MRM, MRA, MGTOW.

[Nemesiah]

I have been taking an interest in men's rights as of late and I have stumbled upon this concepts

MRM (Men's Rights Movement)
MRA (Men's Rights Activist)
MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)

As far As I know (and I could be totally wrong in this) they stand for:

MRM: Trying to turn attention towards male specific prolems.

MRA: Trying to counter some of the efects of feminism that harm males.

MGTOW: Acknowledge that men's and women's agendas in dating and relationships are so diferent that the best policy is to avoid them all together.

For what I have seen, much as in the Atheist comunity (and any other comunity really), there are moderate, extremist, rational and dogmatic views of the same issue. In Mexico this is prety much a non issue, not that there is nothing to discuss but that it simply is not acknowledged as a posibility, of the people that I have tried to talk to about this have the impresion that either you are a feminist or a mysoginist. I believe there are some valid points in what this diferent groups mention (gender quotas, the relative minor spending in men's health issues (such as prostate cancer vs breast cancer), the perception that women are more moral or ethical just by the fact of being female, etc...) however I'm far from an expert in this area since I have not devoted much of my time to it.

What I do believe is that there is room to try to better bring about the equality of the sexes without favoring one sex over the other, I believe that not all societies have the same problems and thus not every society should try to take the same road towards gender equality.

I would be remiss to point out that there are alot of angry people in these groups (I believe most people don't think about these issues when everything is going great and only do so after the shit has hit the fan) and that anger can muddle the arguments. in youtube I found this one lady that talks about the issues in a calm fashion and is the one I understand the best.

http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

This guy is also farly ok as far as I have heard.

http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth

However there are of course others and their discourse tends to be more angry and (I believe) not as wel thout out as the previous ones.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHappyMisogynist
http://www.youtube.com/user/VaginaPass

And even angrier and less coherent

http://www.youtube.com/user/Stardusk

Down to the downright rabid and nonsensical

(I can't find the guy I wanted to place here, sufice it to say that de dude (IMO) should seek profesional counsleing ASAP)

(I provide the links should you be interested in checking them out)

Do you know this concepts/groups?
What do you think about them?
Is there other gender (men specifically) issues group you know about?

Best regards.

Ed.

 

[Inferno]

I haven't heard of MRM or MGTOW up until now, but I certainly have of MRA's. From the multiple times I've seen one of their members say something, it's always been entirely negative. And I really mean "holy shit Batman" negative. In the sense of "India is an awesome place for women" only hours/days after the rape cases and so on.

My opinion: Until women earn the same as men, have the same protection as men and are generally treated equally to men, you do NOT have the right to be a men's activist. If you are, you're simply an asshole.
If or when then pendulum swings back and men are actually treated worse, then you may protest.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I think some do have a good point.
Sure in some areas of society feminism is still important, but let's face it, women are being discriminated against as much as they claim. They are allowed an equal voted, they can apply to the same jobs as men (except in certain specific cases, like male modeling) and they are not looked down in the modern western society.
The appropriate way to fight gender inequality is stop using the sex of a person a discriminating factor, if on a job interview or on audit for a promotion the fact that you are either male or female does not enter into the equation, then that is not sexist! However the feminism movement is currently is pushing for special privileges for women, currently there are companies that under the banner of gender equality take priority over women applications. It doesn't matter that maybe the male applicants have better qualifications for the job they are applying then their female counterparts, just because you are a woman you get the job. Yes, under the banner of equal opportunity they explicitly and openly institutionalize sexual discrimination (now against man). Now that is bullshit! You don't stop sexual inequality by trying to favor woman in the detriment of man in order to compensate for when the opposite occurs. You just stop having the gender of the person as a factor!

 

[PAB]

Sure in some areas of society feminism is still important, but let's face it, women are being discriminated against as much as they claim. They are allowed an equal voted, they can apply to the same jobs as men (except in certain specific cases, like male modeling) and they are not looked down in the modern western society.

You are correct that the rights of women have improved. But these rights were a product of feminism and female struggle. What i think you are failing to acknowledge is that western society is in many ways still very sexist. It has a formal veneer of equality, but sexist attitudes still run deep, im often surprised at how much.

Lets look at Christopher Hitchens at his worst as an example of this.




In this way women may be able to apply for the same jobs as men but are often seen as inferior as unequal. So just saying stop taking gender into account is naive, because it more often than not will be. And it is in this context that positive discrimination should be viewed. I agree with you you don't stop discrimination by discrimination, but i can sympathize with the idea that assuring women to certain positions where they are unfairly represented can alter social opinions of what a women can and cannot do.

I have to agree in general with Infernos opinions. But their are specific cases such as fathers for justice in the UK where there is legal discrimination against fathers, the wishes of the mother are taken over and above that of the father and his rights and the child's rights and appears to be based on gender discrimination.

 

[Vivre]

Hi Nemesiah,

I've been pondering about this topic the whole eve ... and at times considered I might not even be welcomed to post here, as it's rather a 'men's only' realm.
I too only recently got aware that something like MRA exists and was very astonished there would be such a need for it. From my own experience: MEN rule this world and can do whatever they please ... so what?

Except for 'breeding & kitchen' women have to fight for every single right which is 'naturally' auto-granted for men - eversince.
Nonetheless, I'm too curious on this topic and thx for your supplied links.

