Seems like a bunch of biased gak really, not entirely sure what I just read but I want five minutes of my life back. My favourite bit is when he talks in the begining about how men and women are equal but society now sees women as being better and then goes on later emphaise how much smarter and stronger men are really.
All the stuff about men taking on the hard jobs like firefighting, police, coal minning blah blah blah and how so many men die on the job compared to women, completely ignoring the fact that women don't have much relevance in these areas due to the fact that society has and still does see women as the weaker sex mentally and physically.
I think that the whole 'war on men' thing is kind of overblown and all, but there is a salient point... how often do you see women portrayed as being just plain stupid or ignorant on TV? All the sitcoms I see it's men being stupid, and women at worst being portrayed as kind of bitchy, which is saying they are right but not gracious.
Men get mocked because they're still the guys in power. You offend people less by mocking the powerful. Even the guys getting mocked. Most of us know how good we have it, so it rolls off our backs.
Mostly you see this kind of whining from jerks who lose out in family court. They act like donkey-caves, then are shocked when the family court favors the mother, then they go on crusades for "men's rights", where "men's rights" = "I don't lose to my bitch ex-wife.' Most of that type seem to have the fantasy that they can roll things back to the 50s or 60s, and that if we did they'd get to be Don Draper in Mad Men. I suspect that most of them are also massive fans of the filmTaken, which is the ultimate bitter divorced dad fantasy movie.
Not to say that no men are mistreated or suffer genuine injustices. But the incidence is pretty minor, really, and overall we're still the more privileged sex.
Just because something happened in the past doesn't make doing the same thing now but in the opposite direction ok.
This is why Affirmative Action is wrong.
It does nothing to remove prejudices and discrimination, it just changes who is getting discriminated against.
It punishes people for something people in the past did.
Those who claim there isn't discrimination against men are blind. Its not as bad as discrimination against women was in the past, but it is present and it is socially acceptable in many ways. Which in many ways is worse.
If a women gets fired, those who fired her have to worry that it might seem as if they fired her because she was a women. If a man gets fired, nobody would think twice. "well obviously he was bad at his job or broke a company policy" I doubt a women getting fired would automatically elicit that response in the majority of people.
Men get mocked because they're still the guys in power. You offend people less by mocking the powerful. Even the guys getting mocked. Most of us know how good we have it, so it rolls off our backs.
Not me! As an upper-middle-class white male, aged 25-40 and living in Canada, I am constantly reminded of how much better I have it, and I do not appreciate that. I am being deprived of my right to rule the world in blissful naivete of my own fortunate social circumstances.
My self-esteem has been negatively impacted as a result of my awareness that I have the "easy path" in life, and don't need to struggle to overcome anything.
Mannahnin wrote: Mostly you see this kind of whining from jerks who lose out in family court. They act like donkey-caves, then are shocked when the family court favors the mother, then they go on crusades for men's rights. Most of that type seem to have the fantasy that they can roll things back to the 50s or 60s, and that if we did they'd get to be Don Draper in Mad Men.
Not to say that no men are mistreated or suffer genuine injustices. But the incidence is pretty minor, really, and overall we're still the more privileged sex.
That's the problem with being a white middle-classed male we don't have real problems to complain about, other people worry about getting there heads chopped off we complain about our Tim Horton's coffee taking 45 seconds to make, it's just not fair,
Mannahnin wrote: Mostly you see this kind of whining from jerks who lose out in family court. They act like donkey-caves, then are shocked when the family court favors the mother, then they go on crusades for "men's rights", where "men's rights" = "I don't lose to my bitch ex-wife.' Most of that type seem to have the fantasy that they can roll things back to the 50s or 60s, and that if we did they'd get to be Don Draper in Mad Men. I suspect that most of them are also massive fans of the filmTaken, which is the ultimate bitter divorced dad fantasy movie.
Not to say that no men are mistreated or suffer genuine injustices. But the incidence is pretty minor, really, and overall we're still the more privileged sex.
Hey... man... I went thru divorce.
I love my kids dearly...
My attorney told me that if my ex made minimal effort to take full custody / alimony / child support... I'm basically screwed. (luckily, that didn't happen as the split was amicable and 50/50)
It's a scary time dude.... and my attorney and her practice collegue mentioned how lucky I was and told me nurmous accounts of how bad it can be (I've talked to this one dude who got screwed royally).
So... at least where I live... the bias towards the mother/wife is so blatant, that it's institutionalized. So, I'd argue against that the "incidence is pretty minor" with respect to divorces.
However... as a single dude now... ya... being a bachelor male now rocks
So... if you want my opinion on the whole marriage thing (the premise of the recent "Man Up" publications)... if you want kidz, get married. If not... just. say. no.
Mannahnin wrote: Not to say that no men are mistreated or suffer genuine injustices. But the incidence is pretty minor, really, and overall we're still the more privileged sex.
Hey... man... I went thru divorce.
I love my kids dearly...
My attorney told me that if my ex made minimal effort to take full custody / alimony / child support... I'm basically screwed. (luckily, that didn't happen as the split was amicable and 50/50)
It's a scary time dude.... and my attorney and her practice collegue mentioned how lucky I was and told me nurmous accounts of how bad it can be (I've talked to this one dude who got screwed royally).
So... at least where I live... the bias towards the mother/wife is so blatant, that it's institutionalized. So, I'd argue against that the "incidence is pretty minor" with respect to divorces.
Are you kidding right now? You conclude that bias toward the woman is institutionalized based on the words of "one dude who got screwed" (at least in his own, no doubt TOTALLY unbiased account), and what your lawyer told you? You do recognize that the lawyer's job is in part to get you to shut up and not mess up your own case, and to appreciate how good a deal you get? By your account you did not get screwed, and the only data you've got on guys getting screwed is anecdotal.
Grey Templar wrote: The middle class white male is constantly discriminated against. Especially in education.
We have plenty to complain about. Yet we legally cannot do anything about it.
This is so funny it's sad, or so sad it's funny.
Really?
I remember my Ma/Pa "made too much money" to qualify for college grants/scholarship.. and yet, there was no fething way they could afford to help me out.
Likewise, one of my best friend who lived a couple houses down got a scholarship in the same school I went to... why?
-Not because he was poor... in fact, both his parents made more than mine
-Not because he scored higher on the ACT... I don't remember how high, but it was much higher
-Not because he was a sports jock... that man hated sports...
I tease him all the time that he got preferential treatment 'cuz of his skin... he'd laugh and says it's true , 'cuz he knows I have no ill will towards him. (honestly, if the opportunity is there... TAKE IT).
So... that's an example.
Now with respect to being male and being descriminated... yeah, that happens, but I don't think it's pandemic.
Look, I'm pretty reasonable about this whole thing, but there seems to be a lot of "White men have had it so good for so long that they got nothing to complain about."... but how long does that gak last?
Seriously, when is the last time, outside of a cartoon, where you have seen a bumbling, ignorant character that isn't a white male? I bet it wasn't on prime time TV.
Grey Templar wrote:The middle class white male is constantly discriminated against. Especially in education.
We have plenty to complain about. Yet we legally cannot do anything about it.
Oh, please do tell me about this.
Pick up any college scholarship list and go through it.
Look at how many are for underpriviledged people, and note the amounts.
Then look at how many are still open to anyone.
And finally, note how many scholarships still ask for your race.
The fact race is an issue for many scholarships is evidence of discrimination. Being white is not going to make you more likely to recieve a scholarship. Being black or latino will.
And finally, college doesn't cost any less for a White person then anyone else.
Just because someone is middle class doesn't mean they are any more able to pay for their education.
A non-white person can get more scholarships and end up with less college debt then a white person simply because there is more financial aid avaliable.
Mannahnin wrote: Mostly you see this kind of whining from jerks who lose out in family court. They act like donkey-caves, then are shocked when the family court favors the mother, then they go on crusades for men's rights. Most of that type seem to have the fantasy that they can roll things back to the 50s or 60s, and that if we did they'd get to be Don Draper in Mad Men.
Not to say that no men are mistreated or suffer genuine injustices. But the incidence is pretty minor, really, and overall we're still the more privileged sex.
