Batteryrevenge-Sounds like just a bunch of feminist talking points. As I mentioned earlier there are black and hispanic MRAs. You seem to intentionally conflate women and feminism and then choose a laundry list of problems men as a group have and then say "that's not womens fault". It's really just a shaming tactic frankly.
Really? How about you name some POC "leaders" of MRAs instead of generalities? You won't find any because MRA reeks of white male privilege. And outliers do not indicate a trend; you will not see POC flocking to MRA because they are marginalized economically by other males. Their struggle is in regards to class and race, not gender.
It's not a shaming tactic, and men don't face the problems of the new economy alone. Millennials face this problem in general, and POC have been facing this problem for decades. Suddenly Anglo males face these economic problems and it's an issue to be blamed on women. MRA is a guise for hating women, plain and simple.
I don't do talking points because I don't read feminist literature. I speak from my experience of having my best friend turn into a MRA and listening to his ridiculous ideas that he pulled from Reddit. That's why MRA will never take off, because Reddit doesn't count for a corpus of literature to be used as a basis for action.
[citation needed] If you want, I can bring up a certain Warren Farrell Penthouse interview. (It's right between a Penthouse article about a proposed cancer cure and old issues Omni in my "bull**** published by Bob Guccione" file. It's a pretty big file.)
The Warren Farrell penthouse article wasn't actually written by Warren Farrell just incorrectly attributed to him.
Batteryrevenge-Sounds like just a bunch of feminist talking points.
*starts eating Reese's cup* You got your circular reasoning in my ad hominem! You got your ad hominem in my circular reasoning!
FWIW, I do have an issue with how male victims of female molesters are romanticized in the MSM. But again, MSM ≠ feminism. I can give you examples, if you want.
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!
Hylaptheslemur...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHyQsEgJGTk
So he was a researcher who repeated what his findings were, something along the lines of 5% of incest victims dont view themselves as victims or something like that... and
"First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children,
You honestly think he didn't say gently caressing and got misquoted? Seriously?
BatterysRevenge-People are still saying "privilege" I thought that meme had run its course. As has been discussed ad naseum in this thread the concept really doesn't add up. I could see gender privilege where you honestly evaluate the advantages each sex has but simply put males hardly have a blanket advantage over females in our society. In fact females are more privileged then males in most spheres/situations now.
Monk of Reason-No. Mainly because feminism doesn't demonize men at its core.
Seriously feminism at its core is a marxist class warfare schema with women being the oppressed class rising up to fight their oppressors (aka men). Pretty much leaves room for nothing but hate frankly. You have not apparently read the previous posts but frankly I would rather destroy your women's issues then go back and forth with this battle of the NAH-AHs. women's healthcare-We have spent many times more on women's healthcare research then mens and we spend far far more on women's healthcare yearly. Women privileged! maternity leave-Pure women's privilege that ironically cements women as the stay at home parent, yet that doesnt bother feminists it's almost like getting free stuff comes before "smashing the patriarchy"! equal pay-The wage gap myth is discussed here...
Sexism in the workplace-Did you know seven countries have had more men file sexual harassment suits then women? This one affects everyone. Rape-Men are the majority of rape victims shouldn't our focus be there...http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-american-rape-victims/ Violence towards women in domestic cases-Men are also victims of domestic violence and unlike women are likely to be arrested if they seek help due to predominant aggressor laws championed by feminists. They are also unlikely to be believed by a culture that has been feed blatant misinformation on DV (namely the male-perpetrator/female-victim model) by feminists even though feminists knew about male victims of DV since the 1950s (look-up Erin Pizzey).
Thats more interesting wouldn't you agree? How about you line some more up for me to topple.
Seriously feminism at its core is a marxist class warfare schema with women being the oppressed class rising up to fight their oppressors (aka men). Pretty much leaves room for nothing but hate frankly. You have not apparently read the previous posts but frankly I would rather destroy your women's issues then go back and forth with this battle of the NAH-AHs.
Destory the women's issue? What do you mean by this specifically? I hope it doesnt mean what I am reading it as.
women's healthcare-We have spent many times more on women's healthcare research then mens and we spend far far more on women's healthcare yearly. Women privileged!
And much deserved. The majority of this has to do with two specific pionts. 1 is breast cancer and the second is having to do with childbirth/preg related advances. The breast cancer research has provided incredible breakthroughs for all cancer research and treatment that affect both men and women (breast cancer also affects mean BTW) and the childbirth and preg related issues are something that has to do with more than just women's health.
Not to mention the latter is under constant fire and only recently has it made major advances. It is also worth noting that there has been significant rises in runding for research on prostate cancer in the recent decades which is also much needed.
There is no argument here other than a blatent mysoginistics. How does it limit men's rights at all that women healthcare issues has attention. Rather than fighting against this funding why not fight for male health related issues instead? This is what I mean by "woman hating" and "bigoted". There is no reason a man should ever be upset by ample funding for any form of healthcare weather it be for men or women.
maternity leave-Pure women's privilege that ironically cements women as the stay at home parent, yet that doesnt bother feminists it's almost like getting free stuff comes before "smashing the patriarchy"!
Actually many feminst groups also fight for paternity leave. They certainly don't fight against it. Which is the opposite of what the MRA does in many cases.
equal pay-The wage gap myth is discussed here... /clipped
Those are a lot of links. I see you are very heated in this discussion. But how do you explain the disparity between men and women in higher levels of management? In CEO membership? Disparity between sexes for the SAME POSITION?
Sexism in the workplace-Did you know seven countries have had more men file sexual harassment suits then women? This one affects everyone.
It can but it is not equal in America. Not even close.
This is only if you include prison rape. However sexual assulats in both domestic and public cases are vastly skewed towards women. The prison rape in the male statistic is a bad thing and no feminist group has ever fought against it.
Why is the MRA against fighting for rights of women to feel safer from sexual assault? Why not simply fight FOR better prison treatment?
Violence towards women in domestic cases-Men are also victims of domestic violence and unlike women are likely to be arrested if they seek help due to predominant aggressor laws championed by feminists. They are also unlikely to be believed by a culture that has been feed blatant misinformation on DV (namely the male-perpetrator/female-victim model) by feminists even though feminists knew about male victims of DV since the 1950s (look-up Erin Pizzey).
Typically women are on average more likely to be the target of domestic violence. They also don't fight against any movement to help male victims of domestic violence. Again why doesn't the MRA simply fight for that rather than against feminsts attempt to better women's rights?
And you are taking much of information from bad sources it seems. I am a Feminist. I am a man. I support mens rights but not the MRA. I have not had any animosity towards me from any of the other feminists I am associated with reguardless if they are male or female. I have only had one isolated incident of man hating feminists but I have had an overwhelming majority of MRA members seem to be against feminists.
Thats more interesting wouldn't you agree? How about you line some more up for me to topple.
Well when you topple one I'll be ready.
But here is my central point, why are you AGAINST women's rights? why are you in any way against the advancement of feminism and female rights? Do you feel that they somehow corrupt the existing patriarchy or that they somehow limit male rights? Or do you feel that its "unfair" for women to have these programs and outlets while men do not?
Wouldn't it be better for everyone including men if MRA worked to advance men's rights by creating programs for battered husbands, to create programs to advance education on men's issues or fund male related healthcare research?
Anti-feminism doesn't help mens rights even in the least. It simply takes away opprotunities from someone who would otherwise have them. Instead why don't you or the organization create opprotunities FOR men?
BatterysRevenge-People are still saying "privilege" I thought that meme had run its course. As has been discussed ad naseum in this thread the concept really doesn't add up. I could see gender privilege where you honestly evaluate the advantages each sex has but simply put males hardly have a blanket advantage over females in our society. In fact females are more privileged then males in most spheres/situations now.
The concept doesn't add up to people blind to their own privilege. There are groups that are more advantaged in society because of generational legacies of oppression and bigotry, institutions set up for some more than others, inherent biases due to nature or nurture, etc. To deny that institutions benefit some groups over others is quite naive. People in power have set it up that way for hundreds of years regardless of the society.
Really now? Could you name some of these spheres/situations that predominantly advantage women? Because men still win out in most cases, either due to the reasons I listed above or due to biological/genetic issues. Men win out in the workplace, they control the majority of political and economic institutions, and boring presidential elections and legislatures trying to look busy never address issues specifically facing men. I'd like to go one election cycle without abortion and birth control coming up.
You speak in generalities. I'd like some specifics.
It is also worth noting that there has been significant rises in runding for research on prostate cancer in the recent decades which is also much needed.
Well at least we can agree on one thing. Your schema of what the MRA fights for is pure BS however and it seems to pop up over and over. MRA's bring up the difference in government spending on healthcare to draw attention to an obvious deficit. Even though the life expectancy gap between men and women went from 1 year to 7 years during feminist governance feminists try to shut down any discussion of men's issues by argueing that they are privileged and over-represented. This is the frontman fallacy. While women do have organizations that fight for their interests men have no such groups and the absurd differences in government interest in their healthcare has clearly cost men as a group. Just because men occupy many top positions does not mean they are as a group (with unique issues) well represented, in fact it is quite the opposite as demonstrated here.
There is no argument here other than a blatent mysoginistics. How does it limit men's rights at all that women healthcare issues has attention. Rather than fighting against this funding why not fight for male health related issues instead? This is what I mean by "woman hating" and "bigoted". There is no reason a man should ever be upset by ample funding for any form of healthcare weather it be for men or women.
Once again men HAVE tried that and gotten shut down pretty readily by feminists who do in fact treat anything pro-male as inherently anti-female (this is well documented-see anyone who has tried to help boys in our schools). Strangely the new, but still a mere pittance, of interest in prostate cancer has coincided with the increase in the size of the MRA.
Actually many feminst groups also fight for paternity leave. They certainly don't fight against it. Which is the opposite of what the MRA does in many cases.
Once again pointing out feminist hypocrisy is not exactly fighting against something nor is saying "maternity leave, shouldn't there be paternity leave too" fighting against something. Can you show me evidence of these feminist groups that fight for paternity leave most feminists I've read on the subject were downright hostile spouting jackassery like "Men don't have to squeeze a human being out of their bodies".
Those are a lot of links. I see you are very heated in this discussion. But how do you explain the disparity between men and women in higher levels of management? In CEO membership?
Actually the exact same factors behind the "wage gap" can largely explain this to. You promote the person who is most invested in the business. Did you know the vast majority of workaholics are men and that men have always when surveyed shown they want to be at work to a greater extent then their female counterparts and are more invested in their business.
