Ladyluck-As a sidenote, I have to ask... how often does this scenario actually happen? How often is it does a woman get pregnant, and the father doesn't want to pay child support, while simultaneously the woman is able to get an abortion/adoption but refuses to?
It happens often why else would they have felt the need to imprison men who don't pay child support?
This thread is quite literally the only place I've seen it seriously brought up and subsequently given much credibility. I'm also confused about the idea of women supposedly keeping the child just to get money from the father.
This is a feminist talking point and it is sometimes true and sometimes not. In some places she gets 1/3 of his wages so that could very well be millions. In NY state the man has to keep paying until the kid is 22 and is often making payments long after the child has moved out to a woman who is acting completely within the law to keep the money for herself.
The costs of caring for a child clearly outstrip whatever the father would have to pay in child support; the proposition is obviously still a net negative for the woman. Why would a woman take on a financial burden just to hurt some man she's slept with once?
Maybe she isn't doing it to hurt him, why is this even an issue? Once again it is not always a net loss. My sister runs a daycare out of her home and many women live entirely on the child support + other government assistance and live quite well sending their kids to her daycare during the day so they can shop, etc.
There's already incentive for women not to do this, so when it does happen, do you ever wonder if there's something else going on that you don't know about?
Interesting, please elaborate.
Another issue men have working against them is that the state gets money to match whatever they can make him pay in child support. This creates a very real incentive for states to seek to maximize the size of the child support payments. One of the ways to do this is to give the father as little time with his children as possible, maybe an hour a week. This drives up the amount of child support he has to pay. The system really is rigged against fathers in about a thousand ways and screws them coming and going.
One feminist involved in writing laws concerning child support/custody was once asked why these laws where so disadvantageous to fathers she stated, "Our goal is nothing less then to re-engineer the canadian family and by family I mean mothers and children as fathers are to be removed for the good of women and children." Father's rights groups have GOOOODDD reason to hate feminists.
I can't find any quotes from feminists on this but since expropriation is one of the goals of any marxist movement child support in its current incarnations definately redistributes no small amount of resources from men to women via the state.
hylaptheslemur-So, are there double standards against men? Yes. Does the Men's Rights Movement have any idea the origin of these double standards? I'd say no
This GWW video more or less addresses this feminist talking point...
Simple-Since feminists view everything in Marxist terms men cannot be victims. This is hyper stupid and to respond to your comment MRAs have a FARRRR better handle on the source of men's problems because they are not wearing ideological blinders.
hylaptheslemur-So, are there double standards against men? Yes. Does the Men's Rights Movement have any idea the origin of these double standards? I'd say no
This GWW video more or less addresses this feminist talking point...
Simple-Since feminists view everything in Marxist terms men cannot be victims. This is hyper stupid and to respond to your comment MRAs have a FARRRR better handle on the source of men's problems because they are not wearing ideological blinders.
I was kind of wondering when someone on this thread would bring her up. I don't always agree with GWW but her perspectives on things are supremely interesting.
Simple-Since feminists view everything in Marxist terms men cannot be victims. This is hyper stupid and to respond to your comment MRAs have a FARRRR better handle on the source of men's problems because they are not wearing ideological blinders.
There's actually a lot of discussion of male sexual assault victims, even by female perpetrators. Of how failure to enjoy any given sex act with a woman is, in male culture, perceived as a form of impotence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Simple-Since feminists view everything in Marxist terms men cannot be victims. This is hyper stupid and to respond to your comment MRAs have a FARRRR better handle on the source of men's problems because they are not wearing ideological blinders.
There's actually a lot of discussion of male sexual assault victims, even by female perpetrators. Of how failure to enjoy any given sex act with a woman is, in male culture, perceived as a form of impotence.
that's not a 'strawman', it's a simple assertion. what is it with people on this board and using high-school debate team buzz words incorrectly?
and yes, feminism is firmly rooted in marxist class theory, at least according to engels.
that's not a 'strawman', it's a simple assertion. what is it with people on this board and using high-school debate team buzz words incorrectly?
The assertion was that feminists believe men cannot be victims. However, according to the evidence that hyalapterouslemur provided, feminists in fact acknowledge that men can be victims. Therefore, the assertion misrepresents the opponent's position, making it a strawman. Or do you have a different definition of the term?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
that's not a 'strawman', it's a simple assertion. what is it with people on this board and using high-school debate team buzz words incorrectly?
