Straight, White Males - No Longer the World Rulers?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Silvanus:
Well, run outside of the two-party system in the United States at the moment, and you simply won't be elected.

That's sort of a failure in our political system. But a topic for another day.

Silvanus:
Taking steps to get into the governing bodies is indeed a viable method, and I'm all for it. So long as we're both looking for methods of mitigating the problem, then I'm happy.

What's the problem though? That voters won't vote for women?

Silvanus:
Well, no, because biases are often unconscious or unthinking. Nobody claimed gender was the only factor in who gets chosen.

Then we can say our contention is a matter of what weight someone decides gender has in the determination. When someone makes broad statements like "white men rule the world", I can conclude their tunnel vision wouldn't let them see the head of a pin, much less any argument regarding additional factors.

Silvanus:
As for correlation and causation, of course one does not prove the other, that's true. But, equally, if you have a massive statistical discrepancy (and one that has remained throughout most of recorded history), it would be quite silly to assume there's no cause at all.

But it hasn't, and that's the problem. It's easy to hand wave "white man" as a statistical note in power struggles, but that's a very narrow view of history. It's essentially focused on Anglo-Saxon paradigms with utter disregard for any other cultural relevance beyond the occasional "it's still a man" point of order. The world is not made of white men, or white culture.

And even if I were to recognize a statistical relevance, it doesn't mean anything, nor should it be argued to mean anything. If you really take that stance, then prepare for the inevitable arguments built upon stereotyping; we can't ignore Muslims are Terrorists or what-have-you. Don't argue a cause where there is none.

Silvanus:
That's not what I've been doing.
Recognising that gender is a factor =/= ignoring all other factors.

You may not be personally guilty of it, but there are people who are. And as I mentioned, we may merely disagree on the weight of the gender factor.

LifeCharacter:
Don't particularly care to get involved in what will likely continue on to be an amazingly fun thread, but this argument's kind of wrong in that it's very reasonable to use the problem to solve the problem, especially when the problem you're talking about is something as stupidly broad as "biases." If the biases are lesser and for the sole purpose of equalizing a world unfairly weighted to the advantage of people who sabotaged everyone in the past, is that the same thing as just arbitrarily deciding that women make worse engineers?

And then there's the idea that the biases you will be using are ones artificially crafted and known to be artificial, meaning that, unlike the more naturally formed biases that came out of the shitty past, these will be seen as tools, not as truths. No one advocating for a more diverse anything sees forcing diversity on everyone as the ultimate goal.

It's an inherently illogical position to take; Racism is wrong, therefore to correct Racism were going to use Racism OR my radiator is broken, so I'm going to fix it by breaking the radiator. Either it's wrong, or we're simply being arbitrary about it.

Perhaps you're advocating for fighting fire with fire, but you're still burning shit, and I'd prefer to avoid that.

LifeCharacter:
No one advocating for a more diverse anything sees forcing diversity on everyone as the ultimate goal. The goal is to just have natural diversity and not need it to be forced, but they likely see the more forced measures as the fasted way to achieve that, because it probably is. And once diversity is actually achieved, do you think they'll keep these measures in place when they're no longer needed?

Surely you read this before you hit respond? Do you honestly think that "natural" diversity will ever exist in a state where the "natural" inclination of our social order is to segregate by distinctions of similarities and differences? The natural element of diversity already happens on its own; people simply want a better deal in other situations. That's why we're *forcing* diversity. Not as some noble pursuit of justice, but as a grab for power masked as a self righteous crusade.

nyysjan:
Nobody "knows" that women are going to take massive amount of time off, create avoidable complications or may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat.

Wait... so we can generalize that white men can be assumed to be power hungry apes but not generalize that women can be assumed to want kids?

I'm not personally suggesting that they be discriminated against do to a possibility. But I do support them being held accountable for their decision if they choose to go that route.

nyysjan:
And even lot of those that do, do so because society expects them to, even demands it, because of course it is the women who take care of the children, of course it is the men who need to keep working to feed the family.

Demands? Where are you getting this shit from? Women are the only ones who can give birth; case closed. Whether or not they take extended leave or their husbands leave their jobs to care for the child is entirely personal and economically motivated; but the initial time off is still necessary for women, even if they do simply drive to the hospital, crap the kid out, and drive back to work.

Have you ever thought that many of these women do so because they CHOOSE to, whether to spend time raising their child, or because they wanted to be a mother? Jesus fucking Christ you're talking as if we bar women from working period simply because they haven't shit a kid out yet and it's somehow their duty to do so. And if they do CHOOSE to, then it would be wise for the father to continue to work to economically support his child! Or they can switch that responsibility and the mother can keep working; someone needs to put food on the table.

Any expectation comes from a healthy dose of trend setting; women are the ones who usually take time off to have and raise kids. This doesn't stop men from doing the same, or prevent women from furthering their careers. It merely means that they are making a decision to put family before work, and that does (and should) affect their standing with employers, including but not limited to advancement opportunities and pay.

nyysjan:
In your comments you not only fail to justify what is being done, but actually point to one of the several hurdles women are given, just because they are women.

No, you're the one pigeon holing women into child care roles based on your expectations of society. I'm suggesting they have the free choice, and they can exercise their right to choose whatever they wish; they just have to accept the consequences of said actions (which affect men as well).

Your arguments have revolved around the notion that women are discriminated against because they have a Vagina, with no basis for argument other than gender. And you also failed to address any disparities in which women have the upper hand (so to speak), or address the point of order that your focus on this discussion has been solely relegated to the apex of society. In other words, you're a typical political progressive feminist who's arguing for all the good while ignoring the choices and responsibilities that coincide.

DevilWithaHalo:

nyysjan:
Nobody "knows" that women are going to take massive amount of time off, create avoidable complications or may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat.

Wait... so we can generalize that white men can be assumed to be power hungry apes but not generalize that women can be assumed to want kids?

Where the hell are you pulling this shit from?
Well, seeing that either you are unable, or unwilling to debate without making shit up or resorting to strawmen, i guess there is no point in actually bothering to talk to you.

nyysjan:

DevilWithaHalo:

nyysjan:
Nobody "knows" that women are going to take massive amount of time off, create avoidable complications or may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat.

Wait... so we can generalize that white men can be assumed to be power hungry apes but not generalize that women can be assumed to want kids?

Where the hell are you pulling this shit from?
Well, seeing that either you are unable, or unwilling to debate without making shit up or resorting to strawmen, i guess there is no point in actually bothering to talk to you.

I guessed right that giving you that ammo would result in this kind of response. I guess it's easier to say "fallacy" and walk away then it is to admit all the ones you committed and engage in an actual conversation. Your hypocrisy is a perfect illustration of the intellectual limitations of your arguments and position.

White men rule the world = injustice that needs to be fixed.
Women will want babies = sexist stereotype.

Yep... that about sums it up. Do tell your friends that you've once again fallen victim to the Patriarchy! We move from the shadows, unseen!

Silvanus:

Schadrach:

Of course, if you're given a choice between two dogs when you really wanted a cat, because those two dogs were chosen to have the prominent shelf positions through a market survey that you were also given a choice in which included the cat...

A (limited) market survey will have had some impact on the selection of candidate, yes. One in which respondents may endorse a woman, but other respondents will not consider them because they're a woman.

And, of course, the candidate surveys will still be populated primarily by men, and even when the responses are returned, they are only one factor, to be considered alongside lobbyists, fundraisers, the party, business and politician endorsements, any of which may consider a woman too much of a risk.

You realize that the "market survey" in this analogy is the primary election, right? You know, being a preliminary vetting to decide who the actual options will be, in which your cat got taken out of the available choices because the populace as a whole voted that they'd rather have a choice between a white dog and a black dog instead of a white dog and a cat?

DevilWithaHalo:

nyysjan:

DevilWithaHalo:

Wait... so we can generalize that white men can be assumed to be power hungry apes but not generalize that women can be assumed to want kids?

Where the hell are you pulling this shit from?
Well, seeing that either you are unable, or unwilling to debate without making shit up or resorting to strawmen, i guess there is no point in actually bothering to talk to you.

I guessed right that giving you that ammo would result in this kind of response. I guess it's easier to say "fallacy" and walk away then it is to admit all the ones you committed and engage in an actual conversation. Your hypocrisy is a perfect illustration of the intellectual limitations of your arguments and position.

White men rule the world = injustice that needs to be fixed.
Women will want babies = sexist stereotype.

Yep... that about sums it up. Do tell your friends that you've once again fallen victim to the Patriarchy! We move from the shadows, unseen!

"may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat." is the exact words you used i believe.

