Men aren't worse off.

[Conformal Veal Theory]

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... e-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.

[Samuraikoku]

I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.

[Not Safe For Work]

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.

Strange stuff? Sure. There's nothing interesting about male-obsolescence paranoia.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

I'd rather be alive now than fifty years ago.

[Genivaria]

I'd rather be alive now than fifty years ago.

^This. Life is good nowadays.

[AETEN II]

I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.

-shrugs-
Well there is the biological fact that we live slightly shorter lives.

[Forsher]

Seems sort of obvious really, it's all about comparative advantage. On a vaguely related note.

Feminism (At least, the proper kind) is about equal rights for the sexes. So, no. "Feminists," however, are just bigots with different prejudices then the mainstream terrible people. Note my clever use of quotation marks, there. Fortunately, quotation-mark-feminists are few, and far between. Unless you're on the internet, I mean.

Feminism goes about trying to get gender equality by approaching it from the female perspective. This, when all is said and done, is not surprising when one remembers that feminism began as a ideology that was about getting women equal rights. Now that has largely been achieved (where feminism began) feminism has broadened its scope to deal with all inequality wherever it sees it. Which is the problem, there's inequality that will get left behind and will be ignored by feminism. Not because feminists want to ignore it but because they don't see it. However, maybe if feminism was more successful with what it does see then, perhaps, in an incredibly cynical attempt to stay relevant it will be able to see more... just as it did last time it needed to update.

That bit about not seeing has been something that NSG has been either unable or unwilling to grasp. In the eyes of many on here feminism can do no wrong and this extends to it having no flaws. In fact on similar thread saw me quite deliberately point out an instance of selective quoting on my part in the post where that happened and then spend ages dealing with the feminist arm in that thread that accused me of selective quoting. This wouldn't have been a problem if they had just read and understand my post with the mentioning of selective quoting. It was really quite dense on their part. (I selectively quoted for humour, why else?)

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes

This is my go-to definition of feminism. It's from a highly respectable source and is only criticised because I don't bother with other definitions (for the most part I disagree with those definitions and they are as respectable in origin). What we see here is that feminists agree with equal rights. More than that, really, they want equal rights. The important bit to note is that they advocate women's rights. What does this mean? Well, quite simply, feminists advocate women's rights to achieve gender equality. Not hard at all to understand, right? Experience here says otherwise, that said this is a new way of explaining this so maybe this time.\

Feminism complains about women not being paid as much. Often, they look at job locations not jobs. If most women are on the checkouts they'll have lower average pays because stacking shelves pays more, for example. This is really more a statistical thing that I wanted to point out. In fact, most people would make this error and I probably only identify it because I've had cause to sit down and think about it some more. This paragraph really exists to show you how easily one can create a passage that is critical of feminism. The bolded sentence exists to elevate me over the rest as I bother to point out that this is something feminists do but it is not a flaw of feminism. (In other words, bias is really easy to create.)

People do complain about the under-acheivement of boys in relation to girls in schools. Boys and English is practically the same thing as Girls and Maths. I'm not sure which is better known, given that I've seen a Simpsons episode working with the latter I am inclined to say in the US, at least, Girls and Maths is. However, that's also the view that's more beneficial to my point (fair, if not balanced). Certainly, having to think about which is better known tells me that they are, at least, equally well known things. That sounds good, right? Well, not really. The simple fact is that boys do worse in English when compared to girls than girls do in maths when compared to boys. This, in an equal society, should mean that that as a problem should be better known. In fact, education is both a glaring success and a glaring failure for feminism as a result of this.

All in all, society is better off for having feminism than it would be for not having it. The challenge today is making sure that feminism continues to be beneficial. The more examples of sexist feminists there are out there is quite possibly for the best. Feminism will be forced to rename itself and "feminism" will go the way of "masculism". The new "equalists" as I dub them will have a clean slate and that should mean that they can do more for gender equality.

[Genivaria]

I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.

-shrugs-
Well there is the biological fact that we live slightly shorter lives.

Compared to.....?

[Samuraikoku]

I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.

-shrugs-
Well there is the biological fact that we live slightly shorter lives.

Matters not how long you live, what matters is how.

[Forsher]

I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.

-shrugs-
Well there is the biological fact that we live slightly shorter lives.

But compared to fifty years ago we live longer lives. Men, as current thinking goes, only ever lived longer than women because so many more used to die in childbirth. Now that modern medicinal practice has greatly reduced this...

[Ashlak]

Men are not worse off, and the idea of men being obsolete is stupid and laughable.

[Ostroeuropa]

Forsher nailed it.

