• Is misandry real?
    333 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;36808215]i'm literally not literally defending him, i'm literally accusing you of literally shitting up a thread [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] literally[/QUOTE] well isnt this ironic
no?
[QUOTE=McGii;36808015]double check your definition of ad hominem there bro[/QUOTE] If I must. [QUOTE=Wikipedia]An [I][B]ad hominem[/B][/I] ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin"]Latin[/URL] for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for [I][B]argumentum ad hominem[/B][/I][/QUOTE] Considering that the gist of your recent posts have been [I]"You're full of shit because I say so"[/I], I'd say your arguments are pretty ad hominem.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;36807241]Not really, it's just people being extremely uptight about gender roles. No one is saying "being intelligent/muscular is wrong", just that women shouldn't be it. If anything it's misogyny. Our beauty ideals about women being very thin and weak and men as big and strong are partially because of how we see men as the strong ones and women as weak (not only physically). [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] If anyone else carries over 20kg, he's still breaking laws and can still lose his job.[/QUOTE] It's not misogyny, it's GENDER ROLES. That's why, as you said, we see men as strong and women as weak, and discriminate against those who break those gender roles.
[QUOTE=McGii;36808229]well isnt this ironic[/QUOTE] I was really interested in this thread until I realized it's turned into one person getting upset because people disagree with him. Don't get into discussions if you're going to get your feelings hurt when people don't share your viewpoint. I'm running off of McDonald's coffee and very little sleep, so this post is going to be all over the place. Misandry is a topic I've seen come up a lot very recently, and I suspect it's a counter to feminist movements that miss the point and just dislike men. While I don't agree that every time a woman acts in a way that negatively affects a man, I can't help but think that misandry is a very real thing, though not as common as accusers think. A lady being rude to a man is not misandry, she's just rude. Though if she's rude to all men and very nice to other women, it could very well be a different story. On a slightly related note, the OP mentions Tumblr.com. I use it on occasion, and the site has a very large userbase that likes to paint themselves as victims at every turn. In my experience, these users have very strong feelings towards a subject, but the moment you ask them why they feel a certain or if you challenge them on an idea, they get flustered and often times lash out verbally through their keyboards (similar to McGii). This is all observation on my part, but I have a few examples if anyone is interested.
If misandry really is a side-effect of misogyny, why is it not disappearing with misogyny? The stereotype that women must wear dresses and skirts is long gone, but it's still a taboo for men to wear dresses. You see, my problem with feminists is not that they are misandrist (they aren't), but that they still demonize femininity. This hurts both women that actually enjoy being feminine, and men who want to be feminine. I personally think that feminists, MRA's (real ones, not the more common Misogynist Rights Activists), and LGBT rights activists all have a common enemy: gender roles. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=McGii;36805973]Except you are full of shit, there's nothing in a fast food shop that a man would be better at then a woman unless the woman had a broken back or something, it's in your imagination. Paying men more is misogyny by definition plain and simple and theres no "real difference" IE [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] Get out of the ninth grade, none of that happens anywhere except where there are homophobes. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] You keep going on with this BS, misandry exists on a case by case basis and is always mostly a problem for another minority whereas misogyny is baked into our society[/QUOTE] in case you didn't notice, most of of the world is homophobic. So that sort of stuff happens EVERYWHERE.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36809350]If misandry really is a side-effect of misogyny, why is it not disappearing with misogyny? The stereotype that women must wear dresses and skirts is long gone, but it's still a taboo for men to wear dresses. You see, my problem with feminists is not that they are misandrist (they aren't), but that they still demonize femininity. This hurts both women that actually enjoy being feminine, and men who want to be feminine. I personally think that feminists, MRA's (real ones, not the more common Misogynist Rights Activists), and LGBT rights activists all have a common enemy: gender roles.[/QUOTE] I feel the real issue is projection and perception. People are dicks, sure, but there's overwhelming support for these things as well. If you ask me why I play Street Fighter, I'll tell you it's because I enjoy fighting games and I'm very competitive. But if you ask another, they may take a defensive stance. Or the perception could be that I'm trying to brag to you that I'm very skilled and you're not. While this seems silly, it happens very often. In my opinion, it's not moving past gender roles, it's simply engaging in learning, regardless of the subject.
