Men Are The Expendable Gender

[Hermiod]

That's like saying that the African American Civil Rights would never create a truly equitable society because it placed the needs of blacks first.

At least they are honest about it, but then certain people who claim to represent African Americans are guilty of racism themselves.

I find it funny that every discussion about gender turns to a debate about "battle of the sexes" and a list of complaints about which gender has it better, which is more victimized, etc. Or that feminism is so often treated as some sort of threatening man-hating movement by angry Amazons looking to take away male human rights. It's true that men are also victims of gender-based victimization, but the reason lies in the patriarchal society and the strict gender roles and expectations it enforces. True equality and freedom can only be achieved with doing away with those gender-based restrictions and stereotypes.

Feminism isn't about equality or doing away with stereotypes anymore. There are a lot of dangerous, ugly, nasty jobs out there - including front line combat infantry roles - that are performed almost exclusively by men. Those are the jobs that will make women equal. Mandating that women get more positions on the boards of large companies isn't equality, making women live on oil rigs or perform back breaking manual construction work are.

If you want to break down gender roles, that's how you do it, not by whining and complaining about not getting well paid jobs you didn't earn.

Statistics say that, although females have better grades in schools and university, unemployment is much higher among women than among men, women wait longer for their first employment, earn less, are less often the owners of real estate and other property. The professions dominated by women (like teaching) also happen to be less paid ones.

These two things are linked. Teaching is a female dominated profession and as a result girls succeed in education more than boys. Boys respond better and learn more from male teachers.

If the standard action is applied here, schools should be hiring less qualified male teachers over and above better qualified female teachers to fill the gaps. That is our answer to inequality so why is it not being applied ?

It is an absolute crime to suggest that women are more intelligent than men just because of a very recent trend in exam results. Our education systems are letting boys down every step of the way.

Also, the laws of my country are shamefully lenient when it comes to sexual crimes - rape, sexual abuse of children, sex trafficking - as well as domestic violence, while sexual harassment has only less than a decade ago been recognized by law. Now, of course, there are many male victims of sexual violence, domestic abuse, or sexual harassment, and there are also female perpetrators. But it's hard to deny the fact that in those cases, the majority of victims are female, and that the majority of perpetrators are male, so there are still more women who suffer because of the bad legislation and police work / judicial work in those matters.

In California, after a domestic violence call somebody has to be taken from the home by the police. This is mandatory. The number of cases where the man made the call and still ends up spending time in a police cell is scandalous.

Every single time I hear anyone talk about fighting against domestic violence it is always referred to as a crime against women.

Domestic violence laws should be extended to cover non-physical abuse - humiliating and demeaning comments, throwing objects, criminal damage to property, unilateral eviction of one partner from the family home etc.

And let's not even get into the cases of those societies where women have practically no rights and where they are at the mercy of their husbands, fathers or brothers.

All of my comments refer solely to these issues as they exist in Western nations such as the United Kingdom and the US. I make no comment about the state of women's rights in other nations.

Going back to DN's statement that young males are required to fight for their country, for alpha males and for females; why exactly are those females important in that patriarchal society? Why do they need to be fought for? Because of their own intrinsic value as human beings? No. They are valuable as mothers and potential/future mothers. They have their own duty to the country - to give birth to more people who will make the nation stronger in numbers, to give birth to more young men who will go and fight in new wars to make the nation proud.

Last time I checked, you needed men to make babies too. To suggest otherwise denigrates the role of fathers. Fathers are just as important to their children as mothers. Fathers are not a monthly cheque.

This results in paradoxical media treatment of war crimes and war victims - as explored in that article that Hermiod linked to a few pages earlier, rapes and abuse of women in wars in the Balkans got much more coverage in Western media than the mass murders of adult males (prisoners of war or even civilians), even though the latter crime was much more prevalent and the majority of victims were male.

This is true the world over. Women and children suffer for longer but the first targets in any such genocide are the adult males capable of fighting back. This has been going on for centuries.

True. No doubt that there are far more male rapists than female, but that doesn't mean that a woman can't rape/sexually abuse a man... or another woman... or a child. Or that she be physically violent or endanger them in other ways. It is really absurd to state that "a drunken woman is no danger to anyone but herself". A drunken person is always a danger to themselves and to other people.

Yet we have allowed the myth that a reaction as purely involuntary as an erection implies consent to persist.

Going back to the example of drunken sex that started this discussion... I can't remember who asked why it was OK for a woman to feel taken advantage of, but not for a man: does it really happen like that? I can't remember when I've seen a movie or a TV show suggest that the woman has been taken advantage of in that situation, usually when you have such a scene, it's usually just both of them feeling confused and embarrassed, "what did we do last night". Unless it's the case of a guy actually trying to get the woman drunk in order to score - which does happen. I remember when a guy very obviously and unsuccessfully tried to get me drunk ("Here's another drink on the house..." "Thanks. [drinks it] Now I'm off to dance with my friends" "No, no, you have to have another drink" [puts a full glass in front of me] "No, thanks." [leaving, thinking to myself "what an idiot, even if I were 10 times drunker than I am, I still wouldn't sleep with him" )

Except that, at least in Britain, women can and have report the man for rape if she later regrets her drunken actions.

(I have shortened some of your quotes here, do not take this as an attempt to misquote you, your comments were rather long. ).

 

[barnaclelapse]

That's because females are far more important and valuable than males.

Yep.

 

[Hermiod]

That's because females are far more important and valuable than males.

Yep.

Helpful.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Going back to DN's statement that young males are required to fight for their country, for alpha males and for females; why exactly are those females important in that patriarchal society? Why do they need to be fought for? Because of their own intrinsic value as human beings? No. They are valuable as mothers and potential/future mothers. They have their own duty to the country - to give birth to more people who will make the nation stronger in numbers, to give birth to more young men who will go and fight in new wars to make the nation proud.

