The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

When accounting for hours worked, education and career field, the gap is like 8%, which is tiny, and probably not due to sexism.

It's not tiny at all, and why wouldn't it be due to sexism, given that we know that sexism exists against women in the workplace?

8% is pretty tiny, especially when it didn't factor in family situations like motherhood. It wouldn't be due to sexism because the burden of proof lies on the person suggesting a cause, because the other 17% wasn't due to sexism, because it didn't factor in motherhood, and because anecdotes about sexism mean nothing.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I want to point out that sexism is a two way street. It also varied by industry. Men are sexist against women in, for example, the airline industry. Women are sexist against men in fields like nursing and teaching.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

When accounting for hours worked, education and career field, the gap is like 8%, which is tiny, and probably not due to sexism.

It's not tiny at all, and why wouldn't it be due to sexism, given that we know that sexism exists against women in the workplace?

8 cents on the dollar is not a big deal tbh.

There could be a lot more going on that we're not told why this gap happens, such as willingness to work overtime, or the willingness to take on more risky projects within an industry.

At 8% there's a variety of factors that could be going on as to why one gender is paid 8 cents less, but it is not out of parity between average workers in any given field.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've thought of a fairly concrete example of sexism that cannot be attributed to patriarchy.

When women tell men that being unfair to them is turnabout for historical injustices against women.

This is something I think most men experience on occasion.

Merely telling me "But that's bad feminism" doesn't deal with the point:
It's sexism that is not sourced in patriarchy and is instead sourced in feminist rhetoric and trends.

It's gynocentric sexism, and it's sexism that feminism is simply not equipped to deal with, the sum total of the criticism of it seems to be "But that's bad feminism/not all feminists" and leaving it at that. This is because feminism is not actually a worldview that deals with sexism, but rather, a particular type of it. It also frequently misframes misandry and gynocentrism and views it through the lens of patriarchy.

Here's an example of gynocentric sexism sourced in feminist ideals:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eague.html

She suspended and put under investigation a high-ranking male in charge of the station for allowing the culture of the station to develop the way it did, but didn't do the same his female co-worker of the same rank.

(Because she blamed it on masculinity and macho culture and up and assumed the man in charge was at fault. This is your brain on misandrous feminism and patriarchy theory. Her impulsive assumption and prejudice led her to immediately wheel around and punish a man, because that's what feminism taught her to do with its insistence these things are caused by patriarchy. )

She was found guilty of discrimination, thankfully, and lost the policeforce hundreds of thousands of pounds it had to pay out in compensation. Hopefully, as more and more lawsuits and financial losses occur from feminist prejudice being challenged (Such as in the US with the campus kangaroo courts, and UK with the collapse of due process), we'll see moneyed interests turn against the feminist movement.

[Ostroeuropa]

I want to point out that sexism is a two way street. It also varied by industry. Men are sexist against women in, for example, the airline industry. Women are sexist against men in fields like nursing and teaching.

I disagree it's a two way street, i might be being pedantic, but I think it's better to frame it as more multifaceted than that.

You've got:

Men V Men
Men V Women
Women V Women (Examples: Most workplace bullying is woman on woman, slut shaming, etc.)
Women V Men

And subsets of each of those; Benevolent and Hostile, and then the trans element.

I view each of these types of sexism as needing their own approach and narratives to fully comprehend, unfortunately, we're being lumbered with one overarching narrative due to the feminist movement (on the whole) being gynocentrist, and attempting to frame all sexism and peoples experiences of it around a narrative clearly better suited to describing only Men V Women sexism (benevolent+hostile.). I understand and accept you're different and accept other narratives, but that's not the norm.

[Cappuccina]

Nanatsu and Ostroeuropa......where have you two been all my life?

[Ostroeuropa]

Nanatsu and Ostroeuropa......where have you too been all my life?

I've been in the mens rights movement.

[Cappuccina]

Nanatsu and Ostroeuropa......where have you too been all my life?

I've been in the mens rights movement.

Well, keep doing what you're doing sugar, because you're on a roll in my book.

[Cekoviu]

If this is true its because of the sexist education system.

Sexist against whom?

Everybody.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've been in the mens rights movement.

Well, keep doing what you're doing sugar, because you're on a roll in my book.

You put a genuine smile on my face, thanks.

