it as "To believe in homeopathy one has to devalue evidence-based medicine. I don't like anyone who devalues evidence-based medicine", does this change anything?

etc etc.

Alistair
February 26 2013, 03:07:25 PM
The set of all insults is a superset of the set of all ad-hominems. Neither is appropriate in a serious discussion.

On topic:
All prejudicial discrimination is wrong. Not all of it has equal impact on society. The societal impact is a function of the frequency of the discrimination and the severity of the discrimination. Misogyny is both more frequent and more severe than misandry. Thus, misogyny is the larger/more important problem.

Also, not all discrimination is wrong. Once someone has shown themselves through their actions to deserve discrimination it should be applied to that person. EG people who have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to have committed rape should be discriminated against. There is nothing wrong with discriminating against rapists. There is plenty wrong with discriminating against people of a certain gender, skin color, or other involuntary trait. Judging people by anything other than their voluntary actions is the wrong under discussion.

Edit: That should be stating the obvious, but given the last few pages of "discussion" I'm not so certain. Thus the post.

Very well said, I agree in full.

Perhaps I've not been as clear as I'd hoped, but when I say "all descrimination" I mean descrimination against entire groups based on involuntary traits (good way of putting it) such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc, and specificly under the law/state/judicial system. I certainly don't mean deciding based on personal preference between a Big Mac or a Whopper....

While I certainly don't support an individual engaging is descrimination based on the above inherant factors, they do have the right (within limits and law) to hold such descriminatory beliefs in the U.S. We (society) in turn has the right to judge them nagatively on their beleifs. Very much like Freedom of Speech in the U.S., you have the right to say horrible stupid things....and we have the right to hold you in low esteem and contempt for it. But the State cannot and does not descriminate or limit your right to free speech based on your race or gender (or even your beleifs), everyone has that right equally (or should).

I prefer policies that address issues of descrimination that are not, themselves, descriminatory. Descrimination as corrective action is a poor choice IMO, with better options (like education funding) and social pressure being available.

In any event, well said and +1 to you SAI.

Lallante
February 27 2013, 12:17:26 PM
I dont know who in this thread is supporting discrimination as corrective action. As far as I know its been referenced once, in passing, and not in a way that implies support.

Tarminic
February 27 2013, 03:13:42 PM
I dont know who in this thread is supporting discrimination as corrective action. As far as I know its been referenced once, in passing, and not in a way that implies support.
I think Affirmative Action was mentioned once or twice, but I think it kind of falls outside the scope of the current discussion.

Alistair
February 27 2013, 04:12:03 PM
I dont know who in this thread is supporting discrimination as corrective action. As far as I know its been referenced once, in passing, and not in a way that implies support.

Discussions of large-scale issues are not limited to the opinions expressed by a dozen posters within a thread on FHC. Just because no one here has as yet suggested it yet does not make it any less a portion of the larger issue of how some States choose to address issues of descrimination. It is a common suggestion/policy answer to the issue of descrimination in political discourse in the United States, for example.

Lallante
March 16 2013, 11:06:12 AM
Very on topic. I dont like the way the article is written, but it certainly frames the argument and IMO is fundamentally correct:
http://jezebel.com/5965429/oh-god-please-dont-let-white-male-victimhood-be-the-next-big-social-movement

Synapse
March 17 2013, 09:34:34 PM
I donlt think there's a discussion to be had on that article.

Kransthow
March 18 2013, 01:48:08 AM
Very on topic. I dont like the way the article is written, but it certainly frames the argument and IMO is fundamentally correct:
http://jezebel.com/5965429/oh-god-please-dont-let-white-male-victimhood-be-the-next-big-social-movement
Needs more checking of privilige

Sponk
March 18 2013, 02:50:19 AM
Very on topic. I dont like the way the article is written, but it certainly frames the argument and IMO is fundamentally correct:
http://jezebel.com/5965429/oh-god-please-dont-let-white-male-victimhood-be-the-next-big-social-movement
Needs more checking of privilige

Straight White Male: Life on the lowest difficulty setting (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)

Kransthow
March 18 2013, 03:45:58 AM
Very on topic. I dont like the way the article is written, but it certainly frames the argument and IMO is fundamentally correct:
http://jezebel.com/5965429/oh-god-please-dont-let-white-male-victimhood-be-the-next-big-social-movement
Needs more checking of privilige

Straight White Male: Life on the lowest difficulty setting (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)
http://onebit.us/x/i/CHMEXYNhiB.jpg
My privilege is well and truly checked now. I am now full of self-hate and white male guilt. Thank you for opening my eyes to the hate-crimes I was committing without even realising.

