America & Sexism

Here's one that goes to the "this isn't a competition" thesis.

The X axis is the average absolute number employed in thousands (so 9000 means 9 million), again based on quarterly numbers. The Y axis is the year.

The number of men work is in fact increasing while the number of women working increased a bit more rapidly until recently. We can also see much more clearly than on the other graph the economic good times benefit both men and women roughly equally.

Like the previous graph this one show that the increase of women in the workplace leveled off in the 90s. You can see the lines become parallel.

oops, graph attached

And a third one.

The X axis here is showing what proportion of the labor force is male or female respectively. The Y axis is the year once more. This measure should be less vulnerable to changes in the economy. For example the other two show dips aound 2008 but this does not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Here's one that goes to the "this isn't a competition" thesis.

The X axis is the average absolute number employed in thousands (so 9000 means 9 million), again based on quarterly numbers. The Y axis is the year.

The number of men work is in fact increasing while the number of women working increased a bit more rapidly until recently. We can also see much more clearly than on the other graph the economic good times benefit both men and women roughly equally.

Like the previous graph this one show that the increase of women in the workplace leveled off in the 90s. You can see the lines become parallel.

Is this one the per capita measure?

If so, that shows that both men and women are increasing their employment rate. However, it shows a much sharper increase, recently, for women than for men. Also, interesting to note, is that the recession seems to have struck women much more sharply but they bounced back much more sharply.

That means, to me, that in the US, women are more resilient/adaptable to change than their male counterparts but they are also more susceptible to recessions, short term, than males.

But that is still bad news for males because, despite not losing their jobs as quickly as women, they continued to lose jobs when women sharply bounced back.

edit - lol, you can see when the dot com (.com) bubble busted in 2000. You can also tell who were the "employed" during the .com bust. That's hilarious because it is a well known fact that IT is pretty damn sexist.

Double edit - Also, thanks a bunch for doing this, SC. I had a test to take and I did not want to spend the time doing this. You not only did it but you produced 2 other graphs, too. You rock.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is this one the per capita measure?

No, that is the absolute employment. About 80 million men are working and about 70 million women are working.

The first one in the per-capita, the proportion of men and women who are employed. There's no jump up for women in that one although they do seem to have taken a lighter hit. I'm not sure what caused that jump on the absolute measure, probably something Bush or Obama did benefited a career path that women tend to follow.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, that is the absolute employment. About 80 million men are working and about 70 million women are working.

The first one in the per-capita, the proportion of men and women who are employed. There's no jump up for women in that one although they do seem to have taken a lighter hit. I'm not sure what caused that jump on the absolute measure, probably something Bush or Obama did benefited a career path that women tend to follow.

Oh, wow...k...I see it, now.

The recession is hitting both genders, hard, still. That would be closer to representative to the U-6 measure. People are obviously giving up looking for jobs and it is still declining. The economy is worse than I thought or worse than the news makes it out to be.

But, yeah, based on the graphs you've made, I can see why some of the "predictors" were saying that women will overtake men in the next 10 years: their lines were about to cross.

But it seems like they were using different data and not the first graph you posted. Or else they would conclude something else, entirely.

http://www.cracked.com/video_18409_the-3-worst-lessons-rocky-movies-taught-us.html

...it takes a few minutes to get to the relevant part, but you'll know when it does (and it's worth the wait, the whole video is hilarious).

Originally posted by Digi
http://www.cracked.com/video_18409_the-3-worst-lessons-rocky-movies-taught-us.html

...it takes a few minutes to get to the relevant part, but you'll know when it does (and it's worth the wait, the whole video is hilarious).

I got too bored by 3:12 and cut it. The arguments we have at work, about movies, are funnier than that stuff.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I got too bored by 3:12 and cut it. The arguments we have at work, about movies, are funnier than that stuff.

😐

I knew our friendship couldn't last. Cracked After Hours is the best thing on the internet.

I thought it was really good, actually. Nice find/share, Digi.

This is a reply (or two, cause it got pretty long, didn't fit into 1 PM anyways) to a post of NemeBro's in the Gaming and Feminism. It's posted here since it fits more into this broader topic.

---

Originally posted by NemeBro
Do they now? Do tell.

Yes, we do. We are not required to work make up or be pretty to be taken serious. Our appearance is not the point of discussion when we voice our opinion. Many studies show that men are listened to and credited with being smarter, more articulate and convincing...even if the exact same thing has been said or written. We don't have to fear being raped or abused by partners and loved one to a ridiculous degree. It is unlikely that we'lll be harassed or cat called to any similar degree as women. Most fields of work and study are open and welcoming to us. Etc. etc.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I am not entirely sure why you are bringing up how race plays a part in it, because from my point of view it isn't relevant.

