Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Negated
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Negated » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Prefanity wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Male nurses, in my anecdotal experience, are usually humiliated by their peers, and no one likes to remain in or join a profession where they are consistently humiliated.


When you say "peers" do you mean other male nurses or their non-nurse friends? Granted, the latter would still elicit shock from me.

Gaylord Focker.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Woopate » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:56 pm UTC

In my (conservative Christian) family, I have a cousin/uncle/thing who lives in Manitoba and is a nurse. There is much talk behind hands and knowing glances TWO provinces away.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:56 pm UTC

I go to a school with an excellent nursing school...nobody gives the male students crap for studying nursing. So...now our anecdata cancel each other out.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Woopate » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:59 pm UTC

I saw a nursing school, and it was performing WITCHCRAFT I tells ya. (I'll beback after discussing the matter with google).

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:02 pm UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
Sourmilk, the fact that you've never even heard of the Equal Rights Amendment

Where'd you get that idea?
kinda proves my point (speaking from a US-centric POV, of course). Not only are women not dominating men,

in some areas they are, dramatically. Mostly in educational areas.
we're not even constitutionally guaranteed equal rights!

See the 14th amendment. Not to mention that gender discrimination in the US is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Women aren't doing "better" than men.

In some areas you are, significantly.
We're still playing catchup in almost every area. A few percentage points higher university enrollment just is not evidence of The Coming Matriarchy.

No, but the trend of females succeeding at a significantly higher rate than males is,
There's just not this huge gender equality skewed in favor of women "coming up" based on the fact that women are slowly becoming more equal. There really is not.


I don't think you looked at the numbers. Woman are surpassing men quickly.

Iulus Cofield wrote:My Innocence!

I lol'd
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:12 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
Sourmilk, the fact that you've never even heard of the Equal Rights Amendment

Where'd you get that idea?
kinda proves my point (speaking from a US-centric POV, of course). Not only are women not dominating men,

in some areas they are, dramatically. Mostly in educational areas.
we're not even constitutionally guaranteed equal rights!

See the 14th amendment. Not to mention that gender discrimination in the US is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Women aren't doing "better" than men.

In some areas you are, significantly.
We're still playing catchup in almost every area. A few percentage points higher university enrollment just is not evidence of The Coming Matriarchy.

No, but the trend of females succeeding at a significantly higher rate than males is,
There's just not this huge gender equality skewed in favor of women "coming up" based on the fact that women are slowly becoming more equal. There really is not.


I don't think you looked at the numbers. Woman are surpassing men quickly.

Iulus Cofield wrote:My Innocence!

I lol'd


Ugh, quotesniping...

Point 1: As I said, I mixed up you and Iulius. Soz.

No. Women are not dominating men. Slightly more women get college degrees. (Additionally, and to borrow Jessica's argument, can you think of any reason that might women might be more motivated than men to invest in an education to get higher wages in the future, like, say, I dunno, a significant wage disparity between the two?)

So why have the 13th and 15th at all, since the 14th is such a perfect solution? In fact, why isn't our constitution just those famous four words: "Don't be a d*ck?" Oh, yeah, cuz racial discrimination was a huge problem and needed to be specifically addressed by specific language. Intermediate scrutiny (a standard much more lax than the strict scrutiny issues of race are held to) is in no way comparable to a constitutional amendment.

NO. Women are NOT "surpassing men quickly". Women are, maybe, starting to catch up to men at a rate that exceeds that of previous times. These things are not the same in any way, shape, or form.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:18 pm UTC

Oh that was directed at me? I knew what the Equal Rights Amendment was. I thought you must have been referring to something different, because I thought it was already ratified. How silly of me to think that passing both houses of Congress would be enough to pass a law.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:23 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Oh that was directed at me? I knew what the Equal Rights Amendment was. I thought you must have been referring to something different, because I thought it was already ratified. How silly of me to think that passing both houses of Congress would be enough to pass a law.


...well, it's not. A constitutional amendment is different from a regular law; it also has to be ratified (just how depends on which path it takes), and not enough states ratified it in time.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:39 pm UTC

Ah, I see. My mediocre high school history class failed to mention that it was an amendment and that it wasn't ratified. Public school treated me well, yes.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:42 pm UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:NO. Women are NOT "surpassing men quickly". Women are, maybe, starting to catch up to men at a rate that exceeds that of previous times. These things are not the same in any way, shape, or form.