Overall, My argument is: 1) Being physically stronger allows a person to do some jobs more efficiently. 2) If a person can do more jobs efficiently, then they are more likely to get extra hours and be noticed by management. 3) A person is more likely to get a raise if they work more hours and are noticed by management. Since we have established that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman it would only make sense that a man would be more likely to get a raise in a job where physical strength applies, but this isn't purely a male/female thing. This would also mean that extremely weak men would also be paid less on average and extra strong women would also be paid more. We need to remember that we are talking bell curve, averages. Just because SOME women can do the work as well as most men doesn't mean the average woman can't. Also remember than we are talking efficiency, not ability. Can I change my own oil? Yes. Am I efficient at it... not really. It takes me much longer than someone who does it for a living.
[QUOTE=Loen;36697039] The sexist preconception that "men are all violent, power hungry, rapists, etc" ALSO stem from this.[/QUOTE] So pretty much what all those Lifetime movies are trying to tell women. In any case, I see a woman as just another person. They call me a fatass, I'm going to call them a slut. They're people, and they need to stop acting like society owes them something for having a pair of tits.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36809350]If misandry really is a side-effect of misogyny, why is it not disappearing with misogyny? The stereotype that women must wear dresses and skirts is long gone, but it's still a taboo for men to wear dresses. You see, my problem with feminists is not that they are misandrist (they aren't), but that they still demonize femininity. This hurts both women that actually enjoy being feminine, and men who want to be feminine. I personally think that feminists, MRA's (real ones, not the more common Misogynist Rights Activists), and LGBT rights activists all have a common enemy: gender roles.[/QUOTE] Thank you, I couldn't have put it better.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36809350]If misandry really is a side-effect of misogyny, why is it not disappearing with misogyny? The stereotype that women must wear dresses and skirts is long gone, but it's still a taboo for men to wear dresses. You see, my problem with feminists is not that they are misandrist (they aren't), but that they still demonize femininity. This hurts both women that actually enjoy being feminine, and men who want to be feminine. I personally think that feminists, MRA's (real ones, not the more common Misogynist Rights Activists), and LGBT rights activists all have a common enemy: gender roles. [/QUOTE] Shit like men not being "allowed" to wear dresses is because of misogyny, not misandry.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;36813225]Shit like men not being "allowed" to wear dresses is because of misogyny, not misandry.[/QUOTE] Let me get this straight. Women not being treated equally stems from a hate of women Homosexuals not being allowed marriage stems from a hate of homosexuals Yet Men not being treated the same as women somehow stems from a hatred of women? It might seem silly that I don't understand that point, but every time someone brings it up I end up thinking to myself 'What the fuck is this person thinking?' Now, I know that the answer is going to sound something like 'Its misogyny because people hate women, so all that 'misandry' is actually just a side-effect of misogyny. The dress thing is because women are viewed as inferior to men' Ok, I might be able to accept that. On a completely un-related note, has anyone here watched any modern television in a First-World country? If you have, then i'm sure that you will recognize this statement. 'Bungling husband accompanied by an all-knowing ever-correct wife who cleans up after his messes' This is, admittedly a hilarious one, a prime example of misandry. Back before the feminist movement was burning bras, the tables of television were turned. A show, 'I Love Lucy', had an eerily similar plot 'Bungling wife accompanied by an all-knowing ever-correct husband who cleans up after her messes' This show was a prime example of Misogny, they said. It portrayed women as inferior to men, relying on them for everything. Women are stupider than men. Is my point getting across? In modern culture, it is perfectly acceptable to demonize masculinity and deify femininity. Men are portrayed as bungling man-children who couldn't survive without a woman in their lives. It is misandry, clear cut and simple. It does not stem from a hatred of women, but a fear of men.