That's the problem with being a white middle-classed male we don't have real problems to complain about, other people worry about getting there heads chopped off we complain about our Tim Horton's coffee taking 45 seconds to make, it's just not fair,
Can I complain that I can't get Tim Horton's here?
I will say as another divorcee, it's SHOCKING how bad the courts can be, and it's fascinating how bad the double standard is.
I don't mind talking about it now, three years out and after a lot of expensive therapy but my ex-wife was abusive as hell and tried to kill me. Embedded a frying pan in the wall right above my skull. I'm typing today because I have quick reflexes. However the DAY I filed for divorce she immediately went to the MPs and said I'd been physically abusing her. I was a hair shy of ending up in the brig but there was no evidence of any sort and any one with eyeballs could tell I was in no state to physically threaten a fly much less my ex. She tried the same BS in court but no evidence, no impact, no idea. Only reason she didn't completely gut me and skin me is I had a savvy lawyer who knew his gak and she was in a rush to get divorced so she could marry her new fiancee. My unit had my back and I'm eternally grateful to those Marines for taking care of me during that clusterfeth... but look at the double standard. I admit to being abused by a woman, it's either something to mock or laugh off 98% of the time. She makes a whisper about me possibly hitting her and I'm in handcuffs in an interrogation room.
Is there a war on men? No not really. Is discrimination and the double standard a thing? Are we drifting from the whole "equality" ideal? Yes absolutely.
Mannahnin wrote: Not to say that no men are mistreated or suffer genuine injustices. But the incidence is pretty minor, really, and overall we're still the more privileged sex.
Hey... man... I went thru divorce.
I love my kids dearly...
My attorney told me that if my ex made minimal effort to take full custody / alimony / child support... I'm basically screwed. (luckily, that didn't happen as the split was amicable and 50/50)
It's a scary time dude.... and my attorney and her practice collegue mentioned how lucky I was and told me nurmous accounts of how bad it can be (I've talked to this one dude who got screwed royally).
So... at least where I live... the bias towards the mother/wife is so blatant, that it's institutionalized. So, I'd argue against that the "incidence is pretty minor" with respect to divorces
.
Are you kidding right now? You conclude that bias toward the woman is institutionalized based on the words of "one dude who got screwed" (at least in his own, no doubt TOTALLY unbiased account), and what your lawyer told you? You do recognize that the lawyer's job is in part to get you to shut up and not mess up your own case, and to appreciate how good a deal you get? By your account you did not get screwed, and the only data you've got on guys getting screwed is anecdotal.
Ragnar... stop... don't engage on this point. I've done my research on this... there's statistic all over the place revealing the raw deal men get with respect with divorce.
GreyTemplar, that may be to compensate for the fact that, statistically, black dudes (and dudettes) are hired less often and paid less than white dudes.
Grey Templar wrote: The middle class white male is constantly discriminated against. Especially in education.
We have plenty to complain about. Yet we legally cannot do anything about it.
This is so funny it's sad, or so sad it's funny.
Really?
I remember my Ma/Pa "made too much money" to qualify for college grants/scholarship.. and yet, there was no fething way they could afford to help me out.
I found it fascinating that I didn't qualify for grants or anything based on my parent's income... even though I'm in my midtwenties and don't live with them and have been running my own life since I enlisted at 17 (as much as an enlisted man can run his own life)
LoneLictor wrote: GreyTemplar, that may be to compensate for the fact that, statistically, black dudes (and dudettes) are hired less often and paid less than white dudes.
Unfortunate for sure, but why should that make it ok to marginalize white people?
White people who had absolutly nothing to do with the reason black people tend to get hired and paid less.
And maybe black people get hired less because there are less of them?
Grey Templar wrote: The middle class white male is constantly discriminated against. Especially in education.
We have plenty to complain about. Yet we legally cannot do anything about it.
This is so funny it's sad, or so sad it's funny.
Really?
I remember my Ma/Pa "made too much money" to qualify for college grants/scholarship.. and yet, there was no fething way they could afford to help me out.
I found it fascinating that I didn't qualify for grants or anything based on my parent's income... even though I'm in my midtwenties and don't live with them and have been running my own life since I enlisted at 17 (as much as an enlisted man can run his own life)
Yeah... I was supporting Grey Templar's assertation that there is some discrimination agains white midde-class males... but you know what, I didn't give a feth... I just dealt with it to the best of my ability.
But... that's horse gak that in your mid-twenties, those forms STILL asked for your parent's income. If I had to do that, I'd lie.
All of the "discrimination" cited against white middle class dudes is pretty minimal efforts to compensate for the systemic advantages we've got at pretty much every stage along the way. That being said, there's a stronger argument about wealth inequality and class, and how many lower-middle class folks, of all races, have an expensive road to get educated. College debt is no joke.
Whembly, I'm not going to go into divorce stuff with you. I'm pleased to hear that your ex was reasonable and you got an amicable settlement. To my knowledge and from my experience with most of the divorced dads I know, that's the case most of the time.
I feel like the article ranged from hypersensitive to outright paranoid.
My team at work is entirely white males except for one Columbian. My previous team was <50% white males, with the majority of the rest being immigrants from other countries. Sounds like the "majority" is "safe" there.
The white guy being the buffoon is sort of a tired piece of sit-coms (really, pop culture in general). Pop culture is pretty lame-sauce though. Anyone getting their feathers ruffled about that should take into account that the white female is usually a bitch (and often promiscuous), and people of other races are there to remind you of how well they bust out of their stereotypes (or don't). It's crap, and you shouldn't be taking it seriously.
I've heard nightmare stories about the courts, but having never been relevant to my life, I don't know what's real. I know that those stories are almost always told from the point of view of the (almost always) embittered ex-husband, so I have to get my salt shaker.
I fall into the "My Parents Made too much Money, Yet Not Enough" camp regarding college. I got a small scholarship, and then I worked my ass off. I'm unsure why anyone else cannot do that, regardless of their race. I'm uncertain about the scholarship stuff that Grey mentioned, but I know there do exist scholarships solely for specific races. I vaguely even recall quite some time ago a (white) South African student getting denied a scholarship intended for African (read: black) students. As I go back to look for articles, I do not see anything reliable short of people talking about it on the Snopes forum, so for all I know, it wasn't real.
Personally, I enjoy being a middle-class white dude. I get to smoke middling cigars, play golf, and try to beat the rat-race. If there's a war on men, then I can't see it from the home-front.
Now, the thing you should ALL be concerned with is the war on the middle-class. That gak is here and real.
..and has been going on in an economic sense for 30+ years. Even the relatively prosperous times in the 90s and 2000s were inflated by bubble markets and over-use of credit. Part of why the crash hit so hard was that we're reaching a bit of a critical mass in personal debt (as opposed to national). A lot of people spent a lot of time accruing debt on credit cards, student loans, and home equity lines of credit to make up for our shortfalls in real income growth since the 70s.
daedalus wrote: I feel like the article ranged from hypersensitive to outright paranoid.
My team at work is entirely white males except for one Columbian. My previous team was <50% white males, with the majority of the rest being immigrants from other countries. Sounds like the "majority" is "safe" there.
The white guy being the buffoon is sort of a tired piece of sit-coms (really, pop culture in general). Pop culture is pretty lame-sauce though. Anyone getting their feathers ruffled about that should take into account that the white female is usually a bitch (and often promiscuous), and people of other races are there to remind you of how well they bust out of their stereotypes (or don't). It's crap, and you shouldn't be taking it seriously.
Luckily we have a whole range of experiences to draw from, instead of just yours. That is why you listen to other people, because somehow your experience might not be typical of the majority. With that said, how long is it morally justified to portray the white male as a buffoon, the white female as a bitch and other minorities as stereotypes? No matter how lame sauce it is, if it's kept up for sixty years because that is the safe bet, has it not now gone toward reinforcing the very preconceptions it 'mocks'?
Grey Templar wrote: Just because something happened in the past doesn't make doing the same thing now but in the opposite direction ok.
This is why Affirmative Action is wrong.
It does nothing to remove prejudices and discrimination, it just changes who is getting discriminated against.
It punishes people for something people in the past did.
