Print

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

[palsch]

That article seemed off to me seeing as the points coming from the group sound identical to MRAs in the USA and Britain. If they had genuine male repression I'd have assumed they would have more serious issues, like, say suffrage or the right to sit in their political institutions.

So I went to google.

Turns out that the culture is matrilineal, in that children take their mother's surname and the youngest daughter inherits the majority of the property (on the assumption that she will be the parents caregiver), but traditionally women have been excluded from politics.

Looking at the legislative assembly for the region (Meghalaya), there only seem to be 1 woman out of 60 seats. All positions listed as office bearers (eg, those with formal power) on wikipedia are men. It's also worth noting that there is a committee especially for women's liberation and empowerment, something you wouldn't expect to see if women were already supreme in the area.

As for the more traditional, tribal structures, wiki has some information, with some more on the page of dominant groups page. Not much of that is sourced, but a quick search turned up more sources that seem to make the same points (there is a lot more in that book if you care to read). In brief, even the traditional political structure was male dominated. It actually went far further than the modern, formal system to actually formally exclude women from the process entirely.

It's worth noting that wiki has the sex ratio as 986 females to every 1000 males. That's compared to 940 for India as a whole. Make of that what you will.

And going back to a 2003 BBC story (linked at the bottom of the original), the call for greater men's rights was noted alongside a notable increase in rape and sexual abuse of women, as well as general domestic violence. There is a strong undercurrent of tribalism just to make things more complicated.

[Nadaka]

Well there you go. Information makes a whole world of difference.

[OwlEpicurus]

So I spent a long time typing up this post...only to get ninja'd by palsh, saying what I was getting at, but with actual data.  Original post in the spoiler, needs more editing and data, but meh.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The article doesn't give us that much information to go by.  I'm not too fond of how the article was written either -- it gave us a conclusion about the situation, and then backed it up with a mix of more-or-less hard evidence (men dropping out of school, though no specific numbers are given) and anecdote (the actions of one man and one woman from one family).

It is also important to distinguish between matrilineal societies and matriarchal ones.  In the former, woman inherit property, stay with their mother's family, trace their lineage through their mother/grandmother/etc., and so on.  However, they do not necessarily possess political power, and as such a matrilineal society could still treat woman as inferior to men in some regards, just as men are treated as inferior in others.  The tribes of Meghalaya sound like they are matrilineal but not matriarchal -- remember that woman are traditionally excluded from the political process.  It just so happens that, while men and women are still not treated equally, the exact setup they have in their culture allows women to attain a level of success that is atypical for a society still so strongly bound by traditional gender roles.

This is important because it makes comparisons between the situation of the men in Meghalaya and that of woman in Western, patriarchal societies a bit trickier.  There is little doubt that men are treated unfairly in regards to property rights. I'm just not entirely sure if what they need is a men's rights movement rather than a general gender equality, since if men hold political power then they may still be dominant (emphasis on may - as I said, there really isn't that much information).  Calls in the West for feminists to worry equally about men's and women's issues are absurd because there is such a disparity between the status of the two groups, but I'm not sure whether that a disparity of the same magnitude is present in Meghalaya, in spite of its tradition of matrilineality.

Also, while I do believe there is merit to the article's central argument -- that the men of Meghala are treated unfairly in some regards -- that really was a bad article.  The reporter didn't bother to include actual numbers, like the percentage of men and women who complete school, average earnings, average age of marriage, alcholism and drug abuse rates...Yes, you can look it up yourself, but it really is up to the reporter to support his/her own argument.

Also, I'm looking for some data of my own regarding economic matters.  I found this:
http://megplanning.gov.in/MHDR/Human_De.pdf

Now I just need to go dig through it to see if it has anything useful.

Edit:  From the report:

* Women are not the heads of the family.  They are under the control of the male member -- Husband, Father, or brother.

* Women inherit the parents' property acquired and ancestral.

* Women get the better share as the custodian of the property and keeper of the home and hearth.

* For women coming from poor or landless families these property rights are meaningless.  However, their responsibilities are no less than their landed counterparts.

* Women have no right to sell property without the knowledge of the male member - her uncle, her brother or her father.

Edit 2:  Table showing the percent of children in an educational institution, broken up by age and gender.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Edit 3:  Table 2.5 indicates that the wage-ratio between men and women is 0.742 for Meghalaya as a whole (men make more than women).  Isn't that about what it is in the U.S.?

[kaijyuu]

Eeyup. Pretty sure it's motivated by the inheritance thing. Not that the women are any more deserving than the men of the bulk of the inheritance, of course, but inheritance is tricky business already and there are bigger fish to fry concerning sexism over there.


See Virex? Back up your claims with facts instead of prejudice and you'll might actually convince someone of something.

[Virex]

See Virex? Back up your claims with facts instead of prejudice and you'll might actually convince someone of something.

I don't know, what if the facts had turned out the other way? Then we would have been forced to either be factually wrong or morally wrong, and I would say that in cases like these, the morals win over the facts. So from that point of view, the facts don't add anything, either they support the view presented, or we're forced to reject them as sexist and amoral.