The assertion was that feminists believe men cannot be victims. However, according to the evidence that hyalapterouslemur provided, feminists in fact acknowledge that men can be victims. Therefore, the assertion misrepresents the opponent's position, making it a strawman. Or do you have a different definition of the term?
Are you being serious? One person says feminists are aware of double standards. someone else responds by saying feminists are not aware of double standards.
So disputing someone else's claim now qualifies as "strawmanning" them? So if someone provides evidence for a position, the person they are debating is "strawmanning" if they do not accept that evidence or attempt to provide their own contra-evidence?
So disputing someone else's claim now qualifies as "strawmanning" them? So if someone provides evidence for a position, the person they are debating is "strawmanning" if they do not accept that evidence or attempt to provide their own contra-evidence?
That is beyond absurd.
A distinction needs to be made here. You are welcome to dispute the merits of your opponent's position. But it is absolutely strawmanning to dispute that your opponent has the position they say they do. The only absurdity here is, when given a direct statement of "I believe X", having the brazenness to respond, "No, you don't". If you're going to write an argument against a position when the other guy doesn't hold that position, and they've told you so, then all you're doing is wasting your own time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So disputing someone else's claim now qualifies as "strawmanning" them? So if someone provides evidence for a position, the person they are debating is "strawmanning" if they do not accept that evidence or attempt to provide their own contra-evidence?
That is beyond absurd.
But it is absolutely strawmanning to dispute that your opponent has the position they say they do. The only absurdity here is, when given a direct statement of "I believe X", having the brazenness to respond, "No, you don't". .
Sorry, I didn't realize people were in the habit of defending their "I believe X" statements with other people's facebook posts. I also didn't realize that it was possible to make "No, you don't" statements using the third person plural.
Sorry, I didn't realize people were in the habit of defending their "I believe X" statements with other people's facebook posts. I also didn't realize that it was possible to make "No, you don't" statements using the third person plural.
Person A: Republicans don't believe in freedom of speech. Person B: Yes, they do. Here's an example of a Republican defending freedom of speech.
Is Person A strawmanning, or not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Broad statement on my part, to clarify feminist theory argues men can only be collateral damage from sexism never a "real" victim of it.
That is absolutely and 100% not true. There's reason feminism deals with hegemonic masculinity...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
That is absolutely and 100% not true. There's reason feminism deals with hegemonic masculinity...
In gender studies, hegemonic masculinity is the gender practice that guarantees the dominant social position of men, and the subordinate social position of women.Conceptually, hegemonic masculinity explains how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women, and other gender identities, which are perceived as “feminine” in a given society. Source-The very first link that appeared when I googled Hegemonic Masculinity.
WTF are you talking about? How does this describe fighting anti-male sexism, THIS IS ANTI-MALE SEXISM!!!
How is Male bashing going to help men and boys deal with their problems? How is jackassery about males being evil oppressors ever going to help them AT ALL!
Gender roles including males as leaders evolved naturally AND OUT OF NECESSITY! Cultures that move away from those gender roles become unable to replace the number of people dieing which is why the western world and Japan now have birth rates below the attrition rate HOW PROFOUNDLY STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO BELIEVE PRIMITIVE CULTURES COULD HAVE SURVIVED FOR EVEN A RELATIVELY BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT GENDER ROLES.
I'm not advocating for gender roles I'm just saying the whole premise of men as oppressors/women as oppressed by men is based on a BS schema fueled by misandry and pseudoscience. AKA NOT HELPFUL!!!
Gender roles are an outdated concept. Gender roles say that men can't cry or show emotion, and women can't work. They are totally unnecessary and we are starting to grow out of them. Saying that we needed gender roles from the beginning is basically advocating for gender roles. Where have you been this whole time? Women have been and are still oppressed. They didn't have the right to vote in the US until 1920. Hell, interracial marriages were banned until 1967. That's how ass-backwards our country is.
Gender roles are an outdated concept. Gender roles say that men can't cry or show emotion, and women can't work. They are totally unnecessary and we are starting to grow out of them.
Totally unnecessary now perhaps.
Saying that we needed gender roles from the beginning is basically advocating for gender roles.
NO, it is stating a fact unless you believe surviving as a species is less valid a basis for needing something then something else.
Where have you been this whole time? Women have been and are still oppressed.
Women were never oppressed. Oppression is intentionally taking something from someone else for your own gain. There was NEVER anything to take in that regard as men have always been expected to be leaders the human race could not have survived otherwise. You should actually try to understand how male disposibility works and look at how primitive societies work and the extreme conditions they have to survive in. Men no more oppressed women then female elephants oppress male elephants. The relationship between men and women could better be described perhaps as paternalistic.