[QUOTE=SaltyWaters;36813543]Let me get this straight. Women not being treated equally stems from a hate of women Homosexuals not being allowed marriage stems from a hate of homosexuals Yet Men not being treated the same as women somehow stems from a hatred of women? It might seem silly that I don't understand that point, but every time someone brings it up I end up thinking to myself 'What the fuck is this person thinking?' Now, I know that the answer is going to sound something like 'Its misogyny because people hate women, so all that 'misandry' is actually just a side-effect of misogyny. The dress thing is because women are viewed as inferior to men' Ok, I might be able to accept that. On a completely un-related note, has anyone here watched any modern television in a First-World country? If you have, then i'm sure that you will recognize this statement. 'Bungling husband accompanied by an all-knowing ever-correct wife who cleans up after his messes' This is, admittedly a hilarious one, a prime example of misandry. Back before the feminist movement was burning bras, the tables of television were turned. A show, 'I Love Lucy', had an eerily similar plot 'Bungling wife accompanied by an all-knowing ever-correct husband who cleans up after her messes' This show was a prime example of Misogny, they said. It portrayed women as inferior to men, relying on them for everything. Women are stupider than men. Is my point getting across? In modern culture, it is perfectly acceptable to demonize masculinity and deify femininity. Men are portrayed as bungling man-children who couldn't survive without a woman in their lives. It is misandry, clear cut and simple. It does not stem from a hatred of women, but a fear of men.[/QUOTE] I'll rate you hammer. 'Cause you nailed it. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] Wait fuck it's a wrench. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] And we can't rate posts in this section, what am I thinking.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;36813225]Shit like men not being "allowed" to wear dresses is because of misogyny, not misandry.[/QUOTE] No, it's not. When will people stop thinking that our society is based off of hatred of women? It isn't, it's based on gender ideals.
Not completely relevant here, but I find it weird that 99% of the time someone criticises a woman for doing something considered masculine or expressing masculine characteristics they're accused of sexism (by both men and women), but when it's the other way round and someone criticises a man for doing something considered feminine or expressing feminine characteristics they're accused of homophobia instead (again by both men and women)
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36749081]"the reason men are the only ones who are drafted is because men told women they were too weak to serve" "that's exactly what i'm saying! it's not because of woman hating, it's because of ideals!!" you can call it whatever you want, just because you say "ideals" instead of "sexism" doesn't change anything. misandry exists but in a disproportionately smaller scale, i don't think it's comparable to misogyny. also do you have a source for the fact that women are given custody of children more often than men?[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml[/URL] As of 2003, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced. [B]And in 2002, 7.8 million Americans paid about $40 billion in child and/or spousal support (84% of the payers were male).[/B] [URL]http://www.christianet.com/christiandivorce/childcustodystatistics.htm[/URL] [B]In 2008, mothers with custody outnumbered fathers six to one. Child Custody Statistics show the children prefer joint custody agreements.[/B] Women gain sole custody four times as often as fathers in a Stanford study of 1,000 people. [URL]http://www.glennsacks.com/fathers_bear_the.htm[/URL] [B]A study of all divorce-custody decrees in Arlington County, Virginia over an 18 month period found that no father was given sole or even joint custody unless the mother agreed to it. According to Frank Bishop, the former director of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, almost 95% of custody cases in Virginia were won by mothers. [/B] Moms are more likely to abuse children more then Dads. (Source: U.S Department of Health and Human Services, [URL]http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm01/index.htm[/URL]) [URL]http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/mothers-abuse-children-3-times-more-than-dads-federal-hhs-statistics/[/URL] Is that enough sources for you? In fact mothers getting sole custody are more likely to live in poverty which makes me wonder [I]why the fuck take custody, you're making the kids suffer.[/I] If I get a divorce I will fucking fight for custody of my kid(s), or avoid it if possible so they don't suffer.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;36813225]Shit like men not being "allowed" to wear dresses is because of misogyny, not misandry.[/QUOTE] good job totally missing the point of my argument. I'll try and summarize it here: if misandry is a side-effect of misogyny, why is misogyny disappearing but misandry is not? why are women allowed to wear pants, yet men still can't wear dresses? [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RobbL;36815256]Not completely relevant here, but I find it weird that 99% of the time someone criticises a woman for doing something considered masculine or expressing masculine characteristics they're accused of sexism (by both men and women), but when it's the other way round and someone criticises a man for doing something considered feminine or expressing feminine characteristics they're accused of homophobia instead (again by both men and women)[/QUOTE] good point. Personally, I see homophobia as a form of misandry, because it discriminates against men for breaking gender stereotypes (e.g. men like women, men are masculine). [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;36811055]Overall, My argument is: 1) Being physically stronger allows a person to do some jobs more efficiently. 