You confuse leaders with everyday Joe. Leaders are to LEAD, and not set the pendulum at the center where the pendulum itself will stop eventually by itself without any outside influence or force..
When it comes to social justice and equality, leaders don't do much except wait. Once progress is achievable as deemed by the public, then the leaders appear to stick their necks out. That describes every leader I've ever heard of except for a few notable exceptions.
When it comes to social justice and equality, leaders don't do much except wait. Once progress is achievable as deemed by the public, then the leaders appear to stick their necks out. That describes every leader I've ever heard of except for a few notable exceptions.
I'm guessing that Tim Cook is doing both, then… Domestically, he did wait it out (sure, he came out before the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage but not by very long, and the climate – on the media and the intarwebz, at least, seeing I've only been to the USofA for a week, in NY no less, back in 2004 – was already changing and pointing to actual legal change anyway), but worldwide, he's gambling, big time, and winning, as it seems. Consider the new Apple Store in the UAE and their recently approved corporate presence in Saudi Arabia: apparently, diplomacy and sheer economic power has given Apple and Cook quite a bit of leverage, because otherwise, I can't see how could those people conduct a healthy business relationship with an organization and executives that endorse such high-profile fights for basic human rights that are consistently denied and trampled upon in said countries.
If you think of it, all the pandering to the PRC leadership notwithstanding (look no further than the Apple News embargo over there, even for foreigners and including *already downloaded/cached content*, which is definitely a first for them), Apple and Cook almost behave like a cultural trojan horse of sorts…
as someone who has worked continuously it IT since the 70s, here's a news flash: the lack of women in tech started in the Internet era
up until then it was pretty much 60/40 everywhere I worked
when I was a sales engineer for apple's Latin American distributor in the 80s and 90s, many executive positions there were held by women and nobody thought it was odd or groundbreaking, because women were everywhere in tech
the ascent of sexism began about the same time that OCD / ADD personality types began to overrun tech
I recently worked for a national tech firm where we were told never to bring developers to client meetings because they were so socially inept
the developers were all men. not a single female in a staff of 15. one guy wore a black raincoat most of the time and 'joked' about killing his colleagues as an intimidation ploy
he's the only person who understands the company's financial payment engine so they put up with his childishness
There is no privilege to being born one sex or another.
...as far as male privilege and the job market go (which is actually the subject matter we’re discussing, not men’s rights at all), I wouldn't mind in the least giving it away, like if I was living in a true meritocracy, and actually having to fight for my place at any and all times.
Then you would see fewer women and more men. But that’s not what modern feminists want.
A few years down the line, I now know that the fact that I was revolted at all was a reflex of an already gender binary environment and education...
I am confused at the explicit source of your revulsion. Could you explain?
There is no privilege to being born one sex or another.
Then you would see fewer women and more men. But that’s not what modern feminists want.
I am confused at the explicit source of your revulsion. Could you explain?
Seriously, Tallest Skil? I had you in much higher regard…
Allow me, then, to make a point-by-point explanation of my words. If that doesn't suffice, we'll have to agree on disagreeing, but I hope it does. So here goes:
1) Why are you bothered by my use of cis (which is, by the way and for the uninitiated on these issues, short for cisgender, but I think you got that)? I haven't disclosed my gender in my user profile, but, by the way, it is male. I was born male and identify and behave as such, so that makes me cisgender, as opposed to transgender.
Do you want to know just why I have to point that out in this context? Because of two reasons: the first and most obvious is, duh, emphasis. Since we're talking about equality, I thought I should point out that I am the default. But why do I have to do that, you could ask? That brings us to reason #2, which is the fact that AppleInsider only gives you a choice of Male/Female genders (which is not very forward looking… Just look as Facebook's gender policy as a more current and respectful example).
Should I have chosen to disclose my gender through that mechanism, how on earth would you guess whether I was a cis male or a trans male? Do you have access to my iSight camera to check whether I have an Adam's apple or deep voice or whatever? We're behind screens and keyboards, dummy, there's nothing wrong about disclosing one's identity by using commonly agreed-upon labels, so I fail to see your problem with it. Unless, that is, you are an LGB or intersex individual who takes issue with the term, which I fully respect, and if you wish I can define myself as “non-trans” (though I'm guessing that's not the root of your discomfort, but please, do enlighten me). Since I prefer to take a proactive approach, why don't you check where I'm coming from on this topic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
2) You seriously believe that men aren't privileged? I mean, for real? And what about people who are both genders, neither, or something in between? Are those not mistreated and bullied beyond all recognition, in many cases until they take their own lives, regardless of their personal ability? You put it so bluntly that I won't even bother wasting my time trying to give you examples. Just go and open a freaking newspaper or something.
3) Either you are a rampant misogynist (I surely hope not) or you understood everything I said completely backwards… I did hint that, in my field, I probably have to fight on a level playing field in most occasions already, but there's always the off-chance that I stumble upon a misogynist employer that could hire me over a female on account of my gender alone… And my point is, I DO NOT want that. We are told not to look a gift horse in the mouth but, you know, some people are ethical and idealistic like that.
If you consider that there are more females than males on this globe we call home, and that both genders have comparable abilities (sure, there are some fields where men or women may have a slight edge over the other gender, but most gender divisions *are* either artificial or outdated), you could certainly expect a more equal distribution of males and females on the workplace (any workplace, regardless of field of activity) than the current one, even if a percentage of the latter still opt to become housewives, and especially pay equality across genders. And, as you should be aware, neither of those current stats are ideal or fair.
4) You seriously have to ask which is the explicit source of my revulsion? It should be patently obvious, but since you asked for it, here goes: ever heard of the “girly” stereotypes? You know, gendered clothing, colours, toys, err… occupations, etc.? We are pretty much influenced by our parents and/or (in my case, I believe mostly "or", as I explained in my previous post) the society in general into accepting certain behaviours and even tastes as appropriate or inappropriate for each gender. Pink as a strictly girlish colour being one of those tropes… Interestingly, it hasn't always been that way, and it seems that LEGO was just a bit late to the game, maybe because the brand came out of, of all places, Scandinavia. But do check this out: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/08/pink-wasnt-always-girly/278535/
It wasn't until much later that I deconstructed gender-binarism and stereotypes and, by extension, accepted that any colour is appropriate for any gender (and, by the way, orientation), as long as it looks, you know, good on the wearer. As for worrying about what society thinks about me, I pretty much ceased to give a $hit about that as soon as I knew better and felt comfortable in my skin (after going through puberty and enough relationships, places, jobs, you know, a fair bit of living, and especially after studying about these issues). Recently, I was a bit surprised when one of my ex-girlfriends told me that a friend of hers thought, after meeting me at a social event, that I was gay (he probably didn't know that she and I had had a prior relationship… And I say that, at most, I might be bi – I mean, I can't definitely be gay, because I've had enough fulfilling relationships with women and am currently in a happy one for that to be a logical impossibility –, but most probably not – again, never having had any sexual or romantic interest in men after socializing with actual, outed gay men for so long, that doesn't seem very likely –, so I'm very much at ease when it comes to orientation as well… Maybe that's why *he* had doubts, because I don't feel a special urge to assert a fake, over-the-top masculinity), but I was completely unfazed and find it mostly an interesting story than anything else. You know, I am close friends with a few (and acquainted with A LOT of) LGBT people and go to LGBT-friendly places along with them, both my Faculty and the Conservatory are places where most people out themselves sooner rather than later and, though I may end up being the target of unrequited advances (not very likely, as those in the LGBT community tend to have fine-tuned gaydars and don't commonly make those miscalculations), which could be awkward but wouldn't be much of an issue, so I don't lose any sleep whether people think I like men or women (I'm fine as long as my romantic interests get the memo, and so far I had no troubles in that regard – not that I know of, and I like to believe that if I did turn some people away, I was just unconsciously separating the wheat from the chaff), so I would definitely have no issues wearing pink at all… It just so happens I prefer to wear darker, more muted colours.
As for LEGO, you know what? A good way to counter said gender binary would be to level the playing field, and maybe introduce some pink across the whole collection, instead of having a few sets with loads of pink, and a lot of sets with no pink at all (that imbalance is obviously the sexist gender-binary at work). I don't mean painting police cars and fire trucks pink, but maybe making all sets that warrant it a bit more diverse and lively (for comparison, the set I mentioned was of a beach restaurant with windsurfers and an ice cream cart, and had a bit of pink and pastel green, but across the whole set, which I did find exaggerated because it was too homogeneous and patently unrealistic; and realism always was the paramount value in LEGO City sets, but apparently not in the Belleville collection)… And this is just a minor detail, but one that I, as a professional who works with colour and is saddened to see it artificially segregated across genders, think is important. LEGO seems to be already catering to some demands by a more enlightened female public, as the Female Minifigure Set (interestingly, there's nigh any pink in sight… coincidence? I think not…). https://ideas.lego.com/projects/15401
Should I have chosen to disclose my gender through that mechanism, how on earth would you guess whether I was a cis male or a trans male?
It doesn’t really matter whether you’re sane or insane except in situations in which you bring harm to yourself and or others.
...commonly agreed-upon labels...
Just say male. There’s no “spectrum”. There’s no “attack helicopter”. Male and female. Those are the labels.
2) You seriously believe that men aren't privileged?
Truth is not a matter of belief. That I agree with what is true is secondary to the fact that it is true.
And what about people who are both genders, neither, or something in between?
Then they are suffering from a physical (so it’s not their fault, not something with which to be identified save for explicitly relevant medical needs, and something to be treated) or mental (so it’s possibly their fault, not something with which to be identified save for explicitly relevant psychological needs, and something to be treated) illness.
Just go and open a freaking newspaper or something.
*rustling of paper* Oh, no! It’s the current year!
...there’s always the off-chance that I stumble upon a misogynist employer that could hire me over a female on account of my gender alone… And my point is, I DO NOT want that.
There’s the off-chance you’ll stumble upon a misandrist employer that could hire a woman over you on account of her sex alone. Do you want that?
...most gender divisions *are* either artificial or outdated...
Only in your mind. Not on paper, nor practice, nor testing.
