The Men's Rights Movement

[Florestan]

in essence, the fallacy here is that many so called "feminists" and their male supporters seem unable to distinguish things that are inherent to what is natural to the male gender from things which are completely relative to it, such as the capacity to be a "bad" person, which related purely to human nature itself and has nothing to do with whether one happens to be male or female. If we were to replace gender with ethnicity in this equation, the argument would be considered racist.

Basically, there are elements which pertain to human nature itself that are universal, and things which pertain to sex which happen to be relative. Confusing that which is universal with that which is relative is the root of all prejudice.

Wisdom

[Florestan]

Here's the problem. Or problems.

First you say feminism is just about treating people equally. Well, you wouldn't need evidence to support that would you? Studies to prove you should be fair and impartial? I don't think so. So when you say evidence led you to support feminism you must be referring to aspects of feminism not described by "treating everyone equally." Which is exactly what Greg and -abe- have been saying.

More importantly, anecdotes are generally not good evidence. The plural of anecdote is selection bias. In any complex situation anyone can cherry pick an event or anecdote he thinks bolsters his case. You need better standards than that.

Hear, hear!

[Karl Henning]

Well, arguably showing a picture of yourself with a clarinet, thus instrument-shaming the flautists, might count. 

I just had a couple of beers with a flutist yester even, and he did not seem a bit intimidated.  Arguably, the percussionist moderated the affair . . . .

[Karl Henning]

The problem is an ideological premise which luxuriates in phrases like "people like you automatically assume...."

[Florestan]

I just had a couple of beers with a flutist yester even, and hedid not seem a bit intimidated.  Arguably, the percussionist moderated the affair . . . .

He did not seem intimidated, but what if it had been actually a she?

Ken does have a point: by picking up the clarinet, you clearly discriminated against flute or oboe. Now, if that was socially induced, or the result of a natural preference, I don´t know, maybe Rinaldo has some scientific evidence for explaining it. 

[Karl Henning]

He did not seem intimidated, but what if it had been actually a she?

On other occasions, I have had beers with she-flutists, of course 

[Ken B]

I just had a couple of beers with a flutist yester even, and he did not seem a bit intimidated.  Arguably, the percussionist moderated the affair . . . .

Q: What do you call someone who hangs around with the musicians?
A: The drummer.

[Karl Henning]

This guy's good.  But you know that, if you've heard this.

[ibanezmonster]

If we were to replace gender with ethnicity in this equation, the argument would be considered racist.

With all of the little criticisms of men, definitely. Would there really a huge difference between a slogan like "Teach men not to rape" and a slogan one can conceive, like "Teach black people not to steal?"

Which was what made the description of the street harassment video amusing (as Todd noted)- they're going to try to criticize men in general while almost all of the men in the video are black, but note that they don't wish to vilify them because they are a minority which are also oppressed.

More importantly, I didn't become a feminist by reading a few anecdotes. It's been a process that involved a lot of different input, including stuff that I found out about my own behaviour towards the opposite sex. But that 'pay attention to what the women are saying' is a healthy start.

One thing I can say about reading that article that talks about the pay gap is that I'm not sure why you would have even posted it since it basically doesn't make a case for a (large) pay gap. It says that the 22% pay gap is a choice of different careers, and that the true pay gap is about 7%. This is consistent with a couple of non-feminist and one other feminist sources that I read before (actually, they had it at 5%).

So, is 5-7% a big deal? Maybe, maybe not. It might be worth looking into, since there may be many different reasons. But it's not much of a pay gap.

[Karl Henning]

So, is 5-7% a big deal? Maybe, maybe not. It might be worth looking into, since there may be many different reasons. But it's not much of a pay gap.

I'm sure there is a 0% pay gap between the sexes when it comes to working a cash register at Burger King.  A social triumph!

[North Star]

It is hard not to think of feminism as man-hate when you find screeds such as this.
http://time.com/3653871/womens-bathroom-lines-sexist-potty-parity/
Yes, there biological differences, but they are caused by nature, not patriarchal oppression.

Are you saying that the biological differences should not be considered when planning public buildings? 
I for one thought the piece was rather sensible, and didn't contain an ounce of man-hate.

With all of the little criticisms of men, definitely. Would there really a huge difference between a slogan like "Teach men not to rape" and a slogan one can conceive, like "Teach black people not to steal?"

Or "Black people just don't seem to be interested in information technology/politics/well-paid jobs".

So, is 5-7% a big deal? Maybe, maybe not. It might be worth looking into, since there may be many different reasons. But it's not much of a pay gap.

You don't think it's a big deal that women have to work two weeks more per year to make the same amount of money for the same work?