It's a complete nonsense to pretend that injustices in the past don't resonate down through the generations. Whether or not affirmative action is a way to fix that is a whole other issue, but just pretending that it no longer has an impact is to ignore basic socio-economic realities.
If a women gets fired, those who fired her have to worry that it might seem as if they fired her because she was a women. If a man gets fired, nobody would think twice. "well obviously he was bad at his job or broke a company policy" I doubt a women getting fired would automatically elicit that response in the majority of people.
That is a thing that exists entirely in your head.
In reality, every firing is potentially perilous, because if they're the kind who wants to make trouble then there's always some kind of claim they can make to drag the situation out, woman or man.
I remember my Ma/Pa "made too much money" to qualify for college grants/scholarship.. and yet, there was no fething way they could afford to help me out.
Likewise, one of my best friend who lived a couple houses down got a scholarship in the same school I went to... why? -Not because he was poor... in fact, both his parents made more than mine -Not because he scored higher on the ACT... I don't remember how high, but it was much higher -Not because he was a sports jock... that man hated sports...
I tease him all the time that he got preferential treatment 'cuz of his skin... he'd laugh and says it's true , 'cuz he knows I have no ill will towards him. (honestly, if the opportunity is there... TAKE IT).
It is completely flying rodent gak crazy to look at modern society, look at the average earning difference between white and black people, and conclude that society is mean to white people because black people can access scholarships more easily.
It's focussing in on the one area where they get it better, and ignoring all the areas where you get it better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: Look, I'm pretty reasonable about this whole thing, but there seems to be a lot of "White men have had it so good for so long that they got nothing to complain about."... but how long does that gak last?
Until it stops being true.
Seriously, when is the last time, outside of a cartoon, where you have seen a bumbling, ignorant character that isn't a white male? I bet it wasn't on prime time TV.
Would you trade 'earns about two thirds of what white people earn' with 'my race is always cast as the bumbling idiot on TV shows'.
Even then, race is all kinds of screwed up in films, so picking out the one example of white men getting the short shrift and only worring about that seems like you're trying to make yourself into the victim. I mean, films will regularly take people who in real life, or in the original source material were asian or black and recast them as white people, and have you ever heard of the opposite happening? Have you ever seen a mainstream movie where a black guy hooks up with a white woman?
Then there's the cliche about the black guy always dying in horror movies... which is a cliche because it keeps happening.
Or the feminist test for movies, which says a movie passes if it has two female characters have a conversation that isn't about their love interests. Which is a pretty simple test, that maybe around 95% of mainstream movies fail (including most romantic comedies that are nominally written for women, which might explain why no-one watches them).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Unfortunate for sure, but why should that make it ok to marginalize white people?
It doesn't. Affirmative actions is bad policy.
But it doesn't mean people should look at only that issue and start pretending it's white people that are actually the ones that are hard done by. Just go look at the numbers for average income for each race.
And maybe black people get hired less because there are less of them?
Grey Templar wrote: Look at how many are for underpriviledged people, and note the amounts.
Key point: underprivileged. Do you know what the word means? It means someone who is starting from a lower position, and needs extra help just to get to an equal starting point.
Grey Templar wrote: Look at how many are for underpriviledged people, and note the amounts.
Key point: underprivileged. Do you know what the word means? It means someone who is starting from a lower position, and needs extra help just to get to an equal starting point.
Except in this case they really are at an advantage, not a disadvantage.
because they are underpriviledged in some areas, they recieve a disproportionate advantage in elegibility for scholarships. And as such they end up paying less for college then someone who grew up in a home that was wealthier.
And in the end, the children of the middle class are screwed. And the children of the lower class gain an, almost, free ride.
As such, it is descriminatory to the children of the middle class. Who are rich enough to not qualify for aid, yet still way too poor to afford the education.
Middle Class children are more capable of making the most of a college education due to their economic advantages then someone who was worried about putting food on the table.
Because of this, wouldn't it make more sense for the well being of society to invest more in people that would make the most of their education? And not put the money into those who are less likely to make good use of it. The wealthy don't need any help, and people of lower class may not have the academic aptitude to take full advantage of the opprotunity afforded to them.
The fact they can't take full advantage is a seperate issue. All things related to scholarships should be based solely on academic performance. Seperate measures can be taken to allow academic performance to become more even, but artificially making the situation appear better does nothing to actually fix the problem.
Grey Templar wrote: because they are underpriviledged in some areas, they recieve a disproportionate advantage in elegibility for scholarships. And as such they end up paying less for college then someone who grew up in a home that was wealthier.
Did you know that one of those ways in which they're underprivileged tends to be in family wealth? They tend to get more eligibility for scholarships because, as a group, they don't have the same financial resources from their parents, and without that extra eligibility they're likely to be underrepresented in college.
As such, it is descriminatory to the children of the middle class. Who are rich enough to not qualify for aid, yet still way too poor to afford the education.
Nonsense. Even without scholarships there are these things called student loans. Someone who is genuinely middle class and can't qualify for any need-based financial aid can still get loans to cover whatever their parents can't help with.
Middle Class children are more capable of making the most of a college education due to their economic advantages then someone who was worried about putting food on the table.
*stares in disbelief*
Really? Do you seriously believe that, or are you just doing a bad job of playing devil's advocate?
All things related to scholarships should be based solely on academic performance.
Did you know that the number of qualified students tends to exceed the number of full scholarships a university can afford to offer, especially given the current trend of cutting educational spending to pay for more wars? So, given two students who are both able to succeed in college, it makes sense to give the most financial support to the one who is least able to pay the costs on their own.
Nonsense. Even without scholarships there are these things called student loans. Someone who is genuinely middle class and can't qualify for any need-based financial aid can still get loans to cover whatever their parents can't help with.
Its foolish taking on loans in this economic climate...you will be in mountains of debt.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its foolish taking on loans in this economic climate...you will be in mountains of debt.
That depends on your degree. If you're getting a degree that qualifies you for a good job (engineering, law, etc) then taking on loans is a sensible decision because your expected gain in salary (and ease of finding a job at all) is far more than the added debt. On the other hand, if you're getting one of those degrees that only helps with the generic "must have a college degree" requirement to be a mid-level manager at the local grocery store, well, that's probably a stupid idea.
Grey Templar wrote: Middle Class children are more capable of making the most of a college education due to their economic advantages then someone who was worried about putting food on the table.
Because of this, wouldn't it make more sense for the well being of society to invest more in people that would make the most of their education? And not put the money into those who are less likely to make good use of it. The wealthy don't need any help, and people of lower class may not have the academic aptitude to take full advantage of the opprotunity afforded to them.
No, because intelligence is not defined by economic circumstance. You have some assumptions in their about the various middle and lower class that sound almost caste like.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its foolish taking on loans in this economic climate...you will be in mountains of debt.
That depends on your degree. If you're getting a degree that qualifies you for a good job (engineering, law, etc) then taking on loans is a sensible decision because your expected gain in salary (and ease of finding a job at all) is far more than the added debt. On the other hand, if you're getting one of those degrees that only helps with the generic "must have a college degree" requirement to be a mid-level manager at the local grocery store, well, that's probably a stupid idea.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its foolish taking on loans in this economic climate...you will be in mountains of debt.
That debt will exist in any economic climate. The issue in any economic climate will be whether you can pay for that debt when you leave. And given a decent degree will take four years so it will be a different economic climate when you graduate, and that in the present economic climate you might not be able to find a job and so won't be earning much as it is right now, then for a lot of people a tertiary education is a really good option.
Bromsy wrote:Look, I'm pretty reasonable about this whole thing, but there seems to be a lot of "White men have had it so good for so long that they got nothing to complain about."... but how long does that gak last?
Seriously, when is the last time, outside of a cartoon, where you have seen a bumbling, ignorant character that isn't a white male? I bet it wasn't on prime time TV.
The black guy on The Walking Dead.
In the comics, he's a strong, capable leader. In the TV show, he's a fat, bumbling fool that fumbled keys costing a man his life (maybe) and later, he almost killed himself with the door of a parked car. In fact, the only reason I think his character hasn't been killed off yet is because
Spoiler:
The Governor is going to cut off someone's hand, and I have a feeling that it's not gonna be Rick's as it is in the comics.
