Mens Rights Activists
- Thread starter Daniel Ferguson
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why might she disagree? I'm just trying to gauge the validity of 'misogynists have killed far more women than rad-fems'. That statement means there's a significant figure involved of deaths specifically linked to misogyny as prime motivation, not single instances.
I guess I sort of do, but it was in the context of the posts at the time which were on the SPLC; so the statement I was questioning kind of gave the impression of there being a multitude of cases in America specifically linked to misogynistic hate-crimes against women - though perhaps the statement wasn't meant that way and was more a general statement of a wider point, hence the question. No to need to insinuate I'm demonstrating the same intransigence as a Creationist.Aelinsaar said:
As someone who is a feminist, I personally don't mind men's rights activism as a concept. However it seems that the majority of those who ascribe to that movement- and subsequently- in a sense- speak for that movement are people who are only really interested in men's rights so long as they can "stick it" to feminists or women in general.
Yes, you got your few good points that they make such as jail time, custody laws, and sexist views on men being inadequate at childcare and teaching young children.
But a lot of the times it comes off as a sort of mentality that women are inherently lying, manipulative snakes. With some of the more fringe of the group going even as far as to not only ascribe women in general to that, but also disgust that we have any real sort of agency that doesn't make us a doormat to men.
Another thing I note is that meninist seems to be very white, straight, male centric.
For instance, MRA's talk about Jail time and how unfairly long it is. But from what I've seen they fail to acknowledge that overtly long jail times mostly affect black male youth. If how the Escapist religion and politics discussions on these things are anything to go by, it's often marred with denial, some other bullshit statistic, or the ol'hat racism of "thuggery" and all such bullshit.
Not only that but I don't see MRA/menimists/MRM's, etc. also do anything significant for men of the LGBTQ+ spectrum or disabled. Stuff like that tends to be sent to the "Social Justice Warrior/feminism category more than anything. Which I haven't really seen those groups championing anyway because feminists tend to side with those groups as well, and male rights centric groups were founded as a reaction against feminism.
I mean, I don't really know. I just feel that if you want to bring up men's issues, then go ahead we'll listen. But do so in a way that doesn't also give way to you devolving into rambling about how women are inherently some evil seductress cartoon archetype as a way to back up your own argument. And certainly don't bring this up in threads about women's issues as a sort of "gotcha" card. If you feel the topic is equally deserving of attention, then why not make your own topic about it?
Yes, you got your few good points that they make such as jail time, custody laws, and sexist views on men being inadequate at childcare and teaching young children.
But a lot of the times it comes off as a sort of mentality that women are inherently lying, manipulative snakes. With some of the more fringe of the group going even as far as to not only ascribe women in general to that, but also disgust that we have any real sort of agency that doesn't make us a doormat to men.
Another thing I note is that meninist seems to be very white, straight, male centric.
For instance, MRA's talk about Jail time and how unfairly long it is. But from what I've seen they fail to acknowledge that overtly long jail times mostly affect black male youth. If how the Escapist religion and politics discussions on these things are anything to go by, it's often marred with denial, some other bullshit statistic, or the ol'hat racism of "thuggery" and all such bullshit.
Not only that but I don't see MRA/menimists/MRM's, etc. also do anything significant for men of the LGBTQ+ spectrum or disabled. Stuff like that tends to be sent to the "Social Justice Warrior/feminism category more than anything. Which I haven't really seen those groups championing anyway because feminists tend to side with those groups as well, and male rights centric groups were founded as a reaction against feminism.
I mean, I don't really know. I just feel that if you want to bring up men's issues, then go ahead we'll listen. But do so in a way that doesn't also give way to you devolving into rambling about how women are inherently some evil seductress cartoon archetype as a way to back up your own argument. And certainly don't bring this up in threads about women's issues as a sort of "gotcha" card. If you feel the topic is equally deserving of attention, then why not make your own topic about it?
I'm reading this thread, and honestly I have no idea why I'm doing it, and I can't stop seeing it as a miniature representation of much of why the situation is the way it is, especially on the internet. Both sides sling excrement onto each other to some degree, ignoring this own faults and refusing to see why other side sees their as such.
Simply put, both sides have their extremists and then some.
But, to understand much of MRA stance you have to take some things into account.
- Quite a bit of what constitute MRA problematic topic did come or is coming from the feminist organizations. Heavily skewed divorce laws and practices, child custody, unfair domestic abuse policies etc. Those are undeniable facts just like it is undeniable that pushing for new laws and practices in rape accusation cases by feminist groups put males in heavily disadvantaged position.
- Much of MRAs that are active and recognized by and number of wider audience tend to be heavily on anti-censorship and market capitalism or libertarian side. Because of that they have huge problem with this present mix of feminism and socialistic/Marxist ideology with heavy tendency towards heavy handed social engineering.
- Quite a few MRA joined movement after experiencing how heavily men can be disadvantaged in today's legal system and society (or in other words, after being screwed over, chewed and spat out) and thus carry heavy dose of anger in themselves.
There are far more reasons why MRA rhetoric if so often anti-feminist but these two are not notable and easiest to understand. Every movement needs a good counterweight or it will go maverick. Feminism was seen for so long that be force for good beyond reproach that no good counterweight was provided thus movement is not only full of extremists of all sorts, but seems to be led by them, or so MRAs think.
In my opinion MRAs are finally providing some brakes that feminist movement needed long time ago. Although that is their secondary purpose, that one is ultimately more important in impact full on the world as whole in my opinion.
Simply put, both sides have their extremists and then some.
But, to understand much of MRA stance you have to take some things into account.
- Quite a bit of what constitute MRA problematic topic did come or is coming from the feminist organizations. Heavily skewed divorce laws and practices, child custody, unfair domestic abuse policies etc. Those are undeniable facts just like it is undeniable that pushing for new laws and practices in rape accusation cases by feminist groups put males in heavily disadvantaged position.
- Much of MRAs that are active and recognized by and number of wider audience tend to be heavily on anti-censorship and market capitalism or libertarian side. Because of that they have huge problem with this present mix of feminism and socialistic/Marxist ideology with heavy tendency towards heavy handed social engineering.
- Quite a few MRA joined movement after experiencing how heavily men can be disadvantaged in today's legal system and society (or in other words, after being screwed over, chewed and spat out) and thus carry heavy dose of anger in themselves.
There are far more reasons why MRA rhetoric if so often anti-feminist but these two are not notable and easiest to understand. Every movement needs a good counterweight or it will go maverick. Feminism was seen for so long that be force for good beyond reproach that no good counterweight was provided thus movement is not only full of extremists of all sorts, but seems to be led by them, or so MRAs think.
In my opinion MRAs are finally providing some brakes that feminist movement needed long time ago. Although that is their secondary purpose, that one is ultimately more important in impact full on the world as whole in my opinion.
I'm not trying to support any position, I was simply curious about something. I wasn't trying to turn the whole thread away from some correct course.Aelinsaar said:
Yes, I was going for that, as that was the picture that popped into my head *in the context of the conversation at the time*, so I was seeking clarification as to what was meant, that's all.
I've made no claims, and don't intend to - other than that I thought misogyny as the main driving factor in hate-crime (remember the discussion was on the SPLC and their tracking of hate-groups), in America or westernised cultures in general, was fairly rare. I may have just misinterpreted the comment due to the context. I was simply curious.
I think this is a common misunderstanding, the heavy handed divorce laws are not from feminism at all, but instead, they are in opposition to feminism. The reason why men are "expected" to support women even in the event of a divorce is due to the idea that " women are too weak and inferior to take care of themselves", due to men " keeping women" in the home, not allowing them to work in the past. You see that is in direct opposition to feminism, as feminist want to make it so women can support themselves and not be dependent ton men to survive. In addition, The idea that caring for children is " women's work" and beneath men to do is ALSO in opposition to feminism. Child custody and alimony siding in favor of women is in opposition to feminism, and are due to the idea that women are not capable of supporting themselves and should be home with the children instead dependent on a man to support them. That comes from Patriarchal structure in society, not from feminism. It was the patriarchal structure in society that deemed men to be "Above" sissy women's work, thus why they are not expected to care for the children themselves.carnex said:
I think you also misunderstand domestic abuse policies , 42% of women murdered are murdered by their spouse/ partner and almost all of those are male on female homicide, less than 7% of men murdered are murdered by their spouse/ partner, and of that 7% most of those are still male on male homicide. The abuse laws at present are not adequate to protect women from being murdered by their spouse, whereas very few men are murdered by their spouse in comparison. More than 90% of murders are committed by male perpetrators is the problem they are trying to address.