You can plan on children, you don't even need to take lot of time of to have them, and just because you have children does not mean you have to drop out of work.
All these are avoidable, and would be even more so in a world where it is not usually expected (less so than used to, but stereotype persists) for the women to look after children (and the fact that men are often promoted over women, just perpetuates this issue).

generals3:
1st: I still don't see how explaining problems through the patriarchy theory is any way relevant to the point i was trying to make.

Because you're claiming that it doesn't exist because men are disadvantaged, whereas anybody who has a halfway decent education of thirdwave feminism will acknowledge that it harms men as well as women.

If we can at least agree men also face a lot of issues and that when it comes to facing issue it's not as one sided as your initial claim implied than that's already something.

I do, and thats something any third-wave feminist would agree upon.

Fourth wave feminism is, however, in this phase where its got a lot of looniness to it[1], and there's a crap ton of blatant sexism thinly veiling itself behind a conspiracy theory that flies directly in the fact of any evidence and it downright offensive toboth the inteligence of both men and women.

2nd: It's an economist who made a study regarding wage and beauty. http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/good-looks-bring-a-handsome-return--32000-a-year-20130106-2cb65.html

I'll check out the study. The article didn't mention any measures the study took to balance the results properly, but seeing how often the media screws up science, I wouldn't be surprised if the writer of the article just messed up.

3rd: It depends on which statements you're referring to. if you're referring to what our Minister of "Discrimination" said, than yes i've yet to see anyone around here make such demands. But when it comes to presenting the whole gender situation as being black and white than i beg to differ. When people continuously repeat women are being oppressed and men are privileged that tends to say "it sucks to be a woman and it's awesome to be a man" and this while totally ignoring the fact being a man or a woman actually comes with pro's and con's.

Again, because a lot of problems facing men have to deal with men being vulnerable. Men, for the most part, are taught from a young age that they're not supposed weak or vulnerable, that they have to tough through everything. Women can, men can't. Women can be a frivilous with no duties but to raise the kids, men have to be the breadwinner and can't let anything get in the way. Its why things like sexual assault towards men is not taken as seriously as it is towards women, why the police laugh when they show up to a call of domestic violence to find a woman beating on her boyfriend/husband. I'm not admitting that doesn't happen, I don't know any self-proclaimed feminist[2], or self-proclaimed egalitarian, that would deny that men aren't disadvantaged. Its not an Olympic competition of who is more disadvantaged.

And what is also quite funny is that when we bring up things where women are advantage it directly becomes "yes but that's because of stereotype X which disadvantages them in Y and advantages men in Z".

Because that does happen?

The same reason men are the only gender that faces conscription in the US is the same reason why men generally earn more. Because thats part of this large contrived "man's role".

Which not only does not contradict the assertion there are advantages

No it doesn't. It simply states that while it advantages a person in one aspect it can still hurt that person in another aspect. Lets try gaming terms - you ever played Pokemon? A fire type, like Charmander, has an advantage over Grass types, like Bulbapedia, but also has a vulnerability towards Water types like Squirtle. Advantaged in one way, disadvantaged in another.

but also conveniently ignores the disadvantages it causes for men.

Some people do that, yes. They're trying to hide their bigotry, in this case misandry, behind a veil of legitimacy. Its no different from what happens with every single other ideology to ever exist. For example, my grandfather is a virulent capitalist who doesn't believe in public education. There's people out there who can back up that belief and why they think its best for people. My grandfather, however, cannot. He prefers that system because he knows it disadvantages blacks and latinos more than it does white people, and my grandfather is a massive racist. Is libertarianism now no longer a legitimate belief because some people misuse the ideology, wielding it as a weapon towards people groups they dislike, rather than because its benefits them?

Sure that means that for certain jobs men may be favored which is positive for them and negative for women. BUT on the other hand there is also the stereotype men are more dangerous (strongly linked) which results in them being jailed longer, being less trusted for other types of jobs and also results in people being much less likely to go to their aid in the case of a male vs female conflict. And this all disadvantages men while advantaging women. But that's not something i ever see certain people bring up.

I just specified all of this in thelast post, the one you're quoting.

Which can be expected because that would weaken the whole "women have it bad and men great" assertion.

From some sexist assholes who use the veil of feminism as a weapon against men. I don't do that. I have intellectual honesty, and I've pointed out what you just claimed in the post you're quoting.

Schadrach:
That depends. Are there more men and women that would refuse to vote for Lady!Obama because she is female than men and women who would swing the other way for the same reason? Women are a majority of voters, so unless the women's vote would be unchanged or negatively impacted (or we expect a large majority of Democrat men to jump ship and vote Republican) then I'd say yes, Lady!Obama would still win.

And you'd be wrong, as I've already demonstrated in this thread that even women are likely to give less credit to a woman with equal credentials than to a man with the same credentials.

"Here's a study dissecting biases between hiring men and hiring women of equal qualifications. The kicker is that it was performed on scientists - one of the most educated professions with the most knowledge about things like cognitive bias. The study is simple, create a fake student with credentials, and send the apllication out to a bunch of labs, varying only the gender of the student, and see how favourably the faculty rate this student as a potential hire. Even they weren't immune to the effects, as men saw the male candidate more favourably than the female candidate. Contrary to what you're saying, even women who were given the resume to study generally rated the woman, with identical credentials, less favourably than the man with with the same credentials. Both sexes of evaluators tended to rate the woman as seeming more likable, but they separated that from a professional decision. So in short, no, being a female did not help, at all, even when being evaluated by female candidates, and contrary to that, it made things worse.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf

So no, it would not help."

Neat trick you pull in this post, y the way, wherein you want examples of men's issues but want them not to be due to "patriarchy", but then define any of them related to any kind of sexism as being due to "patriarchy", thus making the question functionally impossible.

Nobody familiar with third-wave feminism would say that the supposed patriarchy doesn't harm men. Second wave would, but they ignore a lot of issues that minority women face, and fourth wave would, but they're generally batshit crazy.

I'd ask this, aside from the tendency to argue that a given men's issue is due to patriarchy and thus if we spend effort to fix some vaguely related women's issue it will magically fix itself (which assumes that societies are wholly incapable of hypocrisy, also note how the answer is *always* to solve it from the side that harms women and never to solve it from the side that harms men, even if that side would be simpler to tackle [I wonder why? Could it be that it's primarily a silencing tactic?]) -- aside from that, does it matter, and why should it matter to anyone if you want to claim any such issue to fall under the umbrella of "patriarchy" or not?

I never once said that we should not put artificial mechanisms in place to protect men from the side effect of it as well. Yes, it would go away if the pariarchy were to be done away with, that doesn't mean that we can't focus on putting protections in place until that time comes.

1. There's a pretty common thread I've noticed that most people take the stance that there's no good reason to keep women out of any position they want to go into, presuming they are held to (and can meet) the same standards that are applied to the men (this includes military, public service, what have you). Sometimes that doesn't happen, it's ridiculous, and it's usually the result of a policy the values diversity for it's own sake above efficacy.

On The Escapist, I'm willing to agree with that point, but this is is very liberal, with the majority of members coming from European nations or Canada (or at least, thats the trend that I've noticed among the more active forum participants).

I have said it before and will say it again -- women are people too, and being people are capable of all manner of terrible things because being terrible is a human thing, not a male of female thing.

And I completely agree. People were upset when there was that woman in Texas was executed, not because of thedeath penalty itself, but because it was a woman specifically being subjected to the death penalty. I think thats horseshit. There's plenty of womenwho bad things. The only area of violence it seems that women aren't as prolific in as men are is sexual assault, but even then thats obfuscated by the fact that many believe women aren't capable of sexually assaulting another human being

Mentioned earlier in this post, but women's scholarships are no longer needed by the same measurements we used to decide they were needed in the first place, and they aren't going anywhere.

Actually, while female graduation rates are higher than men, the enrollment rates are lower - if I'm not mistaken anyways.

Though such actions do actually harm asian enrollment in american universities.

[1] Stuff like "All Penis-in-Vagina sex is rape", the idea that a man merely being aroused by the image of a woman is a form of sexual assault, etc
[2] That isn't a fourth-wave feminist, those people are batty.

Double post, ignore.

nyysjan:
"may simply abandon their duties at the drop of a hat." is the exact words you used i believe.

You can plan on children, you don't even need to take lot of time of to have them, and just because you have children does not mean you have to drop out of work.
All these are avoidable, and would be even more so in a world where it is not usually expected (less so than used to, but stereotype persists) for the women to look after children (and the fact that men are often promoted over women, just perpetuates this issue).

And yet I already addressed these issues with you in a previous post. Please do demonstrate your ability to read before coming at me with the same non-arguments.

DevilWithaHalo:

What's the problem though? That voters won't vote for women?

Well, also that it seems tremendously likely that the system affords opportunities more easily to men than women.

