Sexism; Or The Turning of Tables

[Evidencebased]

snip

snip

in the point i was making about world war one, i do not believe the average rifleman gave much of a shit about the size of the austro-hungarian empire or the assasination of Arch-duke ferdinand. they fought to keep their wives and families safe from invasion. also, quoting laws from wildly divergent time periods and cultures as if hey were all on the books at one time in one place is a poor argument. women in the 'western' or developed world now have greater power than men. this is not a personal opinion, it is fact. the feminism movement has allowed women to have the choice to do as they please, whilst denying this to men. if the woman wants to study and work then that is good if they want to stay at home and be supported by the study and work of a man then thats good. if she cannot pass the physical tests to join the armed forces, police, or fire service then the tests will be made easier for her; placing huge numbers of people at risk due to some members of each service being physically less able. if she wishes to she may go to a bar, tell a man she wants sex but is on the pill. trick him into making her pregnant, then decide whether she wants to destroy his freedom - by legally stealling a chunk of his pay-check every month (whilst allowng him little to no access to his own flesh and blood) or if she would rather make a false allegation of rape. then in the months leading up to the trial HIS face and name are plastered over the front page of every newspaper/news show on TV, meanwhile HER identity is treated like she is working for the secret ervice, to protect her. thats beforeyou get into the question of females being given lesser sentances for crimes tan men.

all in all, if women want equality with men (and i have never seen anything to indicate that they do) they must start reducing their own legal power and surrender their positiion as the sex that everyone bends over backwards for; and yet still remains less succesful - even with every arm of the state and public opinion bhind them women cannot compete with men hmm ... what meaning can we take away from that?

Yes, let's never forget the cases in which women lie to men (and I dunno... hide their condoms? ) in order to get pregnant and have a billion babies and steal all their money and then claim they were raped so they can get the guy sent to jail (at which point he can't actually pay her child sup--DOESN'T MATTER!) and then join the military and fail all the tests and then get our whole damn country invaded by Nazis (but...but there aren't any Na--SHHHHH!!) and then go on trial for treason but go free because vaginas is why! OH GOD THE WOMEN ARE STEALING OUR MANLY ESSENCES! HIDE YOUR DICKS! HIDE YO--

...Oh, sorry, excuse me, I got caught up in all the batshit crazy paranoia into which your comment quickly descended.

you know, just once i would like to see one of these threads where the women responded to contrary viewpoints with neither sarcasm or accusations of mental illness. it would really be nice to engage in an honest exchange of opinion without one side saying "HURR DUUR UR STOOOOPID!!!!1111" if you disagree with me present a calmly worded response, which does not include accusations of insanity, if you can summon up the politeness.

Alright, well, I snapped at you because the "trapping dudes with babies" thing is a huge damn pet peeve of mine. I'm not saying it never happens, but you realize that the reverse happens quite often too, right? It's a fairly common tactic for male abusers to refuse to use a condom (or prevent their girlfriend/wife from getting a birth control prescription) and get the woman pregnant as a tactic to control her. This includes actually forbidding the girlfriend/wife from leaving the house -- to stop her from getting help or getting an abortion -- or even moving out to a fairly secluded place where she can't go anywhere without a car. Not only does the pregnancy put a significant health strain on the woman, and make her more physically vulnerable to violence (murder being the number 1 killer of pregnant women in the USA) but once the child is born the abuser can threaten her and the baby to more thoroughly control her and prevent her from escaping.

Obviously this doesn't happen a huge number of times, but it's just as common (if not more) as women trying to "force" a man to impregnate her. I've heard this "forced fatherhood" thing waaay too many times (mostly from assholes, present company excepted) and especially what with the current defunding of Planned Parenthood I just have completely run out of patience with that argument for male "oppression." Yes, some rare unlucky guys get screwed over, but it's not the systemic oppression of having your reproductive choices slowly whittled away by a government full of religious fanatics (and having male abusers happily use this restrictive system against their female victims) that women face. We literally have people who think we should be forced to carry every pregnancy to term even if it kills us; sometimes it does. For me, that's way scarier than child support payments.

And no, when a woman has a baby, the father has to help pay to support that child that he helped make because if he doesn't then the state has to. She isn't "stealing" anything, and really the mother usually ends up spending much more time and money on the child than the father is ever expected to. Also, in cases where the father challenges for custody, he actually has a slightly better chance than the mother of getting custody; however, the majority of the time custody goes to the mother because many fathers don't make any attempt at gaining it. And if you have a problem with the woman being allowed to give birth in the first place, then you'll really just have to take that up with evolution because it gave all the women the uteri and we make the best of it we can -- short of holding women down and cutting fetuses out of them there is no way for men to have a perfectly "equal" say in whether the pregnancy is brought to term.

And I'm just plain exhausted hearing that women "don't seem to want equality" -- I do, I really really do, and I even do all that crap guys whine about like go dutch on dates, don't ever ask for money, don't lie or flirt to advantage myself, I open my own goddamn doors, I've never gotten a female-only scholarship, I've never been hired to fill a quota (in my field/level there is actually a slight hiring bias in favor of men, because there are fewer male applicants) and still I always have to repeat that no, I didn't write the damn WWI draft laws and yes I think men should get as much fucking paternity leave as they want. And then after I spend hours researching stuff like rape stats, and dwindling access to abortion, and reading a few of those man-murders-wife-and-kids-to-show-that-***** news stories, by the time some guy says "men bend over backwards for women" I'm just honestly completely sick of being polite.

