Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Today i had a revelation concerning men in America being completely dominated and slowly becoming the lesser sex. kinda funny kinda sad.so im in walmart working and i come across a construction workers jacket. Working the sporting goods department which is not far from the hardware department where i initially thought it belonged
So i stroll on over to isle hardware and work equipment isles. I soon realized it did not go there. So on to a scanner i go only for it to tell me department 52 which is the clothing department. thinking to myself "well it is a jacket, albeit a construction jacket".so on to the mens clothing section i go, only to find not only were construction jackets in the mens clothing, but construction equipment in general was scattered throughout the mens clothing. Then to myself i thought "well this is bullshit having construction equipment in the mens clothing department ". Since a man would want to shop for some clothes without being "reminded" of role in today's world as a laborer.
Believing our society was an equal one i head over to the womens clothing department expecting to find kitchen and cook equipment only to be punched dead in the nose by reality. The reality that today's world despite it slowly diminishing requirement of manual labor men will always be expected to live a life of hard whether its necessary or not while women aren't expected to cook anymore.

Sad days man... and if you disagree you're probably a she man woman nazi

Didn't get to write j/k on the last few words lol

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
Today i had a revelation concerning men in America being completely dominated and slowly becoming the lesser sex. kinda funny kinda sad.so im in walmart working and i come across a construction workers jacket. Working the sporting goods department which is not far from the hardware department where i initially thought it belonged
So i stroll on over to isle hardware and work equipment isles. I soon realized it did not go there. So on to a scanner i go only for it to tell me department 52 which is the clothing department. thinking to myself "well it is a jacket, albeit a construction jacket".so on to the mens clothing section i go, only to find not only were construction jackets in the mens clothing, but construction equipment in general was scattered throughout the mens clothing. Then to myself i thought "well this is bullshit having construction equipment in the mens clothing department ". Since a man would want to shop for some clothes without being "reminded" of role in today's world as a laborer.
Believing our society was an equal one i head over to the womens clothing department expecting to find kitchen and cook equipment only to be punched dead in the nose by reality. The reality that today's world despite it slowly diminishing requirement of manual labor men will always be expected to live a life of hard whether its necessary or not while women aren't expected to cook anymore.

Sad days man... and if you disagree you're probably a she man woman nazi

lol, your interpretation of this incident is so naive and laughable.

The only redeeming quality is the "j/k" you added, as we all know it completely negates all stupidity in whatever has been said previously.

I think the real threat is that, today, more women than men are attending college, and more and more women are showing interest in parthenogenic research, as well as "Terminator" vibrators, ie, machines covered by human flesh.

ya, my alpha bros,

America is turning in to matriarchy.

Fascinating.

in seriousness, there is a lack of awareness of male gender issues in society in general, and a lot of the time addressing issues in that way is met with hostilities, especially from would-be "feminists".

I had a feminist tell me once that it didn't matter that girls now outnumbered men in post-secondary education because boys still get more individual attention in primary school classes... as if gender expectations of little boys wouldn't make a classroom environment more difficult for them compared to girls. If boys are receiving more attention and having poorer results, this seems like an issue that "smash the patriarchy" wont solve.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
America is turning in to matriarchy.

Originally posted by Oliver North

Truth hurts, I know.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Truth hurts, I know.

as much as crashing into a glass ceiling, I bet

Originally posted by Oliver North
as much as crashing into a glass ceiling, I bet
Feminists have successfully uprooted Patriarchy in USA; several laws favorable to female gender have been introduced with passage of time; females currently outnumber males in American educational institutions; an American man cannot even fight a woman who has wronged him and get away with it; and lot of other signs.

Yes, their are lot of men in organizations and many are in the top positions but this will change in coming decades.

The ultimate goal of feminism is to replace Patriarchy with Matriarchy; all this talk of gender equality is a sham.

Gender equality is a myth by the way. It can never be accomplished.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Feminists have successfully uprooted Patriarchy in USA

I'm not sure if the term you misunderstand is feminist, uproot, patriarchy or USA...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Gender equality is a myth by the way. It can never be accomplished.

re: I'm a misogynist

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not sure if the term you misunderstand is feminist, uproot, patriarchy or USA...



re: I'm a misogynist
My point is that feminist movements have brought an end to Patriarchal culture in USA. Matriarchal culture is now in implementation phase.

Speaking objectively does not makes me a misogynist. Is it typical in USA to shame men with terms such as these when they speak their mind?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My point is that feminist movements have brought an end to Patriarchal culture in USA. Matriarchal culture is now in implementation phase.

and my point is that you are so wrong it is bordering on delusion

Originally posted by Oliver North
and my point is that you are so wrong it is bordering on delusion
No! You are being delusional. You have no argument and resorted to name-calling and BS.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
No! You are being delusional. You have no argument and resorted to name-calling and BS.

ok, what kind of evidence would you like? statistical? legal? testimonial? anecdotal?

what would you consider evidence of patriarchy?

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, what kind of evidence would you like? statistical? legal? testimonial? anecdotal?

what would you consider evidence of patriarchy?
Counter this: http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

lol

/slow clap

EDIT: you really can't complain that I don't have an argument and then link me to some blog when you can't defend yourself. Way to be a man, man!

Originally posted by Oliver North
lol

/slow clap

EDIT: you really can't complain that I don't have an argument and then link me to some blog when you can't defend yourself. Way to be a man, man!
Translation: "I (Oliver North) have no argument."

These are good books too:

http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991

http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628

also, I'm just going to go ahead and point out the blatant hypocrisy in what you are claiming:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Feminists have successfully uprooted Patriarchy in USA



Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Gender equality is a myth by the way. It can never be accomplished.

the first point suggests things are equal, while the second suggests they can't be.

good thing your mouth has two sides to talk out of, no?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Translation: "I (Oliver North) have no argument."

I don't understand why you think you are better read than I am , and I literally just asked you what kind of argument you wanted me to make ...

Originally posted by Oliver North
also, I'm just going to go ahead and point out the blatant hypocrisy in what you are claiming:







the first point suggests things are equal, while the second suggests they can't be.

good thing your mouth has two sides to talk out of, no?
Their is no hypocrisy in my assertion.

Within human race, males are biologically stronger then females. This is why males are tasked with greater responsibilities and tougher roles then females in many societies in the world.

Even if we consider other species; one particular gender is dominant over the other. Among mammals, male gender is typically dominant.

In case of human societies; it can be either be patriarchy or matriarchy. Their is no middle-ground because gender struggles are non-stop.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't understand why you think you are better read than I am , and I literally just asked you what kind of argument you wanted me to make ...
I offered sources to support my points. What have you done thus far apart from engaging in mud-slinging and shaming tactics? These tactics will not work on me. Better man-up and bring forth evidence to counter my argument, if you have any.

Originally posted by Oliver North
...



Dated a feminist once. It was before I really had a grasp on the arguments surrounding it. I liked to poke fun at it. I was probably quite insensitive.

Like anything, it runs the gamut from rage-induced paranoia and delusion, to reasoned pleas and advocacy for equality where it currently doesn't exist. Separating the gems from the BS is half the battle, as with most sociological debates.

To me, it seems obvious that several gender-related issues, for either gender, are ignored or poorly handled in society (whether it's education, business, media portrayal, etc). However, framing it as a competition or war between the two sexes is perhaps the most unproductive approach possible.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Within human race, males are biologically stronger then females. This is why males are tasked with greater responsibilities and tougher roles then females in many societies in the world.

I'm not sure what your point is? men established a patriarchal system due to physical dominance and therefore it is right?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Even if we consider other species; one particular gender is dominant over the others. Among mammals, male gender is typically dominant.

LOL

be VERY careful with this. you mean among primates, and even then, "dominance" is not a black and white issue.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
In case of human societies; it can be either be patriarchy or matriarchy. Their is no middle-ground because gender struggles are continues.

even if that is the case, which it isn't, you have made no assertion that comes close to suggesting we are in a matriarchy...

I'm sure at least two really liberal people will come on here, misinterpret, and bash me but........................

The worst thing to be is a Middle Class or Poor White Man in America.

Comedy shows have consistently downgraded middle class White maen for the last two decades. The Simpsons has an idiot husband and a wife that carries him. Family Guy is another example. Middle class white men are displayed as stupid and ineffective, yet they are still viewed as having a hand in slavery.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I offered sources to support my points. What have you done thus far apart from engaging in mud-slinging and shaming tactics? These tactics will not work on me. Better man-up and bring forth evidence to counter my argument, if you have any.

I've offered to provide evidence twice now. However, your debating tactics seem dubious at best, so rather than have you hand wave or move the goal posts, I want to know what you would consider to be evidence of patriarchy.

