America & Sexism

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
However economies are even better than this because at various stages things can be created that are more valuable than the sum of their parts. New jobs are created as businesses work to match demand. This is how an economy grows. There is not a set amount of wealth. There is not a set amount of jobs.

Agreed. I argued against the zero-sum game idea 3 or 4 years back.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Indeed some economists argue that loss of jobs in one sector will create jobs in other sectors.

Very interesting. I have not heard or read about this concept before. Did you have something for me to read or a place to point me regarding that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So, since women are people, we can go back to those places where we said "workers" or "people" and replace them with men or womwn interchangeably. If we assume that people benefit from living in a nation with a productive economy then we can say that "women benefit from more women working" or "men benefit from more women working" or even "women benefit from more men working". Here we are speaking in absolute terms, not relative ones.

But see, this is where I lose you. Evening out the genders in the work force (or education) does not necessarily increase the net jobs or increase economic growth.

I agree that more people working is better, regardless of gender. However, it would be better, socially, if there were gender equality in the work force.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thundercats represent.

While I am not a furry, I do like Thundercats. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very interesting. I have not heard or read about this concept before. Did you have something for me to read or a place to point me regarding that?

There's a name for it, which I can't recall.

The idea is that generally unless a whole sector is critically flawed it won't just disappear for no reason. You don't have to suppress lightbulbs because the candlestick makers will get jobs at that lightbulb factory. You don't have to suppress mechanization because factory workers will get jobs maintaining machines.

There is a bit more to it. Efficiency alters prices, which alter demand and availability. So the former factory workers might be able to afford the cars coming out of the automatic factories even when making lower wages in another job, when they could never have afforded the ones made by hand. That raises the demand which means more factories are needed so people will get jobs making those. And so on.

I'm not sure I quite buy it as a rule since people are not infinitely flexible in skill sets and mobility but its an interesting idea.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But see, this is where I lose you. Evening out the genders in the work force (or education) does not necessarily increase the net jobs or increase economic growth.

I've never claimed that, I'm not sure why you think I did.

Evening of the gender gap is a reasonable sign that, barring some extreme scenarios, there are now more women in the work force. If the number of workers had stayed steady since 1960 the economy would have imploded. Yes, we could imagine a dystopia where only there are only ten women working so only ten men are allowed to work and everyone things this is good because the gender gap is gone but Harrison Bergeron was an nonsensical strawman 1961 and it still is today.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wait do you, like, literally not understand that women are people? Because those two quotes are saying exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Learn2socialize and manipulate, then.

I will frequently refer to this sentence as "-1" throughout the rest of the post.

"If a male cannot adapt and turn this to his advantage, he will be at a sexual disadvantage and the other more adaptable males will get more opportunities to mate."

In a committed relationship such as marriage, lot of men end up screwed by women in USA; thanks to women-friendly family laws in USA. Situation is worse in UK.

Originally posted by dadudemon
See -1.

From my anecdotal experience, women who are attractive, well-spoken, and dress well, have a massive advantage over her majority male colleagues in the corporate world. Only male fools (or what the internet likes to call "betas"😉 think women are the only ones that can manipulate and flaunt their junk to their advantage in the work place.

Having a female majority management hierarchy is already an advantage to the male, in a corporate setting, that is aggressive, in shape, dresses well, and is well spoken. In an office full of women, it is to a male's advantage if he can display those traits while having -1.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Men are proven to be more aggressive and competitive than women. If they start to feel the squeeze from a loss of males in the work environment, their aggression and competitiveness will give them a literal biological advantage over their female counterparts. So even if the females rule the workplace...it would be short-lived, imo. Men would have to compete much more vigorously for their jobs. I just don't see men being lazy about things for the next two decades like the charts show. Once they feel a bit of a squeeze, they'll step up. Women are just taking advantage of what was not available to their mothers, grandmothers, or great grandmothers for thousands of years (for the most part).

Here's another reference: -2 "There is just not enough time for our genes to evolve to make us a different type of "species". Regardless of what the society does, we're just about the same animals we were 20 thousand years ago."

I find this point interesting though:

"So even if the females rule the workplace...it would be short-lived, imo"

In short, Matriarchy isn't going to work?

As far as this is concerned:

"Men would have to compete much more vigorously for their jobs. I just don't see men being lazy about things for the next two decades like the charts show. Once they feel a bit of a squeeze, they'll step up. Women are just taking advantage of what was not available to their mothers, grandmothers, or great grandmothers for thousands of years (for the most part)."

Issue is not about men being lazy; issue is about them not getting sufficient opportunities or uplifting to be responsible citizens of a country. For this to occur, stable households should be the norm which is no longer the case in USA in current times. Just look at the situation of households in Middle America where marriages are not working.