Disparity between sexes for the SAME POSITION?!
Some disparities in pay favor women (with models women make ten times their male counterparts) but rarely is anti-female discrimination the cause. Did you know women own 60% of the western worlds personal wealth, 51% of it's stocks, and over half the property. How did women do that if they are so darn oppressed? In fact when you take into account the disparity in wealth between the developed world and third world western women would appear to have more personal wealth then everyone else combined.
This is only if you include prison rape. However sexual assulats in both domestic and public cases are vastly skewed towards women. The prison rape in the male statistic is a bad thing and no feminist group has ever fought against it.
Not as vastly as you would think, in fact, as I've gone over here before if you count "forced to penetrate" as rape 50% of rape victims outside of prison are men and 40% of rapists are women. Did you know that studies on populations of homeless boys and boys in institutions have found that 75%-90% report being sexually assaulted by a women. Sexual predators typically target convenient prey. Men in prisons have reported that female guards are more likely to sexually assault male prisoners then male guards. Actually feminists HAVE undermined attempts to do something about prison rape including taking the term activists used to describe the condition of american prisons "rape culture" and then worked to discredit those activists. We have gone over this throughout the thread but their is a long track record (well documented) of feminists erasing male victims and female perpetrators. THAT DOES HURT MEN AND DOES COUNT AS FIGHTING AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO HELP MEN! Considering feminists have enormous amounts of political power and MRAs virtually none who do you think has actually hurt the members of any group?
Typically women are on average more likely to be the target of domestic violence. They also don't fight against any movement to help male victims of domestic violence. Again why doesn't the MRA simply fight for that rather than against feminsts attempt to better women's rights?
They absolutely do and have fought against male victims of DV getting help. Feminists have harassed and terrorized researchers who wanted to study male victimization. The have done protests, made death threats, and staged walk-outs when any sociologist has stated that they would study male victimization of DV. YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE A CLUE!!! This is before you count the other things I have already mentioned. THE MRA HAS FOUGHT FOR MEN TO GET HELP BUT THEY ALSO FIGHT FOR MEN WHO ARE FALSELY ACCUSED. One does not preclude the other in any case. As late as 2008 feminist groups claimed male victims of DV were a myth and it took court battles fought by the NCFM (an MRA group) to get male victims of DV assistance in California.
And you are taking much of information from bad sources it seems. I am a Feminist. I am a man. I support mens rights but not the MRA. I have not had any animosity towards me from any of the other feminists I am associated with reguardless if they are male or female. I have only had one isolated incident of man hating feminists but I have had an overwhelming majority of MRA members seem to be against feminists.
FOR GOOD REASON, EDUCATE YOURSELF, YOU ARE THE UNINFORMED ONE!
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Well when you topple one I'll be ready.
I did, you are simply choosing not to recognize this.
But here is my central point, why are you AGAINST women's rights? why are you in any way against the advancement of feminism and female rights? Do you feel that they somehow corrupt the existing patriarchy or that they somehow limit male rights? Or do you feel that its "unfair" for women to have these programs and outlets while men do not?
I'm not against women's rights, feminism=/=women feminism=/=womens rights. The patriarchy is a boogeyman. THEY DO LIMIT MALE RIGHTS LOOK AT HOW DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN OBLITERATED FOR MALES IN DV CASES OR ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
Wouldn't it be better for everyone including men if MRA worked to advance men's rights by creating programs for battered husbands, to create programs to advance education on men's issues or fund male related healthcare research?
Feminism would simply shut down such an effort, they have countless times before. Nonetheless MRAs do try and try.
Anti-feminism doesn't help mens rights even in the least. It simply takes away opprotunities from someone who would otherwise have them. Instead why don't you or the organization create opprotunities FOR men?
Helping men get a good education, avoid unfair imprisonment or expulsion, and so on does create opportunities for men.
Batterysrevenge-The concept doesn't add up to people blind to their own privilege.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis in layman's terms BS. If I said privilege exists then it exists, if I say otherwise then it does to, right? This is nothing more then SJW nonsense.
There are groups that are more advantaged in society because of generational legacies of oppression and bigotry, institutions set up for some more than others, inherent biases due to nature or nurture, etc. To deny that institutions benefit some groups over others is quite naive.
Ultimately irregardless of how "good" you think men had it in the past what counts is NOW, how useful is it to your average joe that his ancestor could go to school and a women couldn't if the option is impractical for him now. spoiler alert-ummm it doesn't. Strangely I'm argueing institutions DO benefit some groups over others and you seem to have taken that to mean the opposite.
People in power have set it up that way for hundreds of years regardless of the society.
Your a step above the average SJW since you didnt single out white people, I'll give you that.
Really now? Could you name some of these spheres/situations that predominantly advantage women? Because men still win out in most cases, either due to the reasons I listed above or due to biological/genetic issues. Men win out in the workplace, they control the majority of political and economic institutions, and boring presidential elections and legislatures trying to look busy never address issues specifically facing men. I'd like to go one election cycle without abortion and birth control coming up.
The areas that society favors women have been discussed previously but a short list that certainly only covers a few...education, healthcare, family court, the criminal court system, media, academia, and government. You once again bring up the frontman fallacy. Just because men occupy those positions does not mean they use that power to benefit men as a group. Women are 55% of voters in most elections and as such politicians pander to them (They also control 90% of spending power). Even those pro-life bills you hate are the result of pro-life women wanting restrictions on abortion. That Texas bill that recently caused so much hubbub was written by a women, advocated for by groups lead by women, and more female senators voted for it then against it. To demonstrate just how absurd your schema is Obama (a man) used fathers day to discuss changes to child custody laws that put thousands of men who lost their jobs in the recession in prison for being unable to pay child support.
You speak in generalities. I'd like some specifics.
Me too, how does men having had it so good in the past advantage me now? I want specifics thank you.
and boring presidential elections and legislatures trying to look busy never address issues specifically facing men
Could you give me an example of these bodies addressing issues facing men?
Well at least we can agree on one thing. Your schema of what the MRA fights for is pure BS however and it seems to pop up over and over. MRA's bring up the difference in government spending on healthcare to draw attention to an obvious deficit. Even though the life expectancy gap between men and women went from 1 year to 7 years during feminist governance feminists try to shut down any discussion of men's issues by argueing that they are privileged and over-represented. This is the frontman fallacy. While women do have organizations that fight for their interests men have no such groups and the absurd differences in government interest in their healthcare has clearly cost men as a group. Just because men occupy many top positions does not mean they are as a group (with unique issues) well represented, in fact it is quite the opposite as demonstrated here.
As far as my MRA schema ...I have to go off of what I see. I have yet to meet a non mysoginistic MRA member (see exibit A)
Though I find it funny that the bold is said to me. I have not said anything of the sort and it makes me think your simply going over the same old argument thinking that I'm arguing something different than what I am.
Do you have causality linking the two or just unlinked corrolation? For any of the claims afterwards?
And as far as the women's life expectancy....that has ALWAYS been skewed towards women all over the globe. I don't know of any place on earth where the life expectancy of women is shorter than men. Unfortuantly its partially biological. However the reason why they began to thrive so much more is actually a good thing. Do you know what the leading cause of death for young women was? It was domestic violence. When the feministst "took charge" as you say, they cracked down on domestic violence and created programs such as battered women's shelters and the like. This meant that fewer women were being killed by their husbands/boyfriends/ect.
That is why their average lifespans were so much longer. Not because they focused more on medical advances that only affected women.
However again I must state it. Women's access to healthcare does not in any way create a deficite for men's access to healthcare. Instead why not change the effort to providing better healthcare options to men rather than tear down the one's for women?
]
Once again men HAVE tried that and gotten shut down pretty readily by feminists who do in fact treat anything pro-male as inherently anti-female (this is well documented-see anyone who has tried to help boys in our schools). Strangely the new, but still a mere pittance, of interest in prostate cancer has coincided with the increase in the size of the MRA.
Again it has a possible corrolation but not causality link. Breast cancer research has done more for prostate cancer research than the MRA.
And aside from a few isolated incidents what are these large scale anti-man movements you speak of? I am sure several exist and I would like to see a few specifics to look at before going into more detail.
Once again pointing out feminist hypocrisy is not exactly fighting against something nor is saying "maternity leave, shouldn't there be paternity leave too" fighting against something. Can you show me evidence of these feminist groups that fight for paternity leave most feminists I've read on the subject were downright hostile spouting jackassery like "Men don't have to squeeze a human being out of their bodies".
Your making gross generalizations with huge biogoted bias. I have never talked with a feminist that was against paternity leave. I'm sure they exist and I even know the different schools of thought. However the overwhelming majority of feminsts are for paternity leave.
What hypocrasy btw are you specifically referring to?
Actually the exact same factors behind the "wage gap" can largely explain this to. You promote the person who is most invested in the business. Did you know the vast majority of workaholics are men and that men have always when surveyed shown they want to be at work to a greater extent then their female counterparts and are more invested in their business.
This is like saying "black people make less than whites but its okay because its just because they come from poor neighborhoods rather than racism".
To somewhat summarize (thought it goes into far more detail and more options) it mostly revolves around
1) men considered the breadwinners in families so culturally they strive to make more. This is relative cultural sexism. It supposes that women are supposed to stay at home with the children. On a men's rights issue that is supported by feminists they wish to abolish this. It has a social stigma attached that you are a failure if you are a stay at home dad with a female breadwinner. Feminists fight this.
2) Occupational segregation. Women tend to work female oriented positions such as Nurses, Secretaries, Teachers ect. Men tend to work male dominated positions. The female dominated positions on average make far less than the male dominated positions. Many of which are unfairly done so. Teaches for example. Also the sciences are excessivly sexist and in a far more obvious way.
3) Lack of maternity leave, flexibility, ect. Many women often have to choose between having children and having a career. Even with a stay at home dad the tolls of pregnancy and the missed work often stunt or even prematurely prevent many women from advancing in the buisiness world. Men dont' have this issue at all.
Some disparities in pay favor women (with models women make ten times their male counterparts) but rarely is anti-female discrimination the cause. Did you know women own 60% of the western worlds personal wealth, 51% of it's stocks, and over half the property. How did women do that if they are so darn oppressed? In fact when you take into account the disparity in wealth between the developed world and third world western women would appear to have more personal wealth then everyone else combined.
Can you name 4 other professions that favor women in pay descrepancies to specific jobs?
