Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I miss bigotry, distinct from racism...

I miss critical thought, distinct from jingoism and sound bites

I miss one sentence, bumper sticker quips about political issues.... oh wait!

I miss metal lawn darts, thinning the herd of stupid people

 Luciferian wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I miss sexism. Like the word and/or concept being distinct from misogyny, not sexism itself.

The only thing that matters now is the relationship of power. People only view things in deterministic views of who is oppressed and who is the oppressor. So sexism which is not misogyny is impossible, because men have a greater social standing than women.

No there's sexism towards men as well, it's just women have it worse.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I miss sexism. Like the word and/or concept being distinct from misogyny, not sexism itself.

The only thing that matters now is the relationship of power. People only view things in deterministic views of who is oppressed and who is the oppressor. So sexism which is not misogyny is impossible, because men have a greater social standing than women.

No there's sexism towards men as well, it's just women have it worse.

But a few hard-left feminazi's think it is only women who are victimized, so obviously the whole body of people who speak out against mistreatment of women doesn't care about men! (Sarcasm)

There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.

EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.

But if you change the context and go for, for example China or Saudi, then in those contexts it is entirely possible for racism against white people to be a thing.

Although one would be very hard pressed to find a place where the institutional makeup and setup is in a places that favours women throughout the society.

 Compel wrote:
There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.

EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.

Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Compel wrote:
There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.

EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.

Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.

Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Compel wrote:
There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.

EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.

Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.

Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.

According to my Family Law class, custody is largely awarded to the mother by reflex. Judges have a natural inclination to want to keep children with their mother. My professor had horror stories where judges stuck kids with mothers who didn't want them, over the objections of the father, because there was no "reason" not to. "Reason" in this case meaning "evidence of physical abuse".

Rosebuddy wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Compel wrote:
There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.

EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.

Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.

Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.

That’s simply not true, at least in the US and UK.

Much of the argument centres around how women earn less, but ignores the fact that men work longer, die younger, have higher rates of suicide, have lower life satisfaction. I would point to much of this being down to pressures on men to act a particular way. I know some schools of thought claim that discrimination is only valid when it is the majority against the minority, but that is nonsense. It may be a valid argument when talking about structural discrimination, but not as a blanket rule. And when it comes to anything involving children women are the ones who hold the power. The systems are all set up with the assumption that women are the primary care givers.

Yeah, there's too many instances where men do try to get custody (or joint custody, or visitation rights), and get zilch because the mother doesn't want it.
And even when the marriage is set up, in quite a few countries, the divorce judge can and will ignore the contract and award stuff hugely in favour of generally the woman.
There's a reason golddiggers are generally women.

No need to throw about aspersions like goldigging. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases of men conning rich women out of their money through sham marriages, but of course it's going to be less common for the plain fact that there are fewer "rich" single women than there are men, and with less money on average.

A lot of what you guys are saying does have merit, though. It just goes to show, as with most anything, that the prevailing narratives are almost always non-comprehensive and shallow compared to the reality. For instance, when most people talk about the wage gap, they are simply comparing the income share between men and women based on sex alone, but when you account for hours worked, personal preference in jobs and the like, the wage gap pretty much disappears. Likewise, it is kind of disingenuous to claim men are the victims of discrimination because of something like workplace deaths or injuries, because those men choose those jobs and the risks involved.

It is clear, however, that workplace sexual harassment is a genuine issue, and that it's easy for men in positions of high authority and low accountability to abuse those positions by victimizing women in their workplace. That's an issue that definitely needs to be intelligently solved. Going to extremes on either side doesn't really help, though. Claims of pervasive, "toxic" masculinity do as little to really solve the problems as unwarranted skepticism which skews toward disbelieving women who say they've been harassed, because those are both reactionary extremes of the pendulum swing that only serve to give momentum to each other.

Yeah, the golddigger stab went too far. Apologies.
However, the call about sexism isn't about that it's unfair that men work.longer and die younger, but that this isn't taken into account - which is unfair.
Plus, right or wrong, men are still often the primary earner, and sometimes have to take the unhealthier, heavier job to be able to do that. It is definitely unfair that this is in effect subsequently held against them.

Fully agree with the rest of your post! Sexual abuse is a terrible thing, and no one is served by polarisation or extremes in that regard.

Preference in jobs is meaningless as the jobs generally preferred by women will be seen as less valuable and thus pay worse.

 skyth wrote:
Preference in jobs is meaningless as the jobs generally preferred by women will be seen as less valuable and thus pay worse.

Well, you could say that social workers (a field almost entirely dominated by women) deserve to be paid the same as engineers (a field almost entirely dominated by men) but enforcing that in practice is basically communism. And I am not being hyperbolic, that is the level of top-down regulation and market interference it would take to make different industries and markets "equal".

Not saying that that should happen. But you have to ask why is one seen as more valuable than another?

 skyth wrote:
Not saying that that should happen. But you have to ask why is one seen as more valuable than another?

Not really, no. And I don't think it's because of sexism, either.

 Luciferian wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Not saying that that should happen. But you have to ask why is one seen as more valuable than another?

Not really, no. And I don't think it's because of sexism, either.

And I do think it is at least partially due to structural sexism. Stereptypical masculine jobs are more valued by society and pay better than stereotypical feminine jobs.

 Luciferian wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Not saying that that should happen. But you have to ask why is one seen as more valuable than another?

Not really, no. And I don't think it's because of sexism, either.

I agree. If anything that feels more like market forces, in terms of the perceived value of a social worker vs an engineer. I think the things that draw sexes to those jobs are a whole seperate issue and yes, possible structural sexism as with STEM.

 skyth wrote:
And I do think it is at least partially due to structural sexism. Stereptypical masculine jobs are more valued by society and pay better than stereotypical feminine jobs.