As I said earlier, it's not that women are more valuable - it's that they're still basically seen as those weak, helpless creatures who can't take care of themselves; that's why violence against women is treated in a similar way as violence towards children, or pets. Saying that this means that females are more highly valued or have more rights, is like claiming that pet dogs are more valued and have more rights than humans, just because people tend to get more shocked and outraged at a fictional killing of a dog, than most murders of humans, which happen all the time. Adult males are seen as "fair game", in wars especially, because they are regarded as strong, threatening and able to defend themselves... even when it doesn't make any sense, as with helpless prisoners, and even though, in reality, many women can fight just well (especially when the fighting is done with guns, bombs etc. as it is today, rather than in hand to hand combat as it was in Middle Ages), and many males who get killed in wars are very young and inexperienced. This results in paradoxical media treatment of war crimes and war victims - as explored in that article that Hermiod linked to a few pages earlier, rapes and abuse of women in wars in the Balkans got much more coverage in Western media than the mass murders of adult males (prisoners of war or even civilians), even though the latter crime was much more prevalent and the majority of victims were male. I've seen an example on TrekBBS a few months ago - someone mentioned Ratko Mladic as an example of a notorious war criminal, but described him only as "Mladic and his army that committed mass rapes" or something to that effect - a truly puzzling statement, since the crime that Mladic is infamous for, and the main reason he is wanted by the International Tribunal in Hague and charged with genocide, is, of course, the execution of 8000 men and boys in Srebrenica. This, considered the largest mass murder in Europe post-WW2, is a clear example of ethnic-based and gender-based crime. And it's easy to see just how the perpetrators' minds worked, and how the murder was based on the patriarchal stereotypes described above: it didn't matter if they were civilians, if they were young or elderly, it didn't matter that they were completely helpless, all Muslim adult or adolescent males were seen as the enemy that must be removed.

I actually think you're 100% right with all this, DevilEyes, including the point that valuing the safety and lives of women does not necessarily mean truly respecting them- just as, I must say, the valuing of sons over daughters does not, by the same logic, mean the boys are more respected as people than the girls. The issue and annoyance, however, is that all too often many of the same people who (as an example) make the distinction between valuing women's lives more highly and actually respecting women hypocritically fail to recognise, say, that valuing the sons of a family (who maintain the family line/business/lands and work for the family) over the daughters (who will leave to join another family) does not translate into any necessary greater respect for those sons as people.

More generally- and anyone who has made an issue out of men and boy's negative experiences under any sort of gender distinction will have encountered this all too often, which is why they (we) can be irritatingly bitter, unfortunately for those who do not deserve to be exposed to such attitude- is a bias that is all too common in selectively interpreting gender issues. The same people who insist that the man-has-full-responsibility-for-wife's-actions laws in old England were at least in part a negative reflection on women and thus no more to her benefit than the man's (and they're right of course) will be quick to also moan about Eve in the Bible taking all the blame for the fruit business, and call this typical oppression of women. There is rarely any unifying logic or fairness.

The problem as I see it is that there are a great many people today who insist the patriarchal system works for the benefit of men and boys (as in all of them) at the expense of women and girls, and dismiss any other aspect to it. For example, how many feminists will point out that the male-earns-money-to-support-a-family model means there are far more young women in university in the Arabic nations than young men? In many such Islamic nations, or so I've read (Not having lived there, I can't be 100% sure of course) women have the right- the legal right- to be supported by male relatives. Men don't. So, young men find it far harder to go to university- because they have to get out to work. Now, this of course isn't me saying the men and boys are oppressed and the women are living like queens- we both know it isn't the case and I'm sure you know I'm suggesting no such thing- but it certainly undercuts the all-too-common alternative argument that "men live well at women's expense and women have no rights".

Basically, I'm saying that while you are never anything but fair, logical and sensitive to complexities, unfortunately there are far too many people who aren't getting in the way. And one side effect is that people like you are going to come up against other people who are bitter and irritated- an attitude you and those like you do not in any way deserve to be on the receiving end of, but that's the sad reality.

So, that's why some people are overlly touchy about the whole thing...it's not fair, but (rightly or wrongly) a lot of people have gotten used to having it be an uphill battle to get certain sides of the issue across. And people like you are unfortunately going to get caught in the crossfire.

 

[Thestral]

Aw, no more comics.

Of course, it should always still be a shock when women are killed. And it should be a shock when men are killed. I don't support requiring women to register for Selective Service because I'm opposed to Selective Service in the first place.

So am I, but rules should be applied equally or not at all.

What? How does that make sense for my position?

1. I'm (ostensibly) a pacifist and opposed to militarism.
2. Men have to register for Selective Service, but not women, a reflection of patriarchal culture.
3. I'm opposed to the Selective Service - and its benefits-based threat - for what it represents.
4. ?
5. I believe Selective Service should apply to women.

Why would I believe in extending a system I'm opposed to to women just because it applies to men? If I'm opposed to it, I'm opposed to it. That would be like saying "Oh, I believe slavery is wrong so I'm going to advocate expanding slavery to white people!" (And I'm not actually comparing Selective Service to slavery, people, it's simply an extreme illustration)

Note that this doesn't mean I'm opposed to women in, say, front-line infantry roles, if the Army judges them equally capable (which I would say is probably?).

SNIP awesome wall of text.

That's like saying that the African American Civil Rights would never create a truly equitable society because it placed the needs of blacks first.

At least they are honest about it, but then certain people who claim to represent African Americans are guilty of racism themselves.

So there's some fringe whackos in both movements. I don't see you calling for an end to the NAACP, so why decry feminism?

I find it funny that every discussion about gender turns to a debate about "battle of the sexes" and a list of complaints about which gender has it better, which is more victimized, etc. Or that feminism is so often treated as some sort of threatening man-hating movement by angry Amazons looking to take away male human rights. It's true that men are also victims of gender-based victimization, but the reason lies in the patriarchal society and the strict gender roles and expectations it enforces. True equality and freedom can only be achieved with doing away with those gender-based restrictions and stereotypes.

Feminism isn't about equality or doing away with stereotypes anymore. There are a lot of dangerous, ugly, nasty jobs out there - including front line combat infantry roles - that are performed almost exclusively by men. Those are the jobs that will make women equal. Mandating that women get more positions on the boards of large companies isn't equality, making women live on oil rigs or perform back breaking manual construction work are.

If you want to break down gender roles, that's how you do it, not by whining and complaining about not getting well paid jobs you didn't earn.

What exactly do you think would happen if a woman did try and apply at or work for/on oil rigs or in backbreaking manual construction work? I mean really. She'd be laughed at or, more likely, told that this is too much for a nice girl like her and she should go look for secretary work somewhere.

And "well paid jobs they didn't earn?" You're reaching here.

These two things are linked. Teaching is a female dominated profession and as a result girls succeed in education more than boys. Boys respond better and learn more from male teachers.

If the standard action is applied here, schools should be hiring less qualified male teachers over and above better qualified female teachers to fill the gaps. That is our answer to inequality so why is it not being applied ?

It is an absolute crime to suggest that women are more intelligent than men just because of a very recent trend in exam results. Our education systems are letting boys down every step of the way.

Oy. You're going after the wrong boogy...person, here. Ok, so teaching is a female dominated profession, yes? Why is this so? It's not a great conspiracy to give girls a better education, it's because teaching is "women's work" and an appropriate role for a woman to take. There are so (relatively) few male teachers at the elementary through high school years because it's women's work. Now look at the gender spread at the university level, and things are different.

More glaringly, look at the ratio of principals in the primary schools and how many of them are men compared to women - though this situation is improving just a bit, if my local school district is anything to go by.

So, you wanna combat the "problem" of too many women teachers at the primary level, you need to go after the cultural assumption that it's a proper place for women and less so for men (who use it as a stepping stone to principal anyway). I certainly never felt "let down" by my education.

In California, after a domestic violence call somebody has to be taken from the home by the police. This is mandatory. The number of cases where the man made the call and still ends up spending time in a police cell is scandalous.

Every single time I hear anyone talk about fighting against domestic violence it is always referred to as a crime against women.

Domestic violence laws should be extended to cover non-physical abuse - humiliating and demeaning comments, throwing objects, criminal damage to property, unilateral eviction of one partner from the family home etc.

That first and last bit isn't the fault of feminism gone amok, but of a culture that's still grappling with the idea that men should be "tough" and cannot be victims because they're stronger and more capable than helpless women. Also... throwing objects is physical abuse, you know.

The middle bit does downplay the occassions when males are victim, true. But - to use another hyperbolic comparison here - the Holocaust wasn't a crime against the Jewish people alone, but it was a crime against the Jewish people. Since the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence are women and children, it's still fair to call it a crime against women.

Last time I checked, you needed men to make babies too. To suggest otherwise denigrates the role of fathers. Fathers are just as important to their children as mothers. Fathers are not a monthly cheque.

They're not? Then I suppose you have a solution to the deadbeat dad problem who leaves the mother and child high and dry while he saunters off? Or, for that matter, who is nothing more than a monthly check while he's busy with his new girl?

Her point wasn't to do with the relationship between parents and children, but the different gender roles demanded - women are baby-makers and baby-raisers. Again, your problem here isn't with feminism but the culture that's been predominant for thousands of years.

This is true the world over. Women and children suffer for longer but the first targets in any such genocide are the adult males capable of fighting back. This has been going on for centuries.

So your point is... genocide is bad and hurts everybody?

True. No doubt that there are far more male rapists than female, but that doesn't mean that a woman can't rape/sexually abuse a man... or another woman... or a child. Or that she be physically violent or endanger them in other ways. It is really absurd to state that "a drunken woman is no danger to anyone but herself". A drunken person is always a danger to themselves and to other people.

Yet we have allowed the myth that a reaction as purely involuntary as an erection implies consent to persist.

Pfft, everybody knows men are always horny and willing to fuck anything that moves.

The same people who insist that the man-has-full-responsibility-for-wife's-actions laws in old England were at least in part a negative reflection on women and thus no more to her benefit than the man's (and they're right of course) will be quick to also moan about Eve in the Bible taking all the blame for the fruit business, and call this typical oppression of women. There is rarely any unifying logic or fairness.

Look, I'm sorry but you fail at history and cause/effect.

1. English culture (for example) receives the text of the Christian Bible.
2. A patriarchal culture (and especially Church) says "The source of sin is Woman being hoodwinked by the Serpent and eating of the Fruit - women are weak and foolish of mind and cannot be trusted."
3. Patriarchal culture takes this and says "Women are weak and foolish of mind and cannot be trusted to make decisions - therefore, she must be cared for and her decisions made by trustworthy men."
4. If you've created a system whereby a woman can't truly be trusted to make decisions, that eliminates responsibility, which now falls on the men who take care of her.

Very simplistic, but not really more simplistic than your own there.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Look, I'm sorry but you fail at history and cause/effect.

1. English culture (for example) receives the text of the Christian Bible.
2. A patriarchal culture (and especially Church) says "The source of sin is Woman being hoodwinked by the Serpent and eating of the Fruit - women are weak and foolish of mind and cannot be trusted."
3. Patriarchal culture takes this and says "Women are weak and foolish of mind and cannot be trusted to make decisions - therefore, she must be cared for and her decisions made by trustworthy men."
4. If you've created a system whereby a woman can't truly be trusted to make decisions, that eliminates responsibility, which now falls on the men who take care of her.

Very simplistic, but not really more simplistic than your own there.

You're missing the point. I'm not discussing history or cause and effect at all- I'm discussing attitudes. The point is that some people- some- have a pre-conceived idea about an issue. In this case: "society works to men's benefit and women get the short end of the stick in everything". They will then grab onto any and all aspects of society, literature, history, etc, to "prove" that point and justify that perspective without engaging in any balanced or in-depth analysis. They will then claim it is "self-evident". If someone were to engage in any sort of cause-and-effect chain of logic as you did, they are by virtue of that fact NOT the people I'm talking about.

