Is there sexism towards men in america?

[Bluefootedpig]

This might be applied to the world, or various nations, but I would like to focus in on America.

pulling some info from various, but here is an entry I that spurred the thought: http://www.martynemko.com/articles/shou ... lth_id1231

Here is the stats:

Women's expected life: 80.1 years
Men's expected life: 74.8 years

There are seven federal health agencies specifically for women. Not one for men.

39 of the 50 states have an office of women’s health, only six have one for men.

Even the post office has gotten into the act: there is only one disease for which you can buy a postage stamp and the profits will go to research to cure the disease: breast cancer, even though heart disease kills millions more men prematurely.

We can also see more advertisements geared towards women. Take breast cancer awareness (which is pink for obvious reasons), and we even have a breast cancer awareness month. Can anyone tell me what month is testicular cancer month? or prostate cancer month?

My point is simply this, if men are dying on average 5 years before women, shouldn't we be focusing on men's health more than women? And where is the feminist movement on this? Seeing as feminist will say to your face that they are fighting for equal rights between the sexes... does this one area not count?

[Norstal]

How is that....how is that sexism? What?

Well, I guess nature is just sexist.

[Wamitoria]

2/10. Others have been more convincing.

[AETEN II]

Herp Derp, Men naturally live less then women due to the fact we're not as important. That's not sexist. Not to mention that bad health habits contribute to that. Even prostate cancer kills very rarely and treatment actually worsens it, half of all men by age 80 have prostate cancer and died from other causes. It's possible it develops naturally. In reality nobody's supposed to live past age fifty.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Women and children first."
Sure...sure...

Not to mention, i'm guessing US laws are similar to UK laws with regard to paternity costs, paternity leave etc.
A male has less options with regard to informed consent on contraception, and all of the risk involved.
We do not force women to become parents against their will, but we do force men.
Then there is the disproportionate donations to cancer foundations, disproportionate time given to women in the work place suffering accidents, etc.
Yes, there is sexism.
Sexism is a two-way system, and always has been. Patriarchy doesn't just harm women

[Souseiseki]

testicular cancer month is april. the ribbon colour is orchid.
in the UK at least, prostate cancer month is march.

always happy to help

[Ostroeuropa]

The feminist movement wont deal with it because anyone who identifies as a feminist either hasn't considered the implications of the posistion, or is a straight up sexist.

[Souseiseki]

"Women and children first."
A male has less options with regard to informed consent on contraception, and all of the risk involved.

women have always has more options for contraception

this is because contraception used to involve shoving cow shit up your vagina

We do not force women to become parents against their will, but we do force men.

ahahahah what

[Tahar Joblis]

How is that....how is that sexism? What?

Well, I guess nature is just sexist.

Funding is disproportionately allocated to diseases and health problems which have more female victims.

Breast cancer and prostate cancer are the classic examples, but the phenomenon is widespread; and yes, it is sexist. We respond to women suffering, as a society, much more than we respond to men suffering.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Women and children first."
A male has less options with regard to informed consent on contraception, and all of the risk involved.

women have always has more options for contraception

this is because contraception used to involve shoving cow shit up your vagina

We do not force women to become parents against their will, but we do force men.

ahahahah what

It isn't about more options, it's about more visible options. Every time a woman has sex she is able to confirm whether or not (unless shes extremely forgetful) that the level of contraception at present is adequate, either by viewing the man's condom or knowing her own routine.

And yeh.
Whereas a woman who has got pregnant can:

Abort
Adopt
Ditch the child in a safe-haven zone
Give the child to family members
Give the child to friends
etc.

A man has no such option, if the mother decides she wants his help, he MUST pay, or its jailtime.

[Ad Nihilo]

OP: Yes, you have pointed out some legal and public measures by which women come out in favour.

But that is not to say that women come out in favour on all such indicators, or indeed that on aggregate. If you were to look at the gender distribution of power in a society this would still not come out in favour of women.

