Sexism against men

[Something Amyss]

Oh ok so it's not as bad to promote sexist bullshit as long as it's new sexist bullshit.

I didn't say that. Were you deliberately knocking down a strawman, or do you just not understand the fact that most issues are more complicated than black and white?

Woman have all the same legal rights as men do in the U.S. so kindly cut that bullshit.

When it it actually becomes true, I'll be glad to. Until then, kindly cut that specious, FALSE "reasoning."

 

[Togs]

Oh ok so it's not as bad to promote sexist bullshit as long as it's new sexist bullshit.

I didn't say that. Were you deliberately knocking down a strawman, or do you just not understand the fact that most issues are more complicated than black and white?

I cant see the straw man, Father Time quite accurately summed up the blatant message in your post- past mysogyny is no excuse for present misandry, you seem to to subscribe to that line of thinking that beacuse some men treat womenly badly women should therefore be able to treat all men similarly and it be ok.
Dont blame all men for the moral transgressions of some.

 

[Something Amyss]

I cant see the straw man, Father Time quite accurately summed up the blatant message in your post- past mysogyny is no excuse for present misandry, you seem to to subscribe to that line of thinking that beacuse some men treat womenly badly women should therefore be able to treat all men similarly and it be ok.
Dont blame all men for the moral transgressions of some.

Except I didn't say that it was an excuse.

I said equating the two was false. Those are not the same.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy of trying to equate two "wrongs" as equal when they are not. That is what the OP did. Tried to equate two things without context to make them seem like equal "wrongs."

Condemning that in no way means that I am excusing misandry or promoting the same. That's a blatant lie, not my blatant message.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't get why women pull the "we've been oppressed for thousands of years" as an excuse for things when they weren't alive during those years and live in a society that has more equality than back then.

Because for some reason, things didn't magically change.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

All I'm saying is that there has to be a double standard. Otherwise, men will be being called perverts if they so much as glance at a woman. Plus, you do realise that men are raped too? Why isn't THAT big news?

Heh, my eyes and I do whatever the hell I want with them. Next they'd be telling me that fantasising about them is wrong too.

Also rape is overrated. It's the next worst thing after being made a cripple and/or murdered. It's still a terrible thing, but not as bad as some other things out there. And really it all really depends on how you deal with the aftereffects. Nobody says you have to lead a broken life after the fact. It all depends on you.

 

[Archedgar]

Errrm.


It's funny how in the first page a woman complains that there is still sexism and talks about a man oogling her chest and even admitting it, that's not sexism that's just called being a man.
That's exactly the problem these days, anything men do is viewed as surprising and inappropriate, where women have all the advantage and men only have the token benefits that women have given.



Who gets custody of children ? women
Who pays alimony ? men
If a woman hits a man, does the law make a sound? no
If a man hits a woman... yeah...


My mother was a hardcore feminist who taught me to treat women fairly and how everyone should get a fair shake. Back when women didn't want to have an edge but rather just wanted the same opportunities as men; get that? THE SAME, NOT MORE, NOT LESS. Nowadays the cards are stacked so heavily in favor of women that any real feminist views these new "feminists" with harsh contempt.



It's a woman's world. We just live in it.

 

[Togs]

[

Except I didn't say that it was an excuse.

I said equating the two was false. Those are not the same.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy of trying to equate two "wrongs" as equal when they are not. That is what the OP did. Tried to equate two things without context to make them seem like equal "wrongs."

Condemning that in no way means that I am excusing misandry or promoting the same. That's a blatant lie, not my blatant message.

You may not of meant it but thats the way your post sounded, and in which case what were you actually trying to say?

And please keep the jargon to a minimum- it doesnt make you sound more intelligent and nor will it intimidate me.

 

[Something Amyss]

You may not of meant it but thats the way your post sounded, and in which case what were you actually trying to say?

And please keep the jargon to a minimum- it doesnt make you sound more intelligent and nor will it intimidate me.

I think the fact you would imply the intent was either to sound intelligent or to intimidate you indicates you may have an ax to grind, more than any offense on my end.

Suffice to say, I did just explain myself. In the very message you quoted. I said exactly what I meant. What's so hard to understand, especially if my "jargon" doesn't make me sound "more intelligent?"

Jargon or not, the initial claim was false equivalency. I'm sorry I actually know a real term for "pretending to equate two acts as equal when they are not," but I even explained that in my last post.

I was criticising a false equivalency, not supporting "misandry."

If your problem isn't with my stance but my diction, I have explained the first term and used the second only after it was introduced by...Well, you.

And lastly, this has nothing to do with "all men" being blamed for the actions of some.

Putting words in my mouth does not make you sound more intelligent, either. It's just dishonest. Damn dishonest.

 

[Togs]

I think the fact you would imply the intent was either to sound intelligent or to intimidate you indicates you may have an ax to grind, more than any offense on my end.

Suffice to say, I did just explain myself. In the very message you quoted. I said exactly what I meant. What's so hard to understand, especially if my "jargon" doesn't make me sound "more intelligent?"