And, as you should be aware, neither of those current stats are ideal or fair.
All data we have shows that pay is equal. Whether the existence of genders in the workplace is equal is meaningless.
4) You seriously have to ask which is the explicit source of my revulsion? It should be patently obvious, but since you asked for it, here goes: ever heard of the “girly” stereotypes? You know, gendered clothing, colours, toys, err… occupations, etc.?
And so women are so incapable of choosing what they want for themselves that you have to guide them into what you deem is “right”?
...counter said gender binary...
There are two genders. There are two sexes. Countering reality is delusional.
Ok, I don't usually talk in these terms, but, you know, sick as I am of backwards-thinking people in my own country, and having other priorities (like, say, working for my clients), I will leave the rest aside (“SHUT UP”, really? You are the one behaving like a whiny child, not me) and just address one of your arguments, as it's probably the only one that leaves at least some room for discussion… And that is misandrism: it is the other side of the coin, and it's still not that big an issue for me as a man; do you know why? Privilege. Seeing there are not that many women in positions of power, the probability of me stumbling upon a misandrist woman is much slimmer than me or a woman stumbling upon a misogynist man. Ha! QED.
Are you suggesting that I might stumble upon a misandrist man? Well… Anyway, I would NOT want to work for a man who might want to surround himself with women because of some ulterior motive (like, say, to harass them afterwards) instead of good professionals based on their merit. As for misandrist women… I see misandry in women as a likely reaction to misogyny in the first place. If you fight one, you *have to* and pretty much *will* fight the other by default and consequence. Hate generates hate, fear generates fear. Fight any of it at its root, and hopefully you end up de-escalating an undesirable situation.
Of course I do not want to suffer from misandry, what do you take me for, an idiot? It just so happens that I have enough faith in humanity that I believe that if I look after those who aren't currently in their best possible position, I also stand a bigger chance of being respected in the future. Behaving like an a$$hole is not very likely to bring any net benefit to anyone, now, will it? -_-
Oh, as an addendum, since you hinted that I considered women as incapable… Well, guess what, I believe that all humanity, when treated like idiots, become idiots. Precondition people from the crib with loads of crap (on the media, on the supermarket aisles…) and they will end up gobbling up whatever you serve them, as long as the neuromarketing aspects are all accounted for. Unfortunately, we humans behave very much like machines in that regard… I do have faith in humanity, but only up to a point; however, I AM doing my part in enlightening people to learn how to resist those shenanigans (you may think otherwise, but I honestly don't care either way, I'm not really trying to proselytize towards you or your kin), so I sleep very well at night, thanks.
Which doesn’t exist, so your statement is irrelevant.
This isn’t an argument in and of itself, nor is it true.
Which means absolutely nothing to the discussion.
You might look in a mirror once in a while, yes.
So it’s literally always the fault of men, even when it’s the fault of women. I urge you to get help.
How does that old adage go... “In this moment, I am euphoric because I am enlightened by my intelligence.”
You’re wrong on all of your points, though.
I'm loving it, keep it coming. But why don't you back your statements with actual, hard data, sourced from peer-reviewed material, hmm? Pretty please? And I'm not being ironic, actually (well, I was about the “loving it” part, but not on the rest).
I am not saying that the first human to offend another was either a man or a woman against another man or woman. But if you knew anything about matriarchal and patriarchal societies, you wouldn't be posting such nonsense… Clearly there was an important inflection point along the line (mostly in pre-historic times) which changed the relationship between genders. And guess what, my fellow commenter: we're undergoing another one of those! Gender relations will change, whether you like it or not (well, maybe they won't stabilize during yours or my lifetime) and, fortunately, I don't believe that our society will become matriarchal at all, because genders are actually engaging in a civilized, meta-discussion about said ongoing process. In that regard, I think humans may finally achieve some sort of balance some day. Yep, I'm idealistic and optimistic like that, so sue me. As for you, go on, feel free to dwell in the first four stages of grief… instead of actually engaging in said discussion. It's your choice, not mine, and I'm certain that I'll be the one who'll end up on the right side of history. If the opposite occurs, more power to you, but I'm really not seeing things turning out that way.
As for misandry or misogyny, I don't have anything inherently against men or women (or any other group based on physical, mental or cultural attributes – insofar as their culture doesn't conflict with mine at a deeper level, that is, but that is a rare occurrence these days in this globalized world anyway), just specific individuals and political ideas. And, on that note, I *do* have a beef with MRAs and people like you, because you always seem to put things in black-and-white terms (did I say that misandry *definitely* stems from misogyny? No, I said “likely”, which means that I admittedly went out on a limb but kept the door open for other explanations that, yes, might not exempt women from responsibilities; it was you who did the generalization for me… Thanks, but no thanks). There, I said it. I also said at the outset that I *had* you in higher esteem… Couldn't you read between the lines? However, hard as that may be for you to accept, I think it's my right to like or not like people on an individual basis and still engage with them in a healthy debate; that's what democracy and civilization is supposed to look and work like. Otherwise we'd be throwing rocks at each other and that would just be plain stupid and harmful to both parties, am I right? Do you think I need help because I don't agree with you? Puh-leehze. I initially thought that it might be you the one who should look in the mirror, with the “look in the mirror” comments, as that's so elementary school-ish… but I really don't think so. It would be of no use, as yours isn't a mental problem, but one of character and convictions; either you accept democracy and debate as deep values, or you don't. So far, you've only said I was wrong without backing up any of your claims; I am aware that I haven't done so yet myself at the level I'm challenging you to do (though I did present you with some research on the subject of colour, as that's one of my specialties; am I wrong about that, too?), but if you want to go that route, as I said, bring it on! If you don't… Well, we can close our discussion right now and let other people make up their minds (and do their own research, that's how confident I am) about who is more in the right, no problemo.
Oh, you think I am euphoric about my intelligence? Not really… I know I am intelligent, I don't need any proof nor praise to feel better about something I already know. When I speak about enlightenment, intelligence is but a vehicle for a much more important asset: knowledge. And I do take pleasure in knowing that my knowledge, especially the kind of which can change people's lives for the better, is actually passed on to them and does what it's supposed to do. I now know you reject whatever knowledge I might have to offer you (and, though it saddens me – hey, didn't I talk about “esteem” earlier? – I see no bigger issue with that fact and fully respect it, as I am in no position to demand that people agree with me), yet I still present it here in the comments… It's not here strictly for you only (in fact, it's not *at all* for you), nor is it meant to be provocative, so, seeing this is a *public* forum, it can only be for everyone else who may find it of any use. Do you think I'd talk to you in the same terms were this a private conversation, without onlookers? Or do you not know that “politics” comes from the greek Polis, the city? And “forum” from the roman Forum? In this particular case, there'd be no politics nor a forum without onlookers who might benefit from the discussion… And no, my fellow commenter, telling someone who's expressing their views in a rather civilized manner to “SHUT UP” (caps yours, not mine, and you and the moderators have seen I've used caps only on clearly different contexts) is not, IMHO, appropriate behaviour for a forum, no matter how vehemently you may disagree with me, and reads more like a hissy fit.
Anyway, now that I mention it and also how I said earlier, we may have to agree on disagreeing, no hard feelings… And, as always, feel free to counter whichever of my arguments with citations and hard data. I'm not, however, available to keep on a back-and-forth of “you're wrong” (in fact, I'm not even saying you're wrong at all in many of the points you mentioned, whaddyaknow? ) without the “here's why” part.
But why don't you back your statements with actual, hard data, sourced from peer-reviewed material, hmm?
Because there’s no such thing when discussing this nonsense. I’ll gladly directly disprove anything you claim, however.
Gender relations will change, whether you like it or not...
Darn right they will. They’ll return to a time pre-“sexual revolution”.
instead of actually engaging in said discussion.
Make a claim, I will disprove it.
“here's why”
I see a couple hundred words and zero substance whatsoever. It’s just rambling, prosaic garbage that says absolutely nothing of value and contradicts everything humanity has known for millennia. So here’s some value for you.
Essentially, I would say there are 2 types and 4 subtypes of power: Conventional and Unconventional, with the subgroups of Political, Economic, Educational and Social. Social is the only Unconventional.
Women are the majority of the electorate, and so as a group have more Political power. Women control the majority of the currency, and thus have more Economic power. Women are more likely to be teachers and course setters, and so have more Educational power. Socially, many norms–such as men giving up seats on the bus for women, or competing for women’s affections–mean that women likely have more Social power. We can quantify conventional power, and women possess more of it, but we can’t quantify unconventional power. However, conventional can influence unconventional, and so we end up with women having AT LEAST equal power, if not superior power, over men.
Women are the majority of the electorate, and in a democracy they can thus exercise their will. If all men vote for a male president and all women vote for a female president, there will be a female president. Further, the large amounts of Federal and State authorities for women–as well as the female oriented pressure groups flooding the system–mean that women exercise EVEN MORE political power than simply voting. For example, in the UK, there’s an insider pressure group with regular privileged access to government officials called the Fawcett Society. It’s Sectional, meaning it supports women as a group and all of their interests. There’s no such group for men. This means that women’s issues have the ear of the government and men’s do not. It’s easier to get the government to help with women’s issues as a result.
Next, Gynarchy by Proxy–the rule of women, without conventional power. For example, women can influence their husbands (who have power) to use that for their benefit. It’s why there are laws in place harming men and helping women, even with a majority male government. Take the lack of a Rape Shield law providing anonymity for the accused. The London Feminist Network fought this law, and without any conventional political power, they influenced politicians to vote it down. This hurts men and helps women.
We see, all throughout time, women who get their way without even needing to vote. In 1917, a group of men took to the Supreme Court, protesting the draft as unconstitutional. They were told that since they could vote, they could be drafted. This is law in the USA. Women on the other hand, are not drafted, but can still vote. Thus, without even needing to do anything, women gained a right without a corresponding responsibility and men did not. This, even in a time with few to no female politicians, a government decision hurt men and helped women.
