Feminism & The War on Men

[Des-Bal]

That does not provide any explanation as to why wage slavery is a fundamentally flawed concept, much less prove it to be so. You're going to have to do better than that.

No he won't because that's not up for debate here, get back on topic or stop posting.

[Des-Bal]

I was saying I don't see how it's comparable, since, unless you mention a health condition, there's no way to know the chance percentage of a sick day. Pregnancy is 100% (theoretically since they have the capability of birthing a child) but only if the woman has made that choice. Well in the best case scenario anyways. you don't willingly get sick.

If women were prepared to pledge not to become pregnant that would probably solve the problem but it would also be just a little bit fucked for employers to ask that.

[WestRedMaple]

Having a child is a choice. Slaves don't get choices.

It's called wage slavery.

It's called someone missed the entire concept of 'slavery'

Paying someone to voluntarily provide you with labor or service is not in any way slavery

[Fanosolia]

I was saying I don't see how it's comparable, since, unless you mention a health condition, there's no way to know the chance percentage of a sick day. Pregnancy is 100% (theoretically since they have the capability of birthing a child) but only if the woman has made that choice. Well in the best case scenario anyways. you don't willingly get sick.

If women were prepared to pledge not to become pregnant that would probably solve the problem but it would also be just a little bit fucked for employers to ask that.

good point. but at least with a sickness it's expected to happen. Pregnancy is a lot more controlled. As people has said, it's a possible future not a determined one. Well... that would be the case, but society thinks differently than I

[Des-Bal]

good point. but at least with a sickness it's expected to happen. Pregnancy is a lot more controlled. As people has said, it's a possible future not a determined one. Well... that would be the case, but society thinks differently than I

So is finding a new job but an employer is likely to turn you down if they don't think you're going to stick around.

[Fanosolia]

good point. but at least with a sickness it's expected to happen. Pregnancy is a lot more controlled. As people has said, it's a possible future not a determined one. Well... that would be the case, but society thinks differently than I

So is finding a new job but an employer is likely to turn you down if they don't think you're going to stick around.

I know that from the career classes. My point is how do you know they'll leave you for a child, even if it's for a short time, that they might not have even thought about having?

[Atlanticatia]

So is finding a new job but an employer is likely to turn you down if they don't think you're going to stick around.

I know that from the career classes. My point is how do you know they'll leave you for a child, even if it's for a short time, that they might not have even thought about having?

also, why is it not expected that a man will be taking paternity leave?

a fix for discrimination against female employees: universal paid parental leave for both parents

[Des-Bal]

I know that from the career classes. My point is how do you know they'll leave you for a child, even if it's for a short time, that they might not have even thought about having?

It's not about knowing it's about not knowing. If businesses knew that women were definitely going to get pregnant and leave ,even for a short time, it would be very unlikely that they would be hired at the rate they are. The problem is that women are more likely than men to leave their jobs than men.

[Des-Bal]

also, why is it not expected that a man will be taking paternity leave?

a fix for discrimination against female employees: universal paid parental leave for both parents

Because men do so at a lower rate, they also leave their careers less to take care of children and don't as a matter of biology experience temporary disability as a result of pregnancy.

[Fanosolia]

I know that from the career classes. My point is how do you know they'll leave you for a child, even if it's for a short time, that they might not have even thought about having?

also, why is it not expected that a man will be taking paternity leave?

a fix for discrimination against female employees: universal paid parental leave for both parents

I'm personally neutral on this at the moment. I do feel that it would be important to have both parents to raise the kid for a bit.

People also bring up homosexuals for parental leave, but I don't know how that would work male wise. :/

[Fanosolia]

I know that from the career classes. My point is how do you know they'll leave you for a child, even if it's for a short time, that they might not have even thought about having?

It's not about knowing it's about not knowing. If businesses knew that women were definitely going to get pregnant and leave ,even for a short time, it would be very unlikely that they would be hired at the rate they are. The problem is that women are more likely than men to leave their jobs than men.

so this is about statistics?

[Des-Bal]

so this is about statistics?

It's about pragmatic economics. Childbirth and child rearing mean turnover, they mean training costs, and the prospect means a degree of uncertainty that is not as pronounced as it is with men. Ideally this wouldn't be the case, ideally men and women would populate the workplace in equal numbers and I don't think a project to achieve that would be a bad thing but from a practical standpoint there's no reason that ,things being as they are now, that would be the case. It's kind of screwed up that men are 15 times more likely to commit crimes than women and it probably highlights some kind of social issue but not convicting as many men simply isn't an option.