So that's my incredibly straightforward answer to you. I'm explaining all this because feminism is incredibly important to me, but please realize that I've heard all of these arguments before (usually from men who literally believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote, I shit you not) and it's truly exhausting to come to this site full of young liberal smart people and hear some of the same crap. So. There you have it, for what that's worth.

 

[The_Graff]

snip

snip

in the point i was making about world war one, i do not believe the average rifleman gave much of a shit about the size of the austro-hungarian empire or the assasination of Arch-duke ferdinand. they fought to keep their wives and families safe from invasion. also, quoting laws from wildly divergent time periods and cultures as if hey were all on the books at one time in one place is a poor argument. women in the 'western' or developed world now have greater power than men. this is not a personal opinion, it is fact. the feminism movement has allowed women to have the choice to do as they please, whilst denying this to men. if the woman wants to study and work then that is good if they want to stay at home and be supported by the study and work of a man then thats good. if she cannot pass the physical tests to join the armed forces, police, or fire service then the tests will be made easier for her; placing huge numbers of people at risk due to some members of each service being physically less able. if she wishes to she may go to a bar, tell a man she wants sex but is on the pill. trick him into making her pregnant, then decide whether she wants to destroy his freedom - by legally stealling a chunk of his pay-check every month (whilst allowng him little to no access to his own flesh and blood) or if she would rather make a false allegation of rape. then in the months leading up to the trial HIS face and name are plastered over the front page of every newspaper/news show on TV, meanwhile HER identity is treated like she is working for the secret ervice, to protect her. thats beforeyou get into the question of females being given lesser sentances for crimes tan men.

all in all, if women want equality with men (and i have never seen anything to indicate that they do) they must start reducing their own legal power and surrender their positiion as the sex that everyone bends over backwards for; and yet still remains less succesful - even with every arm of the state and public opinion bhind them women cannot compete with men hmm ... what meaning can we take away from that?

Yes, let's never forget the cases in which women lie to men (and I dunno... hide their condoms? ) in order to get pregnant and have a billion babies and steal all their money and then claim they were raped so they can get the guy sent to jail (at which point he can't actually pay her child sup--DOESN'T MATTER!) and then join the military and fail all the tests and then get our whole damn country invaded by Nazis (but...but there aren't any Na--SHHHHH!!) and then go on trial for treason but go free because vaginas is why! OH GOD THE WOMEN ARE STEALING OUR MANLY ESSENCES! HIDE YOUR DICKS! HIDE YO--

...Oh, sorry, excuse me, I got caught up in all the batshit crazy paranoia into which your comment quickly descended.

you know, just once i would like to see one of these threads where the women responded to contrary viewpoints with neither sarcasm or accusations of mental illness. it would really be nice to engage in an honest exchange of opinion without one side saying "HURR DUUR UR STOOOOPID!!!!1111" if you disagree with me present a calmly worded response, which does not include accusations of insanity, if you can summon up the politeness.

Alright, well, I snapped at you because the "trapping dudes with babies" thing is a huge damn pet peeve of mine. I'm not saying it never happens, but you realize that the reverse happens quite often too, right? It's a fairly common tactic for male abusers to refuse to use a condom (or prevent their girlfriend/wife from getting a birth control prescription) and get the woman pregnant as a tactic to control her. This includes actually forbidding the girlfriend/wife from leaving the house -- to stop her from getting help or getting an abortion -- or even moving out to a fairly secluded place where she can't go anywhere without a car. Not only does the pregnancy put a significant health strain on the woman, and make her more physically vulnerable to violence (murder being the number 1 killer of pregnant women in the USA) but once the child is born the abuser can threaten her and the baby to more thoroughly control her and prevent her from escaping.

Obviously this doesn't happen a huge number of times, but it's just as common (if not more) as women trying to "force" a man to impregnate her. I've heard this "forced fatherhood" thing waaay too many times (mostly from assholes, present company excepted) and especially what with the current defunding of Planned Parenthood I just have completely run out of patience with that argument for male "oppression." Yes, some rare unlucky guys get screwed over, but it's not the systemic oppression of having your reproductive choices slowly whittled away by a government full of religious fanatics (and having male abusers happily use this restrictive system against their female victims) that women face. We literally have people who think we should be forced to carry every pregnancy to term even if it kills us; sometimes it does. For me, that's way scarier than child support payments.

And no, when a woman has a baby, the father has to help pay to support that child that he helped make because if he doesn't then the state has to. She isn't "stealing" anything, and really the mother usually ends up spending much more time and money on the child than the father is ever expected to. Also, in cases where the father challenges for custody, he actually has a slightly better chance than the mother of getting custody; however, the majority of the time custody goes to the mother because many fathers don't make any attempt at gaining it. And if you have a problem with the woman being allowed to give birth in the first place, then you'll really just have to take that up with evolution because it gave all the women the uteri and we make the best of it we can -- short of holding women down and cutting fetuses out of them there is no way for men to have a perfectly "equal" say in whether the pregnancy is brought to term.

