The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?

[Evie]

Not wanting to be rude... but could you just drop the marble analogy entirely because I just feel it's confusing things (it's certainly confusing me). How or why are male politicians more likely to receive abuse than female politicians? And if they receive exactly as much abuse, then how are they skewing the results? Again, I just don't see what role "distance" and "parental wealth" are having in this analogy.

In this analogy, distance stands for gender, and parental wealth for political involvement.

But fine, droping the marble, and using abuse incidents instead.

Assume for the sake of the experiment a scenario where the average non-politician woman suffers 3 incident of verbal abuse, and the average non-politician man suffers 2, in a given day on the internet. (These numbers are for the sake of the demonstration)

Now, assume that politicians, being involved in politics, suffer 30 incidents of verbal abuse a day on the internet. Assume also that politicians are split 78-22.

Assume 200 non-politician males and 200 non-politician females as our first sample. All other things being equal, they reflect the average we agreed on.

Assume we had a representative sample of 20 politicians ot hte group. This increase the number of men to 216, and the number of incidents from 400 to to (30*16 + 400) = 880 incidents. Meanwhile the number of women only increase to 204, and the number of incident from 600 to 720). Thus, the average for men goes from 400/200 = 2 to 880/216 = 4.07. On the flip side the woman average goes from 600/200 = 3 to 720/204 = 3.53.

This would lead to the conclusion that men face more abuse than women (4.07 is greater than 3.53), while in fact the vast majority of woman face more abuse than the vast majority of men.

----

I'm not saying those numbers are necessarily anywhere close to the truth, I'm using them as an example of how a small group of staistical outliers can completely skew an average.

Even if your sample is controlled for gender equality (eg, you make sure the male sample group and female sample group are the same size, you need to control for the type and quality of people being introduced in the sample (eg, get the same number of politicians with comparable level of public prominence

 

[Old Hippy]

You know short people right?

the song, yes or actual short people, yes again, I worked at a school several years ago and they were mostly quite short people there

 

[NovaKart]

Yes the song, everyone knows some short people.

 

[CaptainF]

Who cares it men are subjected to uniquely man-abusive language, if such a thing even exists. There's no sexism against men. There is against women. That's why the abuse toward them matters.

You are so completely, utterly wrong.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/29/why-ultra-orthodox-jewish-babies-keep-getting-herpes.html

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-07-19/news/fl-parents-battle-over-circumcision-20140719_1_male-circumcision-intact-america-dennis-nebus

Sexism against men, like against women, happens every day around the world, perpetuated by the most brutal of means.

Yeah well, you're a man. Man the frak up and take it like a man. Yes, I mean it.

Oh hey! Another disgusting sexist. Would you tell David Reimer to man up? To his face? I bet not. You only feel comfortable saying such vile things on the internet, which makes you not only a sexist, but also a feckless coward.

Moderator Action: Such attacks on other posters in RD threads are not acceptable. Moreover, the circumcision tangent has precisely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Please don't use RD threads as a platform to pursue your own unrelated pet topic. Banned for five days for both the flaming and the derailment.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[CaptainF]

Sexism against men is so non-existent, that they can be forced to pay child support for children conceived as a result of their statutory rape.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/02/arizona-statutory-rape-victim-forced-pay-child-support/14951737/

Nick Olivas became a father at 14, a fact he wouldn't learn for eight years.

While in high school, Olivas had sex with a 20-year-old woman. As he sees it now, she took advantage of a lonely kid going through a rough patch at home.

State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim. But Olivas didn't press charges and says he didn't realize at the time that it was even something to consider.

The two went their separate ways. Olivas graduated from high school, went to college and became a medical assistant.

Then two years ago, the state served him with papers demanding child support. That's how he found out he had a then-6-year-old daughter.

"It was a shock," he said. "I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It's unexplainable. It freaked me out."

He said he panicked, ignored the legal documents and never got the required paternity test. The state eventually tracked him down.

Olivas, a 24-year-old Phoenix resident, said he now owes about $15,000 in back child support and medical bills going back to the child's birth, plus 10 percent interest. The state seized money from his bank account and is now garnisheeing his wages at $380 a month.

He has become one of the state's 153,000 active child-support cases, according to the Arizona Department of Economic Security division of Child Support Services.

In May alone, payments were not made in 49 percent of those cases, according to the agency.

