Jump to content
The Corroboree
Halcyon Daze

Top 5 reasons why I Hate women

Recommended Posts

To be devil's advocate, while she is right, why should teaching and social welfare careers pay less than engineering?

Pay in a capitalistic system is determined by market forces.

Not saying I like capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be devil's advocate, while she is right, why should teaching and social welfare careers pay less than engineering?

I am not a libertarian, but considering that she is, I will address this using a libertarian argument if I may. Strict libertarians would say that public schools and welfare should not exist. So this only leaves private school teachers (and engineers) in your question. The pay rate for teachers is then a function of how much people are willing to pay for their kids to be educated and the ratio of students to prospective teachers. If the number of applicants is large, the pay rate then goes down because the prospective teachers will use a pay cut as a bargaining tool. Similarly for engineers, it is then a function of how much people (and corporations) are willing to pay to have buildings (or other engineered goods) produced, and the ratio of available engineers to the number of goods needed.

But, we do not live in a libertarian society, so the question of how much public school teachers and welfare workers get is a matter of public policy. It is something we can vote on, and can also be negotiated by unions. This is mostly outside the scope of my knowledge, so I will leave it at that.

Allow me to address a related question that pops up very often. "Why do traditionally female industries like hairdressing pay less than traditionally male industries like motor-mechanics?"

The implication is that our society has decided that 'female' jobs are less valuable than 'male' jobs. Questions are often asked, such as "Are hairdressers less skilled than mechanics?", or "Is being a mechanic a more difficult job than being a hairdresser?".

The answer is that these questions are irrelevant. Again, it is a function of how popular a choice the job is, and how much people are willing to pay for the service. I don't know the figures on the former, but lets look at the latter:

Your car is broken down, and your hair has lost its sheen or is a bit too long. You have $500, and a hairdresser is charging $400 to do your hair, and a mechanic is charging $400 to fix your care. Do you go to the hairdresser? Or the mechanic? The answer for most people would be to make their car a priority. The only way for the hairdresser to get your custom is to lower their price to $100. It is this money that is then used to pay their employees. This is highly simplified, but is basically the way the market works. We, as consumers, decide whose job is more valuable by choosing what to spend our money on. It has nothing to do with the fact that hairdressing is female dominated and car repair is male dominated. And if women want to earn more, they are entitled to, and capable of, becoming motor-mechanics instead of hairdressers. When a woman (or a man) chooses a career in hairdressing, they do so (or should) with full knowledge that the pay will be lower than if they become a mechanic. This is where personal choice comes into it. There is nothing we can do to force salon owners to pay their staff more unless we choose to value their service more highly and are willing to pay more for it. Otherwise the money simply isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a really bad analogy.

Mechanics have to carry much more liability due to the nature of their business and the fact that they are responsible for fixing complex systems that can seriously hurt not only the mechanic, but also others if they make mistakes. The nature of their work also requires much more space and many more tools--and expensive and specific ones at that. Fixing a car requires replacement parts, consumables, and hazardous waste disposal fees which usually make up a sizable amount of the fee you are charged.

Hairdressers on the other hand aren't subject to the same sort of litigation. Even the most advanced have a relatively simple set of tools which are not expensive compared to almost all of the tools a mechanic owns. Almost no space is required for a hairdresser, and as such most space is leased on a very small scale and some even opt to cut strictly at their or their clients' houses. While hairdressing does require some simple consumables, the costs are paltry compared to replacement parts for a car. Most hairdressers here are not employees of a salon, but independent contractors renting chair space.

Then mechanics do not only serve consumers, but also businesses and governmental departments including some mechanics that are solely responsible for managing fleets; it is not only consumer demand that drives the labor market.

Then there is the fact that hairdressers at least here can make the same if not a higher wage than a mechanic if you compare the cost of shop time with the average time and cost of a haircut or complex styling job. So essentially the lower wage is a myth perceived by those not familiar with running a business. I bet take home salary on a per hour basis is not that different for the sort of skilled hairdresser you are talking about and auto mechanics. For example, a haircut and an oil change take about the same time to perform, but a haircut does not come with costs like a filter and oil and disposal fees. If you look at just the cost of just the labor involved, the hairdresser makes more despite the higher overhead that comes with owning an auto shop and all of the equipment necessary.

I'd argue that the popularity of a profession is usually dependent on how much it is paid (and the time and skill required to get there) not the other way around.

Let me ask you why a veteran paramedic (much more training than an EMT) makes less than a secretary, hairdresser, etc.?

Edited by mira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a really bad analogy.

It wasn't an analogy. It was a related question that pops up regularly.

 

Then there is the fact that hairdressers at least here can make the same if not a higher wage than a mechanic if you compare the cost of shop time with the average time and cost of a haircut or complex styling job. So essentially the lower wage is a myth perceived by those not familiar with running a business. I bet take home salary on a per hour basis is not that different for the sort of skilled hairdresser you are talking about and auto mechanics.