I too would like to leave a recommendation: VarmitCoyote: Examining Men's Rights (18.02, see info! please don't miss to check out user/Ujames1978Forever) and Feminists vs. MRA's (17.03).
And a 3rd 'I too' go with VarmitC and prefer thinking in terms of human rights when aiming to extinguish an unjustness of any kind. Still I must appreciate that these specified activist tribes are of need for being more efficient.

Sidenote: just today I crossed this vid: Formula One not so welcomed in Bahrain. At 0:22 you can see women seem to have the right to demonstrate but have to wear a 'stigma-clothing' and aren't free to join their male fellow campaigners. (Meaning: there are still so many issues to get gender equality straight - everywhere you look.)

Thx to the fellow posters - it's always good to realize there are 'reasonable' men in this world ;-)

And last but not least I'm curious to know:
why, if in your country (and assuming to you), this mens-right-topic is of no common interest, how did you come to take a closer look and what is it for yourself that you seek to be answered in there?

~ greets Vivre

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You are correct that the rights of women have improved. But these rights were a product of feminism and female struggle. What i think you are failing to acknowledge is that western society is in many ways still very sexist.

That it was still rather sexist was quite an obvious implication of what I had said, just after that.
But don't get me wrong, I am aware that women are still negatively discriminated in some areas. However many feminist movements are not focusing their efforts on the real issues that are left, they are focusing on currently none issues as if society hasn't progressed, they are focusing on absurd issues as if every difficulty in life is a direct cause of misogyny (instead of life is tough, grow a thicker skin), chasing windmills while there are real dragons to slay. It isn't for nothing that the movement is now starting to be seen as professional victimhood, that hurts the cause of women more than it helps, reinforcing rather than demolishing the stereotype that women are shallow, just care about futilities and can't focus on the real issues of society.

It has a formal veneer of equality, but sexist attitudes still run deep, im often surprised at how much.
Lets look at Christopher Hitchens at his worst as an example of this.

Although Hitchens position was a bit misconstrued as he was specifically talking about him and what he would personally do, and not what all men and women are expected to do, but for sake of argument let's assume that it was otherwise. Cases like that are rather superficial cultural issues than an active but unconscious effort by the part of men to make women's life worst. It is a battle of public opinion that must be fought on the minds of each individual by good PR, not by calling persecution and playing victim. And it is passive rather than active, given that you can't force anyone to change their mind, you can only expect that they will eventually do (if at all) after much persuasion.

On a side but related note, humans are pattern seeking machines and tend to generalize and come to rash conclusions. If a white guy enters into a convenience store and robs it then he is just a thief, if a black guy does the same it is because he is black, you came to a rash judgement and focused on features that are different from you and voilá you are a racist.
A similar thing happens to women, in fact it happens to everybody, you just don't notice it because you don't do that to yourself and you won't notice until you are on the receiving end of the flack.
So you can see how difficult it would be to change minds about women if at the same time some are playing victims, they don't want to be sen as fragile at the same time they don't want chivalry dead and want to be put on a pedestal. If in general they act differently and have different standards, it is no surprise that they will in general (even if unfairly) be treated differently. In order to stop this we must realize that we construct pre-concepts, catch ourselves doing that and stop us from judging people on face value.

In this way women may be able to apply for the same jobs as men but are often seen as inferior as unequal. So just saying stop taking gender into account is naive, because it more often than not will be.

What else can you do that does not cause more problems?

And it is in this context that positive discrimination should be viewed. I agree with you you don't stop discrimination by discrimination, but i can sympathize with the idea that assuring women to certain positions where they are unfairly represented can alter social opinions of what a women can and cannot do.

And you think you will succeed in changing the opinion about what women can or can not due by giving (as if needed) special treatment in order to succeed instead of letting them do so by their own merits?

 

[Prolescum]

I have sympathy for those men who struggle to see their children because the mother is a being a twat or the courts are being obtuse. The rest of the so-called men's rights movement seem to have little valid worth listening to in my experience.

Really, we shouldn't be calling it a movement at all.

 

[Aught3]

Personally I think the issues these groups focus on are fairly minor. I don't see them as a great source of societal injustice and thus have very little interest in them. Having said that even small injustices are unjust and I can understand that people are motivated by different things and these issues may be important to them.

Going off Nemesiah's description of these groups:

MRM: Trying to turn attention towards male specific prolems.

This seems fine to me, there are going to be some issues in our societies that effect men more than women and making sure they are talked about is important. Not really sure what the supposed barriers to talking about men's issues were ?) but if a few exist it is worth trying to breach them.

MGTOW: Acknowledge that men's and women's agendas in dating and relationships are so di[f]ferent that the best policy is to avoid them all together.

Again I don't really have a problem with this. If some men realise that their priorities don't match up with those of the women they want to have relationships with then the best policy might well be to give up on the dating game. I'd rather they remove themselves from the pool rather than cause hurt and anger.

MRA: Trying to counter some of the ef[f]ects of feminism that harm males.

This one I have the most problem with since feminism actually helps men too. The roles a patriarchal society assigns to men are not as harmful and degrading as those assigned to women but being able to break out of them benefits men who have a different ideas about the life they want to live.

gender quotas

Affirmative action helps society but increasing the diversity of representation in government, business, and education. This is a benefit of feminism not something to be fighting against.

the relative minor spending in men's health issues (such as prostate cancer vs breast cancer

I would be interested to see some numbers because I'm not sure if this is really an issue. The example given is a bit suspect because the relative incidence of breast cancer is so much higher than prostate cancer. Even if more money in absolute terms was spent on breast cancer that would make sense given the larger number of patients.

