Award winning feminist filmmaker began to doubt her beliefs while making "The Red Pill"… now funding
151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48994818]
Feminists don't care because its not a womens issue. Feminism is about advancing womens rights and thats how its always been. By its very name it takes the stance that men are the oppressor and that its women that need help.[/QUOTE]
that is actually not the goal of third wave feminism as a whole at all
but a lot of people think like that, that's why a lot of 3rd wave feminists prefer not to be called feminists as its against not only the "fluid notion of gender" thats a main point of modern feminism (trans rights) but also insensitive to the oppression both genders face
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
the name feminism continues to be used more to relate to the past movements more than the main focus of the movement
[QUOTE=technologic;48994765]I'm a tad late, but I need to make the point that mixed-sex military units actually take higher casualties for all sorts of reasons. One is that women aren't as strong as men (well, 99.99999%, as only 2 women became marines out of like 3-4 intakes of 100 and that was only after the army drastically lowered the requirements). The second is that men try to take care of the women in the field - and you'd doubtless say that this is because muh patriarchy but I'm sure anyone would try and go the extra mile to help a woman, even if it meant risking your own life. It is just how we are wired. The third reason is when you add women to an-all male group it changes the dynamic, you can complain about this all you want, but the only way it would not be an issue is if all women became men... and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Pushing for equality in the military is pants-on-head retarded. Sure it makes women feel just as strong as men YEAH GO WMYN... but then in an active warzone it becomes a terrible idea because they'll let the side down and cause more harm than good. Not to mention the headlines when one of them inevitably gets shot.
TLDR: Women in the military is a fucking bad idea for everyone involved, at least on the front lines. Rebut my two latter points but women are physically inferior to men and thus cannot perform in combat effectively. That point will always be true until we pump women full of roids to make them as physically capable as men.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the fact that men feel the need to protect women who have been measured to be wholly equal to them in the field is an example of the effects of a patriarchal society. In a truly equal society, they would be treated the same - nobody would feel a need to protect a woman any more than they would already protect a man. Because they're equals fighting a war.
You're also ignoring that the government has already allowed women into numerous combat roles and that between 2011 and 2013 the percentage of women in the US military has gone from 14.5% to nearly 18% and is still increasing. You're ignoring non-combat roles, you're ignoring officers (which are only 7% women - wonder why), you're ignoring plenty of other roles that women in the military can have beyond combat roles and just flat-out stating "physically inferior" without considering the value that they provide both in combat roles and out of them.
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;48994783]Yes, they were anti-violence, anti-draft, anti-war, and a few of them detested things that affected men. They have NEVER as a whole actually fought to equalize male to female casualties. Anti-war is also an easy target, the simple stance, it has nothing to do with the responsibility, it's deflecting. "If men are sick of dying in war why even have war?" That's not helpful, that doesn't improve anyone's life. Conflict is inevitable, and as a whole they take the easy way out.
edit: @Isak[/QUOTE]
Nobody wants to equal male and female casualties. Are you saying we should cull a woman for every time a man dies in the military? They fought to reduce all casualties - instead of increasing the casualties of women in the military, they fought to reduce the casualties of men in the military to bring them closer to that of women.
It has the same result - if men aren't fighting in wars in the first place, then suddenly you have a nearly equal casualty rate between men and women in war. That is to say, zero. Good. You're saying that they said "if men are sick of dying in war, why even have war?" - but that's not what they said. They were sick of war, too. They didn't want men to die. They didn't want women to die. It was called the peace movement for a reason - you can claim it's idealistic, but it was effective. We haven't had a draft since because of the public outrage. How is that idealistic? It made the use of a draft a cause for moral outrage in our society, so now the government can't.
Just as long as they leave video games out of this.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48995028]Yes, the fact that men feel the need to protect women who have been measured to be wholly equal to them in the field is an example of the effects of a patriarchal society. In a truly equal society, they would be treated the same - nobody would feel a need to protect a woman any more than they would already protect a man. Because they're equals fighting a war.
[/QUOTE]
I could point out that A) There's a biological reason for men to feel the need to protect women and B) Male and Female troopers don't have the same efficiency. But of course you'd just shout "BIOTRUTH!". There will be never something as a TRULY equal society because even if males and females have the same value as individuals, they have different needs and wants.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48995028]
You're also ignoring that the government has already allowed women into numerous combat roles and that between 2011 and 2013 the percentage of women in the US military has gone from 14.5% to nearly 18% and is still increasing. You're ignoring non-combat roles, you're ignoring officers (which are only 7% women - wonder why), you're ignoring plenty of other roles that women in the military can have beyond combat roles and just flat-out stating "physically inferior" without considering the value that they provide both in combat roles and out of them.
[/QUOTE]
And you're ignoring that men still get the most dangerous deployments, get higher marks which is why there's more male officers.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48995028]
It has the same result - if men aren't fighting in wars in the first place, then suddenly you have a nearly equal casualty rate between men and women in war. That is to say, zero. Good. You're saying that they said "if men are sick of dying in war, why even have war?" - but that's not what they said. They were sick of war, too. They didn't want men to die. They didn't want women to die. It was called the peace movement for a reason - you can claim it's idealistic, but it was effective. We haven't had a draft since because of the public outrage. How is that idealistic? It made the use of a draft a cause for moral outrage in our society, so now the government can't.[/QUOTE]
Canuhearme already pointed out that this kind of scenario is impossible and campaigning for this is a cop out.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48995028]Yes, the fact that men feel the need to protect women who have been measured to be wholly equal to them in the field is an example of the effects of a patriarchal society. In a truly equal society, they would be treated the same - nobody would feel a need to protect a woman any more than they would already protect a man. Because they're equals fighting a war.
You're also ignoring that the government has already allowed women into numerous combat roles and that between 2011 and 2013 the percentage of women in the US military has gone from 14.5% to nearly 18% and is still increasing. You're ignoring non-combat roles, you're ignoring officers (which are only 7% women - wonder why), you're ignoring plenty of other roles that women in the military can have beyond combat roles and just flat-out stating "physically inferior" without considering the value that they provide both in combat roles and out of them.[/QUOTE]
If you truly believe men and women are exactly the same you are deluded. Soulharvester had a good point and we have naturally evolved differently. You can scream 'bio-truth' all you want, but science confirms it: [url]http://www.livescience.com/41619-male-female-brains-wired-differently.html[/url] (and if you want more articles detailing how we are evolutionary different then I have a whole list I'm more than willing to share). Women are still human, of course, but there are a lot of minute psychological differences to us men.
In addition, society will always value women over men. Women are responsible for bearing the next generation of said society. Men are disposable. Because a man doesn't need to carry a child for 9 months, we only require a few men to repopulate following times of crisis (this was especially seen following the increasingly destructive wars during the 16th to 20th century and once again, to back this up I'm more than willing to point you towards my, highly respected, tenured professor who made this point).