Women control the majority of the income in the USA. They control most domestic spending, household income, GDP, etc. Women are the spenders, men are the earners, on average. Thus, advertisement companies cater to females. Without even producing half of the GDP of a country, women control it. Currency is power, and so women have more power. This one’s fairly simple. Pahl and Vogler found that most households use “pooling” for income, where there is a shared bank account and both partners withdraw from it. Women contribute less and withdraw more on average. Women control not only their currency but the currency of their men. Its why Toy Boys are so uncommon when compared to gold-digging women. Men will spend lavishly to impress and help women, and the reverse is simply not true. Social norms reinforce this situation, such as the convention of men paying the check and women eating the free meal. Or men paying the bills in their name whilst the deed of the house is in both names.
Women are more likely to teach. Girls do better in every level of education–for reasons unrelated to their skills–getting more degrees, better grades, etc. Syllabi are designed for girls, with an emphasis on verbal skills and the like over analytical skills. Women are also far more likely to be in decision making positions around education, boards of education, and similar.
Even with this, as well, there are many laws and incentives designed to help women achieve in the (few) areas they don’t. Girls Into Science and Technology and Women In Science and Education, for example. As well as the fact that Brunel University is paying female post grads £15k extra to do engineering. When women lagged behind in education, laws were made to “fix” education. Now that men do, people talk about hegemonic masculinity and the male gaze and things like that, and so they want to “fix” men. When women were disadvantaged, we “fixed” the system. Now that men are, we refuse to change it at all. Also, power over education is power over youth, and power over youth is power over all. Women influence the tender years of life, whereas men do not, and so successive generations become even more gynocentric and indoctrinated with even more pro-female, anti-male perspectives.
Social is the most nebulous and hardest to quantify. So here’s a simple list of some social norms which benefit women over men.
Men paying for women’s meals
Men saving women seats
Men laying down jackets for women to step over puddles
Men giving up lifeboat seats for women/women and children first in all emergencies
Men being drafted
Men being the ones to explore downstairs when you hear a suspicious voice
Men having the burden of starting romantic interactions and bearing potential rejection
Men paying alimony/child support and women not
Men moving out of the house they pay for when a separation/divorce happens
Men working extra hours so that women can stay home with the kids
I’m sure you can think of many more.
If you tell me words you think are synonymous with ‘privilege’, we can continue discussing this topic in a broader, still related sense.
Because there’s no such thing when discussing this nonsense. I’ll gladly directly disprove anything you claim, however.
Darn right they will. They’ll return to a time pre-“sexual revolution”.
Make a claim, I will disprove it.
I see a couple hundred words and zero substance whatsoever. It’s just rambling, prosaic garbage that says absolutely nothing of value and contradicts everything humanity has known for millennia. So here’s some value for you.
Essentially, I would say there are 2 types and 4 subtypes of power: Conventional and Unconventional, with the subgroups of Political, Economic, Educational and Social. Social is the only Unconventional.
Women are the majority of the electorate, and so as a group have more Political power. Women control the majority of the currency, and thus have more Economic power. Women are more likely to be teachers and course setters, and so have more Educational power. Socially, many norms–such as men giving up seats on the bus for women, or competing for women’s affections–mean that women likely have more Social power. We can quantify conventional power, and women possess more of it, but we can’t quantify unconventional power. However, conventional can influence unconventional, and so we end up with women having AT LEAST equal power, if not superior power, over men.
Women are the majority of the electorate, and in a democracy they can thus exercise their will. If all men vote for a male president and all women vote for a female president, there will be a female president. Further, the large amounts of Federal and State authorities for women–as well as the female oriented pressure groups flooding the system–mean that women exercise EVEN MORE political power than simply voting. For example, in the UK, there’s an insider pressure group with regular privileged access to government officials called the Fawcett Society. It’s Sectional, meaning it supports women as a group and all of their interests. There’s no such group for men. This means that women’s issues have the ear of the government and men’s do not. It’s easier to get the government to help with women’s issues as a result.
Next, Gynarchy by Proxy–the rule of women, without conventional power. For example, women can influence their husbands (who have power) to use that for their benefit. It’s why there are laws in place harming men and helping women, even with a majority male government. Take the lack of a Rape Shield law providing anonymity for the accused. The London Feminist Network fought this law, and without any conventional political power, they influenced politicians to vote it down. This hurts men and helps women.
We see, all throughout time, women who get their way without even needing to vote. In 1917, a group of men took to the Supreme Court, protesting the draft as unconstitutional. They were told that since they could vote, they could be drafted. This is law in the USA. Women on the other hand, are not drafted, but can still vote. Thus, without even needing to do anything, women gained a right without a corresponding responsibility and men did not. This, even in a time with few to no female politicians, a government decision hurt men and helped women.
Women control the majority of the income in the USA. They control most domestic spending, household income, GDP, etc. Women are the spenders, men are the earners, on average. Thus, advertisement companies cater to females. Without even producing half of the GDP of a country, women control it. Currency is power, and so women have more power. This one’s fairly simple. Pahl and Vogler found that most households use “pooling” for income, where there is a shared bank account and both partners withdraw from it. Women contribute less and withdraw more on average. Women control not only their currency but the currency of their men. Its why Toy Boys are so uncommon when compared to gold-digging women. Men will spend lavishly to impress and help women, and the reverse is simply not true. Social norms reinforce this situation, such as the convention of men paying the check and women eating the free meal. Or men paying the bills in their name whilst the deed of the house is in both names.
Women are more likely to teach. Girls do better in every level of education–for reasons unrelated to their skills–getting more degrees, better grades, etc. Syllabi are designed for girls, with an emphasis on verbal skills and the like over analytical skills. Women are also far more likely to be in decision making positions around education, boards of education, and similar.
Even with this, as well, there are many laws and incentives designed to help women achieve in the (few) areas they don’t. Girls Into Science and Technology and Women In Science and Education, for example. As well as the fact that Brunel University is paying female post grads £15k extra to do engineering. When women lagged behind in education, laws were made to “fix” education. Now that men do, people talk about hegemonic masculinity and the male gaze and things like that, and so they want to “fix” men. When women were disadvantaged, we “fixed” the system. Now that men are, we refuse to change it at all. Also, power over education is power over youth, and power over youth is power over all. Women influence the tender years of life, whereas men do not, and so successive generations become even more gynocentric and indoctrinated with even more pro-female, anti-male perspectives.
Social is the most nebulous and hardest to quantify. So here’s a simple list of some social norms which benefit women over men.
Men paying for women’s meals
Men saving women seats
Men laying down jackets for women to step over puddles
Men giving up lifeboat seats for women/women and children first in all emergencies
Men being drafted
Men being the ones to explore downstairs when you hear a suspicious voice
Men having the burden of starting romantic interactions and bearing potential rejection
Men paying alimony/child support and women not
Men moving out of the house they pay for when a separation/divorce happens
Men working extra hours so that women can stay home with the kids
I’m sure you can think of many more.
If you tell me words you think are synonymous with ‘privilege’, we can continue discussing this topic in a broader, still related sense.
Oh, I love how you present basic, common-sense choices based on demographics (women can bear children and children themselves have their whole future ahead of them, so, obviously, grown-a$$ man *should* give at least children and women who are still fertile and *may be bearing a child unbeknownst to them* priority in an emergency evacuation procedure… Would you declare yourself pro-life in that situation? Would you rather not potentially save two lives instead of just one?) chivalry (really? My girlfriend sometimes holds my stuff out of her own volition when I need to free both hands and she has freaking titanium screws in her left arm, and I reciprocate whenever it makes sense too; common courtesy has ceased to be a male exclusive a long time ago, at least where I live) and teen angst (I mean, fear of rejection? Is that even a thing after a few years of letdowns and successes? Not for me, it isn't anymore, and not considering there are less men than women in the world… How can men really need to compete *that* much? Honestly, explain that crap logic to me in a way that I may understand) as some sort of terrible burdens… Is that all you've got? Your little list is looking pretty ridiculous, IMHO. By the way, that is YOUR society and YOUR personal view; there are many more examples elsewhere that run contrary to the ones you gave. As for the “pre-‘sexual revolution’”, does that include the Victorian sexual, erm, “pre-sexual-revolution” that screwed up the still barely-surviving gender dynamics from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance? What about the role of the pocket book from 16th Century Venice? Or the bicycle? Where do you draw the line? At the Woodstock? Mary Quaint? Simone de Beauvoir? WWII? Define “sexual revolution”, by the way, if you will.
I think your list is so out-of-touch that, y'know, I figured I might as well give some constructive, international perspective to it (have fun trying to disprove my national reality, of which you probably know absolutely nothing of…). Shall we begin?
• AFAIK, in Israel, women are drafted to the army as well. I know that that comes out of necessity, but still. As for even countries without draft (like Portugal), there are quite a few women who volunteer for the armed forces (in fact, without a draft, accepting women becomes even more important, as every volunteer matters). I recently watched a documentary on the portuguese navy in which a few women sailors recounted their great experiences, so there's that.
• Here in Portugal, at least, it's fairly common for people to marry without common bank accounts; or, as in the case of my parents, they do share bank account access (still with separate accounts) but don't mix their heirlooms, and my mom has't even adopted my dad's surname in more than 30 years of marriage… There are many permutations thereof and not a general rule. It mostly comes down to ideology, education, etc.
• My current girlfriend and I, we always either “pay the dutch way” (meaning, we split the bill) or we take turns to keep it sort of even. The same goes for grocery shopping when we prepare our own meals, together. Well, guess what, I've had that practice with at least six other girls before, and none of them complained… The same goes for most of the people I know. I'm talking about run-of-the-mill straight couples, yes, nothing too exotic for your tastes. Is it maybe a generational thing? Either way, I don't give a damn, as it just feels right and nobody's complaining anyway (and don't you even dare counter my experience with some nonsense like “yeah, that was probably why you broke up”; in fact, I was the one who broke up in all cases but two, for very different reasons, and the same applies to the two exceptions).
• Out of those seven relationships (some of them girlfriends, some of them medium-term flings), I had to take the first step in only four cases. The same goes for most of the couples I know (I guess it depends more on the personality than on gender alone), and we're a fairly ordinary catholic country, albeit a relaxed one (we're mediterranean people, after all).