[Tahar Joblis]

Yes, Feminism is still necessary. The idea that gender egalitarianism isn't necessary should be mocked.

There is no war on men. That should also be mocked.

The problem is that feminism isn't focused on gender egalitirianism but the advancement of women. Continuing down the path of gender equality can't be done from the perspective that the struggle is men v women rather than an effort to correct societal ills.

The way I would prefer to describe this, in the here and now, is that feminism is sociopathic with respect to men. That is simply to say that collectively, the feminist movement does not care about men, and does not consider the welfare of men, for good or for ill. From the perspective of the movement, men are creatures of considerable potential utility or danger whose behavior should be manipulated, but not really the sort of real humans that the movement is concerned about.

The feminist movement includes, accepts, and occasionally celebrates individuals who have a range of individual attitudes. Individual feminists are not necessarily simply selectively sociopathic towards men (some are, ofc); feminists range from actively hating men to thinking of men as fully human beings equal to women. What I expect from a typical individual feminist is that they care about some number of specific men, but care about women in general. With that range of opinions, taking collective action with the intention of primarily affecting men (for good or for ill) is basically impossible for the movement; the movement simply acts to help women.

This does mean that in some specific areas, e.g., divorce law, where men's and women's interests are perceived as being at odds with each other, the feminist movement may as well be at war with men.

[Fanosolia]

so this is about statistics?

It's about pragmatic economics. Childbirth and child rearing mean turnover, they mean training costs, and the prospect means a degree of uncertainty that is not as pronounced as it is with men. Ideally this wouldn't be the case, ideally men and women would populate the workplace in equal numbers and I don't think a project to achieve that would be a bad thing but from a practical standpoint there's no reason that ,things being as they are now, that would be the case. It's kind of screwed up that men are 15 times more likely to commit crimes than women and it probably highlights some kind of social issue but not convicting as many men simply isn't an option.

seee I'm an idealist

okay okay joking aside. Maybe I see differently than people who go that deep into things. Being that i value experience over that stuff (the chance of pregnancy, not over qualified. Turning overqualified now makes sense since taking a course). Really not sure what else to say on that.

[Page]

The problem is that feminism isn't focused on gender egalitirianism but the advancement of women. Continuing down the path of gender equality can't be done from the perspective that the struggle is men v women rather than an effort to correct societal ills.

The way I would prefer to describe this, in the here and now, is that feminism is sociopathic with respect to men. That is simply to say that collectively, the feminist movement does not care about men, and does not consider the welfare of men, for good or for ill. From the perspective of the movement, men are creatures of considerable potential utility or danger whose behavior should be manipulated, but not really the sort of real humans that the movement is concerned about.

The feminist movement includes, accepts, and occasionally celebrates individuals who have a range of individual attitudes. Individual feminists are not necessarily simply selectively sociopathic towards men (some are, ofc); feminists range from actively hating men to thinking of men as fully human beings equal to women. What I expect from a typical individual feminist is that they care about some number of specific men, but care about women in general. With that range of opinions, taking collective action with the intention of primarily affecting men (for good or for ill) is basically impossible for the movement; the movement simply acts to help women.

This does mean that in some specific areas, e.g., divorce law, where men's and women's interests are perceived as being at odds with each other, the feminist movement may as well be at war with men.

1. You keep using that word (sociopathic), I don't think it means what you think it means.
2. Wouldn't your logic also make the racial civil rights movement sociopathic toward white people?
3. And MRA's sociopathic to women.
4. Collective action to destroy the patriarchy helps men, for the billionth fucking time.

[Des-Bal]

The way I would prefer to describe this, in the here and now, is that feminism is sociopathic with respect to men. That is simply to say that collectively, the feminist movement does not care about men, and does not consider the welfare of men, for good or for ill. From the perspective of the movement, men are creatures of considerable potential utility or danger whose behavior should be manipulated, but not really the sort of real humans that the movement is concerned about.

The feminist movement includes, accepts, and occasionally celebrates individuals who have a range of individual attitudes. Individual feminists are not necessarily simply selectively sociopathic towards men (some are, ofc); feminists range from actively hating men to thinking of men as fully human beings equal to women. What I expect from a typical individual feminist is that they care about some number of specific men, but care about women in general. With that range of opinions, taking collective action with the intention of primarily affecting men (for good or for ill) is basically impossible for the movement; the movement simply acts to help women.