Also, education is a basic criteria for jobs in many organizations. If relatively less number of men will get degrees then women, then this will translate to relatively less number of men being part of the workforce in the organizations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
One of my favorite things is "working the system" to your advantage. If that means the laws, there will be ways to work the system to the male advantage. Additionally, males still rule the political system. I do not fear this anti-male legislation you speak of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unless you're going to carry this to the next technological step by claiming that indistinguishable "sexadolls" will be created, women and men cannot really ignore their biological programming (they will seek each other out for some bare-back stank). The only women that do as you are stating are male-hating lesbians. Those are rare, even among lesbians. 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
I reject that idea and submit the -2.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was projected to happen, anyway.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Both pros are awesome.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't like lazy and underachieving men, as well. They always strike me as bums or leeches. So why would I be upset if a woman thought the same?

---

For everybody;

If objective is to expand workforce involving women in the equation, an alternative exists for this:

Outsourcing

In addition, technological advancements may not necessitate mass employments in the near future. E-commerce is already playing a role in reduction of workforce in SME sector.

As I pointed out before, economic prosperity is dependent upon economic policies and anti-corruption measures. Economies are not dependent upon a specific gender to flourish.

one such effective policy being the removal of barriers that prevent 50% of the population access to employment, no?

S_W_LeGenD, please don't berate SC about 'the point' when all you did was quote one line of his post and miss the whole context of his reply, which was very much to the point, in fact.

Quote warring has this tendency to take lines out of context. Some forums ban quote warring; I am often very tempted to push for that here as it causes arguments to degenerate into bitty nonsense. In general, when replying to posts, please have the courtesy to bear the whole point of a message in mind.

Is your entire argument now becoming 'economies don't need women to be successful'? Because if so, that's pretty pointless as an argument because that's obvious is taken literally. What others are saying is that economies are better the bigger the potential workforce is, and by including women you increase the potential workforce. Increased competition is the name of the game. If you all are going to do is avoid that point and say we don't literally need women, then this thread has become pointless as there is no argument to the mindset behind that assertion.

And please do not use this thread to advance your disturbing ideas about feminism creating homosexuality or your ideas of religious decline. The moral tone of your arguments is already worrying enough without you bringing that sort of view into things.

The tone in this thread has become too hostile in general, and I will close it regardless if it carries on that way. Dadude, if others are being smug, you are being at least equally so, and saying things like 'If I were smug I would say this but I am not' is not only exceptionally smug but also getting into trolling territory as such a comment has no value to the thread other than to wind others up.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
S_W_LeGenD, please don't berate SC about 'the point' when all you did was quote one line of his post and miss the whole context of his reply, which was very much to the point, in fact.

Quote warring has this tendency to take lines out of context. Some forums ban quote warring; I am often very tempted to push for that here as it causes arguments to degenerate into bitty nonsense. In general, when replying to posts, please have the courtesy to bear the whole point of a message in mind.

SC made a smart attempt to lure me in this direction though. It is common sense that women are "people" as well. He missed by point entirely. But I will try my best to not fall to this kind of lure in future.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Is your entire argument now becoming 'economies don't need women to be successful'? Because if so, that's pretty pointless as an argument because that's obvious is taken literally. What others are saying is that economies are better the bigger the potential workforce is, and by including women you increase the potential workforce. Increased competition is the name of the game. If you all are going to do is avoid that point and say we don't literally need women, then this thread has become pointless as there is no argument to the mindset behind that assertion.

Economic prosperity depends upon policies and anti-corruption measures in place. Having (heavily) mixed-gender workforce doesn't guarantees economic prosperity if policies adopted are not correct and anti-corruption measures are not implemented. Several countries affirm this. Granting women work opportunities is an act of empowering them which is a good thing but this factor may or may not facilitate economic prosperity; their is no guarantee.

Even in case of USA, regardless of having large economy and (heavily) mixed-gender workforce, the country is vulnerable to recessions and its debt is incredibly high. USA needs better economic policies and reduction of its expenditure to address the fundamental economic issues.

Now the actual debate is about USA shifting towards Matriarchy with passage of time; I don't know why this debate solely turned in to economics argument. I did point out some potential demerits of Matriarchal society, if it comes to fruition; this debate pushed me in this direction.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And please do not use this thread to advance your disturbing ideas about feminism creating homosexuality or your ideas of religious decline. The moral tone of your arguments is already worrying enough without you bringing that sort of view into things.

I am not saying that Feminism created homosexuality; it is a very old phenomenon.

My point is that Feminism promotes/supports homosexuality.

