The Men's Rights Movement

[Purusha]

Exactly. What do you think brought me into the feminist fold? Evidence, both scientific (e.g. studies about the aforementioned conditioning) and anecdotal (when it comes to my field, mostly the #1reasonwhy campaign where women - and men - shared their often horrendous stories from the game industry). The links I provide contain heaps of evidence, while I've yet to see any that seriously supports the claims in the vein of 'women are by their biological nature not interested in XY'. THAT is just prattle.

You mean your links to Salon or Polygon? Seriously now?

[mc ukrneal]

Since you are looking for statistics, check out this long research paper - lots of data (an abyssmal showing in computer science, although was better in mid-80s it seems):
http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Why-So-Few-Women-in-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-Mathematics.pdf

Here's an interesting article (quite long, but touches on a number of interesting reasons why women are under-represented in some disciplines):
NY Times Article

That the disparity between men and women's representation in science and math arises from culture rather than genetics seems beyond dispute. In the early 1980s, a large group of American middle-schoolers were given the SAT exam in math; among those who scored higher than 700, boys outperformed girls by 13 to 1. But scoring 700 or higher on the SATs, even in middle school, doesn't necessarily reveal true mathematical creativity or facility with higher-level concepts. And these were all American students. The mathematical society's study of the top achievers in international competitions went much further in examining genius by analyzing the performance of young women in other cultures. The study's conclusion? The scarcity of women at the very highest echelons "is due, in significant part, to changeable factors that vary with time, country and ethnic group. First and foremost, some countries identify and nurture females with very high ability in mathematics at a much higher frequency than do others." Besides, the ratio of boys to girls scoring 700 or higher on the math SAT in middle school is now only three to one. If girls were so constrained by their biology, how could their scores have risen so steadily in such a short time?

In elementary school, girls and boys perform equally well in math and science. But by the time they reach high school, when those subjects begin to seem more difficult to students of both sexes, the numbers diverge. Although the percentage of girls among all students taking high-school physics rose to 47 percent in 1997 from about 39 percent in 1987, that figure has remained constant into the new millennium. And the numbers become more alarming when you look at AP classes rather than general physics, and at the scores on AP exams rather than mere attendance in AP classes. The statistics tend to be a bit more encouraging in AP calculus, but they are far worse in computer science. Maybe boys care more about physics and computer science than girls do. But an equally plausible explanation is that boys are encouraged to tough out difficult courses in unpopular subjects, while girls, no matter how smart, receive fewer arguments from their parents, teachers or guidance counselors if they drop a physics class or shrug off an AP exam.

Another article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52344-2005Jan31.html

[Purusha]

That the disparity between men and women's representation in science and math arises from culture rather than genetics seems beyond dispute.

Nominalism is true, therefore science must support it. This is basically the underlying axiom here. For if nominalism is not true, then the "nature" of the sexes cannot be a "social construct" and therefore all the science used to prove as such must be faulty if not outright fraudulent. But the other way around is also impossible, for science cannot "prove" whether nominalism is true or not. Basically, this assertion cannot but be baseless.

Ultimately, the issue here seems to be a belief that the only legitimate approach to truth is a positivist one, positivism being related to relativism and therefore nominalism in the first place!

[mc ukrneal]

Here is a study on the pay gap:
http://www.aauw.org/files/2014/09/The-Simple-Truth_Fall.pdf

[Purusha]

The American Association of Women. Sounds like a trustworthy source (similarly to Salon or Polygon) and not one that may have a clear agenda to prove what it wants to prove. 

[mc ukrneal]

The American Association of Women. Sounds like a trustworthy source (similarly to Salon or Polygon) and not one that may have a clear agenda to prove what it wants to prove. 

I have no idea as to the trustworthiness of their views, however, their data is taken from mainstream government sources and thus easily verifiable. The data was what people said they wanted. You can always argue about interpretation.

[Ken B]

Um, better check your statistics on that one.  The last I heard, women actually outnumber men at many colleges and universities!

Exactly my point.

[ibanezmonster]

Here is a study on the pay gap:
http://www.aauw.org/files/2014/09/The-Simple-Truth_Fall.pdf

There's several things to say about this, but the most important point to make is that it doesn't prove that there is some sort of patriarchy trying to oppress women.