DevilWithaHalo:

Then we can say our contention is a matter of what weight someone decides gender has in the determination. When someone makes broad statements like "white men rule the world", I can conclude their tunnel vision wouldn't let them see the head of a pin, much less any argument regarding additional factors.

I don't think you do them justice. It's rhetoric; a method of drawing attention. "Gender is one factor among many, but the weight of that factor results in suspicious discrepancies in the demographics of those who rule us!" doesn't make for such a good article header.

DevilWithaHalo:

But it hasn't, and that's the problem. It's easy to hand wave "white man" as a statistical note in power struggles, but that's a very narrow view of history. It's essentially focused on Anglo-Saxon paradigms with utter disregard for any other cultural relevance beyond the occasional "it's still a man" point of order. The world is not made of white men, or white culture.

That's true. That said, historically, the rulers of Europe and America have capitalised and exploited other cultures and countries, and though they do it far less often nowadays, they continue to benefit from that legacy.

DevilWithaHalo:
And even if I were to recognize a statistical relevance, it doesn't mean anything, nor should it be argued to mean anything. If you really take that stance, then prepare for the inevitable arguments built upon stereotyping; we can't ignore Muslims are Terrorists or what-have-you. Don't argue a cause where there is none.

Massive deviations from what is proportionate, sustained over centuries, are not common without any cause.

DevilWithaHalo:

You may not be personally guilty of it, but there are people who are. And as I mentioned, we may merely disagree on the weight of the gender factor.

We may do, you're right.

Schadrach:

You realize that the "market survey" in this analogy is the primary election, right? You know, being a preliminary vetting to decide who the actual options will be, in which your cat got taken out of the available choices because the populace as a whole voted that they'd rather have a choice between a white dog and a black dog instead of a white dog and a cat?

Actually, I thought the market survey in the analogy was referring to the actual market surveys. My mistake.

If we're referring to the primary election, then I don't really see how one cat getting through means it's all fair now. There have been hundreds upon hundreds of dogs. It's an indication that the system is fairer, definitely, but not that it's fair.

MarsAtlas:
Its not an Olympic competition of who is more disadvantaged.

It's more an Olympic competition in trying to "prove" how anything "the other camp" might be dealing with somehow ties into the problems of "our camp" and by solving "our" problems, we'll also solve "theirs", so "they" would do well to support "us". Basically, "we" aren't allowing "them" to fix "their" own problems, any solution to "their" problems has to come through "us", and if "they" want to try something that doesn't involve "us", we call "them" names and accuse "them" of trying to keep the status quo which is oppressive to "us". While "we" totally could and should go on with this without involving "them"; because "we" know better.

Even if we all managed to agree that "patriarchy" is at the root of the problem, there's another issue that sticks out a bit. Whenever men's issues are brought up, the response seems to be either an accusation of making a "What about teh menzzzz argument" or the statement that..."Yeah, patriarchy hurts men too, and feminism will fix those problems as well."

Why is it that many feminists (I realize "not all of them are like that™", mind) seem themselves as being called, and being the only ones called to deal with it? Why is the sentiment, if not stated out right, at least implied "You know, feminism will fix men's problems, too, just leave it to us. No, really I mean it, leave it to us, don't you get any ideas of your own"? I mean...feminism dealing with everyone's problems, that's nice and all, but there's always more than one way to skin a cat.

And that's why that "Oh but don't bring up X, Y and Z because they're also all caused by the patriarchy" up was a little iffy. Because it somehow implies the stance that no "other" should have a different idea about what to do about X, Y, and Z, because "Feminists got this covered, yo" or something. From afar it borders quite a lot to the entire "It's for your own good, don't question me" approach.

MarsAtlas:
snip

Where did i try to claim anything of that sort? I didn't mention the patriarchy anywhere. I was purposely avoiding mentioning said theory because i think it's useless anyway. The theory is meaningless because it butchered the definition of a patriarchy and is basically a theory they're desperately trying to use as a "source of anything feminists dislike". Might as well call it the "Angry Feminist Theory".

"Its not an Olympic competition of who is more disadvantaged." Yet feminists have made it a competition. The fact women have it supposedly much much much worse is continuously used as an excuse to demonize men (yes claiming there is a rape culture is plain vilification) and favor women. I know it would make things even easier if we'd abandon the competition, but i don't like to bend over. The moment you use terms like "privilege" it is de-facto a competition because privilege is relative.

And i'm sorry but it's not just some people who are trying to misrepresent things when it comes to the (dis)advantages related to genders. IT's almost every single feminist. The moment you say something advantages women it all gets twisted on how the cause advantages men in certain areas and disadvantages women in others. They're instantly derailing the point being made and trying to stomp the idea a woman can be advantaged by being a woman in the ground and instead pretend it's all disadvantage and advantage for men. This forum has quite some people who do that regularly in these type of discussions so we don't even have to look any further.

Silvanus:
Well, also that it seems tremendously likely that the system affords opportunities more easily to men than women.

How so? And I'm asking based on the cock dangling between my legs. I want to know how being a man affords me more political opportunities. Not social status considerations, not economic considerations, not personality trait considerations, not the current power demographic, or any other consideration that hinges on the concept surrounding the notion of "men have it better" without explanation. Because that's what I see it boiling down to, every supporting explanation continues to operate with the basis having a cock gives me an advantage, based solely on the basis that I have a cock. I'd like to think the argument is based on something beyond circular association, but I have yet to see it (and it's certainly not going to come from the likes of gender theorists).

Silvanus:
I don't think you do them justice. It's rhetoric; a method of drawing attention. "Gender is one factor among many, but the weight of that factor results in suspicious discrepancies in the demographics of those who rule us!" doesn't make for such a good article header.

Ha! Comedy aside, they are being intellectually dishonest. And that intellectual dishonesty breeds inaccurate political and social motivations and outrages. It's damaging, because the pit falls lead to things like incorrect cause and effect and resolutions to something which may or may not even be an issue. I don't have to look very far to see how these baseless assumptions are creating real problems in our society.

Silvanus:
That's true. That said, historically, the rulers of Europe and America have capitalised and exploited other cultures and countries, and though they do it far less often nowadays, they continue to benefit from that legacy.

Sins of the father. Other countries continue to benefit from the subjugation of other countries. The issue is less about race and sex than it is historical and cultural rivalries. And let's be honest here, white men have been exploiting other white men among everyone else (pretty much what America was founded on). And several other countries and cultures exploit white men. I'm still not seeing a problem that can be pointed at "white men rule the world, must fix" that people keep suggesting. Granted, I'm sure it's just their bias given their cultural standing and their knowledge of the world at large, which as the Western cultures continue to demonstrate, is rather narrow at best.

Silvanus:
Massive deviations from what is proportionate, sustained over centuries, are not common without any cause.

Granted, but the cause isn't a gender one, it's a power one. And I would tread lightly before we start pointing fingers at any demographic to be held responsible for anything. Theories need to have some kind of evidence, be demonstratable, while accepting contributing influences and accepting counter theories and exceptions.

The only current theory I can readily accept thus far is a matter of those in power wanting to maintain power for their demographic so insure their legacies are intact through providing power to those who think as they do. Then this isn't a matter of social justice, or gender relevance. And the theory crosses racial and cultural boundaries as well. That being said, it's merely a power struggle, and the theory won't change because it's been demonstrated that those in power, even through the usurping of others ini power, attempt to maintain the status quo because it's in their best interests to do so. The only resolution then is to either dismantle the power structure entirely (as some countries have done, which really just shifts the power struggle to small yet wider scales) or insure the traits of those in power exercise it based on the best interested of everyone under their care.

Silvanus:
We may do, you're right.

And I accept that. But again, I do accept that gender plays a part, just not a big one. Nor do I think it's a bias we can realistically ever expect to change.

Vegosiux:

Why is it that many feminists (I realize "not all of them are like that™", mind) seem themselves as being called, and being the only ones called to deal with it? Why is the sentiment, if not stated out right, at least implied "You know, feminism will fix men's problems, too, just leave it to us. No, really I mean it, leave it to us, don't you get any ideas of your own"? I mean...feminism dealing with everyone's problems, that's nice and all, but there's always more than one way to skin a cat.

And that's why that "Oh but don't bring up X, Y and Z because they're also all caused by the patriarchy" up was a little iffy. Because it somehow implies the stance that no "other" should have a different idea about what to do about X, Y, and Z, because "Feminists got this covered, yo" or something. From afar it borders quite a lot to the entire "It's for your own good, don't question me" approach.