And its very very very very simply my friend. Joint ownership. My wife owns all my stuff. I also own all my stuff. The fact that women only have 60% of the wealth is rather alarming.
Not as vastly as you would think, in fact, as I've gone over here before if you count "forced to penetrate" as rape 50% of rape victims outside of prison are men and 40% of rapists are women. Did you know that studies on populations of homeless boys and boys in institutions have found that 75%-90% report being sexually assaulted by a women. Sexual predators typically target convenient prey. Men in prisons have reported that female guards are more likely to sexually assault male prisoners then male guards. Actually feminists HAVE undermined attempts to do something about prison rape including taking the term activists used to describe the condition of american prisons "rape culture" and then worked to discredit those activists. We have gone over this throughout the thread but their is a long track record (well documented) of feminists erasing male victims and female perpetrators. THAT DOES HURT MEN AND DOES COUNT AS FIGHTING AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO HELP MEN! Considering feminists have enormous amounts of political power and MRAs virtually none who do you think has actually hurt the members of any group?
Few things. 1) I would like to see the stats for those male victimes. Though generally "child victims" are not part of the MRA or the Feminists groups, they are under children and special victims. So if you wish to discount the "boys" does the statistics still hold up?
Secondly can I get a link to a case where feminsits as a whole have attempted to erase male victims? I'm sure some off tangent feminist extremists have done this however to the dismay of everyone else.
They absolutely do and have fought against male victims of DV getting help.
I would like the source.
Feminists have harassed and terrorized researchers who wanted to study male victimization. The have done protests, made death threats, and staged walk-outs when any sociologist has stated that they would study male victimization of DV. YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE A CLUE!!! This is before you count the other things I have already mentioned. THE MRA HAS FOUGHT FOR MEN TO GET HELP BUT THEY ALSO FIGHT FOR MEN WHO ARE FALSELY ACCUSED. One does not preclude the other in any case. As late as 2008 feminist groups claimed male victims of DV were a myth and it took court battles fought by the NCFM (an MRA group) to get male victims of DV assistance in California.
This sounds more and more like isolated extremist selective issues and not feminism as a whole. Please provide some of these situations and how they connect to the larger feminist organizations.
I don't doubt that such issues have occured but I highly doubt that they should be considered "THE feminist position".
FOR GOOD REASON, EDUCATE YOURSELF, YOU ARE THE UNINFORMED ONE!
Sure...whatever you say.
I did, you are simply choosing not to recognize this.
Sure... whatever you say. I mean it would be weird if you were bringing up obscure isolated incidents to attack a much larger group with obvious mysoginistic intentions but I'm sure thats not what happened at all.
I'm not against women's rights, feminism=/=women feminism=/=womens rights. The patriarchy is a boogeyman. THEY DO LIMIT MALE RIGHTS LOOK AT HOW DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN OBLITERATED FOR MALES IN DV CASES OR ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
Patriarchy is the boogyman so to speak. Equality is the goal. Not matriarchy.
Feminism=Womens Rights. Though you have to look at the central groups rather than extermist ones. I mean I could say that all white people are racist and bring you litterally hundreds of thousands of cases of racism instigated by white people but does that make white people inherently racist?
Though I think DV cases are a big issue. They have been held back by many sources. Not just feminsm. Our culture as a whole for one, feminists, misunderstandings, ect.
Feminism would simply shut down such an effort, they have countless times before. Nonetheless MRAs do try and try.
Then they weren't very good efforts. Link me to five honest and productive efforts that were slaughted by the castrating ovarylords that puppet our government to make sure all toilet seats stay down.
Helping men get a good education, avoid unfair imprisonment or expulsion, and so on does create opportunities for men.
Yeah. It does. However demonizing women and feminists does none of those things.
When the feministst "took charge" as you say, they cracked down on domestic violence and created programs such as battered women's shelters and the like. This meant that fewer women were being killed by their husbands/boyfriends/ect.
Umm you honestly believe domestic violence existed on a scale capable of swinging human lifespans for an entire population. NO, not even close. Even if the 3 women die a day estimate feminists use (which is certainly inflated) that's not nearly enough women to create such a discrepancy. Did you know that the Department of Justice has stated there is no evidence VAWA did anything to reduce DV deaths. The measurement VAWA supporters wanted to use was the number of pamphlets on getting help for women that were given out. VAWA did however erase the due process rights of millions of men with one DoJ study suggesting that 2 million men were falsely accused for advantage in divorce and custody hearings. This is what lawyers called the "nuclear option" and it is well documented that lawyers encouraged their clients to make false allegations as they were safe to do so thanks to VAWA eroding the rights of men to defend themselves and seek compensation in these situations. Thats before we even get to the restraining order civil rights nightmare.
Sure... whatever you say. I mean it would be weird if you were bringing up obscure isolated incidents to attack a much larger group with obvious mysoginistic intentions but I'm sure thats not what happened at all.
The use of mysoginist here being what is called "squid ink".
Feminism=Womens Rights
If you will accept Nazism=loving your country. If you love your country your a Nazi Monk! Labels are a tricky thing but trying to force labels on people by saying "if you believe in gender equality your a feminist" is basically fascism. You don't get to decide that labels others use and it is the actions of a movement that we should define them by not just how they choose to define themselves.
Then they weren't very good efforts. Link me to five honest and productive efforts that were slaughted by the castrating ovarylords that puppet our government to make sure all toilet seats stay down.
If they were slaughtered how could they have been productive?
MRAs and many others have tried to address...the boy crisis, prison rape, male victims of DV, declining male health, and father's rights.
In the first case...feminists have very successful shutdown attempts to help boys/men even creating a cottage industry devoted to preventing improvement and muddying the water.
In the second/third/fourth/fifth case feminists have opposed attempts to help males as discussed already even going so far as branding any group involved as mysoginistic and/or a hate group.
To somewhat summarize (thought it goes into far more detail and more options) it mostly revolves around
1) men considered the breadwinners in families so culturally they strive to make more. This is relative cultural sexism. It supposes that women are supposed to stay at home with the children. On a men's rights issue that is supported by feminists they wish to abolish this. It has a social stigma attached that you are a failure if you are a stay at home dad with a female breadwinner. Feminists fight this.
In Sweden "the most feminist" country in the world woman still choose to be the stay at home parent. In fact the more freedom men and women have the more they move towards women-home man-work this has been well documented. That is not sexism and to say so is extremely mysoginistic as it robs women of their agency and portrays them as mindless leaves on the wind, victims to others whims, when in reality women choices are well informed and logical and lead them to be happier, this has also been researched and demonstrated.
2) Occupational segregation. Women tend to work female oriented positions such as Nurses, Secretaries, Teachers ect. Men tend to work male dominated positions. The female dominated positions on average make far less than the male dominated positions. Many of which are unfairly done so. Teaches for example. Also the sciences are excessivly sexist and in a far more obvious way.
Segregation donotes barriers that do not exist, if you want your claims of mysoginy to carry wait stop infanticizing woman and respect the choices they make.
Actually research into the scientific community has shown that the bias was small and actually pro-female, no joke. Comparing teachers to some other job dominated by males does not show discrimination that is non-sequiter because the only thing those jobs have in common is they are dominated by one sex. To argue that construction workers are paid as much as they are based on gender is silly when market forces explain why they are paid what they are paid. Look and ye shall find fallacy at work there.
3) Lack of maternity leave, flexibility, ect. Many women often have to choose between having children and having a career. Even with a stay at home dad the tolls of pregnancy and the missed work often stunt or even prematurely prevent many women from advancing in the buisiness world. Men dont' have this issue at all.
Just silly, when maternity leave is far more common then paternity leave and has been shown to actually discourage businesses from hiring woman (one of the few times actual evidence of discrimination has been produced). Having children is a choice (a privilege) and this can hardly be oppression.
Essentially feminism starts with a premise... The wage gap is caused by discrimination. Cherry picks data and ignores reality.
Umm you honestly believe domestic violence existed on a scale capable of swinging human lifespans for an entire population. NO, not even close. Even if the 3 women die a day estimate feminists use (which is certainly inflated) that's not nearly enough women to create such a discrepancy. Did you know that the Department of Justice has stated there is no evidence VAWA did anything to reduce DV deaths. The measurement VAWA supporters wanted to use was the number of pamphlets on getting help for women that were given out. VAWA did however erase the due process rights of millions of men with one DoJ study suggesting that 2 million men were falsely accused for advantage in divorce and custody hearings. This is what lawyers called the "nuclear option" and it is well documented that lawyers encouraged their clients to make false allegations as they were safe to do so thanks to VAWA eroding the rights of men to defend themselves and seek compensation in these situations. Thats before we even get to the restraining order civil rights nightmare.
Actually yes I do know that the feminists actions against domestiv ciolence has saved a fair percentage of women not only from murder at the hands of "loved ones" but also prevented injuries and battery that would later accumulate to complications and early death.
Today the 2nd most common reason for women to die is Homicide and the overwhelming majority of those homicides are domestic cases.
The use of mysoginist here being what is called "squid ink".
Actually I rarely use it unless I feel its necessary. You have displayed an unusually high amoutn of mysoginistic retoric that is alarming at best. The worst part is it seems so passive and its so well "justified". You have a very vehement hatred of feminism and by extention women's rights. I hope I am wrong but that is my inital impression and the one that is lasting all the way through over conversations.
If you will accept Nazism=loving your country. If you love your country your a Nazi Monk! Labels are a tricky thing but trying to force labels on people by saying "if you believe in gender equality your a feminist" is basically fascism. You don't get to decide that labels others use and it is the actions of a movement that we should define them by not just how they choose to define themselves.
How is it facism? You don't have to be a feminist if you don't want to. IF you are for gender equality then you do find yourself in link with feminism. Like it or not. Its like saying "I like voting but i'm not for democracy".
You have a misguided and incorrect notion abuot feminism that I have a strong hunch comes from some source or sources in your life that is rooted in sour grapes.
If they were slaughtered how could they have been productive?
If they were productive how could they have been slaughtered?
MRAs and many others have tried to address...the boy crisis, prison rape, male victims of DV, declining male health, and father's rights.
Boy crisis isn't a mens rights issue. It deserves more attention and feminism is not against it. Prison rape is not a feminist issue and I have never heard of a feminist opposing it, Male victims of DV have multiple issues that span across several groups. Some feminists have seen it as attacks against women in specific cases but have evolved over the past few years to be very accepting even supportive of male DV cases. What declinging male health? You mean that it hasn't gotten better as quickly as women's health? Or do you mean somehow men's health is declining through feminist intervention somehow? Father's rights have been supported by feminists as long as I have been one (2001). In fact on their home page it is mentioned about father's rights. In fact it has been with the help of some feminist groups in the UK that father's gained equal rights.