Like, do you want statistics? do you want testimonial or anecdotal stories from women and men? do you want legal decisions or precedence? You aren't the first "man pride" activist I've spoken to, and frankly, you guys make us look bad. For someone like myself, who actually takes gender issues seriously, you look like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.

Its not that you don't have valid criticisms or that there aren't equality issues that men face, you just have such a limited understanding of gender issues in general that it comes off as "waaaaa, I'm mad I can't beat my wife when dinner is late"

Originally posted by Raisen
The worst thing to be is a Middle Class or Poor White Man in America.

Comedy shows have consistently downgraded middle class White maen for the last two decades. The Simpsons has an idiot husband and a wife that carries him. Family Guy is another example. Middle class white men are displayed as stupid and ineffective, yet they are still viewed as having a hand in slavery.

being a white male is the worst because you are the butt of jokes on sitcoms?

Originally posted by Oliver North
being a white male is the worst because you are the butt of jokes on sitcoms?

lol. too lazy to write everything in one blurb, much rather respond to others.
Firstly, I'm half white.
Secondly, for the last two decades these sitcoms have come to represent what many think about middle class white males.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not sure what your point is? men established a patriarchal system due to physical dominance and therefore it is right?
Right or wrong is not my argument. I simply pointed out that America is transforming in to matriarchal society with passage of time.

Originally posted by Oliver North
LOL

be VERY careful with this. you mean among primates, and even then, "dominance" is not a black and white issue.
I know that "dominance" is not a black and white issue.

However, that physical dominance aspect does not goes wasted in other life forms. For example: Male lions adopt the roles of "protector" of their prides/families but female lions adopt the role of "provider" within their prides/families.

Originally posted by Oliver North
even if that is the case, which it isn't, you have made no assertion that comes close to suggesting we are in a matriarchy...
1. Introduction of laws favoring women
2. Emasculation of men in society
3. Women outnumbering men in education institutions; women will become the dominant workforce in future if this trend continues.
4. Male exclusive clubs/institutions vanishing with passage of time. In contrast, female exclusive clubs/institutions on the rise.

And their are more signs.

Originally posted by Raisen
lol. too lazy to write everything in one blurb, much rather respond to others.
Firstly, I'm half white.
Secondly, for the last two decades these sitcoms have come to represent what many think about middle class white males.

ok, I just want to make sure I understand you:

being a white male in the middle class is the worst because you think people believe they are lazy, fat and stupid?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
1. Introduction of laws favoring women
2. Emasculation of men in society
3. Women outnumbering men in education institutions; women will become the dominant workforce in future if this trend continues.
4. Male exclusive clubs/institutions vanishing with passage of time. In contrast, female exclusive clubs/institutions on the rise.

And their are more signs.

this is the best you have?

**** man, I could make your argument better than you could

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, I just want to make sure I understand you:

being a white male in the middle class is the worst because you think people believe they are lazy, fat and stupid?

oftentimes yes, people expect them to be wealthy or they are considered losers.

Originally posted by Raisen
oftentimes yes, people expect them to be wealthy or they are considered losers.

and that makes them the worst off? Like, there is no other combination of gender/race/class that has it worse than male/white/middle class?

Originally posted by Raisen
I'm sure at least two really liberal people will come on here, misinterpret, and bash me but........................

The worst thing to be is a Middle Class or Poor White Man in America.

Comedy shows have consistently downgraded middle class White maen for the last two decades. The Simpsons has an idiot husband and a wife that carries him. Family Guy is another example. Middle class white men are displayed as stupid and ineffective, yet they are still viewed as having a hand in slavery.

Bash, no. But I think "worst" is a gross embellishment. There are struggles with the human condition, period. No class, role, or context will change that. But unless you're beneath the poverty line, your standard of living in America is very good relative to the rest of the world - industrialized or not.

Your other talking point is...comedy shows. It's hard to see that as a serious argument. The Simpsons are repressing you? Maybe this is the misinterpretation you're talking about, but you're going to have to elaborate to make a stronger argument.

Originally posted by Raisen
lol. too lazy to write everything in one blurb, much rather respond to others.
Firstly, I'm half white.
Secondly, for the last two decades these sitcoms have come to represent what many think about middle class white males.

Which is still way better than some. Are you forbidden to hold public office because of your religion? Are you lynched and persecuted because of your sexual orientation? Are you guaranteed to earn less in the workplace because of your gender?

Struggles everywhere, agreed. But worst? Perspective.

Originally posted by Oliver North
and that makes them the worst off? Like, there is no other combination of gender/race/class that has it worse than male/white/middle class?

pop culture displays white men as lazy, stupid. whereas other races within the same economic class prevail with their "wit" or "swag" it's a slow mindwash that has been occurring for decades.
you may not take this seriously, but the media greatly influences and shapes the younger generation of it's time. Kriss Kross had people wearing their pants backwards. MC Hammer had people wearing balloon pants. It's something you can't ignore. middle class white men are generally considered narrow minded, ignorant, racist, and weak. this is what has been pumping through the airwaves for decades

Middle class white men were also shown running the country in The West Wing. Maybe the fact that they get lampooned the most in comedy merely represents that they are the dominant social group and hence the most obvious target.

Originally posted by Digi
Bash, no. But I think "worst" is a gross embellishment. There are struggles with the human condition, period. No class, role, or context will change that. But unless you're beneath the poverty line, your standard of living in America is very good relative to the rest of the world - industrialized or not.

Your other talking point is...comedy shows. It's hard to see that as a serious argument. The Simpsons are repressing you? Maybe this is the misinterpretation you're talking about, but you're going to have to elaborate to make a stronger argument.



Which is still way better than some. Are you forbidden to hold public office because of your religion? Are you lynched and persecuted because of your sexual orientation? Are you guaranteed to earn less in the workplace because of your gender?

Struggles everywhere, agreed. But worst? Perspective.

i'm speaking only of the u.s.

Originally posted by Raisen
pop culture displays white men as lazy, stupid. whereas other races within the same economic class prevail with their "wit" or "swag" it's a slow mindwash that has been occurring for decades.
you may not take this seriously, but the media greatly influences and shapes the younger generation of it's time. Kriss Kross had people wearing their pants backwards. MC Hammer had people wearing balloon pants. It's something you can't ignore. middle class white men are generally considered narrow minded, ignorant, racist, and weak. this is what has been pumping through the airwaves for decades

even without ever meeting the candidate, resumes that have ethnic names are far less likely to be called in for an interview, much less gain employment, than are those typically associated with whites.

pop culture can eat a dick

Originally posted by Oliver North
I've offered to provide evidence twice now. However, your debating tactics seem dubious at best, so rather than have you hand wave or move the goal posts, I want to know what you would consider to be evidence of patriarchy.

Like, do you want statistics? do you want testimonial or anecdotal stories from women and men? do you want legal decisions or precedence? You aren't the first "man pride" activist I've spoken to, and frankly, you guys make us look bad. For someone like myself, who actually takes gender issues seriously, you look like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.

Its not that you don't have valid criticisms or that there aren't equality issues that men face, you just have such a limited understanding of gender issues in general that it comes off as "waaaaa, I'm mad I can't beat my wife when dinner is late"


It is guys like you actually who make men look bad. As soon as a man choses to disengage from "female pedestalization," white knights in shining armor like you begin to attack them with shaming language, mud-slinging tactics and name-calling. You should be ashamed of your behavior.

Either discredit the sources which I have cited with evidence or SU.

Originally posted by Oliver North
this is the best you have?

**** man, I could make your argument better than you could
Where is the counterargument, genius?

Go back to page 1 and recheck the sources which I chose to cite.

Originally posted by Raisen
I'm sure at least two really liberal people will come on here, misinterpret, and bash me but........................

The worst thing to be is a Middle Class or Poor White Man in America.

Comedy shows have consistently downgraded middle class White maen for the last two decades. The Simpsons has an idiot husband and a wife that carries him. Family Guy is another example. Middle class white men are displayed as stupid and ineffective, yet they are still viewed as having a hand in slavery.

Yes, being a poor black woman is a hoot when compared to being a middle class white man. I just don't even...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Middle class white men were also shown running the country in The West Wing. Maybe the fact that they get lampooned the most in comedy merely represents that they are the dominant social group and hence the most obvious target.

how dare you suggest that white male privilege might be the reason people feel safe making them the target of ridicule!

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD


It is guys like you actually who make men look bad. As soon as a man choses to disengage from "female pedestalization," white knights in shining armor like you begin to attack them with shaming language, mud-slinging tactics and name-calling. You should be ashamed of your behavior.