They didn't have the right to vote in the US until 1920.
Because votes were viewed as representing a household, 1 vote for a household and since men were viewed as the only ones who were responsible (see paternalism).
Hell, interracial marriages were banned until 1967. That's how ass-backwards our country is.
This is relative, you are either comparing us to other countries in 1967 or 1967 America to the rest of the world today. In the first case most of the world wasn't much better and in the second case who cares. You seem to operate from a position of judging past cultures by modern day standards aka the arrogance of the modern age.
For there to be oppression there has to be an oppressor, right? If men have ALWAYS been expected to be leaders then when exactly did this oppression begin? That's what I meant by saying men didn't take that away from women.
For there to be oppression there has to be an oppressor, right? If men have ALWAYS been expected to be leaders then when exactly did this oppression begin? That's what I meant by saying men didn't take that away from women.
Interesting. Here's what I got
op·pres·sion
/əˈpreSHən/
noun
1. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
2. the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
3. mental pressure or distress.
I think this definition is applicable to a variety of situations. It certainly could describe an abusive male dominated household. However, it is important not to make blanket statements. I don't like when feminists suggest this is the gold standard for traditional households, because it simply fails to accommodate the wide spectrum of emotions and relationships.
As far as gender roles are concerned, evolutionary psychology exists and gendered behavior patterns happen on a base instinctual level. Gender roles are merely social norms built up from this. I agree with you in the sense that these roles were important during, say, hunter gatherer times, when male masculinity was important for finding food and defending territory. However, in the first world, we have reached a level of self sustainability where we don't really have any use for these social constructs anymore (though, dissolving gender roles is not equivalent to erasing instinct or ego, so gender "character traits" will still exist.) I don't think masculinity or femininity should be punished. I just don't think it should be considered abnormal if someone doesn't adhere strictly to these two archetypes. As much as I don't agree with feminist theory, I think we can agree on that.
Really, I think the tug a war between Feminists and MRAs is kind of silly. The way I see it, they're kind of approaching the same problem from different sides and the truth settles somewhere in the middle. Both males and females have had to endure a large amount of BS through history. The point is that women CAN vote, interracial marriages CAN happen and things like slavery are abolished and considered abhorrent in the first world. We can do better, we just choose to bicker about who is "more oppressed."
That is absolutely and 100% not true. There's reason feminism deals with hegemonic masculinity...
In gender studies, hegemonic masculinity is the gender practice that guarantees the dominant social position of men, and the subordinate social position of women.Conceptually, hegemonic masculinity explains how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women, and other gender identities, which are perceived as “feminine” in a given society. Source-The very first link that appeared when I googled Hegemonic Masculinity.
WTF are you talking about? How does this describe fighting anti-male sexism, THIS IS ANTI-MALE SEXISM!!!
Be quieter. I have sensitive hearing. (Seriously, I do. And I loathe jackhammers as a result.)
But no, that doesn't mean what you think it means. You can understand that a serf was practically a slave, while recognizing that his lord and lady met on their wedding day, no?
Gender roles are an outdated concept. Gender roles say that men can't cry or show emotion, and women can't work. They are totally unnecessary and we are starting to grow out of them. Saying that we needed gender roles from the beginning is basically advocating for gender roles. Where have you been this whole time? Women have been and are still oppressed. They didn't have the right to vote in the US until 1920. Hell, interracial marriages were banned until 1967. That's how ass-backwards our country is.
Interestingly, Texas' new voter ID law requires your ID have your current name. Which has a disparate impact against women, since most women change their names when they marry.
Hell, interracial marriages were banned until 1967. That's how ass-backwards our country is.
This is relative, you are either comparing us to other countries in 1967 or 1967 America to the rest of the world today. In the first case most of the world wasn't much better and in the second case who cares. You seem to operate from a position of judging past cultures by modern day standards aka the arrogance of the modern age.
Note that most countries never actually had anti-miscegenation laws. They're completely absent from Latin America. And IIRC, the last European country to have them on the books was Germany, which abolished them in 1945. I wonder what happened in 1945 that led to that reversal. Oh, we'll never know.