"female murder victims were almost 6 times more likely than male murder victims to have been killed by an intimate (42% vs 7%)."
"56% of male murder victims were killed by an acquaintance; another 25% were murdered by a stranger. The percentage of males killed by an intimate fell from 10% in 1980 to 5% in 2008, a 53% drop."
http://opdv.ny.gov/statistics/nationaldvdata/intparthom.html
The issue is Feminists didn't actually cause ANY of those problems, and MRAs are barking up the wrong tree. If they actually wanted to stop those things, they would support feminists effort to show that women should have equal pay and be able to support themselves. IT was feminists that earned women the right to work, vote, drive, and are still working for equal pay, healthcare, and benefits. With these things, women will be able to prove they can support themselves and not be forced to depend on alimony to survive. These things feminists fight for benefit both men and women.
YES, they actually are killed for being women.Kwak said:
Sadly many females are actually murdered due to being female. They have been researching this issue, but not much has been done in regards to actually finding answers to stop it as of yet. Some of the findings point to male sexual jealousy, isolation and lack of finding relationships as contributing factors, but we need much more research in this area to be able to make progress at resolving what makes this as prevalent in society as it is.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/165/5/624.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309582900279
Sorry for the wall of text but I hope my effort in responding to you is apparent. I am extremely interested in what you have to say in response but please feel free to cut what you respond to down to something that's manageable since I am certainly verbose by nature.
You've got to understand that a lot of the logic of what third wave feminists are currently saying doesn't lead to equality but rather leads to superiority of females. For example, men and women are different for whatever reasons and pursue jobs in different industries in different numbers. So 76% of teachers are female and men overwhelmingly compose the construction worker demographic. This actually isn't necessarily due to discrimination so much as who applies for the job (and sometimes necessary weight lifting requirements not being met).
Studies have found that hiring personnel will actually prefer a female candidate well over a male candidate when the qualifications are equal. This is a tremendous finding that flies in the face of the myth that men get preferential treatment in job hunting.
So then what do we see as the impact of this kind of myth? We see society rallied against men getting the job over a woman and large companies deciding to put a public-friendly face by specifically head hunting women for positions over men. That means men are fired or not hired for positions they may have been more qualified for in an open act of discrimination that is actually being supported. The goal should be ensuring that women have the same opportunities as men. Not more. Sexism against men should be just as legally reprimanded as sexism against women.
When you see an MRA 'sticking it' to a feminist, they likely think that they're sticking it to someone who is creating an oppressive force against them. This is the same way that the feminist community has made a habit of sticking it to men for the same reason. It isn't them being bad necessarily, it's a defense mechanism. But of course there's also going to be the sexist assholes that are really just trying to stick it to men or women. Those are people everyone hopefully speaks out against.
It's a hard knock life for men, especially ones that aren't wealthy. "Oh, there's a venomous snake in the yard? Send the man" and we go, because society has taught us that putting ourselves at risk is our job as men. Me personally, I don't even have a problem with it but it needs to be known that the disparity exists.
The fact is that minority rights are currently advocated for with their own rights organisations. MRAs and Feminist groups can double as advocacy for whites where necessary because there really isn't going to be any other group to stand up and do that full time. Not while asshole groups like the KKK exist. Anyone standing up and saying that they support the protection of white rights are absolutely going to be thrown into that category while people supporting black rights are going to continue be lauded for their efforts and because of the overt issues facing the community.
I just personally consider the issue of protecting white rights to be a far lesser concern overall due to the sheer numbers differences between the majority and minorities in the US. I have personally been on the receiving end of racist hiring practices in the extreme, but I can't imagine this to be as common of an occurrence as sexist hiring practices where 50% of the population is one or the other. Not only that but the issues with race inequality haven't really equaled out yet like gender equality has so I understand somewhat of a need for assistance in those communities. I just don't want to see the extreme scenarios like what I dealt with be considered acceptable so I'm still going to accept the need for white rights advocacy even if I'm concerned with racist bigots latching onto it. Otherwise we're just trading one form of racism for another and that's just going to lead to both camps digging in as the evidence amasses and backs up each side into the blame game.
I was once selected to serve on a Jury for a case trying a black man for domestic abuse. I was the one of only two white males on the jury (racist/sexist jury selection practices?). While we were on lunch, the second white juror found me sitting by myself on the court balcony and had the nerve to walk up to me and say a racist joke to me. Like, extreme slave-based joking. Maybe he was trying to gauge if I was one of his " racist brethren" or whatever but that shit is terrible. He seemed to be about my age too which I thought was weird, since our generation grew up with integrated schools and he should have grown up with black friends too. Fortunately, I was elected to be foreman of the jury and proceeded to ensure that the facts were considered objectively. You should have seen the other white guy's face when I pointed out that the only witness to the incident testified in court that they had been attacking him first and his actions were one swift motion of getting them away from him before he left the house which matched the bruising pattern and that we had no other evidence at all. He was looking at me like I was a "blood traitor" or some such nonsense. Had the evidence presented indicated that he had assaulted the person first or with disproportionate force then I would have absolutely pushed to convict. But the person ran up and attacked him and he just pushed them away once and left. But sometimes I wonder how many cases are tried where there is no advocate for impartial justice?
In any event, I think shining any light on the disparity in sentencing practices by sex will also shine a light on racial sentencing disparities. Black men currently have two advocacy groups in this area. MRAs and Black rights advocates. The job of the MRA is free to focus mostly on general sex-based issues and to let Black rights groups advocate for racial issues. This is the nature of special interest groups. They're rallied around a specific cause.
In the same way, MRA groups are about men's rights. If they fight for equality for all men then they are fighting for equality for men who happen to be LGBT too. They just aren't fighting for LGBT causes because those aren't specific to the male community as a whole. It's the same with feminism. Their one unifying cause is equality for women. They don't specifically reach out to assist the LGBT causes unless they are specifically members of the LGBT community.
Currently, it is taboo to be a MRA. So how would you really know what MRAs do? They're automatically ostracized as sexist or whatever just for identifying as such. Instead, you see them debating for equal rights without overt association. This really robs them of membership and strength in numbers.
I will say though that it really seems like the feminist community has proponents doing the exact same thing you're accusing the MRA community of. People who believe men have ruined society and so it's women's turn. People who believe all men are just rapists in waiting. We see it in our media and in the rhetoric being used.
I quite agree that any person from either group who is guilty of this practice is wrong. But please don't frame it like feminist's shit don't stink.
This is because a lot of the need for MRAs at the moment is born out of myths that are perpetuated by feminists that harm males.Dragonbums said:
You've got to understand that a lot of the logic of what third wave feminists are currently saying doesn't lead to equality but rather leads to superiority of females. For example, men and women are different for whatever reasons and pursue jobs in different industries in different numbers. So 76% of teachers are female and men overwhelmingly compose the construction worker demographic. This actually isn't necessarily due to discrimination so much as who applies for the job (and sometimes necessary weight lifting requirements not being met).
Studies have found that hiring personnel will actually prefer a female candidate well over a male candidate when the qualifications are equal. This is a tremendous finding that flies in the face of the myth that men get preferential treatment in job hunting.
So then what do we see as the impact of this kind of myth? We see society rallied against men getting the job over a woman and large companies deciding to put a public-friendly face by specifically head hunting women for positions over men. That means men are fired or not hired for positions they may have been more qualified for in an open act of discrimination that is actually being supported. The goal should be ensuring that women have the same opportunities as men. Not more. Sexism against men should be just as legally reprimanded as sexism against women.