Moving on. You are ignoring the fact that women are banned from front-line duty in every nation on the planet. 3 women got into the marines in the US but they are banned from duty until a study conclusively proves they will be just as effective as men in the field (and the study is taking so long because this looks doubtful). I also have to mention here that you seemingly willingly misrepresented women being in the field: [i]'You're also ignoring that the government has already allowed women into numerous combat roles and that between 2011 and 2013 the percentage of women in the US military has gone from 14.5% to nearly 18% and is still increasing'[/i]. The first part of this statement is a downright lie. No country on earth allows women to serve in a military front-line capacity. In addition, the fact you tacked on the second part of the statement to it (detailing rising numbers of female military participation) gives off the impression you intended people to believe we already have women on the front-line. Which simply isn't true.
Now note, your vehemence toward anyone disputing your points has let you down here. I simply said that women on the front-lines is a bad idea... which every expert ever has confirmed (I can point you toward numerous interviews with generals the world over if you wish). Women in support roles is great! I'm happy for them and fully support their joining the army and doing something for their country. Therefore I'm not ignoring their potential roles at all and am in fact in support of them (note I said in my post: [i]Women in the military is a fucking bad idea for everyone involved, [b]at least on the front lines[/b][/i]).
However, they are physically inferior when placed into comparison with the caliber of man who joins the armed forces in a front-line capacity.
And, I'm sorry to say, if you argue otherwise then you are a fool who ignores reality. Sad as it may be.
i could easily see women taking on tertiary combat roles, like many women were in the Red Army during WW2. machine gun operators, artillery(wo)men, snipers, pilots, medics, and scouts. especially snipers and pilots, since women generally have more natural endurance than men. i just don't see women matching the number of men in frontline combat roles ever unless we're able to find some way to chemically or mechanically nullify the physical differences
Seeing as smart bullets and exoskeletons will be a thing within twenty years, there will an eventual equalization.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989652]It's not one article. I was heavily into /r/seduction and /r/theredpill for almost a year.
It's not a complex group, either. The very basics of their complaints are genuine and I recognize that and I entirely suppor those few basic complaints - but it's an echo chamber that breeds contempt for women and has gotten increasingly radicalized over time.
Here's a couple comments lifted straight from the TRP thread on this documentary:
"Why would you want to support anything a feminist is doing?"
"I don't give a shit that some dumb blonde bimbo wants to "enlighten" herself."[/QUOTE]
Listen man I know that you're trying to like deflect any personal responsibility for belonging to this group by decrying anyone who mentions it in anything other than a satanic light but perhaps you need to stop, take responsibility for your actions, and actually listen to what someone has to say.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48995028].[/QUOTE]
First of all I would like to say that the red pill sub reddit has absolutely nothing to do with this documentary.
Taking the red pill was apparently a saying that was used in the past by the mens rights movement about 2 years ago. By sheer coincidence filming started about two years ago, furthermore the director herself has clearly stated multiple times that the above is the case. Considering the directors past and present behavior I find the odds of her being dishonest quite unlikely.
Second of all the community that she is actually covering (the mens right movements) I do not at all consider a hate movement. Have you ever talked to a self proclaimed MRA or visited the mensright subreddit? What are you basing your accusation on?
I have taken the time of day to actually talk to people on an individual level and I found them to be quite reasonable. Admittedly plenty of poop floats to the surface in the subreddit but the same goes with all subreddit and is more of an indication of the flaws of reddit rather then specifically that that group of people.
Believing that people that you disagree with must be part of a hate movement isn't conducive to critical thought or empathy.
Please do some research on the director and her motives behind making this movie. Then try emulating her journey in parts and see for yourself whether all MRA's are truly an irrational hatemob that only seeks to destroy.
Reminds me of this tbh (to be honest)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/yuKlNlx.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=technologic;48999030]If you truly believe men and women are exactly the same you are deluded. Soulharvester had a good point and we have naturally evolved differently. You can scream 'bio-truth' all you want, but science confirms it: [url]http://www.livescience.com/41619-male-female-brains-wired-differently.html[/url] (and if you want more articles detailing how we are evolutionary different then I have a whole list I'm more than willing to share). Women are still human, of course, but there are a lot of minute psychological differences to us men.
In addition, society will always value women over men. Women are responsible for bearing the next generation of said society. Men are disposable. Because a man doesn't need to carry a child for 9 months, we only require a few men to repopulate following times of crisis (this was especially seen following the increasingly destructive wars during the 16th to 20th century and once again, to back this up I'm more than willing to point you towards my, highly respected, tenured professor who made this point).
Moving on. You are ignoring the fact that women are banned from front-line duty in every nation on the planet. 3 women got into the marines in the US but they are banned from duty until a study conclusively proves they will be just as effective as men in the field (and the study is taking so long because this looks doubtful). I also have to mention here that you seemingly willingly misrepresented women being in the field: [i]'You're also ignoring that the government has already allowed women into numerous combat roles and that between 2011 and 2013 the percentage of women in the US military has gone from 14.5% to nearly 18% and is still increasing'[/i]. The first part of this statement is a downright lie. No country on earth allows women to serve in a military front-line capacity. In addition, the fact you tacked on the second part of the statement to it (detailing rising numbers of female military participation) gives off the impression you intended people to believe we already have women on the front-line. Which simply isn't true.
Now note, your vehemence toward anyone disputing your points has let you down here. I simply said that women on the front-lines is a bad idea... which every expert ever has confirmed (I can point you toward numerous interviews with generals the world over if you wish). Women in support roles is great! I'm happy for them and fully support their joining the army and doing something for their country. Therefore I'm not ignoring their potential roles at all and am in fact in support of them (note I said in my post: [i]Women in the military is a fucking bad idea for everyone involved, [b]at least on the front lines[/b][/i]).
However, they are physically inferior when placed into comparison with the caliber of man who joins the armed forces in a front-line capacity.
And, I'm sorry to say, if you argue otherwise then you are a fool who ignores reality. Sad as it may be.[/QUOTE]
You're patently incorrect, though.
Israel conscripts women. Norway just this year began conscripting women, and [URL="http://www.nato.int/ims/2001/win/denmark.htm"]allowed them to work in combat roles throughout both Afghanistan and Iraq[/URL]. Eritrea's active [i]combat[/i] military force is nearly 30% women. New Zealand has no restrictions on women in the military - the only area that women have not successfully entered is the SAS, but there are women in the infantry in NZ. The Danish military hasn't had restrictions on women in either Iraq of Afghanistan - they were infantry members as well. Finland has allowed women to work in combat roles on the front-lines since 1995. Germany has no restrictions on what military roles women can hold. Sweden allows women to serve in combat roles. There are plenty of examples - and the US is moving in a direction to allow women to serve in front-line combat roles.
The US is one of many countries making significant steps to allowing women to take combat roles and equalizing their opportunities in the military. I'm not talking about special forces, I'm talking about infantry combat roles, which almost every other developed country allows.
Here's a [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/"]NatGeo article[/URL] listing [B]8 other major nations that allow women to serve in combat roles.[/B]
I don't know where you got this idea that, direct quote, "women are banned from front-line duty in every nation on the planet." You are incorrect.
