Top 5 reasons why I Hate women

[ballzac]

First of all, the videos that have been posted are very provocative. Christina Hoff Summers is hardly a respected feminist. Her book Who Stole Feminism had some interesting points, but was basically a polemic rhetoric trap. Valerie Sollers is feminism's fundamentalist poster girl - mostly liked by anti-feminists as an example case for why feminists are crazy bitches, or teenagers who think her approach was inspiring. She was certainly not representative of the state of feminism in the 60s 70s (civil rights and critique of political structures were), and is likewise an outlier today. Citing her an example is a bit of a cheap argument, like saying that terrorists are representative of Islam. People reading her work should also remember that she was sexually abused as a child and raped as an adult (by men).

 

Of course Christina Hoff Sommers is not a respected feminist, because she is interested in how males are affected by gender issues, including those caused by feminism. Calling her book "a polemic rhetoric trap" is just an attack with no particular substance. It may or may not be true, but if you disagree with something she says, you should provide an actual rebuttal rather than just a sweeping condemnation. I don't agree with all her political views, but it's the facts that I'm interested in, and if you disagree with any of the claims she makes, it should be pretty easy to provide evidence that those claims are false.

I somewhat agree with you on Solanas, which is one reason I didn't bring her up initially. But I also have a lot of respect for the view presented in girlwriteswhat's "NAFALT" video, and yes, I think this attitude would apply to Islam as well. That is, if 'regular', moderate Muslims don't publicly denounce the views held by extremists, then they are part of the problem. In fact, I think there's a strong parallel, because while so many Muslims in the west make the claim that Islam is a religion of peace, their peaceful brand of Islam is not the one that influences politics in Islamic countries. Those countries still, for the most part, enforce Sharia law, and these laws are decided by people who would be considered extremists in Western society. The feminist views that influence our society are not as extreme as Solanas', but they are still based on assumptions and ideology rather than facts, and this is what I have a problem with.

I agree that there are biological differences between the sexes, and can see how one of those (the ability to give birth) could affect women's choices in the workplace... I'm interested in what other types of choices women are making that perpetuate the glass ceiling. Institutionalised sexism is a fact, though, and its effects can't be ignored. For a subtle example, Wessler and Ryan (2012) have shown that in male dominated institutions women are limited in terms of opportunities for promotion and job satisfaction, and this is modulated by institutional rules that allow for greater or lesser opportunities for women in the workforce.

 

The traditional gender roles, which are still actively chosen by a large number of men and women, seem to be responsible for this. Men are considered the main breadwinners, and this means they are more likely to work longer hours than their female counterparts to bring in money to support their family. Women are more likely to make choices that enable them to be home with their children more, even when they are employed full time. There is definitely a gender pay gap when you look only at people holding two 'equivalent' positions, but when employers take into account the effort and focus that a staff member is willing to put into their job, this can account for a lot, if not all, of the difference. Warren Farrell has cited studies that show that when you only look at single, childless, individuals, where these gender role differences are not as relevant, the gender pay gap disappears. He has also noted that the gender pay gap still exists when looking at self-employed individuals, where it is hardly meaningful to talk about gender discrimination from employers. I don't know how trustworthy he is as a source, but the studies he cites are real, and that lends some serious credence to his position.

For sure there is a different treatment of the sexes in media-portrayed violence. All I have to say about that is that mass media wants to sell itself first, and do politics next. The politics found in most mass media outlets follow (and reify) the market for what people are interested in seeing. On thread comments that find rape of men funny, most of the posts I've seen of that persuasion are actually by men.

 

This is exactly the point I am making. Why is misandry so accepted in our society while misogyny is universally condemned? The fact that the media can "sell itself" by showing misandry in a positive light and misogyny in a negative light, proves my point. The point that I've been trying to make all along is that misogyny is seen everywhere, and misandry is seen nowhere, even where the latter is actually more prevalent. The gender of the people displaying this attitude is largely irrelevant, though I think it is very telling of our society that men aren't willing to stand up against misandry where it exists. You wouldn't see a thread about the rape of a woman where several women come on to say how funny it is or how lucky the woman was.

In a Western context the workplace death thing could be true - I have no idea - but I know that in countries like India (cf. Vandana Shiva) and China the numbers are nowhere NEAR the same as your percentage (where did you get that, by the way? official, accurate numbers are difficult to find). The ABS doesn't seem to support those statistics, either (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20Jun+2011). And there is another question of decision-making: men are known to display higher rates of risk-taking behaviour, which could lead to strife at work (rather than male-workplace death being something caused by women/feminism, which seems to be the implication here).

