>Men have been getting the good end of sexual discrimination for centuries.
Not really. Men have had more freedom but less security. Just because you personally like your gender role (as it seems), that doesn't mean other men agree (or agreed in the past). Sure, men were allowed to be employees and women cared for the children at home (though reality was actually a lot more complex than that, but we can accept this caricature for now), but men had to work or they wouldn't find a women to marry. Women didn't have to work, as they could be supported by their husband. Work was pretty gruesome in the past, even if homework was also harder in the past.
Of course, there's little proper scientific research on this subject, as "women's studies" start from their assumption that women had and have everything worse without really proving it.
The problem with saying that the men's gender role of more freedom but more responsibility doesn't take into consideration that some people prefer to have less freedom and less responsibility, while some women prefer to have more freedom and more responsibility and some less freedom and less responsibility (or at least prefered in the past).
>Having received a substantial boost just for being born with a dick, I'm ok with manning up.
Even if we assume that men had better starting position in the past, that doesn't apply anymore. Young women are outearning and have more success in education.
True equality can only be reached through the abolition of gender roles for both men and women, not assuming that men need to "man up" and therefore saying that gender inequality is somehow positive and should exist.
You also made the claim about "imbalance". There's no imbalance in favor of women in Western countries. Men have just as much gender equality problems as women, but even speculating this is politically incorrect. Here's a study o the subject: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450
You've made a lot of soup out of a small amount of meat. Some quick replies to clear up misunderstandings:
I agree that patriarchy is bad for men too. I disagree that it was equally bad for both genders. I disagree that we have reached balance. By "manning up", I don't mean reinforcing gender roles or maintaining gender inequality. I mean that men should, as the relatively privileged parties, not be whiny at either the shift toward balance or the small anti-male inequities that crop up temporarily along the road to equity.
>...men should, as the relatively privileged parties, not be whiny at either the shift toward balance or the small anti-male inequities that crop up temporarily along the road to equity.
Translated from feminist rhetoric: Men have no right to complain about discrimination against them.
shanelja and nawitus, I think abundance of people with similar views to wpietri highlights how real your points actually are.
I think everybody has a right to complain. E.g., the recent rich people complaining that their tax rates might become almost as high as their secretaries? They're totally within their legal right to complain.
But I have the legal right to say that they're whiny idiots when they appear unable to notice or acknowledge the context of their complaint. If you're going to cry, "have sympathy for meeeeeee", you really should make sure you've demonstrated some sympathy for others.
I don't see why past & present inequality justify anything and everything that is bad for men/whites/whatever. Don't you see a difference between e.g. hiring policies that specifically advantage women and objecting to services that are potentially vicious and hurtful specifically to men? (I'm not convinced lulu is the latter, but assume for the moment it is).
I do think that to a privileged person, any move toward equality feels like inequality, because what they notice is things getting worse for them.
I also think that people emerging from oppression are liable to cross the line of exact equity from time to time. An as long as the swings are small, I'm ok with that. Specifically, as a guy, I'm saying I don't mind brushing off something that might be a bit of anti-guy sexism. Because that one small nettle-sting is nothing in proportion to the benefits I've received, or to the scope of the historical wrong that we are righting.
I don't know enough about Lulu to have an opinion on it. And for the record, I'm opposed to hiring practices that advantage women. I am strongly for, though, active practices to eliminate the disadvantage that women face.
You're enforcing the stereotypical gender role of men: "Don't whine, that's unmanly, don't complain, deal with your own problems". That's pretty offending to me.
I want people to treat other people as individuals, not representative of their gender. I don't care about my own gender role. I don't want people to say "man up" to men if I face some injustice. And I don't want (the reverse I guess) it happen to women either.
Your path doesn't lead to equality, it just slows down progress.
I was echoing the words of the comment I was responding to. As I already explained to you, I am in favor of gender equality. Your high drama here comes across to me as concern trolling, especially given the other things you have posted.
Not at all. I forgive people their errors all the time without accepting them as good or normal.
For example, if somebody is tired and cranky and says something mean, I don't have to get upset at it. I can let it go, and treat them compassionately. I think that is precisely the road to getting rid of meanness.
This isn't true no matter how you slice it. Men had more economic security because they could work, whereas most women could not. Men have bodily security in ways women do not, esp. in regards to sexual assault and domestic violence.
> men had to work or they wouldn't find a women to marry
I think you have this backwards. Men didn't have to marry. However, since women at large could not work and support themselves, many had no choice but to be attached to someone who could work. Due to past stigmas about women were not married, this put women in a position where getting married was a near necessity.
> Women didn't have to work, as they could be supported by their husband.
Not only would women have little recourse but to marry someone, but women by far were expected to should domestic duties. That is a lot of work and is a full time job in and of itself.