You could be right. The premise itself was not mine. I was commenting on a commonly used argument with the 'good faith' assumption that the figures usually used were accurate.

 

I'd argue that the popularity of a profession is usually dependent on how much it is paid (and the time and skill required to get there) not the other way around.

It goes both ways. If a profession pays more, it will attract workers. But if it becomes too popular, there is lots of competition and the pay goes down as prospective employees compete for the limited number of jobs. It's a natural feedback system. If what you were saying was true, then night-shift would be really popular because it pays more than day work. In reality, it pays more because it's unpopular. That is exactly the reason these jobs are higher paying: to make them more popular.

low popularity ---> increase the pay ---> popularity increases

so there's an interdependence. This goes for anything that may be unpopular, whether it's working with sewage, or a dangerous or otherwise unpleasant job.

 

Let me ask you why a veteran paramedic (much more training than an EMT) makes less than a secretary, hairdresser, etc.?

I'll have to let someone else field that one as I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so much bla bla bla....???!!!

I just chill with my girl and do our best to keep us happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so much bla bla bla....???!!!

These are important discussions that need to be had. The wage gap myth generates so many problems in itself. The government intervenes to 'correct' a perceived imbalance, and this impacts the rights of individuals. It also affects businesses as they feel pressured to hire poorly qualified women or to overpay them so they don't get accused of bias. This in turn affects the productivity of our workforce and impacts on society as a whole.

The government provides support for half the victims of domestic violence based on their genitals.

In spite of claims about equality, we see no attempt at equalising the numbers of workplace deaths, the numbers of homeless people, or the gravity of sentences handed out to those convicted of crimes.

Abolitionism and the civil rights movement may have also been a lot of "bla bla bla", but was also discussion, and action, that needed to be had.

I just chill with my girl and try to be happy too, but when I see injustice being done, whether it's people being locked up for using entheogens, or people being lynched because of the colour of their skin, or victims of domestic violence being locked up as the perpetrators because they have a penis, I will speak my mind about it, and it's pretty dismissive of valid concerns to write them off as "bla bla bla".

Edited by ballzac
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just chill with my girl and try to be happy too, but when I see injustice being done, whether it's people being locked up for using entheogens, or people being lynched because of the colour of their skin, or victims of domestic violence being locked up as the perpetrators being they have a penis, I will speak my mind about it, and it's pretty dismissive of valid concerns to write them off as "bla bla bla".

And here's the clincher for this seemingly endless rant of blah blah blah. Your position would not be as such if you were not a victim of sexual & physical abuse at the hands of a woman. This thread title should be changed to "20,000 words on why Ballzac is deeply scarred by confident women".

Time once again for one of your clever responses, maestro. A respose of which I am in no doubt shall follow the same predictable formula as you always use to present your arguements.

blah blah blah.

Edited by Psylo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again attacking me rather than my arguments.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those poor men! Women, on the other hand, are never shouted down or shut out of public discourse :scratchhead:

You can well see this, even in this video, which has several male speakers, and a single woman speaker who gets barely any speaking space, comparatively. Any remotely objective person who has been to a number of conferences will know that the lion's share of obnoxious speakers and audience members are men. Anyone who has taken part in discussion groups will know that men generally take up much more 'space' than women in discussions.

Boohoo, I say. A few white, middle-class men don't get their voices heard in what looks like an academic context. Not a big drama, and certainly not representative of how male voices are heard in academic discussions.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, women comprise half of Australia’s total population (50.2 per cent in 2010).[3] However, as Table 1 shows, women comprise less than one-third (30.1 per cent) of all parliamentarians in Australia’s parliaments.

[\quote]

I guess its because of the lifestyle choices they make, despite having that huge incentive of higher wages than men :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those poor men! Women, on the other hand, are never shouted down or shut out of public discourse :scratchhead:

It's not about men being shouted down. It's about men's issues being shouted down.

 

You can well see this, even in this video, which has several male speakers, and a single woman speaker who gets barely any speaking space, comparatively.

You watch that video, and what you take from it is that the female speaker wasn't given enough opportunity to speak by the organisers? :blink:

 

Any remotely objective person who has been to a number of conferences will know that the lion's share of obnoxious speakers and audience members are men.

I don't actually recall seeing a lot of obnoxious speakers or audience members of any gender. Maybe you're going to the wrong conferences.

 

Anyone who has taken part in discussion groups will know that men generally take up much more 'space' than women in discussions.

That depends largely on the percentage of women in the field in question, as well as the percentage who have the expertise to speak about the subject matter, as well as the percentage who volunteer to speak. If you have any evidence that there is systemic discrimination (which you are implying) that allows men more airtime than women, then you should present it.