It would also be useful to look at who is perpetrating the violence in these cases. Hint: it is usually men. This report uses UN statistics and so on, to show a breakdown of violence against women.

 

I don't know which part of the abs page you're looking at, because the only thing I could find on the gender mortality gap is this: "Of the 111 people who died in workplace incidents in 2009-10, the vast majority (95%) were men. So the document you provided supports my figure.

I probably wasn't clear in explaining myself. I didn't mean to imply that feminism is responsible for workplace deaths. My point was that we focus on women's issues at the expense of men's issues, and this is driven by feminist inspired ideals. The gender mortality gap is arguably a more important issue than a gender pay gap. Why are we, as a society, fighting for equal pay for both genders, but ignoring important issues like workplace deaths? Workplace safety is addressed, but is never framed in the context of gender, and it would be seen as misogynistic if we had campaigns specifically aimed at preventing workplace deaths of males. Yet it is considered progressive and enlightened to be gender specific when addressing issues that affect women more negatively than men.

I agree that men are possibly more likely to "display higher rates of risk-taking behaviour", and this could account for differences in both workplace safety and the pay gap. I mean, if a man is more willing to do a job where his chances of dying are high, doesn't it make sense that his employer would pay him more for that? When a man is 19 times more likely to die at work than a woman, doesn't that make it seem fair that he's getting paid slightly more? I'm not saying that the issues for women don't exist, nor that we shouldn't do anything about it. What I'm saying is that we focus on the issues that affect women, which have been addressed considerably over the past 40 years or so, but continue to ignore the issues that affect men, and this is sexist.

Most domestic violence (think historically as well as contemporarily) has been perpetrated by men, law works by precedent, so it makes sense (within the legal framework) that domestic violence laws are designed to help female victims. If suicide is more common among men, that still doesn't say anything about the cause of suicide (I'm guessing it is not the fault of women oppressing men, that most men commit suicide). In fact, in my opinion, this is a likely outgrowth of patriarchal society. The culture of masculinity that patriarchy promotes is severe to most men, as well as women.

 

Is this actually true that most domestic violence historically has been perpetrated by men? This is a difficult issue to actual uncover the truth in. Traditionally, men have been held responsible for the actions of their wives, and this means that a man would have been held responsible for any violence he has suffered at the hands of his wife. This is still true in a more informal way today. This means that men are far less likely to report domestic violence. But when you look at recent studies, there are generally equal numbers of women abusing men and men abusing women. If we want a progressive, egalitarian society, then no, it makes no sense that domestic violence laws treat women as victims and men as perpetrators. Consider any other categorisation of people other than gender, and imagine how laws like this would look. Public campaigns to condemn theft by blacks, for instance.

Even if there is a good historical reason for laws that protect women at the expense of men, this doesn't make it right, and the public perception of domestic violence is based on a big lie, the lie that men are always perpetrators and women are always victims. This just isn't borne out by the evidence.

My comments about suicide, workplace deaths, and violence were not meant to imply that women are at fault, but to show that while there are issues that affect predominantly women, one can cite just as many issues that predominantly affect men, though the ones that affect men are almost always stated in a gender neutral way, and the ones that affect women (or both/all genders) are stated in a way that focusses only on the women. This, again, is misandry. People commit suicide. Women are victims of domestic violence. People die at work. Women get paid less. Soldiers die in wars. Girls are victims of genital mutilation. Violence and discrimination against men is ignored by erasing their gender from the public consciousness. I don't care if we focus on these problems in a gender neutral way, or if we focus on them as two distinct groups. What I have a problem with is the double-standard, where it's gender neutral when the problems mostly affect men, but gendered when the problems mostly affect women (even when the evidence says they don't).

Totally different forms of mutilation. Men lose some sensitivity in their glans. For women, depending on the "Type" of mutilation, the procedure is extremely painful (in most cases), leads to urinary and other infections (not only initially, but ongoing), can cause keloid scarring (so fucking uncomfortable, and you don't see it on foreskin removals), neo-natal death, reduced sensitivity/pain during sex etc etc. They are barely comparable in my book, FGM is way more dangerous, painful, and damaging.

Plus, this practice in Western culture stems from male-male circumcism (how often do you see a woman perform a brit?)