Now, maybe my example was a poor choice because you can come along and work a chain of logic from it. But the point being made is that two things which are in fact opposing realities can and will be thrown out as evidence of the same perspective and point despite being opposites, and NO chain of logic will be forthcoming from those who do so. And it is this simple "one selective perspective only" attitude that crops up far too often and makes many of those trying to get across that it is nowhere as simple as that quite bitter or quick to be suspicious.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

They're not? Then I suppose you have a solution to the deadbeat dad problem who leaves the mother and child high and dry while he saunters off? Or, for that matter, who is nothing more than a monthly check while he's busy with his new girl?

That is a total misrepresentation of the fatherlessness issue in Western society. As a whole, fathers are the group least to blame for the problem.

 

[Hermiod]

Aw, no more comics.

Sorry.

What? How does that make sense for my position?

If any kind of conscription or national service has to exist it must apply equally to men and women. That does not mean that you or I think it should exist.

So there's some fringe whackos in both movements. I don't see you calling for an end to the NAACP, so why decry feminism?

No, largely because the NAACP fight against issues that affect men in general as well - such as disproportionate prison sentences for men.

What exactly do you think would happen if a woman did try and apply at or work for/on oil rigs or in backbreaking manual construction work? I mean really. She'd be laughed at or, more likely, told that this is too much for a nice girl like her and she should go look for secretary work somewhere.

And what happens when men get traditionally female jobs ? They get laughed at. We still call them "male nurses" too. Men still do those jobs.

And "well paid jobs they didn't earn?" You're reaching here.

We have numerous political parties with policies that would require the boards of major companies to be made up of at least 40% women. Every well paid male dominated profession has groups aimed at increasing the number of women in that profession.

Oy. You're going after the wrong boogy...person, here. Ok, so teaching is a female dominated profession, yes? Why is this so? It's not a great conspiracy to give girls a better education, it's because teaching is "women's work" and an appropriate role for a woman to take. There are so (relatively) few male teachers at the elementary through high school years because it's women's work. Now look at the gender spread at the university level, and things are different.

So, you agree. Teaching is a female dominated profession, so why aren't there efforts to increase the number of men the same way, for instance, there are efforst to increase the number of women who study mathematics ?

So, you wanna combat the "problem" of too many women teachers at the primary level, you need to go after the cultural assumption that it's a proper place for women and less so for men (who use it as a stepping stone to principal anyway). I certainly never felt "let down" by my education.

That's because, presumably, you're an adult and aren't currently a primary school student.

That first and last bit isn't the fault of feminism gone amok, but of a culture that's still grappling with the idea that men should be "tough" and cannot be victims because they're stronger and more capable than helpless women. Also... throwing objects is physical abuse, you know.

The potrayal of men as potential abusers and women as potential victims is very much a result of feminism.

They're not? Then I suppose you have a solution to the deadbeat dad problem who leaves the mother and child high and dry while he saunters off? Or, for that matter, who is nothing more than a monthly check while he's busy with his new girl?

For every "deadbeat dad" there are many more fathers who have had their access to their children severely restricted by the courts. In addition, not nearly enough is done to punish mothers who violate custody agreements.

Do you really think all those men who dress up as superheroes and climb on to the roof of the Houses of Parliament are deadbeat dads who don't love their children ?

Her point wasn't to do with the relationship between parents and children, but the different gender roles demanded - women are baby-makers and baby-raisers. Again, your problem here isn't with feminism but the culture that's been predominant for thousands of years.

Yet women today want it all. Kids, career and everything that goes with being married and being single. You only get to have two of those at best. If you want children you have to be ready to put them first. If that means giving up your career then tough. We have several almost completely reliable methods of contraception now, having children is a choice not an accident.

Pfft, everybody knows men are always horny and willing to fuck anything that moves.

I'm not.

 

[Thestral]

You're missing the point. I'm not discussing history or cause and effect at all- I'm discussing attitudes. The point is that some people- some- have a pre-conceived idea about an issue. In this case: "society works to men's benefit and women get the short end of the stick in everything". They will then grab onto any and all aspects of society, literature, history, etc, to "prove" that point and justify that perspective without engaging in any balanced or in-depth analysis. They will then claim it is "self-evident". If someone were to engage in any sort of cause-and-effect chain of logic as you did, they are by virtue of that fact NOT the people I'm talking about.

Now, maybe my example was a poor choice because you can come along and work a chain of logic from it. But the point being made is that two things which are in fact opposing realities can and will be thrown out as evidence of the same perspective and point despite being opposites, and NO chain of logic will be forthcoming from those who do so. And it is this simple "one selective perspective only" attitude that crops up far too often and makes many of those trying to get across that it is nowhere as simple as that quite bitter or quick to be suspicious.

My simplistic logic chain came from a guy who's had only the most basic of education in gender studies. For people who've dedicated their lives and careers to it, the sort of logic and analyses you're looking for have already been done and are being done. I don't necessarily agree with all of it myself, but it's out there.

Maybe what you need in relation to feminism is a Carl Sagan - somebody that can relate and explain the complexities in terms that make more sense to those who can't dedicate the time and the energy to it?

They're not? Then I suppose you have a solution to the deadbeat dad problem who leaves the mother and child high and dry while he saunters off? Or, for that matter, who is nothing more than a monthly check while he's busy with his new girl?

That is a total misrepresentation of the fatherlessness issue in Western society. As a whole, fathers are the group least to blame for the problem.

It's not a misrepesentation at all. I've met those guys, I've worked with those guys, whose only participation in fatherhood is a monthly check and perhaps the occasional visit. And it's not looked at as more than a minor character flaw.

Now I've also met and worked with single fathers who are doing the actual raising while the mother's only peripherally involved - but they're seen as "heroes," and the mother who walks away as "bitches."

What? How does that make sense for my position?

If any kind of conscription or national service has to exist it must apply equally to men and women. That does not mean that you or I think it should exist.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I won't complain if Selective Service is expanded to include women, but I certainly won't advocate for it, because I'm not in favor of expanding a policy that I disagree with. You might have better luck having that particular conversation with a feminist hawk.

And off-topic, but why does the "Quote" function not include at least one step back in these lengthy quotes?

