Is there sexism towards men in america?

[Nazi Flower Power]

Can't we all just get along and be nice to each other?

That's what I asked.

Can't we just treat each other equally without judging eachother based on race, sex, ect?

That's what I - and pretty much everyone on the "men's rights" side, barring a few reactionaries trying to co-opt the movement - believe.

On NSG, the majority of posters campaigning for "men's rights" are misogynistic pricks with a massive persecution complex and a loose grip on reality. Some of them may just be immature guys that will learn better once they grow up, but there is still a lot of whining and making mountains out of molehills. Your "few reactionaries" are the dominant force on this particular forum.

I can't speak to what goes on in any men's advocacy groups outside of NSG. There are some legit civil rights groups that deal with specific issues like discrimination in custody battles, but other than that it's just not something I run into often outside of NSG.

[Nazi Flower Power]

First of all, most of the advertisements and hotlines are not gender-specific. I have seen stuff in the media or my high school health class that dealt with teenage suicide and showed boys struggling with suicidal tendencies. There certainly seems to be more awareness of male suicide than, for example, female-on-male sexual assault.

Secondly, women are more likely to attempt suicide. Male suicide attempts are more likely to succeed, but they want to get the attention of anyone who is planning to attempt suicide.

Don't males take more violent approaches which guarantee a higher success rate?

IIRC, yes.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Bullshit.

Take one look at this thread. Out of all the external HTTP links provided (easy to find using thread search - 49 hits), precisely three external links are posted referring to something that is not someone providing support for men's rights advocacy (either directly, or by pointing to this "Femitheist" nutjob).

One is an animated trolling gif. One is a fly-by "COME VISIT MAH BLOG!" post marginally relevant to the issue. The third is someone telling me that the "Women control 80% of spending" figure touted by every marketer is probably exaggerated and of dubious source.

There's a fourth case where someone brings over external content - Neo Art quoting some random-ass blog without linking to it. The rest of it? The numerous assorted studies and articles? All "men's rights" postings. A fuckton of those from yours truly. The "loose grip on reality" belongs to those who cannot and will not cite actual evidence for their arm-waving claims.

Hypothetically, let's say you post a bunch of links with relevant information, and 19 other people come by spouting unsourced misogynist drivel. That would mean that 19 out of 20 people arguing for men's rights are posting unsourced misogynist drivel. In other words, counting the links in the thread does not prove jack shit.

Some of them may just be immature guys that will learn better once they grow up, but there is still a lot of whining and making mountains out of molehills. Your "few reactionaries" are the dominant force on this particular forum.

Describing me as a reactionary

Where did I do that?

I don't consider you a troll, but I haven't seen you calling out the posters who clearly ARE misogynists and/or trolls. So you really have no standing to criticize Natapoc or the feminist movement for their failure to shout from the rooftops about the particular issues that bother you.

[Neo Art]

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.

The 5 year survivability rate for prostate cancer is nearly 100%
The 10 year survivability rate for prostate cancer is 98%
The 15 year survivability rate for prostate cancer is 91%

The same figures for breast cancer are 89%, 82% and 77% respectively.

While a roughly comparable number of men get prostate cancer (241,740 expected in 2012) as women will get breast cancer (226,870 expected in 2012), significantly more women will die from breast cancer than men will die from prostate cancer (39,510 and 28,170 respectively)

Statistics from the American Cancer society and cancer.org

Which means 17.4% of women who get breast cancer will die from it. Prostate cancer will kill 11.3% of men who get it. Meaning that a woman who gets breast cancer is 50% more likely to die than a man who gets prostate cancer.

Now maybe, juuuuust maybe, the reason breast cancer receives more money that prostate cancer is that we're already fairly good at treating prostate cancer, and breast cancer kills considerably more people a year?



Perhaps the fact that breast cancer gets more funding is that it needs more funding, considering that it kills more people?

[Neo Art]

Nope. The pattern holds consistently on a per-death basis or a per-case basis for female-specific and male-specific diseases. The funding gap between prostate cancer and breast cancer, for example, is 4:1, not the 4:3 of the death ratio.

It's part of a large and general pattern, not just breast cancer and prostate cancer.

I suggest finding a citation that isn't 20 years old:

Among the big cancers, breast cancer receives the most funding per new case, $2,596 — and by far the most money relative to each death, $13,452. Notably, prostate cancer, the most common cancer, receives the least funding per new case at just $1,318. But on a per-death basis it ranks second, with $11,298 in N.C.I. funds.