 

We're talking about cutting off a healthy part of a baby boy's body for non-medical reasons. The incidence of complications may be lower than for females, but it still happens. But I don't really think society at large does the maths before deciding that female circumcision is unacceptable and that male circumcision is acceptable. The major distinction is simply gender. It is another case of human rights issues being seen as important when they concern females but not when they concern males.

Why is it relevant who performs the circumcision? I'm not claiming that there are evil feminist mohels going around circumcising boys because they hate men. I'm pointing out the different ways that society as a whole sees these issues when they affect males rather than females. Not all female circumcision is more damaging than male circumcision, but if you think you will be able to perform one of the safer forms of female circumcision in Australia without it being labelled a human rights violation, then I think you are kidding yourself. It has very little to do with safety and consequences, and everything to do with protecting females and not males.

I would say that for sure protecting women and children is part and parcel of patriarchy, and a part that has been attacked by feminism. I often hear arguments about women wanting equal rights but not wanting to pay their half of the cost of a dinner, or movie. Just as often I hear women insulted because they refused someone who wanted to buy them a beer, or do something for them. But feminism has definitely attacked what is colloquially called "white knighting", and putting women and children first would be part of that.

 

This may be true, but this is essentially because it is seen as condescending. It has nothing to do with acknowledging the unfair expectations place on men. As I've already said, any improvement for men from feminism only comes about as an incidental by-product of improvements for women. Men are never the focus. And this should be of no surprise, considering it is called feminism.

phew. last point: probably many would be pissed about that kind of condescension, and many not. I fairly regularly hang out with feminists of various stripes, and have never been taken to task for holding a door, giving a compliment, etc. My personal opinion is that postfeminism and its often crazy claims about sex and gender have confused a lot of people and generally given what is a really noble struggle (to get the sexes on equal footing and foster mutual repsect) a really bad name. I mean, people now claim that they identify as another being (say, an elf), and that identification should be respected in the same sense that ethnic identification should be.

 

Most of the feminists I have talked to make the claim that it's about equality, but when you actually ask them specifically what they are fighting for, it is always about improving things for women, and most of them seem to flat out deny that there are significant problems for men, or they say that the system was set up by/for men so we don't have a right to complain about it unless we're complaining about it on behalf of women, or they say I can't possibly understand because as a male I'm "privileged". That is misandry.

For me, feminism is a set of movements that can, and often do, incorporate questions around men as well as women. But we live in a male dominated world, and patriarchy is bad for everyone. The fact that men have rights too should not be (and isn't) forgotten, but it should definitely not eclipse and work to destroy movements where people facing more oppression are trying to work for political and social recognition.

 

While I acknowledge that the term "patriarchy" is an apt description of the way society operated throughout much of our history, it has become a buzzword for feminists and is used to blame men for everything. When feminists respond, to complaints about men's rights being ignored, with the phrase "patriarchy hurts men too". What they are basically saying is that "if you support women's rights then some of the benefits will trickle down to men". It is also used to make it sound like every man is responsible for the gender stereotypes that cause problems for everyone. It is quite often that I hear comments from feminists like "How can men complain about sexism when it is the patriarchy they created that caused all these problems in the first place".

I think the fact that men have rights is forgotten, for the most part. What arithmetic does one use to work out what group is more oppressed than another? It's not an easy thing to do. I do not like the traditional system where men are providers and protectors, and women are treated like children, but there was fairness in the imbalance. Women may not have had the vote, but they also didn't have to die in wars and work in coal mines. Feminism, at least the forms that have the most influence on public thinking and policy, has spent decades addressing the issues that negatively affect women. I think it's great that things have been improved for women. But any improvement for men, as I said before, has been incidental. I understand that particular lobby groups fight for their own causes, this is understandable. What I think is terrible is that society takes the feminist "theory" that says women are oppressed and men are the oppressors as gospel, and it's really not that black and white.

[ballzac]

Women are categorically not as strong as men. This factor of visible strength has a lot of soft power in terms of intimidation and so on. A highly skilled and dedicated martial artist might win many fights against people twice his/her size, but the sad truth is that brutal neanderthal strength often trumps skill, and most women don't dedicate their lives to martial arts in case of being attacked by men (nor should they have to). I have indeed fought trained female kickboxers. shit was brutal and i lost several fights technically, but have no doubt that i would've easily won if it was an actual fight, and not training. In fact, I've never felt violently threatened by a woman, but have often been threatened by men when i'm having a quiet beer or whatever.