[Auze]

Nanatsu and Ostroeuropa......where have you two been all my life?

On NSG, by the looks of it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I want to point out that sexism is a two way street. It also varied by industry. Men are sexist against women in, for example, the airline industry. Women are sexist against men in fields like nursing and teaching.

I disagree it's a two way street, i might be being pedantic, but I think it's better to frame it as more multifaceted than that.

You've got:

Men V Men
Men V Women
Women V Women (Examples: Most workplace bullying is woman on woman, slut shaming, etc.)
Women V Men

And subsets of each of those; Benevolent and Hostile, and then the trans element.

I view each of these types of sexism as needing their own approach and narratives to fully comprehend, unfortunately, we're being lumbered with one overarching narrative due to the feminist movement (on the whole) being gynocentrist, and attempting to frame all sexism and peoples experiences of it around a narrative clearly better suited to describing only Men V Women sexism (benevolent+hostile.). I understand and accept you're different and accept other narratives, but that's not the norm.

I went for a more simplistic approach because it's too hot and humid where I'm at and I can't think deeply. But in a more detailed way, yes, your approach is perhaps more accurate.

I just see sexism as something done by both men and women. I object to being told someone is incapable of being a douche just because of their genitalia.

[Cappuccina]

I disagree it's a two way street, i might be being pedantic, but I think it's better to frame it as more multifaceted than that.

You've got:

Men V Men
Men V Women
Women V Women (Examples: Most workplace bullying is woman on woman, slut shaming, etc.)
Women V Men

And subsets of each of those; Benevolent and Hostile, and then the trans element.

I view each of these types of sexism as needing their own approach and narratives to fully comprehend, unfortunately, we're being lumbered with one overarching narrative due to the feminist movement (on the whole) being gynocentrist, and attempting to frame all sexism and peoples experiences of it around a narrative clearly better suited to describing only Men V Women sexism (benevolent+hostile.). I understand and accept you're different and accept other narratives, but that's not the norm.

I went for a more simplistic approach because it's too hot and humid where I'm at and I can't think deeply. But in a more detailed way, yes, your approach is perhaps more accurate.

I just see sexism as something done by both men and women. I object to being told someone is incapable of being a douche just because of their genitalia.

Too many people being blinded by dogma to see that in reality men and women are all people, and generally capable of the same behaviors....for better or worse.

[Parskahye]

Whatever your thoughts on sexism's morality, history proves that in a conflict between cultures, the most patriarchal one always triumphed in the long run. As such, it is difficult not to see patriarchy as a fundamental source of strength.

[Ors Might]

Whatever your thoughts on sexism's morality, history proves that in a conflict between cultures, the most patriarchal one always triumphed in the long run. As such, it is difficult not to see patriarchy as a fundamental source of strength.

That might have to do with the fact that historically male leadership in multiple areas of life was just the norm across the globe. So less a source of strength and more just what was popular at the time.

[Ostroeuropa]

Whatever your thoughts on sexism's morality, history proves that in a conflict between cultures, the most patriarchal one always triumphed in the long run. As such, it is difficult not to see patriarchy as a fundamental source of strength.

That might have to do with the fact that historically male leadership in multiple areas of life was just the norm across the globe. So less a source of strength and more just what was popular at the time.

I'd say it's more to do with birth rates being key for production and warfare throughout most of history, something that has since been rendered obsolete by the onset of machines and advanced technology.

Breed as much as you like, but the US managed to lose 100 or so soldiers vs hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Irrespective of your feelings on that war, the casualties demonstrate that birth rates are no longer the important factor in warfare, what's important is maintaining a technological edge, and with that, having half your population illiterate isn't exactly productive, though the gynocentric feminist movement may fuck this up too by leaving the boys crisis in education unfixed and thereby removing that advantage over patriarchal societies.

Equality is currently superior to patriarchy in terms of long term survival, though matriarchy may be inferior to patriarchy due to lower birth rates and losing the positives of emancipation and education. If the feminist movement manages to fuck up STEM by stuffing it full of misandry and replicating the boys crisis in education there, then we will indeed be on a bad path.

[West Leas Oros]

A thing that bothers me is when people go and claim that all of men’s problems are caused because of men, that the patriarchy must be the eternal villain, and when men have problems, it has to be because of other men, putting them at fault for everything.

