I don't think there's any half-assedness about it: every step forward for female engineers is, almost by definition, a step forward for male teachers. If nothing else, it's an unhappy female applicant moved away from a teaching job towards an engineering job.
I disagree with this. What you have instead is more competition for the engineering job, and then the failures maybe drifting instead towards the teaching job, not people who want to become engineers striving for that, and people who want to become teachers striving for that.
The process of making women want to become engineers and be accepted as engineers is the same process (removing the idea that certain fields are 'women's work') as making men want to become teachers and be accepted as teachers, though. So you have that process in two directions.
Men suck, men can't have issues, men rule everything & we should simply listen to feminists for what men are supposed to be. By a male poster who's named himself useless.
Yes, I agree with that, but I don't think they are seen as such. Maybe I should have phrased it differently, I'll try again:
It is very easy for society to acknowledge that a problem negatively affects women, but it is much harder for society to acknowledge that the same problem also affects men or has negative consequences for men.
Part of that issue is the fact that women have an in-group bias (aka they care more about other women than about men) and men have an out-group bias (aka they ALSO care more about women than other men), which makes it very hard for changes that affect men to gain traction in the first place. And WHEN men talk about the issues that men face they're often told to "man up", or they're being ridiculed - by both genders.
(Disclaimer: I don't agree with everything Peter Lloyd says there, but the reactions of the hosts (male and female) as well as the studio audience show exactly what I mean.)
Just IMAGINE a woman had said "I feel my gender is being left behind." and the answer to that would be the host asking her: "Yeah, darling... do you have a boyfriend? No? Well, that explains your frustration."
Interestingly enough that then leads many men to just not care anymore - see the whole MGTOW-Movement, or the "herbivores" in Japan.
Not really, it's an attack with no substance in it, i already asked about this disengenous view that i somehow hate men and i still haven't been given a sufficient answer, but do go on Bhavv, explain how i hate men.
Not really, it's an attack with no substance in it, i already asked about this disengenous view that i somehow hate men and i still haven't been given a sufficient answer, but do go on Bhavv, explain how i hate men.
Absolutely. Like I said - it's the same issue and in the end the same issue can be fixed for both gender by doing the same thing: Acknowledging that we're all individuals, that we all have problems and that we can and should fix these.
When it comes to that, women are actually one step ahead, because their problems are already being acknowledged - and that's really the reason why fixing the issue for women will not automatically fix the issue for men if the step of making people REALIZE that this problem exists/is worth fixing for men is just skipped.
Yes, I agree with that, but I don't think they are seen as such. Maybe I should have phrased it differently, I'll try again:
It is very easy for society to acknowledge that a problem negatively affects women, but it is much harder for society to acknowledge that the same problem also affects men or has negative consequences for men.
Part of that issue is the fact that women have an in-group bias (aka they care more about other women than about men) and men have an out-group bias (aka they ALSO care more about women than other men), which makes it very hard for changes that affect men to gain traction in the first place. And WHEN men talk about the issues that men face they're often told to "man up", or they're being ridiculed - by both genders.
(Disclaimer: I don't agree with everything Peter Lloyd says there, but the reactions of the hosts (male and female) as well as the studio audience show exactly what I mean.)
Just IMAGINE a woman had said "I feel my gender is being left behind." and the answer to that would be the host asking her: "Yeah, darling... do you have a boyfriend? No? Well, that explains your frustration."
Interestingly enough that then leads many men to just not care anymore - see the whole MGTOW-Movement, or the "herbivores" in Japan.
I had to look up that clip that you posted myself because the one you posted is apparently not available in the US for some reason, but it was a great example of the kind of minimizing that people who care about these issues have to deal with every time these issues are brought up. Flying Pig, you talk about men working together with feminists to solve these issues, but that clip proves why it's not currently possible. Anyone who wants to talk about these issues are shamed and ridiculed publicly before the conversation even starts. Less than a minute into the clip, before the person being interviewed has even had a chance to talk, the following has already been said:
-He needs to grow a set
-He's angry
-He has something against women, this last one in the form of a loaded question similar to asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Laughter all around from everyone in the studio, and he gets nothing but scorn and dismissive comments, not to mention the obligatory "He doesn't have a girlfriend, what a surprise" comment, as if men that are single cannot possibly be worth anything.
This is the kind of current that people wanting to combat these issues are fighting against. It's not as easy as "why can't we all just work together?" Nobody can work together if the public at large refuses to even acknowledge the problem and mocks and insults anyone who tries to point it out.
So we have an elementary understanding that boys disagreements are more often directly physical while bullying is a co-gendered problem. We have one condemnation of drugging anywhere between 10-33% of American boys between ages 5-12 into compliance with slow-release meth. We have a suggestion that the War on Drugs is a problem, which is a delicious state of affairs given the previous. We have a suggestion that elementary school teachers should be paid more, though I'm pretty sure they being a white collar job are still paid better than more blue collar working class jobs than we probably think. We have a suggestion that helping more women be engineers will encourage men to spend more time with children. And we have at least some concern regarding spiking suicide rates among middle aged men. Also the suggestion that paying more attention to girls and women will fix these issues. Am I tracking so far? Missed anything before soliciting more conundrums?