 

The domestic violence argument that men are stronger than women is nonsensical. We're not talking about a test of strength or endurance, we're talking about a test of brutality. My ex was extremely brutal and violent, and while I may have been able to beat her at an arm-wrestle, I don't see what this has to do with the abuse I suffered. She used to punch, bite, slap, and kick me all the time. What do you suggest I did with my slightly greater strength to avoid this abuse? Does my additional strength mean that I am inherently less susceptible to physical injury and psychological trauma? Or are you saying I should have been able to physically restrain her so that she couldn't hurt me? Do you think if she went to the police with bruises on her wrists, from being held down, my explanation of holding her down to protect myself would have been accepted? Saying men are stronger than women seems like an argument winner to so many people, but no one can ever give an explanation as to how this extra strength should be exploited by a man to prevent abuse by a woman. And when men do use their strength to overpower an abusive woman, they are told that they are in the wrong precisely because they are stronger. So really, I would like to know how exactly this extra strength should be employed by a man against his female attacker that a. will prevent him from being harmed, and b. will not result in him being labelled an abuser.

When my ex would threaten me with knives, how was my strength relevant? Does being stronger make me more resistant to knife attacks? Or should I have also picked up a knife to again level the playing field? Is a man with a knife more dangerous than a woman with a knife because he is slightly stronger? Again, I want you to state, in very specific terms, how being a man makes it harder to be a victim, and how being a woman makes it harder to be a perpetrator, and how strength has anything to do with this.

Feeling like you can't go out to certain places because of threat of violence is not a fun thing to live with, and females live with this all the time. IMO far more than males do.

 

This may be your perception, but it's simply not true. Men are far more likely to be victims of random attacks by strangers. It may be true that the perpetrators in this type of situation (though not in domestic violence cases) are more often male, but this is irrelevant. It is not the victim's fault that the perpetrator is male. A male victim cannot be held responsible for the gender of his attacker. So why do women so often expect to be treated as though they are more likely to experience this sort of violence? Women will often ask men to walk them somewhere, with no consideration for the fact that the man has to somehow make it back alone, and is far more likely to be attacked than the woman ever was.

[ballzac]

I think it's also worth considering female perpetrated violence by proxy. You may be less likely to be attacked directly by a woman than a man when out in public, but if a woman wants to cause you harm, it's not uncommon for her to get a man to actually commit the violence on her behalf. If you are attacked directly by a woman, there's not much you can do to protect yourself, because people who were standing around complacently while she was attacking you will jump to her defense the moment you try to protect yourself.

Edited October 15, 2012 by ballzac

[ballzac]

I hate them because of how much extra toilet paper they use

 

Thank you for demonstrating for us what true misogyny looks like. Standing up for men's rights, questioning the validity of the claim that the gender pay gap is due to discrimination, pointing out the parity in domestic violence statistics, and criticism of feminist ideologies, among other things, are regularly claimed to be examples of misogyny. It was very kind of you to demonstrate, so succinctly, what misogyny really looks like, so we can move forward and discuss the actual issues confronting both/all genders without any accusations of misogyny being leveled against those of us who speak out about the problems facing men in our society.

Edited October 15, 2012 by ballzac
typos

[incognito]

I love em'

[gtarman]

I love em'

 

+1

They're shagadellic.

[chnt]

ballzac you might be interested in this episode of the drum thurs 11th http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/1015164

towards the end there's an interview with some sydney anglican church dude and towards the end of the interview they were talking about the role of men and women.

[Seldom]

just to add some truth that no one's said

1) because some of them love it

yeheh they do. some. not all. have never been able to understand it. just had to say that.

[Mycot]

I've really enjoyed the posts by Balsac throughout this thread. Voices of reason in this area are particularly refreshing. And Girlwriteswhat who I only came across a few weeks ago instantly impressed.

Carrying on the theme of this thread I think this vid may be amusing and rellevent.

The chap has a great deal to say about what is wrong with modern western women although he doesn't completely let men off the hook which I think is good. Although appearing to be a christian he doesn't lay this on too thick, athiests finding little trouble relating to the material. Make of it what you will.