This does mean that in some specific areas, e.g., divorce law, where men's and women's interests are perceived as being at odds with each other, the feminist movement may as well be at war with men.

I take tonal objection to institutional sociopathy but I think it's accurate to say that women were the designated area of focus for feminism and that that focus has not shifted to reflect the societal changes that the movement is in part responsible for. After the Cromartie Point any kind of social movement has to reclaibrate or risk passing into insanity.

[Inzijard]

That does not provide any explanation as to why wage slavery is a fundamentally flawed concept, much less prove it to be so. You're going to have to do better than that.

If that doesn't illuminate you, nothing will. Sorry, there's nothing I can do at this point. You're too far gone.

It is not a matter of my ability to deduce from ambiguous links the crux of your premise. It is a matter of you constructing and reinforcing an argument with evidence to that effect. You made a proposition but failed to provide reasoning beyond a link to a topic which may well contribute to that proposition, but in this circumstance does not, because you failed to relate it to the point you intended to make.

Make no mistake, this is not me dismissing your argument on the basis that it is wrong, but on the basis that your argument simply does not exist. You cannot make a bold claim without backing it up and expect to be convincing. So, no, it is not a failure of understanding on my part so much as a failure of explanation on yours.

That does not provide any explanation as to why wage slavery is a fundamentally flawed concept, much less prove it to be so. You're going to have to do better than that.

No he won't because that's not up for debate here, get back on topic or stop posting.

It was up for debate because Nirvash made a claim and it was challenged. "Get back on topic or stop posting" is not a particularly effective defense for a poor argument, which I have called them out on. Nevertheless, I apologize for the digression.

[Tahar Joblis]

so this is about statistics?

It's about pragmatic economics. Childbirth and child rearing mean turnover, they mean training costs, and the prospect means a degree of uncertainty that is not as pronounced as it is with men. Ideally this wouldn't be the case, ideally men and women would populate the workplace in equal numbers and I don't think a project to achieve that would be a bad thing but from a practical standpoint there's no reason that ,things being as they are now, that would be the case. It's kind of screwed up that men are 15 times more likely to commit crimes than women and it probably highlights some kind of social issue but not convicting as many men simply isn't an option.

It is exceedingly unlikely that men are actually 15 times more likely to commit crimes than women. More likely is that women are more likely to get away with not getting punished for behavior that is, in fact, criminal.

This is fairly strongly reflected in cases where men and women commit crimes together; a female accomplice is very much less likely to face jail, and may not be charged at all. It's also reflected in domestic violence cases, where studies show that women are more likely to initiate or escalate violence; and half as likely to cause injuries; but are five times less likely to actually be arrested.

That is to say... women make up over half of those committing domestic assaults and at least a third of perpetrators of serious domestic battery (as measured by the damage caused), but no more than one sixth of those arrested for such crimes. Which, in turn, means a woman perpetrating such a crime is somewhere around three times less likely to be arrested.

With sexual coercion, the figures are even more dramatic. While women are somewhat less likely to engage in sexual coercion, they are almost never arrested or charged. A female rapist is easily a hundred times less likely to get arrested than a male rapist, and possibly more.

Moving from arrested to charged and from charged to convicted, well, those two steps within the criminal justice system show significant bias against men. If you survey criminal behavior directly (which is difficult, but essentially what researchers do with domestic and sexual violence), you find that men and women don't really perpetrate so dramatically differently

[Des-Bal]

seee I'm an idealist

okay okay joking aside. Maybe I see differently than people who go that deep into things. Being that i value experience over that stuff (the chance of pregnancy, not over qualified. Turning overqualified now makes sense since taking a course). Really not sure what else to say on that.

It certainly does matter more and if you are far and away the best candidate I don't think you'll have much difficulty getting a job. The issue is what happens when you have candidates of comparable experience and qualification.

[Des-Bal]

It is exceedingly unlikely that men are actually 15 times more likely to commit crimes than women. More likely is that women are more likely to get away with not getting punished for behavior that is, in fact, criminal.

This is fairly strongly reflected in cases where men and women commit crimes together; a female accomplice is very much less likely to face jail, and may not be charged at all. It's also reflected in domestic violence cases, where studies show that women are more likely to initiate or escalate violence; and half as likely to cause injuries; but are five times less likely to actually be arrested.

