NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just reading a very interesting abortion thread, and saw this...

The Equality Scales(TM) have tilted onto the female side.

Now, I don't know about you, but I believe that statement to be totally false. Those who disagree with me: why are women so lucky? Please explain to me just how everything's going their way, 'cos gotta say... I don't see it myself. What kind of equality are we talking here? Economic? Demonstrably false. Social? Likewise. So why exactly is it so fan-bloody-tastic to be a woman right now?
Apologies, I'm not much of an OP guy, I never find sources and I'm not much cop at the intro thing, but... well, I've raised the issue...

Now, I don't know about you, but I believe that statement to be totally false. Those who disagree with me: why are women so lucky? Please explain to me just how everything's going their way, 'cos gotta say... I don't see it myself. What kind of equality are we talking here? Economic? Demonstrably false. Social? Likewise.

Social. By which I might mean the social groups with which I interact. Women are adored and given leeway that men are not.

It's just little things - we're not saying women are oppressing men and denying men the right to vote - but though little, they are discernible.

An example is hitting. A woman can hit a man. Slap him in the face at a bar. It's considered light-heartedly amusing. Can a man do the same? No. Women have leave to do things men cannot.

A more sad example is rape. A woman CAN rape a man. But no one takes it seriously. No one. Guy gets raped by a woman, he's laughed at and humiliated.

It's interesting that there is a bit of gender bias not just for, but against, women in these cases. For example, it's assumed that a woman can hit a man as much as she pleases, on the basis that she is weak and will not harm him. With rape, it's assumed that if a man can get an erection, that is consent to having sex. (I guess it's kind of like how a short skirt is "consent" for women.)

This is not equal towards men, nor women. It is skewed by ignorance and gender bias. It's a case where people have gone past, or not far enough, towards the goal of gender equality.

Girls in many western societies are free nowadays to just be themselves, while boys are still expected to prove themselves to be worthy of an increasingly nebulous concept of manhood.

Also in the U.S. they would never be drafted.

Plus they get paid pregnancy vacation, (more time off than a male worker would get if their wife was pregnant, for obvious reasons) i'm trying to sound as least sexist as possible, but that loses millions of dollars a year to companies.

Also the standards of male/women ratio must be held up in certain work places, maybe someone gets a job that they may or may not rightfully deserve.

Social. By which I might mean the social groups with which I interact. Women are adored and given leeway that men are not.

It's just little things - we're not saying women are oppressing men and denying men the right to vote - but though little, they are discernible.

An example is hitting. A woman can hit a man. Slap him in the face at a bar. It's considered light-heartedly amusing. Can a man do the same? No. Women have leave to do things men cannot.

A more sad example is rape. A woman CAN rape a man. But no one takes it seriously. No one. Guy gets raped by a woman, he's laughed at and humiliated.

It's interesting that there is a bit of gender bias not just for, but against, women in these cases. For example, it's assumed that a woman can hit a man as much as she pleases, on the basis that she is weak and will not harm him. With rape, it's assumed that if a man can get an erection, that is consent to having sex. (I guess it's kind of like how a short skirt is "consent" for women.)

This is not equal towards men, nor women. It is skewed by ignorance and gender bias. It's a case where people have gone past, or not far enough, towards the goal of gender equality.

Humm... many good points raised... my initial thought is that the case of rape is not quite so clear-cut as you make out. Even if you take into account male embarassment, rape statistics (I have none, correct me if I'm wrong please) are skewed overwhelmingly in favour of men raping women, and the same goes (I imagine, but probably less so) for domestic violence.
Certain negative male stereotypes exist for a reason. Many negative female stereotypes are in my opinion less grounded in reality (capriciousness, the inablilty to think rationally). I would say that men in general are treated as socially superior to women.

Social. By which I might mean the social groups with which I interact. Women are adored and given leeway that men are not.

It's just little things - we're not saying women are oppressing men and denying men the right to vote - but though little, they are discernible.

An example is hitting. A woman can hit a man. Slap him in the face at a bar. It's considered light-heartedly amusing. Can a man do the same? No. Women have leave to do things men cannot.

A more sad example is rape. A woman CAN rape a man. But no one takes it seriously. No one. Guy gets raped by a woman, he's laughed at and humiliated.

It's interesting that there is a bit of gender bias not just for, but against, women in these cases. For example, it's assumed that a woman can hit a man as much as she pleases, on the basis that she is weak and will not harm him. With rape, it's assumed that if a man can get an erection, that is consent to having sex. (I guess it's kind of like how a short skirt is "consent" for women.)

This is not equal towards men, nor women. It is skewed by ignorance and gender bias. It's a case where people have gone past, or not far enough, towards the goal of gender equality.

Exactly. As it happens, wasn't it you I was quoting in that post?

I was just reading a very interesting abortion thread, and saw this...



Now, I don't know about you, but I believe that statement to be totally false. Those who disagree with me: why are women so lucky? Please explain to me just how everything's going their way, 'cos gotta say... I don't see it myself. What kind of equality are we talking here? Economic? Demonstrably false. Social? Likewise. So why exactly is it so fan-bloody-tastic to be a woman right now?
Apologies, I'm not much of an OP guy, I never find sources and I'm not much cop at the intro thing, but... well, I've raised the issue...

Women have more leeway, because they are dogmatically considered the 'weaker sex'. For instance a girl can play sports, and is lauded for doing so. But a boy who wants to babysit one of the kids on his block? He must a be a pedophile or a girlie-man.

Many of your complaints about women being in a superior position are actually caused by prevalent stereotypical assumptions that women are weaker. Surely the fact that these assumptions prevail, as you have admitted, indicates that women are actually still in the weaker position? Your complaints undermine your own arguments in these cases.

Many of your complaints about women being in a superior position are actually caused by prevalent stereotypical assumptions that women are weaker. Surely the fact that these assumptions prevail, as you have admitted, indicates that women are actually still in the weaker position? Your complaints undermine your own arguments in these cases.

"Change my wheel, please. I'm a girl, it's too hard for me." *Flutters eyelashes*

Perceived weakness can be a strength.

An example is hitting. A woman can hit a man. Slap him in the face at a bar. It's considered light-heartedly amusing. Can a man do the same? No. Women have leave to do things men cannot.
Actually, a man can slap a woman if she provokes him. Same as your example.

A more sad example is rape. A woman CAN rape a man. But no one takes it seriously. No one. Guy gets raped by a woman, he's laughed at and humiliated.
Actually, no. He's taken seriously, to such a degree that the police and justice system convicts the woman and demands that she pays reparations to him. Socially, he may be ridiculed, but a woman may be ostracized too. "She was asking for it, the slut." Pretty humiliating, I'd say.

I was just reading a very interesting abortion thread, and saw this...



Now, I don't know about you, but I believe that statement to be totally false. Those who disagree with me: why are women so lucky? Please explain to me just how everything's going their way, 'cos gotta say... I don't see it myself. What kind of equality are we talking here? Economic? Demonstrably false. Social? Likewise. So why exactly is it so fan-bloody-tastic to be a woman right now?
Apologies, I'm not much of an OP guy, I never find sources and I'm not much cop at the intro thing, but... well, I've raised the issue...

women have the advantage of being able to wear makeup without being called emo and wear pretty clothes without getting called fag. besides that, they aren't traditionally expected to make the first move in a relationship which must be nice. can't think of anything else. it's still generally better to be male in terms of personal advancemnent and that sort of thing (although men don't have cleavage to exploit in that respect).

Girls in many western societies are free nowadays to just be themselves, while boys are still expected to prove themselves to be worthy of an increasingly nebulous concept of manhood.
All too true.

And to tip the scales a little further, they have boobies.

All too true.

And to tip the scales a little further, they have boobies.

boobs are a definite advantage *nods*

boobs are a definite advantage *nods*

I've got boobs and they haven't gotten me a damn....:D

Humm... many good points raised... my initial thought is that the case of rape is not quite so clear-cut as you make out. Even if you take into account male embarassment, rape statistics (I have none, correct me if I'm wrong please) are skewed overwhelmingly in favour of men raping women, and the same goes (I imagine, but probably less so) for domestic violence.