First off, that was way too many citation marks in the first paragraphs which only made it hard to read. I get the point you are trying to make, but there are better ways than giving people eye sores. ;)

The problem with your argument in the two paragraphs I quoted is that it disregards where these "Men have problems too"-arguments are coming from, which is essential to understand the feminist response to them. Basically, most of the time when a "man"-problem is brought up it is either attributed to feminism ("Men are discriminated against by courts and can't get custody of their kids") or is brought up as the kind of problem that reveals that feminists/women don't really care about men despite all pretensions to the contrary ("Men suffer more workplace fatalities").

In both those cases the bog standard feminist response must always be to point out that the basic premise (that feminists either creates problems for men or don't care about men's problems) is false and then make a theoretical connection to point out why it is false. Other stances are welcome, naturally, but the problem is that the same people who like to bring up men's problems are also the same people who generally suggests solutions to them that would not further gender equality but rather cause less gender equality.

It is not a question of paternalistic decision making and explaining (Womansplaining?), but rather a question of not giving those that oppose gender equality a chance to hijack gender equality issues (like the two mentioned in my first paragraph) and twisting them to support their own misogynistic agenda. You can see this happening quite a lot at place like A Voice for Men, The Spearhead or the Men's Rights subreddit.

thaluikhain:

Googling that saying brings back two results. Both from this forum. Both written by you.

See below: some more stuff for both of you

St3rY:

I replicated your results by pasting the phrase including the quotation marks and the period, that's how you get only two results. Excluding the full stop you get 3 pages of results, no link to the Escapist, searching for the phrase without quotation gives 20+ pages of results, no link to the Escapist in the first 10.

The phrase seems to be from Plutarch's Life of Themistocles, the full quote:
"Of his son, who lorded it over his mother, and through her over himself, he said, jestingly, that the boy was the most powerful of all the Hellenes; for the Hellenes were commanded by the Athenians, the Athenians by himself, himself by the boy's mother, and the mother by her boy."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Themistocles*.html#p53

And I'm paraphrasing from memory. To be honest, I think I first heard it in men's rights activist Warren Farrel's "The Myth of Male Power."

Another link.

http://blog.adlhancock.net/post/5445483017/athens-rules-all-greece-i-control-athens-my-wife

To add complexity to the mix, I'd heard that "Les Miserables" written in 1862 is the first time you have a truly self sacrificing mother, putting motherhood on a pedestal.

Way before that, I'd heard something about the Canturbery tales.

I'd say my biggest evidence of this is recent studies showing men basically losing IQ points around women.

example: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-interacting-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired/

I know my wife has managed to avoid getting ticketed by every male cop that ever pulled her over. Me? Not so lucky.

OneCatch :

And women have exactly the same voting rights as men. That's something that can't fairly be begrudged or considered a 'concession', no matter whether they tend to vote liberal or conservative or for the Monster Raving Loony Party.

There have been stupid arguments for "proportional" voting. Women live longer then men, and the first 17 years don't count for either gender. But democracy is never perfect and fudging around with it is bound to lead to disaster.

It isn't 'a powerful, monied majority', it's basic enfranchisement for which women owe no-one anything.

So you're writing they're a weak, desperately impoverished minority in a system where the majority rules? I don't think you are. All I'm writing is, women in modern western society are nobodies political victims. Can we agree on that?

As for Athens, they were outright misogynistic by our standards, much like the Romans. An offhand example; the grand and heroic Athenians being portrayed in that probably dreadful 300 film about the Battle of Salamis in reality issued a bounty for Artemisia because they viewed her, as a woman sailing against Athens, to be a grave insult. She was particularly singled out for the 'temerity' of fighting for her city instead of silently ceding the fates of war to men. Had she been captured she'd probably have been raped, enslaved, and sold as a concubine as a matter of course. And that's if they didn't come up with some even more degrading treatment in light of her unladylike behaviour.
The quote may have been common, but it's also complete crap. Just like all those quotes about greeks fighting for freedom against the nasty persians while probably owning proportionally more slaves than any other society in history.
It says a lot that a significant factor in the rise of Christianity (that notorious bastion of women's rights) was that by comparison it was progressive and encouraged a respect of women hitherto unknown.

Do you know if men were expected to lay down their lives to protect their wives?

I will agree with you that historically, women have run the gammit from feared temptress (Eve) to placed on a pedestal (Fantine) and back and forth a number of times.

But again, a monied political majority is hardly without power just because the US President is a man.

generals3:
The fact women have it supposedly much much much worse is continuously used as an excuse to demonize men (yes claiming there is a rape culture is plain vilification)

Rubbish.

Firstly, there is a massive amount of rape in our society, our culture permits this to happen.

Secondly, rape culture is not restricted to men. When asking women if they have been raped, you don't use that word, because both men and women are brought up to believe that it doesn't really count under certain circumstances, which is more or less what rape culture is.

thaluikhain:

generals3:
The fact women have it supposedly much much much worse is continuously used as an excuse to demonize men (yes claiming there is a rape culture is plain vilification)

Rubbish.

Firstly, there is a massive amount of rape in our society, our culture permits this to happen.

Secondly, rape culture is not restricted to men. When asking women if they have been raped, you don't use that word, because both men and women are brought up to believe that it doesn't really count under certain circumstances, which is more or less what rape culture is.

How does our culture "permit" it to happen? It doesn't permit it to happen anymore than theft, murder, scamming, fraud, etc.

No the reason why you don't ask it that way is because you desperately want to inflate statistics in an attempt to make a point. The only ones for whom it would be valid are minors who are not expected to make the right decisions on that aspect. And i'm not sure if i'm willing to consider every woman as a child.

Gethsemani:

First off, that was way too many citation marks in the first paragraphs which only made it hard to read. I get the point you are trying to make, but there are better ways than giving people eye sores. ;)

Point taken ^^

The problem with your argument in the two paragraphs I quoted is that it disregards where these "Men have problems too"-arguments are coming from, which is essential to understand the feminist response to them. Basically, most of the time when a "man"-problem is brought up it is either attributed to feminism ("Men are discriminated against by courts and can't get custody of their kids") or is brought up as the kind of problem that reveals that feminists/women don't really care about men despite all pretensions to the contrary ("Men suffer more workplace fatalities").

In both those cases the bog standard feminist response must always be to point out that the basic premise (that feminists either creates problems for men or don't care about men's problems) is false and then make a theoretical connection to point out why it is false. Other stances are welcome, naturally, but the problem is that the same people who like to bring up men's problems are also the same people who generally suggests solutions to them that would not further gender equality but rather cause less gender equality.

It is not a question of paternalistic decision making and explaining (Womansplaining?), but rather a question of not giving those that oppose gender equality a chance to hijack gender equality issues (like the two mentioned in my first paragraph) and twisting them to support their own misogynistic agenda. You can see this happening quite a lot at place like A Voice for Men, The Spearhead or the Men's Rights subreddit.

I think I can see your point. (Tho I don't see why anyone would attribute the child custody problem to feminism entirely, I suspect that bias would have been present without it as well). But I'll also note that this may (in my opinion) be partly due to the fact of feminism having overextended itself a bit. I mean, yes, I'll repeat, it's nice that it's trying to solve gender-related problems but it simply can't be all over the map all at once, especially not as a movement with many internal differences, factions, and agendas...not to say anything about the fact that the public platform seems to either only refer to it when it comes to entertainment and/or holding the absolute highest positions of power. And with highest positions of power naturally comes the swarm of people poking you about fixing their problems.

Also, just as I don't agree "feminism" is the only way forward when it comes to gender equality, I also don't think people should think that places like those three you listed are the only alternatives, mind.

I don't have a solution for the child custody problem (admittedly, not planning on having children I don't really care much about it anymore. Used to for a while after my parents' divorce, but, well, water under the bridge), or the workplace fatality problem, or at least not an immediately applicable one (mechanize menial labor entirely - try pulling that one before some serious socioeconomic progress...), by the way ^^

Schadrach:

MarsAtlas:
I did they're issues, and I did address them. I asked not to bring them up because those are issues that have been created by the patriarchy, and thus would only support the notion of a patriarchy. Patriarchy theory harms men as well.

Neat trick you pull in this post, y the way, wherein you want examples of men's issues but want them not to be due to "patriarchy", but then define any of them related to any kind of sexism as being due to "patriarchy", thus making the question functionally impossible. I'd ask this, aside from the tendency to argue that a given men's issue is due to patriarchy and thus if we spend effort to fix some vaguely related women's issue it will magically fix itself (which assumes that societies are wholly incapable of hypocrisy, also note how the answer is *always* to solve it from the side that harms women and never to solve it from the side that harms men, even if that side would be simpler to tackle [I wonder why? Could it be that it's primarily a silencing tactic?]) -- aside from that, does it matter, and why should it matter to anyone if you want to claim any such issue to fall under the umbrella of "patriarchy" or not?

