Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

Nope, turns out they were just faking it. Like all those suicide attempts.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:21 pm UTC

If they'd really meant it they'd have demanded to be drafted.
Cause that would've worked.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:During the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans were horrified to find that the artillerymen they had killed were actually women. Not all resistance fighters in France and Poland were male. Women died in combat during WWII...
I completely forgot that the Russian government employed women in active combat roles during World War II.

I should look up to see if the Chinese did, too.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Ormurinn » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Let's take the UK. Parliament came about in either 1066, 1215, 1659 or 1707 depending on how pedantic you wish to get. But women weren't eligible to be seated until 1907. And women weren't universally enfranchised until 1928. And let's not even bother with the limits on the passing of Aristocratic estates.


The witena gemōt and þing are even older than that - the former to pre-7th century and the latter to BCE.

The witan was slightly more democratic than parliament in 1066, since Ealdormen needed the support of local thegns, who needed the support of the ceorls, but it was still primarily a male warrior/clergy aristocracy.

The þing on the other hand was a different beast, most of the significant voices at various þingen seem from primary sources to be men, but we do get accounts of female representation, for instance the case of Turið Torkilsdóttir.

On topic - MRA's have always really rather irritated me, from the conversations I've had with them online. They seem to be stuck in a childish mindset where they think that the right to fair treatment is a zero-sum game. I'd never deny that they have somelegitimate points, and I think that what I'd call "Movement Feminism" as opposed to "Equal rights feminism" is operating from faulty premises at best and actively harmful to both men and women at worst, but many of the things MRA's rail against are pretty intrinsic parts of male identity. It would behoove them to knuckle down and behave with a little chivalry once in a while.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Angua » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:42 pm UTC

Also, women totally fought in the American Civil War. Even though it was illegal (by laws that women didn't make).
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:46 pm UTC

Firstly women have definetly always died in war. This isn't even a new thing (I strongly dislike the focus everyone is doing here to WW2, when in virtually all wars ever women have been a large portion of the fatalities, and many that weren't killed were raped. I wouldn't call it much of an exageration to say women have in general suffered more from war than men.

Meaux_Pas wrote:If they'd really meant it they'd have demanded to be drafted.
Cause that would've worked.


No of course it wouldn't, but it seems wrong to me to be organising a campaign to shame (and sometimes more) men who didn't fight, for whatever reasons.

Let's take the UK. Parliament came about in either 1066, 1215, 1659 or 1707 depending on how pedantic you wish to get. But women weren't eligible to be seated until 1907. And women weren't universally enfranchised until 1928.


For most of that time Parliament wasn't democratic but anyway there are still parliamentary seats that women are still legally barred from holding. While it will change, if everyone gets their act together, before it matters the Crown (which is part of Parliament) remains biased against women.

Uh. Yeah. About that. I wonder which feminists you think are all "yeah, women, leave the workforce to become mothers!" I'm pretty sure that's not feminists. They are kind of, you know, the opposite of that? All about women taking more positions and responsibility and stuff.



I'm sorry you are surely not arguing against, or saying feminists are against, women being allowed (if they choose) to be stay at home mothers. Of course there are reasons not to do that (finanical ones, and we can't expect the tax payer to fund that choice in its interity) but it is a valid choice and some women want to do that.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Iceman » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:47 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Yeah, no? I mean, no one actually holds these ironclad rules. Certainly not in this thread.


Well, I'm not talking in a small thread, I mean more in general. (though I do find any deviation from the absolute strictest lines are punished on this forum)
Many of these groups do indeed treat these like ironclad rules with no wiggle room, and I do think many people here also beleive that.


omgryebread wrote:I really have trouble imagining someone getting pissed of when they say "no" and you stop. Does this happen? Is a brief pause in intercourse to clear the confusion really that devastating to sexytimes?


I find this to be one of the more frustrating things...where people act like 'My Stars!, No one would ever DO such a silly thing!'
Of Course women do this...very often. I'm sure you and everyone here is so enlightened and honest that they'd never do such a thing. But yes, of course...saying' no' eases guilt, absolves responsibility, helps with sexual fantasy, some times just makes then no feel bad about putting off doing their homework...whatever it is. It's actually part of the process, fun or excitement to some people. Yes this does occur, No, I don't think you should be able to judge them for liking it.

And do they get mad, ya, sometimes, I've had 2 girls actually become upset that I backed off after a No. One explained that I should have just known, she liked if I'm insistent, and I wasn't aggressive enough. Did that mildly interupt sexy time...no, it ended it of course, it doesn't generally continue after that sort of point. When the girl is forced to then explain herself verbally she's usually now upset and embarassed and that's the end of that.

The 2nd girl was a long term girlfriend in a relationship, who literally over 2 years in worked up the courage to tell me she likes resisting sometimes and I should just continue on many occassions because its hot to her. 2 years before she could say that and she was still embarassed by it, she wanted me to just 'know' (which by then I did) but she couldn't say it.

I don't get the impression this is at all a majority of women, but it's certainly a not insignificant subset. It seems to be especially prevailent for a first time encounter though, when the 'No' is really more a 'I dunno, I shouldn't...but.." or a sexual preference. And of course those first encounters kind of launch or ruin a relationship, so there's no a lot of room for stopping and discussing or anything derailing it.

I find people use the dismissive tone with this sort of thing, like 'Ohh boohoo you didn't get your wittle hook-up' but its often not really that, its that akward, excitement in the beginning when people aren't super open with each other and kind of getting caught up in moments. These things can be more entrances into long relationships as well as one-night stands.

omgryebread wrote:No one in this thread, and no one at all besides a few out there second-wave radfems that the vast majority of feminists disagree with, have a set of rules that label every grown man a rapist. The fact that MRAs constantly bring up this phantom ruleset is a sign they are being intellectually dishonest or are operating under a vastly mistaken worldview.


I absolutely disagree on your characterization of this. The groups advocating for these things, and perhaps more on point, the type of group protesting whoever this guy is, seem to be taking a zero-exception rule, and throughout this forum I find the strictest interpretations are usually the norm.
I find you in particular to be very extreme in many of your positions and expectations of how people should be behaving. Just the speed at which things are labelled, dismisse and criticized are signs of the mentality around here, and the more public you get the worse it is. Go take a peek on ShitRedditSays who actively attempts to ruin people's lives on a daily basis. That type of person does exist, in decent numbers. It may not be the mainstream thinking, but its actually the easier message to deliver.