 

Boohoo, I say. A few white, middle-class men don't get their voices heard in what looks like an academic context.

This has been my point all along, that people see it as perfectly okay that men are silenced, regardless of whether their concerns are legitimate or not. Everything you say just makes my point for me. Men's issues are not taken seriously, and when people actually try to discuss them, people attempt to disrupt these discussions, and instead of condemning these actions and saying that everyone's voice should be heard, people like you say things like "boohoo". Early on in this thread, you said that feminism is about equality, and that I was mischaracterising it by saying that it is a movement that focusses only on the problems that women face at the expense of men's issues. But rather than condemning the actions of feminists who silence groups talking about men's issues, and saying "those feminists are not the norm", you actually condone this and say it's not important. You really cannot do a good job of convincing me that feminism is about equality, if your very attitude is that it's okay for feminists to disrupt discussions on men's issues.

 

Not a big drama, and certainly not representative of how male voices are heard in academic discussions.

No, it's not. Men are certainly permitted to talk about issues about things not related to gender, and also to talk about gender if they stick to the feminist script. It's when they start talking about issues that affect them, or when women talk about issues that affect men, that they are shouted down.

 

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, women comprise half of Australia’s total population (50.2 per cent in 2010).[3] However, as Table 1 shows, women comprise less than one-third (30.1 per cent) of all parliamentarians in Australia’s parliaments.

I guess its because of the lifestyle choices they make, despite having that huge incentive of higher wages than men :huh:

Do you have any data that shows how many men versus how many women aspire to a career in politics? Or how many have relevant qualifications? I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on how many women graduate from degrees in political science versus how many men do. If, say, 20% of of political science majors are women but 30% of parliamentarians are women, would that change your mind?

You can't claim discrimination unless you can show it. Almost all fields have a significant difference in the number of men and women. Some fields (like fashion design) are predominantly female, while others (politics included) are predominantly male. If you believe the latter is due to discrimination, then show some evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about men being shouted down. It's about men's issues being shouted down.

Same difference. Women's issues are shouted down, queer issues are shouted down. Men's issues aren't some anomaly here.

You watch that video, and what you take from it is that the female speaker wasn't given enough opportunity to speak by the organisers?

That's one of the things I took from it, yes. But I wasn't referring specifically to the organisers, although they are undoubtedly to blame for putting but a single woman on the panel. The male speakers don't appear to give her space to speak, and indeed most conferences are dominated by male voices. Public discourse is a male-dominated culture.

If you have any evidence that there is systemic discrimination (which you are implying) that allows men more airtime than women, then you should present it.

Look at a number of conference schedules in the humanities and social sciences (in both domains there are enough female experts to have a year's worth of conferences at which women speak exclusively) and analyse the breakdown of speakers by gender. This conference (http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/qualitative/announcements/conference-program-qualitative-social-scienceharvard-knowledge-production-and-communit) last year at Harvard in Qualitative social sciences has 13 male speakers to 8 women speakers, the keynote is a man, and the chairs are 3:1 male. This is by no means an atypical conference make up in this area, and is hosted by a prestigious university where gender equality is a more visible issue than in everyday life.

This has been my point all along, that people see it as perfectly okay that men are silenced, regardless of whether their concerns are legitimate or not.

That's because of the disproportionate space men are already given in the public domain. People take men's issues seriously, just not when their tacit aim is to undermine groups that are less advantaged than they are. I think you'll find men's issues are taken very seriously when they also pertain to a minority or oppressed group, but why should we focus our energies on white, middle class males when there are so many more groups in society that are far worse off. Get everyone on more or less equal footing, then people will be more willing to listen to white, middle-class, male problems. Until then, those issues shouldn't be prioritised over more pressing ones, and doing so strikes me as the same attitude as CEO's who constantly give themselves a raise while making cutbacks at the lower levels to justify it financially.

Do you have any data that shows how many men versus how many women aspire to a career in politics?

No I don't. But such data would be largely irrelevant anyway, given that we live in a culture that encourages men to become leaders and women to support them. A culture that views politics as a male domain, and which, as we see with Gillard at the moment, holds women to far higher standards than men are held to.

By the way, you're claiming discrimination without proving it on your own terms also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most conferences are dominated by male voices

ok i'm involved in this thread now (in defence of academia), but tell me,

yes, a "male dominated culture" in academia. there is many, many streams in academia so please tell me, which stream are you talking about? what is your personal experience where female voice are silenced in favour for males?

you sound like your knowledge of academia comes from a sydney morning herald article,

tell me what you are talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen mens issues shouted down in my own personal and professional experience. in fact many women where lending a hand, and championing it. take dads in distress for example, and the women who work tirellesly in mental health and drug and alcohol withdrawal and rehabilitation for example. this continues to be a tard argument over a tard topic. this message comes to you from a tard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same difference. Women's issues are shouted down, queer issues are shouted down. Men's issues aren't some anomaly here.