And I'm just plain exhausted hearing that women "don't seem to want equality" -- I do, I really really do, and I even do all that crap guys whine about like go dutch on dates, don't ever ask for money, don't lie or flirt to advantage myself, I open my own goddamn doors, I've never gotten a female-only scholarship, I've never been hired to fill a quota (in my field/level there is actually a slight hiring bias in favor of men, because there are fewer male applicants) and still I always have to repeat that no, I didn't write the damn WWI draft laws and yes I think men should get as much fucking paternity leave as they want. And then after I spend hours researching stuff like rape stats, and dwindling access to abortion, and reading a few of those man-murders-wife-and-kids-to-show-that-***** news stories, by the time some guy says "men bend over backwards for women" I'm just honestly completely sick of being polite.

So that's my incredibly straightforward answer to you. I'm explaining all this because feminism is incredibly important to me, but please realize that I've heard all of these arguments before (usually from men who literally believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote, I shit you not) and it's truly exhausting to come to this site full of young liberal smart people and hear some of the same crap. So. There you have it, for what that's worth.

Ok, thank you for that; it was clear, concise, well researched and argued. I shall now attempt to reply in kind

I think we come from vastly different backgrounds, this will unavoidably shape our views, opinions and even thought process/logic train. for starters Im not from the US. Im British, and the political/social/soco-political (and any other combnations I cant think of at the moment) systems will be vastly different. one huge point is that by and large abortion is not a huge political ball game here. most of the parties that even include it in their platforms could be charitably described as 'fringe'. as such I think it is probably much easier for a woman to recieve an abortion over here, with a much smaller (if at all evident) social stigma. this change in public opinion, combined with modern contraceptive tech. means that a woman does not have a baby unles she wants it (allegedly barring certain minority communities - another topic for another thread).

I cannot claim to understand what you have had to get through in a different society that seems alien to me, i aplogise without reservation if i have made you feel uncomfortable - that was not the intention of my post.

I am not a misogynist by any worthwhile definition of the term. i am honestly shocked to hear that you know people who do not believe that women should vote (do you by any chance live in that place the movie 'Deliverance' was filmed?). I believe that people should not be judged by the precise configuration of their genetalia. its just that whenever i read up about british feminism, or attempt to engage such a feminist in discussion i am forced to deal with a powerful underlying sense of misandry in their arguments, willful misinterpretation of history, and flawed logic train/thought processes.

there are other reasons for the apparent vehemance in the post you originaly quoted but i think they might bore you.

So, to sum up.
1: it would appear that the feminists ae correct in their claim that not all feminists are the same
2: we appear to have experienced very different wings of the feminist movement
3: this linked with cultural and political differences will lead like night into day to differing opinions on the movement as a whole.
4: if i have offended, upset, or made you at all uncomfortable then i am truly sorry, it was not my intention.

i think that this answers your points, if i have left any untouched then please point them out.

 

[targren]

I understand your pain, I hate it when previously oppressed people get a few double standards in their favour too. What'll they want next, equal rights? Pfft...

Nice try. You can have "double standards" or you can have "equal." You CAN NOT have both. And that's the problem with garbage like this. Whatever group it is claiming the 'victim' mentality of the moment, they don't want equality. They want better-than-equality, to be getting special treatment and exceptions to the rules for them. And THEY GET IT.

And that's why I can't take any of them seriously. Their modern hypocrisy trumps their historical ordeals.

 

[lonercs]

These threads are so super.
Prepare for most people here to agree with you.

I understand your pain, I hate it when previously oppressed people get a few double standards in their favour too. What'll they want next, equal rights? Pfft...

Look, I'll tell you the same thing I told my boyfriend, if you want the male-only gyms, chubby male models and to be able to poke fun at women in ads then grand, not a bother. I'll gladly take all the other benefits you have in society that are actually important and trade.

Seriously, the fact that these are the only things you can think of it's clear that you've never actually been discriminated against in a serious manner.


EDIT: I'm not saying other men haven't been, because I know people will jump on that, I'm just saying what you pointed out is really trivial.

Women win the majority of custody battles to the point were the father may not even allowed to be associated with his child. A good enough looking women can RAPE a boy and get off easy but, if a man LOOKS at a girl strange enough can face 20 to life in prison. Female-on-male rape is completely ignored when reported (the cops don't even bother filing them. "The burning bed" defense allows women to get away with literal 1st/2nd/3rd degree murder. Female-on-male abuse rarely is taking seriously. I'm going to stop here but, I can still list of EVEN MORE ways women receive more legal protection then males.

 

[Supertegwyn]

I agree. People don't seem to realize that Sexism works BOTH ways, and doesn't just refer to Women.

 

[cobra_ky]

It's my full belief that society's out for the middle aged, middle class white man. If a poor black girl mugged the aforementioned cracker, and then beat herself up claiming that HE mugged HER, would would the police believe? Exactly, the girl.
Now, I came onto the gaming scene rather late, and I wanna know when the first rants about "female portrayal in games" came about, because with games nowadays trading practical clothing for sex appeal, I haven't seen any outcries.