Either discredit the sources which I have cited with evidence or SU.

read my second post in the thread

Originally posted by Oliver North
even without ever meeting the candidate, resumes that have ethnic names are far less likely to be called in for an interview, much less gain employment, than are those typically associated with whites.

pop culture can eat a dick

I agree that pop culture can eat a dick, but you and I are the minority in this. most people are........malleable. so the issue remains that the vast majority of people are going to have their hearts and minds influenced by tabloids, television, and music.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, being a poor black woman is a hoot when compared to being a middle class white man. I just don't even...

are you black? are you poor? or would you consider yourself privileged?

Originally posted by Raisen
I agree that pop culture can eat a dick, but you and I are the minority in this. most people are........malleable. so the issue remains that the vast majority of people are going to have their hearts and minds influenced by tabloids, television, and music.

actually, the point I was making was about the real world issues faced by every other group of people that are considerably more serious than being lampooned in cartoons.

Originally posted by Raisen
are you black? are you poor? or would you consider yourself privileged?

I'm immensely privileged in almost every intersection you can think of. Class, race, assigned gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, (currently also age)...I'm playing life on easy.

Originally posted by Oliver North
read my second post in the thread
You still have no argument to offer.

Another sign: http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/united-states-matriarchy

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You still have no argument to offer.

I'm not sure we are reading the same thread...

EDIT: I'll give you any argument you want big boy

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not sure we are reading the same thread...

EDIT: I'll give you any argument you want big boy
You chose to overlook sources that I cited to support my points; I will do the same in response. *** for tat.

By the way, another sign: http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/united-states-matriarchy

Wow, it's like OS flashed the idiot signal and Raisen and SW showed up in their capes and cowls.

What is your understanding of the word "patriarchy", S_W_LeGenD? What does it entail?

Perhaps we should have an agreed upon definition to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You chose to overlook sources that I cited to support my points; I will do the same in response. *** for tat.

By the way, another sign: http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/united-states-matriarchy

why don't you make a point for me to debate, or clarify the type of evidence you would like me to provide?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wow, it's like OS flashed the idiot signal and Raisen and SW showed up in their capes and cowls.

you came in here to gang up with your buddies? attack anybody who doesn't share your extremely left opinion?

just to throw it out there, I'm a conservative

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, the point I was making was about the real world issues faced by every other group of people that are considerably more serious than being lampooned in cartoons.

it's represented by people also.

Originally posted by Raisen
i'm speaking only of the u.s.

So am I. Everything outside of the one comment about industrialized nations was specific to America. My points stand, imo.

srug

Originally posted by Oliver North
just to throw it out there, I'm a conservative

lol. I know what you mean by this. But colloquially, it would be easy to say you're not.

Originally posted by Raisen
it's represented by people also.

sure, it doesn't stop people from getting jobs though...

Originally posted by Oliver North
just to throw it out there, I'm a conservative

not really a conservative. but ov is blatantly a leftist. I dislike conservatives and liberals equally. conservatives twist the truth. liberals verbally attack.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What is your understanding of the word "patriarchy", S_W_LeGenD? What does it entail?

Perhaps we should have an agreed upon definition to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
IMO, patriarchy is a culture which primarily empowers males. Males are tasked with greater responsibilities; leadership, protection, bread-winning, fighting and vice versa. Males have more rights then females. I know that it sounds extreme but every culture has its pros and cons.

Matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy. And USA is in transition phase; from Patriarchy to Matriarchy. Maybe in a few decades in the future, this transition will be complete.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
IMO, patriarchy is a culture which primarily empowers males. Males are tasked with greater responsibilities; protection, bread-winning, fighting and vice versa. Males have more rights then females and females are rather subservient to their males. I know that it sounds extreme but every culture has its pros and cons.

Matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy.

you're going to be attacked by the three musketeers: Bardock, OV, and Oliver North.

Two of them are respectful to a point. I'll let you figure it out

Anyone notice how it's the rich white guys (never been poor in their entire life) who are crying about the disparites amongst races and genders? The same guys that wouldn't even drive through the neighborhood I grew up in. The agenda. The sob stories. Are utter bullshit.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
IMO, patriarchy is a culture which primarily empowers males. Males are tasked with greater responsibilities; leadership, protection, bread-winning, fighting and vice versa. Males have more rights then females. I know that it sounds extreme but every culture has its pros and cons.

Matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy. And USA is in transition phase; from Patriarchy to Matriarchy. Maybe in a few decades in the future, this transition will be complete.

I don't disagree with your definition. However I would say that, while some aspects of patriarchy have definitely changed, and rigid gender norms have been somewhat loosened, this still is the type of society we live in. Almost all CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are men, and have been men. All presidents and a majority of politicians are men and have been men. These facts alone insinuate that leadership and control is still squarely in the hands of men (a majority of rich, white, straight ... men, to be exact).

There has been some progress made to make this less the case, however we are nowhere near an gender equal society, and definitely not on the way to something matriarchal.

Patriarchy hurts men and women (women more however), and men's rights activists make some good points, however rather than working on eliminating these problems they side with the system that creates and upholds them and demonize feminists, who have done a hell of a lot to liberate both women and men from rigid gender roles.

Although both Digi and Oliver North are correct that not all feminists are for equality, not all feminists are smart, not all feminists can separate patriarchy from men...that's a completely different issue though, imo, feminism as a movement has had nothing but positive effects on both genders.

Originally posted by Raisen
Anyone notice how it's the rich white guys (never been poor in their entire life) who are crying about the disparites amongst races and genders? The same guys that wouldn't even drive through the neighborhood I grew up in. The agenda. The sob stories. Are utter bullshit.

There are many writers of these oppressed groups that speak out, however they usually don't get listened to or even actively attacked and persecuted....cause patriarchy.

Originally posted by Raisen
Anyone notice how it's the rich white guys (never been poor in their entire life) who are crying about the disparites amongst races and genders? The same guys that wouldn't even drive through the neighborhood I grew up in. The agenda. The sob stories. Are utter bullshit.

are you suggesting I'm wealthy?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't disagree with your definition. However I would say that, while some aspects of patriarchy have definitely changed, and rigid gender norms have been somewhat loosened, this still is the type of society we live in. Almost all CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are men, and have been men. All presidents and a majority of politicians are man and have been men. These facts alone insinuate that leadership and control is still squarely in the hands of men (a majority of rich, white, straight ... men, to be exact).

There has been some progress made to make this less the case, however we are nowhere near an gender equal society, and definitely not on the way to something matriarchal.

Patriarchy hurts men and women (women more however), and men's rights activists make some good points, however rather than working on eliminating these problems they side with the system that creates and upholds them and demonize feminists, who have done a hell of a lot to liberate both women and men from rigid gender roles.



Although both Digi and Oliver North are correct that not all feminists are for equality, not all feminists are smart, not all feminists can separate patriarchy from men...that's a completely different issue though, imo, feminism as a movement has had nothing but positive effects on both genders .

What the hell happened to you?

Originally posted by Raisen
Anyone notice how it's the rich white guys (never been poor in their entire life) who are crying about the disparites amongst races and genders? The same guys that wouldn't even drive through the neighborhood I grew up in. The agenda. The sob stories. Are utter bullshit.

Y-you know the socioeconomic status of the people in the thread?

I'm also not sure crying is the right word. As it pertains to you, I think the primary objection has been against your assertion that middle class class white guys are the most put-upon in the country.

Also, phrases like "the agenda" don't do much for your cred when talking about those disagreeing with you. We're talking on an internet forum. Agendas are, by and large, for those with a financial or social stake in the outcome.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you suggesting I'm wealthy?

i'm suggesting you know nothing of los angeles ghettos, or anything resembling such. I

Originally posted by Raisen
What the hell happened to you?

I've been exposed to thought that was outside the bubble I live(d) in, and saw truth in that.

Although I'm not sure whether we have history for you to know that something happened to me (unless you know...you are someone else or something).

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are many writers of these oppressed groups that speak out, however they usually don't get listened to or even actively attacked and persecuted....cause patriarchy.

you write as if you know how to fix it all.......................

Originally posted by Raisen
you write as if you know how to fix it all.......................

That's not my intention. I have some ideas (many taken from other people, perhaps some my own) of what could be done to change things in a way that I think is better. I wouldn't presume to know how to fix everything (at least not right now, maybe I'll presume later)

It's easiest to try to fix yourself first though, so that's what I am trying to do.

What Bardock said in his long-ish summary...I agree with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I've been exposed to thought that was outside the bubble I live(d) in, and saw truth in that.

Although I'm not sure whether we have history for you to know that something happened to me.

Raisen's a sock, yeah? I kind of assumed as much.

srug

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not my intention. I have some ideas (many taken from other people, perhaps some my own) of what could be done to change things in a way that I think is better. I wouldn't presume to know how to fix everything (at least not right now, maybe I'll presume later)

It's easiest to try to fix yourself first though, so that's what I am trying to do.

so patriarchy is bad
feminism is good?

Originally posted by Digi
What Bardock said in his long-ish summary...I agree with it.