One other example that others have brought up is that of parental rights, this does seem to be an actual issue so is something the men's rights guys could work on, and I'm sure feminism would be fully behind it. After all feminism is about equality between the sexes, something everyone should be able to support.

 

[Aught3]

I've been pondering about this topic the whole eve ... and at times considered I might not even be welcomed to post here, as it's rather a 'men's only' realm.

The more voices the better. A women's take on the MRA stuff is more than welcome.

 

[PAB]

However many feminist movements are not focusing their efforts on the real issues that are left, they are focusing on currently none issues as if society hasn't progressed, they are focusing on absurd issues as if every difficulty in life is a direct cause of misogyny (instead of life is tough, grow a thicker skin), chasing windmills while there are real dragons to slay. It isn't for nothing that the movement is now starting to be seen as professional victimhood, that hurts the cause of women more than it helps, reinforcing rather than demolishing the stereotype that women are shallow, just care about futilities and can't focus on the real issues of society.

Im not denying that there may be many feminist movements that may have gone awry. Feminism is a broad movement and there are many schools, i myself would come under a socialist/ marxist school of feminism which would have differences with other feminists those for example who herald Margret Thatcher as a feminist (she's no more a feminist than Barack Obama as a black nationalist).

But what are these movements you have came across which do not focus on the real issues, and what are the real issues for women today ?

It has a formal veneer of equality, but sexist attitudes still run deep, im often surprised at how much.
Lets look at Christopher Hitchens at his worst as an example of this.

Although Hitchens position was a bit misconstrued as he was specifically talking about him and what he would personally do, and not what all men and women are expected to do, but for sake of argument let's assume that it was otherwise. Cases like that are rather superficial cultural issues than an active but unconscious effort by the part of men to make women's life worst. It is a battle of public opinion that must be fought on the minds of each individual by good PR, not by calling persecution and playing victim. And it is passive rather than active, given that you can't force anyone to change their mind, you can only expect that they will eventually do (if at all) after much persuasion.

(You may need to re explain yourself, i cant quite make heads or tails of what you mean)
There's nothing misconstrued about it. Hitchens was speaking in his personal capacity about himself and his views/beliefs. It was still sexist. Sexism is a social construct and it is to a degree primarily ideological, with the erroneous ideas that women are delicate creatures inferior etc. and Hitchens echos this and propagates it. These ideas are dangerous and become more than prejudice when they become institutionalized and take affect in society with real discrimination. More, Hitchens idea that women are better off raising the children while men go off and earn bread are based on gender roles (again social constructs) it is arguable that this traditional set up is detrimental to both the father who will have less time raising his child and the mother who is suspended from what ever work she was doing. What we are basically dealing with is a division of labour based on sexist ideas, i.e. women are too gentle to tough it out on jobs market and have a natural ability to raise children whilst men are inferior at raising children and are better spent working.

Aught3 is correct when he states that feminism helps men.

On a side but related note, humans are pattern seeking machines and tend to generalize and come to rash conclusions. If a white guy enters into a convenience store and robs it then he is just a thief, if a black guy does the same it is because he is black, you came to a rash judgement and focused on features that are different from you and voilá you are a racist.

No, not really. Would it, therefore,ever be generalized that the reason that particular white guy robbed the store was due to his long ginger hair whilst all the other customers that day had short non-ginger hair ? No, but if we had the prejudice that long haired ginger people were inferior , then a pattern may be formed. When Black people are seen as inferior as a sub species of humanity then that gives rise to explain certain behaviors that differ.

A similar thing happens to women, in fact it happens to everybody, you just don't notice it because you don't do that to yourself and you won't notice until you are on the receiving end of the flack.
So you can see how difficult it would be to change minds about women if at the same time some are playing victims, they don't want to be sen as fragile at the same time they don't want chivalry dead and want to be put on a pedestal. If in general they act differently and have different standards, it is no surprise that they will in general (even if unfairly) be treated differently. In order to stop this we must realize that we construct pre-concepts, catch ourselves doing that and stop us from judging people on face value.

You have mentioned "playing the victim" maybe twice now - what exactly to you mean by this and could you give me an example. ?
Also speaking about generalization i think you are grossly generalizing women (highlighted), there are women who oppose feminism and feminists too , but maybe you can give examples of these feminists groups who don't want chivalry dead and want to be put on a pedestal. I don't doubt there existence but i don't think what you have described accurately reflect women's attitudes, at least in my experience.

In this way women may be able to apply for the same jobs as men but are often seen as inferior as unequal. So just saying stop taking gender into account is naive, because it more often than not will be.

What else can you do that does not cause more problems?

Take active measures, such as compulsory educational classes at both early school and higher. Educate and advise parents, with government advertisements and/or leaflets booklets. And of course teach the teachers, to prevent gender enforcement and sexist ideals to be taught in school. could be as simple as encouraging boys and girls to play with both boy toys and girl toys(e.g ironing board and cooker and fire truck and building blocks).

