Melancholy of the Modern Man

[Executor]

This thread was inspired by the "Gender Roles and Hypocrisy" thread, and my own musings upon gender.

Without a doubt, our modern world, if you live in a First World country, is the best society in human history. Life now for a citizen of a good country like the United States, Canada, Germany, et cetera, is longer, safer, healthier, and freer than it has ever been before.

Life has taught me that everything that has a benefit also has unintended consequences. So too do the benefits of the modern world have their unintended consequences. And the consequences seem to affect men more than women.

There is something afflicting men these days, particularly younger men in the 16-30 year old age range. Some kind of malaise, an ennui, a depression. What I call the Melancholy of the Modern Man. Men seem adrift these days, unmotivated and listless in life. Women, in comparison, flourish. Women are more likely to graduate high school these days. For the first time in history, there are more women in the work force than men. Female college and university students have higher averages than men, and are more likely to graduate within four years. Six out of every ten people holding an advanced degree are women today. This information was all acquired from the US Census. Men, on the other hand, still lead in substance abuse, suicide, homelessness, violence, and crime rates.

I must be very clear: I am not saying it is a bad thing for women to be doing well. I wish them all success, and I am glad that they are better treated now than they have ever been. However, this is not a zero sum game. Just because women are becoming more successful does not mean that men must become less successful. Everyone would benefit from both genders living up to their full potential in their own way.

We live in a society which increasingly seems to think that man, the male and masculinity is somehow obsolete, and that modern man has somehow forgotten old fashioned masculinity. Despite all our modern convienences and technology and everything, the core, primal element of masculinity still sit within every man like a regiment of soldiers that is ready and willing to fight, but sits waiting, forever in reserve. The man, this man (meaning me) at least, is left feeling like a square peg being told to fit into the round hole of modern society. Having felt this mismatch time and again, men are left feeling angry and restless, losing their motivation, and giving up.

You only have to look at the media to see the mockery that is heaped upon men and masculinity. Even something so simple and harmless as a commercial. Think about your average commercial: Women in commercials are smart, attractive and efficient, men are fat, bumbling, stupid slobs. What was the last sitcom where the man was just as attractive and intelligent as his wife? These may seem like shallow and superfluous facts, but they show an example of the cultural perception of men. What about film? Men are far more likely to be ridiculed in a comedy than women, men are far more likely to be the villain of any given piece, men are far more likely to be lampooned like they are in commercials: As fat, bumbling, stupid slobs.

T.K. Whipple once wrote:


"All America lies at the end of the wilderness road, and our past is not a dead past, but still lives in us. Our forefathers had civilization inside themselves, the wild outside. We live in the civilization they created, but within us the wilderness still lingers. What they dreamed, we live, and what they lived, we dream."

And there's the sticky wicket. This is where the mismatch between the square peg and round hole comes from: For many men in the developed world, the inner aspects of masculinity remain unchanged, while the outer enviroment in which those aspects developed has changed dramatically. Over hundreds of generations, men evolved unique psychological traits to ensure survival in a hard, dangerous world. We like to think that we're oh so sophisticated and cultured and beyond all that primitive stuff, but we still have those traits embedded deep within us. We are wild men in a modern world.

Many have noticed the Melancholy of the Modern Man. The Atlantic's Hanna Rosin went so far as to say that "The End of Men" is upon us. Unfortunately, the prooffered solutions seem to say nothing more than: "The sun has set on masculinity. Move on. Forget it and get in touch with your feminine side, because it's a woman's world now". The square peg is told to round off his sharp edges. For me, at least, and for a lot of other men too I think, this is not an attractive solution. Or you could give in to the so-called "Call of the Wild" and go live in a cave or abandoned bus like Christopher McCandless. That too is not an attractive solution.

So if you are like me and you feel this melancholy, but you don't want to be some kind of touchy-feely weepy douchebag with a ponytail and a sweater vest, and you also don't want to be some kind of neo-Neanderthal, what is the solution?

[arguskos]

Interesting thread. I love this sort of discussion and observation (it's something I've observed and even suffered personally).


So if you are like me and you feel this melancholy, but you don't want to be some kind of touchy-feely weepy douchebag with a ponytail and a sweater vest, and you also don't want to be some kind of neo-Neanderthal, what is the solution?
1. The line "touchy-feely weepy douchebag with a ponytail and a sweater vest", while obvious hyperbole, could easily be read as insulting. Might want to address that somewhat. :smallwink: I'll admit to giggling somewhat though

2. On-topic, the problem admits of no solution. The world is changed now, and that author from the Atlantic has a point. Things are very much a woman's world these days. I don't mind really, since I've always straddled that curious line between masculinity and femininity (as so many do), but the issue does exist. My suggestion would be to find a happy medium. I can only speak from personal experiences, but it can be done. For instance, I enjoy a great deal of traditionally "manly" things, like bear wrestling, race car driving, explosions, etc, and a number of traditionally "womanly" things, like opera, feelings, quiche, etc. I'm content to go from wrestling a bear with a knife clenched between my teeth during an explosion to having a cheese and bacon quiche for breakfast while talking about the opera I watched the previous evening, cause those things are all things I enjoy.

Note: the above, while somewhat facetious in tone, was meant non-judgmentally and was written so as to evoke a smile while still making a point. :smallwink:

The world need not be so black and white anymore. The increasing societal role of women in the modern world is equalizing the value placed on things. Before, in a more male-centric world, traditionally womanly pursuits would have low value to society, but now they have almost (if not) equal value. The conflict is stemming from many men not realizing that it's OK to like things that aren't traditionally manly. What we need to do is accept that liking those things is alright, and to just relax our standards of what is acceptable for a man or a woman to like. That ennui will fade away once we realize that we're now all free to like what we like without fear

[Dienekes]

Quit complaining and go do your work.

At least that's what I've always felt, and so far it's worked for me rather well.

If you feel like masculinity means being a fighter go join the army, if your view of masculinity is being a provider go shoot for a high paying career, sitting back and philosophizing about lost gender roles will get you nowhere.

This doesn't mean being feminine, I don't think anyone has ever accused me of such anyway. But find something to do and actually go do it. The solution to getting more men in the work force is to go look for jobs. The solution to getting more men in college is to apply to college and work your arse off to get your degree.

[Eldan]

It's interesting. First, let's talk about me.

I'm 24 years old. I'm finishing my Master's degree at the moment. I'm a coward, an enormous one. I'm afraid of heights (so far that I get shaky when standing on a chair or walking down stairs), fire, pointy and sharp objects, rapid movement and dogs. I'm a pacifist. My last fight was in elementary school. I'm a socialist, or at least I vote for them most often, after the Green party. I dislike sports, I'm fat, I don't exercise, I have heart problems and running up a flight of stairs has me panting for minutes. I don't drive, I don't drink. I dislike sports, and car racing, and basically all "manly things".

And yet, about once every week, I get this thought in my head. "Dammit, I wish I could do something stupid, brave and grandiose." Then I get that feeling that I want to punch something to the ground and stand on top of it. Sometimes I watch Fight Club when I'm in that mood. Other times, I just go sit outside and stare at the sky for a while.

And you know, I probably could. But, as I've said: I'm too lazy. I probably won't ever climb a mountain, write a book, tame a wild animal, swim a raging river, build a house with my bare hands or walk to China. But hell, can I ever dream about it.

[Emperor Ing]

I'm calling for equality. I demand animated TV shows air Man Power episodes, the next male Supreme Court nominee be declared "historic," and to stop being called "sexist" whenever I call shenanigans regarding straw feminism. Honestly, this isn't empowering anyone at all. :smallannoyed:

[Zen Monkey]

What's problematic here is that there is a difference between the reality of the world and the currently acceptable descriptions of it.

It's supposedly sexist to imply that men are better suited for some roles than women, but it's also true. The average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman. Some jobs will require that asset, like construction work or fighting fires. Yes, a woman can be a firefighter, but a man is more likely to be able to handle the enormous pressure in that water hose or be able to carry someone out of a burning building.

The problem is that in western society, and certainly in American society, an overly-sensitive and excessively-litigious group has controlled the discussion. Certain biases are praised, and others are condemned. Men are better at some things than women, but to say so is somehow unacceptable. Women are better at some things than men, but to say so is somehow enlightened.

We're also perpetuating the problem, by having dual standards in a lot of the traditionally male-oriented roles. In the military and in law enforcement, women are not expected to be as fast or as strong. Is there any logical explanation for this? Will the female officers only have to pursue slower and weaker criminals? Certainly not, but it's an attempt at perceived equality because it makes for good show and a supposedly more fair discussion.

I think the answer comes in understanding a difference between equality and same-ness. People can be vastly different and still of equal worth. If you want to lift weights, drink beer, and watch sports, then enjoy it and ignore anyone who says that this somehow makes you brutish or inferior. Your habits aren't wrong for you, just your conversation circles. There's also a peculiar tendency for women to be attracted to supposedly obsolete masculine qualities like being big and strong, which would imply that there's more than one version of what's going on in this story.

[AKA_Bait]

So if you are like me and you feel this melancholy, but you don't want to be some kind of touchy-feely weepy douchebag with a ponytail and a sweater vest, and you also don't want to be some kind of neo-Neanderthal, what is the solution?

I have found that channeling the agression or competitiveness I think you are getting at into other socially useful or acceptable directions is an good soloution.

Sports are a good example. Playing in a league of some kind, particularly in a contact or semi-contact sport like basketball or rugby, can be a great way to placate your "inner caveman" in a way that is productive and socially useful.

Dienekes is also right regarding jobs. I'm in law school, my competitive side was directed at outworking the other law students, getting better grades, and (hopefully) getting the job I want in litigation (which itself will be a competitive enterprise). Just because I'm not clubbing someone over the head doesn't mean I'm not being manly.

I spent some time with melancholy, but realized as I got older that it was a consequence of not doing anything, not the cause of not doing anything. I think that the whole problem could potentially be avoided if more 20 to 30 year olds were not essentially allowed by our cultural norms to sit around only being students, regardless of actual student performance, for far longer than at any time in earlier human history.

[Executor]

Well, I did play rugby, until my team changed the practice days to a stupid schedule that clashes with the rest of my social life, but I still like rugby. I also swim and jog and ride horses regularly.

And I am joining the Canadian Army Reserve while I work towards my Archaeology degree, after which I will be transferring to the Regular Force for full-time Army work.

And I work for the family business most days of the week.

So it's not as if I'm not doing anything, I do plenty. Yet I still feel melancholy.

[polity4life]

What were the metrics by which we used to measure and define masculinity, "back in the day"?

[Eldan]

Yeah. It's not "doing something" that's the problem for me. I do plenty of stuff. Though, admittedly, insect ecology is not the most manly of fields.

My problem is that I want to do something unique, that no one has ever done before. I want to find something new. And not just a new idea. I can do that in research. I want to explore a new continent. Fly to another planet. Invent a technology that changes humanity forever in a radical way. Set foot on something no one has ever set foot before. My problem is that whatever I do, it does not feel special. It's all been done.

[Rockbird]

Funny thing about male/female students:
More women apply.
More women graduate.
Women get better grades.
Men get higher pay.
Men get a greater percentage of grants and scholarships.
Men get the highest ranking jobs.

Strange, huh?

(These are the statistics in Sweden, i don't know about elsewhere i admit.)

[TheLaughingMan]

I'll agree with the OP on one thing, in that biases against men seem to be everywhere these days. Speaking as a teenage American, the world surrounding me just seems so prepared to mock and ridicule the male half of the race, but is the female half slips up, everyone's ready to give the benefit of the doubt. Granted, it's a bit hyperbolic, but there seems to be no escape to it. It's like all the woman of the modern world are trying to get back at us for all the prejudice heaped upon them in earlier times. I'm hoping one day this balances itself out, and we can have actual equality. Though of course, that would just leave a hundred other prejudices to be sorted.

I'd love to get a woman's opinion of this, though. Might be interesting to see the other side of things. :smallsmile:


What were the metrics by which we used to measure and define masculinity, "back in the day"?

We used to define masculinity by how far you could throw carriage. With steaks attached to its hull. On fire.

[druid91]

You know one thing that always confused me... Why do women complain about being payed less, when they get maturnity leave.

I'm not saying being pregnant is pleasant, but it is a risk employers have to account for.

They need to pay someone to take their place for those absences.

But yes I'm annoyed with the general trend to view equality as Lets beat up on those who were originally higher.

[Dienekes]

Yeah. It's not "doing something" that's the problem for me. I do plenty of stuff. Though, admittedly, insect ecology is not the most manly of fields.

My problem is that I want to do something unique, that no one has ever done before. I want to find something new. And not just a new idea. I can do that in research. I want to explore a new continent. Fly to another planet. Invent a technology that changes humanity forever in a radical way. Set foot on something no one has ever set foot before. My problem is that whatever I do, it does not feel special. It's all been done.

You won't. Get used to it.

You can't just say I want to be great. All great things require work, as much for a man as for a woman. If you want to invent something study engineering, if you want to climb a mountain actually get up and practice rock climbing. Nothing good does not require work, the trick is focusing on what you really want to do and doing it.

I can say I want to write the greatest book ever all I want, it doesn't mean a thing until I actually put in the hours to learn how to make a sentence flow, or develop interesting intriguing characters.

[druid91]

You won't. Get used to it.

You can't just say I want to be great. All great things require work, as much for a man as for a woman. If you want to invent something study engineering, if you want to climb a mountain actually get up and practice rock climbing. Nothing good does not require work, the trick is focusing on what you really want to do and doing it.

I can say I want to write the greatest book ever all I want, it doesn't mean a thing until I actually put in the hours to learn how to make a sentence flow, or develop interesting intriguing characters.

No, greatness requires luck.

Work all you like and greatness will still pass you by.

Hard work and determination only help so far.

[Dienekes]

No, greatness requires luck.

Work all you like and greatness will still pass you by.

Hard work and determination only help so far.

Don't work at all and luck will pass by too.

[druid91]

Don't work at all and luck will pass by too.

Tell that to heirs/heiress'.:smallamused:

[Eldan]

You won't. Get used to it.

You can't just say I want to be great. All great things require work, as much for a man as for a woman. If you want to invent something study engineering, if you want to climb a mountain actually get up and practice rock climbing. Nothing good does not require work, the trick is focusing on what you really want to do and doing it.

I can say I want to write the greatest book ever all I want, it doesn't mean a thing until I actually put in the hours to learn how to make a sentence flow, or develop interesting intriguing characters.

I do work. I am finishing my master's degree in the minimum nine semesters, which few people ever do. I will probably move on to a doctorate after that. I spend my free time reading scientific literature, both inside my field and outside of it. I'm trying to learn to paint and draw, despite sucking at it, because I want to. I used to play the piano for years, despite despising music, mostly because I thought I had something to prove. Gave it up because it was not worth it.

Never, ever dare to tell me I don't work. And never tell me I can't dream of more than I will ever achieve. I have three things in my life: work, roleplaying on the internet and dreaming. And by everything that I respect, no one tells me I don't do what I want and work on it. There is, perhaps, only two things in the world that make me angry. Denying someone's achievements, and denying someone's right to dreams.

[Dienekes]

Tell that to heirs/heiress'.:smallamused:

Are we talking of wealth or greatness? Even heirs and heiresses don't become great just because they were passed down riches.


I do work. I am finishing my master's degree in the minimum nine semesters, which few people ever do. I will probably move on to a doctorate after that. I spend my free time reading scientific literature, both inside my field and outside of it. I'm trying to learn to paint and draw, despite sucking at it, because I want to. I used to play the piano for years, despite despising music, mostly because I thought I had something to prove. Gave it up because it was not worth it.

Congratulations. But I'm curious of the great things you want to accomplish how does what your studying relate?


Never, ever dare to tell me I don't work. And never tell me I can't dream of more than I will ever achieve. I have three things in my life: work, roleplaying on the internet and dreaming. And by everything that I respect, no one tells me I don't do what I want and work on it. There is, perhaps, only two things in the world that make me angry. Denying someone's achievements, and denying someone's right to dreams.

I never said you didn't work, you're the one who said you were lazy. If the above is true then you are anything but lazy. You should be impressed with what you have accomplished and questioning why you felt that such hard work is laziness. All I said was that great things require work, and importantly great things require work dedicated toward what you want to accomplish.

If your dreaming makes you happy, then continue. If it makes you melancholy well, they're your dreams.

[SDF]

Men get Paternity leave.

It is important to strive for an equality of conditions. Equity hampers freedom, and limits what can be achieved on merit. Personally, I don't feel like I have been disenfranchised or discriminated against for being a man. If I have the aptitude and determination I don't believe my sex will hold me back.

[Eldan]

Ecology. It was, perhaps, the closest I could find. If I do it right, I can travel. Looking at things that others have, most likely, already found, but I have not heard about before. Finding out how they work together. Finding a few tiny details in something that is, most likely, already known in the broad strokes.