I mean we clearly hear 'No means No' you don't hear 'Yknow, except if like...'

I know you're set that 'MRAs' whatever the fuck that is are clearly some sort of evil people, and they're doing whatever they do...and it that's some extremist organization, then maybe. But the issue lies in normal people who are gonna look at some of the current thinking on rape and say 'Yes, yes...oh wait whoa..thats a bit stong'

Certainly much of the message you see on these forums is too strong, but its even harsher in certain corners. There's people who literally beleive if a woman consents to sex and subsequently changes her mind the next day, it's rape. Or people who believe if a woman was drinking she's unable to consent so its rape, period. Don't come tell me that doesn't exist or is some 'phantom' thing.

quetzal1234
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 10:04 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby quetzal1234 » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:48 pm UTC

@ddxxdd You are also forgetting that before the industrial revolution, the entire family worked together. The whole "separate spheres" is completely an industrialist invention. If you are going to argue that women always take the weaker jobs, you are ignoring most of human history in most classes. Especially most European history. Not to say women were equal at all, but look up the putting out system. That was totally a family task. Even in the early industrial revolution, families would work in the same factories all together. Guilds often hired women because they were cheaper than men, eventually they tried to ban the practice because they were taking too many of men's jobs! Women were paid worse, but their jobs were equally difficult and long.
WibblyWobbly wrote:If the ratio of the length of the shaft of a 4-iron to the diameter of a blackberry is 3*pi^3 + 2*pi/3 + (2*e-pi)/(2*e*pi), how does that tell me whether I should use a sand wedge or a lob wedge against an opponent holding an apricot?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:49 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote: It would behoove them to knuckle down and behave with a little chivalry once in a while.
I think that this is probably the worst possible response to MRA you could feasibly come up with. It really is the sort of thing I'd expect a strawman feminist to say.

'Suck it up' is not a reasonable reply.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby ddxxdd » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:What you mean is 'No women died in service of the military in those wars'. Because actually, plenty of women did die in those wars.

And even with my helpful little amendment, you're still wrong: Unless you think nurses dying in bombing attacks as they care for wounded soldiers doesn't count as 'dying in service of the military'. Because that sure as shit counts in my book.


Let's do a comparison of male casualties vs female casualties:
American Female Casualties of Wars:
World War I: At least 359 servicewomen died, mostly from influenza and vehicle and aircraft accidents. (Total: 116,516)
World War II: 543 died, mostly from vehicle and aircraft accidents. Sixteen Army nurses died from enemy fire. (Total: 405,399)
Korean War: 17 died, mostly from vehicle or aircraft accidents. (Total: 36,516)
Vietnam War: 8 died, one from hostile fire, one suicide, and the rest from vehicle and aircraft accidents. (Total: 58,209)
Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm): 16 died, mostly from vehicle and aircraft accidents and hostile fire. (Total: 258)
Iraq war: 52 have died from hostile fire, and 378 have been wounded in action. (Total: 4,487 dead, 31,965 wounded)

Source for female casualties here, source for total casualties here.

I also found an interesting paper on male vs female deaths in general:
The discrepancy between male and female mortality rates, recognized since at least 1750 (Kalben, 2000), has been explained by an array of biological and behavioral proximate causes (Hazzard, 1990; Kraemer, 2000)

Here's the relevant graph:
Spoiler:
Image
Why is the concept of male oppression so difficult to accept?
------------
Meaux_Pas wrote:If they'd really meant it they'd have demanded to be drafted.
Cause that would've worked.


The Tuskegee Airmen have had a monumental impact on bringing about racial equality, did they not?
"I feel very proud that there is a slogan that the Tuskegee Airmen are the men who changed our nation and that the performance of black pilots in World War II was a big influence of President (Harry) Truman," said Dr. James Richardson, a Tuskegee Airman from Philadelphia. "Once the military desegregated, the community started desegregating. I'm extremely happy to be a part of what changed our country."
"The Tuskegee Airmen breaking the race barrier was a tremendous accomplishment for American history," said Senior Airman Brittany King, who is assigned to the 305th Civil Engineer Squadron from McGuire Air Force Base, N.J. "They opened the doors for so many people. Hearing their stories proves that if we come together and believe in something, we can make it happen."
Source

-------------
Ormurinn wrote:On topic - MRA's have always really rather irritated me, from the conversations I've had with them online. They seem to be stuck in a childish mindset where they think that the right to fair treatment is a zero-sum game. I'd never deny that they have somelegitimate points, and I think that what I'd call "Movement Feminism" as opposed to "Equal rights feminism" is operating from faulty premises at best and actively harmful to both men and women at worst, but many of the things MRA's rail against are pretty intrinsic parts of male identity. It would behoove them to knuckle down and behave with a little chivalry once in a while.


My impression of them is that when you factor in everything, you'll find that things are already fair nowadays. Men are taught to "suck it up" and "be a man", and that attitude helps them in stressful business environments and wartime; the "man up" attitude is the attitude that is necessary to be an effective CEO and manager. Whereas, women are taught to "speak up", "find help when you need it", "be empathetic to others", etc (this is the Neoteny concept that I mentioned before). This is not a great attitude to have when it comes to being a business leader when you need to make tough decisions and/or screw people over.

To provide some perspective, Roger Ebert wrote about the different qualities in men and women, and argued that the qualities inherent in women make them more suitable to be in the financial industry post-financial meltdown. I think that one of the main tenets of the Men's Rights Movement is that "striving for equality" will lead to immeasurable inequalities given that there are statistically significant differences between the behavior of men and the behavior of women.
---------
quetzal1234 wrote:@ddxxdd You are also forgetting that before the industrial revolution, the entire family worked together. The whole "separate spheres" is completely an industrialist invention. If you are going to argue that women always take the weaker jobs, you are ignoring most of human history in most classes. Especially most European history. Not to say women were equal at all, but look up the putting out system. That was totally a family task. Even in the early industrial revolution, families would work in the same factories all together. Guilds often hired women because they were cheaper than men, eventually they tried to ban the practice because they were taking too many of men's jobs! Women were paid worse, but their jobs were equally difficult and long.


