Men's rights.

Post Reply New Topic

Yes there is, here is a better men's rights sight if you're interested. This one's more pro-feminist:

http://goodmenproject.com/

no, it's ok. it's just that a protracted debate on stats wasn't really going to help anyone. sorry if i was dismissive.

it's definitely better than typical MRA sites. it has a philosophy that i am much more closely aligned with, in a sense.

i googled it and found Hugo Schwyzer's article about why he left the site (he was once an active contributor). i respect him a lot and he has some interesting points about Tom Matlack's inappropriate responses to feminists who disagreed with him. i guess it was some kind of disagreement regarding whether women should treat men with caution or not by default.

http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/12/21/ ... n-project/
http://malefeminists.com/post/146870778 ... ontroversy

I can't really comment on Hugo Schwyzer's article but I do know that Tom Matlack was pro-feminist when he started the Good Men Project.

It's worth noting that criticism Zionism results in Jews and Zionist goys calling you an antisemite; while criticizing feminism results in feminists calling you a misogynist.

That's quite logical actually. Let's say I'm an advocate for the "Pro Smurf" movement and identify very strongly as a person with the "Pro-smurf" movement. If someone were to raise several issues with the "Pro-smurf" movement, this criticism wouldn't just be off the movement, but I would be inclined to take them as criticisms of myself as a person.

I can argue against what the person is saying, however doing so leaves room for an audience to actually side with the person holding the "anti-smurf" position if that person is able to defend and represent the position well.

However, if I call the person an anti-smurfist, who is just suffering from smurfphobia, then I'm doing what could be called a "poisoning the well" fallacy. The person could defend their position, cite source material, present logical arguments and such, however their position has now been tainted as being rooted in emotion, fear and prejudice, rather than in reason.

It could also be that the person is an anti-smurfist, but that their objections and arguments are in fact correct, however due to the "domination technique" used it taints the argument and thus reduces the social standing of the person making it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFp5VwWx2o&feature=related[/youtube]

Christina Hoff Sommers who wrote the book called "War Against Boys" is actually a feminist and identifies as one, yet her critics still categorize her as anti-feminist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opini ... .html?_r=0

Hoff-Sommers is outdated, and while she claims to be a feminist, so did Sarah Palin.

What exactly makes someone qualified as a "feminist", because just based on the discussions on this board there are 3 - 4 different definitions. It's almost as if everyone who identifies her or himself as a feminist has their own definition of it. It's a lot like Christians in that regard.

That article has a "few" problems:



There is a certain logic to this due to the "risk of hire" if you hire a person who has previously quit work due to family issues or taken extra time off for family issues, there is the risk that they may do it again. It may not be a genuine risk, but perception is reality.



Is the first number adjusted for choice of occupation, number of hours put in, seniority and other non-gender related factors? Why is the second part even in the article? In embryo it shows the problem with "socilology" that when numbers aren't what we need them to be we alter the criteria so the numbers fit our perception. These are all numbers which must be viewed in terms of working hours, educational level, the relative income of the spouse, occupation and so on. Just the income of the spouse alone can distort the number if you have one part making 3.000.000 a year and the other 250.000, they would fall in the 35% number despite both of them making great money.

The reason pay statistics are an "epic fail" is that you can't simply take "amount earned by men/ by number of men", "amount earned by women / by number of women" and then make claims. Doing so, shows a completely lack of any sort of sense, be it economic or common.



This again comes down to risk, once the sociology and psychology people who write such articles realize that the company looks for the employee that will make them the most money this all makes sense. A working mother is viewed as more likely to take time off, more likely to work less hours, less likely to prioritize work and less likely to work overtime.



This strikes me as a "women need to work on this" issue or a "well, women are making these choices of their own free will" issue.



Men control the most important industries, especially technology because they are areas of study where men largely outnumber women. Furthermore, they are industries where entrepreneurship, thus undertaking higher risks are heavily rewarded (Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple and Google are all companies founded in the last 30 years or so.)