Raisen's a sock, yeah? I kind of assumed as much.

srug

Not a sock

Originally posted by Raisen
so patriarchy is bad
feminism is good?

Yes. That summarizes my feelings on the issue well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. That summarizes my feelings on the issue well.

doesn't it seem natural that the one in charge is there because he was smarter or stronger or had some kind of quality that exceeded everyone else's?

Originally posted by Raisen
Anyone notice how it's the rich white guys (never been poor in their entire life) who are crying about the disparites amongst races and genders?

Yes, those famous rich white men like: Margaret Mead, Ella Baker, Naiom Wolf, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Kamini Roy, Nancy Schept-Hughes, and many others!

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
IMO, patriarchy is a culture which primarily empowers males. Males are tasked with greater responsibilities; leadership, protection, bread-winning, fighting and vice versa. Males have more rights then females. I know that it sounds extreme but every culture has its pros and cons.

Matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy. And USA is in transition phase; from Patriarchy to Matriarchy. Maybe in a few decades in the future, this transition will be complete.

Based on your arguments, I'm not quite sure this would be a bad thing. At least for you...

Originally posted by Raisen
doesn't it seem natural that the one in charge is there because he was smarter or stronger or had some kind of quality that exceeded everyone else's?

I can see how that argument can be made on an individual level, especially when you disregard socialization and advantages/disadvantages from birth as well as luck. However I don't think it can be extended to genders on a whole. There are many women much smarter and stronger (though we should remember that women have been raised to be weak and meek for a long time) than men and they have the same disadvantages based on their gender.

Additionally the emphasis of strength and intelligence (whatever that vague thing is) is somewhat arbitrary, why not agility or instinct...or as social animals that we are why not empathy?

A consequence of patriarchy is the attribution of certain desired traits to the male gender, and undesirable ones to the female gender. Of course it's not as black and white as that, but something to start thinking about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, those famous rich white men like: Margaret Mead, Ella Baker, Naiom Wolf, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Kamini Roy, Nancy Schept-Hughes, and many others!

unnecessary

Originally posted by Bardock42
I can see how that argument can be made on an individual level, especially when you disregard socialization and advantages/disadvantages from birth as well as luck. However I don't think it can be extended to genders on a whole. There are many women much smarter and stronger (though we should remember that women have been raised to be weak and meek for a long time) than men and they have the same disadvantages based on their gender.

Additionally the emphasis of strength and intelligence (whatever that vague thing is) is somewhat arbitrary, why not agility or instinct...or as social animals that we are why not empathy?

A consequence of patriarchy is the attribution of certain desired traits to the male gender, and undesirable ones to the female gender. Of course it's not as black and white as that, but something to start thinking about.

ahhh. people are to smart for their own good. too many fluffy feeling and words. the bottom line is, we are still animals. when things truly turn to shit, the strongest is at the handle end of the sword. the ruling class is a representation of this, just changed throughout the years.

Originally posted by Raisen
doesn't it seem natural that the one in charge is there because he was smarter or stronger or had some kind of quality that exceeded everyone else's?

Not remotely, not. Why? Do you think that?

People who say they have power or authority that is being denied to them are deluded about what power or authority is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not remotely, not. Why? Do you think that?

People who say they have power or authority that is being denied to them are deluded about what power or authority is.

was there a fourth musketeer?

Originally posted by Raisen
unnecessary

They were the whitest, richest, most masculine people I could think of

Originally posted by Raisen
i'm suggesting you know nothing of los angeles ghettos, or anything resembling such. I

and you don't know shit about Winnipeg... what's your point?

Originally posted by Raisen
ahhh. people are to smart for their own good. too many fluffy feeling and words. the bottom line is, we are still animals. when things truly turn to shit, the strongest is at the handle end of the sword. the ruling class is a representation of this, just changed throughout the years.

I disagree, the system we have created (as well as technological advances, guns for example) have changed this equation, and it has been changed for many millennia now. Strength is of little matter in society now at all socioeconomic steps, and it has been unimportant at the ruling level in most societies since before Hammurabi.

Originally posted by Raisen
was there a fourth musketeer?

man, what does Digi have to do to get recognition here?

i'll be back in a bit. Need to cash my welfare check before they turn the damn lights out

Originally posted by Oliver North
man, what does Digi have to do to get recognition here?

I forgot how many of you guys there were. symmetric is definitely part of your team tho

Originally posted by Raisen
i'll be back in a bit. Need to cash my welfare check before they turn the damn lights out

because you are the only person who has been late on bills...

Originally posted by Raisen
was there a fourth musketeer?

There were hundreds of musketeers. And the book itself does indeed deal with four musketeers (D'Artagnan as the protagonist being excluded from the title)

Originally posted by Raisen
was there a fourth musketeer?

There was a whole legion of musketeers, both in Dumas' novels and in real life. Of the four main characters in the series their status as musketeer varies through the course of the story but by the end all have spent some time as members of the Royal Musketeers.

Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
There were hundreds of musketeers. And the book itself does indeed deal with four musketeers (D'Artagnan as the protagonist being excluded from the title)

you must remember that i'm a conservative according to oliver. the only thing I know about musketeers is what I read on the wrapper. apparently they were from mars................

Originally posted by Raisen
you must remember that i'm a conservative according to oliver. the only thing I know about musketeers is what I read on the wrapper. apparently they were from mars................

I think Oliver said he himself is a conservative. You may have misread his post.

Also, I think there's a US Conservatives love the second amendment joke somewhere in there, but I can't find it (perhaps being in love with their muskets?)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think Oliver said he himself is a conservative. You may have misread his post.

he certainly doesn't come off as a conservative.

anyway, got to go cash my check

I looked at the poll results of the mysandry poll.



http://poll.pollhost.com/ a2dhZGEJMTM0MTEyMzQxNglFRUVFRUUJMDAwMDAwCUFyaWFsCU
Fzc29ydGVkCTA/




Originally posted by Oliver North
also, I'm just going to go ahead and point out the blatant hypocrisy in what you are claiming:







the first point suggests things are equal, while the second suggests they can't be.

good thing your mouth has two sides to talk out of, no?

No, the first does not suggest anything and, instead, suggests gender inequality where men are the lesser and the women the superior. The second states that gender equality is never going to be equal because it's either too much one way or too much another. I said this because he obviously did poorly countering your post, here.









More on topic, I greatly welcome a matriarchal society.

I can then manipulate other women, at work, with my good looks and exposing the top portion of my pecs. And they will have to pay for my meals and hold the doors for me. Whoo hooo! (This is a joke...it needs to be clear that this is a joke because my "good looks" frighten children and scare away vermin).

What you are Misogynists worried about? 313

Poll link doesn't work for me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Poll link doesn't work for me.

damn. Answer the poll. It will show you the results.

Originally posted by Raisen
he certainly doesn't come off as a conservative.

Define conservative?

I'm pretty liberal but my views on gun laws are beyond ultra-right wing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
damn. Answer the poll. It will show you the results.

I would do so...but the poll link doesn't work for me.

Redirects to http://www.pollhost.com/

Originally posted by dadudemon
damn. Answer the poll. It will show you the results.

Can't you just tell us what it says?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would do so...but the poll link doesn't work for me.

Redirects to http://www.pollhost.com/

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can't you just tell us what it says?

You have to go back to that link posted earlier where that poll came from:

http://www.singularity2050.com/2012/06/a-first-quarter-poll-on-the-misandry-bubble.html

It wasn't that hard, people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Define conservative?

I'm pretty liberal but my views on gun laws are beyond ultra-right wing.

Just what are your views on gun laws and gun ownership in general?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You have to go back to that link posted earlier where that poll came from:

http://www.singularity2050.com/2012/06/a-first-quarter-poll-on-the-misandry-bubble.html

It wasn't that hard, people.

Hmm, over 5000 votes. Looks statistically significant to me. Guess that proves it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hmm, over 5000 votes. Looks statistically significant to me. Guess that proves it.

Sarcasm? I think that 5k votes can be statistically significant. I also think that 50k votes can be statistically insignificant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You have to go back to that link posted earlier where that poll came from:

http://www.singularity2050.com/2012/06/a-first-quarter-poll-on-the-misandry-bubble.html

It wasn't that hard, people.

Looks like 5000 of the people linked to it feel like Misandry is a thing (and an important one at that). Now, if we knew what places this poll has been linked to (MRA forums, for example) it may be a bit more interesting.

Though it reminds me of this funny tweet:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hmm, over 5000 votes. Looks statistically significant to me. Guess that proves it.



Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Sarcasm? I think that 5k votes can be statistically significant. I also think that 50k votes can be statistically insignificant.

It's sarcasm. The median reading demographic of that website is most likely white, partially college educated, 20-45 years old, males.