Olivas' fear has turned to frustration.

He wants to be in his daughter's life and is willing to pay child support going forward. But he doesn't think it's right for the state to charge him for fees incurred when he was still a child himself or for the years he didn't know the girl existed.

"Anything I do as an adult, I should be responsible for," he said. "But as a teenager? I don't think so."

Situations such as Olivas' are rare, according to fathers-rights advocates. But cases in several states have garnered attention. And while there has been some public outcry over charging a crime victim with child support, the courts have consistently said states have every right to do so.

The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support.

California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.

In both cases, it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance.

"The Kansas court determined that the rape was irrelevant and that the child support was not owed to the rapist but rather to the child," said Mel Feit, director of the New York-based advocacy group the National Center for Men.

In Arizona, the Department of Economic Security oversees child--support enforcement. Its written policy is not to exempt situations like Olivas' from child-support responsibilities, unless the parent seeking child support has been found guilty of sexual assault with a minor or sexual assault.

"We don't see those cases very often, and we're really glad for that," said attorney Janet Sell, chief counsel with the Attorney General's Office's Child and Family Protection Division.

But DES officials said the intent of the rule is to ensure that the child, who had no control over the situation, is cared for.

Feit said if the roles were reversed and the woman was the victim, the scenario would be unthinkable.

"The idea that a woman would have to send money to a man who raped her is absolutely off-the-charts ridiculous," he said. "It wouldn't be tolerated, and it shouldn't be tolerated."

Feit said the basic legal premise of a rape is that the victim can't be held responsible. And with statutory rape, even if the victim participates, he or she can't be held responsible.

"We're not going to hold him responsible for the sex act, so to then turn around and say we're going to hold him responsible for the child that resulted from that act is off-the-charts ridiculous," he said. "It makes no sense."

Arizona also has no exemption for children born to children, although the state cannot get a court order for child support against the non-custodial parent until that parent becomes an adult.

It also doesn't matter to the state whether the non-custodial parent knows about the child or not. Child support is a separate legal issue from custody.

The state requires parents seeking public assistance under the state's welfare programs to first pursue child support. The child-support payments then are used to help reimburse the state for assistance payments.

The state's child-support caseload includes 122,230 cases as of the end of May in which the families are or were receiving cash assistance. From April 2013 through March 2014, the state recouped just over $14 million in previously dispersed cash assistance through child-support payments.

"They have to comply with us," said Scott Lekan, DES child support operations administrator. "We're trying to keep them off the cash assistance, and we're trying to get back some of the cash assistance money. It benefits everybody at the end of the day."

The state has more routes than the courts to acquire money from a parent. It can garnishee wages up to 50 percent of disposable income. It can take a tax refund. It can put a lien on a home or a vehicle. It can suspend driver's licenses or revoke passports. And it can seize money out of bank accounts.

"Our biggest source of income is from income-withholding orders to employers," Lekan said.

Under Arizona's child-support formula, non-custodial parents may keep their first $903 to cover their own living expenses. A child-support payment amount is then set based on the remaining money.

Olivas is trying to fight some of the child-support costs, but says he can't afford a lawyer

He also is trying to see his daughter.

"I lost my mom at a young age. I know what it's like to only have one parent," he said. "I can't leave her out there. She deserves a dad."

 

[luiz]

Reductio ad absurdum is in this case a fallacy, because the context of each statement is key.

Sexist, racist, bigoted, and hateful are not direct synonyms. Sexism and racism are social structures, they aren't determined nor limited to individual opinions. Except in a unique case like South Africa, it is pretty much impossible to be racist against white people. It's never possible to be sexist against men. Whites and men run society, and the structure and shape of it, as well as its mores, are defined by their ideals and reinforce the protection of their rule. Being "against" them is not bigotry because the personal opinion expressed by such a statement does not reinforce their systematic oppression, as it does when directed against women/transgender or people of color.

A black calling a white a cracker isn't racism, it's someone being a jerk. The white person isn't oppressed by that. A white calling a black the n-word is racism because it reinforces the social structure of society which places blacks beneath whites, subjects them to the dominant white culture, and treats them as separate from that society if they do not.

"Bigoted against Christians" is purely an individual sentiment. The only case I can think of where this would be possible as a social structure would be in the Middle East, as presently in the ISIS situation, where Christians are a tiny minority and present natively in that region (you might consider Christianity to be a native religion there). Outside of that, it's not at all the same as racism or sexism, unless it manifested itself, as above, in a social manner. Hate towards Americans is as above with Christianity.