Basically, the assumption we're working with here is that since women are under-represented in well paid jobs, and for equal work they get paid something like 10% less (google statistics), it is quite clear that men still come overall in control of social structures. So we care a bit more about medical conditions in women? Seems only fair. It won't make up for how much we're screwing them over in the board room, but it's a start.

[Souseiseki]

It isn't about more options, it's about more visible options. Every time a woman has sex she is able to confirm whether or not (unless shes extremely forgetful) that the level of contraception at present is adequate, either by viewing the man's condom or knowing her own routine.

yeah, it's easier to see physical contraception at work on external genitalia than internal genitalia. do you have a proposed solution?

can't men look at their own condoms? is the problem that female condoms don't get used because they're stupid and you want to be able to see them hanging out of vaginas like roast beef so you can make a decision on whether or not it's safe?

[Ostroeuropa]

OP: Yes, you have pointed out some legal and public measures by which women come out in favour.

But that is not to say that women come out in favour on all such indicators, or indeed that on aggregate. If you were to look at the gender distribution of power in a society this would still not come out in favour of women.

Basically, the assumption we're working with here is that since women are under-represented in well paid jobs, and for equal work they get paid something like 10% less (google statistics), it is quite clear that men still come overall in control of social structures. So we care a bit more about medical conditions in women? Seems only fair. It won't make up for how much we're screwing them over in the board room, but it's a start.

This is precisely the sort of thinking that allows sexism to continue.
How many women apply for those jobs?
I'd ask you to adjust your statistics for applicants VS accepted. (You'll find that it comes out with both sexes roughly equal.)
Women tend to enter professional careers rather than business, and there are less women than men in the job market.
Adjust the statistics appropriately or it's pointless using them.
It's also an extension of the old type of sexism that stems from our tribal origins.

"Men do work, too dangerous for baby machine. Leave her in house, ban her from leaving." <-Good for survival, as it happens, hence its prevelance.

[Ostroeuropa]

It isn't about more options, it's about more visible options. Every time a woman has sex she is able to confirm whether or not (unless shes extremely forgetful) that the level of contraception at present is adequate, either by viewing the man's condom or knowing her own routine.

yeah, it's easier to see physical contraception at work on external genitalia than internal genitalia. do you have a proposed solution?

can't men look at their own condoms? is the problem that female condoms don't get used because they're stupid and you want to be able to see them hanging out of vaginas like roast beef so you can make a decision on whether or not it's safe?

No I don't have a solution, i'm just pointing out that considering the risk falls on men for unplanned pregnancy slightly more, the cost shouldn't fall disproportionately on them.

[Galloism]

I think this is tied heavily to one stereotype (although it's not the only one):

Men are logical and responsible for everything they do, while women are emotional and not responsible for things they do.

It also happens to be bullshit, but has such interesting effects on reality:

Women have a harder time becoming executives, as they are not responsible
Women have a harder time getting elected, as they are not responsible
Women have a harder time moving up in the military, as they are not responsible
Women are not required to care for their offspring, as they are not responsible
Women serve lighter prison sentences on average, as they're not responsible

For men:
Men serve harsher prison sentences, as they are always responsible
Men are required to always support their offspring, no matter the circumstances, as they are always responsible
Men can't be date raped, as they're always responsible
Men receive little to no health support, as they're always responsible

We see men as the masters of their destiny while women are helpless victims of circumstance. It sucks for both genders.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think this is tied heavily to one stereotype (although it's not the only one):

Men are logical and responsible for everything they do, while women are emotional and not responsible for things they do.

It also happens to be bullshit, but has such interesting effects on reality:

Women have a harder time becoming executives, as they are not responsible
Women have a harder time getting elected, as they are not responsible
Women have a harder time moving up in the military, as they are not responsible
Women are not required to care for their offspring, as they are not responsible
Women serve lighter prison sentences on average, as they're not responsible

For men:
Men serve harsher prison sentences, as they are always responsible
Men are required to always support their offspring, no matter the circumstances, as they are always responsible
Men can't be date raped, as they're always responsible
Men receive little to no health support, as they're always responsible

We see men as the masters of their destiny while women are helpless victims of circumstance. It sucks for both genders.