Except that they are exactly identical in terms of how the data looks. Tell me then: if this does not indicate that women are passing men, what would?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby yurell » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:52 pm UTC

"This decline in founding virtues -- work, marriage, and religion"

Because one doesn't choose to believe in a sky fairy, one is less virtuous? Am I interpreting that wrong?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:59 pm UTC

yurell wrote:"This decline in founding virtues -- work, marriage, and religion"

Because one doesn't choose to believe in a sky fairy, one is less virtuous? Am I interpreting that wrong?


And if you both don't believe in the sky fairy and have not found a person you want to spend the rest of your life with by age 30 who you are romantically invested in, then you might as well be Stalin.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Prefanity » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:06 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
yurell wrote:"This decline in founding virtues -- work, marriage, and religion"

Because one doesn't choose to believe in a sky fairy, one is less virtuous? Am I interpreting that wrong?


And if you both don't believe in the sky fairy and have not found a person you want to spend the rest of your life with by age 30 who you are romantically invested in, then you might as well be Stalin.


Thirty's simply too late. People should know by high school so they can plan the wedding during college. (Consarn it!)

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby podbaydoor » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:14 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Non-nurse friends and sometimes non-male nurse coworkers. Have you heard of the term "murse"? On the admittedly few occasions I've heard it used, it was accompanied by some sort of gesture (snickering, eye rolling, etc.) to indicate it was meant derogatorily.

See, the thing is, that's the pain of adapting. Over the last hundred years, women have endured countless instances of derogatory, harassing, condescending remarks, discriminatory behavior, abuse, all of it, as they moved into traditionally male professions (or hell, any professions). It sucks that there is also pain when men are adapting to different professions. I am in no way endorsing discriminatory behavior and it should be stopped/dealt with.

However, we're addressing the fact that it does happen regardless of the ethics. And what I'm saying is that I don't understand why men are not dealing with it the way women have dealt with it for at least a hundred years. Women have adapted. Women have struggled with their gender roles and changed those roles. Why aren't men? Why should women not pursue their life goals? Why is this subtracting from men?

I don't understand why Hanna Rosin seems to be suggesting that the only way for men to "take back" their lot in life is to continue to stick with their old gender roles, only even more vehemently.

sourmìlk wrote:Except that they are exactly identical in terms of how the data looks. Tell me then: if this does not indicate that women are passing men, what would?

They are not identical data, or passing men. Hanna Rosin even talks about this; despite the rise of professional women, there is an extreme minority of them in executive positions. I would also like to add, a significant minority of them in legislative positions on the local, state, and national level. Also, the wage gap is still there.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Adacore » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:28 am UTC

As others have said, if you strip out all the opinionated crap about religion, marriage and (possibly, I'm not sure how to read it) fatherless households, I think there are some decent points made in the article.

The main thing I wanted to pick up on was already covered by Dauric: yes, it is evident that, at the moment, women are not particularly close to equality with men, as a whole, but if there is significant disparity in further education rates, that will (should) eventually feed through to the overall averages on wages, employment, &c.* The problem, as was pointed out, is that you can't see this happening in the simple wage statistics until it's too late - if you only start looking at it if/when women's wages equal men's**, you may have a situation where the bottom half of the highskill workforce by age is 60%+ women, and the top half is still mainly men. As those younger women get older and are promoted, the wage balance will continue to change until it is far past equality. Hence, problems with imbalance in education need to be addressed now - it's like any process control problem (go Chem Eng geekery!), if you just use a differential control scheme you're going to overshoot the target significantly, you need some integral control action as well.

It would be very interesting to see the wage profile of the workforce broken down by gender and age. Is there still a significant gender wage gap in the 20-30 age bracket, or is the higher attainment of college degrees starting to to show in the younger sections of the workforce? I'm sure this information exists, but I couldn't find it with a quick search.

*Although women do have an inherent disadvantage while it is assumed that they will be the primary caregiver for any children. This causes a sharp drop-off in average earnings of professional women relative to men around the age of 25-35. Source.

