LordBucket, are you a member of the MRA? Because whether or not you are, the type of things you're saying and claiming lead me to believe you're one.
No. Even my guess as to what it stood for wasn't correct. Than you google for the correction. Though I did guess two of the three letters right.
You understand why I ask? Even from a purely logical viewpoint? And why it isn't usually considered a good thing?
So...I've read your post. A lot of it not very well thought out. I conclude that you're approaching this from a very emotional place. Which...you confirm a couple times. So, it is what it is. i notice that you seem so very enthusiastically excited about having "refuted my points." But you really haven't done that.
More women are accepted into college than men
True. However, the correct response to this is to ask why
More women graduate with degrees
Interesting. But you know the real interesting thing about it? It's pretty easily explained
"In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, "
And again, it explains why
...so...you're agreeing with me...and then attempting to explain why these things are the case. Ok...but giving reasons for why I'm right doesn't refute my position. I mean...you're agreeing with me that these things I'm saying are in fact true. Ok, umm...thank you? Next?
I 'agree' with facts. Yes. Duh. You presented facts(most of the time). The error you made was in the leap of logic to follow. There were explanations for a significant number of them as to why it wasn't gender bias at work(and thus why feminism doesn't actively worsen said issues). The ones in which it was, other than the CEO salary(and you somehow believe that 16 out of 500 CEOs making 40% more on average than the other
484 CEOs is equal or in favor of women? Seriously?), are pretty much all things that the feminist movement will
help reduce, by virtue of trying to break gender roles. And yet you continue to believe it's not for equality! Just because they aren't focusing on
your issues.
it explains why, going back upwards to other points you've made, and my refutations of them
What refutations? You do understand that agreeing with me and telling me why I'm right...pointing out that the articles explain why the things I'm saying are the case...you do understand that's not a refutation of what I'm saying...right?
It's a refutation of your warrants and conclusion, not a direct refutation of facts. Why would I try and disprove facts? They're facts. However, when you purposefully present them in a fashion that doesn't show the whole picture? That's being dishonest. It's being misleading. It's a point against you, because it implies that you can't prove your case without resorting to such methods.
Also, are you trying to insinuate that this entire topic isn't inherently emotional? Because I'm not trying to insinuate it is inherently emotional. I'm stating it outright. It is. Being unemotional around subjects like, say, people getting raped and murdered, tends to show sociopathic tendencies and a lack of empathy in an individual.
Gender roles in society place a 'greater wrong' on harming a woman, because they are seen as weak, vulnerable, and helpless, as compared to men, who oughta be able to defend themselves. After all, if they can't, they're not a real man!
Ok, yes. Thank you for making one of my points for me. It's perceived as a greater wrong to harm women. I would call that a gender role/cultural perception where women have the better deal. Men are perceived as "not real men" if they can't defend themselves, whereas it's ok for women. Again, I would call that a gender role/cultural perception where women have the better deal. Being "perceived as weak" just doesn't like such a terrible thing to me when it's compared to "society doesn't care as much if you're harmed, and if you are...it's your own fault for not being manly enough to stop it."
I....I'm having trouble following your logic, because it's, to be blunt, insane. You think that being viewed as weak, vulnerable, and helpless, unable to take care of yourself, and thus unsuitable for any number of tasks or positions, is a
good thing? Especially considering that women get beaten
for trying to go against that stereotype, how can you believe this? At all? I mean, hell, the whole 'not real men' thing applies more to being raped than getting the shit beaten out of you(on the one hand, thank the gods it doesn't apply to getting the shit beaten out of you, most of the time, on the other hand, it's really fucked up the way we view rape).
No, they were excellent examples. And others have pointed out that they were accurate. You just don't like them because they don't support your conclusion.
But there are equally excellent examples that demonstrate the opposite effect. Which I'm sure you don't like because they don't support your conclusion; that feminism is actively detrimental or at the very least unnecessary.
I've on many occasions acknowledged that there are things women have to deal with than men don't, and that there are some things that men have better. For example:
Are there certain specific areas in which men have a better deal? Yes.