• As for child support, not on the company where I worked, nope, and not elsewhere. There are a lot of divorced couples and, though parents (independently of gender) which don't retain custody are expected to pay some form of child support, the women I knew still had to work their a$$es off to support their children. Pretty much everyone over here has to work their a$$es off regardless of their current civil status, and that's what we do. Oh, by the way, women can and do share part of their maternity leave with the father if they so wish.
• There are a lot, I mean, A LOT of cases where women may be the “spenders” (in your view) but are, in fact, wholly dependent on their husband as they don't have the means to thrive independently; many of them remain in unhappy, sometimes outright abusive and even potentially lethal marriages because the alternative is not much better at the outset. Dude, I'm not violent or anything, but unhappiness alone is bad enough, so, out of that principle, I'd never pick someone just as a companion or also to even raise children with in the future (I haven't really made specific plans for that yet, but I always consider that chance before hooking up with someone, “just in case”) who didn't have at least some degree of education and/or work experience; what if she stayed with me out of fear of not being able to thrive on her own? Nope, I only want to be with someone who wants to be with me out of love and affection, not necessity (bar some catastrophic, disabling accident, of course). Every guy should encourage women to be at least self-sufficient to some degree, but apparently, some do like submissive, dependent women… Well, to each his own, I say, but don't expect me to think that is a healthy choice. Because, y'know, as long as you feel romantically and physically attracted to the person, duh, you should never pick a partner at random, as the relationship also has to work on a practical level and in a healthy way…
• As for women's pressure groups, HAHAHAHA! You've got to be kidding me, right? At least here in Portugal, the people who pull the strings behind the curtain are the Freemasonry, the Opus Dei and the Roman Catholic Church itself (to a lesser degree in more recent times, but it still exerts a huge influence in more traditional environments). Guess what, except Opus Dei (which is very much Catholic in essence) those are either mostly men-only or inherently patriarchal organizations… And though women may and do influence their husbands (not yet applicable to the Church, for the time being), those organizations usually require (especially Freemasonry) vows of secrecy… NDAs of sorts, if you will. And, except maybe Freemasonry on principle, they *generally* don't favour equality. And most definitely *not* women's rights, I can assure you. Spain (where I've lived for a while) is an even more extreme case of conservatism, and, from all I've read, Scandinavia (yes, were LEGOs come from) has a bad case of domestic violence. We do, too, but to a lesser degree… Guess what, there's also violence against men and, contrary to what you may claim, it is becoming less and less of a taboo, perhaps because men are no longer expected to be these huge, all-powerful machos and are finally seeking and getting the help they deserve (duh). And you want me to believe that most anglo-saxonic countries aren't dominated by similar, men's clubs and other institutions like all-male boarding schools and the like? Give. Me. A. Break.
So, dude, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the USA is not, again, the center of the universe and the standard to which all other countries must be held or leveled with by default. There's better, and there's worse, but you only think inside your little bubble, failing to acknowledge that not all the planet is stuck with your crap gender divisions (that, apparently, also affect men… Tough luck! But attacking minorities will not help you pursue your agenda, rest assured), gun-fetish nutjobbery, anti-science culture, etc. Oh, by the way, now that you're talking about that, explain “rape culture” and “victim shaming” to me. And fraternities and sororities, don't forget about those! And female genital mutilation around the world. And your seeming national obsession with male circumcision (and, how it is, somehow, worse, equal or lesser than FGM). And the way people in radical islam countries governed by Sharia law like to stone and/or lash women who have been raped (as if having been raped wasn't bad enough already)… And honour killings on the UK and elsewhere on Europe… Yes, do enlighten us on those topics, you'll certainly put on quite a show. You think I'm some sort of ignorant, but I'm sorry to inform you, this time it's you the one who is dead wrong. By the way, where did you pull all that “data” from? Some article you copy-pasted from? From memory? I want sources, please.
Oh, I love how you present basic, common-sense choices based on demographics (women can bear children and children themselves have their whole future ahead of them, so, obviously, grown-a$$ man *should* give at least children and women who are still fertile and *may be bearing a child unbeknownst to them* priority in an emergency evacuation procedure…
How is THAT a statement based on demographics? Women and men are 50/50; it’s not saving an endangered species.
How can men really need to compete *that* much?
You don’t seem to comprehend what was written.
Your little list is looking pretty ridiculous, IMHO.
Your opinion is false and far from humble.
By the way, that is YOUR society and YOUR personal view
It’s nigh universal in the West.
Define “sexual revolution”, by the way, if you will.
You know the definition. Don’t get flippant if you want to be taken seriously.
As for even countries without draft
See, you don’t comprehend what is being said at all.
there are quite a few women who volunteer for the armed forces
And CANNOT DO what the men do.
Here in Portugal, at least, it’s fairly common for people to marry without common bank accounts...
Fair enough. We can go back to the point of equal pay if you like.
My current girlfriend and I, we always either “pay the dutch way” (meaning, we split the bill) or we take turns to keep it sort of even.
Yes, because you’re a feminist and don’t seem to comprehend what the list is talking about.
...nobody’s complaining anyway...
Your anecdote is meaningless to the truth.
I had to take the first step in only four cases.
“What is the Sexual Revolution? I’ll take Things I Didn’t Understand for 400, Alex.”
As for child support, not on the company where I worked, nope, and not elsewhere.
Any evidence for that?
There are a lot, I mean, A LOT of cases where women may be the “spenders” (in your view) but are, in fact, wholly dependent on their husband as they don't have the means to thrive independently; many of them remain in unhappy, sometimes outright abusive and even potentially lethal marriages because the alternative is not much better at the outset.
So, for a woman, being beaten is only marginally less bad than being alone? This is really what you believe?
As for women's pressure groups, HAHAHAHA! You've got to be kidding me, right?
Evidence to the contrary or don’t bother replying.
At least here in Portugal, the people who pull the strings behind the curtain are the Freemasonry, the Opus Dei and the Roman Catholic Church itself (to a lesser degree in more recent times, but it still exerts a huge influence in more traditional environments). Guess what, except Opus Dei (which is very much Catholic in essence) those are either mostly men-only or inherently patriarchal organizations… And though women may and do influence their husbands (not yet applicable to the Church, for the time being), those organizations usually require (especially Freemasonry) vows of secrecy… NDAs of sorts, if you will.
So all you have is meaningless anecdotes up to and including conspiracy theories and zero refutation of anything I’ve said.
Guess what, there's also violence against men
Guess what WHAT? Half of the violence is committed by women but the majority of criminal action is taken against men.
...because men are no longer expected to be these huge, all-powerful machos...
Yeah, that’s a great way to behave. Demand that men be like women and then act surprised when they’re depressed and listless and women can’t find someone they desire because no one is acting like a man.
“The Patriarchy” (i.e. pre-feminist society) never portrayed men as doofuses and morons constantly in need of female supervision, something which is the norm now. It never even portrayed women in any negative light, and yet post “patriarchy” men are told by nasty old feminists like Hannah Rosin that they’re failing because they are essentially inferior and that women have proven themselves superior now that they have been “freed from shackles of gender norms.” Never was there under patriarchy any widespread popular acceptance of misogyny, but post-patriarchy society is so utterly misandric that it’s hard to believe.
When gender norms are removed, women gain everything in terms of personal choice, but men lose their role in society. Feminists try to appeal to the battered victim in men today who have been effectively castrated by feminism and misandry, by saying, “Hey, how cool! Now you no longer have to work! You can be a househusband!” And yet all the evidence shows that women continue to desire men who are higher up on the economic scale, and that most marriages involving a bread winning wife end with the wife tossing away the husband and going it alone or marrying up.
The whole thing relies on men not seeing their own interests. Yes, standards of masculinity are often oppressive, but throwing out gender norms means that boys don’t attain their full potential by being challenged and encouraged. They’re instead encouraged to act passive, that women will like them just as much this way, and then these boys watch as women take advantage of all of their new options and STILL date the type of guy these boys were told not to become.
So, dude, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the USA is not, again, the center of the universe
Sorry, there was only one reference to the US in that post and you don’t seem to comprehend what was written, anyway.
...you only think inside your little bubble...
Stop the libel, please.
...your crap gender divisions...
There are two sexes. Male and female.
There are two genders. Masculine and feminine.
No force of will, no power of man, and no act of God will ever change this.
But attacking minorities...
1. I’m 100% certain you just said that women are the majority.
2. I’m not attacking women.
...gun-fetish nut jobbery anti-science culture, etc.
So you’re just spewing ad-homs and nonsense now, huh.
Oh, by the way, now that you're talking about that, explain “rape culture” and “victim shaming” to me.
Oh! Okay. I was waiting for you to bring that up.
Don’t women feel ashamed when they use the “rape culture” argument?
To say that rape culture exists and influences every aspect of what a woman thinks differs in no way from saying that women are too stupid to think for themselves and that their every opinion is shaped and molded by men. Fantasize about being dominated? Apparently that’s rape culture, so they only feel this way because they’re so mentally weak and vulnerable that men were able to brainwash them into feeling this way without even needing to exert any conscious effort.
What does that say about women? If someone could walk up to you, look at your wallet, and then you would just immediately pull it out and give him all of your currency, then it doesn’t mean that he’s a thief. It just means that you’re retarded.
Many women do admit that their opinions are shaped molded by men, mostly the ones they perceive as harmful, and that’s what they call patriarchy. But they somehow argue that they should still be trusted with voting rights…
I’ve brought this exact point up to women who subscribe to the extreme side of this nonsense. That this attitude pretty much says, “I’m incapable of thinking for myself and have no personal responsibilities for my actions. Everything that I do and think is that is bad is because of patriarchy, while all of the good is my own empowerment.”
What’s their counterargument? Rarely they’ll actually address it with something akin to “Nuh uh!” and nothing else to support their point other than claiming that my way of thinking is patriarchy. Usually they’ll mostly ignore it and either resort to or continue personal attacks, twist my words to say that I claimed women are stupid, or just blatantly accuse me of saying something I never said.
