Lay 'stop particpating' out for me in practical terms.... do I quit my job? Remove all pink from my daughter's wardrobe? Vote NDP?
That's the general counterargument against social justice for every disadvantaged group, ever.What I hate being told, over and over, is damn my eyes for having a penis and thus, by my very existence, being an oppressor. Eff that.
What can I say, when I hear complaints I look for solutions. The only solution being proffered is simply "stop being a man". Not workable.
You could stop participating in the system they object to like you are doing right now. Seriously, privilege denial is the first weapon in the arsenal.
1) Acknowledge the titanic privilege your sex has given you. (Not just say it, but actually own up to the fact that all your life you've been playing the game with the cheat codes on.)
2) Admit the resultant corollary: absent that privilege we would expect the outcomes of men and women in our society to be essentially impossible to distinguish in just about everything.3) Advocate for policies to redress the imbalance like, for example, non-discrimination laws, free or low cost access to reproductive health care including abortions and contraception (I know, you're Canadian but I'm thinking of meatrace too), and so forth. The problem will not fix itself.
4) Walk the walk in your personal life by realizing that unless you're in something like a penis-measuring contest, any all-male or predominantly male activity or group is at least very suspect and probably a part of the problem. Try to remedy that when you can.
Do you quit your job? If you're a Catholic priest or a member of some other all-male or predominantly male profession that sounds like a good idea. Or if you don't can't do that without starving your kids or whatever, get to work on changing the proportions. You know, same stuff you'd do in any other situation where you discovered your employer was up to no good.
Remove pink from your daughter's wardrobe? Does your son have about equal amounts? If so you're fine. Even if not, there are bigger worries than fashion. (Not that it's unimportant but the color of her clothes matters less than her ability to get equal work for equal pay.)
Vote NDP? I wouldn't know; I don't follow Canadian politics well enough to know how comparatively horrific the parties are on equality. I imagine, since it's virtually a law of nature, that the Tories are far and away the worst choice though probably still almost infinitely better than, say, the Republicans are here.
You could stop participating in the system they object to like you are doing right now. Seriously, privilege denial is the first weapon in the arsenal.Could you perhaps provide more evidence for your point and less reliance on attacking the person?
Society treats men and women very differently. The comparisons between the two involve a large number of incomperables that i do not think are fairly summed up by "male privilege" . If you want me to believe it exists, spell out specifically what you're talking about without the circular argument that we're ignorantbadwrong because we're skeptical about this and we're skeptical about this because we're ignorantbadwrong.
I present to you the evidence you just supplied:
Society treats men and women very differently.
You're welcome. Here are some more.
I would have simply referenced the earlier post. This latest one sounds very much like theaattack he was decrying.
I would have simply referenced the earlier post. This latest one sounds very much like theaattack he was decrying.
I assumed posters would have read the essay I quoted and linked to. It's not long and gives plenty of examples. The focus is on skin color privilege, but the general and some of the examples translate pretty well. Every injustice has its own particular traits and especially intense areas of struggle, but there are plenty of commonalities to getting crapped on by society.
Here it is again. I just found this article which has some good second steps too.
I get it, though. That's part of what's so frustrating. I'm a white cis-dude living in a almost 97% white town. White privilege and male privilege are everyday realities. When they pervade your existence to such an incredible degree, they are by definition normal and thus invisible. But it's all there in the outcomes. Nobody follows me around the stores while I'm shopping, even though I am a fairly creepy looking dude that tends to go around with his head down and try to avoid notice. (I don't like being accosted by the staff while shopping. If I can't find something, I'll come ask.) I know when the town's first black family moved in they didn't have that experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you must appreciate that, as a universal skeptic, you have constructed for you airtight circular logic.
Everything you have is because you're white and/or male!
Really? Can you show me that to be the case?
See? Flexing your male privilege already, you SOB!
No, really, I'm willing to listen, just show me...
You can't see it, it's invisible to whites and/or males.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that we continue to live in a (largely) male dominated society. The evidence is all around me: the vast majority of positions of real economic and political power are held by men. Similarly I'll concede to gross racial privilege on a social level, and I like to think I'm rather cognizant of it.
It seems to be an error of deduction, however. White males tend to be in positions of power, thus all white males have more power. There are, certainly, ways in which this is true--as a general rule. It doesn't mean that it applies to me personally. My immediate superior--and her superior, all the way up the chain of command to the CEO--is a woman. This semester I had 3 women instructors and I hadn't even thought about that until just now, and about 70% of my classes were women.