Is there a war on men? No not really. Is discrimination and the double standard a thing? Are we drifting from the whole "equality" ideal? Yes absolutely.
I don't think we're drifting from it so much as we're coming to grips with feminine agency.
Bromsy wrote:Look, I'm pretty reasonable about this whole thing, but there seems to be a lot of "White men have had it so good for so long that they got nothing to complain about."... but how long does that gak last?
Seriously, when is the last time, outside of a cartoon, where you have seen a bumbling, ignorant character that isn't a white male? I bet it wasn't on prime time TV.
The black guy on The Walking Dead.
In the comics, he's a strong, capable leader. In the TV show, he's a fat, bumbling fool that fumbled keys costing a man his life (maybe) and later, he almost killed himself with the door of a parked car. In fact, the only reason I think his character hasn't been killed off yet is because
Spoiler:
The Governor is going to cut off someone's hand, and I have a feeling that it's not gonna be Rick's as it is in the comics.
Is there a war on men? No not really. Is discrimination and the double standard a thing? Are we drifting from the whole "equality" ideal? Yes absolutely.
I don't think we're drifting from it so much as we're coming to grips with feminine agency.
Yeah I don't let cast iron skillets in the house any more
It'll all balance out eventually I suppose, this is just the pendulum swinging back and forth till it hits the middle.
Or it'll all go to gak and we'll end up like this:
Middle Class children are more capable of making the most of a college education due to their economic advantages then someone who was worried about putting food on the table.
I agree, and that's why only the upper class should be admitted to institutions of higher education; seeing as our monetary advantages allow us to succeed.
You middle class folk and your aspirations. In fact, I spoke to Bonnie the other day and she told me one of your kind tried to offer her a glass of wine! The nerve of the man! Only the upper-middle class are fit to serve wine. He was lucky to avoid flagellation!
If anything is harming men it's not any kind of discrimination or "war on men" or whatever else the whiners might harp on. It's that we have a rather antiquated, rigid model of masculinity and an unhealthy, irrational resistance to changing it.
Is there a war on men? No not really. Is discrimination and the double standard a thing? Are we drifting from the whole "equality" ideal? Yes absolutely.
I don't think we're drifting from it so much as we're coming to grips with feminine agency.
Yeah I don't let cast iron skillets in the house any more
It'll all balance out eventually I suppose, this is just the pendulum swinging back and forth till it hits the middle.
Or it'll all go to gak and we'll end up like this:
Holy crap, I knew dicorce courts in Aus were bad, but for people on the other side of the world to point out that if things in regard to "gender wars" (what an amusing term) go to gak then "we'll end up like " Australians , then things must be bad....REAL BAD!
Holy double crap, i assumed that picture was from mad max, It better be from mad max or i'll have helped myself to a double does of "looking stupid on dakka".
Chongara wrote: If anything is harming men it's not any kind of discrimination or "war on men" or whatever else the whiners might harp on. It's that we have a rather antiquated, rigid model of masculinity and an unhealthy, irrational resistance to changing it.
Chongara wrote: If anything is harming men it's not any kind of discrimination or "war on men" or whatever else the whiners might harp on. It's that we have a rather antiquated, rigid model of masculinity and an unhealthy, irrational resistance to changing it.
I think that is quite true. Men are their own worst enemies when it comes to this. Just talking to a close friend recently, he remarked "for a long time, I thought being a man meant fighting and winning against all other men." I don't think that "king of the mountain" mentality is really some kind of prehistoric, bio-hardwired imperative like we tend to assume these days. Male friendship has been eviscerated by that kind of thinking. I believe that not only the demand for but the widespread acceptance of gay rights is tied to this inasmuch as in previous epochs homosexual relationships could be totally encapsulated within the larger sphere of male friendship. But in these days, male friendship is totally anemic, leaving male romance to fend for itself.
Gotta respect anyone that willingly read that whole article. I felt braincells committing suicide after the first two paragraphs.
Anyways. People complaining about Tv stereotypes. About how all white men are violent, High School dropouts, and go to the bar every day, drinking away their crappy job-at-the-mall paycheck with their loser friends and always leave the seat up. I guess that means all white women are promiscuous.
well I have my own study on that. Over the past 3 years, I have asked women if they would hop into bed with me. No takers so far. So this means one of two things:
1) I am Weapon Grade Chick Repellant. Or... And I know this one's a stretch.
2) TV Stereotypes aren't 100% accurate and are just meant for our entertainment, not for some whiny guy to get his shorts in a knot over when he gets mocked indirectly on TV.
Gee I wonder which one....
I think the war on men is nothing more than some whiny guys getting their shorts in a knot because someone that would otherwise be completely irrelevant to their lives said Men aren't the greatest thing to happen to this planet and deserve special treatment.
I love being a man. I can do whatever I want, and not have to be worried about being raped, plus, I can piss out of my window if I don't feel like going to the bathroom!
I would enjoy the liberty to wear skirts and other cute things though.
On topic, I've noticed the phenomenon, and although I'm not old enough to make statements about its origins, it's been a long time coming.
Would it be socially acceptable to portray a minority with the same exact character?
Could you have a show where the only Black character is a complete and utter moron? How about if he was Latino or Indian?
My guess is there would be an immense amount of outrage. Yet its ok to portray a white guy as being a complete idiot.
Don't watch those shows except to find who the advertisers are.
Then send letters to the network about why you'r enot watching, and enclose a list of thoese advertisers, that you will be contacting as well.
Send letters to the advertisers stating you will not use their products while they advertise on this show. Instead list the competitors you will be using, maybe permanently.
Would it be socially acceptable to portray a minority with the same exact character?
Could you have a show where the only Black character is a complete and utter moron? How about if he was Latino or Indian?
My guess is there would be an immense amount of outrage. Yet its ok to portray a white guy as being a complete idiot.
Don't watch those shows except to find who the advertisers are.
Then send letters to the network about why you'r enot watching, and enclose a list of thoese advertisers, that you will be contacting as well.
Send letters to the advertisers stating you will not use their products while they advertise on this show. Instead list the competitors you will be using, maybe permanently.
I'd do that, but I don't eat at Tacobell, use feminine hygine products, have ED, or use swiffer sweepers.
Would it be socially acceptable to portray a minority with the same exact character?
Could you have a show where the only Black character is a complete and utter moron? How about if he was Latino or Indian?
My guess is there would be an immense amount of outrage. Yet its ok to portray a white guy as being a complete idiot.
Are you a white man?
Yes, and I take offense to the fact that white men being portrayed as idiots is socially acceptable.
Just like I would expect a person of color to be offended if making his race out to be idiots/morons/whatever was socially acceptable.
Whites aren't made out to be idiots because they're white. The stupid characters are nearly always white, because nearly all of the characters are white. The minorities and (to a some extent), women aren't "The Idiot", because they're there to have the single defining trait of minority. I'll grant you there are some exceptions to this but they're just that, exceptions. For the most part whites (and dudes), get the moron role because they get all the roles.
Chongara wrote: If anything is harming men it's not any kind of discrimination or "war on men" or whatever else the whiners might harp on. It's that we have a rather antiquated, rigid model of masculinity and an unhealthy, irrational resistance to changing it.
I think that is quite true. Men are their own worst enemies when it comes to this. Just talking to a close friend recently, he remarked "for a long time, I thought being a man meant fighting and winning against all other men." I don't think that "king of the mountain" mentality is really some kind of prehistoric, bio-hardwired imperative like we tend to assume these days. Male friendship has been eviscerated by that kind of thinking. I believe that not only the demand for but the widespread acceptance of gay rights is tied to this inasmuch as in previous epochs homosexual relationships could be totally encapsulated within the larger sphere of male friendship. But in these days, male friendship is totally anemic, leaving male romance to fend for itself.
My thoughts on this particular point, are that yes the "current" ideal of masculinity is apparently outdated. My dad taught me that the ultimate man is simply one who provides, cares for, and protects his family as best he can. While it may be seen sometimes as a bit of a mafioso outlook, given today's social climate in regards to the number of single parent households, especially those who have no male role model for kids to grow up with, it is very telling to me about why we are in the current state that we are.
