[QUOTE=Megafan;36885386]No, because I asked for evidence of an assertion. If you check the rules I believe you'll find that it's required when challenged.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry. That post was pretty much just me losing my shit and being pissed at Lankist, nothing more.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;36883972]There is no institutional misandry. If there was, it would be the first subject of every new report and a million new organizations aimed at preventing misandry would appear to stop it. Men control almost every aspect of the world. They wouldn't let misandry exist.[/QUOTE]
This is extremely uneducated and not true at all. Just look at things like selective services.
Actually, I'm curious; What do you consider to be "institutionalized" sexism?
I think the feminist movement is focusing a bit too much on the idea that women are exposed and that men are vile. The anti-racism movement is very similar. Always whipping up the white nationalities as racist and the black/dark ones as vulnerable.
To be noted is that the common thing among the two is that they rarely or never bring up a case with the reversal of roles. And that says a lot.
[QUOTE=Hellsten;36885940]I think the feminist movement is focusing a bit too much on the idea that women are exposed and that men are vile. The anti-racism movement is very similar. Always whipping up the white nationalities as racist and the black/dark ones as vulnerable.
To be noted is that the common thing among the two is that they rarely or never bring up a case with the reversal of roles. And that says a lot.[/QUOTE]
Again this sounds more like an anecdote more than anything else. Saying 'it seems to me like feminists are really biased based on what I've seen of them' adds absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand. The notion of "feminists/anti-racists never propose the opposite scenario, that's pretty weird!" is nonsense because the scale and frequency of that opposite scenario is so much lower and so much more insignificant, that it is like focusing on killing an ant in your kitchen while a rhino's been tearing the place up all day long.
Sure, but it certainly wouldn't do them any harm.
[QUOTE=Hellsten;36886013]Sure, but it certainly wouldn't do them any harm.[/QUOTE]
It probably wouldn't, but as Lankist said, it's all the more telling that this idea of equality advocates being 'biased' against majority races (or in this case, the majority sex wrt to power) is only brought up to discredit those equality advocates, or in their respective cases, to discredit women and minorities.
I'm saying that they would be better credited if they bring up all cases of inequality because it appeals to a larger number of people.
[QUOTE=Megafan;36886061]It probably wouldn't, but as Lankist said, it's all the more telling that this idea of equality advocates being 'biased' against majority races (or in this case, the majority sex wrt to power) is only brought up to discredit those equality advocates, or in their respective cases, to discredit women and minorities.[/QUOTE]
Well, you reap what you sow. If you advertise a product for old people, young people will be less interested in it. So if you don't advertise feminism as something for both men and women, men will likely be less interested in it. If the tropes vs women thing was about how women in games should be portrayed better and games should be less focused on appealing to male audiences so that more women will be interested in games, the polar opposite is probably true for men and their interest in feminism.
[editline]22nd July 2012[/editline]
It's selfish, but not unreasonable.
[QUOTE=Megafan;36863142]So we get back to the question I asked: is there any proof that the men did not win custody because of misandry?[/QUOTE]
Couldn't the same question be asked of the wage gap being caused by misogyny?
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;36887943]Couldn't the same question be asked of the wage gap being caused by misogyny?[/QUOTE]
Didn't thisispain already post a link explaining wage gaps?
[QUOTE=thisispain;36821815][url]http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2010/18/en/2/EF1018EN.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]It is important to differentiate between the unadjusted (also known as raw) wage gap and the adjusted (also known as discriminatory or unexplained) wage gap. The unadjusted or raw pay gap does not take into account differences in personal (e.g., age, education, the number of children, job tenure and occupation) and workplace characteristics (e.g., the economic sector and place of employment) between men and women. Parts of the raw pay gap can be attributed to the fact that women, for instance, tend to engage more often in part-time work and tend to work in lower paid industries. The remaining part of the raw wage gap that cannot be explained by variables that are thought to influence pay is then referred to as the adjusted gender pay gap and is interpreted as being discriminatory.