What I'm saying is, you'd have to know me to be able to point out instances where I got a leg up anywhere because of my sex. And you'd not find those instances, or at least they'd be overshadowed by the preponderance of instances I was negatively discriminated against because of it.
You won't hear an argument from me that it's all bad, you're just hearing an argument when I protest that I'm not part of the problem but rather do my darnedest to be part of the solution. You must recognize that what you tell me sounds like a personal attack: it's my fault that some woman somewhere else that I've never met makes 90 cents on the dollar or what have you.
Society treats men and women very differently.
This is no evidence for your point. The reverse is equally valid.
Society treats men and women differently. Therefore, female privilege.
Here are some more.[/url]
And some others, showing the opposite.
There were 113,000 women offenders incarcerated in state and federal facilities in 2010 compared to 1,500,000 male inmates.
Jack becomes homeless, Jill gets welfare
Women get 85-90% of the custody of children in divorce
Women are attending college at higher rates than men.. thats female privilege. I suppose i can argue that someone only got into college because they're a girl?
Men bear the brunt of military losses
Men are far more likely to be killed on the job.
Forgive me if I'm not feeling particularly privileged.
You need to start with the evidence and advance to your conclusion in a rational, consistent manner without merely assuming that you're right, and that your being right is enough to condemn the people that disagree with you.
It seems to be an error of deduction, however. White males tend to be in positions of power, thus all white males have more power.
A bit of column A, a bit of column B. The fact that white males are in positions of power is a self-reinforcing thing. Sure. But those statistical advantages do not translate exactly to every single white male having more power than every single white female, say. (The general trend has been expanding that gap little tiny bit by bit. Until about a century ago, men in most western societies literally owned their wives in all but name, receiving title from the woman's father on marriage.)
The statistical advantage isn't the only field privilege operates on. There are, in fact, advantages that every member of the group enjoys because those advantages are part of the culture we live in. Women are disproportionately more likely to be victims of sexual assault. Women know that too and have to to varying degrees take into account their personal safety in their day to day lives in ways that we dudes do not have to. I have never felt threatened by someone catcalling me. (Granted I'm fairly homely, but you get the idea.) But that behavior is non-threatening to me in part because I know that sexual assault victims are almost always women. It doesn't even cross my mind that a catcall might be a prelude to some kind of assault. It wouldn't trigger any apprehension for me at all.
Obviously not all women worry about this stuff to the same degree, but the example comes to mind because among my loved ones are women who do and who have been victims of sexual violence. They will not be alone with strange men, or in fact any men they don't know well. They do go through life, especially when there aren't many people around, consciously rating men in the area for how dangerous they look.
With the possible exception of the few men who are victims of sexual assaults, I can't picture many guys doing that. I know I don't. We have the privilege of not having to worry about that. Women carry an extra load. It's not our fault exactly. (Unless we're sexual criminals, but leaving that aside.) It's also absolutely not the fault of any woman. Now that I'm thinking about it, there are a lot of parallels with living with a chronic disease. It's that extra burden you have to carry because of how our culture is set up.
And that's how it can be so subtle. You want me to give you examples of getting a leg up because of your sex? Leaving aside that I don't have your unabridged biography on hand, they're going to involve a lot of things that didn't happen to you rather than things that did. I'm guessing you've never been sexually assaulted. (If you have, I'm sorry for this post.) You've probably never been in a position of authority and had anybody wonder if you were really not that qualified and just there to make the company's diversity figures look good either. In school the history books were full of people just like you, at least superficially, rather than empty of them or including them in only a sort of haphazard, tokenist way.
Privileged people can end up adding to the burden, though. I've done it myself. We do it when we minimize or disregard those burdens. We do it when we make excuses for them. We even do it to a degree when we just ignore the problem. The last isn't quite the same as the others, but it does passively contribute to things staying the same. Problems don't fix themselves.
Forgive me if I'm not feeling particularly privileged.You need to start with the evidence and advance to your conclusion in a rational, consistent manner without merely assuming that you're right, and that your being right is enough to condemn the people that disagree with you.
And some black people owned slaves too. So obviously it wasn't a racist institution in the American South. Right? And why, white people and black people alike could not marry outside their race. It's equality!