That's just your opinion of what racism is, though. It's hardly the most accepted definition. Generally speaking, if a person dislikes a certain "race", or believes that the "races" should be kept apart, etc., said person is considered a racist. Nothing to do with oppression, social structures or any such stuff.

So yes, you could be racist against Germans in freaking Nazi Germany. Just because Germans were oppressing everybody else does not mean it was impossible to have a racist dislike of them. If a Jew on a concentration camp believed that Germans were inherently cold blooded murdering barbarians then said Jew was a racist, despite being the oppressed, not the oppressor. Maybe his racism would be understandable, but it's still racism.

This is what 99 out of 100 people will tell you racism is. Your definition is obviously influenced by your politics, and that's fine, but you can't hijack the meaning of words and then claim everyone else is wrong.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You are so completely, utterly wrong.

You are so, completely, utterly incapable of reading what other people write.

Forced circumcision isn't sexism. It's a violation, to be sure, but it's not sexism. Women aren't using society to force infant males to have parts of their penises chopped off, other men are doing that.

That man having to pay child support is obviously wrong. But guess who made the law? You guessed it: male-dominated society. Men wrote the law and passed the law. Women didn't will the law into existence with their evil she-powers in order to spite men. Nor does this oppress men or render them at a disadvantage in society in any way, shape, or form.

So yeah, not sexism.

Moderator Action: Please discuss the topic without resorting to insults.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Commodore]

Single men are the lowest priority for emergency housing provision. That's discrimination against two protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: gender and marital status.

That's not really discrimination though, it's triaging according to need. There is only so much emergency housing available so it goes to those with the greatest need for it. Single men tend to have less of a need for emergency housing, so they go to the bottom of the list.

 

[NovaKart]

If a man is treated differently because of his sex that is sexism. Doesn't matter who is doing it. If it's a member of the same sex or the opposite sex it's still sexism. Women can be very sexist against other women. You seem to follow an entirely narrow gender studies focused definition of sexism.

 

[Commodore]

You are so, completely, utterly incapable of reading what other people write.

Forced circumcision isn't sexism. It's a violation, to be sure, but it's not sexism. Women aren't using society to force infant males to have parts of their penises chopped off, other men are doing that.

That man having to pay child support is obviously wrong. But guess who made the law? You guessed it: male-dominated society. Men wrote the law and passed the law. Women didn't will the law into existence with their evil she-powers in order to spite men. Nor does this oppress men or render them at a disadvantage in society in any way, shape, or form.

So yeah, not sexism.

Why do you assume men can't be sexist towards other men? Useless raised the point in a different thread that it doesn't matter that the most abuse towards women comes from other women because women can have misogynistic attitudes towards other women. If that is the case, then it stands to reason the same is true for men.

Now, of course that doesn't put the blame for sexist policies towards men on women since it was other men who made the laws. But that doesn't change the fact that those laws and policies are still sexist.

 

[useless]

Then the real problem isn't feminism or women in general, but men, given they have and in the past had the actual power.

 

[Evie]

Specifically, it's the gender-based expectations and biases created and maintained by and large by men.

 

[CaptainF]

You are so, completely, utterly incapable of reading what other people write.

Nah, I read that post just fine.

Forced circumcision isn't sexism. It's a violation, to be sure, but it's not sexism. Women aren't using society to force infant males to have parts of their penises chopped off, other men are doing that.

Forced circumcision as described in Israel, South Africa and The U.S. is indeed sexist. Only one sex is forced to endure this mutilation, and it ain't women, although women too were mutilated in the United States, sometimes under medical insurance.

And the claim that only men do the cutting is preposterous. True, they do their fair share, but so do women if you really want to be specific. After all, circumcision in the US is most commonly carried out by OB/GYN specialists, who are experts in women's medicine and anatomy yet are given free reign to mutilate male bodies.

If I were born a girl 25 years ago, no one would have even thought of taking a knife to my genitals. But, because I was born a boy, it was thought of as normal and someone got to make money by cutting off a big part of my penis.

And yes, circumcision is frequently carried out, at least in this country, because "women prefer it". Take this horrifying story, written by a woman, about how she convinced her husband to have their son circumcised because he "wouldn't be able to get a blow job when he grows up".