And it is in this context that positive discrimination should be viewed. I agree with you you don't stop discrimination by discrimination, but i can sympathize with the idea that assuring women to certain positions where they are unfairly represented can alter social opinions of what a women can and cannot do.

And you think you will succeed in changing the opinion about what women can or can not due by giving (as if needed) special treatment in order to succeed instead of letting them do so by their own merits?

Definitely, in some cases. Regards the hitchens video i had a YouTube debate with some sexist. He argued women should not be allowed in the fire service. And again i was surprised at how many people tended to support his views. If for example there was positive discrimination in this area it may help dismantle remaining sexist attitudes and open up a career option for women which is currently not seen as one for many women. (This shouldn't be done in a silly fashion of just give any women who applies the job , but when you have for example two candidates for one position and one is a women who has passed the relevant qualifications and tests, they should be given preferential treatment, and this should only be a temporary measure which should be re assessed by a government body every few years)( As for the unintended consequence of men feeling unfairly treated they should be fully debriefed in why they didn't get the job, and explained why there was a favorable choice of the woman over him). This isn't ideal, and i don't like positive discrimination, but its better than standing on the roof and just shouting stop being sexist, especially since a lot of the time it is not a conscious action.

 

[PAB]

This is pretty relevant to this discussion, quite interesting

 

[Vivre]

The more voices the better. A women's take on the MRA stuff is more than welcome.

Thanks - much appreciated

As for the MRA I still have to find some infos to figure out what they are about and if it's not only a counter-reaction just the sake of it. From the few vids I saw up to now I got the impression that it's only an overheated screaming at one another on rather minor issues while there still is severe gender-violations on this planet that need support.

The discrimination against fathers I find very retarded for modern cultivated societies. And it's not only harming fathers but also many many children who are omitted to have a peacefull caring home or build up healthy relationships with their fathers [and father images].

the relative minor spending in men's health issues (such as prostate cancer vs breast cancer

I would be interested to see some numbers because I'm not sure if this is really an issue.

I couldn't help on any numbers but I'd like to throw in that e.g in Germany the health insurance contribution is lower (less?) for men. Two of the arguments are: womens potential pregnancy is an extra burden and women live longer.


@PAB - interesting vid - thx.

It reminded me of a study I once heard from, which concerned the brain developement. While growing up different parts of the brain have reoccuring temporary focused activities where they are being trained. (e.g. social interaction, spatial awareness, mathematic [can't recall its rubric]). The point hereby is that these developmental-periods are not parallel in both genders but appear with wider time offsets.
The side effect is that boys/girls of the same age do not share the same interests and capabilities. So comparisons may automatically lead to rash prejudices that are hard to extinguish thereafter. Pity I can't recall the age when they catch up on one another, but it was later than 6 years of age.

 

[Darkprophet232]

There's nothing misconstrued about it. Hitchens was speaking in his personal capacity about himself and his views/beliefs. It was still sexist.

This may very well be because I'm as thick as a hesco barrier, but I don't understand how what Hitchens said was sexist. My understand is that he, as a financially-sound and well-established professional, with no want for money, wouldn't force his wife to work. She could if she wanted to, but she would not be required to do it. He was sloppy in explaining that, I suspect he was well inebriated at that point of the interview based on his mannerisms.

Regardless of his sobriety and his salary, would the statement "It is a requirement that my partner work while we are married," be sexist, regardless of the gender of the speaker? You are saying the opposite is sexist. Is the idea that a woman must work, regardless of marital status, not also be sexist? To say someone has to or cannot do something based on gender is sexist (with certain conditions exempted of course), based on my understanding. To say someone has a choice, though, isn't that the idea of equality we are working towards?

De-stigmatizing the stay-at-home dad and working mother should also be a goal of feminism, right? That the wife may be the sole provider and the husband could be the care giver. And in that scenario, would the wife display sexism if she were to say "my husband has the choice to work if he wants to, but he doesn't have to,"?

To my understanding, feminism was never about forcing women into the workforce, it is about giving them the choice. And ensuring that if a woman chooses to, she has the same opportunities a man would. If I am wrong, and if feminism is about forcing women into the workforce against their will, for any reason, that is a form of fascism I can't support.

 

[PAB]

There's nothing misconstrued about it. Hitchens was speaking in his personal capacity about himself and his views/beliefs. It was still sexist.

This may very well be because I'm as thick as a hesco barrier, but I don't understand how what Hitchens said was sexist. My understand is that he, as a financially-sound and well-established professional, with no want for money, wouldn't force his wife to work. She could if she wanted to, but she would not be required to do it. He was sloppy in explaining that, I suspect he was well inebriated at that point of the interview based on his mannerisms.

Regardless of his sobriety and his salary, would the statement "It is a requirement that my partner work while we are married," be sexist, regardless of the gender of the speaker? You are saying the opposite is sexist. Is the idea that a woman must work, regardless of marital status, not also be sexist? To say someone has to or cannot do something based on gender is sexist (with certain conditions exempted of course), based on my understanding. To say someone has a choice, though, isn't that the idea of equality we are working towards?

De-stigmatizing the stay-at-home dad and working mother should also be a goal of feminism, right? That the wife may be the sole provider and the husband could be the care giver. And in that scenario, would the wife display sexism if she were to say "my husband has the choice to work if he wants to, but he doesn't have to,"?