Also, the poll is voluntary and the poll is tainted by a lot of text proceeding the poll itself.


To me, that's like going to an NAACP meeting to count the race demographics of America and then being shocked when it appears that almost all Americans are black. Gaspity!

Originally posted by Raisen
he certainly doesn't come off as a conservative.

as far as I know, the only interaction we have had is you trying to pick a fight with me in the vs forum and this thread...

why would you possibly think I'm a liberal?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Sarcasm? I think that 5k votes can be statistically significant. I also think that 50k votes can be statistically insignificant.

It's a joke.

With 5000 votes the difference between groups for those three options is clearly statistically significant (unlikely to occur by chance) but all it really represents is the beliefs of people on that site.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's a joke.

With 5000 votes the difference between groups for those three options is clearly statistically significant (unlikely to occur by chance) but all it really represents is the beliefs of people on that site.

Indeed. The disparity of votes is very glaring.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Sarcasm? I think that 5k votes can be statistically significant. I also think that 50k votes can be statistically insignificant.

at 50k data points, you'd need an almost even split for any difference not to be significant...

just saying...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't disagree with your definition. However I would say that, while some aspects of patriarchy have definitely changed, and rigid gender norms have been somewhat loosened, this still is the type of society we live in. Almost all CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are men, and have been men. All presidents and a majority of politicians are man and have been men. These facts alone insinuate that leadership and control is still squarely in the hands of men (a majority of rich, white, straight ... men, to be exact).
I have acknowledged this early on:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Yes, their are lot of men in organizations and many are in the top positions but this will change in coming decades.

---

However, trend is changing:

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/united-states-matriarchy

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20057608.html

CEOs do not represent the changing dynamics of "women slowly gaining the upperhand over men" in various walks of life.

This should give you an idea:

http://static.thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/05/112.jpg

Since women have begin to outnumber men in educational institutions with passage of time, a time will eventually come when women will outnumber men even in the workplaces. This shift will also pave way for many women to reach the position of CEOs in the near future. Men have begin to loose their game in USA.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There has been some progress made to make this less the case, however we are nowhere near an gender equal society, and definitely not on the way to something matriarchal.
I disagree.

Law and Order system in USA is under the grasp of feminists in current times. Several laws have been introduced which favor women over men. Some examples of laws designed to favor women and emasculate men:-

1. No-fault divorce law
2. Abortion law
3. VAWA (for battered women)
4. Extreme Martial Rape law
5. Restraining order
6. Bradley amendment child-support
7. Extreme rape laws

All of these laws grant women options to hurt men and get away with it without serious consequences.

In addition, laws have been introduced which have led to decline of (male-only) institutions and vice versa. Female-only institutions currently outnumber male-only institutions in USA and this gap may widen in near future.

You just wait and see; from family units to institutes, everything will be turned in the favor of women as long as feminism continues.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Patriarchy hurts men and women (women more however), and men's rights activists make some good points, however rather than working on eliminating these problems they side with the system that creates and upholds them and demonize feminists, who have done a hell of a lot to liberate both women and men from rigid gender roles.
This is a misconception. Patriarchy doesn't hurts men at all; it is beneficial to men in the long run. Many patriarchal societies have emerged as superpowers in history; this is also true for USA. Patriarchy ensures dominance of the toughest. Men are much more likely to emerge strong in a Patriarchal society then in a Matriarchal society. Patriarchy is a proven social system. Matriarchal society encourages emasculation of men and weakens them.

As far as feminists are concerned, first generation did good job for promoting equality. Second generation went too far.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Although both Digi and Oliver North are correct that not all feminists are for equality, not all feminists are smart, not all feminists can separate patriarchy from men...that's a completely different issue though, imo, feminism as a movement has had nothing but positive effects on both genders.
Radical feminists are actually winning.

Originally posted by Oliver North
at 50k data points, you'd need an almost even split for any difference not to be significant...

just saying...

It depends, but if you have 90% of the votes in the favour of one option then something is not right. Especially if it's a controversial topic like sexism, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It depends, but if you have 90% of the votes in the favour of one option then something is not right. Especially if it's a controversial topic like sexism, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I'm just talking about the math used to determine statistical significance.

The more data points you have (5k vs 50k), the more likely the difference is to be significant.

So, imagine you have a 60/40 split. With 5 people, that probably isn't significant, with 5k, it probably is, with 50k I don't even need to look at the numbers.

lol, it gets more complicated, and I love rambling about statistics if you really want me to go on.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm just talking about the math used to determine statistical significance.

The more data points you have (5k vs 50k), the more likely the difference is to be significant.

So, imagine you have a 60/40 split. With 5 people, that probably isn't significant, with 5k, it probably is, with 50k I don't even need to look at the numbers.

lol, it gets more complicated, and I love rambling about statistics if you really want me to go on.

I know where you're coming from. My angle is that if you link your poll to a 100 websites that, say, support gay marriage and get 5000 votes supporting gay marriage. Now do the same thing with a 1000 websites, you'll get 50k votes supporting gay marriage. Sure, you'll get some outliers that don't support it, but the overall percentage will be similar.

Now if we're talking about a poll that tries to diversify its respondents as much as possible, I'd take the 5k data points of such a poll any day over a poll of 50k data points that did not bother to diversify. Then again, I don't know much about statistics.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It depends, but if you have 90% of the votes in the favour of one option then something is not right. Especially if it's a controversial topic like sexism, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

There is a huge difference between significance and generalizability. For example, perils of internet polling aside, this would be good statistical evidence about users of that site. You could go more into philosophy of question construction, though.

Originally posted by Oliver North
man, what does Digi have to do to get recognition here?

lol, my thoughts exactly at one point. I was considering slinging some insults just to get a reply.

Originally posted by Raisen
I forgot how many of you guys there were. symmetric is definitely part of your team tho

Still framing it as a competition, complete with teams. Wrong mindset here, friend.

You're not going to change your mind talking to a few people you're inherently defensive toward on an internet board. Go travel the world - hell, the country - and get back to me. If you still think you're the most marginalized demographic in the country due to the Civil War and the Simpsons, then we can talk.

And go read The Three Musketeers. My violin is named D'Artagnan. Damned good stuff.

Regarding the OP: This seems like an odd story and the way you've written barely makes sense. It also is also anecdotal and such a minor thing doesn't really correlate to anything meaningful.


Feminism is one giant conspiracy theory, where you replace the word "illuminati" with the word "Patriarchy". Then you lobby for legislation to save you from your imagined oppression and everyone goes along with it because of the use of emotional language that manages to bypass logic.

Patriarchy does exist, but not in the way most feminists assume it does. Patriarchy does not and has never benefited men to the exclusion of women. Examples would be: any war ever, women's suffrage compared to men having to earn the right to vote by going to war, high death risk jobs done almost exclusively by men, etc.

Originally posted by Cyner
Patriarchy does not and has never benefited men to the exclusion of women.

That is not a proposed trait of patriarchy.

Actually, let me rephrase. This sentence is arguably an accurate description. Your following example are not evidence against patriarchy or sexism, simply evidence that bad things happen to men. Such an observation is fairly meaningless. Rich white people in South Africa didn't have perfect lives but they still benefited from apartheid massively more than the black population.

We need to lobby for the creation of a new endangered species: the conservative middle-to-upper-class straight white protestant male.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is not a proposed trait of patriarchy.

Through speaking to many a feminist (I live near several colleges), I find that this is the definition that they often use is discussions. Additionally you'll find that most outspoken feminists in media use this definition without directly stating it.

Of course these are the most vocal types that are maybe a minority of 20%, however if you're letting radicals do all your outreach and all your lobbying of issues, you're going to have serious problems in your movement.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We need to lobby for the creation of a new endangered species: the conservative middle-to-upper-class straight white protestant male.

i think they call that "government"

Originally posted by Cyner
Through speaking to many a feminist (I live near several colleges), I find that this is the definition that they often use is discussions. Additionally you'll find that most outspoken feminists in media use this definition without directly stating it.

Of course these are the most vocal types that are maybe a minority of 20%, however if you're letting radicals do all your outreach and all your lobbying of issues, you're going to have serious problems in your movement.

they certainly aren't the most outspoken, they are just the ones people pay attention to

Susan Faludi is just as outspoken, people just don't care because she says reasonable things

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We need to lobby for the creation of a new endangered species: the conservative middle-to-upper-class straight white protestant male.

It is interesting how specific our image of typicality is.

4% of people are Americans.
50% of Americans are middle class (the number varies a lot, this is a sort of happy medium)
65% of Americans are white (properly white, no latinos)
50% of Americans are male.
75% of Americans identify as Christian.

Assuming these are all uniformly distributed about 0.5% of humanity (and 13% of Americans) are white middle class male American Christians.

Particularly interesting when talking about demographics in fiction or government.