I have a single question- do you have examples of female oppression pre-industrial revolution? The "balance theory" is essentially that female oppression is balanced with male oppression, that "oppression" is nothing more than the reinforcement of certain roles with a certain purpose, and/or each gender specializing in certain areas that they are naturally good at (i.e. child care vs defending the family against predators).
--------
Iceman wrote:I know you're set that 'MRAs' whatever the fuck that is are clearly some sort of evil people, and they're doing whatever they do...and it that's some extremist organization, then maybe. But the issue lies in normal people who are gonna look at some of the current thinking on rape and say 'Yes, yes...oh wait whoa..thats a bit stong'

Certainly much of the message you see on these forums is too strong, but its even harsher in certain corners. There's people who literally beleive if a woman consents to sex and subsequently changes her mind the next day, it's rape. Or people who believe if a woman was drinking she's unable to consent so its rape, period. Don't come tell me that doesn't exist or is some 'phantom' thing.


Thank you, Iceman. You articulated this very well.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Ormurinn » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Ormurinn wrote: It would behoove them to knuckle down and behave with a little chivalry once in a while.
I think that this is probably the worst possible response to MRA you could feasibly come up with. It really is the sort of thing I'd expect a strawman feminist to say.

'Suck it up' is not a reasonable reply.


I was being tongue in cheek :p

I do see a fundamental disconnect in MRA-thinking though - most subscribe to some subset of gender essentialism, which is no bad thing in itself, but leads to a bit of doublethink.

IF there are certain roles biologically encouraged/ordained to members of one sex and not the other, THEN male disposability (and consequences like the draft, higher rates of male death, less emphasis on men's than women's healthcare) is part of that dimorphism. You can't simultaneously argue that women should stay put in their own "sphere" whilst bitching that you don't like the conditions of your own.

I do think "suck it up" is reasonable in certain cases too - don't complain that your tax money goes to fund maternity leave and benefits for mothers when those mothers are nurturing the generation that will one day pay for your retirement. Don't complain that women get a longer post-natal leave entitlement than men, when men won't have to bear those children.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:12 pm UTC

Don't complain that women get a longer post-natal leave entitlement than men, when men won't have to bear those children.


So 52 weeks of maternity leave is about the woman recovering from giving birth?

No it is an ingraining of the idea that women are better at looking after children.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:13 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Let's do a comparison of male casualties vs female casualties:
I'm sorry; you must be in the wrong thread. The thread where you said 'More men die in wars than women' is over thataway--in a parallel universe we do not currently occupy.
ddxxdd wrote:Why is the concept of male oppression so difficult to accept?
Oh, I more than accept it; I just don't accept you know a damn thing about it. Basically, I'm wondering if you even give a genuine crap about male oppression. Because it really doesn't sound like you do. It sounds like you'd rather demean and dismiss women than help men.

Which is a shame, because men actually do need help.
Ormurinn wrote:I do think "suck it up" is reasonable in certain cases too - don't complain that your tax money goes to fund maternity leave and benefits for mothers when those mothers are nurturing the generation that will one day pay for your retirement. Don't complain that women get a longer post-natal leave entitlement than men, when men won't have to bear those children.
Those are not the reasons I think those complaints are invalid. And 'suck it up' does not strike me as a reasonable reply to those complaints.

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby chenille » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:33 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:I have a single question- do you have examples of female oppression pre-industrial revolution? The "balance theory" is essentially that female oppression is balanced with male oppression, that "oppression" is nothing more than the reinforcement of certain roles with a certain purpose, and/or each gender specializing in certain areas that they are naturally good at (i.e. child care vs defending the family against predators).

There are lots, but the absolutely most plain example are cultures with sex-selective infanticide or, nowadays, sex-selective abortion. There are lots of ridiculous inequalities some people will try to present as mere differences - for instance, in a place where women must obey their male guardian who can beat or abandon them any time, but that perilous position is somehow "protecting" her because his work and risks are the "real" ones. But they'd have to be very dishonest not to admit a society where boys are worth raising, and girls are not, does not have a balance between them.
Last edited by chenille on Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:33 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Let's do a comparison of male casualties vs female casualties:

Shit, bro. All you had to say was "Civilians aren't real lol"
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:39 pm UTC

Just want to add to that, despite what many people believe civillian casualties are not a new feature of war. As I said before I would strongly argue that for most of history women have suffered more in war than men have.

quetzal1234
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 10:04 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby quetzal1234 » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:40 pm UTC

I just told you, women were not paid the same for the same work. I do not believe there is anyone on earth who would not count this as oppression.

Please do not use the cave man argument. Unless you are a paleontologist, you are probably wrong. Prehistoric society was most likely egalitarian to a very great extent. Women may have even been the producers of more calories than men. It was not a society where "men defended and women took care of the children". You are imposing your own values onto a society we do not really know and that may have been very different in different areas. (Please note the use of may. I do not claim to be an expert or have a time machine)

I have problems whenever someone uses that argument, sorry if I sound annoyed. Trying to use history is a double edged sword. Eventually you are going to run across someone who knows a fact that contradicts you, because people are diverse.
WibblyWobbly wrote:If the ratio of the length of the shaft of a 4-iron to the diameter of a blackberry is 3*pi^3 + 2*pi/3 + (2*e-pi)/(2*e*pi), how does that tell me whether I should use a sand wedge or a lob wedge against an opponent holding an apricot?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:41 pm UTC

Also, point of order:
ddxxdd wrote:The "balance theory"
Considering the massive conflation of scientific evidence and empiricism with hearsay going on in this thread, can we get a little specific by what you mean about 'balance theory'? Because if you're actually talking about the sociological theory, then no--it isn't simply what you're describing. It's actually much more broad, and may not be applicable in the direction you're taking.

But if you're just talking about some 'balance theory' thing you've heard about on the internet, I don't think it's a worthwhile point of discussion.
sigsfried wrote:Just want to add to that, despite what many people believe civillian casualties are not a new feature of war. As I said before I would strongly argue that for most of history women have suffered more in war than men have.
Okay. But understand: That is a silly argument to make.

Not because you're wrong, but because it doesn't matter.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Iceman » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:42 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:Just want to add to that, despite what many people believe civillian casualties are not a new feature of war. As I said before I would strongly argue that for most of history women have suffered more in war than men have.