Basically, I have seen too many of the more vocal feminists basically say that ANYTHING a man does is wrong, so how can we do "right" if we're always wrong? Surely there is something out there that we CAN do, and do well. Now, obviously we can't all decide to occupy Soldier Field with nothing but men, and have a "man talk", and hash out what it means to be a man, and how to best be men... But, there's gotta be something out there that society can generally agree on, and say "yes, this is where men are best, and society as a whole will flourish because of this"
Bromsy wrote:Look, I'm pretty reasonable about this whole thing, but there seems to be a lot of "White men have had it so good for so long that they got nothing to complain about."... but how long does that gak last?
Seriously, when is the last time, outside of a cartoon, where you have seen a bumbling, ignorant character that isn't a white male? I bet it wasn't on prime time TV.
The black guy on The Walking Dead.
In the comics, he's a strong, capable leader. In the TV show, he's a fat, bumbling fool that fumbled keys costing a man his life (maybe) and later, he almost killed himself with the door of a parked car. In fact, the only reason I think his character hasn't been killed off yet is because
Spoiler:
The Governor is going to cut off someone's hand, and I have a feeling that it's not gonna be Rick's as it is in the comics.
I'm going to throw in these:
Griff on Married...With Children
Turk on Scrubs
I do not know of Griff, but Turk is a different matter. HE is shown to be intelligent, he is a surgeon, but a complete goofball and unable to do things emotionally. He is a macho man which is often made fun of. Just like with the father of Married with Children. You see, it used to be in sitcoms and television that men where the leaders of the family, their word was wise and absolute. But if you see in recent television, the father is considered out of touch. They grew up with the idea that the Husband is leader of the household and he cant be wrong, But with growing equality its unable to be put in action. He is considered the last remnant. You see alot of this in Sitcoms. and as i have wrote about before, television and media have a very very unique way of influencing life, altering peoples perception, so many do consider men idiotic because that is how it goes on television.
Chongara wrote: If anything is harming men it's not any kind of discrimination or "war on men" or whatever else the whiners might harp on. It's that we have a rather antiquated, rigid model of masculinity and an unhealthy, irrational resistance to changing it.
I think that is quite true. Men are their own worst enemies when it comes to this. Just talking to a close friend recently, he remarked "for a long time, I thought being a man meant fighting and winning against all other men." I don't think that "king of the mountain" mentality is really some kind of prehistoric, bio-hardwired imperative like we tend to assume these days. Male friendship has been eviscerated by that kind of thinking. I believe that not only the demand for but the widespread acceptance of gay rights is tied to this inasmuch as in previous epochs homosexual relationships could be totally encapsulated within the larger sphere of male friendship. But in these days, male friendship is totally anemic, leaving male romance to fend for itself.
My thoughts on this particular point, are that yes the "current" ideal of masculinity is apparently outdated. My dad taught me that the ultimate man is simply one who provides, cares for, and protects his family as best he can. While it may be seen sometimes as a bit of a mafioso outlook, given today's social climate in regards to the number of single parent households, especially those who have no male role model for kids to grow up with, it is very telling to me about why we are in the current state that we are.
Basically, I have seen too many of the more vocal feminists basically say that ANYTHING a man does is wrong, so how can we do "right" if we're always wrong? Surely there is something out there that we CAN do, and do well. Now, obviously we can't all decide to occupy Soldier Field with nothing but men, and have a "man talk", and hash out what it means to be a man, and how to best be men... But, there's gotta be something out there that society can generally agree on, and say "yes, this is where men are best, and society as a whole will flourish because of this"
Actually holding a council of men sounds like a good idea to me. XD
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: My thoughts on this particular point, are that yes the "current" ideal of masculinity is apparently outdated. My dad taught me that the ultimate man is simply one who provides, cares for, and protects his family as best he can. While it may be seen sometimes as a bit of a mafioso outlook, given today's social climate in regards to the number of single parent households, especially those who have no male role model for kids to grow up with, it is very telling to me about why we are in the current state that we are.
Having the ability and desire to provide for and protect one's loved ones are great traits to encourage in males seeking to be men. And they're ones that most men will have naturally.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Basically, I have seen too many of the more vocal feminists basically say that ANYTHING a man does is wrong, so how can we do "right" if we're always wrong?
I've seen very few of them, and I grew up around a lot of pretty hardcore feminists, including Dianic Wiccans. Dworkin-esque extremists are rare. IME jackass reactionary chauvanists pretending otherwise are a bigger problem.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Now, obviously we can't all decide to occupy Soldier Field with nothing but men, and have a "man talk", and hash out what it means to be a man, and how to best be men... But, there's gotta be something out there that society can generally agree on, and say "yes, this is where men are best, and society as a whole will flourish because of this"
I don't know if society as a whole can really agree on something like this. But it's certainly something we can do in our local social and religious communities. When I was a teenager, our regional pagan community held manhood and womanhood initiatory rituals and trials for the young men and women. I sure wasn't a man yet after mine, but I learned some important things about being a man from the men who participated in the talks and teachings and the rituals. We certainly can talk about the values we want to instill in our young men, and the ideals we want to strive to achieve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything?
Would it be socially acceptable to portray a minority with the same exact character?
Could you have a show where the only Black character is a complete and utter moron? How about if he was Latino or Indian?
My guess is there would be an immense amount of outrage. Yet its ok to portray a white guy as being a complete idiot.
As I pointed out in my answer to Bromsy, while it is more acceptable to make the white guy the idiot, that isn't the only piece of screwed up race relations we see in popular entertainment, and so looking at just it is really just looking for ways to pretend you're the put upon race.
For instance, can you name a mainstream movie or TV show where a black guy gets with a white woman? I mean, on Star Trek where people made out with aliens all the time, when it was Geordi's time for some alien action... they still had him make it with a black alien. But white guys make it with black women all the time.
Or the cliche about the black guy never surviving in the horror movie. Even now that horror movies are so aware of their own genre conventions that they joke about the black guy always dying... they still keep doing it.
Then there's the feminist test for movies - that a film only passes if there is a scene in which a conversation takes place between female characters, and isn't about relationships with the male characters. Simple test, that most every film fails.
So talking about how the idiot character is almost always a man is really hyperfocusing on the one tiny area where white men get the worst of it, while ignoring the great sea of privilege surrounding it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
No, the alternative is to acknowledge that men and women have, on average, advantages in different kinds of intelligence. Men have better spatial awareness and maths, women have stronger communication and memory skills.
Then you have to acknowledge that there is no 'general intelligence' that binds those elements together, and to produce a 'general intelligence' would be to assign a weighting to the various types of intelligence - a highly subjective and entirely pointless exercise.
As such, the only possible answer is to acknowledge men have a slight advantage, on average, in some areas of intelligence, while women have a slight advantage, on average, in other areas, and that's all there is to it.
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
No, the alternative is to acknowledge that men and women have, on average, advantages in different kinds of intelligence. Men have better spatial awareness and maths, women have stronger communication and memory skills.
Then you have to acknowledge that there is no 'general intelligence' that binds those elements together, and to produce a 'general intelligence' would be to assign a weighting to the various types of intelligence - a highly subjective and entirely pointless exercise.
As such, the only possible answer is to acknowledge men have a slight advantage, on average, in some areas of intelligence, while women have a slight advantage, on average, in other areas, and that's all there is to it.
Why would you assume that those "areas of intelligence" ( a spurious term made popular by members of arts faculties) are equal?
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
Save for body mass and upper body strength, I'd say that the individual variation and social pressure are by the more dominate terms in the ability equation than any sort fundamental biological differences. Even in those things there is certainly enough overlap in the tail areas of the spectrum to keep them from boiling down to a pure matter of sex. It can be fairly argued that women simply haven't been given chances for long enough to make any real conclusions on many forms of academic achievement.
However, If we're going to be making assumptions I wouldn't bet on them fitting neatly with our previously existing narrative, which has been consistently been proven wrong far more than it has been right.
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
Save for body mass and upper body strength, I'd say that the individual variation and social pressure are by the more dominate terms in the ability equation than any sort fundamental biological differences. Even in those things there is certainly enough overlap in the tail areas of the spectrum to keep them from boiling down to a pure matter of sex.