Originally posted by Cyner
Through speaking to many a feminist (I live near several colleges), I find that this is the definition that they often use is discussions. Additionally you'll find that most outspoken feminists in media use this definition without directly stating it.

Not really, except for the occasional moronic claims like "if you're a white male you've never experienced discrimination" (thank you, Cracked) the idea that men only ever benefit from our social structure is pretty much absent. Actually I've read a number of articles (by feminists on feminist websites) noting that men need to start fighting back against social structures that are, sometimes literally, killing them.

As for "use this definition without directly stating it" I'd like to have your mind reading abilities. Generally feminists focus on women's rights because a) they themselves are often women and b) they think the harm done by our social structure impacts women more.

Originally posted by Cyner
however if you're letting radicals do all your outreach and all your lobbying of issues, you're going to have serious problems in your movement.

Not much anyone can do about that. Radicals draw a crowd. Radicals get reported on more. Radicals seek out confrontation. No matter who you "use" for outreach the radical arm of any group will be the one that most people are familiar with.

Why do you think its so hard to talk about men's rights in any serious way? The stupid assholes are the only ones people are aware of.

I don't even know where to start. I don't like doing these long arguments, so this will be my only in-depth reply.


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I have acknowledged this early on:



---

However, trend is changing:

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/united-states-matriarchy

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20057608.html

CEOs do not represent the changing dynamics of "women slowly gaining the upperhand over men" in various walks of life.

This should give you an idea:

http://static.thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/05/112.jpg

Since women have begin to outnumber men in educational institutions with passage of time, a time will eventually come when women will outnumber men even in the workplaces. This shift will also pave way for many women to reach the position of CEOs in the near future. Men have begin to loose their game in USA.

These trends you post here do not show what you want them to show. They show a slow move towards more equal distribution in fields where women have been underrepresented. Your chart shows that women had already been 75% in education 40 years ago, and it didn't have the influence that you claim it will now.

For example.

A man who is a teacher is somewhat looked down upon for not pursuing a more powerful role, a woman being a teacher is rewarded for sticking to the role

As rigid, patriarchal gender norms are loosened or discarded, more man who desire so will enter education and more women will pursue other, traditionally more male fields.

Additionally, work is not a zero sum game. A woman who would not be working, now deciding to work, creates value, she does not take the job from a man.


Either way, you are taking a slight trend into a more equal distribution as proof that it is going to far. You don't know what will happen when the 50% mark is reached (and at this rate it is still 100 years away, so you probably don't have to worry)

Also, I can't help but notice how the groups have been conveniently chosen to lean towards your POV.

For example Financial Services. It could be very possible that all bank tellers are female and all bank managers and executives male. You don't want to tell me that that would be a fair grouping, do you?



Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

I disagree.

Law and Order system in USA is under the grasp of feminists in current times. Several laws have been introduced which favor women over men. Some examples of laws designed to favor women and emasculate men:-

1. No-fault divorce law
2. Abortion law
3. VAWA (for battered women)
4. Extreme Martial Rape law
5. Restraining order
6. Bradley amendment child-support

All of these laws grant women options to hurt men and get away with it without serious consequences.




1. No-fault divorce laws can be just as beneficial to a man in a marriage that wants a divorce as a woman.

2. Pregnancy is an issue that women have to deal with physically, it is no concern for men. Perhaps an argument can be made about child support, I have done so in the past.

3. Domestic violent crimes against women are rampant, providing funding for police to do the job they should have been doing in the first place does not harm men (it harms domestic abusers perhaps). There are some general issues of government overstepping you may raise with the law, but these are not a man vs. women issue.

4. What do you view as extreme? Almost no rapist faces any penalty whatsoever, and those that do, get sentences that are imo laughable.
That spousal rape was not illegal at all until the mid-70s in the US is mind-boggling, and that most of the people who before thought it was alright, didn't just vanish after it became illegal should be clear.

5. Restraining orders are hardly rampant and again a two way street. Stalking and harassment are much more prevalent and have worse consequences.

6. The issue of child support is complicated. Again, the patriarchal role of women as carer and responsible for the child they have makes it very hard for women to forgo this responsibility. Not so for men. Child support is an attempt to equal out the advantages that men had from the unfair system. If it is the best or even a particular good way, I don't know, I'm not a huge fan.
On the whole though, the Bradley Amendment gives the women who are owed the support the means to actually get that support. Your issue should be with child support itself, if you have an issue with it, not with the law making the formerly broken laws work.


All these laws grant women the ability to actually get similar justice that middle class white men could count on forever.



Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

In addition, laws have been introduced which have led to decline of (male-only) institutions and vice versa. Female-only institutions currently outnumber male-only institutions in USA and this gap may widen in near future.

I don't know what institutions you are referring to in particular. However it makes some sense that an oppressed group (women) would need institutions to deal with their needs. The privileged/dominant group on the other hand doesn't, as the system is its institution.



Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This is a misconception. Patriarchy doesn't hurts men at all; it is beneficial to men in the long run. Many patriarchal societies have emerged as superpowers in history; this is also true for USA. Patriarchy ensures dominance of the toughest. Men are much more likely to emerge strong in a Patriarchal society then in a Matriarchal society. Matriarchal society encourages emasculation of men and weakens them.


Patriarchy as we have it currently does most certainly hurt men.

The artificial gender roles wall off large parts of what it is to be human. Shaping men into aggressive, un-empathic tools from early on hurts not just those rebelling outrightly against it, but every one. That's just one aspect of how patriarchy hurts men, of course, but it's a large one.
Suicide and homicide statistics also paint a pretty clear picture of how men are hurt by themselves and other men.


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
As far as feminists are concerned, first generation did good job for promoting equality. Second generation went too far.

Second wave feminism is generally considered to be between 1960 - 1980. Do you honestly want to tell me you feel like the Mad Men era was fair to women and second wave feminism fighting against that was wrong?


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Radical feminists are actually winning.

That statement is just not in accordance with reality.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It is interesting how specific our image of typicality is.

4% of people are Americans.
50% of Americans are middle class (the number varies a lot, this is a sort of happy medium)
65% of Americans are white (properly white, no latinos)
50% of Americans are male.
75% of Americans identify as Christian.

Assuming these are all uniformly distributed about 0.5% of humanity (and 13% of Americans) are white middle class male American Christians.

Particularly interesting when talking about demographics in fiction or government.
This annoys me with series such as Halo and Star Trek. I can understand if English becomes the sole human language--that's conceivable, perhaps even plausible. What is much less believable is that every echelon of human society is dominated by Anglo people with Anglo and Western European names. With Star Trek it's somewhat forgivable--only so many minority actors available, casting constraints, etc. But with Halo where characters are created via computer graphics and can literally be from any ethnicity or nationality it becomes ridiculous that the only minorities presented are a scant few East Asians, one or two Hispanics who are probably Hispanic Americans, and a few black Americans. Perhaps Americans are the only people interested in military service come the 26th century.

If I ever get my own Space Opera tv series I'll make sure that at least a third of the actors are East Asian, South Asian, and Subsaharan African.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not really, except for the occasional moronic claims like "if you're a white male you've never experienced discrimination" (thank you, Cracked) the idea that men only ever benefit from our social structure is pretty much absent. Actually I've read a number of articles (by feminists on feminist websites) noting that men need to start fighting back against social structures that are, sometimes literally, killing them.

As for "use this definition without directly stating it" I'd like to have your mind reading abilities. Generally feminists focus on women's rights because a) they themselves are often women and b) they think the harm done by our social structure impacts women more.



Not much anyone can do about that. Radicals draw a crowd. Radicals get reported on more. Radicals seek out confrontation. No matter who you "use" for outreach the radical arm of any group will be the one that most people are familiar with.

Why do you think its so hard to talk about men's rights in any serious way? The stupid assholes are the only ones people are aware of.

I can certainly agree. It seems right now though that divorce law, family law, child custody law, etc., are all skewed very hard in favor of women and in some ways trample the rights of men.



This idea that women are abused extremely often is complete propaganda. Not only do women more often physically assault their spouses than men, but women are by far the demographic to suffer the least violence in their lifetimes.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
We need to lobby for the creation of a new endangered species: the conservative middle-to-upper-class straight white protestant male.

I know this is sarcasm but the truth is that whites make up about 9% of the people on the planet, with white males making up about half that number. Then take out all the lower class, gay, men of other religion, and you have a very very small number.

Whites should be more involved in continuing their respective ethnicities and their race. Have kids white people, seriously go do it, a lot of them.

Originally posted by Cyner
Regarding the OP: This seems like an odd story and the way you've written barely makes sense. It also is also anecdotal and such a minor thing doesn't really correlate to anything meaningful.