Assuming you mean that the dead don't really suffer, then I guess?

Honestly, how do you really justify this? How do you measure this suffering?

I get that its fashionable to say, but its kind of a stupid statement to just arbitrarily quantify this.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:46 pm UTC


Not because you're wrong, but because it doesn't matter.


It does matter if people are aruging that men are more disposable and using as evidence of this that men have always suffered more in war. The problem here for women is that women's suffering wasn't seen as glorious and therefore has been ignored.

I get that its fashionable to say, but its kind of a stupid statement to just arbitrarily quantify this.


Isn't fashionable? I can't say I have heard many people say it. For most of history most people involved in battles, on the losing side did not die, get injured or even held prisoner. Soldiers were generally given better quality of food and more of it, and outside of battles themselves generally had a low risk lifestyle where relatively little was asked of them.

In medieval times one of the most privilged non nobility positions were the knights.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:48 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:It does matter if people are aruging that men are more disposable and using as evidence of this that men have always suffered more in war.
It only matters if you think the question 'did men suffer more than women during war' matters. The question 'did men suffer more during war than women' does not matter. It is a stupid question, and does not deserve a response.

Which is worse: When men die or when women die? When men are raped or when women are raped? When men are tortured or when women are tortured?

Here's a better question: Why do we think those are questions worth asking?!

EDIT: Seriously, if you have any interest in rejecting power hierarchies, you must first begin by rejecting power hierarchies. The suffering of men is not 'worth' more than the suffering of women; the suffering of women is not 'worth' more than the suffering of men. Whether more men died in a war is immaterial--whether more women suffer rape is immaterial--the point is that death and rape are happening, and need to stop.

This is not a game. No one gets a prize for proving their 'side' has it worse. And if you treat it like it is a game, you have refused to treat these issues with the respect, reverence, and intelligence they deserve.

The question was 'Who suffers more in war: Men or women?'. Since it's been asked, I'll supply the answer: EVERYONE SUFFERS. There you go. Now can we please, as a culture, move on?
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

It matters because people often dismiss that women suffer or suffered historically during war.

Which is worse: When men die or when women die? When men are raped or when women are raped? When men are tortured or when women are tortured?


So I suppose similarly we cannot compare the suffering of those intered in Britain during WW2 to the suffering of those placed in the death camps by the Nazis?

Just because both suffered does not mean we cannot discuss which is worse. To say women suffered more in war than men does not dismiss that men suffered, it does not undermine the extent of the suffering. Society remembers and commemerates the suffering of men. It pays no attention to the suffering of women in war. Or if it does it is only the recent suffering. When society is saying that we must respect the suffering of men throughout history in war, when women suffered as much if not more but does not pay the same respect to women then something is wrong and saying women suffered as much if not more is standing up to the dismissing of women's suffering.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:01 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:So I suppose similarly we cannot compare the suffering of those intered in Britain during WW2 to the suffering of those placed in the death camps by the Nazis?
Why would we?!

Why the hell would we want to make this comparison? Of what utility would it be? Who would benefit from that sort of comparison? What is the point?

When you play this sort of game--when you ask these sort of questions--no one wins.
sigsfried wrote:When society is saying that we must respect the suffering of men throughout history in war, when women suffered as much if not more but does not pay the same respect to women then something is wrong and saying women suffered as much if not more is standing up to the dismissing of women's suffering.
Here's a radical idea: Maybe everyone's suffering deserves respect. Maybe everyone's suffering should not be dismissed.

Maybe when someone says 'Men suffered more than women in war', the correct response isn't 'No, women suffered more!', but rather: "Why the fuck are you even saying shit like that?"

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby ddxxdd » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:14 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
ddxxdd wrote:I have a single question- do you have examples of female oppression pre-industrial revolution? The "balance theory" is essentially that female oppression is balanced with male oppression, that "oppression" is nothing more than the reinforcement of certain roles with a certain purpose, and/or each gender specializing in certain areas that they are naturally good at (i.e. child care vs defending the family against predators).

There are lots, but the absolutely most plain example are cultures with sex-selective infanticide or, nowadays, sex-selective abortion. There are lots of ridiculous inequalities some people will try to present as mere differences - for instance, in a place where women must obey their male guardian who can beat or abandon them any time, but that perilous position is somehow "protecting" her because his work and risks are the "real" ones. But they'd have to be very dishonest not to admit a society where boys are worth raising, and girls are not, does not have a balance between them.


1. Are you against abortion? If abortion should be allowed, then why shouldn't sex-selective abortions be allowed? Furthermore, how can sex-selective abortion lead to oppression of a gender without assuming that abortion in general is oppressing unborn babies?

2. Where exactly are these places where young girls are allowed to be beaten, but young boys aren't?

SecondTalon wrote:
ddxxdd wrote:Let's do a comparison of male casualties vs female casualties:

Shit, bro. All you had to say was "Civilians aren't real lol"


In America, civilian casualties from WWI onwards is negligible. Even before then, forcing millions of people to enlist, experience the "fog of war", engage in combat for years, and possibly get PTSD as a result is a tremendous responsibility that eclipses the minor chance that a civilian will get killed in war. War impacts men far more than it impacts women.

quetzal1234 wrote:I just told you, women were not paid the same for the same work. I do not believe there is anyone on earth who would not count this as oppression.

1. Who are you talking to?

2. The point that I'm trying to make is that this fact is not necessarily true. Even if women are not paid the same as men for the same job, that does not necessarily imply that women are not paid the same as men for the same work.

As an example, I have a friend who works on the railroad. Railroad jobs require you to either 1) be at work, or 2) be willing to come to work as soon as your cell phone rings. He talks about the people who are "on call" who don't pick up their cell phones when it rings. Also, there are people who come up with excuses as to why they can't come to work, ("My kid is at a recital", "I'm partying with friends right now", "I'm really tired, I just got done with a run", etc), and so the managers go to the next person on the call list.

So even if there are two people who worked the same amount of hours on paper doing the same job, if one person shows that he is more dependable, more dedicated to the job, and more willing to make sacrifices for the sake of getting the job done, then that worker is the one who is going to get more pay and get promoted more often.