Or not. The presence of injustice toward one group does not preclude injustice toward another. But taken as a whole, men in western society are far, far better off than women are. I can't believe I even have to type something so obvious.
But I get it. You didn't read the links. Ok, not worth the bother.
You want me to give you examples of getting a leg up because of your sex? Leaving aside that I don't have your unabridged biography on hand, they're going to involve a lot of things that didn't happen to you rather than things that did. I'm guessing you've never been sexually assaulted. (If you have, I'm sorry for this post.) You've probably never been in a position of authority and had anybody wonder if you were really not that qualified and just there to make the company's diversity figures look good either. In school the history books were full of people just like you, at least superficially, rather than empty of them or including them in only a sort of haphazard, tokenist way.
I've been sexually assaulted, both by men and women.
I've never been in a position of authority period, and indeed the only position I've held beyond base peon I was discriminated against for being male.I'll cop to the history book thing, at least insofar as males are concerned, but at least my history books didn't disproportionately highlight white males so there's that. And I also had a card-carrying communist as a world history teacher...
I appreciate that women often have a heightened awareness of those that surround them due to the possibility of sexual assault. I'm also aware, because of how I look (6'5", 300lbs, lots of facial hair, usually wearing all black) that women often won't talk to me because they think I might rape them. Life sucks on both ends of that interchange.
All I've been saying is: why isn't it okay to have an open dialogue and say, hey, let's put all this baggage that EVERYONE experiences on the table and discuss? And EVEN YOU shouted me down for suggesting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And some black people owned slaves too. So obviously it wasn't a racist institution in the American South. Right? And why, white people and black people alike could not marry outside their race. It's equality!
Or not. The presence of injustice toward one group does not preclude injustice toward another. But taken as a whole, men in western society are far, far better off than women are. I can't believe I even have to type something so obvious.
But I get it. You didn't read the links. Ok, not worth the bother.
And this is what bothers me. Your #1 argument is to belittle the genuine inequalities on the other side.
That women, by an incredible disproportion, gain custody of children and receive state housing aid (among other things) while men might as well die in the gutter, is not a trivial thing to be dismissed when we're discussing gender inequalities.
We're saying both things are wrong, and you're telling us that even suggesting that is in itself a "weapon" against equality.
1. Depends on the workplace. In some places the same is true for men.
2. Actually (and I'll do some digging) men pay inordinately higher insurance prices despite the actuarial data suggesting that the amount paid out is in virtual parity. Women get into many MANY more, smaller, accidents than men. But when men do screw up it's often catastrophic and involving hospital visits. Negligent driving in women is more pervasive, however, than reckless driving is in men.
3. Function of the market. Believe me, I find this irksome myself. My girlfriend will spend a lot of money on stuff that is of no practical use.
4. I'm not sure what "women's diseases" are, but I can tell you that breast cancer gets a lot more funding per death than other cancers. Though, to be fair, prostate isn't that far behind.
5. No, men who assert themselves are called a#%*%~*s, pricks, douchebags, alpha male d!@+$oles, etc. I don't know what fictional 1950s world you're living in...
6. If a woman is "raising the children", i.e. they can be considered to be the sole or majority childcare provider, they are (likely) either a)single or b)not working. It's sexist to assume that men don't want the responsibility for their children, and yet the majority of contested cases find in favor of mothers. I've been denied raises because I didn't have children at all, I think this is largely in the pot of "things everyone has to deal with" in a society that is so focused on the nuclear family model still, and with (unnecessarily) incentivizing procreation.
7. Absolutely true! And it does suck balls.
And this is what bothers me. Your #1 argument is to belittle the genuine inequalities on the other side.
Comparison is not belittling. I'm not going around saying that it's right or no big deal that women are favored in custody rulings, etc. Saying women have it far, far worse is just plain fact. As I think I'm on my third post saying now I am taking together all the cultural crap dumped on women as an aggregate and comparing it to all the cultural crap dumped on men as an aggregate. Ladies are saddled with the bigger pile.
Men do not live in an earthly paradise (far from it!) and all their complaints are just the product of a few whiners. But women get the shorter end of the stick. That's the reality we live with.
But I give up. This isn't getting anywhere except around in circles.
|
[ (The general trend has been expanding that gap little tiny bit by bit. Until about a century ago, men in most western societies literally owned their wives in all but name, receiving title from the woman's father on marriage.)