So there's some fringe whackos in both movements. I don't see you calling for an end to the NAACP, so why decry feminism?

No, largely because the NAACP fight against issues that affect men in general as well - such as disproportionate prison sentences for men.

Not my point. If you oppose feminism because of the bad eggs that take it in the wrong direction, why don't you oppose the NAACP for the bad eggs that take it in the wrong direction?

What exactly do you think would happen if a woman did try and apply at or work for/on oil rigs or in backbreaking manual construction work? I mean really. She'd be laughed at or, more likely, told that this is too much for a nice girl like her and she should go look for secretary work somewhere.

And what happens when men get traditionally female jobs ? They get laughed at. We still call them "male nurses" too. Men still do those jobs.

A, It's wrong to laugh at men for taking "traditionally female" jobs, and B, it's usually men doing the laughing. I know when I was a waiter (a traditionally female job, note, that nobody laughs at men for taking anymore), I would tease a particular host by referring to him as a "hostess" to the other servers. It was always a woman telling me to stop calling him a hostess.

Moreover, my point was women can't even get those jobs you're suggesting they go after, because they're thought of as too weak or incapable. Continuing with the restaurant analogy, we had both male and female hosts, but the busboys were just that - always boys. If a girl ever tried to become a busser (happened once or twice while I was there) management would sort of smile and say that's nice, and suggest she be a hostess because the busser position is too labor intensive.

And "well paid jobs they didn't earn?" You're reaching here.

We have numerous political parties with policies that would require the boards of major companies to be made up of at least 40% women. Every well paid male dominated profession has groups aimed at increasing the number of women in that profession.

Ok, what does that have to do with them not earning it?

Oy. You're going after the wrong boogy...person, here. Ok, so teaching is a female dominated profession, yes? Why is this so? It's not a great conspiracy to give girls a better education, it's because teaching is "women's work" and an appropriate role for a woman to take. There are so (relatively) few male teachers at the elementary through high school years because it's women's work. Now look at the gender spread at the university level, and things are different.

So, you agree. Teaching is a female dominated profession, so why aren't there efforts to increase the number of men the same way, for instance, there are efforst to increase the number of women who study mathematics ?

Because men teaching is "settling" unless they feel especially called to it. "Oh, you wanna be a teacher? But your skills are better served elsewhere." Basically it boils down to teaching is still not given the respect it deserves because raising the young ones is "women's work," not because women are trying to keep men away from shaping young minds. University professorship, on the other hand, is guiding minds that have been developed and training the next generation of leaders - traditionally male roles, hence more males at the university level.

You want more male teachers at the younger grades? Improve the lot and the respect of the teaching profession.

So, you wanna combat the "problem" of too many women teachers at the primary level, you need to go after the cultural assumption that it's a proper place for women and less so for men (who use it as a stepping stone to principal anyway). I certainly never felt "let down" by my education.

That's because, presumably, you're an adult and aren't currently a primary school student.

Well... yes? But even then, I didn't feel let down despite being able to count on my fingers the male teachers I had.

That first and last bit isn't the fault of feminism gone amok, but of a culture that's still grappling with the idea that men should be "tough" and cannot be victims because they're stronger and more capable than helpless women. Also... throwing objects is physical abuse, you know.

The potrayal of men as potential abusers and women as potential victims is very much a result of feminism.

I think you're misinterpreting statistical reality as presumption of guilt. Also, the assumption that men cannot be victims far, far predates feminism.

They're not? Then I suppose you have a solution to the deadbeat dad problem who leaves the mother and child high and dry while he saunters off? Or, for that matter, who is nothing more than a monthly check while he's busy with his new girl?

For every "deadbeat dad" there are many more fathers who have had their access to their children severely restricted by the courts. In addition, not nearly enough is done to punish mothers who violate custody agreements.

Oh, come off it. Maybe things are different in the blessed UK, but there are far more deadbeat dads here than you're implying. And what does that mean "had their access to their children severely restricted by the courts?"

Do you really think all those men who dress up as superheroes and climb on to the roof of the Houses of Parliament are deadbeat dads who don't love their children ?

Her point wasn't to do with the relationship between parents and children, but the different gender roles demanded - women are baby-makers and baby-raisers. Again, your problem here isn't with feminism but the culture that's been predominant for thousands of years.

Yet women today want it all. Kids, career and everything that goes with being married and being single. You only get to have two of those at best. If you want children you have to be ready to put them first. If that means giving up your career then tough. We have several almost completely reliable methods of contraception now, having children is a choice not an accident.

Women today want it all... yes? Why should women have to give up career for kids if men don't have to? As you're so fond of point out, kids need their fathers too, so why don't we have men giving up their careers for their children if that's what works better?

And what does contraception and having children have to do with careers?

Pfft, everybody knows men are always horny and willing to fuck anything that moves.

I'm not.

Clearly.

 

[Hermiod]

Ok, what does that have to do with them not earning it?

Those 40% have got to come from somewhere. It says that if a company has a board of ten people then they have to have four women even if they can't find four women good enough to do the job, so they'd have to settle for what they can get even if there are better male candidates. They'd have to weaken themselves in order to comply.

Because men teaching is "settling" unless they feel especially called to it. "Oh, you wanna be a teacher? But your skills are better served elsewhere." Basically it boils down to teaching is still not given the respect it deserves because raising the young ones is "women's work," not because women are trying to keep men away from shaping young minds. University professorship, on the other hand, is guiding minds that have been developed and training the next generation of leaders - traditionally male roles, hence more males at the university level.

You want more male teachers at the younger grades? Improve the lot and the respect of the teaching profession.

I'd be happy to just see existing male teachers stay in the profession for longer. Simple fact is that right now, many children will go through school without a single male teacher. That contributes to boys not receiving the same level of education as girls which shows at exam time. But no, we'd all rather just shrug our shoulders and say "girls are smarter than boys" and have a little giggle instead of wondering why boys don't test as well as girls.

I think you're misinterpreting statistical reality as presumption of guilt. Also, the assumption that men cannot be victims far, far predates feminism.