[Rinaldo]

There's several things to say about this, but the most important point to make is that it doesn't prove that there is some sort of patriarchy trying to oppress women.

There's not a 'patriarchy trying to oppress women' anymore (with a few sad exceptions like Saudi Arabia) and thank god for that. There's just a lot of stinking residue from thousands of years where there was a patriarchy and did exactly that. Feminism is basically a form of cleanup.

[Purusha]

Except there was never a patriarchy either (not in the sense intended by feminists). What there was was a much better understanding of the nature of the sexes and societies acting accordingly, for better and for worse, as human societies are what they are and abuses and errors are always a possibility.

Today things are no different, as now society has gone towards a different type of insanity we usually refer to as political correctness (consider what happened at Rotherham if you think this is a joke). But the important thing here is that it is the assumptions of the modern world that are wrong. Your logic begins with the presupposition that men and women are the same. Therefore, any disparity must be the result of social inequality. The truth is that men and women are not the same. Your logic may be sound, but your premises are mistaken.

And this applies to history as well. There were many evils in former societies, but those societies operated on principles which were ultimately of the highest good. Nowadays it is the other way around. We now live in a world which has many advantages and a lot of good in it, but operates on principles which are not only wrong but outright evil. And the effects are there for anyone to see. Christendom lasted for over a thousand years. The modern world is crumbling at an alarming rate. The "progress" we were promised is becoming more and more like a mirage, but some are so invested in that vision that they will try to defend it at all cost, even to the point of descending to religious zealotry, which is what is happening with those so called "social justice warriors". The oppression of women is now a type of gospel, something to be believed a priori regardless of what the facts may say. There used to be a time when people believed in the inferiority of certain races, with plenty of "studies" and sciences to back their prejudices, which shows that positivism is, like reason itself, a "whore", and not the sole gateway to truth.

[Rinaldo]

Yeah, not allowing women to study or vote or open a bank account is a 'better understanding of the nature of the sexes', right. Sorry, Purusha, you live in a different dimension than I do.

And my logic begins with closely examining the roots of the disparity. Somewhere it is indeed natural, but in a lot of places, it's built on false stereotypes, centuries of 'knowledge' that was everything but, or - as is mostly the case with games - marketing.

[Purusha]

The argument stands even if we were to accept such a simplistic view of history. The premises were correct, it is the conclusions that were often wrong, particularly after the Renaissance when the spiritual intelligence of Europeans plummeted following the spiritual crisis of the late Gothic. In the case of modern thought, it is the premises that are wrong, even if the conclusions one derive from them may be considered to be more correct, at least in a moral sense.

With that said, let's assume that this notion of a "patriarchy" as defined by feminists is correct. Does this legitimizes the quite evident vindictive attitudes modern society arbors towards males and masculinity in general? It seems that for some people, moral outrage seems to have replaced all sense of proportions. It is not a matter of justice, it is a question of making things right, and if this translates to  being mean to men (particularly those who are not likely to protest much, like, say, geeks and nerds), why not? After all, think of all the patriarchy! When you add to this the fact you are basing your moral crusade on erroneous premises, you can even go so far as indict people who are in the main innocent, such as the aforementioned nerds, for crimes they have never committed.

To put it in more simple terms, your underlying argument is the inequality is invariably the result of oppression. But since inequality may be the result of nature, and not oppression, you end up with persecuting innocent people based on a false axiom, and your persecution feels justified to you because your assumption is that those individuals are all morally guilty.

[Rinaldo]

Does this legitimizes the quite evident vindictive attitudes modern society arbors towards males and masculinity in general?

That, to me, is the heart of our disagreement. You see vindictive attitudes where I see an earnest movement to stop men behaving like dicks.

..your underlying argument is the inequality is invariably the result of oppression..

My underlying argument is that certain inequalities are indeed the result of an history of oppression.

[Purusha]

That, to me, is the heart of our disagreement. You see vindictive attitudes where I see an earnest movement to stop men behaving like dicks.