If you want to call me "a fool who ignores reality," at least [B]research your own fucking points.[/B]
I wish women's and men's rights groups would try to unite under a reasonable "equal rights" group banner.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48997345]I could point out that A) There's a biological reason for men to feel the need to protect women and B) Male and Female troopers don't have the same efficiency. But of course you'd just shout "BIOTRUTH!". There will be never something as a TRULY equal society because even if males and females have the same value as individuals, they have different needs and wants.
And you're ignoring that men still get the most dangerous deployments, get higher marks which is why there's more male officers.
Canuhearme already pointed out that this kind of scenario is impossible and campaigning for this is a cop out.[/QUOTE]
Canuhearme just said "that's not possible," without providing any reasoning or logic behind [i]why[/i] it is impossible. That's not an argument - that's an opinion. He has yet to convince me otherwise - it is still wholly possible, and many countries (105, according to wikipedia), have no compulsory military service. The US has both compulsory and voluntary service through selective service - but many other nations rely solely on volunteers and have no sort of compulsory or mixed service requirements whatsoever. Many countries are already abolishing conscription and selective-service-styled registration entirely. Most of Europe, with the exception of Norway and a select few other countries, have abolished or are in the process of abolishing mandatory conscription or potential-conscription registration (e.g. selective service).
Men are more suited for combat roles. I'll accept that.
What about a barren lesbian woman? Would a man feel a need to protect her? She has no biological reproductive function. Why should that be different? I take issue with your idea that men have a "biological need" to protect women for the same reason I claim you're shouting about biotruths. Yes, women and men are physiologically different, there's no debate there, but you're stating that [i]because of how our social structure used to be[/i], our brains are wired to follow that exactly. Evolutionary psychology is not considered a genuine field of study by most academics, because it makes baseless assumptions. It might make sense that men should feel a need to protect women, but would there actually be enough evolutionary pressure to cause permanent psychological (not physiological) changes to men as a whole? There are plenty of men that are not protective of women, and there are plenty of women that are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.
I don't want to argue about evopsych, it's rubbish and rooted in assumptions. There's plenty of reading available as to why it is rubbish, and I encourage you to read that alongside the arguments in favor of it. They're far more convincing than the arguments in favor - one side's questioning the validity of the hypotheses and asking about where certain assumptions come from and providing evidence that counteracts it, while the other tends to hunker down and struggle to find evidence that supports their theories without making wide-ranging assumptions about past human behavior.
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=spazthemax;49002155]I wish women's and men's rights groups would try to unite under a reasonable "equal rights" group banner.[/QUOTE]
That's what I've been arguing. It is entirely possible to use the framework of the gender equality movement to discuss issues that men face. The same framework used for the Women's Liberation movement has been used for the LGBT rights movement, and at this point that framework concerns all matters of gender, from sexuality to orientation to femininity and masculinity and everything in between.
The only reason the Men's Rights Movement has distinctly separated itself from feminism and the gender equality movement is because of a false assumption that feminism is for women. It isn't. Intersectional feminism concerns everything from institutional racism to gender identity. It's not about "FEMinism" as people assume - it's basically an enormous field of gender and race studies that ties together entirely. There is plenty of room to discuss men's issues in that framework, and every time I've brought up issues like a lack of shelters for homeless men or bias against men as aggressors in domestic disputes, people have been responsive to that. Feminists have been responsive to that.
You can call it whatever you want - egalitarianism, gender equality movement, feminism, who cares - but the Men's Rights Movement's critical mistake was positioning feminism (and thus the gender equality movement) as an enemy rather than an ally.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002169]You can call it whatever you want - egalitarianism, gender equality movement, feminism, who cares - but the Men's Rights Movement's critical mistake was positioning feminism (and thus the gender equality movement) as an enemy rather than an ally.[/QUOTE]
You're so diluted on this issue. Feminists absolutely hate men's rights. They hate it with a passion. Show me a well known feminist who advocates working with men's rights groups.
Also, men's rights idea that feminists care about women's issues exclusively is based on fact, not assumption. Like I said earlier that no one tried to refute: We heard about the higher number of men graduating from college constantly as a sign of sexism and oppression from feminists for years, but now the numbers are switched in a big way yet we hear absolutely nothing. Instead, the feminists focus on the very few college programs (STEM mostly) that still have a higher representation of men.
So, if feminists care about men the same as they care about women, then why is the exact same number a sign of sexism only when there are more men than women?
Even the examples of women fighting for things like entering the military it's still in the name of women. They don't argue that it's not fair that men have to die and women don't. They argue that it's oppressive to not allow women to join the military if they want to. It's always about the desire of the woman.
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
Please also know that I don't even associate myself with the men's rights groups, and wouldn't call myself a men's rights advocate. I do think that places that associate themselves with that name are often pretty toxic, but that doesn't change the fact that their foundational concerns are a whole lot more than blind assumption.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49002232]You're so diluted on this issue. Feminists absolutely hate men's rights. They hate it with a passion. Show me a well known feminist who advocates working with men's rights groups.
Also, men's rights idea that feminists care about women's issues exclusively is based on fact, not assumption. Like I said earlier that no one tried to refute: We heard about the higher number of men graduating from college constantly as a sign of sexist and opporession from feminists for years, but now the numbers are switched in a big way yet we hear absolutely nothing. Instead, the feminists focus on the very few college programs (STEM mostly) that still have a higher representation of men.
So, if feminists care about men the same as they care about women, then why is the exact same number a sign of sexist only when there are more men than women?
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
Please also know that I wouldn't even call myself a men's rights person.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue that the idea that feminism is counter to MRM to be an issue of perspective, not of fact.
Feminism and the LGBT movement get along just fine and dandy. Men are heavily involved in the LGBT movement. Why do they get along with gay men, or bi men, and apparently hate straight men?
Hell, look at nursing, which is the most common example I hear. Women don't want more men in nursing, right? Well, if that's the case, [URL="https://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupations.pdf"]why has the number of men in nursing steadily increased over the last few decades?[/URL]. You have to also consider another fact listed in the census document - why are men earning more than women in the same nursing occupations? There used to be a heavy stigma against men in nursing - the men's rights movement has not been the one to break that down. The abolition of stereotypical "gender roles" has been the goal of feminism for a long time now - MRM focuses on a return to masculinity and a stereotypical "alpha male" idol figure, not an abolition of gender roles. This allows women to be soldiers and men to be caretakers without any stigma about "being a real man" or "being out of line" as a woman. MRM promotes the opposite - more stringent gender roles.
I don't honestly know why stuff like nursing receives less attention, but it's not too big a deal for me - we're seeing it equalize across the board. The "Women in STEM" focus is largely internet-based - from my own experiences in real life, it's rarely mentioned, and people are far more concerned about stuff like the wage gap (which, while misrepresented horribly in the media, absolutely exists).