True, but that doesn't in any way negate the importance of recognizing and eliminating gender discrimination, particularly in those instances of crimes. But it starts in school... in daily interactions... in stopping the perpetuation of demeaning and ignorant sexual stereotypes (like "women are smarter" and "men think about sex every 7 seconds").

I remember once getting kicked in the shins by some girl in junior high school. I mean like, it hurt. But I, being the bright guy I am, knew full well that if I used the force I had against her, the 20 sweaty jocks around me would pile on me with self-righteous testosterone-based beatings.

Because there is that stereotype and it leads to social mores. Mores like, it's OK to hit a guy, guys like it. It's not OK to hit a girl, girls are weak.

Certain negative male stereotypes exist for a reason. Many negative female stereotypes are in my opinion less grounded in reality (capriciousness, the inablilty to think rationally). I would say that men in general are treated as socially superior to women.

I disagree, but of course it depends on the situation, the people.

And no stereotype really has a "reason." It's not reasonable to make stereotypes. They may have causes, they may have causes one can identify and sympathize with, but they're not valid.

Many of your complaints about women being in a superior position are actually caused by prevalent stereotypical assumptions that women are weaker. Surely the fact that these assumptions prevail, as you have admitted, indicates that women are actually still in the weaker position? Your complaints undermine your own arguments in these cases.

Nope, they support my argument that gender equality is not where it should be. I believe gender stereotypes are demeaning to BOTH genders.

Actually, a man can slap a woman if she provokes him. Same as your example.

Oh, really. Like in a Cary Grant movie, or is there something more to this that would be convincing to me?

Actually, no. He's taken seriously, to such a degree that the police and justice system convicts the woman and demands that she pays reparations to him. Socially, he may be ridiculed, but a woman may be ostracized too. "She was asking for it, the slut." Pretty humiliating, I'd say.

Aside from online trolls I've never heard anyone say "she was asking for it" about women who were raped. But men getting raped by women is in fact treated as such a joke that many people believe it to be impossible, or unimportant. Can you give examples of women being automatically convicted of raping a male?

Exactly. As it happens, wasn't it you I was quoting in that post?

Yep!

This was instigated because recently, one of my friends commented on a blog saying, "Women are our superiors." And suchlike commentary from him. It actually wound up offending me. What if someone were to say "Men are superior to women"? That would be offensive. Yet if I claim to take offense at his comment - and I did - it's dismissed. Apparently at some point, to him and others, women became superior to men. What's wrong with equality dammit?

All of the things people are bringing up seem to be products of the same gender roles and discrimination feminists have been fighting for several generations now. It doesn't sound like the scales have "tipped" towards women. It's more that the same old stereotypes that have been around for generations are still not done away with.

in other words, there are no advantages that tip the scales in favor of women

"ohhh no i cant hit a woman" "ohhh no women have tits and i cant control myself around them" "ohhh noooo women have the choice of a job that pays less than a man or staying home and earing nothing" "ohhhh nooo women can put on lipstick but i dont have the balls to"

should i pull out a few stupid example of how men have it better?

"ohhh no men get to fart and scratch their privates and no one thinks they are freaks" "men get to drink more without getting drunk" "men can memorize sports stats and no one thinks thats lame"


in the meantime women still arent paid as much as men, they still face more violence against them from men than men ever do from women, they still have the majority of housework, child care, and family planning, they still have to worry about getting pregnant every time they have sex (with a man)

no the scales have not tipped to the favor of women, they have just gotten closer to being in balance than they have in the past.

in other words, there are no advantages that tip the scales in favor of women

"ohhh no i cant hit a woman"

That's right, ever. Unless you're somewhere like Saudi Arabia. Even in self-defence, a man is far more likely to be having words with the police if he lays a hand on a woman.

"ohhhh nooo women can put on lipstick but i dont have the balls to"

Listen to yourself. By saying a man "doesn't have the balls" to do something you are in effect questioning a man's very identity by linking the courage to break social norms with having genitalia!

(And if you think that sounds weird, it's exactly the sort of thing a feminist would say if the roles were reversed.)

should i pull out a few stupid example of how men have it better?
"ohhh no men get to fart and scratch their privates and no one thinks they are freaks"

Plenty of women do think this, actually (and say so!). Men too, depending on the social context.

"men get to drink more without getting drunk"

Men die earlier too.

in the meantime women still arent paid as much as men,

That's true, although the reasons aren't always clear. Leaving the workforce to start a family seems to hurt future career prospects in terms of reaching the top of the corporate ladder. It may be that if we truly want to fix this problem, we'll need a radical rethink of child rearing.

they still face more violence against them from men than men ever do from women,

Actually, the data on this is equivocal. Male violence against females certainly causes more serious injury, but recent studies (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0197-6664(199004)39%3A2%3C194%3ARVBWIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I#abstract) have shown that women are just as frequent initiators of domestic violence as men. Female initiated violence is very much underrepresented when it comes to police complaints, and is usually minimised or dismissed by those involved in combatting domestic violence out of fear that it will shift the focus from the problem of male initiated violence.

they still have the majority of housework, child care, and family planning, they still have to worry about getting pregnant every time they have sex (with a man)

Yes, that's true.

no the scales have not tipped to the favor of women, they have just gotten closer to being in balance than they have in the past.

Would you not prefer to fight injustice rather than be satisfied with an "equal" distribution of injustice?

"men can memorize sports stats and no one thinks thats lame"

I do :p

Plus they get paid pregnancy vacation, (more time off than a male worker would get if their wife was pregnant, for obvious reasons) i'm trying to sound as least sexist as possible, but that loses millions of dollars a year to companies.
There's paternity leave as well.

I don't think it's as long because men don't have to you know, recover from the physical process of giving birth or anything like that.

"Change my wheel, please. I'm a girl, it's too hard for me." *Flutters eyelashes*

Perceived weakness can be a strength.
You're joking.

All of the things people are bringing up seem to be products of the same gender roles and discrimination feminists have been fighting for several generations now. It doesn't sound like the scales have "tipped" towards women. It's more that the same old stereotypes that have been around for generations are still not done away with.

QFT.
The point I was trying to make, thank you.

You're joking.

Yes, but I was also being serious.

I've heard things like that said before, by my own girlfriend for starters ("I can't change the CD drive in my computer, I'm a woman! We have men to do that for us!"), and it annoys me; firstly, if I were to say "I can't cook my dinner and do the washing up; that's woman's work" what would happen? Secondly, that's doing nothing to dispel the stereotypes of women being weaker, is it?

Edit: Better explanation; the perceived weakness; that women are incapable of performing certain tasks; is used as leverage to get men to do perform the task for them. Seriously, my sister does this quite a lot, and the men keep falling for it. Which probably says a lot about the stupidity of men, to be honest.

Social. By which I might mean the social groups with which I interact. Women are adored and given leeway that men are not.

Funny, I see the opposite. Guys are allowed to be violent, rude, sexual, and a whole host of other things that women are not. Women who act the way men act are bitches, whores, etc.

And I'm not talking about my personal social circle, either. I'm talking about mainstream society in my country.

An example is hitting. A woman can hit a man. Slap him in the face at a bar. It's considered light-heartedly amusing. Can a man do the same? No. Women have leave to do things men cannot.

Men’s violence is the single most serious health problem for women in the United States.

For women aged 15-44, an estimated 50% of emergency room visits are the result of violence at the hands of their husbands, boyfriends, ex-husbands, or ex-boyfriends.

The most common cause of death for pregnant women in the United States is murder at the hands of a (male) intimate partner.

About 3 women are killed by their (male) intimate partner or ex-partner every day.

World-wide, gender-based violence accounts for more death and disability among women aged 15-44 years than cancer, malaria, traffic injuries and war combined.

And somehow, we've got a bumper crop of boys whining about how women are "allowed" to hit men.

If this is what happens when men AREN'T "allowed" to hit women, I shudder to think what would happen if we did "allow" it.