[Ken B]

Here's a recipe for heartbreak and strife: base arguments about how you should treat people on the presumed lack of significant differences in genetic makeup. Where are you when the evidence refutes you? The solid foundation is to see people as individuals, not as representatives.

What amuses me is that I expect those ignoring this advice to approve it.

[Purusha]

I simply pay attention to the women who share their experiences. It's not THAT hard.

I don't see how this is a proper argument thought, and i can already show you where the ambiguity of this attitude lies. Women are told by feminists that they ought to be outraged by such and such. Therefore, they become outraged by such and such. To argue that we should "listen and believe" is to argue one should accept what in many cases is the result of a self fulling prophecy, or in some cases is the result of simple make believe if not outright delusion (I.E., feminist arguing that the "male gaze" is a form or rape and other such absurdities).

Besides, here's a contradiction for you. Why aren't you listening to the women of gamergate? But really, the gender of a person is not the measure i would use to determine whether an argument is correct or not, or whether a given grievance deserves to be given any particular merit, particularly when we are talking about opinions and anecdotes being voice on the internet of all things, where all sorts of crazy stuff can be found.

[Purusha]

You don't think it's a big deal that women have to work two weeks more per year to make the same amount of money for the same work?

From what i understand, the fallacy of the pay gap is that its not taking into consideration all the things women do that prevents them from earning as much. Those including taking a larger amount of leaves from work due to maternity or familiar reasons, or avoiding certain jobs because they are too harsh or dangerous (construction, mining and the like, jobs which also happen to pay quite well precisely because they are so tasking). I'm not going to read the article because i don't really care about this particular issue, but if you want to dispel the pay gap myth "myth", those are some of the arguments you need to engage first. Simply focusing on the existence of the gap itself will not get you anywhere.

Either way, it seems to me that the object here to "demonstrate" that oppression exists, and nothing else. In this sense, the pay gap has to be real, or else feminist rhetoric serves no purpose.

[Purusha]

Or "Black people just don't seem to be interested in information technology/politics/well-paid jobs".

This is a strawman based on a false equivalency though. Nobody is arguing that there are other conditions for the existence of inequality besides nature. This is also a tu quoque. It is your side of the argument that is trying to infer that inequality is invariably the result of oppression. The natural differences between the sexes is only one of the possible alternative explanations for why women are poorly represented in IT related occupations. For the sake of argument, there might even be another explanation that involves neither oppression nor the nature of the sexes. But nature is a very likely possibility because interest in IT seems to be strongly correlated with the nature of masculinity. Men are drawn to IT the same way they are drawn to cars instead of dolls as children. And notice how all attempts at making boys play with dolls instead has resulted in utter failure. How's that for evidence that at least in this case, nature > nurture?

[snyprrr]

I'm sure there is a 0% pay gap between the sexes when it comes to working a cash register at Burger King.  A social triumph!

karl 2 da resQ


Boy, this Thread is ... "has"... gotten somewhat WIMPY, eh? Are the guys here ashamed to be born with exterior plumbing?


Anyone here like a free ass kicking?... just to remind you of what the good old days were like?


Frankly, I barely know anyone of any race, gender, affiliation, or issue who gives a flying fuck about anything important in life today. "Everybody" is a fuck nut these days- they actually HAVE eliminated all the borders between us and make us all EQUALLY STUPID!!

learn to cook!! (anybody)

MAKE ME A SAMMICH!!

[Florestan]

notice how all attempts at making boys play with dolls instead has resulted in utter failure. How's that for evidence that at least in this case, nature > nurture?

Wait a minute! Are you making a case for facts being more pertinent than ideology?

[Purusha]

The problem is an ideological premise which luxuriates in phrases like "people like you automatically assume...."

Well, we are all human, and there's always an element of emotivity in what we believe to be the truth. Nobody is really 100% "objective" (by which we mean dispassionate). Not that the presence of the emotional element automatically implies one is not being objective either, but such is the ambiguity of all human discourse.

At any rate, i have already stated what my "ideology" is. I'm a Platonic realist and a traditionalist. I believe the ancients had it right and that the moderns have it wrong, though the very opposite is what is being taught to most people today, hence, my insistence in pointing out that what the modern world believes in is as ideological as any other religion. Nietzsche would argue that social justice and feminism are just other "gods" the modern untermenschen has adopted to avoid starting into the abyss.

[Rinaldo]

And notice how all attempts at making boys play with dolls instead has resulted in utter failure.

[Purusha]

Wait a minute! Are you making a case for facts being more pertinent than ideology?

Maybe it is the horrible misogyny displayed by boys that prevents girls from wanting to play with trucks.