[Costa Fierro]

People buy stocks because they have investable wealth. You've got your causation the wrong way around.

Women also control the finances in about ~80% of American households. It does not surprise me that having access to a steady, superior income would result in the investment of that income in case that income disappears, or is reduced.

As far a study, here's a good one. Married men make 15% more than single men, after controlling for human capital, job, and family characteristics.

Men earn more to offset the costs of having a family. The reality is that single men often have much more disposable income and can prioritise things. Married couples often spend almost all of their income on living expenses, whereas single men and single women have the ability to be more prudent and often end up in a better financial position than married couples. The supposed financial benefits of marriage are often erased when you take children and other major expenses into account.

There's a lot of theories behind that, but it may come down to the general sexism of women against men. Multiple studies have shown that income is a major selection effect for a lot of women (not all women, but a lot), it may be that men who earn more are more likely to be selected by women based on this factor.

Or, alternatively, it could be that because of the male gender role, married men feel the need to work harder to "provide for their family", because it's still socially his job to do that, rather than a joint venture.

It is largely to do with the latter, as married men are considered more loyal and responsible and therefore a better candidate for promotion because they know they'll work harder to improve their income. Single men aren't considered for promotion because a lot of them can live comfortably on a decent income. Furthermore, the pay increases often come after a man has been married, not beforehand. This doesn't mean that women don't consider potential income when factoring income in partner selection, but it means that women already consider superior incomes to be desirable, hence the term "hypergamy".

This will prove interesting given that 51% of adults in the United States are married, and that slim majority is falling faster than a piano plummeting from a tower block.

[Ostroeuropa]

A thing that bothers me is when people go and claim that all of men’s problems are caused because of men, that the patriarchy must be the eternal villain, and when men have problems, it has to be because of other men, putting them at fault for everything.

Fragile femininity. The women are wonderful effect and so on. The notion of patriarchy being the source of all sexism is the same type of problem as people refusing to believe women can rape, or commit domestic violence and so on, merely writ large for the collective. The notion of collective injustice perpetrated by women against men is something many cannot tolerate even being discussed and find outrageous, similar to the notion of individual injustice committed by a woman against a man being found outrageous, in part because of feminism and its indoctrination of the populace with a gynocentric view of sexism that did not examine misandry from the outset and consequently has misandry baked into practically all of its framework.

Much like when womens pedophilia is cast in positive terms, womens sexism is framed similarly and often called equality and progress. Feminism is merely an instance of fragile femininity, and much like fragile masculinity where men become angry and irate when its threatened, women and especially many feminists behave similarly, as femininity is in part bound up in notions of ethical superiority to men. This is in part why there is denial of female pedophilia and so on, and why there is denial of widespread misandry among women, despite, for example, the education system where the overwhelming majority of teachers are women, and boys are discriminated against.

The same mentality that leads someone to deny a woman can do wrong is the root of feminist theory.

[West Leas Oros]

A thing that bothers me is when people go and claim that all of men’s problems are caused because of men, that the patriarchy must be the eternal villain, and when men have problems, it has to be because of other men, putting them at fault for everything.

Fragile femininity. The women are wonderful effect and so on. The notion of patriarchy being the source of all sexism is the same type of problem as people refusing to believe women can rape, or commit domestic violence and so on, merely writ large for the collective. The notion of collective injustice perpetrated by women against men is something many cannot tolerate even being discussed and find outrageous, similar to the notion of individual injustice committed by a woman against a man being found outrageous, in part because of feminism and its indoctrination of the populace.

Much like when womens pedophilia is cast in positive terms, womens sexism is framed similarly and often called equality and progress. Feminism is merely an instance of fragile femininity, and much like fragile masculinity where men become angry and irate when its threatened, women and especially many feminists behave similarly, as femininity is in part bound up in notions of ethical superiority to men.

My problem lies with, when it happens to men, it’s “toxic masculinity”, when it happens to women, it’s oppression. It reeks of hypocrisy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fragile femininity. The women are wonderful effect and so on. The notion of patriarchy being the source of all sexism is the same type of problem as people refusing to believe women can rape, or commit domestic violence and so on, merely writ large for the collective. The notion of collective injustice perpetrated by women against men is something many cannot tolerate even being discussed and find outrageous, similar to the notion of individual injustice committed by a woman against a man being found outrageous, in part because of feminism and its indoctrination of the populace.