As for your question involving a single feminist author that promotes working with men in feminism, here you go:
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shira_Tarrant"]Shira Tarrant[/URL], a UCLA professor who has written numerous books about how men and feminism are intertwined and how they benefit each other.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flood"]Michael Flood[/URL], an Australian sociologist who's written about the Men's Rights Movement as a backlash to feminism, and approaching men's rights from a pro-feminist perspective concerning masculinity, sexuality, and all sorts of other shit.
Hell, many colleges offer "men's studies" classes, which involve discussions of masculinity and gender identity from a male perspective within the context of feminism and gender equality.
Just because you haven't heard of authors writing about how the idea of "manhood" can continue beyond hypermasculinity and a sense of masculine superiority doesn't mean they don't exist.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002169]Canuhearme just said "that's not possible," without providing any reasoning or logic behind [i]why[/i] it is impossible. That's not an argument - that's an opinion. He has yet to convince me otherwise - it is still wholly possible, and many countries (105, according to wikipedia), have no compulsory military service. The US has both compulsory and voluntary service through selective service - but many other nations rely solely on volunteers and have no sort of compulsory or mixed service requirements whatsoever. Many countries are already abolishing conscription and selective-service-styled registration entirely. Most of Europe, with the exception of Norway and a select few other countries, have abolished or are in the process of abolishing mandatory conscription or potential-conscription registration (e.g. selective service).[/QUOTE]
Because the US NEED people in the army to mantaim current position. They can't just do away with the drafting.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002169]
Men are more suited for combat roles. I'll accept that.
What about a barren lesbian woman? Would a man feel a need to protect her? She has no biological reproductive function. Why should that be different? I take issue with your idea that men have a "biological need" to protect women for the same reason I claim you're shouting about biotruths. Yes, women and men are physiologically different, there's no debate there, but you're stating that [i]because of how our social structure used to be[/i], our brains are wired to follow that exactly. Evolutionary psychology is not considered a genuine field of study by most academics, because it makes baseless assumptions. It might make sense that men should feel a need to protect women, but would there actually be enough evolutionary pressure to cause permanent psychological (not physiological) changes to men as a whole? There are plenty of men that are not protective of women, and there are plenty of women that are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.
I don't want to argue about evopsych, it's rubbish and rooted in assumptions. There's plenty of reading available as to why it is rubbish, and I encourage you to read that alongside the arguments in favor of it. They're far more convincing than the arguments in favor - one side's questioning the validity of the hypotheses and asking about where certain assumptions come from and providing evidence that counteracts it, while the other tends to hunker down and struggle to find evidence that supports their theories without making wide-ranging assumptions about past human behavior.
[/QUOTE]
You think before society men didn't protect women? The roles we see in society are directly taken from the roles we used to have before society.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002169]
What about a barren lesbian woman? Would a man feel a need to protect her? She has no biological reproductive function. Why should that be different? I take issue with your idea that men have a "biological need" to protect women for the same reason I claim you're shouting about biotruths. Yes, women and men are physiologically different, there's no debate there, but you're stating that [i]because of how our social structure used to be[/i], our brains are wired to follow that exactly. Evolutionary psychology is not considered a genuine field of study by most academics, because it makes baseless assumptions. It might make sense that men should feel a need to protect women, but would there actually be enough evolutionary pressure to cause permanent psychological (not physiological) changes to men as a whole? There are plenty of men that are not protective of women, and there are plenty of women that are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.
[/QUOTE]
I think you completely misunderstand what people are claiming.
Generally speaking, in the environment which we evolved in, groups in which men are protective of women would be more successful than groups in which men and women value each other equally. Because, practically speaking, women are more valuable than men.
All men would need is a desire to protect women. Even if 10% of the time that desire isn't beneficial because the woman they're protecting is barren or whatever, it doesn't matter as long as 90% of the time that desire is beneficial.
If it is possible for such impulses to exist, and if those impulses would be beneficial to the organism that had them, I see no reason why they wouldn't evolve.
That is not to say I know they could exist or that they did evolve, but the hypothesis is far from ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49002440]Because the US NEED people in the army to mantaim current position. They can't just do away with the drafting.
You think before society men didn't protect women? The roles we see in society are directly taken from the roles we used to have before society.[/QUOTE]
The US doesn't draft. Did you [I]really[/I] not know that? 100% of people in the US military right now are volunteers - the selective service system is a registration [i]in case a draft ever becomes necessary[/i]. We don't draft anybody right now, and it's very unlikely we ever will in the future.
I'm not saying men didn't protect women, I'm saying that extrapolating pre-civilization, pre-tribal social behavior and assuming that it is [i]inherently human behavior[/i] is intellectually dishonest. That's why evopsych is considered rubbish - it conflates social norms (which are temporary and changeable in almost every way) with natural human behavior (which are rarely changeable).
There's a case study ([URL="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/20/8134.short"]Beckerman, et al. 2009[/URL]) that found that within a specific tribe, the most aggressive men had the fewest offspring. Doesn't this conflict with the idea that men are more naturally defenders of their "property" (women), and that the more aggressive and strong a man is the more successful he will be at reproducing? A single exception calls that idea, that male aggression is a natural human trait, into question. It makes us ask whether or not male aggression is a learned social behavior, rather than an inherent human behavior that can never change.
The same goes for "roles in society," except it is blatantly clear to us that this is untrue now. Men can be stay-at-home dads. Does that mean that they will be unsuccessful? Matriarchal societies have existed on Earth before. Does that mean that sometimes women protected the men?
You can't just say "that's the way it used to be, so that's the way it always will be," especially when you have a society like ours that breaks convention with a lot of previously-assumed "natural human behaviors." Homosexuality confers no evolutionary advantage to the individual - and DNA doesn't care about the social group. Does that mean homosexuality is a learned social behavior? You see how these assumptions cause problems, and why evolutionary psych's assumptions are particularly baseless.
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49002521]I think you completely misunderstand what people are claiming.
Generally speaking, in the environment which we evolved in, groups in which men are protective of women would be more successful than groups in which men and women value each other equally. Because, practically speaking, women are more valuable than men.
All men would need is a desire to protect women. Even if 10% of the time that desire isn't beneficial because the woman they're protecting is barren or whatever, it doesn't matter as long as 90% of the time that desire is beneficial.
If it is possible for such impulses to exist, and if those impulses would be beneficial to the organism that had them, I see no reason why they wouldn't evolve.
That is not to say I know they could exist or that they did evolve, but the hypothesis is far from ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I'm not - the hypothesis that men have evolved to be protective of women lacks evidence. The only evidence of it is our social structure - and we know for certain that social norms are often learned, not inherent.
It is an interesting hypothesis, and it seems to make sense, but picking the option that "makes the most sense" is not how anthropology, sociology, and science works. Evidence is needed, and it's not there. If anyone has evidence that conclusively shows that there is an evolved sense of a need for men to protect women, I'll concede, but I have seen nothing convincing.
