Really? Show me.
Advertisement
by Ethel mermania » Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:19 pm
by Bottle » Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:36 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/10/01/the-myth-of-male-decline/
Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.
The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.
So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?
Interesting and strange stuff one can find on the internet.
by Bottle » Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:38 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Lessnt wrote:Men are worse off.
In a multitude of ways.
We still have to sign up for drafts.
We have to share more.
We have more responsibility.
We carry more burdens.
While living in a world that is still far more likely to kill us.
i can write my name in the snow. show me a woman who can do that.
by Ethel mermania » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:05 pm
by Tahar Joblis » Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:46 pm
Bottle wrote:Conformal Veal Theory wrote:http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/10/01/the-myth-of-male-decline/
Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.
The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.
So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?
Interesting and strange stuff one can find on the internet.
Men and boys are, by almost every single objective measure, doing better now than they were 50 years ago.
The problem (hah) is that women and girls have made even greater gains, and thus men and boys are not sufficiently far ahead to satisfy some folks.
If you assume that men are "innately" better at math, then when girls and women catch up (and start to surpass) their male peers you are forced to conclude that SOMETHING HORRIBLE IS AMISS because the natural order of male supremacy is being disrupted.
If you assume the default status for any male human is one in which he owns and rules over a woman and children, then you will be horrified and dismayed by a world in which women and children decline to be owned.
Remember that to some people, it's a zero sum game. Men can't win unless women lose. Best advice is to simply ignore them and continue making the world a better place for everyone in spite of their petulant, childish whining.
by Forsher » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:19 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:Bottle wrote:Men and boys are, by almost every single objective measure, doing better now than they were 50 years ago.
Unemployment rate?
Nope.
Incarceration rate?
Nope.
Being presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Nope.
How about how easy it is for a man to go find a teaching job?
Nope.
Taking pictures of your kids without people assuming you're a pedophile?
Nope.
The problem (hah) is that women and girls have made even greater gains, and thus men and boys are not sufficiently far ahead to satisfy some folks.
In an age where the educational requirements to get a job have inflated dramatically, making nominal gains in education on the population level isn't enough.
If you assume that men are "innately" better at maths, then when girls and women catch up (and start to surpass) their male peers you are forced to conclude that SOMETHING HORRIBLE IS AMISS because the natural order of male supremacy is being disrupted.
If women are doing significantly better in the educational system in spite of similar overall levels of cognitive ability, then the educational system is being unfair to men.
by Kalaspia-Shimarata » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:34 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:
i can write my name in the snow. show me a woman who can do that.
by Tahar Joblis » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:41 pm
Socialdemokraterne wrote:I'm not against the notion of explicitly adding forced penetration to the definition of rape, so I don't think you and I will be able to stir up a very interesting debate in that regard.
A deeper exploration of the meaning of "patriarchy" in a feminist context is available here: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/jou ... 7921a.html
I asked you to produce evidence and that's just what you did. Thanks much. Furthermore, your hypothetical reasoning regarding child molestation seems solid enough.
I can't deny that the concept of patriarchy has been misused before.
If I ever become more deeply involved with a feminist organization I will certainly try to reverse that trend if I find it to be present.
To be fair to me, you didn't actually specify what sort of funding you were talking about. It was very easy to infer from what you'd written that you were talking about organizational funding, not federal funding.
Presumably these were suits regarding VAWA and federal funding distribution? Is there a specific case of interest here?
Thus increasing the importance of crime statistics so that these groups' activities can be more accurately coordinated with societal trends. Got it.
I'll keep what you've said in mind and reevaluate. Thank you for your reply.
by Ethel mermania » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:02 am
by Quintium » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:14 am
by Kalaspia-Shimarata » Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:07 am
Quintium wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:I would not admit to that in public.
Meh, why not? I can't write my name in snow either, because my handwriting is terrible. There were only two people at my high school who could read my handwriting on exams - someone who could read Arabic, and someone who spent most of his adult life so far reading medieval manuscripts. Then again, I don't think I wrote on my exams using what this is about.
by Ethel mermania » Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:49 am
Kalaspia-Shimarata wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:I would not admit to that in public.
I can't write my name in snow, due to the lack of snow...
...
...not for any other reasons, and certainly not for the reason you think...Quintium wrote:
Meh, why not? I can't write my name in snow either, because my handwriting is terrible. There were only two people at my high school who could read my handwriting on exams - someone who could read Arabic, and someone who spent most of his adult life so far reading medieval manuscripts. Then again, I don't think I wrote on my exams using what this is about.
I can relate. For that reason, and that reason only, I can type my exams
by Kalaspia-Shimarata » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:48 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Kalaspia-Shimarata wrote:I can't write my name in snow, due to the lack of snow...
...
...not for any other reasons, and certainly not for the reason you think...
I can relate. For that reason, and that reason only, I can type my exams
So the truth of the matter is you do not know if you can write your name in the snow or not? Don't be so down on yourself, you don't know until you have tried.
The world being our bathroom, and drunken spelling in the snow are two of the great things about being a man.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anarcopia, Cannot think of a name
Advertisement