Men are the new "women"

Post Reply New Topic

I think it is rather rude if people take a whole seat for their bag, unless they are hauling tons of stuff and it can't really be helped. But your purse or your small back pack probably doesn't need a seat, I always put mine in front of my feet if its crowded.

I don't hate dreads and I'm not saying they're dirty or unprofessional. I'm saying that natural is not always good.

Remember that the ladies at everydayfeminism.com would tell you that shouldn't have dreads because you're white. See here and here.

That is not what I'm trying to do here. There are clearly some awful people in the feminist movement, but I'll be interested to see what sort of examples people can put forth. I'd wager most of them are either going to be totally benign or else be people so extreme that nobody takes them seriously.



I'm going to drop the semantic issues here and focus on what I think are the more salient points.

“Feminist tactics” aren't a thing because there isn't a unified feminist ideology. If people are miffed at some feminists' tactics (which is fine, I'm an ardent feminist and I am too) they should address those feminists instead of having a knee-jerk, irrational reaction to all feminists. That's childish. Tumblr is not worth anyone's time. It's 4chan for rich white girls.

Now, “MRA's giving lectures?” That I'd have to see. MRAs trying to find a platform for hate speech is far more common. Of course they are going to be attacked. I don't see any issue with people doing things like pressuring universities not to offer them a platform. Nobody has any right to a platform, just to free speech. I have never seen “Men's Rights” advocates do anything productive; they just spew bile at women.

In truth, the “Men's Rights” movement presents the strong impression that they do not give a s**t about men's rights. You are welcome to provide me some examples of them doing something actually productive. I have never been able to find any, and yes; I've looked.



This is your opinion. Do not pretend it is an objective fact.

Problems exist in our society that cannot realistically be addressed simply by giving people the same legal rights. If you are not in a position of power you cannot make full use of those rights. Men are privileged over women in nearly all areas of our society. We are more likely to be hired or promoted. We are taken more seriously in social interactions. We make more money on average than women do. There's a lot of this, and it's not feasible to pass a law or institute a policy that would change it without giving underprivileged groups additional assistance to try and catch up.



Nope, a better analogy would be that we give the one-legged runner a prosthetic leg so they can compete on equal terms.



I have, thanks. Equality before the law is an excellent principle, but it's little consolation to people who are doing everything in their power to succeed and still getting royally f****d simply because they're female, or black, or gay. Are you seriously going to tell me that it's ethical for us to all just go “tough luck, folks!” because they're “equal under the law?” Hell, if that's what we're doing then there's really no need for the men's rights crowd either, is there? After all, we're equal under the law!

Law is not the only thing in play here. Culture is in play, and that is considerably harder to change.

I'm going to drop the whole “egalitarian” thing here because you're clearly using it more as a term of art than the common colloquial use commonly used as a copout for people who want to talk down to those less privileged while pretending they are not. I will concede that my statement was hasty and a bit disingenuous and apologize for that.



Do you have examples, or is this all an argumentem ex culo? Again, please feel free to provide evidence for your argument any time now.



Yeah, you don't get to decide what forms count or not, and also here you go.



… he said while using the same tired arguments that we've all seen a thousand times before.

Now, for clarification; are you claiming here that systemic prejudice does not exist? Or are you claiming that it only counts if it violates a law? Because we could argue this point if you'll clear up what exactly you're saying. I'm not in the mood to move goalposts today.



They're whiny little s**ts who want us all to feel sorry for them but don't actually want to do anything other than seek validation. Same as a lot of Liberal Feminists.

[/quote]

This is a point worth addressing. There are absolutely thick-headed ideologues in the feminist movement. However, to claim all feminists or a majority of feminists are unwilling to entertain other ideas or argue their claims is more than a little disingenuous (ooh, I got to use that word twice in one post! That's... not a great sign, actually)

I used to sit like that. I stopped doing so when I lost weight and my femurs began to angle inward more.

Prejudice and discrimination are not always based in hate. Many times it's based on ideas of social normalcy and familiarity.

For example most doctors are male, when given the choice between a male doctor and female doctor, people may be more inclined to choose a male doctor, because in their mind, "real" doctors are male, simply due to the fact that that is what they are accustom to.