There are more men in politics. And more male CEO's.
I've also repeatedly acknowledged that there are some issues that are more difficult to conclusively say who has it better, and. For example:
I agree that there is a certain subjective quality to the discussion. For example, is it worse to be expected to ask a girl to dance and deal with the fear of rejection, or is it worse to be expected to sit around waiting to be asked but not dancing because the guys are too afraid you'll reject them? That's difficult to judge.
So if you're trying to paint me as unreasonable here...you're not doing a very good job of it.
Honestly, I get the impression that you're not even arguing with me. You're arguing with the emotional baggage you have associated with this issue, and incorrectly assuming that the things I'm saying correlate with that baggage. And they don't.
There aren't 'certain specific areas in which men have a better deal' except by a very literal definition of the terms. They have a better deal in the vast majority of areas -but that doesn't even matter, because it's not a godsdamned contest! You cannot say 'this many more women get raped than men, but this many more men get murdered than women, but this many more women are abused by their spouses, but this many more men can't get a date, but this...' and try to judge them on the same scale.
But on the other hand, let's look at the rejection thing for a moment. There was something interesting I read a while back and I'd been looking for a way to insert it into the conversation for you to look at. Unfortunately, I seem unable to find the article I remember, but in searching I find that the exact article is, perhaps, unimportant. Allow me to instead ask you if you have heard of Schrodinger's Rapist, and Margaret Atwood? Specifically, a quote of hers.
“Why are you afraid of women?” I asked a group of men.
“We’re afraid they’ll laugh at us,” replied the men.
“Why are you afraid of men?” I asked a group of women
“We’re afraid they’ll kill us,” replied the woman.
And you tell me that such is equal, no, advantageous to women. Truly?
In all seriousness, research these sorts of things, please, particularly Schrodinger's Rapist. If you have not come into this discussion without a firm knowledge of such things beforehand, it is not my responsibility to educate you; it is your own. If you believe the only places women 'have it worse'(as if it were a contest) are in politics and the number of CEOs? Who are not sadly mistaken, but tragically so. To the point that I want to break out into hysterics over it, either with fury that you could even suggest that these aren't issues, or with great sadness that our society has enabled people like you to continue believing such misconceptions.
I'll ask if you are honestly so resentful of the few 'advantages' women get from gender roles in these issues that you would attempt to use them as part of an argument.
...umm...what? My thesis here is that women have it better than men. Obviously I'm going to use examples of women having advantages over men as evidence that women have it better than men. Resentment has nothing to do with it.
I'll address your questions in turn, sometimes with questions of my own. 1. Why not go to a bar with a female friend and see which gender of waiter gets groped more often? Which of you is leered at more often? This all depends entirely on the women being attractive to men, which forms part of the pressures on women being pretty; not to get free drinks, but as a symptom of the underlying problem. 2. Again, she'd have to be attractive, and if someone did offer to help, which of you is more likely to be sexually assaulted? 3. Ties back into gender roles, women are seen as weak and unable to harm men. And honestly, unless you're referring to strangers? If you both have good friends and approximately equal numbers, odds are your friends would be supportive regardless of gender of you or the assailant(try being sexually assaulted as either by a member of the same gender and see who gets more sympathy, as well, huh?). That's before all of the various double standards regarding rape come into play, but that's partially because we're part of a victim blaming culture(in fact, I'd argue your entire rant and opposition is evidence of that!).
1) I've been eating out for 20+ years, and I've never in my entire life seen anyone grope a waitress. Nevertheless, I'll grant you that it happens to women more than men. Leered at? Absolutely that happens to women more than men. Yes, women receive more unwanted attention that men. They receive more attention at all than men. And that's a mixed situation.
You were asking this question in response to my question about "who gets drinks bought for them more often." And so yes, I will acknowledge that this is one of those situations where it's difficult to judge who has it better or worse. Women get more attention than men. Sometimes that attention is unwanted. Is it better to get attention, but sometimes unwanted attention...or to not get attention? It's a valid question. I don't have a definite answer. I suspect this specific issue is a case of the grass seeming greener on the other side. Sure, there are some women who resent getting catcalls and whistles all the time. And there are some guys watching on from the sidelines wishing anyone would pay attention to them at all. Who has it worse? I don't know. Neither do you.