It's a reasonable hypothesis, no doubt, but that doesn't matter. What matters is if the evidence shows that it's true - and there is evidence pointing the opposite direction in a lot of ways. What about matriarchal societies? There are thousands and thousands of examples of women fighting in wars in both patriarchal and matriarchal societies - why would men allow them to do so if they had an evolutionary psychological drive to protect women? Especially in Asia and the Americas, women are often powerful figures leading rebellions and revolts or leading armies - wouldn't the men be driven to protect them from such reckless endangerment of themselves if they're such a valuable commodity?
There's a very real reason evolutionary psychology is regarded as bunk science - and it's not because of some feminist agenda. It's because it lacks evidence and conflates temporary social norms with evolutionary human behavior. There are a million holes in the idea, as realistic as it might initially sound.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002539]I'm not saying men didn't protect women, I'm saying that extrapolating pre-civilization, pre-tribal social behavior and assuming that it is [i]inherently human behavior[/i] is intellectually dishonest. That's why evopsych is considered rubbish - it conflates social norms (which are temporary and changeable in almost every way) with natural human behavior (which are rarely changeable).
There's a case study ([URL="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/20/8134.short"]Beckerman, et al. 2009[/URL]) that found that within a specific tribe, the most aggressive men had the fewest offspring. Doesn't this conflict with the idea that men are more naturally defenders of their "property" (women), and that the more aggressive and strong a man is the more successful he will be at reproducing? A single exception calls that idea, that male aggression is a natural human trait, into question. It makes us ask whether or not male aggression is a learned social behavior, rather than an inherent human behavior that can never change.
The same goes for "roles in society," except it is blatantly clear to us that this is untrue now. Men can be stay-at-home dads. Does that mean that they will be unsuccessful? Matriarchal societies have existed on Earth before. Does that mean that sometimes women protected the men?
You can't just say "that's the way it used to be, so that's the way it always will be," especially when you have a society like ours that breaks convention with a lot of previously-assumed "natural human behaviors." Homosexuality confers no evolutionary advantage to the individual - and DNA doesn't care about the social group. Does that mean homosexuality is a learned social behavior? You see how these assumptions cause problems, and why evolutionary psych's assumptions are particularly baseless.[/QUOTE]
Maybe a certain level of aggression isn't beneficial. Maybe it isn't beneficial for people to be hard wired to make "patriarchal" societies, whatever that would mean in genetic terms.
But I find it difficult to argue that it wouldn't be beneficial for men to be more willing to engage in conflict with others and to favor the wellbeing of women over their own and that of other men. And that's the claim that's being presented.
As for homosexuality, I don't think anyone has found any specific genetic cause for it. As far as I'm aware, that has more to do with developmental abnormalities and hormonal imbalances. Evolution doesn't really have much of a say in that sort of thing. It's kind of irrelevant.
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002539]I'm not - the hypothesis that men have evolved to be protective of women lacks evidence. The only evidence of it is our social structure - and we know for certain that social norms are often learned, not inherent.
It is an interesting hypothesis, and it seems to make sense, but picking the option that "makes the most sense" is not how anthropology, sociology, and science works. Evidence is needed, and it's not there. If anyone has evidence that conclusively shows that there is an evolved sense of a need for men to protect women, I'll concede, but I have seen nothing convincing.
It's a reasonable hypothesis, no doubt, but that doesn't matter. What matters is if the evidence shows that it's true - and there is evidence pointing the opposite direction in a lot of ways. What about matriarchal societies? There are thousands and thousands of examples of women fighting in wars in both patriarchal and matriarchal societies - why would men allow them to do so if they had an evolutionary psychological drive to protect women? Especially in Asia and the Americas, women are often powerful figures leading rebellions and revolts or leading armies - wouldn't the men be driven to protect them from such reckless endangerment of themselves if they're such a valuable commodity?
There's a very real reason evolutionary psychology is regarded as bunk science - and it's not because of some feminist agenda. It's because it lacks evidence and conflates temporary social norms with evolutionary human behavior. There are a million holes in the idea, as realistic as it might initially sound.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you that it's far from a proven theory, but the arguments you're presenting against it all seem to completely misunderstand the fundamentals of how evolution works.
Women fighting disproves evolutionary psychology in the same way that cold weather disproves global warming. We're talking about general trends, not strict global rules.
My feeling is that adaptability is a far more useful trait than any biologically hardwired instinct. So I personally doubt that evolution has had too strong a hand in defining our psychology. But I cannot in all honesty say that I think it has had none at all.
Ultimately, no one knows for sure. I am as bothered by people who act like evopsych proves all their beliefs about the world as I am by people who act like it's a completely nonsensical concept that could never possibly be true.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49002232]You're so diluted on this issue. Feminists absolutely hate men's rights. They hate it with a passion. Show me a well known feminist who advocates working with men's rights groups.
Also, men's rights idea that feminists care about women's issues exclusively is based on fact, not assumption.[/QUOTE]
.Isak covered the rest but I just want to quickly chip in because this struck me. You accused him of diluting the issue, but these first few sentences deal in major generalisations and the "fact" is just pulled out of nowhere. Do you really think all feminists hate men's rights with a passion? Based on what, asking every feminist or paying specific attention to those who outspokenly oppose it? Some do, some don't, some are indifferent. There's your answer, but seeing as it has to be mentioned all the time feminism encompasses varying ideologies and perspectives (just like men's rights). Still, since the sixties or so, feminism has largely been about the deconstruction of solid gender binaries. The aim there isn't just to widen the acceptable norms for women, to do that you have to do the same for men - hence the idea of the feminist movement being about equality.
As for feminists who support men's rights I'm not sure of any specific groups, but close affiliation/involvement with a group isn't a necessity to support a cohesive ideology. Carrying on from the previous point, men's rights and feminism often go hand in hand with the aim of broadening acceptable social boundaries. So, here are a few feminists who've spoken about equality for both sexes: Judith Butler, Luce Irigaray, Michael Kimmel, Audre Lorde, Betty Friedan, and Emma Watson - the last of which famously spoke about men's rights in her speech on feminism to the UN last year. Anyway, the point of this ramble is that it's possible to be a feminist and support men's rights. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Back to the documentary kickstarter, looks like they hit the goal.
[QUOTE=Cliff2;49002921]Back to the documentary kickstarter, looks like they hit the goal.[/QUOTE]
I'm excited to see the final product, then. Hope it works out.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002093]You're patently incorrect, though.
Israel conscripts women. Norway just this year began conscripting women, and [URL="http://www.nato.int/ims/2001/win/denmark.htm"]allowed them to work in combat roles throughout both Afghanistan and Iraq[/URL]. Eritrea's active [i]combat[/i] military force is nearly 30% women. New Zealand has no restrictions on women in the military - the only area that women have not successfully entered is the SAS, but there are women in the infantry in NZ. The Danish military hasn't had restrictions on women in either Iraq of Afghanistan - they were infantry members as well. Finland has allowed women to work in combat roles on the front-lines since 1995. Germany has no restrictions on what military roles women can hold. Sweden allows women to serve in combat roles. There are plenty of examples - and the US is moving in a direction to allow women to serve in front-line combat roles.
The US is one of many countries making significant steps to allowing women to take combat roles and equalizing their opportunities in the military. I'm not talking about special forces, I'm talking about infantry combat roles, which almost every other developed country allows.