Much like when womens pedophilia is cast in positive terms, womens sexism is framed similarly and often called equality and progress. Feminism is merely an instance of fragile femininity, and much like fragile masculinity where men become angry and irate when its threatened, women and especially many feminists behave similarly, as femininity is in part bound up in notions of ethical superiority to men.

My problem lies with, when it happens to men, it’s “toxic masculinity”, when it happens to women, it’s oppression. It reeks of hypocrisy.

It's because it is hypocrisy. There's a consistent gynocentric slant to things because of the lack of concern for misandry, and where it exists, feminists often cast it in terms of patriarchy because of a gynocentric framework, it leads to inconsistent and hypocritical outcomes.

The same mentality that leads someone to deny a woman can do wrong is the root of feminist theory. Some feminists have managed to become aware that individual women can do wrong to a man, but still can't seem to extrapolate that out and follow it to its logical conclusion, that women can do wrong to men, and then check to see if that is happening. instead, they blame patriarchy, despite many of mens current problems being directly the result of feminist action, rooted in feminist theory.

Indeed, the fact they deny that possibility leads to it. If a woman thinks she can't possibly rape a man, that's the kind of mentality that leads to rapes. Similarly, feminist theory on sexism and its source inculcates pervasive sexism against men by women and the history of the movement shows this.

The same mentality that leads someone to deny a woman can do wrong is the root of feminist theory.

A handful of feminists being excepted, but i've already expressed my displeasure at those feminists not admitting they have their views sourced in the MRM and my feelings that they are appropriating the work of a marginalized community to perform PR for a movement that marginalized them. Any feminists who aren't gynocentrists and want to deny they're plagiarizing the MRM's work for feminism will obviously do me the honor of sourcing where they got their views to prove me wrong.

In order to view feminism as an equality movement, not only is willful denial or ignorance of its historic abuses against men needed, but denial or ignorance of why that kind of thing is inevitable with the feminist framework and how the foundations of feminism are built on female chauvinism.

[Cappuccina]

Whatever your thoughts on sexism's morality, history proves that in a conflict between cultures, the most patriarchal one always triumphed in the long run. As such, it is difficult not to see patriarchy as a fundamental source of strength.

Might doesn't make right.

[Cekoviu]

Fragile femininity. The women are wonderful effect and so on. The notion of patriarchy being the source of all sexism is the same type of problem as people refusing to believe women can rape, or commit domestic violence and so on, merely writ large for the collective. The notion of collective injustice perpetrated by women against men is something many cannot tolerate even being discussed and find outrageous, similar to the notion of individual injustice committed by a woman against a man being found outrageous, in part because of feminism and its indoctrination of the populace.

Much like when womens pedophilia is cast in positive terms, womens sexism is framed similarly and often called equality and progress. Feminism is merely an instance of fragile femininity, and much like fragile masculinity where men become angry and irate when its threatened, women and especially many feminists behave similarly, as femininity is in part bound up in notions of ethical superiority to men.

My problem lies with, when it happens to men, it’s “toxic masculinity”, when it happens to women, it’s oppression. It reeks of hypocrisy.

Toxic masculinity is literally oppression. Ask any feminist. It'd be a lot easier for me to take anti-feminists seriously if they wouldn't fundamentally misunderstand the opponents' arguments.

[Galloism]

My problem lies with, when it happens to men, it’s “toxic masculinity”, when it happens to women, it’s oppression. It reeks of hypocrisy.

Toxic masculinity is literally oppression. Ask any feminist. It'd be a lot easier for me to take anti-feminists seriously if they wouldn't fundamentally misunderstand the opponents' arguments.

How many times have you heard toxic femininity in a sentence?

I can count them on one hand.

[Ostroeuropa]

My problem lies with, when it happens to men, it’s “toxic masculinity”, when it happens to women, it’s oppression. It reeks of hypocrisy.

Toxic masculinity is literally oppression. Ask any feminist. It'd be a lot easier for me to take anti-feminists seriously if they wouldn't fundamentally misunderstand the opponents' arguments.

You're a minority if you accept men are oppressed. Usually toxic masculinity is mostly used to argue that men simply need to change their attitudes and then all their problems will magically go away, conveniently ignoring all the institutional discrimination against men.