2) No, pretty sure even an unattractive woman stuck on the side of the road would have more people stop to help her than a man stuck on the side of the road.
3. Yes, I agree this ties into gender roles. And I agree that there are some double standards here. Those work both ways.
1. Lucky you. You must live somewhere nice, then. What about to women who aren't waitresses? Let me put it this way. What would you do if a woman bought you a free drink? Would you instantly start thinking of a way to get into her pants? How many people do you know who would instantly start trying to think of a way to get into her pants? But you know what, maybe you're right. Maybe women only wish they could be as invisible as men because they don't go have to go through being ignored all the time(oh those poor men, it must be so tragic to be ignored by the opposite sex at bars). Maybe men only wish they could get as much attention as women because they haven't had to go through the sexual harassment that often accompanies such attentions. It's not a matter of who has it worse though. It's not a competition with points to be tallied. Life is cooperative, not competitive. Or at the very least, it should be.
2. You have evidence of this? And I see you ignore the sexual assault aspect, as if it was irrelevant.
3. And such double standards, while harmful to both genders, are typically worse for women. This is not debatable. It's been a fact through history. It's a fact now. It's why the feminism movement is trying to get rid of such double standards. Certainly you can agree with that, yes?
"Older, unattractive men" find dating easier than "older, unattractive women." Primarily because men die younger which leads to not enough men to go around. Are you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a bad thing for women? I mean, yes...I see how it could be inconvenient. But painting men dying as a women's problem seems a bit twisted to me.
Are you seriously trying to paint the fact that men die younger as a good thing for women?!?
This comment is interesting for a couple reasons. First off...no, obviously that wasn't what I was doing. Even in the section you're quoting, I point out that men dying is inconvenient for women. Why would you ask if I'm painting men dying as good for women...when I just said it was inconvenient for them? I question your reading comprehension. In any case, you seem to be missing the point, which was my response to Angle's claim that older women have a more difficult time dating than men...by pointing out that the reason for that is that men die younger than women.
You see, he was attempting to claim older women's dating difficult was a case of "women having it worse than men." To which my response was that the men in that equation are dying young.
Clearly dying is worse than having a difficult time finding a dating partner, right? And that's why I suggest it was twisted. Angle was proposing that "older women have difficulty dating" was worse than men dying young being the cause of older women having difficulty dating.
Do you get it now?
No, because that's not the reason they have difficulty. But in all honesty, this whole discussion is fairly asinine because it doesn't matter who has more difficulty dating when you're old. That doesn't even compare to the shit we're talking about. Plus I answered below first and I don't want to try and do it again up here. And once again, I'll bring up the whole 'this isn't a competition' and the 'apples to oranges' thing. You're trying to connect things that are completely separate; society's focus on women needing to look young and beautiful, and men having shorter lifespans.
you completely ignored the unattractive part, focusing only on the old
Look, I apologize...but have you ever dated? Like, let's ask a very simple question here. Imagine a 20-something ugly guy and a 20-something ugly girl. Who would have an easier time finding a date? Who would have an easier time getting laid? Even if you're still in high school, you should be able to answer this question.
...I find myself at a loss for words, right now. The sheer ignorance inherent in your question baffles me. I mean...alright, let's start from the beginning.
First off, it comes from a very masculine viewpoint, and a stereotypically masculine one at that; that the important thing, the thing you're looking for, is a date, or sex, regardless of whom.
Second, it uses the stereotypes of both men and women to try and reinforce itself; that All Men Want Sex, and that Women Are Chaste. I say this because the correlation you're trying to make is that a guy would have a harder time finding a date because girls are far pickier about who they go out with because they're not as interested in sex. Similarly, you think that a girl would have an easy time getting a guy because they can just lower their standards and a guy can't say no. I'll be honest; I'd have a difficult time saying no, myself. But I'd have just as hard of a time if I was a girl; and while I can't be certain of such in our culture means guys are expected to go out and try and have sex, because Real Men Want Sex, while women are cut off from being able to express desires due to Slut-Shaming. If such boundaries could be removed? It would be so much easier for either!