And yes I'm still lazy. I do things, but I should do more. I should lose weight. I should exercise. I have hours every evening I spend in front of a computer typing words into a box to send to people I will never meet, while spending my life without friends in real life, or even people I talk more than two sentences to at a time. It makes me angry at myself that I can never get off my lazy ass and do all the things I know I should do before I irreversibly get weaker and more flabby than I already am, an old and sad and tired walking corpse that has never achieved anything even worth hammering into a gravestone that will be bulldozed over in a few decades with anyone even batting an eyelid. I spend my weekends sleeping fourteen hours or more a day instead of doing any real work. There's more books I could read, more skills I could learn. People I could meet. I could learn languages, learn to play more instruments. Talk a god-damned walk.

And instead? I sit here on the internet like a lazy slob and whine into a machine. I guess I've found another thing that makes me angry.

[druid91]

Are we talking of wealth or greatness? Even heirs and heiresses don't become great just because they were passed down riches.

But you must admit that with money greatness or a decent enough imitation comes easily enough.

My point is Luck has more to do with it than work, it's a spinning wheel, while Hard work certainly increases your slice of the wheel, it doesn't control where it lands.


Men get Paternity leave.

It is important to strive for an equality of conditions. Equity hampers freedom, and limits what can be achieved on merit. Personally, I don't feel like I have been disenfranchised or discriminated against for being a man. If I have the aptitude and determination I don't believe my sex will hold me back.

Hmmm I never knew that....

[Mono Vertigo]

Oooh boy I hope I won't regret taking part in that thread.

Alright, for starters, this:

You know one thing that always confused me... Why do women complain about being payed less, when they get maturnity leave.

I'm not saying being pregnant is pleasant, but it is a risk employers have to account for.
We don't all get maternity leave. Heck, many of us don't want or expect to get pregnant while having a career. I sure don't want to be pregnant, ever. Also, yes, paternity leaves exist too.
Employers have to account for many risks, not just pregnancy of their female employees. And I don't get why we should earn less because of we might do what society is pressuring us to do anyway: making babies. I'd even say many women take maternity leaves because they earn less to begin with, and it is better to lose a part of the lesser than the bigger salary for obvious reasons. It's a vicious cycle, really.


On-topic now: what makes you think it is an exclusively male issue? What exactly is it you're complaining about: being "forced" to embrace your feminine side if it exists, or not being able to do great things?
In the former case, I'm not sure how the rise of equality between the genders is to blame; it's got more to do with the evolution of civilization in general. Our lives aren't generally as endangered as one or two centuries ago for many, many reasons. We're encouraged to study and have more intellectual, less manual jobs. Therefore, there's a dissonance between the ideal we have of past times, and today's reality.
If it's the latter, see my above response to the former, and I'll say: hey, do you want to do greater things in your lives? Then do them. Man up, and do them. Do these stupid, brave and grandiose things you're dreaming about. But don't think women are exempt of this, because we aren't. I also want to do greater things in my life than put my ass on a chair so I can do meaningless work so I can have a steady but monotone life so I can dream about the things I've wanted to do, without having the youthful energy I once had... that is, if I don't die before I am retired.

Fight Club is one of my favourite movie, but in spite of the interesting philosophy and messages to think about, I wasn't too enthralled by the misogynistic undertones. I guess only men hope that they'll feel more alive if they lose the superfluous? :smallamused:

That post must sound terribly snarky and negative. Please don't kill me, I won't do it again. D:

[Eldan]

On the other hand, at least in Switzerland, Women don't have to go through recruitment and don't have to pay military taxes. That's a point for them, I think.

[Xyk]

I don't know why there has to be masculine activities and feminine activities at all. Is there some reason we can't just have activities? I believe in treating the genders as if they were the same. If two potential fire fighters want the same position, one with boy parts and one with girl parts, then the decision should be entirely merit-based. If men dominate the field, then so be it.

I, despite having boy parts, consider myself a human being. That is my only classification.

[Trog]

You want men to be better? Then man up and make it happen.

Bravo to the women who work hard and kick ass. Good on ya.

Sitcoms, etc: Everyone's a joke and/or 2-dimensional in them in some way shape or form in them - women and men alike. Deal.

You want wilderness? Go buy some land and build a log cabin - follow the footsteps of Richard Proenneke. Dude wasn't a neandethal and at fifty was manlier than most of this forum's males combined.

Above all, you want the world to be more manly? Better? … well here's some advice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5vz6iwV38U) for you from a rather ironic source.


NOW ALL YOU
SO-CALLED MEN
DROP & GIVE TROG
TWENTY!!
:furious:

[Mono Vertigo]

On the other hand, at least in Switzerland, Women don't have to go through recruitment and don't have to pay military taxes. That's a point for them, I think.

That's only a point for me because I'd personally rather avoid any and all involvement in military stuff. If that was a viable idea though, I'd like everyone, men and women alike, to be free from such obligations.
Or everyone suffer the same obligations, but I shouldn't have to tell you why I'd rather nobody paid anything, than the opposite. Nobody enjoys paying for anything, and I sure don't. :smallwink:

EDIT: thanks, Trog, for saying it more concisely and better than I did. :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Oh, thanks Trog. A video that doesn't work in this country and a shouted order I can't follow :smalltongue: (No, I can't do twenty. Having both lung and heart problems is, well, a problem).

[Trog]

Oh, thanks Trog. A video that doesn't work in this country and a shouted order I can't follow :smalltongue: (No, I can't do twenty. Having both lung and heart problems is, well, a problem).

It's Man in the Mirror by Michael Jackson.

Then do what amount you can do. Gotta start somewhere.

@v Two it is. Begin. :smallamused:

[Eldan]

On a good day, I can do two. But then my arms hurt for half an hour :smalltongue:

I said I'm a wimp.

[Emperor Ing]

Gosh Eldan, you and I are almost complete opposites. :smalltongue:

Anyways, in commercials, all men and women think and act exactly alike. At least, within their respective commercial they do.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Meh. I can't be bothered to comment.

[druid91]

I don't know why there has to be masculine activities and feminine activities at all. Is there some reason we can't just have activities? I believe in treating the genders as if they were the same. If two potential fire fighters want the same position, one with boy parts and one with girl parts, then the decision should be entirely merit-based. If men dominate the field, then so be it.

I, despite having boy parts, consider myself a human being. That is my only classification.

This, though sometimes I am loath to admit it, I am human... at least until we get to the point where I can graft so much metal onto me that there is no flesh left to graft to.[/madmandream]


Meh. I can't be bothered to comment.

So you stopped by to comment that you can't be bothered to comment?:smallconfused:

[Lord Raziere]

I don't know why there has to be masculine activities and feminine activities at all. Is there some reason we can't just have activities? I believe in treating the genders as if they were the same. If two potential fire fighters want the same position, one with boy parts and one with girl parts, then the decision should be entirely merit-based. If men dominate the field, then so be it.

I, despite having boy parts, consider myself a human being. That is my only classification.

I agree, this is my stance as well.

[Terraoblivion]

Looking at you all wishing for the good old days of traditional gender roles, I get the feeling you are all missing something. Any system of cultural inequality is ultimately constricting and oppressive to both the group in the superior position and the one in the inferior position. The latter is naturally more visible as their oppression comes with fewer outwards benefits, women in Victorian England or ancient Greece didn't get much in exchange for their completely subordination to the men. However, that does not mean that men that the men who achieved the position of dominance in the household were free from cultural expression bred from this dichotomy.

In order to justify male superiority as well as to distinguish between what was male and what was female, the field of acceptable gender expression for men was hardly any broader than that for women. If we look at the archetypal example of traditional gender roles and the one that relates the most closely to our modern day perception of them, the middle and upper class of Victorian England, a lot of limitations were placed on the gender expression of men. The Victorian man was strong and capable and always in perfect control of his emotions, acting purely rationally as he pursued healthy sports and was willing to fight for his country. The limitations inherent in this perception should be obvious. Men disinterested in physical activity or who held views clashing with the nationalist ideals at the time would have faced severe bullying as they grew up, being specifically taunted and attacked for being effeminate and by extension weak. Similarly men who showed too much emotion, especially if that emotion wasn't anger, would face similar prejudice as he was clearly not capable of keeping the proper masculine calm. This led to a society where it was hard, if not impossible, for men to truly express any caring or nurturing feelings they might have had, including towards their wife and children, just like the ability for a man to avoid being forced to participate in sports they did not enjoy was slim. While not as oppressive as not being allowed to participate in society in general the way women were, these norms hardly did anything to set men free to express themselves, they were bound to stay within a narrow set of acceptable gender expression to avoid social scorn for being effeminate. If you are interested in learning more about this aspect of Victorian culture I would recommend looking into the life of Danish author Herman Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Bang), as he is the perfect embodiment of the persecution of men who fell outside accepted male gender roles.

Even leaving this concern aside, the ideas of what is inherently masculine presented are strongly based on the cultural norms we grew up with. Looking at some of the most strongly gendered societies we know such as 18th century Europe, Edo period Japan or ancient Greece, we find that the gender roles expressed are hardly similar to the borderline caveman mentality presented as natural for men today.

Ideas such as enjoyment of art, fashion or complex, delicate cuisine somehow being feminine did not exist in any of these societies. Indeed as a commonality between them all was that fine art and high culture was considered primarily the domain of men, indeed in ancient Greece many products of their culture were outright banned to women. The comedies and tragedies of Athens were only shown to a male audience and the entire tradition of rhetorics was reserved for the political debates of men. While art was somewhat more egalitarian in the other two societies I'm using as an example, the creation of it was still almost exclusively the domain of men and there was no stigma shown in men listening to opera in Europe or watching Noh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noh) in Japan. Examples of the consciousness of fashion among men at the French court at Versailles are obvious, with the elaborate wigs and elaborate coats just being some of the most visible examples of pure fashion statements. The art of Edo period Japan show much the same trend, with male samurai putting considerable effort into their appearance. Really, go look at some if you don't trust me. And for the food, the idea that men and women eat different food is mostly a product of post-war women's magazines, before that food wasn't gendered and men were as likely to eat ice cream as women and steak was just as much for women as for men.

Looking at how the people of these cultures, not as much Greece as the other two, chose to have themselves portrayed, we don't exactly get much of an impression of the burly, muscular and hairy guys who represent the archetypal image of masculinity today. Rather they had clearly put effort into hair removal and tended to be quite slender in both Japan and France, at least when it wasn't the occasional accurate picture showing them as pudgy or even fat. Though that still doesn't exactly correspond to modern conceptions of masculinity.

And let's not forget that in both ancient Greece and pre-industrial Japan, it was completely masculine for men to have sex with other men, as long as they were the dominant party in the act.

In short, what you talk about as self-evident masculinity is not only created culturally and has not been found in a number of societies that can hardly be blamed for trying to force femininity on men, it is also ultimately limiting to the ability of men to express themselves.

[RPGuru1331]

Women, in comparison, flourish. Women are more likely to graduate high school these days. For the first time in history, there are more women in the work force than men. Female college and university students have higher averages than men, and are more likely to graduate within four years. Six out of every ten people holding an advanced degree are women today
Are you familiar with the pay, promotion, and hiring gaps? That men complete fewer degrees has made not one tiny dent in their superior pay, even after controlling for other factors. Similarly, hiring and promotion favor men (The latter even in fields 'dominated' by women, such as teaching and nursing). Women do not flourish; Women only graduate college and high school more.


We live in a society which increasingly seems to think that man, the male and masculinity is somehow obsolete, and that modern man has somehow forgotten old fashioned masculinity
It only does if by 'old fashioned masculinity' you mean 'Is charged with the maintenance of rationality and culture', in which case, yes, that concept of masculinity is dying in favor of a boor who lacks for sense and still gets everything handed to them anyway.


You only have to look at the media to see the mockery that is heaped upon men and masculinity.
Is this the same media that can only with great effort, produce women who aren't satellite characters? Every blockbuster still has a male lead with an at best tangential female leads. The only remotely useful ones I recall from 'recent' movie memory would be Red and The Losers' women. I suppose Unknown gets a tangential benefit. Fair warning, haven't seen Pirates 4 yet. I'm not the biggest movie person, but come on; female main characters are still exceedingly rare in the media, and especially in anything not specifically intended for women (Which is typically labelled a niche; See Romance for an example).



Many have noticed the Melancholy of the Modern Man. The Atlantic's Hanna Rosin went so far as to say that "The End of Men" is upon us.
Yes, I'm familiar with this refrain, but that doesn't make it accurate.



So if you are like me and you feel this melancholy, but you don't want to be some kind of touchy-feely weepy douchebag with a ponytail and a sweater vest, and you also don't want to be some kind of neo-Neanderthal, what is the solution?
To quote Dogbert, "Excuse me while I go take a wicked wag."


I'm calling for equality. I demand animated TV shows air Man Power episodes,
That would be 'every episode except the woman power episodes'.


the next male Supreme Court nominee be declared "historic"
Then he better be gay, bi, trans, disabled, or non-white. Nominating a straight, cissexual, upper class, able-bodied white male for a position of power isn't a paradigm shift.


and to stop being called "sexist" whenever I call shenanigans regarding straw feminism.
Only to replace it with 'priviledged'.


Honestly, this isn't empowering anyone at all.
It is easy to say this when you are not the one being given the message.


It's supposedly sexist to imply that men are better suited for some roles than women, but it's also true. he average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman. Some jobs will require that asset, like construction work or fighting fires.
The difference in strength between men and women is so small as to not matter in individual cases. It doesn't require a woman to be superwomanly strong to work as a firefighter, only to have to work somewhat harder at it than a male. It's more that women aren't supported in actually building their strength; they may only work out to burn off calories. The average man is no more capable of doing a firefighter's job than the average woman; both are incapable. The training, both in skills and physical capacity, is far more important.

So yes, it is sexist to say that men are better suited at something that culture plays a bigger role in than anything.


The problem is that in western society, and certainly in American society, an overly-sensitive and excessively-litigious group has controlled the discussion.
Excuse me while I go take a wicked wag. Straight, Able-bodied, middle and upper class white men control discourse in the US.


Men are better at some things than women, but to say so is somehow unacceptable. Women are better at some things than men, but to say so is somehow enlightened.
No, culture only has men and women pointed at different roles. There is precious little evidence of actual differences in biology.


People can be vastly different and still of equal worth.
The direction this is being applied in is either hilarious or depressing. I'm not sure which.


I think that the whole problem could potentially be avoided if more 20 to 30 year olds were not essentially allowed by our cultural norms to sit around only being students, regardless of actual student performance, for far longer than at any time in earlier human history.
You are confusing cultural norms with economic realities. If you can study right now, you should; trying to get a job in this market is brutalizing.


(These are the statistics in Sweden, i don't know about elsewhere i admit.)
The pay, hiring, and promotion gaps are more or less global.


You know one thing that always confused me... Why do women complain about being payed less, when they get maturnity leave.
Let me unconfuse you; Men are supposed to get paternity leave. It's not just for the mother; it's for the parents and the children.



But yes I'm annoyed with the general trend to view equality as Lets beat up on those who were originally higher.
Trailer Guy Voice: IN A WORLD WHERE MEN ARE THE MARGINALIZED MINORITY, I'll stand by them. That's not really any modern society, so I will stand with women.


In short, what you talk about as self-evident masculinity is not only created culturally and has not been found in a number of societies that can hardly be blamed for trying to force femininity on men, it is also ultimately limiting to the ability of men to express themselves.
To summarize, "Patriarchy hurts men too". It hurts men who want to relax and not be competitive. It hurts men who aren't straight, or who have 'feminine' interests. It hurts men who want to actually spend time with their children, or be the primary caregiver. It just hurts every woman, period, additionally.

[Crow]

Quit complaining and go do your work.

At least that's what I've always felt, and so far it's worked for me rather well.

If you feel like masculinity means being a fighter go join the army, if your view of masculinity is being a provider go shoot for a high paying career, sitting back and philosophizing about lost gender roles will get you nowhere.

This doesn't mean being feminine, I don't think anyone has ever accused me of such anyway. But find something to do and actually go do it. The solution to getting more men in the work force is to go look for jobs. The solution to getting more men in college is to apply to college and work your arse off to get your degree.

Thank you for this.

[TheLaughingMan]

Looking at you all wishing for the good old days of traditional gender roles,

Not necessarily. I'd personally just like us to strive for equality, rather than put one side or another down. I love to see women in the army, or being C.E.O.s, or just generally making a name for themselves. I just don't want to have to be degraded by popular culture for that to happen.

[druid91]

Trailer Guy Voice: IN A WORLD WHERE MEN ARE THE MARGINALIZED MINORITY, I'll stand by them. That's not really any modern society, so I will stand with women.

And I'll stand with the homunculi.:smallamused:

And to be honest. Men may not be marginalized yet but we have gone long past the point where gender equality was.

Personally I really don't care as gender was pretty much rendered obsolete with the advent of genetic engineering/cloning.