The problem is that due to what can only be described as an ideological premise (because that's precisely what it is), people like you automatically assume men are behaving like dicks whenever things don't reflect your world view. Do women show lack of interest in IT? Must be because men are behaving like dicks. The possibility that maybe nobody is doing anything wrong doesn't seem to be an option. What compounds this problem is that, simply put, your view of the world is mistaken. You are holding "men" in contempt for transgressions that don't exist. To simply act on one's natural instincts means one is a vile individual. To merely exist as mother nature intended means one is bringing hate in the world. You have criminalized human nature itself, which means human beings are guilty by default and will always be guilty hence the perennial grievances of the purveyors of social justice. This then becomes a narrative that feeds on itself, to the point that whenever reality shows unequivocally that no slights have ever been really committed, or that society is actually now quite fair, some of your irk simply feels free to make things up in order to fuel the outrage beyond any reasonable limit. Besides, the narrative is true one way or another, so lying is a legitimate form of "social awareness". We are told that we live in a "rape" culture. Except we don't. MRAs become an "hate" group. Except it isn't. Gamergate is about the harassment of women. Which is not true. And so on and so forth. And each time this happens your credibility plummets, because the average person doesn't share your religiosity. People were fairly enthusiastic about feminism when it was a question of fairness and equality. Now everything has to be about feminist issues to the point people have begun to look at feminism as some kind of crazy cult. They see what happened to Matt Taylor and they instantly begin to see feminism in a different light, and when this happens, they are suddenly accused of belonging to some kind of "hate" movement (I.E., they become guilty of heresy), which aggravates the situation even further, and even pushes them towards the opposite direction (keep in mind that i consider the "right-wing" to be just as fallacious as the "left-wing" but the vast majority of individuals only have those two alternatives before them, so its either one or the other).

But all this was inevitable, because you cannot declare war on reality and assume the hostilities aren't going to escalate to the point where rationality ends and insanity brakes free. Your motives may have been noble, but your premises were still wrong, and this are the results.

[Karl Henning]

The reality is, that there are many instances where men are boors, and that this is a barrier for women.  There would be a problem with presupposing that this is necessarily the case;  there is no problem with entertaining the possibility.

BTW, is there anything like boorish behavior in this thread?  I ask only for information.

[Ken B]

The reality is, that there are many instances where men are boors, and that this is a barrier for women.  There would be a problem with presupposing that this is necessarily the case;  there is no problem with entertaining the possibility.

BTW, is there anything like boorish behavior in this thread?  I ask only for information.

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

[Florestan]

There were many evils in former societies, but those societies operated on principles which were ultimately of the highest good. Nowadays it is the other way around. We now live in a world which has many advantages and a lot of good in it, but operates on principles which are not only wrong but outright evil. And the effects are there for anyone to see. Christendom lasted for over a thousand years. The modern world is crumbling at an alarming rate. The "progress" we were promised is becoming more and more like a mirage, but some are so invested in that vision that they will try to defend it at all cost, even to the point of descending to religious zealotry, which is what is happening with those so called "social justice warriors". The oppression of women is now a type of gospel, something to be believed a priori regardless of what the facts may say. There used to be a time when people believed in the inferiority of certain races, with plenty of "studies" and sciences to back their prejudices, which shows that positivism is, like reason itself, a "whore", and not the sole gateway to truth.

Amen, brother!

[Purusha]

The reality is, that there are many instances where men are boors, and that this is a barrier for women.

By that argument, there are lot of instances where women are "crazy". One of the many people who raised up a stink over Matt Taylor's shirt likes to "bathe in male tears":



And she certainly seems to have gotten her wish. Somehow, for i still can't comprehend how a full grown adult could be reduced to such a spectacle on the behest of an handful of internet harpies. But 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 relates 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.

[Ken B]

Exactly. What do you think brought me into the feminist fold? Evidence, both scientific (e.g. studies about the aforementioned conditioning) and anecdotal ...

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.

[Rinaldo]

The problem is that due to what can only be described as an ideological premise (because that's precisely what it is), people like you automatically assume...

Not automatically.

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

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.

Sorry, I don't get this. I needed evidence to realize the status quo is wrong, that there is an inequality present that goes by unnoticed because it's deeply entrenched in the society.

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.