It is not socially acceptable (and rightly so) to silence people talking about women's issues or queer issues. Would you also be saying "boohoo" if this was a gay rights or women's rights group being (almost) prevented from speaking? If you would not say "boohoo" to that, then this is an anomaly, because groups like this are seen, and treated, differently by people who think they're liberal and progressive.

 

That's one of the things I took from it, yes. But I wasn't referring specifically to the organisers, although they are undoubtedly to blame for putting but a single woman on the panel. The male speakers don't appear to give her space to speak, and indeed most conferences are dominated by male voices. Public discourse is a male-dominated culture.

You are really just seeing what you want to see. There is a group of feminists shouting and banging (and eventually pulling a fire alarm) to try to silence the speakers (including the female speaker). The organisers gave her a platform to speak because they are interested in what she has to say. The feminist group tried to disable the ability for both speakers to have their voices heard.

The talk was about misandry. While there are plenty of women who are interested in men's rights, it is naturally a male dominated topic, just like there are men in women's rights circles and straight people in gay rights circles. But it is natural that those topics are dominated by people who are most closely affected by the issues being discussed.

 

Look at a number of conference schedules in the humanities and social sciences (in both domains there are enough female experts to have a year's worth of conferences at which women speak exclusively) and analyse the breakdown of speakers by gender. This conference (http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/qualitative/announcements/conference-program-qualitative-social-scienceharvard-knowledge-production-and-communit) last year at Harvard in Qualitative social sciences has 13 male speakers to 8 women speakers, the keynote is a man, and the chairs are 3:1 male. This is by no means an atypical conference make up in this area, and is hosted by a prestigious university where gender equality is a more visible issue than in everyday life.

That is not evidence of systemic discrimination. Even if you are right that this is typical, it says nothing about the causes.

 

People take men's issues seriously, just not when their tacit aim is to undermine groups that are less advantaged than they are.

Where in the talk about misandry was there any aim to undermine another group? You didn't take it seriously: you said "boohoo". That's about as dismissive as you can get.

 

I think you'll find men's issues are taken very seriously when they also pertain to a minority or oppressed group, but why should we focus our energies on white, middle class males when there are so many more groups in society that are far worse off. Get everyone on more or less equal footing, then people will be more willing to listen to white, middle-class, male problems. Until then, those issues shouldn't be prioritised over more pressing ones, and doing so strikes me as the same attitude as CEO's who constantly give themselves a raise while making cutbacks at the lower levels to justify it financially.

The same argument could be made about any group. The gay marriage debate is one example. I mean, using your reasoning, who has the right to complain about not being able to get married when there are people suffering famine and dying in wars all over the world. Besides, this isn't about issues faced only by "white, middle-class, males". It is about problems faced by men in general. All the problems that I have mentioned in this thread are faced by men other than middle-class white ones. The huge percentage of men in prison are mostly black, for example.

In this very video that we're discussing, the male speaker is discussing what is was like growing up gay in a society that expects people to conform to certain gender roles. If he was speaking at, say, a gay rights conference, and it was a group of conservatives or neo-nazis protesting, I think your attitude would be different, but because he's there "as a man" not "as a homosexual", you are dismissive towards what he has to say, and are okay with a group, because they are feminists, trying to prevent him from talking.

 

No I don't. But such data would be largely irrelevant anyway, given that we live in a culture that encourages men to become leaders and women to support them. A culture that views politics as a male domain, and which, as we see with Gillard at the moment, holds women to far higher standards than men are held to.

It's not irrelevant. You are claiming discrimination, which you evidence with the fact that more parliamentarians are male than female. If fewer women choose to go into politics than men, then we should expect this. If, say, 30% of aspiring politicians were women, but we push to get 50% into parliament, then this is preferential treatment and would be discrimination in itself. If you want to change gender stereotypes and think that more women should be interested in politics, start at the bottom, not the top, otherwise we are going to end up with people who are not as qualified for the job, the same as in any industry where men outnumber the women when we push to get a higher percentage of the small number of women. The same would be true in reverse. If we pushed to have 50% of nurses in each hospital be male, we would end up with many more shit nurses, because you'd be picking those males from a very small pool of applicants and would have to hire people who were not as qualified for the job.

 

By the way, you're claiming discrimination without proving it on your own terms also.

How so?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you also be saying "boohoo" if this was a gay rights or women's rights group being (almost) prevented from speaking?