At least since 1984, when an Atari game was released with the goal of raping a woman tied to a post. Possibly before then, although at that point, portraying any gender at all was difficult given the technical limitations of the time.

If you haven't seen any outcries about overly sexualized female armor in video games, then you just haven't been paying attention. <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111360-Femme-Armor-Sacrifices-Safety-for-Sex-Appeal>this one's right off the escapist.

Here's a couple more <a href=http://www.mmobomb.com/features/women-sex-and-mmorpg-games>random links.

Hell, it's long been considered a <a href=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChainmailBikini>trope.

 

[Phisi]

I have cut the parts of my post to try make this shorter

Um? There were scholarships limited only to men. You know, until fairly recently when women were actually allowed to go to university. Now they are trying to fix the absurd gender gaps in these feilds by balancing negative social pressure with financial encouragement. Unless you think that science and engineering professions are male dominated because women are inherently worse at them.

I do not think that science and engineering professions are male dominated because women are inherently worse at them. Please don't put words in my mouth :/ To continue, I will be attempting my HSC in 2 years and my brother is already at University. Both of us were not alive during the time when when women weren't allowed to go to university or were children. Why is it that the faults of the previous generations are passed on?

Yes, it is. You still need to be qualified for those jobs if you are female. It just means that if there are two equally qualified candidates and one is female, she will get the job. Want to know why? It's because pervasive sexist attitudes have caused male employers to immediately dismiss female candidates purely based on what's between their legs.

But to select the female to employ based on the fact that they are female, isn't that sexist? If employers are sexist then they should be fined, sent to gaol or other punishment but it can't be the male candidates fault that they are sexist, he's not hiring himself so why should his punishment be restriction from jobs?

Yes, but in order for that to be possible, you have to legislate. Otherwise, women are unable to find jobs due to discrimination. Then they're assumed to be incapable of doing them because if they could, someone would have employed them. Their ability is called into question and you get wonderful arguments like: "If men an women are equally intelligent, why were all the major scientific discoveries in the 19th century made by men?" Or "If women are qualified for executive positions, why can't they get them?" Or "If women are really worth employing, why should they need legislation to avoid being immediately disregarded?"

Yes I agree you have to legislate but I think that the legislation should combat discrimination instead of cause it against those who are not at fault. The most common reason that there is an equality in the percentage of women and men in high paying jobs is that women often leave there jobs to look after children and that most high paying jobs have skills that no longer apply after periods of time. This is a because of the social construct that women should look after children and I am all for tearing down as well as many others. I think that any legislation should be there to combat discrimination instead of try to correct inequality through more discrimination. Inequality doesn't always mean discrimination. If a doughnut shop was found to mostly sell doughnuts to blonde haired patrons then that would not be discrimination unless they did so purposefully, a strange inequality though. If the reason was that people with other hair colours did not like doughnuts on average then that would be very strange but not discrimination just as if society viewed that people with other hair colours shouldn't eat doughnut would not be discrimination on the shops part but something that is very negative. Now if any of these reasons were true it would not be the right thing to prevent blondes from buying doughnuts for other hair colours to buy doughnuts. It is not the blonde patrons' fault even if the shop was being 'hairist' (?). For me the correct way to deal with these reason would be to enact laws prevent discrimination or to remove society's perceptions. If it were found that it is just that blondes like eating doughnuts then that would be something to study and not much else

Oh and it is bad for businesses, please read before quoting me on that
http://www.economist.com/node/18988506

 

[Colour Scientist]

Actually, no, nevermind. I'd avoided this thread for too long to get dragged back into it now. I'm sick of having the same debate over and over. If you want to see my opinion look at my previous posts.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I do not think that science and engineering professions are male dominated because women are inherently worse at them. Please don't put words in my mouth. [My brother and I] were not alive during the time when when women weren't allowed to go to university or were children. Why is it that the faults of the previous generations are passed on?

Do you have any idea how spectacularly white and male you sound? Women have been actively discouraged from pursuing jobs in mathematics and science because it was considered "men's work", and even after they were allowed into university, they were really only allowed to pursue Arts degrees. In many places this is still a pervasive attitude. If a few scholarships are given to girls in an attempt to lessen the ridiculous gender gap this attitude has resulted in, what is it to you? Is it that painfully unfair? There are still plenty of scholarships available to high achieving males.

Look at the plight of Aborigines in Australia. They achieve significantly lower in education due to the socio-economic status their previous oppression forced them into. But that was ages ago, wasn't it? Why should we be attempting to fund rural schools or rectify their higher mortality rates? Racism was in the past. There are no lasting effects. If they can't climb out of the hole we dug for them, why should they get bonus marks? Should my taxes be used in attempting to rectify an inequality that I personally wasn't responsible for?

But to select the female to employ based on the fact that they are female, isn't that sexist? If employers are sexist then they should be fined, sent to gaol or other punishment but it can't be the male candidates fault that they are sexist, he's not hiring himself so why should his punishment be restriction from jobs?