An amusing and yet serious book worth checking out is "If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make All The Rules", It's in pdf form.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz6HOIqeHW8&playnext=1&list=PLDRYEiSzltGTB3wT5WiIufXUq5GYhmQqR&feature=results_main

Edited October 16, 2012 by Mycot

[Foo]

I hate them because of how much extra toilet paper they use

 

YES OMG YES!!! A hint to anyone yet to experience this. It will NEVER be worth your while to raise this topic in any context. Just keep buying it ...

[whitewind]

There are a few fields of work where women make up the vast majority of the staff, and childcare is one. Men are definitely undervalued, unwanted, feared in this field. My partner used to work in childcare and she reckoned the centres she worked at needed men to help with the children (she says they are better at discipline) but men are actively dis-encouraged from being involved, largely because of the exaggerated fear of peodophiles. If feminists were fair and really wanted equality, they would push for the same methods that give women a leg up in other workplaces - by ensuring that there were quotas to be filled and that schools actively presented it as a career choice with decent pay and respect earned for the choice.

The more children are around men at this age, the better they will see decent behaviour and care from men, and learn to understand what normal behaviour from men is - which would allow them to discern better what unusual and perverted behaviour might be. ACtively dis-encouraging men from childcare makes the children more vulnerable, but unfortunately it puts men in a position of respect in a traditionally female dominated workplace, so that doesn't sit too well with the feminist agenda.

Talking of women dominating society, have you noticed how they dominate the social areas of life? Men may be more prevalent in the workplace, but outside of it women rule. Try going shopping during the day; I was surprised recently to discover this when I was out of work for a couple of months recently, going out during the day as a man quickly drew attention and it wasn't long before my entire neighbourhood, it seemed, realised I was out of work and my misses was filling the gap. It wasn't met with universal approval, and our social standing (such as it was, as we're a bit reclusive) dropped considerably and my misses lost a few "friends". I found it difficult taking my daughter to the local park where the women seemed so disapproving of my workless status.

Feminism has persuaded women to want the choice to do as they wish; but that fairness frequently isn't extended to men. When it comes to choice, if both parents decide they want to be the one who stays at home to look after their children, which one of them do you think really gets to make that decision?

[Halcyon Daze]

Hey if you don't want to get hen-pecked then stay out of the Hen House! Lol.

Seriously though, You're right about the double standards.

[chilli]

I use far more toilet paper than my lady.

[Seldom]

I'm a feminist! I'll make sexism my bitch. Sexism will be all like, "Oh Xavier! You're so strong! Kissy kissy! You can hit me. I like it.'

[bogfrog]

There are a few fields of work where women make up the vast majority of the staff, and childcare is one. Men are definitely undervalued, unwanted, feared in this field. My partner used to work in childcare and she reckoned the centres she worked at needed men to help with the children (she says they are better at discipline) but men are actively dis-encouraged from being involved, largely because of the exaggerated fear of peodophiles. If feminists were fair and really wanted equality, they would push for the same methods that give women a leg up in other workplaces - by ensuring that there were quotas to be filled and that schools actively presented it as a career choice with decent pay and respect earned for the choice.

The more children are around men at this age, the better they will see decent behaviour and care from men, and learn to understand what normal behaviour from men is - which would allow them to discern better what unusual and perverted behaviour might be. ACtively dis-encouraging men from childcare makes the children more vulnerable, but unfortunately it puts men in a position of respect in a traditionally female dominated workplace, so that doesn't sit too well with the feminist agenda.

 

I'm in a ECE teacher training program and there is not a single guy in my year, and theres 1 in 2nd and 3rd year.

Most males who begin training do not complete it because they feel incredibly uncomfortable, unwelcome and excluded every time they go on a placement at a centre, let alone the prejudice at college or in general society when people ask what they are studying.

My lecturer told me about a guy who had to spend the majority of two weeks sitting in the hall way while on placement because he was not allowed to be around the children without supervision. Parents would make complaints that they did not feel comfortable having a male stranger around their children, yet a female stranger is perfectly acceptable.

Everyone has to undergoe a police check before they are accepted for the training and then another before they become registered as a teacher, but as soon as a male wants to teach its guilty until proven innocent :-(

Its really concerning, and there seems to be no easy way to attract men to want to be teachers now that such a social stigma has formed around the idea.

