Jump to content
The Corroboree
Halcyon Daze

Top 5 reasons why I Hate women

Recommended Posts

That poor guy, can you imagine the outrage if a woman had been attacked by a huge gang of angry men? The internet would break down because of the outrage! How come we men are so weak that we won't stand up for a fellow man? Are we afraid of what the world will think of us if we stand up for our rights to be treated as human beings, people?

Why are we prepared to let them take our children away, just because they think we are uncaring and useless at looking after them? Are we so apathetic we will take the verbal abuse, the prejudice and the belief that we are not much better than animals and prone to random violence?

I think we need to "man-up" a bit and start sticking up for ourselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do have a lot of funding going into men's health right now, in particular mental health and bringing about equality within the legal system.

 

I'd geniunely be interest in the figures on this if you have them. I have noticed that mental health is one thing where men are specifically mentioned sometimes in the media, and I think that's great, but I also like hard data, so if you do have any figures on how much funding goes to men's mental health as opposed to women's mental health, and to what extent these are even segregated like this, I'd honestly love to see it.

The only data I can find on health funding as it related to gender are things like this: http://mhaweb.squarespace.com/storage/files/NHMRC_Funding.pdf

The above shows (there are plenty of other more thorough analyses that show the same thing) that, in general, women's health issues attract an extraordinary amount of funding compared to men's health issues.

I don't think further segregation of the sexes is a move forward, which from what I can see this thread is all about.

 

It's not about segregation, it's about basing opinions and policies relating to gender on evidence rather than opinion, dogma, and indoctrination. And you need to be aware that there is a big difference between segregation, which is forced separation of different groups of people, and the free choice of individuals to do things that end up having different demographics in different positions; very different things.

If I can make an analogy to the idea of forced gender quotas... Imagine a musician who is very popular among white people. Lets say for the sake of argument that more white people than black people like Britney Spears. Civil rights groups start noticing that 95% of the audience at a Britney Spears concert are white and label this as racism. The stadium seats 100 000 people, and there are at least that many black fans of Britney Spears, so the fact that there are only 5000 black people there must be because of racism on the part of the concert organisers. A law is passed that forces concert organisers to have equal numbers of black and white people in their audience, so they abandon their first in first served policy, and begin turning away white people once they have sold 50 000 tickets to white people. There are plenty of black fans still in line, so the final 50 000 tickets are quickly sold. The audience is now 50/50 black fans and white fans. This seems really fair, but in reality it is actually creating discrimination rather than avoiding it. Now if you are black, you have a really high chance of getting a ticket because there are not many black fans, but if you are white, you have to wait in line overnight and compete will the hundreds of thousands of other white fans who also want a ticket for that reduced number of spots.

This is what is happening in businesses, where 10 jobs will be advertised for a computer science job, and 5 women and 100 men apply. In some places gender quotas are forced, but even where they aren't, the employer may be afraid that hiring mostly or all males will make them look sexist, so all five women are hired, and 5 out of the 100 men are hired. This lowers the bar for women, it's condescending because women are as capable as men and, with the exception of some of the most physically demanding jobs, they can actually work hard enough in their lives to do what they choose to do based on their own merits and not get by based on people feeling sorry for them because of their gender, or being afraid of being labelled sexists. It is also unfair to the men, because it gives the men a 5% chance of getting a job and gives the women a 100% chance of getting the job. It's bad for the comapny, because it's likely that only 20% of all applicants were highly suited to the job, which means 1 of the women, and 20 of the men. So, while they had to narrow down the 20 highly suited men to 5, and end up with 5 very good male employees, they also hired the 1 woman who was a suitable applicant, but felt forced to employ 4 women who were not great for the job. The productivity is reduced because 4 out of the 10 people they hired can't do the job properly.

It's an ugly thread title

 

I've already noted that the thread title is ugly. The title was not mine and was pretty clearly a joke.

And it's getting like a long whine.

 

Some people are clearly interested in some of the links I am posting and my perspective on these, and I think there have been some bouts of good discussion happening from time to time. You've made some good contributions to the discussion, but if you're no longer happy with what's being discussed here, you are free to not participate.

I mean women supporting women's rights is fine yeah? I mean we all should be supporting woman's rights, as much as we all should support men's rights.

 

Absolutely!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has to look at the overhaul on the family law system. Men are certainly even players in this regard, when I get my home connection I'd be happily to throw some "hard data" your way.

Mental health has certainly received a boost of funding for men. Men's sheds, dids and family support networks such as interrelate have been allocated sizeable funds to address men's issues.

I believe men's health is being adequately addressed NOW, by gov, media and local level. Stigmas are being lifted and it's fuken great :)/>/>

A lot of this stigma has been self imposed by men ourselves and our forefathers, boys don't cry, men do t talk about their problems etc but this veil has been/ is lifting. A lot of men's issues have been imposed culturally. As where woman, who fought to have them lifted, as men have done the same.

It's a case of u say tomata I say tomatoe.

As for hard data man I've seen little in your arguments yourself.

Edited by incognito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like to ask ballzac what inequalitys do men face in Australian society?

Overcoming stigmas of mental health, addressing men's health both mental and physical through local community as well as govt programs, adressing inequality in family law system i really can't think of any other areas? And I feel in the last 10 yrs australia (well nsw anyway) the population, activists (not so muh crazy extremists who hurt their cause) have done a GREAT job addressing them.