In the first case...feminists have very successful shutdown attempts to help boys/men even creating a cottage industry devoted to preventing improvement and muddying the water.
In the second/third/fourth/fifth case feminists have opposed attempts to help males as discussed already even going so far as branding any group involved as mysoginistic and/or a hate group.
I have never heard of these. And I would like to see the links. I would almost bet money that they are extermists groups disavowed by the mainstream feminists. Though I am not a betting man and I may be wrong. I highly doubt it but I might be.
Today the 2nd most common reason for women to die is Homicide and the overwhelming majority of those homicides are domestic cases.
WTF, No it isn't unless you consider all natural and other unnatural causes number one and then ignore that it is like 99% of the deaths. The homicide rate for women is 3.4 in 100,000.
If it has to do with men and boys then it will be an MRA issue now won't it, are you just trolling me? Seriously?
All your criticism seems to fall into two major categories...
Accusations of mysoginy-Fairly meaningless, given that I respect women more then you do, since I don't view them as hypoagency cursed perma-infants.
Gross misrepresantations of the size and scale of problems, the MRAs resources and response, and so on.
Today the 2nd most common reason for women to die is Homicide and the overwhelming majority of those homicides are domestic cases.
WTF, No it isn't unless you consider all natural and other unnatural causes number one and then ignore that it is like 99% of the deaths. The homicide rate for women is 3.4 in 100,000.
If it has to do with men and boys then it will be an MRA issue now won't it, are you just trolling me? Seriously?
Actually I meant to say Early Death. That was my bad. I am typing on a tablet.
Your the one that is accusing the Feminist organizations of being Against helping raped and molested children. That is a crock of steaming **** and you know it. MRA may support it but it doesn't support it any more than Feminist groups. If a Feminst group is against the MRA's involvment I would assume its because they were ignoring the female victims as well. Generally child victims are grouped together both boys and girls.
All your criticism seems to fall into two major categories...
Accusations of mysoginy-Fairly meaningless, given that I respect women more then you do, since I don't view them as hypoagency cursed perma-infants.
Gross misrepresantations of the size and scale of problems, the MRAs resources and response, and so on.
I already went into detail as to why I called your positions mysoginistic and I don't say that lightly (I never do). Its a justification to your circle jerk of MRA victimizations and delusions of persecution that is justified by backwards logic and sprinkled lies. But I digress...
I am attemping my very best to take this as a very serious issue and discussion without having this fall into ad hominem attacks as I don't actually recall calling you mysoginistic but some very specific opinions of yours having those qualities. I have in the most respectful manner as I can(with exception to the paragraph above this one) refuted your arguments and presented my own. So I ask for the same courtesy from you. If you wish to coninue then lets talk specifics on issues with supporting details.
Monk of Reason-Even if you ignore that feminists harassed researchers studying the subject and sought to get funding cut from said research, the basic feminist narrative for decades that only men can be pedophiles accomplished just that. That's just part of the price children pay for misandry. Do you know what sociologists call female pedophilia, the last gold mine of sexual predation. Some have even claimed female pedophiles outnumber male ones.
Also, the commerce department stats show that women posess 60% of ALL personal wealth, meaning men only have 40% so your joint ownership theory didn't pan out. The same is true of stocks.
How do you define early death? That is still not even close to number 2, do I have to exclude all natural things like heart attacks then?
Monk of Reason-Even if you ignore that feminists harassed researchers studying the subject and sought to get funding cut from said research, the basic feminist narrative for decades that only men can be pedophiles accomplished just that. That's just part of the price children pay for misandry. Do you know what sociologists call female pedophilia, the last gold mine of sexual predation. Some have even claimed female pedophiles outnumber male ones.
This goes against everythign I"ve ever heard as far as scientific and psychological studies go. I"d like to see a link if I could.
Also, the commerce department stats show that women posess 60% of ALL personal wealth, meaning men only have 40% so your joint ownership theory didn't pan out. The same is true of stocks.
I"d like to see a link to this information. Join ownership does in fact occur. Its impossible to determine what wealth is owned by the wife or the husband in married situations. Thats why when they divorce he/she can take half their stuff even if they didn't go into the relationship owning it.
I think you may be misreading the chart or someone is intentionally delivering the information in a decitful way.
How do you define early death? That is still not even close to number 2, do I have to exclude all natural things like heart attacks then?
Premature or early death is defined as death before age 75.
And it IS #2 after coronary heart disease.
Warning for unauthorized use of modtext. - Blinking Spirit
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis in layman's terms BS. If I said privilege exists then it exists, if I say otherwise then it does to, right? This is nothing more then SJW nonsense.
Ultimately irregardless of how "good" you think men had it in the past what counts is NOW, how useful is it to your average joe that his ancestor could go to school and a women couldn't if the option is impractical for him now. spoiler alert-ummm it doesn't. Strangely I'm argueing institutions DO benefit some groups over others and you seem to have taken that to mean the opposite.
Your a step above the average SJW since you didnt single out white people, I'll give you that.
The areas that society favors women have been discussed previously but a short list that certainly only covers a few...education, healthcare, family court, the criminal court system, media, academia, and government. You once again bring up the frontman fallacy. Just because men occupy those positions does not mean they use that power to benefit men as a group. Women are 55% of voters in most elections and as such politicians pander to them (They also control 90% of spending power). Even those pro-life bills you hate are the result of pro-life women wanting restrictions on abortion. That Texas bill that recently caused so much hubbub was written by a women, advocated for by groups lead by women, and more female senators voted for it then against it. To demonstrate just how absurd your schema is Obama (a man) used fathers day to discuss changes to child custody laws that put thousands of men who lost their jobs in the recession in prison for being unable to pay child support.
Me too, how does men having had it so good in the past advantage me now? I want specifics thank you.
Could you give me an example of these bodies addressing issues facing men?
You're an odd duck. You claim privilege doesn't exist while claiming women benefit from privilege. Contradictory much?
Males can go to school. I'm not sure what you're trying to say from your grammatically-incorrect post. If you're referring to graduation rates, males get in trouble at higher rates due to biological facts of higher testosterone and that being correlated with aggression and fights. Our current zero tolerance school system doesn't cotton to such disruptions and puts children through the justice system for such. We need to abolish that.
If you're referring to the people who don't want to go to college, many high schools now have job training programs that only benefit males. You see auto mechanic and stevedoring training programs, but not cosmetology training programs. It seems that programs are specifically addressing the problem of not having a college education, but for males only.
LOL you think Jodie Laurenberg wrote that bill? She didn't write it, she could barely defend it. I'll tell you as someone who has authored legislation that politicians don't write bills. Lobbyists do. Lobbyists write legislation, make talking points for legislation, and do the research for legislation. At least where I'm from, this is a male dominated activity. I was at the Capitol during the second special session and the blueshirts were all old ladies who would not be impacted by the legislation. And I'll tell you like I told everyone else, when I was driving to Houston the Sunday after the bill was passed, I-10 was packed with cars from Louisiana with pro-life bumper stickers and license plates. I've never seen that type of traffic in a rural area on a Sunday with no car accidents.
And I KNOW you don't know what you're talking about when Zaffirini didn't support the bill, Van de Putte didn't support the bill, and Sylvia Garcia didn't support the bill. Wendy Davis is obvious, the only women in the Senate that didn't support it were Campbell and Nelson, and even then they could barely form a coherent argument against it. That's a 2/3 margin of women in the Senate who didn't support the bill.
The only place where women overtly benefit in those realms is family law, and that's because the law hasn't changed much since the 1800s. The rest are arguably false. In the 1800s women didn't work and got the house and the kids because there was a perception that men didn't want them and could buy another house. As we've seen with gay marriage, a lot of time passes between when a issue is first recognized and when it is addressed. That's the nature of US law. 50 years have passed since Stonewall and 20 years have passed since a large push for gay marriage started. I don't think it's exactly fair to give the house and the kids to the women without considering other factors.
It advantages males because when you enter the workplace people will be under the assumption that you will be able to work without guidance, that you are more capable than a woman (because there is still a perception of hysteria in America unfortunately), that you won't have to take inordinate amounts of time off to give birth, that you will be more likely to reach upper management positions, that you can walk down the street without worrying about being kidnapped and murdered because you are physically weaker, etc.
Can you name issues that specifically face all men, regardless of color, creed, or class (almost as if men are their own nation)?
And are longer telomeres in female chromosomes evidence of a conspiracy against men, or that men are being oppressed? That's being looked into as a possible cause of women on average living 3 years longer than males. Seriously, if you think genetics are evidence of oppression then you are really deluded.
As for womens early death it seems very very few women are dying prematurely then, like a miniscule amount. Where as men are four times more likely to die a violent death.
After reading your source I find that with the exception of African American women homicide isnt even in the top 5 causes of early death for women. In fact it goes coronary heart disease, breast cancer, motor vehicle crash, stroke, and lung cancer for the top 5 see page 15. Strangely homicide is the second most common premature death for males see page 14. I don't think homicide is even in the top ten for females.
BatterysRevenge-You're an odd duck. You claim privilege doesn't exist while claiming women benefit from privilege. Contradictory much?
No I claimed the concept of male privilege makes no sense, a belief in a blanket advantage for males and then went on to clarify. Try reading it helps.
Males can go to school. I'm not sure what you're trying to say from your grammatically-incorrect post. If you're referring to graduation rates, males get in trouble at higher rates due to biological facts of higher testosterone and that being correlated with aggression and fights. Our current zero tolerance school system doesn't cotton to such disruptions and puts children through the justice system for such. We need to abolish that.
There is extensive research showing this is just one problem among many, nonetheless I'll give you credit for at least not saying something incredibly stupid like "Males are just angry about being denied privilege".
that you can walk down the street without worrying about being kidnapped and murdered because you are physically weaker, etc.
Seriously, this is BS males are four times more likely to be the victims of violence. Why should we build our whole society around a groups irrational and exagerated fears. THAT'S PRIVILEGE! You also can't see how this narrative is emotionally manipulative and designed to prey on the perception of female hypoagency. So feminism needs to fight paternalism with lots more paternalism?
Your "inside" knowledge on politics aside I would like to see a source, thank you.
Can you name issues that specifically face all men, regardless of color, creed, or class (almost as if men are their own nation)?