[whitewind]

Hi Bogfrog,

This is appalling. How come we aren't tackling such awful prejudice? Last week I saw some dreadful sexism that I am going to complain about, and it reminded me of the last time I was treated so badly. We were going through Health & Safety Induction for one of the Health Services - apparently the new workplace cover laws are so stringent an entire raft of changes have to be made. The woman in charge of the induction was incredibly rude and abusive to several of the men - and was the same regarding some of the examples she used. For example, the suggestion that a man might be shooting blanks for years was made very derisevly and I am sure that if a woman was made infertile for years it would have been shock horror and certainly not a cause for amusement. The few women in the course were treated with utmost respect, and it was this that pissed me off most. If you are going to be rude and abusive, dish it out fairly.

When my girl was pregnant, we went together to most of the sessions and appointments - I was interested in the whole process and wanted to make sure everything was going well- which had the full support of my partner, in fact she insisted. But many of the midwives and doctors basically found my presence unwelcome, and most answered my few dared questions with very curt answers (if at all) and some with the remarks that it's not my bosy, so shut up. Even when asking if all was well with my partners health! I felt terribly uncomfortable, but I'm a bit stubborn so I made a point of asking as many questions as I could. Unfortunately I think this made many of the sessions to be cut short; men are not welcome in the pregnancy process (mind you, at the different hospital where we gave birth I was much more welcomed and encouraged, which was so important for my partner who really wanted me there).

As an aside, the new laws have this new acronym PCBU or "person conducting a business or undertaking". Person in this instance is not a person at all, but in fact the business entity - from sole trader through to corporation. People are actually called directors and workers, or some such. We are not people any more! How weird is that? When questioned (as I always manage to find something that bugs the shit out of me in these situations) she suggested I take it up with the lawyers (actually, she became less rude after I challenged her; I think she realised that there was at least one person in the room who was a bit cranky so she'd better pull her head in a bit. Too late - she's going to get a complaint from me. Not that, I expect, it will make a huge amount of difference).

They will have to make some changes in the dictionary before too long! Legal stuff gets weirder by the day.

[bogfrog]

Fucking crazy world we live in.

Inequality in every different dimension of human relationships.

I have been trying my hardest to combat my 'controlling bitch mode' which i all too regularly unleash on my partner.

Good to read stuff like this thread to gain some perspective.

My mum is a lesbian and her ex-partner was an incredibly manipulative, controlling beast, who would make many very scary males look like big softies in comparision.

As a child i've suffered at the hands of this extremely terrifying and abusive woman in many ways, so there is no doubt in my mind that women can be just as violent and molevolent as men can be.

Most peoples experiences of bullying at school reflects the same things, boys are up front, girls play twisted little mind games then claim ignorance.

What can we do?! So many people are just hardwired into being bozos who don't care about anything, how can you make people care and address issues like this?

[applesnail]

thought this belonged in this thread...

A study of rhesus macaque monkeys found that while male DNA was lost at first, the rate of reduction tailed off.

Researchers said they hoped their findings would put an end to theories that the Y chromosome was dying out after claims that its 1,400 genes had fallen in number to just 45 in the last three hundred million years.

The belief was named the "rotting Y theory" and was based on an assumption that the Y chromosome would carry on losing genes until it disappeared.

The study looked at the evolution of genes in the rhesus monkey and found it kept just three per cent of its ancestral "autosome" or non-sex chromosome.

Older regions, or strata, of the chromosome have not lost any genes in the past 25 million years, according to the findings published online in Nature.

Biologist Professor David Page, of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said: "For the past 10 years the one dominant storyline in public discourse about the Y is it is disappearing.

"Putting aside the question of whether this ever had a sound scientific basis the story went viral -fast – and has stayed viral.

"I can't give a talk without being asked about the disappearing Y. This idea has been so pervasive it has kept us from moving on to address the really important questions about the Y."

Professor Page added: "The Y was in free fall early on and genes were lost at an incredibly rapid rate. But then it levelled off – and it's been doing just fine since."

The researchers said the evolution of the Y chromosome was characterised by a period of swift decay followed by strict conservation.

Lab researcher Jennifer Hughes, whose earlier work revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years, said: "We've been carefully developing this clear-cut way of demystifying the evolution of the Y chromosome.

"Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y it's clear the Y isn't going anywhere."