When you see an MRA 'sticking it' to a feminist, they likely think that they're sticking it to someone who is creating an oppressive force against them. This is the same way that the feminist community has made a habit of sticking it to men for the same reason. It isn't them being bad necessarily, it's a defense mechanism. But of course there's also going to be the sexist assholes that are really just trying to stick it to men or women. Those are people everyone hopefully speaks out against.
Not to mention that modern hiring practices are beginning to cause women up until the age of 30 to make more than their male counterparts yet there is no apparent slowing down in pushing for women to get preferential treatment, a significantly higher suicide rate supposedly due to cultural beliefs regarding men and sharing their feelings or seeking help, significantly higher homeless rates and a generally higher acceptability of violence against men to the point where men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than women. There's the much higher likelihood of women to receive compassion than men too.
It's a hard knock life for men, especially ones that aren't wealthy. "Oh, there's a venomous snake in the yard? Send the man" and we go, because society has taught us that putting ourselves at risk is our job as men. Me personally, I don't even have a problem with it but it needs to be known that the disparity exists.
Feminists do the same thing. Should I evaluate feminism as a movement in the same way you are evaluating MRA movements? Or should I continue to view feminism as a movement for equality and these fringe elements as the ones doing it wrong?
You mean that the majority of menists are straight white males? You mean like the average population? You do realize that feminists fall into the exact same category of white, straight, female centric because that's their largest demographic too, right?
The fact is that minority rights are currently advocated for with their own rights organisations. MRAs and Feminist groups can double as advocacy for whites where necessary because there really isn't going to be any other group to stand up and do that full time. Not while asshole groups like the KKK exist. Anyone standing up and saying that they support the protection of white rights are absolutely going to be thrown into that category while people supporting black rights are going to continue be lauded for their efforts and because of the overt issues facing the community.
I just personally consider the issue of protecting white rights to be a far lesser concern overall due to the sheer numbers differences between the majority and minorities in the US. I have personally been on the receiving end of racist hiring practices in the extreme, but I can't imagine this to be as common of an occurrence as sexist hiring practices where 50% of the population is one or the other. Not only that but the issues with race inequality haven't really equaled out yet like gender equality has so I understand somewhat of a need for assistance in those communities. I just don't want to see the extreme scenarios like what I dealt with be considered acceptable so I'm still going to accept the need for white rights advocacy even if I'm concerned with racist bigots latching onto it. Otherwise we're just trading one form of racism for another and that's just going to lead to both camps digging in as the evidence amasses and backs up each side into the blame game.
My main problem with black male jail time is the disparity in sentencing for committing the same crime. Make no mistake, black males do commit a disproportionately higher number of violent crimes and that does deserve justice (I believe the disparate crime rate is caused by poverty and the general culture that poverty produces rather than racial differences or some kind of crazy biological scheme. Poor white males commit crimes at similar rates, for example). So we should expect to see the high numbers of incarcerations in general match the proportion of crimes. However, what infuriates me to no end is that a white person and a black person going in for their first offense get a different average sentence. That's the real problem and it's not just up to judges but due to jurors too.
I was once selected to serve on a Jury for a case trying a black man for domestic abuse. I was the one of only two white males on the jury (racist/sexist jury selection practices?). While we were on lunch, the second white juror found me sitting by myself on the court balcony and had the nerve to walk up to me and say a racist joke to me. Like, extreme slave-based joking. Maybe he was trying to gauge if I was one of his " racist brethren" or whatever but that shit is terrible. He seemed to be about my age too which I thought was weird, since our generation grew up with integrated schools and he should have grown up with black friends too. Fortunately, I was elected to be foreman of the jury and proceeded to ensure that the facts were considered objectively. You should have seen the other white guy's face when I pointed out that the only witness to the incident testified in court that they had been attacking him first and his actions were one swift motion of getting them away from him before he left the house which matched the bruising pattern and that we had no other evidence at all. He was looking at me like I was a "blood traitor" or some such nonsense. Had the evidence presented indicated that he had assaulted the person first or with disproportionate force then I would have absolutely pushed to convict. But the person ran up and attacked him and he just pushed them away once and left. But sometimes I wonder how many cases are tried where there is no advocate for impartial justice?
In any event, I think shining any light on the disparity in sentencing practices by sex will also shine a light on racial sentencing disparities. Black men currently have two advocacy groups in this area. MRAs and Black rights advocates. The job of the MRA is free to focus mostly on general sex-based issues and to let Black rights groups advocate for racial issues. This is the nature of special interest groups. They're rallied around a specific cause.
Actually, the feminist community is currently at odds with a lot of the LGBT community. Particularly with the Trans community. This is because feminism isn't a social rights group specializing in all "rights" issues, they're a women's rights group and LGBT issues aren't specific to women's rights as a whole.
In the same way, MRA groups are about men's rights. If they fight for equality for all men then they are fighting for equality for men who happen to be LGBT too. They just aren't fighting for LGBT causes because those aren't specific to the male community as a whole. It's the same with feminism. Their one unifying cause is equality for women. They don't specifically reach out to assist the LGBT causes unless they are specifically members of the LGBT community.
Currently, it is taboo to be a MRA. So how would you really know what MRAs do? They're automatically ostracized as sexist or whatever just for identifying as such. Instead, you see them debating for equal rights without overt association. This really robs them of membership and strength in numbers.
Exactly right, it is vital to the discussion to acknowledge that both groups have real issues that have a place to be discussed. Anyone who is in the equal rights advocacy group for sexist reasons are in it for the wrong reasons. Men and women, neither are evil.
I will say though that it really seems like the feminist community has proponents doing the exact same thing you're accusing the MRA community of. People who believe men have ruined society and so it's women's turn. People who believe all men are just rapists in waiting. We see it in our media and in the rhetoric being used.
I quite agree that any person from either group who is guilty of this practice is wrong. But please don't frame it like feminist's shit don't stink.
I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.Aelinsaar said:
So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.
Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.
Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.
I haven't been up for the mood for having lengthy discussions for a long while, but I'm invested in this topic enough. If I stop responding to a point it's either because I left it as "agree to disagree" or I just don't know what next to add that isn't just back and forth.Lightknight said:
What are the supposed myths feminists are perpetrating? That needs to be elaborated on in more detail.
As for women being different in regards to what job they apply for- why women apply for X job while men apply for others involves a lot of factors. Women are not any better at teaching than men. Men afterall used to be the dominant gender who taught in education. So why the sudden downturn? It is also important to look at how the percentages are distributed. Most female teachers are in the elementary to primary school level. And that level of teaching isn't really respected. Whereas most male teachers are in the high school to college level of education. Which garners a lot more respect. In terms of physical fitness, most construction is done by machines now anyway, and the ones that require manual labor require muscle mass requirements that men would need. I think your severely underestimating how much an equally muscle trained woman can do. But again, there is not single cause for X action. There is a lot of cause and effect and catch 22's. Even if a woman who is just as capable as her male counterpart were to take a job application for construction the employer is going to heavily favor male applicants. If not, outright ignore female applicants unless they really need someone on the job. Despite the fact that why would a women apply for a physically intensive job if she didn't have the muscle to back it up?
That highly depends on the profession. The less male dominated a workforce is, the more both sexes have an equal opportunity. It also doesn't account for the fact that white men and women have much higher chances of getting a job than asian applicants (to the point where it's not uncommon for south asian people to change their names to something more "white" to get a better chance.), who do better than black applicants, with POC women, and those of LGBTQ+ sexual orientations are the bottom of the barrel in terms of hiring opportunities. That's not even getting into those who have disabilities and mental disorders that may need to be accommodated by the workforce.
The thing that's ironic about complaints like this is that you don't exactly know if a women was chosen BEACUSE she was a women and not because she also had equal and perhaps even better credentials of the male counterpart. It's about as full as shit as the Affirmative Action complainers when they cry about how their right at the University of mostly white people was taken because that one black kid got in instead of him/her so CLEARLY the black kid was chosen over them when for all they know, they could of lucked out of the competition by some white person who was vying for the same spot. But it's oh so easy to point out the easiest target and say it's their fault that you didn't get the desired position.