U may argue employment however I've been employed in the past because  

I was male so it's not much of an augment to me and I feel that the biggest bum jobs in the country are dominated by males. The boys clubs exist in workplace I know I'm probably (more than likely) a member of one. ( I think I'm turning feminist I will be an operative I'm on the inside )

One area I feel that needs more attention given to equality issues pertaining to gay, lesbian and transgender people. Especially out west Here in The country.

These valuable people face isolation, ridicule and discrimination much more than the rest of the population. Suicide rates are quite high. An activist would have to have some metel.

I wanna see the attention given to plights of many gay and lesbian2 transgender people and the prejudice they face on a daily.

I would place bob brown and Ian Roberts as two vEry inspirational people that have emerged in our society in a hetero dominated arena.

Edited by incognito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuk none of that made sense blame some really cool prescribed painkillers and a longneck of coopers sparkling ale sitting in my beanbag with a busted paw all home alone on a Saturday night :( fuk my life bwaaaaaaaaaah

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say is right, Incognito, but I can't help feeling you aren't actually responding to the points ballzac has so carefully made. Just sayin'..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm a lot dumber than zac :(/>/>/>/>/>/>

Edited by incognito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanna see the attention given to plights of many gay and lesbian2 transgender people and the prejudice they face on a daily.

 

This is very true. The main point I am trying to make is that people with a social conscience are already aware of these areas and we are moving forwards, but when it comes to gender (more specifically the issues faced by 'cisgendered' persons), the socially progressive, socially aware, decent people have it backwards, and a lot of this has come from people who do not have so great intentions, and is easily propagated through our consciousness by our evolved instincts to protect women at the expense of men, so this is something that I think needs to have attention seriously drawn to it so we can also move forward in gender equality and rights for both men and women.

As for where I think there is inequality, I've covered this in several pages of my comments, many of which involve data from federal governments of western countries, that support my position, as well as peer-reviewed research. If you haven't read the whole thread, go back and read it before asking me to reiterate my contentions. I will continue to post research and other links that I feel are relevant, but I am not going to go over the many points I have already made which you call a "long whine".

I dunno I'm playing endone cooper shrink here and stating you have a probl with chicks after being beat down by one. Sorry to hear it big guy but you really need to move on maybee take some karate lessons or something carry one of those panic alarms or get sime counselling/ join a group or something but I'm calling bullshit if u think that women have

More rights with you more something to do down in your sticky lil psyche.

 

I see a lot of ad homs in there, but still no rebuttal to a single one of the many points I have made. I love it how I manage to provide plenty of solid data to support very clear points that I am making, but no-one who disagrees has been able to provide a single piece of evidence to prove me wrong. Some of the things I have said I am inclined to believe but do not have solid evidence, and have been very clear on that fact when that has been the case. When it comes to things like the gender wage gap, funding for gender specific illnesses, affirmative action, etc. I have been able to support my claims with very clear data. You have made certain claims about mental health etc. which I specifically asked you if you could present the evidence for this (though I do not claim to know otherwise, I remain a skeptic until shown evidence), but you have then restated this as part of your 'argument' without ever following through with the data. In my post, I provided very clear evidence that female health-care receives plenty more funding that male health care, yet you failed to address this and still ask me where I think there is inequality. This is just one of the many inequalities I have noted and provided evidence for, but if you can't be bothered to click the link, cancers that affect men predominantly receive about 1/3 of the amount of funding from the government as those that affect predominantly women. If you choose to look at the link, you will see a graph that shows that this gap is widening rather than closing. There are many complexities, but regardless of whether you look at overall, per-capita, per diagnosis, or per death, women's health receives more funding.

You also exactly prove my point that questioning feminism and the influence it has on our society gets a person labelled a misogynist. Not once have I said I have a problem with women. I have stated over and over again that I have a problem with the mainstream, as well as the radical, forms of feminism, and the influence that they have had on our society. Many people who describe themselves as feminists are men, and I have a problem with them as much as the those who are women. Many women also have a problem with feminism, and I certainly don't have a problem with them. If you do not aware that there are women who are opposed to feminism, then perhaps look at the youtube videos I posted on the first page of this thread. Some people who identify as feminists I do not have a problem with apart from the fact that I think it's counterproductive to align yourself with a philosophy that is dogmatic and destructive when you are for equality and reason. Most of these people end up deciding not to label themselves as feminists after a while anyway.

Edited by ballzac
had male and female confused, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise I deleted the post I apologise I should always have left it at your smarter than me I do apologise.

Your not a misogynist your a masculinist ;)

I do however think you tar feminists with the one brush. You have to give me that one.

And I guess it's really what your idea of feminism is.

Edited by incognito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm a lot dumber than zac :(/>/>/>/>/>/>

 

There are three ways to interpret this. When psylo said something similar to me in another thread recently, he was being sarcastic and I interpreted it as "you're being a snob and using big words does not make your argument any stronger". That's a cop out, but I don't think this is how you are meaning it at all (the difference between the eye-rolling and sad-face emoticons is the big clue :) ) so I won't address it from this angle.. The second option is that you don't want this to escalate into an argument, so you try to say something that you think will make me feel like I've 'won' the discussion without actually having to concede anything. The third option is that it's an easy way out. You can blame your lack of ability to come up with decent evidence and address my points on a lack of intellect rather than a lack of validity to the claims.