All the issues I have mentioned affect all boys/men they just affect some groups more then others and thus gets reframed by feminists.
And are longer telomeres in female chromosomes evidence of a conspiracy against men, or that men are being oppressed? That's being looked into as a possible cause of women on average living 3 years longer than males. Seriously, if you think genetics are evidence of oppression then you are really deluded.
The life span gap has been researched and in some cultures men live almost as long as women this is really just some junk science. Like when feminists claimed the y chromosome was going away or was an incomplete X chromosome. I find it funny that you are willing to ascribe men dying earlier to genetics yet belong to a religion that preaches that men oppressed women throughout history via gender roles when gender roles were both natural and necessary.
No I claimed the concept of male privilege makes no sense, a belief in a blanket advantage for males and then went on to clarify. Try reading it helps.
There is extensive research showing this is just one problem among many, nonetheless I'll give you credit for at least not saying something incredibly stupid like "Males are just angry about being denied privilege".
Seriously, this is BS males are four times more likely to be the victims of violence. Why should we build our whole society around a groups irrational and exagerated fears. THAT'S PRIVILEGE! You also can't see how this narrative is emotionally manipulative and designed to prey on the perception of female hypoagency. So feminism needs to fight paternalism with lots more paternalism?
Your "inside" knowledge on politics aside I would like to see a source, thank you.
All the issues I have mentioned affect all boys/men they just affect some groups more then others and thus gets reframed by feminists.
There is no such thing as a "blanket advantage" for males, but they benefit from previously built institutions and thousands of years of power. If you don't think there are large segments of people who believe that women should be excluded from many aspects of power, look at the kerfuffle over letting Condoleezza Rice golf among other politicos. (Golf courses and strip clubs/bordellos are where the most evil occurs among politicians.)
The issue of crime is a serious problem for states. If a state loses control of crime they lose legitimacy (i.e. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" winning out, Chinese Communist Party covering up the recent bombing in Tienanmen Square, etc.). Security is paramount for all states. Thus, any fears of violent crime need to be abated lest there be discontent.
Thoughts about political science aside, men encounter some crimes more than women, women encounter some crimes more than men. Getting kidnapped and murdered occurs mostly to children and women. Rape occurs more to women. Suicide and gangland violence happen mostly to males. Statistically speaking across the world, males are more likely to fall victim to non state actor terror attacks. The solution to these problems aren't simple, as crime is multifaceted and people turn to crime because of broken homes, mental illness, poverty, sociopathy, drug/alcohol addiction, bad childhoods, boredom, etc. If you want to reduce crime you have to address these problems, which is extremely hard.
The tl;dr of these two paragraphs is that crime and the reaction to crime aren't as simple as you think it is.
Are you surprised that a female feminist is actually forming coherent, logical, well-reasoned out thoughts? Maybe you need to stay off Reddit and talk to people with an education.
And are longer telomeres in female chromosomes evidence of a conspiracy against men, or that men are being oppressed? That's being looked into as a possible cause of women on average living 3 years longer than males. Seriously, if you think genetics are evidence of oppression then you are really deluded.
The life span gap has been researched and in some cultures men live almost as long as women this is really just some junk science. Like when feminists claimed the y chromosome was going away or was an incomplete X chromosome. I find it funny that you are willing to ascribe men dying earlier to genetics yet belong to a religion that preaches that men oppressed women throughout history via gender roles when gender roles were both natural and necessary.
In addition, other than during the period of young adulthood, women were found to have longer telomeres than men, the researchers noted. Blacks were also found to have notably longer telomeres relative to other racial/ethnic groups."
Gender roles are not natural, by definition they are artificial. Among the Zapotec of Mexico they have muxes, the third gender. We don't have muxes in the United States, nor do we assign any particular value to transgender people. In fact, the US is through-and-through transphobic. Among the Dahomey in the late 1800s many women were warriors and were able to sleep with prostitutes.
So you think women were advantaged throughout history? Really now. Tell me more about this. I want to hear about how women were allowed to own property since time immemorial and had vast human rights protections from the Akkadian Empire through Victorian England.
I have always been an equal rights advocate (read: equality for all people, not any special privileges for any group) and have seen some things the agitate me. Keep in mind this standpoint is directly from my point of view, not truth in the world in general.
regarding feminism and racism: US military recruiting standards. These are the standards required to serve, but they differ for sex (and race, sadly enough) Physical fitness tests are all less intense, across all branches of service, for women. People can and will say that the requirements are less for women due to the fact that the tests were originally designed to specifically measure the physical fitness of a male. So why are females taking the tests at all, if the gender difference makes that much of a difference? Design a test specifically designed to measure the fitness of a female, or admit that the standards were reduced for women in order to increase recruitment.
Recruiters place higher value on recruiting women and "minorities" (even in districts where "minorities" are actually the ethnic majority) because it helps fit the US military ideals of political correctness and equal opportunity.
For instance, it is much easier for an ethnic minority to get a drug waiver than it is for somebody of the ethnic majority.
However, some issues it is actually trying to fix, I.e. women serving on submarines. Women should have been able to serve on submarines decades ago, when the were initially allowed to serve in the military. Women should have been able to serve in any job they wanted to, so long as they met the prerequisites. Lowering standards for women to be able to join should not be considered meeting the prerequisites.
I guess my point is, Females in military service shouldn't be held to a lesser standard than males in military service, and the US military really needs to cut out the racism and recruit ONLY the people that meet the requirements for the job. Equal opportunity is supposed to be exactly that, EQUAL. Race or gender shouldn't be taken into account when determining eligibility. Race or gender shouldn't even be on the initial application.
Wow. I guess i type a bit more drunk than I do sober.
Would you object if the "lower standards" were changed to apply to both men and women? That would allow for the stated goal of increasing recruitment and not be biased for either (the ideal, IMO).
Would you object if the "lower standards" were changed to apply to both men and women? That would allow for the stated goal of increasing recruitment and not be biased for either (the ideal, IMO).
Well it depends. If the standards could be equally lowered without damaging the structure that the military is built on (ability to wage war) then no I would not object. However, in special cases (special forces, special operations, SEALS, Army Rangers) i think the standards should not be lowered in any way shape or form, and in fact, I assume that this will always hold true.
Gender roles are not natural, by definition they are artificial
Then why did every culture have them (with some variation yes but vastly more in common), why did they follow the exact same pattern over and over as different cultures (some seperated by millinea and great distances from each other) transitioned between the same stages of development?
Would you object if the "lower standards" were changed to apply to both men and women? That would allow for the stated goal of increasing recruitment and not be biased for either (the ideal, IMO).
I think you might not completely comprehend the degree of difference (on average) between men and women when it comes to certain physical tasks. Testosterone is one hell of a performance-enhancing drug. It's one of the most mind-blowing things about the human body to me.
For example, I googled the Marine Corps fitness standards for men and women. The test is separated into three parts, and the upper-body fitness part for women is called the flexed-arm hang. The highest possible score a woman can get on this part of the test is 100 points, which corresponds to a 70 second hang. I performed a little experiment just now to see what would happen. Following all the rules laid out in the link, I went down to my apartment's fitness center and timed myself performing the flexed-arm hang.
I made it to 70 seconds with moderate effort, and probably could have gone another 20-30 seconds. Mind you, I'm not morbidly obese or horrendously out of shape, but I have no business being in the Marines. I'm a scrawny dude who sits in front of a computer all day at work writing legal briefs and motions. I exercise maybe once a week. Yet according to this test I'm as strong as the absolute top-of-the-line female Marine.
This illustrates the problem: if you equalize the standard, the test remains challenging for women but becomes absurdly easy for most men. That doesn't seem very fair, and it sort of undermines the purpose of the test to begin with. On the other hand, having different standards isn't very fair either. Maybe the solution is to realize that there are some tasks out there where one gender will tend to excel over the other, and combat is one of those tasks.
EDIT: If anyone's curious, I can get a 25/100 on the male version of the test (5 hanging pull-ups), which is very close to the lowest possible score (15/100 @ 3 hanging pull-ups). Basically, if you can register any kind of score on the male test, you should be capable of a perfect score on the female test. That's how absurdly disparate the standards are.
Really? How about you name some POC "leaders" of MRAs instead of generalities? You won't find any because MRA reeks of white male privilege. And outliers do not indicate a trend; you will not see POC flocking to MRA because they are marginalized economically by other males. Their struggle is in regards to class and race, not gender.
It's not a shaming tactic, and men don't face the problems of the new economy alone. Millennials face this problem in general, and POC have been facing this problem for decades. Suddenly Anglo males face these economic problems and it's an issue to be blamed on women. MRA is a guise for hating women, plain and simple.
I don't do talking points because I don't read feminist literature. I speak from my experience of having my best friend turn into a MRA and listening to his ridiculous ideas that he pulled from Reddit. That's why MRA will never take off, because Reddit doesn't count for a corpus of literature to be used as a basis for action.
It was an interview, not a...
*starts eating Reese's cup* You got your circular reasoning in my ad hominem! You got your ad hominem in my circular reasoning!
FWIW, I do have an issue with how male victims of female molesters are romanticized in the MSM. But again, MSM ≠ feminism. I can give you examples, if you want.
On phasing:
So he was a researcher who repeated what his findings were, something along the lines of 5% of incest victims dont view themselves as victims or something like that... and
"First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children,
You honestly think he didn't say gently caressing and got misquoted? Seriously?
BatterysRevenge-People are still saying "privilege" I thought that meme had run its course. As has been discussed ad naseum in this thread the concept really doesn't add up. I could see gender privilege where you honestly evaluate the advantages each sex has but simply put males hardly have a blanket advantage over females in our society. In fact females are more privileged then males in most spheres/situations now.
Seriously feminism at its core is a marxist class warfare schema with women being the oppressed class rising up to fight their oppressors (aka men). Pretty much leaves room for nothing but hate frankly. You have not apparently read the previous posts but frankly I would rather destroy your women's issues then go back and forth with this battle of the NAH-AHs.
women's healthcare-We have spent many times more on women's healthcare research then mens and we spend far far more on women's healthcare yearly. Women privileged!
maternity leave-Pure women's privilege that ironically cements women as the stay at home parent, yet that doesnt bother feminists it's almost like getting free stuff comes before "smashing the patriarchy"!
equal pay-The wage gap myth is discussed here...