2) If a person can do more jobs efficiently, then they are more likely to get extra hours and be noticed by management. 3) A person is more likely to get a raise if they work more hours and are noticed by management. Since we have established that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman it would only make sense that a man would be more likely to get a raise in a job where physical strength applies, but this isn't purely a male/female thing. This would also mean that extremely weak men would also be paid less on average and extra strong women would also be paid more. We need to remember that we are talking bell curve, averages. Just because SOME women can do the work as well as most men doesn't mean the average woman can't. Also remember than we are talking efficiency, not ability. Can I change my own oil? Yes. Am I efficient at it... not really. It takes me much longer than someone who does it for a living.[/QUOTE] but very few women are even involved in blue-collar jobs, AKA the jobs that require physical strength, so it still does not explain the huge gap. Plus, it in no way explains the gap in white collar jobs.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36811055]Overall, My argument is: 1) Being physically stronger allows a person to do some jobs more efficiently. 2) If a person can do more jobs efficiently, then they are more likely to get extra hours and be noticed by management. 3) A person is more likely to get a raise if they work more hours and are noticed by management. Since we have established that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman it would only make sense that a man would be more likely to get a raise in a job where physical strength applies, but this isn't purely a male/female thing. This would also mean that extremely weak men would also be paid less on average and extra strong women would also be paid more. We need to remember that we are talking bell curve, averages. Just because SOME women can do the work as well as most men doesn't mean the average woman can't. Also remember than we are talking efficiency, not ability. Can I change my own oil? Yes. Am I efficient at it... not really. It takes me much longer than someone who does it for a living.[/QUOTE] The problem that the largest wage discrepencies are on higher paying jobs which generally require no strength at all and it hits women that log just as much hours as men do. Obviously there are some jobs that very few women can do very well - heavy construction and multiple others. In some cases they are actually barred from doing said job by law, but generally on medical grounds. The truth is, that for the sheer majority of jobs gender doesn't play that much of a role unless people make it play a huge role. When I used to work around manual stuff men and women generally carried exactly the same heavy loads and it was generally shared. Sure sometimes you had a guy who wanted to be "chiv" or a boss who only send guys to do it, or a chick that considered it unwomanly to carry stuff. But very often those people didn't stick around for long and got replaced. Gender strength plays an even less role once you move completely out of the manual labour sphere. And in jobs were this efficience matters, most workers work on fixed times anyway, so they cannot generally log more work as it is.
oh i'm sorry we must have ignored my post: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap[/url] remember this? it shows that even when accounting for all possible strength and other differences women still get paid less
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36814965]No, it's not. When will people stop thinking that our society is based off of hatred of women? It isn't, it's based on gender ideals.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's based on gender ideals, but the male ideal is still seen as superior.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36819235]oh i'm sorry we must have ignored my post: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap[/URL] remember this? it shows that even when accounting for all possible strength and other differences women still get paid less[/QUOTE] Do you have a study or something that shows the wage gap information with all the other factors countered in? (women being more likely to take time off for family issues, maternity leave, men working more average hours, etc.) I've always wondered how much of the gap continues to exist once those are taken in to account.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36821797]Do you have a study or something that shows the wage gap information with all the other factors countered in? (women being more likely to take time off for family issues, maternity leave, men working more average hours, etc.) I've always wondered how much of the gap continues to exist once those are taken in to account.[/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] [url]http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2010/18/en/2/EF1018EN.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=thisispain;36821815][URL]http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2010/18/en/2/EF1018EN.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] Thanks, I've never been able to fine one. Hmm, it's so hard to get any real data from this because of the WILDLY different results from the different countries. I mean, they go from 4% to 30%. Do you know of any done in the US?