The amount of money spent on prostate cancer research per death, is almost exactly in line with breast cancer. Sure, breast cancer gets more funding, it also impacts more people, and kills more people.

Sure, the ratio is a bit off, but evaluating research funding purely on a "cost per death" is at best a crude mechanism. I'm not a doctor and, frankly, neither are you. Evaluating funding based purely on "how many does it kill" ignores realities of how difficult the disease is to treat, and how likely additional funding is likely to make a difference. Frankly speaking, to claim that there isn't parity until we spend exactly the same on research per death is presupposing an expertise that, honestly, neither of us have. If the disease is, for the most part, almost entirely treatable if detected on time, what effect will further research have? We already know how to detect it, and how to cure it. The main cause of death is not regular screenings.

That said, on a per death basis, the numbers are pretty close.

[New Joshlands]

There are serious problems with respect to sexism when it comes to palimony, alimony, restraining orders, sexual harassement/sex crimes and domestic disputes.

It is just plain evil that for no reason other than to mess with a man, a woman can have a TRO issued. The TRO reasons are negligible, no evidence, no defense and no due process. You suddenly have a requirement to retreat in under certain circumstances and lose other rights like to guns. Being a gun owners, knowing lots of other gun owners and working in a gun store, I know many men whose ex-GFs and ex-wives who filed a TRO just so they had to get rid of their guns.

Sexual harassment once again requires no proof, it doesn't even require touching.

Palimony/Alimony, there have actually been judges who've ordered a men to pay ex-girlfriends and for their kids, kids who aren't his, just because he dated a single mother. 'Nough said.

Rape convictions are now more accurate thanks to DNA. Some men, even with the lack of DNA, have been convicted. Mike Tyson, is a famous example. Desiree Washington, his accuser had falsely accused another of rape before. A person I've known for almost 20 years was recently accused of raping a girl at his school, no one that knew him believed her, she later recanted. The Duke lacrosse team, they were crucified by the media until it came out the call girl was just a liar. And most of these women are rarely charged with a crime (filing a false police report, perjury, etc).

The age of consent laws can turn a guy in a honest relationship to a sex offender. A guy I went to school with had this happen to him, his GFs mother found out and pressed charges against him. It didn't matter it was consensual.

[New Rogernomics]

Going into the feminist movement here, but for a while most feminists felt that the male gender was everything wrong with society; they spent so much time focusing on the negative aspects of the male gender and ignoring the social impact of treating males like they could take care of themselves; and certainly males refuse to get medial help out of a 'harden up' mentality. From a social position, treating men like they have an easier time (or are hardier) than women medically has been disastrous, due to the higher rates of suicide and preventable deaths among middle aged men and older.

[New Sapienta]

THere's a TON of sexism against men. The thing of it is, I think men are mostly blaming the wrong people for it.

Historically, there've been movements that address male issues, although they've not been presented as such. They include trade unionism, to deal with workplace issues, wages, safety and so forth, anti-war protests which are as pure a men's movement as you could have had up until women became eligable for the draft, civil libertarianism and civil rights causes, particularly for the accused, since men are much more likely to stand before a judge or end up incarcerated. Socialism, communism, movement for greater income equality indirectly address issues that affect men specifically, such as lack of ability to attract mates due to poverty. I've even read an article (unfortunately lost so I cannot link) that suggested that the so called "Arab Spring" really boils down to sexually and romantically frustrated males demanding social change, since their prospects for finding mates are limited in the stratified societies of the middle eastern dictatorships. And funny thing is, it is from these causes, their end of the political and social spectrum, that the movements to address women's issues arose.

We've gone wrong collectively in seeing men, masculinity and males in general is being in and of themselves the problem, suggesting that men come away with a "net gain" as a result of sexism, rather than seeing that men and women alike get crappy deals, in their own ways. Sure battered housewives have it hard. Definately income inequality for women is a problem. But a lot of men are unemployed in this economy too, and with unemployment and poverty comes much narrower prospects for finding a mate. A large cohort of poor, single men with no future prospects is a social and demographic time bomb that we all ignore at our peril.

We're in this together people. I don't give a flying fuck over whether men or women are more oppressed than the other, and anyone who takes a side and digs in their heels one way or another is part of the problem, not part of the solution. What matters is the state of relations between the sexes, and the opportunities available to both. I'd say we have much to worry about here. The longer politics pits men and women against each other, the worse the underlying problems are going to get for everyone.

And you just encapsulated feminism in a nutshell.