Nope, definitely not sexist

“My love,” I said to my husband, sweetly, pragmatically. “If you ever want your son to get a blow job — circumcise him.”

Four weeks after our son came into the world, we did just that. In the pediatrician’s office, with little fanfare, no mini quiches and a whole lotta wincing.

To Fletcher’s future girlfriends: You’re welcome.

And yes, in many parts of Africa men are getting pressured, in some cases by women, to get circumcised:

Female Zimbabwe politician advocates for men to get circumcised based on bogus health claims.

That man having to pay child support is obviously wrong. But guess who made the law? You guessed it: male-dominated society. Men wrote the law and passed the law. Women didn't will the law into existence with their evil she-powers in order to spite men. Nor does this oppress men or render them at a disadvantage in society in any way, shape, or form.

So yeah, not sexism.

So, if it's men oppressing men, it's not sexism? That seems quite a stretch. To me, all that matters are who's getting screwed over or not, and in these cases, it's quite clearly the male.

And are you really arguing that these cases don't oppress men? Really? Getting your genitals mutilated, or owing tens of thousands of dollars of money because you got raped by an older women doesn't "render you at a disadvantage"?

Well damn, why don't you pay me thousands of dollars, right now. It won't leave you at a disadvantage, after all.

 

[cardgame]

TIL men can't be sexist

thanks, Cheezy!



No, but really, women are using society ... they're a part of society. Half. How many single-father scenarios do you think exist where the son is circumcised? A very small amount. How many single-mother or both-parent scenarios exist where the son is circumcised with consent of the mother, a woman? To read your post at face value would suggest you don't believe in the agency of women, that they have no voice in society, no vote, no say, no meaningful consent which may be granted.

>That man having to pay child support is obviously wrong

But guess who pressed the claim to force to him to pay? The woman. His rapist. She made... a choice. She exercised her agency... her institutional power in this scenario. The fact that this power was given to her by men* doesn't matter.

*I'd like to dispute that, it would seem sensible that feminism played a huge role in child support throughout the 20th century at least, but I can't find any sources on the history of child support.

 

[Old Hippy]

Nah, I read that post just fine.



Forced circumcision as described in Israel, South Africa and The U.S. is indeed sexist. Only one sex is forced to endure this mutilation, and it ain't women, although women too were mutilated in the United States, sometimes under medical insurance.

And the claim that only men do the cutting is preposterous. True, they do their fare share, but so do women if you really want to be specific. After all, circumcision in the US is most commonly carried out by OB/GYN specialists, who are experts in women's medicine and anatomy yet are given free reign to mutilate male bodies.

If I were born a girl 25 years ago, no one would have even thought of taking a knife to my genitals. But, because I was born a boy, it was thought of as normal and someone got to make money by cutting off a big part of my penis.

.

considering you used africa as an example there is a good chance that if you got born yesterday as a girl in parts of Africa. Someone would want to take a knife to your private parts and leave you with no sexual satisfaction at all and serious ongoing problems
sue your parents, set a precident if its such a problem, heck sue God seems like he is responsible for it
and don't do it to your kids, I didn't, thats how things change...

 

[CaptainF]

considering you used africa as an example there is a good chance that if you got born yesterday as a girl in parts of Africa.

True. Thing is, in every place that practices female circumcision, male circumcision is also practiced. So, if I were born at all in any of those places, I would have been doomed.

Someone would want to take a knife to your private parts and leave you with no sexual satisfaction at all and serious ongoing problems

It seems you are assuming that all female circumcision is infibulation. Not true. Most female circumcision is a removal of the clitoral hood (female foreskin), or a partial/total clitoridectomy.

And most of these women, at least according to themselves, say they have no problems with sexual pleasure or intimacy, and in fact get quite offended when you suggest they have been mutilated. Sounds a lot like circumcised men in the United States, doesn't it?

Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a noted feminist and herself a victim of FGM, has stated that male circumcision is worse than an incision of a girl, at least the way it's practiced where she grew up:


Link to video.

sue your parents,

I don't think parents are to blame for circumcising children, but the "doctors". The doctors are the ones who abdicate their hippocratic oath and commit circumcisions, knowing that they are unnecessary at best and damaging at worst. They ignore their hippocratic oath for profit.