Some examples:

http://www.queerty.com/gloria-steinem-feminism-and-gay-rights-are-completely-the-same-thing-20120423/

http://media.library.ku.edu.tr/reserve/resspring12/comm101_KMeen/gay_marriage.pdf

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The tone in this thread has become too hostile in general, and I will close it regardless if it carries on that way.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My argument is that Patriarchal societies have history of accomplishing economic prosperity.

so do slave owning societies

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Economic prosperity depends upon policies and anti-corruption measures in place. Having (heavily) mixed-gender workforce doesn't guarantees economic prosperity if policies adopted are not correct and anti-corruption measures are not implemented. Several countries affirm this. Granting women work opportunities is an act of empowering them which is a good thing but this factor may or may not facilitate economic prosperity; their is no guarantee.

and you would agree one such policy would be to have as many people working as possible?

SC did not miss your point at all; you have clearly missed his. His point was that the logic of your statement appeared to discount women as people- it was a fair satire of what you said, and you accusing him of missing your point is straight irony.

'Supports' is splitting hairs. You are basically making a moral argument there which is both unwelcome in general and irrelevant to this thread.

And as no-one is arguing against patriarchal societies and economics, merely saying that arbitrarily removing half your potential workforce is unhelpful and including them can be positive; you are really just going around in circles again with the rest of your point. All your other points are pretty irrelevant, to be honest, and this argument is tiresome. No, having women in the economy doesn't guarantee anything, but it almost certainly creates a better situation than not having any. You just yelling on 'but successful economies exist without women'- ok, yes, we've heard that, and it's now unhelpful to just keep saying it over and over.

Can we move this on please? The OP actually had a vaguely interesting point about how certain male stereotypes remain strong, but that's been lost in this pointless argument.

Wait, is supporting gay rights a bad thing now?

That was definitely the implication of what he said, which is what I wanted to move away from.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Wait, is supporting gay rights a bad thing now?

I think it's actually that gay men supporting feminism is a bad thing.

Beyond that I think most of this thread doesn't recognize that "patriarchy" is already a system which values women over men and that feminism is just the natural progression of these ideas that has taken root since technology has removed the need for massive amounts of physical labor needed to survive.

I wrote earlier in the thread about family law, divorce, and child custody, and I was reminded of this video and how well it illustrates the dominance that women have over men in legal family matters throughout our country.

YouTube video

Patriarchy valuing women over men.

Right...I think we're done here.

Thank you for this Cyner. I work in a field that sees this type of thing a lot. This is not a rarity. What's more alarming is the number of women who know the power they have and a malicious when using it. I just don't see how people can argue the feminist point of view

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Patriarchy valuing women over men.

Right...I think we're done here.

you know, the same way that "Nobel Savage" is a promotion of native american rights, or "White Man's Burden" shows how concerned European Imperialists were about other cultures.

Originally posted by dadudemon

To continue with the discussion: do you think that evening out the gender ratios in the work place, in those "patriarchal societies", adds more overall earned income (median income or average income) to those people?

The median/average income of households? Almost definitely. The median/average income of all people, regardless of whether they are counted as in the workforce or not, also pretty much definitely.

I feel that is the crux of your issue, btw, dadudemon. You seem to operate under the assumption that unemployment rates are absolute representations of all of society, when really it is only a representation of who can't find jobs and are searching for them. (home makers do not show up, for example) So one of the questions to consider before taking your stats is "what percentage of women vs. what percentage of men decide to rather drop out of seeking employment altogether in an economic downturn", I would assume due to patriarchal expectations of men...a lot more women would chose to do so.

In regard to other topics

I also feel like I have given SWLegend more time than I would usually (not due to him, but rather an interest in the topic, but still) and with very little smugness.

I also don't think that the OP was particularly good, it was a bizarre interpretation of women being excluded from being considered in most fields of work as oppression of men. Besides being quite insulting to women, it also was sort of insulting to construction workers, imo. At any rate, I think the conversation that developed out of it is far more interesting.

[edit]added some emphasis

You guys are pretty funny, but no that's not how it is at all.

Think of it more as a caste system where the lower caste competes, works, and dies for the acceptance of the upper caste. If the upper caste decides that even after attaining the earnings and adulation of the lower caste, they can dispose of the lower caste at any moment and there is no legal recourse for those lower caste at all.

We live in a society where women get a six month sentence for the same crimes a man would spend half his life in prison for. Where for a woman, it's an "affair" but for a man it's statutory rape. Where religious genital mutilation of men is completely acceptable.

I'm not saying that men are oppressed, but we are far from equality and feminism doesn't mean equality, it means female superiority. Men need to get away from both patriarchy and feminism. Judging from the male suicide rates after divorce I'd say that it's quite literally killing us.

You are making some good points, but colored through bizarre bias, or perhaps just misunderstanding. What you say does happen, but it doesn't happen because of feminism or female superiority, it happens because patriarchal gender roles. Mainly women being supposed to be pure and meek, and generally lacking agency, while men are more free and expected to be sexually aggressive.