The attempts to correct that being shouted down by feminists doesn't. Statistics don't come in to it when it is well known that DV statistics are not based in reality and won't be until men can be encouraged to report the abuse they receive.

Oh, come off it. Maybe things are different in the blessed UK, but there are far more deadbeat dads here than you're implying. And what does that mean "had their access to their children severely restricted by the courts?"

I mean fathers who don't get 50% custody of their children. Any less is a severe restriction.

I assume you don't know who Fathers 4 Justice are ? They are a British group of fathers who are not "deadbeats". They just aren't married to the mothers of their children anymore. They pay their child support yet they don't get adequate time alone with their children. Usually this is a result of the mothers not complying with the terms of their custody agreements or those agreements being unfair in the first place.

They've adopted the idea that Dads are superheroes and so, as a form of protest, they dress up in superhero costumes and make very public, often very disruptive but always peaceful protests to draw attention to their cause.

Women today want it all... yes? Why should women have to give up career for kids if men don't have to? As you're so fond of point out, kids need their fathers too, so why don't we have men giving up their careers for their children if that's what works better?

I never said men couldn't give up their careers if they wanted to, but one person is responsible for a woman's career choices - her. Having children will impact your career, like it or not. If you want to keep your career intact, male or female, don't have kids. That's what this all comes down to. There isn't some male boogeyman holding you back, quit complaining. If you want children, you have to take responsibility for them.

And what does contraception and having children have to do with careers?

Having children is a choice women and only women make. Men have no say in the matter. If a healthy, fertile woman wants a child, she will have one. She can go outside whatever relationship she has, she can go to a sperm bank, she can even adopt alone. Men, on the other hand, need a willing woman to have children. They can't pay a surrogate because that's generally illegal and they can't adopt on their own because the chances of a single man being allowed to adopt a child are virtually zero. The most a man can do is refuse sex without contraception, he can only choose not to have children.

 

[Trippy]

Having children is a choice women and only women make. Men have no say in the matter. If a healthy, fertile woman wants a child, she will have one. She can go outside whatever relationship she has, she can go to a sperm bank, she can even adopt alone. Men, on the other hand, need a willing woman to have children. They can't pay a surrogate because that's generally illegal and they can't adopt on their own because the chances of a single man being allowed to adopt a child are virtually zero. The most a man can do is refuse sex without contraception, he can only choose not to have children.

[bolding mine]

Um, have you not heard of a CONDOM??? Even if she doesn't use contraception, or he is suspicious of her, he can protect himself.

Have you not heard of a gay couple adopting? It happens all the time!

And single men not having children on their own-well duh! That's just biology. Yes, women have more reproductive options. Again, that's just biology. Nothing new there since the beginning of human history

A man can choose never to have children too-it's called a vasectomy. Women can decide never to have children either-it's called a tubal ligation.

Women with children can have careers. Men with children can have careers. That's equality.

A divorce should not include the children, just the adults, who then have to work out what's best for the children. With the loss of a double income, the non-custodial parent must help finanancially support the custodial parent with the costs of raising the children. Someone, even in joint custody, is the parent with which the children resides (moving kids back and forth is not in their best interests).

More often than not, it is the men who leave the family home. If the women do, they are the 'bitch' who left the husband and kids. It's not right, but there it is.

I've tried to stay out of this thread, but it's just getting silly now. I am a single mother. My son's father ran when he found out I was pregnant (an accident, I was on the pill, and my ex refused to wear condoms) and we tried to work it out, and he ran again when our son was 1 year old. We have joint custody, but I am the custodial parent. He pays a minute part of the real cost of raising a child. He can see him anytime he wants, but he goes weeks without even calling my son, then he'll see him for a few visits, then we hardly hear from him again. Sad, but true.

I work full time. I am a high school English teacher. There are about half and half men to women ratio in my secondary school, even in the Arts department and Guidance. Boys, equally to girls, are doing well in English and Math.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Maybe what you need in relation to feminism is a Carl Sagan - somebody that can relate and explain the complexities in terms that make more sense to those who can't dedicate the time and the energy to it?

*sigh*.

You are so under-informed, Kestrel, you do not seem conscious of the reality you are living in. And yet in typical fashion, it is I you accuse of ignorance or a lack of understanding. I am in no way under-informed on the subject of gender- but you, you seem to have embraced one incomplete perspective and accepted it as the whole. I very much doubt you've read any of the mass of articles, reports, etc, that I have, or taken a look at the government statistics and reports that I have, or read through the content of the websites I have, or spent years thinking through these things and listening to people from all over the spectrum on opinions. Had you done so, whatever your ultimate stance on the issue, you wouldn't be so quick to throw out the many misconceptions you have done. But you do not need to dedicate any time or thought to it, of course. You only need to defend the current norms and deny, deny, deny that there is any problem with the current attitudes and policies, while accusing anyone who makes a fuss of ignorance. It's far safer and more productive for you that way.

But the thing is, Kestrel, there are growing "communities", if you will, of people who have come to conclusions similar to those challenging you here. If people like you won't listen, there are going to get more and more frustrated. The information, the opinions and analyses, etc, are out there if you- or anyone here- wants to go and read them. But you don't, of course. And you won't go and find them. After all, you "know" they're worthless.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I've tried to stay out of this thread, but it's just getting silly now. I am a single mother. My son's father ran when he found out I was pregnant (an accident, I was on the pill, and my ex refused to wear condoms) and we tried to work it out, and he ran again when our son was 1 year old. We have joint custody, but I am the custodial parent. He pays a minute part of the real cost of raising a child. He can see him anytime he wants, but he goes weeks without even calling my son, then he'll see him for a few visits, then we hardly hear from him again. Sad, but true.

And yet, if someone with a different and opposing set of experiences were to announce them, would you take any note of it? Say that their individual experiences are representative of the norm and can be taken as evidence for the validity of a position?

You cannot use your problems to try and deny those of a great many other people- in this case, those suffering under government policies (pandering to certain powerful branches of feminism but with their own agenda) which break families apart and devalue the role of the father.