Sponk
March 18 2013, 04:12:58 AM
My privilege is well and truly checked now. I am now full of self-hate and white male guilt. Thank you for opening my eyes to the hate-crimes I was committing without even realising.

I've seen your posting. I think you know exactly which hate crimes you're committing.

Kransthow
March 18 2013, 08:23:02 AM
My privilege is well and truly checked now. I am now full of self-hate and white male guilt. Thank you for opening my eyes to the hate-crimes I was committing without even realising.

I've seen your posting. I think you know exactly which hate crimes you're committing.
http://onebit.us/x/i/bHX2fkJAyS.jpg
You can't prove anything

Lallante
March 18 2013, 09:50:58 AM
Very on topic. I dont like the way the article is written, but it certainly frames the argument and IMO is fundamentally correct:
http://jezebel.com/5965429/oh-god-please-dont-let-white-male-victimhood-be-the-next-big-social-movement
Needs more checking of privilige

Straight White Male: Life on the lowest difficulty setting (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)

Anyone who doesn't agree with this is fundamentally lying to themselves or too stupid to have the necessary perspective to imagine what life is like for other people.

It should be painfully obvious to everyone that being a straight white male in the Western world is, in general terms, an incredible and enormous advantage throughout life.

Thankfully, though this remains fundamentally true, its also LESS true than it has been at any previous point in history. I'd say we are about 2/3 of the way there, maybe more.

XenosisReaper
March 18 2013, 09:53:07 AM
What if I just don't care about other people?

Sponk
March 18 2013, 09:57:56 AM
Reminds me of an article I read about self-defence.

A cop was talking to a group of women about what things they do if they notice someone walk behind them at night. They said stuff like "carry keys in my hand so I can get into the car faster", "make sure to stay in well-lit areas" etc.

Then he asked a group of men the same thing, and they were like 'Well, nothing. What? Why does it make a difference? What's the right answer?'

Fact is, it's hard enough to put yourself in the shoes of people a lot like you, let alone in the shoes of someone with wildly different experiences.

Lallante
March 18 2013, 10:38:26 AM
What if I just don't care about other people?

i.e. you are a sociopath?

XenosisReaper
March 18 2013, 10:40:40 AM
What if I just don't care about other people?

i.e. you are a sociopath?

My 2D love is all I need

Kransthow
March 18 2013, 02:21:45 PM
What if I just don't care about other people?
http://onebit.us/x/i/XJgbxzxeBE.png
Then check your privilege cis-scum

XenosisReaper
March 18 2013, 02:44:59 PM
What if I just don't care about other people?
http://onebit.us/x/i/XJgbxzxeBE.png
Then check your privilege cis-scum

I can't find that Psycho-Pass image with the makeup, but if I could I would post it

Synapse
March 19 2013, 01:23:00 AM
Very on topic. I dont like the way the article is written, but it certainly frames the argument and IMO is fundamentally correct:
http://jezebel.com/5965429/oh-god-please-dont-let-white-male-victimhood-be-the-next-big-social-movement
Needs more checking of privilige

Straight White Male: Life on the lowest difficulty setting (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)

Anyone who doesn't agree with this is fundamentally lying to themselves or too stupid to have the necessary perspective to imagine what life is like for other people.

It should be painfully obvious to everyone that being a straight white male in the Western world is, in general terms, an incredible and enormous advantage throughout life.