Wow, 1718. Well, it's Sweden, and Nordic countries are always so leftist. (Notice how early Iceland abolished slavery in the example above.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Theres a case now where a man is accused of raping a young woman. There is video of the two of them in public (many people were present) engaging in the sex act with gusto. She is smiling during her "rape" and leaves with him afterwards. I can't post a link as I dont want to run afoul of this sites rules on posting. It's interesting to see the responses from people. Most people get it, she's embarressed and needs to cover her ass but the feminist responses are just amazing in their denial of reality and rage.
Not really seeing how this is relevant to the topic, dudebro. I mean, if we're bringing in random rape cases, how about the one where two teenage girls were raped, their rapists confessed, and then the charges were dropped mysteriously.
Agreed with most of what you said Nodrog, but one minor nitpick that you may wish to know...
As far as gender roles are concerned, evolutionary psychology exists and gendered behavior patterns happen on a base instinctual level.
...is that most of Evo Psych is considered to be bull**** to some degree or another. I was told this by multiple PhDs in Anthropology and Behavioral Sciences, of both genders; ergo I think my sources are reliable on this topic. With that in mind, we don't actually know if there are instinctive "gendered behavior patterns". It's certainly not impossible per se, but neither is it impossible that the moon landing was a hoax. That doesn't translate into there being much credible evidence for either, and neither is it something that a rational person really needs to take seriously.
...is that most of Evo Psych is considered to be bull**** to some degree or another. I was told this by multiple PhDs in Anthropology and Behavioral Sciences, of both genders; ergo I think my sources are reliable on this topic.
Fun exercise: ask evolutionary psychologist Ph.D.s (of both genders) what they think about anthropology. Behavioral science I haven't heard much about, but anthro's reputation isn't exactly a shining paragon of pure objective science either.
Actual exercise: read what both sides have to say and evaluate each argument on its merits.
With that in mind, we don't actually know if there are instinctive "gendered behavior patterns". It's certainly not impossible per se, but neither is it impossible that the moon landing was a hoax. That doesn't translate into there being much credible evidence for either, and neither is it something that a rational person really needs to take seriously.
There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for instinctive gendered behavior patterns. Let's start with with the circumstantial stuff, and work our way towards the concrete: all mammals display instinctive behavior, and almost all of them show sexual dimorphism in their behavior (and I only say "almost" as a hedge, not because I actually know any counterexamples). It would be bizarre on the face of it for the human species to have uniquely abandoned these traits, especially since humanity, being an intelligent and social animal, has vastly more complex behavior patterns than most other species and thus more opportunities for differences to appear. After all, it's not like evolution could say, "Oh, this 'equality' idea is going to come along in a few million years, so I'd better shape this species to fit it!" It certainly didn't in other areas of the body: men and women are, quite obviously, physiologically different. Again, it would be bizarre if these differences suddenly stopped once you reached neck height. Especially since they observably don't: experienced anatomists can tell a man's brain from a woman's pretty easily. And we can tell that these differences are not purely cosmetic. We can measure the androgens and estrogens in which the brain is swimming and see that men and women have completely different normal ranges for their levels. We can then do some experiments and find out that, yes, androgen and estrogen levels affect mood and behavior. Even the way they affect mood and behavior is different between the sexes: give a man and a woman (who are as equal as you can get in other respects like body mass) the same hormone treatment, and you will see very different effects. After that, we can turn to the statistics about human behavior and see if we can determine any cross-cultural patterns. Lo and behold, there are. There is no true matriarchy on the planet, or solid evidence that there ever has been. Men universally are more prone to violent behavior. In the particular case of rape, the perpetrators are a boy's club on the order of one hundred to one - don't try to tell me that that's an intrinsically gender-neutral behavior that men have just been culturally conditioned for.
What's irrational is insisting in spite of all this evidence that men and women must be identical between the ears because it is more politically pleasant. No informed scientist does this. Even those who are (in my assessment) politically biased far-left wackos still concede some sexual dimorphism.
Of course, this does not mean that everything that every evolutionary psychologist (or anyone else) has claimed about instinctive behavior is true. I've heard it theorized that there's a biological reason women prefer pink and men blue, which is nonsense to anyone with any knowledge of fashion history. Furthermore, as Nodrog said from the outset, culture obviously plays a huge role in determining the form and overall extent of gendered behavior expressions. Which is why, like I said, you evaluate each argument on its merits. Skeptically but not dismissively.