The idea isn't that men are ahead and women are behind and that we fix it by pulling men back and shoving women forward. The idea is that it's a crappy deal all around. Gender roles suck. It sucks that as a man I'm expected to walk on the edge of the sidewalk toward traffic in case a car jumps the curb. It sucks that women and children are considered weak so they are put off the boat first. It sucks that there is a bias toward women in parenting, in time for child care, and in child support and divorce proceedings. All of these are the result of gender roles. And you simply cannot combat gender roles for only one gender. It's not possible. If you associate one trait to one gender, you deny it to the other. Gender roles create a binary situation where one should not exist. Feminism seeks to associate traits to individuals and not sexes. And by doing so, this will change the bias against men by judges in some case, by employers when it comes to certain benefits or jobs, by women who look for chivalry.

If you want to change the discrimination against men by gender roles, then back a feminist movement that is very much trying to eliminate those roles.

I never got why it's called feminism.

Wouldn't the correct term be Gender Egalitarianism?

[New Sapienta]

I never got why it's called feminism.

Wouldn't the correct term be Gender Egalitarianism?

Because initially it was focused on women's suffrage and was a bit more specific. As they grew in power and were became a movement, their influence and efforts spread.

Then shouldn't that warrant a name change?

That's like calling a group for racial equality white supremacists.

[New Sapienta]

Then shouldn't that warrant a name change?

That's like calling a group for racial equality white supremacists.

No, it's like a group for racial equality being called the NAACP. There is a big difference.

No matter how many people try to claim otherwise, there is a huge difference between the group already in power engendering supremacy and a disenfranchised group seeking to be treated equally with the group in power.

The etymology of the word says otherwise. NAACP is an acronym, not a word. A comaprable analogy would be Africanism(or Afro-centrism if that isn't a word)

[Ngelmish]

Culturally there isn't any significant amount of sexism against men (unless, by sexism you mean the ridiculous gender roles that chavunism forces on men is damaging to them as well as women) in the sense that our sexual culture is still very much geared towards men's preferences and privileges. Individually, I'm sure that there absolutely is.

[Norstal]

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

Well, I guess nature is just sexist.

[Norstal]

If a man exhibits any of these traits though, he's clearly not good enough to be a man, therefore he must be a woman.

Does this mean I can finally grow my own boobs now?

...Awesome. Fucking awesome.

[Norstal]

Um... I don't see anywhere in that article showing that feminism is the reason for men joining this field. It could just as easily have been the nazi party pushing for men to be nurses. While I doubt that personally, the article proves nothing other than men are still rare in that field.

Actually he is right. There was a time you would have basically been labeled a homosexual for wanting to be a nurse as it was once equated with being female. Boys were the doctors and girls were the nurses.

Feminism's fight for equality has basically eliminated the so called shame of being a male nurse.......

I would say it's a combination of feminism and economic necessity, but I digress. Feminism have done a lot for us.

[Nova Nacio]

2/10. Others have been more convincing.

Have to agree - the war being waged right now is on women and women only, especially those who are also children and in minorities, just for good measure.

[Nulono]

There is sexism towards men, but I don't think that's a great example.

[Oceanic people]

in the world period? YES! The only places where that isn't so is in Islamic countries and who the #@!! wants that? Everything that used to be 'manly' is now looked oppon with disdain and contempt unless of course it caters to and pampers women. That's ok, but anything else is wrong and will get you into trouble. To be decisive is to be agressive. To be firm in a decision made is to be intractable even if you're right! You're supposed to 'discuss' and 'consider' everyones 'feelings' about this or that. The whole @#$ &$%@ world may be falling apart around you but you'd better get a consensus. The Talaban and other religous nuts the world over may have a point with 'keep ye women [of all sexes] silent!'

[Ordo Drakul]

Read The War Against Boys. There's been an anti-male bias since the 60s. The hippies started uit, and the modern Statist continues it. If you took the Nazi's stand on anything and replaced "Jew" with "white European male", you'd have the American Democratic Party's position. Men are, along with fat people, the last politically correct scapegoats.

[Ordo Drakul]

Read The War Against Boys. There's been an anti-male bias since the 60s. The hippies started uit, and the modern Statist continues it. If you took the Nazi's stand on anything and replaced "Jew" with "white European male", you'd have the American Democratic Party's position. Men are, along with fat people, the last politically correct scapegoats.

Most Democratic politicians are white European males. Most Nazi politicians weren't Jews.

Also, a lot of hippies were anti-statist.

One, no men exist in the Democratic Party.
Two, the hippies were anti-Statist only until they got into power.
Now, explain this

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.