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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That doesn't prove that its not anti-male rhetoric. It just makes a counter assertion, while also insulting anyone who holds the opposing viewpoint.

I am not required to prove a negative. His assertions that there is some kind of anti-male rhetoric going on here is entirely baseless and without proof.

Indeed, and I got that from reading the article.

But it is true that there are sections, vocal sections, of the Feminist movement that are aggressively anti-male. Enough to where that is the general vibe I get when feminism comes around.

So if you are a feminist you would do well to always make clear you are not being anti-male if you desire to be taken seriously, while also making sure your rhetoric could not be taken as such.

 Melissia wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
the constant focus on the fact that they are male who are in charge

Ahem:

 Melissia wrote:
The "anti-male rhetoric" is, to paraphrase an old saying, the hobgoblin of little minds.

If you go by the feminist definition, sexism is predicated on having institutional power over a group, and since women do not have that power, they cannot be sexists, reverse or otherwise.

Claims like that, from one of your links, cannot be seriously be considered to be balanced. It claims one gender is entirely impossible to be sexist!.

So you're saying the feminist movement needs to take steps in particular to make sure we're not hurting the feelings of men?

You don't see anything, well, odd about that?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, and I got that from reading the article.

But it is true that there are sections, vocal sections, of the Feminist movement that are aggressively anti-male.

There are sections of the male population who are rapists. Do you consider it okay for me to treat all men as if they are rapists?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
It claims one gender is entirely impossible to be sexist!.

You didn't even read the section you quoted, never mind the entire thing.

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, and I got that from reading the article.

But it is true that there are sections, vocal sections, of the Feminist movement that are aggressively anti-male.

There are sections of the male population who are rapists. Do you consider it okay for me to treat all men as if they are rapists?

Only if a large portion of men were actually rapists.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, and I got that from reading the article.

But it is true that there are sections, vocal sections, of the Feminist movement that are aggressively anti-male.

There are sections of the male population who are rapists. Do you consider it okay for me to treat all men as if they are rapists?

Only if a large portion of men were actually rapists.

Define "a large portion".

You didn't even read the section you quoted, never mind the entire thing.

I don't care how many men (or women) are in power compared to the other. Noone can seriously claim that it is 'impossible to be sexist'.

So you're saying the feminist movement needs to take steps in particular to make sure we're not hurting the feelings of men?

Who said that? What I said is to focus on those in power. Gender/sexuality/race/whatever shouldn't be a part of it. Its power that is the problem.

What you are trying to counter is perception.

From my personal experience, most feminists I have met have been anti-male duchebags. A Chauvinists counterpart.

I know this isn't true of all feminists but its a conception based on my personal experience that anyone who calls themselves a feminist is going to need to work against.

I think a lot of people will have a similar amount of bad experiences with feminists.

So, as a commonly misunderstood group, Feminists need to be careful how they present themselves to avoid this. Its just smart PR strategy.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
I don't care

I'm aware that you don't really care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
From my personal experience, most feminists I have met have been anti-male duchebags. A Chauvinists counterpart.

If I said "From my personal experience, most conservatives I've met are loud-mouthed ignoramuses with a lower IQ than a pet rock that was dropped down a flight of stairs a few too many times, therefor I'm going to act like all conservatives are loud-mouthed ignorant mental defectives", I'd be rightly called out for it.

But apparently your bigotry against feminists is okay.

Bigotry?

It would be more appropriate to call it having a lot of skepticism around the issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bigotry?

It would be more appropriate to call it having a lot of skepticism around the issue.

And yet, it'd be less accurate.

That's simply not true. You yourself are sort of reinforcing it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That's simply not true. You yourself are sort of reinforcing it.

I'm not going to suck up to you or kiss your ass just so you can maybe, for a few minutes, think that not all feminists are extremists (and then immediately return to your original way of thinking, just like you have always done in the past).

Your experiences suffer from confirmation bias.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

So you're saying the feminist movement needs to take steps in particular to make sure we're not hurting the feelings of men?

Who said that? What I said is to focus on those in power. Gender/sexuality/race/whatever shouldn't be a part of it. Its power that is the problem.

Grey Templar said it. Apparently feminism has to be couched carefully in terms that are acceptable to men, where "men" is defined as all men everywhere.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

You didn't even read the section you quoted, never mind the entire thing.