Nor should the differences be allowed to overshadow the similarities. We must keep in mind that everything we see (except for purely biological functions like ovulating) is statistical, and a matter of degree rather than kind. Men may tend to be more aggressive on the whole, but women certainly do not lack aggression, and many individual women are more aggressive than many individual men. We can appreciate the same art and music, read the same philosophy, worship the same gods, perform the same jobs, and explore the same science. There is no observable difference in raw intelligence, and apparent gaps in aptitudes, like the shortage of women in STEM fields, have a far more ready explanation in culture than biology. We are, in all important respects, the same. If our psyches were Venn diagrams, then they'd overlap almost completely, with just a few slivers poking out around the edges where the border is a little strange-shaped.
There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for instinctive gendered behavior patterns. Let's start with with the circumstantial stuff, and work our way towards the concrete: all mammals display instinctive behavior, and almost all of them show sexual dimorphism in their behavior (and I only say "almost" as a hedge, not because I actually know any counterexamples). It would be bizarre on the face of it for the human species to have uniquely abandoned these traits, especially since humanity, being an intelligent and social animal, has vastly more complex behavior patterns than most other species and thus more opportunities for differences to appear. After all, it's not like evolution could say, "Oh, this 'equality' idea is going to come along in a few million years, so I'd better shape this species to fit it!" It certainly didn't in other areas of the body: men and women are, quite obviously, physiologically different. Again, it would be bizarre if these differences suddenly stopped once you reached neck height. Especially since they observably don't: experienced anatomists can tell a man's brain from a woman's pretty easily. And we can tell that these differences are not purely cosmetic. We can measure the androgens and estrogens in which the brain is swimming and see that men and women have completely different normal ranges for their levels. We can then do some experiments and find out that, yes, androgen and estrogen levels affect mood and behavior. Even the way they affect mood and behavior is different between the sexes: give a man and a woman (who are as equal as you can get in other respects like body mass) the same hormone treatment, and you will see very different effects. After that, we can turn to the statistics about human behavior and see if we can determine any cross-cultural patterns. Lo and behold, there are. There is no true matriarchy on the planet, or solid evidence that there ever has been. Men universally are more prone to violent behavior. In the particular case of rape, the perpetrators are a boy's club on the order of one hundred to one - don't try to tell me that that's an intrinsically gender-neutral behavior that men have just been culturally conditioned for.
What's irrational is insisting in spite of all this evidence that men and women must be identical between the ears because it is more politically pleasant. No informed scientist does this. Even those who are (in my assessment) politically biased far-left wackos still concede some sexual dimorphism.
Of course, this does not mean that everything that every evolutionary psychologist (or anyone else) has claimed about instinctive behavior is true. I've heard it theorized that there's a biological reason women prefer pink and men blue, which is nonsense to anyone with any knowledge of fashion history. Furthermore, as Nodrog said from the outset, culture obviously plays a huge role in determining the form and overall extent of gendered behavior expressions. Which is why, like I said, you evaluate each argument on its merits. Skeptically but not dismissively.
Nor should the differences be allowed to overshadow the similarities. We must keep in mind that everything we see (except for purely biological functions like ovulating) is statistical, and a matter of degree rather than kind. Men may tend to be more aggressive on the whole, but women certainly do not lack aggression, and many individual women are more aggressive than many individual men. We can appreciate the same art and music, read the same philosophy, worship the same gods, perform the same jobs, and explore the same science. There is no observable difference in raw intelligence, and apparent gaps in aptitudes, like the shortage of women in STEM fields, have a far more ready explanation in culture than biology. We are, in all important respects, the same. If our psyches were Venn diagrams, then they'd overlap almost completely, with just a few slivers poking out around the edges where the border is a little strange-shaped.
These are all very good points. Perhaps I did not explain my position very well, because I feel I am mostly in agreement with where you stand. I don't believe there are zero innate behavioral differences. However I do believe the impact of genetics on behavior is vastly outweighed by the impact of culture. It would seem strange that humans would suddenly have less behavioral dimorphism than other mammals, except for the fact that we have a ridiculously complex cultural construct confounding things, a construct which no other animal has.
As far as Evo Psych in particular, I actually did take the liberty of looking through the relevant wikipedia entry on the topic. Some of the critiques do seem to have legitimate logical merit - for instance, how the heck can you make a falsifiable prediction? Evolution takes centuries to work, so any predictions can't get tested without sitting and waiting around for a millennium or two. All it can really do is look backward at human civilization and theorize. Now, like you said, that doesn't mean everything that field claims is wrong, but it does mean that I don't perceive it as a credible basis to argue from.
However...
There is no true matriarchy on the planet, or solid evidence that there ever has been.