So we have an elementary understanding that boys disagreements are more often directly physical while bullying is a co-gendered problem. We have one condemnation of drugging anywhere between 10-33% of American boys between ages 5-12 into compliance with slow-release meth. We have a suggestion that the War on Drugs is a problem, which is a delicious state of affairs given the previous. We have a suggestion that elementary school teachers should be paid more, though I'm pretty sure they being a white collar job are still paid better than more blue collar working class jobs than we probably think. We have a suggestion that helping more women be engineers will encourage men to spend more time with children. And we have at least some concern regarding spiking suicide rates among middle aged men. Also the suggestion that paying more attention to girls and women will fix these issues. Am I tracking so far? Missed anything before soliciting more conundrums?
Basically right, but on the point about drugs, I was referring to a separate issue from the slow release meth given to boys. I am referring to the greater incarceration rates due to police arresting drug users, and thus cutting them off from participating with their family and thus cutting their sons from a male presence in their lives.
It specifically looks at factors influencing boys and girls attitudes to Physics study in the high school and college bracket. Notably it doesn't mention stereotyping by teachers (there's actually bugger all evidence that girls are told that 'physics is for boys' these days.)
Some bullet points:
Girls are more likely to choose to study 'socially responsible' or 'career relevant' subjects (and physics is more likely to be seen as neither by girls).
Girls are more likely to pick subjects they think they are good at whilst being more likely to underestimate their ability.
Girls are less likely to pick subjects they perceive as difficult (and they correctly view physics as being one of the hardest subjects)
Girls tend to be less likely to attempt to gain the teacher's attention in class (or to gain the teacher's attention by bad behaviour) and as a result get marginalised - the variation in the proportion of girls who choose physics between all female and co-ed schools is huge.
After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."
I disagree, both genders face very unique problems. Sure, some of them may overlap, but it would be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to suggest that you can solve both at the stroke of a universal wand.
It's like saying that we can solve all problems that old people face with the same set of solutions that young people face. It's just not going to work. You've got to accept that men and women face different realities and as such have to deal with different issues in their day to day lives.
That's why I'm not against feminism. It has its place. It's there to highlight the issues that women face. Historically women have been pretty damn oppressed and it's only recently that we have all begun to think of them as equals. So of course we should have a movement out there whose main concern is the issues women face and how best to deal with them.
But the thing is that some men face issues too. Even though the people in charge of this planet have lately usually been and continue to be old white men, that does not imply that there aren't individual men out there who face issues in their day to day lives. Most of those issues are going to be gender non-specific, but sometimes the issues are issues that only affect men.
Logically then there should be a way for society to help those men who have those issues, whatever they might be. Currently it seems to be leading to a lot of suicide at least, so it seems like a worthy enough endeavour.
Expecting these issues to be solved as "a side effect" of some other movement with all that in mind seems rather illogical and crass.
TBH the only relevant question. The rest of your post can be explained by this terrible dread fear that to admit inequality ever having existed will invoke the spectre of privilege.
Hence all the "women didn't have it that bad really".
I don't really appreciate you putting words in my mouth or attributing opinions to me that I have never expressed.
"When did sexism stop" is an irrelevant question to ask me because, not only did I never say that it HAD stopped, but also nothing I said requires or implies that to be the case.
I don't know if you're deliberately trying to derail things or are just unwilling to look beyond your own prejudices, but really I see no need to defend positions I never claimed to adopt or answer irrelevant questions that would do nothing be go down another blind alley.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I really don't know why I even bother trying to respond to you. You seem incapable of giving an honest summary of anything that people you disagree with are actually saying, you seem unwilling to assume good faith and instead assume that they are lying about their opinions or hiding their true motivations, and you make no effort to engage in any proper discussion. This level of witter doesn't really have a place in an RD thread. I was hoping for better but I give up.
I don't really appreciate you putting words in my mouth or attributing opinions to me that I have never expressed.
"When did sexism stop" is an irrelevant question to ask me because, not only did I never say that it HAD stopped, but also nothing I said requires or implies that to be the case.
I don't know if you're deliberately trying to derail things or are just unwilling to look beyond your own prejudices, but really I see no need to defend positions I never claimed to adopt or answer irrelevant questions that would do nothing be go down another blind alley.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I really don't know why I even bother trying to respond to you. You seem incapable of giving an honest summary of anything that people you disagree with are actually saying, you seem unwilling to assume good faith and instead assume that they are lying about their opinions or hiding their true motivations, and you make no effort to engage in any proper discussion. This level of witter doesn't really have a place in an RD thread. I was hoping for better but I give up.
You've said you are an anti-feminist. In this post you say you see no alternative but to fight against feminism.
The only reason anti-feminism keeps coming into it is because feminism keeps being brought to bear. And as the whole raison detre of feminism is that "women are downtrodden wholesale by men", to paraphrase, then there seems as though there's no alternative than to fight against that ideology in order to make any progress whatsoever. But even that doesn't work because then everything gets pointlessly sidelined into discussions like this one, where we're discussing nothing but shield maidens (or lack thereof) for no other reason than "history is important" or something.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