I mean, are you fighting for the thousands of POC men and women who have been turned down in much larger numbers due to their race and sex? Your complaining that there is essentially more competition that isn't just other white men. Naturally when you have to start sharing the pie with other people you start to luck out. And that sucks, but you know, in industries where white men still make up a vast majority it's kind of odd to see people get so indignant about a couple of white people lucking out at one job, and when you look at the racial mark up of said industry it's majority white with a couple of asian people and maybe a black or spanish person on the side. When you see something like this do you ever think how many more of those "token" minorities are still looking for jobs years later that never got the luck to be a "token" representation on an industry?
Again, I can't really answer that because I don't know what this "oppressive force" is.
You can bring up issues in regards to what men face without having to be defensive about anything. Defensive about what? Unfair custody laws? Domestic abuse? Only assholes and ignorant teens would tell you your full of shit. But if your going to start your men's right campaign right off the bat as a podium to give feminists the slam down more than actually addressing men's issues than you end up losing a lot of credibility.
Make no mistake that feminists (then known as suffragists.) faced the same thing. Often times CLEARLY the only people who were suffragists were unloved, ugly, women with no husband or family to keep her busy from all that "rights" stuff, and they hate men. 80 years later that rhetoric hasn't exactly changed. Although now male allies are just called "Manginas".
What? Where is this? I've never heard of this before.
What preferential treatment? You mean stuff like paid maternity leave? Something that literally the rest of the world- even underdeveloped countries do? That only two countries currently don't do? One being some small ass country nobody gives much fucks about and another being the largest superpower in the world?
As someone else pointed out in this thread the rate of successful male suicides is higher than the female one. That's not to say it isn't higher than men, but again, that's a systematic problem. Not something feminists have caused.
Men committing violence against men is pretty bad. That still doesn't change the fact that when violence happens to women, a vast majority of the perpetrators are men and not other women.
And again, the lack of compassion comes for the sexist view that men are less worthy of compassion on the inherent belief that women are weaker than men, and a lot of men don't help much to dissuade that. For instance, every time a male victim of rape comes out, the vast majority of comments- mostly men call him a liar, said that he should be lucky for scoring a woman/women (especially bad if the rapist in question is "hot" by their standards) and the bullshit ignorant argument that he must of wanted it because he was erect- even though there are many reasons for a penis to become erect that has nothing to do with arousal.
Whereas aside from a few equally shitty women, most of them are in support of the male rape victim.
It's a hard knock life for men, especially ones that aren't wealthy. [quote["Oh, there's a venomous snake in the yard? Send the man" and we go, because society has taught us that putting ourselves at risk is our job as men.[/quote]
Most people in this day and age would either steer clear of the a venomous snake or call Animal Control in situations like this. Not send in the man because he's male.
Although I agree men shouldn't have to feel obligated to "man up" and put themselves in danger for points with other dudes and women who want a macho man fantasy.
Me personally, I don't even have a problem with it but it needs to be known that the disparity exists.
I already said in my initial comment that I personally don't have a problem with MRM/Menimists etc. It's just that the people who claim to talk for them rub me the wrong way. To me it really boils down to...they are all talk but no action so far. For instance, if male abuse victims don't have hotlines, why not start up a donation pool, or a petition or even get local governments to acknowledge that these should be essential services in any given community? Complaining about feminists not doing it online doesn't really get one any step closer to doing it. Sure it bring up awareness, but if they have such big traction surely they can at least start taking it to the public sphere?
But there is still a very healthy subcategory of minorities who identify as feminists.
MRAs and Feminist groups can double as advocacy for whites where necessary because there really isn't going to be any other group to stand up and do that full time. Not while asshole groups like the KKK exist. Anyone standing up and saying that they support the protection of white rights are absolutely going to be thrown into that category while people supporting black rights are going to continue be lauded for their efforts and because of the overt issues facing the community.
I just personally consider the issue of protecting white rights to be a far lesser concern overall due to the sheer numbers differences between the majority and minorities in the US. I have personally been on the receiving end of racist hiring practices in the extreme, but I can't imagine this to be as common of an occurrence as sexist hiring practices where 50% of the population is one or the other. Not only that but the issues with race inequality haven't really equaled out yet like gender equality has so I understand somewhat of a need for assistance in those communities.
This society is nowhere close to even having that be true. It will be something to worry about when it's actually tangible. White people never lost any rights. But as history has shown, they sure as hell have taken it away from other people. If white people want to advocate their right to get a job...yeah, other minorities too have a right to get a job. So are you really going to get so angry when ONE women out of maybe hundreds of female applicants who have probably been looking at a job in that field for a long time now gets a job over you?(And not you personally but the preverbial you.)
I agree, that is infuriating. But let's also keep in mind that cops on average unfairly go after black people more than their white counterpart. Drugs for instance is used a lot more by white youth populace than black youth populace yet the black demographic is targeted disproportionally more. That is- of course they even make to the jury process alive what with police brutality and all. Unfortunately I did kind of start an off topic sort of deal here, so I'll probably leave this line of discussion for another time. (After the whole Ferguson and Trayvon Martin cases I have been burnt out on debating this in general.)
The justice system is corrupt through and through in regards to race. After the Ferguson case it was found out that a lot of the "impartial Jury" and the judge himself were ascribed to the KKK. It very much was possible that he thought you were one of them. That is not to say other minorities don't have their own agenda in regards to putting down other minorities.
It's one of the reasons why the recent corruption of justice and police has blown up. It's reached a tipping point. It was never fair, and the people subjected to it have known it, but it's gotten to a point where enough is enough for them.
But MRA's have no reason to let Black advocacy groups do all the work for minority men, when they can easily implement those ideas into their own group. They shouldn't be two mutually exclusive things. If your Men's Rights then you are supposedly being for ALL men's rights. You guys are starting off young. Don't fall into the pit mainstream feminism has. And believe me mainstream feminism is being REAMED for being white middle class women, while doing fuck all for sex workers, minorities, poor women, etc.
For instance Middle Easter feminists have to fight tooth and nail for their hijabs to be seen as legitimate, after Western white feminists turned what was once an important part of their identity in religion (and was very much their choice unless you want to point to Taliban extremists) into a symbol of women oppression.
Or how when Suffragists were fighting for their right to vote, they often sidelined, if not outright ignored black women who also wanted the right to vote. I think I also heard it went as far as to say that white women won that right to vote because they convinced racists that if white women can vote that's even more people who will go against minority men and women voting.
That's fair. I even addressed that in some of my previous replies.
I can say it's equally ostracizing being a feminist. Or at the very least labelling yourself one. It's easy for me to say I'm a feminist online, but it's much harder to do so in real life. Granted the MRA aspect wasn't helped by GG nonsense since it was the first time MRA was mentioned in the public news sphere and not in a good way. (I know I just opened a can of worms here but for both ours sakes let's just leave it as that. )
And again I suppose that is fair. I feel that there are many proponents of today's society that would do well to value feminine traits as much as masucline traits. Which I think is the root cause of a lot of male centric problems. If crying wasn't seen as a girly, sissy, thing than men wouldn't be so pressured into bottling up necessary outlets for emotional distress. If being inherently violent wasn't something considered a positive for men to do (nothing wrong with valuing physical prowess.) then men wouldn't feel the need to "man up!" and score points by needlessly put themselves in danger for stupid shit to prove a point.
If you want my true opinions on MRA', I'll admit they leave a bad taste in my mouth. But Menimists and other more mellow groups I'm wholly neutral about. I'm not gonna be against them, for they bring up good points. I just think it's time they make a more official platform and cut off the Return of Kings esque clowns that want to do nothing more but use their platform to reinforce strict gender based rhetoric that doesn't help either party.
Actually, feminists have fought against " male circumcision", this is due to Christian beliefs, not feminism.BarryMcCociner said:
http://feministing.com/2010/06/04/feminism-and-male-circumcision/
Feminists fight against MANY "christian practices" such as "women must have their husbands rule over them" for example:
http://www.heretication.info/_womensrights.html
Feminists are very much AGAINST Female circumcision as well:
http://www.feminist.org/global/fgm.html
Pointing out a few oddballs that have some weird idea about genital cutting, is just that, and not representative of the majority at all.