Another quick thing to point out: There's this old saying that "Men treat their employees like soldiers, women treat them like children". Sometimes empathy is an asset in certain business environments, but often it's a liability. There's also research that shows that a lot of employees prefer male bosses over female bosses.

My point is that the statement "Women get paid less for the same work" is oversimplifying matters drastically, is trying to quantify things that is impossible to quantify, and, insofar as we've been able to quantify it, is downright wrong.

The Great Hippo wrote:Here's a better question: Why do we think those are questions worth asking?!

EDIT: Seriously, if you have any interest in rejecting power hierarchies, you must first begin by rejecting power hierarchies. The suffering of men is not 'worth' more than the suffering of women; the suffering of women is not 'worth' more than the suffering of men. Whether more men died in a war is immaterial--whether more women suffer rape is immaterial--the point is that death and rape are happening, and need to stop.


The point is that the common feminist narrative, that men are oppressors, that women are oppressed, and that men who think that they are oppressed is a man that "needs to check his privilege", is a narrative that is filled with holes. That also means that many feminist proposals are also problematic- i.e. trying to send more men to jail for rape, trying to equalize the pay gap without considering that the pay gap is a result of differing social expectations from different genders, trying to spend more money on women's shelters and women's physical and mental health when the data makes it clear that it's men who need it more.

This is why discussion on war always enters MRA discussions. It's the "canary in the mine", so to speak. It shows that men are expected to bear the strain of society's ills; it shows that men have fulfilled the role of "Atlas" in society. It shows that men have a social role that does not necessarily mean "oppressor", it actually shows that they are "oppressed", but "oppressed" for a purpose; often, that purpose will cost them their lives.

Edit: Back on topic, the fact that the feminists in Toronto branded these ideas as hate speech and violently pushed anyone who wanted to attend Dr. Farrell's lecture is completely unacceptable, and disgusting in my opinion. The response from the U of T's Student Union is also extremely problematic. Men have a right to learn and understand their role in modern society, and the fact that a bunch of feminists were violently trying to prevent that from happening speaks volumes about the feminist movement.
Last edited by ddxxdd on Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:19 pm UTC

Why the hell would we want to make this comparison? Of what utility would it be? Who would benefit from that sort of comparison? What is the point?

When you play this sort of game--when you ask these sort of questions--no one wins.


We might want to discuss who was morally better, these are certainly questions many people ask. People often argue that America should have joined the war earlier because of the Holocaust, but that assumes that what Germany was doing was worse than what Britain, and the other allies were doing. Yet Britain was locking up people for political reasons, had indefinietely postponed all elections, had abolished freedom of the press, access to a fair trial. For goodness sake Britain even brought back witch trials.

Also currently nobody is making any major agurments that British internment was as bad the way Nazis treated many people, nor are there massive commerations to those who lost their lives in British jails whilst the world forgets the horrors of the Halucaust.

People are forgetting, or have long since forgotten and never really cared about, the suffering of women in war.

Even in more equall situations we can compare extent of suffering, because with only finite reasources spending resources on those who need the most help becuase they suffered or are suffering the most is the right thing to do.

Police for example spend more resources on prosecuting those who commit the more savage assaults and it would be wrong of them to spend as much resources on say trying to work out who had punched someone in a bar as who had raped a woman at gunpoint. Similarly we would rightly spend more resources on counselling for the later.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:23 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:The point is that the common feminist narrative
Here's another radical idea: STOP CARING ABOUT WHAT THE FEMINISTS ARE SAYING.

Seriously, if every little thing out of your mouth is going to be a complaint about what the feminists are saying, we can stop right here: Because I don't give a fuck about what the feminists are saying. I care about what you are saying.

The feminists are not your enemy. The oppression of men is your enemy. And until you get that into your head, you will be unable to help, support, or protect men--because you will always be too busy attacking feminists. Why the fuck do you even care about feminism? Feminism is completely irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if feminists are conspiring to oppress men--and if you think that, you are a conspiracy theorist.

If you want to protect men--if you want to support men--if you want to help men--here is what you must do: Start. Addressing. Men's. Issues.

STOP. ADDRESSING. FEMINISM.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby ddxxdd » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:24 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Seriously, if every little thing out of your mouth is going to be a complaint about what the feminists are saying, we can stop right here: Because I don't give a fuck about what the feminists are saying. I care about what you are saying.

Not everything that came out of my mouth was about feminism. You're being selective about what you're reading.
Edit:
The Great Hippo wrote:The feminists are not your enemy. The oppression of men is your enemy. And until you get that into your head, you will be unable to help, support, or protect men--because you will always be too busy attacking feminists. Why the fuck do you even care about feminism? Feminism is completely irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if feminists are conspiring to oppress men--and if you think that, you are a conspiracy theorist.

If you want to protect men--if you want to support men--if you want to help men--here is what you must do: Start. Addressing. Men's. Issues.

Look at the original post. A man who is supportive of men's issues was being attacked by feminists. Look at all the feminists in this thread, such as Belial, who were attacking the entire notion of men's rights ("You need to check your privilege"). Feminism and feminist ideology is inherently against men's rights. Part of the purpose of the Men's Rights Movement is a discussion of what it means to be a man, and that requires a thorough refutation of feminist ideology.

Men's Rights won't move forward as long as protests such as this are allowed to continue.
Last edited by ddxxdd on Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby chenille » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:28 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:1. Are you against abortion? If abortion should be allowed, then why shouldn't sex-selective abortions be allowed? Furthermore, how can sex-selective abortion lead to oppression of a gender without assuming that abortion in general is oppressing unborn babies?
2. Where exactly are these places where young girls are allowed to be beaten, but young boys aren't?

For the second I wasn't referring to young girls but adult women, who in places like Saudi Arabia are still given legal rights as if they were not adults. But holy, is the first a nonsense argument. People are generally allowed to hire and fire who they want, and yet if nearly everyone in town refused to employ (say) Germans, you would have to be a fool not to recognize that Germans are being treated as inferiors there. If you're actually going to claim that even selectively preferring the existence of one sex over another does not constitute an imbalance, I don't think there could be anything you would admit as one.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Azrael » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:32 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:3. There are more female registered voters than male registered voters. Why is it considered oppression when women are able to voice themselves and choose to vote for male candidates?

I never suggested that such a case was an example of oppression.