It may not be relevant to your point of view, but it can be very relevant generally, so I thought I'd throw it in.

Originally posted by NemeBro

The use of terms like "male privilege" is inherently damaging, because it promotes an "us vs. them" viewpoint, in that it asserts that their issues are entirely worse/more important than men's.

I disagree. Privilege is nothing but a special advantage a person has due to belonging to a group. I would even say that you could claim there are some female privileges. For example having their feelings listened to rather than downplayed or discarded, or being thought of as better caretaker, however in general they are, imo, coincidental advantages born out of the lowering of femininity and the traits we associate with it ("Men are strong and leader, they can't have weak female traits, then they are female and can't lead or be strong, cause females are weak and useless"😉.

Originally posted by NemeBro

Now, I ask you, would you claim to know exactly how it feels to be a woman Bardock? I will assume no. Why then, could a woman claim to know how it feels to be a man, with all certainty?

Of course I don't know what it's like. I have been immersed somewhat in discussions by women about their experiences over the last few years, and know what they have shared of it.

An argument (and one that would fit very well in the games thread however) is that it is easier to understand the male experience because it is seen as the default. Almost all media caters exclusive to that experience and it's almost impossible for a woman to not be exposed to these narratives that describe men and shape them.

Fundamentally we can't experience other people's experience, but we can be more or less knowledgable about them based on our exposure to them (high for men, low for women).

Originally posted by NemeBro
Women face oppression and have gender-related issues, that is true, but so do men. The justice system is heavily slanted in favor of women, things that would get a man thrown in prison for years have a woman sent to house arrest (Debra Lafave is the case I am thinking of at the moment). Blax has already touched on cases of child custody, and indeed on much of what I would have said in general. Men also have expectations in demeanor and mindset, being conditioned to express little to no emotion (Which as mentioned in that gay as **** GDF thread is a good contender for top reasons so many men play pin the razor-blade on the artery).

The cases of child custody are not as clear cut, yes a majority of women receive custody in cases, but it sort of omits that a large amount of men have no interest in obtaining custody. Statistics that are used by MRA's to discredit feminists tend to omit that fact.

The prison issue is another one of the issues men do face, however again it is not because of sexism towards men that it happens, but due to the sexism towards women that in this case gives them an advantage by protecting them from consequences. (women weak dummies, they surely can't be evil criminals).

These are all issues that eliminating gender inequality addresses however (if femininity (arbitrarily assigned feminine traits) is seen as something man can partake at and be good at then a lot will be solved)

Originally posted by NemeBro

To arbitrarily place one group's problems in a pedestal as "worse" enforces "us vs. them", and makes it hard for "them" to value the legitimate issues "us" has, because it trivializes the issues of "them".

But you realize how that is an inane (and insane) argument? Putting gunshot wounds on a pedestal vs. paper cuts enforces an us vs. them. Putting starvation on a pedestal vs. dropping my third iPhone enforces an us vs. them. Putting separate but equal laws on a pedestal vs. the tomato sauce stain on my KKK robe enforces an us vs. them.

Some things are worse than others (disregarding for a moment the futility of our existence in an uncaring universe), and pointing that out does not create factions that have to be fought. Rather men should be like "Oh yeah....that shit you go through is ****ing terrible I'll work with you to eliminate it" (not to the exclusion of other issues of course, everyone can choose what to focus on, for example Anita Sarkeesian likes to focus on female representation in games, which is just splendid imo)

Originally posted by NemeBro

I don't know how hard it is to be a woman, since I am not one. I do have an idea of the difficulties one can face from being both a man, and from having a non-hetero orientation, so I can try to evaluate the issues those groups face (Mostly the former, since the latter are far more well-known), but I would not dare attempt to put the difficulties of being a man above those of being a woman, because there is no way I could know. And the same is true for any woman. Sure, they can study and look at various problems affecting both genders, but she would have no idea how gender-issues related to being a man affect the men in question.

I don't agree with that. Thinking this point of view through would lead us to never ever discuss anything ever (for example I know what it's like to be a man for me, but I don't know what it's like to be a man for you, so I can't talk about that either). We can look at things and determine what they are like. We can conduct and read studies, we can immerse ourselves in personal experiences that are shared with us, we can conduct experiments, we can compare arguments to what we perceive....we can do all those things, and imo, if one does these things there's no question that women as a whole are oppressed and disadvantaged (or less privileged if I may) than men as a whole. That does not mean men don't face shit. But, for example I don't have to be homosexual to know that homosexuals on the whole have it worse than heterosexuals.....because I can see the treatment in real life, in academic research and in media (there comes the media thing again, which is why it is so important to influence media to be more inclusive and representative of reality, not just male white reality).