To my understanding, feminism was never about forcing women into the workforce, it is about giving them the choice. And ensuring that if a woman chooses to, she has the same opportunities a man would. If I am wrong, and if feminism is about forcing women into the workforce against their will, for any reason, that is a form of fascism I can't support.

If all hitchens said was that his wife didn't have to work if she wanted to when they had a child but could if she liked, that wouldn't be sexist. But that's not all he said; to present what hitchens said in this fashion would truly be "misconstrued". Hitchens displays sexist tendencies when he expresses contempt for the idea that women in the modern age ( i.e. now ) could go and earn money rather than men. The host of the show is challenging hitchens traditional view, and sexist view, that women are naturally better at raising children compared to men who hitchens presents as less capable- and also the connotations that men need to look after women financially etc. Hitchens puts it all into a very sexist context when he summarizes "they're called the gentle sex for a reason".

Feminism in general supports equality between the sex's and therefore would support choice between the couple of who does what regardless of gender. But like Hitchens says, its not simply about giving his wife a choice, he wouldn't want to see her work because he sees her as a member of the "gentle sex". And wouldn't like to see her "coerced" in the labour market, again a reflection which suits the summary. Ill take Hitchens at his word rather than assume it was to do more with his financial wealth and success and unknown unexplained reasons.

 

[Vivre]

I'd too like to leave my thoughts on that linked Hitchens vid.

I found no sexist offence in what Mr Hitchens said. It came out relaxed, didn't imply an unbreakable rule and was all private his very own lifestyle concerning and harming noone.

I find the title offensive for its attunement but much more that the female interviewer intentionally aimed to nail him for being male while having a specific opinion. It is her part deliberately playing the 'sexist card' while smiling and bending her head and putting on upwards looking eyes. Knowing about and addressing his 'charming' properties as invitation for a possible withdrawal ... which he took realizing the game is on.

It was a biased trial serving nothing but to fuel prejudices (... for geting viewcounts on the show).

Oh well - inspecting the vid again I found an expression I would alarm on which was "I would expect her to take care". But regarding the whole vid-snippet I understand that because he knows himself to be unable to cope with babies, the partner has to take that job in case a family should be 'installed'.
There's nothing wrong with knowing ones own abilities and priorities and guiding ones life accordingly.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

But what are these movements you have came across which do not focus on the real issues, and what are the real issues for women today?

What about slut shaming? How about institutionalized sexism in Islamic countries? Granted the problems of Islamic countries are way bigger than sexism and fall under a bigger umbrella of religious nutbagery, but still many parts of that culture is being imported to sub-sect of western countries, isn't that much more pressing?

(You may need to re explain yourself, i cant quite make heads or tails of what you mean)
There's nothing misconstrued about it. Hitchens was speaking in his personal capacity about himself and his views/beliefs.

Precisely because Hitchens was speaking about himself! He could have said "In my house, my relatives will not go without pudding for desert, they can not have pudding if they want to (I would be delighted if they didn't) but I fell responsible that I should personally see to it to always provide the pudding", would he be somehow subjecting relatives to a form of discrimination? Or better if Hitchens was gay and his wife was a man and he had said the exact same thing, would that be sexist?
Until he states that he culturally is required to behave in that way because he is a man (or his wife is a woman), then you can not call him sexist.
But that was beside the point, that was just one phrase, and I granted you for the sake of argument that what he said was what it was interpreted and that it was sexist. You did not need to engage that point and ignore everything else, which was quite more important.

It was still sexist. Sexism is a social construct and it is to a degree primarily ideological,

Highlighted in red was my point, and the way forward is by good PR, not by being divisive.

These ideas are dangerous and become more than prejudice when they become institutionalized and take affect in society with real discrimination. (...) What we are basically dealing with is a division of labour based on sexist ideas,

And until you are denied privileges because of your sex, or until you are denied a job because of your sex, you can't really call sexism.
If a company has more men than women on their payroll, it is not sexism until men are given privileges over women, until then it is just incidental that a company hires more man than woman. In fact I would expect that some companies would be almost entirely composed of men because that accurately represents some areas of academia.
It is certainly not a companies fault that there are more men skilled in a particular area than women, nor is it the fault of Universities as applicants join out of their own freewill and are not sexual discriminated (they are only discriminated by their capabilities). This isn't also to say that women are less capable, in fact the problem is in the freewill part because women just don't go for some areas with technically demanding skills (and it is thus no surprise that on average women make less money than men). You can blame in on the cultural expectation of gender roles, but again you are fighting an ideological battle and not an institutionalized discrimination battle.

No, not really. Would it, therefore,ever be generalized that the reason that particular white guy robbed the store was due to his long ginger hair whilst all the other customers that day had short non-ginger hair ? No, but if we had the prejudice that long haired ginger people were inferior , then a pattern may be formed. When Black people are seen as inferior as a sub species of humanity then that gives rise to explain certain behaviors that differ.

You answered No, but in fact I would defend Yes! Because that is exactly what we see. I have given the racial issues because it is more predominant, but if it isn't race it's immigrants, it's skin heads, it's whatever it is most noticeably different from you that you can cluster into a neat stereotype. You don't need to see other people as inferior, because as long as they are not you by default they already are.

You have mentioned "playing the victim" maybe twice now - what exactly to you mean by this and could you give me an example. ?