I think in this case it is a combination of the latter two options, so I'll address those:

Don't worry about it escalating into an argument. I may be passionate about my opinions and about requiring hard evidence in discussions, but I love these sort of discussions, and while there's a bit of frustration sometimes when opinions differ, there's no ill will from me towards anyone who's posted here. This thead is six pages long. I think I've posted several times on each page, I've debated several different members over the course of the thread, and the subject matter is quite controversial/touchy, yet the thread has managed not to degenerate and end up in bitches and gripes. I think everyone who has posted in this thread cares about equality and social justice, so really we are all on the same side. What is under discussion is how exactly to go about achieving that end, and that is where opinions differ. I think everyone is aware of this, and that is why the thread has managed to remain quite civil.

And for the last aspect. Huge cop-out, and dishonest way of dealing with it. A more honest approach would be to say something like: "I had a look around to see if I could find some evidence to counter your claims, but was unable to. I'm not convinced that it's because such evidence does not exist, because I'm not very good at searching for this sort of stuff," or something like that. Of course most of us just don't say anything and pretend it will go away when we can't find evidence to refute an opposing opinion :lol:

If you really want to be as smart as me, you need to work hard at it. Your next assignment is to deconstruct a seven word sentence and analyse it using about 500 words :P

I apologise I deleted the post I apologise I should always have left it at your smarter than me I do apologise.

 

As above.

Your not a misogynist your a masculinist ;)

 

I'm not a big fan of most labels like this. As soon as you identify with a movement, you carry a lot of the baggage, just like if you call yourself a feminist, you need to take some responsibility for what the movement we call feminism actually does, and that includes the bad things. One of the problems is that if movements don't exist in a coordinated way, not much gets done because separate people with differing, but overlapping, opinions do not have political clout. I think this is the reason that the atheist and rationalist movements have taken so long to get off the ground, because there isn't a leader and a group of people who just blindly agree.

I have a lot of respect for some MRAs (I do not know anyone who self-identifies as a masculinist, but I'll assume for the sake of this discussion that they're pretty much the same thing). Girlwriteswhat would be one example, and I would again direct you to some of her videos on page 1 if you haven't already looked at them. She is pretty extreme, but her videos are very factual, and there are some people who are less anti-feminist who I prefer to listen to because I know they will have a more balanced opinion. Many of these people, while they identify as MRAs, are actually in strong agreement on many points with a lot of sex-positive feminists and actually work together with them, at least in theory and in attacking extremists. One example is a guy on youtube known as YesIamJames. He identifies as an MRA, but unlike many MRAs, he is willing to attack other MRAs when they use bad arguments or are basing their arguments on bigotry. He also is quite happy to note when a feminist makes a good, and reasonable point.

 

There are others who have a lot of factual information, but also some suspect stuff. Manwomanmyth is a youtuber who is along these lines. His videos are good to watch, but there is some stuff he has claimed that sounds like it possibly belongs in the same basket as the moon-landing, jfk, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Most notably, he claims that feminism is conspiracy by government to get women into the workforce to increase productivity and taxes paid (or something along those lines) and I have been unable to find any evidence that these aspects are true. But, he has very comprehensive videos where he interviews many relevant people and also shows clips from the media and offers some insights into them, and I find these informative. Other people associated with the movement are simply libertarians, and they want to see things like affirmative action abolished for libertarian reasons. I respect the libertarian position immensely, and I think most libertarians have their hearts in the right place, even though I disagree strongly with them when it comes to things like health-care, but that's a whole other conversation. Then there are your MRAs who are conservatives. They oppose feminism not because they want equal opportunity, but because they want to return to 'traditional' gender roles. This is the aspect of the men's rights movement that turn me off the most.

There is plenty of misogyny within the men's rights movement (though not nearly as much as what most feminists would have you believe), along with the rational stuff like what I have been promoting in this thread, and I am not willing to identify as an MRA, though I care about men's rights. I would be more inclined to describe myself as an egalitarian in this context, because I care about equality for everyone, but even that is a loaded notion because it depends on whether you are talking about equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome, and this is where a lot of confusion arises, particularly with regards to things like how many women are in positions of power and how much money women earn. Another label that may be more appropriate would be humanist. I also consider myself a rationalist, and rationalism and egalitarianism are what drive my opinions on feminism, gay-rights, racism and transphobia. Out of those specific issues, my opinions on feminism are the only ones that deviate significantly from the common progressive, liberal, left-wing stance, and this is very much because I base these opinions on rationalism and evidence rather than simply following the same beliefs as other people who agree with me on the other issues. That would be dogmatism.

I do however think you tar feminists with the one brush. You have to give me that one.

And I guess it's really what your idea of feminism is.

 