It's oppression when, for centuries at a time, women were not allowed to participate in government in any way. You're the one claiming that women were not historically oppressed and that the differences in roles were voluntary. I asked you to explain how legal exclusions against being able to participate in self-governance were either voluntary or not oppressing.

2. If we're talking about history, then keep in mind that millions of men died in WWI, WWII, the Civil War, etc., ... Men also historically took on more dangerous jobs. ... That's a form of oppression.

According to your earlier statements, no. That's not oppression. That's just men willfully choosing more dangerous roles. And considering that prior to WWII, all those wars happened when only men could vote and the government was entirely populated by men, it's pretty hard to suggest that it's a meaningful counter example to feminism.

Keep your arguments straight.

Feminism and feminist ideology is inherently against men's rights. Part of the purpose of the Men's Rights Movement is a discussion of what it means to be a man, and that requires a thorough refutation of feminist ideology.

No. Feminist ideology is not inherently against men's rights (whether it's against MRM is a tautology, as you've just defined the MRM to be contrary to feminism). Feminism doesn't suggest that male suicide is good. It doesn't suggest that only men should fight in wars. It doesn't fight against expanded paternity rights. Feminism doesn't say prision rape is good. Feminism doesn't advocate higher male prison populations -- except for rape, where yeah, feminism is trying real hard to put people in jail for raping women.

Discussing what it means to be a man does not have to involve preventing women from doing the same.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:36 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Men's Rights won't move forward as long as protests such as this are allowed to continue.
Yes, because fuck knows no movement ever managed to move forward despite all the protests they had to face.

Men's Rights won't move forward so long as you frame them as a response to feminism. And that's all you're doing: You're letting yourself be defined by what feminists say and do.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Men's Rights won't move forward as long as protests such as this are allowed to continue.


Banning protest is almost always the worst possible option. If men's rights need to ban protests to suceed then no mattter how important the issue is it deserves to fail.

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Choboman » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:42 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:If someone says that Queen Elizabeth II is a lizard, we don't say "eh, they disagree with the mainstream accepted view that the English Monarch is not a lizard" we say they are denying reality. The idea that women chose incredibly shitty treatment for millennia is right up there with Liz the Lizard.

Are you serious? Queen Elizabeth is NOT a lizard? (My mind is blown.)

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby ddxxdd » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:46 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
ddxxdd wrote:1. Are you against abortion? If abortion should be allowed, then why shouldn't sex-selective abortions be allowed? Furthermore, how can sex-selective abortion lead to oppression of a gender without assuming that abortion in general is oppressing unborn babies?
2. Where exactly are these places where young girls are allowed to be beaten, but young boys aren't?

For the second I wasn't referring to young girls but adult women, who in places like Saudi Arabia are still given legal rights as if they were not adults. But holy, is the first a nonsense argument. People are generally allowed to hire and fire who they want, and yet if nearly everyone in town refused to employ (say) Germans, you would have to be a fool not to recognize that Germans are being treated as inferiors there. If you're actually going to claim that even selectively preferring the existence of one sex over another does not constitute an imbalance, I don't think there could be anything you would admit as one.


1. I'll grant you this: women are oppressed and men are privileged in Saudi Arabia and other related middle eastern countries.

2. If they refuse to employ Germans because they're Germans, that's wrong. But if they refuse to employ a group because there is a characteristic that is statistically more prevalent in that group that makes a person inherently unqualified for a job (for instance, the ability to speak Spanish), then there is absolutely no reason why that form of discrimination is wrong. How many picket signs do you see because there aren't any Amish people in working technical support?

Azrael wrote:It's oppression when, for centuries at a time, women were not allowed to participate in government in any way.


Neither were men who did not own property, could not read, or did not own sufficient wealth. I'll grant you this: there was a 60-year period in America when the majority of men were allowed to vote, but no women were allowed to vote. Yet during that time, men were required to register for the selective service. I'll have to find this later, but I recall that there was a Supreme Court decision in the US that stated that the ability to vote was a "privilege" that came with the responsibility of being willing to fight and die for your country.

sigsfried wrote:Banning protest is almost always the worst possible option. If men's rights need to ban protests to suceed then no mattter how important the issue is it deserves to fail.


Banning violent protests is absolutely acceptable. Watch the video. It was a violent protest.

The Great Hippo wrote:Men's Rights won't move forward so long as you frame them as a response to feminism. And that's all you're doing: You're letting yourself be defined by what feminists say and do.


Have you read anything that I said? I laid out the fundamental assertions of the Men's Rights Movement. And I just merely added a sidenote that stated that this contradicts what feminists say. For some reason, you're interpreting this as saying that the MRM is completely defined by feminism. That is completely ridiculous.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Azrael » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:55 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:
Azrael wrote:It's oppression when, for centuries at a time, women were not allowed to participate in government in any way.


Neither were men who did not own property, could not read, or did not own sufficient wealth.

Congratulations. You've realized that poor people have also been oppressed throughout history. What a fucking revelation. Next you're going to suggest that ethic minorities also got screwed.

It's rather important to note two things, however:
1) That all whether poor or ethnic people were oppressed does not negate that women were also oppressed. Each group via both separate and overlapping structures.
2) That given the limitations on participation in governance and ownership of property, it certainly wasn't women doing the oppressing.

Yet during that time, men were required to register for the selective service.

And this is feminism's fault? Again, no feminist theory is suggesting that only men should fight in wars -- and we can even see first hand how feminist ideals are currently working to reverse this long standing prohibition against women serving in combat. That society came to be this way is not women's fault -- it actually couldn't have been women's fault and was this way long before feminism came to be. None of your assertions come close to negating that legally preventing women from participating in governance and ownership of property was an imposed oppression.

Look, if you're going to argue that gender roles are good and developed voluntarily, you're going to have to stop complaining about how poorly (and involuntarily) they treat men. It's completely at odds with your thesis. Then you're going to have to explain why legislative hurdles were enacted (long before feminism came to be) in order to keep the structure in place.

Also, backing up a bit:
...that also means that many feminist proposals are also problematic- i.e. trying to send more men to jail for rape...

Wait. It it then "problematic" to try to send more offenders to jail for securities fraud? Rape is a crime, and a terrible one. Trying to increase awareness and conviction rates for perpetrating a (frequently under-reported) assault is not problematic. Raping people is problematic. If you want to advocate on behalf of men, teach them not to rape. Not bitch and moan that society is starting to hold them more accountable than they were held in the past.