However, a 2010 report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, for example, pointed out that "interpreting the adjusted gap as being the only discriminatory component falls short of the reality." The report found that the part of the pay gap which is attributed to observed differences in characteristics (such as age, education, hours worked etc.) may still reflect the outcome of discriminatory social processes. Eurofond found that "the major reasons for this gap are very often related to both horizontal and vertical segregation – or the fact that women tend to choose lower-paid professions, reach a ‘glass ceiling’ in their careers, or have their jobs valued less favourably. The origins of these factors could be judged as being discriminatory in themselves – that is, when they are rooted in gender stereotypes of male and female occupations."[6][/quote]
[QUOTE=Hellsten;36885940]I think the feminist movement is focusing a bit too much on the idea that women are exposed and that men are vile.[/QUOTE]
if you'd refer me to a single feminist author who you think is doing that i'd love to post a follow up
[QUOTE=thisispain;36890120]if you'd refer me to a single feminist author who you think is doing that i'd love to post a follow up[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.helgo.net/enar/politik/talibantalet.html[/url]
I'm not saying every feminist is like this. But this bitch, she's mad.
uh what's mad about it?
though i'm sure you just disagree but can't be arsed to think of something more intellectually deep than "she's mad".
Ok, now you're just quarreling.
no i just want to make sure that if you criticize feminism it's something more constructive than just "she's mad".
she's not mad, she just doesn't agree with you.
Well, do you agree with her?
i don't even know what i would be agreeing with considering all i have are bad google translations.
you're on a fucking english forum, use english examples.
Lankist is many things, but evil is a stretch.
[quote]Become further entrenched in your own views by defending them against people entrenched in their own[/quote]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Last or First;36888622]Didn't thisispain already post a link explaining wage gaps?[/QUOTE]
I saw that post. I was pointing out that if statistics of custody battles are not proof of misandry then doesn't the same apply to the gender wage gap being caused by misogyny?
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36885631]This is extremely uneducated and not true at all. Just look at things like selective services.
Actually, I'm curious; What do you consider to be "institutionalized" sexism?[/QUOTE]
Repost because it went unanswered last page and I'm curious, because this is a shining example of why it exists.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36885631]This is extremely uneducated and not true at all. Just look at things like selective services.
Actually, I'm curious; What do you consider to be "institutionalized" sexism?[/QUOTE]
Because women are barred from front line combat in the US military.
Since the purpose of selective services act was to draft combat troops women were are excluded from it because they aren't allowed into combat.
So in essence the reason selective services are only for men is because of misogyny.
Here is a couple of articles about it, sorry about the formatting of it it is a doc file that is translated to html.
[URL]http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:eQxqx0COWbgJ:scholar.google.com[/URL]
Edit: this is also a pretty good example of institutionalized sexism since women are being officially denied participation in combat solely by their gender.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36904984]Repost because it went unanswered last page and I'm curious, because this is a shining example of why it exists.[/QUOTE]
Misandry has to be imposed by women upon men.
Selective service is imposed on men by men. Court rulings are decided primarily by men, considering most judges are men. Men dominate our legislative, executive and judicial systems. Feminists aren't telling you you need to serve in the army. In fact, feminists have been fighting for YEARS to get women into more active positions in the military. Selective service was invented and is enforced by a patriarchal government. Hence, no matter how much you scream at women about it, they neither perpetrated it nor do they have the power to change it. If you want to get rid of selective service, you have to deal with that amongst yourselves, not amongst feminists.
Exploitative fashion imposed on women, for instance, isn't strictly misogynistic as it is just shitty, provided it is not something perpetrated by the other side of the fence. In the 60's, it was wholly misogynistic as women weren't the ones exploiting fashion as a social control. Today, women generally have a much more active role in the industry, despite it still being p. shitty.