Actually, I'd just like to know what issues you're talking about here, the ones that relate to man where solving them would not involve a total shift in culture, because the only two I can think of are changing the definition of rape to include non-penetrative sex and ending the draft, which I think are things most sane people can agree on. If they can't, then they seriously lost any respect I would otherwise have had for them.

Revnak:
Sometimes this means changing laws that are clearly discriminatory, while other times it means creating laws that are in order to counter inequality elsewhere (like larger college grants for women pursuing an education in engineering or whatever).

I never see anyone pushing for larger college grants for men pursuing anything outside of science, engineering, or math -- despite the fact that women are a majority of college students and graduates in essentially every other major.

The proportions are significantly further out of whack, that's why. Women make up a quarter of engineering majors, men make up 40% of bachelor degrees, though I will admit that the statistic I found relating to engineering majors apparently only takes young adults into consideration, though I'm betting that that actually makes the proportions look far more generous.

However, I have no idea why you quoted me here, considering you also quoted my later post where I admitted I thought that it was probably a bad example, and that I thought college grants based on sexual minority status was probably not that good of an idea.

Revnak:
Generally I feel that women don't take those jobs not because they are thought to be incapable, but because it is a generally male space, which means that other methods are probably better (or at the very least a more significant part of the solution), like conventions for female engineers.

Remember, women are excluded from things if not enough effort is made to be inclusive and supportive of them; while men are only excluded from things if they explicitly aren't allowed (and sometimes not even then).

I didn't really say supportive, and I do think men get pushed out of jobs that they have every right to work at because those industries are not inclusive enough towards male workers. I don't know why you feel the need to shove words into my mouth. That was kinda rude.

generals3:
How does our culture "permit" it to happen? It doesn't permit it to happen anymore than theft, murder, scamming, fraud, etc.

Which our culture also permits to a greater or lesser extent.

generals3:
No the reason why you don't ask it that way is because you desperately want to inflate statistics in an attempt to make a point.

That's some nice projection you've got going there.

generals3:
The only ones for whom it would be valid are minors who are not expected to make the right decisions on that aspect. And i'm not sure if i'm willing to consider every woman as a child.

To take an example, in the US, it was not considered rape if it was between a man and his wife anywhere until the 70s, and everywhere until 1993. That attitude did not magically disappear in the US in 1993, nor has it totally disappeared anywhere else.

If the victim is the spouse of the rapist, or a previous sexual partner, or the rapist has been good to them in the past, many will consider it not to be properly rape. Whoopi Goldberg said that it's not "rape rape" to drug a 13 year old girl and rape her if she agrees to come to the house with you, and she wasn't alone. There are many, many people who share that belief.

Hell, if it wasn't the case, why does asking if people have been raped get different answers if you use that word or the definition?

DevilWithaHalo:

How so? And I'm asking based on the cock dangling between my legs. I want to know how being a man affords me more political opportunities. Not social status considerations, not economic considerations, not personality trait considerations, not the current power demographic, or any other consideration that hinges on the concept surrounding the notion of "men have it better" without explanation. Because that's what I see it boiling down to, every supporting explanation continues to operate with the basis having a cock gives me an advantage, based solely on the basis that I have a cock. I'd like to think the argument is based on something beyond circular association, but I have yet to see it (and it's certainly not going to come from the likes of gender theorists).

Employers (and those tasked with promotion) in many companies will, either consciously or unconsciously, factor gender into their choices of whom to pick. There is a great deal of evidence for this, quite easily accessible.

...There are also countless sex discrimination cases and suits easy to find. Now, statistically, politics is unequal in terms of gender as well, to a huge degree. I already gave many avenues through which discrimination could take place; lobbyists, fundraisers, the party itself, as well as the voters. As far as the voters are concerned, we know that the press treats male and female politicians very differently, which is obvious from the tabloids. This is going to have a logical effect on those lobbyists and fundraisers and party members, who will then see female candidates as a more dangerous choice.

So, that's "how" it happens, most likely.

DevilWithaHalo:

Ha! Comedy aside, they are being intellectually dishonest. And that intellectual dishonesty breeds inaccurate political and social motivations and outrages. It's damaging, because the pit falls lead to things like incorrect cause and effect and resolutions to something which may or may not even be an issue. I don't have to look very far to see how these baseless assumptions are creating real problems in our society.

Perhaps, though I'd say overestimating the problem is far less common than underestimating it.

DevilWithaHalo:

Sins of the father. Other countries continue to benefit from the subjugation of other countries. The issue is less about race and sex than it is historical and cultural rivalries. And let's be honest here, white men have been exploiting other white men among everyone else (pretty much what America was founded on). And several other countries and cultures exploit white men. I'm still not seeing a problem that can be pointed at "white men rule the world, must fix" that people keep suggesting. Granted, I'm sure it's just their bias given their cultural standing and their knowledge of the world at large, which as the Western cultures continue to demonstrate, is rather narrow at best.

Equally, I'd suggest your own bias may be leading you to overlook factors that do not disadvantage you. It's pretty clear that disadvantage is more difficult to spot when you're not anywhere near the receiving end.

Please note, I am not telling you to check your privilege. My point is solely that everybody has their biases, and theirs are no less valid than yours.

DevilWithaHalo:

Granted, but the cause isn't a gender one, it's a power one. And I would tread lightly before we start pointing fingers at any demographic to be held responsible for anything. Theories need to have some kind of evidence, be demonstratable, while accepting contributing influences and accepting counter theories and exceptions.

I don't think anybody wants to hold men (as an entire group) "responsible" for anything. Most feminists tend to just want attention drawn to the discrepancies, more awareness, and solid anti-discrimination laws.

thaluikhain:

generals3:
How does our culture "permit" it to happen? It doesn't permit it to happen anymore than theft, murder, scamming, fraud, etc.

Which our culture also permits to a greater or lesser extent.

Uh, I'd not be making that claim. It's not something our culture "permits", much more something our culture simply isn't able to eradicate. And I think it's dangerous to conflate the two, because the moment we start equating an inability to do something with condoning its opposite, we're not in a place I want to be in. I mean, unless you want to make the argument that the Romanovs "permitted" the bolshevik revolution. They didn't, they were just unable to stop it. Things don't need "permission" to happen.

Vegosiux:
Uh, I'd not be making that claim. It's not something our culture "permits", much more something our culture simply isn't able to eradicate. And I think it's dangerous to conflate the two, because the moment we start equating an inability to do something with condoning its opposite, we're not in a place I want to be in. I mean, unless you want to make the argument that the Romanovs "permitted" the bolshevik revolution. They didn't, they were just unable to stop it.

I take you point there, but every society tends to turn a blind eye to various issues.

Granted, in many cases this very much depends on who the victim is. Prisoners, for example. Many nations have serious issues with the treatment of prisoners, in large part because the wider society simply does not care, or sees abuses against them as a good thing. That is, they permit, or actively encourage it, rather than simply fail to eradicate it.

EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean to say that all nations permit all of those crimes given as examples, just that many crimes are things people aren't interested in.

I'm not going to add anything to the first point seeing how Vegosiux basically said what needed to be said.

And i'm not projecting but rather i'm observing.

thaluikhain:

To take an example, in the US, it was not considered rape if it was between a man and his wife anywhere until the 70s, and everywhere until 1993. That attitude did not magically disappear in the US in 1993, nor has it totally disappeared anywhere else.

If the victim is the spouse of the rapist, or a previous sexual partner, or the rapist has been good to them in the past, many will consider it not to be properly rape. Whoopi Goldberg said that it's not "rape rape" to drug a 13 year old girl and rape her if she agrees to come to the house with you, and she wasn't alone. There are many, many people who share that belief.

Hell, if it wasn't the case, why does asking if people have been raped get different answers if you use that word or the definition?

Saying it's not "rape rape" is different from saying it's not "rape". (and i would like to know what you mean with "to drug someone", no actually, give me a link where I can see what she precisely said because i have a feeling her words got twisted like it happens oh so often when it comes to this topic) Just like with violence (violence =/= violence) there are different gradations. According to some people's definitions of rape i would have already been raped twice (being very drunk and much more so than the woman with whom i had intercourse) but i don't feel raped so let alone trying to equate that type of rape with being threatened with a knife and forcefully penetrated (or forced to penetrate). Just like i don't think giving someone a slap is even remotely comparable with beating the crap out of someone.

And i just don't see that "many many" people. Many maybe... but than again many people believe it's ok to steal because X. Yet i don't hear people talk about our society having a "theft culture". There are always "many" people who're going to consider certain things, which are usually frowned upon, ok.