 

 

It depends what they were speaking about. My lack of concern about this guy getting shouted down has to do with hearing voices and opinions from his cultural-economic context all the time. I have no lack of access to opinions of middle class males, and hear more than enough middle-class male complaints. If it was a speaker who had less opportunity to have their opinion heard, like a queer speaker, then I would be concerned. Your video shows someone's voice being shouted over in a dramatic way (the video is intended to inflame our sense of fairness), which is always going to be appealing to a sympathetic audience, but I'm sure you're aware of the ways that voices from other cultural contexts are silenced in a less dramatic fashion. How many Indigenous Australian columnists do the major newspapers have on their staff, for example? And no, I don't have statistics on how many Indigenous Australians take journalism at uni, aspire to be journalists, or have applied at SMH in the last year, but I do know that there are Indigenous Australians who do have a degree in journalism that aren't selected for those jobs. Even if they were, of course the articles they would be tacitly allowed to write would have to be somewhere between conservative and moderately liberal (neither of which is satisfactory as we can see in the failure for liberal politics to improve the general situation for Indigenous Australians to anywhere near acceptable standards). This isn't as dramatic and visible as a man looking sheepish while being shouted over, but surely you're aware that the dominant voices we hear in public discourse is a more complex story than a punchy vid? If I never heard about middle-class male problems and opinions and recognised serious discrimination against that particular group I'd be on the opposite side of this argument.

 

 

But it is natural that those topics are dominated by people who are most closely affected by the issues being discussed.

 

 

Fair point. But it doesn't detract from the trend in most conferences, as far as I can see, being male-dominant even when the topic has nothing to do with identity politics.

 

Where in the talk about misandry was there any aim to undermine another group?

 

 

I couldn't actually hear much of what was going on in this talk. I'm referring to discussions that do take this tactic. This one, for example, where the assumption is that feminism is to blame for the supposedly disadvantaged position of middle-class males, as well as for the direct disruption of men's interest groups. Where in the video does it interview the protesters and reveal that they are all there representing a feminist DA group?

 

The same argument could be made about any group. The gay marriage debate is one example.

 

 

Sure, if you strip the context completely away. For me, the context is always important to understand, though. And the context of the gay marriage debate is that people who identify as queer are a minority who are discriminated against and are underprivileged compared to middle class men. There are so many economic, social, health, and other issues that follow from laws allowing and protecting the right to gay marriage that this is an important issue to address. These are issues that straight people (like the guy in your video, if I understand you correctly) don't have to think about, and don't experience directly.

 

The huge percentage of men in prison are mostly black

 

 

An issue which is addressed by activists who work with issues around race, and which is also present in some feminist discussions (cf. bell hooks, We Real Cool). Can you show me where people identified as men's rights activists (or have men's rights as the focus of their research) address the problems faced specifically by black men? You don't need an anti-feminist movement to address this problem. Let's not forget which socio-economic group is responsible for putting most of these people in prison.

 

You are claiming discrimination

 

Actually, that's your point. I gave up on that a few pages back, after the argument became tautological and neither of us could prove anything to your standards. My point was that middle-class males are overrepresented in public discourse, and that women are under-represented.

 

How so?

 

 

Your 'evidence' is a bunch of youtube videos. Show me direct evidence that men have a harder time getting a job at the university than women do, and that the reason for that is feminists taking action against already socio-economically disadvantaged men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's weird. Minorities are allowed a voice, but repressed people in numbers should just shut up - it's just hard shit - boohoo.

Bet the women love that in Saudi Arabia - there's enough of them there, let's completely ignore their concerns.

Boohoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a speaker who had less opportunity to have their opinion heard, like a queer speaker, then I would be concerned.

Please explain the difference between a speaker who is gay and a "queer speaker"?

 

but I'm sure you're aware of the ways that voices from other cultural contexts are silenced in a less dramatic fashion. How many Indigenous Australian columnists do the major newspapers have on their staff, for example?

Yes, I'm aware there are many other problems in society, and many other groups that are not heard. What I'm saying is that it's not okay that it happens to anyone. My point all along has been to question why so-called progressives are generally so unwilling to accept that men can suffer from discrimination, that issues that affect men are readily ridiculed and ignored. It's great that you care about the plight of Indigenous Australians. I do too, and if you were telling me it was okay for a white pride group to disrupt a conference that was aimed at improving the conditions of Indigenous Australians, I would be arguing with you about that too.

 

Fair point. But it doesn't detract from the trend in most conferences, as far as I can see, being male-dominant even when the topic has nothing to do with identity politics.

It depends what the topic is. If it is a topic that predominantly attracts women, I have a feeling that the majority of speakers will be women. But there are many possible causes, and to assume discrimination is not fair. The percentage of female speakers at EGA events is quite small. Do you conclude that this is discrimination? There are many possible factors. How many women are interested in ethnobotany as opposed to men? How many pursue it as a career? How many choose to undertake postgraduate research in related fields? There are a lot of things to look into before you conclude that the organisers are silencing female voices. And I strongly disagree with your assertion that we hear middle-class male grievances all the time (and I don't know why you think this is about class, but my impression is that academic feminists are generally middle-class too). We hear men speak a lot, but we do not hear men or women speak about men's issues.

