The Men's Rights Movement

[Purusha]

Male supremacy really isn't a thing any more.

There never was such a thing to begin with.

[ibanezmonster]

There never was such a thing to begin with.

In the west... eh... I'm no expert, couldn't really say. But in the Middle East? I'd say so.

So my friend told me about recently going on a first (and last) date with some guy that asked at the end, "So am I getting any tonight?"  Obviously that was a no... talk about smooth...

Time to level up my Paladin, throw on the white knight armor and raise my sword to the heavens to defend the feminist empire! (but try not to be too intimidating, because that might promote the patriarchy)

[ibanezmonster]

I'll do a few. I could do all but don't feel like spending that much time on them.

Entire industries (prostitution and pornography) exist to facilitate the rape of women to serve male interests. (89% of women in prostitution are not there by choice.)

Gay porn doesn't exist! Straight men are never offered money to film gay porn.
Prostitution is a bit different than porn in certain ways... similar, but you can't make a statement like that that applies to both.

Women are paid less than men (~75% of men's pay in the same job for white women, ~65% for women of colour)

...
...
...
*head explodes*

So, if you've been reading the thread... how could we go this far into the thread, point out MANY, MANY times how wrong this statistic is and you still point it out like it's a fact?
If you haven't, then I guess never mind.

Men commit 90%+ of all violent crime.

And this is classic feminist anti-male rhetoric.
Let's talk about problems white people in America face. Oh, one of the problems is that half of the murders in this country are caused by black men, who make up 7% of the population.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439

Did you sort of get a racist vibe in that sentence? Because I did. So if someone were to say that, they just might be suspected of racism. And obviously, you can see what I think of your "Men commit 90%+ of all violent crime" statement.

Also, you do know men are more often victims of that violent crime, right?

This is a very short and non-exhaustive list. If you're really interested in finding sources for these stats and critically examining your own views, you can do the research yourself. If you're an entitled fuckboy who doesn't give a shit, you can just say 'well you can't PROVE that' or 'here's another statistic that is different, checkmate obama' or toss off a smartass one-liner. The point of these statistics is not so we can look at it mathematically and say 'ok, so if we change things so that 50% of all Xs are women, we're good' or whatever, it is to demonstrate that there is a problem with how people think. These are cultural problems, they are not inherent to human beings or some bullshit like that.

Anyway I think that's enough derail. I leave y'all to your MRA thread, good luck with... whatever it is you're trying to do

This is exactly the type of condescending attitude that makes me want to become a feminist.
So if I found a source which contradicts your lack of sources, I'm an "entitled fuckboy" that for some reason hates Obama?

"Don't question. Just accept. I'm done."

[ibanezmonster]

Female-dominated fields are paid less and held in lower esteem than male-dominated ones across time and culture (eg when computer science was female-dominated it was much less prestigious and affluent than it was once it became male-dominated)

*turns into entitled fuckboy with sarcastic one-liner*

So, computer science today is comparable to how it was 10, 20 years ago, eh? Ok, if not, it must be because Java, C++, and .NET have always been marketed toward men. Too much blue in the logos, after all.

[Jo498]

There seem obvious economic reasons why a) more money was made in computer science starting with the rise of personal computers/entertainment around 1980 and b) comparably more men flocked to the field.
Earlier there were technical fields that were more traditionally male ( -> less attractive for females), closer to blue collar work (civil, petro, geo etc. engineering). Several of these fields declined economically more or less parallel with the rise of the IT industry. In any case the causes for more money and reputation in IT have not much to do with female/male. Both developments are consequences of more fundamental causes.

Two of the most prestigious professional fields, law and medicine, are close to having a majority of women by now in many countries. Many countries have had female members in their supreme courts since a few decades ago.
As both law and medicine are more prestigious than petrochemical engineering or IT one would have expected males to defend their supremacy there more strongly (and from the hypothesis of males forcefully dominating whenever they really want to and the whole system being rigged against females the males should have been successful) than in e.g. law. This is not the case.
Therefore I seriously doubt that there is a general alignment of "male prestigious jobs" and "female badly paid jobs". It seems statistically very clear that the biggest losers in the last decades economically (as well as in several other respects) have been unskilled male workers and also male skilled blue collar workers. Sure, there are female dominated badly paid fields like childcare, nursing, cleaning. But there is also garbage collecting, slaughterhouses, ditch digging etc. All of which are more male (at least in my experience close to 100%) than nursing or cleaning are female.

(Admittedly, I believe that one cause is a skewed talents distribution between males and females with more males with high mathematical/spatial intelligence, whereas females are generally better in language dominated fields as well as those demanding finer social skills. It also seems to be the case that the male distribution has "longer tails" in both directions, therefore more male homeless and unemployables but also more male Nobel laureates.)

[Jo498]

Furthermore, what I find really disappointing with more recent strains of feminism is that the main goal seems to be to get to more equal numbers in jobs/fields that represent the very worst of what earlier feminist and related movements criticized as "evil male worldview raping everything".
(This is paralleled by sexual liberation not striving for more caring and equal relationships but for an equal number of sociopathic male AND female "rakes" a la Huxley.)

The earlier goal to make the world more caring (= feminine) and more human instead of orcishly raping nature and fellow creatures including humans seems to be passé. The main thing seems to show that females can be exactly as sociopathic and ruthless as we have seen with our male politicians, investment banksters and other schemers since a long time ago. (o.k. Thatcher was also more than 30 years ago, but she truly was a pioneer.)

[Ken B]

Another story starts to implode. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html

It seems he attempted a self-deprecating joke, as a way of criticizing sexism.

Another case of my observation that Twitter is bait for idiots.

[ibanezmonster]

Oh, Dilbert... you can't say that.