**The problem becomes even worse if you insist on finding the remaining areas where inequality exists. If you don't do anything until over 50% of CEOs, politicians, &c. are women, you may well have a situation where the rest of the job market has already 'overshot' equality significantly.

EDIT: This, of course, assumes one actually wants wage equality. There are some positions (notably manual labour) where men are just physically better suited for the work than women. Thus, it may make sense (if we assume manual labour is going to remain on the low-paid end of the spectrum) for women to have higher average wages than men anyway.
Last edited by Adacore on Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:35 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:29 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:
sourmilk wrote:Except that they are exactly identical in terms of how the data looks. Tell me then: if this does not indicate that women are passing men, what would?

They are not identical data, or passing men. Hanna Rosin even talks about this; despite the rise of professional women, there is an extreme minority of them in executive positions. I would also like to add, a significant minority of them in legislative positions on the local, state, and national level. Also, the wage gap is still there.


I've stated several times that I recognize women aren't surpassing men in every way. I'm referring to the ways mentioned in the article: overall job gain, college degrees, etc.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Ptolom
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:55 pm UTC
Location: The entropy pool
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Ptolom » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:37 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:NO. Women are NOT "surpassing men quickly". Women are, maybe, starting to catch up to men at a rate that exceeds that of previous times. These things are not the same in any way, shape, or form.


Except that they are exactly identical in terms of how the data looks. Tell me then: if this does not indicate that women are passing men, what would?

Speaking of "how the data looks", this graph [(female median wage/male median wage)*100 plotted against years] doesn't exactly show women passing men
Spoiler:
Image

Picking two presitgious US universities at random,
Harvard (2009)
screenshot.png


Princeton (% admissions, year unknown but pretty recent)
screenshot2.png
screenshot2.png (5.41 KiB) Viewed 4692 times

The stats in the article show is that unemployment among men is rising, but female unemployment is still 105% of male unemployment.
If you take progress in the direction of equality of the past couple of decades and simply project the same rates into the future, then obviously by 20-whatever you're going to have a brutally repressive matriarchy where men are denied education and left to starve on the streets. But there's no evidence of that happening. In fact int the case of the ratio of median wage graph, the derivative has zeroed out already.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Dark567 » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:40 am UTC

Adacore wrote:It would be very interesting to see the wage profile of the workforce broken down by gender and age. Is there still a significant gender wage gap in the 20-30 age bracket, or is the higher attainment of college degrees starting to to show in the younger sections of the workforce? I'm sure this information exists, but I couldn't find it with a quick search.
Women in that age bracket(without children) outearned their male counterparts overall. Once you adjust for education their is still a wage gap favoring men however.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... iends.html
http://www.time.com/time/business/artic ... 74,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 31192.html

Actually, another interesting point is the same think appears to be happening in the UK.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:44 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Ah, I see. My mediocre high school history class failed to mention that it was an amendment and that it wasn't ratified. Public school treated me well, yes.


I am not saying this to be snarky in _any_ way, but...yeah, that's kind of astonishingly bad. FAIL @ that school. (Out of curiosity - not trying to belabor the point; I'm 100% sure you know random stuff that I ought to but for some reason never learned - were you thinking that the ERA was a federal law? Or a ratified amendment? Or some other third thing I can't think of? I'm just interested in what people not otherwise interested in it tend to think it is, is all.)
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:53 am UTC

Oh thank God; and to think society has shamed me all this time for my life desire of being a stay at home dad.

I for one welcome our female overlords...
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

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

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:04 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Ah, I see. My mediocre high school history class failed to mention that it was an amendment and that it wasn't ratified. Public school treated me well, yes.
It's got amendment in the damn name. Did you really need them to spell it out more explicitly than that?
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
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby KestrelLowing » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:06 am UTC

This is nothing but anecdotal data, but I think it brings up an interesting point to consider.

I think that men are tending to "fall behind" (I'm still not sure that term is accurate) in education and career paths is because everyone expects them to only master the things that men traditionally did. However, the workplace and schools are changing.

In my engineering design processes class, it talks about the different 'brain types' that are needed for success and how they've changed over the past few decades (note that is book is now somewhat outdated).