I think I've covered this pretty comprehensively many times in this thread already, but I'll summarise again for you. I believe that if you align yourself with a particular ideology, then you have to take some responsibility for the movement as a whole, and if the movement as a whole is causing problems, then you need to be prepared to defend why you align yourself with that movement. So yes, I am quite happy to give you that one. But I am also willing to note when people who identify as a feminist have good points to make, and I am always willing to listen to what an individual has to say, regardless of what they call themselves. This includes listening to members of the KKK who claim that they are not racist and that they just want it to be acceptable for white people to be proud of their race the same way it is acceptable for black people to be. Haven't found one yet who hasn't slipped up and inadvertantly exposed themselves as a very clear racist though. The same is not true of all feminists I have heard speak, but I am nonetheless very hesitant to accept much of the terminology and the interpretations of some of the theory, most notably the working definitions of patriarchy that are used as a basis for evaluating the problems that relate to gender in our society. Believe it or not, there was a racial separatist who was on a Louis Theroux documentary who was not a bigot by any reasonable definition, and who was well-meaning and had a lot of interesting things to say. Theroux said something like, "If he's a racist, he's not like any racist I've ever met". I'll see if I can find a clip of it later and post it if I do. This shows that not all racial separatists are bad people, and some of them can have valuable insights to add to the discussion on race, but if you ask me what I think of racial separatists as a group, I will still tell you that I think it's horrible, and if people here were supporting it, I would tell them what I think about that. I have already mentioned some self-identified feminists who I have heard say things that I agree with. This doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything they say, but I can listen to them and agree where I think they are right and disagree where I think they are wrong. But the main issue I have is not with feminism, it is with the fact that the influence of feminism is so accepted by the progressive people in our society without question. I have a problem with lots of movements, but I'm not talking about them because they do not have the same effect on so many well meaning people. Racial separatist groups would be one good example. Very few people who care about animal rights, gay rights, trans rights and other human rights would turn out to be racial separatists, but plenty are feminists. I think these are the people who care about human rights, and whose attention needs to be brought to the facts that I have been presenting throughout this thread.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm just bored shitless.

I'm so bored I can't shit anymore.

I don't think I'd like to be as smart as you as what you talk about makes not much sense to me at all, it kinda just spins around and around with you being right all the time, id rather stroke my arios :)/>/>

Edit- so you dooooo tar people with the same brush? Makes u kinda dumb right? Well either that or ignorant but they are the same thing, right? Don't worry most of the intelligent people I know are.

You just want an argument zac that's pretty easy to see through with ur requests for opponents and shiz all through this thread. Now THATS lame.

Edited by incognito
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't take this thread very seriously at first, I was thinking 'oh just great, it turns out balzac is crazy' but so far it looks like he is smacking everyone down?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ballzac is really just posting evidence of hate in society filtered for stuff specifically against men. anyone can spam a thread with vlogs and forum posts as evidence to make whatever point they want. until the discussion includes a perspective acknowledging that men are responsible for the invention and for most of the agency in war, murder, rape, (add whatever you want), then it isn't a serious discussion. the fact that men are victims too is not to say that feminsm is to blame, which is at the base of these arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you dooooo tar people with the same brush? Makes u kinda dumb right? Well either that or ignorant but they are the same thing, right?

 

I gave a pretty comprehensive reply to this to explain why I believe that it is sometimes reasonable to use a fairly broad brush, yet rather than actually address my points - like breaking down my racial separatist analogy - you just say it makes me dumb or ignorant. I also think I made it clear that the broad brush I am painting feminists with is graduated. That is, just because I feel that the more reasonable people in the movement should take some responsibility for some of the harms caused by the movement that they freely choose to associate with, doesn't mean that I think they are the same as the extremists. If people self-identify as nazis, then I think it's fair to paint them with the nazi brush, but this still doesn't mean that I can assume that all of these people would advocate for genocide, as you may be able to find me counter-examples. If there is something seriously wrong with that reasoning, then point me to where the reasoning is wrong rather than just calling it dumb/ignorant.

You just want an argument zac that's pretty easy to see through with ur requests for opponents and shiz all through this thread. Now THATS lame.

 

If by "argument", you mean "reasoned discussion with people who disagree with me" then yes! If you mean "shitfight", then that's clearly not the case because it would have been pretty easy to make that happen a long time ago, and I haven't done that. My main aim here is to educate people on aspects of gender in society that they may be unaware of, namely the issues that men face in western society, and to expose modern, first-world feminism as an ideology. I would love it if some people who started off disagreeing with me changed their minds because of the facts that I've presented, but even just to get people to think about these issues, because they are rarely discussed in our society, is a decent end result in my opinion.

ballzac is really just posting evidence of hate in society filtered for stuff specifically against men.

 

There is some truth in this. My points has been from the start that people deny that misandry exists. Many people do not even know what it is. So to actually show that this stuff exists at all is half my point. But the stuff I have posted that is hate-filled is almost exclusively from feminists, and not all of it is from those who identify as extremists. The protest against Dr. Farrell's talk is a pretty good example, because this is the typical attitude of mainstream feminist organisations. If you don't believe me, then print out a poster that says "men have rights too", "men's rights are human rights", or "violence against men is as wrong as violence against women" and post it on a notice board at any university. See how long it lasts before it is either ripped down or defaced with a hateful comment.

But I have also posted stuff that is very specific to refute opinions held by members here. Several pages back you said that one needs to make certain assumptions in order claim that the wage gap is due to the different choices women make rather than workplace discrimination. I provided what I believe to be pretty strong evidence these assumptions need not be made. Specifically, that never married, childless women earn more than never married, childless men. (I don't see how this could be the case if women are paid less because they are women. Here is the exact data again:

gender_earnings.jpg

Yet you chose to opt out of the discussion at that point rather than accept that you were wrong or provide an alternative explanation as to how this could be the case if women are paid less because of their gender. Now you are happy to come back into the discussion and claim that my posts are just selected "spam". Like I said, there is some truth in that, but you can't really complain about it when you had the opportunity to actually discuss specific issues that we disagree on and chose to put your fingers in your ears like a creationist or holocaust denialist rather than actually continue with the reasoned discussion on the gender wage gap. I do think this is due to feminism. Who else is spreading misinformation about the gender wage gap? And why are so many people here and in society so willing to accept the feminist 'theory' on the gender wage gap, even to the extent that it influences policy.

until the discussion includes a perspective acknowledging that men are responsible for the invention and for most of the agency in war, murder, rape, (add whatever you want), then it isn't a serious discussion.

