MRA's, Male Privilege, Men's Issues, etc.

[Gay Tony 4,854]

This hasn't really been given it's own topic that I've seen, and I figured given the feminist topics already, this should have a topic all it's own and I'm very interested to hear more opinions from the community here.

 

I've checked out various "Men's" groups online, a few of them a bit more toxic, a few of them more insightful, though overall I've found they often do have genuine grievances and many of which are caused by other more powerful men or by certain social attitudes & indifference.

 

While feminists are certainly right in that women have traditionally been held in certain roles and outside of powerful positions, even today in many places, they more often look at the most privileged of men who are in power while they overlook more unprivileged men. In the US men got the right to vote also corresponded with the selective service and being drafted when need be, which women are not required to register when they come of legal age. There is more concern with women being in the more traditionally privileged positions men have had, such as women CEO's, more women in STEM, more women leaders, etc. but pay no mind to the more traditionally unprivileged jobs men have had where it's not gender equal either.

 

Women in modern day have more legal options to absolve financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend to have. They may abort before it is born, surrender the child for adoption, or surrender the baby under Safe Haven laws. More often than not the man is bound to financially support if the woman wants to keep and raise it, and unless she otherwise gives approval (to abort or adopt) the man does not have any sort of an equal "out" option.

 

 

To say men, as a group, are all privileged over women comes off as pretty ignorant when 80% of the homeless population is male, 93% of work fatalities are male, and that the court bias against males is 6 times larger than the racial bias.

 

How can a privileged group of people make up the majority of the homeless if that group is so privileged over the other?

 

 

I think, overall, it's much more complex and a mixed-bag for both genders than simply the patriarchal narrative against women or MRA's actually wanting to oppress or being anti-woman.

 

 

 

Anywhoo, I'd like to hear more thoughts and open discussion on these issues, so feel free discuss anything I've said or bring up whatever you want. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

[Typhus 1,249]

I think any discussion must first differentiate between those who make a detached critique of society, and the lingering inequalities which persist despite government legislation - and the shrieking hatemongers, miniscule in number, who will doubtless here be presented as the face of the entire feminist movement.

 

For my part, I believe that the issue has moved beyond the control of many Western governments. Women can vote, they can enter professions they were before barred from, they often have control over their own reproductive rights (Though this differs from nation to nation and requires constant vigilance.), and there are numerous organisations which help women fleeing domestic violence and other forms of abuse.

The fact that violent misogyny persists despite so much positive legislation is proof to me that the issue stems from ingrained individual bias on a societal level more than a nefarious institutional sexism - as could be said to have been the case as late as the 1990s.

 

A government, after all, can change the building blocks of a society, and remove hurdles for an oppressed group, but is less powerful at stopping the flow of dangerous ideas. The internet has been a fertile breeding ground for the worst kind of sensationalism. To the point where genuine grievances of women are widely written off as the behavior of extremists and bigots. Away from the online and political sphere, established gender norms persist, society at its core has not been changed. Little girls, for instance, are still raised in an environment of ever-present pink and Princess imagery, for better or worse.

To this end, I would suggest that in the pursuit of gender equality some battles have been won, but not to the extent where there has been any tangible ideological shift in Western society.

 

I tend to view the "Men's Rights" issue as an extension of this. There are aspects of it which perhaps have merit, but from what I have seen, much of it is reactionary, and more a response to women's changing perceptions of themselves than any genuine sense of maltreatment.

From what I have seen, for instance, many MRA's maintain a great deal of homophobia and ableism, and somehow see gay men or disabled men speaking out as part of a wider conspiracy to altar society to a new model. I'm sure you know the kind of rhetoric I'm talking about.

Ultimately, I don't think the Men's Rights movement is about men's rights at all. Only a certain segment of men, who feel a vague disgruntlement.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Typhus

[sivispacem 18,732]

Most MRAs cherry pick isolated individual examples they claim are representative of societal bias against men, and dismiss actual evidence of societal bias against women through statistical misrepresentation (case in point, the pay gap) or whataboutism. The issues they raise may, and often do, have merit (for instance suicide rates, drug addiction and homeless rates amongst men) but the societal conclusions they infer from them usually don't stand up to scrutiny.

[DEALUX 2,164]

It's a movement created in response to the worst of feminism. I'm not surprised that they exaggerate things. However, they at least typically do engage in conversation with the opposite side or have a desire to do that, whereas popular feminists commonly reject such a thing.