And ironically over here the group the most culpable of this type of misbehavior (towards women) do not have our culture. (which may explain why recently there has been a trend (small but still there) of feminists banding together with the so called "extreme right wing")

And nothing you said actually explain why asking an alleged victim cannot be asked whether or not they have been raped. I mean if a woman (or man) feels that their marital duty is to have sex with their partner regardless of whether or not they want it as long as they do so willingly (regardless of whether or not they actually want it) it wouldn't be rape. And i've seen a study being blatantly butchered and abused by actually trying to equate "not wanting" with "not consenting to". Next thing my employer will be called a slaver because sometimes i don't want to go to work but still do so.

The Gnome King:
http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2014/03/based-on-forbes-most-powerful-people.html

So... interesting link.

Perhaps straight white men don't have the stranglehold on power that we once thought they did, considering this list... which, in all honesty, is thought-provoking.

The whole idea of straight white males controlling the world has always been nothing more than bullshit, and it always reminded me of the antisemitic accusations that Jews run the world. I didn't think that we really needed a list from Forbes magazine to remind us that one single group of people don't control the entire world, regardless of what people like David Duke or Louis Farrakhan what people to think.

evilthecat:

The Gnome King:
I've had hundreds of hours of reading on the subject not to mention class time and countless debates.

Then this is not good enough.

Aramis Night:
Is your job to convince everyone that you are right, or to simply state your opinion, absorb the opinions of others, and occasionally agree to hold vastly differing opinions while still coexisting peacefully... and maybe even learning that we're not always right?

I don't like playing the cultural capital card, I know it's kind of a dick move and at other times I have been only too happy to engage in detailed discussion. But right now I'm really kind of sick of having to constantly elevate these discussions out of the shit.

Gender studies is my job. It is both my career path and what I spend the vast, vast majority of my life doing. That is why, despite having absolutely zero dislike for you and despite my personal feelings on the concept of patriarchy, I'm still not going to let you shit all over what I do without letting you know how I feel about that.

And don't play the tolerance card to me when you're basically claiming that a handful of employees at Forbes have the sole authoritative perspective on power.

Aramis Night:
I'll say this much - I'm enough of a humanist (I won't use the word feminist because it's lost it's original meaning, in my view) - that I treat women as equals.

And what was its "original" meaning?

Aramis Night:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/the_end_of_men_why_feminists_won_t_accept_that_things_are_looking_up_for.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

Can I ask for some context here, so that I'm not just debating with a third party.

1) What do you think the definition of patriarchy used in the article is?
2) Why do you think that is an acceptable or accurate definition?
3) What about the article's argument is particularly convincing to you?

Because basically, the article you just linked to not only fails to demonstrate the irrelevance of patriarchy, it actually affirms the continuing relevance of the concept to the author's own experience. Other than latent anti-intellectualism, the real point which is being made there has nothing to do with patriarchy and is actually an extremely tired, oft-repeated point about feminist politics which feminists themselves were making two decades ago.

Why the hell am I being quoted here with quotes I never made? I don't even remember posting in this topic at all. Was this an attempt to see if I was The Gnome King? I'm really confused.

Gethsemani:
It is not a question of paternalistic decision making and explaining (Womansplaining?), but rather a question of not giving those that oppose gender equality a chance to hijack gender equality issues (like the two mentioned in my first paragraph) and twisting them to support their own misogynistic agenda. You can see this happening quite a lot at place like A Voice for Men, The Spearhead or the Men's Rights subreddit.

Indeed, because talking about Men's Rights, and how Feminism is affecting Men's Rights, is totally hijacking the discussion on gender equality. Why does the concept of a safe space not apply to MRA's? If Feminists are attempting to address equality issues from a female centric viewpoint, what is so inherently wrong about MRA's attempting to address equality issues from a male centric viewpoint? And let's not kid ourselves, not all of them (MRA/Feminist) are alike, and they both have their shares of boogeymen/women.

Silvanus:
Employers (and those tasked with promotion) in many companies will, either consciously or unconsciously, factor gender into their choices of whom to pick. There is a great deal of evidence for this, quite easily accessible.

Still not sure it's inherently "wrong". I mean sure it's sexist be definition, but there may be reasons for it. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not denying that the bias is in play and that some people are downright sexist to their core, but I am saying it's not a pervasive issue that needs correction, because while it may or may not be a factor, it's one that doesn't have much merit beyond personal interpretation.

Silvanus:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2083388?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103654746797

Interesting, the synopsis indicates a conclusion regarding multiple social and economic factors. Sadly I'm not going to register to read the entire thing. More research is needed according to the author.

Silvanus:
http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/orazem/blau_wages.pdf

This supports my response to another poster. Women make less to do various choices involving employment. I can't argue against it, because it makes sense. Those who devote more time and energy into employment will get more out of it. Women, as a stereotypical general rule, do not put in as much as men do. One can use the biological factor of childbirth, or social influences (good & bad) to justify their focus on more social rather than economic matters. This is not evidence of anything other than labor investment. How can we reasonable use this to explain gender based discrimination? Women who choose to focus on work will make as much, and sometimes more than some men will.

Silvanus:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=U285LLNtxd4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=gender+discrimination+workplace+evidence&ots=DPhMSD4TxD&sig=kx2fxwn2AYWsUrDHYV6y0lz9ujU#v=onepage&q&f=false

This I found rather fascinating and will take the time to read carefully. Forgive the lack of commentary on it for the moment.

Silvanus:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=patrick_l_mason&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dgender%2Bdiscrimination%2Bemployment%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%26as_vis%3D1%26oi%3Dscholart%26sa%3DX%26ei%3DnQIiU6miJsa3hQeUxICoCQ%26ved%3D0CD4QgQMwAA#search=%22gender%20discrimination%20employment%22

I'm kind of laughing while cursorily reading this one. They basically touch on just about every point of contention that I had, with supporting evidence, while attempting to focus in on the discriminatory practices. Granted, that's what the studies intend was, but damn that's funny. I'm just plain tickled by the conclusion.

Silvanus:
...There are also countless sex discrimination cases and suits easy to find. Now, statistically, politics is unequal in terms of gender as well, to a huge degree. I already gave many avenues through which discrimination could take place; lobbyists, fundraisers, the party itself, as well as the voters. As far as the voters are concerned, we know that the press treats male and female politicians very differently, which is obvious from the tabloids. This is going to have a logical effect on those lobbyists and fundraisers and party members, who will then see female candidates as a more dangerous choice.

I'm going to immediately reject anything out of the first link as it has no basis for "discrimination" outside current statistical ratios between the genders. But I will agree that the media plays a large part in the shaping of our impressions and information on politics. Probably why this country is retarded half the time. I would assume that lobbyists and certain party members will have additional avenues for information gathering considering it's just good business.

Silvanus:
So, that's "how" it happens, most likely.

Somewhat. Still doesn't explain how the cock itself gives me the advantage. In case you didn't specifically realize, it has more to do with every other factor than it does the cock between my legs. Also one of your sources suggested there isn't a fix for said biases.

Silvanus:
Perhaps, though I'd say overestimating the problem is far less common than underestimating it.

True. Depend on the circumstance, one or the other can do harm or nothing at all. I don't like the ones that do harm, on either side. So I'll continue to oppose those working to "correct" something by shitting on something else.

Silvanus:
Equally, I'd suggest your own bias may be leading you to overlook factors that do not disadvantage you. It's pretty clear that disadvantage is more difficult to spot when you're not anywhere near the receiving end.

Indeed. But I'll work to insure that people are looking at the right thing, not something they simply think is the problem; at any level of contention.

Silvanus:
Please note, I am not telling you to check your privilege. My point is solely that everybody has their biases, and theirs are no less valid than yours.

That's a matter of debate. If they think something which I know is wrong, then their bias is not as valid. Case by case basis sure.

Silvanus:
I don't think anybody wants to hold men (as an entire group) "responsible" for anything. Most feminists tend to just want attention drawn to the discrepancies, more awareness, and solid anti-discrimination laws.

And there you go. ;)

DevilWithaHalo:

Still not sure it's inherently "wrong". I mean sure it's sexist be definition, but there may be reasons for it. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not denying that the bias is in play and that some people are downright sexist to their core, but I am saying it's not a pervasive issue that needs correction, because while it may or may not be a factor, it's one that doesn't have much merit beyond personal interpretation.

Well, you could say the same about all forms of discrimination. That doesn't mean we can dust off our hands and declare that the job is done.

DevilWithaHalo:

This supports my response to another poster. Women make less to do various choices involving employment. I can't argue against it, because it makes sense. Those who devote more time and energy into employment will get more out of it. Women, as a stereotypical general rule, do not put in as much as men do. One can use the biological factor of childbirth, or social influences (good & bad) to justify their focus on more social rather than economic matters. This is not evidence of anything other than labor investment. How can we reasonable use this to explain gender based discrimination? Women who choose to focus on work will make as much, and sometimes more than some men will.