Thankfully, though this remains fundamentally true, its also LESS true than it has been at any previous point in history. I'd say we are about 2/3 of the way there, maybe more.

That appears to be a 2 page long definition of the word privilege. The author contends that the problem with sexism and racism both is that white males don't know the meaning of the word privilege?

Without disagreeing I can already call this a shitty article. Like distributing dictionaries will solve your problem....where's the real content? *waits for lall to take this post as clear denial of the privilege concept on my part*

Kransthow
March 19 2013, 07:17:35 AM
http://onebit.us/x/i/MPp9dPZXtq.jpg
If I see the words "straight white male" one more time I sware I am going to stop checking my privilege.

Lallante
March 19 2013, 02:29:37 PM
That appears to be a 2 page long definition of the word privilege. The author contends that the problem with sexism and racism both is that white males don't know the meaning of the word privilege?
No, that isn't in any way what the point of the article is. He isn't trying to explain what the "problem with sexism and racism is", he is trying to explain what "privilege" actually means in an easily understandable way without descending to the usual one line snide backbiting shit the internet (and especially FHC) normally does when that word is mentioned. Privelage is one symptom of sexism/racism, not "the whole problem".


Without disagreeing I can already call this a shitty article. Like distributing dictionaries will solve your problem....where's the real content? *waits for lall to take this post as clear denial of the privilege concept on my part*

He isn't trying to solve the problem, just help normally hostile people get some perspective so they can better understand the language used by people who are trying to solve the problem.

Case in point, Krans post above.

Synapse
March 20 2013, 12:36:57 AM
I'm just going to repost my second sentence, since you ignored it:

The author contends that the problem with sexism and racism both is that white males don't know the meaning of the word privilege?

...and that krans doesn't understand that word either....Is that your position too lall?

Lallante
March 20 2013, 01:35:52 PM
I'm just going to repost my second sentence, since you ignored it:

The author contends that the problem with sexism and racism both is that white males don't know the meaning of the word privilege?

...and that krans doesn't understand that word either....Is that your position too lall?


I've just told you that ISNT what he is contending.


No, that isn't in any way what the point of the article is. He isn't trying to explain what the "problem with sexism and racism is"

Synapse
March 20 2013, 05:18:22 PM
Huh, ok. Then I don't think any significant numbers of people are confused about the meaning of the word privilege, and I'll just leave it at that.

Sponk
March 21 2013, 01:39:24 AM
blah blah blah, you'd all be speaking Chinese if they hadn't burned their boats in 1421. I doubt they'll make the same mistake again.

Aea
March 21 2013, 01:49:17 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here.

The way I see it the "white man" has over the last 50,000 years gone around conquering, pillaging, and generally causing havoc all over creation. We started by bashing Neanderthals' skulls in with sharpened rocks, and recently we've wielded credit as a way to retard progress in Latin American countries and Africa. Let that sink in, white males have been doing this for longer than North America had humans present.

It's only been since the Enlightenment that the conversation around equal human rights has been around, women's rights maybe since the Victorian era, and gay rights are a product of the 20th century.
I think it's only natural for there to be resistance from white men to the idea that we should feel bad for being in charge.


Call me racist, sexist, bigot what you will, but here's what I think.
It was white men that sailed across the Atlantic. It was white men that made it to the poles. It was white men that invented the atom bomb. It was white men that went to the moon.
It's certainly not intelligence, or motivation that drives this difference. There's something Europeans have that drives a few to push the envelope, to see what is beyond the boundaries of our knowledge, and yes to conquer and exploit when it suits us.

So to everyone who says I don't know anything about hardship, or privilege or how I should feel bad about how objectified women are I say... Too fuckin bad.
I'm a white man, and I'm going to make the world into what I want it to be, and until you figure out how to compete with us or change the playing field you'll stay where you are. Downtrodden, unprivileged, objectified, and subjugated.