I don't care how many men (or women) are in power compared to the other. Noone can seriously claim that it is 'impossible to be sexist'.

The problem is, you don't get rid of power imbalance by wishing it away. All refusing to examine it does is entrenches the existing power imbalance. The same thing comes up with racism.

 Grey Templar wrote:
From my personal experience, most feminists I have met have been anti-male duchebags.

How would you even know that? I don't know anyone who introduces themselves like, "Hi, I'm HiveFleetPlastic, a feminist." You probably run into zillions of feminists all the time. Given feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal, I'd expect almost everyone you meet is a feminist, even if they're not an activist.

Mr Hyena, regarding the "discrimination against men isn't sexism" thing: they're using a social justice definition of sexism, talking about institutionalised sexism. The same definitions apply to racism and any other ism you care to name.

Let's discuss it in terms of ableism, since feminists making race comparisons is overdone. In our society, people are discriminated against in a variety of ways for being disabled. This is called ableism. But what about reverse-ableism? What if a disabled person discriminates against me because I'm not disabled?

Well, the fact is, in this scenario I have the institutional power. Society in general will empathise with me, as someone who's not disabled. I can go literally anywhere else and enjoy my same privilege outside of that person's sphere of influence. Perhaps the original prejudice was the same, but because it doesn't have the institutional backing, it doesn't have the same impact. That's why the social justice definition doesn't put them on the same level.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

I'm aware that terms like patriarchy trigger negative reactions in certain people,

Ok, so this is kind of terrible, but I use the fact that I'm a man to push the term with people who won't dismiss me because I'm a man. It's great/sad how well it works.

I assure you there are people who will dismiss you despite the fact that you are male.

I assure you quite strongly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bigotry?

It would be more appropriate to call it having a lot of skepticism around the issue.

Anyone who disagrees even slightly with the orthodoxy some posters try to establish is a "bigot".

It's best not to try to reason with these people.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Grey Templar said it. Apparently feminism has to be couched carefully in terms that are acceptable to men, where "men" is defined as all men everywhere.

Which is probably why I tend to not use words such as "patriarchy" to begin with. Then again, people who say "all feminists I know are lesbians who hate men" (or some variation thereof) probably aren't very likely to be convinced no matter what you do. You can show them a hundred websites showing moderate feminism, but they'll still say "but most feminists are evil". It's very difficult to prove a negative, especially when you're arguing against hate.

 Melissia wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Grey Templar said it. Apparently feminism has to be couched carefully in terms that are acceptable to men, where "men" is defined as all men everywhere.

Which is probably why I tend to not use words such as "patriarchy" to begin with. Then again, people who say "all feminists I know are lesbians who hate men" (or some variation thereof) probably aren't very likely to be convinced no matter what you do. You can show them a hundred websites showing moderate feminism, but they'll still say "but most feminists are evil". It's very difficult to prove a negative, especially when you're arguing against hate.

 Melissia wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

Only in your heads. Men judge women harshly on appearance all the time. People on this very forum judge women off of our appearances all the time. People in this very thread, including yourself, judge women off of our appearances. Yes, including the men. Or even especially the men...

And when a woman doesn't stand up to that judgement, they are treated harshly and cruelly for it, viciously mocked by men. Men seem to love mocking the physical appearance of women whose personalities or political beliefs that they don't agree with-- and it's almost inevitably the first way that they think of to attack a woman.

except you are making some pretty blanket, and sweeping statements about men there, I say its crossing the line when you say that most men are that cruel that they love to mock women, its not true, you seem upset that people would lay blanket stereotypes over feminists, yet dont hesitate to apply stereotypical labels to men.



despite being little helpless cavemen, we can dig the berries out their noses and disengage emotionally/sexually to work well with others.

Get ready for a counter-argument based in special pleading, easysauce.

They're the choice fallacies in this type of "debate".

 easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Grey Templar said it. Apparently feminism has to be couched carefully in terms that are acceptable to men, where "men" is defined as all men everywhere.

Which is probably why I tend to not use words such as "patriarchy" to begin with. Then again, people who say "all feminists I know are lesbians who hate men" (or some variation thereof) probably aren't very likely to be convinced no matter what you do. You can show them a hundred websites showing moderate feminism, but they'll still say "but most feminists are evil". It's very difficult to prove a negative, especially when you're arguing against hate.