I seriously do not know how the fuck you can claim the draft as discrimination considering the draft is men saying "women can't be drafted," NOT women saying "only men can be drafted." The reason nobody is arguing that women should also be drafted is because pretty much everybody thinks NOBODY should be drafted. If the draft is ever re-instituted, you better damn well know you're going to have the ACLU kicking ass in your name. The only reason it's still around is because there's no basis to repeal it; it hasn't been used in like fifty years, so nobody has been wronged by it.
really hate to revive such a bad thread but here I go
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1203619[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1204324[/url]
anticipating semantics and lots and lots of dodging and/or ignoring this post altogether but that's alright I don't need to argue with you over a point I consider closed, have a nice day
[QUOTE=Lankist;36905781]Misandry has to be imposed by women upon men.
Selective service is imposed on men by men. Court rulings are decided primarily by men, considering most judges are men. Men dominate our legislative, executive and judicial systems. Feminists aren't telling you you need to serve in the army. In fact, feminists have been fighting for YEARS to get women into more active positions in the military. Selective service was invented and is enforced by a patriarchal government. Hence, no matter how much you scream at women about it, they neither perpetrated it nor do they have the power to change it. If you want to get rid of selective service, you have to deal with that amongst yourselves, not amongst feminists.
Exploitative fashion imposed on women, for instance, isn't strictly misogynistic as it is just shitty, provided it is not something perpetrated by the other side of the fence. In the 60's, it was wholly misogynistic as women weren't the ones exploiting fashion as a social control. Today, women generally have a much more active role in the industry, despite it still being p. shitty.
I seriously do not know how the fuck you can claim the draft as discrimination considering the draft is men saying "women can't be drafted," NOT women saying "only men can be drafted." The reason nobody is arguing that women should also be drafted is because pretty much everybody thinks NOBODY should be drafted. If the draft is ever re-instituted, you better damn well know you're going to have the ACLU kicking ass in your name. The only reason it's still around is because there's no basis to repeal it; it hasn't been used in like fifty years, so nobody has been wronged by it.[/QUOTE]
Women can be misogynistic as well as men. Just like people can be racist against their own race.
yeah it is man
Misandry is real enough. There have been more than a few people asking for examples, so here's one I encountered recently.
As some of you know, there has been more than a bit of research into male birth control recently. Something akin to the morning after pill is an impossibility for reasons that I shouldn't need to explain, but the take a pill/get a shot once a month sort of deal is looming on the horizon. I was reading about this on a couple of private forums, and generally people were pretty receptive to the idea. A lot of guys (and some women) were concerned about side effects (currently the stuff apparently shrinks the testicles), and there was a lot of bickering about whether balls (hairy or otherwise) are sexy or not. The strongest opposition to this came from three women on one forum in particular, and all of them have been branded as 'feminazis' by more than a few people. They were universally up in arms about how it should be the woman's choice no matter what, and that giving a man a non permanent (non-vasectomy) form of birth control was somehow infringing on women's rights. One even went as far as to say that it was a woman's right to 'forget' her birth control and entrap someone with a kid despite their wishes.
To put it bluntly. Allowing yourself to be associated with someone like the entitled nutters in my example above will piss on any chance that you have of engaging, let alone winning over large segments of the population. If one of those women had made some speech at a women's rights rally of some sort, I can guarantee you that some women would have lost interest very quickly, and an enormous number of men would use it as an excuse to keep doing whatever, regardless of whether or not it was bigoted in any way. I myself have withdrawn support from organizations because of this. I outright refuse to have anything to do with the Salvation Army, even tangentially, because of their homophobic filth, and I've seen this sort of stuff crop up on every single side of debates about sexism and racism.
This is a serious problem when attempting to discuss this sort of material. How do you deterministically separate yourself from the pack of raving Luddites that want everything for themselves, or want everything to conform to some nonsensical world view? How do you discredit a vocal minority in the eyes of the masses so that you seem reasonable? Not easy questions to answer, that's for sure.