Anyhow, much of my point is moot. The education system is western countries is doing a good job of molding angry young men into well-functioning cogs that treat everyone nicely.

http://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/revwar/image_gal/morrimg/web_exhibit/MusketHessian_MORR2208.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Smallpox_virus.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1tQ1L5cjy6A/UDWkOLu7bfI/AAAAAAAAAgs/VYYKtigNSZs/s1600/3_MaynardStudios.JPG

Forgive the somewhat joke answer within the context of the Serious Business thread, but I feel like you're misinterpreting European successes. A large majority of the success of the European people was entirely a function of geography, there's a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel (and a documentary if you wish to watch an overview instead) that covers why Europeans had a good base for early success, which helped established large civilizations. It snowballs from there and certainly a series of good opportunities puts Europeans on top of the world for the past several centuries.

Tarminic
March 21 2013, 02:17:38 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here.

WEEEEEEE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
MY FRIEEEEEEEENDS


Self-Serving Bias
Self-serving bias, sometimes called a self-serving attributional bias, refers to individuals attributing their successes to internal or personal factors but attributing their failures to external or situational factors. This bias is a mechanism for individuals to protect or enhance their own self-esteem. For example, a student who attributes a good grade on an exam to his or her own intelligence and hours of studying but a poor grade to the professor’s poor teaching ability and unfair test questions is exhibiting the self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.

Synapse
March 21 2013, 04:40:23 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here.

WEEEEEEE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
MY FRIEEEEEEEENDS


Self-Serving Bias
Self-serving bias, sometimes called a self-serving attributional bias, refers to individuals attributing their successes to internal or personal factors but attributing their failures to external or situational factors. This bias is a mechanism for individuals to protect or enhance their own self-esteem. For example, a student who attributes a good grade on an exam to his or her own intelligence and hours of studying but a poor grade to the professor’s poor teaching ability and unfair test questions is exhibiting the self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.

As an aside, i've read a study linking this to resistance against longterm medical depression. nbs maybe.

Synapse
March 22 2013, 07:34:06 AM
Until you come up with a biological foundation for this "white awesomeness" I'm going to have to continue assuming you're just looking for a convenient way to justify an unfounded belief in racial superiority...

Which I suppose is as good as any other unfounded hypothesis supported by only circumstantial evidence, aka completely useless.

Tarminic
March 22 2013, 02:39:52 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here.

WEEEEEEE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
MY FRIEEEEEEEENDS


Self-Serving Bias
Self-serving bias, sometimes called a self-serving attributional bias, refers to individuals attributing their successes to internal or personal factors but attributing their failures to external or situational factors. This bias is a mechanism for individuals to protect or enhance their own self-esteem. For example, a student who attributes a good grade on an exam to his or her own intelligence and hours of studying but a poor grade to the professor’s poor teaching ability and unfair test questions is exhibiting the self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.

By posting this I'm assuming you meant to say, "I have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, and am unwilling or unable to discuss the possible validity of a view counter to my own.". That about right?
I mean, I figured the standard interpretation of my post would be that your "Europeans have some innate quality that makes them ambitious" response is a decent example of a self-serving bias, with a smattering fundamental attribution error. But you are, of course, free to disagree.

Tarminic
March 22 2013, 06:07:01 PM
My point wasn't that Europeans are better in any other sense than being able to subjugate someone else makes you "better" ,morality aside.
I didn't interpret it as a moral statement, I only pointed out the probable bias in asserting that europeans have some innate quality that makes them more ambitious than the other population groups existing at the time. I also think it's a bit ignorant of history, but I didn't assume any malicious intent on your part.

Tarminic
March 22 2013, 08:39:49 PM
Thanks, but you're not arguing against culturally inherited ambition? I'll cede that biological imperative as root cause is a silly argument.

BTW most of my references are from Max Weber and David Landis.
I could, but I not sure if I don't feel qualified enough to do so. It's been about 14 years since my last sociology class. Plus it's friday afternoon and I don't feel like opening a bunch of tabs in wikipedia at the moment. :lol:

Sacul
March 22 2013, 09:50:14 PM
After the last 2 pages i have the sudden urge to re-read 'The white man's burden'.