The vast majority of employers are male. If there are two equally qualified candidates, and they choose to employ the man, how the fuck do you propose to prove that the other was rejected based on her sex? Yet we know for a fact that qualified women were applying for board postions, and still there was an inexplicable lack of women in prestigious jobs. Hence the legislation.

The most common reason that there is an equality in the percentage of women and men in high paying jobs is that women often leave there jobs to look after children and that most high paying jobs have skills that no longer apply after periods of time.

Yes, and as you said this is due to unfair gender roles. However, the legislation at least normalises the idea of women being employed as members of the board.

If a doughnut shop was found to mostly sell doughnuts to blonde haired patrons then that would not be discrimination unless they did so purposefully, a strange inequality though. If the reason was that people with other hair colours did not like doughnuts on average then that would be very strange but not discrimination just as if society viewed that people with other hair colours shouldn't eat doughnut would not be discrimination on the shops part but something that is very negative. Now if any of these reasons were true it would not be the right thing to prevent blondes from buying doughnuts for other hair colours to buy doughnuts. It is not the blonde patrons' fault even if the shop was being 'hairist' (?). For me the correct way to deal with these reason would be to enact laws prevent discrimination or to remove society's perceptions. If it were found that it is just that blondes like eating doughnuts then that would be something to study and not much else

To convey my feelings towards this analogy would likely result in mod wrath. Suffice to say you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for writing this. If you don't see why, read over it again. If you still don't understand, you are beyond help.

Oh and it is bad for businesses, please read before quoting me on that
http://www.economist.com/node/18988506

I never said it was ideal, but it's a start. It's a desperate attempt to rectify hundreds of years of a ridiculously unfair regime, and crying that it's sexist against men just shows your ignorance. Having said that, here is a quote from your own article: "Companies that want to attract the best talent must think hard about how to make work more family-friendly. Wise firms will strive to remove barriers for women."

Do you think a capitalist enterprise would invest in removing barriers for women if they weren't forced to? It's making them to compromise, which is good. And then:

"The proportion of women in top jobs may remain lower than governments would like, partly because prejudices about women and work have deep roots..."

HENCE THE LEGISLATION.

Also "employing women isn't ideal for a capitalist society" isn't exactly a winning argument.

I will be attempting my HSC in 2 years and my brother is already at University.

Good, maybe you will learn something. If these posts of yours are any indication of how you write your essays I don't think you need to worry about a girl stealing your scholarship.

 

[Phisi]

Do you have any idea how spectacularly white and male you sound? Women have been actively discouraged from pursuing jobs in mathematics and science because it was considered "men's work", and even after they were allowed into university, they were really only allowed to pursue Arts degrees. In many places this is still a pervasive attitude. If a few scholarships are given to girls in an attempt to lessen the ridiculous gender gap this attitude has resulted in, what is it to you? Is it that painfully unfair? There are still plenty of scholarships available to high achieving males.

Interesting that in an debate on discrimination that assumptions on race and gender would come into it I don't mind if scholarships are given to women or men as long as it is not limited to one sex.

Look at the plight of Aborigines in Australia. They achieve significantly lower in education due to the socio-economic status their previous oppression forced them into. But that was ages ago, wasn't it? Why should we be attempting to fund rural schools or rectify their higher mortality rates? Racism was in the past. There are no lasting effects. If they can't climb out of the hole we dug for them, why should they get bonus marks? Should my taxes be used in attempting to rectify an inequality that I personally wasn't responsible for?

That is a very strong point. I applaud you for that. But would it also be safe to say that non-aboriginals that also live in rural areas or are of low socio-economic standing also regularly achieve lower test scores and receive a lower education? I would argue that if the reason is their socio-economic status stops them from attaining the same schooling as others then that should be addressed through financial assistance for schooling or something similar regardless of racial group or sex. Find the reason of the problem and solve that.

The vast majority of employers are male. If there are two equally qualified candidates, and they choose to employ the man, how the **** do you propose to prove that the other was rejected based on her sex? Yet we know for a fact that qualified women were applying for board postions, and still there was an inexplicable lack of women in prestigious jobs. Hence the legislation.

Hmm... That I can not solve but is I still don't believe that it is right to enact legislation
that discriminates based on sex to solve sexism. Though I doubt that there would be a situation where both candidates are equal in qualifications, ability and work experience. It would be beneficial for the the board to select the better candidate so for that I hope capitalism will drive the other company away. Oh and try not to swear as there is no reason to in what I hope is a friendly discussion :/

Yes, and as you said this is due to unfair gender roles. However, the legislation at least normalises the idea of women being employed as members of the board.

But would that instead effect how women are portrayed on boards? If other board members think that the newly hired women are there because they are required by law, wouldn't that be a negative portrayal over knowing that the women on boards must have worked hard and be very talented to achieve that position? Just some thoughts.

To convey my feelings towards this analogy would likely result in mod wrath. Suffice to say you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for writing this. If you don't see why, read over it again. If you still don't understand, you are beyond help.

Don't worry I don't mind, it was fun to type. Sorry if I went in circles there.

