America & Sexism

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:

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.

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42 3. Domestic violent crimes against women are rampant,

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.

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
These trends you post here do not show what you want them to show.

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.

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.

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:

Another one:

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

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?