Perhaps recently noticeable, the dongle-gate has been recently publicized, Atheism + and the all so famous Rebecca Watson case.
There are many other cases, and they have brought so much media attention that I find it comparable to be living under a rock to not know that this is sadly the most vocal face of feminism today.

In this way women may be able to apply for the same jobs as men but are often seen as inferior as unequal. So just saying stop taking gender into account is naive, because it more often than not will be.

What else can you do that does not cause more problems?

Take active measures, such as compulsory educational classes at both early school and higher. Educate and advise parents, with government advertisements and/or leaflets booklets. And of course teach the teachers, to prevent gender enforcement and sexist ideals to be taught in school. could be as simple as encouraging boys and girls to play with both boy toys and girl toys(e.g ironing board and cooker and fire truck and building blocks).

In the context of the conversation, I think every think you have proposed is kind of a bit late in order to be applicable since we are talking about someone who already has an established career in order to be consider applicants for a job.

And you think you will succeed in changing the opinion about what women can or can not due by giving (as if needed) special treatment in order to succeed instead of letting them do so by their own merits?

Definitely, in some cases. (...) If for example there was positive discrimination in this area it may help dismantle remaining sexist attitudes and open up a career option for women which is currently not seen as one for many women. (...) ( As for the unintended consequence of men feeling unfairly treated they should be fully debriefed in why they didn't get the job, and explained why there was a favorable choice of the woman over him). This isn't ideal, and i don't like positive discrimination, but its better than standing on the roof and just shouting stop being sexist, especially since a lot of the time it is not a conscious action.

And I openly think that is bullshit! I am of the philosophy "person best suited for the job should get the job". If you want a better chance then you can improve it by getting more training, better qualifications, more skills (which men and women alike can do), it should not be "get a pair of tits!". If I was applying for a job for which I was the uncontested best suited applicant, and they were to tell me that I didn't get the job because they had to fill my position with a woman in order to maintain gender quotas, I would have told them to go fuck right off! Because, hey I'm a guy, maybe I don't need a fucking job.
Add this to the previous realization that women in general (due to socio-cultural expectations, but none the less true) don't want to put their effort into acquiring high technically demanding skills (those who do are a minority of a minority), you have effectively created an environment were you institutionalize sexual discrimination to promote the worst of the worst.

If you are going to exert control to the level that you are forcing companies to meet gender quotas, why not just force companies to not discriminate by sex? Why should we create this bullshit entitlements that in the end of the day increases the division between sexes instead of putting the efforts on the real ideological problems?

 

[Nemesiah]

I have a lot of stuff to do (a student's work on his thesis is never done) but I would like to put my two cents on caouple of issues.

First: thanks for the videos Vivre I watched "beard guy" (the other one was not available in my country) an I whole heartedly agree that most of the extreme feminist and extreme men's rights debates are little more than he said / she said rants and name calling; better would be to disregard them both, however I believe that there are leggitimate isues to discuss such as gender quotas, father's after divorce rights, rape culture, pay gap, etc... Topics as dongle gate (seriously just how PC can people get befor they just stop talikng), Rebecca Watson's elevator shananigans etc... are jus plain a waste of time.
I came in to these isues as most issues come nto my life these days, by misspeling some words on the youtube video search, I believe I was looking for dating advice (I am as I have stated before the very deffinition of forver alone) and endend up watching a video on how some woman had screwed some dude out of all of his money via the alimoney pony. (Funny enough both my mom's divorces left her with nothing to her name that had been the spouse's before since my father was heavily in debt and after selling the house the money wet to pay for said debts and her other husband was not as well of as my mom so she took nothng from him)

Now, about infernos comment that while a single woman experiences discrimination, talking about men's rights makes you an ashole I' like to point out that saying that is akin to saying that while there is still cancer no money should be used to combat AIDS, it is an idiotic posture, I beleive both problems those of men and those of women should be attended at the same time since not doing it will invariabli produce an unjust society that will engender hate and resentment, it's not us against you, we are in the same boat together.

Gender quotas are wrong in my opinion since they hurt those that need the service provided by the profesional, I think that you wouldn't want to be treated by a woman neourolgist if you get a brain tumor, not even the best woman neurologist, you would want the best neurologist period, be it a man, a woman, an ex military dolphin (he he, Jhonny Mnemonic, so crazy...), same with the pilot landing your plane, or the fire fighter pulling you out of your wretched home, you want the best, not the female best or the male best, the best period, gender quotas, race quotas, age quotas are jus a way of pandering to the mases while hurting the overal efficiency of a system.

English is not my mother language and Hitchken's accent is very thick but I hear that he thought that for women work should be an option and not an obligation, if anithing that is prooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooofeminist, I don't suscribe to the idea that work makes you a better person, I fucking hate working, most of the time it is a dull soul crushing torture that we have to endure since we don't have enough money to retire 10 minutes after leaving college (thats my opinion any way) If this guy wants to provide for his family and say "hey work if you want to but you dont't need to" I don't see how that makes him a monster.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Hitchens displays sexist tendencies when he expresses contempt for the idea that women in the modern age ( i.e. now ) could go and earn money rather than men.

You and I hmust have seen a different video. Could you give the quote where he "expresses contempt" in the interview? He does drunkly state that "I'm not having any woman of mine go to work," but he corrects himself in the very next line with "They don't need to work, they can if they like, but they don't have to." That is hardly contempt. I also see the interveiwer as someone who has never had to defend her position to anyone before.