I never said it was ideal, but it's a start. It's a desperate attempt to rectify hundreds of years of a ridiculously unfair regime, and crying that it's sexist against men just shows your ignorance. Having said that, here is a quote from your own article: "Companies that want to attract the best talent must think hard about how to make work more family-friendly. Wise firms will strive to remove barriers for women."

Do you think a capitalist enterprise would invest in removing barriers for women if they weren't forced to? It's making them to compromise, which is good. And then:

"The proportion of women in top jobs may remain lower than governments would like, partly because prejudices about women and work have deep roots..."

HENCE THE LEGISLATION.

Also "employing women isn't ideal for a capitalist society" isn't exactly a winning argument.

I will be attempting my HSC in 2 years and my brother is already at University.

Good, maybe you will learn something. If these posts of yours are any indication of how you write your essays I don't think you need to worry about a girl stealing your scholarship.

Capitalist enterprises will do whatever it takes to get ahead of the competition and if having a larger pool of talent does that then I'm sure that companies that want to will break down the barriers affecting women. I don't think that the opinions of government matters as they just do whatever the public want as that is how they remain in power in a democracy The point is that employing women over more talented and more suitable individuals is not good for a capitalist society. I thank you for your confidence in me for my HSC. I'm doing English. Maths ext.1, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Multimedia with hopes to do an art degree at Uni. Anyway as long as we agree that the current system is not ideal then why don't we see if we can come up with a better solution? Oh and we may have derailed the thread a bit as the question was whether we think that the in current western society there is sexism against males or is not. I believe that there is for the reasons I have mentioned here as well as most of the stuff that a Wikipedia search comes up for 'Masculism'. But I still think we should try to think of a better system, and to make it more interesting, one that doesn't make distinctions between sex.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Interesting that in an debate on discrimination that assumptions on race and gender would come into it I don't mind if scholarships are given to women or men as long as it is not limited to one sex.

Yeah. But I was right, wasn't I.

But would it also be safe to say that non-aboriginals that also live in rural areas or are of low socio-economic standing also regularly achieve lower test scores and receive a lower education? I would argue that if the reason is their socio-economic status stops them from attaining the same schooling as others then that should be addressed through financial assistance for schooling or something similar regardless of racial group or sex. Find the reason of the problem and solve that.

Except that many of these disadvantaged communities seem to be exclusively Aboriginal. Anyway, that was just a ridiculous over-simplification to prove my point that, just because one is not the direct cause of a social justice issue, it doesn't mean that they are exempt from the responsibility of fixing it. The problems plaguing Aboriginals are actually extremeley complex, and largely stem from a lack of cultural understanding. There are serious issues with violence and drug abuse throughout the entire aboriginal community. I'm not saying there aren't any poor white people out in the bush. I'm just saying that Aborigines are still severely under-represented in government and in universities, and it's clearly a much deeper issue than them being poor.

Hmm... That I can not solve but is I still don't believe that it is right to enact legislation that discriminates based on sex to solve sexism. Though I doubt that there would be a situation where both candidates are equal in qualifications, ability and work experience. It would be beneficial for the the board to select the better candidate so for that I hope capitalism will drive the other company away. Oh and try not to swear as there is no reason to in what I hope is a friendly discussion :/

This almost makes me wish I'd gone to those shitty Marxist conferences about how capitalism perpetuates sexism. I imagine they would have said that, yes, women are more likely to take time off to raise children, and companies know they have to pay for that. Then something about capatilist enterprises opposing equal wages because they want to get away with paying women less, and something about capitalist pigs, that capitalism is inherently evil and we all have to work together and love eachother and hold hands.

Also, I am being friendly. I'm being so fucking friendly that I am shitting out good will.

But would that instead effect how women are portrayed on boards? If other board members think that the newly hired women are there because they are required by law, wouldn't that be a negative portrayal over knowing that the women on boards must have worked hard and be very talented to achieve that position? Just some thoughts.

"She was hired because it's the law." "She was hired because she has tits." Call me cynical, but I don't really see the difference.

Capitalist enterprises will do whatever it takes to get ahead of the competition and if having a larger pool of talent does that then I'm sure that companies that want to will break down the barriers affecting women.

But they don't need to. Why waste money liberating women/ paying for scholarships/ discouraging traditional gender roles if you can arguably just get a man to do the job? If 40% of their board are women it's suddenly in their best interest to give a shit about whether gender equality is achieved.

I don't think that the opinions of government matters as they just do whatever the public want as that is how they remain in power in a democracy The point is that employing women over more talented and more suitable individuals is not good for a capitalist society.

You know what else isn't good for a capitalist society? Decent wages for the working class.

I'm hoping that dopey face is supposed to indicate that you are being facetious. Otherwise I will have to point you in the direction of America, where the banks accidentally the whole economy and the government had to bail them out.

I thank you for your confidence in me for my HSC. I'm doing English. Maths ext.1, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Multimedia with hopes to do an art degree at Uni.

I can't tell if you're reciprocating my sarcasm or if you actually think that I think that I have confidence in your abilities.

Anyway as long as we agree that the current system is not ideal then why don't we see if we can come up with a better solution?