Even when the argument is in writing, I’ve had a few accuse me of saying something that was never said, and all of their female friends back them, even though there is visible proof that they’re lying. I don’t even bother presenting documentation to back my point anymore, because it’s a wasted effort.
The modern feminist argument has turned into the black argument. “The patriarchy (white man) is keeping me down! Everything is sexist (racist)! The patriarchy (white man) is the reason for all of my troubles, including the mean things I say and do to others of my own gender (race)! The patriarchy (white man) turns us against each other!”
It’s the exact same argument.
And fraternities and sororities, don't forget about those!
What about them? An organization for each sex.
And female genital mutilation around the world.
YEAH we men sure don’t get our genitals mutilated without our consent, our parents’ consent, and in a situation where it is illegal to NOT be circumcised. Yep.
And your seeming national obsession with male circumcision
Well, it’s the one that isn’t illegal, so how about you comprehend the context of what’s being said before lashing out against it.
And the way people in radical islam countries governed by Sharia law like to stone and/or lash women who have been raped...
What does that have to do, at all, with what we were discussing? Actually, don’t bother answering. You don’t understand what my last post said, so you won’t be able to answer.
You think I’m some sort of ignorant...
Truth is not a matter of belief. You are ignorant because you didn’t know what I presented and have no rebuttal thereto.
I want sources, please.
That’s my line. Please multi-quote next time and we’ll be able to go point by point and prove you wrong. I’ll leave you with a quote from someone you may know.
We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?
I was in a class of nine and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.
You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologizing for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives. The teacher fried to catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish. This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.
Men seem to be so cowed that they can’t fight back, and it is time they did.
Comments
When it comes to social justice and equality, leaders don't do much except wait. Once progress is achievable as deemed by the public, then the leaders appear to stick their necks out. That describes every leader I've ever heard of except for a few notable exceptions.
If you think of it, all the pandering to the PRC leadership notwithstanding (look no further than the Apple News embargo over there, even for foreigners and including *already downloaded/cached content*, which is definitely a first for them), Apple and Cook almost behave like a cultural trojan horse of sorts…
What a great movie this would make!
/s
OT: Jobs looked a helluva lot better than Fassbinder
Do your iPhones and Macs continue to be great?
If the answer is yes, then the rest falls into place, and Cook is doing just fine, whatever his involvement in other causes.
up until then it was pretty much 60/40 everywhere I worked
when I was a sales engineer for apple's Latin American distributor in the 80s and 90s, many executive positions there were held by women and nobody thought it was odd or groundbreaking, because women were everywhere in tech
the ascent of sexism began about the same time that OCD / ADD personality types began to overrun tech
I recently worked for a national tech firm where we were told never to bring developers to client meetings because they were so socially inept
the developers were all men. not a single female in a staff of 15. one guy wore a black raincoat most of the time and 'joked' about killing his colleagues as an intimidation ploy
he's the only person who understands the company's financial payment engine so they put up with his childishness
I am bothered by the use of this phrase.
There is no privilege to being born one sex or another.
Then you would see fewer women and more men. But that’s not what modern feminists want.
I am confused at the explicit source of your revulsion. Could you explain?
I am bothered by the use of this phrase.
There is no privilege to being born one sex or another.
Then you would see fewer women and more men. But that’s not what modern feminists want.
I am confused at the explicit source of your revulsion. Could you explain?
Seriously, Tallest Skil? I had you in much higher regard…
Allow me, then, to make a point-by-point explanation of my words. If that doesn't suffice, we'll have to agree on disagreeing, but I hope it does. So here goes:
1) Why are you bothered by my use of cis (which is, by the way and for the uninitiated on these issues, short for cisgender, but I think you got that)? I haven't disclosed my gender in my user profile, but, by the way, it is male. I was born male and identify and behave as such, so that makes me cisgender, as opposed to transgender.
Do you want to know just why I have to point that out in this context? Because of two reasons: the first and most obvious is, duh, emphasis. Since we're talking about equality, I thought I should point out that I am the default. But why do I have to do that, you could ask? That brings us to reason #2, which is the fact that AppleInsider only gives you a choice of Male/Female genders (which is not very forward looking… Just look as Facebook's gender policy as a more current and respectful example).
Should I have chosen to disclose my gender through that mechanism, how on earth would you guess whether I was a cis male or a trans male? Do you have access to my iSight camera to check whether I have an Adam's apple or deep voice or whatever? We're behind screens and keyboards, dummy, there's nothing wrong about disclosing one's identity by using commonly agreed-upon labels, so I fail to see your problem with it. Unless, that is, you are an LGB or intersex individual who takes issue with the term, which I fully respect, and if you wish I can define myself as “non-trans” (though I'm guessing that's not the root of your discomfort, but please, do enlighten me). Since I prefer to take a proactive approach, why don't you check where I'm coming from on this topic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
2) You seriously believe that men aren't privileged? I mean, for real? And what about people who are both genders, neither, or something in between? Are those not mistreated and bullied beyond all recognition, in many cases until they take their own lives, regardless of their personal ability? You put it so bluntly that I won't even bother wasting my time trying to give you examples. Just go and open a freaking newspaper or something.
3) Either you are a rampant misogynist (I surely hope not) or you understood everything I said completely backwards… I did hint that, in my field, I probably have to fight on a level playing field in most occasions already, but there's always the off-chance that I stumble upon a misogynist employer that could hire me over a female on account of my gender alone… And my point is, I DO NOT want that. We are told not to look a gift horse in the mouth but, you know, some people are ethical and idealistic like that.
If you consider that there are more females than males on this globe we call home, and that both genders have comparable abilities (sure, there are some fields where men or women may have a slight edge over the other gender, but most gender divisions *are* either artificial or outdated), you could certainly expect a more equal distribution of males and females on the workplace (any workplace, regardless of field of activity) than the current one, even if a percentage of the latter still opt to become housewives, and especially pay equality across genders. And, as you should be aware, neither of those current stats are ideal or fair.
4) You seriously have to ask which is the explicit source of my revulsion? It should be patently obvious, but since you asked for it, here goes: ever heard of the “girly” stereotypes? You know, gendered clothing, colours, toys, err… occupations, etc.? We are pretty much influenced by our parents and/or (in my case, I believe mostly "or", as I explained in my previous post) the society in general into accepting certain behaviours and even tastes as appropriate or inappropriate for each gender. Pink as a strictly girlish colour being one of those tropes… Interestingly, it hasn't always been that way, and it seems that LEGO was just a bit late to the game, maybe because the brand came out of, of all places, Scandinavia. But do check this out: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/08/pink-wasnt-always-girly/278535/
It wasn't until much later that I deconstructed gender-binarism and stereotypes and, by extension, accepted that any colour is appropriate for any gender (and, by the way, orientation), as long as it looks, you know, good on the wearer. As for worrying about what society thinks about me, I pretty much ceased to give a $hit about that as soon as I knew better and felt comfortable in my skin (after going through puberty and enough relationships, places, jobs, you know, a fair bit of living, and especially after studying about these issues). Recently, I was a bit surprised when one of my ex-girlfriends told me that a friend of hers thought, after meeting me at a social event, that I was gay (he probably didn't know that she and I had had a prior relationship… And I say that, at most, I might be bi – I mean, I can't definitely be gay, because I've had enough fulfilling relationships with women and am currently in a happy one for that to be a logical impossibility –, but most probably not – again, never having had any sexual or romantic interest in men after socializing with actual, outed gay men for so long, that doesn't seem very likely –, so I'm very much at ease when it comes to orientation as well… Maybe that's why *he* had doubts, because I don't feel a special urge to assert a fake, over-the-top masculinity), but I was completely unfazed and find it mostly an interesting story than anything else. You know, I am close friends with a few (and acquainted with A LOT of) LGBT people and go to LGBT-friendly places along with them, both my Faculty and the Conservatory are places where most people out themselves sooner rather than later and, though I may end up being the target of unrequited advances (not very likely, as those in the LGBT community tend to have fine-tuned gaydars and don't commonly make those miscalculations), which could be awkward but wouldn't be much of an issue, so I don't lose any sleep whether people think I like men or women (I'm fine as long as my romantic interests get the memo, and so far I had no troubles in that regard – not that I know of, and I like to believe that if I did turn some people away, I was just unconsciously separating the wheat from the chaff), so I would definitely have no issues wearing pink at all… It just so happens I prefer to wear darker, more muted colours.
As for LEGO, you know what? A good way to counter said gender binary would be to level the playing field, and maybe introduce some pink across the whole collection, instead of having a few sets with loads of pink, and a lot of sets with no pink at all (that imbalance is obviously the sexist gender-binary at work). I don't mean painting police cars and fire trucks pink, but maybe making all sets that warrant it a bit more diverse and lively (for comparison, the set I mentioned was of a beach restaurant with windsurfers and an ice cream cart, and had a bit of pink and pastel green, but across the whole set, which I did find exaggerated because it was too homogeneous and patently unrealistic; and realism always was the paramount value in LEGO City sets, but apparently not in the Belleville collection)… And this is just a minor detail, but one that I, as a professional who works with colour and is saddened to see it artificially segregated across genders, think is important. LEGO seems to be already catering to some demands by a more enlightened female public, as the Female Minifigure Set (interestingly, there's nigh any pink in sight… coincidence? I think not…). https://ideas.lego.com/projects/15401
It doesn’t really matter whether you’re sane or insane except in situations in which you bring harm to yourself and or others.
Just say male. There’s no “spectrum”. There’s no “attack helicopter”. Male and female. Those are the labels.
2) You seriously believe that men aren't privileged?
Truth is not a matter of belief. That I agree with what is true is secondary to the fact that it is true.
Then they are suffering from a physical (so it’s not their fault, not something with which to be identified save for explicitly relevant medical needs, and something to be treated) or mental (so it’s possibly their fault, not something with which to be identified save for explicitly relevant psychological needs, and something to be treated) illness.
*rustling of paper* Oh, no! It’s the current year!
There’s the off-chance you’ll stumble upon a misandrist employer that could hire a woman over you on account of her sex alone. Do you want that?
...most gender divisions *are* either artificial or outdated...