:facepalm:

Lallante
March 23 2013, 02:21:46 AM
ITT I learned I legionnaire thinks white males are more successful because they are genetically superior.

Kransthow
March 24 2013, 01:45:02 AM
ITT I learned I legionnaire thinks white males are more successful because they are genetically superior.
http://onebit.us/x/i/AkG0OBFgJp.png
But we are

Nordstern
March 25 2013, 08:10:25 PM
Forgive the somewhat joke answer within the context of the Serious Business thread, but I feel like you're misinterpreting European successes. A large majority of the success of the European people was entirely a function of geography, there's a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel (and a documentary if you wish to watch an overview instead) that covers why Europeans had a good base for early success, which helped established large civilizations. It snowballs from there and certainly a series of good opportunities puts Europeans on top of the world for the past several centuries.
It can also be argued (and it has been) that democracy and progressive thought have a direct correlation to the availability of abundant water, whether it is used for agriculture, industry or trade. Look at Africa and the Middle East. Lack of water has shaped the terrain, ecology and culture.

Synapse
March 26 2013, 01:22:12 AM
Forgive the somewhat joke answer within the context of the Serious Business thread, but I feel like you're misinterpreting European successes. A large majority of the success of the European people was entirely a function of geography, there's a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel (and a documentary if you wish to watch an overview instead) that covers why Europeans had a good base for early success, which helped established large civilizations. It snowballs from there and certainly a series of good opportunities puts Europeans on top of the world for the past several centuries.
It can also be argued (and it has been) that democracy and progressive thought have a direct correlation to the availability of abundant water, whether it is used for agriculture, industry or trade. Look at Africa and the Middle East. Lack of water has shaped the terrain, ecology and culture.

Right... because when European explorers started going around they found tons of democratic nations in places like the south Pacific and Americas right?

Devils advocate because i'm also skeptical of the water thing: South pacific has mostly salt water, not fresh, Americas did have huge civilizations, maybe before they were wiped out by the common cold they actually were democratic...

SAI Peregrinus
March 26 2013, 01:52:26 AM
Not according to their own records.

Synapse
March 26 2013, 06:52:57 AM
South pacific has mostly salt water, not fresh

Thailand, China, Japan, the Khmer, the Indonesian Sultanates etc all had major river systems and access to fresh water. All had a form of hereditary totalitarianism.



That's funny because I don't see many of those countries in these maps.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=south+asia&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44342787,d.cGE&biw=1920&bih=1031&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=2EVRUf_7DIzuigKai4HADQ#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=south+pacific&oq=south+pacif&gs_l=img.3.0.0l10.6434.9449.0.10976.9.6.1.2.2.0.98 .292.6.6.0...0.0...1c.1.7.img.rr2SbeWTe4I&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44342787,d.cGE&fp=c4013f94d3c99c93&biw=1920&bih=1031
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=south+pacific&FORM=HDRSC2

Did you mean South Asia? Maybe you should have said that.

Lallante
March 26 2013, 11:35:00 AM
Guns, Germs, Steel.

smuggo
April 5 2013, 05:12:45 PM
It would be interesting to see the results if someone were to do a genetic study into the prevalence of character traits among ethnic groups once we've done a bit more genetic mapping.
However, no one with any shred of credibility is going to touch that sort of thing with a barge pole or peer review it.

Synapse
April 5 2013, 05:44:07 PM
It would be interesting to see the results if someone were to do a genetic study into the prevalence of character traits among ethnic groups once we've done a bit more genetic mapping.
However, no one with any shred of credibility is going to touch that sort of thing with a barge pole or peer review it.

One of the issues with this (that figures prominently in Bioethics discussions) is that how someone looks often has little correlation with the percentage of ethnic group DNA they carry.

Much more important than DNA is usually the culture you associate with, and DNA testing can throw into question the cultural identity people have chosen for themselves. The verdict I remember from the conference I went to was that it usually does more harm than good unless there is a specific reason for the testing.

Anyway by the time there is enough genetic material publicly available to do this kind of global analysis we will probably be too thoroughly mixed to draw any conclusions, useful or not.