Feminism is one giant conspiracy theory, where you replace the word "illuminati" with the word "Patriarchy". Then you lobby for legislation to save you from your imagined oppression and everyone goes along with it because of the use of emotional language that manages to bypass logic.

Patriarchy does exist, but not in the way most feminists assume it does. Patriarchy does not and has never benefited men to the exclusion of women. Examples would be: any war ever, women's suffrage compared to men having to earn the right to vote by going to war, high death risk jobs done almost exclusively by men, etc.
All the story was about was oddly placed work equipment.

How'd you miss that?Also im posting using a phone.

Damn women put that work equipment in the mens clothing department.

They're people who really look at the world that way but i don't.

Originally posted by Cyner
This idea that women are abused extremely often is complete propaganda. Not only do women more often physically assault their spouses than men, but women are by far the demographic to suffer the least violence in their lifetimes.

Source?

Originally posted by Cyner
I know this is sarcasm but the truth is that whites make up about 9% of the people on the planet, with white males making up about half that number. Then take out all the lower class, gay, men of other religion, and you have a very very small number.

Yeah, which is why its so odd that almost all government power in the US is in the hands of that small group.

Originally posted by Cyner
Whites should be more involved in continuing their respective ethnicities and their race. Have kids white people, seriously go do it, a lot of them.

Why?

You (Cyner) are conflating two issues. Domestic violence and violence in general (I did idly address men being the target of violence more often (though particularly from men)).

Domestic violence against men is also a very big issue, made worse again by patriarchal expectations of strength and invulnerability. Men often don't feel like they can report domestic violence cases. So the dark figure may be immense, perhaps even higher than the dark figures for women (which are already estimated to be very large).

Of the convicted perpetrators 75% were male, while 75% of the victims were female. (http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf)

I assume your claim is based on dark figure estimates, which can obviously vary a lot.

I need someone to seriously tell me why:


A college educated white male


Should fear the "current misandry trend" in the US? I mean, be serious: what is that demographic supposed to fear? What are the negatives and what are the positives?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't even know where to start. I don't like doing these long arguments, so this will be my only in-depth reply.
Thanks for being reasonable in your debating approach.

Originally posted by Bardock42
These trends you post here do not show what you want them to show.
That image makes it apparent that women are increasing in quantity as a workforce in the country. As more and more women will get jobs, competition will toughen for men accordingly.

Men are expected to work in every society so how will men cope with significant number of women getting jobs and consequently reducing job opportunities for them?

Originally posted by Bardock42
They show a slow move towards more equal distribution in fields where women have been underrepresented.
Equal distribution? Are you implying that every organization have a fixed quota for women? I do not agree with this. Ground reality is that more women are getting jobs in current times in comparison to the past.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your chart shows that women had already been 75% in education 40 years ago, and it didn't have the influence that you claim it will now.
It is "education and health services" and not just "education."

Also, why do you assume that women are focusing on these two fields only? Many women are aiming for jobs in other fields.

The factor that women are currently outnumbering men in education, will make difference in the workplaces in the near future; women will consequently outnumber men in majority of the workplaces, if this trend continues.

This is the trend:

http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2012/09/gender-ratio-of-recent-us-graduates.jpg

Another one:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/NCES_Bachelors_Attainment_2011.PNG

Originally posted by Bardock42
For example.

A man who is a teacher is somewhat looked down upon for not pursuing a more powerful role, a woman being a teacher is rewarded for sticking to the role
This is a misconception. Male professors are highly admired in my country. Education is one of the most important fields in my country and their is no frowning upon male teachers here.

Why do you assume that male teachers are shunned in USA? Who shuns them?

Originally posted by Bardock42
As rigid, patriarchal gender norms are loosened or discarded, more man who desire so will enter education and more women will pursue other, traditionally more male fields.
I think that patriarchal gender norms are generally misunderstood by some; these gender norms are actually easier on women but not on men. Men have greater responsibilities under such gender norms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally, work is not a zero sum game. A woman who would not be working, now deciding to work, creates value, she does not take the job from a man.
In past times, men had to worry about competing with each other. Now they have to worry not just about competing with each other but also women. Double-edged sword.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Either way, you are taking a slight trend into a more equal distribution as proof that it is going to far. You don't know what will happen when the 50% mark is reached (and at this rate it is still 100 years away, so you probably don't have to worry)
Things are changing too fast in current times; 100 years is a very long time for a major change to occur.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, I can't help but notice how the groups have been conveniently chosen to lean towards your POV.

For example Financial Services. It could be very possible that all bank tellers are female and all bank managers and executives male. You don't want to tell me that that would be a fair grouping, do you?
Only time will tell that how men in your country will cope with significant competition from women in the workplaces in the near future. Also, lot of women have reached management positions in current times. It is just that they thin out at the very top of the organizations currently but this may change in the near future.

Originally posted by Bardock42
1. No-fault divorce laws can be just as beneficial to a man in a marriage that wants a divorce as a woman.
It is beneficial to only those who want to divorce without consequences. It is not fair to those people who want to divorce for infidelity, fraud and abuse; the wrongdoer gets the same treatment that the non-wrongdoer gets.

Originally posted by Bardock42
2. Pregnancy is an issue that women have to deal with physically, it is no concern for men. Perhaps an argument can be made about child support, I have done so in the past.
So husbands deserve no say in this matter? Are you kidding me? Think about this from a perspective of a father; bringing a child in to this world is important to both spouses (husband and wife) regardless of biological realities involved. Empowering one gender in this regard is not a good development; women can/have abused this power granted to them and it can/have led to break-up of stable households. This is not sign of gender equality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
3. Domestic violent crimes against women are rampant, providing funding for police to do the job they should have been doing in the first place does not harm men (it harms domestic abusers perhaps). There are some general issues of government overstepping you may raise with the law, but these are not a man vs. women issue.
Domestic violence against men is a heavily underreported phenomenon. Read this to get an idea: http://ncfm.org/2009/01/issues/domestic-violence/

Also, a woman can accuse her husband of committing abuse and get him arrested; I have read too many cases like these.

Here is an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2089962/Simon-Boswell-wrongly-accused-domestic-violence-Lysette-Anthony.html

So what is the solution for this occurrence?

Originally posted by Bardock42
4. What do you view as extreme? Almost no rapist faces any penalty whatsoever, and those that do, get sentences that are imo laughable.
That spousal rape was not illegal at all until the mid-70s in the US is mind-boggling, and that most of the people who before thought it was alright, didn't just vanish after it became illegal should be clear.
My point is that marital laws should be developed in the manner that innocent(s) do not suffer from them. This is a big concern: http://www.fillerfund.com/womenlie.htm

Things get very complicated with marital rape based accusations specially. And number of men ending-up in jail due to false accusations can be lot higher then what is normally believed. Such an accusation can destroy a man's life.

Rape laws in USA are getting extreme to the point that "no use of physical force" clause is also being added to them. This sounds like opening a Pandora Box of false accusations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
5. Restraining orders are hardly rampant and again a two way street. Stalking and harassment are much more prevalent and have worse consequences.
Here is a scenario: A (dignified) husband gets cuckolded by OM. The husband is powerless to do anything about this because he can neither penalize his wife nor OM for hurting him in this manner and shattering his honor and self-esteem; the restraining order handicaps the husband. The end-result is most likely break-up of marriage/household but what about cheating people? Why their is no penalization for them from the system at-least?

Infidelity is a huge problem in USA in current times. It is one of the major causes of decline of marriage institution in USA. Something must be done about this menace.

Originally posted by Bardock42
6. The issue of child support is complicated. Again, the patriarchal role of women as carer and responsible for the child they have makes it very hard for women to forgo this responsibility. Not so for men. Child support is an attempt to equal out the advantages that men had from the unfair system. If it is the best or even a particular good way, I don't know, I'm not a huge fan.
On the whole though, the Bradley Amendment gives the women who are owed the support the means to actually get that support. Your issue should be with child support itself, if you have an issue with it, not with the law making the formerly broken laws work.
Bradley amendment is unfair to men in the context of child support.

For example: A faithful husband finds one day that he is not the biological father of his children and his wife kept him in the dark about this. He divorces his wife in response but he is forced to pay child support for these children against his wishes, thanks to the Bradley Amendment. Why should he suffer for this? Why not the cheating wife be penalized for wronging him? Why not the actual biological father be penalized for his indiscretions, if he is identified?

Originally posted by Bardock42
All these laws grant women the ability to actually get similar justice that middle class white men could count on forever.
These laws also grant women the ability to hurt men and get away without serious consequences for their cake-eating behavior. Not fair at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know what institutions you are referring to in particular. However it makes some sense that an oppressed group (women) would need institutions to deal with their needs. The privileged/dominant group on the other hand doesn't, as the system is its institution.


I am talking about education institutions and social clubs.