If we do the top 10 on the Forbes list http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/gallery/warren-buffett

1. Bill Gates - Self-made, started his own company.
2. Warren Buffett - Self-made started his own company.
3. Larry Ellison - Co-founded Oracle.
4. Charles Koch - Took over Koch industries from his father.
5. David Koch - Runs Koch Industries with his brother Charles.
6. Christy Walton - Inherited Wal-Mart from her father Sam.
7. Jim Walton - Inherited Wal-Mart from his father Sam.
8. Alice Walton - Inherited Wal-Mart from her Father Sam.
9. Rob Walton - Inherited Wal-Mart
10. Michael Bloomberg - Self made.

So out of the top 10, 4 are self-made IE they made their own companies. 6 inherited their wealth from the previous generation. I hardly view this as a "women vs men" issue, it hinges on women to start more companies and grow them until they are billion dollar enterprises. Very few non-entrepreneur/non-inherited rich people are on the 400 list. You should also keep in mind that in the case of most of the men on the list, they are married and their wives tend to outlive them.

Why do women make less than men with similar skills and education? Beats me really, it could have to do with professional choice. Going into HRM instead of Finance, going into pediatrics instead of surgery, sociology instead of engineering, graphic design instead of software engineering may have something to do with it.

The congress bit, one would have to ask first women, are they likely to vote for a female candidate, are they as likely as men to run as candidates, is it harder to get campaign financing. There are a lot of issues and shooting out an open ended question like this is intended as manipulation to make people think of gender discrimination immediately upon reading it.



First we need to look at the companies in which these wage earners work. A manager in bumbledump Idaho is likely to make less than a manager in New York. Then we have to look at industries, since the pay differs greatly between them. Then we need to look into fields within the companies themselves. A HR manager generally makes less than a financial manager or a Sales manager.

If we look at the CEO issue, we need to step back about 30 years, because the average CEO is usually between 45 and 60 years old. So we are talking about people who would have gotten their start and their education between 1970 and 1985, which is a time where women were still underrepresented in graduate degrees, were still discriminated against quite openly in the workforce. Add some other non-gender factors to it and the explanation doesn't have to be the "D-word".



This comes down to work location and field. Men are overrepresented in finance, investment banking and venture capital which is the industry where MBA's earn the highest salaries.

So, the article has some "common sense" holes in them as these articles often do.

Here is a vid of a bunch of self proclaimed feminists distrupting a battered husbands forum.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM[/youtube] Also a very disturbing documentary on the matriarchy [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0L3ik9fp-M&feature=related[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx0dewP6dgc&feature=relmfu[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd7oN7xjNpA&feature=relmfu[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQTlhp70VPM&feature=relmfu[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXncoLzPfY0&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

True, but if, say, Khalid Sheik Mohammad suddenly started calling himself a Christian, while changing none of his rhetoric or behavior (including referencing Mohammad and calling Americans 'infidels,'), should we accept his new definition of 'Christianity'? That's about what it's like for Sarah Palin to call herself a feminist, and it's not too far off from Hoff-Sommers calling herself a feminist.

That article has a "few" problems:


Yes, there is, but part of what feminism advocates for both men and women is that rearing children not be penalized by society. Think of it as a tragedy of the capitalist commons: each employer loses significantly more than they gain by having employees take time off for their kids, but overall we lose out hugely because people are having fewer and fewer kids when they have the option.

This article isn't about /why/ women earn less; it's about debunking the claim that women are out-performing men on a national level. It doesn't matter why women earn less in this context.


Well, duh. Have you ever asked yourself why this might be so? Do you think that the environment of online gaming might leak over into the tech sector in general, making it extremely unpleasant for women trying to get into that sector?


The gap in longevity is shrinking, and recent research has shown that eunuchs outlive intact males; all these men have to do is castrate themselves, and they'll live as long as their wives. If it's a woman's choice to earn less by having children, then it's a man's choice to live a shorter lifespan by keeping his balls. As for male entrepreneurs succeeding more: again, if two people are looking for venture capital funds, and one is male and the other is female, which one is more likely to get the funds they need to succeed?


That probably does have something to do with it, but women with the same careers also earn less than their male counterparts.


And why do you suppose women are less likely to run? Maybe because they are mocked and dissected and threatened in a sexual way much more than their male counterparts? Look at what happened to Palin and Clinton. Palin might not be a real feminist, but what happened to her when she ran is a feminist issue.