The issue with both Female and Male circumcision is a Religious issue, not a feminist one. In the places where the religions that support these things have power, this is where these things are done most and supported, by both males and females in those regions. It is not a gender issue, it is a religious one. In the United States for example, The Christian community is responsible for the rate of male circumcision, and in order to reduce it, you would have to address the ones responsible for it, since they hold a majority in the government.
MRA's do frequently fight against improving things for men, by fighting to keep patriarchal structures in place. The same patriarchal structures that cause men to " be called sissies" for doing " women's work", fighting against addressing male on male rape and homicide, fighting against funding for battered "womens shelters" when that same funding is what they currently use to house men in hotels as well..
When they ignore the fact that men are killing both men and women at an alarming rate and men are raping both men and women at an alarming rate to address the very small portion of women who do these things through misinformation campaigns that Department of Justice, The CDC, and the SPLC have called them out repeatedly on, they are outright being counterproductive to solving these issues for both men and women. You would think their number one priority would be to stop men from killing men, but they are not focusing on that at all, when that is the biggest threat against men in the first place.
Thank you for informing me of my error and accepting my apology with grace.Aelinsaar said:
Well, while there does have to be a root inequality, something I agree with, we don't necessarily need to know what it specifically is to know that there is one.
You've got to see what your current argument looks like if we applied the logic to something else. Let's say we were talking about how much better "white-only" drinking fountains were than the "colored" (Ugh, feels bad just using the period accurate term) drinking fountains and how it indicates white privilege. Your logic would say that we can't call it privilege just because the white community had the "foresight" to make themselves better facilities and the black community's fault that they didn't make better "colored" drinking fountains. Instead, people made better fountains for white people because they had the resources to do so and they valued white people drinking water more than black people.
In a similar but clearly not as nefarious manner, women got the facilities because society valued them having it more than men. There is more grant money and support of people building those facilities and nearly no support for men-only locations.
There being a privilege is indicative of there being an inequality that caused it. Do you personally find it difficult to believe that society is more compassionate towards women and this lends itself to preferential treatment in some areas where women would otherwise suffer? Assumption though it be, it's by no means a stretch. It could also be any other number of reasons such as women's rights getting a substantial push from special interest groups in a way men haven't had. I mean, even acknowledging belief in the need for MRAs can get someone laughed out of the room. Much the same as what happened to women back in the day when they started advocating for equality.
So... is your argument that male bums should just go get a job? Do you believe that this is what female homeless people have done? Or did society rally behind women homeless females with compassion in a way they have not done for men?
There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of result. If we both had equal opportunity to a resource (a job, a homeless shelter, food) and I squandered my opportunity while you took advantage of it, then that is only inequality of the result. We generally don't care about that sort of inequality. We generally only care about inequality of opportunity where the person didn't even have the chance to take advantage of it because they were female or black or any other trait to be discriminated against.
Now, more presently we are beginning to see 3rd wave feminism making a push for equality of result. Such as demanding that women make up 50% of an industry's labor force even if less than 50% of applicants are female. They automatically see the problem as the industry not being inviting enough when it really may just come down to differences in desired jobs expressed by each sex (in aggregate). Or demanding that women make exactly as much as men on average when women choose lower paying jobs (social industries) or hinder their job experience by taking maternity leave or refusing to relocate where a man does not. Is it fair to demand that a woman who took off work for two years be seen the same as a man or other woman who has been working for those two years even though they have put in the time to get those additional years of experience? I don't really think so. That's why I more strongly advocate work from home programs to accommodate parenting the next generation. Now that we've got new studies showing women up to the age of 30 making more than their male counterparts and women being preferred 2 to 1 to their male counterparts in job acquisition when all qualities are equal, we need to seriously reevaluate if there really is an inequality of opportunity or just one of results.
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. Your thoughts are much appreciated. As I stated last time, please feel free to cut down any of my points you don't want to respond to.
That women aren't hired in equal numbers as men in male dominated fields because industries don't want them: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/
Turns out that women are favored in jobs in STEM. In fact, women are now twice as likely to be hired when they have equal qualifications as male candidates. But I'm sure that inequality isn't going to be addressed any time soon. They also don't apply to those jobs in the same numbers as men which produces a naturally lower number of female hires. That study also blames early education choices on lower representation in STEM fields like opting not to take AP calculus or declaring a math/science intensive major. The main response to that study is now saying that "hiring has never really been the main source of discrimination". So the goal posts are just getting moved and others are still clinging to this myth rather than accepting the possibility that they aren't as qualified as the competition.
That women only make 78 cents per every dollar a man makes. Sadly, this myth is born from a statistic in which no variable is controlled for except for gender which makes in a meaningless study. What happens when we control for the variables? http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap?cm_mmc=Email-_-2012-05-Salary+News-_-NA-_-Do+Men+Really+Make+More+Than+Women?
This turns out not to be (as) true when the man and woman have similar qualifications and work in the same industry. There the difference ends up being 4 cents or less. The problem with the 78 cents statistic is that they are looking at the overall industry. But women and men have different preferred lines of work. Men typically pursue higher paying jobs and women typically pursue lower paying jobs. Not only that, but women actually make more money than men until the age of 30 despite there being even less explanations for that than there is for women above 30 being paid less money due to family choices. Also, women in metropolitan areas are making more than men. So what is the solution to this? If men and women in the same job with the same experience are making nearly identical salaries, then what is the proposal for change to try to get the national ratio up to 1 : 1? Do we start just paying men less money so that women (taking jobs in fields they prefer to work in over making money) are less disadvantaged for choosing a career they want to work at instead of how men typically prefer jobs that they profit more from the most? Maybe we should begin to consider the difference in compensation of having a job you want over a job that is just a money maker? The myth is harmful and misrepresentative when the only conclusion is to start discriminating against men just to reach some arbitrary and imagine mark of equivalency.
As for college faculty (Professors, Associate professors, Assistant professors, Instructors and lecturers), the composition of faculty has gone from 40% female in 1993-4 to 50% female as of 2014. The number of female professors (the highest position) has also been increasing dramatically though there is still a distinguishable gap there. However, in order to know if it constitutes inequality we would need to compare the number of qualified female applicants to professor positions with the number of qualified male applicants to professor positions. It's possible that the ratios are nearly there.
But yes, absolutely, there totally are Rosie the Riveters that can own the job just as good as the average man if not better. You can't make these statements automatically apply to individuals across the board. I completely agree with that. There are even women who aren't as strong as the guys but have a far better work ethic. Like my wife, I'd prefer her helping me in physically demanding tasks because she's going to work harder than most men I know and do a better job at it.
So please don't think I'm trying to group all women into one box. There are statistics and then there are the realities for the individuals.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat05.pdf
They also have the highest median pay as well as the highest average level of education:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110914.htm
So this is a myth you've heard that is being perpetuated by someone for some unknown reasons. May I ask what demographic you fit into? I know from previous discussions that you are female and a minority but I don't recall what specifically. If you are Asian then I'd like to know where you got your information from.
What I personally want to see is hiring demographic percentages being roughly equivalent to application demographics. So if 30% of your applicants are white I'd want to see 30% of your firm's hires being white. If 50% are black I'd want to see 50% of your firm's hires being black and so forth.
What I don't want to see is a scenario where 80% of your applicants are male but only 50% of your hires are male in the name of "equality". That's not true equality. That's forced numeric equality through sexist inequality.
Affirmative action complainers have a legitimate complaint about it being an inherently sexist/racist law that does impact some people. Even if it wasn't me, I understand that it could impact others. Race quotas are racist, unacceptable and yet absolutely exist. For example, the year that California banned the use of race in their admission decision they saw black and latino applicants drop by half. It really is making a big difference.