 

I think that's a worthwhile discussion too, so if you have any constructive points to make regarding this, then go ahead. But the fact that men are more often the perpetrators of violence than women are does nothing to change the fact that men are also more often the victims, that men are hard done by in society, that calling a woman a "cunt" is considered misogyny, but cutting off a man's penis is not misandry, but a joke. My point all along has been more about how society, and usually reasonable people, accept the feminist perspective without question. I'm quite happy to also criticise societies that condone war-mongering and, if there are any, murder and rape.

the fact that men are victims too is not to say that feminsm is to blame, which is at the base of these arguments.

 

Again, my problem is more that it is so readily accepted by society, and most notably people who are well-meaning. We could debate whether a racist society created the KKK, or whether the KKK spreads racism that otherwise might not exist. In reality, it's probably a combination of both. The same goes for feminism and society.

It's not that the feminist perspective causes men to be victims of violence, it's that the feminist perspective ignores that men can be victims at the hands of women, and also blames the victim for their gender when the perpetrator is male. You are treading near that line with your reasoning here. This would not fly with race. If 80% of the victims of violence are black, then it would be considered very, very racist to say, "oh well, most of the perpetrators are black too, so we should focus on white victims".

I do not blame holocaust denialists for the fact that six-million people were killed in the holocaust, but I will still criticise them for their belief that it didn't happen. Luckily, holocaust denialism does not have the same level of influence in our society that feminism does.

But, I do blame creationists for the fact that biology is not taught properly in many states in the US, and considering that they actually do have a fairly strong influence on society and politics in those areas, if I lived there I would probably be more actively opposed to them.

I think feminism fits somewhere in-between these two camps. Falsehoods are being spread, which I believe is inherently problematic. Conjecture, or politically useful dogma, is being taught as fact. I also believe this is inherently problematic. The fact that gender studies in universities almost exclusively focus on feminist literature and rarely involve any MRA literature is disgusting, and teaching patriarchy theory, and such, as fact is the equivalent of teaching creationism.

It's funny, because I get very similar responses when discussing drug legislation with most people. Show them hard data to prove that certain drugs are not as dangerous as the media and government claims, and they will ignore it and say that I'm being selective or what-not. I'm sure many people here have experienced that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ballzac, you're always going to find crazy individuals and crazy groups in any movement. take PETA as a good example… I'm certainly someone who sympathises with their cause, but often disagree with how they go about attempt to change the situation for other animals. Some of their advertising, some of their philosophy, and some of the actions they've promoted have been really disagreeable to me. That doesn't mean I've cast aside any interest in animal rights because some morons give it a bad name. In the same way that I'd be pissed off if all animal rights activists were painted as PETA acolytes, I'm pissed that some crazy people from random forums have become your stereotype for feminists. This is especially so on the internet, where people make mortal insults as a matter of course, and often make threats they have no intentions of carrying out. A good source to evaluate levels of frustration, but not to gauge what's going on in feminism today (for which there are plenty of reputably authored books, other publications, and political groups that exist off the internet in the good ol' real world).

I played the stats game for a while to show that you can find stats on both sides of any argument, but you know as well as I do that posting "wages for men/wages for women" is essentially meaningless given that we aren't discussing the particulars of the study, and we both know how easy statistics are to manipulate or even accidentally skew. For starters you're being highly selective with the data you present, and with good reason - its hard to find statistics that show things as 'objectively' better for women. You're using things like old stats from the US to "prove" generalised points about the state of the workforce and discrimination - bit of a long bow to draw. You're not going into any depth with discussing how the study was formulated, what potential problems there are with it, when taking stats from a nation that can't even hold a fair election half the time, let alone dealing with the fact that all statistical surveys are susceptible to errors (and, it could be argued, are inherently biased based on methodology). Those easy-to-access, authoritative looking graphs and graphics are little more than visual aides, they certainly don't prove your argument (unless it is that misandry exists, in which case I agree with you).

I can, of course, throw statistics back at you showing that women earn less than men, let's have a go:

tumblr_lfrvjlSm9w1qalod2o1_500.png

As I've already stated, I'm dubious about the usefulness of throwing stats back and forth on the net, and I think the problem is much more complex than wage disparity.

I think that's a worthwhile discussion too, so if you have any constructive points to make regarding this, then go ahead. But the fact that men are more often the perpetrators of violence than women are does nothing to change the fact that men are also more often the victims

 

Well, my first constructive point would be that you've polarised a problem about men being victims of crime into sex terms, then blamed the sex that is (in your opinion) less often a victim, rather than addressed the problem that the sex being (again, in your opinion) victimised more often is also the same sex that is perpetrating the vast majority of these crimes. I mean, come on! You're blaming feminism for males victimising males, and as far as I can tell male-male violence existed long before the feminists started their pesky crusade. I don't have time to get into the rest now, but we're still rehashing old points of the argument that weren't resolved. If your point is that misandry exists and people deny it, why not just make that point without having to "kick down" on other political movements that have some of the same essential goals?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^thats pretty much what i said, without the filler.

Edited by incognito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that in our culture men aren't "allowed" to be victims - or this makes them weak, useless, pathetic. Whereas, women are considered natural victims, yet somehow this isn't allowed to make them pathetic or useless (but weak, yes, and that's fine). It's all about perception.