Yeah, and when we look at women managers within the same branch of the same company, they are earning less and are promoted less. Look at the particulars of the Wal-Mart suit, for example.


again, why? Why are women uncomfortable in those positions?

The point of the article is that all of the hand-wringing about women outpacing men is BS. Although I've responded individually to your pull-quotes above, none of it changes the fact that men still have a dramatic socioeconomic advantage over women, in general, regardless of the causes of it. Hoff-Sommers' hand-wringing is ignorant of the actual reality on the ground for women and girls.

That's not so much a valid comparison. We aren't really talking about Khalid here, but more about someone switching from the Westboro Baptist Church to The latter day saints. The nice thing about definitions is that they are supposed to have a certain meaning behind them, if there are as many definitions of "feminist" as there are feminists, then the definition has no meaning and serves no purpose.

That article has a "few" problems:


Then feminism also advocates that people who do not have children be penalized, or do not take time off for their children/families be penalized.





In terms of mathematics, economics and statistics it does. If you are trying to debunk that women are outperforming men, you need to use selected samples of statistics not the whole nation as a whole.



So, now the why is important? I hardly see why online gaming is relevant at all, but if you want to try and claim that technology is a sector which is anti-woman, by all means prove it.



So you equate physically mutilating yourself in comparison with not popping out a kid?

I just did a check, and there are quite a few women in venture capital, including funds that only support female entrepreneurs as a mission statement. If you want to make a claim that it's harder for women to get venture capital funds, by all means prove it.

In fact, http://www.pbs.org/ttc/headlines_econom ... hropy.html that's a lot of investment capital.



By all means get a statistic adjusting for the same companies, same jobs, same hours put in, same experience and qualifications to prove your claim. http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/28/comment ... /index.htm suggests that it requires a degree of cherry-picking and data tricks to make the numbers come out the way you like though.



Men are mocked, threatened and dissected in the same manner though, I'd hardly say that hit females harder. Did John Edwards get a much milder treatment?



I'd love to, except the court case was thrown out. It's also quite dangerous to take isolated incidents in single companies as a trait of the private sector as a whole. It would be like me claiming that all organizations discriminate against males, because 90% of feminist organizations have no males on their board or as c-class executives.



I don't know, why are men uncomfortable as nurses? Why does it have to be something wrong with the positions, not with women? It could be that women simply do not want to work in tech, or in finance.

If I buy a coca cola instead of a Dr. Pepper, it's more likely that I prefer Coke over Dr. Pepper, rather than being uncomfortable with Dr. Pepper.



It does a great job at pulling the statistics that benefit the point the journalist is trying to make. Instead of dealing with the fact that women are outpacing men in education, make more than their male counterparts in a wide array of professions and such, it deals with numbers that can be manipulated easily.

Your italic statement, is an assertion, not an argument, not a fact, an assertion, which you have failed to prove in any meaningful way. I can pull just as many statistics and sources as you can, if not more. I can write arguments just as eloquently and use or abuse logic as just as well as you. So, how about we limit our responses to let's say 100 words, no statistics and no external source quotations just to make this something other than the standard statistical regurgitation of a proof by intimidation gish gallops that these threads inevitably always turn into?

well, s**t: I just spent about half an hour dragging up doccumentation, when the safari ap on my ipad not only quit, but erased my history. I don't have the energy to do it all again right now.

I do not feel hurt or threatened at all by any of the claims of feminism. On the other hand, the cultural mess that is the patriarchy has caused me problems though. The patriarchy is actually reducing men's options and choices ( http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... e-decline/ ). And as I am a proud person, I wouldn't like my salary to be higher just on the sole fact that I am a man and not a woman, so I really would like the gap to be getting rid of. If I had a higher salary than another person I expect that the reason be personal accomplishment, and being born with a Y chromosome is not really one - Overall, as a man, I see many reasons to support feminism and no reason not to.

What exactly is The Patriarchy? How many "Patriarchies" are there? I srsly doubt that there's only 1. The Islamic world most definitely IS patriarchal and openly so. But *if* there is still a patriarchy here in Western civilization, it is nearly extinct. Especially in Western and Northern Europe. I daresay that there is a MATRIARCHY in Sweden, Finland, and most definitely in Iceland.