At least you could have said something about the War on Drugs and how it disproportionately effects (predominately ethnic minority) men for something that really doesn't have much reason to be a crime.

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby chenille » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:00 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:2. If they refuse to employ Germans because they're Germans, that's wrong. But if they refuse to employ a group because there is a characteristic that is statistically more prevalent in that group that makes a person inherently unqualified for a job (for instance, the ability to speak Spanish), then there is absolutely no reason why that form of discrimination is wrong.

So are you claiming that's what happens with sex-selective infanticide and abortion? The society actually needs more boy babies than girl babies, not because of any cultural devaluing of the latter, but because of jobs they are able to do that much better? Because that is completely ignoring with how those societies look. In some cases today there are even concerns about problems because of a serious excess of men without corresponding numbers of women, and yet that doesn't lead to preferrentially aborting boys. But at any rate, since you've agreed that there are places where women are oppressed and so the idea of balance doesn't actually apply, I'm no longer sure what your point with this is.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:05 pm UTC

If that is considered a violent protest then it would be far too easy to ban protests.
This is the sort of thing I think of when I think of violent protests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj2K0ulD8Q

quetzal1234
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 10:04 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby quetzal1234 » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:07 pm UTC

@ddxxdd you asked me about pre-industrial revolution examples of oppression of women. I had included, in the post you quoted, the example of women who were not paid the same wages for doing the same jobs as men in guilds. This is oppression, because it prevented women from being able to have as much money as men. Clear enough for you?

Your argument about equal work is pretty unjustifiable. I don't see how your example is relevant at all. In my family, my father would be far more likely to skip something work related to go to our recitals. If you are getting paid for the same job as another person and do the same things, you get paid the same. If you are a bad employee, you get paid less or fired. Sex does not enter in.

Why are women bosses more empathetic? One of my bosses here is a woman, and she is one of the least empathetic people I have ever met in my life. She's exactly the kind of person to whom you are giving "manly" qualities, and she is a terrible boss, not that that's relevant.
WibblyWobbly wrote:If the ratio of the length of the shaft of a 4-iron to the diameter of a blackberry is 3*pi^3 + 2*pi/3 + (2*e-pi)/(2*e*pi), how does that tell me whether I should use a sand wedge or a lob wedge against an opponent holding an apricot?

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby dudiobugtron » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:43 pm UTC

Wow, this discussion has evolved a lot since I last read it!

Here are some responses to responses to points I made. :)

Azrael wrote:
dudiobugtron wrote:It's very different for different countries, so let's just look at the US. There was a relatively small period (like, 60 years) where most white males had the vote and white females didn't. (And 60 years before that, no-one had the vote!)

Let's take the UK. Parliament came about in either 1066, 1215, 1659 or 1707 depending on how pedantic you wish to get. But women weren't eligible to be seated until 1907.

Other than the queen's seat. (Excepting the possibility that the queens were all lizards rather than women.)

I picked the US since that's what everyone seems to mean when they are talking about things in general. But I will accept your claim that women were more disenfranchised than men in most recent, western, voting societies. I will also accept your claim that men have held almost all of the positions of power in most western societies for a long time.

The Great Hippo wrote:
dudiobugtron wrote:I'm interested in whether people think that it is possible for women and men (in general) to have different roles in society without it being oppression.
For example, women are usually the ones who give birth to children. Is this oppression? Men usually dominate in sporting events. Is this oppression? Women were usually gatherers (as opposed to hunters) with respect to bringing in food for primitive societies. Was this oppression? Men are more likely to die early. Is this oppression? Women out-number and (in terms of pass rates) out-perform men in higher education. Is this oppression?
It sounds like you're confusing 'role' with 'fact'. The fact that many women bare children is not the same as the role of women as child-bearers; the fact that women outnumber men in higher education is not the same as the role of women as students or educaters.

In fact, by promoting these things as equivalent, you have (likely unintentionally) created a situation wherein we are forced to define opposing oppression as opposing facts. But the fact is that the nature of reproductive biology does not actually tell us whether or not the role of women as caregivers is helpful or harmful; it merely gives us a possible reason that the role of women as caregivers came about.

Do not mistake facts for presumptions. Gender roles are presumptions.

Actually that wasn't my intention at all. I think I was trying to make the same point as you; that actual differences between the sexes are different from societally imposed differences between genders. Although I clearly didn't do a good job of it.

gmalivuk wrote:
Azrael wrote:
dudiobugtron wrote:It's very different for different countries, so let's just look at the US. There was a relatively small period (like, 60 years) where most white males had the vote and white females didn't. (And 60 years before that, no-one had the vote!)
Way to cherry pick.
Not to mention being outright dishonest. Sure, it may be technically true that "most" white males didn't vote before 1860, but the period during which the Constitution said some men could vote and no women could vote in national elections lasted from 1787 until 1920, which is ever so slightly longer than 60 years.

Yes, in fact it's about 60 years longer than 60 years. (Well actually 70, math error on my part.) Which is why I said "And 60 years before that, ..." in my earlier statement. You also claimed I was asserting a number of other things which I don't think I was (eg: that 133 years was a small period when compared with 92 years), but I'm not going to argue against those and instead just put them down to a communication failure. Apologies for my part in that.


omgryebread wrote:Oppression that lasts for only a generation or so is still oppression and it's still a pretty big deal. And your point doesn't even address the thing you had quoted.

Yes, but in this case it was oppression, so it's just the fact that it was oppression that is a big deal.
But yes I agree I was not addressing the point of the sentence that I quoted. I think that's OK to do though. Perhaps I should have just quoted the word 'vote'?

----------
And also one new addition to the conversation:

ddxxdd wrote:Differing attitudes in the workplace result in a pay gap.

They do, but they are not the only cause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80 ... gender_gap
Image

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:01 am UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Have you read anything that I said? I laid out the fundamental assertions of the Men's Rights Movement. And I just merely added a sidenote that stated that this contradicts what feminists say.
...I'm sorry, have you forgotten the title of this thread?