A more sad example is rape. A woman CAN rape a man. But no one takes it seriously. No one. Guy gets raped by a woman, he's laughed at and humiliated.

And, what, female rape victims are treated with the utmost respect and deference? Gimme a break.

It sucks when ANY rape victim is treated badly. But if you really think that female rape victims have it "better" than male rape victims, you are way off base.

And, of course, even if it were the case, it would be easy to see why. Adult males are almost never raped by females. They are raped by other men. And, of course, women are ten times as likely to be raped as men are.

Seriously, are you really going to argue that women are better off because they are treated more "nicely" after being raped? Never mind the fact that they are 10 times as likely TO BE RAPED? Let me just say right now, if I could lower my chances of being raped by a factor of TEN, and the only price was that I might get laughed at, I would take that deal in a fucking heartbeat.


It's interesting that there is a bit of gender bias not just for, but against, women in these cases. For example, it's assumed that a woman can hit a man as much as she pleases, on the basis that she is weak and will not harm him. With rape, it's assumed that if a man can get an erection, that is consent to having sex. (I guess it's kind of like how a short skirt is "consent" for women.)

EXACTLY. I'm glad you made this point. The examples you cited are not examples of "equality" favoring women or any such bunk. They are examples of how patriarchy hurts men, too.

So...

Women can't hurt men because they're so weak, which is why women can slap men and it's just so cute. Awww, look at her, she thinks she's got physical strength! How adorable!

Women can't rape men because women never want sex, and men always want sex. Sex is about satisfying male desire. Therefore, no sex can exist for any purpose other than pleasing a man, and a woman cannot possibly rape a man.

Etc.


This is not equal towards men, nor women. It is skewed by ignorance and gender bias. It's a case where people have gone past, or not far enough, towards the goal of gender equality.
No, it's cases where the EXISTING gender inequalities fuck over men as well as women. It's not new. It's not remotely created by working toward equality and going too far, or anything like that. It's the exact same sexism we've had all along.

Let me just repeat that once more: it is the same old sexism. It is nothing new.

The idea that female violence is cute but totally non-serious is not new. It is a very old, entrenched concept.

The idea that only males can be sexually aggressive or predatory is not new. It is a very old, entrenched concept.

I'm really tired of people acting like the status quo is somehow new and different, or like "feminism" or struggles for equality can be blamed for creating the very status quo that they fight against.

There's paternity leave as well.

I don't think it's as long because men don't have to you know, recover from the physical process of giving birth or anything like that.

It depends on where you are - but in the UK paid maternity leave is 6months.

While I admit childbirth is something major to recover from I don't think it quite takes 6months - most of it is more for child rearing than recovery - something men should participate in, however they get 2 weeks.

I agree! As a community worker I am required to write numerous grant submissions, my area of interest is Men's health issues... but are their grants for men? no... Here in Tasmania, the word 'Women' is the buzz word for the century, so much useless money is poured into women's health especially for breast cancer.... it makes me irritate.... ARAGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Actually, a man can slap a woman if she provokes him. Same as your example.

Not where I come from, he can't. And for even suggesting that a man should be allowed to attack a woman in his own defense, I've been ridiculed. I've heard people say that, even if a woman is threatening his life, a man should never so much as hint at raising a hand to her.

There are cases where the woman has a decided advantage. Women can saddle men with children that aren't theirs, a counterpoint to the man who refuses to help with kids that are his. And as a counterpoint to the idea that men are the heads of the household and it's a woman's job to cook, clean, and take care of the kids, men are seen, by and large, as unworthy of taking care of kids. And as another counterpoint, it's now seen as antiquated, patriarchal, and potentially abusive for a man to be in charge and the dominant force in a household, whereas if it's a woman who takes charge, she's liberated and independent and her husband's a girly-man who's been castrated.

As a counterpoint to the people who shun rape victims and accuse them of dressing like whores and "asking for it," there are those who will believe an accuser's story no matter how many holes can be poked in it and turn even the most innocent man accused of rape into a pariah. Both sides of this were seen in the Duke lacrosse case, and you really have to ask how many people still think Kobe Bryant was guilty (including myself.) And for those who refer to the stoning of rape victims in Saudi Arabia, my points and counterpoints are mostly America-centric and may apply in Europe. Saudi Arabia and that part of the world is far too fucked up in that regard to factor in.

The point? Anything that can be claimed as a sign of female advantage is merely the other side of a coin that also shows a male advantage. Look at the pay scale. Yes, perhaps on the whole, women are paid 76 cents to the dollar that men make, or whatever the hell it is now. However, I took an economics class in college that went over a study performed by the University of Michigan awhile back (I took the class five years ago; I am fairly sure the study is less than a decade old.) Anywho, it acknowledges this pay gap, but it factors in things such as hours worked, level of education, years of experience, length at a job, and the kicker - job choice. The conclusion? All things equal, men and women make about the same. I'm sure that, in some cases, there are still assholes who pay women far less than men for the same job and the same tenure, experience, hours, etc. However, the study indicates that this is not the norm. Therefore, if people want to even out the pay scales, the solution isn't to go in and demand pay raises for women (which will be fought tooth-and-nail by businesses, for obvious reasons) or pay cuts for men (which is insane and would probably shoot the economy in the foot.) The solution is to make sure women have the same education as men (women are getting more bachelor's degrees than men these days, but I believe men are still outpacing women in advanced degrees,) make sure that women can stay on the job (perhaps with maternity leave laws and setups that make it easier for both parents to work from home,) and make sure that there are plenty of opportunities for women, especially poor single moms, to advance and get better jobs than shithole $6.50 an hour temp jobs that exist simply as welfare alternatives.

There. I've rambled enough. Back to you, NS General.

Yes, but I was also being serious.

I've heard things like that said before, by my own girlfriend for starters ("I can't change the CD drive in my computer, I'm a woman! We have men to do that for us!"), and it annoys me; firstly, if I were to say "I can't cook my dinner and do the washing up; that's woman's work" what would happen? Secondly, that's doing nothing to dispel the stereotypes of women being weaker, is it?
How about you don't tar us all with the same brush?

Just because some women manipulate men on the basis of pretending to be unable to do something so they will not have to do it doesn't mean that all women do.

And just because you wouldn't refuse to do housework or cook dinner because it's women's work doesn't mean that there aren't any men who would do so.

I mean, personally, I'll go to male friends for help with some things, for instance, if I build a computer or have a problem with a computer I will go to one of my friends who has built computers in the past and who knows a lot about them. It's not because he's a guy, it's because he knows his shit. If I had a female friend who knew about how to build computers I would probably ask her for advice about it too.

Better explanation; the perceived weakness; that women are incapable of performing certain tasks; is used as leverage to get men to do perform the task for them. Seriously, my sister does this quite a lot, and the men keep falling for it. Which probably says a lot about the stupidity of men, to be honest.

How many men do you think get out of doing laundry for a long time because they "can't" separate the whites from the darks or "accidently" shrink things in the dryer or are "incapable" of learning about the intriciacies of pre-washing?

It depends on where you are - but in the UK paid maternity leave is 6months.

While I admit childbirth is something major to recover from I don't think it quite takes 6months - most of it is more for child rearing than recovery - something men should participate in, however they get 2 weeks.
Men get more than two weeks here. But yes, women do get longer and I'm sure that some women do need the full time to recover physically. There are possible complications and often the maternity leave kicks in before the birth actually takes place because some women have difficult pregnancies and require bed rest a couple of months before they're due.

Men get more than two weeks here. But yes, women do get longer and I'm sure that some women do need the full time to recover physically. There are possible complications and often the maternity leave kicks in before the birth actually takes place because some women have difficult pregnancies and require bed rest a couple of months before they're due.

it also allows the woman to breast-feed her child. something the father can't do.

Personally, as a greedy sort, I'd say the chance to earn a significant amount more money is more useful than being able to slap people without retribution.

