Thanatttynia wrote:What?
I thought I was being fairly clear.
As indicated by ‘weight and scale’, there would need to be a lot of evidence. As such, evidence of misandry in any specific area would not be enough to override the evidence of misogyny I have seen and experienced in society generally. It’s simply outside the purview of what we’re doing here. It’s not reasonable for either of us to expect to change the other’s minds when we’re both clearly deadset on our own perspective of this issue; I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.
I have plenty of evidence and can cover it. How about the duluth model of domestic violence pushed by feminism historically and in many ways presently, and the fact male victims of domestic violence are more likely to be arrested than perpetrators as a result of it? I am more than happy for my view to be changed if you manage to actually outline misogyny as more prevalent and devestating than misandry, but you'll have your work cut out. An admission from you that you are unwilling to change is disheartening though.
The justice system discriminates more against men than it does against minorities. Black women are compared to the whole population, privileged by the justice system by virtue of being women. That's another example.
How about the fact racism does not impact womens social mobility, but does impact mens? That's a pretty damning one too.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=438538&hilit=galloism+mobility
Why don't you try covering some of the things you think are misogyny in the modern day so we can compare?
Again, I’m not sure that many studies in one aspect of society are evidence of widespread social prejudice. They are evidence of widespread discrimination in education, which has long been a female profession, as for a long time teaching was one of the only professions available to women.
Education impacts life prospects massively. Men are also the majority of prisoners and the homeless and are mistreated by the justice system at every stage of the process. That is related to education too.
‘Female teachers driving male students to suicide’ is a bold claim to make.
It's what the evidence points to.
Even if we take such a claim as true, it doesn’t undermine the feminist view on sexism. A typical feminist would most likely see something like that as an example of gender roles harming people (boys are expected to succeed more than girls, but modern education is suited more to girls as it disavows traditionally masculine things we condition boys to like such as violence and punishment and practical education in favour of traditionally feminine things we condition girls to like such as listening and reading and theoretical education.) Such an explanation makes more sense to me than the idea that women teachers are conniving to drive male students to suicide because women are inherently sexist.
Why do you attribute womens sexism to them in such a way that you think they're conscious of it? Unconscious bias is a thing. No conniving necessary. The feminist view is nonsensical here, as men do not act the same way toward the students. It is far more supportive of female chauvinism as an explanation, especially in conjunction with studies on womens bias, and studies showing that teachers punish boys more for the same behavior than they do for girls. The contempt for men and boys is the problem, not stereotypes.
It's also suggestive that girls don't appear to lose out in this dynamic, which suggests "patriarchal norms" aren't a sufficient explanation, as if patriarchal values drove female teachers behaviors, you'd expect girls to be treated as incapable and so on. You are assuming there is only one type of sexism in all places and times, a fundamental conceit of feminist theory.
Contempt for men and boys exists, so does female chauvinism, it is measurable empirically rather than reliant on just dogmatic assertions about how sexism works as i've shown.
My point is that those interests do more to serve the interests of specific men than they serve the interests of specific women. This is because we live in a patriarchal society in which it is easier for men to succeed than it is for women. They do not serve ‘men’s interests’ generally for the exact same reason: because ‘men’s interests’ are already served by society without the need for lobbying groups to push society towards serving them. ‘Men’s interests’ are already served by society because society has always been controlled by men prior to the last few years.
Mens interests are not served by society, and there is no basis to make this claim beyond just-so assertions. Mens issues are not dealt with, their interests are not represented, and so on. Find me actual proof for this idea of yours, because i've done you the favor of digging up actual studies to prove your ideas are nonsense and not supported by evidence, and all you can do in return is quote feminist scripture at me, because ultimately, there is no evidence for it. By the way, show me how men are benefited by the system, don't just waffle about things women had to put up with and imply as feminists so often do that women facing issues somehow benefits men and is proof society was built to benefit men. Men had to put up with a lot too.
Feminism is an internally consistent system of thought, but it does not accurately describe reality, and as soon as you gain the nerve to critically examine its claims, it falls apart.