That being said, like I mentioned before, there is still a much more distinct poverty divide between races. Something has to be done and gaining easier access to universities is good when minorities seldom have access to good schools to begin with. I know I'm rationalizing racist practices a bit here but the poverty divide between whites, blacks, and Hispanics is immense and largely due to the failure to provide adequate education at an earlier age. So I think I see this instance more as undoing inequality in the area of access to education than specifically fighting inequality with more inequality.
That being said, I think a more appropriate goal can be achieved by having poverty quotas rather than race quotas. That would still disproportionately benefit minorities without discriminating against other races. I also do not agree that race quotas in employment are excusable unless the quota is reflective of the demographic of applicants. University quotas that benefit the poor (which disproportionately benefits minorities) is something I advocate.
I'm not complaining about situations where a person just didn't get the job due to chance. I'm complaining about the situation where a more qualified candidate didn't get a job because the company has race or gender quotas to keep. That's not "luck". That's a system designed to discriminate amongst candidates according to race or gender.
Shouldn't our goal be an equal opportunity? How would you feel if your vote counted for less or more according to your race/gender? Or do you think that every person should count for the same as the other person regardless of race, religion, sex and any other protected attribute?
If a person is feeling oppressed by a group, they will naturally demonize the group as a means for leverage against the group in society. This is a defense mechanism.
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129584041
http://www.aei.org/publication/equal-pay-day-for-young-single-men-to-recognize-the-gender-pay-gap-in-favor-of-young-single-childless-women/
In Atlanta, Memphis, New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego they're making 21%, 20%, 17%, 12% and 15% (respectively) more than their male peers. That's as of 2010.
The numbers really start to dip around their late 20's/early 30's where women typically start building a family. In fact, just being married doesn't impact them nearly as much as having a child. Having a child brings both male and female salaries down (both of them being less willing to take risks or relocate).
This has also been noticed in the UK in large numbers and regardless of whether or not the female is married.
Interesting, look at the last paragraph of that article too:
"The rise of female economic power is by no means limited to the U.S., nor necessarily to the young. Late last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that for the first time, women made up the majority of the workforce in highly paid managerial positions." (interesting considering that women make up less of the labor force than men and yet now comprise the majority of the highly paid managerial positions...)
Young women are also 1.5 times more likely to earn a college degree than their male counterparts now.
The times, they are a changing. It looks like instead of swinging towards equality the pendulum may just be going to the other side.
I, as a man, have fought and will continue to fight for female equality. Will women rally around our need for equality as well?
I also live outside of the area where animal control from the city would respond. So it's nice to have those options when they're available but I wasn't speaking from inexperience.
I recently heard of a police task force dedicated to be a member of these communities. To actually go in and specifically NOT arrest members of the community for petty drug charges and such. To see what the community needs and to lend a helping hand.
In these communities, violent crime dropped by crazy numbers like 80%. This was an NPR piece I heard a month ago but I don't have time to look it up right now.
Until police remember how to serve their communities as citizens then we will never have a healthy police/civilian relationship. I would love to take part in projects to make that happen. I think it's about time for people of all races to feel safe around police officers rather than in real danger of loss of life or liberty or finances.
Keep in mind that when feminists complain about a perceived inequality and men say "we face that too", the men are scorned and mocked for trying to latch on. This is the same with any special interest group trying to latch onto any other special interest group. It isn't going to be appreciated because that's not the focus.
Now, should MRA groups benefit minorities? They'd better or they're doing it wrong. Otherwise they'd have to be non-minority MRA which would correctly associate them with the KKK. But I really don't know how someone could shed light on sexist hiring practices against men and it not shed a light on the unequal hiring practices against black men.
However, there is another issue with the black community impacting their employability. Black Males are not attending colleges in epidemic numbers. Despite having quotas built in place to benefit them specifically as well as a huge number of resources that are available for them to get assistance, they simply aren't applying or going to college. When I was the chairman of a multicultural committee in college about a decade ago I was asked to produce a discussion board addressing this issue, its causes, and potential steps to resolve it. But it very much is a problem and that's going to hurt employability. In fact, out of every 10 degrees earned by African Americans, 7 are from female African Americans.
http://theatlantavoice.com/news/2014/mar/27/why-all-african-american-males-should-go-college-p/
Interestingly enough, despite the females carrying the lion's share of college degrees, total black college enrollment isn't that much lower than other demographics. Whites are in the 50's, black individuals are in the 45's. It's still a significant drop but what this means is a LOT more females within the black demographic are taking up the slack and going to college than females in other communities.
What's scary is that we don't actually know why they're not attending college more. The things we thought were the problem (lack of the opportunity) isn't there anymore. So what we've got to combat are cultural systems that encourage black males not to attend college. Such as things that encourage them to pursue a trade that doesn't require a college degree. You're pinning this mostly on the hiring side of the equation but I think the core problem is on the education and cultural side of the equation. They must be encouraged to obtain a college degree or they are going to have trouble finding work.
While the black unemployment rate is much higher than white males, you'll note that the employment to population ration of the black community is actually higher than the white community in some areas like those with a four year degree:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm
EPR= employment to population ration
No highschool degree: Black/White EPR = 31.3%/42.6% (large EPR gap)
Highschool graduate, no college: Black/White EPR = 53%/54.7% (Sudden closing of the EPR gap)
Some college(not necessarily a degree) to Associates degree: Black/White EPR: 63.8%/63.2% (gap is now flipped)
Four year degree or higher= Black/White EPR = 74.6%/72.2%
Now, why is the EPR relevant? This is the number of working age individuals 15-64 years old that are employed in proportion to the population being measured. This includes people who have given up looking for work whereas the unemployment rate does not. Economists actually prefer to use that number to gauge the health of a country.
I didn't know this until just now. I'm not sure if this changes things or not. I'll have to review why the black community's employment rate is higher if the unemployment rate is also higher. You'd think it would be lower but this means that more black people of working age are employed that white people working age (proportionately). Do white people give up looking for work a lot sooner? Does the black community have a lot more people older than 64 still looking for work and not finding it?
I have no idea. Curious. I'll have to start another thread to get some answers since I'm not finding it.
I found this poem on "man up" to be quite relevant and emotional:
<youtube=QFoBaTkPgco>
While I do pride myself on being manly, I can certainly sympathize with men who just want to be valued as people and not forced into the role of emotionless warrior.
I have just been using the term as any individuals or groups in support of advocating for equal rights for men.
I understand completely. My intention here is to learn from you and convey my own position without necessarily changing your mind. So once both of our opinions are clear I am perfectly satisfied with an agreement to disagree if you are.Dragonbums said:
For example, let's take a myth that was actually confirmed false recently. The false claim that 1 in 5 women on campus get raped made men look like monsters involved in some insane "rape culture". Had it really been 20% then that would be mind bogglingly horrifying. Now that we know that it's actually .03 in 5 (6.1 per 1000) and even lower than in the general population (according to the Department of Justice) we can begin to step away from the presumption of guilt of all college males as rapists in waiting. Maybe we can avoid the whole Duke Lacrosse incident in the future where people are holding signs in front of their homes demanding they be castrated before the investigation proved the information to have been false. This was touted as a tremendous anti-women controversy of rape culture being supported by society and has thankfully been put to rest.
That women aren't hired in equal numbers as men in male dominated fields because industries don't want them: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/
Turns out that women are favored in jobs in STEM. In fact, women are now twice as likely to be hired when they have equal qualifications as male candidates. But I'm sure that inequality isn't going to be addressed any time soon. They also don't apply to those jobs in the same numbers as men which produces a naturally lower number of female hires. That study also blames early education choices on lower representation in STEM fields like opting not to take AP calculus or declaring a math/science intensive major. The main response to that study is now saying that "hiring has never really been the main source of discrimination". So the goal posts are just getting moved and others are still clinging to this myth rather than accepting the possibility that they aren't as qualified as the competition.
That women only make 78 cents per every dollar a man makes. Sadly, this myth is born from a statistic in which no variable is controlled for except for gender which makes in a meaningless study. What happens when we control for the variables? http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap?cm_mmc=Email-_-2012-05-Salary+News-_-NA-_-Do+Men+Really+Make+More+Than+Women?