Personally, as a greedy sort, I'd say the chance to earn a significant amount more money is more useful than being able to slap people without retribution.

when you have enough money you can slap people without retribution too.

when you have enough money you can slap people without retribution too.
True. Ah, the intangible benefits of capitalism. :p

How about you don't tar us all with the same brush?

Just because some women manipulate men on the basis of pretending to be unable to do something so they will not have to do it doesn't mean that all women do.

No, indeed, but it does seem a depressingly common attitude. Probably, you being female, you notice the opposite more readily than I do; Arbitrary Bloke X is unlikely to ask me to do his cooking or washing-up for him.

I mean, personally, I'll go to male friends for help with some things, for instance, if I build a computer or have a problem with a computer I will go to one of my friends who has built computers in the past and who knows a lot about them. It's not because he's a guy, it's because he knows his shit. If I had a female friend who knew about how to build computers I would probably ask her for advice about it too.
Exactly.

How many men do you think get out of doing laundry for a long time because they "can't" separate the whites from the darks or "accidently" shrink things in the dryer or are "incapable" of learning about the intriciacies of pre-washing?

Only the shit, useless ones. My father would be one of these, actually; I don't know why mum puts up with it, but there are plenty of "male" things she doesn't do, so whatever. I don't think that anybody makes any pretense at dad not being useless for being "incapable" of cooking or doing the washing. He's just a useless man, can't be arsed, what do you expect? Spoilt by his mother, grumble, moan.
But nobody complains that mum's useless because she doesn't change her own car's oil, which would be the difference ;)

I think the gender gap is closing, but if anything, women are now getting as ripped off as men. I'll initially ignore the Neardanthal thug, and get to that later.

For years as a White Male, I am told "You have all the privileges". But this is crap. Unless I'm in that 1 in 100 people from a really privileged background, I'll become a wage slave in a dead end job like everyone else. I am a huge failure, since I have such privileges but am a nobody. Ever wonder why suicide statistics are highest in white males. It's because we've been lied to all our lives about how we should all be successful, and we all can't be.

Previously, atleast women weren't given that lie. Now women are told "You can have everything". You can have your career and have children at 40. What they aren't told is that If you're wealthy enough, your nanny can deal with the Down Syndrome child. Women are just like men now. They don't have a career, except a small elite, they have a dead end job. Find how many women Really Like their job.

I'm just pissed off at how many times I'm told men are priviliged. If you have more brain cells then a carrot, and thus wont beat up women, will do your fair share of household chores, etc, you do get taken advantage of.

It's now accepted by all but the neanderthals, that if you both work, then you both should help with household tasks. But in most houses, when the woman hears a noise, the man has to risk his life to check it out. The man will have to change the tyre, lift heavy objects, etc. (see, I used the word most, this means "in my house I change the oil" doesn't work as a rebuttal)

Socially women are ahead. Due to the small % of brutal males, all males have to deal with peoples defence mechanism against that small %. As someone else said, every male near kids is thought to be a paedophile. You see a man filming his child at a swimming carnival, he will need permission, and even then he'd get weird stares all day. No woman would get that. A kid has a bad bruise. With his mum, no worries, with Dad, once again people stare.

This also leads back to accusations of rape. Admittedly, that is just a messed up area both ways. From the false accusations ruining a man, to the "She was a slut" court defence.

Economically, it's about the type of job. Women tend to work more in jobs with social payoffs. Teachers get long holidays and "child-friendly" hours. Child Care Workers get to work with kids (supposedly a plus). If you get a non-economic payoff, don't expect as high a wage. Also, people in bad work environments should get an economic payoff. If some-one works in an abboitoir, there is a wage increase due to the fact that the work environment is rubbish.

I've heard things like that said before, by my own girlfriend for starters ("I can't change the CD drive in my computer, I'm a woman! We have men to do that for us!"), and it annoys me; firstly, if I were to say "I can't cook my dinner and do the washing up; that's woman's work" what would happen?

That depends, are you saying it in a jesting manner? My fiance and I say things like that all the time. I'll ask him to help with the dishes or something and he'll jokingly say, "That's women's work!" or I'll make a comment about having him to take out the trash or mow the lawn. But when it comes down to actually getting it done, it doesn't really matter which of us does it - it gets done.

Funny, I see the opposite. Guys are allowed to be violent, rude, sexual, and a whole host of other things that women are not.

Sure - against other guys.

Not sure where in this country guys are allowed to be violent towards women.

Women who act the way men act are bitches, whores, etc.

That's just with overt sexuality. And that's going to change as soon as we stop holding women to higher standards than men. ;)

Men’s violence is the single most serious health problem for women in the United States.

For women aged 15-44, an estimated 50% of emergency room visits are the result of violence at the hands of their husbands, boyfriends, ex-husbands, or ex-boyfriends.

The most common cause of death for pregnant women in the United States is murder at the hands of a (male) intimate partner.

About 3 women are killed by their (male) intimate partner or ex-partner every day.

World-wide, gender-based violence accounts for more death and disability among women aged 15-44 years than cancer, malaria, traffic injuries and war combined.

And somehow, we've got a bumper crop of boys whining about how women are "allowed" to hit men.

Do me a favor. Go tell your girlfriends that you slapped some guy at the bar. Witness the reaction. Meanwhile, I'll go tell a bunch of guys that I slapped some girl at the bar. I'll report back to you if you do the same.

If this is what happens when men AREN'T "allowed" to hit women, I shudder to think what would happen if we did "allow" it.

You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting "allow" to mean "prevalence."

Just because a wrong might not be as prevalent as another wrong doesn't make the first peachy keen.

And, what, female rape victims are treated with the utmost respect and deference?

At least no one is in total denial that its even POSSIBLE to rape a woman.

Seriously, are you really going to argue that women are better off

That wasn't quite my argument.

because they are treated more "nicely" after being raped? Never mind the fact that they are 10 times as likely TO BE RAPED? Let me just say right now, if I could lower my chances of being raped by a factor of TEN, and the only price was that I might get laughed at, I would take that deal in a fucking heartbeat.

[quote]
EXACTLY. I'm glad you made this point. The examples you cited are not examples of "equality" favoring women or any such bunk. They are examples of how patriarchy hurts men, too.

Ah, but they are also indeed examples of inequality.

Social. By which I might mean the social groups with which I interact. Women are adored and given leeway that men are not.

It's just little things - we're not saying women are oppressing men and denying men the right to vote - but though little, they are discernible.

An example is hitting. A woman can hit a man. Slap him in the face at a bar. It's considered light-heartedly amusing. Can a man do the same? No. Women have leave to do things men cannot.

Not in the eyes of the law. It is equally illegal and a man can report it and she will be charged with assault. See below. Socially, I think you might note that women are permitted to hit men in a bar without physically hurting him, but if you look at injuries, men injure women FAR more often. I think men come out WAY ahead here.


A more sad example is rape. A woman CAN rape a man. But no one takes it seriously. No one. Guy gets raped by a woman, he's laughed at and humiliated.

Not in the eyes of the law. Again, legally men and women are equal on this front.

As a victim of woman on man molestation, I recognize this is a problem, but it's fortunate that the law at least makes this equal. As far as socially, I address that below.


It's interesting that there is a bit of gender bias not just for, but against, women in these cases. For example, it's assumed that a woman can hit a man as much as she pleases, on the basis that she is weak and will not harm him. With rape, it's assumed that if a man can get an erection, that is consent to having sex. (I guess it's kind of like how a short skirt is "consent" for women.)

Again, not in the eyes of the law. A woman can have an orgasm during a rape and it's not a tacit agreement to sex and shouldn't be.


This is not equal towards men, nor women. It is skewed by ignorance and gender bias. It's a case where people have gone past, or not far enough, towards the goal of gender equality.

For every example you've given, there are counter examples that are as frequent and some that are encased in law.

Here are a few -

Man has sex with lots of partners - Hero. Woman does - Whore. Hardly equitable.