Lobbying is a notoriously secretive industry, so I don’t know where I’d go to find out that sort of information. But corporations were understandably unhappy about things like the Equal Pay Act. Men were paid more than women were for the same work. This benefited men over women.
Why not find me an example of legislation that has been passed to benefit men at womens expense in recent history?
Women have better work-life balance than men and men are penalized even more than women are for taking things like flex-time, parental leave, and so on. Women having more choices and more freedom to make those choices is not benefiting men over women. It's comparable to anti-semitism forcing Jews into certain professions and then acting like that dynamic "benefits jews over non-jews" because those professions are lucrative, and that the dynamic is evidence of discrimination against non-jews and society being built to benefit jews, when the source of the problem is anti-semitism.
So it goes for misandry causing this problem. It's evidence of discrimination against men, not the reverse, if you bother to actually look into it beyond the superficial level many feminists have portrayed the problem as.
The wage gap being misogyny is a misframing of the issue because of feminisms general flawed view.
Presenting the interests of capital as the same thing as the interests of men is duplicitous and insincere imo. Merely because sometimes the womens lobbies are overruled in the interest of corporate profit does not mean corporate profit is the same thing as mens interests, especially in the context of women being the majority of shareholders in the modern economy and so on.
In general, people represent their own interests and the interests of those like them. Although people aren’t entirely self-interested, it’s a good summation of human nature. Groups made up mostly of one type of person will therefore represent the interests of that type of person over the interests of other types of people. This is why many feminists view representation as important.
This is an assertion that goes against the evidence I've presented and is asserted dogmatically.
This is just straight-up sexism lol. The misogynist’s idea that men and women represent women’s interests is disproved by history, which has shown that thousands of years of male-dominated structures resulted in a situation in which sexism was rampant, women were subjugated to men and were not afforded the same rights and protections as men were.
You claimed it isn't sexism to claim women are smarter than men if its true. I've presented evidence why what I said is true, and you're calling it misogyny because feminism as a worldview is anti-reality where recognizing that reality is a threat to female privilege, the vilification of men, and so on.
It is not disproved by history. You are merely asserting history was such a way when I've explained to you the problem with that view and the evidence against it.
If this is the case, why have thousands of years of male-dominated societies not resulted in a completely egalitarian world? Clearly there is a disconnect between the results of these psychological studies and the actual historical reality we are living in.
You are now ignoring scientific evidence in favor of clinging to scriptures dogmatic assertions and description of history. The world isn't 6000 years old, and feminisms conception of history is likewise full of shit.
Merely because men don't push for their own interests doesn't mean they automatically push for equality, they skew slightly in favor of women, and "Natural" held a lot of sway for a long time. Divisions of roles and so on does not mean oppression necessarily of one group against another.
Why don't you try explaining the evidence in front of you.
It’s really not. How men interact in men-only spaces is only relevant when talking about men-only spaces i.e. not society, which is a mixed space and always has been. You will note that men enforce norms in mixed spaces. Women enforcing them on each other is indicative of the way that some women throughout history have been complicit in the perpetuation of a patriarchal system.
Men enforce norms in mixed spaces because women are there enforcing norms. Men interacting in men only spaces is important to understanding their mentalities, and especially relevant to your arguments about male governance and male only spaces and institutions and how they behave.
It's also a good example of how the feminist movement has meant more sexism in society, with its closing down of male spaces and colonization of male spaces, thereby leading to less areas where sexism isn't enforced.
Lol! I know from personal experience the rampant misogyny within MRA communities and their ilk.
I see no evidence he's an MRA. While fathers rights has overlap, not all fathers rights activists are MRAs.
These collectives were not democratic systems, therefore they were used by the people at the top to further the interests of the people at the top. The people at the top were men, therefore they were used to further the interests of the men at the top. What’s hard to understand about that? The reason men were used in wars is probably because men are more biologically suited to combat, being in general physically stronger than women. Women had other roles in these collectives. You will note that it wasn’t hordes of upper-class men who were sent off to die in wars - it was lower-class men. This proves that these collectives didn’t represent the interests of lower-class people; it doesn’t disprove that these collectives represented the interests of men.