My parents are not medical professionals, and were ignorant of circumcision's effects. If they had known any better, they would never have had me circumcised.

set a precident if its such a problem, heck sue God seems like he is responsible for it
and don't do it to your kids, I didn't, thats how things change...

If I have kids, I won't be doing it to them. Good on you for seeing the light!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Nah, I read that post just fine.

Apparently not, since your post and your argument deal with things I addressed. You would not call those things sexism.

Forced circumcision as described in Israel, South Africa and The U.S. is indeed sexist. Only one sex is forced to endure this mutilation, and it ain't women, although women too were mutilated in the United States, sometimes under medical insurance.

All you're proving is that you're a dudebro who doesn't know what words mean.

Are you really saying that women oppress men by upholding a standard created by men in the first place?

So, if it's men oppressing men, it's not sexism?

If it's men oppressing men, then no, it's not sexism. If it's men oppressing women, and some men get caught in the crossfire, then yes, it's sexism.

TIL men can't be sexist

thanks, Cheezy!

Today I learned that you don't speak the English language enough to be allowed to use this forum.

Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling throughout the thread, including in this post. Your posting in this RD thread has been wholly unacceptable. One week ban.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[warpus]

It's never possible to be sexist against men.

Oh, so you're really serious?

I'm sorry, but I can't at all understand how you can have a position that's so blatantly false.

As someone who has been discriminated against based on my gender, I find your views utterly disgusting. You're essentially out of hand dismissing the problems of a group of people solely based on their gender. I find that just.. not civilized.. and 100% wrong.

Okay, so you might be kidding.. pulling my leg.. right? I don't know what to think anymore..

Sorry, but no. Now if the site admins feel that way, so be it. Their site, their rules. But you as a fellow user, no, I will not shut up and move along just because you don't like what I say.

Freedom of expression for your fellow users only as long as you agree with it, eh?

I will defend your right to say whatever you want, unless what you're saying is in some way hateful, bigoted, sexist, racist, or whatever. You have a right to say what you want, but I have a right to speak out against the nonsense coming out of your mouth.

Nothing personal, but I know first hand how hurtful comments like that can be.. and how much they can affect people in a very negative way. I am very disappointed you don't feel a need to change in light of what you're saying being so hateful and hurtful, not to mention bona fide sexist.. I thought you were better than this.

When I said your comments are not welcome, I was saying that they are not welcome in society, period. I am not trying to say that you shouldn't be able to say these things here. Obviously that is not up for me to decide.

However, as a part of the society we both are members of, it is my duty to speak out against what you said, in the hope that you'll change or that others who have similar opinions will. Not for my own selfish reason, but because it will make other people's lives better, in the future, if you change and treat people with a bit more respect and courtesy. It can go a long way. No way am I going to sit by and not say a thing when you tell men "to suck it up", because they're men. What's next, men don't cry? Women don't wear pants? Women shouldn't vote?

Sexism is a problem, but we're not going to get anywhere if those are the views people have.

 

[cardgame]

All you're proving is that you're a dudebro who doesn't know what words mean.


Today I learned that you don't speak the English language enough to be allowed to use this forum.

I understand I was being pretty damn snarky, and you might have felt ganged up on, but is this kind of explicitly insulting response really necessary?

Plus, I mean, our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS the dictionary, which we have cited...

 

[CaptainF]

Apparently not, since your post and your argument deal with things I addressed. You would not call those things sexism.

I read the post I quoted just fine. The post stated that men cannot be victims of sexism. I proved quite the opposite.

All you're proving is that you're a dudebro who doesn't know what words mean.

Are you really saying that women oppress men by upholding a standard created by men in the first place?

Aaaaand now you start with the insults.

Yes, because in many cases, boys are circumcised by the mother, without the father's consent. In many cases, the ones doing the cutting are women, not men.

Are you suggesting that women have such little agency, they can't think for themselves and decide that this is wrong?

Why does it matter who or what created the original standard, rather than who perpetuates it today?

If it's men oppressing men, then no, it's not sexism. If it's men oppressing women, and some men get caught in the crossfire, then yes, it's sexism.

The problem is, you can't say that it's only men oppressing men in these circumstances. The head of the AAP's "Circumcision Task Force", the one that justifies this mutilation, is a woman. But no, she is simply being controlled by men, like a puppet! That's right, I should have noticed the strings attached to her various appendages. My bad.