Only in your mind. Not on paper, nor practice, nor testing.
All data we have shows that pay is equal. Whether the existence of genders in the workplace is equal is meaningless.
And so women are so incapable of choosing what they want for themselves that you have to guide them into what you deem is “right”?
...counter said gender binary...
There are two genders. There are two sexes. Countering reality is delusional.
Ok, I don't usually talk in these terms, but, you know, sick as I am of backwards-thinking people in my own country, and having other priorities (like, say, working for my clients), I will leave the rest aside (“SHUT UP”, really? You are the one behaving like a whiny child, not me) and just address one of your arguments, as it's probably the only one that leaves at least some room for discussion… And that is misandrism: it is the other side of the coin, and it's still not that big an issue for me as a man; do you know why? Privilege. Seeing there are not that many women in positions of power, the probability of me stumbling upon a misandrist woman is much slimmer than me or a woman stumbling upon a misogynist man. Ha! QED.
Are you suggesting that I might stumble upon a misandrist man? Well… Anyway, I would NOT want to work for a man who might want to surround himself with women because of some ulterior motive (like, say, to harass them afterwards) instead of good professionals based on their merit. As for misandrist women… I see misandry in women as a likely reaction to misogyny in the first place. If you fight one, you *have to* and pretty much *will* fight the other by default and consequence. Hate generates hate, fear generates fear. Fight any of it at its root, and hopefully you end up de-escalating an undesirable situation.
Of course I do not want to suffer from misandry, what do you take me for, an idiot? It just so happens that I have enough faith in humanity that I believe that if I look after those who aren't currently in their best possible position, I also stand a bigger chance of being respected in the future. Behaving like an a$$hole is not very likely to bring any net benefit to anyone, now, will it? -_-
Oh, as an addendum, since you hinted that I considered women as incapable… Well, guess what, I believe that all humanity, when treated like idiots, become idiots. Precondition people from the crib with loads of crap (on the media, on the supermarket aisles…) and they will end up gobbling up whatever you serve them, as long as the neuromarketing aspects are all accounted for. Unfortunately, we humans behave very much like machines in that regard… I do have faith in humanity, but only up to a point; however, I AM doing my part in enlightening people to learn how to resist those shenanigans (you may think otherwise, but I honestly don't care either way, I'm not really trying to proselytize towards you or your kin), so I sleep very well at night, thanks.
Which doesn’t exist, so your statement is irrelevant.
This isn’t an argument in and of itself, nor is it true.
Which means absolutely nothing to the discussion.
You might look in a mirror once in a while, yes.
So it’s literally always the fault of men, even when it’s the fault of women. I urge you to get help.
I AM doing my part in enlightening people...
How does that old adage go... “In this moment, I am euphoric because I am enlightened by my intelligence.”
You’re wrong on all of your points, though.
Which doesn’t exist, so your statement is irrelevant.
This isn’t an argument in and of itself, nor is it true.
Which means absolutely nothing to the discussion.
You might look in a mirror once in a while, yes.
So it’s literally always the fault of men, even when it’s the fault of women. I urge you to get help.
How does that old adage go... “In this moment, I am euphoric because I am enlightened by my intelligence.”
You’re wrong on all of your points, though.
I'm loving it, keep it coming. But why don't you back your statements with actual, hard data, sourced from peer-reviewed material, hmm? Pretty please? And I'm not being ironic, actually (well, I was about the “loving it” part, but not on the rest).
I am not saying that the first human to offend another was either a man or a woman against another man or woman. But if you knew anything about matriarchal and patriarchal societies, you wouldn't be posting such nonsense… Clearly there was an important inflection point along the line (mostly in pre-historic times) which changed the relationship between genders. And guess what, my fellow commenter: we're undergoing another one of those! Gender relations will change, whether you like it or not (well, maybe they won't stabilize during yours or my lifetime) and, fortunately, I don't believe that our society will become matriarchal at all, because genders are actually engaging in a civilized, meta-discussion about said ongoing process. In that regard, I think humans may finally achieve some sort of balance some day. Yep, I'm idealistic and optimistic like that, so sue me. As for you, go on, feel free to dwell in the first four stages of grief… instead of actually engaging in said discussion. It's your choice, not mine, and I'm certain that I'll be the one who'll end up on the right side of history. If the opposite occurs, more power to you, but I'm really not seeing things turning out that way.
As for misandry or misogyny, I don't have anything inherently against men or women (or any other group based on physical, mental or cultural attributes – insofar as their culture doesn't conflict with mine at a deeper level, that is, but that is a rare occurrence these days in this globalized world anyway), just specific individuals and political ideas. And, on that note, I *do* have a beef with MRAs and people like you, because you always seem to put things in black-and-white terms (did I say that misandry *definitely* stems from misogyny? No, I said “likely”, which means that I admittedly went out on a limb but kept the door open for other explanations that, yes, might not exempt women from responsibilities; it was you who did the generalization for me… Thanks, but no thanks). There, I said it. I also said at the outset that I *had* you in higher esteem… Couldn't you read between the lines? However, hard as that may be for you to accept, I think it's my right to like or not like people on an individual basis and still engage with them in a healthy debate; that's what democracy and civilization is supposed to look and work like. Otherwise we'd be throwing rocks at each other and that would just be plain stupid and harmful to both parties, am I right? Do you think I need help because I don't agree with you? Puh-leehze. I initially thought that it might be you the one who should look in the mirror, with the “look in the mirror” comments, as that's so elementary school-ish… but I really don't think so. It would be of no use, as yours isn't a mental problem, but one of character and convictions; either you accept democracy and debate as deep values, or you don't. So far, you've only said I was wrong without backing up any of your claims; I am aware that I haven't done so yet myself at the level I'm challenging you to do (though I did present you with some research on the subject of colour, as that's one of my specialties; am I wrong about that, too?), but if you want to go that route, as I said, bring it on! If you don't… Well, we can close our discussion right now and let other people make up their minds (and do their own research, that's how confident I am) about who is more in the right, no problemo.
Oh, you think I am euphoric about my intelligence? Not really… I know I am intelligent, I don't need any proof nor praise to feel better about something I already know. When I speak about enlightenment, intelligence is but a vehicle for a much more important asset: knowledge. And I do take pleasure in knowing that my knowledge, especially the kind of which can change people's lives for the better, is actually passed on to them and does what it's supposed to do. I now know you reject whatever knowledge I might have to offer you (and, though it saddens me – hey, didn't I talk about “esteem” earlier? – I see no bigger issue with that fact and fully respect it, as I am in no position to demand that people agree with me), yet I still present it here in the comments… It's not here strictly for you only (in fact, it's not *at all* for you), nor is it meant to be provocative, so, seeing this is a *public* forum, it can only be for everyone else who may find it of any use. Do you think I'd talk to you in the same terms were this a private conversation, without onlookers? Or do you not know that “politics” comes from the greek Polis, the city? And “forum” from the roman Forum? In this particular case, there'd be no politics nor a forum without onlookers who might benefit from the discussion… And no, my fellow commenter, telling someone who's expressing their views in a rather civilized manner to “SHUT UP” (caps yours, not mine, and you and the moderators have seen I've used caps only on clearly different contexts) is not, IMHO, appropriate behaviour for a forum, no matter how vehemently you may disagree with me, and reads more like a hissy fit.
Anyway, now that I mention it and also how I said earlier, we may have to agree on disagreeing, no hard feelings… And, as always, feel free to counter whichever of my arguments with citations and hard data. I'm not, however, available to keep on a back-and-forth of “you're wrong” (in fact, I'm not even saying you're wrong at all in many of the points you mentioned, whaddyaknow?
) without the “here's why” part.
Because there’s no such thing when discussing this nonsense. I’ll gladly directly disprove anything you claim, however.
Darn right they will. They’ll return to a time pre-“sexual revolution”.
Make a claim, I will disprove it.
“here's why”
I see a couple hundred words and zero substance whatsoever. It’s just rambling, prosaic garbage that says absolutely nothing of value and contradicts everything humanity has known for millennia. So here’s some value for you.
Essentially, I would say there are 2 types and 4 subtypes of power: Conventional and Unconventional, with the subgroups of Political, Economic, Educational and Social. Social is the only Unconventional.
Women are the majority of the electorate, and so as a group have more Political power. Women control the majority of the currency, and thus have more Economic power. Women are more likely to be teachers and course setters, and so have more Educational power. Socially, many norms–such as men giving up seats on the bus for women, or competing for women’s affections–mean that women likely have more Social power. We can quantify conventional power, and women possess more of it, but we can’t quantify unconventional power. However, conventional can influence unconventional, and so we end up with women having AT LEAST equal power, if not superior power, over men.
Women are the majority of the electorate, and in a democracy they can thus exercise their will. If all men vote for a male president and all women vote for a female president, there will be a female president. Further, the large amounts of Federal and State authorities for women–as well as the female oriented pressure groups flooding the system–mean that women exercise EVEN MORE political power than simply voting. For example, in the UK, there’s an insider pressure group with regular privileged access to government officials called the Fawcett Society. It’s Sectional, meaning it supports women as a group and all of their interests. There’s no such group for men. This means that women’s issues have the ear of the government and men’s do not. It’s easier to get the government to help with women’s issues as a result.
Next, Gynarchy by Proxy–the rule of women, without conventional power. For example, women can influence their husbands (who have power) to use that for their benefit. It’s why there are laws in place harming men and helping women, even with a majority male government. Take the lack of a Rape Shield law providing anonymity for the accused. The London Feminist Network fought this law, and without any conventional political power, they influenced politicians to vote it down. This hurts men and helps women.
We see, all throughout time, women who get their way without even needing to vote. In 1917, a group of men took to the Supreme Court, protesting the draft as unconstitutional. They were told that since they could vote, they could be drafted. This is law in the USA. Women on the other hand, are not drafted, but can still vote. Thus, without even needing to do anything, women gained a right without a corresponding responsibility and men did not. This, even in a time with few to no female politicians, a government decision hurt men and helped women.