> Of course, there's little proper scientific research on this subject, as "women's studies" start from their assumption that women had and have everything worse without really proving it.
This is blatantly not true. There is a ton of written and academic research work on gender, sexism, etc. and women's studies is a real academic discipline.
> The problem with saying that the men's gender role of more freedom but more responsibility doesn't take into consideration that some people prefer to have less freedom and less responsibility, while some women prefer to have more freedom and more responsibility and some less freedom and less responsibility (or at least prefered in the past).
Men are much more able to pursue the less freedom and less responsibility life, as you put it, compared to women because of how they are treated in society at large. Historically most women did not have the option for the less freedom and less responsible life since they would either be pigeonholed into domestic care or they would have been working poor.
> Even if we assume that men had better starting position in the past, that doesn't apply anymore. Young women are outearning and have more success in education.
This is plainly not true. Most women still earn less than their male counterparts. Further, women still suffer far more from domestic and sexual violence and have their bodies policed much more than men.
> True equality can only be reached through the abolition of gender roles for both men and women, not assuming that men need to "man up" and therefore saying that gender inequality is somehow positive and should exist.
Gender inequality exists right now, even without something like Lulu, and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Having an app that deals with one aspect of that reality is totally legit.
> You also made the claim about "imbalance". There's no imbalance in favor of women in Western countries.
Amazingly you say that there is no real research on women's studies, but then go on to conclude there is not problem at all.
> Men have just as much gender equality problems as women, but even speculating this is politically incorrect.
Ah yes, saying men have it as hard as women, which is demonstrably not true at a societal level, will summon the PC police.
The summary of that study tries to use misandry and matriarchy seriously to describe the social and political condition of a western country. This is laughable on its face.
>This isn't true no matter how you slice it. Men had more economic security because they could work, whereas most women could not. Men have bodily security in ways women do not, esp. in regards to sexual assault and domestic violence.
In a marriage the women of course benefits from the man's income to provide economic security. They've also had the security of not dying in senseless wars, and the security of men defending women from danger as is the gender norm even today.
>I think you have this backwards. Men didn't have to marry. However, since women at large could not work and support themselves, many had no choice but to be attached to someone who could work. Due to past stigmas about women were not married, this put women in a position where getting married was a near necessity.
I never claimed that men had to marry, though most of them wanted to (to gain access to sex if nothing else). Men didn't have the option to not work and marry, while had to work to marry, and women didn't have the option to work and not marry.
>Not only would women have little recourse but to marry someone, but women by far were expected to should domestic duties. That is a lot of work and is a full time job in and of itself.
I'd say domestic duties were significantly easier than the typical hard work in the past. Workplace safety was non-existent, for starters. That's of course in addition to military duty and dying in wars.
>This is blatantly not true. There is a ton of written and academic research work on gender, sexism, etc. and women's studies is a real academic discipline.
Women's studies is not an empirical science, if they start from an axiom which doesn't require evidence.
>Men are much more able to pursue the less freedom and less responsibility life, as you put it, compared to women because of how they are treated in society at large. Historically most women did not have the option for the less freedom and less responsible life since they would either be pigeonholed into domestic care or they would have been working poor.
That's of course blatantly not true. Men who didn't work were deemed pretty worthless, and no women would marry them. Besides, they would starve on streets or something, while a women could marry someone and not need to work.
>This is plainly not true. Most women still earn less than their male counterparts.
I said young women. Please try reading what I'm actually saying :). As for the whole pay gap, it's explained through men working 20% more hours per year and making career choices that focus on income.
>Further, women still suffer far more from domestic and sexual violence and have their bodies policed much more than men.
>Gender inequality exists right now, even without something like Lulu, and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Having an app that deals with one aspect of that reality is totally legit.
What? This app doesn't prevent gender equality, it enforces it, along with stereotypical gender roles that discriminate both men and women equally. Only a misandrist can support this kind of app.
>Amazingly you say that there is no real research on women's studies, but then go on to conclude there is not problem at all.
>Ah yes, saying men have it as hard as women, which is demonstrably not true at a societal level, will summon the PC police.
Good that you agree with me!
>The summary of that study tries to use misandry and matriarchy seriously to describe the social and political condition of a western country. This is laughable on its face.
> In a marriage the women of course benefits from the man's income to provide economic security. They've also had the security of not dying in senseless wars, and the security of men defending women from danger as is the gender norm even today.
Certainly there is a benefit to having some income through a marriage than none at all, but it is a problem if marriage or association with men is the only option available to have any economic safety at all. Women do not fare well in war because women are very often the target of violence from armies and military conflict even if women do not serve in those conflicts. Men defending women from danger isn't a real phenomenon, as violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Common stories about women and lifeboats, for example, may not reflect reality: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/13/chivalry-at-sea-a-myth...