Keep in mind- leading feminists THEMSELVES were the first to openly admit- and I can only assume none of you have READ leading feminist material from the 50s, 60s, 70s, if you don't know this- that their goal was to break down the nuclear family, break down marriage, and remove children from "patriarchal influence". State government, meanwhile, views the family as a rival ideological power bloc- see socialist and facist governments and their attempts to destroy or co-opt the family- and thus powerful government organisms happily embrace, protect and support any ideology that helps damage the family and increase the power of the state. Hence the very bias and one-sided media attention I've been condemning throughout the thread- modern Western feminism is a god-send to big government, increasing its power at every opportunity. Government uses feminism.

 

[doubleohfive]

This thread is making my eyes bleed.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I mean, let me put it this way. You all see how I respond and relate to (sorry to pull you out here) DevilEyes. You see, surely, that I not only have no problem at all there but in fact I'm in full support of what she's saying . Do you really think that if she was representative of the status quo, of the reception people concerned about their brothers and sons get, the atmosphere and environment in society over gender, that I would have any problem at all? I wouldn't need to go on as I do about my young men/boys issue because she isn't in any way denying it- it's incorporated into her wider stance on the topic of gender. But she is not representative of the general default angle on gender- society has a very narrow and willfully blind position due to decades of selective media, etc, the result of big government using certain perspectives and outlooks to encourage a breakdown in the family, in marriage, and above all between the sexes, so as to increase their own power through the dischord. The core tracts of feminism upon which the modern perspective is based- those texts and essays and manifestos written by the leading members of the core feminist movements of the 50s, 60s, 70s, clearly and openly state their goal is to break down patriarchal society by encouraging dischord and sundering the sexes, particularly through breakdown of the nuclear family (which is a patriarchal institution). Government loved and does love the idea- it brings in more power for them, allows them to assume more control, make more people dependent utterly on them, gets them more opportunities to make money, etc. Big government hates stable family life, stable societies. What, then, does it have to do? How does it grow or expand its influence? So government spreads misinformation, aims to whip up anger by blowing issues like rape, domestic violence, child abuse, child neglect, etc out of all proportion (and all too often reclassifying them as male crimes only, all the better to encourage war-of-the-sexes) and encouraging no-fault divorce. Which means if someone gets bored and decides to walk out on their spouse, they can do it. And which sex initiates the majority of divorces? Women- who have been told over and over again by feminists that they are entitled to happiness at any cost, that being tied to a man is oppression, etc. These women- if they're mothers- will almost certainly get the children, and with husband gone need some means of support for those children. Hmm, how about government? Single mothers are powerless vassals to big government, dependent on them, loyal in exchange for needed hand-outs. Government replaces the father and husband, but here's the thing- father and husband cares for the woman and children. Government doesn't. Surrogate daddy and husband the state only cares for its power. So the woman is not "liberated" is she? She's less powerful than ever.

Government uses feminism as a tool to break apart the sexes, break down families, etc. The reason why is quite simple: it increases the power of government.

And feminism always intended to break down the family and to split the sexes. It said so. Quite openly and loudly. Many times. But have any of you read these feminist materials? Are you informed? I'm guessing...no.

 

[Hermiod]

Um, have you not heard of a CONDOM??? Even if she doesn't use contraception, or he is suspicious of her, he can protect himself.

So, if I've read the rest of your comments correctly, you both do and do not understand what I said ?

Have you not heard of a gay couple adopting? It happens all the time!

Emphasis on the word couple. I am talking about single men here. While it's not illegal, it's extraordinarily hard and at best the man will be able to adopt a more grown up child that no other home can be found for.

And single men not having children on their own-well duh! That's just biology. Yes, women have more reproductive options. Again, that's just biology. Nothing new there since the beginning of human history

Except women found a way around that. So did men. Then, one became illegal in many territories and the other didn't. Guess which is which!

A man can choose never to have children too-it's called a vasectomy. Women can decide never to have children either-it's called a tubal ligation.

I don't think I ever said there was no way for either to never have children. That part of the subject never came up.

Women with children can have careers. Men with children can have careers. That's equality.

Well, it will be when men get equal parental leave. Helps both fathers and mothers too.

More often than not, it is the men who leave the family home. If the women do, they are the 'bitch' who left the husband and kids. It's not right, but there it is.

That's the consequences of the "women are potential mothers and must be protected" double standard we've discussed already. A mother who runs away from her children is looked at in a similar way to a soldier who deserts.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Women with children can have careers. Men with children can have careers. That's equality.

Well, it will be when men get equal parental leave. Helps both fathers and mothers too.

Indeed. It's a symbiosis. I mean, I've always wanted to care for my babies and children- my "dream" is to be house-husband if possible, more realistically in this economy a part-time worker who also looks after the children. I'm therefore looking for a career-driven woman who aims to be a high earner and breadwinner, who wants children, but doesn't want to have to put her career on hold over it. Such a woman would obviously in turn be looking for a man who will care for the children/maintain the house, etc, etc, while she climbs the ladder. But how is she to find such a man when our legal systems are so hostile to fathers having close relationships with children? A system encouraging single motherhood (with single mothers, you guessed it, dependent on government handouts and thus under the control of- and loyal to- government). A system which encourages no-fault divorce and the sundering of men from women and children?

The bias against fathers is not just harmful to men- it is equally harmful to women. A career-driven woman who wants a family life is EQUALLY a victim of the anti-father bias in our societies. MOST gender issues are in fact about harm to both sexes, if you think them through.

In fact, look at my posts throughout this thread. You'll see I've stressed over and over again that I see NO misogyny OR misandry here, that the dominant feminist-government perspective is NOT "a woman's" perspective but one benefiting some members of both sexes and harming some members of both sexes. There is NO man-V-woman, except where modern feminism and government seek to make it. And we all too often fall into the trap of encouraging it.