Not a sweeping generalization about men.

 easysauce wrote:
I say its crossing the line when you say that most men are that cruel that they love to mock women, its not true,

I stand by that assertion, based off of both the posting record of men on this forum and my own personal experience watching the actions of various people, both on the internet and off.

Let's give the most obvious example-- a woman who is slightly overweight is full bodied when one likes her-- and fat when one hates her. I've seen this happen numerous times to celebrities who put on a few pounds, for example. And it was the men shouting it the hardest in most cases. Even to the point of calling someone who is kind of skinny... "morbidly obese"-- because they gained a few pounds. Or an ex-friend who is now a hideous witch. Or an ex-girlfriend who's now an ugly slut. Insulting the appearance of a woman you dislike is at the very least equal to using promiscuity (real, perceived, or wholly made up) as an insult against a woman, and both are very common insults directed towards women-- by men.

Men are just as obsessed with womens' appearances as women, if not moreso depending on the setting. Note that, however, I am not necessarily saying that men are somehow biologically more prone to this kind of behavior. I believe that it is socially enforced, resulting from humanity's very long and sordid history. It is similar to the same phenomenon that leads (mostly poor and non-influential) men to be treated as expendable grunts in war, for example.

Also? I never said "most men" in that post.

 Melissia wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

Only in your heads. Men judge women harshly on appearance all the time. People on this very forum judge women off of our appearances all the time. People in this very thread, including yourself, judge women off of our appearances. Yes, including the men. Or even especially the men...

And when a woman doesn't stand up to that judgement, they are treated harshly and cruelly for it, viciously mocked by men. Men seem to love mocking the physical appearance of women whose personalities or political beliefs that they don't agree with-- and it's almost inevitably the first way that they think of to attack a woman.

actually that bit you cut out that I was referring to where you say "men seem to love mocking...women", thats the sweeping generalization, just because you edit it out, doesn't mean you didnt make it.

thats the untrue bit that, although you do say "men" instead of "most" men, so my apologies, you meant men are cruel people who enjoy this cruel behavior, not most men.



*edit lol really 8 times? tell me what you REALLY think!

 Melissia wrote:
Men are just as obsessed with womens' appearances as women, if not moreso depending on the setting. Note that, however, I am not necessarily saying that men are somehow biologically more prone to this kind of behavior. I believe that it is socially enforced, resulting from humanity's very long and sordid history. It is similar to the same phenomenon that leads (mostly poor and non-influential) men to be treated as expendable grunts in war, for example.

Also? I never said "most men" in that post.

While it's probably true that women are judged more harshly on appearance than men isn't physical appearance important to women as well when judging other males? I imagine most women want a good looking partner also.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Men are just as obsessed with womens' appearances as women, if not moreso depending on the setting. Note that, however, I am not necessarily saying that men are somehow biologically more prone to this kind of behavior. I believe that it is socially enforced, resulting from humanity's very long and sordid history. It is similar to the same phenomenon that leads (mostly poor and non-influential) men to be treated as expendable grunts in war, for example.

Also? I never said "most men" in that post.

While it's probably true that women are judged more harshly on appearance than men isn't physical appearance important to women as well when judging other males? I imagine most women want a good looking partner also.

The psychology of attraction is pretty wacky, and what we think is true often isn't in terms of ' a 10 will only date a 10' sort of thinking. In one person can look at someone and just be 'meh' while another thinks they are the most beautiful thing in the world. Spending time with a person tends to function differently then looking at a person. I know so-so looking guys that are very popular with the opposite sex and ones that are traditionally attractive but have little luck, all due to personality or shyness, ect ect.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Men are just as obsessed with womens' appearances as women, if not moreso depending on the setting. Note that, however, I am not necessarily saying that men are somehow biologically more prone to this kind of behavior. I believe that it is socially enforced, resulting from humanity's very long and sordid history. It is similar to the same phenomenon that leads (mostly poor and non-influential) men to be treated as expendable grunts in war, for example.

Also? I never said "most men" in that post.

While it's probably true that women are judged more harshly on appearance than men isn't physical appearance important to women as well when judging other males? I imagine most women want a good looking partner also.