I have been the victim of prejudice before. When a young fella, at school, another kid from an ethnic minority took a dislike to me and decided (to impress his mates) to get me into trouble by running to the teacher and claiming that I called him black (yes, that's all. Apparently, I referred to him as being black, which he was, but I didn't). Well, I was hounded for being racist from that point on, the term racist followed me through several school changes and it too a mere suggestion that I had looked sideways at an ethnic minority kid for me to get into trouble.

There were a few things that came out of that, one is that I never had any ethnic minority friends, and I was the victim of abuse by teachers who refused to ever believe what it was that I was telling them. This has made me angry and I will fight back quite strongly against any prejudice, as having been an inadvertant victim (for all good reasons, I'm sure) it sure as hell isn't easy to fight back with strong support, no matter how strong you are. Prejudice comes in many shapes and sizes; but mostly it comes down to not looking at other people's perspective, and believing stuff without thought, or fear of thinking differently.

Most of the people on the forums suffer daily from prejudice. They will suffer from other people's perspective that they are hippies, or dress differently, they behave differently - tending not to follow the mainstream, and they "take drugs". The prejudice may not appear to be there, but I will guarantee most people have have not been able to take jobs because of it, or have been sidelined at gatherings. It happens as a matter of course in society; sometimes it's so subtle we forget it's there, we get used to it or find a workaround. Even the fact that we use those workarounds or ignore the prejudice often means that we can miss out on information or choices.

The same things happen with gender imbalance; men are missing out on the opportunities to look after their children after a relationship breakup (and so are the kids), men are missing out on funds to help them survive when they are single and out of a job, men are missing out on assistance if they are the victims of false claims of rape, and when they are attacked by other people (especially women). Men are expected to handle these things by themselves, without the support of the community. Most men manage to find a workaround - because they have to - but it makes life a lot harder, and less pleasant. Which, probably, makes them tougher and more aggressive. And angry.

Thus fueling the prejudice that all men are angry, aggressive, and can easily do it alone and aren't interested in caring for their children. The only way we can combat this as a society is to accept the possibility that this is possible, changing the rules to accommodate it (just as we did when we gave the women and black people the right to vote) and try to run our society more fairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've already stated, I'm dubious about the usefulness of throwing stats back and forth on the net, and I think the problem is much more complex than wage disparity.

 

The only statistics that are relevant in the discussion we are having are the ones that show parity in the gender balance. Ballzac's figures show the wages of people who have exactly the same lifestyle choices - your figures may do that, by accident, but probably do not. Other figures that would be relevant to the discussion are:

Wages of stay-at-home dads versus stay-at-home mums

Wages of men who have taken a two year "paternity" break versus women who have done the same

Wages of men who have remained in the same occupation throughout their careers versus women who have done the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that in our culture men aren't "allowed" to be victims - or this makes them weak, useless, pathetic. Whereas, women are considered natural victims, yet somehow this isn't allowed to make them pathetic or useless

 

You don't think a woman who has been battered or raped by a man has feelings of being pathetic or useless? You need to get off the wikis and do some real thinking and real research before you make claims like this. Any given human being is likely to feel that kind of emotional response to being a victim of violent crime. It's all over the literature. That you see women as weak and don't register any problem with that prejudice clearly marks you a misogynist.

Ballzac's figures show the wages of people who have exactly the same lifestyle choices

 

Exact same lifestyle in four demographic variables? I certainly couldn't figure my lifestyle into four variables, could you? By the sounds of things, from your story about your personal encounter with prejudice (by the way, not to diminish your experience, but I think if that's an incident that stands out in your mind then you're doing pretty well in terms of how you've been discriminated against), your idea of how prejudice works is more complex than age 'n' wage. Yet you remain uncritical of statistics and don't appear to have a good idea of the flaws inherent to how such surveys are constructed and interpreted. When we start talking about the construction and interpretation of statistics I'll be interested. Until then, I can also play the game of throwing some colourful graphics into a post as "supporting evidence" as well as anyone, but it's a bit futile IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pissed that some crazy people from random forums have become your stereotype for feminists.

 

If you're talking about the posts from radfemhub, then it's not fair to say that is my stereotype for feminists. I have noted that there are many feminists who have valuable contributions to add to the discussion, and there are many I can agree with on many points. Then there is the bulk who are 'mainstream' and believe they are for equality, but base this on the notion that women are perpetually behind men and need to be given a helping hand to overcome oppression. Then there are your extremists who are gender separatists. I am well aware the latter are extremists. The most interesting discussions can be had between moderate MRAs and sex-positive feminists, because they are both on the reasonable ends of two opposing views of the same system. Yet society's understanding of gender sits squarely in the middle of the feminist spectrum, and most people don't even know the MRM exists.

I played the stats game for a while to show that you can find stats on both sides of any argument, but you know as well as I do that posting "wages for men/wages for women" is essentially meaningless given that we aren't discussing the particulars of the study, and we both know how easy statistics are to manipulate or even accidentally skew. For starters you're being highly selective with the data you present, and with good reason - its hard to find statistics that show things as 'objectively' better for women. You're using things like old stats from the US to "prove" generalised points about the state of the workforce and discrimination - bit of a long bow to draw. You're not going into any depth with discussing how the study was formulated, what potential problems there are with it, when taking stats from a nation that can't even hold a fair election half the time, let alone dealing with the fact that all statistical surveys are susceptible to errors (and, it could be argued, are inherently biased based on methodology). Those easy-to-access, authoritative looking graphs and graphics are little more than visual aides, they certainly don't prove your argument (unless it is that misandry exists, in which case I agree with you).