Here's a [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/"]NatGeo article[/URL] listing [B]8 other major nations that allow women to serve in combat roles.[/B]
I don't know where you got this idea that, direct quote, "women are banned from front-line duty in every nation on the planet." You are incorrect.
If you want to call me "a fool who ignores reality," at least [B]research your own fucking points.[/B][/QUOTE]
My apologies. I did my due diligence before posting but only noticed Israel as having technically active women soldiers (but then I researched further and found they have been prohibited from entering combat since 1948).
This said, Female soldiers are on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance and are twice as likely to receive an injury that would take them out of combat ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20041220052800/http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=237[/url]). I think it makes sense that those more suited physically to the job do it personally. If a woman can as well as a man, then I will readily accept their participation, but most countries have been drastically lessening the physical requirements for women to join up, I remember how the US decreased the pull-up requirement for women to 3 but 55% still couldn't complete it. This is because men are naturally stronger: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683[/url]. Why would you allow lesser standards? During combat physical prowess could be the difference between life and death.
Once again my apologies for the incorrect fact but the 'fool' comment was more aimed at you if you really want to argue for true 'oh women and men are equal in every way'... because we aren't.
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;49002883].Isak covered the rest but I just want to quickly chip in because this struck me. You accused him of diluting the issue, but these first few sentences deal in major generalisations and the "fact" is just pulled out of nowhere. Do you really think all feminists hate men's rights with a passion? Based on what, asking every feminist or paying specific attention to those who outspokenly oppose it? Some do, some don't, some are indifferent. There's your answer, but seeing as it has to be mentioned all the time feminism encompasses varying ideologies and perspectives (just like men's rights). Still, since the sixties or so, feminism has largely been about the deconstruction of solid gender binaries. The aim there isn't just to widen the acceptable norms for women, to do that you have to do the same for men - hence the idea of the feminist movement being about equality.
As for feminists who support men's rights I'm not sure of any specific groups, but close affiliation/involvement with a group isn't a necessity to support a cohesive ideology. Carrying on from the previous point, men's rights and feminism often go hand in hand with the aim of broadening acceptable social boundaries. So, here are a few feminists who've spoken about equality for both sexes: Judith Butler, Luce Irigaray, Michael Kimmel, Audre Lorde, Betty Friedan, and Emma Watson - the last of which famously spoke about men's rights in her speech on feminism to the UN last year. Anyway, the point of this ramble is that it's possible to be a feminist and support men's rights. The two aren't mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
Betty Friedan spoke against the male contraceptive pill and Emma Watson was the spokeperson for the He for She movement, the most sexist equality movement I've seen. Feminism as a movement, just campain for whatever is convenient for women.
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002539]We don't draft anybody right now, and it's very unlikely we ever will in the future.
[/QUOTE]
You don't know that.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002539]
I'm not saying men didn't protect women, I'm saying that extrapolating pre-civilization, pre-tribal social behavior and assuming that it is [i]inherently human behavior[/i] is intellectually dishonest. That's why evopsych is considered rubbish - it conflates social norms (which are temporary and changeable in almost every way) with natural human behavior (which are rarely changeable).
[/QUOTE]
Can you prove it that it's not? Because such behavior was observed in different animals in nature. I failed to find studies proving or disproving this claim.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002539]
There's a case study ([URL="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/20/8134.short"]Beckerman, et al. 2009[/URL]) that found that within a specific tribe, the most aggressive men had the fewest offspring. Doesn't this conflict with the idea that men are more naturally defenders of their "property" (women), and that the more aggressive and strong a man is the more successful he will be at reproducing? A single exception calls that idea, that male aggression is a natural human trait, into question. It makes us ask whether or not male aggression is a learned social behavior, rather than an inherent human behavior that can never change.
[/QUOTE]
Being aggressive doesn't equate being protective.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002539]
The same goes for "roles in society," except it is blatantly clear to us that this is untrue now. Men can be stay-at-home dads. Does that mean that they will be unsuccessful? Matriarchal societies have existed on Earth before. Does that mean that sometimes women protected the men?
[/QUOTE]
That's called adaptation, it doesn't invalidate anything. We also naturally sleep at night, but can stay awake if needed.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002539]
You can't just say "that's the way it used to be, so that's the way it always will be," especially when you have a society like ours that breaks convention with a lot of previously-assumed "natural human behaviors." Homosexuality confers no evolutionary advantage to the individual - and DNA doesn't care about the social group. Does that mean homosexuality is a learned social behavior? You see how these assumptions cause problems, and why evolutionary psych's assumptions are particularly baseless.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it's the way it'll always be.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49002351]I'd argue that the idea that feminism is counter to MRM to be an issue of perspective, not of fact.[/QUOTE]
You answered a lot of questions that I didn't ask:
1) I didn't say that feminism was against all men. I said that they were against any group fighting for men's rights. So whether they work with men in other groups is meaningless.
2) I didn't say that feminism is actively against helping men. I said that feminism doesn't fight for men, and that it's concern is for women. whether men get helped or hurt as a consequence is irrelevant to them. Your comment about feminism wanting to keep men out of nursing is based on a false assumption.
This point is shown by the stats on college graduation that I've now mentioned three times without response. The exact same number was considered sexist when favoring men, but when favoring women it's ignored by the same exact people.
3) I didn't ask for a feminist author, but for a "well known feminist." Even more than that, I didn't ask for a feminist who works with men, but for a feminist who wants to work with men's rights groups. Neither of the ones you gave do that, even assuming your descriptions are accurate. There's a difference between wanting to work with a group and explaining how those groups are wrong and how they should think within your framework.
On to the actual points you make:
1) Nursing: let me start off by saying that feminists haven't done anything to fight for men in nursing. At the very most it's a side effect. With that said, the very article you linked clearly says that it was generally impossible for men to become nurses before ~1981 because nursing schools wouldn't accept them. This doesn't seem to be so much an effect of gender politics as an effect of legal action. Once the law forced acceptance the numbers changed. It also correlates with a drop in jobs in other generally male dominated fields like industry.
Also, your comment on MRA groups wanting to return to the "alpha male" had me curious because I've never actually heard that from any of their leaders that I know about. So I went into the A Voice for Men site and checked their missions statement. Here's the conclusion:
"It is time for equity-minded men and women to engage in the final push for freedom for both sexes, and indeed for all human beings. It is time for the interests of humanity to take precedence over the interests of men and women as political factions and social adversaries.
It is time for a movement that truly favors humanity, not a particular sex. It is time for feminism to fulfill its promise of equality, and to quit making a mockery of it."
I really didn't see anything about what you said.
2) Nursing wages: Like your article says, male nurses make up 41% of anesthetist, one of the highest paid nursing positions. I would also assume, like every other field were they've looked at it, that men work more hours on average. The article doesn't look at any of this info. So we can't really make a conclusion.