Originally posted by NemeBro

That said: I would agree with your stance that many of the problems facing men are fabricated by men. I'm not familiar enough on the concept of Patriarchy to label that as the origin (My only knowledge on the subject being from the mouths of misogynists), but I do think that a lot of the favoring of women in the Justice System or the inhibitions placed upon male behavior are male-created. Women are not the only ones forced into gender roles. Just as women are more typically expected to be nurses rather than doctors (Okay, sort of a real outdated example, but it is rather late), men are expected to not be, and it is thought of as less manly to be a nurse even today by many.

An issue with feminism to me is that there are and were parts that do and did see men as the enemy and the cause of all the issues. I do not agree with that at all (neither for the issues women face nor those men face). Patriarchy in this case is what I understand as the system that we live in, one of which's traits is that men are considered stronger (physically of course, but more importantly mentally), more capable, more intelligent and generally more important. Women in our system get the role of caretaker and with it being empathic and emotional (this is the issue men have, because besides anger, emotions are frowned upon and often even physically beaten out of boys from a young age (for example, men don't cry. That's not a real thing, look at male babies, they cry, they cry really well, but the system (patriarchy) does not view that as a role of men, so this is frowned upon and men are raised to not have it (which, funnily enough, and in a mind boggling twist that should shut every gender essentialist ever up forever and then some, is the complete opposite of what another patriarchal society, namely ancient greece, thought, where it was believe that only men could really cry cause they were the only ones with important enough issues to cry for)). I could talk more about this, but lets leave it at that for now.

Regardless these things aren't actively created by men or upheld by men alone, these stereotypes are just as much held up by women (mothers for example will teach many of the stereotypes that patriarchy expects to their sons and daughters). It's a system we all live in, we are all part of it, and we all contribute to it. And we should change it for the better tbh.

Good posts, Bardock.

What is wrong with a man wanting to win equal custody AND avoid having to pay child support? Why does that make him evil?

If women are broadening the gap on employment (becoming more and more employed than men), then we should eventually see that the average income of women will be greater than men in the US. So the child custody laws should change to reflect that...especially if you consider that women are very significantly out-learning their male counterparts.

But this is seen as sexist. These thoughts of mine. I don't get it.

Well, child support and custody should ALWAYS be decided on a case by case basis IMO, so having it determined by average socio-economic factors either way, or presuming on the side of either gender is just silly and quite possibly harmful.

I knew a couple who split up, where the woman got custody and got the father to pay child support even though (1) it was well known that she was a shit mother and the kids preferred the father and (2) she made more money than him anyway--IIRC he was a stay-at-home dad, she was a doctor; the court decided that being a doctor wouldn't be enough I guess 😐. That sort of thing should never happen, but there's truth to the accusation that these laws tend to favor women unfairly.

At the same time, I feel like a lot of so called "male rights" proponents look at this as well as the unfairness of female-on-male rape laws and come to the conclusion that the law itself is skewed toward women, ignoring that in many other areas it's quite the opposite. You can't treat gender rights as a zero sum game.

The fundamental issue is that the unfairness that men experience does not come from feminists or women, rather it comes from the same system that oppresses women. So "men's right's activists" should rather team up and support feminists in taring down these norms that divide and oppress us, but instead they view feminists (and often women in general) as the enemy, and do nothing positive for the victims they proclaim to stand up for. They are guardians of the status quo, and therefore assholes.

I think you should temper that position. There are legitimate MRA, they just aren't as vocal or visible as the assholes. The problem is that most people don't understand that there are issues of male oppression and so don't realize that there's a need for Male Rights campaigning, and most of the people championing men's rights are reactionary, paranoid assholes who see emasculating feminist conspiracies everywhere.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think you should temper that position. There are legitimate MRA, they just aren't as vocal or visible as the assholes. The problem is that most people don't understand that there are issues of male oppression and so don't realize that there's a need for Male Rights campaigning, and most of the people championing men's rights are reactionary, paranoid assholes who see emasculating feminist conspiracies everywhere.

I don't know whether there are any legitimate proponents of equality as feminism desires it under the mantle of Men's Rights Activism. If there should be some, I would suggest to abandon that label, as it has nothing but negative influences under its belt. I fully agree that there is need for equality and justice for men, however, as inimalist and I pointed out earlier, the only scientific observation and political activism that has been done in the freeing of men from the expectations of their gender has been done by feminists. The very people that the vocal majority (if it was a minority, fair enough, it is not though) of MRAs attack and view as the enemy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
for example Anita Sarkeesian likes to focus on female representation in games, which is just splendid imo

i don't get how her complaints about the damnsel in distress are any less petty than that one poster's complaints about the dull fat white male husband/father stereotype.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i watched some of that on youtube. it strikes me as hypersenstive tbh.

i don't get how her complaints about the damnsel in distress are any less petty than that one poster's complaints about the dull fat white male husband/father stereotype.