Professor Page added: "This paper simply destroys the idea of the disappearing Y chromosome. I challenge anyone to argue when confronted with this data."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9099939/Male-chromosome-is-not-doomed-say-scientists.html

[paradox]

through my work i have a contract in a all girls high school. we've been there every week for 4 months now & still every staff member in the school will look at us with the most oppressive suspicion any time the are nearby. they really project the most disgusting energy towards us constantly.. it actually makes me feel a little sick..

it's sickening to be treated like a psychotic pedophile every day when you're just trying to do your job.. i understand that it's important to not let the girls be in a vulnerable position when they're at school but it's really hard not to feel hurt by the way we are treated.. at lunch time i've even seen teachers hiding behind trees spying on us, it's really creepy actually. other times they will be standing there pretending to be minding there own business & every minute or so they will quickly spin around & try to catch us looking at the kids..

half the guys that i work with have young daughters too & they get fed up with it even more than i do.

unfortunately i think this kind of paranoia is inevitable in a culture such as the one we live in. wheres the flush button?

[nothinghead]

Paradox: That's sad you're being treated that way, I'm often treated with suspicion in shops, airports, on public transport etc. However, that's not because people think I'm a pedophile, it's because they think I'll nick something (or maybe just because security is bored and wants to harass someone). Sad that we live in a society that treats women as commodities, where we have the same suspicious approach to theft of property and sexual predation. But the reality is that the vast majority of sex crimes are perpetrated by men.

Bogfrog: Interesting that the thread came around to the point where you had to ask what we can do (about sex inequality). I guess you didn't read the whole thread, but we've already had discussions about feminism, which has been the most effective political movement in bridging inequality between the sexes. It's a shame that men don't feel compelled to work in childcare positions where you live. Where I live I have several male friends working at pre-schools and primary schools. One of them, who has worked at many different schools around my area, has always had a number of male colleagues. He has faced some discrimination, though, always by his male (and not female) colleagues, and always over issues around masculinity. Luckily for that guy, he had ben involved in feminist groups and he used the methods he had learned being politically active to solve discrimination problems (against men) at his workplace.

On the other side of the coin, I've also got female friend who have worked at pre- and primary schools, who faced different types of discrimination, like being sexually harassed, verbally and physically. Some of them also had problems working with parents who didn't believe that a women should be allowed to work in public schools, or that they wouldn't be capable workers, even if it was appropriate for them to work there.

Whitewind: Sorry to hear about your experiences facing rude people. I too have been treated badly at doctors offices/hospitals. Made to wait unreasonable periods of time in pain, scolded by nurses for having the medical problem I came to seek help for, brushed off by doctors who didn't feel my questions were worth answering... Likewise I've been treated badly in the workplace. Had bosses lie, manipulate, make inappropriate comments, behave rudely, blame me for things that weren't my fault.The list goes on. However, what you've been saying doesn't really confirm anything about sexism, much less about feminism. Rather, you've attached a specific label to a generic experience - you were treated badly, women did it, feminism is to blame. You see how that correlation isn't actually causation? That mistake has been a problem throughout this thread. To give another example, in case that one was unclear, we've been talking about men in the workplace in this thread. Ballzac mentioned that the majority of workplace fatalities are males, something that was going on before feminism even existed so can hardly be blamed for. It's fine to want to be accepted as part of your partner's pregnancy, but it doesn't make sense to blame feminism or women in general for some nurses/doctors perceived hostile treatment of you. When a woman goes to see a gynaecologist, and he turns out to be male, she could very well be uncomfortable with the process; that doesn't mean the male doctor is a sexist or anti-feminist.

Ballzac: Let's be clear, I'm not calling you a misogynist, I just think you're misguided in your blaming feminism for problems that are inherent to a male-dominated, primarily male-developed society and culture. If a woman asks a man to go punch another man, that man who commits the act of violence still has a choice, and is still the agent in the act. But I've never met an active feminist who condones that sort of violence, anyway. All the feminists I know, and much of the feminist literature I've read, has been about reducing the sum of violence. Asking a man to do your dirty work isn't exactly in line with feminist praxis.

Your abusive relationship sounds really shitty, I'm sorry to hear about that. Domestic violence is a huge problem that feminists have tried to deal with for many decades in many different ways. Unfortunately there isn't an easy solution, and that kind of abuse happens all the time. I don't see, however, how a feminist who wants equal rights, could support that kind of thing. In fact, I would dispute anyone's claim to being a feminist if they perpetrated domestic violence. To me, it is too antithetical.

Good point about size not being a majoy factor in abusive relationships. You're right that it is more about wearing someone down, than having the brute strength to do something about it. And you're also right that going to the police could land the victim in trouble, rather than the perpetrator. It can also lead to violence after the complaint.