Jargon or not, the initial claim was false equivalency. I'm sorry I actually know a real term for "pretending to equate two acts as equal when they are not," but I even explained that in my last post.

I was criticising a false equivalency, not supporting "misandry."

If your problem isn't with my stance but my diction, I have explained the first term and used the second only after it was introduced by...Well, you.

And lastly, this has nothing to do with "all men" being blamed for the actions of some.

Putting words in my mouth does not make you sound more intelligent, either. It's just dishonest. Damn dishonest.

No axe to grind just interested in getting some information on a perspective that seems to disagree with my own, but you seem incapable of sharing yours plainly or civilly, but then I guess we all have our foibles.

Your arguement seems to consist of -

"Mysandry and mysogyny are not equal"
"Mysogyny is worse because its gone on longer/is more prevalent"

And then you stop dead, ignoring any implications and offering no conclusion, as well as giving no reasoning to your second statement, this is what Im after as in my thinking the second statement can have no reasoning- both are wrong to the same degree as prevalence does not affect how morally wrong something is; it just makes it more of a problem.

And I was going on about "dont blame the many for the crimes of the few" because in what is admittedly a piece of armchair psychoanalysis the only motivation I can think of for making such a claim is sharing a belief that seems common amongst modern radical feminists that past mistreatment demands revenge.

And I accused you of hiding behind jargon as in my experience the fancier someone talks the more likely it is that they're just trying to dazzle and distract away from what they've said, often because they haven't thought it through sufficiently, this was most likely an unfair assumption on my part but I was erring on the side of caution.

So can you please explain your arguement a little better?
I'm trying to see if there's something in it I'm missing, Im not trying to be confrontational or aggressive Im genuinely interested.

 

[ApophisMP]

This is the product of the Feminist movement of the early 60's

 

[Vault Citizen]

From what I understand the reason that rape or abuse against men isn't as touched upon an issue as violence against women is that it isn't as widespread an issue. I might be wrong but statistically speaking I think abuse against men is quite rare while in the UK about one third of women suffer abuse from their partner (and those are just the women who report it).

To put them both on an equal platform would say that they are both equal problems and I think the evidence suggests that violence against women is much more prevailant.

 

[Something Amyss]

Your arguement seems to consist of -

"Mysandry and mysogyny are not equal"
"Mysogyny is worse because its gone on longer/is more prevalent"

False. Your argument seems to consist of putting words in my mouth.

And then you stop dead, ignoring any implications and offering no conclusion, as well as giving no reasoning to your second statement, this is what Im after as in my thinking the second statement can have no reasoning- both are wrong to the same degree as prevalence does not affect how morally wrong something is; it just makes it more of a problem.

What more, perchance, do you want from me? You make up my statements and then complain they don't go far enough.

And I was going on about "dont blame the many for the crimes of the few" because in what is admittedly a piece of armchair psychoanalysis the only motivation I can think of for making such a claim is sharing a belief that seems common amongst modern radical feminists that past mistreatment demands revenge.

In other words, you further assumed a false stance on my end.

And I accused you of hiding behind jargon as in my experience the fancier someone talks the more likely it is that they're just trying to dazzle and distract away from what they've said, often because they haven't thought it through sufficiently, this was most likely an unfair assumption on my part but I was erring on the side of caution.

Except I explained myself. Both in "jargon" and in plain English. It just. Doesn't. say. what. You. Need. It. To. Say. So. You. Disregard. It.

You randomly go off on what you think I mean, and then expect me to defend it. That's ridiculous. I am not responsible for what you infer, nor should I have to defend your inferences from you.

Stop and think, instead of continually struggling.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, I forgot women still couldn't vote...

Nice quip, but substance is lacking. In fact, it kind of proves the point. Even after the vote was given to women, things didn't magically change.

You know, Stephen Colbert has spent a couple of years actively parodying this logic by saying racism ended when Obama got elected. One change, even a series of changes, doesn't magically nullify everything that's happened.

If you want to pretend you are born on an inherently equal level because of changes like suffrage, that's your own problem, I guess. Doesn't make it true, though.

 

[Togs]

False. Your argument seems to consist of putting words in my mouth.

No my arguement consists of trying to get you to make more then a half point before running away and getting defensive when I ask you to explain it, you seem ot have some knowledge of the technical side of debate but here lies a rather sizeable hole in it.

What more, perchance, do you want from me? You make up my statements and then complain they don't go far enough.

I make up nothing, you said the following-

I said equating the two was false. Those are not the same.

So how exactly if your so smart is that any different from this?

Your arguement seems to consist of -

"Mysandry and mysogyny are not equal"
"Mysogyny is worse because its gone on longer/is more prevalent"

or this?

t's not "equally bad" because it's not an equal situation.

Right next part-

In other words, you further assumed a false stance on my end.

Prove it, I see no evidence otherwise so far.

Except I explained myself. Both in "jargon" and in plain English. It just. Doesn't. say. what. You. Need. It. To. Say. So. You. Disregard. It.

NO. YOU. DID. NOT.

Read your post again and kindly point to where you did, all you have said is they are not the same, nothing else- you cannot make a point and then not expect to not have defend or explain it, if your gonna state an opinion you cannot expect people to just accept it on faith.