Precisely. Patriarchy doesn't just harm women, it harms both genders.

[Ad Nihilo]

OP: Yes, you have pointed out some legal and public measures by which women come out in favour.

But that is not to say that women come out in favour on all such indicators, or indeed that on aggregate. If you were to look at the gender distribution of power in a society this would still not come out in favour of women.

Basically, the assumption we're working with here is that since women are under-represented in well paid jobs, and for equal work they get paid something like 10% less (google statistics), it is quite clear that men still come overall in control of social structures. So we care a bit more about medical conditions in women? Seems only fair. It won't make up for how much we're screwing them over in the board room, but it's a start.

This is precisely the sort of thinking that allows sexism to continue.
How many women apply for those jobs?
I'd ask you to adjust your statistics for applicants VS accepted. (You'll find that it comes out with both sexes roughly equal.)
Women tend to enter professional careers rather than business, and there are less women than men in the job market.
Adjust the statistics appropriately or it's pointless using them.
It's also an extension of the old type of sexism that stems from our tribal origins.

"Men do work, too dangerous for baby machine. Leave her in house, ban her from leaving." <-Good for survival, as it happens, hence its prevelance.

Look... patriarchy doesn't hurt both genders. Patriarchy hurts females.

But you do have a point if what you mean is that the notion of gender in general hurts members of both genders in that it assigns certain gender roles and expectations that do not fit every member of that group and that's fine.

But when it comes to men vs women in the board room, do you genuinely think that gender stereotyping (which is what you are against) has nothing to do with why less women than men apply for those well paid jobs that carry all that social and socio-economic power?

Also, please don't appeal to evolutionary science to support spurious claims, unless you wish to undermine evolutionary science itself. You could just as well use evolutionary science to to say that because women are "designed" to run households, which are economic units, whereas men are designed to go hunt, which does not involve economic units, women are designed to run politics and corporations, and men are designed to mine, fish, hunt, and go to war.

So leave this "male/female nature" bullshit aside, and tell me why is it that women exclude themselves from jobs for which they are perfectly well qualified, not just that they do?

[Souseiseki]

yeah, it's easier to see physical contraception at work on external genitalia than internal genitalia. do you have a proposed solution?

can't men look at their own condoms? is the problem that female condoms don't get used because they're stupid and you want to be able to see them hanging out of vaginas like roast beef so you can make a decision on whether or not it's safe?

No I don't have a solution, i'm just pointing out that considering the risk falls on men for unplanned pregnancy slightly more, the cost shouldn't fall disproportionately on them.

tbh getting pregnant is a pretty big cost. unless you were talking about finances, in which case the woman would also have a financial burden from the baby. and since they father apparently doesn't want it and is being "forced", we can assume the woman is probably also going to end up looking after it.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is precisely the sort of thinking that allows sexism to continue.
How many women apply for those jobs?
I'd ask you to adjust your statistics for applicants VS accepted. (You'll find that it comes out with both sexes roughly equal.)
Women tend to enter professional careers rather than business, and there are less women than men in the job market.
Adjust the statistics appropriately or it's pointless using them.
It's also an extension of the old type of sexism that stems from our tribal origins.

"Men do work, too dangerous for baby machine. Leave her in house, ban her from leaving." <-Good for survival, as it happens, hence its prevelance.

Look... patriarchy doesn't hurt both genders. Patriarchy hurts females.

But you do have a point if what you mean is that the notion of gender in general hurts members of both genders in that it assigns certain gender roles and expectations that do not fit every member of that group and that's fine.

But when it comes to men vs women in the board room, do you genuinely think that gender stereotyping (which is what you are against) has nothing to do with why less women than men apply for those well paid jobs that carry all that social and socio-economic power?

Also, please don't appeal to evolutionary science to support spurious claims, unless you wish to undermine evolutionary science itself. You could just as well use evolutionary science to to say that because women are "designed" to run households, which are economic units, whereas men are designed to go hunt, which does not involve economic units, women are designed to run politics and corporations, and men are designed to mine, fish, hunt, and go to war.