I can, of course, throw statistics back at you showing that women earn less than men, let's have a go:

a>

As I've already stated, I'm dubious about the usefulness of throwing stats back and forth on the net, and I think the problem is much more complex than wage disparity.

 

It's like de ja vu.

"Why aren't there any transitional fossils?"

"Well, here's a hundred of them that show how something that looked like a modern day cow evolved into a whale through small changes."

"But why aren't there any transitional fossils?"

Here's the thing. The conversation went something like this:

You: Men, on average, earn more than women.

Me: This is because of choices not because of discrimination.

You: This requires assumptions.

Me: If that's true, then why do never married, childless women earn more than never married, childless men?

You: Silence.

Now you come back with "Men, on average, earn more than women" again, rather than addressing the last point. Getting to the bottom of an issue isn't about posting random statistics, you need to actually address the points that the statistics show. I've done that with the type of data you are showing already, but you haven't done the same for my data. Also be aware that this is not a small-sample survey, it is census data. It's pretty difficult to have poor methodology in this case, and it's pretty clear what is being compared here. If there is a reason for it other than choices, then you should be able to come up with an alternative explanation. You refer to this as a 'study' and debate how it was formulated. It is not a study, it is data. The data is plain, and we can discuss what it means. I have given you what I believe is a reasonable explanation, but you have not even attempted to do the same. The reason I have chosen this data is because the work of collating the data has already been done. I don't think I would have the time to take the most recent Australian census data and sift through it myself to work out what the equivalent here is. But considering the overall gap in the US is higher, I think the data is pretty telling.

In case you're still unclear on what I'm saying here, the data you provide is entirely consistent with point of view, but you have not shown how my data is consistent with yours. Your post is just more cop outs. If there's something wrong with the data, be specific. Say that you think this is not real census data and that maybe Warren Farrell fabricated this data. Or say that the American Census Bureau has a biased method of collecting data. Or say that there may have been one year where wage discrimination against women disappeared and that it is data from this year that Farrell selected to put in his book. This is not just a game of who can post the most graphs that look like they show something. You're not actually offering any reasonable hypothesis that will explain the data you posted as well as mine, presumably because you can't think of any. My interpretation is consistent with both sets of data. Post a hundred graphs if you want. If they are from real data, then I will show how they are consistent with my view, or I will concede that they are not and that there must be a problem with my interpretation. Likewise, I would like to see you show how the U.S. census data is consistent with your position, and if you don't want to do that, then don't complain when I get bored and start posting youtube videos of protests the week that they happen.

Now, I am well aware that the data I have shown does not control for many variables. I intentionally posted this to avoid overcomplicating things. This comparison makes it pretty clear that choices, specifically the choices that men and women make respectively when they are married with children as opposed to when they are not, influences wages significantly, and that plots like yours that show that overall there is a wage gap, do not actually show that any of it is due to discrimination. So why cling to the idea that it is due to discrimination. Who says it's due to discrimination? Why do so many people believe it's due to discrimination without any evidence? The 75c on a dollar thing is quoted all the time, yet that's overall. As soon as you control for whether it's night shift or day shift, it closes a bit. Then you control for whether it's full time or part time, and it closes a bit more. Then you control for actual hours worked rather than calling anything over 35 hours full time, and it closes significantly. You control for industry, it closes a bit more. You control for danger involved in the job, it closes a bit more. You control for whether the work is physically demanding, it closes a bit more. You control for whether the person has taken significantly long periods of time out of their career, and it closes more. Eventually there is little to no gap, and many analyses come out in favour of women as the higher paid for the same work. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact, and is either true or false. Unlike whether war can be just or whether socialism is better than libertarianism, you can actually analyse data and find out what the facts are.

There are many articles by economists that take the raw data and control for many variables. Every variable that is controlled for closes the gap more and more. Eventually, the gap comes out at roughly zero, give or take a percent or two. Economists know this, but the version society clings to is the one taught in 'gender studies' (feminist echo-chamber) courses.

Well, my first constructive point would be that you've polarised a problem about men being victims of crime into sex terms

 

I'm saying that's what we should not do. We should treat all victims equally. We should have campaigns that say "Violence: Australia says no", rather than "Violence against women: Australia says no".

then blamed the sex

 

Where have I blamed a particular sex for anything? I have been blaming dogma, ideology, and society. Again, people seem not to be able to differentiate between feminism and women. One is an ideology and a movement, the other is a gender.

the sex that is (in your opinion) less often a victim

 

Um, the same data that shows that men are more often perpetrators is the same data that shows that men are more often the victims. I posted the link to data provided by the Federal Government already in this thread. Do statistics mean nothing to you?

rather than addressed the problem that the sex being (again, in your opinion) victimised more often is also the same sex that is perpetrating the vast majority of these crimes.

 

Again, not my opinion. Plain fact. I think the amount of violence in society is terrible full stop. If there is some way we can analyse the fact that men are more often the perpetrators (outside the DV context) in order to prevent more of this behaviour in the future, then would be great. I have no problem with acknowledging that.

You're blaming feminism for males victimising males.

 

Where have I done this?

we're still rehashing old points of the argument that weren't resolved.

 

You keep attributing statements to me that I haven't made, and when I challenge you with hard data, you dodge it. No wonder we're going round in circles.

If your point is that misandry exists and people deny it, why not just make that point without having to "kick down" on other political movements that have some of the same essential goals?