I've encountered a number of instances in my life where I have been dismissed or not given proper consideration due to being female, simply because most people in my field, and who have my interests, are male, and it had nothing to do with hate.

For example, I had a professor, when taking role in a science class, note that the class had a handful of women, and remark to us "What are you doing here? Women don't study science!" I never got the impression that he hated women, but in his mind, women weren't supposed to be scientists.

Another example occurred recently. A man and I were being briefed on a project by another man, and the man giving us the orientation spent almost the entire time addressing only the man I was with, and barely looked at me, even when I asked questions. When it was pointed out to him what he was doing, he was very apologetic. He just didn't realize that he wasn't thinking of me as an equal player, because I didn't meet his idea of what someone in my field looks like. But he certainly didn't hate women.

You will find another example of this type of prejudice in the play/movie "Annie". When Annie and Mr. Warbucks first meet, he looks at her and says "What's this?" to which Grace replies "This is Annie, Sir. The orphan who will be with us for the Christmas holidays." To which Mr. Warbucks replies "Orphan? That's not a boy. Orphans are boys!"

This type of prejudice carries over into the workplace and other areas of life. Employers are more likely to hire people with names more familiar to them, or attributes more consistent with their perception of the type of person they envision in the position.

To give another example of this type of prejudice, you might have recently seen the video recently, where a professor's children crash his news interview. A woman comes running into the room and drags the children out. The professor is white. The woman was Asian. Comments sections lit up with people calling the woman the nanny...she was not. She was the man's wife and mother of the children, but people assumed she was the nanny because he was white and she was Asian, and it's not uncommon for nannies to be Asian, but that so many people had the instant perception that she was the nanny reveals their subconscious prejudices about who plays what roles in life.

In a way, people think a lot like casting agents. They want someone who "looks" the role.

In fact, not "looking the role" because I am female has been the second largest obstacle to me in life.

Well that was extremely rude of him and that kind of bigotry can't be justified.

I keep hearing feminists talk about the "systematic oppression of women". Where's the systematic part? I'm sure there are a number of jerks who acted like that professor but a lot of isolated incidents doesn't constitute a system.

The system itself seems to be treating women reasonably well (but the system is treating certain ethnic minorities horribly).

How do you define "systemic"?

I'm more convinced that *cough* someone created a much more broadly defined social underclass via contrast & that now most guys are experiencing as much or more social repression as many women were several years ago.

I am aware of that controversy...but I say its my hair and I can do what I want with it. It looks more full with dreads anyways, otherwise its just flat and falls weird on my face and makes me look fatter than I am in pictures.

I told everyone I know I'd get dreads if I worked at Microsoft for a year. I'm still thinking up more criteria

I guess you would be. Sorry to go all captain obvious on ya.

Apropos of nothing, I find it immensely discrediting when someone fights tooth and nail at any idea of feminism being judged according to it's most noxious advocates, but then repeatedly trashes mens rights people as the scum of the earth, it's just a bit much.

It's a logical argument and was presented as such. If your standard of evidence is "objective facts", I strongly urge you to go back and edit each and every one of your posts which fails to provide such with either "objective facts" or a disclaimer. Alternatively, you can wind your neck in and apply a degree of common sense when reading the posts of others.



Perhaps you missed my analogy stating that one does not use a hammer to clean windows. It's purpose was to suggest that a: you used fallacious reasoning in support of your claim and that b: said fallacious reasoning was not an argument as to which variant of egalitarian thought was 'best'.



Define power.



This is your opinion. Do not pretend it is an objective fact.



UK unemployment statistics from December 2016 - 4.9% of men and 4.6% of women. The gap for the under 25s is much wider at 14.8% to 10.1%, again favouring women. In the US the numbers are 5% and 4.9%. This at the tail end of a cultural paradigm shift that started over a century ago.



This is your opinion. Do not pretend it is an objective fact.



But are paid the same amount of money for doing the same job at the same company to the same standard and having made equivalent choices (e.g. whether or not to do overtime).



Yes, there's a great deal of misguided propaganda that ignores nuance and treats people as monolithic groups rather than individuals. It's a cause of much social discontent.



A runner with a prosthetic leg would not be competing on equal terms. The only way to ensure equal terms is to remove a leg from each of the other athletes.