To understand the background, you need to know what A, B, C, and D thinking is.

A is analytical. They deal a lot with facts, data analysis, math, etc.
B is organized. They're very sequential, detail oriented, disciplined, good at planning, etc.
C is interpersonal. They're good with people and emotions, excellent at teamwork, etc.
D is imaginative. They are innovative, imaginative, conceptual, big picture oriented, artistic, etc.

Everyone will have some tendency towards a quadrant although some people are more equal.

The thinking style of successful people was taken over four decades. All this data states is that it came from "successful people" and that Ned Herrmann investigated it. It doesn't define what successful is, but I'm betting it's monetarily.

Here are the rankings of the thinking styles by decade
60s: B,A,D,C
70s: A,B,D,C
80s: D,A,B,C
90s: D,C,A,B
(Creative Problem Solving and Engineering Design 2, 2000)

A and B thinking styles tend to be associated with male brains while D and C are more often associated with female brains. The workplace is currently shifting towards more of a CD style of thinking, rewarding those traits that are commonly associated with females.

However, we have not been teaching boys how to utilize that type of thinking (another tidbit in my text book is that after kindergartners, housewives tend to be the most creative) while we have actively been teaching girls A and B thinking (in schools) as well as C and D thinking (socially) boys only get the A and B.

Nearly all females are expected to know how to successfully live on their own (when it comes to cooking, cleaning, etc.) by the time they reach college age or before. However, it seems completely acceptable if a male doesn't know how to do laundry or boil water. Obviously there are many males who can take care of themselves just fine and many females who cannot, but that's what's culturally acceptable.

However, females now are also expected to be just as good or better in school as males. This wasn't always the case.

Basically, I think the cultural expectation has been raised for females (be a provider and homemaker) while the cultural expectation for males has remained the same (be the provider). I've found that when you expect someone to do something, they often will. So males will continue to be able to be a provider like in the past while women will be able to be a provider and have the additional abilities often attributed to making a household run (multitasking, being creative with small funds, etc) that are also highly beneficial in the work and college environment.

Basically, we're expecting men to do less, so they do.

Again, this is basically just my musing. Please feel free to tear it apart.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:49 am UTC

I'm always extremely leery of the whole "men are more analytical thinkers and women are more interpersonally oriented" trope. I'm sorry, (and I should disclose that I am a student of psychology and am often defensive about the field) but this is one particular flavor of koolaid I simply refuse to drink. It is taking society a frustratingly long time to slowly inch away from the caveman "men think, women feel," and IMNSHO psychology is being dragged kicking and screaming away from that belief along with the rest of society.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby lutzj » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:56 am UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:Sourmilk, the fact that you've never even heard of the Equal Rights Amendment kinda proves my point (speaking from a US-centric POV, of course). Not only are women not dominating men, we're not even constitutionally guaranteed equal rights!


Of course you are. Any modern understanding of the Bill of Rights etc. would assume that constitutional rights apply to women as well as men.

And not only THAT, but people don't know/care - the ERA is this little-known (in the general population) thing that has languished for decades. You know what it is? The Civil War Amendments, but with "sex" this time instead of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


It would result in things like women having to be drafted into the army in equal numbers to men and could make things like women-only gyms or gender-segregated bathrooms illegal.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:40 am UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Ah, I see. My mediocre high school history class failed to mention that it was an amendment and that it wasn't ratified. Public school treated me well, yes.


I am not saying this to be snarky in _any_ way, but...yeah, that's kind of astonishingly bad. FAIL @ that school. (Out of curiosity - not trying to belabor the point; I'm 100% sure you know random stuff that I ought to but for some reason never learned - were you thinking that the ERA was a federal law? Or a ratified amendment? Or some other third thing I can't think of? I'm just interested in what people not otherwise interested in it tend to think it is, is all.)