[Descan]

Right, so, I'm never going to listen to anything you say.

Ever.

To only accept facts that back up your viewpoint is... Evil. Or at least morally reprehensible.

[Virex]

Right, so, I'm never going to listen to anything you say.

Ever.

To only accept facts that back up your viewpoint is... Evil. Or at least morally reprehensible.

Well, the problem is thus. We can all agree that antifeminist positions and sexism is morally wrong. So if a statement that is in itself sexist is supported by facts and we were to use facts as guiding principles, we would be necessitated to accept something that is morally wrong. But we can't do that. Therefor we cannot accept that morality should be based on facts and still hold a moral position if there are sexist facts. The only way is either to accept the possibility to be amoral, which is rejectable in itself as it opens up a whole other can of worms, or we accept that facts aren't the end to all discussions.

[Nadaka]

See Virex? Back up your claims with facts instead of prejudice and you'll might actually convince someone of something.

I don't know, what if the facts had turned out the other way? Then we would have been forced to either be factually wrong or morally wrong, and I would say that in cases like these, the morals win over the facts. So from that point of view, the facts don't add anything, either they support the view presented, or we're forced to reject them as sexist and amoral.

What? No. If the facts do not support the view presented, the view presented is most likely incorrect and should be adjusted to more closely match the facts.

[kaijyuu]

I would say that in cases like these, the morals win over the facts.

What.

Ignoring the ridiculously abuseable premise right there...


If the facts turned out the other way, then the article just would've been rather badly written. There's nothing "amoral" about pointing out injustice. There's nothing bad about removing double standards. In fact, I'd argue it's vastly immoral to ignore injustice and double standards because it happens the other direction elsewhere.

[Criptfeind]

Virex.

What.

No.

What.

That is not how... Morality works.

There is so much wrong there.

We can all agree that antifeminist positions and sexism is morally wrong.

What? I mean. Sexism can be against men as well you realize? And indeed, like others are saying, the facts could have said that is the case here. It would not have been morally wrong then to oppose it just because the oppressed were male.

So if a statement that is in itself sexist is supported by facts

Ether way you look at it this is wrong. If morality is objective then it would be impossible for facts to be against it, and if morality is subjective then facts can not apply to it at all.

The fact is sexism is wrong. There is no way for a sexist morality to be supported by facts. It is simply a contradiction at the most base level.

[Virex]

Then how does morality work? I can't imagine it being a good thing for people to become immoral simply due to something as trivial as a few facts?

We can all agree that antifeminist positions and sexism is morally wrong.

What? I mean. Sexism can be against men as well you realize? And indeed, like others are saying, the facts could have said that is the case here. It would not have been morally wrong then to oppose it just because the oppressed were male.

Erm, sexism implies the presence of a power component. The omnipresence of the patriarchy has completely removed any power component that may be applicable in views slanted against men. So sexism against men is quite literally impossible.

The fact is sexism is wrong. There is no way for a sexist morality to be supported by facts. It is simply a contradiction at the most base level.

In that case, asking for facts is unnecessary, as they add nothing to the discussion.

[Descan]

Besides, what exactly ARE facts that morally against "sexism is wrong"?

Women are equal = Sexism, though not applicable in this case, is wrong. Nothing in this situation goes against the moral of sexism being wrong.

Women are treated inferior = This is sexism, still wrong.

Men are treated inferior = This is also sexism, still wrong.

There is no situation that I can think of that would go against the axiom of "sexism is wrong." 

And if you think that men being treated inferior is somehow morally right, then I refer you to a) Two wrongs do not make a right, and b) You are a morally reprehensible person, and/or a troll, and I shall have to set you to ignore to prevent myself from going off on an infuriated tangent.

Pseudo-edit: What. Sexism can totally be against men. Have you never heard of a man-hating woman? Or a self-hating man? Saying "men are all pigs" or "Men are nothing but cheating liars" OR "Men only think with their dick." Those are all sexism, against men.

Come on, man. THINK for once in your god-damn life.

[Willfor]

Basically, I'm out until Virex stops talking about this issue. I've seen and been a party to the numerous attempts to debate him on this issue, and I have only seen his position grow more extreme with every iteration. There is no convincing him. He refuses to see any viewpoint but his own on this issue, even when debated with by feminists themselves.

[Criptfeind]

Okay. Willfor is smarter then me. I will follow him.

[Virex]

Pseudo-edit: What. Sexism can totally be against men. Have you never heard of a man-hating woman? Or a self-hating man? Saying "men are all pigs" or "Men are nothing but cheating liars" OR "Men only think with their dick." Those are all sexism, against men.

They are negative opinions about men, but they lack the power component to be sexism.

Come on, man. THINK for once in your god-damn life.

I don't know about that. What if I come to the conclusion that a fundamental axiom is wrong? There's a reason it's an axiom. I don't want to turn into a chauvinist pig just because my mind wanders off...[/quote]