I get the feeling you're using a different definition of matriarchy then I have been told, because I'm pretty sure there's been primitive cultures that were matriarchal at some points in history.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It happens often why else would they have felt the need to imprison men who don't pay child support?
This is a feminist talking point and it is sometimes true and sometimes not. In some places she gets 1/3 of his wages so that could very well be millions. In NY state the man has to keep paying until the kid is 22 and is often making payments long after the child has moved out to a woman who is acting completely within the law to keep the money for herself.
Maybe she isn't doing it to hurt him, why is this even an issue? Once again it is not always a net loss. My sister runs a daycare out of her home and many women live entirely on the child support + other government assistance and live quite well sending their kids to her daycare during the day so they can shop, etc.
Interesting, please elaborate.
Another issue men have working against them is that the state gets money to match whatever they can make him pay in child support. This creates a very real incentive for states to seek to maximize the size of the child support payments. One of the ways to do this is to give the father as little time with his children as possible, maybe an hour a week. This drives up the amount of child support he has to pay. The system really is rigged against fathers in about a thousand ways and screws them coming and going.
One feminist involved in writing laws concerning child support/custody was once asked why these laws where so disadvantageous to fathers she stated, "Our goal is nothing less then to re-engineer the canadian family and by family I mean mothers and children as fathers are to be removed for the good of women and children." Father's rights groups have GOOOODDD reason to hate feminists.
I can't find any quotes from feminists on this but since expropriation is one of the goals of any marxist movement child support in its current incarnations definately redistributes no small amount of resources from men to women via the state.
This GWW video more or less addresses this feminist talking point...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR3HE-knTJU&feature=c4-overview&list=UUcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg
Simple-Since feminists view everything in Marxist terms men cannot be victims. This is hyper stupid and to respond to your comment MRAs have a FARRRR better handle on the source of men's problems because they are not wearing ideological blinders.
I was kind of wondering when someone on this thread would bring her up. I don't always agree with GWW but her perspectives on things are supremely interesting.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
I highlighted that because it's a strawman.
And yet I got this from a black feminist friend on Facebook, BTW
There's actually a lot of discussion of male sexual assault victims, even by female perpetrators. Of how failure to enjoy any given sex act with a woman is, in male culture, perceived as a form of impotence.
On phasing:
that's not a 'strawman', it's a simple assertion. what is it with people on this board and using high-school debate team buzz words incorrectly?
and yes, feminism is firmly rooted in marxist class theory, at least according to engels.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Are you being serious? One person says feminists are aware of double standards. someone else responds by saying feminists are not aware of double standards.
So disputing someone else's claim now qualifies as "strawmanning" them? So if someone provides evidence for a position, the person they are debating is "strawmanning" if they do not accept that evidence or attempt to provide their own contra-evidence?
That is beyond absurd.
A distinction needs to be made here. You are welcome to dispute the merits of your opponent's position. But it is absolutely strawmanning to dispute that your opponent has the position they say they do. The only absurdity here is, when given a direct statement of "I believe X", having the brazenness to respond, "No, you don't". If you're going to write an argument against a position when the other guy doesn't hold that position, and they've told you so, then all you're doing is wasting your own time.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sorry, I didn't realize people were in the habit of defending their "I believe X" statements with other people's facebook posts. I also didn't realize that it was possible to make "No, you don't" statements using the third person plural.
Person A: Republicans don't believe in freedom of speech.
Person B: Yes, they do. Here's an example of a Republican defending freedom of speech.
Is Person A strawmanning, or not?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Are people that suffer collateral damage in armed conflicts not "real" victims of war?
That is absolutely and 100% not true. There's reason feminism deals with hegemonic masculinity...
In gender studies, hegemonic masculinity is the gender practice that guarantees the dominant social position of men, and the subordinate social position of women.Conceptually, hegemonic masculinity explains how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women, and other gender identities, which are perceived as “feminine” in a given society. Source-The very first link that appeared when I googled Hegemonic Masculinity.
WTF are you talking about? How does this describe fighting anti-male sexism, THIS IS ANTI-MALE SEXISM!!!
How is Male bashing going to help men and boys deal with their problems? How is jackassery about males being evil oppressors ever going to help them AT ALL!
Gender roles including males as leaders evolved naturally AND OUT OF NECESSITY! Cultures that move away from those gender roles become unable to replace the number of people dieing which is why the western world and Japan now have birth rates below the attrition rate HOW PROFOUNDLY STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO BELIEVE PRIMITIVE CULTURES COULD HAVE SURVIVED FOR EVEN A RELATIVELY BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT GENDER ROLES.