So leave this "male/female nature" bullshit aside, and tell me why is it that women exclude themselves from jobs for which they are perfectly well qualified, not just that they do?

I'm appealing to evolutionary science on a social level to explain why sexism arose.
Indeed, should have arissen during a time where our survival depended on keeping women safe, and men really were an expendable gender.
During that time, a man became a replaceable machine and a woman had no right of agency, lest she endanger the entire future of the tribe.
It isn't a biological fact, it's a social fact that arose from the tribes which adopted that view vastly outbreeding and supplanting say, matriarchal societies, or equal societies.
These days, we are not in danger of turning around one day to suddenly find that we don't have enough women to continue the species, so why is this aspect of our culture still around?
Regarding females as precious property, to be protected, and males as expendable workhorses.
And yes, patriarchy does hurt both genders, either that or we are not a patriarchy. I invite you to explain how it doesn't.

[Ostroeuropa]

No I don't have a solution, i'm just pointing out that considering the risk falls on men for unplanned pregnancy slightly more, the cost shouldn't fall disproportionately on them.

tbh getting pregnant is a pretty big cost. unless you were talking about finances, in which case the woman would also have a financial burden from the baby. and since they father apparently doesn't want it and is being "forced", we can assume the woman is probably also going to end up looking after it.

Not always, the woman can in fact give the baby to a family member or friend and still demand payment from the father.

[Tahar Joblis]

Look... patriarchy doesn't hurt both genders. Patriarchy hurts females.

Bullshit.

Well, unless you're using a very narrow definition of "patriarchy" to mean "bad things happening to women," at which point your assertion is devoid of meaningful content.

Men are treated as expendable. Women are not.

So leave this "male/female nature" bullshit aside, and tell me why is it that women exclude themselves from jobs for which they are perfectly well qualified, not just that they do?

Different priorities. Money is more important to men (surveys have shown this) - in particular, we can suggest this is since they will be judged as prospective mates on their ability to earn money. Women prioritize benefits, security, and flexibility over raw income.

[Geilinor]

OP: Yes, you have pointed out some legal and public measures by which women come out in favour.

But that is not to say that women come out in favour on all such indicators, or indeed that on aggregate. If you were to look at the gender distribution of power in a society this would still not come out in favour of women.

Basically, the assumption we're working with here is that since women are under-represented in well paid jobs, and for equal work they get paid something like 10% less (google statistics), it is quite clear that men still come overall in control of social structures. So we care a bit more about medical conditions in women? Seems only fair. It won't make up for how much we're screwing them over in the board room, but it's a start.

This is precisely the sort of thinking that allows sexism to continue.
How many women apply for those jobs?
I'd ask you to adjust your statistics for applicants VS accepted. (You'll find that it comes out with both sexes roughly equal.)
Women tend to enter professional careers rather than business, and there are less women than men in the job market.
Adjust the statistics appropriately or it's pointless using them.
It's also an extension of the old type of sexism that stems from our tribal origins.

"Men do work, too dangerous for baby machine. Leave her in house, ban her from leaving." <-Good for survival, as it happens, hence its prevelance.

"Men do work, too dangerous for baby machine. Leave her in house, ban her from leaving." <-Good for survival, as it happens, hence its prevelance.

We've moved quite a bit from our tribal origins and "Men do work, too dangerous for baby machine. Leave her in house, ban her from leaving."

[Tahar Joblis]

No I don't have a solution, i'm just pointing out that considering the risk falls on men for unplanned pregnancy slightly more, the cost shouldn't fall disproportionately on them.

tbh getting pregnant is a pretty big cost.

But one that's entirely optional. If you're interested in talking more about that subject, I direct you here.

[Nansurium]

Absolutely there is. Its called affirmative action and hyper-masculinity.

[Mike the Progressive]

Of course there is. The Feminazis have gone from being about equality to special rights! It's why we need a Sexist League to fight women who vote, hold nontraditional roles, and are non-college/unattractive lesbians!

Sexist League away!