Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

but the vast majority of Men's Rights Advocates are stupid and bad.

This is, sadly, very true.

Personally, I see misandry as the obverse side of misogyny. One cannot exist without the other because they manifest as enforcement of societal gender roles, which we tend to see as a duality rather than a spectrum. Men are strong and women are weak, therefore a man who is weak is an insult to men and a woman who is strong is an insult to women. Women are nurturing while men are cold, therefore a man cannot be a sole parent and a woman can't be anything but. So I tend to take the view that we can address neither without addressing both.

As a side note, I couldn't even watch the first video because I read this:

Why do women storm into male-only or male-oriented spaces and start redecorating, insisting on switching out the Rage Against The Machine with Sarah McClachlan CDs, and ordering everyone to watch their language? Is it insecurity? Is it boredom? Is it general evilness? What?

Great way to enforce stereotypes there...

[Capntastic]

ARE WOMEN JUST GENERALLY EVIL?? -Someone who purports to be fighting for gender equality.

[Fenrir]

Why do women storm into male-only or male-oriented spaces and start redecorating, insisting on switching out the Rage Against The Machine with Sarah McClachlan CDs, and ordering everyone to watch their language? Is it insecurity? Is it boredom? Is it general evilness? What?

Around three PM, when your energy is low, women appear and redecorate your man cave.

I hate it when that happens.

[penguinofhonor]

Personally, I see misandry as the obverse side of misogyny. One cannot exist without the other because they manifest as enforcement of societal gender roles, which we tend to see as a duality rather than a spectrum. Men are strong and women are weak, therefore a man who is weak is an insult to men and a woman who is strong is an insult to women. Women are nurturing while men are cold, therefore a man cannot be a sole parent and a woman can't be anything but. So I tend to take the view that we can address neither without addressing both.

But the problem is that the roles aren't equally enforced. A man acting feminine is worse than a woman acting masculine because acting feminine is worse. Yes, this results in men getting treated worse for breaking their gender roles, but their aspirations and ideals are still more supported.

[kaijyuu]

the vast majority of Men's Rights Advocates are stupid and bad.

Just the vocal ones. It's compounded by men's issues (on average) being far more trivial, so men's rights advocates are seen as petty.



The irony of course is that anyone turning it into an "us and them" thing is contributing to the problem. Men this, women that, instead of just human beings. We've built this stupid cultural dichotomy of "masculine" and "feminine" when in reality any particular individual has a very small chance of conforming well to either stereotype.

[Capntastic]

That reminds me of that formula that boils homophobia down into misogyny because you're hating a man for acting feminine and acting feminine is bad because,

[Leafsnail]

look, I don't actually believe that would happen, else men would presently be mutated freaks suffering from the same effects as continuous inbreeding.

Men are "mutated freaks", to a some extent which we are used to (so "freak" is kindof erroneous considering that it implies abnormal).  Men suffer from many more genetic diseases than women do (although this is also due to recessive stuff on the X chromosone not being stopped by the Y chromosones) and thus don't live as long.

We probably have some way of recombining the genes that is as-of-yet unknown.

We don't.  You can check your Y chromosone against your Dad's and find it's virtually exactly the same, minus the mutations (which have a tendancy towards being bad).  And then you can check it against all your other male line immediate family members and find that again, it's the same minus minor mutations.

or maybe, billions of years ago, all males were practically gods, and instead we just devolved into our present state.

If by "practically gods" you mean "had the same rate of genetic disease as females" then yeah, I guess.  I have no idea at what point that would be though.  Probably pre-human?

[Zrk2]

I agree that it's an issue and I was reading said article, and I noticed one thing that I would like your input on; what do you think of hiring quotas that require a certain percentage of employees to be female? Is this fair?

[fqllve]

But the problem is that the roles aren't equally enforced. A man acting feminine is worse than a woman acting masculine because acting feminine is worse. Yes, this results in men getting treated worse for breaking their gender roles, but their aspirations and ideals are still more supported.

Masculine aspirations and ideals are, but men who break gender roles aren't. I will say that men are more prominently discriminatory towards feminine men than women are towards masculine women, but the latter is still surprisingly common.

[ed boy]

I agree that it's an issue and I was reading said article, and I noticed one thing that I would like your input on; what do you think of hiring quotas that require a certain percentage of employees to be female? Is this fair?

I would say that it is not fair. It may be more equal, but it would not be more fair.

[GlyphGryph]

I think if the gender is relevant to the situation, such quotas are acceptable. If one of a college's goals is diversity, for example, achieving a generally balanced gender split might be a worthwhile goal, because it adds (hypotheticall) value to all the students that attend.

[ed boy]

I think if the gender is relevant to the situation, such quotas are acceptable. If one of a college's goals is diversity, for example, achieving a generally balanced gender split might be a worthwhile goal, because it adds (hypotheticall) value to all the students that attend.

If by diversity, you mean both genders equally represented, then yes. If you mean both genders faily represented, then no.

If you want both genders to be faily evaluated, then you want gender to play no part in whether they get in or not. In that case, then quotas are a terrible idea.

Though I would ask you to elaborate on how it will add value to all students. I can certainly see how it would add value to some students, but all is a very big claim.

[fqllve]

I personally take issue with the term fairly evaluated as it implies that one sex needs to be compared to the other, when in fact baseless comparison and speculation are one of the major roots of the problem.

If we can leave facts as facts and data as data without trying to interpret them according to our preconceived notions, evaluation is fine, but I don't think we can. We haven't done a good job of it so far.

[scriver]

Personally, I don't think quotas is "fair", and certainly not "gender equal" (but then again if one consider quotas the so obviously isn't the situation to begin with either). It's a tool to introduce more wo-/men to a field and wear down the gender connotations associated with it, so it will be more equal in the future so the quotas will no longer be needed. At least that is my idea of it and why I support it.

[Heron TSG]

I always think it's weird how I'm constantly hearing about how colleges need more women (for their engineering, mathematics, computer science, and physics departments in particular) yet there are more women graduating than men each year. What kind of degrees are they getting? Biology? Liberal Arts? I'll try and find some data on that.

I wish Vector were here...