The host of the show is challenging hitchens traditional view, and sexist view, that women are naturally better at raising children compared to men who hitchens presents as less capable- and also the connotations that men need to look after women financially etc.

She did no such thing. She whined at him, not challenged his beliefs. When Hitchens asks her what he said was so difficult to understand, she replied with "it's just wrong," as if that somehow constitutions a valid counterclaim.

Hitchens puts it all into a very sexist context when he summarizes "they're called the gentle sex for a reason". Feminism in general supports equality between the sex's and therefore would support choice between the couple of who does what regardless of gender. But like Hitchens says, its not simply about giving his wife a choice, he wouldn't want to see her work because he sees her as a member of the "gentle sex". And wouldn't like to see her "coerced" in the labour market, again a reflection which suits the summary. Ill take Hitchens at his word rather than assume it was to do more with his financial wealth and success and unknown unexplained reasons.

Have you seen this image before? The model for it was Geraldine Doyle, who briefly worked as a metal presser when the photo the image was based on was taken. I say briefly because she quit when she feared a hand injury would ruin her cello career, which was more important to her than doing her part to support the war effort, which the men of Ann Arbor, Michigan (the town the plant was based in) had been drafted to fight in just because they were men. No one calls her selfish or lazy or conceited for her decision, nor should anyone, but until I hear a feminist demand that women must also sign up for the selective service on their 18th birthday and it happens, the statement "women are the gentler sex" stands true.

Also, he didn't say "coerced," he said "coarsened." Big difference in the context.

 

[Vivre]

@Nemesiah ~ sorry to hear about your family experience.
Somehow it all depends on our focus and real sharing of facts what we become aware of as so called 'real'. I've encountered closely two divorced women. One had to struggle extremly hard to survive the times - needed a lawyer for many years just to get the minimum child-care allowance from a father, being a university professor with job. The other much younger woman sometimes consented being fully aware that her life-style (without major existential fears) was only possible due to two children whom she got money for. The farther with a low paid unsure job paid as best he could to support his beloved children.

I always miss the question: What does society want? Does it want healthy educated peacefull (peace-targeting) children and an open-minded cultur or the continuously grabbing for to get as much of the cake as can, regardless 'environmental' harm on various levels.

The gender quotas (which I dislike for its incremented discrimination) still is a helpfull means for a certain period of time. You're wrong to assume that you don't get the best treatment because of that. You don't get the best treatment because it's all (exceptions excluded) inside managements, questions of honour and reputations...
When did you last see a handicapped person allowed to share his part to support the society? Aren't they kind of wipped out of our view - near to non-existence? It's rather due to the quotas that you'll meet on them. And the same goes for women. As long as it doesn't come naturally to meet them in all life-realms this quota-regulation is just a help on the way.


And just because I'm in a fluid writing mode I'd like to add another point that I desperately miss in discussions like these. It's the facts of nature.
Gender-equality is a fine thing but it's overdone if it misses out those aspects that simply are impossible to be equalised. For not to stress the classic 'breeding-question' I'd leave the example of the skin construction that varies significantly. Male skin-cells are crossed-over to guaranty a strong shield, female skin-cells are build in parallel to allow e.g. damage-free expansion. So the feel-experience (likewise fear-expectation) can never be the same.
The so-called 'gentle sex' is not just an ideology or cultural comfortzone nor sexist but real existing which has to be taken into account / not forgotten.

~ greets

 

[PAB]

What about slut shaming? How about institutionalized sexism in Islamic countries? Granted the problems of Islamic countries are way bigger than sexism and fall under a bigger umbrella of religious nutbagery, but still many parts of that culture is being imported to sub-sect of western countries, isn't that much more pressing?

:| So what you seem to be saying or at least implying, is that sexism in America and Britain for example in the form of telling women not to dress "like sluts" to avoid rape which produced the SlutWalk : is not a "real issue" for women rights because, for example, in Saudi Arabia there is more severe forms of sexism.

American women and European have long won many of the rights which are still being fought for around the world, that doesn't mean they should stop challenging the inequality and discrimination that remains, in whatever form and to whatever scale within their own nations.
Again feminism is a general tendency in society, not a single entity, it takes many forms and many organisational forms. For example their are national organisations such as the Fawcett Society as well as international e.g, The International Federation of University Women who have their roots in Britain and America.

Simply its not an either/or issue (either they oppose severe forms in foreign countries or oppose less severe forms in their own), its necessarily both, the national campaign and national movement is just as important as the international. Firstly it is only natural to defend against direct discrimination and this in fact leads to the desire to help others in other countries and also sets an example of what is possible.

(You may need to re explain yourself, i cant quite make heads or tails of what you mean)
There's nothing misconstrued about it. Hitchens was speaking in his personal capacity about himself and his views/beliefs.

Precisely because Hitchens was speaking about himself! He could have said "In my house, my relatives will not go without pudding for desert, they can not have pudding if they want to (I would be delighted if they didn't) but I fell responsible that I should personally see to it to always provide the pudding", would he be somehow subjecting relatives to a form of discrimination? Or better if Hitchens was gay and his wife Husband was a man and he had said the exact same thing, would that be sexist?
Until he states that he culturally is required to behave in that way because he is a man (or his wife is a woman), then you can not call him sexist.
But that was beside the point, that was just one phrase, and I granted you for the sake of argument that what he said was what it was interpreted and that it was sexist. You did not need to engage that point and ignore everything else, which was quite more important.