Third, you're completely ignoring gay men and women, which doesn't really surprise me but I can't really say it's disappointing, either. I expected that. But you still shouldn't have.
Fourth, here's the problem with that; what's the quality of their dates likely to be, eh? Even going off your own stereotyping viewpoints, this is true; if a 20-something ugly guy gets a date, odds are it's either out of pity(which I would consider mostly unlikely), or because the girl likes him for who he is as a person(which means she would probably be normally considered 'out of his league'; oh, but sorry, did I forget about the mythical 'friend zone'? Ugh. :
). Whereas the girl is likely to get either an ugly guy, someone who nobody else will go out with(probably for a reason, though not always), or someone looking to take advantage of her apparent desperation, or, if she's very lucky, a guy who isn't an asshole and likes her for who she is as a person. And then the lopsided focus our society places on beauty between the sexes adds another dimension to the whole discussion...
We don't need to be continually cherry picking the few things that men still have better and forcing those to be better for women too.
No. I think it's time to stop championing for women and start making life better for everybody.
sarcasm=on]Right, because rape is anywhere near the level of, *ahem* 'social favoritism'.
...so...you're not disagreeing...you're basically just saying "Your arguments are invalid because rape!"
There are a couple responses to this, none of which individually adequately convey either my feelings on the matter, or the actual matter at hand. So I'll list them, I think.
- And you seem to be saying "Your arguments are invalid because emotions!"
- Are you seriously fucking implying that we shouldn't bother with trying to lower the possibilities of a woman being fucking
raped, often without consequence to the rapist, because that's one of 'the few things men still have better'? Are you seriously
fucking doing that right now? ...I'm going to refrain from saying more on the matter because I feel I would be unable to finish posting if I didn't, but suffice to say that I think everyone here would have serious questions as to the quality of your character if you
were in fact, doing so.
- Women are part of everybody! Surprise! Part of making life better for that part of everybody includes all the stuff feminism is doing! So incredibly astounding! Wow! Who would've thought?
- I
am disagreeing. I'm saying that if you honestly believe that these issues are on the same level, you have something wrong with you on an emotional level. Free drinks =/= rape. Difficulty dating =/= spousal abuse. Maybe I'm missing something here? Oh right, the crime victim things. I mean, other than how women are more likely to be a victim of a crime from someone they know, arguably far worse than being a victim of a crime from a stranger. And again, quite a few of
those issues are solved by feminism trying to get rid of gender roles and put more women in positions of authority; you're more likely to get robbed if you're more likely to be the manager of a store or otherwise the one in charge, yes.
The fuck is wrong with you?
Well, you're wrong. Demonstrably wrong.
Well, your opinion is wrong
You. Are. Wrong.
Simply chanting "You're wrong!" is not a convincing argument. If that's the best you have, you wasted the two hours you spent on this.
See, it's when you say things like these that make me think you think of this as a contest, a war of wills rather than an actual issue that happens in real life. "If that's the best you have". I mean seriously.
But lest that bring me offtopic, I notice you fail to address many of the points I made in a meaningful way, choosing instead to 'cherry pick' the statements I made surrounding such points. Did you just, actually fail to notice them? Or ignore them in hopes that everyone else would too, if you did?
You know, I think I'mma ignore this one for the moment until I can be rational
Well, ok. That's fine. When you're ready to be rational, come back and post.
I've been rational. I've been emotional, too. They are not mutually exclusive.
@LordBucket
Don't women live longer due to their biology? Something to do with the hormones, IIRC.
It's a bunch of things. But the big ones...if you simply go down a list of top cause of death, several of them do relate to biology, yes. For example:
* The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease and estrogen has beneficial/protective effects for both cholesterol and heart disease. That's just biology.