I'm a bit late to the argument, but are there women out there who have a dislike of men and act upon it? Yes, to think otherwise would be naive. I even know a women who's like that. Misandry is real. End of.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating/Posting solely an anecdote" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=RobbL;37702101]I'm a bit late to the argument, but are there women out there who have a dislike of men and act upon it? Yes, to think otherwise would be naive. I even know a women who's like that. Misandry is real. End of.[/QUOTE]
Nobody has been arguing that misandry doesn't exist on the individual level.
What has been the main argument is that misandry doesn't exist on a societal level and that social standards that seem misandric generally stem from misogynistic views.
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;36887943]Couldn't the same question be asked of the wage gap being caused by misogyny?[/QUOTE]
I know I'm a bit late, but going back to that
[quote]
'A few more links on the issue: The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors. The Department of Labor recently funded a study that proved this and found the pay gap is caused by choices, not discrimination. [url]http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf[/url] Women work [(44/56)x100=78% as much time as men.]([url]http://i.imgur.com/gQtnE.png[/url]) Kind of explains the gap by itself doesn't it? The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/[/url] Gender pay gap is not what activists claim [url]http://wwww.examiner.com/x-22884-Canada-Politics-Examiner~y2010m2d22-Gender-pay-gap-is-not-what-activists-claim[/url] Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html[/url] Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22Sommers.html?_r=1&hp[/url] The Wage Gap Myth [url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_wage_gap_myth.html[/url] Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap.html[/url] The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa3pKN3XUKM&feature=youtu.be[/url] --- Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/economy/06women.html?_r=2[/url] Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower. [url]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/biggest-shock-fridays-payroll-report-sorry-men[/url] Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Low [url]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/share-of-men-in-labor-force-at-all-time-low/?src=recg[/url] [Men earn 52% LESS than women for part time jobs]([url]http://imgur.com/a/WuVf9[/url]) [How to get this graph yourself from the Bureau of Labor Statistics]([url]http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/zmbk5/i_thought_you_guys_would_appreciate_this_women_on/c65txzn[/url]) Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money-and-land-better-jobs-than-men-2010-9[/url] Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study [url]www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=R[/url] Female CEOs outearned men in 2009. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10630664[/url] Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men's wages. [url]www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That's 8% more than comparable men. [url]http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Young-Women-Earn-More-159818705.html[/url] Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top [url]http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html[/url] Young Women's Pay Exceeds Male Peers [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html[/url] The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/03/14/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men/[/url] women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount. [url]http://www.womenintechnology.co.uk/news/young-women-earn-more-than-men--news-800761492[/url] Young women now earn more than men in UK [url]http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/10/young-women-now-earn-more-than-men-in-uk/[/url] [The only chairwoman in the FTSE 100 index of biggest British companies, when asked about government efforts to force companies to make at least 25% of board member to be female said: "there's no real evidence to suggest women being on a board makes the companies any better – what we're doing here is forcing an experiment."]([url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-formula-for-better-boards-younger-female-different-8119815.html[/url]) --- This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts. [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedTy…[/url] Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/15/optout.revolution/[/url] This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home). Blaming men for women’s choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives outearning them. [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243[/url] Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html[/url] Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents. [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-equal-parenting_N.htm[/url] ABC News: “Is the Wage Gap Women’s Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity” [url]http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-R[/url] There is also the myth that women are kept out of certain more lucrative fields by sexism. The truth is that women stay away from math out of their own free choice [url]http://sify.com/news/women-stay-away-from-math-out-of-their-own-free-choice-news-scitech-kk1lubiiiee.html[/url] Women In Science: No Discrimination, Says Cornell Study [url]http://www.science20.com/news_articles/women_science_no_discrimination_says_cornell_study-75984[/url] Let’s be real about the lack of women in tech [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-be-real-about-the-lack-of-women-in-tech-2010-10[/url][/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.