Yeah, and if it weren't for the huge difference in military prowess, the United States Army is basically the same as the Luxemburg defence force
I would bore you with a list of male inventions but honestly there's little point. Think back to your school days and university. If you can't tell the difference between men and women, particularly on the upper end of the scale, then so be it.
Would it be socially acceptable to portray a minority with the same exact character?
Could you have a show where the only Black character is a complete and utter moron? How about if he was Latino or Indian?
My guess is there would be an immense amount of outrage. Yet its ok to portray a white guy as being a complete idiot.
As I pointed out in my answer to Bromsy, while it is more acceptable to make the white guy the idiot, that isn't the only piece of screwed up race relations we see in popular entertainment, and so looking at just it is really just looking for ways to pretend you're the put upon race.
For instance, can you name a mainstream movie or TV show where a black guy gets with a white woman? I mean, on Star Trek where people made out with aliens all the time, when it was Geordi's time for some alien action... they still had him make it with a black alien. But white guys make it with black women all the time.
Or the cliche about the black guy never surviving in the horror movie. Even now that horror movies are so aware of their own genre conventions that they joke about the black guy always dying... they still keep doing it.
Then there's the feminist test for movies - that a film only passes if there is a scene in which a conversation takes place between female characters, and isn't about relationships with the male characters. Simple test, that most every film fails.
So talking about how the idiot character is almost always a man is really hyperfocusing on the one tiny area where white men get the worst of it, while ignoring the great sea of privilege surrounding it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
No, the alternative is to acknowledge that men and women have, on average, advantages in different kinds of intelligence. Men have better spatial awareness and maths, women have stronger communication and memory skills.
Then you have to acknowledge that there is no 'general intelligence' that binds those elements together, and to produce a 'general intelligence' would be to assign a weighting to the various types of intelligence - a highly subjective and entirely pointless exercise.
As such, the only possible answer is to acknowledge men have a slight advantage, on average, in some areas of intelligence, while women have a slight advantage, on average, in other areas, and that's all there is to it.
Yeah, you wouldn't call an astrophysicist a dumb ass because he doesn't know how to fix a car and you wouldn't call a car mechanic stupid for not knowing much about dendrochronology, everyone has there strengths and weaknesses and you're going to find that some people are more
or less knowledgeable than you are on certain subjects, that's how life works.
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
Save for body mass and upper body strength, I'd say that the individual variation and social pressure are by the more dominate terms in the ability equation than any sort fundamental biological differences. Even in those things there is certainly enough overlap in the tail areas of the spectrum to keep them from boiling down to a pure matter of sex.
Yeah, and if it weren't for the huge difference in military prowess, the United States Army is basically the same as the Luxemburg defence force
I would bore you with a list of male inventions but honestly there's little point. Think back to your school days and university. If you can't tell the difference between men and women, particularly on the upper end of the scale, then so be it.
You're seriously trying to play the "Men have invented more stuff" card, when for hundreds of years most women were only allowed the role of "Icbubator"? The majory of those who tried to step outside that role were met with ostracization and dismal at best, imprisonment or even death at worst. We're still very much living with the legacy of that, heck we're hardly even 50 years removed from some of it being par for the course. It still happens in some parts of the world.
The statement shows a total lack of recognition that the playing field is in no way level for women, regardless of what fundamental differences may or may not exist. It's just so far removed from even the most basic understanding of the cultural context that has existed for the past 2000 years that it borders on delusion.
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
Save for body mass and upper body strength, I'd say that the individual variation and social pressure are by the more dominate terms in the ability equation than any sort fundamental biological differences. Even in those things there is certainly enough overlap in the tail areas of the spectrum to keep them from boiling down to a pure matter of sex.
Yeah, and if it weren't for the huge difference in military prowess, the United States Army is basically the same as the Luxemburg defence force
I would bore you with a list of male inventions but honestly there's little point. Think back to your school days and university. If you can't tell the difference between men and women, particularly on the upper end of the scale, then so be it.
You're seriously trying to play the "Men have invented more stuff" card, when for hundreds of years most women were only allowed the role of "Icbubator"? The majory of those who tried to step outside that role were met with ostracization and dismal at best, imprisonment or even death at worst. We're still very much living with the legacy of that, heck we're hardly even 50 years removed from some of it being par for the course. It still happens in some parts of the world.
The statement shows a total lack of recognition that the playing field is in now way level for women, regardless of what fundamental differences may or may not exist.
Conversely, it's impossible for you to prove that women's success in academia is anything other than positive discrimination in action.
Testify wrote: Why would you assume that those "areas of intelligence" ( a spurious term made popular by members of arts faculties) are equal?
I didn't assume they were equal. That's just woeful reading on your part.
I said they were seperate, and each to be taken seperately. As such, if we have 'men are better with spatial intelligence' and 'women are better with memory' it is a complete nonsense to say 'and memory is 1.2 times more important than spatial intelligence, therefore women are smarter overall than men'.
Instead we just say 'men and women are better, on average, in different things, and it is impossible to declare one sex overall more intelligent than the other'.
I shouldn't have to be typing that out again. It was perfectly clear in my first answer. Read more carefully in future, to avoid wasting the time of both of us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: I would bore you with a list of male inventions but honestly there's little point. Think back to your school days and university. If you can't tell the difference between men and women, particularly on the upper end of the scale, then so be it.
Yeah, because men and women had completely equal access to economic opportunities during the Renaissance.
Seriously dude, you're making yourself look ridiculous here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: Conversely, it's impossible for you to prove that women's success in academia is anything other than positive discrimination in action.
Testify wrote: I would bore you with a list of male inventions but honestly there's little point. Think back to your school days and university. If you can't tell the difference between men and women, particularly on the upper end of the scale, then so be it.
On one hand, you have Thomas Edison, who invented being an abject dick and the concept of abusing people who made you money, but on the other hand, you have Marie Curie, who invented cancer (probably not funny, and not quite true).
Men have had more chances to invent things than women have. This much is a fact, as only as recent as a hundred years ago, women weren't really allowed to invent anything that wasn't forcefully ejected from their bodies after about nine months, and even then, most of the credit went to the male unless the result was lame or a different color.
Conversely, it's impossible for you to prove that women's success in academia is anything other than positive discrimination in action.
Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, I'm all for calling an axe an axe, but really? I know a woman or two much more intelligent than I am. Like, genuinely, wholly, these people can achieve things that I could only dream of. Seriously, learn the difference between gender roles and reality.
Why would you assume that those "areas of intelligence" ( a spurious term made popular by members of arts faculties) are equal?
First, "areas of intelligence" is a phrase not a term. If you're going to speak ill of a series of academic disciplines, which I assume is defined by whether or not its constituents are hard sciences, then you best not feth up.
Second, the theory of multiple intelligences is hardly spurious, it has been plainly influential in defining what intelligence actually is. All you have to do is look at definitions of the concept that existed before Gardner, and those that existed after.
Ahtman wrote: It also helps to build a nice portfolio of inventions over time when your gender isn't barred from academics for huge periods of time.
It occurs to me that Testify's logic of 'look at all the inventions men managed, clearly they're smarter' is actually pretty close to the logic put forward by some of the nuttier feminists when they claim 'look at all the wars men started, clearly they're more war like'.
But are ridiculous, because both ignore the simple fact that men were the ones in position to invent things and start wars for almost all of human history.
Could anyone find statistics on the percentage of patents taken out by men and women in the United States since 2000? That would seem to be a timepoint from which the gender gap in education had closed to almost parity.
Ratbarf wrote: Could anyone find statistics on the percentage of patents taken out by men and women in the United States since 2000? That would seem to be a timepoint from which the gender gap in education had closed to almost parity.
If you want to use patents then you can't just look at education, you have to look at the gender gap in engineering and science. Liberal Arts, Psychology, Nursing, or even Mathematics don't file patents at near the rate of Engineering and Science majors. While women are actually starting to make up larger numbers on campus they are still underrepresented in those two fields. In engineering women make up 18.1% of Bachelor's degrees, and it seems that they if they make it through they tend to move on to higher degrees in the field as they make up 22.6% of Masters and 22.9% of Doctoral degrees.