That is to say... women make up over half of those committing domestic assaults and at least a third of perpetrators of serious domestic battery (as measured by the damage caused), but no more than one sixth of those arrested for such crimes. Which, in turn, means a woman perpetrating such a crime is somewhere around three times less likely to be arrested.

With sexual coercion, the figures are even more dramatic. While women are somewhat less likely to engage in sexual coercion, they are almost never arrested or charged. A female rapist is easily a hundred times less likely to get arrested than a male rapist, and possibly more.

Moving from arrested to charged and from charged to convicted, well, those two steps within the criminal justice system show significant bias against men. If you survey criminal behavior directly (which is difficult, but essentially what researchers do with domestic and sexual violence), you find that men and women don't really perpetrate so dramatically differently

Certainly, "commit crimes" was poor word choice.

[Page]

It's about pragmatic economics. Childbirth and child rearing mean turnover, they mean training costs, and the prospect means a degree of uncertainty that is not as pronounced as it is with men. Ideally this wouldn't be the case, ideally men and women would populate the workplace in equal numbers and I don't think a project to achieve that would be a bad thing but from a practical standpoint there's no reason that ,things being as they are now, that would be the case. It's kind of screwed up that men are 15 times more likely to commit crimes than women and it probably highlights some kind of social issue but not convicting as many men simply isn't an option.

It is exceedingly unlikely that men are actually 15 times more likely to commit crimes than women. More likely is that women are more likely to get away with not getting punished for behavior that is, in fact, criminal.

This is fairly strongly reflected in cases where men and women commit crimes together; a female accomplice is very much less likely to face jail, and may not be charged at all. It's also reflected in domestic violence cases, where studies show that women are more likely to initiate or escalate violence; and half as likely to cause injuries; but are five times less likely to actually be arrested.

That is to say... women make up over half of those committing domestic assaults and at least a third of perpetrators of serious domestic battery (as measured by the damage caused), but no more than one sixth of those arrested for such crimes. Which, in turn, means a woman perpetrating such a crime is somewhere around three times less likely to be arrested.

With sexual coercion, the figures are even more dramatic. While women are somewhat less likely to engage in sexual coercion, they are almost never arrested or charged. A female rapist is easily a hundred times less likely to get arrested than a male rapist, and possibly more.

Moving from arrested to charged and from charged to convicted, well, those two steps within the criminal justice system show significant bias against men. If you survey criminal behavior directly (which is difficult, but essentially what researchers do with domestic and sexual violence), you find that men and women don't really perpetrate so dramatically differently

Or an system of mass incarceration victimizes many innocent people along with a small amount of actually dangerous people who need to be isolated from society, and happens to do so more than men than women. A person raising awareness of the disparity to advocate the destruction of the prison industrial complex is one thing, but someone saying women should be victimized by it more is a misogynist.

[Fanosolia]

seee I'm an idealist

okay okay joking aside. Maybe I see differently than people who go that deep into things. Being that i value experience over that stuff (the chance of pregnancy, not over qualified. Turning overqualified now makes sense since taking a course). Really not sure what else to say on that.

It certainly does matter more and if you are far and away the best candidate I don't think you'll have much difficulty getting a job. The issue is what happens when you have candidates of comparable experience.

from what I remember and experience, the interview helps. if the guy or gal doesn't make a good impression, why would I hire them? No employer wants to deal with an employee they'll be butting heads up against until they leave or the business shuts down.

[Des-Bal]

from what I remember and experience, the interview helps. if the guy or gal doesn't make a good impression, why would I hire them? No employer wants to deal with an employee they'll be butting heads up against until they leave or the business shuts down.

I don't really think that's up for debate.

[Fanosolia]

from what I remember and experience, the interview helps. if the guy or gal doesn't make a good impression, why would I hire them? No employer wants to deal with an employee they'll be butting heads up against until they leave or the business shuts down.

I don't really think that's up for debate.

yep, guess not.

still I guess it up to the person that hires someone to make they call. I'm just saying that's if I was in those shoes. It's not always be ideal how they do it, but it's better than workplace quotas.

[Des-Bal]

Or an system of mass incarceration victimizes many innocent people along with a small amount of actually dangerous people who need to be isolated from society, and happens to do so more than men than women. A person raising awareness of the disparity to advocate the destruction of the prison industrial complex is one thing, but someone saying women should be victimized by it more is a misogynist.

Women are looked at more favorably by the justice system, that is a position of privilege. If attacking privilege is an attack on the privileged then the civil rights movement was racist.