I'm not advocating for gender roles I'm just saying the whole premise of men as oppressors/women as oppressed by men is based on a BS schema fueled by misandry and pseudoscience. AKA NOT HELPFUL!!!
Totally unnecessary now perhaps.
NO, it is stating a fact unless you believe surviving as a species is less valid a basis for needing something then something else.
Women were never oppressed. Oppression is intentionally taking something from someone else for your own gain. There was NEVER anything to take in that regard as men have always been expected to be leaders the human race could not have survived otherwise. You should actually try to understand how male disposibility works and look at how primitive societies work and the extreme conditions they have to survive in. Men no more oppressed women then female elephants oppress male elephants. The relationship between men and women could better be described perhaps as paternalistic.
Because votes were viewed as representing a household, 1 vote for a household and since men were viewed as the only ones who were responsible (see paternalism).
This is relative, you are either comparing us to other countries in 1967 or 1967 America to the rest of the world today. In the first case most of the world wasn't much better and in the second case who cares. You seem to operate from a position of judging past cultures by modern day standards aka the arrogance of the modern age.
This simply is not what oppression means. I've never heard anyone use it to mean that. No dictionary defines it as anything close to that.
op·pres·sion
/əˈprɛʃən/ Show Spelled [uh-presh-uhn] Show IPA
noun 1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2. an act or instance of oppressing.
3. the state of being oppressed.
4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.
If gender roles including male leadership was necessary how could it be burdensome or cruel? As for unjust that is pretty vague. Here's a link that applies to this discussion...http://permutationofninjas.org/post/30120518447/on-the-evolution-of-patriarchy-and-why-men-didnt-do
For there to be oppression there has to be an oppressor, right? If men have ALWAYS been expected to be leaders then when exactly did this oppression begin? That's what I meant by saying men didn't take that away from women.
Interesting. Here's what I got
op·pres·sion
/əˈpreSHən/
noun
1. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
2. the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
3. mental pressure or distress.
I think this definition is applicable to a variety of situations. It certainly could describe an abusive male dominated household. However, it is important not to make blanket statements. I don't like when feminists suggest this is the gold standard for traditional households, because it simply fails to accommodate the wide spectrum of emotions and relationships.
As far as gender roles are concerned, evolutionary psychology exists and gendered behavior patterns happen on a base instinctual level. Gender roles are merely social norms built up from this. I agree with you in the sense that these roles were important during, say, hunter gatherer times, when male masculinity was important for finding food and defending territory. However, in the first world, we have reached a level of self sustainability where we don't really have any use for these social constructs anymore (though, dissolving gender roles is not equivalent to erasing instinct or ego, so gender "character traits" will still exist.) I don't think masculinity or femininity should be punished. I just don't think it should be considered abnormal if someone doesn't adhere strictly to these two archetypes. As much as I don't agree with feminist theory, I think we can agree on that.
Really, I think the tug a war between Feminists and MRAs is kind of silly. The way I see it, they're kind of approaching the same problem from different sides and the truth settles somewhere in the middle. Both males and females have had to endure a large amount of BS through history. The point is that women CAN vote, interracial marriages CAN happen and things like slavery are abolished and considered abhorrent in the first world. We can do better, we just choose to bicker about who is "more oppressed."
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
Be quieter. I have sensitive hearing. (Seriously, I do. And I loathe jackhammers as a result.)
But no, that doesn't mean what you think it means. You can understand that a serf was practically a slave, while recognizing that his lord and lady met on their wedding day, no?
Interestingly, Texas' new voter ID law requires your ID have your current name. Which has a disparate impact against women, since most women change their names when they marry.
Yeah, let's talk about progress, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
Yeah, the first country to abolish slavery was...in the 3rd century BC?
Germane to the discussion of anti-miscegenation laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
Note that most countries never actually had anti-miscegenation laws. They're completely absent from Latin America. And IIRC, the last European country to have them on the books was Germany, which abolished them in 1945. I wonder what happened in 1945 that led to that reversal. Oh, we'll never know.
And women's suffrage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage
Wow, 1718. Well, it's Sweden, and Nordic countries are always so leftist. (Notice how early Iceland abolished slavery in the example above.)
On phasing:
Art is life itself.