[CynicalAvocado]

a "Malaise of Manliness", you say?

i just happened to have this open in my other tab

the cure for the modern male malaise (http://artofmanliness.com/2011/05/09/the-cure-for-the-modern-male-malaise-the-5-switches-of-manliness/)

[Zen Monkey]

The difference in strength between men and women is so small as to not matter in individual cases. It doesn't require a woman to be superwomanly strong to work as a firefighter, only to have to work somewhat harder at it than a male. It's more that women aren't supported in actually building their strength; they may only work out to burn off calories. The average man is no more capable of doing a firefighter's job than the average woman; both are incapable. The training, both in skills and physical capacity, is far more important.

The average man has significantly more muscle mass and strength than the average woman. A job that requires exerting X pounds of force will be more easily done by someone who can exert a number closer to X rather than further from X. This makes no claim about inherent worth, only about suitability to a certain task. Another example, the police departments in my state require men to be able to bench press 125% of their body weight and run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes. The women must bench press 50% of their body weight and do the same run in 14 minutes. However, they will be performing the same job upon graduation. The military has the same rules. Either do away with the requirements, or make them match. The job either requires the ability to perform a certain physical feat, or it doesn't.


No, culture only has men and women pointed at different roles. There is precious little evidence of actual differences in biology.

Average height, average weight, or average life span all make us different by biology. Why is acknowledging our differences sexist? This was the point in saying that differences are not value judgments, simply acceptance of statistics. The man who lives longer than most women is a statistical outlier, as is the woman who is able to lift more than most men.


The direction this is being applied in is either hilarious or depressing. I'm not sure which.

Condescension does not make you clever.


Let me unconfuse you; Men are supposed to get paternity leave. It's not just for the mother; it's for the parents and the children.

American companies are not required to offer equal benefits for maternity/paternity leave. Some may, but certainly not all. My employer, a well-known Fortune 100 company offers anywhere from 6-12 months for women (normal to extenuating circumstances) and 2 days for men.

[Crow]

RPGGuru1331;

The difference in strength between men and women is significant. Men have far more muscle mass by default. A 180lb human lifting 100lbs will be far different than a 115lb human lifting 100lbs. Add to this, women are more likely to carry a greater portion of that weight as body fat (by percentage), and the gap grows.

Look at any sport where men and women train specifically for strength, such as olympic weightlifting, and the difference is clear. Neither sex trains "harder" than the other, or has appreciably different diet and training as the other. These are human beings who train to reach the (currently known) peaks of human potential, and men lead the field.

Even if you factor loads in relation to bodyweight, men are ahead.

[Nerd-o-rama]

What I'd like to hear is why averages are relevant to a discussion where we're looking for a society that treats people as individuals, not men or women. I mean, that's the only way to have actual equality, right? Or is there some mysterious new way to go about that?

[DeadManSleeping]

Equality will never happen until all people ARE truly equal. Meaning identical. Meaning it will never happen. Because humans.

Whatever statistics may say, I'm not going to go blaming some female regime if I have trouble in life. The fact that other males are listless and ambitionless doesn't affect how listless and ambitionless I am. I make my own failures, thank you very much.

[RPGuru1331]

And to be honest. Men may not be marginalized yet but we have gone long past the point where gender equality was.
In the sense that men are still the dominant gender in society, yes, this is true. Women possess substantially less power in modern societies. We tend to think things are okay because they're permitted by law to leave the home and enter the workplace, but that doesn't really make it so.

Oh, right, the other main reason people say men have less power, sitcoms and commercials. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry at that rather pervasive thought.


The average man has significantly more muscle mass and strength than the average woman. A job that requires exerting X pounds of force will be more easily done by someone who can exert a number closer to X rather than further from X. This makes no claim about inherent worth, only about suitability to a certain task. Another example, the police departments in my state require men to be able to bench press 125% of their body weight and run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes. The women must bench press 50% of their body weight and do the same run in 14 minutes. However, they will be performing the same job upon graduation. The military has the same rules. Either do away with the requirements, or make them match. The job either requires the ability to perform a certain physical feat, or it doesn't.
Sigh. We live in cultures where all physical tasks are performed by men; of COURSE men on average have more muscle mass. If there's an actual, biological difference, I suspect it's small. All that matters is that an individual woman can perform the job.


Why is acknowledging our differences sexist?
Height and weight are irrelevant. Life span much less so, but the reasons for those differences are as yet unknown. We already know there's significant disparity in how men and women are treated in a number of situations that can alter lifespan averages.


Why is acknowledging our differences sexist?
Because pretty much the only one of those things that isn't culturally affected is height. If I only ever saw people 'comparing biology' to make height comparisons, then I would agree that referring to the practice as a sexist act would be OTT. In the real world, however, we have people who will constantly make claims about how important the 'biological' differences are, when aside from height, and who plays what role in reproduction, the best evidence we have suggests that the differences between men and women are primarily cultural. By looking to 'biology', instead of culture, you reinforce structures and beliefs that are sexist, and contribute to the systematic deprivation of rights and opportunities to women; therefore, looking to biology is a sexist act.


Condescension does not make you clever.
You're aware that the statement "You can be equal without being the same", has a long history of being used to justify amazingly sexist power structures, yes? You're also aware that women are the group with substantially less power, and when they fight for equality, must do so in the face of staunch opposition, no matter how large or small? Then why point that phrase at women, instead of at the society that overvalues men in comparison?


American companies are not required to offer equal benefits for maternity/paternity leave. Some may, but certainly not all. My employer, a well-known Fortune 100 company offers anywhere from 6-12 months for women (normal to extenuating circumstances) and 2 days for men.
Yes, I know. What was your point? Men should get paternity leave, and women should get equal pay. Neither of these is the case in the US (The latter is not anywhere), but that isn't to say they shouldn't be.


Look at any sport where men and women train specifically for strength, such as olympic weightlifting, and the difference is clear. Neither sex trains "harder" than the other, or has appreciably different diet and training as the other. These are human beings who train to reach the (currently known) peaks of human potential, and men lead the field.
And the difference is STILL surmountable between individuals, and not particularly large, IIRC. 2 seconds on google shows me that at least one woman holds world championship records in her weight class.

If the average differences were only held up to say the averages are different, and not to then say "Therefore, men should do X and women should do Y", I would not find a single solitary reason to care. In the real world, however..

[Xyk]

a "Malaise of Manliness", you say?

i just happened to have this open in my other tab

the cure for the modern male malaise (http://artofmanliness.com/2011/05/09/the-cure-for-the-modern-male-malaise-the-5-switches-of-manliness/)

Most of the OP was copied and pasted directly from that article. Gotcha, OP!

[Urist]

My two cents, as a man. If there are inequalities for men, we men have ourselves created them. We do not graduate as often because we do not apply ourselves. We do not get paternity leave because we do not fight for it. We have different standards for women then men and are abused in the media because we make ourselves abuse targets with our (collective) behavior. We have the power to change these things(and unfortunately for equality, a lot of other power as well) but instead of fighting for true equality in all areas, we sit on our butts and do nothing to change things. Don't blame society without first looking at yourself.

[RebelRogue]

Sigh. We live in cultures where all physical tasks are performed by men; of COURSE men on average have more muscle mass. If there's an actual, biological difference, I suspect it's small.
Sorry, but that's just plain out wrong. As Crow pointed out this is pretty distinct. Why is it such a no-no to acknowledge biological differences between the sexes these days?

[DeadManSleeping]

Sigh. We live in cultures where all physical tasks are performed by men; of COURSE men on average have more muscle mass. If there's an actual, biological difference, I suspect it's small. All that matters is that an individual woman can perform the job.

This is an area in which I'm fairly certain there's a decent biological difference. I know a good number of fit women, who participate regularly in athletic events and exercise and stuff. I, on the other hand, eat badly and don't do much regular exercise. And yet, I would win a great many contests of strength with these women. So would most of the other lazy guys I know. Am I saying that a woman can't kick a guy's butt? No. That's not true. Women can compete with men just fine. Being a woman does not prevent someone from being the strongest person. However, if you took 100 babies, 50 women and 50 men, and gave them the exact same activities for 20 years, I bet that if you checked, the guys would be able to lift more and hit things harder. Biology: it does stuff.

There are probably other pervasive biological trends of differences. If biology can affect how much fat goes into each part of the body, why is it so wrong to say that it also affects the muscle? Or the brain chemistry?

I'm not saying that a biological trend justifies any kind of cultural "gender superiority". It's complete bull to discriminate against a person entering a competition because "statistically, the near-50% of the human population that you share a sexual function with has an overall 4% performance difference from the other near-50%". But that's not a reason to say that the statistic is a lie, or is deceptive. The use of a fact being incorrect does not make a fact incorrect.

[RPGuru1331]

As Crow pointed out this is pretty distinct.
Crow's example is sports, which doesn't seem very uneven from casual olympics observation and a few seconds looking at a few world's strongest records, among others.


Why is it such a no-no to acknowledge biological differences between the sexes these days?

To wit:

By looking to 'biology', instead of culture, you reinforce structures and beliefs that are sexist, and contribute to the systematic deprivation of rights and opportunities to women

[Worira]

Sigh. We live in cultures where all physical tasks are performed by men; of COURSE men on average have more muscle mass. If there's an actual, biological difference, I suspect it's small. All that matters is that an individual woman can perform the job.


Why are you stating that all that matters is that an individual woman can perform the job, as if the person you're quoting disagrees with that? The whole point is that women have less stringent physical requirements for certain jobs, for no good reason.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Equality will never happen until all people ARE truly equal. Meaning identical. Meaning it will never happen. Because humans.

Whatever statistics may say, I'm not going to go blaming some female regime if I have trouble in life. The fact that other males are listless and ambitionless doesn't affect how listless and ambitionless I am. I make my own failures, thank you very much.

I respect your decision to be accountable for your own non-actions, but I have to disagree with the first paragraph, simply as a believer in the principle of equality. Contrary to what the US Declaration of Independence appears to say, all "men" - and all people - are not created equal. What is true, though, and what we have the right to demand as sapient human beings, is the right to be equal, to have equal treatment under the law and by society. Both (well, let's be fully inclusive here, all) sexes are constricted by society, the law, and business and the economy in pretty much every society in the world, some more than others. Contrary to my snark post at the top of this page, I believe it is the moral imperative of every sapient human being to work towards a world where this is not the case; where everyone is treated as an equally respected individual regardless of what arbitrary distinction like race, sex, religion, or whatever separates them.

Ideally, society doesn't expect anything "of men" or "of women", but instead everyone is free to act however they please as long as it hurts no one, whether it's John Smith appreciating fine art or Jane Doe kicking back a beer after a hard day paving the freeway. Neither should be looked down upon for any action that's not harmful.

[druid91]

Sorry, but that's just plain out wrong. As Crow pointed out this is pretty distinct. Why is it such a no-no to acknowledge biological differences between the sexes these days?
Because it messes with the idea that with hard work and determination you can do anything.

Which is Nonsense, you need luck.

Crow's example is sports, which doesn't seem very uneven from casual olympics observation and a few seconds looking at a few world's strongest records, among others.



To wit:

No you don't. What you do is simply state an uncomfortable truth. No amount of complaining or belief will make a thing true.

[Dienekes]

Crow's example is sports, which doesn't seem very uneven from casual olympics observation and a few seconds looking at a few world's strongest records, among others.

To wit:

This is frankly ridiculous. Muscle growth has been tied to Haemoglobin which is increased through Testosterone. Men naturally have more Testosterone than woman and so they can gain more muscle more efficiently than woman. Saying that's sexist is like saying "Girls start growing faster than boys" is sexist. It's simple science and putting labels on it as anything other than science is ignorant.

[RPGuru1331]

Why are you stating that all that matters is that an individual woman can perform the job, as if the person you're quoting disagrees with that? The whole point is that women have less stringent physical requirements for certain jobs, for no good reason.
If that's all he wanted to focus on, the 10 seconds it would take to confirm that women aren't permitted in front line combat roles in the US military would in fact tell him they're not really applying for the same jobs.

And whether he disagrees with it or not, what he's saying reinforces it.


No you don't. What you do is simply state an uncomfortable truth.
Yes, you do. When you laugh at a sexist or racist joke, for instance, it reinforces and helps permit that same sexism or racism. And when, in a discussion on how gender inequality arises, you go to biology, you reinforce that the differences are primarily biological, as if women's diminished societal power is really related to their primarily culturally primed (And they are; most people are not training for physical roles their job demands, period) physical weakness.

You don't exist in a vacuum apart from society. You are part of it. It affects you, and you affect it, although the latter in smaller ways than the former.


This is frankly ridiculous. Muscle growth has been tied to Haemoglobin which is increased through Testosterone. Men naturally have more Testosterone than woman and so they can gain more muscle more efficiently than woman. Saying that's sexist is like saying "Girls start growing faster than boys" is sexist. It's simple science and putting labels on it as anything other than science is ignorant.
Repeating irrelevant factoids isn't science, and particularly not when you use those irrelevant factoids to exacerbate structural inequalities against women. Calling it science does a gross disrespect to the method, and the people who do science.

[DeadManSleeping]

*snip*

I'm not speakin' as to what's morally right. I'm talking about what humans are actually like. It's not morally right to kill each other, but WHOOPS we still do it all the time. And we've had taboos against it since before the first law was written, so I don't think that's ever changing. Not as long as we are still recognizably the same as the human race that we are now and have been throughout history (which, granted, may not be for very long, depending on how soon we make true AI or kill ourselves or something along those lines).

In short, I think we're looking at a future like this (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1726#comic)

[The Rose Dragon]

To be fair, we are not sure how the gap started. Males and females might have been almost indistinguishable except for their sexual organs, and the current physical differences may be completely attributable to artificial selection for certain traits. Even if not, it may have been exacerbated though the same process. So, it is possible that it is all because of sexism.

Highly unlikely, but possible.

[Misery Esquire]

In the sense that men are still the dominant gender in society, yes, this is true. Women possess substantially less power in modern societies. We tend to think things are okay because they're permitted by law to leave the home and enter the workplace, but that doesn't really make it so.


Well, starting poorly. Less power? Women have always had power, whether or not society officially supported that it exsisted. Now-a-days they have the same power, and the ability to demand political correctness. Is this a bad thing? No. When people continously cram it down other people's throats for daring to point out the flaws in "everyone is equal forever"? That's terrible. "Being repressed" isn't a cover-all for the fact that there are differences between people.



Sigh. We live in cultures where all physical tasks are performed by men; of COURSE men on average have more muscle mass. If there's an actual, biological difference, I suspect it's small. All that matters is that an individual woman can perform the job.


...What is this I don't even.

Biologically women have a lower muscle-to-weight ratio. Yes, a woman can break this mark, just like a man can fatten up or lack muscle and break it. It's still a general guideline.

And even from there, the female officers have lower physical requirements for the same job. Not noticing anything strange there?



Height and weight are irrelevant. Life span much less so, but the reasons for those differences are as yet unknown. We already know there's significant disparity in how men and women are treated in a number of situations that can alter lifespan averages.

How about hormones? Growth? Mentalities? The fact that we have two different sexes that are... well, different?



Because pretty much the only one of those things that isn't culturally affected is height. If I only ever saw people 'comparing biology' to make height comparisons, then I would agree that referring to the practice as a sexist act would be OTT. In the real world, however, we have people who will constantly make claims about how important the 'biological' differences are, when aside from height, and who plays what role in reproduction, the best evidence we have suggests that the differences between men and women are primarily cultural. By looking to 'biology', instead of culture, you reinforce structures and beliefs that are sexist, and contribute to the systematic deprivation of rights and opportunities to women; therefore, looking to biology is a sexist act.

...I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. Well, I mean. I understand what you've written. But it has nothing to do with what you quoted.



You're aware that the statement "You can be equal without being the same", has a long history of being used to justify amazingly sexist power structures, yes? You're also aware that women are the group with substantially less power, and when they fight for equality, must do so in the face of staunch opposition, no matter how large or small? Then why point that phrase at women, instead of at the society that overvalues men in comparison?


...You're aware that it's true, right? Being the same is equality, but it's not required as long as everyone involved has a brain to think things through. Opposition? The fight for the vote is over. The fight to be employed in the same places is over. I always see arguments on the internet that women get paid less, but whenever I investigate I don't find the proof that with the same qualifications they get less pay. Does this make that untrue? No. But I don't have anything aside from "statistics" from whatever source to support that.



Yes, I know. What was your point? Men should get paternity leave, and women should get equal pay. Neither of these is the case in the US (The latter is not anywhere), but that isn't to say they shouldn't be.

Men don't get paternity leave in the majority of places, mostly because they don't have a physical burden in the situation, which is what the corperations consider the most. Mental/emotional burden is something people should/could work past. (In Corperate opinion)



And the difference is STILL surmountable between individuals, and not particularly large, IIRC. 2 seconds on google shows me that at least one woman holds world championship records in her weight class.


Those few seconds, those few centimeters is a huge difference, really. I can run the 100m sprint in 15s, which is, somewhat, unimpressive. 9s? That's the world record.