Royally f****d by whom. As I stated, I will happily stand by your side if you just point out the sexist, the racist and the "homophobe" who is holding them back. If none can be presented, the possibility that their own limitations is responsible must be taken into consideration. Perhaps they're too busy asking for special dispensation to focus on self-improvement.



Are you seriously asking me to defend a strawman? You have stopped beating your wife, right?



Culture which you haven't demonstrated sufficient comprehension of in order to be considered an authority on which aspects of it need to be excised. Culture is not something you should seek to change, it's something you should seek to affect by setting an example. In this case, you're making a moralistic argument whilst concocting strawmen and holding others to different standards to which you hold yourself.



What is clear is that you're too busy trying to read non-existent text between the lines. I was quite direct in my use of "egalitarian", but I'll reiterate it here for your benefit. Afterwards, if you're still suffering from the delusion that you know my mind better than I, then I see little point in humouring you any further.

When I define myself as an advocate of egalitarian principles, my concern is with the moral, legal and political egalitarianism that is at the core of Western societal values. I perceive the Progressive notion of material egalitarianism (AKA socialism) as a perversion of egalitarian principles.



And on what do you base your assumption of their "privilege"? Ideas should be judged on their merits, not on their origins, and certainly not on your unqualified hunches about how honest the person expressing the idea has been about their circumstances.



You want me to provide examples of how you perceive the specific ideas you've experienced? If you want to explore that one, it's a task for you alone.



When I speak for myself, I most certainly do.



Ah, an lmgtfy link. De facto evidence of attempted condescension. The fact that googling sex discrimination cases only serves to prove that the system works for those who choose to avail themselves of it, thereby supporting my point about redress, seems to have escaped your notice.



Oh, which arguments might those be?



What I very specifically said is that "[If] you wish to postulate that societal systems are inherently sexist, I'll need a great deal more than an assertion that it is so". Which institute or system is sexist? Which people are responsible? How can it be addressed? Are you accounting for all factors? What is your evidence? Can you map out cause and effect? Are you looking at isolated data and assuming correlation or have you examined the problem from a multi-disciplinary perspective which allows for maximum variables? Are you merely trotting out commonly cited simplistic data (such as the "pay gap") or do you have anything substantial that can be actively confronted?

I'll quote Ben Shapiro's response during his Q&A at Virginia Tech on the subject of institutional racism, as I believe it's relevant.

"I hate racism. I think it’s evil. But if you’re just going to say “institutional racism” every time something bad happens, there’s no way to fight it. I need a policy that you’re proposing, or I need a person who’s actually racist so we can fight it together, or we can determine whether the policy is good. What I find really problematic is the virtue signaling that I see by so many people on the other side, which is: I don’t have to give you the racist, I don’t have to tell you who he is or what measures I’m proposing; I just say “institutional racism,” everybody cheers for me, because that’s an approved point of view, and now we move on with our lives. You haven’t helped anybody; you’ve just made yourself feel better."

Relevant section of the video is here if you're interested: https://youtu.be/el4IUVx0IGE?t=3819



Are you suggesting I've made such a claim, or just making a general observation?

I wouldn't describe them as "thick-headed", rather they come across as vulnerable people whose frailties and insecurities have been taken advantage of. This is not unique to campus feminism. Cult-like indoctrination of the weak-willed and vulnerable is a mainstay of a wide range of political and religious (often interchangeable) groups and movements.



Especially when coming from someone who claims to pursue equality on the grounds of gender, from a loose ideological coalition that includes people who don't believe adherents should take notice of "men's issues" because they're very specifically focused on those of the other sex. It's difficult not to perceive feminists as gender totalitarians when they appear to universally hold advocates for the rights of men in such contempt.



What's more important is how those who use the term "systemic -ism" define it. Frequently they do not, nor do they identify which system is faulty.

It's all good I really don't care that much, it works for me but i get mildly irritated about why white people shouldn't have dreads posts. I mean I am part native but I mostly look white....but I dont have to brush my hair and sneeze a bunch every morning. For some reason brushing my hair always induces sneezing so I like having dreads as I don't have to brush and it makes my hair look fuller.

Inherent to the system, as opposed to isolated incidents.

Government or corporate policies that discriminate against women rather than obnoxious individuals who discriminate against women.

Are there government or corporate policies that discriminate against minorities?