...is that most of Evo Psych is considered to be bull**** to some degree or another. I was told this by multiple PhDs in Anthropology and Behavioral Sciences, of both genders; ergo I think my sources are reliable on this topic. With that in mind, we don't actually know if there are instinctive "gendered behavior patterns". It's certainly not impossible per se, but neither is it impossible that the moon landing was a hoax. That doesn't translate into there being much credible evidence for either, and neither is it something that a rational person really needs to take seriously.
Actual exercise: read what both sides have to say and evaluate each argument on its merits.
There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for instinctive gendered behavior patterns. Let's start with with the circumstantial stuff, and work our way towards the concrete: all mammals display instinctive behavior, and almost all of them show sexual dimorphism in their behavior (and I only say "almost" as a hedge, not because I actually know any counterexamples). It would be bizarre on the face of it for the human species to have uniquely abandoned these traits, especially since humanity, being an intelligent and social animal, has vastly more complex behavior patterns than most other species and thus more opportunities for differences to appear. After all, it's not like evolution could say, "Oh, this 'equality' idea is going to come along in a few million years, so I'd better shape this species to fit it!" It certainly didn't in other areas of the body: men and women are, quite obviously, physiologically different. Again, it would be bizarre if these differences suddenly stopped once you reached neck height. Especially since they observably don't: experienced anatomists can tell a man's brain from a woman's pretty easily. And we can tell that these differences are not purely cosmetic. We can measure the androgens and estrogens in which the brain is swimming and see that men and women have completely different normal ranges for their levels. We can then do some experiments and find out that, yes, androgen and estrogen levels affect mood and behavior. Even the way they affect mood and behavior is different between the sexes: give a man and a woman (who are as equal as you can get in other respects like body mass) the same hormone treatment, and you will see very different effects. After that, we can turn to the statistics about human behavior and see if we can determine any cross-cultural patterns. Lo and behold, there are. There is no true matriarchy on the planet, or solid evidence that there ever has been. Men universally are more prone to violent behavior. In the particular case of rape, the perpetrators are a boy's club on the order of one hundred to one - don't try to tell me that that's an intrinsically gender-neutral behavior that men have just been culturally conditioned for.
What's irrational is insisting in spite of all this evidence that men and women must be identical between the ears because it is more politically pleasant. No informed scientist does this. Even those who are (in my assessment) politically biased far-left wackos still concede some sexual dimorphism.
Of course, this does not mean that everything that every evolutionary psychologist (or anyone else) has claimed about instinctive behavior is true. I've heard it theorized that there's a biological reason women prefer pink and men blue, which is nonsense to anyone with any knowledge of fashion history. Furthermore, as Nodrog said from the outset, culture obviously plays a huge role in determining the form and overall extent of gendered behavior expressions. Which is why, like I said, you evaluate each argument on its merits. Skeptically but not dismissively.
Nor should the differences be allowed to overshadow the similarities. We must keep in mind that everything we see (except for purely biological functions like ovulating) is statistical, and a matter of degree rather than kind. Men may tend to be more aggressive on the whole, but women certainly do not lack aggression, and many individual women are more aggressive than many individual men. We can appreciate the same art and music, read the same philosophy, worship the same gods, perform the same jobs, and explore the same science. There is no observable difference in raw intelligence, and apparent gaps in aptitudes, like the shortage of women in STEM fields, have a far more ready explanation in culture than biology. We are, in all important respects, the same. If our psyches were Venn diagrams, then they'd overlap almost completely, with just a few slivers poking out around the edges where the border is a little strange-shaped.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
These are all very good points. Perhaps I did not explain my position very well, because I feel I am mostly in agreement with where you stand. I don't believe there are zero innate behavioral differences. However I do believe the impact of genetics on behavior is vastly outweighed by the impact of culture. It would seem strange that humans would suddenly have less behavioral dimorphism than other mammals, except for the fact that we have a ridiculously complex cultural construct confounding things, a construct which no other animal has.
As far as Evo Psych in particular, I actually did take the liberty of looking through the relevant wikipedia entry on the topic. Some of the critiques do seem to have legitimate logical merit - for instance, how the heck can you make a falsifiable prediction? Evolution takes centuries to work, so any predictions can't get tested without sitting and waiting around for a millennium or two. All it can really do is look backward at human civilization and theorize. Now, like you said, that doesn't mean everything that field claims is wrong, but it does mean that I don't perceive it as a credible basis to argue from.
However...
I get the feeling you're using a different definition of matriarchy then I have been told, because I'm pretty sure there's been primitive cultures that were matriarchal at some points in history.