If the average differences were only held up to say the averages are different, and not to then say "Therefore, men should do X and women should do Y", I would not find a single solitary reason to care. In the real world, however..

The averages are held up as averages. That's why they're called averages. And with an average, you know what, the average fe/male can do. This does show that Men will perform better at X than Women. It doesn't mean that women shouldn't do it, just that the average man against the average woman in that job will show a preferable result on the male side. The same is true in Job Y for Women against Men, with them having the favourable result. It's averages, and when considering hiring, they work by considering everyone to be the average. If you can prove you've surpassed that line, congradulations, otherwise the company is going to assume you are average.

[druid91]

Yes, you do. When you laugh at a sexist or racist joke, for instance, it reinforces and helps permit that same sexism or racism. And when, in a discussion on how gender inequality arises, you go to biology, you reinforce that the differences are primarily biological, as if women's diminished societal power is really related to their primarily culturally primed (And they are; most people are not training for physical roles their job demands, period) physical weakness.

You don't exist in a vacuum apart from society. You are part of it. It affects you, and you affect it, although the latter in smaller ways than the former.

Except it's not a joke, It's a simple scientific fact. IS it possible to overcome? Yes. But is that the norm, no. And the norm is what you must bet on. A green marble drops out of a hole in the ceiling 9 times out of ten, are you going to bet on the one orange?

[Dienekes]

Repeating irrelevant factoids isn't science, and particularly not when you use those irrelevant factoids to exacerbate structural inequalities against women. Calling it science does a gross disrespect to the method, and the people who do science.

Of course talking isn't science. Science is using the scientific method to prove a hypothesis or more likely disprove everything else. We have shown that males develop muscles faster through testosterone. I don't see what denying this fact is anything but self deception.

Also how does this exacerbate structural inequalities exactly? Sure a random woman is probably weaker than a random man. So what? We're in a modern society filled with technological marvels Strength is a dump stat. Just because I am relatively strong doesn't make me superior to any number of weaker men. Just because woman are statistically (not even individually) weaker does not make men superior to woman.

People are unequal, there are a million people weaker, taller, stronger, smarter, dumber than me. It means nothing, and ignoring that is ridiculous.


To be fair, we are not sure how the gap started. Males and females might have been almost indistinguishable except for their sexual organs, and the current physical differences may be completely attributable to artificial selection for certain traits. Even if not, it may have been exacerbated though the same process. So, it is possible that it is all because of sexism.

Highly unlikely, but possible.

I thought it was a mammal specific kind of thing. Though admittedly I haven't studied much of this.

[Xyk]

The averages are held up as averages. That's why they're called averages. And with an average, you know what, the average fe/male can do. This does show that Men will perform better at X than Women. It doesn't mean that women shouldn't do it, just that the average man against the average woman in that job will show a preferable result on the male side. The same is true in Job Y for Women against Men, with them having the favourable result. It's averages, and when considering hiring, they work by considering everyone to be the average. If you can prove you've surpassed that line, congradulations, otherwise the company is going to assume you are average.

Well that's a part of society that I can't accept. I don't see the difference between accepting men over women based on the average qualities of each and accepting whites over blacks in an academic environment, just because statistically, an average white person has a better education than an average black person. People are individuals and should be treated as individuals, not parts of a group.

[Misery Esquire]

Well that's a part of society that I can't accept. I don't see the difference between accepting men over women based on the average qualities of each and accepting whites over blacks in an academic environment, just because statistically, an average white person has a better education than an average black person. People are individuals and should be treated as individuals, not parts of a group.

And that's a perfectly valid thing to want, but it would require, massively?, additional beaurocracy to manage to have in today's society. Because they'd have to run individual interviews with eeeveryone that applies instead of glancing at a resume to see what qualifications they have and making assumptions from there.

[Xyk]

And that's a perfectly valid thing to want, but it would require, massively?, additional beaurocracy to manage to have in today's society. Because they'd have to run individual interviews with eeeveryone that applies instead of glancing at a resume to see what qualifications they have and making assumptions from there.

Alternatively, something simple like removing race and sex from resumes. That would leave only merit, right? I'm actually quite young and haven't applied for a real job or written a resume.

[druid91]

Really I still don't see why it matters. It's only a matter of time before gender is a pointless quality.

What does it matter if your chemistry would have left you weaker when your robotic exoskeleton can toss a truck over it's shoulder?

[Kris Strife]

Alternatively, something simple like removing race and sex from resumes. That would leave only merit, right? I'm actually quite young and haven't applied for a real job or written a resume.

Luck, what letter of the alphabet your name starts with and who you know.

[Misery Esquire]

Alternatively, something simple like removing race and sex from resumes. That would leave only merit, right? I'm actually quite young and haven't applied for a real job or written a resume.

You don't need to include sex/race in resumes. So they make flat assumptions. It's a bother, since then it's up to the person liking your name or page layout.

[Xyk]

Ah. I always forget that people are, by and large, lazy and irrational. That is a shame.

[Coidzor]

I must admit, being told that I was a low-down, no good, dirty rapist and deserved to die just for having male genitalia as a child on the cusp of adolescence and on many, many occasions since then has been most unpleasant, annoying, and bewildering.

Not nearly as bewildering as being told that I was a bad boy for being bigger and stronger than the girls when I was supposed to be smaller and weaker due to the way childhood works leading up to the onset of puberty, but still pretty unpleasant, and, by my estimation, most rude and inappropriate.

[RPGuru1331]

Women have always had power, whether or not society officially supported that it exsisted.
And it was almost always less.

Now-a-days they have the same power
Congratulations, you have forced me to educate you.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/19/40937574.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html#The%20Study
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/04/14/if-congress-looked-like-us/
For an opener. More will ensue if you truly believe this inaccurate fact, and require more substantial evidence. They possess, on paper, the exact same legal rights as men. That doesn't give them remotely equivalent levels of influence, power, prestige, or opportunity.

It's somewhat better elsewhere, but not by a lot, if you're USAnian. It gets a lot worse in some places, and that unfortunately also means it's more difficult to get people to understand, as you've just demonstrated. "You've got the vote and the right to work, clearly we're equal now" is a popular, and inaccurate, sentiment.


and the ability to demand political correctness.
Nonironic use of the term 'political correctness' says volumes, really. It tells me you don't really understand how that term is used as an attempt to silence people working for equality, for instance.


When people continously cram it down other people's throats for daring to point out the flaws in "everyone is equal forever"? That's terrible. "Being repressed" isn't a cover-all for the fact that there are differences between people.
Those differences, if innate, can not be sussed out in our current culture. A more eloquent speaker than I, for instance..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeBPSvcNZQ&t=61m30s




Biologically women have a lower muscle-to-weight ratio. Yes, a woman can break this mark, just like a man can fatten up or lack muscle and break it. It's still a general guideline.
...And you don't see how that could be culturally sustained, despite being aware that it's possible to break those bounds yourself.


And even from there, the female officers have lower physical requirements for the same job. Not noticing anything strange there?
Considering only NCOs are really front line combat who need it, not really (And women NCOs are STILL not front line combat). What do you want me to say, the physical requirements for COs should be abolished? Sure, I don't give a damn about them. I think they're just there for camaraderie with the peons. Maybe that's more important than I'm guessing and I am wrong to not care, but they're irrelevant to the job itself.



How about hormones? Growth? Mentalities? The fact that we have two different sexes that are... well, different?
Much of which can be shaped by need, and thus, culture. The sex differences seem to affect little.



...I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. Well, I mean. I understand what you've written. But it has nothing to do with what you quoted.
The poster asked why what he was doing was sexist. I answered the question, filling in background from cultural context. I answered his question as asked, that's kind of got EVERYTHING to do with what he said.




...You're aware that it's true, right?
Yes. That's why I'm your equal, even though you don't work in the same field as me, at the same position as me, with the exact same qualifications and with the exact same life experiences. The fact that it's true is why it's such an effective smokescreen for sexist structures of power. Of course we can be different but equal.... so why can't you be equal in that you get to do all the thankless jobs society hates, with no agency except that which I lend you, while I be equal by having all the agency and power in the relationship, and most of the credit for nice things that happen in it?


The fight to be employed in the same places is over.
A number of women want active combat duty in the military, actually. Further, women are barred by custom from numerous jobs, some dangerous, that they are not permitted to do.

I always see arguments on the internet that women get paid less, but whenever I investigate I don't find the proof that with the same qualifications they get less pay. Does this make that untrue? No. But I don't have anything aside from "statistics" from whatever source to support that.
Let me correct that quite quickly, within a profession typically perceived as doing better on the matter;
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/04/052/the_enduring_gender_gap_in_faculty_pay
It's acknowledged enough that the newest defense of sexist structures is that women don't negotiate as aggressively as men (Which fails to acknowledge that in the unlikely event that they do, they receive substantial flak, and that women are taught by society not to be aggressive, that men are to do that.


Men don't get paternity leave in the majority of places, mostly because they don't have a physical burden in the situation, which is what the corperations consider the most. Mental/emotional burden is something people should/could work past. (In Corperate opinion)
No, Corporations will give the barest minimum they can get away with, either from legal sanctions or PR Nightmares. They can get away with not giving out paternity leave, so they don't. They should give out paternity leave. After the mother takes the physical burden of carrying the child to term and rests, why *not* h ave the male parent do the raising of the child?

They don't give out equal pay either, because they can get away with it. They should give out equal pay. Not that difficult a concept, I think.



Those few seconds, those few centimeters is a huge difference, really. I can run the 100m sprint in 15s, which is, somewhat, unimpressive. 9s? That's the world record.
Yes, in an exceedingly short event a few seconds matters, but since the differences are percentages, they'd come out tenths or hundreds of seconds (Which still makes the difference in a sports victory, and makes 0 difference outside of that pointless competition.)



The averages are held up as averages. That's why they're called averages. And with an average, you know what, the average fe/male can do. This does show that Men will perform better at X than Women. It doesn't mean that women shouldn't do it, just that the average man against the average woman in that job will show a preferable result on the male side. The same is true in Job Y for Women against Men, with them having the favourable result. It's averages, and when considering hiring, they work by considering everyone to be the average. If you can prove you've surpassed that line, congradulations, otherwise the company is going to assume you are average.
No, they're not just averages. That's the entire problem. Even now, what was the point? Why bring it up in a conversation on gender inequality unless it meant something?


I must admit, being told that I was a low-down, no good, dirty rapist and deserved to die just for having male genitalia as a child on the cusp of adolescence and on many, many occasions since then has been most unpleasant, annoying, and bewildering.
This is a wrong and damaging thing to tell a child. I'm sorry you had to go through that.

[Serpentine]

I haven't read the whole thread - I suspect I'll come out of it very angry, and I don't have the time right now to do a full-blown rant - but I have seen one point repeated that I'd like to address.
Regarding "women just get paid less because of maternity leave": First of all, is this actually true? Do these statistics actually not take into account the impact of maternity leave, or are they based on wages outside of pregnancy?
Secondly, as far as I'm concerned the obvious solution to this is to give men an equal amount of paternity leave. As unfair as it is for women to be paid less, it's just as unfair for men to not have an opportunity to help with their children.
I recall some Scandinavian(?) country having something installed, where men and women get time off for the first X months of their children's life, and then they each get 2 days off a week, with the 5th day having government-paid childcare. I think that is a brilliant idea.

I see that the "pendulum" has swung too far in the opposite direction, in some areas, for some people: my father was the first man in New South Wales to apply for paternity leave, but didn't get it (he seemed to get something pretty much the same in everything but name, though), and also got dirty looks and suffered substantial rudeness from some people for being the primary carer of my sister.
However, the solution to that isn't "women should just shut up!" or "men should put women in their place!" or "men should strive to reassert traditional concepts of masculinity!" or "feminism is sexist!" or anything like that. Rather, in my view, the solution is for men to get on board, to strive for equality just like women have - and to help women gain equality. In many areas, equality for one is equality for the others - Hell, it should be impossible for it to be any other way. Take "roles in the home", for example. It's pretty much been established that women are able to be primary or shared bread-winners nowadays, a big change from not too long ago. Now lets work on it being acceptable for men to be the primary caregivers in a family.

[Crow]

For you guys to check out:

Olympic Powerlifting Records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting)

The differences in those weights aren't as slight as you assume.


Then there is these;

Men's Raw World Records for Powerlifting (http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/world)

Women's Raw World Records for Powerlifting (http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/women-world)

Scroll down to the Totals for a listing of the totals for all 3 lifts (the best overall strength indication).

Also note, the men have a section dedicated to events where drugs are prohibited, whereas the women do not. It is generally safe to assume most participants in the "open" competitions are chemically-enhanced. Even the clean men are still significantly ahead.

I'm not saying there aren't some amazingly fit women, or that I don't respect what women are capable of. All I am saying is that biology does play a part.

[AtlanteanTroll]

There is, perhaps, only two things in the world that make me angry. Denying someone's achievements, and denying someone's right to dreams.

This is why I read One Piece (and Bakuman). No, I'm serious. They have something in Japan (I guess) called a Man's Romance. I guess it just means cool, but I don't know. Something about your dreams will come true and all that.


Women have always had power, whether or not society officially supported that it exsisted.

As said in XKCD,


Athens rules all Greece; I control Athens; my wife controls me; and my infant son controls her.

[Worira]

Dammit Crow, I was about to post almost exactly that. Anyway, I guess I'll still point out that the Olympic world record in weightlifting for men is 306.4 pounds greater than for women split between the two events, even with the better scores for the events taken from two different women and fused into some sort of hypothetical superwoman.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Really I still don't see why it matters. It's only a matter of time before gender is a pointless quality.


lolwut. People don't change.

[druid91]

lolwut. People don't change.

They will when cybernetics run their ability to compete in an a free market economy into the ground.:smallamused:

Honestly, are you going to hire the guy who has a college degree? Or the guy who also has a college degree and has a laptop in his head? Or can carry steel beams around?

Cybernetics will eventually crush all of this under it's iron heel, and questions of gender will become pointless academia.

[Serpentine]

Crow: How often do you think those physical difference will really make a difference?
Yes, there's probably always going to be more men than women in certain roles - bricklaying, for example - (and vice-versa) but that doesn't mean that women are incapable of those roles, of doing well in those roles, of doing just as well as any man in that role (even if there's a goodish chance they'll have to work harder at it), nor that if they have sufficient skill, ambition and physical levels to do that job adequately that their sex should have any impact at all on whether they get the job or not.
To put it another way: if an individual is capable of doing a job well, their sex should not come into it, regardless of it being dominated by one sex or another. A job being dominated by one sex is not a reason to keep the other sex out of it.
edit: To put it a better way, even if more of one sex will be biologically predisposed to a particular type of job, that doesn't mean that all of the other sex are incapable of doing it and should be disadvantaged when it comes to getting it.

[Lord Raziere]

lolwut. People don't change.

people always change. else, how could we adapt to new technology and new ideas?

[AtlanteanTroll]

They will when cybernetics run their ability to compete in an a free market economy into the ground.:smallamused:

Honestly, are you going to hire the guy who has a college degree? Or the guy who also has a college degree and has a laptop in his head? Or can carry steel beams around?

Cybernetics will eventually crush all of this under it's iron heel, and questions of gender will become pointless academia.
I'll kill myself first.


people always change. else, how could we adapt to new technology and new ideas?
We (the masses) don't adapt to new ideas. Not fast anyway and, usually, not willingly.

[Xyk]

Crow: How often do you think those physical difference will really make a difference?
Yes, there's probably always going to be more men than women in certain roles - bricklaying, for example - (and vice-versa) but that doesn't mean that women are incapable of those roles, of doing well in those roles, of doing just as well as any man in that role (even if there's a goodish chance they'll have to work harder at it), nor that if they have sufficient skill, ambition and physical levels to do that job adequately that their sex should have any impact at all on whether they get the job or not.
To put it another way: if an individual is capable of doing a job well, their sex should not come into it, regardless of it being dominated by one sex or another. A job being dominated by one sex is not a reason to keep the other sex out of it.

The two of us seem to agree perfectly on gender equality issues. Like that other thread that ended up getting locked.

[TheLaughingMan]

people always change. else, how could we adapt to new technology and new ideas?

The Patriots tell us to, duh. :smalltongue:

[Lord Raziere]

I'll kill myself first.


We (the masses) don't adapt to new ideas. Not fast anyway and, usually, not willingly.

I come up with new ideas every week or so. most of them I don't even use, just write down in hopes that they will be useful someday. I constantly explore ways of thinking to come up with even more.

that and if we can't adapt to new ideas willingly, explain the sudden explosion of iPods, then iPhones then iPads....

[Knaight]

Men, on the other hand, still lead in...suicide
I'm just going to do a quick thread snipe for a minor correction. Using U.S. statistics, men do lead in suicides. However, women lead in suicide attempts. The main reason for this difference is that men are much more likely to use firearms, which have about a 60% success rate, whereas most women deliberately overdose on some sort of medication (e.g. pain killers or sleeping pills), which has about a 3% success rate. So while it is technically true that men commit suicide more often in the U.S. its a misleading factoid, up there with the claim that teenagers are the highest risk group*.