Hang on, you can't really be arguing that the pay gap just comes down to women failing to apply themselves. I hope I'm misinterpreting.

DevilWithaHalo:

I'm going to immediately reject anything out of the first link as it has no basis for "discrimination" outside current statistical ratios between the genders. But I will agree that the media plays a large part in the shaping of our impressions and information on politics. Probably why this country is retarded half the time. I would assume that lobbyists and certain party members will have additional avenues for information gathering considering it's just good business.

Statistical discrepancies were all I intended to point out with the first link. It's not wise to ignore or handwave them, when they're so stark and sustained. Again, I'll argue that while correlation does not imply causation, to imagine there is no cause is equally absurd.

DevilWithaHalo:

Somewhat. Still doesn't explain how the cock itself gives me the advantage. In case you didn't specifically realize, it has more to do with every other factor than it does the cock between my legs. Also one of your sources suggested there isn't a fix for said biases.

For goodness' sake, the penis does not convey the advantage itself. Social attitudes convey the advantage.

Just as, when somebody is the subject of racial discrimination, the cause does not lie in the pigment of the skin, but rather in the social attitudes.

(With regards to there not being a "fix": that doesn't mean the problem cannot be mitigated).

DevilWithaHalo:

Indeed. But I'll work to insure that people are looking at the right thing, not something they simply think is the problem; at any level of contention.

With the idea that women simply aren't applying themselves, and that this accounts for the pay gap, you have as little evidence for that explanation as any other. It's equivalent to ignoring the discrepancy outright.

What evidence would be acceptable? A signed declaration of guilt on behalf of male employers would not forthcoming in any case. The evidence that exists seems about as good as could be expected.

Aramis Night:
Why the hell am I being quoted here with quotes I never made? I don't even remember posting in this topic at all. Was this an attempt to see if I was The Gnome King? I'm really confused.

I posted in kind of a hurry and must have copy pasted the wrong names. Fixing this now. My apologies.

evilthecat:

Aramis Night:
Why the hell am I being quoted here with quotes I never made? I don't even remember posting in this topic at all. Was this an attempt to see if I was The Gnome King? I'm really confused.

I posted in kind of a hurry and must have copy pasted the wrong names. Fixing this now. My apologies.

Oh ok. Thank you. Was starting to think maybe I was losing my mind.

Silvanus:
Well, you could say the same about all forms of discrimination. That doesn't mean we can dust off our hands and declare that the job is done.

Very true. But there is a difference in writing legislation which prevents judgments based on specific demographical information about someone and simply having a bias toward said demographic. Say for example, you're looking for a model. Is it discriminatory to look for a female or male model based on the product you're producing? Or you're looking for someone to shovel ditches; would you not look for something with a strong upper body? Or you're trying to fill the positions of your board members, why the artificial need for 25% of them to be female? Or 50%? Say there's a contract that will require a years worth of work, give it to the newly wed woman who's expressed her desire to have kids? Or the single dude?

Now sure, a lot of that could easily be misconstrued. And there are some biases and downright discrimination at play, but how often to various circumstances get brought up into a discussion regarding this topic? Usually it's just a matter of sticking more women into powerful positions, which is a ridiculous, simplistic and narrow minded viewpoint on the notions of "gender equality".

Silvanus:
Hang on, you can't really be arguing that the pay gap just comes down to women failing to apply themselves. I hope I'm misinterpreting.

Not entirely, but that is a large contribution. Likewise, certain jobs tend to pay more to certain genders and certain jobs inherently pay more than other jobs. What I'm suggesting is that gaps exist for a reason, and according to nearly all of the studies that have actually researched this issue in depth, haven't really been able to blame "discrimination" as the source of the issue. A contributing factor in many cases sure, but not the cause, even when it's even a gap to begin with.

More to the point, most of the proponents of the wage gap ignore basic economics, market forces and values, and investment strategies. The math requires a massive generalization of the population in the labor market, devoid of virtually at circumstances and/or reasoning behind it. It's about as useful as picking 5 women in female dominated fields and 5 men in male dominate fields at random and then saying; "see! Men make more than women do!" Because we you start to critically evaluate the individual cases (where it SHOULD be), you'll see the gap virtually disappear.

If we want to talk about an easy and amusingly ironic situation; stop socially influencing women to pursue gender studies degrees. ;)

Silvanus:
Statistical discrepancies were all I intended to point out with the first link. It's not wise to ignore or handwave them, when they're so stark and sustained. Again, I'll argue that while correlation does not imply causation, to imagine there is no cause is equally absurd.

Granted, but I'm not the one suggesting unlikely causes for such gaps like gender discrimination. I'm choosing to ignore them because a cursory look at their findings and conclusion indicate they are interpreting loaded and inaccurate data to suit their particular biased world view. Same way political feminists use the wage gap to prove the patriarchy exists.

To be frank, it's the god of gaps on a political scale. We're ham fisting a convenient explanation in because the causes are so overly complex and ultimately unknowable and uncontrollable it makes us feel better. And conveniently again, arguments against the theory reinforce the theory. Because you know... privilege and whatnot.

Silvanus:
For goodness' sake, the penis does not convey the advantage itself. Social attitudes convey the advantage.

That's exactly what I'm trying to prove. It's not about gender or sex; it's about the perceptions of the individual compared to the situations society presents them. It's not "men" have an advantage, it's "these traits and behaviors and circumstances" have an advantage.

Silvanus:
(With regards to there not being a "fix": that doesn't mean the problem cannot be mitigated).

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that it is a problem first. A bias isn't inherently wrong; what they choose to do about said bias may or may not be depending on the situation... if it can be proved either way that is.

Silvanus:
With the idea that women simply aren't applying themselves, and that this accounts for the pay gap, you have as little evidence for that explanation as any other. It's equivalent to ignoring the discrepancy outright.

What evidence would be acceptable? A signed declaration of guilt on behalf of male employers would not forthcoming in any case. The evidence that exists seems about as good as could be expected.

Bit of a loaded question. Currently, I would support further research into the matter. Current research simply doesn't provide the evidence to support a pervasive discriminatory practice against women in the work force. There are of course many situations where this and its reverse, may indeed be true, and would be dealt with on a case by case basis. But I would also correct the inaccurate methodologies utilized to gather said research, which would eliminate inherent inaccuracies such as weighting gender studies degrees against mechanical engineering degrees. But even if we were to look at it from a generalized stance, take into considerations regarding population growth against maternity leave and totally time in the work force. Not to mention the balance of genders within individual fields.

The first step of course, is to prove the pay gap actually exists, which research thus far has been unable to do to any reasonable degree. It's easy to point to the perceived discrepancy when one doesn't understand how the number was obtained. Likewise, I could create various discrepancies, which may or may not shock you, and are accurate, but don't mean what you think they might mean by looking at the numbers alone. It's how we were able to properly begin extrapolating the problem behind racial biases in judicial proceedings. Otherwise one could have looked at those numbers and concluded that black men we're more violent than any other racial group in the US. But then that would be a narrow and misguided view to take, just as narrow as assuming women are simply worse workers when compared to men.

A potentially simplistic way to view it would be the old Holmes quote; "Once you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." I mean, a basic understanding of biology and maternal leave, and the fact that there were almost 4 million births in 2012 in the US alone... you'd think that could potentially affect the overall generalized data of gender based wages during the year? No, it must be discrimination at play!

What about applying it on a single instance of the work force? Let's say car sales. Even if the woman only took 1 week off to give birth, how many additional cars could a man have sold in that amount of time? Would that not affect the two individuals overall income of the year?

There are a lot of factors to consider, and so rarely do I see them ever considered from the pay-gap proponents. It's simply the god of gaps filling in the blanks, and I reject the notion that I have to accept it because I lack evidence otherwise. I'm comfortable with the limitation of knowledge I have at the moment, and will continue to research the topic until such time I can find supporting evidence for a position that's presented to me as the likeliest possibility. Until then I will continue to reject things without evidence that are not provided to me with evidence. Or in this unique case, an argument to interpret the data in only one way when a multitude of other interpretations are just as valid.

DevilWithaHalo:
More to the point, most of the proponents of the wage gap ignore basic economics, market forces and values, and investment strategies. The math requires a massive generalization of the population in the labor market, devoid of virtually at circumstances and/or reasoning behind it. It's about as useful as picking 5 women in female dominated fields and 5 men in male dominate fields at random and then saying; "see! Men make more than women do!" Because we you start to critically evaluate the individual cases (where it SHOULD be), you'll see the gap virtually disappear.