Rape-Men are the majority of rape victims shouldn't our focus be there...http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-american-rape-victims/
Violence towards women in domestic cases-Men are also victims of domestic violence and unlike women are likely to be arrested if they seek help due to predominant aggressor laws championed by feminists. They are also unlikely to be believed by a culture that has been feed blatant misinformation on DV (namely the male-perpetrator/female-victim model) by feminists even though feminists knew about male victims of DV since the 1950s (look-up Erin Pizzey).
Thats more interesting wouldn't you agree? How about you line some more up for me to topple.
Destory the women's issue? What do you mean by this specifically? I hope it doesnt mean what I am reading it as.
And much deserved. The majority of this has to do with two specific pionts. 1 is breast cancer and the second is having to do with childbirth/preg related advances. The breast cancer research has provided incredible breakthroughs for all cancer research and treatment that affect both men and women (breast cancer also affects mean BTW) and the childbirth and preg related issues are something that has to do with more than just women's health.
Not to mention the latter is under constant fire and only recently has it made major advances. It is also worth noting that there has been significant rises in runding for research on prostate cancer in the recent decades which is also much needed.
There is no argument here other than a blatent mysoginistics. How does it limit men's rights at all that women healthcare issues has attention. Rather than fighting against this funding why not fight for male health related issues instead? This is what I mean by "woman hating" and "bigoted". There is no reason a man should ever be upset by ample funding for any form of healthcare weather it be for men or women.
Actually many feminst groups also fight for paternity leave. They certainly don't fight against it. Which is the opposite of what the MRA does in many cases.
Those are a lot of links. I see you are very heated in this discussion. But how do you explain the disparity between men and women in higher levels of management? In CEO membership? Disparity between sexes for the SAME POSITION?
It can but it is not equal in America. Not even close.
This is only if you include prison rape. However sexual assulats in both domestic and public cases are vastly skewed towards women. The prison rape in the male statistic is a bad thing and no feminist group has ever fought against it.
Why is the MRA against fighting for rights of women to feel safer from sexual assault? Why not simply fight FOR better prison treatment?
Typically women are on average more likely to be the target of domestic violence. They also don't fight against any movement to help male victims of domestic violence. Again why doesn't the MRA simply fight for that rather than against feminsts attempt to better women's rights?
And you are taking much of information from bad sources it seems. I am a Feminist. I am a man. I support mens rights but not the MRA. I have not had any animosity towards me from any of the other feminists I am associated with reguardless if they are male or female. I have only had one isolated incident of man hating feminists but I have had an overwhelming majority of MRA members seem to be against feminists.
Well when you topple one I'll be ready.
But here is my central point, why are you AGAINST women's rights? why are you in any way against the advancement of feminism and female rights? Do you feel that they somehow corrupt the existing patriarchy or that they somehow limit male rights? Or do you feel that its "unfair" for women to have these programs and outlets while men do not?
Wouldn't it be better for everyone including men if MRA worked to advance men's rights by creating programs for battered husbands, to create programs to advance education on men's issues or fund male related healthcare research?
Anti-feminism doesn't help mens rights even in the least. It simply takes away opprotunities from someone who would otherwise have them. Instead why don't you or the organization create opprotunities FOR men?
The concept doesn't add up to people blind to their own privilege. There are groups that are more advantaged in society because of generational legacies of oppression and bigotry, institutions set up for some more than others, inherent biases due to nature or nurture, etc. To deny that institutions benefit some groups over others is quite naive. People in power have set it up that way for hundreds of years regardless of the society.
Really now? Could you name some of these spheres/situations that predominantly advantage women? Because men still win out in most cases, either due to the reasons I listed above or due to biological/genetic issues. Men win out in the workplace, they control the majority of political and economic institutions, and boring presidential elections and legislatures trying to look busy never address issues specifically facing men. I'd like to go one election cycle without abortion and birth control coming up.
You speak in generalities. I'd like some specifics.
Once again men HAVE tried that and gotten shut down pretty readily by feminists who do in fact treat anything pro-male as inherently anti-female (this is well documented-see anyone who has tried to help boys in our schools). Strangely the new, but still a mere pittance, of interest in prostate cancer has coincided with the increase in the size of the MRA.
Once again pointing out feminist hypocrisy is not exactly fighting against something nor is saying "maternity leave, shouldn't there be paternity leave too" fighting against something. Can you show me evidence of these feminist groups that fight for paternity leave most feminists I've read on the subject were downright hostile spouting jackassery like "Men don't have to squeeze a human being out of their bodies".
Actually the exact same factors behind the "wage gap" can largely explain this to. You promote the person who is most invested in the business. Did you know the vast majority of workaholics are men and that men have always when surveyed shown they want to be at work to a greater extent then their female counterparts and are more invested in their business.
Some disparities in pay favor women (with models women make ten times their male counterparts) but rarely is anti-female discrimination the cause. Did you know women own 60% of the western worlds personal wealth, 51% of it's stocks, and over half the property. How did women do that if they are so darn oppressed? In fact when you take into account the disparity in wealth between the developed world and third world western women would appear to have more personal wealth then everyone else combined.
Not as vastly as you would think, in fact, as I've gone over here before if you count "forced to penetrate" as rape 50% of rape victims outside of prison are men and 40% of rapists are women. Did you know that studies on populations of homeless boys and boys in institutions have found that 75%-90% report being sexually assaulted by a women. Sexual predators typically target convenient prey. Men in prisons have reported that female guards are more likely to sexually assault male prisoners then male guards. Actually feminists HAVE undermined attempts to do something about prison rape including taking the term activists used to describe the condition of american prisons "rape culture" and then worked to discredit those activists. We have gone over this throughout the thread but their is a long track record (well documented) of feminists erasing male victims and female perpetrators. THAT DOES HURT MEN AND DOES COUNT AS FIGHTING AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO HELP MEN! Considering feminists have enormous amounts of political power and MRAs virtually none who do you think has actually hurt the members of any group?
They absolutely do and have fought against male victims of DV getting help. Feminists have harassed and terrorized researchers who wanted to study male victimization. The have done protests, made death threats, and staged walk-outs when any sociologist has stated that they would study male victimization of DV. YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE A CLUE!!! This is before you count the other things I have already mentioned. THE MRA HAS FOUGHT FOR MEN TO GET HELP BUT THEY ALSO FIGHT FOR MEN WHO ARE FALSELY ACCUSED. One does not preclude the other in any case. As late as 2008 feminist groups claimed male victims of DV were a myth and it took court battles fought by the NCFM (an MRA group) to get male victims of DV assistance in California.
FOR GOOD REASON, EDUCATE YOURSELF, YOU ARE THE UNINFORMED ONE!
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
I did, you are simply choosing not to recognize this.
I'm not against women's rights, feminism=/=women feminism=/=womens rights. The patriarchy is a boogeyman. THEY DO LIMIT MALE RIGHTS LOOK AT HOW DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN OBLITERATED FOR MALES IN DV CASES OR ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
Feminism would simply shut down such an effort, they have countless times before. Nonetheless MRAs do try and try.
Helping men get a good education, avoid unfair imprisonment or expulsion, and so on does create opportunities for men.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis in layman's terms BS. If I said privilege exists then it exists, if I say otherwise then it does to, right? This is nothing more then SJW nonsense.
Ultimately irregardless of how "good" you think men had it in the past what counts is NOW, how useful is it to your average joe that his ancestor could go to school and a women couldn't if the option is impractical for him now. spoiler alert-ummm it doesn't. Strangely I'm argueing institutions DO benefit some groups over others and you seem to have taken that to mean the opposite.
Your a step above the average SJW since you didnt single out white people, I'll give you that.
The areas that society favors women have been discussed previously but a short list that certainly only covers a few...education, healthcare, family court, the criminal court system, media, academia, and government. You once again bring up the frontman fallacy. Just because men occupy those positions does not mean they use that power to benefit men as a group. Women are 55% of voters in most elections and as such politicians pander to them (They also control 90% of spending power). Even those pro-life bills you hate are the result of pro-life women wanting restrictions on abortion. That Texas bill that recently caused so much hubbub was written by a women, advocated for by groups lead by women, and more female senators voted for it then against it. To demonstrate just how absurd your schema is Obama (a man) used fathers day to discuss changes to child custody laws that put thousands of men who lost their jobs in the recession in prison for being unable to pay child support.
Me too, how does men having had it so good in the past advantage me now? I want specifics thank you.
Could you give me an example of these bodies addressing issues facing men?
As far as my MRA schema ...I have to go off of what I see. I have yet to meet a non mysoginistic MRA member (see exibit A)
Though I find it funny that the bold is said to me. I have not said anything of the sort and it makes me think your simply going over the same old argument thinking that I'm arguing something different than what I am.
Do you have causality linking the two or just unlinked corrolation? For any of the claims afterwards?
And as far as the women's life expectancy....that has ALWAYS been skewed towards women all over the globe. I don't know of any place on earth where the life expectancy of women is shorter than men. Unfortuantly its partially biological. However the reason why they began to thrive so much more is actually a good thing. Do you know what the leading cause of death for young women was? It was domestic violence. When the feministst "took charge" as you say, they cracked down on domestic violence and created programs such as battered women's shelters and the like. This meant that fewer women were being killed by their husbands/boyfriends/ect.
That is why their average lifespans were so much longer. Not because they focused more on medical advances that only affected women.
However again I must state it. Women's access to healthcare does not in any way create a deficite for men's access to healthcare. Instead why not change the effort to providing better healthcare options to men rather than tear down the one's for women?
Again it has a possible corrolation but not causality link. Breast cancer research has done more for prostate cancer research than the MRA.
And aside from a few isolated incidents what are these large scale anti-man movements you speak of? I am sure several exist and I would like to see a few specifics to look at before going into more detail.
Your making gross generalizations with huge biogoted bias. I have never talked with a feminist that was against paternity leave. I'm sure they exist and I even know the different schools of thought. However the overwhelming majority of feminsts are for paternity leave.
What hypocrasy btw are you specifically referring to?
Lastly here is a link on several diffent schools of feminism philosphy and their attitude towards paternity leave. Only one (outdated and underused) philosphical school teaches against it.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/puot0002/3004/2010/03/feminist-perspectives-on-parental-leave.html
This is like saying "black people make less than whites but its okay because its just because they come from poor neighborhoods rather than racism".
Let me link you to the wiki as it is the only place I know of that gathers all the information together in one place. It talkes about what you have referenced that not all of the wage gap can be explained by situations that have stemed from sexism weather it be from stigmatic sexism, direct sexism or cultural relative sexism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States#Sources_of_the_gender_gap
To somewhat summarize (thought it goes into far more detail and more options) it mostly revolves around
1) men considered the breadwinners in families so culturally they strive to make more. This is relative cultural sexism. It supposes that women are supposed to stay at home with the children. On a men's rights issue that is supported by feminists they wish to abolish this. It has a social stigma attached that you are a failure if you are a stay at home dad with a female breadwinner. Feminists fight this.
2) Occupational segregation. Women tend to work female oriented positions such as Nurses, Secretaries, Teachers ect. Men tend to work male dominated positions. The female dominated positions on average make far less than the male dominated positions. Many of which are unfairly done so. Teaches for example. Also the sciences are excessivly sexist and in a far more obvious way.
3) Lack of maternity leave, flexibility, ect. Many women often have to choose between having children and having a career. Even with a stay at home dad the tolls of pregnancy and the missed work often stunt or even prematurely prevent many women from advancing in the buisiness world. Men dont' have this issue at all.
Can you name 4 other professions that favor women in pay descrepancies to specific jobs?
And its very very very very simply my friend. Joint ownership. My wife owns all my stuff. I also own all my stuff. The fact that women only have 60% of the wealth is rather alarming.
Few things. 1) I would like to see the stats for those male victimes. Though generally "child victims" are not part of the MRA or the Feminists groups, they are under children and special victims. So if you wish to discount the "boys" does the statistics still hold up?
Secondly can I get a link to a case where feminsits as a whole have attempted to erase male victims? I'm sure some off tangent feminist extremists have done this however to the dismay of everyone else.
I would like the source.
This sounds more and more like isolated extremist selective issues and not feminism as a whole. Please provide some of these situations and how they connect to the larger feminist organizations.
I don't doubt that such issues have occured but I highly doubt that they should be considered "THE feminist position".
Sure...whatever you say.
Sure... whatever you say. I mean it would be weird if you were bringing up obscure isolated incidents to attack a much larger group with obvious mysoginistic intentions but I'm sure thats not what happened at all.
Patriarchy is the boogyman so to speak. Equality is the goal. Not matriarchy.
Feminism=Womens Rights. Though you have to look at the central groups rather than extermist ones. I mean I could say that all white people are racist and bring you litterally hundreds of thousands of cases of racism instigated by white people but does that make white people inherently racist?
Though I think DV cases are a big issue. They have been held back by many sources. Not just feminsm. Our culture as a whole for one, feminists, misunderstandings, ect.
Then they weren't very good efforts. Link me to five honest and productive efforts that were slaughted by the castrating ovarylords that puppet our government to make sure all toilet seats stay down.
Yeah. It does. However demonizing women and feminists does none of those things.
Umm you honestly believe domestic violence existed on a scale capable of swinging human lifespans for an entire population. NO, not even close. Even if the 3 women die a day estimate feminists use (which is certainly inflated) that's not nearly enough women to create such a discrepancy. Did you know that the Department of Justice has stated there is no evidence VAWA did anything to reduce DV deaths. The measurement VAWA supporters wanted to use was the number of pamphlets on getting help for women that were given out. VAWA did however erase the due process rights of millions of men with one DoJ study suggesting that 2 million men were falsely accused for advantage in divorce and custody hearings. This is what lawyers called the "nuclear option" and it is well documented that lawyers encouraged their clients to make false allegations as they were safe to do so thanks to VAWA eroding the rights of men to defend themselves and seek compensation in these situations. Thats before we even get to the restraining order civil rights nightmare.
The use of mysoginist here being what is called "squid ink".
If you will accept Nazism=loving your country. If you love your country your a Nazi Monk! Labels are a tricky thing but trying to force labels on people by saying "if you believe in gender equality your a feminist" is basically fascism. You don't get to decide that labels others use and it is the actions of a movement that we should define them by not just how they choose to define themselves.
If they were slaughtered how could they have been productive?
MRAs and many others have tried to address...the boy crisis, prison rape, male victims of DV, declining male health, and father's rights.
In the first case...feminists have very successful shutdown attempts to help boys/men even creating a cottage industry devoted to preventing improvement and muddying the water.
In the second/third/fourth/fifth case feminists have opposed attempts to help males as discussed already even going so far as branding any group involved as mysoginistic and/or a hate group.
In response to your other arguments...
For the rape stats here you are...http://permutationofninjas.org/post/57003274589/gender-symmetry-in-sexual-assault-an-analysis-of-the
In Sweden "the most feminist" country in the world woman still choose to be the stay at home parent. In fact the more freedom men and women have the more they move towards women-home man-work this has been well documented. That is not sexism and to say so is extremely mysoginistic as it robs women of their agency and portrays them as mindless leaves on the wind, victims to others whims, when in reality women choices are well informed and logical and lead them to be happier, this has also been researched and demonstrated.
Segregation donotes barriers that do not exist, if you want your claims of mysoginy to carry wait stop infanticizing woman and respect the choices they make.
Actually research into the scientific community has shown that the bias was small and actually pro-female, no joke. Comparing teachers to some other job dominated by males does not show discrimination that is non-sequiter because the only thing those jobs have in common is they are dominated by one sex. To argue that construction workers are paid as much as they are based on gender is silly when market forces explain why they are paid what they are paid. Look and ye shall find fallacy at work there.
Just silly, when maternity leave is far more common then paternity leave and has been shown to actually discourage businesses from hiring woman (one of the few times actual evidence of discrimination has been produced). Having children is a choice (a privilege) and this can hardly be oppression.
Essentially feminism starts with a premise... The wage gap is caused by discrimination. Cherry picks data and ignores reality.
Actually yes I do know that the feminists actions against domestiv ciolence has saved a fair percentage of women not only from murder at the hands of "loved ones" but also prevented injuries and battery that would later accumulate to complications and early death.
Today the 2nd most common reason for women to die is Homicide and the overwhelming majority of those homicides are domestic cases.
Actually I rarely use it unless I feel its necessary. You have displayed an unusually high amoutn of mysoginistic retoric that is alarming at best. The worst part is it seems so passive and its so well "justified". You have a very vehement hatred of feminism and by extention women's rights. I hope I am wrong but that is my inital impression and the one that is lasting all the way through over conversations.
How is it facism? You don't have to be a feminist if you don't want to. IF you are for gender equality then you do find yourself in link with feminism. Like it or not. Its like saying "I like voting but i'm not for democracy".
You have a misguided and incorrect notion abuot feminism that I have a strong hunch comes from some source or sources in your life that is rooted in sour grapes.
If they were productive how could they have been slaughtered?
Boy crisis isn't a mens rights issue. It deserves more attention and feminism is not against it. Prison rape is not a feminist issue and I have never heard of a feminist opposing it, Male victims of DV have multiple issues that span across several groups. Some feminists have seen it as attacks against women in specific cases but have evolved over the past few years to be very accepting even supportive of male DV cases. What declinging male health? You mean that it hasn't gotten better as quickly as women's health? Or do you mean somehow men's health is declining through feminist intervention somehow? Father's rights have been supported by feminists as long as I have been one (2001). In fact on their home page it is mentioned about father's rights. In fact it has been with the help of some feminist groups in the UK that father's gained equal rights.
I have never heard of these. And I would like to see the links. I would almost bet money that they are extermists groups disavowed by the mainstream feminists. Though I am not a betting man and I may be wrong. I highly doubt it but I might be.
WTF, No it isn't unless you consider all natural and other unnatural causes number one and then ignore that it is like 99% of the deaths. The homicide rate for women is 3.4 in 100,000.
If it has to do with men and boys then it will be an MRA issue now won't it, are you just trolling me? Seriously?
All your criticism seems to fall into two major categories...
Accusations of mysoginy-Fairly meaningless, given that I respect women more then you do, since I don't view them as hypoagency cursed perma-infants.
Gross misrepresantations of the size and scale of problems, the MRAs resources and response, and so on.
Actually I meant to say Early Death. That was my bad. I am typing on a tablet.
Your the one that is accusing the Feminist organizations of being Against helping raped and molested children. That is a crock of steaming **** and you know it. MRA may support it but it doesn't support it any more than Feminist groups. If a Feminst group is against the MRA's involvment I would assume its because they were ignoring the female victims as well. Generally child victims are grouped together both boys and girls.
I already went into detail as to why I called your positions mysoginistic and I don't say that lightly (I never do). Its a justification to your circle jerk of MRA victimizations and delusions of persecution that is justified by backwards logic and sprinkled lies. But I digress...
I am attemping my very best to take this as a very serious issue and discussion without having this fall into ad hominem attacks as I don't actually recall calling you mysoginistic but some very specific opinions of yours having those qualities. I have in the most respectful manner as I can(with exception to the paragraph above this one) refuted your arguments and presented my own. So I ask for the same courtesy from you. If you wish to coninue then lets talk specifics on issues with supporting details.
Also, the commerce department stats show that women posess 60% of ALL personal wealth, meaning men only have 40% so your joint ownership theory didn't pan out. The same is true of stocks.
How do you define early death? That is still not even close to number 2, do I have to exclude all natural things like heart attacks then?
This goes against everythign I"ve ever heard as far as scientific and psychological studies go. I"d like to see a link if I could.
I"d like to see a link to this information. Join ownership does in fact occur. Its impossible to determine what wealth is owned by the wife or the husband in married situations. Thats why when they divorce he/she can take half their stuff even if they didn't go into the relationship owning it.
I think you may be misreading the chart or someone is intentionally delivering the information in a decitful way.
Premature or early death is defined as death before age 75.
And it IS #2 after coronary heart disease.
Warning for unauthorized use of modtext. - Blinking Spirit
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/dca/data/documents/2006%20mortality%20report.pdf
check out the chart on page 11.
You're an odd duck. You claim privilege doesn't exist while claiming women benefit from privilege. Contradictory much?
Males can go to school. I'm not sure what you're trying to say from your grammatically-incorrect post. If you're referring to graduation rates, males get in trouble at higher rates due to biological facts of higher testosterone and that being correlated with aggression and fights. Our current zero tolerance school system doesn't cotton to such disruptions and puts children through the justice system for such. We need to abolish that.
If you're referring to the people who don't want to go to college, many high schools now have job training programs that only benefit males. You see auto mechanic and stevedoring training programs, but not cosmetology training programs. It seems that programs are specifically addressing the problem of not having a college education, but for males only.
LOL you think Jodie Laurenberg wrote that bill? She didn't write it, she could barely defend it. I'll tell you as someone who has authored legislation that politicians don't write bills. Lobbyists do. Lobbyists write legislation, make talking points for legislation, and do the research for legislation. At least where I'm from, this is a male dominated activity. I was at the Capitol during the second special session and the blueshirts were all old ladies who would not be impacted by the legislation. And I'll tell you like I told everyone else, when I was driving to Houston the Sunday after the bill was passed, I-10 was packed with cars from Louisiana with pro-life bumper stickers and license plates. I've never seen that type of traffic in a rural area on a Sunday with no car accidents.
And I KNOW you don't know what you're talking about when Zaffirini didn't support the bill, Van de Putte didn't support the bill, and Sylvia Garcia didn't support the bill. Wendy Davis is obvious, the only women in the Senate that didn't support it were Campbell and Nelson, and even then they could barely form a coherent argument against it. That's a 2/3 margin of women in the Senate who didn't support the bill.
The only place where women overtly benefit in those realms is family law, and that's because the law hasn't changed much since the 1800s. The rest are arguably false. In the 1800s women didn't work and got the house and the kids because there was a perception that men didn't want them and could buy another house. As we've seen with gay marriage, a lot of time passes between when a issue is first recognized and when it is addressed. That's the nature of US law. 50 years have passed since Stonewall and 20 years have passed since a large push for gay marriage started. I don't think it's exactly fair to give the house and the kids to the women without considering other factors.
It advantages males because when you enter the workplace people will be under the assumption that you will be able to work without guidance, that you are more capable than a woman (because there is still a perception of hysteria in America unfortunately), that you won't have to take inordinate amounts of time off to give birth, that you will be more likely to reach upper management positions, that you can walk down the street without worrying about being kidnapped and murdered because you are physically weaker, etc.
Can you name issues that specifically face all men, regardless of color, creed, or class (almost as if men are their own nation)?
And are longer telomeres in female chromosomes evidence of a conspiracy against men, or that men are being oppressed? That's being looked into as a possible cause of women on average living 3 years longer than males. Seriously, if you think genetics are evidence of oppression then you are really deluded.
Your assessment of those stats makes no sense.
As for womens early death it seems very very few women are dying prematurely then, like a miniscule amount. Where as men are four times more likely to die a violent death.
After reading your source I find that with the exception of African American women homicide isnt even in the top 5 causes of early death for women. In fact it goes coronary heart disease, breast cancer, motor vehicle crash, stroke, and lung cancer for the top 5 see page 15. Strangely homicide is the second most common premature death for males see page 14. I don't think homicide is even in the top ten for females.
No I claimed the concept of male privilege makes no sense, a belief in a blanket advantage for males and then went on to clarify. Try reading it helps.
There is extensive research showing this is just one problem among many, nonetheless I'll give you credit for at least not saying something incredibly stupid like "Males are just angry about being denied privilege".
Seriously, this is BS males are four times more likely to be the victims of violence. Why should we build our whole society around a groups irrational and exagerated fears. THAT'S PRIVILEGE! You also can't see how this narrative is emotionally manipulative and designed to prey on the perception of female hypoagency. So feminism needs to fight paternalism with lots more paternalism?
Your "inside" knowledge on politics aside I would like to see a source, thank you.
All the issues I have mentioned affect all boys/men they just affect some groups more then others and thus gets reframed by feminists.
Unless I missed something, that source is just someone's assertion. Do you have anything more robust?
The life span gap has been researched and in some cultures men live almost as long as women this is really just some junk science. Like when feminists claimed the y chromosome was going away or was an incomplete X chromosome. I find it funny that you are willing to ascribe men dying earlier to genetics yet belong to a religion that preaches that men oppressed women throughout history via gender roles when gender roles were both natural and necessary.
Source-http://permutationofninjas.org/post/30120518447/on-the-evolution-of-patriarchy-and-why-men-didnt-do
Grant-The origional source were statistics from the commerce department, at the bottom of the article they list sources.
There is no such thing as a "blanket advantage" for males, but they benefit from previously built institutions and thousands of years of power. If you don't think there are large segments of people who believe that women should be excluded from many aspects of power, look at the kerfuffle over letting Condoleezza Rice golf among other politicos. (Golf courses and strip clubs/bordellos are where the most evil occurs among politicians.)
The issue of crime is a serious problem for states. If a state loses control of crime they lose legitimacy (i.e. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" winning out, Chinese Communist Party covering up the recent bombing in Tienanmen Square, etc.). Security is paramount for all states. Thus, any fears of violent crime need to be abated lest there be discontent.
Thoughts about political science aside, men encounter some crimes more than women, women encounter some crimes more than men. Getting kidnapped and murdered occurs mostly to children and women. Rape occurs more to women. Suicide and gangland violence happen mostly to males. Statistically speaking across the world, males are more likely to fall victim to non state actor terror attacks. The solution to these problems aren't simple, as crime is multifaceted and people turn to crime because of broken homes, mental illness, poverty, sociopathy, drug/alcohol addiction, bad childhoods, boredom, etc. If you want to reduce crime you have to address these problems, which is extremely hard.
The tl;dr of these two paragraphs is that crime and the reaction to crime aren't as simple as you think it is.
Donna Campbell support for abortion bill--http://blogs.sacurrent.com/thedaily/sen-donna-campbells-anti-abortion-law-defense-gets-big-laughs/
Jane Nelson support for abortion bill--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/12/jane-nelson-texas-abortion-bill_n_3586769.html
Zaffirini against abortion bill--http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/Abortion-clinic-bill-stalled-in-Senate-4436704.php
Sylvia Garcia against abortion bill--http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist6/pr13/p071113a.htm
Van de Putte against the abortion bill--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/leticia-van-de-putte-abortion
If I have to provide a source on Wendy Davis being against the abortion bill I'm going to laugh my way out of this thread and into another one.
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/Members.htm
4/6=2/3rds of women in the Texas Senate.
Lobbyists writing bills, it's perfectly normal and makes sense--http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/24/lobbyists_writing_bills_it_s_okay.html
Which male groups are affected more than others?
Are you surprised that a female feminist is actually forming coherent, logical, well-reasoned out thoughts? Maybe you need to stay off Reddit and talk to people with an education.
Telomere length and aging/early death--http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/11/08/dna-telomere-length-tied-to-aging-death-risk
"The investigators focused on demographic factors that might influence the aging process, as well as lifestyle and behavior factors such as education level, and smoking and drinking habits.
In addition, other than during the period of young adulthood, women were found to have longer telomeres than men, the researchers noted. Blacks were also found to have notably longer telomeres relative to other racial/ethnic groups."
Gender roles are not natural, by definition they are artificial. Among the Zapotec of Mexico they have muxes, the third gender. We don't have muxes in the United States, nor do we assign any particular value to transgender people. In fact, the US is through-and-through transphobic. Among the Dahomey in the late 1800s many women were warriors and were able to sleep with prostitutes.
So you think women were advantaged throughout history? Really now. Tell me more about this. I want to hear about how women were allowed to own property since time immemorial and had vast human rights protections from the Akkadian Empire through Victorian England.
regarding feminism and racism: US military recruiting standards. These are the standards required to serve, but they differ for sex (and race, sadly enough) Physical fitness tests are all less intense, across all branches of service, for women. People can and will say that the requirements are less for women due to the fact that the tests were originally designed to specifically measure the physical fitness of a male. So why are females taking the tests at all, if the gender difference makes that much of a difference? Design a test specifically designed to measure the fitness of a female, or admit that the standards were reduced for women in order to increase recruitment.
Recruiters place higher value on recruiting women and "minorities" (even in districts where "minorities" are actually the ethnic majority) because it helps fit the US military ideals of political correctness and equal opportunity.
For instance, it is much easier for an ethnic minority to get a drug waiver than it is for somebody of the ethnic majority.
However, some issues it is actually trying to fix, I.e. women serving on submarines. Women should have been able to serve on submarines decades ago, when the were initially allowed to serve in the military. Women should have been able to serve in any job they wanted to, so long as they met the prerequisites. Lowering standards for women to be able to join should not be considered meeting the prerequisites.
I guess my point is, Females in military service shouldn't be held to a lesser standard than males in military service, and the US military really needs to cut out the racism and recruit ONLY the people that meet the requirements for the job. Equal opportunity is supposed to be exactly that, EQUAL. Race or gender shouldn't be taken into account when determining eligibility. Race or gender shouldn't even be on the initial application.
Wow. I guess i type a bit more drunk than I do sober.
Well it depends. If the standards could be equally lowered without damaging the structure that the military is built on (ability to wage war) then no I would not object. However, in special cases (special forces, special operations, SEALS, Army Rangers) i think the standards should not be lowered in any way shape or form, and in fact, I assume that this will always hold true.
Sorry, relevance? I've gone back to mostly lurking on this thread but I'm curious where you're going with this.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
Then why did every culture have them (with some variation yes but vastly more in common), why did they follow the exact same pattern over and over as different cultures (some seperated by millinea and great distances from each other) transitioned between the same stages of development?
Are you not basically the creationist here?
I think you might not completely comprehend the degree of difference (on average) between men and women when it comes to certain physical tasks. Testosterone is one hell of a performance-enhancing drug. It's one of the most mind-blowing things about the human body to me.
For example, I googled the Marine Corps fitness standards for men and women. The test is separated into three parts, and the upper-body fitness part for women is called the flexed-arm hang. The highest possible score a woman can get on this part of the test is 100 points, which corresponds to a 70 second hang. I performed a little experiment just now to see what would happen. Following all the rules laid out in the link, I went down to my apartment's fitness center and timed myself performing the flexed-arm hang.
I made it to 70 seconds with moderate effort, and probably could have gone another 20-30 seconds. Mind you, I'm not morbidly obese or horrendously out of shape, but I have no business being in the Marines. I'm a scrawny dude who sits in front of a computer all day at work writing legal briefs and motions. I exercise maybe once a week. Yet according to this test I'm as strong as the absolute top-of-the-line female Marine.
This illustrates the problem: if you equalize the standard, the test remains challenging for women but becomes absurdly easy for most men. That doesn't seem very fair, and it sort of undermines the purpose of the test to begin with. On the other hand, having different standards isn't very fair either. Maybe the solution is to realize that there are some tasks out there where one gender will tend to excel over the other, and combat is one of those tasks.
EDIT: If anyone's curious, I can get a 25/100 on the male version of the test (5 hanging pull-ups), which is very close to the lowest possible score (15/100 @ 3 hanging pull-ups). Basically, if you can register any kind of score on the male test, you should be capable of a perfect score on the female test. That's how absurdly disparate the standards are.