This turns out not to be (as) true when the man and woman have similar qualifications and work in the same industry. There the difference ends up being 4 cents or less. The problem with the 78 cents statistic is that they are looking at the overall industry. But women and men have different preferred lines of work. Men typically pursue higher paying jobs and women typically pursue lower paying jobs. Not only that, but women actually make more money than men until the age of 30 despite there being even less explanations for that than there is for women above 30 being paid less money due to family choices. Also, women in metropolitan areas are making more than men. So what is the solution to this? If men and women in the same job with the same experience are making nearly identical salaries, then what is the proposal for change to try to get the national ratio up to 1 : 1? Do we start just paying men less money so that women (taking jobs in fields they prefer to work in over making money) are less disadvantaged for choosing a career they want to work at instead of how men typically prefer jobs that they profit more from the most? Maybe we should begin to consider the difference in compensation of having a job you want over a job that is just a money maker? The myth is harmful and misrepresentative when the only conclusion is to start discriminating against men just to reach some arbitrary and imagine mark of equivalency.
Males used to be the ones that were educated. That's why they used to be the teachers. Now it's open to everyone and women tend to care more about helping children learn than men do.
As for college faculty (Professors, Associate professors, Assistant professors, Instructors and lecturers), the composition of faculty has gone from 40% female in 1993-4 to 50% female as of 2014. The number of female professors (the highest position) has also been increasing dramatically though there is still a distinguishable gap there. However, in order to know if it constitutes inequality we would need to compare the number of qualified female applicants to professor positions with the number of qualified male applicants to professor positions. It's possible that the ratios are nearly there.
I suppose it depends on the type of construction you're talking about. Operating a crane? Sure. Climbing up on a roof and placing/nailing boards and roofing into place? No, it's physically demanding work in both the areas of strength and endurance. I do see a lot more female road construction workers "manning" the stop/slow signs though.
It certainly depends on the woman, but we're discussing things in aggregate. The average woman is going to be 40-50% weaker in upper body and 20-30% weaker in lower body than her male counterpart. She is going to have less endurance as a result and her less dense bones not only make her more energy prone but to suffer more from impact (like walking with heavy weight) which further diminishes endurance. Even the angle of the pelvic bone impacts the efficiency of weight distribution in addition to speed of movement. This is why sports are usually separated by sex.
But yes, absolutely, there totally are Rosie the Riveters that can own the job just as good as the average man if not better. You can't make these statements automatically apply to individuals across the board. I completely agree with that. There are even women who aren't as strong as the guys but have a far better work ethic. Like my wife, I'd prefer her helping me in physically demanding tasks because she's going to work harder than most men I know and do a better job at it.
So please don't think I'm trying to group all women into one box. There are statistics and then there are the realities for the individuals.
That's what I'm saying is apparently now false thanks to the evidence I linked above regarding how the STEM field now prefers female candidates 2 to 1. Social perception of inequality makes hirers (as long as they aren't sexist) conscious that hiring a woman is "a good thing" even though they don't realize that they're being sexist. Hell, I have to admit that if I had two equally qualified candidates and one was female or a minority I would prefer to hire them just to feel better about myself and avoid any implications of bigotry. I know that I've been trained to feel that way too so I don't really begrudge the other individuals making that choice now but I think it's important to know that the man that's being passed over just because he is a man is being discriminated against. He has nothing to do with how many presidents have been male or anything else the overall society has been guilty of.
No, Asians actually have the lowest unemployment rate of all races, the highest employment to population ratio, and the highest participation rate of all races.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat05.pdf
They also have the highest median pay as well as the highest average level of education:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110914.htm
So this is a myth you've heard that is being perpetuated by someone for some unknown reasons. May I ask what demographic you fit into? I know from previous discussions that you are female and a minority but I don't recall what specifically. If you are Asian then I'd like to know where you got your information from.
What I personally want to see is hiring demographic percentages being roughly equivalent to application demographics. So if 30% of your applicants are white I'd want to see 30% of your firm's hires being white. If 50% are black I'd want to see 50% of your firm's hires being black and so forth.
What I don't want to see is a scenario where 80% of your applicants are male but only 50% of your hires are male in the name of "equality". That's not true equality. That's forced numeric equality through sexist inequality.
Actually, the study I referenced had two descriptions that they swapped between the male and female candidates to make sure that the only real difference was the gender of the individual. The female was still hired at a 2 to 1 ratio.
Affirmative action complainers have a legitimate complaint about it being an inherently sexist/racist law that does impact some people. Even if it wasn't me, I understand that it could impact others. Race quotas are racist, unacceptable and yet absolutely exist. For example, the year that California banned the use of race in their admission decision they saw black and latino applicants drop by half. It really is making a big difference.
That being said, like I mentioned before, there is still a much more distinct poverty divide between races. Something has to be done and gaining easier access to universities is good when minorities seldom have access to good schools to begin with. I know I'm rationalizing racist practices a bit here but the poverty divide between whites, blacks, and Hispanics is immense and largely due to the failure to provide adequate education at an earlier age. So I think I see this instance more as undoing inequality in the area of access to education than specifically fighting inequality with more inequality.
That being said, I think a more appropriate goal can be achieved by having poverty quotas rather than race quotas. That would still disproportionately benefit minorities without discriminating against other races. I also do not agree that race quotas in employment are excusable unless the quota is reflective of the demographic of applicants. University quotas that benefit the poor (which disproportionately benefits minorities) is something I advocate.
I apologize but I'm unfamiliar with the term "POC" as you're using it.
Not really, the complaint I'm making is against the notion that one person could count for less or more based on the color of their skin or their gender. In any instance where that is the case, the person doing so is being unethical. Do you believe that a person is more or less valuable according to the color of their skin or where their gonads are located?
"Lucking out" means you get what you want by chance. I assume you mean that you just don't get what you want by happenstance?
I'm not complaining about situations where a person just didn't get the job due to chance. I'm complaining about the situation where a more qualified candidate didn't get a job because the company has race or gender quotas to keep. That's not "luck". That's a system designed to discriminate amongst candidates according to race or gender.
Shouldn't our goal be an equal opportunity? How would you feel if your vote counted for less or more according to your race/gender? Or do you think that every person should count for the same as the other person regardless of race, religion, sex and any other protected attribute?
I'm not entirely sure. I'm not sure why anyone wants to just "stick it to feminists or women". I am only giving possible explanations about something you mentioned. I can think about why I would be defensive against specific people who purport to be feminists or are women. But my defensiveness would pertain to their specific claims rather than the fact that they're feminists/women.
If a person is feeling oppressed by a group, they will naturally demonize the group as a means for leverage against the group in society. This is a defense mechanism.
According to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, in 147 out of 150 cities (across 2,000 communities) within the US, young unmarried female workers have a median full-time salary that is on average 8% above the average man in their same category:
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129584041
http://www.aei.org/publication/equal-pay-day-for-young-single-men-to-recognize-the-gender-pay-gap-in-favor-of-young-single-childless-women/
In Atlanta, Memphis, New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego they're making 21%, 20%, 17%, 12% and 15% (respectively) more than their male peers. That's as of 2010.
The numbers really start to dip around their late 20's/early 30's where women typically start building a family. In fact, just being married doesn't impact them nearly as much as having a child. Having a child brings both male and female salaries down (both of them being less willing to take risks or relocate).
This has also been noticed in the UK in large numbers and regardless of whether or not the female is married.
Interesting, look at the last paragraph of that article too:
"The rise of female economic power is by no means limited to the U.S., nor necessarily to the young. Late last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that for the first time, women made up the majority of the workforce in highly paid managerial positions." (interesting considering that women make up less of the labor force than men and yet now comprise the majority of the highly paid managerial positions...)
Young women are also 1.5 times more likely to earn a college degree than their male counterparts now.
The times, they are a changing. It looks like instead of swinging towards equality the pendulum may just be going to the other side.
I, as a man, have fought and will continue to fight for female equality. Will women rally around our need for equality as well?
I'm in favor of paid maternity leave. I'm also in favor of paid paternity leave. Are you in favor of both? Feminists often scoff at the notion of men getting paid to stay home with the kid. So I have to ask.