Most people I discuss this with have never even heard the discrimination assumption on the gender wage gap challenged. They've never heard bogus domestic violence statistics challenged. They don't realise that more funding is provided for women's health than men's. They've never heard of the men's rights movement. Probably the only things I've heard on a wider scale are things about child custody, because it's such a widespread problem that affects so many men that it is actually in the public consciousness.

 

I couldn't actually hear much of what was going on in this talk.

I wonder why :rolleyes:

 

I'm referring to discussions that do take this tactic. This one, for example, where the assumption is that feminism is to blame for the supposedly disadvantaged position of middle-class males

I don't believe I've said that feminism is directly to blame for the problems faced by men. I have said that the mainstream feminist attitude claims to be about equality, but does not allow for people's concerns about the issues men face to be heard. Feminist ideology is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of men's rights. I don't think feminism is the cause of these problems, but it sure makes it harder for them to get fixed.

 

Where in the video does it interview the protesters and reveal that they are all there representing a feminist DA group?

Are you kidding me? Who else do you think would be protesting against a discussion on misandry?

Here is footage of the actual protestors if you're really questioning whether they were feminists protesting:

 

 

The attitude is typical. It's essentially "We've got your back. If you shut up and keep silent, we will solve all these problems you're concerned about. But you're not allowed to have your own voice in this debate." (I'm paraphrasing :lol:)

 

Sure, if you strip the context completely away. For me, the context is always important to understand, though. And the context of the gay marriage debate is that people who identify as queer are a minority who are discriminated against and are underprivileged compared to middle class men.

You completely didn't address my point, which was that if you are going to rank people on a scale of privelege, then all but one group are going to be above the bottom.

 

Sure, if you strip the context completely away. For me, the context is always important to understand, though. And the context of poverty is that people who are impoverished are starving to death in third world countries and are underprivileged compared to middle-class gay people in the West.

Get it? You responded as though I never made that point, and that I was minimising the concerns of the gay rights movement in the same way that you are minimising the concerns of the men's rights movement. Please answer this clearly. If you think men's rights shouldn't be addressed because there are people worse off than "middle class" men, why don't you think it is okay to write off the gay rights movement based on the same fact? Because, yes, there are people in the world worse off than middle-class (I can do that too) white homosexuals in the West.

 

There are so many economic, social, health, and other issues that follow from laws allowing and protecting the right to gay marriage that this is an important issue to address. These are issues that straight people (like the guy in your video, if I understand you correctly) don't have to think about, and don't experience directly.

If you're genuinely interested in the content of the video, you should turn the captions on :wink:

Edited by ballzac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An issue which is addressed by activists who work with issues around race, and which is also present in some feminist discussions (cf. bell hooks, We Real Cool). Can you show me where people identified as men's rights activists (or have men's rights as the focus of their research) address the problems faced specifically by black men?

I don't know if there are any. My point was that men, as a group, includes minorities, so to make out that it is about "middle-class white men" is just plain wrong. But, if there is any work by that focusses specifically on the problems faced by black men, you are okay with attempts to silence that discussion, simply because it's not coming from the feminist perspective.

 

Actually, that's your point. I gave up on that a few pages back, after the argument became tautological and neither of us could prove anything to your standards. My point was that middle-class males are overrepresented in public discourse, and that women are under-represented.

Okay, sorry. I misunderstood you. But if it's not due to discrimination, then the solution is simple: more women should step up and get involved in public discourse. I mean, if you're not claiming discrimination, then there really aren't any barriers other than personal choice and ability.

 

Show me direct evidence that men have a harder time getting a job at the university than women do, and that the reason for that is feminists taking action against already socio-economically disadvantaged men.

I don't believe I ever made that claim. I might have said that this will be the end result if we force employers to pick 50/50 by gender when the pool of applicants is predominantly male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's weird. Minorities are allowed a voice, but repressed people in numbers should just shut up - it's just hard shit - boohoo.That's weird. Minorities are allowed a voice, but repressed people in numbers should just shut up - it's just hard shit - boohoo.

 

Whereas it's not so weird that you have once again missed the point. It isn't about the number of people being oppressed - this is certainly important - its about a balance of privilege. An analogy to help you understand: Why should we give more money to the rich, rather than first allocating some to the poor? By the same logic, why should we focus our energies on attaining more rights for those who have the most rights and privileges, when we could be working on attaining rights and privileges for those who are disadvantaged in this respect?

if you were telling me it was okay for a white pride group to disrupt a conference that was aimed at improving the conditions of Indigenous Australians, I would be arguing with you about that too.

 

What about the opposite: Activists working against racism disrupting a white-pride group's public discussion? (just out of interest).

We hear men speak a lot, but we do not hear men or women speak about men's issues.