As far as educational institutions are concerned; if women are allowed to have female-only educational institutions then same permission must be given to men as well. Equality right?

As far as social clubs are concerned; men also need places where they can act like men without facing consequences or being harshly judged. Same is true for women. Equality right?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Patriarchy as we have it currently does most certainly hurt men.

The artificial gender roles wall off large parts of what it is to be human. Shaping men into aggressive, un-empathic tools from early on hurts not just those rebelling outrightly against it, but every one. That's just one aspect of how patriarchy hurts men, of course, but it's a large one.
I do not buy this generalization at all. Patriarchal culture forges strong and responsible men (in majority) and not mad-men as you claim. Mad-men will exist in every culture.

On what basis have you assumed that women were not kept on the pedestal in patriarchal societies? Many men have done this in history. This common occurrence in my country as well.

What feminists mostly do is that they highlight extremes to ridicule Patriarchy; they only highlight cons of Patriarchy but not its pros.

Yes, (some) powerful men have abused their position but do you think that (some) powerful women do not abuse their position? Women can be as cruel as men. Stereotyping will do you no good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Suicide and homicide statistics also paint a pretty clear picture of how men are hurt by themselves and other men.
Men are hurt by women as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Second wave feminism is generally considered to be between 1960 - 1980. Do you honestly want to tell me you feel like the Mad Men era was fair to women and second wave feminism fighting against that was wrong?
You have really bought in to the myth of Mad Men era?

First generation feminists fought for equal rights; second generation feminists fought for cake-eating desires. This is the difference.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That statement is just not in accordance with reality.
It is.

Here is a decent read: http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Thanks for being reasonable in your debating approach.

I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic, but I think it would be pointless for us to go on for pages and pages. We would mostly be rehashing points, and it seems unlikely we'd convince the other. This way you raised the points, I got a chance to reply, and now you had the last word on topic. I think that's fair.

You two stop arguing and answer my question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You two stop arguing and answer my question.

You know my answer. Of course they don't have to fear anything about this. For one I don't believe misandry (as I understand it, and in relation to misogyny) exists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You know my answer. Of course not. For one I don't believe misandry as I understand it exists.

I fear nothing, as well, even if this female-dominated society comes to fruition.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I fear nothing, as well, even if this female-dominated society comes to fruition.

Yes, you have said as much before. No society is perfect however, and I doubt a matriarchal would be, especially since I don't believe in gender essentialism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, you have said as much before. No society is perfect however, and I doubt a matriarchal would be, especially since I don't believe in gender essentialism.

Do you think there will be a gender backlash due to the current trends?

Meaning, do you think schools will start offering men incentives to get an education as their institution?

Originally posted by Digi
lol, my thoughts exactly at one point. I was considering slinging some insults just to get a reply.



Still framing it as a competition, complete with teams. Wrong mindset here, friend.

You're not going to change your mind talking to a few people you're inherently defensive toward on an internet board. Go travel the world - hell, the country - and get back to me. If you still think you're the most marginalized demographic in the country due to the Civil War and the Simpsons, then we can talk.

And go read The Three Musketeers. My violin is named D'Artagnan. Damned good stuff.

lol. I was in the united states air force and spent time all over Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

Where have you been?

Man, Cyner and SW are owning

Ok, I am pretty tired of these defensive comments and expressions of feeling of victimisation. Cut those out in future. I'll give warnings to people who make accusations of being ganged up on or try to frame this as an aggressive contest as Raisen just did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you think there will be a gender backlash due to the current trends?

Meaning, do you think schools will start offering men incentives to get an education as their institution?

Again, there is no current trend. Unless you mean the current trend of privileged men to feel victimized by oppressed groups demanding fair treatment.

There is already a "gender backlash" if you want to call it that. Opposition to feminist ideas of equality have been going on since feminism started. Rush Limbaugh coined the term feminazi and women speaking about this topic are shouted down with it as well as through media presentation of them as selfish, lesbian man-haters.

Perhaps, probably even, the backlash will get stronger, but on the other hand there'll also be more men realizing that prohibitive separation of gender roles isn't actually good for them and good for their sons either.

On the whole I am positive currently, that the right side of history will win out, but it is still a long road (though I as a white male have the nicest seats on that road)


I went a bit off topic, as to your second sentence. Perhaps, I don't think it is an issue of incentives and oppression necessarily, but it is definitely an issue that less men than women attend college, and boys get worse grades in school. Imo the main underlying problem is the gender role we attribute to boys though, which doesn't work too well with the way children (and teenagers and college students) are educated.

I think it clashes with another movement of secondary education as we know it becoming outdated though, so I don't know what to expect from this.

Not really... the US was 90%+ white until the mid 1960's-1970's. You're going to see quite a drop in percentage of US citizens that are white and whites in power as the baby boomer generation starts kicking the bucket.


Because although I'm not white myself, I'd rather not see them or the cultures associated with them, vanish from this earth.

Originally posted by Cyner
Not really... the US was 90%+ white until the mid 1960's-1970's. You're going to see quite a drop in percentage of US citizens that are white and whites in power as the baby boomer generation starts kicking the bucket.


Because although I'm not white myself, I'd rather not see them or the cultures associated with them, vanish from this earth.


I think it is an interesting point. Non-white cultures have been more directly threatened (and have been actively threatened or even been extinct by colonialism in the past couple hundred years). White indigenous cultures on the other hand are threatened by an overarching monoculture emitting from the US (so are other cultures, too, but it's perhaps more obvious then cause it feels more foreign)

However I do think culture is not just something to be preserved and kept the same, but also something that evolves and that can be great.

I probably shouldn't talk about that though, these are just ramblings that just came to my mind.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, there is no current trend. Unless you mean the current trend of privileged men to feel victimized by oppressed groups demanding fair treatment.

There is already a "gender backlash" if you want to call it that. Opposition to feminist ideas of equality have been going on since feminism started. Rush Limbaugh coined the term feminazi and women speaking about this topic are shouted down with it as well as through media presentation of them as selfish, lesbian man-haters.

Perhaps, probably even, the backlash will get stronger, but on the other hand there'll also be more men realizing that prohibitive separation of gender roles isn't actually good for them and good for their sons either.

On the whole I am positive currently, that the right side of history will win out, but it is still a long road (though I as a white male have the nicest seats on that road)


I went a bit off topic, as to your second sentence. Perhaps, I don't think it is an issue of incentives and oppression necessarily, but it is definitely an issue that less men than women attend college, and boys get worse grades in school. Imo the main underlying problem is the gender role we attribute to boys though, which doesn't work too well with the way children (and teenagers and college students) are educated.

I think it clashes with another movement of secondary education as we know it becoming outdated though, so I don't know what to expect from this.

I wish I had a much much longer lifespan (as you already know) because I want to be in my prime when white people become a minority in the US. In some cities, like NYC, white people are already a minority. It will take probably 100 years before every state in the US has a white minority.

When this happens, we might finally see things, ignoring history class, like "white privilege" go extinct. I would love to have taken advantage of this white privilege that is rumored to exist. Especially this "white male privilege" I keep hearing about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wish I had a much much longer lifespan (as you already know) because I want to be in my prime when white people become a minority in the US. In some cities, like NYC, white people are already a minority. It will take probably 100 years before every state in the US has a white minority.

When this happens, we might finally see things, ignoring history class, like "white privilege" go extinct. I would love to have taken advantage of this white privilege that is rumored to exist. Especially this "white male privilege" I keep hearing about.

Oh, don't worry, you already have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it is an interesting point. Non-white cultures have been more directly threatened (and have been actively threatened or even been extinct by colonialism in the past couple hundred years). White indigenous cultures on the other hand are threatened by an overarching monoculture emitting from the US (so are other cultures, too, but it's perhaps more obvious then cause it feels more foreign)

However I do think culture is not just something to be preserved and kept the same, but also something that evolves and that can be great.

I probably shouldn't talk about that though, these are just ramblings that just came to my mind.

Of course I believe the ethnicity or race itself is much more important than the exact culture. However culture being a product of the people who are a part of it can be extremely interesting in and of itself and in many ways reflects the geography or biology of it's adherents.



Going to completely disagree with this. The idea that all men are privileged is nonsense. The idea that women are oppressed has no basis in fact.

Men are privileged to live shorter lives, to suffer more violence, to work themselves to death, to be killed by the state at much higher rates, across all races and cultures.

Women are oppressed by men's catering to them at all times. Oppressed by men protecting them and sacrificing their lives for women on a regular basis. Oppressed by not being expected to work as hard or make as much money as a man.


I'm also going to disagree that feminism has anything even remotely close to equality in mind when lobbying for new laws to be passed that blatantly screw over men. Current feminism is an ideology of misandry.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why do you think its so hard to talk about men's rights in any serious way? The stupid assholes are the only ones people are aware of.