There is, I maintain, on the surface all too often an encouraged bias against men, fathers, etc in western society- but really, underneath, such a bias is NOT harmful to men only but to SOCIETY- to both sexes. My career-driven sister is just as damaged by it as I am. It DOES NOT seek to benefit women, but to benefit SOME people of both sexes, and in particular to benefit government and those in power. The whole "for women's sake!" business is how feminists and government usually sell it, but it is not women who benefit by the denigration of men. Women suffer from it, just as men do.

Oh, and most high-level government ministers etc are male. The powerful "alpha males" who females- like single mothers- have to negotiate around carefully, and to whom beta males are a resource to be used, nothing more. So you could argue that the denigration of and bias against men actually works to benefit certain men MORE than it benefits any women...

And as I've pointed out before, the alpha males will near always treat beta males worse than females for reasons that should be obvious. The current problem of bias is the result of alpha-male government, bloated state government and angry feminists working together (or at least the state and government using misguided and angry feminism) to increase their own power at the expense of others. Empowering women is not their goal or concern. Looking after men and boys is not their goal or concern.

EDIT: Final point: There are of course plenty of people who identify as "feminist" who are not eager in any way to break down the family, etc. There is a lot of variety- many branches of feminism, many perspectives within it. But to deny that original core agenda is simply to misrepresent the history of what is called "feminism".

 

[Trippy]

I've tried to stay out of this thread, but it's just getting silly now. I am a single mother. My son's father ran when he found out I was pregnant (an accident, I was on the pill, and my ex refused to wear condoms) and we tried to work it out, and he ran again when our son was 1 year old. We have joint custody, but I am the custodial parent. He pays a minute part of the real cost of raising a child. He can see him anytime he wants, but he goes weeks without even calling my son, then he'll see him for a few visits, then we hardly hear from him again. Sad, but true.

And yet, if someone with a different and opposing set of experiences were to announce them, would you take any note of it? Say that their individual experiences are representative of the norm and can be taken as evidence for the validity of a position?

Of course I would. In my own extended family, it was the woman who left my uncle with three kids. He should have gotten financial support from her, but he didn't.

You cannot use your problems to try and deny those of a great many other people- in this case, those suffering under government policies (pandering to certain powerful branches of feminism but with their own agenda) which break families apart and devalue the role of the father.

I never said I did. I'm also not sure where 'feminism' breaks families apart? The feminism I experience doesn't advocate that.

Keep in mind- leading feminists THEMSELVES were the first to openly admit- and I can only assume none of you have READ leading feminist material from the 50s, 60s, 70s, if you don't know this- that their goal was to break down the nuclear family, break down marriage, and remove children from "patriarchal influence". State government, meanwhile, views the family as a rival ideological power bloc- see socialist and facist governments and their attempts to destroy or co-opt the family- and thus powerful government organisms happily embrace, protect and support any ideology that helps damage the family and increase the power of the state. Hence the very bias and one-sided media attention I've been condemning throughout the thread- modern Western feminism is a god-send to big government, increasing its power at every opportunity. Government uses feminism.

Hmmm...who are these 'leading feminists' that the goal was 'breaking down the nuclear family'? Do you have their names, links, book recommendations? I'd be curious to read those opinions.

Maybe my views are different because I live in Canada, where fathers, unless unfit, have equal access rights.

 

[Trippy]

Um, have you not heard of a CONDOM??? Even if she doesn't use contraception, or he is suspicious of her, he can protect himself.

So, if I've read the rest of your comments correctly, you both do and do not understand what I said ?

It is biology that women have more reproductive power than men. Men and women have EQUAL responsibility to prevent, and then provide for any child born from that sexual union.

Have you not heard of a gay couple adopting? It happens all the time!

Emphasis on the word couple. I am talking about single men here. While it's not illegal, it's extraordinarily hard and at best the man will be able to adopt a more grown up child that no other home can be found for.

Single women do not have easy access to adopt babies either. Married couples don't have easy access to adopt babies either. Success in adoption is to adopt an older child, whether a single parent or a married couple.

Except women found a way around that. So did men. Then, one became illegal in many territories and the other didn't. Guess which is which!

I'm not sure what you are referring to here

Women with children can have careers. Men with children can have careers. That's equality.

Well, it will be when men get equal parental leave. Helps both fathers and mothers too.

In my country, they do. Maternity leave is one year. Six months for mom, six months for dad. The division is optional. The man could take the whole year; the woman could take the whole year. It is a decision that particular couple makes.

More often than not, it is the men who leave the family home. If the women do, they are the 'bitch' who left the husband and kids. It's not right, but there it is.

That's the consequences of the "women are potential mothers and must be protected" double standard we've discussed already. A mother who runs away from her children is looked at in a similar way to a soldier who deserts.

Exactly. It isn't right, but again, that is what our society believes.

 

[Hermiod]

It is biology that women have more reproductive power than men. Men and women have EQUAL responsibility to prevent, and then provide for any child born from that sexual union.

You continue to misunderstand me and argue against a point I am not making. Of course a man should use contraception if he doesn't want kids. Can prevent himself from having children, but he can't have a child on his own. A woman can, she can just go to a sperm bank and most likely she be pregnant fairly quickly. A man can't do that.

Shouting "that's biology" doesn't mean anything. It's biology that males should want to have children with as many females as possible too, but we don't accept that. Humans are intelligent beings, we are supposed to be above simple biology.

Single women do not have easy access to adopt babies either. Married couples don't have easy access to adopt babies either. Success in adoption is to adopt an older child, whether a single parent or a married couple.

It's a lot easier for women than it is for men to the point where a man trying on his own is more likely to end up being labelled a paedophile than a good father.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here

Women can go to a sperm bank. Men can't pay a woman to be a surrogate in many territories because it's illegal. If they're lucky they'll find a woman willing to help them but even then the baby is legally her child, she has full parental rights which a sperm donor wouldn't have.

In my country, they do. Maternity leave is one year. Six months for mom, six months for dad. The division is optional. The man could take the whole year; the woman could take the whole year. It is a decision that particular couple makes.

For it to be equal, the man should be able to stop working the day the woman stops and not go back until she does.

Exactly. It isn't right, but again, that is what our society believes.

Our society has believed in a lot of things that were wrong but we learned and then we changed them.