*Most suicides are teenagers, but that is partly because it is the largest group. The highest risk group is the 85+ age bracket, in which the rate of both suicide attempts and successful suicides is over 2.5 times that of teenagers.

[druid91]

I'll kill myself first.

Well that stinks. But I suppose you could be the cyber amish.:smalltongue:

[AtlanteanTroll]

I come up with new ideas every week or so. most of them I don't even use, just write down in hopes that they will be useful someday. I constantly explore ways of thinking to come up with even more.
I mean world changing ideas.


that and if we can't adapt to new ideas willingly, explain the sudden explosion of iPods, then iPhones then iPads....
Technology aren't ideas. Not in the sense I mean.

What do I mean?

I mean big, world changing, ideas like: Blacks are equal to whites. 150 years now, and that idea still isn't accepted across the US (and other parts of the globe).

EDIT:
Well that stinks. But I suppose you could be the cyber amish.:smalltongue:

That, or dead.

[Coidzor]

Basic concepts of compassion and empathy, really.

[RPGuru1331]

lolwut. People don't change.
This is an inaccurate statement. Compare the social conditions for marginalized people now, and 100 years ago. Improvement is always possible. I don't mean that to say we're imperfect and not done; I mean that to say that humans are indeed capable of doing so on a widespread societal level.


They will when cybernetics run their ability to compete in an a free market economy into the ground.

Kurzweil can say the singularity is a-coming all he wants, but his track record on the matter is very poor. I care slightly more about it than I do Nostradamus' predictions.

Crow: And those differences matter not whit to their capability. The ability to lift a ton, total, over a period of competitions is kinda cool, I guess, but makes no difference relative to the person carrying 3/4ths of a ton. And that's assuming the women with the most innate talent for it overcame society saying "Haha don't do that" to compete. This may not be a safe assumption. For all practical purposes, the differences are nil. Gender is one of the few widespread biases we carry in terms of innate capability; you don't care whether a musician naturally picked up his talents or worked at them, for instance. Yet society cares about men doing so over women (Rarely, if ever, the reverse, and it similarly cares about able-bodied, or neurotypical, people compared to disabled or non-neurotypical people.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Basic concepts of compassion and empathy, really.
Pretty much. I would try to think of more detailed ones, but I'm incredibly tired now ... it's 0:15.

[druid91]

I mean world changing ideas.


Technology aren't ideas. Not in the sense I mean.

What do I mean?

I mean big, world changing, ideas like: Blacks are equal to whites. 150 years now, and that idea still isn't accepted across the US (and other parts of the globe).

EDIT:

That, or dead.

Are you intent on depressing me?:smallannoyed:

To me that is the sure way of the future. Barring unfortunate accidents.

And the idea that someone I sorta (Sorry don't know you very well) respect would rather die than live with those changes is saddening.

[Serpentine]

I'm just going to do a quick thread snipe for a minor correction. Using U.S. statistics, men do lead in suicides. However, women lead in suicide attempts. The main reason for this difference is that men are much more likely to use firearms, which have about a 60% success rate, whereas most women deliberately overdose on some sort of medication (e.g. pain killers or sleeping pills), which has about a 3% success rate. So while it is technically true that men commit suicide more often in the U.S. its a misleading factoid, up there with the claim that teenagers are the highest risk group*.

*Most suicides are teenagers, but that is partly because it is the largest group. The highest risk group is the 85+ age bracket, in which the rate of both suicide attempts and successful suicides is over 2.5 times that of teenagers.I saw a statistic once that suggested that men are more likely to kill themselves in pretty... messy ways - guns, jumping off a building, that sorta thing - whereas women are more likely to do it in... I want to say "considerate" ways :smalltongue: - poison, drug overdose, slit wrists in the bathtub, that sorta thing. I find that an interesting difference.

(note my use of "more likely". I think such terms are by far the best way to discuss sex differences - women are more likely to use poison than men are, but I'm sure there's still plenty of men using poison and women using guns)

[Lord Raziere]

yea......things just happen y'know? if cyborgs come, then cyborgs come. the only change I'll truly mourn is the loss of paper books if that ever happens, sure I'll keep marching towards my dream of being a novelist with digital reader books and such, it just won't be quite the same.... it'll be sad to me nevertheless, but I'll still try to adapt.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Are you intent on depressing me?:smallannoyed:

To me that is the sure way of the future. Barring unfortunate accidents.

And the idea that someone I sorta (Sorry don't know you very well) respect would rather die than live with those changes is saddening.

No. Sorry.

It's the gradual loss of all humanity (IMO). Look at what's already happened in the last 500 years. Humans have already evolved a lot. Have you seen some of those old-time-y buildings in Europe? Normal sized people have to duck! Sometime in the past, between the world wars, new technologies have emerged. (Still wouldn't call them ideas.) 1/3 of my country is obese. 1/3. Technologies will lead us into a horrid future. Why? Because war drives technology. The human race needs to cool it's jets for a while.

Sorry. :/

[Knaight]

I saw a statistic once that suggested that men are more likely to kill themselves in pretty... messy ways - guns, jumping off a building, that sorta thing - whereas women are more likely to do it in... I want to say "considerate" ways :smalltongue: - poison, drug overdose, slit wrists in the bathtub, that sorta thing. I find that an interesting difference.

(note my use of "more likely". I think such terms are by far the best way to discuss sex differences - women are more likely to use poison than men are, but I'm sure there's still plenty of men using poison and women using guns)

Honestly, its firearms alone that are the big difference. The vast majority of methods have very low success rates, over 10% is rare. Firearms are around 60%. Now, these are U.S. statistics, and given how critical firearms are to this they probably don't hold true internationally, as availability of firearms is somewhat less constant than availability of rope, or of painkillers, or of anything vaguely knife like. This also accounts for the milder decreasing curve in actual suicide cases than in attempted suicide cases when one looks at the age brackets from teenager to mid thirties, as rates of firearm possession in the U.S. are much lower for teenagers than adults.

I'll try to track down the data, much of it is contained in one source (about 80 pages of suicide statistics and analysis for the State of Colorado, much of which involves comparison to the national average), as well as backed up by a bunch. The one, longer source is quite informative, if rather depressing.

EDIT: Found it (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradotrust.org%2Fattachmen ts%2F0000%2F2223%2FSuicideReport.pdf&ei=uTTbTZG8FILW0QH50fz9Dw&usg=AFQjCNFiU0HRfTNopQL7pbwZ0vgFiRzRqw&sig2=ByoSCWqlQATidf1ecxLM-A).

[Lord Raziere]

and we are on the internet.....which is letting people share ideas with each other more than ever before.......in a global economy dependent upon the peace we have constructed.......and NOT trying to wipe each other out....which is a real stupid option considering the weapons we have today...

yea......real dark depressing world of sadness there, Atlantean :smalltongue: :smallamused:

[druid91]

Kurzweil can say the singularity is a-coming all he wants, but his track record on the matter is very poor. I care slightly more about it than I do Nostradamus' predictions.

No clue who this Kurzweil guy is. I came to this conclusion on my own.

http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/04/13/cyberdyne-exoskeleton-now-in-mass-production-costs-4200/

http://www.gizmag.com/robot-suit-hal/11471/

And the coup de grace

The cybernetic monkey. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnWSah4RD2E)

[AtlanteanTroll]

yea......real dark depressing world of sadness there, Atlantean :smalltongue: :smallamused:

You bet your butt it is. We most certainly are trying to wipe each other out (well, factions are anyway, but considering the arsenals of those factions, it doesn't really matter). My mom's been teaching this crap for the last 27 years, pardon me for feeling a tad more informed in this aspect.

And what economy? :smalltongue:

[Dienekes]

Crow: How often do you think those physical difference will really make a difference?
Yes, there's probably always going to be more men than women in certain roles - bricklaying, for example - (and vice-versa) but that doesn't mean that women are incapable of those roles, of doing well in those roles, of doing just as well as any man in that role (even if there's a goodish chance they'll have to work harder at it), nor that if they have sufficient skill, ambition and physical levels to do that job adequately that their sex should have any impact at all on whether they get the job or not.
To put it another way: if an individual is capable of doing a job well, their sex should not come into it, regardless of it being dominated by one sex or another. A job being dominated by one sex is not a reason to keep the other sex out of it.
edit: To put it a better way, even if more of one sex will be biologically predisposed to a particular type of job, that doesn't mean that all of the other sex are incapable of doing it and should be disadvantaged when it comes to getting it.

I don't think anyone is saying that because men are stronger than women only men should do X. They are saying men are generally stronger and this allows a predisposition toward certain tasks and if everything was equal and strength was an important factor for a certain task it makes sense to have more men doing the job than woman.

What is even more confusing are jobs that require a certain level of physical fitness for men and a different level for women to complete the same task. If gender should not matter for determining such things (which I firmly believe they should not) then 1 standard should be set for everyone to best show what is actually necessary to perform the task.

As to how often physical benefits matter, the answer is less and less. But that does not mean they don't exist and denying that such a thing does exist is confusing in the extreme.


I must admit, being told that I was a low-down, no good, dirty rapist and deserved to die just for having male genitalia as a child on the cusp of adolescence and on many, many occasions since then has been most unpleasant, annoying, and bewildering.

Not nearly as bewildering as being told that I was a bad boy for being bigger and stronger than the girls when I was supposed to be smaller and weaker due to the way childhood works leading up to the onset of puberty, but still pretty unpleasant, and, by my estimation, most rude and inappropriate.

This is where you laugh in their faces as hard and as loud as you possibly can and try to not let bigotry get you down.

[Serpentine]

What is even more confusing are jobs that require a certain level of physical fitness for men and a different level for women to complete the same task. If gender should not matter for determining such things (which I firmly believe they should not) then 1 standard should be set for everyone to best show what is actually necessary to perform the task.I've asked this question many times, specifically in relation to the army. The best answer I've gotten so far is that it's a specific level of overall fitness that is desired, and this fitness is expressed differently by the sexes - i.e. a woman who can do 50 push-ups is as fit as a man who can do 100. I'm not convinced, but I guess it's a start.

As to how often physical benefits matter, the answer is less and less. But that does not mean they don't exist and denying that such a thing does exist is confusing in the extreme.I never said they don't exist - in fact, I said the opposite. However, I believe that the difference is exaggerated at best (they're not discrete, just overlapping bell graphs), and almost entirely irrelevant to the vast, vast majority of modern occupations, and to individual qualifications - it is the individual's physical state that matters, not that of their sex.

[Crow]

Crow: How often do you think those physical difference will really make a difference?

Hardly ever. Those were posted in response to the earlier notion that men were not appreciably stronger than men. The men and women in those events specifically train to reach the peaks of human strength, so I was just throwing it out there.

[Dienekes]

I've asked this question many times, specifically in relation to the army. The best answer I've gotten so far is that it's a specific level of overall fitness that is desired, and this fitness is expressed differently by the sexes - i.e. a woman who can do 50 push-ups is as fit as a man who can do 100. I'm not convinced, but I guess it's a start.

Yeah, I'm not really sure I buy that. A level of fitness is required to perform a task, so you should be judged by your ability to perform the task. The task does not get any harder or easier by what may or may not swing between your legs.


I never said they don't exist - in fact, I said the opposite. However, I believe that the difference is exaggerated at best (they're not discrete, just overlapping bell graphs), and almost entirely irrelevant to the vast, vast majority of modern occupations, and to individual qualifications - it is the individual's physical state that matters, not that of their sex.

True, and I shouldn't have added that bit in response to your quote. I was still thinking on my bewilderment that RPGuru claiming that pointing out biological differences makes one sexist.

[Coidzor]

And that's assuming the women with the most innate talent for it overcame society saying "Haha don't do that" to compete.

I think it's a bit more than saying "Haha don't do that" in discouraging women from undergoing the amount of chemical abuse necessary to compete in such an arena. :/


I saw a statistic once that suggested that men are more likely to kill themselves in pretty... messy ways - guns, jumping off a building, that sorta thing - whereas women are more likely to do it in... I want to say "considerate" ways :smalltongue: - poison, drug overdose, slit wrists in the bathtub, that sorta thing. I find that an interesting difference.

There is no such thing as a considerate suicide and being sexist about suicides and using it as a medium by which to tease others is... probably the strangest thing I've seen all night if not in the past 2 months. :smallconfused:


What is even more confusing are jobs that require a certain level of physical fitness for men and a different level for women to complete the same task. If gender should not matter for determining such things (which I firmly believe they should not) then 1 standard should be set for everyone to best show what is actually necessary to perform the task.

I have always wondered about where that came from since the first time I encountered it. In certain situations, what Serps says makes a modicum of sense, but in most examples given, there's basically a hard minimum of what an individual must be capable of in order to carry out the duties of the station.


This is where you laugh in their faces as hard and as loud as you possibly can and try to not let bigotry get you down.

I was kind of 9 or 10 the first time and mostly confused as to why the people in authority over my life were taking the time to troll me, though I didn't really understand the concept of trolling as such at the time, but, yes. That and be annoyed at life's parade of random idiots for attempting to waste my time by getting my attention in order to insult me.

[Innis Cabal]

There is no such thing as a considerate suicide and being sexist about suicides and using it as a medium by which to tease others is... probably the strangest thing I've seen all night if not in the past 2 months. :smallconfused:


I don't particularly think she was using it to tease, I think she was more remarking on the oddity of it. Though having been suicidal I did contemplate shooting myself in the storage freezer of the restaurant so it'd be easier to clean.

[SDF]

Men have between half and two-thirds again the muscle mass of women (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l47235487q162675/) for reference. This is not societal, but biological falling on a bell curve across cultures. The Supreme Court has ruled that on matters of physical differences (such as childbirth) laws can be made that distinguish between genders under their established intermediate scrutiny. Absolute equality demands unisex bathrooms, after all. (and a unisex army, but that is politics. not to say unisex bathrooms aren't politics...:smalltongue:) Now, I don't have a problem with that, however, society should do something about violent crimes against women before integration. Tongue in cheek aside, the problem with using physical differences is when the equality of conditions is changed. Lower standards for women firefighters hurts women as much as it does men. The stigma of entering into a male dominated workforce still remains, and even using muscle mass as a benchmark women are still grossly underrepresented in manual labor.

Honestly, gender stereotypes don't bother me unless you use them to treat people as a means. The freedom to express yourself is important, and latching onto differences among people is one way to do it. To celebrate those differences and treat people as equals should be the goal, not to marginalize people into sameness. Perfect equality is also slavery with the loss of self-determination.

[rayne_dragon]

It rather seems that all genders/sexes are descriminated against, just in different ways. There's still a degree of the old misogyny, mixed with a strong push for equal or superior rights for women, combined with a backlash against feminism and exploitation of the new opportunities sufferage opened up. At the same time the new/increased competition from and changed status of women makes things harder for men in some situations, excessive feminism results in attempts to give women more rights than men, and while men still benefit from some traditional institutions with an old boys club attitude, the insecurities of changes open men up to certain types of what is arguably exploitation. Really, it just comes down to situations. In some situations being a man can be vast advantagous. In others, being a woman is far superior. Sometimes it makes little or no difference. The trick is to make things more equal for women and men without denying the differences between individuals.

Of course, we've neatly left out everyone who doesn't fit nicely into the binary gender system we're discussing. Given that certain people are subject to involuntary and unneeded surgury there's still gender discrimination more severe than that either women or men are subjected to. Even so, there are also advantages to being in a more-or-less invisible, in-between category.

[Serpentine]

There is no such thing as a considerate suicide and being sexist about suicides and using it as a medium by which to tease others is... probably the strangest thing I've seen all night if not in the past 2 months. :smallconfused:Really, Coidzor? :smallconfused: :smallannoyed:
I wasn't saying that there is such a thing as a considerate suicide. I was saying that there are some relatively "considerate", from the point of view of the suicider, methods of doing it.
And stating an observation is not sexism. Granted, I don't have any source for that observation, but that was pretty much implicit in my "I heard a statistic once..." If you can find something that contradicts that, beauty. What I consider an interesting observation is rendered moot by the fact it isn't actually true. But if it is a true observation, then it says something interesting about the differing psychology, on a broad, population scale, of men an women.
As for teasing... Well, I was a tad tongue in cheek. But that's it.

Given that certain people are subject to involuntary and unneeded surgury there's still gender discrimination more severe than that either women or men are subjected to.Are you talking about the surgery to give a specific sex to hermaphrodites at birth? Cuz that's pretty messed up.

[RebelRogue]

I don't think anyone is saying that because men are stronger than women only men should do X. They are saying men are generally stronger and this allows a predisposition toward certain tasks and if everything was equal and strength was an important factor for a certain task it makes sense to have more men doing the job than woman.
I can only speak for myself here, but that was never the point of my original post; I do think that those physical, biological differences make little to no difference for practically any job. What I'm complaining about, is that, apparently, you are supposed to disregard certain facts because they happen not to be politically correct. I understand, that some people use such facts to justify inequalities, and I certainly disaprove of this. I just think we're doing everyone a disservice by assuming that the two sexes* are esentially the same. It may be a healthy stand from a practical point of view - a good first order approximation if you will - to take at this time in history to secure equal opportunities and rights (something I whole-heartedly support), but in the long run I think we should work to understand those differences, not iron them out by making biology a dirty word.