So the interpretation an older man having an affair with a girl is the girls purity being stolen by an evil aggressive man before it was time, while an older woman having sex with a boy is the boy being a stud already achieving sexual conquests, etc. etc. (so in a patriarchal view there's no victim in the second case)

It's not feminists working to get female sexual predators to serve shorter sentences, it's an outgrowth of the fundamental ideas our kind of patriarchy has. If women and men were seen as equal and treated as equal (what feminists want) that would not be the case.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I also don't think that the OP was particularly good, it was a bizarre interpretation of women being excluded from being considered in most fields of work as oppression of men.

Well I did only say vaguely, and I don't agree with the premise- but the basic point that male stereotypes have survived whilst many female ones have been killed off does actually have some discursive value, whatever reason is advanced for it, or even if the idea is refuted. The debate that followed had some interest in its premise but it was killed off by circular arguing page after page.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well I did only say vaguely, and I don't agree with the premise- but the basic point that male stereotypes have survived whilst many female ones have been killed off does actually have some discursive value, whatever reason is advanced for it, or even if the idea is refuted. The debate that followed had some interest in its premise but it was killed off by circular arguing page after page.

Yes, it's definitely true that there is more awareness of harmful stereotypes regarding women, at least the most common ones, and that they are somewhat frowned upon. I would say they are more harmful though, and there's many that aren't acknowledged either. I personally would say that it is mostly due to work by feminists (or generally people aligned with gender equality, not everyone likes the label feminist (there are valid reasons for that actually, not just the somewhat stupid "should just be humanist"😉). And mostly only third wave feminists have started looking more at the negative impact patriarchy and patriarchal stereotyping has on men, I think there's still a lot to do and awareness to raise, definitely.

The second one I agree with mostly, that's why I try not to put too many page long replies in anymore, and while the tone is somewhat more hostile, I do think the topic of economies of gender (rather than the earlier oppression of men) is quite interesting to me.

Originally posted by Cyner
You guys are pretty funny, but no that's not how it is at all.

Think of it more as a caste system where the lower caste competes, works, and dies for the acceptance of the upper caste. If the upper caste decides that even after attaining the earnings and adulation of the lower caste, they can dispose of the lower caste at any moment and there is no legal recourse for those lower caste at all.

We live in a society where women get a six month sentence for the same crimes a man would spend half his life in prison for. Where for a woman, it's an "affair" but for a man it's statutory rape. Where religious genital mutilation of men is completely acceptable.

I'm not saying that men are oppressed, but we are far from equality and feminism doesn't mean equality, it means female superiority. Men need to get away from both patriarchy and feminism. Judging from the male suicide rates after divorce I'd say that it's quite literally killing us.

Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man

Written by acclaimed feminist and journalist Susan Faludi. It is very good, and might make you appreciate feminism for more than what the internet has produced in the last 10-15 years. Like, I don't mean to be presumptive, but would you be familiar with Emma Goldman or Wendy McElroy? Simone de Beauvoir even?

I think everyone in the thread has gone to pains to say they agree that there are issues men face in society, and the criminal/family justice system is one of the most glaring, along with suicide and other mental/physical health issues. Its the tone and extremism you take with this issue, and your insistence in drawing men and women into camps of "us" vs "them".

As unfortunate as it is, feminists are among the only people to have done serious scholarly work on male issues, and they generally miss the boat too. In my undergrad I took a host of gender studies courses (dealing mainly with Islam and South Asia, but a lot of the theory still applies broadly), and with very few exceptions, I was the only male in these classes (and because of this, there is an extreme lack of male perspective: I was told male circumcision is not comparable to female circumcision, but breast implants are; we were taught that women can be good soldiers because, specifically, they are just as capable at being violent as men are, which is a pretty broad statement about men). Instead of this oppositional stance, you need to see people as all belonging to the same group and work to eliminate these caste divisions, rather than trying to gain more power for whatever group you feel you belong to.

For instance, when you look at criminal justice, one of the main issues is the profit driven prison system that, across the board, hands out far too extreme sentences in the first place (for instance, the war on drugs is far more problematic for poor men, but that is a digression). It isn't that we should fight for "equality" in inappropriate sentencing, but rather, that we need to look at the issue in a non-gendered way, where we treat all people as individuals.

Like, go back to page one. The most hilarious part of this debate is that is was began by the suggestion that women are trying to take over America, not by complaints of gender inequality, not of issues men face, but because I made a rolleyes emoticon about an outlandish statement. You've internalized gender conflict in a way that makes it impossible for you to actually solve any of the issues.

** I may have used "you" to liberally in referring to yourself and others in the thread, so if something isn't specifically relevant to your position my apologies.