At lots of places I've worked people have openly referred to women in sexual ways and suggested they are inferior. Try doing that to a man as a matter of rule. Do those women have a case? Sure, just like the rape victims do. But if you have to resort to law, you've likely already lost. How many women do you think have presented a sexual harrassment lawsuit and then ended up doing well within the ranks of that same company? How willing do you think other firms within that industry will be to hire her? And even if neither one of those stigmas stick, the threat of them sticking is enough to supress most action.

How many female presidents?

What percentage of CEOS are females?

What percentage of highranking military positions are held by women?

What percentage of woman are being denied birth control (the pill, for example) as opposed to men (who can purchase condoms at will)?

Speaking of rape, what percentage of rapes are the victimes men by women and what percentage are women by men?

Speaking of hitting, how many men are killed by their wives every year, how many women by husbands?

Yes, how we men survive in a world so biased against us is beyond me? It's amazing we're here at all.

Sure - against other guys.

Not sure where in this country guys are allowed to be violent towards women.

Hmmmm... are you kidding? Let's review some statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm

More women killed, raped and hitting the hospitals than men. Allowed legally is not true for either one. However, it's clear that socially this kind of abuse is going on and not stopped and that it is being passed down to men to do it and women to permit it.





That's just with overt sexuality. And that's going to change as soon as we stop holding women to higher standards than men. ;)

Going to change is not changed.


Do me a favor. Go tell your girlfriends that you slapped some guy at the bar. Witness the reaction. Meanwhile, I'll go tell a bunch of guys that I slapped some girl at the bar. I'll report back to you if you do the same.

Yes, that makes up for the IPV deaths of women. Yeah, exactly even, that is.

Do me a favor. Go ask your boyfriends how many of them have been in fear of their life or healthy from a partner. Meanwhile, she'll go ask a bunch of gals the same question. She'll report back to you if you do the same.




You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting "allow" to mean "prevalence."

Just because a wrong might not be as prevalent as another wrong doesn't make the first peachy keen.

But it does mean their is a systemic problem that contributes to one being more prevelant than the other. Social, legal and medical issues all contribute to IPV reaching the stage where women are raped, murdered or subjected to some other form of violence. It doesn't just start there. And most of the time women leave clues for friends, relatives, doctors, etc., but the system in its current state does not support them in a way that practically protects them.

At least no one is in total denial that its even POSSIBLE to rape a woman.

You're wrong. Some people still argue that rape doesn't exist. And many argue that a man cannot rape his wife. Men are much more infrequent rape victims and these days nobody discusses my personal experiences as if I should've enjoyed them, not even jokingly, so things have changed much. Again, when men start experiencing rape with the level of violence women do and with the level of frequency, I think you'll have grounds to claim the pendulum has shifted.

And I'm sure that people believe that rape is possible makes the 10 times as many female rape victims feel oh so much better. 1 in 6 women has been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 1 in 33 men. When it comes to my worry of rape, I'd rather be a man.

Social. By which I might mean the social groups with which I interact. Women are adored and given leeway that men are not.

It's just little things - we're not saying women are oppressing men and denying men the right to vote - but though little, they are discernible.

An example is hitting. A woman can hit a man. Slap him in the face at a bar. It's considered light-heartedly amusing. Can a man do the same? No. Women have leave to do things men cannot.

A more sad example is rape. A woman CAN rape a man. But no one takes it seriously. No one. Guy gets raped by a woman, he's laughed at and humiliated.

It's interesting that there is a bit of gender bias not just for, but against, women in these cases. For example, it's assumed that a woman can hit a man as much as she pleases, on the basis that she is weak and will not harm him. With rape, it's assumed that if a man can get an erection, that is consent to having sex. (I guess it's kind of like how a short skirt is "consent" for women.)

This is not equal towards men, nor women. It is skewed by ignorance and gender bias. It's a case where people have gone past, or not far enough, towards the goal of gender equality.

What is interesting concerning rape is that here in the UK it is possible, from the age of 13, for a male to be convicted of rape, and that in cases where the girl is underage it is always the boy considered at fault. Quite literally.
Even if the female was the one who forced an unwilling male into such.. activities, it is the male who is legally at fault and who is convicted of rape.
Just an interesting little tidbit I learnt in my PSHE class.

Ilaer

What is interesting concerning rape is that here in the UK it is possible, from the age of 13, for a male to be convicted of rape, and that in cases where the girl is underage it is always the boy considered at fault. Quite literally.
Even if the female was the one who forced an unwilling male into such.. activities, it is the male who is legally at fault and who is convicted of rape.
Just an interesting little tidbit I learnt in my PSHE class.

Ilaer

Link. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

Ah, but they are also indeed examples of inequality.

Of course they are. But they aren't a matter of the "equality scales tipping towards women." These examples of inequality are nothing new. They are the same bullshit gender roles and stereotypes that feminists have been fighting for years. The fact that they aren't yet gone doesn't mean that the feminist movement is somehow responsible for them.

Link. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

I don't know; I was just taught it. I'll e-mail her and see if she can give me a source, though.

Ilaer

I don't know; I was just taught it. I'll e-mail her and see if she can give me a source, though.

Ilaer

Fair enough.

Oh, really. Like in a Cary Grant movie, or is there something more to this that would be convincing to me?
I don't know what you want. Both cases are subject to the same laws. Unprovoked violence is unacceptable, whether it's done by a man or a woman. A slap is violence, and it's punishable no matter who does it.

When it comes to provocation, the same rules apply there as well.


Aside from online trolls I've never heard anyone say "she was asking for it" about women who were raped.
Count yourself lucky.

But men getting raped by women is in fact treated as such a joke that many people believe it to be impossible, or unimportant.
...to the same degree as women are treated as "sluts" or somehow "deserving" in my experience.

Can you give examples of women being automatically convicted of raping a male?
Automatically? No. But then again, I can't gice you an example of a man being automatically convicted either.
Not where I come from, he can't. And for even suggesting that a man should be allowed to attack a woman in his own defense, I've been ridiculed. I've heard people say that, even if a woman is threatening his life, a man should never so much as hint at raising a hand to her.
Hm. Not many people I know who would react in that way anymore. Around here, as it were, the reaction in both situations would be pretty much the same. The difference would lie in how much force was used (i.e. damage potential) and the reason for the use of force.

All too true.

And to tip the scales a little further, they have boobies.
I don't see how breasts are that great an advantage. I mean, they require putting on yet another piece of underwear.

Funny, I see the opposite. Guys are allowed to be violent, rude, sexual, and a whole host of other things that women are not. Women who act the way men act are bitches, whores, etc.

And I'm not talking about my personal social circle, either. I'm talking about mainstream society in my country.
Men are not allowed to be violent. It's against the law. Women, as has been noted, are allowed to hit at men because their attacks tend to be less effective. Though serious violence from either sex (e.g. stabbing) is frowned upon and illegal.

Women are not prohibited from being rude or sexually flirty these days.

And I come from a country that is at least a decade behind yours in social development.

No, it's cases where the EXISTING gender inequalities fuck over men as well as women. It's not new. It's not remotely created by working toward equality and going too far, or anything like that. It's the exact same sexism we've had all along.
You're correct. It's not the fault of feminism. It's the fault of the majority of women, who choose to embrace equality when it suits them and choose to embrace inequality when it suits them too.

All of the things people are bringing up seem to be products of the same gender roles and discrimination feminists have been fighting for several generations now.
All of the things? Read my first post.

The fact that they aren't yet gone doesn't mean that the feminist movement is somehow responsible for them.
Who claimed that?

I don't know; I was just taught it. I'll e-mail her and see if she can give me a source, though.

Ilaer

Also British, pretty sure you're right. Our under-age sex laws are certainly screwed up.

All of the things? Read my first post.

Yes, all of the things - your first post included, although I don't think it's entirely accurate.

Who claimed that?

Everyone who is making the "scales have tipped" argument, suggesting that the movement has somehow "gone too far." In fact, all of the complaints make it exceedingly clear that it hasn't gone far enough.

Men are not allowed to be violent. It's against the law. Women, as has been noted, are allowed to hit at men because their attacks tend to be less effective. Though serious violence from either sex (e.g. stabbing) is frowned upon and illegal.

Not legally, they aren't. If a woman hits a man, even if no lasting damage is done, he can press charges for assault, just as she could do in the same situation if he hit her.

No adult is legally allowed to hit any other adult. Now, it may be true that society tolerates it more if a woman hits a man (so long as lasting damage is not done) and this is a problem.

Yes, all of the things - your first post included, although I don't think it's entirely accurate.



Everyone who is making the "scales have tipped" argument, suggesting that the movement has somehow "gone too far." In fact, all of the complaints make it exceedingly clear that it hasn't gone far enough.



Not legally, they aren't. If a woman hits a man, even if no lasting damage is done, he can press charges for assault, just as she could do in the same situation if he hit her.

No adult is legally allowed to hit any other adult. Now, it may be true that society tolerates it more if a woman hits a man (so long as lasting damage is not done) and this is a problem.
Yes, it is illegal if one hits the other. It's actually illegal if I poke a woman in the chest or vice versa. That's the law.

If we're talking about the law is actually applied, one must, must point out that men are in far, far less danger of being victimized by the opposite sex than women are.

Yes, it is illegal if one hits the other. It's actually illegal if I poke a woman in the chest or vice versa. That's the law.

If we're talking about the law is actually applied, one must, must point out that men are in far, far less danger of being victimized by the opposite sex than women are.

Indeed. But I have no doubt that a man who actually reported assault by a woman - especially if there were no lasting damage - would risk a far greater chance of being ridiculed as weak, while a woman who did so would be seen as a strong person for standing up to the aggressor by doing so.

These things are nothing new, however. They are products of the same gender roles and stereotypes that we have been fighting for quite some time now. They are derived from the idea that men are always strong and women are always weak and that is why a woman cannot hurt a man. It's bullshit, but it is an alarmingly prevalent viewpoint that needs to be challenged, just as all the gender roles and stereotypes put forth by society need to be challenged.

Indeed. But I have no doubt that a man who actually reported assault by a woman - especially if there were no lasting damage - would risk a far greater chance of being ridiculed as weak, while a woman who did so would be seen as a strong person for standing up to the aggressor by doing so.

These things are nothing new, however. They are products of the same gender roles and stereotypes that we have been fighting for quite some time now. They are derived from the idea that men are always strong and women are always weak and that is why a woman cannot hurt a man. It's bullshit, but it is an alarmingly prevalent viewpoint that needs to be challenged, just as all the gender roles and stereotypes put forth by society need to be challenged.

You know I saw a comedian talking about this the other day. A small man relatively who was abused by a larger woman he wasn't willing to hit back. He was talking about how the cops reacted to his call. While they may not take a claim too seriously when you're not hurt, I promise they treat men and women the same when there is damage.

I notice when comedians are regularly addressing an issue it's usually just as people are starting to realize it is an issue. Comedians tend to issues people understand. So I'm hoping this is a good sign.

I know that the law is supposed to protect everyone evenly, but it is enforced by people and people are imperfect. If a cop is a white supremesist, he'll probably be more likely to arrest a black criminal he saw than a white criminal. Likewise, if the cop was sexist, he might arrest a man for supposedly raping a poor, defenseless, weak lady (a woman could probably use the threat of a rape accusation to blackmail her sex partner. The only thing seperating rape from normal sex is consent), but if a weak, innocent, inferior woman raped a macho, strong man who was drugged or hit with something hard or something, the cop might arrest the man for abusing 911 or something.

It's easier to change the law than to change people. Men are often believed to be the oppressors of women. If a man gets paid more than a woman, it's discrimination, even if the man works harder or understands office politics better. If a man controls the household, he's a barbaric neanderthal in the eyes of many. If a woman controls it, it's equality.

Consider this:
-not all rape or abuse victims come forward. For a man who was taught in the days of old to be strong or be killed or something, coming forward might be a sign of weakness for him. As part of the more aggressive, testosterone heavy gender in cultures that pride strength, it might not be easy to expose a period of weakness. Sure, women have to go through shock, but that doesn't mean men are shockproof.

-The whole multiple sex partner thing. It probably goes back to the time before widespread birth control availability. A man could go from woman to woman. A woman couldn't. Before condoms and pills, this thing called pregnancy prevented women from being as sexually active.

-Biologically, women are "weaker". They have fewer muscles and are designed more for child birth than combat. Goes back to the days when your only weapons were sharp rocks and pointy sticks. People were dying alot and women were preoccupied with preventing the extinction of mankind. Of course, the ability to birth children also gave women far greater ability to tolerate pain than men, though men are conditioned to be more resistant to emotional trauma than men. All these sexist things go all the way back to when they were true. It's only within the last couple thousand years that men and women were able to shed their natural designations for things more suitable for them. I guess once you no longer have to worry about survival, you have enough time to think about things like sexism and whatnot.

Not in the eyes of the law. It is equally illegal and a man can report it and she will be charged with assault.
While anecdotal evidence is worthless, I hope this will illustrate the arguments presented.

Two friends of mine had a very messy breakup. The tactful description would be that she was 'emotionally distressed'. They ran into each other one day and started yelling at each other. She then attacked him so he shoved her away. She fell on her ass while he ran inside the store they were in front of to call the cops. The employees let him stay in the back room until the cops showed up because the girl was not going away.

When the cops finally showed up, they arrested him for assault (for shoving her) and refused to arrest her despite the bloody scratches on his face from her nails. Everyone there, except for her parents, gave a sworn statement that she attacked him and he was just trying to get away from her.

While it was certainly illegal for her to attack him and is quite obviously assault and battery, the state refused to prosecute her. They had no such hesitation going after him. The arresting officers even admitted that it was because he was the guy. Obviously he deserved whatever he got for treating her so badly in the relationship (he always treated her well but finally dumped her, after a couple attempts at reconciliation, because she continually cheated on him, but thats not important - obviously he must have been mistreating her so was at fault).

Fortunately they couldn't make the charge stick, but it still cost him a lot of money for all the legal fees, plus they gave him a fine for disturbing the peace, and he was fairly ostracized by the community because of the 'he assaulted his ex' story.

This sort of thing is exactly why domestic abuse against men is woefully underreported. This in no way minimizes the problem of abuse against women, it is appalling that some people take the position that men deserve this sort of thing out of a vindictive spite.

At lots of places I've worked people have openly referred to women in sexual ways and suggested they are inferior. Try doing that to a man as a matter of rule. Do those women have a case? Sure, just like the rape victims do. But if you have to resort to law, you've likely already lost. How many women do you think have presented a sexual harrassment lawsuit and then ended up doing well within the ranks of that same company? How willing do you think other firms within that industry will be to hire her? And even if neither one of those stigmas stick, the threat of them sticking is enough to supress most action.
Those same allegations stick to men as well. I've seen several innocent men have their careers ruined by baseless accusations. It goes both ways, however the tendency is to give the 'victim' support for having the 'courage' to come forward while immediately judging the sexist man without even hearing the facts. It is actually a concern and helps foster the division between men and women in the workplace - you are less likely to be chummy with an underling who might take offense and ruin your career. Thats the old boys network in action - simple fear of being accused.

How many female presidents?
What percentage of CEOS are females?
What percentage of highranking military positions are held by women?
These kind of arguments really annoy me. This is not evidence of an oppressive patriarchy. We don't get new presidents very often so it isnt exactly a significant sample size, especially since the post-feminist and civil rights era is a relatively new thing.

I'm not sure what the percentage happens to be, but there are many female CEOs, even of the largest corporations in the US. Part of that is because many women choose not to focus on their careers and devote the majority of their efforts to cutthroat corporate politics. Gender equality is about giving everyone the right to choose their own path, not about forcing women to avoid having children or a home life to focus on a career.

The military is very male-dominated simply because far more men join the military than women, and strangely enough we have very few women with 30 years of military experience. Of course I suppose we could just promote a woman off the street in the name of equality.

Even the disparity in incomes has been largely debunked as a gender discrimination problem. The wage gap is most prominent at higher professional positions, where the greater tendency for men to be more aggressive about negotiation higher salaries and seeking raises accounts for the difference. It is not some patriarchal conspiracy to keep women down; you could argue that we conditioned women to be less confrontational and less aggressive about seeking raises, but that is stretching things a bit.

What percentage of woman are being denied birth control (the pill, for example) as opposed to men (who can purchase condoms at will)?
Last I checked, women could purchase condoms at will.

Speaking of rape, what percentage of rapes are the victimes men by women and what percentage are women by men?
Statistics of actual rapes are near impossible - rape tends to be under-reported in any case, most especially by men. I could google some stats on convictions, but that is not really all that helpful as this is completely irrelevant. Rape has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

Speaking of hitting, how many men are killed by their wives every year, how many women by husbands?
not sure, but here is a snipit from the DOJ: Both male and female offenders are more likely to target male victims than female victims.

Though it is kind of interesting that the numbers of men and women killed by an intimate was very close in the late 70s, the rates of males killed by intimate females has declined much more rapidly than women killed by intimate males. Its not like we are talking about some prevalent social event here. This is very rare and is not something that can be logically held as being indicative of gender relations in society.

While anecdotal evidence is worthless, I hope this will illustrate the arguments presented.

Two friends of mine had a very messy breakup. The tactful description would be that she was 'emotionally distressed'. They ran into each other one day and started yelling at each other. She then attacked him so he shoved her away. She fell on her ass while he ran inside the store they were in front of to call the cops. The employees let him stay in the back room until the cops showed up because the girl was not going away.

When the cops finally showed up, they arrested him for assault (for shoving her) and refused to arrest her despite the bloody scratches on his face from her nails. Everyone there, except for her parents, gave a sworn statement that she attacked him and he was just trying to get away from her.

While it was certainly illegal for her to attack him and is quite obviously assault and battery, the state refused to prosecute her. They had no such hesitation going after him. The arresting officers even admitted that it was because he was the guy. Obviously he deserved whatever he got for treating her so badly in the relationship (he always treated her well but finally dumped her, after a couple attempts at reconciliation, because she continually cheated on him, but thats not important - obviously he must have been mistreating her so was at fault).

Fortunately they couldn't make the charge stick, but it still cost him a lot of money for all the legal fees, plus they gave him a fine for disturbing the peace, and he was fairly ostracized by the community because of the 'he assaulted his ex' story.

This sort of thing is exactly why domestic abuse against men is woefully underreported. This in no way minimizes the problem of abuse against women, it is appalling that some people take the position that men deserve this sort of thing out of a vindictive spite.

Your last claim is not illustrated by the story, nor any arguments here. The only thing people have said is that it's not evidence of the pendulum swinging too far, but rather not far enough. As well, since women are still being beaten to death in much higher numbers than men ever have been or are, we have more evidence the pendulum has not swung very far. That's all people are saying. What's less than amusing is that some people are so caught up in their position that they read a realistic analysis of whether men are being treated more violently by women more generally or the other way around as "vindictive spite". Is the truth that hard to swallow?





Those same allegations stick to men as well. I've seen several innocent men have their careers ruined by baseless accusations. It goes both ways, however the tendency is to give the 'victim' support for having the 'courage' to come forward while immediately judging the sexist man without even hearing the facts. It is actually a concern and helps foster the division between men and women in the workplace - you are less likely to be chummy with an underling who might take offense and ruin your career. Thats the old boys network in action - simple fear of being accused.

Pardon? The old boys network is not simple fear of being accused. If people were afraid of being accused I wouldn't see the fairly regular harrassment that goes on in the workplace. People are afraid of being CAUGHT. And thanks to the good old boys network, if they are, they ensure that the victim is adequately punished.

I've seen only two baseless accusations in my whole career and an equal number of appropriate accusations. I have seen probably 100 times that many women be harrassed in the work place and probaly about a dozen men as well. Yet another claim of yours that doesn't match reality.

Baseless accusations are rare because accusing people of harrassment will generally ruin YOUR career at least as often as the person you accuse. The good old boys network protects its own. If you need an example just look at how priests were protected by the Church or scenes like Tailgate where sexual harrassment and assault were so widespread and permissable that people were comfortable committing them in front of hundreds of witnesses. Or look at the thousands of videos of concerts where some girl is being manhandled in public and on camera. You know many of those people get convicted? Almost none. I don't know about you, but as a man, being molested in public has almost never been a worry of mine. Most women cannot say the same.


These kind of arguments really annoy me. This is not evidence of an oppressive patriarchy. We don't get new presidents very often so it isnt exactly a significant sample size, especially since the post-feminist and civil rights era is a relatively new thing.

I find reality annoying at times too. It doesn't lead me to fantasy like it does some, but more to try and change things. You choose to stick your head in the sand and fantasize about a world where women are victimizing men in the workplace and all the discrimination they see is imagined or their own fault as demonstrated the numerous arguments here suggesting, the wage gap, their fault, the lack of high positions, their fault, rape, not even worth talking about, IPV, barely worth considering, not in the military and in some positions not even allowed in the military, their fault for not signing up, sexual harrassment problems in the workplace, their fault, and so on.

I find it amusing that you present an anecdote as evidence that men are getting the shaft but a systemic problem throughout our country's history that reaches to the top of our country's government is not evidence.

Are you kidding? We haven't even had female candidates from either of the major parties since the civil rights era. We don't know that there will be this year and this partly because some people still will not vote for a woman.

http://www.smu.edu/newsinfo/excerpts/women-in-congress-9april2006.asp

What percentage of the house is women? About 16%. Yeah, it's not a systemic problem. It's just that we don't elect presidents enough. Yeah. Keep trying to feed me BS. I'm not eating, but hey keep trying.



I'm not sure what the percentage happens to be, but there are many female CEOs, even of the largest corporations in the US. Part of that is because many women choose not to focus on their careers and devote the majority of their efforts to cutthroat corporate politics. Gender equality is about giving everyone the right to choose their own path, not about forcing women to avoid having children or a home life to focus on a career.

It certainly is about giving the right to choose. Why is it that women are choosing not to reach the top rungs of the ladder when men are? That's not evidence of a problem. Well, I supposed that you can't tell lights don't work if your eyes are closed tightly enough. Let's actually look at this -

http://www.enewsbuilder.net/theayersgroup/e_article000730065.cfm?x=b11,0,w

Hmmmm... 2 percent of Fortune 500 companies have women in the head position and only about 7 percent of board positions are filled with women. Yep, must be women's fault for choosing not to make it to the top.

Yes, gender equality is about choice. However, when one gender is so regularly not "choosing" to be successful, then one must ask what systemic difference is their in the actions and treatment of that gender. You're circumventing the question with dumb assumptions. Assumptions that actually support a gender bias against women, not the other way around as you'd pretend.




The military is very male-dominated simply because far more men join the military than women, and strangely enough we have very few women with 30 years of military experience. Of course I suppose we could just promote a woman off the street in the name of equality.

Really? You think that's why? You do realize there are still some positions women are not allowed to fill in the military. You realize there is still a fairly strong belief that women are not as good of soldiers as men, right? Man, you're not blind, you're just closing your eyes.

Meanwhile, why are men joining more often than women? Isn't that also a problem?



Even the disparity in incomes has been largely debunked as a gender discrimination problem. The wage gap is most prominent at higher professional positions, where the greater tendency for men to be more aggressive about negotiation higher salaries and seeking raises accounts for the difference. It is not some patriarchal conspiracy to keep women down; you could argue that we conditioned women to be less confrontational and less aggressive about seeking raises, but that is stretching things a bit.

Actually, this isn't true. They have shown wage gaps in almost every position with only a little favor in certain position considered to be traditionally women's work. The wage gap is not a quarter on the dollar, I'll grant you. In most positions it averages around three cents on the dollar, even when normalizing for differences in experience due to breaks in work history to have children or care for a home. But hey so long as it's small, we'll ignore it, no?

I love that you say things like "largely debunked" not "completely debunked" and "even the wage gap". You do realize that this is language that suggests that even someone so desperately trying to pretend that these problems don't exist can't ignore this one.