*: I know neither biological sex, gender or orientation are binary quantities; I'm just trying to keep things relatively simple here.

[Serpentine]

It's worth remembering, though, that the trends and tendencies that are different between men and women are just that: trends and tendencies. Observations of differing statistical frequencies between the sexes can barely be used for predictions, and certainly should not be used to justify expectations or requirements.
I don't think you disagree with this, or that you're saying anything that opposes it, but it's worth adding it as a disclaimer to those sorts of statements.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I'm not speakin' as to what's morally right. I'm talking about what humans are actually like. It's not morally right to kill each other, but WHOOPS we still do it all the time. And we've had taboos against it since before the first law was written, so I don't think that's ever changing. Not as long as we are still recognizably the same as the human race that we are now and have been throughout history (which, granted, may not be for very long, depending on how soon we make true AI or kill ourselves or something along those lines).

In short, I think we're looking at a future like this (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1726#comic)

I guess it's just that I base my morality on a series of unattainable (in practice) goals - perfect understanding and equality between people, world peace, perfect knowledge of the universe, etc. Anything that gets closer to these is good and to be done, even though the goals themselves may very well be completely unattainable in this universe - getting closer to them is how we become better people.

And I think, as an intermediate step to "perfect understanding and equality between people", "treating everyone as individuals" is both a huge, important, and moreover possible step.

Serpentine just summarized my argument last post, for what it's worth.

[DeadManSleeping]

It's worth remembering, though, that the trends and tendencies that are different between men and women are just that: trends and tendencies. Observations of differing statistical frequencies between the sexes can barely be used for predictions, and certainly should not be used to justify expectations or requirements.
I don't think you disagree with this, or that you're saying anything that opposes it, but it's worth adding it as a disclaimer to those sorts of statements.

Indeed. I only take issue with people who try to claim that those trends don't exist because those statistics are misused.


And I think, as an intermediate step to "perfect understanding and equality between people", "treating everyone as individuals" is both a huge, important, and moreover possible step.

I take issue with that last part. Most humans, overall, are not setting out to do good or be good. They are setting out to do well in life, and be happy. Surprise, surprise, it seems that you get more stuff if you support inequalities that are in your favor. Humans as a species have always and will always want to be happy more than they want to be good. Thus, they will always support inequality, in some way, shape, or form.

And treating everyone as individuals? Look up the "monkeysphere" sometime. Our brains simply aren't equipped to give every single person we meet consideration as an individual.

[Durmegil Guldur]

Well, I thought I would do the thread justice and read down it rather than just responding to the original post after 3+ pages. I don't know what I was expecting, so it was probably naive of me to be surprised by the commencement of a mud-slinging war.

Yes there are differences between men and women in both biology and in terms of the opportunities society presents them. I'm not saying that we've got society working as it should be yet, but I'd like to think that we're heading in the right direction (comparing now to 100, even 50 years ago). I'd also agree that there is still a long way to go and we could probably be doing more to get there faster.

Now to the original point: Don't feel like you have to change the things you like just to fit into the rest of the world's preconceived idea of what a man should like/do. If you're not happy with yourself, then you can work at it and change it - but only do this to change things you want to change. If you're happy with yourself, then the people who aren't happy with you are the ones with the problem, don't kowtow to them.

[Lord Raziere]

Indeed. I only take issue with people who try to claim that those trends don't exist because those statistics are misused.



I take issue with that last part. Most humans, overall, are not setting out to do good or be good. They are setting out to do well in life, and be happy. Surprise, surprise, it seems that you get more stuff if you support inequalities that are in your favor. Humans as a species have always and will always want to be happy more than they want to be good. Thus, they will always support inequality, in some way, shape, or form.


but what if I'm not happy with the existence of inequality?

[druid91]

but what if I'm not happy with the existence of inequality?

Then you scare me.:smallwink: I don't need the world to become harrison bergeron.:smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

*looks up*
Oh hey, I've seen that movie.
But no. Just no. Equal != identical :smallannoyed:

[Lord Raziere]

equality doesn't equal being identical.....

I don't consider someone with a different skill than me being better, just different, and difference doesn't always mean inequality, they are two totally separate concepts, the ideal world is one of both difference and equality, as in equality of difference, as in if there is no difference, there is no equal valuing of all beliefs, if we are all identical then that means there is an inequality of belief that has consumed all others, therefore equality also means that we must respect everyones individuality equally and that if we don't, one belief system becomes unequal and makes everyone identical, and world of unequal belief.

[druid91]

*looks up*
Oh hey, I've seen that movie.
But no. Just no. Equal != identical :smallannoyed:

Movie? Nope, short story.

Is the movie the same? Basically, if your stronger than others you have to wear weights, if you are smarter you have to wear an earpeice that plays a distracting sound, if you have better eyesight you have to wear glasses. Etc...

Also note the :smalltongue: at the end there.

[Serpentine]

I looked up the story, and the adaptations. I have seen a movie based on the story, which appeared to be basically the same. Why so nitpicky? :smallconfused:

[The Rose Dragon]

I looked up the story, and the adaptations. I have seen a movie based on the story, which appeared to be basically the same. Why so nitpicky? :smallconfused:

Because he probably hadn't heard of the movie before?

[druid91]

I looked up the story, and the adaptations. I have seen a movie based on the story, which appeared to be basically the same. Why so nitpicky? :smallconfused:


Because he probably hadn't heard of the movie before?

Exactly, my only exposure to the story was in a highschool english class.

I never knew they made a movie, particularly with a story so short.

[The Rose Dragon]

Exactly, my only exposure to the story was in a highschool english class.

I never knew they made a movie, particularly with a story so short.

To be fair, the movie is only 25 minutes.

[RebelRogue]

Sounds like something out of The Sirens of Titan. Is it Vonnegut-related?

[The Rose Dragon]

Sounds like something out of The Sirens of Titan. Is it Vonnegut-related?

It is written by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., yes.

[Coidzor]

As for teasing... Well, I was a tad tongue in cheek. But that's it.

Yeah, and that was the really strange part, being "tongue in cheek" about it at all. It was the way in which you stated it that I was reacting to in the first place and that ties the post together and my reaction to it.

[Serpentine]

Nothing is sacred. Not even that, especially when talking about trends in methods. Anything is a valid subject for tongue-in-cheekness.
To be fair, the movie is only 25 minutes.I saw this full-length version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron_(film)), I believe.

[DeadManSleeping]

but what if I'm not happy with the existence of inequality?

What if I'm not happy with the existence of the sun? It doesn't matter. I can hide myself in a hole and try not to look at it, and pretend it's not there, or that it will go away. Or, I can acknowledge that it will be there my entire life, and for more years than any human can really comprehend, and there's nothing I can do about it, and then I can just go about living my life dealing with it.

[Coidzor]

Nothing is sacred. Not even that. Anything is a valid subject for tongue-in-cheekness.

If you at least succeed in black comedy, yeah. But if you're not even funny about it, it's just weird.

[Serpentine]

edit: I was being light, not funny. Seriously, I don't see what the big problem with it is. It's not like I was saying "all men should kill themselves lol!" :smallannoyed:
What if I'm not happy with the existence of the sun? It doesn't matter. I can hide myself in a hole and try not to look at it, and pretend it's not there, or that it will go away. Or, I can acknowledge that it will be there my entire life, and for more years than any human can really comprehend, and there's nothing I can do about it, and then I can just go about living my life dealing with it.That is a false comparison. Inequality is bad, and there is something everyone can do about it, at the very least to lessen parts of it.

[DeadManSleeping]

Specific inequalities can be changed. The paradigm of inequality is a component of the human condition. It's been around since before we had sentience. It hasn't gone away even a little. We just prettify it more these days.

[Serpentine]

That's no reason to just throw up your hands and say "it's always gonna be there and there's nothing we can do about it, better just get used to it!"
There's always going to be disease, too. Shall we cut all funding to medical research because "it will be there my entire life, and for more years than any human can really comprehend, and there's nothing I can do about it, and then I can just go about living my life dealing with it"?

[Dienekes]

edit: I was being light, not funny. Seriously, I don't see what the big problem with it is. It's not like I was saying "all men should kill themselves lol!"

You can and should be able to make light of anything no matter how terrible, how awful, how disgusting. I know I've made light of things that would probably make several of the fine folk around these boards disgusted at me.

But there's a time and a place and an audience, obviously Coidzor isn't comfortable with the suicide discussion so mostly it's time to just drop the subject and find others who'll laugh hysterically at the clever anecdote of drowning puppies or whatever other monstrosity needs to be made light of.

[Nerd-o-rama]

That's no reason to just throw up your hands and say "it's always gonna be there and there's nothing we can do about it, better just get used to it!"
There's always going to be disease, too. Shall we cut all funding to medical research because "it will be there my entire life, and for more years than any human can really comprehend, and there's nothing I can do about it, and then I can just go about living my life dealing with it"?

Serpentine keeps making my points faster than I do...

[Zen Monkey]

edit: That is a false comparison. Inequality is bad, and there is something everyone can do about it, at the very least to lessen parts of it.

If it helps, I took the comment about the sun to mean that natural physical inequalities are not going away. If you don't like the fact that men are, on average, taller and stronger and faster then there isn't much that you can do about it. If it's an artificial structure of inequality, like guidelines for workplace promotion, then there is certainly work that can be done to correct that.

[Serpentine]

But there's a time and a place and an audience, obviously Coidzor isn't comfortable with the suicide discussion so mostly it's time to just drop the subject and find others who'll laugh hysterically at the clever anecdote of drowning puppies or whatever other monstrosity needs to be made light of.I wasn't even trying to make light of suicide, and I certainly have no intention of having people laughing hysterically at drowning puppies.
I was expanding on someone else's use of suicide as an example of sex differences, and making light, if anything, at the idea of using a word like "considerate" to describe the methods women tend to use to kill themselves.

[Knaight]

I was expanding on someone else's use of suicide as an example of sex differences, and making light, if anything, at the idea of using a word like "considerate" to describe the methods women tend to use to kill themselves.

Specifically, suicide was mentioned in the first post as a difference, I provided some context as I felt that the initial use was deceptive* noting that while more men successfully killed themselves, more women tried to, and the difference was due to methods, specifically firearms** having a rate of success way beyond anything else. Serpentine responded with what was basically some of the same data and pointed out a trend. At no point, was suicide made light of.

*Almost certainly unintentionally so, because what was said is how it looks if you don't have wider knowledge in this category.

**In the U.S. conforming to the opening post.

[DeadManSleeping]

That's no reason to just throw up your hands and say "it's always gonna be there and there's nothing we can do about it, better just get used to it!"
There's always going to be disease, too. Shall we cut all funding to medical research because "it will be there my entire life, and for more years than any human can really comprehend, and there's nothing I can do about it, and then I can just go about living my life dealing with it"?

A cursory glance at humanity shows that efforts into curing disease ameliorate its effects. That is sufficient justification for an incredible amount of investment, both of money and effort. I don't observe a similar thing with inequality. Efforts to fix that end up doing nothing until an individual inequality has a replacement inequality.

I will make an aside to point out that some things do change how much of an effect inequality has on people. Namely one thing: prosperity. A more prosperous land will still have a lot of inequality, but it will matter less, because even those disadvantaged will be more prosperous. If you want to make the condition of the less-fortunate better, your efforts are best spent towards other things. Example: disease. Researching medicine will benefit the rich the most, but it will still have incredible benefits for those who are on the bottom of the pile. It's why the average lifespan in the poorer areas of the world is like 30 years higher than it was 100 years ago. People with a better global position researched things to benefit them, and it ended up being able to benefit everyone.

There are things about humanity that won't change. But we can make them matter less.

[Serpentine]

Your first paragraph is demonstrably false: the women's, gay and black rights movements. Whatever inequalities from before then linger, and whatever new ones have sprung up (temporarily, I expect) since then, the entirety of western society is demonstrably more equal, and conditions for all better as a direct result, than it was before then.
Are you really saying that the sufferagettes' and Martin Luther King Jr's work was all a waste of time, and without any meaningful impact on the world?

[Knaight]

Your first paragraph is demonstrably false: the women's, gay and black rights movements. Whatever inequalities from before then linger, and whatever new ones have sprung up (temporarily, I expect) since then, the entirety of western society is demonstrably more equal, and conditions for all better as a direct result, than it was before then.
Are you really saying that the sufferagettes' and Martin Luther King Jr's work was all a waste of time?

One could make a case that one can't remove the us and them mentality from humans, and that one can't remove the human concept of splitting people up into groups and treating these groups differently, and that all one can really do is push around where the dividing lines are. I personally disagree with this, I think one can reduce the number of dividing lines and their intensity while pushing them around, and in any case they can be pushed to be less harmful, but its certainly a position that can be supported.

[Serpentine]

He isn't just talking about the us-and-them mentality or natural categorising, though. He's saying that any attempt to reduce equality fails miserably, and (from his previous posts) therefore one shouldn't be bothered even trying.
At least, that's very much what it looks like to me.

[DeadManSleeping]

One could make a case that one can't remove the us and them mentality from humans, and that one can't remove the human concept of splitting people up into groups and treating these groups differently, and that all one can really do is push around where the dividing lines are.

To put it succinctly, yes. We're naturally inclined to alienate and scramble for position with other humans. This produces inequality. We will always find someone to dislike. Some people have been saying that total equality and being able to treat all people as individuals are attainable goals. I'm saying that they're wrong.

I guess you think that I was saying something different because of my "sun" analogy. It should be noted that I wear a hat on all sunny days, and am very happily using AC in my house. I'm just not planning on destroying the sun and replacing it with a system to keep the Earth properly lit and heated that meets my standards better. The world is firmly built upon us having a sun. We just adapt to the parts we don't like. I am perfectly happy to draw this as a parallel to the paradigm of inequality (though it should be noted that I actually find the sun quite charming, unlike its new metaphorical parallel).

Still, most equality movements seem to have a pretty minimal effect. I suppose there have been a few over history that had a big enough impact that I should give them props, though.

[Ravens_cry]

I live in a world of marvels. I can eat foods from all over the world and fresh fruits and vegetables, and meat, in all seasons. I can communicate to people all across the planet from my own living room. and even potentially in Earth orbit, I can find position to mere meters anywhere in the world. My home is spacious, airy, warm and dry in the rain, and reasonably cool in the summer. Clean water is freely available, heated to my connivance. I am immune to many diseases that would have potentially killed or at least scarred me if I had been exposed to them for real .Many injuries that would have meant a quick or lingering death are treatable and many diseases are in fact curable that once would have inevitably felled me. Woman and men of all races, creeds, and sexual orientation, enjoy an equality not known for millennia, if ever.
No, it is not perfect. Far from it in fact. But you know what? It's a damn sight better in so many ways than what was available before. Not to say we shouldn't keep trying to improve things, in fact we should , most certainly we should, but I don't feel any "melancholy " over it. I am impressed with how far we have gotten.

[Juggling Goth]

I'd take the melancholy of the modern man, if it came with the good end of the gender pay gap of the modern man.

... Honestly, if your (you-general not you-personal) self-esteem was based on someone else's oppression, maybe you should examine that.

[Eldan]

Where do you get the oppression part? At least I was never talking about "Oh man, I miss those days when my wife couldn't leave the house without my consent and I would still be allowed to beat my servants." What I said was that I sometimes get the feeling that I'm not doing anything meaningful with my life.

[Zen Monkey]

To get back to the original point a bit, if you feel like you are missing something that would make you more 'manly,' then there are two things to do. First, identify what those manly things are. Second, choose to either pursue them or not. If you think that a manly thing is to be able to fix a car, then take a class in auto repair. If you think you should be able to build something, spend a day with Habitat for Humanity doing some carpentry. If you feel physically weak in some way, take boxing lessons or spend some time in the gym. The missing piece is going to be different for everyone, but figuring out what it is and taking steps towards addressing it may bring some peace of mind.

[RPGuru1331]

Where do you get the oppression part?
The OP's copypasta posited that women possessed more power than man, and Men needed to be raised in society to be equal to them. The reality is that men are already above women in every metric of societal power imaginable. Enacting the OP's desire necessarily requires dragging women further down in relation to men. Therefore, it amounts to oppression, and the oppression the poster refers to is from the OP.

Harrison Bergeron? That's a blast from the past. The fears of that society painted within are laughable and never going to happen. I remember being really worried about that for a time, but seriously, don't.