> Men didn't have the option to not work and marry, while had to work to marry, and women didn't have the option to work and not marry.
My main point about this is that there it was much more likely for women to have no economic security without marriage, whereas men could achieve some economic security without a marriage. Obviously there is a big class element to this w.r.t work access and pay and that women of color have always been working in large numbers outside of personal domestic work.
> I'd say domestic duties were significantly easier than the typical hard work in the past.
It isn't about quantifying the difficulty of some kind of work, but that women still were very like to perform labor in home even if they worked outside of the home in some capacity. Either way, the notion that women didn't do work in a marriage while their husband did contributes to the perspective that domestic work isn't real work and that domestic work performed by husbands/wives at home doesn't have the same value as paid labor.
> Women's studies is not an empirical science, if they start from an axiom which doesn't require evidence.
Women's studies doesn't start from an axiom of "that women had and have everything worse". Women's studies generally explores the condition of genders and provides research, including statistical and empirical research, about the lived conditions and experiences of people.
> Men who didn't work were deemed pretty worthless, and no women would marry them. Besides, they would starve on streets or something, while a women could marry someone and not need to work.
First, work isn't something that most people have for their lifetime in perpetuity. Many folks go through periods of having work and not having work and social factors may exacerbate the availability of paid work. The era leading up to prohibition in the US, for example, made the working situation for the poor worse and damaged existing marriages and families, so to say that there is some kind of binary decision making process in who gets married to whom is silly. Also, the notion that women could marry and not work isn't a common reality for most marriages, in the past and now.
> I said young women. Please try reading what I'm actually saying :). As for the whole pay gap, it's explained through men working 20% more hours per year and making career choices that focus on income.
The pay gap is a complicated thing, and while incomes have improved for younger working women, executive level pay and representation is still belong men in similar positions and companies. Working patterns like the one you mention don't fully account for wage and position gaps for women.
Firstly, male circumcision isn't a form of domestic or sexual violence, so while it is an important thing it is not really what I was getting at. Second, yes most rape victims in the US are male due to how many men, mostly of color, are imprisoned and how prevalent sexual assault in the prison system is. That reality and sexual assault for women go hand-in-hand reflect a real reality of male violence made manifest through social institutions and beliefs. Women in prison also suffer from high rates of sexual assault and coercion. The number of men in prison is much, much higher than the number of women in prison, so we would expect that by raw number men are victims of sexual assault more than women in prison. That said, none of these things negate the nature of sexual violence towards women.
> What? This app doesn't prevent gender equality, it enforces it, along with stereotypical gender roles that discriminate both men and women equally. Only a misandrist can support this kind of app.
I might not have been clear, but I meant to say an app that can help women label men as violent or misogynistic is legit even if that kind of app amounts to collecting rumors, because women are much more likely to face domestic or sexual violence from an intimate partner and people have a right to know about someone before they expose themselves to that kind of violence. I don't particularly care for lulu, but rumors are a legitimate defense when social systems do not protect you from violence.
> Good that you agree with me!
I was being sarcastic. Calling something or someone PC is a derailment to avoid thinking critically about what you said and why it might be a shitty thing to say.
That said, a single study that attempts to take issues of patriarchy and misogyny and turn them on their head to make them about misandry, a thing that doesn't exist as a social institution in the western world, should be treated with a high amount of skepticism.
Yes, it is. Your views on historic gender roles do not reflect reality. Men were restricted by gender roles too, and their role was largely "go risk death to get a chance to provide for a woman and children".
Not really. Men have had more freedom but less security. Just because you personally like your gender role (as it seems), that doesn't mean other men agree (or agreed in the past). Sure, men were allowed to be employees and women cared for the children at home (though reality was actually a lot more complex than that, but we can accept this caricature for now), but men had to work or they wouldn't find a women to marry. Women didn't have to work, as they could be supported by their husband. Work was pretty gruesome in the past, even if homework was also harder in the past.
Of course, there's little proper scientific research on this subject, as "women's studies" start from their assumption that women had and have everything worse without really proving it.
The problem with saying that the men's gender role of more freedom but more responsibility doesn't take into consideration that some people prefer to have less freedom and less responsibility, while some women prefer to have more freedom and more responsibility and some less freedom and less responsibility (or at least prefered in the past).
>Having received a substantial boost just for being born with a dick, I'm ok with manning up.
Even if we assume that men had better starting position in the past, that doesn't apply anymore. Young women are outearning and have more success in education.
True equality can only be reached through the abolition of gender roles for both men and women, not assuming that men need to "man up" and therefore saying that gender inequality is somehow positive and should exist.
You also made the claim about "imbalance". There's no imbalance in favor of women in Western countries. Men have just as much gender equality problems as women, but even speculating this is politically incorrect. Here's a study o the subject: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450