Yeah, it is astonishingly bad. It was presented as an amendment to some particular civil rights bill and thus I presumed it was Federal law. Mostly, I remember it saying that it was introduced by Senators/Representatives who wanted to crush support for civil rights activists by terrifying everyone that oooooooh women might get decent jobs too, and then it passed and the bigots were proven wrong and hurray we live in a great world now.

gmalivuk wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Ah, I see. My mediocre high school history class failed to mention that it was an amendment and that it wasn't ratified. Public school treated me well, yes.
It's got amendment in the damn name. Did you really need them to spell it out more explicitly than that?


pinkie pie don't break promises angry eating apples gif.gif

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Spambot5546 » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:43 am UTC

Okay, I know this is veering off topic, but why the shit is the internet brimming with My Little Ponies all of a sudden?
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:10 am UTC

lutzj wrote:
Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:Sourmilk, the fact that you've never even heard of the Equal Rights Amendment kinda proves my point (speaking from a US-centric POV, of course). Not only are women not dominating men, we're not even constitutionally guaranteed equal rights!


Of course you are. Any modern understanding of the Bill of Rights etc. would assume that constitutional rights apply to women as well as men.

And not only THAT, but people don't know/care - the ERA is this little-known (in the general population) thing that has languished for decades. You know what it is? The Civil War Amendments, but with "sex" this time instead of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


It would result in things like women having to be drafted into the army in equal numbers to men and could make things like women-only gyms or gender-segregated bathrooms illegal.


The SCOTUS has interpreted the 14th to apply to issues of gender, but that is NOT the same thing as having the ERA in which sex discrimination is explicitly banned. Without that, you're at the mercy of the court, which is completely free to run screaming from any and all precedent pretty much any time is feels like it (and every so often, it does just that).

OH G0D THE HORRORS in that last sentence! Ye G0ds, the non-existent draft being applied to women! THE BATHROOMS WILL BE UNISEX!! Noooooooo! CLEARLY there are fatal flaws with having our constitution explicitly guarantee equal protection for women. I should tell all those silly feminists. Thank goodness you pointed that out. (Not to mention that you provide nothing to back your assertion that this amendment would result in those things.)

I suppose you also argue that gay marriage will lead to people marrying horses, furniture, and bathroom fixtures? Or did you just see the juxtaposition of "race" and "14th amendment" and conclude that somehow the ERA will lead to a Plessy and subsequent Brown v. Board for women (whatever the heck that would even mean - apparently, to you, bathrooms)?
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Garm » Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:59 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Oh thank God; and to think society has shamed me all this time for my life desire of being a stay at home dad.

I for one welcome our female overlords...


Seriously. I keep asking my wife when she's going to earn enough money that I can quit my job and stay at home with the kid.

Spambot5546 wrote:Okay, I know this is veering off topic, but why the shit is the internet brimming with My Little Ponies all of a sudden?


If I had to guess, Iulus is either an 8 year old girl or a Bronie.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Lucrece » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:16 am UTC

"What it means to be a man."

What the fuck does that even mean? It treats the question as asking for factual statement when it will never receive an answer that isn't subjective and full of shit/alienating to someone else.

There's no fucking duty solely associated with having a dick.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:20 am UTC

But there is with being an adult. (Sort of). Being an adult means people depending on you rather than the other way around. It's hard to see someone as grown up when they are still on a metaphorical teat.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby podbaydoor » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:26 am UTC

I don't see why women being able to be adults is going to take away from men being adults. Part of being an adult is dealing with paradigm change, right?
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Lucrece » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:28 am UTC

There are teenagers more self-sufficient and mature than some adults.

Why not just encourage self-sufficiency, good will, and productivity without tying them to a section of people? They should be expectations for all barring specific impairments that obstruct such traits.

Being an adult means you're physically developed to a point. If it meant being independent, then all adults would be independent. No need to conflate descriptors.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:37 am UTC

Growing old is mandatory, growing up is not...

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Malice » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:39 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:I don't see why women being able to be adults is going to take away from men being adults. Part of being an adult is dealing with paradigm change, right?


Is there actual evidence that today's women are more mature than today's men, or is that just something we've all learned from bad sitcoms and the detergent commercials that interrupt them?
Image

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Jahoclave » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:55 am UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:Okay, I know this is veering off topic, but why the shit is the internet brimming with My Little Ponies all of a sudden?

Women taking over the world, didn't you get the message. Women are going to get to vote in Saudia Arabia in a few years. And, they're kind of not going to be total dicks about them driving cars. So, you know, men are in for a rough patch.