Oh, I don't think feminists have caused it. All I've said is that feminists are perpetuating certain myths that may be disadvantaging males in the long term as long as politicians keep making them their sticking point during election time (since women are the single largest voting demographic, fyi).
Ok. and your claim is that all men are evil? I would posit that men are evolved to be more aggressive but I'm unsure what your point is since men are still the ones that are far more likely to suffer from violence due to stigma regarding violence against women. For better or worse, there is a disparity there. Do I think violence against women is worse than violence against men? Yes. But I'm also a product of the same society I'm talking about. If I see a guy smacking a girl around I'm going to kick his ass. But a guy smacking another guy around? I may intervene but I'm not going to see it as an affront to my sensibilities like the former.
Recently we found a moccasin on our property (highly venomous). Had I not pursued it immediately, it may have gotten away only to return and kill a member of my family or one of our pets later.
I also live outside of the area where animal control from the city would respond. So it's nice to have those options when they're available but I wasn't speaking from inexperience.
I'm glad we agree. However, I do feel like it is my responsibility to do what needs to be done to protect my wife. It is simply the way I'm conditioned and let's face it, I'm a lot stronger and a whole lot more coordinated. So if not me then why the weaker of the pair? So I think it makes sense even though it's sexist and not in my favor. Frankly, I would rather die than my wife.
MRA don't really have funding. Supporting feminism financially is basically "good public image" 101. Heck, I would donate to a feminist organization but wouldn't donate to an MRA. Not unless one existed with a legitimate business structure. I also don't think the pendulum has really swung into enough inequality to motivate the mass mobilization of males to combat it. As the issue gets worse you will begin to see institutions arise as necessary. We are very early into the new era of men actually facing real inequality. So that's going to take awhile.
Sure, but unless the organization is a minority feminist organization then the focus isn't on minorities. Special interest groups are specialized.
Is it possible that cops unfairly go after individuals in poor neighborhoods and that happens to coincide with a disproportionately black demographic? Remember that poor white individuals also have a disproportionate number of arrests that is pretty darn close to poor black arrests. That's not to say racism doesn't exist in police, I totally believe it does, but it's possible that the aggregate problem isn't necessarily race so much as communities in poverty and the overlap with the black community that has. I'm sure there are instances where it is race-based though.
I recently heard of a police task force dedicated to be a member of these communities. To actually go in and specifically NOT arrest members of the community for petty drug charges and such. To see what the community needs and to lend a helping hand.
In these communities, violent crime dropped by crazy numbers like 80%. This was an NPR piece I heard a month ago but I don't have time to look it up right now.
Until police remember how to serve their communities as citizens then we will never have a healthy police/civilian relationship. I would love to take part in projects to make that happen. I think it's about time for people of all races to feel safe around police officers rather than in real danger of loss of life or liberty or finances.
Yes, they actually do. Their job is to fight against people being discriminated against because they are men. Their job is not to fight against people getting discriminated against because of other reasons. That's what being a special interest group means. You specialize in one area.
Keep in mind that when feminists complain about a perceived inequality and men say "we face that too", the men are scorned and mocked for trying to latch on. This is the same with any special interest group trying to latch onto any other special interest group. It isn't going to be appreciated because that's not the focus.
Now, should MRA groups benefit minorities? They'd better or they're doing it wrong. Otherwise they'd have to be non-minority MRA which would correctly associate them with the KKK. But I really don't know how someone could shed light on sexist hiring practices against men and it not shed a light on the unequal hiring practices against black men.
However, there is another issue with the black community impacting their employability. Black Males are not attending colleges in epidemic numbers. Despite having quotas built in place to benefit them specifically as well as a huge number of resources that are available for them to get assistance, they simply aren't applying or going to college. When I was the chairman of a multicultural committee in college about a decade ago I was asked to produce a discussion board addressing this issue, its causes, and potential steps to resolve it. But it very much is a problem and that's going to hurt employability. In fact, out of every 10 degrees earned by African Americans, 7 are from female African Americans.
http://theatlantavoice.com/news/2014/mar/27/why-all-african-american-males-should-go-college-p/
Interestingly enough, despite the females carrying the lion's share of college degrees, total black college enrollment isn't that much lower than other demographics. Whites are in the 50's, black individuals are in the 45's. It's still a significant drop but what this means is a LOT more females within the black demographic are taking up the slack and going to college than females in other communities.
What's scary is that we don't actually know why they're not attending college more. The things we thought were the problem (lack of the opportunity) isn't there anymore. So what we've got to combat are cultural systems that encourage black males not to attend college. Such as things that encourage them to pursue a trade that doesn't require a college degree. You're pinning this mostly on the hiring side of the equation but I think the core problem is on the education and cultural side of the equation. They must be encouraged to obtain a college degree or they are going to have trouble finding work.
While the black unemployment rate is much higher than white males, you'll note that the employment to population ration of the black community is actually higher than the white community in some areas like those with a four year degree:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm
EPR= employment to population ration
No highschool degree: Black/White EPR = 31.3%/42.6% (large EPR gap)
Highschool graduate, no college: Black/White EPR = 53%/54.7% (Sudden closing of the EPR gap)
Some college(not necessarily a degree) to Associates degree: Black/White EPR: 63.8%/63.2% (gap is now flipped)
Four year degree or higher= Black/White EPR = 74.6%/72.2%
Now, why is the EPR relevant? This is the number of working age individuals 15-64 years old that are employed in proportion to the population being measured. This includes people who have given up looking for work whereas the unemployment rate does not. Economists actually prefer to use that number to gauge the health of a country.
I didn't know this until just now. I'm not sure if this changes things or not. I'll have to review why the black community's employment rate is higher if the unemployment rate is also higher. You'd think it would be lower but this means that more black people of working age are employed that white people working age (proportionately). Do white people give up looking for work a lot sooner? Does the black community have a lot more people older than 64 still looking for work and not finding it?
I have no idea. Curious. I'll have to start another thread to get some answers since I'm not finding it.
Sort of, there is a negative opinion of feminists overall but feminists also have a well-built community of other feminists and supporters whereas MRAs are still currently the "odd man out" due to the stigma of being associated with it. Heck, "MRA" is being used as a slur in a lot of discussions in the same way SJW is.
Thank you for considering my points.
I found this poem on "man up" to be quite relevant and emotional:
<youtube=QFoBaTkPgco>
While I do pride myself on being manly, I can certainly sympathize with men who just want to be valued as people and not forced into the role of emotionless warrior.
I was actually entirely unaware that there was a distinction between "MRA" and "Menimist" and other groups.
I have just been using the term as any individuals or groups in support of advocating for equal rights for men.
What you said is is as true as that USSR painted the mars red.Lil devils x said:
First of, read history a bit. Back when British Commonwealth was the center of the world England was the center of events. Then men were almost guaranteed to get custody of children due to financial circumstances and laws/rules in place. After several lawsuits following long struggle by well of female activists that are today seen as heroes of feminist movements they ended up with being prime candidate for custody of children under the age of five (first version of "Tender Years Doctrine"). Interestingly enough their argument was not so much that it's benefit for children but rather that it's essential for happiness of mothers. Equally interesting is that due to the same economic laws/rules that gave fathers primary custody, at the time fathers still had sole financial responsibilities for those children and by proxy their mothers until they married again. Something that took another 10 or so years to be changed. So, yes, policies were deeply unfair back then but fact is, feminists did change divorce courts from the very beginning and never stopped doing so.
At the same time, not every domestic incident ends up in death or even injury. It's true that females are 7 times more likely to end up dead in domestic incident and 2.5 times more likely to end up seriously injured even if women are about twice as likely to reach for some form of weapon. However that still doesn't even begin to make current domestic abuse policies in USA, Canada and UK reasonable in any shape or form. Fact is that domestic abuse on whole is almost evenly distributed between sexes and once threat of death and serious injury is eliminated case should be treated with both sides being considered equally and not with policies that set up male as primary suspects in vast majority of cases (males tend to be stronger and females tend to show more and more powerful emotions).
So, no, your arguments are not true/right.