To put it succinctly, yes. We're naturally inclined to alienate and scramble for position with other humans. This produces inequality. We will always find someone to dislike. Some people have been saying that total equality and being able to treat all people as individuals are attainable goals. I'm saying that they're wrong.
It is possible that we can not attain an equal society, yes. Certainly, it will not be done within my lifetime. Nonetheless, if you feel it's impossible, get out of the way. don't whine at people who want it, just don't waste your energy. IMprovements are possible, period.

[Xyk]

, period.

I thought this was funny. :smallbiggrin:

[Juggling Goth]

Where do you get the oppression part? At least I was never talking about "Oh man, I miss those days when my wife couldn't leave the house without my consent and I would still be allowed to beat my servants." What I said was that I sometimes get the feeling that I'm not doing anything meaningful with my life.

Er, the fact that this male ennui is mentioned in the same breath (by the OP) as the women's rights movement? Particularly given that globally women are nowhere near equal. If some baby steps towards equality leave 'modern man' feeling like he's lost something, well, maybe he should never have had it in the first place. And if it's just guys feeling sad about their lives and it's not to do with women's equality, well, why mention it? Just focus on sorting your own life out.

[Themrys]

Er, the fact that this male ennui is mentioned in the same breath (by the OP) as the women's rights movement? Particularly given that globally women are nowhere near equal. If some baby steps towards equality leave 'modern man' feeling like he's lost something, well, maybe he should never have had it in the first place. And if it's just guys feeling sad about their lives and it's not to do with women's equality, well, why mention it? Just focus on sorting your own life out.

That.

Really, I can't stand it when men complain about...well, what? You don't have any reason to!
You're not being opressed or something. If boys get bad grades in school because they are lazy, then they need to stop being lazy, that's all!

[Kageru]

You're not being opressed or something. If boys get bad grades in school because they are lazy, then they need to stop being lazy, that's all!
When a group does worse in school than another group, simply saying "they are just lazy" is quite lazy. If pupils aren't motivated enough the system probably doesn't work well for them and should be improved accordingly. But I don't think the problem is inequality so I won't go into a rant about everything I don't like about school (uni is so much better).

[Murdim]

To the OP : what the heck are you even talking about ?

"Traditional masculinity" (the parts of it that doesn't directly involve subjection of women, that is) is still a perfectly valid and recognised lifestyle in our Western societies. What's happening is that we aren't enforcing it on every male anymore - well, not as strictly nor as strongly as we have in the past, in any case. As a result, people who want to think of themselves as "manly" actually have to declare themselves as such, by, you know, actually doing manly things. As opposed to, say, letting social expectations do all the work for them - I'm a man, of course I'm tough, assertive and like competition.

If some people want to assume an identity as a "manly man" but lack the mental fortitude to do so, well, that's too bad for them. I mean, even "touchy-feely weepy douchebags" have to assume their identities as ponytail-and-sweater-vest-wearing hipsters. But those people have to understand that the melancholy they feel isn't that of the "Modern Man". Just theirs.


I will make an aside to point out that some things do change how much of an effect inequality has on people. Namely one thing: prosperity. A more prosperous land will still have a lot of inequality, but it will matter less, because even those disadvantaged will be more prosperous. If you want to make the condition of the less-fortunate better, your efforts are best spent towards other things. Example: disease. Researching medicine will benefit the rich the most, but it will still have incredible benefits for those who are on the bottom of the pile. It's why the average lifespan in the poorer areas of the world is like 30 years higher than it was 100 years ago. People with a better global position researched things to benefit them, and it ended up being able to benefit everyone.
Except that the actual data show that prosperity isn't the only factor, that the wealthiest countries in the world aren't always the most beneficial to their lower classes, and that there is such a thing as quantifiable levels of egalitarianism.

Yes, we will never really get rid of inequality, not without altering our own deeper nature as human beings. Also, humanity is eventually doomed to extinction. Neither are valid reasons to reject all progress as meaningless.

[Xyk]

I remembered something relevant! Tony Porter, anti-domestic violence advocate, gave a TED Talk about the "Man Box" that is (wrongly) encouraged on young men.

Linky Linky (http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html)

[druid91]

To the OP : what the heck are you even talking about ?

"Traditional masculinity" (the parts of it that doesn't directly involve subjection of women, that is) is still a perfectly valid and recognised lifestyle in our Western societies. What's happening is that we aren't enforcing it on every male anymore - well, not as strictly nor as strongly as we have in the past, in any case. As a result, people who want to think of themselves as "manly" actually have to declare themselves as such, by, you know, actually doing manly things. As opposed to, say, letting social expectations do all the work for them - I'm a man, of course I'm tough, assertive and like competition.

If some people want to assume an identity as a "manly man" but lack the mental fortitude to do so, well, that's too bad for them. I mean, even "touchy-feely weepy douchebags" have to assume their identities as ponytail-and-sweater-shirt-wearing hipsters. But those people have to understand that the melancholy they feel isn't that of the "Modern Man". Just theirs.


Except that the actual data show that prosperity isn't the only factor, that the wealthiest countries in the world aren't always the most beneficial to their lower classes, and that there is such a thing as quantifiable levels of egalitarianism.

Yes, we will never really get rid of inequality, not without altering our own deeper nature as human beings. Also, humanity is eventually doomed to extinction. Neither are valid reasons to reject all progress as meaningless.

It isn't extinction if you take the universe with you.:smallcool:


Er, the fact that this male ennui is mentioned in the same breath (by the OP) as the women's rights movement? Particularly given that globally women are nowhere near equal. If some baby steps towards equality leave 'modern man' feeling like he's lost something, well, maybe he should never have had it in the first place. And if it's just guys feeling sad about their lives and it's not to do with women's equality, well, why mention it? Just focus on sorting your own life out.

Because, those equalized women take every chance they get to tear down men, and since they are the women men usually can't fight back without villifying themselves.

Case in point, it is perfectly acceptable for a guy to give another guy a friendly hug/pat on the shoulder/ whatever, nothing will ever come of it.

Same situation and the girl later decides the guy irritated her, sexual harrassment charges happen.

For true equality people have to stop seeing them as groups, excepting those they choose.


That.

Really, I can't stand it when men complain about...well, what? You don't have any reason to!
You're not being opressed or something. If boys get bad grades in school because they are lazy, then they need to stop being lazy, that's all!

ARRNNT! You got the wrong answer! When I was in school I had grades that usually variated between a 0% and anywhere from 90%-100%. Why? Because I point blank refused to do roughly half of the busy work they'd give.
I knew it, therefore I saw know purpose to demonstrating it again and again.

As my mother described it it was "The wierdest thing, you'd think the report card would be straight A's the way the teachers talked about me, instead of C's and D's."

The current school system is flawed. It is meant more to produce sheep than people.

[Coidzor]

I remembered something relevant! Tony Porter, anti-domestic violence advocate, gave a TED Talk about the "Man Box" that is (wrongly) encouraged on young men.

Linky Linky (http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html)

The very name just sounds... wrong.... :smallconfused:

Though that does nicely sum up the problem where apparently the choice is between no sexual or gender identity and domestic abuse and violence posterboy.

[SDF]

Really, I can't stand it when men complain about...well, what? You don't have any reason to!

Lolol sexism


It is possible that we can not attain an equal society, yes. Certainly, it will not be done within my lifetime. Nonetheless, if you feel it's impossible, get out of the way. don't whine at people who want it, just don't waste your energy. IMprovements are possible, period.

That is pretty much what it is about, isn't it? The pursuit of happiness, hope for a better tomorrow that is what drives people in a democratic society both to achieve more and fight for equality. We may not be entitled to happiness itself, but the ability and freedom to pursue it is at least as important. A societal belief in the indefinite perfectibility of man is a commitment to strive for an equality of conditions for all.

[DeadManSleeping]

It is possible that we can not attain an equal society, yes. Certainly, it will not be done within my lifetime. Nonetheless, if you feel it's impossible, get out of the way. don't whine at people who want it, just don't waste your energy. IMprovements are possible, period.

If you really feel that my posting of my personal viewpoint on humanity in a public forum entirely about opinions and discussions is proving to be an obstruction to the progress of equal rights, then I think you must be more pessimistic about the whole affair than I am.


Except that the actual data show that prosperity isn't the only factor, that the wealthiest countries in the world aren't always the most beneficial to their lower classes, and that there is such a thing as quantifiable levels of egalitarianism.

Yes, we will never really get rid of inequality, not without altering our own deeper nature as human beings. Also, humanity is eventually doomed to extinction. Neither are valid reasons to reject all progress as meaningless.

The wealthiest countries in the world aren't home to the wealthiest people. Average income per capita is based on the mean, not the actual most common level of income. The data are skewed by countries with a rather small, very rich group of people (for instance, much of the middle east). It's the countries where the prosperity is distributed that those on the lower end are still better off.

If I were in an oppressed group, and I were told that I could invest my effort into either science or rights for my group, I'd invest it in science, because I think it would be more beneficial to me and my group. Besides which, I'd be an awful protester; I'm no good at getting people to react well to my opinions.

[AtlanteanTroll]

The wealthiest countries in the world aren't home to the wealthiest people.
Don't make me dig up a list of the top ten richest people in the world. [/completely missing the point]

And unless you are in a repressed group, I don't think one can really say what one would invest in.

[DeadManSleeping]

Don't make me dig up a list of the top ten richest people in the world. [/completely missing the point]

Perhaps I should have said "richest populaces"?


And unless you are in a repressed group, I don't think one can really say what one would invest in.

I more meant if I suddenly found myself in a repressed group. I doubt I'd still be alive if I grew up in one. I've got a killable face.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Perhaps I should have said "richest populaces"?
But they do. That's why they're the richest. The average may be less, but enough people make up for it.

[DeadManSleeping]

A country where there is a large rich/middle class will have good living standards for even the lower class. These are the prosperous countries to which I refer. I'm not talking about countries with 5 obscenely wealthy guys and a nation of dirt farmers, despite the fact that their income per capita ends up being comparable to the former category.

[Trog]

I remembered something relevant! Tony Porter, anti-domestic violence advocate, gave a TED Talk about the "Man Box" that is (wrongly) encouraged on young men.

Linky Linky (http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html)
Awesome talk. Well worth the watch.

[RPGuru1331]

If you really feel that my posting of my personal viewpoint on humanity in a public forum entirely about opinions and discussions is proving to be an obstruction to the progress of equal rights, then I think you must be more pessimistic about the whole affair than I am.
If you were a unique phenomenon in this regard, I would not waste the keystrokes. You're not. The collective gasp of "But it's so HAAAAAAARD and it's not going to HAPPEN why should we DO ANYTHING", is both irksome and to a small degree, disheartening, in general. It is also a position born of privilege; you are permitted not to care, because the lack of equality doesn't negatively affect you. If you think it's so impossible, just quietly ponder how other people find the drive. Do not make a spectacle of your ability to not care, of how difficult it is. It is already understood by those who want to do this, I think.

[Juggling Goth]

Because, those equalized women take every chance they get to tear down men, and since they are the women men usually can't fight back without villifying themselves.

And yet men still hold most of the wealth and most of the positions of power in the world. Seriously, reality check here.


Case in point, it is perfectly acceptable for a guy to give another guy a friendly hug/pat on the shoulder/ whatever, nothing will ever come of it.

Same situation and the girl later decides the guy irritated her, sexual harrassment charges happen.

May I suggest not touching people without their permission? Regardless of sex. It's a radical idea, I know. But I like it. It also helps avoid those circumstances where you put your hand on someone's giant painful bruise or grab someone who's feeling particularly nervous or hypersensitive to touch. But mostly, it's good because hey, maybe somebody doesn't want you to touch them, and it would be polite to take that into account.

I'm ignoring the "women cry sexual harrassment all the time" thing.


ARRNNT! You got the wrong answer! When I was in school I had grades that usually variated between a 0% and anywhere from 90%-100%. Why? Because I point blank refused to do roughly half of the busy work they'd give.
I knew it, therefore I saw know purpose to demonstrating it again and again.

As my mother described it it was "The wierdest thing, you'd think the report card would be straight A's the way the teachers talked about me, instead of C's and D's."

The current school system is flawed. It is meant more to produce sheep than people.

Why is this relevant to gender? Because women are sheep and men are maverick geniuses? I was the same and I'm female.

[Murdim]

The wealthiest countries in the world aren't home to the wealthiest people. Average income per capita is based on the mean, not the actual most common level of income. The data are skewed by countries with a rather small, very rich group of people (for instance, much of the middle east). It's the countries where the prosperity is distributed that those on the lower end are still better off.
Or in other words, the quality in wealth distribution is as important as the quantity of wealth. Which is exactly what I'm saying.


Why is this relevant to gender? Because women are sheep and men are maverick geniuses? I was the same and I'm female.
I don't think it was supposed to be relevant to gender at all, actually. I hope.

[Serpentine]

Still, most equality movements seem to have a pretty minimal effect. I suppose there have been a few over history that had a big enough impact that I should give them props, though.The gay, women's and black rights movements completely and profoundly altered the very ways our societies work on a huge scale. To say they had a "pretty minimal effect" is to undervalue their impact to a ludicrous* level. To say that all they deserve is your "props" is insulting.


*ridiculous, obscene, absurd, flabbergasting, ridonkulous, wtf, just plain wrong. "Ludicrous" just didn't quite cover it.

[DeadManSleeping]

Do you think those are the only equality movements in the history of the world? No. Oppressed group have been fighting to be equal since oppression existed. The occasional success, whatever percentage of humanity it may have ended up affecting, simply pales in comparison to the number of groups that have not received equal treatment since history came about.

Places with very small minorities end up crushing those minorities under their heel. Protest flags haven't done a thing to stop it. It's just that, in the modern day, they have to pretend that their government doesn't do that sort of thing, so they do it all subtle-like.

You're not going to hear much about these smaller groups except in a rare news article, or if you research that area. Their voices are crushed. Obviously, I can't mention specific cases without going into politics, but try to think about the ethnic struggles in Eastern Europe and the Northeast. The only place those have made much of a dent is violence. Not what I'd call a rousing success.

And yes, "props". For every truly astounding hero in those movements, there were hundreds also in that movement who committed atrocities out of hatred for their oppressors (whom they would crush entirely if they had the chance), and thousands more who stepped back when there was even the slightest threat to them. It's just as common in the successful movements as the failed ones. I try to avoid giving an overabundance of compliments to the kind of people who murder innocents who just happen to look/act differently, no matter which side of the fence they're on.

[Juggling Goth]

For every truly astounding hero in those movements, there were hundreds also in that movement who committed atrocities out of hatred for their oppressors (whom they would crush entirely if they had the chance)

Seriously? Name hundreds of atrocities committed in the name of women's rights. I wanna know. And I don't mean this guy you know who a feminist said something mean to once. You're saying "committed atrocities out of hatred", I wanna hear about killing sprees, legalised rape...

[druid91]

And yet men still hold most of the wealth and most of the positions of power in the world. Seriously, reality check here.



May I suggest not touching people without their permission? Regardless of sex. It's a radical idea, I know. But I like it. It also helps avoid those circumstances where you put your hand on someone's giant painful bruise or grab someone who's feeling particularly nervous or hypersensitive to touch. But mostly, it's good because hey, maybe somebody doesn't want you to touch them, and it would be polite to take that into account.

I'm ignoring the "women cry sexual harrassment all the time" thing.



Why is this relevant to gender? Because women are sheep and men are maverick geniuses? I was the same and I'm female.

And this matters why? We are striving for equality, hence forget about the whole male/female division.

I don't touch people, in fact I hate to be touched and will usually use any means possible to avoid physical contact. The problem is sometimes not touching is not an option, a crowded hallway for instance.

Why is that? Because in my experience thats a pretty big threat, and given my personal experience with this subject they don't even need proof to start an investigation. Hell I only got out of it at one point because somebody accused me of text messaging things to a girl, when I never owned a cell-phone.

It isn't, they said that the only reason for someone to fail in school is lazyness and not knowing the material.

[DeadManSleeping]

You want me to research womens' rights terrorists? If it were a matter of libraries and books, I'd find that perfectly fine, but given that we're on the internet, I'd think you could spend a couple minutes looking yourself.

I have homework to get to, but 2 minutes of searching gets me to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism), where a brief paragraph mentions womens' rights parades destroying shops and setting fire to the city. And that's just the public article, where most of the information that defames an overall well-intentioned group is going to be suppressed or glossed over. I imagine that if I wanted to write a solid paper on it, I would have little trouble.

I admit, the gay rights movement has, in comparison, been a bit tamer, but I know I've heard of stuff happening. Humans are, in general, violent.

[Juggling Goth]

Why is that? Because in my experience thats a pretty big threat, and given my personal experience with this subject they don't even need proof to start an investigation. Hell I only got out of it at one point because somebody accused me of text messaging things to a girl, when I never owned a cell-phone.


You know what's a bigger threat? Being sexually harrassed and assaulted. And women are not automatically believed; we do not report everything.

I am so done with this conversation.