Ratbarf wrote: Could anyone find statistics on the percentage of patents taken out by men and women in the United States since 2000? That would seem to be a timepoint from which the gender gap in education had closed to almost parity.
Most patents are taken by corporations these days, not individuals.
And given men and women don't move equally into the same fields, with men preferring more patent heavy fields like engineering, the primary difference would still be 'there's more men in engineering' than anything else.
And why would we try to use patents as a proxy for intelligence, when we have direct studies of intelligence to look at?
If you want to use patents then you can't just look at education, you have to look at the gender gap in engineering and science. Liberal Arts, Psychology, Nursing, or even Mathematics don't file patents at near the rate of Engineering and Science majors. While women are actually starting to make up larger numbers on campus they are still underrepresented in those two fields. In engineering women make up 18.1% of Bachelor's degrees, and it seems that they if they make it through they tend to move on to higher degrees in the field as they make up 22.6% of Masters and 22.9% of Doctoral degrees.
So I think it's safe to say that men are on average better engineers then? Seeing how we're underrepresented in everything university discipline except hard sciences, and even then we don't go into biomed as much as women do.
Ratbarf wrote: So I think it's safe to say that men are on average better engineers then? Seeing how we're underrepresented in everything university discipline except hard sciences, and even then we don't go into biomed as much as women do.
Not really. I mean, sure, on intelligence tests men do very slightly better on the whole with maths and spatial awareness, and those are important skills in engineering, but the difference is marginal, and nowhere near accounts for the gender imbalance in engineering.
Just like the number of women doing communications and journalism is way more than men, but women only score very slightly more than men in communications skills.
What people prefer to do is a way bigger determinant of what uni course they select than what they're actually best at.
Testify wrote: So the alternative is to believe that men and women are the same at everything? That is utterly absurd, and speaks of a highly protected upbringing.
You often make use of the false dichotomy in your arguments.
sebster wrote:
I didn't assume they were equal. That's just woeful reading on your part.
I said they were seperate, and each to be taken seperately. As such, if we have 'men are better with spatial intelligence' and 'women are better with memory' it is a complete nonsense to say 'and memory is 1.2 times more important than spatial intelligence, therefore women are smarter overall than men'.
Instead we just say 'men and women are better, on average, in different things, and it is impossible to declare one sex overall more intelligent than the other'.
I shouldn't have to be typing that out again. It was perfectly clear in my first answer. Read more carefully in future, to avoid wasting the time of both of us.
So as far as you're concerned, all types of intelligence are equal? The fact that they cannot be quantified doesn't mean they don't exist.
It takes a huge amount of intelligence to be a sportsman, for example. The ability to calculate the exact trajectory of a football requires incredible intelligence, I doubt Stephen Hawking could do it. But are footballers really as useful as astrophysists? In *any* way?
I'd also like to re-iterate, since people just love to assume I'm some trogladyte sexist, that I am fully aware that there are women who are brilliant at "male" intelligence. But feel free for you (and other posters) to assume I'm saying that I'm better than all women at everything, bla bla bla.
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: I would bore you with a list of male inventions but honestly there's little point. Think back to your school days and university. If you can't tell the difference between men and women, particularly on the upper end of the scale, then so be it.
Yeah, because men and women had completely equal access to economic opportunities during the Renaissance.
Seriously dude, you're making yourself look ridiculous here.
Had to do a double take here. Where did I mention the Renaissance? I talked about when YOU were at school/college. Did you go to university in 14th century Italy?
sebster wrote:
fething seriously? 100% honest you believe that?
Purely meritocratically, a 50:50 ratio in education could only be acheived by positive discrimination, yes. I believe that.
daedalus wrote:
On one hand, you have Thomas Edison, who invented being an abject dick and the concept of abusing people who made you money, but on the other hand, you have Marie Curie, who invented cancer (probably not funny, and not quite true).
Men have had more chances to invent things than women have. This much is a fact, as only as recent as a hundred years ago, women weren't really allowed to invent anything that wasn't forcefully ejected from their bodies after about nine months, and even then, most of the credit went to the male unless the result was lame or a different color.
You named a woman who made an amazing scientific discovery. Congrats! That has nothing to do with this discussion.
daedalus wrote:
Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, I'm all for calling an axe an axe, but really? I know a woman or two much more intelligent than I am. Like, genuinely, wholly, these people can achieve things that I could only dream of. Seriously, learn the difference between gender roles and reality.
Yep. I know girls like that too. Hell, I'm a dumbass (in case you hadn't noticed). Proves nothing.
dogma wrote:
First, "areas of intelligence" is a phrase not a term. If you're going to speak ill of a series of academic disciplines, which I assume is defined by whether or not its constituents are hard sciences, then you best not feth up.
Second, the theory of multiple intelligences is hardly spurious, it has been plainly influential in defining what intelligence actually is. All you have to do is look at definitions of the concept that existed before Gardner, and those that existed after.
I don't know the difference between a phrase and a term. If you're going to get into the (soft) academic side, well done. You've won.
dogma wrote:
Its also impossible for you to prove that your bitterness doesn't stem from having been beaten by a woman in a competition for an academic seat.
My usual reaction to being beaten by a woman academically is to try to sleep with them, but nice try.
Kilkrazy wrote:
You often make use of the false dichotomy in your arguments.
Not really. I mean, sure, on intelligence tests men do very slightly better on the whole with maths and spatial awareness, and those are important skills in engineering, but the difference is marginal, and nowhere near accounts for the gender imbalance in engineering.
Just like the number of women doing communications and journalism is way more than men, but women only score very slightly more than men in communications skills.
What people prefer to do is a way bigger determinant of what uni course they select than what they're actually best at.
Well the simple fact that men seem to like it more would mean they are on average better. You could also say that men are better at video games. The fact that women don't play them as much being what makes men better on average. Is that saying that women can't be better than men in video games? No, not really, it simply means that if you were to take 100 people off of the street of each gender and have them play halo the mens team would win.
Actually, ion the halo reference, they did do a girls versus guys matchup where they made the teams up from the highest ranking members of both sexes they had access to, and the guys dommed the girls pretty hard....
Same could also be said about the majority of sports, the majority of world record holders if both sexes are pit against each other the men far ahead of the women.
Testify wrote: So as far as you're concerned, all types of intelligence are equal? The fact that they cannot be quantified doesn't mean they don't exist.
No, they're just not comparable. You keep insisting there must be some ranking given to each, and if we don't do it they must be equal.
It's like you've got a football and a squid next to each other, and you're saying 'one must be more important than the other!'. No, they're just different things. It's nice to have both of them, and as they're not in competition this is just fine.
I'd also like to re-iterate, since people just love to assume I'm some trogladyte sexist, that I am fully aware that there are women who are brilliant at "male" intelligence. But feel free for you (and other posters) to assume I'm saying that I'm better than all women at everything, bla bla bla.
I'm not saying or implying that. I am saying that trying to invent some kind of ranking of various forms on intelligence in order to rank the genders is a pointless exercise.
Testify wrote: Had to do a double take here. Where did I mention the Renaissance? I talked about when YOU were at school/college. Did you go to university in 14th century Italy?
You mentioned a list of inventions. Inventing started a long time before you, me or anyone else in this thread was in school.
Testify wrote: I'd also like to re-iterate, since people just love to assume I'm some trogladyte sexist...
No one here has any personal investment in assuming anything about you. We only have your posts as a basis for making any judgements about you or what you think. If you perceive that others view you as a sexist, then either you've successfully communicated that you are a sexist, or you've failed to communicate the opposite.
Testify wrote: I would bore you with a list of male inventions but honestly there's little point. Think back to your school days and university.
Yeah, because men and women had completely equal access to economic opportunities during the Renaissance.
Had to do a double take here. Where did I mention the Renaissance? I talked about when YOU were at school/college. Did you go to university in 14th century Italy?
When most of us think about inventions, and what we learned in school, we think about historic and important inventions that we learned about in our studies. Most of which were made by men, because for most of Western history only men had the opportunity to do so. Did you mean something else when you talked about a "list of male inventions"?
