Gender

[VaeVictis]

Men and Women are treated EQUALLY. There's some male and female rapes and well bad stuff.
But the male doesn't tell anyone whilst women did it and so it made the illusion that it's Women.

Men and Women are treated EQUALLY.

Men and Women are treated EQUALLY.

Buh-bye.

[Kman]

we all should listen to more swans era industrial instead of arguing

[Froge]

I find it interesting, from an anthropological perspective, why humans have an innate need to argue with each other when they disagree on something. I think it's because we all love big egos, and winning an argument and proving an opponent wrong helps satisfy our self-esteem.

[Paddy™]

@MyRedneptune

Spoiler below!

Guess what - any kind of inequality is evidence for a "patriarchy".

No it isn't. Patriarchy is when women aren't in control of their own destinies, and men rule everything, deliberately and consciously. How that has anything to do with racism, sectarianism, classism, etc. is beyond me. Unless, of course, all of society's ills are caused by maleness?

Society has many imbalances which aren't by design. I don't believe for a second that the patriarchy is handing out privilege coupons to people with cocks. It's a conspiratorial fantasy which isn't helping anyone.

And yes, my hypothetical conversation about women's privilege in court was supposed to be contradictory - that was the point of it. Feminists want to have their cake and eat it; they want to scream oppression on the one hand and present their gains and privilege as even more evidence of oppression on the other.

I'm all for the evening out of these privileges amongst genders. But as we'll get to in a moment, I don't think feminism has any constructive role to play.

And before you jump on that statement and tell me that men are discriminated against just as much as women or something like that, ask yourself this: what are considered to be the most valuable personal achievements in our modern capitalistic society? Power, knowledge, money, fame, recognition, respect - probably one of those, right? Well, the funny thing is that, for some peculiar reason, men tend to be more successful in those fields than women. Hmm, I wonder why that is?

I agree, I'm not saying society is fine the way it is, we need to even things out, but I don't see any of this as something that feminism is uniquely qualified to deal with. If you look back to its Marxist beginnings in around 1969, and look at what they said and how they behaved, you'll see why it has no place in any constructive progressive society. It's like using the IRA to end sectarianism! And no, things haven't changed since then, the core ideology is still the same. There are still books being written by well-respected feminists about how men are defective women, are useless, stupid, that the world needs to reduce the male population size down to about 10% of what it is now, that sex is rape if initiated by the male, that men are natural rapists and abusers of women, etc. They're extremists, and just because the philosophy gets diluted as it trickles down into the moderate, progressive feminist viewpoint, that doesn't make it any less dangerous or counter-productive.

Sure, women have some privileges over men. They are privileged in matters of family and emotional health. But you can't claim they are more privileged than men, or even as privileged as men.

If you wanted to list all of the ways in which one gender might have an easier time than the other I'm sure you could come up with a winner, but my point is that I don't consider this to be a conspiracy by the patriarchy. Like I said, there are many imbalances in all areas of society that aren't "by design" or part of an overarching plan. It's not helpful to view every problem as a gender issue when there's usually a much less sinister explanation.

Now, this is just alien logic to me. Why the hell would it matter who does the dirty work - it's the fact that discrimination exists that matters, right? Let me repeat something that has been stated more than once in this thread: most feminists are not against men. Most feminists do not blame anything on men as a whole.

Feminists even do things that can help men. Holy cow!

For further information, please go to this web page and watch the video at the 3:59 mark: (link)

"Not all feminists are like that", or NAFALT, has its own designation as an argument now. That's how often it's used as a defence of feminism.

I already explained why I think feminism isn't helpful in a previous part of this post, but I want to make it clear that I don't think you, Abraxas or anyone else who argues on behalf of feminism from a moderate position hates men. But why call yourselves feminists in the first place? You clearly don't believe that men are rapists, restrained only by law and social norms not to abuse women, but if you tow the feminist line this is what you're promoting. This is what the most vocal feminists believe and preach, this is what the people who push for the laws and lobby the politicians believe. You're presenting a prettier picture of feminism and inadvertently giving cover and access to the bigotry which drives the change-makers. You don't hate men, but the people with the lobbyist's pens and the book deals almost certainly do.

You can help women without being a feminist, the word feminism isn't a synonym for "doesn't hate women".

P.S. I hope you can get past the excessively rude tone of this post. I still love you and all.

I didn't find it rude

I find it interesting, from an anthropological perspective, why humans have an innate need to argue with each other when they disagree on something. I think it's because we all love big egos, and winning an argument and proving an opponent wrong helps satisfy our self-esteem.

It's a debate thread! XD

Debate has utility, it's not necessarily a way of wanking one's ego. Although I do enjoy a good wank.

[Kreekakon]

I find it interesting, from an anthropological perspective, why humans have an innate need to argue with each other when they disagree on something. I think it's because we all love big egos, and winning an argument and proving an opponent wrong helps satisfy our self-esteem.

Not all arguing/debating is started on the basis of one-upping your opponent. In its most proud form, both sides are likely well aware that the other side may not change their minds, and are just sharing their own opinions, and thoughts for the other person to consider in the hopes that both of them may come out of a debate more knowledgeable as well as having a new perspective of looking at a subject matter.