There's no evidence beyond asserting it is just so that they represented mens collective interests, and there's actual scientific evidence against it. Like i said, you're not really much better than creationists on these issues.
It’s an assertion based on historical evidence. Please provide an example of women being equal to men in any Western society at any time prior to the present day.
They weren't equal. But that's different to mens interests being represented which is the core of your claim and to feminisms conception of history. Men were disadvantaged by the arrangement in many respects. Compare feminism and its campaigning for women, and how there is every effort to ensure the policies they push for don't negatively impact women and the side effects are mitigated.
The fact is, historically, the states interests were served. Not mens. Mens interests and womens interests were not considered, and you have no evidence otherwise beyond asserting it.
Oppression is not a zero-sum game. What is intersectionality
It is possible to be both oppressed and an oppressor.
You are arguing society was built to benefit men at the expense of women and society is currently built to serve men and not women. It isn't a matter of zero-sum, it's a matter of showing that notion is nonsense and feminist conceptions of history are themselves built on sexism.
That’s a great example of how sexism has hurt men. I remind you that there was no punishment for male perpetrators of domestic violence historically except in extreme cases.
Right, but your problem, as well as feminisms problem in general (Some feminists present in this thread excepted), is gynocentrism.
Akin to Afrocentrism here;
A black man tells a Jew that Jews don't experience racism because they aren't seen as violent, stupid, and criminal.
You see the sexism there and think "That's patriarchy hurting men too."
But it isn't. It's a second and distinct form of sexism that feminism has actively made harder to combat, and is in fact making worse.
For example, the view of men as incapable of caring for children and being a danger to them is not something present in historical society, but is in ours. The collapse of mens participation in childcare and teaching is a relatively recent phenomanae, and can be attributed to feminisms influence on the issues of DV, rape, and so on.
It is not that women are viewed as childcarers and therefore patriarchy and misogyny causing this like feminists try to pretend, but an active antipathy and contempt for men. Women are viewed as capable workers these days, but the antipathy and contempt for men in childcare hasn't budged, because contrary to feminist ideology, these sexisms are seperate and distinct forms of sexism. This in itself radically undermines the feminist conception of history and the history of sexism too.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2 ... ts-assume/
Find me a serious feminist who ignores the fact that women can perpetuate sexist norms.
For their own benefit at the expense of men as a collective, thereby making a mockery of the notion of history as men subjugating women?
Yes, it does. Any definition of success that we have would necessarily be alien to people who lived long ago. How about I rephrase that as ‘men were helped more by the patriarchal system than women were.’
Disagree. They were harmed by it considerably more than women were. The system by and large left men to bare the brunt of struggle and conflict, resulting in more victories but also more hardship. The feminist conception is ultimately conservative in outlook. It is akin to comparing an anarcho-capitalist society with a dozen or so people at the top and hordes of corpses on the bottom as "more free" and "Less oppressed" than a social democracy where the excesses of poverty and wealth are curbed in collective interest.
No, and that’s a wilful misrepresentation of an argument if I’ve ever seen one. Are you saying that such a situation was the norm, that men have always secretly been controlled by women?
I'm saying that both types of sexism were present and vital to upholding the system, that the women who did so acted that way for their own interests, and that this form of chauvinism and contempt for men has not been confronted by our society, and feminists routinely look at it then rationalize why it's sourced in mens behavior and patriarchy instead of womens, because of their in-group bias. It's like blaming anti-semitism on hatred of black people, then saying "So we need to end segregation and that'll solve it."
Constantly, for decades and decades, without a hint of self-awareness. The insistence on gynocentrism and framing womens experience of sexism as descriptive or applicable to the whole and something that should drive our efforts to combat it and so on. Within the context of also shutting down and vilifyign anyone who challenges this approach.
What am I projecting? Society was built for men. That you can’t see that is a projection of your limited worldview on to history.
No, it wasn't, and you're merely asserting as such in spite of evidence. I've provided evidence, you're just quoting scripture. Try some actual evidence.
In what sense was society built for men? Examples, please.