The psychology of attraction is pretty wacky, and what we think is true often isn't in terms of ' a 10 will only date a 10' sort of thinking. In one person can look at someone and just be 'meh' while another thinks they are the most beautiful thing in the world. Spending time with a person tends to function differently then looking at a person. I know so-so looking guys that are very popular with the opposite sex and ones that are traditionally attractive but have little luck, all due to personality or shyness, ect ect.

Yeah, that is true but even when it comes to physical tastes men can be quite varied (I assume this is true for women too) like some guys are more into the ass, others like legs, some like big boobs, pretty faces, some don't like girls to be that thin and are more into chunkier women, etc, etc

I'm guessing that woman who's with that supposedly "so-so" looking guy genuinely thinks her partner is beautiful (or did at one point) unless the guy's loaded or has the most likeable personality or something.

I'm gonna cut through the crap here: the basic issue here is that certain people here are allowing the bad apples in a movement to sour their opinion of that movement. Everything else is just noise.

~Tim?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I'm gonna cut through the crap here: the basic issue here is that certain people here are allowing the bad apples in a movement to sour their opinion of that movement. Everything else is just noise.

~Tim?

Pretty much.

 easysauce wrote:
[snip]

Regardless of your desire to drag the topic off topic even more, I never said that all men are cruel, evil bastards. Or most. I was vague, intentionally so.

I will say, however, that men are people ,and people are frequently cruel when they think they can get away with it. My entire response was an objection against the assertion provided earlier in the thread that somehow women are more cruel than men. Which is the exact opposite of my personal experiences (And not indicated by scientific evidence).

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Do you know why? Because our social system has attached that baggage and you have seen people who use those terms attacked for it, despite your unknowing agreement. It's insidious that way.

Very important point here. The biggest problem of any movement is, be it feminism or religious movements etc., is that mass media mostly sticks to the most vocal representative as those are the easiest to perceive for the viewer / reader. Just have a look at the data on how often e.g. the Islam is mentioned in the news with a negative or positive context in German news...iirc it's 70-80% negative (need to dig that up again). Same goes for feminism - Germany has one very prominent woman who fulfills every clichée on feminists (unattractive, fanatic, irrational, righteous, overly dramatic, anti-male) and sticks to her whereas actual feminist movements get drowned out. The same applies to this very forum - when the term "feminism" is seen, the first user that comes to my mind is a sexist / female supremist claiming to be a feminist and therefore staining the actual feminists / humanists we have here on the board.

It's precisely the negative bias you mentioned, Tritium, that's been emphazied over and over in most areas and that stains the term itself, making it gain a negative connotation.

Our company's female rights consultant is a perfect counter-example. She is an actual feminist, she does a lot of equality work, but convinces people by showing up facts, not ye good ol' "I SHOUT THE LOUDEST THUS I AM RIGHT" rule. She even had a talk with me because all 3 of my employees are female, and we simply discussed the data and my reasoning on a very mature level (like it should be...hint, hint) and it was a non-issue. It's a different if you tackle an issue by jumping in and saying "LOLOLOL OMG SEXIST LOLOLOL" or "Hmm, this is how I see it, what is your view of the issue?". But alas, I don't think the internet is the right place as a lot of times, method 1 is preferred. It's easier.

@HiveFleetPlastic:

Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

Where did you get those numbers from? In Germany, all genders are paid equally.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Funny how men in traditionally female fields like primary school teaching or nursing get paid more than the women in the same field.

Where did you get those numbers from? In Germany, all genders are paid equally.

Germany has a pretty significant gender gap in pay as well. The biggest one in Europe in fact, at least according to this article.

Got access to the full study?

The problem of a lot of studies is the very poor presentation of results. Often, you simply compare the average men income to the average women income (full time) and then comment on the "gender gap". That's statistically wrong, you'd have to equal the average amount of working hours for each job, then calculate a mean and then compare the average to the other gender.

The amount of men working in high-payment, full-time jobs is considerably higher than the amount of women and thus merely comparing the average income of both genders is wrong and poor usuage of statistics; a similar mistake is not taking working hours into consideration. Women also tend to work more in part-time jobs and thus have a lower average income by default. and overall, the labor force participation rate is considerably higher for men thus also being responsible for a higher average income.

That's why I'm interested in the full study

...and here, some food of thought from actual reliable sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html#

and

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money-and-land-better-jobs-than-men-2010-9