You randomly go off on what you think I mean, and then expect me to defend it. That's ridiculous. I am not responsible for what you infer, nor should I have to defend your inferences from you.

Im trying ot get you to explain yourself and your point AS. THATS. HOW. AN. ARGUEMENT. WORKS.

If Im so stupid and struggling to comprehend your genius why dont you put the little one out of his misery by gifting him with your great insight?

Or is it as I expect that your just full of hot air.

 

[cdstephens]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

http://antimisandry.com/html-moderated/domestic-violence-against-men-key-statistics-22080.html

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news72113800.html


I'm gonna go ahead and bring actual statistics in here Basically, a huge portion of domestic violence is against men, almost 50% (depending on which study you go by), which goes against the common perception that only women can be abused or raped. Anyone who tries to deny this is just supporting sexism against a minority group, that is being men who have been abused in their lifetime, and thus helping perpetuate the current state at which men feel as if they cannot seek help from anyone in such an abusive relationship, precisely because society dictates that either such a relationship cannot exist, or that if it does exist then the man is weak for being in that situation.

Or, to put it on a more emotional level, try walking up to a man who has been physically abused by his girlfriend and tell that a girl getting abused is more important to deal with than his abuse.

Not to mention sexism concerning alimony, child custody, and the draft. Although a draft hasn't been issued in years, the government still has the right to draft men in the country during a time of war, but cannot draft women, and if the man refuses to be drafted he can be fined for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Here's child custody statistics:
http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm

When parents mediate, only 6% of the time does sole possession go to the father, while when going to court 11% of the time they go to the father. The statistic for women is 63% and 44% respectively.

 

[Shycte]

As expected, my fellow men are complaining about men being discrimininated, which is a issue of course. But we are no where near the point of women being equal to the men, they are still underpaid and underrepresented.

Haters gonna hate.

 

[Togs]

As expected, my fellow men are complaining about men being discrimininated, which is a issue of course. But we are no where near the point of women being equal to the men, they are still underpaid and underrepresented.

Haters gonna hate.

Not at all, whilst I cant speak for anyone else in this thread Im personally sick and tired of being told to feel bad and guilty for being born a man in a world where some men have treated women badly.

I personally have never raped or beaten a women, or ignored anything she may of said just because she was a woman. Ive never passed one over for promotion just because she was a woman or countless other things that people have come out with in this thread- so why exactly should I feel bad for it? Why exactly should all men be blamed for something that not all of us have done?

 

[kzeelio]

Woman have all the same legal rights as men do in the U.S. so kindly cut that bullshit.

When it it actually becomes true, I'll be glad to. Until then, kindly cut that specious, FALSE "reasoning."

Name one right men have that women do not in the US.

Serving in the front lines of the army?

And it's not just about rights, women are grossly underrepresented in the government. Only 17% of congress members are women, how many US citizens are women?

 

[cdstephens]

As expected, my fellow men are complaining about men being discrimininated, which is a issue of course. But we are no where near the point of women being equal to the men, they are still underpaid and underrepresented.

Haters gonna hate.

Do you have statistics to compare and contrast? From what I know, above a 100k per year salary women make about 80% of men, but below that they are more or less equal. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/the-gender-pay-gap-persists-especially-for-the-rich/

To me, thousands of men not getting child custody, proper alimony, or the inability for them to report domestic abuse is more important than a 25% salary increase, mainly because once your making that much money in the first place, you're well off and have no problem supporting yourself. It's just my personal opinion that violence charges, emotional abuse, and anything involving the ability to see one's own *children* is more important than how much money a certain group makes at a point where they already have enough money to support themselves, but that's just my opinion.

I will agree that under representation of women in politics and business is a problem that needs to be looked at though; it's pretty sad that women in America aren't seen as qualified to be President by a good portion of the population, for example. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/opinion/polls/main1281319.shtml

Most of that I think has to do with how gender is portrayed in media; men are supposed to be strong, enduring, buff, while women are supposed to be fragile, delicate, and innocent.

Woman have all the same legal rights as men do in the U.S. so kindly cut that bullshit.

When it it actually becomes true, I'll be glad to. Until then, kindly cut that specious, FALSE "reasoning."

Name one right men have that women do not in the US.

Serving in the front lines of the army?

Statistics or quote to back this up?

Fact is, women aren't oppressed. It's just that society views women differently than men, and thus treats them differently. This isn't the same as outright oppression though.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Woman have all the same legal rights as men do in the U.S. so kindly cut that bullshit.

When it it actually becomes true, I'll be glad to. Until then, kindly cut that specious, FALSE "reasoning."

Name one right men have that women do not in the US.

as men, we have the right to pay higher insurance for the simple fact of being male.

and how is that not sexist?

oh right, it's because women aren't the one's complaining...

the whole "we were oppressed!" is such bullshit, i had absolutely nothing to do with that nor is it applied in modern first world terms, so stop treating me like a bastard for something i didn't do. at some point or another men/women of all cultures were oppressed or used, does that mean everyone deserves dues paid for it?