Where are you getting that from? From what I've seen, differences in careers cannot account for it in entirety, because the pay gap also exists for those with the same or similar jobs, and in the same sectors, and with equivalent qualifications. It also happens in most occupations, so it can't be explained by gender-specific areas of work, either.

Where are you getting it from that the gap simply disappears when we account for other, relevant circumstances? I've seen data that shows that it narrows, sometimes to only 6-7%, but that's still very significant.

DevilWithaHalo:
Granted, but I'm not the one suggesting unlikely causes for such gaps like gender discrimination. I'm choosing to ignore them because a cursory look at their findings and conclusion indicate they are interpreting loaded and inaccurate data to suit their particular biased world view. Same way political feminists use the wage gap to prove the patriarchy exists.

Provide me with broad and reliable data that supports the opposing view, and I'll re-evaluate. As it is, I have yet to see any.

DevilWithaHalo:
To be frank, it's the god of gaps on a political scale. We're ham fisting a convenient explanation in because the causes are so overly complex and ultimately unknowable and uncontrollable it makes us feel better. And conveniently again, arguments against the theory reinforce the theory. Because you know... privilege and whatnot.

Come on, now, you can't call the explanation "comfortable". The vast majority of people would be much happier if they thought there was no gender discrimination in this day and age.

DevilWithaHalo:

The first step of course, is to prove the pay gap actually exists, which research thus far has been unable to do to any reasonable degree....[SNIP]...I mean, a basic understanding of biology and maternal leave, and the fact that there were almost 4 million births in 2012 in the US alone... you'd think that could potentially affect the overall generalized data of gender based wages during the year? No, it must be discrimination at play!

What about applying it on a single instance of the work force? Let's say car sales. Even if the woman only took 1 week off to give birth, how many additional cars could a man have sold in that amount of time? Would that not affect the two individuals overall income of the year?

The link I provided earlier provided evidence for the pay gap existing even when almost all the women considered were childless.

The "god of the gaps" idea is valid, but it strikes me as quite likely that opponents will continue to hide in smaller and smaller gaps themselves. When a pay gap is demonstrated, they will point out that motherhood could be the explanatory factor.
When a pay gap is demonstrated even when motherhood is controlled for, they will point out that women are generally not able to perform physical tasks to the same standard.
When it is demonstrated that a pay gap exists in almost all professions, including ones in which manual labour is unnecessary, they will find another, smaller gap, and continue ignoring the uncomfortable conclusion that discrimination may not have simply faded away.

Silvanus:

The link I provided earlier provided evidence for the pay gap existing even when almost all the women considered were childless.

The "god of the gaps" idea is valid, but it strikes me as quite likely that opponents will continue to hide in smaller and smaller gaps themselves. When a pay gap is demonstrated, they will point out that motherhood could be the explanatory factor.
When a pay gap is demonstrated even when motherhood is controlled for, they will point out that women are generally not able to perform physical tasks to the same standard.
When it is demonstrated that a pay gap exists in almost all professions, including ones in which manual labour is unnecessary, they will find another, smaller gap, and continue ignoring the uncomfortable conclusion that discrimination may not have simply faded away.

Well i don't think anyone thinks it's entirely nonexistant. Rather that it is not as bad as some make it look like. (though this can also depend on the country)

You for instance mentioned 7% even when taken into account the sector. Well over here it's 7% without taking anything but working hours into account. And that's in the private sector. In the public sector female civil servants earn more than male ones (!).

If we're applying the same logic, does that mean our institutions are exercising discrimination against men?

generals3:

Well i don't think anyone thinks it's entirely nonexistant. Rather that it is not as bad as some make it look like. (though this can also depend on the country)

You for instance mentioned 7% even when taken into account the sector. Well over here it's 7% without taking anything but working hours into account. And that's in the private sector. In the public sector female civil servants earn more than male ones (!).

If we're applying the same logic, does that mean our institutions are exercising discrimination against men?

In answer to your question, I'd say that if the difference is significant and sustained, then it's a possibility worth exploring.

I haven't been arguing for accepting the theory blindly, and I don't mean to come across that way. It certainly varies by country too. I believe the data in the links I provided applied to the US, even though I'm not from the US, for example, so it's limited.

Silvanus:
Where are you getting that from? From what I've seen, differences in careers cannot account for it in entirety, because the pay gap also exists for those with the same or similar jobs, and in the same sectors, and with equivalent qualifications. It also happens in most occupations, so it can't be explained by gender-specific areas of work, either.

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not; http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-gender-wage-gap-is-a-myth-2012-07-26 If I recall correctly, the Obama study demonstrated only a 3% unexplainable difference (still trying to find the damn thing). http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf 4.8-7.1 in that one. But all these don't really prove anything beyond we're going to get different variants of the same theory. Someone being inaccurate in their math perhaps? Or slightly different samples yield different results? Who knows.

Reviewing the sample selection and methodology in the links you provided raise some interesting questions, such as the completion of certification and postsecondary enrollments in their sample, self reporting surveys and the obvious variation of age. I'm also curious what "logical edits to correct inconsistencies" means, along with the extrapolation of their sample group on the whole of society.

Now granted, I'd have the same contentions with any other studies. And of course, giving credit where credit is due, they do discuss the contributing factors of personal choice on the matter. But I'm curious how they come up with the 1/3 value unexplained value when controlled for those factors? Also not explaining the odd gap that favors women in part time employment, which is often a direct reflection of personal choice.

Regardless. Let's say we find a rough 5% difference across the board based on the average of every study we can find. So we control for personal choices, education, labor value, college admissions, etc etc etc. We do all that and we still come up with 5%. OK, we have a 5% wage gap... why? Well that's a good question. I'm not sure, perhaps we should do some research to find out. What we shouldn't do, is say "discrimination" and call it a day.

Now sure, let's correct discrimination where we can find it, and continue to hold employers accountable for violating various laws put in place to prevent such a thing from occurring. But to call the entire 5% gender discrimination? That's a stretch don't you think? Where's the supporting evidence for the theory? How do we go from "unexplained" to "discrimination"? I'm thinking we skipped at least 1 step to just start operating off the assumption, wouldn't you?

Silvanus:
Provide me with broad and reliable data that supports the opposing view, and I'll re-evaluate. As it is, I have yet to see any.

There isn't one, and that's the problem. Likewise, there ISN'T a study that supports the unexplained gap is attributed to gender discrimination. It's just a matter of interpretation.

I'm more than happy to concede that sometimes the gap exists, but not that it's a matter of discrimination. I'm suggesting either the factors haven't really been controlled for, or there *can be* an alternative explanation. I'm happy to concede that discrimination is the case where it can be demonstrated; when it's actually demonstrated.

Silvanus:
Come on, now, you can't call the explanation "comfortable". The vast majority of people would be much happier if they thought there was no gender discrimination in this day and age.

I didn't say comfortable, I said convenient. There's a difference. Gender discrimination explaining the wage gap is a convenient explanation.

Silvanus:
The link I provided earlier provided evidence for the pay gap existing even when almost all the women considered were childless.

A lot of childless women want to have kids, and are pretty upfront about it. Again, an interpretive difference of the meaning behind something.

Silvanus:
The "god of the gaps" idea is valid, but it strikes me as quite likely that opponents will continue to hide in smaller and smaller gaps themselves. When a pay gap is demonstrated, they will point out that motherhood could be the explanatory factor.
When a pay gap is demonstrated even when motherhood is controlled for, they will point out that women are generally not able to perform physical tasks to the same standard.
When it is demonstrated that a pay gap exists in almost all professions, including ones in which manual labour is unnecessary, they will find another, smaller gap, and continue ignoring the uncomfortable conclusion that discrimination may not have simply faded away.

And I'm not suggesting that discrimination has faded way. I'm suggesting it's not all discrimination, and we shouldn't treat it as such. Why do female models make more than male models? Why do male athletes make more than female athletes? Now these are all rhetorical mind you, but merely an illustration where gender is a painfully *obvious* factor in the wage they earn, yet we're not focusing on these. Why? Returns on investment and marketing strategies? Abilities and returns in victories for sports team and consequential merchandising deals? Why can't we apply the same theory to additional markets? What if it's demonstrateable that one worker produces more goods than the next? What if they happen to be a different gender? What if two people were employed in the same field, but two different companies with slightly different rates based on the profitability of said companies (look at lawyers)?

I'm more than happy to adjust my position from "the wage gap doesn't exist" to "the wage gap doesn't mean what you think it means" based on the evidence you've presented to me. I'm still questioning the accuracy of the data mind you (methodology, sample size, controlled factors, etc), but I'm willing to move past it for arguments sake.

So I'll ask again based on that notion... how do we go from "unexplained" to "discrimination"?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked