Bitsy-I cannot stress enough that the idea that men can have it all is total BS. Men who work to support a traditional family are making sacrifices just like their partner.
Important questions that need answering are: Why are women asked to choose between parenthood and career when men are not?
Men have always been expected to be the breadwinner, so the feminist (somehow turn having all the options into victomhood) reframing you've done here misses the point women can have 2 modes here men can only have 1 mode here (the vast majority of the time). Studies have shown that while 95+% of men will support a stay at home partner or a partner that wants to work less and serve as the primary caregiver only 26% of women would agree to the same. That said in the aftermath few women are happy with the arrangement (working while their partner is the primary caregiver) while men are largely happy to go either way.
Why are women's childbearing capabilities balanced against her work experience and qualification before she's even hired?
I suspect this much like "stereotype threat" is just an attempt to shoehorn different outcomes into a oppressor/victim narrative.
What men's real concerns and problems with their female coworkers?(this is so hard to get a firm grasp on because men don't often speak candidly about what's going on in their minds)
I cant imagine why, we only tell them to shutup and that they have had to much time in the spotlight (privilege) the instant they try to open up.
Why aren't men demanding more fringe benefits(paternity leave, day care stipends, etc) from employers to ease the burden on their partner/spouse?
You mean like some sort of movement to empower the everyday man, like some sort of Mens Rights Movement?
Prior to industrialization, women were expected to work from sun up to sun down
YESSSS and it wasnt until the point that changed that traditional gender roles could even be questioned. Men created the technology that freed women from that crushing load that necessity had created. Now it's time for feminists to give up the petty tribalism and peevish rancor and let men escape their oppressive role.
It took two groups to make that system work, women in the private sphere and men in the public sphere. Forced child support etc was the male half written into law. We need to complete the transformation but only going half way is terrible for all.
So, heres my solution to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. Reverse the bias in family court, custody, and divorce court by switching the financial incentives states pursue around (reversing the genders). Once alimony payments and child support payments are a women's problem 97% of the time and men only have to pay 3% but still get to be the majority of those who default and never see a day in jail women will start having considerably higher lifetime earnings. This will also help them "break the glass ceiling".
It has some issues...
-We would have to have a campaign concerning "deadbeat moms" so as to silence the dissenters and derail any mothers rights groups.
-Like all of the past macro-level solutions it would ignore the personal choices of men and women.
-It's totalitarian, but that seems to be par for the course with "gender equality".
Here's my answer to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. In divorce, custody, and child support gear the system to encourage men to be the primary caregivers. Reversing the US child support systems financial incentives for discriminating against fathers would be a good place to start.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
If this appears more then once my apologies the system is glitchy.
Here's my answer to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. In divorce, custody, and child support gear the system to encourage men to be the primary caregivers. Reversing the US child support systems financial incentives for discriminating against fathers would be a good place to start.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
Here's my answer to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. In divorce, custody, and child support gear the system to encourage men to be the primary caregivers. Reversing the US child support systems financial incentives for discriminating against fathers would be a good place to start.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
Here's my answer to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. In divorce, custody, and child support gear the system to encourage men to be the primary caregivers. Reversing the US child support systems financial incentives for discriminating against fathers would be a good place to start.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
I dont see the current gender equality establishment getting behind this as it would fly in the face of the female tribalism that often defines these issues.
So I figured out how to get rid of "the wage gap", treat women as *****fully in family court, divorce, and custody as we treat men and make men the default for getting the kids. Then women have to work 80 hours a week just to live in a one bedroom efficiency apartment and pay the alimony/child support while men can worK part time. Then switch the child support systems gender based incentives around so judges are rewarded for maximizing child support by limiting womens time with their kids to an hour a week. This will also help break that glass ceiling too as women will have nothing else to do but work and move up the corporate latter. Of course such treatment might understandably drive some women to suicide and create some grumbling, we'll just have to always redirect the conversation to "deadbeat" moms when those issuues come up.
[quote]As far as the whole feminist theory thing...is it their fault that someone who is too stupid to understand the message gets the wrong idea? Because that's what you appear to be saying with this "multi-layer" thing. Yes these things are complicated. I don't think I've ever run into a professed Feminist that claimed otherwise. So when the masses try to reduce it all to something simple, and it comes out all wrong, is that really surprising?quote]
A.I do not believe that it is an accident but quite intentional
B.This strikes me as downright predatory, what about children?
C.It is in point of fact not that complicated. Feminists have intentionally complicated it so as to present women as victims in ways that are absurd and dishonest. Garbage like microaggressions and so on are designed to create a concept of discrimination so fuzzy it becomes whatever the professional victim needs it to be. http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/01/coming_soon_to_a_campus_near_y.html
D. They intentionally spread a message that does not hold up to scrutiny. Since some men have power thus all men have more power then all women. Which is ultimately as intellectually honest as all trout are fish therefore all fish are trout.
Feminists clear goal and largely what they have created is a system by which womens needs, rights, wellbeing, etc. are always prioritized in society above mens HOW THE HELL IS THAT EQUALITY? Then in addition they say "Men are privileged" when called out on it. Frankly it's quintessentially a scam.
Ya men are real privileged, not to mention Title IX the very law that she will use to persecute male students is justified as protecting women's RIGHT to an education. Men have privileges, women have rights typical.
In context, that's not what he's saying. If anything, he's comparing himself to Hitler, for being the one pointing out the deception.
I'm comparing how feminists deceive the public with how Hitler deceived the public.
Then you're trolling. --Senori
Would you say that there is a wage gap caused by rampant anti-female discrimination BlinkingSpirit? Or is it a lot more complicated then that? The public of course believes the former, that's not a coincidence.
Feminism CANNOT achieve gender equality via rabid female tribalism which has now morphed into blatent institutionalization of misandry.
From my point of view gender roles/sexism/etc. are the fallout of a necessary system that did in many ways hurt men and women. Feminism reframed that into "men hurt women" and that has been the sole guiding ethos behind change. Not only is this unfair it is also unproductive.
Technically BlinkingSpirit poisoning the well is: Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. source wikipedia. Feminists have had fifty + years to get their message out with the media and academia heralding it as the greatest thing ever, often putting the feminist opinion as the default on all gender issues and relentlessly and unfairly attacking any opposing point of view often with car bombs, black listing, etc. Feminism is not some poor misunderstood concept that is going to liberate us all it is a terd. Fifty years of polishing that terd including effectively rewriting history and college classes with all the colleges perceived authority behind them, feminist theory presented as scientific and even remotely accurate, and any challenge to this attacked as "women hating". Women's issues have involved the seration of due process rights for the accused (men) and have essentially been jurisprudence running at full speed back to the dark ages in what constitutes proof. The duluth model is the basis for all law enforcement efforts concerning DV and it's pure BS describing all DV as a form of DV that as one sociologist put it, "If it exists it is so rare so as to be a statistical outlier". I could go on but whatever.
Lord Olwington-Only you would take "we should teach men not to rape" and take it to mean normalizing misandry.
Hardly, In fact while they might not use those words most people feel that way about feminism, which is why almosty 4 out of 5 women want nothing to do with it.
I was reading an article yesterday about how feminists have lobbied successfully to have all studies on male stalking, dv, and rape systematically discriminated against in funding. Literally many government agencies WILL NOT FUND any study that includes collecting information on male victims of dv, rape, and stalking even if that study focuses on female victimization first and foremost.
Constantly presenting "Men do X", going on and on about violence against women, and doing everything in your power to silence any other viewpoints on the issue has the exact same effect as "Only men do X". This is not an accident but the intent of feminism and if you read many of their early works they even state that this is their intent. Just as Hitler put in his Mein Kompf "keep you lie simple and repeat it frequently and people will believe" and even after people read that THEY STILL TRUSTED HIM people have shown a nearly infinite ability to be deceived.
As you demonstrate in your response feminists lay the groundwork for this with biased one sided studies for decades then misandry is just "A FACT" when people call them out on it.
"Guys, don't rape people!"
Never said anything of the sort
"Why do you hate men. WAH WAH WAH."
We know why people hate men and have never claimed to be mystified by it. However your response not only demonstrates that you believe the hatred of men and boys is justified but you yourself are proof of how the "Men=Bad" has been normalized to the point where even pointing it out as a bigotry is attacked relentlessly using the most moronic and blatantly dishonest counter arguments.
"let me tell you why men are so oppressed in this country where they are the entrenched establishment."
There is a world of difference between "of the people who hold power most are male" and "males have all the power". The average male has LESS political power then the average female as there are no polticially powerful groups looking out for their interests, male politicians use their power to help women and prioritize their every need above men and its nothing new ever heard of "women and children first". Over the last thirty years all government programs have been redesigned so that all our resources are for women first and foremost. It couldn't matter less if the person signing the bill has a *****, that's just identity politic BS. Even if this dynamic of men having all the power existed it wouldn't change the fact that they have used that power to disadvantage men in every aspect of life.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/is-us-culture-weighted-against-young-boys-43828803766
Talking about poisoning the well, seriously has any well ever been more poisoned. He even starts by first having to establish himself as open minded when nothing could be further from the truth. Then the lies (simple, repeated ad nauseum) the wage gap myth, the glass ceiling myth, the we live in a patriarchy myth, then he frames the debate to an absurd extent by giving his opponent the absolute tiniest of windows to discuss their beliefs. This is the quality of feminist thought. You win by playing dirty, it's just that simple.
To Ladyluck-But oh yes, that is how it actually works, propaganda-wise. Feminist propaganda is a two-level code: a single message encodes “men are guilty of all world’s problems” in a simple populist code, and simultaneously “we don’t really mean that” in a code that is only accessible to intellectuals. The latter, having decoded the second layer, find the message harmless and repeat it (putting their authority behind it), but the masses only receive the level 1 message, which is the effect intended by feminists.
Men don't rape because they're naturally sex crazed fiends that obviously can't control themselves, men rape because they often don't have a clear idea of what rape/consent is.
This line of framing is very common in feminist arguments, first only a few idiots make the former argument and many are feminists. I do believe that the second statement is true some of the time but most certainly not all of the time. If I were to talk about how gender roles evolved out of biological necessity no doubt I'd here "but people are not animals". Strangely if I were to point out that villages and cities were built near water sources because of our biology someone responding with that argument would rightfully be dismissed as an idiot (I hope).
Speaking about the feminist concept earlier discussed "teach men not to rape" it has a hell of a lot of problems starting with...
-We already teach men not to rape
-Its silly to believe telling young men yet again that something they have been told a thousand times in a thousand ways is wrong will suddenly GET IT if they are just denigrated as a group once again. Essentially rubbing all mens noses in the crimes of a small minority of men (and ignoring that women do it to) aka business as usual for feminists.
-That rape is "normalized" when it is in reality the most stigmatized crime out there.
-It inherently sends the message that there is something wrong with masculinity. Something feminists attempt to reframe all issues into an argument that maculinity is toxic which as far as I can tell is really just about propagating/normalizing misandry.
In reality many rapists have personality disorders and are completely indifferent to whether or not what they are doing is wrong aka typical criminal minds. Rapists are not special in this regard.
Men have always been expected to be the breadwinner, so the feminist (somehow turn having all the options into victomhood) reframing you've done here misses the point women can have 2 modes here men can only have 1 mode here (the vast majority of the time). Studies have shown that while 95+% of men will support a stay at home partner or a partner that wants to work less and serve as the primary caregiver only 26% of women would agree to the same. That said in the aftermath few women are happy with the arrangement (working while their partner is the primary caregiver) while men are largely happy to go either way.
I suspect this much like "stereotype threat" is just an attempt to shoehorn different outcomes into a oppressor/victim narrative.
I cant imagine why, we only tell them to shutup and that they have had to much time in the spotlight (privilege) the instant they try to open up.
You mean like some sort of movement to empower the everyday man, like some sort of Mens Rights Movement?
YESSSS and it wasnt until the point that changed that traditional gender roles could even be questioned. Men created the technology that freed women from that crushing load that necessity had created. Now it's time for feminists to give up the petty tribalism and peevish rancor and let men escape their oppressive role.
It took two groups to make that system work, women in the private sphere and men in the public sphere. Forced child support etc was the male half written into law. We need to complete the transformation but only going half way is terrible for all.
It has some issues...
-We would have to have a campaign concerning "deadbeat moms" so as to silence the dissenters and derail any mothers rights groups.
-Like all of the past macro-level solutions it would ignore the personal choices of men and women.
-It's totalitarian, but that seems to be par for the course with "gender equality".
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
If this appears more then once my apologies the system is glitchy.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
I dont see the current gender equality establishment getting behind this as it would fly in the face of the female tribalism that often defines these issues.
A.I do not believe that it is an accident but quite intentional
B.This strikes me as downright predatory, what about children?
C.It is in point of fact not that complicated. Feminists have intentionally complicated it so as to present women as victims in ways that are absurd and dishonest. Garbage like microaggressions and so on are designed to create a concept of discrimination so fuzzy it becomes whatever the professional victim needs it to be. http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/01/coming_soon_to_a_campus_near_y.html
D. They intentionally spread a message that does not hold up to scrutiny. Since some men have power thus all men have more power then all women. Which is ultimately as intellectually honest as all trout are fish therefore all fish are trout.
Feminists clear goal and largely what they have created is a system by which womens needs, rights, wellbeing, etc. are always prioritized in society above mens HOW THE HELL IS THAT EQUALITY? Then in addition they say "Men are privileged" when called out on it. Frankly it's quintessentially a scam.
Heres yet another piece for discussion...http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/02/why_have_a_hearing_just_expel_.html and also http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/12/disagreement-campus-judicial-systems
What a gem "It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege."
Ya men are real privileged, not to mention Title IX the very law that she will use to persecute male students is justified as protecting women's RIGHT to an education. Men have privileges, women have rights typical.
Heres another one...It's not guilty until proven innocent "In this way, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the survivors, encouraging them to speak out and help ensure that more perpetrators of sexual assault are brought to justice." http://www.dailycal.org/2014/02/14/law-proposal-will-increase-access-sexual-assault-justice/
I'm comparing how feminists deceive the public with how Hitler deceived the public.
Then you're trolling. --Senori
Would you say that there is a wage gap caused by rampant anti-female discrimination BlinkingSpirit? Or is it a lot more complicated then that? The public of course believes the former, that's not a coincidence.
Feminism CANNOT achieve gender equality via rabid female tribalism which has now morphed into blatent institutionalization of misandry.
From my point of view gender roles/sexism/etc. are the fallout of a necessary system that did in many ways hurt men and women. Feminism reframed that into "men hurt women" and that has been the sole guiding ethos behind change. Not only is this unfair it is also unproductive.
Technically BlinkingSpirit poisoning the well is: Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. source wikipedia. Feminists have had fifty + years to get their message out with the media and academia heralding it as the greatest thing ever, often putting the feminist opinion as the default on all gender issues and relentlessly and unfairly attacking any opposing point of view often with car bombs, black listing, etc. Feminism is not some poor misunderstood concept that is going to liberate us all it is a terd. Fifty years of polishing that terd including effectively rewriting history and college classes with all the colleges perceived authority behind them, feminist theory presented as scientific and even remotely accurate, and any challenge to this attacked as "women hating". Women's issues have involved the seration of due process rights for the accused (men) and have essentially been jurisprudence running at full speed back to the dark ages in what constitutes proof. The duluth model is the basis for all law enforcement efforts concerning DV and it's pure BS describing all DV as a form of DV that as one sociologist put it, "If it exists it is so rare so as to be a statistical outlier". I could go on but whatever.
Hardly, In fact while they might not use those words most people feel that way about feminism, which is why almosty 4 out of 5 women want nothing to do with it.
I was reading an article yesterday about how feminists have lobbied successfully to have all studies on male stalking, dv, and rape systematically discriminated against in funding. Literally many government agencies WILL NOT FUND any study that includes collecting information on male victims of dv, rape, and stalking even if that study focuses on female victimization first and foremost.
Constantly presenting "Men do X", going on and on about violence against women, and doing everything in your power to silence any other viewpoints on the issue has the exact same effect as "Only men do X". This is not an accident but the intent of feminism and if you read many of their early works they even state that this is their intent. Just as Hitler put in his Mein Kompf "keep you lie simple and repeat it frequently and people will believe" and even after people read that THEY STILL TRUSTED HIM people have shown a nearly infinite ability to be deceived.
As you demonstrate in your response feminists lay the groundwork for this with biased one sided studies for decades then misandry is just "A FACT" when people call them out on it.
Never said anything of the sort
We know why people hate men and have never claimed to be mystified by it. However your response not only demonstrates that you believe the hatred of men and boys is justified but you yourself are proof of how the "Men=Bad" has been normalized to the point where even pointing it out as a bigotry is attacked relentlessly using the most moronic and blatantly dishonest counter arguments.
"let me tell you why men are so oppressed in this country where they are the entrenched establishment."
There is a world of difference between "of the people who hold power most are male" and "males have all the power". The average male has LESS political power then the average female as there are no polticially powerful groups looking out for their interests, male politicians use their power to help women and prioritize their every need above men and its nothing new ever heard of "women and children first". Over the last thirty years all government programs have been redesigned so that all our resources are for women first and foremost. It couldn't matter less if the person signing the bill has a *****, that's just identity politic BS. Even if this dynamic of men having all the power existed it wouldn't change the fact that they have used that power to disadvantage men in every aspect of life.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/is-us-culture-weighted-against-young-boys-43828803766
Talking about poisoning the well, seriously has any well ever been more poisoned. He even starts by first having to establish himself as open minded when nothing could be further from the truth. Then the lies (simple, repeated ad nauseum) the wage gap myth, the glass ceiling myth, the we live in a patriarchy myth, then he frames the debate to an absurd extent by giving his opponent the absolute tiniest of windows to discuss their beliefs. This is the quality of feminist thought. You win by playing dirty, it's just that simple.
Heres another article that discusses how male victims are handled by the feminist media (aka the mainstream media)...http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/16-year-old-schoolboy-attempts-suicide-via-self-immolation-associated-press-uses-it-as-opportunity-to-go-on-and-on-about-male-violence/
To Ladyluck-But oh yes, that is how it actually works, propaganda-wise. Feminist propaganda is a two-level code: a single message encodes “men are guilty of all world’s problems” in a simple populist code, and simultaneously “we don’t really mean that” in a code that is only accessible to intellectuals. The latter, having decoded the second layer, find the message harmless and repeat it (putting their authority behind it), but the masses only receive the level 1 message, which is the effect intended by feminists.
This line of framing is very common in feminist arguments, first only a few idiots make the former argument and many are feminists. I do believe that the second statement is true some of the time but most certainly not all of the time. If I were to talk about how gender roles evolved out of biological necessity no doubt I'd here "but people are not animals". Strangely if I were to point out that villages and cities were built near water sources because of our biology someone responding with that argument would rightfully be dismissed as an idiot (I hope).
-We already teach men not to rape
-Its silly to believe telling young men yet again that something they have been told a thousand times in a thousand ways is wrong will suddenly GET IT if they are just denigrated as a group once again. Essentially rubbing all mens noses in the crimes of a small minority of men (and ignoring that women do it to) aka business as usual for feminists.
-That rape is "normalized" when it is in reality the most stigmatized crime out there.
-It inherently sends the message that there is something wrong with masculinity. Something feminists attempt to reframe all issues into an argument that maculinity is toxic which as far as I can tell is really just about propagating/normalizing misandry.
In reality many rapists have personality disorders and are completely indifferent to whether or not what they are doing is wrong aka typical criminal minds. Rapists are not special in this regard.