 

Certainly we do, we just don't hear them AS men's issues because most issues are already men's issues. Gay marriage, for example, is in part a men's issue. And we certainly hear about issues that specifically affect males, especially in the areas of health and criminology. Look at the Top News on the front page of bbc news today - you've got war (mens' business), football x2 (obv. not about any female league), Pablo Neruda, some man doing an experiment on the Tube, and two less obviously gendered issues (about fake IDs and chocolate). We hear about male-dominated issues ALL the time, we hear about men ALL the time. Is all that due to feminism undermining the rights and privileges of men?

Here is footage of the actual protestors if you're really questioning whether they were feminists protesting:

 

The irony here is superb, the way the MRAs are speaking over/drowning out the people they're harassing for that very reason! The coin has two sides.

if you are going to rank people on a scale of privelege, then all but one group are going to be above the bottom.

 

Sure, and ethically that will be the most important group to address the rights of.

Get it? You responded as though I never made that point, and that I was minimising the concerns of the gay rights movement in the same way that you are minimising the concerns of the men's rights movement. Please answer this clearly. If you think men's rights shouldn't be addressed because there are people worse off than "middle class" men, why don't you think it is okay to write off the gay rights movement based on the same fact? Because, yes, there are people in the world worse off than middle-class (I can do that too) white homosexuals in the West.

 

Because queers (a term I try to use because it seems more inclusive than 'gay') are less privileged than straights I think their rights should be prioritised. Obviously there is no stable hierarchy or absolutes here, for me its more a matter of choosing the more equitable option.

But, if there is any work by that focusses specifically on the problems faced by black men, you are okay with attempts to silence that discussion, simply because it's not coming from the feminist perspective.

 

Not at all, but I may be skeptical if the field of study around discrimination against black men is dominated by white men. In fact, there are books that address problems that affect black men more than white men - imprisonment is a good example that you provided. Angela Davis' Are Prisons Obsolete takes up such questions of institutionalised racism in the criminal system. Of all the books I've encountered around these topics, none have been written by authors who identify as MRAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas it's not so weird that you have once again missed the point. It isn't about the number of people being oppressed - this is certainly important - its about a balance of privilege. An analogy to help you understand: Why should we give more money to the rich, rather than first allocating some to the poor? By the same logic, why should we focus our energies on attaining more rights for those who have the most rights and privileges, when we could be working on attaining rights and privileges for those who are disadvantaged in this respect?

So even when there is significant prejudice against myself, I am not allowed to mention it, or discuss it?

When an issue impacts myself (such as women's rights) I am not allowed to have an opinion unless it agrees with the women?

When women's rights are discussed and they directly impact me, am I not allowed a say if they are prejudiced against me?

These are the questions you need to address, and why. I will, and have always done, stuck up for minorities and the oppressed, but when it comes to something that significantly impacts myself, I am not allowed a say, because you have already decided (based purely on my gender) that I am not worth it.

Boohoo to you mate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the opposite: Activists working against racism disrupting a white-pride group's public discussion? (just out of interest).

I personally trust my own judgement on what I should be allowed to hear than some group that proclaims to be the arbiter of what's racist and what isn't. So yes, I think everyone's voice should be allowed to be heard.

 

Certainly we do, we just don't hear them AS men's issues because most issues are already men's issues. Gay marriage, for example, is in part a men's issue. And we certainly hear about issues that specifically affect males, especially in the areas of health and criminology. Look at the Top News on the front page of bbc news today - you've got war (mens' business), football x2 ...

Stories on war and football aren't really getting to the heart of the problems that affect men in society.

 

The irony here is superb, the way the MRAs are speaking over/drowning out the people they're harassing for that very reason! The coin has two sides.

They are there to disrupt a discussion on misandry. They have their own little meetings. In fact, they have classes that are actually organised by the university in which they can discuss what they want. If they wanted to genuinely be part of the discussion, I'm sure there was nothing stopping any of them from attending.

 

Sure, and ethically that will be the most important group to address the rights of.

Because queers (a term I try to use because it seems more inclusive than 'gay') are less privileged than straights I think their rights should be prioritised. Obviously there is no stable hierarchy or absolutes here, for me its more a matter of choosing the more equitable option.

Still doesn't quite explain why you think that men's rights should be ignored because "queers" (or LGBTQ persons :wink:) have it worse, while you don't think that queer rights should be ignored because there are others that have it worse.

Question: Who is more priveleged, blacks or queers? (i.e whose rights should be ignored in favour of the other group?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me be clear - I'm all for freedom of speech and expression. Of course you should be allowed to speak up against oppression that affects you. You have some of the best methods of access in the world to do this.

While you're at it, you should also be aware of and speak up about oppression against others. I'm aware that people can't fight every battle, but if you are genuinely interested in, say, the over-incarceration of black males, lets talk about that rather than having a meta-argument about "men's rights activists never get any speaking time". Men's rights are addressed in a number of fields, but the group known as MRAs don't seem to have much to do with those serious arguments. I, again, implore you to list some self-identified MRAs who have published significant works in the field that address problems affecting people of colour, queer issues, ability issues - whatever it is to demonstrate that the movement isn't just a thinly veiled method of protecting white, middle-class men (who are some of the best privileged people in society).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally trust my own judgement on what I should be allowed to hear than some group that proclaims to be the arbiter of what's racist and what isn't. So yes, I think everyone's voice should be allowed to be heard.

But you've said earlier that you are concerned about people not being well enough informed to make decisions about things like discrimination towards men. Wouldn't this also mean that many people aren't well informed enough to distinguish the falsified, racist dogma that is often spouted at white pride conventions?

Do you deny that mainstream media is deeply racist, and that many people take information from the mainstream media at face value and as their key source of information about public issues?

Still doesn't quite explain why you think that men's rights should be ignored because "queers" (or LGBTQ persons :wink:) have it worse, while you don't think that queer rights should be ignored because there are others that have it worse.

Question: Who is more priveleged, blacks or queers? (i.e whose rights should be ignored in favour of the other group?)

I'll reply by quoting myself, since I've already addressed those points:

Obviously there is no stable hierarchy or absolutes here, for me its more a matter of choosing the more equitable option.

Men's rights are addressed in a number of fields, but the group known as MRAs don't seem to have much to do with those serious arguments. I, again, implore you to list some self-identified MRAs who have published significant works in the field that address problems affecting people of colour, queer issues, ability issues - whatever it is to demonstrate that the movement isn't just a thinly veiled method of protecting white, middle-class men (who are some of the best privileged people in society).

Edit: I think this discussion has become somewhat moot - my main feeling about the discussion is that I don't support Men's Rights groups that work to undermine the struggles of less advantaged peoples, or whose rights come at the cost of other less advantaged peoples' rights being either eroded or ignored. My secondary point is that men's rights are addressed in political movements outside of MRA.

Edited by raketemensch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me be clear - I'm all for freedom of speech and expression. Of course you should be allowed to speak up against oppression that affects you. You have some of the best methods of access in the world to do this.

While you're at it, you should also be aware of and speak up about oppression against others.

Agreed.

 

I'm aware that people can't fight every battle, but if you are genuinely interested in, say, the over-incarceration of black males, lets talk about that rather than having a meta-argument about "men's rights activists never get any speaking time". Men's rights are addressed in a number of fields, but the group known as MRAs don't seem to have much to do with those serious arguments. I, again, implore you to list some self-identified MRAs who have published significant works in the field that address problems affecting people of colour, queer issues, ability issues - whatever it is to demonstrate that the movement isn't just a thinly veiled method of protecting white, middle-class men (who are some of the best privileged people in society).

:scratchhead: We can talk about something else if you'd prefer, but it's just another example of you thinking that there aren't any issues that specifically affect men that are worth discussing. Considering that the men's rights movement is about improving the rights of men as a group, it's unsurprising that they aren't covering a lot of other issues specifically. Also, it's a small and relatively new movement, so the focus is going to be on much broader topics.

I'm curious what your explanation for the number of women, black men, and (gasp) black women, involved in the MRM is if it's about protecting privilege for white, middle-class men? Sure, there are a few feminists who have covered topics on men's issues. Good on them. But these days, it seems most feminists are concerned with such troubling problems as: being offered coffee (Rebecca Watson); female characters in video games being depicted as damsels in distress (Anita Sarkeesian); and people making jokes about dongles (Adria Richards). Okay, so they're not exactly high profile academic feminists, but I don't see a lot of self-identified feminists speaking out against what they have to say.

I have also explained before that I do not consider myself an MRA. While I care about men's rights, it's just another "ism", and as soon as you identify as something like that, you take on a lot of the baggage that comes with it. While there are MRAs whose position I agree with, there are also many who I don't. My point about MRM versus feminism is not that feminism is inherently worse than the MRM, but instead that society gives a blank cheque to one while being highly suspicious of the other.

 

But you've said earlier that you are concerned about people not being well enough informed to make decisions about things like discrimination towards men. Wouldn't this also mean that many people aren't well informed enough to distinguish the falsified, racist dogma that is often spouted at white pride conventions?

The only way for people to become informed is for these issues to be discussed.

 

Do you deny that mainstream media is deeply racist, and that many people take information from the mainstream media at face value and as their key source of information about public issues?

I'd mostly agree, though I think that's changing very quickly with the advent of the internet.

 

I'll reply by quoting myself, since I've already addressed those points:

That doesn't really address my point. What I'm hearing is "It's open to interpretation, and the line is drawn where I say it should be"

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

×