Women control the majority of the income in the USA. They control most domestic spending, household income, GDP, etc. Women are the spenders, men are the earners, on average. Thus, advertisement companies cater to females. Without even producing half of the GDP of a country, women control it. Currency is power, and so women have more power. This one’s fairly simple. Pahl and Vogler found that most households use “pooling” for income, where there is a shared bank account and both partners withdraw from it. Women contribute less and withdraw more on average. Women control not only their currency but the currency of their men. Its why Toy Boys are so uncommon when compared to gold-digging women. Men will spend lavishly to impress and help women, and the reverse is simply not true. Social norms reinforce this situation, such as the convention of men paying the check and women eating the free meal. Or men paying the bills in their name whilst the deed of the house is in both names.
Women are more likely to teach. Girls do better in every level of education–for reasons unrelated to their skills–getting more degrees, better grades, etc. Syllabi are designed for girls, with an emphasis on verbal skills and the like over analytical skills. Women are also far more likely to be in decision making positions around education, boards of education, and similar.
Even with this, as well, there are many laws and incentives designed to help women achieve in the (few) areas they don’t. Girls Into Science and Technology and Women In Science and Education, for example. As well as the fact that Brunel University is paying female post grads £15k extra to do engineering. When women lagged behind in education, laws were made to “fix” education. Now that men do, people talk about hegemonic masculinity and the male gaze and things like that, and so they want to “fix” men. When women were disadvantaged, we “fixed” the system. Now that men are, we refuse to change it at all. Also, power over education is power over youth, and power over youth is power over all. Women influence the tender years of life, whereas men do not, and so successive generations become even more gynocentric and indoctrinated with even more pro-female, anti-male perspectives.
Social is the most nebulous and hardest to quantify. So here’s a simple list of some social norms which benefit women over men.
Men paying for women’s meals
Men saving women seats
Men laying down jackets for women to step over puddles
Men giving up lifeboat seats for women/women and children first in all emergencies
Men being drafted
Men being the ones to explore downstairs when you hear a suspicious voice
Men having the burden of starting romantic interactions and bearing potential rejection
Men paying alimony/child support and women not
Men moving out of the house they pay for when a separation/divorce happens
Men working extra hours so that women can stay home with the kids
I’m sure you can think of many more.
If you tell me words you think are synonymous with ‘privilege’, we can continue discussing this topic in a broader, still related sense.
Because there’s no such thing when discussing this nonsense. I’ll gladly directly disprove anything you claim, however.
Darn right they will. They’ll return to a time pre-“sexual revolution”.
Make a claim, I will disprove it.
I see a couple hundred words and zero substance whatsoever. It’s just rambling, prosaic garbage that says absolutely nothing of value and contradicts everything humanity has known for millennia. So here’s some value for you.
Essentially, I would say there are 2 types and 4 subtypes of power: Conventional and Unconventional, with the subgroups of Political, Economic, Educational and Social. Social is the only Unconventional.
Women are the majority of the electorate, and so as a group have more Political power. Women control the majority of the currency, and thus have more Economic power. Women are more likely to be teachers and course setters, and so have more Educational power. Socially, many norms–such as men giving up seats on the bus for women, or competing for women’s affections–mean that women likely have more Social power. We can quantify conventional power, and women possess more of it, but we can’t quantify unconventional power. However, conventional can influence unconventional, and so we end up with women having AT LEAST equal power, if not superior power, over men.
Women are the majority of the electorate, and in a democracy they can thus exercise their will. If all men vote for a male president and all women vote for a female president, there will be a female president. Further, the large amounts of Federal and State authorities for women–as well as the female oriented pressure groups flooding the system–mean that women exercise EVEN MORE political power than simply voting. For example, in the UK, there’s an insider pressure group with regular privileged access to government officials called the Fawcett Society. It’s Sectional, meaning it supports women as a group and all of their interests. There’s no such group for men. This means that women’s issues have the ear of the government and men’s do not. It’s easier to get the government to help with women’s issues as a result.
Next, Gynarchy by Proxy–the rule of women, without conventional power. For example, women can influence their husbands (who have power) to use that for their benefit. It’s why there are laws in place harming men and helping women, even with a majority male government. Take the lack of a Rape Shield law providing anonymity for the accused. The London Feminist Network fought this law, and without any conventional political power, they influenced politicians to vote it down. This hurts men and helps women.
We see, all throughout time, women who get their way without even needing to vote. In 1917, a group of men took to the Supreme Court, protesting the draft as unconstitutional. They were told that since they could vote, they could be drafted. This is law in the USA. Women on the other hand, are not drafted, but can still vote. Thus, without even needing to do anything, women gained a right without a corresponding responsibility and men did not. This, even in a time with few to no female politicians, a government decision hurt men and helped women.
Women control the majority of the income in the USA. They control most domestic spending, household income, GDP, etc. Women are the spenders, men are the earners, on average. Thus, advertisement companies cater to females. Without even producing half of the GDP of a country, women control it. Currency is power, and so women have more power. This one’s fairly simple. Pahl and Vogler found that most households use “pooling” for income, where there is a shared bank account and both partners withdraw from it. Women contribute less and withdraw more on average. Women control not only their currency but the currency of their men. Its why Toy Boys are so uncommon when compared to gold-digging women. Men will spend lavishly to impress and help women, and the reverse is simply not true. Social norms reinforce this situation, such as the convention of men paying the check and women eating the free meal. Or men paying the bills in their name whilst the deed of the house is in both names.
Women are more likely to teach. Girls do better in every level of education–for reasons unrelated to their skills–getting more degrees, better grades, etc. Syllabi are designed for girls, with an emphasis on verbal skills and the like over analytical skills. Women are also far more likely to be in decision making positions around education, boards of education, and similar.
Even with this, as well, there are many laws and incentives designed to help women achieve in the (few) areas they don’t. Girls Into Science and Technology and Women In Science and Education, for example. As well as the fact that Brunel University is paying female post grads £15k extra to do engineering. When women lagged behind in education, laws were made to “fix” education. Now that men do, people talk about hegemonic masculinity and the male gaze and things like that, and so they want to “fix” men. When women were disadvantaged, we “fixed” the system. Now that men are, we refuse to change it at all. Also, power over education is power over youth, and power over youth is power over all. Women influence the tender years of life, whereas men do not, and so successive generations become even more gynocentric and indoctrinated with even more pro-female, anti-male perspectives.
Social is the most nebulous and hardest to quantify. So here’s a simple list of some social norms which benefit women over men.
Men paying for women’s meals
Men saving women seats
Men laying down jackets for women to step over puddles
Men giving up lifeboat seats for women/women and children first in all emergencies
Men being drafted
Men being the ones to explore downstairs when you hear a suspicious voice
Men having the burden of starting romantic interactions and bearing potential rejection
Men paying alimony/child support and women not
Men moving out of the house they pay for when a separation/divorce happens
Men working extra hours so that women can stay home with the kids
I’m sure you can think of many more.
If you tell me words you think are synonymous with ‘privilege’, we can continue discussing this topic in a broader, still related sense.
Oh, I love how you present basic, common-sense choices based on demographics (women can bear children and children themselves have their whole future ahead of them, so, obviously, grown-a$$ man *should* give at least children and women who are still fertile and *may be bearing a child unbeknownst to them* priority in an emergency evacuation procedure… Would you declare yourself pro-life in that situation? Would you rather not potentially save two lives instead of just one?) chivalry (really? My girlfriend sometimes holds my stuff out of her own volition when I need to free both hands and she has freaking titanium screws in her left arm, and I reciprocate whenever it makes sense too; common courtesy has ceased to be a male exclusive a long time ago, at least where I live) and teen angst (I mean, fear of rejection? Is that even a thing after a few years of letdowns and successes? Not for me, it isn't anymore, and not considering there are less men than women in the world… How can men really need to compete *that* much? Honestly, explain that crap logic to me in a way that I may understand) as some sort of terrible burdens… Is that all you've got? Your little list is looking pretty ridiculous, IMHO. By the way, that is YOUR society and YOUR personal view; there are many more examples elsewhere that run contrary to the ones you gave. As for the “pre-‘sexual revolution’”, does that include the Victorian sexual, erm, “pre-sexual-revolution” that screwed up the still barely-surviving gender dynamics from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance? What about the role of the pocket book from 16th Century Venice? Or the bicycle? Where do you draw the line? At the Woodstock? Mary Quaint? Simone de Beauvoir? WWII? Define “sexual revolution”, by the way, if you will.
I think your list is so out-of-touch that, y'know, I figured I might as well give some constructive, international perspective to it (have fun trying to disprove my national reality, of which you probably know absolutely nothing of…). Shall we begin?
• AFAIK, in Israel, women are drafted to the army as well. I know that that comes out of necessity, but still. As for even countries without draft (like Portugal), there are quite a few women who volunteer for the armed forces (in fact, without a draft, accepting women becomes even more important, as every volunteer matters). I recently watched a documentary on the portuguese navy in which a few women sailors recounted their great experiences, so there's that.
• Here in Portugal, at least, it's fairly common for people to marry without common bank accounts; or, as in the case of my parents, they do share bank account access (still with separate accounts) but don't mix their heirlooms, and my mom has't even adopted my dad's surname in more than 30 years of marriage… There are many permutations thereof and not a general rule. It mostly comes down to ideology, education, etc.
• My current girlfriend and I, we always either “pay the dutch way” (meaning, we split the bill) or we take turns to keep it sort of even. The same goes for grocery shopping when we prepare our own meals, together. Well, guess what, I've had that practice with at least six other girls before, and none of them complained… The same goes for most of the people I know. I'm talking about run-of-the-mill straight couples, yes, nothing too exotic for your tastes. Is it maybe a generational thing? Either way, I don't give a damn, as it just feels right and nobody's complaining anyway (and don't you even dare counter my experience with some nonsense like “yeah, that was probably why you broke up”; in fact, I was the one who broke up in all cases but two, for very different reasons, and the same applies to the two exceptions).
• Out of those seven relationships (some of them girlfriends, some of them medium-term flings), I had to take the first step in only four cases. The same goes for most of the couples I know (I guess it depends more on the personality than on gender alone), and we're a fairly ordinary catholic country, albeit a relaxed one (we're mediterranean people, after all).