Because I don't want to talk to you anymore. You win. I've found other things to be angry about and I was never really angry about this to begin with.

 

[Evidencebased]

snip

Alright, well, I snapped at you because the "trapping dudes with babies" thing is a huge damn pet peeve of mine. I'm not saying it never happens, but you realize that the reverse happens quite often too, right? It's a fairly common tactic for male abusers to refuse to use a condom (or prevent their girlfriend/wife from getting a birth control prescription) and get the woman pregnant as a tactic to control her. This includes actually forbidding the girlfriend/wife from leaving the house -- to stop her from getting help or getting an abortion -- or even moving out to a fairly secluded place where she can't go anywhere without a car. Not only does the pregnancy put a significant health strain on the woman, and make her more physically vulnerable to violence (murder being the number 1 killer of pregnant women in the USA) but once the child is born the abuser can threaten her and the baby to more thoroughly control her and prevent her from escaping.

Obviously this doesn't happen a huge number of times, but it's just as common (if not more) as women trying to "force" a man to impregnate her. I've heard this "forced fatherhood" thing waaay too many times (mostly from assholes, present company excepted) and especially what with the current defunding of Planned Parenthood I just have completely run out of patience with that argument for male "oppression." Yes, some rare unlucky guys get screwed over, but it's not the systemic oppression of having your reproductive choices slowly whittled away by a government full of religious fanatics (and having male abusers happily use this restrictive system against their female victims) that women face. We literally have people who think we should be forced to carry every pregnancy to term even if it kills us; sometimes it does. For me, that's way scarier than child support payments.

And no, when a woman has a baby, the father has to help pay to support that child that he helped make because if he doesn't then the state has to. She isn't "stealing" anything, and really the mother usually ends up spending much more time and money on the child than the father is ever expected to. Also, in cases where the father challenges for custody, he actually has a slightly better chance than the mother of getting custody; however, the majority of the time custody goes to the mother because many fathers don't make any attempt at gaining it. And if you have a problem with the woman being allowed to give birth in the first place, then you'll really just have to take that up with evolution because it gave all the women the uteri and we make the best of it we can -- short of holding women down and cutting fetuses out of them there is no way for men to have a perfectly "equal" say in whether the pregnancy is brought to term.

And I'm just plain exhausted hearing that women "don't seem to want equality" -- I do, I really really do, and I even do all that crap guys whine about like go dutch on dates, don't ever ask for money, don't lie or flirt to advantage myself, I open my own goddamn doors, I've never gotten a female-only scholarship, I've never been hired to fill a quota (in my field/level there is actually a slight hiring bias in favor of men, because there are fewer male applicants) and still I always have to repeat that no, I didn't write the damn WWI draft laws and yes I think men should get as much fucking paternity leave as they want. And then after I spend hours researching stuff like rape stats, and dwindling access to abortion, and reading a few of those man-murders-wife-and-kids-to-show-that-***** news stories, by the time some guy says "men bend over backwards for women" I'm just honestly completely sick of being polite.

So that's my incredibly straightforward answer to you. I'm explaining all this because feminism is incredibly important to me, but please realize that I've heard all of these arguments before (usually from men who literally believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote, I shit you not) and it's truly exhausting to come to this site full of young liberal smart people and hear some of the same crap. So. There you have it, for what that's worth.

Ok, thank you for that; it was clear, concise, well researched and argued. I shall now attempt to reply in kind

I think we come from vastly different backgrounds, this will unavoidably shape our views, opinions and even thought process/logic train. for starters Im not from the US. Im British, and the political/social/soco-political (and any other combnations I cant think of at the moment) systems will be vastly different. one huge point is that by and large abortion is not a huge political ball game here. most of the parties that even include it in their platforms could be charitably described as 'fringe'. as such I think it is probably much easier for a woman to recieve an abortion over here, with a much smaller (if at all evident) social stigma. this change in public opinion, combined with modern contraceptive tech. means that a woman does not have a baby unles she wants it (allegedly barring certain minority communities - another topic for another thread).

I cannot claim to understand what you have had to get through in a different society that seems alien to me, i aplogise without reservation if i have made you feel uncomfortable - that was not the intention of my post.

I am not a misogynist by any worthwhile definition of the term. i am honestly shocked to hear that you know people who do not believe that women should vote (do you by any chance live in that place the movie 'Deliverance' was filmed?). I believe that people should not be judged by the precise configuration of their genetalia. its just that whenever i read up about british feminism, or attempt to engage such a feminist in discussion i am forced to deal with a powerful underlying sense of misandry in their arguments, willful misinterpretation of history, and flawed logic train/thought processes.

there are other reasons for the apparent vehemance in the post you originaly quoted but i think they might bore you.

So, to sum up.
1: it would appear that the feminists ae correct in their claim that not all feminists are the same
2: we appear to have experienced very different wings of the feminist movement
3: this linked with cultural and political differences will lead like night into day to differing opinions on the movement as a whole.
4: if i have offended, upset, or made you at all uncomfortable then i am truly sorry, it was not my intention.

i think that this answers your points, if i have left any untouched then please point them out.