Also, on the plus side, the other side of the Schlafly family brews a damn fine beer. As opposed to the side with the shitty website.

And, a little friendly advice to any person in this thread going on about how men are oppressed by today's culture. Stop. You're not going to get anywhere with that argument. It's wrong, not backed by fact, and given the six thousand year history of this planet's existence, women have been getting the shaft ever since the male patriarch was too stupid to plant his crops properly. So, as a kindness, you can stop being incredibly wrong, saying inane happy horseshit, and pretending like the women are out to get you, and join the century that doesn't pretend gender equality is a zero-sum game.


Are we good now? I hope we're good now. I'd hate for you to continue to look like a sexist nitwit on this forum. It's bad for your image.


Spoiler:
Malice wrote:
podbaydoor wrote:I don't see why women being able to be adults is going to take away from men being adults. Part of being an adult is dealing with paradigm change, right?


Is there actual evidence that today's women are more mature than today's men, or is that just something we've all learned from bad sitcoms and the detergent commercials that interrupt them?

Damnit woman! I'm trying to watch about soaps!

If I had but one wish, it's that Ray Romano would be like Jack Harkness, in that, I could kill him over and over and over again for his crimes.
Last edited by Jahoclave on Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:02 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Lucrece » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:58 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Growing old is mandatory, growing up is not...



And becoming an adult is "growing old". "Growing up" is not becoming an adult, but the point at which people finally start cultivating positive traits.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Marbas » Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:57 am UTC

Okay, I know this is veering off topic, but why the shit is the internet brimming with My Little Ponies all of a sudden?


One more pony, and I eat Iulus. I don't need to know where he is. I have a fork and determination

I will eat the world if I have to. There will be nothing left but dust and cauliflower. Because cauliflower can go hang.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Gopher of Pern » Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:51 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:The Atlantic article seems to leave a couple things hanging. In the scene that she describes in the Fathering class, the instructor starts out by getting their attention with a lot of their angst about the changing of the patriarchal structures. And then...what? Does he help them adapt to the new paradigm? Or does he just continue to feed them anger and bluster about the need for patriarchy.

Also, the bit about traditionally female-dominated industries continuing where male-dominated industries are losing - she doesn't bring up the fact that many of these "female jobs" are low-paying. And also she never addresses the reasons why men are not adapting. Why aren't there male nurses? Why aren't men going back to the classroom? Why does Rosin keep painting this picture where the man has to stay in his gender roles? Why can't the male gender role evolve?


The male gender role can't evolve until there is pressure for it to do so. There has been the pressure of centuries of patriarchy for women to evolve, and it is only just now that men are starting to get pressure exerted upon them. It will take decades, at least, for women to be ahead of men, and that will be when the male gender role will really start evolving.

Marbas wrote:
Okay, I know this is veering off topic, but why the shit is the internet brimming with My Little Ponies all of a sudden?


One more pony, and I eat Iulus. I don't need to know where he is. I have a fork and determination

I will eat the world if I have to. There will be nothing left but dust and cauliflower. Because cauliflower can go hang.


Image
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby podbaydoor » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:16 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
podbaydoor wrote:I don't see why women being able to be adults is going to take away from men being adults. Part of being an adult is dealing with paradigm change, right?


Is there actual evidence that today's women are more mature than today's men, or is that just something we've all learned from bad sitcoms and the detergent commercials that interrupt them?

I would argue yes, in the sense that women are now used to the idea of making their way up in a male dominated world, so used to it that they don't even think that that's what they're doing. Whereas men (if these articles have any merit to them) are having a bad reaction just to the idea of doing the same.

Gopher of Pern wrote:The male gender role can't evolve until there is pressure for it to do so. There has been the pressure of centuries of patriarchy for women to evolve, and it is only just now that men are starting to get pressure exerted upon them. It will take decades, at least, for women to be ahead of men, and that will be when the male gender role will really start evolving.

Fair point. I wish we could hurry up and get the anti-woman backlash over with, though.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:24 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Growing old is mandatory, growing up is not...



And becoming an adult is "growing old". "Growing up" is not becoming an adult, but the point at which people finally start cultivating positive traits.


Growing up is when you start 'acting like an adult'. Growing old is merely when your body matures and/or rots.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 12 guests