This entire discussion is nothing but a discussion about feminism's response to MRA. And that's the problem: You cannot have this discussion outside the context of feminism. And the reason this is true is not because the feminists are stopping you. It's because you refuse to have the discussion without also complaining about feminism.

You need feminists--because without feminists, you don't have an enemy to rally against. Because if you stopped talking about feminists, you'd actually have to start dealing with issues men face--and dealing with those issues? That's really, really hard work.

But don't sweat it. I'm sure that all the people who are actually interested in supporting men will pick up your slack. And when they're through, you're free to take all the credit.

EDIT: In fact, you know what? Let's do this. Let's stop talking about feminists right now. Let's not use the word 'feminist' in this thread anymore. Let's dedicate this space to talking about men's issues and only talking about men's issues. Let's make this shit roll.

Let's talk about male prison rape and various ways we can address that. Or hey, let's talk about how men are expected in our culture to 'suck it up' whenever things go wrong. Let's make this into a discussion about men--supporting them and helping them--rather than feminists--how they're wrong and how they're making life so very hard.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby ddxxdd » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:06 am UTC

Azrael wrote:Congratulations. You've realized that poor people have also been oppressed throughout history. What a fucking revelation. Next you're going to suggest that ethic minorities also got screwed.

It's rather important to note two things, however:
1) That all whether poor or ethnic people were oppressed does not negate that women were also oppressed. Each group via both separate and overlapping structures.
2) That given the limitations on participation in governance and ownership of property, it certainly wasn't women doing the oppressing.


It's also important to note that if 95% of men are poor, and 95% of poor people are oppressed, then that means that 90.25% of men are oppressed.

It's also important to note that just because a tiny minority of men oppress people, that does not mean that men are the oppressors. If a tiny minority of minorities commit crime, would you say that minorities are criminals?

Azrael wrote:And this is feminism's fault? Again, no feminist theory is suggesting that only men should fight in wars. That fact is not women's fault -- it actually couldn't have been women's fault. That fact does not negate that legally preventing women from participating in governance and ownership of property wasn't an imposed oppression.


No, it's not feminism's fault. But if feminists know that there are avenues of oppression that affected only men, and yet they continue to use female-only oppression to lobby for stricter rape laws and domestic violence laws, then there is a problem.

Azrael wrote:Wait. It it then "problematic" to try to send more offenders to jail for securities fraud? Rape is a crime, and a terrible one. Trying to increase awareness and conviction rates for perpetrating a (frequently under-reported) assault is not problematic. Raping people is problematic. If you want to advocate on behalf of men, teach them not to rape. Not bitch and moan that society is starting to hold them more accountable than they were held in the past.


1. Duke lacrosse rape case. I assume that speaks for itself.

2. A lesser known case is the Hofstra rape case. A freshman consented to sex with multiple partners, then told her boyfriend that she was raped so that he wouldn't consider her to be a slut. Luckily, everything was caught on video.

3. In light of the Hofstra and Duke case: if you want to advocate on behalf of women, then you should tell women that a rape accusation is not a tool that they should use to change other people's perception of whether or not they're sexually promiscuous.

chenille wrote:So are you claiming that's what happens with sex-selective infanticide and abortion? The society actually needs more boy babies than girl babies, not because of any cultural devaluing of the latter, but because of jobs they are able to do that much better? Because that is completely ignoring with how those societies look. In some cases today there are even concerns about problems because of a serious excess of men without corresponding numbers of women, and yet that doesn't lead to preferrentially aborting boys. But at any rate, since you've agreed that there are places where women are oppressed and so the idea of balance doesn't actually apply, I'm no longer sure what your point with this is.


I already stated that an abortion is not oppressing the fetus. I am actually in agreement with most feminists on this, I don't know why you're arguing against that point.

sigsfried wrote:If that is considered a violent protest then it would be far too easy to ban protests.
This is the sort of thing I think of when I think of violent protests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj2K0ulD8Q


Sigfried, would you be okay with a bunch of people protesting a feminist convention by blockading the entrance, yelling at and mocking the police, and screaming at someone's face for being a false rape accuser just for trying to get into the building? That is not speech, that is an obstruction of people's rights.

It is unacceptable and completely indefensible.

quetzal1234 wrote:Your argument about equal work is pretty unjustifiable. I don't see how your example is relevant at all. In my family, my father would be far more likely to skip something work related to go to our recitals. If you are getting paid for the same job as another person and do the same things, you get paid the same. If you are a bad employee, you get paid less or fired. Sex does not enter in.

Why are women bosses more empathetic? One of my bosses here is a woman, and she is one of the least empathetic people I have ever met in my life. She's exactly the kind of person to whom you are giving "manly" qualities, and she is a terrible boss, not that that's relevant.


Americans prefer a male boss to a female boss

That's in the US. In the UK:
Female bosses are a nightmare to work for, a survey of employees concludes.
And it is not just men who think so.
Two-thirds of women said they preferred a male boss because their straight-talking, ‘get to the point’ attitude makes them easier to deal with.
They are also much less likely to have a hidden agenda, suffer mood swings or get involved in office politics, workers said.


Also:
Research shows men who report to a female manager get much more mentoring and support than their female colleagues.
The findings, published in the journal Social Science Research, add to previous evidence that so-called Queen Bee syndrome can be a major obstacle to women climbing the managerial ladder.
Far from encouraging other ambitious women, psychologists at the University of Cincinnati found female bosses are more inclined to obstruct them.


I don't know the specifics of your situation. But I do know that statistics indicate large trends. And I think it's naive that the wage gap is evidence of a "patriarchy"; in fact, my last link shows that the wage gap is partially caused by female managers themselves.

The Great Hippo wrote:You need feminists--because without feminists, you don't have an enemy to rally against. Because if you stopped talking about feminists, you'd actually have to start dealing with issues men face--and dealing with those issues? That's really, really hard work.

Warren Farrell doesn't need to talk about feminists. Warren Farrell just says what he wants to say, and then feminists violently protest him.

The point is that there are certain issues that MRAs rally against- and most of them just happen to be feminist initiatives. You take that fact, and interpret that as meaning that MRAs are not dealing with issues that men face. But they are.

Edit: there are also MRA initiatives that are opposed by feminists merely because they help men. Example: http://www.vancouversun.com/McMartin+ba ... story.html
Last edited by ddxxdd on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:20 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests