Men's rights.

Post Reply New Topic

Evidence, please? All of the feminists I know hate chivalry; they see it as what patriarchal men offer as an alternative to equality and basic human rights.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/29/p ... is_creepy/
http://manboobz.com/2012/02/04/the-case ... lly-rapey/
http://feministing.com/2010/03/31/manda ... ng-sexism/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/13/c ... y-shows-2/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/01/p ... overrated/

Some women do like chivalry; feminists do not. 'Girlwriteswhat,' an MRA-apologist youtube blogger, is a big fan of chivalry, for example.


Speaking out when you see someone being treated unfairly is an aspect of being civilized, not an aspect of chivalry. For example, I speak out against homophobia even though I am not gay. As for whether or not the person in question is 'in the wrong,' clearly that's a matter of opinion.


That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, but suffice to say here that you're wrong ( ) about the purpose being to induce guilt.

'n****r' has worse connotations, but neither should be used. They're both racist slurs, used by racists.

The objective person in me agrees, the part that doesn't want to get his ass kicked or suffer the social stigma and punishment for using that word doesn't. In essence its a clever social manipulation that you're able to infuse a word with so much social stigma if the "wrong" person uses it.

I could say much worse things quite frankly.

Please, only the white man can be racist, just like just the male can be sexist.

Your use of the word 'objective' is interesting here.

See, I think 'n****r' is worse. Words don't just mean what we as individuals want them to mean. We use them because we want others to understand what we mean, and also how we mean it. I would suppose most any black person has themselves, or has a family member or close ancestor who has been called a n****r whilst being denied basic rights, or dignity, or property, or life - often times, these denials, these prejudices, were backed up in law and social etc institutions. This is reflected in the power of the word itself, and the same cannot be said of 'honkey'. The Lenny Bruce argument, of trying to take power from the word, is a different point, but one that depends on recognising the word has power in the first place.

So one can say, 'but equality, slavery ages ago, just a word' etc, but it is a word that has power beyond 'honkey'. And my point of this in this thread is that though naively the two words might seem balanced, 'n****r' is in fact bound up in a nexus of historical and social associations and memories and prejudices etc way beyond that of 'honkey', and that one simply cannot cleanse the word of these by going 'but equality before law, slavery abolished way back, just a word!'. And if this nexus exists in the matter of a racial slur, such things also do in regard to gender.

@LKL:

You're distorting and misrepresenting what I posted. What I was talking about is not someone actually being treated unfairly as much as a situation where there's a conflict between a man and a woman and it's her word against his. Well, the chivalrous thing to do for a third party is to side with her by default, EVEN IF she happens to be in the wrong. I knew a friend who was falsely accused of stalking by a woman he hadn't actually spoken with and she successfully petitioned to get a stalking protective order against him after the cops were skeptical of her claims. He had to hire an attorney and go to court to get the order dismissed but during the ordeal he and his dad had a big argument because she told the cops she was scared and he mentioned to his dad(and his lawyer) that he didn't believe her claim to be afraid and his dad got righteously angry and a big argument ensued. His dad told him that when a woman says she's frightened of you, that you are socially obligated to take her word for it no matter what and have no right to question her integrity: Even if her claims are inconsistent! That is what I mean by Chivalry. If I'm using the wrong word, please tell me what the correct term is.

Have you ever, ever in your life interacted with an actual feminist rather than read about them or make conjectures? Chivalry makes their blood boil.

As a matter of fact I have. You'd be surprised. They're not always the tough, macho, bulldykish chicks you seem to think they are! Many of them realize that there are certain situations where it's advantageous for women to act weak(even though they're not). Personal power in modern times doesn't always come from raw strength; it can come from social relationships and the ability to manipulate others. Know matter how weak you may be, if you can convince a superior force to your opponent to side with you then you ultimately are more powerful than them. Queen Elizabeth the 1st was certainly not an Amazonian woman(and neither were Joan of Arc and Boudicca of Anglia), but she wielded more power in the Kingdom of England, and all of western Europe at the time than any man.

^ Boudicca of the Iceni. Anglia didn't exist, yet. [/pedant]

That's actually one of the more reasonable arguments I've seen you make.


Women's work tends to be de-valued socially, and when women move into a field of study, that field loses status. Arts > humanities > biology > medicine > chemistry > math > physics > engineering > computer science.


First, if the pay gap had to do with physical danger, then crabbers would make more than bankers. Second, if the equipment starts to be designed to be handled by women, you will see more women heading into those fields. Currently power equipment is designed for men's limitations, not women's (for a very basic, dry-land example, take the level to which lug-nuts are tightened on car wheels). Until that happens, the field is literally physically designed to exclude women.

I have no problem with men moving into those positions, if they have the feminist credentials to do a good job there. Hopper or Vexcalibur would be qualified; you or AspieRogue would not.

No problem with that whatsoever, at the higher levels. Women (and minorities) do better when things are anonymized.
http://womeninscience.nih.gov/listserv/ ... issue3.asp
http://crookedtimber.org/2011/06/05/sho ... us-review/
Many peer-review science publications now even publish papers with the first names reduced to initials, which reduces letters to the editor based on bias.
However, at least up to college admissions, some affirmative action is necessary to make up for real-world differences in opportunity for minorities, men in general (many colleges now have affirmative action for men, in an attempt to maintain a gender balance, because of women's overall better grades and applications), and women in STEM fields.

Thank you, let's see if I can say the same for you.



I wonder why that is. Society is 50% or maybe even a little more female than it is male.



The banker vs crabber is at best an example of cherry picking. If you look at the low wage jobs occupied primary by females and contrast them with the low wage jobs held by males, you would find that a job such as "roughneck" on an oil field or drilling platform has a higher wage than waitress for instance. The "danger premium" in low wage jobs can contribute to such a difference quite substancially.




Seems quite interesting that the feminist organizations wouldn't be interested in opinions within their organization which reflect the variety of opinions in the society they seek to influence at large. Group-think much?




A: I guess we agree on something about it being based on anonymous applications.

B: If it turns out that women on average have higher grades and submit better applications, perhaps we should look into why boys/men are doing worse in school after dominating for so long, could there be a new bias in school after the hayday of feminism?

One reason is bias within STEM fields that make it less rewarding for women to go into them than men. For example:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... s-showing/
(I've posted this before, but it was ignored; this is an easier-to-understand format for you).


I like how you ignore the engineering part of the argument. If danger were the sole criterion of pay, people (regardless of gender) in dangerous fields would make more than people in safe fields. Prostitutes would be among the highest-paid professionals in the world; firefighters would be paid better than doctors, etc.
http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-aca ... stitution/
I picked two professions - crabbing and banking - at random, and you're correct that those two are merely anecdotes, but you're incorrect that it was cherry picking. Given similar skill and education levels, in general more dangerous jobs pay more; absent those criteria the relationship disintegrates. Pick any dangerous profession - fishing, crabbing, logging, building high-rises, etc - and you will find that they pay less than high-skill, but safe, professions.



You're being deliberately obtuse. The purpose of a feminist org is to advocate for feminism, and they can advocate for feminism perfectly adequately with men but not with anti-feminist board members. And believe me, we're saturated enough in patriarchy to have a pretty f*****g good idea of what it is that we're fighting, with out getting metaphorically into bed with a**holes.


Boys scores have not declined; they are doing as well as they were 50 years ago, or better. What has occurred is that, with more equality, girls have improved past them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opini ... wanted=all

I've read that before, one of many, many pointless links from you I've read, I may add. In essence, if women are discriminating against women as well, then perhaps the problem isn't the employers but women.


I like how you ignore the engineering part of the argument. If danger were the sole criterion of pay, people (regardless of gender) in dangerous fields would make more than people in safe fields. Prostitutes would be among the highest-paid professionals in the world; firefighters would be paid better than doctors, etc.
http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-aca ... stitution/
I picked two professions - crabbing and banking - at random, and you're correct that those two are merely anecdotes, but you're incorrect that it was cherry picking. Given similar skill and education levels, in general more dangerous jobs pay more; absent those criteria the relationship disintegrates. Pick any dangerous profession - fishing, crabbing, logging, building high-rises, etc - and you will find that they pay less than high-skill, but safe, professions.
[/quote]

I wasn't speaking in terms of "here is a doctor and here is a roughneck" I was speaking "here is a roughneck and here is a waitress".

Let me rewrite so you can reply properly "When speaking of professions within similar skill and educational required ranges, men tend to occupy a majority of the ones that present higher danger"



You ladies see patriarchy, the impoverished thug on welfare with $2000 worth of jewelery around his neck and a 9mm stuffed in his pants sees "the man", the catholics see "anti-catholics", the "muslims" see "islamophobia", and us white males see the rest of you "a**holes".


[/quote]

It's called a relative decline, I.E. men are staying stagnant while women are improving, now what exactly is the reason for this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-day/ ... 84262.html

Pure anecdote, of course, but back when boys did better at school, I don't recall any mainstream huffpuffery about it. Because that's just the natural state of things, for boys to do better. A simple thought experiment - take the world as is, and flip the genders. Be honest with yourself, and how the idea makes you feel.

Problems - and from these, disagreements - abound within feminism. Of what the problems are, how they manifest, why they are problems, what to do about them. This is to be expected, as it is of every social or political critique. But the existence of these problems does not invalidate the essential insights of feminism.

Maybe not in your country, but here in mine there was quite an uproar about it as long as I've been around! In fact I sincerely call into question whether boys ever did perform significantly better than girls in American Schools as a group. Because education in the US, and yes, even higher education, is set up in such a way that girls are favored more so than boys because I can tell you from personal experience that there is a huge social component to it and Schools tend to reward students who are not independent minded and are good at intuiting the way that a teacher or professor wants something done and do it exactly their way. Girls tend to be more subservient to authority and less defiant; and so many professors and teachers tend to favor them and desire to help them. For the first 2 years of HS I went to a liberal arts HS(as well as being far left politically)that strongly favored girls over boys because boys were more egotistical and more defiant(that is, they would not only question authority, but the veracity of what they were being taught).

TM, please do us the favor of fixing your quote tags if you want a response.