[Paddy™]

I do not think they are necessarily patently false, but they certainly are, as you said, drenched in hyperbole. I concede because I cannot possibly know how others experience the issue and it would be hypocritical of me to make any absolute statements to that effect. Maybe Abraxas is delusional, and maybe she is not. It would be rude of me to make any claims when my experiences with this are modest at best. I can only say what my opinion is and how I perceive the issue, and unless I have contradictory evidence, which you do, the argument would quickly turn ugly if I didn't let down.

Shit, sorry, I completely missed this.

This is fair enough, a good way to conduct any debate. I should take a lesson from your approach.

To say that there is no inequality is equally extreme, with all due respect.

I hope I didn't give that impression; there is inequality, of course, but I don't think it's an issue unique to women, and I don't think it's a conspiracy. I also think "inequality" is perhaps too strong a word to describe the state of affairs in a Western society like the U.S. or U.K., at least when it comes to gender differences. I'd certainly use it to describe the treatment of homosexuals, transgendered people, ethnic minorities, etc. Discrimination and violence against these people is in friggin' orbit compared to that endured by heterosexuals of either gender.

Like I said to MyRedNeptune, I agree that things need sorting out, but it's nowhere near as severe as feminism makes it seem, and it's not something an extremist-staffed behemoth like feminism should be anywhere near.

[Bridge]

Shit, sorry, I completely missed this.

This is fair enough, a good way to conduct any debate. I should take a lesson from your approach.

To be fair I might have given off a different vibe in my post than I intended to. When I said "privileged" in italics for example I was trying to emphasize the fact that those were Abraxis' words. I think there is technically some privilege, but I would never call it that, which I think would be obvious from my other posts.

IMO, one can learn a lot more from your approach. It is remarkable to me how well informed you are, and how you manage to frame your thoughts totally free of bias. I'm glad I'm on your side because you would make a very formidable opponent.

(I'm not implying there are only two sides to this issue or anything like that)

I also think "inequality" is perhaps too strong a word to describe the state of affairs in a Western society like the U.S. or U.K., at least when it comes to gender differences.

I agree with you but the word inequality doesn't necessarily need to be strong. Even a slight imbalance can be called inequality if you go by the literal definition. Whether or not it is useful to use the term in that way is another debate in and of itself though.

P.S. You didn't give the impression that you thought there was no inequality. In hindsight I think I would have rather said that your posts give the impression that the inequality between the sexes is equal. This may very well be true, and if it is I will gladly eat my own words, but right now I would say the balance is tipped somewhat in favor of men - not a lot mind you, but are you completely sure you can literally counter any evidence for male privilege with evidence for female privilege? I ask as humbly as I possibly can.

[Cuyir]

I have a few things to add to the conversation.

Yes, there are branches of ''feminism'' that see men in those ways, that want to castrate them because that would mean they wouldn't be able to rape women (which is a thought that's not only psychotic but flawed, serial rapists usually use a ''surrogate'' penis and/or inanimate objects to rape, so if some psychopath wants to rape, he'll rape). and all that extremist, dumb, reprehensible things they spout. I ran into a legitimate blog that I've forgotten the name of which featured lengthy and serious sounding tirades, saying all sorts of insane stuff. I love that I have memory issues so I can't recall the name. This does not mean that feminism, in its core, is flawed but that's me.

To say that ''everyone needs to be a feminist for there to be equality'' or however it was said, is a pretty, how you say, dubiously founded train of thought. That's like saying that every needs to be part of a judeo-christian faith in order for the planet to have peace or everyone being atheists for knowledge to excel (Georges Lemaître, a catholic priest and an astronomer, developed the basis for what would become the Big Bang Theory) and etc. This sort of utopic view is harmful to the movement, to ANY movement, to any society and culture even. I only need to point to Judeo-Christian faiths that have been trying to force their views on people and doing the complete opposite of peace. What we need is equality, not a future where everyone thinks the same way. We need communication, not blanket statements and finger pointing.

[Paddy™]

This may very well be true, and if it is I will gladly eat my own words, but right now I would say the balance is tipped somewhat in favor of men - not a lot mind you, but are you completely sure you can literally counter any evidence for male privilege with evidence for female privilege? I ask as humbly as I possibly can.

It would be a fun experiment, that's for sure! In terms of discrimination based solely on gender, I think the scales are certainly closer to being horizontal than they are when compared to discrimination against people based on their sexuality, race and even their religion.

The perception of women being under-trodden (in the West, that is) is one which is whipped up and kept alive by activism and lobbying, not by data. The examples which have already been discussed include the wage gap between genders, the rates of domestic violence and the victimhood of random street violence. Add to that the asymmetrical attitudes toward circumcision, the overall value placed upon the lives of women versus men, the expectations of men to self-sacrifice and internalise their own disposability, the treatment of men versus women in courts and prisons, the fact that the vast majority of homeless people are male, etc. etc. etc...

It sounds like I'm trying to make it seem that men have it really hard. I'm not, I'm just pointing out that to call them privileged at all, let alone privileged over women, is stretching the definition of the term. If there is a patriarchy it's doing a pretty shitty job of uplifting its prized male subjects.

Valerie Solanas must be rolling in her grave...

[Bridge]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57...tten-rule/

This is great in my opinion. Hopefully enough women take part in this protest so that the government and clergy cannot ignore the issue anymore. Who knows, maybe this will even start a domino effect that will eventually lead to equality on par with the Western world, although that is unfortunately doubtful. And the fact that even in a literal patriarchy this is garnering approval from males should be sufficient evidence that the idea of a male conspiracy is total nonsense.*

*Not directed at anybody in this thread.