Thank you for your reasoned response. I'm sure you didn't mean to offend; I hardly think you (or most of the guys on here!) are a misogynist, and it's not like you're saying anything hateful... It's just that some of the things I read on here over and over are the same myths and arguments that genuine misogynists do use, and it gets irritating.

My patience is just kind of low with the idea that feminists hate men or are trying to oppress them, because real gender-based hatred looks like this: http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/mgtow-general-forum/3960-women-incapable-love-degree-men-love.html

Spoiler

Women are not incapable of love to the degree men love. Women are just incapable of love period. The thrill of being able to use her pussy to get free shit is what women mistake for "love".

Look at how callously women murder their children. They cannot conceive of a world outside of themselves. To every woman, it's her world and other people just live in it. They are cold, grasping, selfish, and heartless parasites. They have no souls. They are all vampires. Undead zombies lurching from meal to meal.

Look at a woman's sexuality: find me a woman who fucks because she really loves a man for who he is and wants to experience orgiastic union with him. I dare you! Women have the most disgusting reasons to have sex. Whores are the closest approximations to honest women.

Men make the mistake of loving women only to find out that they fell in love with an apparition, a role she was playing, an idea of who she was that was only a show she put on for them. They pretend to love men to extract resources from them. Make no mistake, women only seem to love themselves, if they love anything at all. Most often I find that women do not love themselves. They are just flitting from one impulse and distraction to the next, always feverishly denying and turning away from the dark, musty void in their cores where a conscience should be.

And yeah, that's a real site. Those guys are freaking batshit, but that's the kind of thing that has been said about women (in one form or another) for centuries. I've honestly never seen that kind of talk from a bunch of feminists, and if you have then please point me to it so I can smack them.

So that's the kind of thing that I, as a feminist, read online because I want to educate myself about misogyny and get a good (depressing) look at how some people still feel about women. And then I go read a news article about a teenage girl who was literally gang-raped on camera while passed out, for which her attackers got a "not guilty" (yes, true story from last year) and so by the time I am reading about child support I've (probably unfairly) run out of sympathy.

Honestly I really do think guys have it rough in unique and terrible ways, and I fully support changing things to help them out, but after reading the above crap I'm just to busy being like ARGLE BARGLE BARGLE why does this world suck?? to have a proper chat about it. ^^;

But as for me, any smart liberal guy who says "I believe that people should not be judged by the precise configuration of their genetalia." is basically a feminist in my book. I just want you smart liberal guys to realize that yeah, a lot of women still have it really shitty out there -- not even me, personally (I've been quite lucky), but a lot of women. And it's not a contest or anything, and it's certainly not your fault, but any time the shittiness women face gets dismissed it gets my back right up and then I start yelling at people on a gaming site.

 

[Evidencebased]

It's my full belief that society's out for the middle aged, middle class white man. If a poor black girl mugged the aforementioned cracker, and then beat herself up claiming that HE mugged HER, would would the police believe? Exactly, the girl.

snip

Lol, what? Does this happen often where you live? Why in the world would someone beat herself up after mugging a guy? Do you think black girls go around stealing from white men and then punching themselves in the face for shits and giggles, or something?

 

[targren]

This sentiment seems to be coming up a lot here so I have to ask why do you think that these doubled standards exist because of activist groups? There are plenty of feminist that are against sexism regardless of what gender it effects

And those are the ones I agree with. They're also not the loud ones.

(Post deleted since)
Yeah, why don't we just ask society nicely to give us equal rights and everything will be fine and dandy... Women don 't have equal rights and won't do for a while, especially since some people get so up in arms about the few double standards that exist in our favour. It's not an ideal situation but so far it's the best we have gotten.

This is bullshit, plain and simple. In any civilized country (the word "civilized" being used loosely enough to include us here in the U.S.) name ONE right that men have that women do not, as codified by law. Of course, no one can, because that's an idiotic claim. Here in the U.S. it's the other way around. Just try to be a guy in any dispute regarding family custody or planning. HAH! The decision is 100% unilateral on the female's part, and if you're the poor schmuck who donated the male gamete, your purpose in existence is nothing more than an ambulatory ATM.

Women want to study math or science? Go right ahead. Just knock off this bullshit about dumbing down the curriculum to "appeal" to female students. I've known female math geeks who blow my piddly C.S. mind away, and they didn't need hand-holding and easy-mode classes to do it. What they had to do was not give a piss about 'societal pressures' and do what they wanted to do. (And people wonder why I find she-geeks so damn sexy!)

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Guilty as Charged. I am so completely guilty of being sexist against men. Yes, I make tons of men jokes, let them know that they are obsolete as we now have jar openers and can create sperm using only female cells. I make tons of jokes about how we use both sides of our brains and being the superior gender. I have told them to go put on their loin cloth and bow down to their boob overlords like the rest of them. I completely admit to all of it. I actually put a sign on my door that told a boyfriend "Leave your pants at the door and to assume the position." Did I mean it? No I am just playing with them, well execpt the part about the loin cloths, and pants. It was in jest, kinda a "paybacks are hell" for talking to my damn boobs all the time instead of looking me in the eyes.