I have an interest in the history of property law, I would love to see your source for this fact. Are we talking civil law, or common law? Waaay back in feudal times it was possible for a lord to gain custody/ownership of a young ward's body through the death of a tenant. But those rights got stripped down to nothing by ~1645.
Women who owned land and property (either by inheritance or by dower) way back in the day did carry the title to their husband.
Or are you talking about femme sole versus femme covert? Title didn't pass from father to husband, but after Blackstone's commentaries (he pushed the law a lot further than had been before), they did lose many of their rights to own property and enter into contracts (dower and pin money being the exceptions). It was about 1870 I think when the married women's property act was passed and reversed coverture.
Of course, this is mostly the law of the nobility and then the bourgeoisie, it had very little impact on the day to day life of regular folks. There are some good marxist texts out there about how far removed english property law was from anyone other than that era's 1%.
Oh, and, a link to Blackstone: http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-115.htm
Hmm I guess, I am saying that you are close to correct, but not nailing the exact technicalities.
Oh, and I suppose its important to note that courts of equity and the ecclesiastical courts didn't recognize coverture, so husband and wife remained two people for that purpose.
But I give up. This isn't getting anywhere except around in circles.
Because you're not actually providing evidence or examples to prove your case!
Probably the most solid case for women having it genuinely worse than men is pay discrimination. And even then, women in my age group actually make more than men. But I'll still gladly cop to the greater trend.
I guess it comes down to how you evaluate the injustices. For the most part, institutional (or just inherent) injustices for which women bear the burden are discomfort, social unease, unfair expectations, and a slight cut in pay.
Men DIE.
[ (The general trend has been expanding that gap little tiny bit by bit. Until about a century ago, men in most western societies literally owned their wives in all but name, receiving title from the woman's father on marriage.)
I have an interest in the history of property law, I would love to see your source for this fact. Are we talking civil law, or common law? Waaay back in feudal times it was possible for a lord to gain custody/ownership of a young ward's body through the death of a tenant. But those rights got stripped down to nothing by ~1645.
Women who owned land and property (either by inheritance or by dower) way back in the day did carry the title to their husband.
Or are you talking about femme sole versus femme covert?
In the US it was legal to rape your spouse in some states until 1993. (Our system has a way of conserving these atavisms.) If you can rape someone and the law doesn't object because they're married to you, you pretty much own their body.
But also coverture laws, where everything a woman owned became de facto her husband's property. Can't own property and control it. Can be raped at will by one who holds a legal title over you. This sounds like owning people to me. Plus of course the social systems built around and sustaining those.
Ugly stuff. The law might not come out and say a married woman was property to her husband, but sure tried.
Hmm I guess, I am saying that you are close to correct, but not nailing the exact technicalities
Yeah. I'm definitely not a lawyer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Society treats men and women very differently.This is no evidence for your point. The reverse is equally valid.
Society treats men and women differently. Therefore, female privilege.
The truth is, BOTH genders have privilege, and BOTH are discriminated against. TV Tropes did a good job of explaining this in Double Standard. Sexism is a two way street, not a one way street, and both genders both benefit and suffer. The sooner we learn that instead of arguing about which gender is the disadvantaged one, the sooner we can work on solving the problem.
|
Lay 'stop particpating' out for me in practical terms.... do I quit my job? Remove all pink from my daughter's wardrobe? Vote NDP?
That's the general counterargument against social justice for every disadvantaged group, ever.What I hate being told, over and over, is damn my eyes for having a penis and thus, by my very existence, being an oppressor. Eff that.
What can I say, when I hear complaints I look for solutions. The only solution being proffered is simply "stop being a man". Not workable.
You could stop participating in the system they object to like you are doing right now. Seriously, privilege denial is the first weapon in the arsenal.
This is the one biggest obstacles for feminism, we are told to stop perpetuating the system with no explanation of how to do so or with multiple cultural/national flavour of feminism opinions that do not offer a cohesive explanation of what is wanted.
Build a billion population city for women only in the middle of Australia and outlaw religion and representative government because men created both. That way Men can be free of our Enslavement of Women as second class citizens and be free to accept extinction of our existence and beliefs while women can go off and build their own civilization though artificial insemination.
I am super privileged... I put that down to the fact I live in the best country in the world.
The only thing that ever tempts to become a feminist is the poor arguments of anti-feminists.
I mean, Citizen Meatrace, did you even read ms. hooks's article? I didn't think it was the greatest thing I've ever read, but it's quite clear, what with her digressions about female patriarchalists and patriarchy-caused male hurt, that she is not blaming you for having a penis.
Which means that all the posters between there and now who've been talking about what women want as some kind of argument against feminism has very little validity.
I haven't read that McIntosh essay yet (I just woke up), but I am familiar with similar thinking re: race relations (e.g., Noel Ignatiev, authour of How the Irish Became White and editor of Race Traitor) and the language about "lessening privilege" kind of rubs me the wrong way.
I am a white (well, green) male proletarian. I am not unaware that society treats me differently from my black and female peers, but I have no interest in "lessening" white or male privilege (unless we're talking about, say, stopping lynching or rape) but instead want to extend these privileges to all of humanity.
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people"?
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its women are treated."
--Charles Fourier, 1772-1837
Before Gandhi, before John Stuart Mill, around the same time as Mary Wollstonecraft. Revolutionary socialists have been for the radical notion that women are people for a very long time, and I see no need to change my nomenclature now.
More stuff later. Maybe.
EDIT: Oh yeah, Fourier was kind of batty on a lot of things, but, as Comrade Hawkshaw probably remembers, he had a plan to meet the sexual needs of all citizens, too.
Revolutionary socialism will get you laid!
I am super privileged... I put that down to the fact I live in the best country in the world.
Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep on politrollin'
|
When will men be allowed to wear skirts?
Frankly, I think a lot of these issues are differences, with only a few being a clear cut straight comparison. Most of the issues are completely different areas of consideration. Women can't wear the same three suits everyday for a year without social negativity, they are expected to constantly rotate through new clothes and wear better fashion. Men don't face the fashion issue, but they still have to conform to the groups standards.
It's just we have different measuring sticks for different groups of people, personally I think this is a result of how our brains think and classify things/people into groups for easier analysis, catagorization, and memory conservation. We use the catagories to remember things about everyone in that catagory instead of remembering these things seperately for each individual of that group. This suspected process would be the basis for all discrimination, "They have traits of that group, thus the other traits of that group likely apply" a more close-minded individual might replace "likely" with "definately."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any Celtic brethren want to field that one?
Good morning, DLH.
As a male with a menial job who considers changing my clothes putting on fresh socks and underwear (still available, ladies!!), I'd say, sure, and if that was the only additional burden that women bore, I'd be willing to congratulate myself as a member of a pretty enlightenend society, rest back on my laurels, and download some hawt three-way porn or maybe go get a lapdance.
But it's way more than that. As I am sure you must be aware, in the majority of the world, women still live like, I don't know, slaves. Watch the Isabel Allende video, which was the second one that Citizen Irontruth posted. Others might have more recommendations.
Even here in the United States, in the year 2012, it's more than that, too. For example, witness the flap that was made about Sandra Fluke, what, last year? A lot of Citizen X's Angry White Males spewed disgustingly piggish about her wanting to be paid to have sex, etc., ad nauseam, but what she was trying to say was that, without insurance coverage, birth control for many (the majority?) of women is unaffordable. And without affordable birth control and, concomitantly, the ability to govern their own bodies and the right to decide whether or not to have children (see that discussion of sexual reproduction above) women are not free, not sexually, not economically. (Oh, btw, IIRC, Obama betrayed women on that one, too.)
I used to have this Dutch hardcore punk album back in the nineties that had a lot of audio clips from the movie Reds. In one of them, Maureen Stapleton, as anarchist legend (and counterrevolutionary) Emma Goldman declaims "Economic freedom for women means sexual freedom. And sexual freedom means birth control." And then guitars kick in, and it's wicked awesome, but I forgot the name of the band. :(
I am super privileged... I put that down to the fact I live in the best country in the world.
Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep on politrollin'
The first one is sad, the second far more complicated than it looks, you missed the Cronulla riots, Siev X and a few other odds and ends.
Still the best country in the world.
|
|
1. Depends on the workplace. In some places the same is true for men.
2. Actually (and I'll do some digging) men pay inordinately higher insurance prices despite the actuarial data suggesting that the amount paid out is in virtual parity. Women get into many MANY more, smaller, accidents than men. But when men do screw up it's often catastrophic and involving hospital visits. Negligent driving in women is more pervasive, however, than reckless driving is in men.
3. Function of the market. Believe me, I find this irksome myself. My girlfriend will spend a lot of money on stuff that is of no practical use.
4. I'm not sure what "women's diseases" are, but I can tell you that breast cancer gets a lot more funding per death than other cancers. Though, to be fair, prostate isn't that far behind.
5. No, men who assert themselves are called a*~+#+~s, pricks, douchebags, alpha male d&+$%oles, etc. I don't know what fictional 1950s world you're living in...
6. If a woman is "raising the children", i.e. they can be considered to be the sole or majority childcare provider, they are (likely) either a)single or b)not working. It's sexist to assume that men don't want the responsibility for their children, and yet the majority of contested cases find in favor of mothers. I've been denied raises because I didn't have children at all, I think this is largely in the pot of "things everyone has to deal with" in a society that is so focused on the nuclear family model still, and with (unnecessarily) incentivizing procreation.
7. Absolutely true! And it does suck balls.
How is it you are stating damn near exactly what i was thinking while reading that???
We can agree.|
|
[ (The general trend has been expanding that gap little tiny bit by bit. Until about a century ago, men in most western societies literally owned their wives in all but name, receiving title from the woman's father on marriage.)
I have an interest in the history of property law, I would love to see your source for this fact. Are we talking civil law, or common law? Waaay back in feudal times it was possible for a lord to gain custody/ownership of a young ward's body through the death of a tenant. But those rights got stripped down to nothing by ~1645.
Women who owned land and property (either by inheritance or by dower) way back in the day did carry the title to their husband.
Or are you talking about femme sole versus femme covert?
In the US it was legal to rape your spouse in some states until 1993. (Our system has a way of conserving these atavisms.) If you can rape someone and the law doesn't object because they're married to you, you pretty much own their body.
But also coverture laws, where everything a woman owned became de facto her husband's property. Can't own property and control it. Can be raped at will by one who holds a legal title over you. This sounds like owning people to me. Plus of course the social systems built around and sustaining those.
Ugly stuff. The law might not come out and say a married woman was property to her husband, but sure tried.
And today a woman can divorce and take half of what a man has ever made as well as take away his children. Is this fair now?
I am super privileged... I put that down to the fact I live in the best country in the world.
Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep on politrollin'
The first one is sad, the second far more complicated than it looks, you missed the Cronulla riots, Siev X and a few other odds and ends.
Still the best country in the world.
Apart from a few things, old boy.
1) It's populated by Australians. That alone has to shift it down some.2) Too hot. Flashfires. Willy-willys. The weather is trying to kill you.
3) The wildlife is trying to kill you.
4) It's full of Australians. This point really needs to be repeated.
Besides, there can only be one greatest nation in the world, and it's capital is London, sir. What possible counterargument could you make?
Down with Perfidious Albion!
I am super privileged... I put that down to the fact I live in the best country in the world.
Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep on politrollin'
The first one is sad, the second far more complicated than it looks, you missed the Cronulla riots, Siev X and a few other odds and ends.
Still the best country in the world.
My apologies, Comrade Dwarf, I can't help myself. I was diagnosed with politroll contrarianitis as a child and, I'm afraid, it gets worse with age.
I would love to learn more about the Cronulla riots, Siev X and the complications around Ms. Chamberlain-Creighton's case, though.
And some black people owned slaves too. So obviously it wasn't a racist institution in the American South. Right? And why, white people and black people alike could not marry outside their race. It's equality!
Not being able to be owned, sold, whipped and chained without any black privileges to point to pretty much dispels that notion.
Or not. The presence of injustice toward one group does not preclude injustice toward another. But taken as a whole, men in western society are far, far better off than women are. I can't believe I even have to type something so obvious.
Believe you have to prove your points and that not everyone automatically agrees with you.
Pardon me if i feel that being shunted into careers where you are shot, stabbed, blown up, have your limbs hacked off, get crushed under heavy objects and exposed to toxic chemicals outweighs any sort of pay disparity between "mens jobs" and "women's jobs"
But no.. that doesn't matter. You don't think about that, thats just how it is.
But I get it. You didn't read the links. Ok, not worth the bother.
This is incredibly insulting and disingenuous. If you can't provide a better argument for your point you may need to rethink it. I think you're being incredibly blind to what men in society have to go through, and unlike with discrimination against women its actually written into law rather than culture.
When will men be allowed to wear skirts?
No one's stopping you.
Pardon me if i feel that being shunted into careers where you are shot, stabbed, blown up, have your limbs hacked off, get crushed under heavy objects and exposed to toxic chemicals outweighs any sort of pay disparity between "mens jobs" and "women's jobs"
The pay disparity isn't between "men's jobs" and "women's jobs". It's between men and women working the same job. Claiming that men should be paid more across the board because you don't see many women working in high risk careers (confirmation bias) is incredibly disingenuous, too.
The pay disparity isn't between "men's jobs" and "women's jobs". It's between men and women working the same job. Claiming that men should be paid more across the board because you don't see many women working in high risk careers (confirmation bias) is incredibly disingenuous, too.Pardon me if i feel that being shunted into careers where you are shot, stabbed, blown up, have your limbs hacked off, get crushed under heavy objects and exposed to toxic chemicals outweighs any sort of pay disparity between "mens jobs" and "women's jobs"
Both kinds of disparity have been complained about.(see the electrician and the teacher above) I'm all for equal pay for equal work laws, but i think between seniority and overtime its not going to make as much a difference as people think.
And if people are going to blame social pressure for women going into lower paying jobs, then they have to accept the same forces are pressuring men into higher risk jobs: unless of course they want to paint women as a group that need to be protected from social pressure without applying that to men...
I disagree BNW. I think the low risk jobs are dominated by men, too. Honestly, I think the high risk to high pay disparity has much more to do with education than gender.
I disagree BNW. I think the low risk jobs are dominated by men, too. Honestly, I think the high risk to high pay disparity has much more to do with education than gender.
*headscratch*
Unemployment is higher for men than women. How can men be dominating both the high and low risk jobs?
If we were to describe a lack of education leading men into high risk jobs the same way such things are described for women, it would be that men are being socially discouraged away from education by careers with good starting pay but without advancement.
I don't have any stats at hand (and probably wouldn't be able to read them if I did), but I would have to guess that it has to do with how official unemployment is calculated, i.e., moving in or out of the job market.
Stay-at-home mothers (and fathers, for that matter), women (and men, for that matter) on government assistance, etc., wouldn't even show up in the stats.
Oh, I forgot! The "underemployed" wouldn't be counted, either. Flexible, "mother-hours" jobs like cleaning ladies, Wal-Mart stockers, cashiers, etc. Not that these jobs are female-exclusive, but I hope you get my point.
I've worn long hair most of my life and I don't think I've ever been told by anyone that I can't. After I got my ears pierced, though, my father did comment that "Only fxxxxx wear earrings." Ah, thanks, Dad!
|
|
Depends. if a male performer dropped his pants in the middle of the Super Bowl special, we have a news story. A button popping loose on a woman's blouse will ignite a Congressional session.Many dress codes are far more strict for men than women. Few if any dare tell a woman she cannot wear pants or have short hair but most say a man cannot wear a kilt or have very long hairWhen will men be allowed to wear skirts?No one's stopping you.
Depends on what he shows i bet.....
|
|
I've worn long hair most of my life and I don't think I've ever been told by anyone that I can't. After I got my ears pierced, though, my father did comment that "Only fxxxxx wear earrings." Ah, thanks, Dad!
I have had to cut my hair for jobs twice and watched a man get fired at KFC years ago because men there are not allowed 2 pair of earrings, women are and the one to fire him was
I've worn long hair most of my life and I don't think I've ever been told by anyone that I can't. After I got my ears pierced, though, my father did comment that "Only fxxxxx wear earrings." Ah, thanks, Dad!I have had to cut my hair for jobs twice and watched a man get fired at KFC years ago because men there are not allowed 2 pair of earrings, women are and the one to fire him was
Sucks to be you and him.
|
|
I've worn long hair most of my life and I don't think I've ever been told by anyone that I can't. After I got my ears pierced, though, my father did comment that "Only fxxxxx wear earrings." Ah, thanks, Dad!I have had to cut my hair for jobs twice and watched a man get fired at KFC years ago because men there are not allowed 2 pair of earrings, women are and the one to fire him wasSucks to be you and him.
Well im bald now so not as worried about the hair
TV Tropes did a good job of explaining this in Double Standard.Did you also read the line further down in that section?
This is not about double standards in the real world. It is about double standards in storytelling.
TV Tropes is a site about entertainment media (originally it was a Buffy fan site), not cultural and political analysis.
The analysis of storytelling double standards is spot on when it comes to shining a light on IRL sexism issues, however (after all, this particular trope generally mimics real life attitudes toward gender), so I think that this particular page is relevant to the discussion.