[QUOTE=thisispain;36807783] so you're saying that the people who sexually harass women would also sexually harass men? somehow i doubt that.[/QUOTE] I'm going to be completely honest here and say that I don't think sexual harassment is sexist [I]in principle[/I]. For instance take any guy who's sexually harassed women and imagine he was gay rather than straight, in that case he'd most likely sexually harass men instead. Imo sexual harassment is more to do with sexuality than prejudice. One more thing, why does discussion of misandry seem to be the only place where the 'children in Africa' argument is legit? "Oh you can't say misandry is a problem at all to anyone ever/you can't complain about being a victim of misandry because misogyny is much more prevalent and severe" Aside from that though, the negative cultural attitudes towards women that are preventing them from reaching true equality are still rife (you can't argue against that). And let's not forget that we're only talking about the West here... in the majority of the world the situation for women is much worse [editline]18th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;36819235]oh i'm sorry we must have ignored my post: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap[/url] remember this? it shows that even when accounting for all possible strength and other differences women still get paid less[/QUOTE] Yeah women are paid less on average for the same work on men, and I agree that along with the number of women working in certain areas like manual jobs it has nearly nothing to do with their actual ability. It's mostly down to cultural attitudes that society is brought up on- many employers (even female employers) hold this prejudice and are less likely to want to employ women and more likely to pay them less when they do, and women themselves are aware of the attitudes towards them and feel intimated by certain jobs, and some women who've been 'indoctrinated' by these cultural attitudes just feel they aren't meant to do certain jobs. Which is wrong ofc.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36819235]oh i'm sorry we must have ignored my post: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap[/url] remember this? it shows that even when accounting for all possible strength and other differences women still get paid less[/QUOTE] and? we are arguing about whether misandry exists, not whether misogyny exists. Everyone knows misogyny exists. Though I find it interesting that construction (the only industry where sqman's excuse makes any sense) is where women are actually payed the closest to men, atleast in America.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36823814]and? we are arguing about whether misandry exists, not whether misogyny exists. Everyone knows misogyny exists. Though I find it interesting that construction (the only industry where sqman's excuse makes any sense) is where women are actually payed the closest to men, atleast in America.[/QUOTE] I think it might be because it's very clear from the beginning that the work requires lots of manual labor. This would eliminate anyone who might not be able to do the job very quickly and as a result you only have capable women getting the job. No one applies to construction and is surprised when they are told to carry around heavy objects. My example was more of a general statment anyway. I was just saying that we need to be careful to account for real differences before saying something is misogyny/misandry. People throw those words around anytime there seems to be a schism between men and women irrespective of any factual physical/mental difference that exist.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36819235]oh i'm sorry we must have ignored my post: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap[/url] remember this? it shows that even when accounting for all possible strength and other differences women still get paid less[/QUOTE] Literally no one here is arguing that misogyny doesn't exist. We're arguing that misandry DOES exist.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36828039]Literally no one here is arguing that misogyny doesn't exist. We're arguing that misandry DOES exist.[/QUOTE] And I think he's argued that misandry only exists on a case-by-case basis and in no institutional way (like misogyny is).
[QUOTE=Megafan;36842613]And I think he's argued that misandry only exists on a case-by-case basis and in no institutional way (like misogyny is).[/QUOTE] But that's blatantly not true, because of the reasons stated earlier on child custody. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] New page, quoting strongest point made last page so people don't continue ignoring it [QUOTE=LtKyle2;36815521][URL]http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml[/URL] As of 2003, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced. [B]And in 2002, 7.8 million Americans paid about $40 billion in child and/or spousal support (84% of the payers were male).[/B] [URL]http://www.christianet.com/christiandivorce/childcustodystatistics.htm[/URL] [B]In 2008, mothers with custody outnumbered fathers six to one. Child Custody Statistics show the children prefer joint custody agreements.[/B] Women gain sole custody four times as often as fathers in a Stanford study of 1,000 people. [URL]http://www.glennsacks.com/fathers_bear_the.htm[/URL] [B]A study of all divorce-custody decrees in Arlington County, Virginia over an 18 month period found that no father was given sole or even joint custody unless the mother agreed to it. According to Frank Bishop, the former director of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, almost 95% of custody cases in Virginia were won by mothers. [/B] Moms are more likely to abuse children more then Dads. (Source: U.S Department of Health and Human Services, [URL]http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm01/index.htm[/URL]) [URL]http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/mothers-abuse-children-3-times-more-than-dads-federal-hhs-statistics/[/URL] Is that enough sources for you? In fact mothers getting sole custody are more likely to live in poverty which makes me wonder [I]why the fuck take custody, you're making the kids suffer.[/I] If I get a divorce I will fucking fight for custody of my kid(s), or avoid it if possible so they don't suffer.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36858378]But that's blatantly not true, because of the reasons stated earlier on child custody. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] New page, quoting strongest point made last page so people don't continue ignoring it[/QUOTE] Well then here's a question I have for that: Is it because, statistically, more men get a divorce after a kid's involved are just more detached, or is the justice system purposefully skewed to give them to women more often? Is there a connection?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.