[Urist]

Actually, their are some interesting laws and figures related to that. In many states, the law states that in domestic abuse or rape cases, the man is presumed guilty until proved otherwise, meaning the guy will be picked up and brought into the station even if they were the one calling to report a domestic abuse. Male rape cases are also mostly ignored, under the assumption that a man "cannot be raped" and that if they were, then they're not a real man. Sexual assault is not a female only problem, by a long shot.

[druid91]

You know what's a bigger threat? Being sexually harrassed and assaulted. And women are not automatically believed; we do not report everything.

I am so done with this conversation.

If something goes unreported that's their bad.

And to be honest, no it isn't. Let's compare the consequences shall we?

Man falsely accused of sexual assault: Jailtime, Being placed on a special registry for all to know you are convicted of something you did not do, and oh yeah Having your life ruined forever.

Woman sexually assaulted: A few years of therapy. Your ordeal is over. Depending on the severity of course.

To be honest, you simply don't get my point of view. To me this whole argument is pointless, and is causing injustices in society.

The way to equality is not to balance the scales but to welcome a seperate group into your own.

[Tengu_temp]

Are you seriously saying that being falsely accused (not even convicted) of sexual assault is a more traumatic experience than being raped?

I have no words.

[druid91]

Are you seriously saying that being falsely accused (not even convicted) of sexual assault is a more traumatic experience than being raped?

I have no words.

No I'm saying it has a more lasting and noticable effect.

Rape probably does traumatize you more, but the key difference is you are allowed to recover. You might even get help in that.

You get falsely accused? Your hopes of being anything more than a bottom rung worker just got nuked. For life.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

And I was indeed talking about being convicted.

[Caewil]

No I'm saying it has a more lasting and noticable effect.

Rape probably does traumatize you more, but the key difference is you are allowed to recover. You might even get help in that.

You get falsely accused? Your hopes of being anything more than a bottom rung worker just got nuked. For life.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

And I was indeed talking about being convicted.
I'd still say it'd harder on women in this case, given the likely disparity between the number of false accusations to unreported rapes. People often don't report being raped for all sorts of reasons - being convicted on a false accusation would require either stupidity or wilful malevolence. That and it's hard to convict unless you actually sleep with them.

Thefore, don't sleep with stupid/intoxicated/evil women or get into situations where events can be misconstrued as rape.


Actually, their are some interesting laws and figures related to that. In many states, the law states that in domestic abuse or rape cases, the man is presumed guilty until proved otherwise, meaning the guy will be picked up and brought into the station even if they were the one calling to report a domestic abuse. Male rape cases are also mostly ignored, under the assumption that a man "cannot be raped" and that if they were, then they're not a real man. Sexual assault is not a female only problem, by a long shot.
American laws are weird... This is a country that allows people in some states the right to own heavy weaponry.

[Mono Vertigo]

No I'm saying it has a more lasting and noticable effect.

Rape probably does traumatize you more, but the key difference is you are allowed to recover. You might even get help in that.

You get falsely accused? Your hopes of being anything more than a bottom rung worker just got nuked. For life.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

And I was indeed talking about being convicted.
I'll refrain from posting anything that I might regret, and instead, I'll just ask you this: do you think that, just by being allowed to recover, you will recover? What makes you say the consequences of being raped are more lasting and noticeable? Do you honestly believe it is worse to be a "bottom rung worker" than having been raped?

[druid91]

I'll refrain from posting anything that I might regret, and instead, I'll just ask you this: do you think that, just by being allowed to recover, you will recover? What makes you say the consequences of being raped are more lasting and noticeable? Do you honestly believe it is worse to be a "bottom rung worker" than having been raped?

Because, A family member of mine had it happen.
A close family member, not a cousin.

They seem perfectly fine, in fact a bit of an idiot about trusting guys too much.

So don't try to tell me I know nothing about the subject.

A single traumatic experience? that's effect can be minimized with therapy?
Vs
Living out the rest of your days as a friendless janitor, in some states has to identify himself as a sex offender for all to see, if they were a teacher they just lost years of their life and thousands of dollars.... Do I really need to go on?

The punishments are horrible, and rightly so. But it shouldn't be wielded as it is now, it should be precise and focused onto those who deserve it.

[Serpentine]

Wow.
I think for the sake of my infraction rate, I'm gonna bow out of this discussion now.

[Urist]

The major issue is being registered on sexual offender lists, which often happens even if you avoid conviction. This makes you near unhireable, restricts your living choices, and makes you show up on various registries and public databases, often leading to harassment and other issues in dealing with people. The same applies to people(mostly to men) convicted of statutory rape when the sex was consensual.

There is also the problem that molestation and sexual abuse is a problem that is often placed solely at the feet of males, with little to no female responsibility presumed.

[Serpentine]

So fix that. Don't blame women, and dismiss the impact of sexual assault.

[druid91]

@druid91 : I'm pretty sure you could have gotten your point across much more smoothly if you didn't dismiss the unreported sexual assaults as irrelevant and the women's own fault. And then proceeded to deride the impact of rape on a life as "a few years of therapy", conveniently forgetting to take into account the trauma that this therapy is supposed to cure, the fact that the outcome of therapy isn't exactly a miracle recovery from said trauma, and even the very event that caused this trauma. All of this in the name of your precious argument.

That's all well and nice to say that people should stop fighting over "women's right" and "men's right" and start to work for the equality of everyone as human beings. Except that's clearly not what you're doing right now, by intentionally minimising women's problems in order to highlight men's own.
Except, that wasn't my point. My point was to demonstrate womens power.

I emphasised male problems...

And in doing so I have now come to the heart of what I was trying to demonstrate.

By simply flipping it around and placing the emphasis on male problems as opposed to female.... what happens? I get torn into and villified. Torn down and seen as evil.

Yet, I am merely using the exact same argument style that I have seen used by those standing for feminine rights in this very thread. Dismiss the other sides problems and pump up your own.

Hell I was actually giving more weight to womans problems than they give to mens.

I have thus demonstrated womens power and no longer need to participate in this thread. Thank you and have a good day.

[Serpentine]

I avoid using the term primarily because I haven't read enough about it to be sure of its proper use, but I'm pretty sure you just demonstrated Male Privilege quite aptly.
I'll wait for someone who's more versed in feminist theory to come in and explain that better. The only gender studies class I've done was about men and masculinity in film.

[Urist]

So fix that. Don't blame women, and dismiss the impact of sexual assault.


This response demonstrates an interesting idea that shows the inherent sexism in our society: Men can fix it, and they should fix it. Also, how do you suggest the laws are changed so that men aren't vilified? By your own argument, such a thing would be diminishing womens rights and demonstrating misogyny on societies part. Think if the response to this was gender flipped. "Rape isn't a mans fault, don't blame men and dismiss womens role in attracting rapists." Does that seem right? No, its not(although some people, to use the term loosely, make that claim), its a sexist response that places the burden of mens perception solely on men and doesn't acknowledge another group or societies role in perpetuating this image. Sexual assault doesn't deserve to be dismissed, but neither do the horrible miscarriages of justice that result in innocent mens lives being ruined by another persons cruelty or indifference.

[Serpentine]

This response demonstrates an interesting idea that shows the inherent sexism in our society: Men can fix it, and they should fix it. Also, how do you suggest the laws are changed so that men aren't vilified? By your own argument, such a thing would be diminishing womens rights and demonstrating misogyny on societies part. Think if the response to this was gender flipped. "Rape isn't a mans fault, don't blame men and dismiss womens role in attracting rapists." Does that seem right? No, its not(although some people, to use the term loosely, make that claim), its a sexist response that places the burden of mens perception solely on men and doesn't acknowledge another group or societies role in perpetuating this image. Sexual assault doesn't deserve to be dismissed, but neither do the horrible miscarriages of justice that result in innocent mens lives being ruined by another persons cruelty or indifference.Just plain no. To every single thing you seem to think I'm saying.

No, I do not think "men can fix it, and they should fix it", at least not because they're men or any such nonsense. I think that if men see true injustices in modern society, they should take steps to address them - exactly like women did through feminism (which, by the way, properly applied is just as good for men as for women). Speak up. Offer solutions. Push for change, for the benefit of all. Don't use men's problems as a way to silence women.

No, "by my argument" I do not think "such a thing would be diminishing womens rights and demonstrating misogyny on societies part". I recommend having a look at yourself and your own prejudices if you insist on seeing such things on my words.
False accusations (which, by the way, I believe statistics find to be in the far minority at worst) hurt women about as much as men - because it gives these sorts of claims much more credence than they deserve. I, too, find it disturbing that the "innocent until proven guilty" clause has apparently been removed specifically for sexual assault. And I, too, dislike that these charges must haunt these people regardless of actual deed or determined guilt.
In actual fact, I find the silence on the abuse (sexual, domestic and otherwise) of men deeply disturbing, and I cannot for the life of me understand why more men aren't kicking up a stink about it. Take an Australian compaign: "Violence Against Women: Australia Says No." They may as well be saying "Violence Against Men: Australia Says Go For It!" But the solution to this is not "people should stop whinging about violence against women". It's "people should start standing up against violence, against everyone".

The thing is, these issues - which are real and worthy of addressing - need to be examined on their own merits, not used to dismiss those of women which, believe it or not, are also still real and worthy of addressing.

[Misery Esquire]

In actual fact, I find the silence on the abuse (sexual, domestic and otherwise) of men deeply disturbing, and I cannot for the life of me understand why more men aren't kicking up a stink about it. Take an Australian compaign: "Violence Against Women: Australia Says No." They may as well be saying "Violence Against Men: Australia Says Go For It!" But the solution to this is not "people should stop whinging about violence against women". It's "people should start standing up against violence, against everyone".

Because We're Tough Manly Men Who Fix Thier Own Problems And Don't Afraid Of Anything.

Jokes aside, it really does work that way, sort of. I was beaten up a lot as a kid on the playground, but I never once complained about it. At the time, anyway, I have plenty of complaints looking back on it but not enough to bother those people who have obviously moved on with thier lives. When the going gets tough, you get tougher.

[SDF]

Actually, their are some interesting laws and figures related to that. In many states, the law states that in domestic abuse or rape cases, the man is presumed guilty until proved otherwise, meaning the guy will be picked up and brought into the station even if they were the one calling to report a domestic abuse. Male rape cases are also mostly ignored, under the assumption that a man "cannot be raped" and that if they were, then they're not a real man. Sexual assault is not a female only problem, by a long shot.


Yeah, none of that is true unless you can cite some unconstitutional law or legal precedent that doesn't exist. In many states? Name one.

Also, you can't end up on a sex offender registry unless you are convicted of a crime. Stop making things up, it is disingenuous to the discussion.

[Urist]

Yeah, none of that is true unless you can cite some unconstitutional law or legal precedent that doesn't exist. In many states? Name one.

Also, you can't end up on a sex offender registry unless you are convicted of a crime. Stop making things up, it is disingenuous to the discussion.

Name one-Colorado's mandatory arrest law states that an accused abuser must be arrested, in order to ensure the abuse victims safety. The responding police officers are also trained to assume that the male in a situation is the aggressor, rather than evaluating the evidence and making a conclusion based on this data. This is mostly relevant when the case is reported by neighbors or other witnesses, rather than when the man reports the case himself, but there have been incidences where this is the case.

Registry was the wrong term, its true, sorry for the mistake, I wrote this in about three seconds between classes. I should have said that they can be put into various databases as having been accused of sexual assault, which will show up on background checks for resumes and other searches. They also will show up on google or other searches if the case has publicity, and unfortunately the court of public opinion often cares not whether they are found guilty or not, they will be presumed guilty and the assumption is that they escaped justice, not that they were not guilty.

[Durmegil Guldur]

I suppose we could try to implement a viable solution where as individuals, we try to the best of our ability to achieve the things we want (be they academic, vocational, social, material etc), however long that takes and however many times we have to repeat a step or try it again somewhere else. I'm not saying that there won't be times when you can't get what you're trying to achieve for reasons that are simply beyond your control. There will always be that time when you've been going for a promotion/job and don't get it because the boss's best friend's son was going for it too. Merit and hard work alone are not a sure path to the things you want to achieve. There are all kinds of -isms that are going to get in your way from time to time, and these absolutely favour people with some traits over others. Does this mean that you should stop trying? Of course not.

As individuals, we can also take a step back, look at how we interact with the people around us and ask ourselves "am I treating this person differently because they are X <a different gender/of a different race/a different age>. If you look at this objectively, you might even surprise yourself with how often you answer yes to that question. Try to address this in your own behaviour, or others will simply accuse you of being a hypocrite, and it's hard to convince anyone of anything once you have that label.

In trying to make a difference, you will always be resisted for a variety of reasons. Many people simply do not adjust well to change. The greatest resistance will always come from those who have most to lose. If true equality is ever to be realised, then the people who benefit most from inequality will have to make some rather large sacrifices - and arguing the necessity of these sacrifices with them is unlikely to win them to your side. What seems to have been happening is that the beneficiaries of inequality are being slowly persuaded to even the odds, a little at a time. It might be a daft idea to think that one day, all people will be equal, but we should never stop trying to make improvements to the current state of affairs with this "some day" as our eventual goal.

Sorry to sound like a wide-eyed idealist, but it's important to keep focused on the eventual goal.

[Serpentine]

Name one-Colorado's mandatory arrest law states that an accused abuser must be arrested, in order to ensure the abuse victims safety. The responding police officers are also trained to assume that the male in a situation is the aggressor, rather than evaluating the evidence and making a conclusion based on this data. This is mostly relevant when the case is reported by neighbors or other witnesses, rather than when the man reports the case himself, but there have been incidences where this is the case.That isn't what you said.

[shadow_archmagi]

At "Melancholy of the Modern Man"

Women are not yet equal, culturally. There are still real people in real positions of power, who follow a 4chan like mentality of "Back in the kitchen."

Consciously or not, we elect far more male representatives than women. If you say that that's because men are almost always more qualified for the job, then you have to ask about why the system only produces strong MALE leaders.

If you say that's because people feel more comfortable voting for men, then you have to ask why *that* is.

There's still a sizable cultural slant against women. A girl who wants to wear boys' clothing isn't frowned on nearly as much as the other way around, because wanting to be girly is just weird.

Don't blame your problems on a world that is "Abandoning Masculinity." You're just unhappy like a normal person.

There's an easy solution to that. (http://xkcd.com/209/)

Furthermore, if you're one of the people who says "Women are equal! Or, they were, and now they're abusing their power! Terrible people taking over my world!" you're perpetuating negative stereotypes and that makes you the terrible person.

[Urist]

That isn't what you said.

I should have said the "abuser" is considered guilty until proven innocent, and that the abuser must be brought in for questioning. The next sentence was intended to be that "Men are usually presumed to be the abuser in these cases"but I got a wee bit ahead of myself when I was typing:smallredface:. Need to read what I post more carefully...

[RebelRogue]

There's still a sizable cultural slant against women. A girl who wants to wear boys' clothing isn't frowned on nearly as much as the other way around, because wanting to be girly is just weird.
I think that's more related to the way we view males rather than females; it is questionable for a man to display 'soft' sides, not because women are looked down on, but because men are supposed to be manly! It's more about homophobia than gender roles, I think. Whatever the reason, I think we agree it's a bad thing.

[SDF]

Presumption of innocence is used in the judiciary and is independent of executive action. Shall arrest laws still require probably cause before an arrest may be made. As male on female crime is more common you will see more male arrests in DV cases, but they don't wantonly arrest the male without doing any investigating. All of this is a far cry from a "presumption of guilt."

[Sipex]

So fix that. Don't blame women, and dismiss the impact of sexual assault.

On the subject of sexual assault I agree here. It's horrid for women but if it's so bad for those wrongly accused then the punishment and investigation into it needs to be fixed.

THAT SAID.

Do you know how hard it is to convict someone of a sexual assault charge? Most often this sort of thing leaves little to no evidence and in the case of his word vs hers the judge will not automatically take the side of the victim but instead end the case on a 'Plausible doubt' charge with probation given to the offender.

After probation is over (which is mainly used as time by the offender to proove how innocent she or he really is) everything gets dropped.

Even after breaking probation it's still really hard to find anything that sticks.

I know this because I know someone who's almost 100% guilty of said charges, has been brought in front of a judge about it TWICE with at least five seperate charges between the two trials AND has broken probation on several cases.

The worst that has happened is he can't be near kids until he takes a class and he's still on probation because he keeps breaking it.

This is Canada by the way.

So the risk of some crazy sexual partner getting you successfully convicted of a crime you didn't do is incredibly low.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Yeah, "innocent until proven guilty" as written in the Constitution pertains to judicial actions, i.e. the burden of proof is on the Prosecution in a court of law. It does not pertain to arrests, which in most cases require probable cause or a warrant (probable cause, in the case of emergency response to domestic violence). You're not "presumed guilty" when you're arrested, you're just being arrested. Later on, a court decides whether you're innocent or guilty of a crime.

[Ravens_cry]

Strictly speaking yes, but there is social stigma associated with being arrested, especially for certain crimes, even if you are not guilty.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Okay, I wasn't sure about this thread in the first place, and it just got fairly political. Thread locked.