I'm not sure those two things are as intertwined as you make them out to be. I think people value some jobs because less people are capable or willing to do them, not because they're typically one sex or the other. If your premise is true then you'd see that more universally, but Physician Assistants (for example) are like 60% female in the US and are one of the highest paying jobs.

 Luciferian wrote:
No need to throw about aspersions like goldigging. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases of men conning rich women out of their money through sham marriages, but of course it's going to be less common for the plain fact that there are fewer "rich" single women than there are men, and with less money on average.

This is a very good point, and something I think many people forget about.

but when you account for hours worked, personal preference in jobs and the like, the wage gap pretty much disappears

This, on the other hand, I'm surprised no one has called out yet. This just isn't true. It's a well-used argument to support the status quo, analogous to what rape culture is for sexual harassment.

Likewise, it is kind of disingenuous to claim men are the victims of discrimination because of something like workplace deaths or injuries, because those men choose those jobs and the risks involved.

This I am mixed on. I think it's hard to deny that men are more reckless than women and get themselves into more physical injury than women. But at the same time there is a culture that reinforces that. Risks to the physical safety of men are treated less seriously than those to women, and deaths of men (by any factor) are treated less seriously that those of women. There is an underlying attitude of 'well men just die all the time' that is difficult to address because between engagement in violent conflict (military or otherwise) and physical recklessness there's some truth to that. Couple that with the physical resilience of men (force-to-injury ratio) in relation to the pervasive (if not instinctive) idea of physically shielding the women/children and it gets even more difficult to tackle.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Compel wrote:
There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.

EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.

Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.

Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.

Wow this is the most uninformed borderline idiotic thing I've read in a long time. Congrats.

 skyth wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Not saying that that should happen. But you have to ask why is one seen as more valuable than another?

Not really, no. And I don't think it's because of sexism, either.

And I do think it is at least partially due to structural sexism. Stereptypical masculine jobs are more valued by society and pay better than stereotypical feminine jobs.

Well let's think about some stereotypical masculine jobs. Trashman for example, things that are vital for a society (Look into places that have area's that are either without, or striking). They are very much jobs nobody wants to do where you'll be doing things with foul smelling, often horrendous looking things where physical stress is often put upon the body, you'll have to deal with the elements whether hot or cold. You'll have to deal with potentially stupid people on the road, angry dogs, or other such things that'll come daily between you and your task..

One of the things that tends to be apart of stereotypical "masculine" jobs is that many of them put physical problems to be solved upon the person, many of which can and will be wearing your body out far sooner. Many of them tend to also be far more dangerous then sitting in an office, dealing with heavy mechanical equipment, being involved in the heat or cold elements... Also many of them have unions behind them, at least from most what I could figure in such dangerous jobs that'll help for communal bargaining with a company.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This, on the other hand, I'm surprised no one has called out yet. This just isn't true. It's a well-used argument to support the status quo, analogous to what rape culture is for sexual harassment.

That's a tough thing to argue for without resorting to social constructivism, such as saying that behavior and preference have no biological component and the only differences between the sexes are social constructs. Judging by this...

This I am mixed on. I think it's hard to deny that men are more reckless than women and get themselves into more physical injury than women. But at the same time there is a culture that reinforces that. Risks to the physical safety of men are treated less seriously than those to women, and deaths of men (by any factor) are treated less seriously that those of women. There is an underlying attitude of 'well men just die all the time' that is difficult to address because between engagement in violent conflict (military or otherwise) and physical recklessness there's some truth to that. Couple that with the physical resilience of men (force-to-injury ratio) in relation to the pervasive (if not instinctive) idea of physically shielding the women/children and it gets even more difficult to tackle.

...you don't think that's the case. Either way, what wage gap does exist, only exists when the only variable you're accounting for is sex. There are lots and lots of logical reasons which could explain why women make less than men on average, which make more sense than any kind of social constructivism. One of the best things I know of that disproves the idea that there are no differences between the sexes in terms of choice or preference is the fact that the more equality there is between men and women, the more the psychological differences between them manifest.

For example, in the Scandinavian countries, where there is probably the greatest gender equality in the world, men and women both show more of the personality traits that are associated with each sex instead of less. Women experience greater math anxiety, and are less interested in STEM fields, in spite of the fact that they earn more degrees than men and perform better in school in general. There are fewer high-level female executives and managers, and the stereotypically masculine and feminine fields are even more stacked with their respective sexes.

There is also the fact that in capitalist economies, there is no incentive for something like structural or institutional sexism. It would hurt profits by keeping a large portion of the most capable people out of positions they might excel at. When money is on the line, I'm inclined to believe that market forces would always overpower social ones, although they do influence each other.

I'm just going to agree to disagree, I don't think we can reconcile our viewpoints without delving into off-topic territory.

Fair enough.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Compel wrote:
There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.

EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.

Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.

Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.

Edit: Just disregard, not worth the effort addressing this.

 Ouze wrote:
Physician Assistants (for example) are like 60% female in the US and are one of the highest paying jobs.

But they are paid less than Physicians. (And still not what I would think of as a 'feminine' job. I'm thinking more secretary, day care, or teacher (As opposed to professor)

Luciferian wrote:There is also the fact that in capitalist economies, there is no incentive for something like structural or institutional sexism.

We don't have a capitalist economy though. We have an oligarchy here.

That I unfortunately have to agree with.

IMO, somewhere between democracy, plutocracy, and as of the 21st century, idiocracy.