Well regarding Hitchens lets agree to disagree. Ill just add that yes it would have been sexist if it was regarding a male partner if at the same time he justified it in the context that men are "gentle" and so he wouldn't like to see his husband roughed up in the labour market. And that men are naturally superior and or inferior at raising children. (However it wouldn't have made much sense because he is also man and the same would have applied to him but nevermind).

Regarding the importance of what you said in the previous post please re explain it, as i couldn't understand what you meant, i did not ignore it.

What do we make of this ....???

It was still sexist. Sexism is a social construct and it is to a degree primarily ideological,

Highlighted in red was my point, and the way forward is by good PR, not by being divisive.

What then do you mean by good PR ?

And until you are denied privileges because of your sex, or until you are denied a job because of your sex, you can't really call sexism.

This is incorrect. By this assertion it would mean that for you "Slut Shaming" is not sexist because it does not deny a privilege or a job. Mistreatment for example due to gender and sex is also an example of sexism. For example placing responsibility of making the tea (implicitly or explicitly) in a work meeting to the only woman there would be sexist.

WIKIPEDIA
Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex. Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender roles,

If a company has more men than women on their payroll, it is not sexism until men are given privileges over women, until then it is just incidental that a company hires more man than woman. In fact I would expect that some companies would be almost entirely composed of men because that accurately represents some areas of academia.
It is certainly not a companies fault that there are more men skilled in a particular area than women, nor is it the fault of Universities as applicants join out of their own freewill and are not sexual discriminated (they are only discriminated by their capabilities). This isn't also to say that women are less capable, in fact the problem is in the freewill part because women just don't go for some areas with technically demanding skills (and it is thus no surprise that on average women make less money than men). You can blame in on the cultural expectation of gender roles, but again you are fighting an ideological battle and not an institutionalized discrimination battle. Whats your point here ???.....ill point out that institutionalized sexism is based and formed on the ideological dimension</B></U>

<U><B>


You make an interesting point that companies may not be practicing a method of hiring that is sexist but that it may reflect a larger cultural issue with less women (or men) being skilled in a particular area. I think this only supports my argument of active measures from parenting and schooling upwards.

However the problem is not simply in "freewill" on behalf of women. For example less women may not enter into the construction industry because they have from birth been nurtured to understand that industry as a male industry not for women and presented with a list of more "appropriate" jobs. By saying its simply due to the fact women don't want to work in these areas you are in effect apologizing for the sexism rife in our society.

No, not really. Would it, therefore,ever be generalized that the reason that particular white guy robbed the store was due to his long ginger hair whilst all the other customers that day had short non-ginger hair ? No, but if we had the prejudice that long haired ginger people were inferior , then a pattern may be formed. When Black people are seen as inferior as a sub species of humanity then that gives rise to explain certain behaviors that differ.

You answered No, but in fact I would defend Yes! Because that is exactly what we see. I have given the racial issues because it is more predominant, but if it isn't race it's immigrants, it's skin heads, it's whatever it is most noticeably different from you that you can cluster into a neat stereotype. You don't need to see other people as inferior, because as long as they are not you by default they already are.

This may be the way in which you view the world, but this is not necessarily how it works. I don't see people who are not me as inferior, i don't see people who are white skinned as inferior because i am dark skinned, i don't see Americans as inferior because im British.

We can continue with your scenario of a robbery. In the papers the next day and on the news it would say "Black Man" or in America "African American Man robs store". If it was a white man it would say ..."Man robs Store ". Is this then because all journalists are white.

You have mentioned "playing the victim" maybe twice now - what exactly to you mean by this and could you give me an example. ?

Perhaps recently noticeable, the dongle-gate has been recently publicized, Atheism + and the all so famous Rebecca Watson case.
There are many other cases, and they have brought so much media attention that I find it comparable to be living under a rock to not know that this is sadly the most vocal face of feminism today.

:lol: Well i had to look it up. Guilty as accused. "Most vocal face of feminism today " ...really? Ill raise you Malala Yousafzai

What else can you do that does not cause more problems?

Take active measures, such as compulsory educational classes at both early school and higher. Educate and advise parents, with government advertisements and/or leaflets booklets. And of course teach the teachers, to prevent gender enforcement and sexist ideals to be taught in school. could be as simple as encouraging boys and girls to play with both boy toys and girl toys(e.g ironing board and cooker and fire truck and building blocks).

In the context of the conversation, I think every think you have proposed is kind of a bit late in order to be applicable since we are talking about someone who already has an established career in order to be consider applicants for a job.

Im talking about sexism in general and in all its forms not any specific case. The measures i proposed are long term. Short term and temporary for women today right now i suggest very careful and monitored gender quotas only for industries and companies that are assessed as having sexism institutionalized within them, and display blatant discrimination.

If you are going to exert control to the level that you are forcing companies to meet gender quotas, why not just force companies to not discriminate by sex? Why should we create this bullshit entitlements that in the end of the day increases the division between sexes instead of putting the efforts on the real ideological problems?

only one question. How would you make a company that is discriminating based on sex not do so ?