3) Nursing numbers "equalizing." What are you talking about? In 30 years we've seen the number of male nurses go up to 9%. That would mean that it would take approximately 150 years to get parity of men and women. Would feminists have accepted that as "not too big a deal" if it were the other way around? Of course not. They would have fought tooth and nail as they currently are trying to do with STEM.
4) Women in STEM. As an electrical engineer I can tell you that it's not internet based. There are constant attempts by universities to increase that percentage of women, and they actively boast if their program has a high percentage.
5) Men's study classes. Are you serious? A "Men's study" class from a feminist perspective is going to be about the institutional advantage of men, the toxicity of masculinity, and how men need to work on helping women. I took a university class entitled, "Men and Women in Society," and it should have been called, "How Men Oppress Women (and minorities) in Society."
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49003109]Betty Friedan spoke against the male contraceptive pill and Emma Watson was the spokeperson for the He for She movement, the most sexist equality movement I've seen. Feminism as a movement, just campain for whatever is convenient for women.
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
You don't know that.
Can you prove it that it's not? Because such behavior was observed in different animals in nature. I failed to find studies proving or disproving this claim.
Being aggressive doesn't equate being protective.
That's called adaptation, it doesn't invalidate anything. We also naturally sleep at night, but can stay awake if needed.
I'm not saying it's the way it'll always be.[/QUOTE]
Going down the list:
Two you disagree with - what about the others? Or the two I listed? No mention? Seems like you're summarizing an entire movement based on the actions of two people - one of whom is an actress - ignoring the feminist academics. Address those if you're willing to dismiss "feminism as a movement just campaign for whatever is convenient for women." You can't just say "those two say this, so they must all say that" without realizing that you're misrepresenting the entire (very fractured) movement.
Hence why I said "very unlikely," because of the outrage of the draft in Vietnam. It's very unlikely that it'll happen again - I don't know it, but I wasn't claiming to know it - I was saying that it's not likely. Reading comprehension. You stated that we needed the draft - we clearly do not, seeing that we're operating fine without it even being active.
I don't understand the question - are you asking if I can prove that tying social norms and innate human behavior is intellectually dishonest? It's not my job to prove that it's not. The evolutionary psychologists are making the claims - they should be required to substantiate those claims. That is how this works. They have been entirely unsuccessful in doing so, which is why they're stuck as a fringe theory.
I wasn't equating aggressiveness and protectiveness, I was drawing a parallel between the two traits. If aggressiveness is clearly not evolutionary innate, why should protectiveness be innate? What's the difference here? Aggressiveness has been tied to men for far longer than protectiveness.
That's not adaptation. That is social change. There is no evolutionary adaptation happening whatsoever. It is social change, it is cyclical, and the changing social norms have next to no effect on our evolutionary path. Social behavior is not an indicator of evolutionary success - implying that within a few thousand years, "protective" behaviors could be written into our DNA is unsubstantiated. There are hundreds of theories about this - evolutionary psych is one of the least convincing. Simply put, we don't know - making an assumption that men are "naturally more protective" with zero evidence isn't a point worth making. You're making an argument with nothing to back you up but "hey, it makes sense, right?"
If it's not the way it always will be, why bother discussing it? Let's just change it. Men are naturally protective due to evolution? Let's stop that and let women do what they want. Let's just change our social structure so that we evolve in a different manner where evolutionary reproductive success isn't determined by how protective you are of your woman. After a little while, it'll be in our DNA, and we'll be good, right?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49003399]That's not adaptation. That is social change. There is no evolutionary adaptation happening whatsoever. It is social change, it is cyclical, and the changing social norms have next to no effect on our evolutionary path. Social behavior is not an indicator of evolutionary success - implying that within a few thousand years, "protective" behaviors could be written into our DNA is unsubstantiated. There are hundreds of theories about this - evolutionary psych is one of the least convincing. Simply put, we don't know - making an assumption that men are "naturally more protective" with zero evidence isn't a point worth making. You're making an argument with nothing to back you up but "hey, it makes sense, right?"
If it's not the way it always will be, why bother discussing it? Let's just change it. Men are naturally protective due to evolution? Let's stop that and let women do what they want. Let's just change our social structure so that we evolve in a different manner where evolutionary reproductive success isn't determined by how protective you are of your woman. After a little while, it'll be in our DNA, and we'll be good, right?[/QUOTE]
evolution is not something organisms [I]do[/I], it is a theory that describes the process by which species change over time through natural selection
The only way to "undo" a natural urge to be protective of women would be to breed that trait out of the species over time through artificial selection, IE eugenics.
And again, the idea is that in the environment our species spent a majority of its time evolving in, these traits were beneficial. It wouldn't be a behavior that was "written in" over a few thousand years, it'd be one that grew over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49003315]You answered a lot of questions that I didn't ask:
1) I didn't say that feminism was against all men. I said that they were against any group fighting for men's rights. So whether they work with men in other groups is meaningless.
2) I didn't say that feminism is actively against helping men. I said that feminism doesn't fight for men, and that it's concern is for women. whether men get helped or hurt as a consequence is irrelevant to them. Your comment about feminism wanting to keep men out of nursing is based on a false assumption.
This point is shown by the stats on college graduation that I've now mentioned three times without response. The exact same number was considered sexist when favoring men, but when favoring women it's ignored by the same exact people.
3) I didn't ask for a feminist author, but for a "well known feminist." Even more than that, I didn't ask for a feminist who works with men, but for a feminist who wants to work with men's rights groups. Neither of the ones you gave do that, even assuming your descriptions are accurate. There's a difference between wanting to work with a group and explaining how those groups are wrong and how they should think within your framework.
On to the actual points you make:
1) Nursing: let me start off by saying that feminists haven't done anything to fight for men in nursing. At the very most it's a side effect. With that said, the very article you linked clearly says that it was generally impossible for men to become nurses before ~1981 because nursing schools wouldn't accept them. This doesn't seem to be so much an effect of gender politics as an effect of legal action. Once the law forced acceptance the numbers changed. It also correlates with a drop in jobs in other generally male dominated fields like industry.
Also, your comment on MRA groups wanting to return to the "alpha male" had me curious because I've never actually heard that from any of their leaders that I know about. So I went into the A Voice for Men site and checked their missions statement. Here's the conclusion:
"It is time for equity-minded men and women to engage in the final push for freedom for both sexes, and indeed for all human beings. It is time for the interests of humanity to take precedence over the interests of men and women as political factions and social adversaries.
It is time for a movement that truly favors humanity, not a particular sex. It is time for feminism to fulfill its promise of equality, and to quit making a mockery of it."
I really didn't see anything about what you said.
2) Nursing wages: Like your article says, male nurses make up 41% of anesthetist, one of the highest paid nursing positions. I would also assume, like every other field were they've looked at it, that men work more hours on average. The article doesn't look at any of this info. So we can't really make a conclusion.
3) Nursing numbers "equalizing." What are you talking about? In 30 years we've seen the number of male nurses go up to 9%. That would mean that it would take approximately 150 years to get parity of men and women. Would feminists have accepted that as "not too big a deal" if it were the other way around? Of course not. They would have fought tooth and nail as they currently are trying to do with STEM.