 

You think that the goal of feminism is to show the world that misandry exists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the conversation went on to my showing some other statistics that show women earning less, along with a criticism of the claim that age, education, marriage, and children are enough to evaluate lifestyles as identical. I can think of one biggie: homosexuality. I can think of another: race. These are not factored in the study, so I'm arguing that stats aren't complex enough an explanation for the problems we're talking about. Fit the method to the problem, my friend.

I don't have the time to go and look at the research methods of every stat you post, instead I'm making broad claims about the flaws of statistics, as well as criticising the idea that wage brackets are what's primarily at stake in this discussion. If wanting more than census numbers in a debate about feminism is a cop out, then so be it.

I have been blaming dogma, ideology, and society. Again, people seem not to be able to differentiate between feminism and women. One is an ideology and a movement, the other is a gender.

 

Actually, we were talking about victims of crime. Sexed bodies, not ideology.

If there is some way we can analyse the fact that men are more often the perpetrators

 

Well, statistics being your favourite, you can easily find them to "prove" the point. I'm not going to bother digging anymore out, as I've made my opinions about throwing them round on a BBS discussion clear.

when I challenge you with hard data, you dodge it.

 

Actually, pretty often I've responded with hard data to demonstrate that you can easily find stats that prove things either way.

You think that the goal of feminism is to show the world that misandry exists?

 

I think we fundamentally misunderstand each other. My point was that you don't need to trash one political movement in order to promote a different one that you believe in.

And just for the record, I've never taken classes on gender studies (though I have on statistics).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are treading near that line with your reasoning here. This would not fly with race. If 80% of the victims of violence are black, then it would be considered very, very racist to say, "oh well, most of the perpetrators are black too, so we should focus on white victims".

 

No I'm not, by the way. The distribution of race compared to the distribution of sex is so uneven it makes this analogy provocative but useless. We know that crime that is seemingly related to race is actually related to sociological issues like income, opportunity, disenfranchisement etc etc. Besides this, race is primarily an ideological phenomenon, whereas sex (though ideological primarily through the function of gender) has a completely different basis and context.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we can go anywhere with this discussion. You're happy to use numbers if they fit with your opinions, but reject them if they don't. You keep making claims about what I have said, but have not shown me where I have said these things when I have challenged you. You have given no verifiable justification as to why you believe the gender wage gap is due to discrimination, yet claim it's not dogma or the influence of a society that seems to take the mainstream feminist perspective as fact regardless of the actual figures.

We are talking about the gender wage gap. Statistics is basically all we have, so if stats aren't good enough for you and you're not willing to actually address them and come up with explanations that fit your position on this, then there's no point in talking further.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread hasn't been going anywhere for pages, it's just been you and whitewind venting frustrations. Once again, I have used statistics in my posts to show the futility of throwing them around a forum discussion, not because I'm happy to use them for my own purposes, but as a response to your insistence on them. I showed you that for every statistic you could produce showing that women have it better than men, I could present you with one "proving" the opposite.

I have already given you some reasons for the gap between wages for men and women being to do with gender. It is part of a complex of workplace discrimination that includes men holding more positions of power, sexual harassment being primarily against women in the workplace, etc. etc. You think it has something to do with lifestyle choice - of course it does. Lifestyle choices will affect your wage due to factors other than gender, too, but they don't explain why there is a gap in wages specifically demarcated along the lines of sex, one which has a well documented history of being fought against by feminists.

Statistics is basically all we have

 

You know that we have plenty of sources on wage discrimination if that's what this debate is about now. The problem I have with statistics, as I've said, is that throwing up a bar graph as a proof is way too reductive. We have posted a few graphs but no meta-analysis of these huge surveys. What about other factors in work experience? We know that the 'wage gap' is both real (my contention) but also operates metonymically to indicate a spectrum of discriminatory practices faced in the workplace, some of which might have nothing to do with wage per se but relate to glass ceilings, boys clubs, etc.etc. For me, if we're going to use statistics, they need to be embedded in a more complex discussion. Here we go:

Alison Booth of ANU demonstrates that

Measuring the gender wage gap has occupied applied labour economists for decades and unfortunately the wage gap is not withering away.1 Moreover a recently-established stylised fact is that, in almost all European Union countries for which we have harmonised data, this gender wage gap is increasing across the wage distribution. The different returns received by men and women to the same characteristics are often interpreted as measuring the “discrimination” that women face in the labour market. This discrimination – or differential returns to the same characteristics – has been viewed until relatively recently as a “black box” of labour economics.

 

By using data collection and statistical analysis, including meta-analysis, of wages by gender in European countries she uses this table to present the differences:

G68Qb.png

 

As you can see she notes the controls on the data collection, and she explains the tabulated results as follows:

The OLS estimates reveal that, in the private sector, the average gender wage gap varies from around 12% in Denmark, up to 25% in Britain and Austria. But averages disguise the differences across the wage distribution revealed by the QR estimates. These show that, even when men and women have the same characteristics, there is typically a positive and increasing gender gap across the wage distribution due to different returns. In all countries except Spain, the private sector gender wage gap is highest at the 90th percentile. The country with the highest wage gap at the 90th percentile is Britain, followed by France and then Finland. The biggest gap between the 10th and the 90th percentile is found in The Netherlands. This phenomenon – of a gender pay gap that increases across the wage distribution and accelerates in the upper tail – is labelled a “glass ceiling” effect.4

 

There's plenty more about method and results in the article itself, if you care to read it.

edits: trying to get the table to display

Edited by raketemensch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×