Meanwhile, 3 women die every minute from domestic violence.
And every minute hundreds of men die from man on man violence, I don't really see your point. Unless you're implying that we should care more about the significantly fewer violent deaths of females then we should males, which proves the point of this thread.
Squigsquasher wrote: Meanwhile, 3 women die every minute from domestic violence.
If anyone deserves discrimimation against them, it's men. And I say this as a male.
except, if you read the article, it definitely suggests that the way to combat domestic violence, is by teaching men what's ok to do and what's not; By more than just saying "you're an evil, slowed pig sty of a person, and you deserve nothing, because you are worthless scum". There are psychological principles that basically state that the more we (or anyone) is treated in a specific way, the more we act that way.
I reckon men can't complain too much. But we all like to imagine we are the put upon victims in our own life stories.
It certainly does seem to me that there is a bias towards women in the courts regarding custody, but then, look at the amount of child abuse and domestic violence committed by men. Perhaps the bias is there for a reason. Testosterone is a nasty hormone at times.
Thing is though, judges are supposed to be impartial. To me, this means that if there is absolutely no evidence of DV or abuse of any kind, then the custody should go 50/50. Or if the parents are fighting for sole custody, then the one who can best care for the children should get them.
Honestly, Testify, you can't POSSIBLY be crazy enough to believe that men are averagely more intelligent than women. Every single high school graduation ceremony I've been to (mine, my best friend's, my sister's, my step sister's, my step brother's) the valedictorian has been female. Is that always the case? Obviously not. And I'm not going to every HS graduation to prove my point, but of the 5 I've been to, there hasn't been a single male valedictorian. Is that proof women are smarter? No, it's a small number. But it also shows a decent example of how wrong your statement is. Men may have had more inventions throughout history, but as other posters pointed out, many women were killed or imprisoned for having ideas. You are so far back in the times and have no idea how the modern world works. 1830 is calling-they want you back home. Flying rodent gak crazy...flying rodent gak....
Squigsquasher wrote: Which is entirely men's fault. If it was women brutally murdering men you might have a point. But it's men brutally murdering other men. So you don't.
Unless you regard the lives of women as inherantly more important than the lives of men, domestic violence pales in comparison to war in terms of "evil", however you'd choose to define that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, Testify, you can't POSSIBLY be crazy enough to believe that men are averagely more intelligent than women. Every single high school graduation ceremony I've been to (mine, my best friend's, my sister's, my step sister's, my step brother's) the valedictorian has been female.
From personal experience, yeah. Your personal experience differs...that's cool, brah
Meanwhile, 3 women die every minute from domestic violence.
If anyone deserves discrimimation against them, it's men. And I say this as a male.
But do men laugh about it? I mean, when you hear about a guy getting abused by his wife it's usually taken as a joke. If a man abuses his wife it's generally seen as a very serious and disgusting event.
I think this is the right one, I'm not sure as I couldn't watch it because my internet was acting slow.
If you were to reverse the situation so that it was the man cutting off the genitalia of his wife over divorce there wouldn't be any levity in the reaction to it, and if there was the perpatrator would be seen as a sick feth.
Meanwhile, 3 women die every minute from domestic violence.
If anyone deserves discrimimation against them, it's men. And I say this as a male.
But do men laugh about it? I mean, when you hear about a guy getting abused by his wife it's usually taken as a joke. If a man abuses his wife it's generally seen as a very serious and disgusting event.
I think this is the right one, I'm not sure as I couldn't watch it because my internet was acting slow.
If you were to reverse the situation so that it was the man cutting off the genitalia of his wife over divorce there wouldn't be any levity in the reaction to it, and if there was the perpatrator would be seen as a sick feth.
It would be interesting to discover what percentage of domestic violence incidents involve both partners being violent, particularly those stats linked to alcohol abuse. The trouble is that it's difficult to quantify what percentage of males suffer domestic abuse, especially given the ridicule and stigma society attaches to a man who is beaten by his partner.
Ugh. These talk show women in that videoclip actually got my mood down quite a bit right now. The one woman speaking up and asking them how they would feel making jokes about a woman having her breast cut off was even trying to show the rest how inappropriate this might be...but they kept cracking jokes and the audience goes with them? Meh...
I have a question, why do people put so much Importance on things like gender and ethnicity? Neither of those things make one superior or inferior to another.
I'd imagine there to be a plethora of reasons, differing from subject to subject. Examples may include insecurity, innate tribalism, bad experiences or an upbringing that nurtured a narrow world view.
Meanwhile, 3 women die every minute from domestic violence.
If anyone deserves discrimimation against them, it's men. And I say this as a male.
But do men laugh about it? I mean, when you hear about a guy getting abused by his wife it's usually taken as a joke. If a man abuses his wife it's generally seen as a very serious and disgusting event.
I think this is the right one, I'm not sure as I couldn't watch it because my internet was acting slow.
If you were to reverse the situation so that it was the man cutting off the genitalia of his wife over divorce there wouldn't be any levity in the reaction to it, and if there was the perpatrator would be seen as a sick feth.
It would be interesting to discover what percentage of domestic violence incidents involve both partners being violent, particularly those stats linked to alcohol abuse. The trouble is that it's difficult to quantify what percentage of males suffer domestic abuse, especially given the ridicule and stigma society attaches to a man who is beaten by his partner.
Abuse isn't necessarily violence. Usually it's more psychological or emotional abuse then it is a straight up beating when it's female to male, and yes it's probably the most under-reported crime in the western world, on both sides actually but to a more severe degree to males. As Manly Men Who Do Manly Things(tm) we're all supposed to be tough, stoic, etc and a frail female could never possibly do damage to the chunk of chiseled granite that is Man. So if something terrible's happening... well there's no support group, no shelter, just ridicule. So it doesn't get reported and it never "happens"
One thing I will say is that those women mocking men who had their genitals cut off are pretty fething horrible, but right on this thread we have someone disparaging the intelligence of women. It cuts both ways and the jokes and so on are different, but I think it's a bit blinkered to look at that in isolation and see it as a war on men when there are many inappropriate jokes about women out there.
Squigsquasher wrote: Meanwhile, 3 women die every minute from domestic violence.
If anyone deserves discrimimation against them, it's men. And I say this as a male.
Because women never abuse men. Ever. Women never rape. Women never murder.
It is physically impossible for a woman to rape a man. Mainly because men are always up for sex.
And if he's not interested just don't have a hard on.
Actually, it is entirely possible to be raped as a male. If you are drunk and are taken home by some dirty individual who gives you a gift that keeps on giving, etc. Or, if you are married, and are too drunk to realize that someone other than your drinking buddies are taking you home, thereby you have just adultered against your spouse (some people don't have a problem, but still).
I know that, at least when I left for the Army, the State of Oregon's law regarding rape did in fact make it so that a man could not be raped, but it's still out there, just doesn't look the same. And I know many people on here who would say, I got drunk and got shagged? SCORE!!!
Testify wrote: Men are, on average, much physically stronger than women, and somewhat more intelligent. So I have nothing to fear at all.
I've never bought into the whole victimisation thing, since outside of the media flying rodent gak-insane feminism doesn't really exist.
Stop trolling now, please, for the good of us all. I don't feel victimized either, but there is no evidence to suggest that men are more intelligent than women/vice versa. In fact, I am VASTLY outnumbered in my AP classes by females, like, 10 to 1.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Thing is though, judges are supposed to be impartial. To me, this means that if there is absolutely no evidence of DV or abuse of any kind, then the custody should go 50/50. Or if the parents are fighting for sole custody, then the one who can best care for the children should get them.
But that is how it works. Where possible, courts are to give 50/50 custody. Where that isn't possible and someone has to be the primary, then what matters is who provides a more stable environment for the kids.
The primary reason that the mother is most often the primary carer for kids is because that's what the parents agree to without involving the courts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: Unless you regard the lives of women as inherantly more important than the lives of men, domestic violence pales in comparison to war in terms of "evil", however you'd choose to define that.
No, both lives are worth the same. The issue is that in each case the overwhelming majority of attackers are men.
Ignoring that to try and contort some kind of belief that men are victims is crazy pants.
vaht ave you done!