4) Women in STEM. As an electrical engineer I can tell you that it's not internet based. There are constant attempts by universities to increase that percentage of women, and they actively boast if their program has a high percentage.
5) Men's study classes. Are you serious? A "Men's study" class from a feminist perspective is going to be about the institutional advantage of men, the toxicity of masculinity, and how men need to work on helping women. I took a university class entitled, "Men and Women in Society," and it should have been called, "How Men Oppress Women (and minorities) in Society."[/QUOTE]
1) Yes, the gender equality movement is against backlash movements. How is that surprising? Would you expect the Peace Movement to be friendly and happy when another student movement pops up saying war is necessary and we can only get peace by exterminating bad people? It's the same end result, sure, but radically different methods to achieve it.
2) One of the most noticeable points of feminist discourse is that the patriarchal makeup of society harms men as well as women. By getting rid of that system and tearing down gender roles, men and women gain opportunities and freedom to do as they please. The concept of a stay-at-home dad was unheard of a few decades ago. Men were socially bound to provide for a whole family. They no longer have that social obligation due to the impact of feminism on breaking down those roles. How is that not beneficial to men? If you don't fall inside a narrow scope of "what a man is," you're forced through conformity to live a life you are not comfortable with. Feminism has changed that - benefiting both men and women.
Stats on college grads - Ties back in to the idea of affirmative action and positive discrimination, which I dislike. Women graduate more often, but they earn less - to fix that, the traditional method was to get more into college, so that they could earn more, but that clearly isn't working. This is changing with the STEM push - trying to get women into higher-earning jobs to balance the income levels of men and women. Once that's done, I expect to see the gender makeup of higher ed equalize somewhat.
3) Define "well known feminist." Pop feminists aren't worth discussing - their opinions are vapid and tend to follow convention. Feminist authors are well-known if you have any interest in the field, and there are plenty that consider men's rights in conjunction with women's rights. I can't think of a Kardashian that's outspoken about it - but that's because feminism moves from the top down - academia influences public opinion, and the men's rights concern has grown more noticeable in academia in recent years. Like I said above, why would a feminist want to work with a splinter group that has radically incompatible opinions with their own? MRA wants pro-masculinity, defines an "ideal" alpha male, etc, while feminism does the opposite and breaks down gender roles and the entire concept of an ideal male defined by social roles. There's little room for teamwork there - they're ideologically opposed.
My points:
1) And why did that law exist in the first place? Because women were expected to be nurses and caretakers, and men were industry workers and soldiers. Those were gender roles. They were broken down, through both legal action and social reform. They're slowly balancing out with further action. Something spurred on the legal action, and that was that it became more acceptable for men to be in caretaker roles, especially as late as 1981. It was a legalized enforcement of social roles - and it was broken down because of legal action inspired by social change.
- on the "alpha male" concept - Probably more applicable to TRP, but still - it's common jargon in both MRA and TRP groups. It is opposite to feminist views on dismantling gender roles - it idolizes them. There's a reason you see people say "biotruths" in response to common MRA comments - because they are trying to tie social roles to evolutionary biology, which is a weak and absurd argument that has already been demonstrated to be false simply by looking at how our society already disobeys those "rules."
2) If you had read the article I linked, it specified that men earned more in the same nursing position. A male anesthetist would earn more than a female one, on average. Same with urgent care and other nursing positions. It explicitly states that it is per nursing position, which means that the fact that men are 41% of the anesthetists cannot explain that disparity.
3) Consider that women are in lower-paying jobs and less-respected jobs. Men are not attempting to get into sorts of jobs like nursing on a large scale, while women are pushing to get into higher-paying and more respectable jobs (CEOs, programming, STEM shit, etc). I agree that there is some disparity here - and that women and men should be better represented in all fields - construction, transportation, etc. I agree with you on this point - the focus is primarily on prestigious jobs, not "lower" work.
4) Value is being placed on having diversity in a workplace, and getting a women into a STEM field helps with that diversity. I shouldn't have said it was "primarily internet-based," but I do see it far more often online than in person.
5) I haven't taken any men's study classes - my college is small and doesn't offer any - so I can't make a fair judgment there. I am convinced that tackling men's issues within the gender equality movement is possible - and that reverting to a positive outlook on hypermasculinity and gender roles is damaging, as MRM often does.
I should be writing my essay right now fuck
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49003109]Betty Friedan spoke against the male contraceptive pill and Emma Watson was the spokeperson for the He for She movement, the most sexist equality movement I've seen. Feminism as a movement, just campain for whatever is convenient for women.[/QUOTE]
You're right about the Friedan example - though that doesn't entirely negate from her other calls for equality. In the same way that not everyone's going to entirely agree about women's rights, it just proves that there will be disagreements over men's rights too. Watson has stood up for men's rights regardless of your opinions on HeForShe. I'm not particularly well-versed on the group but from what I've seen a lot of the prevailing arguments against it have gaping flaws. The complaint about feminism doing whatever's convenient for women is a broad stroke too, if you're saying it in the vain that feminism exclusively benefits women then nope, we're back to square one and how it's breaking down the gender dichotomy. But it's interesting that you complain about feminism focusing on benefiting one sex, as opposed to the [I]men's rights[/I] movement.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49003504]evolution is not something organisms [I]do[/I], it is a theory that describes the process by which species change over time through natural selection
The only way to "undo" a natural urge to be protective of women would be to breed that trait out of the species over time through artificial selection, IE eugenics.
And again, the idea is that in the environment our species spent a majority of its time evolving in, these traits were beneficial. It wouldn't be a behavior that was "written in" over a few thousand years, it'd be one that grew over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of what evolution is - I just wanted to be clear on his point that "that's not the way it always will be." If that's true, why accept it? Make social changes to dissuade that protective behavior, as it is no longer necessary in modern society. We've already done this with aggression and violence - we have social order established to prevent our natural faculty of aggression and anger from interrupting others. We've had laws like that for thousands of years now.
Also want to be clear on my opinion: I'm not saying that it [i]couldn't[/i] be true. I'm saying that [i]if it were true[/i], it doesn't matter - we can establish social expectations to get around it. We have an urge to reproduce, but we don't allow rape - how is that different? Should we be at the whim of our every evolutionary urge? Absolutely not.
The problem with the assumption that "men protected women" is that what we know about ancient social structures is that the grandparents or weaker relatives usually took care of the children. Would that not make protecting the elderly advantageous? The nuclear family was common, and many would stay home and care for the children. It was a hunter-gatherer society, the women weren't shoved in caves and kept safe and used for nothing but reproduction. They left and gathered shit to eat. That's not protective - the men abandoned them for days at a time to hunt and let them wander free!
It's an interesting idea, again, but it makes assumptions based on modern social structures, not those of our ancestors. Women wouldn't really be "a valuable resource" - there's plenty of them, usually one for each man. The extended family/tribe setup of our ancestors, which we have genuine evidence of, was conducive to protecting the children - not necessarily the women.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.