Last I checked, women could purchase condoms at will.

Women don't use condoms. Men do. Men put on condoms. Women take the pill. Pills empower women with their sexuality. Condoms empower men. Women have to trust men to wear them properly.


Statistics of actual rapes are near impossible - rape tends to be under-reported in any case, most especially by men. I could google some stats on convictions, but that is not really all that helpful as this is completely irrelevant. Rape has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

Really? You really think rape is not a systemic problem of society's view on women? Based on what? What does rape have to do with if not a problem of genders?

Meanwhile, it isn't impossible to trend rape and make estimates based on interviews with rapists, with men and women to figure out if they report, when they report, why they don't report. There are people who study this their entire lives and there are NO indicators that men are treated as sex objects with no will anywhere nearly as often as women even if you include men on men rape. Going "we can't know so let's ignore it as a problem" is a copout. Let's face it every one of these arguments are a copout by someone who desperately wants to believe the men are disadvantage by feminism myth.



not sure, but here is a snipit from the DOJ: Both male and female offenders are more likely to target male victims than female victims.

Yes, except if we're talking about how men and women treat each other, men attacking men doesn't address the subject. If only look at men's treatment of women and women's treatment of men then we'll see a huge gap. Meanwhile, don't you think the fact that males target males so often is just more evidence of the same gender problem feminism fights to address.



Though it is kind of interesting that the numbers of men and women killed by an intimate was very close in the late 70s, the rates of males killed by intimate females has declined much more rapidly than women killed by intimate males. Its not like we are talking about some prevalent social event here. This is very rare and is not something that can be logically held as being indicative of gender relations in society.

Again, you're claiming that women hitting men is a problem and using an anecdote to describe the problem, but then when we mention that while women may be hitting men on occasion, men are beating women occasionally to death, you brush it off as a non-problem. Your system of logic doesn't resemble what logic is supposed to mean. At all.

Meanwhile, there is a long-standing and significant problem in our country that feminism fights to correct. Every example you've given and every example I've given are problems being addressed by feminism. Feminists WANT women to be held to the same standards as men in terms of hitting one another, in terms of work, in the military, at home, in the world. Citing problems that have ALWAYS existed and then pretending as if they are evidence that the pendulum has swung to far is simply absurd.

In that post, you just brushed off pretty much every problem of discrimination (except for the ever-pervasive problem of women beating the hell out of men, of course) as not a problem because you don't believe it exists. Not by presenting evidence. Not by presenting facts. Just by saying "nuh-uh". Sad little argument that is.


Thank you for posting. You're a perfect example of who is battling feminism and how tightly people are willing to close their eyes in order to pretend feminism is a problem or that their is not a problem with gender roles in our country. Women are still underpriveleged and are not in positions in our government, businesses and military commensurate with the percentage of the population. That's a fact. It's not a guess. Women are not represented in any powerful positions in proper proportion to their existance. You, my friend, are welcome to return and give us more examples of how far you're willing to go to keep those eyes tightly shut.

Your last claim is not illustrated by the story, nor any arguments here. The only thing people have said is that it's not evidence of the pendulum swinging too far, but rather not far enough. As well, since women are still being beaten to death in much higher numbers than men ever have been or are, we have more evidence the pendulum has not swung very far. That's all people are saying. What's less than amusing is that some people are so caught up in their position that they read a realistic analysis of whether men are being treated more violently by women more generally or the other way around as "vindictive spite". Is the truth that hard to swallow?
Men are more capable of being brutal, and are better at it. The 1% of men who are assholes beat up women, rape the, kill them, etc. The 1% of women who are assholes are less capable of doing such acts. But colouring all of feminism, male/female realtions based on the small percentage of violent acts, is something that is done too often.

Pardon? The old boys network is not simple fear of being accused. If people were afraid of being accused I wouldn't see the fairly regular harrassment that goes on in the workplace. People are afraid of being CAUGHT. And thanks to the good old boys network, if they are, they ensure that the victim is adequately punished.
If you are in a mostly female workplace (as I am), the dynamic is reversed. You need to be on your best behaviour always, and as your a guy, it doesn't matter if the women joke with you.
I don't know about you, but as a man, being molested in public has almost never been a worry of mine. Most women cannot say the same.
Happened to me in Italy. It was by a man, but that's not the point.

I find it amusing that you present an anecdote as evidence that men are getting the shaft but a systemic problem throughout our country's history that reaches to the top of our country's government is not evidence. <Snip> What percentage of the house is women? About 16%. Yeah, it's not a systemic problem. It's just that we don't elect presidents enough. Yeah. Keep trying to feed me BS. I'm not eating, but hey keep trying.
Find the average age of politicians. It isn't young. Find the average professions of politicians. Lawyers, CEOs, Board of Directors, etc. See how many women have been in those kind of jobs for 30 years or so. Not many. It will take time for there to be women with (what are perceived to be) the right talents and skills to be heavily represented in politics. You can't claim on one hand, women were discriminated against, and then say they should have equal representation in jobs that need lots of experience.

Yes, gender equality is about choice. However, when one gender is so regularly not "choosing" to be successful, then one must ask what systemic difference is their in the actions and treatment of that gender.

Yet, in my country (Australia), there are more women in University, than men, especially in topics such as law. That doesn't seem to be choosing not to be successful. As usual, there is a focus on Fortune 500 companies. Lets worry about the 1 in 10000 people who might dream of getting such a job, and as usual, forget about the issue of your average person. Trust me, if I was a female Hilton, I'd have a much better chance of running a fortune 500 company than I do being born male.

Really? You think that's why? You do realize there are still some positions women are not allowed to fill in the military. You realize there is still a fairly strong belief that women are not as good of soldiers as men, right? Man, you're not blind, you're just closing your eyes.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. An AVERAGE man is physically more proficient than an AVERAGE woman. For ground troops, that is critical. If they aren't doing grunt worse, fine, but your AVERAGE woman is not as good a soldier as your average man. To stop the post I know will come from someone, Yes, I know, your woman friend can bench press a truck. Good for her. Read the word average again.

Meanwhile, why are men joining more often than women? Isn't that also a problem?
A higher proportion of men are trained to be violent by most western cultures. Yes, that is a huge problem.

Actually, this isn't true. They have shown wage gaps in almost every position with only a little favor in certain position considered to be traditionally women's work. The wage gap is not a quarter on the dollar, I'll grant you. In most positions it averages around three cents on the dollar, even when normalizing for differences in experience due to breaks in work history to have children or care for a home. But hey so long as it's small, we'll ignore it, no?
The problem with most stats on gender studies, is that most research is done from a biased perspective, as most people studying gender studies are feminists. Stats can do whatever you want. Show me an unbiased report, done by a quality independent body, with no prior agenda, and get back to me.

Women don't use condoms. Men do. Men put on condoms. Women take the pill. Pills empower women with their sexuality. Condoms empower men. Women have to trust men to wear them properly.
While up to now, I thought you were someone with some reasonable viewpoints, with just a different perspective to me, this shows you are a brainwashed individual, sprouting other peoples words. I hope those women feel empowered by Syphilis, Herpes Vaginal Warts and AIDS.
The pill basically means the guy says " I don't like the feel of condoms, take the pill. I'm clean, trust me". The woman "O.K. Ill mess up my hormone levels, and other healthside effects because you don't like the feel of of a condom. " With a condom she say "No condom, no sex" and she puts it on him. I know who I think has control there.

Yes, except if we're talking about how men and women treat each other, men attacking men doesn't address the subject. If only look at men's treatment of women and women's treatment of men then we'll see a huge gap. Meanwhile, don't you think the fact that males target males so often is just more evidence of the same gender problem feminism fights to address.
Actually it is relevant. If a man relates to men and women violently, he isn't being sexist. He is being a prick to each of them equally. He is showing no sexism in his violence. But to give you some credit. The fact that men are too violent, needs to be addressed. But that is not strictly a feminism issue, as it doesn't relate only to men and women relations, but men to men relations also.