• As for child support, not on the company where I worked, nope, and not elsewhere. There are a lot of divorced couples and, though parents (independently of gender) which don't retain custody are expected to pay some form of child support, the women I knew still had to work their a$$es off to support their children. Pretty much everyone over here has to work their a$$es off regardless of their current civil status, and that's what we do. Oh, by the way, women can and do share part of their maternity leave with the father if they so wish.
• There are a lot, I mean, A LOT of cases where women may be the “spenders” (in your view) but are, in fact, wholly dependent on their husband as they don't have the means to thrive independently; many of them remain in unhappy, sometimes outright abusive and even potentially lethal marriages because the alternative is not much better at the outset. Dude, I'm not violent or anything, but unhappiness alone is bad enough, so, out of that principle, I'd never pick someone just as a companion or also to even raise children with in the future (I haven't really made specific plans for that yet, but I always consider that chance before hooking up with someone, “just in case”) who didn't have at least some degree of education and/or work experience; what if she stayed with me out of fear of not being able to thrive on her own? Nope, I only want to be with someone who wants to be with me out of love and affection, not necessity (bar some catastrophic, disabling accident, of course). Every guy should encourage women to be at least self-sufficient to some degree, but apparently, some do like submissive, dependent women… Well, to each his own, I say, but don't expect me to think that is a healthy choice. Because, y'know, as long as you feel romantically and physically attracted to the person, duh, you should never pick a partner at random, as the relationship also has to work on a practical level and in a healthy way…
• As for women's pressure groups, HAHAHAHA! You've got to be kidding me, right? At least here in Portugal, the people who pull the strings behind the curtain are the Freemasonry, the Opus Dei and the Roman Catholic Church itself (to a lesser degree in more recent times, but it still exerts a huge influence in more traditional environments). Guess what, except Opus Dei (which is very much Catholic in essence) those are either mostly men-only or inherently patriarchal organizations… And though women may and do influence their husbands (not yet applicable to the Church, for the time being), those organizations usually require (especially Freemasonry) vows of secrecy… NDAs of sorts, if you will. And, except maybe Freemasonry on principle, they *generally* don't favour equality. And most definitely *not* women's rights, I can assure you. Spain (where I've lived for a while) is an even more extreme case of conservatism, and, from all I've read, Scandinavia (yes, were LEGOs come from) has a bad case of domestic violence. We do, too, but to a lesser degree… Guess what, there's also violence against men and, contrary to what you may claim, it is becoming less and less of a taboo, perhaps because men are no longer expected to be these huge, all-powerful machos and are finally seeking and getting the help they deserve (duh). And you want me to believe that most anglo-saxonic countries aren't dominated by similar, men's clubs and other institutions like all-male boarding schools and the like? Give. Me. A. Break.
So, dude, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the USA is not, again, the center of the universe and the standard to which all other countries must be held or leveled with by default. There's better, and there's worse, but you only think inside your little bubble, failing to acknowledge that not all the planet is stuck with your crap gender divisions (that, apparently, also affect men… Tough luck! But attacking minorities will not help you pursue your agenda, rest assured), gun-fetish nutjobbery, anti-science culture, etc. Oh, by the way, now that you're talking about that, explain “rape culture” and “victim shaming” to me. And fraternities and sororities, don't forget about those! And female genital mutilation around the world. And your seeming national obsession with male circumcision (and, how it is, somehow, worse, equal or lesser than FGM). And the way people in radical islam countries governed by Sharia law like to stone and/or lash women who have been raped (as if having been raped wasn't bad enough already)… And honour killings on the UK and elsewhere on Europe… Yes, do enlighten us on those topics, you'll certainly put on quite a show. You think I'm some sort of ignorant, but I'm sorry to inform you, this time it's you the one who is dead wrong. By the way, where did you pull all that “data” from? Some article you copy-pasted from? From memory? I want sources, please.
Could you maybe multiquote like I do?
How is THAT a statement based on demographics? Women and men are 50/50; it’s not saving an endangered species.
You don’t seem to comprehend what was written.
Your opinion is false and far from humble.
It’s nigh universal in the West.
You know the definition. Don’t get flippant if you want to be taken seriously.
See, you don’t comprehend what is being said at all.
And CANNOT DO what the men do.
Here in Portugal, at least, it’s fairly common for people to marry without common bank accounts...
Fair enough. We can go back to the point of equal pay if you like.
My current girlfriend and I, we always either “pay the dutch way” (meaning, we split the bill) or we take turns to keep it sort of even.
Yes, because you’re a feminist and don’t seem to comprehend what the list is talking about.
Your anecdote is meaningless to the truth.
I had to take the first step in only four cases.
“What is the Sexual Revolution? I’ll take Things I Didn’t Understand for 400, Alex.”
As for child support, not on the company where I worked, nope, and not elsewhere.
Any evidence for that?
There are a lot, I mean, A LOT of cases where women may be the “spenders” (in your view) but are, in fact, wholly dependent on their husband as they don't have the means to thrive independently; many of them remain in unhappy, sometimes outright abusive and even potentially lethal marriages because the alternative is not much better at the outset.
So, for a woman, being beaten is only marginally less bad than being alone? This is really what you believe?
As for women's pressure groups, HAHAHAHA! You've got to be kidding me, right?
Evidence to the contrary or don’t bother replying.
So all you have is meaningless anecdotes up to and including conspiracy theories and zero refutation of anything I’ve said.
Guess what WHAT? Half of the violence is committed by women but the majority of criminal action is taken against men.
Yeah, that’s a great way to behave. Demand that men be like women and then act surprised when they’re depressed and listless and women can’t find someone they desire because no one is acting like a man.
“The Patriarchy” (i.e. pre-feminist society) never portrayed men as doofuses and morons constantly in need of female supervision, something which is the norm now. It never even portrayed women in any negative light, and yet post “patriarchy” men are told by nasty old feminists like Hannah Rosin that they’re failing because they are essentially inferior and that women have proven themselves superior now that they have been “freed from shackles of gender norms.” Never was there under patriarchy any widespread popular acceptance of misogyny, but post-patriarchy society is so utterly misandric that it’s hard to believe.
When gender norms are removed, women gain everything in terms of personal choice, but men lose their role in society. Feminists try to appeal to the battered victim in men today who have been effectively castrated by feminism and misandry, by saying, “Hey, how cool! Now you no longer have to work! You can be a househusband!” And yet all the evidence shows that women continue to desire men who are higher up on the economic scale, and that most marriages involving a bread winning wife end with the wife tossing away the husband and going it alone or marrying up.
The whole thing relies on men not seeing their own interests. Yes, standards of masculinity are often oppressive, but throwing out gender norms means that boys don’t attain their full potential by being challenged and encouraged. They’re instead encouraged to act passive, that women will like them just as much this way, and then these boys watch as women take advantage of all of their new options and STILL date the type of guy these boys were told not to become.
So, dude, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the USA is not, again, the center of the universe
Sorry, there was only one reference to the US in that post and you don’t seem to comprehend what was written, anyway.
Stop the libel, please.
There are two sexes. Male and female.
There are two genders. Masculine and feminine.
No force of will, no power of man, and no act of God will ever change this.
1. I’m 100% certain you just said that women are the majority.
2. I’m not attacking women.
So you’re just spewing ad-homs and nonsense now, huh.
Oh! Okay. I was waiting for you to bring that up.
Don’t women feel ashamed when they use the “rape culture” argument?
To say that rape culture exists and influences every aspect of what a woman thinks differs in no way from saying that women are too stupid to think for themselves and that their every opinion is shaped and molded by men. Fantasize about being dominated? Apparently that’s rape culture, so they only feel this way because they’re so mentally weak and vulnerable that men were able to brainwash them into feeling this way without even needing to exert any conscious effort.
What does that say about women? If someone could walk up to you, look at your wallet, and then you would just immediately pull it out and give him all of your currency, then it doesn’t mean that he’s a thief. It just means that you’re retarded.
Many women do admit that their opinions are shaped molded by men, mostly the ones they perceive as harmful, and that’s what they call patriarchy. But they somehow argue that they should still be trusted with voting rights…
I’ve brought this exact point up to women who subscribe to the extreme side of this nonsense. That this attitude pretty much says, “I’m incapable of thinking for myself and have no personal responsibilities for my actions. Everything that I do and think is that is bad is because of patriarchy, while all of the good is my own empowerment.”
What’s their counterargument? Rarely they’ll actually address it with something akin to “Nuh uh!” and nothing else to support their point other than claiming that my way of thinking is patriarchy. Usually they’ll mostly ignore it and either resort to or continue personal attacks, twist my words to say that I claimed women are stupid, or just blatantly accuse me of saying something I never said.
Even when the argument is in writing, I’ve had a few accuse me of saying something that was never said, and all of their female friends back them, even though there is visible proof that they’re lying. I don’t even bother presenting documentation to back my point anymore, because it’s a wasted effort.
The modern feminist argument has turned into the black argument. “The patriarchy (white man) is keeping me down! Everything is sexist (racist)! The patriarchy (white man) is the reason for all of my troubles, including the mean things I say and do to others of my own gender (race)! The patriarchy (white man) turns us against each other!”
It’s the exact same argument.
What about them? An organization for each sex.
YEAH we men sure don’t get our genitals mutilated without our consent, our parents’ consent, and in a situation where it is illegal to NOT be circumcised. Yep.
Well, it’s the one that isn’t illegal, so how about you comprehend the context of what’s being said before lashing out against it.
What does that have to do, at all, with what we were discussing? Actually, don’t bother answering. You don’t understand what my last post said, so you won’t be able to answer.
Truth is not a matter of belief. You are ignorant because you didn’t know what I presented and have no rebuttal thereto.
That’s my line. Please multi-quote next time and we’ll be able to go point by point and prove you wrong. I’ll leave you with a quote from someone you may know.
I was in a class of nine and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.
You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologizing for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives. The teacher fried to catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish. This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.
Men seem to be so cowed that they can’t fight back, and it is time they did.
– Doris Lessing