[Forsher]

-shrugs-
Well there is the biological fact that we live slightly shorter lives.

Matters not how long you live, what matters is how.

That's been suggested as why men live shorter lives on average... more risk taking.

That said, my mother reckons that their wives dying does the elderly gents in.

[Conformal Veal Theory]

Strange stuff? Sure. There's nothing interesting about male-obsolescence paranoia.

This isn't standard, run-of-the-mill MRA trolling. This is someone actually advocating the phasing out of males as a good thing. This guy is also asserting that gay men are even worse than straight men. It's some interesting shit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Matters not how long you live, what matters is how.

That's been suggested as why men live shorter lives on average... more risk taking.

That said, my mother reckons that their wives dying does the elderly gents in.

Likely untrue, since Eunuchs live longer than uncastrated males.
The current main theory is that testosterone pretty much screws your system like sugar in a gas tank.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/health/eu ... index.html

[The God-Realm]

We are, we are not lesbians.

[The Roman Alliance]

Men in the U.S. are, on average, worse-off economically than those a generation or two ago because the increase in the labour supply, due to women entering the workforce en masse, has pushed down the average wage rate for male workers. However, women aren't to blame here as much as trickle down economics and outsourcing are to blame.

[Forsher]

That's been suggested as why men live shorter lives on average... more risk taking.

That said, my mother reckons that their wives dying does the elderly gents in.

Likely untrue, since Eunuchs live longer than uncastrated males.
The current main theory is that testosterone pretty much screws your system like sugar in a gas tank.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/health/eu ... index.html

The article I read on that felt that there were problems with the comparison.

Dr David Clancy, from the University of Lancaster, said: "The results are persuasive, but certainly not conclusive."

He said the relatively high number of centenarians in the group suggested eliminating testosterone may have prolonged life. However, he cautioned that difference in lifestyle could have had a significant impact.

"In this case eunuchs were raised by eunuchs over generations, lifestyle differences may have been reinforced in this way.

"Castrato versus non-castrato singers are probably a better comparison, and showed no difference in lifespan. Non-castrato lived an average 65 years and both groups lived fairly cosseted lives."

[Gauntleted Fist]

Strange stuff? Sure. There's nothing interesting about male-obsolescence paranoia.

This isn't standard, run-of-the-mill MRA trolling. This is someone actually advocating the phasing out of males as a good thing. This guy is also asserting that gay men are even worse than straight men. It's some interesting shit.

No, it's still not really interesting. Just like people talking about how Hitler was right and we really should have killed all the Jews is not interesting. The fact that there is a greater than zero chance of this happening is outweighed by the idea that one would have to use scientific notation to understand just how small that non-zero chance would be.

[Giovenith]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "worse off." It's not like they've been viciously oppressed or downgraded, nor do "men of the house" get quite the same wide-spread ass-kissing as they did in the 50's. You might consider things like jobs, pay, expectations, but this isn't exactly unique to their gender. Each sex has it's own struggles in various areas of society, and have both been hit by a few of the same.
So are they worse off? Only about as worse off as everyone is in this day and age. And no, the idea of men being obsolete is absolutely ridiculous.

[Greed and Death]

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.

I am worse off if I can't slap my secretary's ass like I could in the pre 70's era.

[Conformal Veal Theory]

No, it's still not really interesting. Just like people talking about how Hitler was right and we really should have killed all the Jews is not interesting. The fact that there is a greater than zero chance of this happening is outweighed by the idea that one would have to use scientific notation to understand just how small that non-zero chance would be.

Greater than zero chance of what?

[The God-Realm]

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.

I am worse off if I can't slap my secretary's ass like I could in the pre 70's era.

You still are not a lesbian.

The only thing that keeps me from getting a sex change is that I already look pretty.

[PapaJacky]

Feminism complains about women not being paid as much. Often, they look at job locations not jobs. If most women are on the checkouts they'll have lower average pays because stacking shelves pays more, for example. This is really more a statistical thing that I wanted to point out. In fact, most people would make this error and I probably only identify it because I've had cause to sit down and think about it some more. This paragraph really exists to show you how easily one can create a passage that is critical of feminism. The bolded sentence exists to elevate me over the rest as I bother to point out that this is something feminists do but it is not a flaw of feminism. (In other words, bias is really easy to create.)

On a semi-related note; http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf , women are being paid less as a cashier than men are

[Saruhan]

I'd rather be alive now than fifty years ago.

But it was better when women stayed in the home, certain people weren't allowed on golf courses, and the US and USSR were playing a game of Nuclear chicken!