* Deaths due to cancer are about 50% higher for men than women. According to google it looks like basically nobody knows why yet. But cancer kills more men. Could be biological. Could be greater exposure to cancer agents. Could be a variety of factors.
* Stroke is a complicated one. Men have more strokes, but the majority of stroke deaths are women...but women live longer, and when people die they have to die of something...so it seems plausible that the higher overall stroke death count for women is because they live longer. But looking at the numbers for age and race...I'm hesitant to make the call on this without looking into it more closely. For example, a lot of strokes are related to heart attacks and blood pressure, both of which are bigger issues for men than women...but while white men have strokes roughly half again more often than white women, black women have strokes about half again more often than white men. That's not uncommon. A lot of health problems affect blacks more than whites, but overall I'm hesitant to make any broad claims here without examining it more closely. This might be more of a racial issue than a gender issue.
Then there are hings like the ~80% of murder victims being men, and ~93% of job-related deaths being men. Those sorts of issues probably have very little to do with biology, but the heart attack thing alone probably causes more of the disparity than all of the obviously non-biological issues combined.
Only replying to this because I feel I must point out some counterpoints with your apparent views;
Having a longer lifespan is not synonymous with 'dying less often'. Just as many women die as men, probably more because birth rates as a whole tend towards women. It's just that the ones dying tend towards being a bit older when it happens. I think you have somehow gotten these mixed up. I'm not entirely sure in either case because it's just so odd and off to one side of the discussion.
As for race and gender, it may be because of the circumstances surrounding such issues; for example, do black women and white women of the same body type, weight, diet choice, environment, etc. and predisposed with approximately equal family histories of how prone they are to heart disease and the like have different chances of being affected? Or is it because of pervading racism in our culture that forces them into positions where other factors contribute to their likelihood to have a stroke? Just wanted to point this out.
* More women are accepted into college than men
True. However, the correct response to this is to ask why more women are in and graduate from college than men. Skimming the article, I find some interesting tidbits. Or really, some interesting paragraphs. Specifically, the bit that that attempts to explain the disparity. You know, rather than simply glossing over the surface details? Yeah.
And that may be one of the things at the heart of the issue of men falling behind in higher education: men simply aren’t applying. What’s more, even when men do enroll, they’re much less likely to finish school and to earn a degree than their female counterparts...
Interest in School
One of the simplest explanations may be that fewer men are interested in going to college than their female classmates.
Some research also suggests that men simply put less value on college than women do, questioning whether it’s necessary or whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Ok, there's no discrimination because men just aren't applying and they're less likely to finish the classes. It's their own fault.
Neither what I, nor what the article, is saying. Nor is that the whole of the portion of the article that I was referring to; I referred to the entire section, not merely a paragraph or two.
Let's apply that logic to computer science classes, then.
And that may be one of the things at the heart of the issue of women falling behind in computer science: women simply aren’t applying. What’s more, even when women do enroll, they’re much less likely to finish school and to earn a degree than their male counterparts....
Interest in School
One of the simplest explanations may be that fewer women are interested in studying computer science than their male classmates....
Some research also suggests that women simply put less value on computer science than men do, questioning whether it’s necessary or whether the cost is worth the benefit.
See, no discrimination there, right? Same logic, just gender-flipped with "college" changed to "computer science". But, of course, when presented like that we're quick to point out all these mitigating factors which are not the woman's fault.
So, by the same logic as the female college admissions article women just aren't into computer science. No more questions allowed. [/sarcasm]
But is that actually true? I mean, leaving aside college as a whole being significantly different than a sub-category within college courses available to them, and the nested nature meaning a more drastic reversal would thus be required lest the reduced interest in computer science be counterbalanced by the overall higher interest in college. Are those actually factual claims, or are you merely reversing the roles in an attempt to undermine an argument wherein you have no true grounds to do so?
I mean, seriously, the article even provides tips and options for how more men can get into college and make it through. Yet you try to make it seem as though the article was trying to sweep away all issues of the sort?
Blagh; while I was writing LordBucket wrote another huge thing on what seems to be a single subject.
...I think I'll leave it to the person he was responding to to respond to him, for the moment. >_>