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.
__________________
Last edited by Cyner on Jun 13th, 2013 at 05:46 PM
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
That statement is just not in accordance with reality.
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Miami Metropolitan Area
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.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Last edited by Omega Vision on Jun 13th, 2013 at 06:12 PM
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.
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.
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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).
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?
Thanks for being reasonable in your debating approach.
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?
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.
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:
(please log in to view the image)
Another one:
(please log in to view the image)
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?
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.
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.
Things are changing too fast in current times; 100 years is a very long time for a major change to occur.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jun 13th, 2013 at 08:39 PM
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?
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.
Men are hurt by women as well.
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.
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
Jun 13th, 2013 05:42 PM