It is, however, completely relevant that the main perpetrators of personal violence in our society are males. If you don't feel safe walking a woman home because a man might attack you on the way back while you're alone, don't walk her home. But blaming women for men being attacked by men is just purely illogical. If I was walking somewhere to meet a woman (because she didn't want to meet at my home or whatever) and a man robbed me on the way, I would not blame the woman I was going to meet for the guy's actions, or my missing watch. Can you imagine doing that? Would you ask her for a replacement watch?

You're right that female circumcision is illegal and looked down on socially, in Australia. You'll also find that men are still "protecting" women by performing it there. The law against female circumcism exists because there was no significant (European) tradition of FGM. The law allowing male circumcism exists in Australia because there IS a significant history of it in Europe. That said, there are feminist groups that work against male circumcism, I heard some of them speak at a conference on the topic at Macquarie University. It's also a fact that voluntary surgery to make womens' genitals more appealing to male beauty standards is on the rise. Massively, in Australia. So the problem is more subtle and complex than just invasive, involuntary procedures, but actually extends into the realm of coercion. Feminists working against unrealistic ideals for appearance, sexuality, and so on are doing men a service as well as women.

[Foo]

But the reality is that the vast majority of sex crimes are perpetrated by men.

 

Reported sex crimes*

[Halcyon Daze]

We must defy the logic of our sex laws! Who's with me?

 

 

Edited October 21, 2012 by Halcyon Daze

[nothinghead]

Reported sex crimes*

 

Reported and most definitely unreported, in my experience.

[Halcyon Daze]

I can't believe I'm staying up to do an assignment for my girlfriend, or ex or whatever she is. I'm getting so ruled right now.

[BentoSpawn]

raketemensch he was blaming feminism as such... i guess this depends on what your definition of feminism is exactly.

He is stating that this behavior goes on very frequently with males and it goes underdiscussed while if the tables were turned around and it was happening to a women that it would be a big deal. In-fact the way i read it is that he mostly supports feminism but thinks that the rights of males should also be kept on-par and talked about along side female issues; something i also totally agree with.

I actually get this a lot when talking with people about this subject, when going to trying to make my point that men have some things pretty bad that need a hard looking at i am somehow seen as attacking female rights and feminism; its almost some sort of knee jerk reaction people seem to have without thinking about it.

I totally support a lot of what the feminism movement has to say but at the same time it cannot just pick the best things about being a male and pick up those while ignoring the negative sides to being a male. Really as a society we should be focusing less on feminism and more on the total equality of males and females. "Feminism" as a word for the movement makes it sound like women are the ones who are getting the short end of the stick on all fronts, when that is far from true - lets get this strait i am not saying the movement IS like this, but the name does imply it.

Personally i find this conversation very interesting as its something i quite often think about. My mother is has her moments where she can be sexist against men, it gets under my skin, which i think partially fuels my interest in this subject. I do find it an incredibly difficult to talk about this with people though, female or male. People always seem to take it as an attack on females, or that males should be able to suck it in and tough it out. While talking about female rights always seems well received by nearly anyone i talk to, talking about male rights is a very very touchy subject with people in my experience.

The fact is that males are put under an extreme amount of pressure to perform certain duties, like bread winning... or on the extreme end going to war. When for females these duties are often seen as being optional by society or something that they are not expected to ever have to even think about let alone be pressured into doing.

If there is to be true equality then i believe that women actually need to give up some of the privileges they have picked up along the way, or where applicable share these same privileges with their male counterparts. These can even be very small things like how men are expected to hold a door for a women, pay for an outing or pulling out their chair in a dinning setting - i do these things with my girlfriend because i think they are nice things to do for someone, but i find it retarded that its a males responsibility to do these things and that women are void of the responsibility of ever having to preform these actions. While these may seem like very issues hardly worth even discussing in the face of much bigger issues, i personally believe are actually small signs of a greater issues that we face that runs deep into our society - much of which has been discussed in this thread already and were talked about incredibly well by the chick in the videos in the start of this thread who totally "gets it" in my eyes and has a great way of putting it into easy to understand words.

I hope one day humans will see at least near complete equality free from sex, race, socio-economic and other barriers. I dont believe it will happen in my own lifetime, but that does not mean that we should not try to change things - we might even surprise ourselves

Edited October 21, 2012 by BentoSpawn