 

Also, most feminists I've seen don't get the numbers right on the wage gap either. Even Obama straight up lied about the numbers (or quoted a study that has been debunked, or rather much better ones have presented less worrying results).

[sivispacem 18,732]

It's a movement created in response to the worst of feminism.

It's not, though. Organisations dedicated to championing the rights of men on the false notion that women are societally advantaged in the modern world have existed for decades. It's just the advent of the internet that's driven their growth in popularity.

 

However, they at least typically do engage in conversation with the opposite side or have a desire to do that

I don't think this is remotely true, given that self-labelling "MRAs" have been largely responsible for hate campaigns, harassment and threats directed at just about any female public figure who dares speak on the subject of gender disparity.

 

Portraying the movement as a legitimate and enlightened reaction to the apparent excesses of feminism is quite simply laughable. We're talking about a movement whose public face consists almost entirely of alt-right internet trolls.

 

Also, most feminists I've seen don't get the numbers right on the wage gap either. Even Obama straight up lied about the numbers (or quoted a study that has been debunked, or rather much better ones have presented less worrying results).

This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the facts. The figures commonly cited as incorrect are raw, unadjusted pay gaps. That doesn't make them wrong, it just means they don't take into account a myriad of factors, voluntary and otherwise, which influence pay.

 

The assertions that MRAs typically make on the subject, which claim either (or normally both) that a) the pay gap doesn't exist, or that b) based on cherry-picked statistics from certain sectors and age brackets women earn more than men, leave them in no position to criticise statistical accuracy.

 

The fact that no MRA will entertain the possibility that factors seen as "voluntary choice" in these adjustments could possibly be as a result of societal and cultural pressures felt predominantly by women, or that an unequivocally presence of a pay disparity even in the adjusted figures could possibly be as a result of societal bias (or in some cases even exists when the statistics are clear as day) demonstrate a desire to fit evidence to a preconceived narrative rather than to truly objectively analyse the available data.

[DEALUX 2,164]

I'm mostly familiar with YouTube personalities that either identify as MRA or anti-feminist and they tend to be quite reasonable most of the time. I'm not defending them on the whole though. I don't really fit in either camp.

 

The figures aren't wrong but they are used to convey the message that women have it a lot worse than men than they actually do. This is misinformation that even the president was spreading.

 

It's not necessarily that they don't entertain other possibilities as much as it is a lack of focus on those aspects. I've seen some of them say that the wage gap is not real but then when they went into more details they did acknowledge that there is still a difference when you control for everything, but it is significantly smaller than what a lot of feminists typically cite.

Edited July 19, 2017 by ΣΓ

[El Dildo 14,388]

Men's Rights Activism is an oxymoron if I've ever heard it.

men literally run the world and control virtually all levels of society and have done so since the dawn of time, in addition to enjoying all of the most basic freedoms before any other group of people were allowed to enjoy them.

 

we need a lot more activism in this world for socioeconomic status than gender. the great equalizer in this world is not the penis. it's money.

 

poor people in general are the ones who get the shaft and get left behind to fall through the cracks. and being poor doesn't discriminate. it happens to anyone. the homeless population has always been predominantly male but not because men don't have enough rights... it's because men are more expendable. this is more a problem with our nature and less than it is a problem with our culture. women can find shelter and sustenance with any man who wants to have sex with them. it doesn't really work the other way around. this is not a fundamental discrimination against men, it's just sort of the way of the world.

 

your stat about 'work fatalities' is also pretty silly.

men choose to work in such risky and physically demanding careers at their own will. they voluntarily take on jobs that are more dangerous [potentially higher paying] and more stressful than women on average. generally speaking, men are naturally stronger and better suited for jobs that are physically taxing and inherent with more risk. nobody is forcing them into this position and most people wouldn't want to see women working the same job. again it's not a sexist thing, it's an evolutionary thing.

 

just because men are killed more often on the job site or make up a larger number of the homeless doesn't mean they're not also still the most privileged group of people.

 

if this is your only argument, it's not very compelling.

[DEALUX 2,164]

That's true but it's kinda meaningless on an individual level. I'm not any more privileged than the average woman in my country. In fact a lot of them are better off than me in many regards. But I don't take that as evidence of anything.

[Typhus 1,249]

Men's Rights Activism is an oxymoron if I've ever heard it.

men literally run the world and control virtually all levels of society and have done so since the dawn of time, in addition to enjoying all of the most basic freedoms before any other group of people were allowed to enjoy them.

 

we need a lot more activism in this world for socioeconomic status than gender. the great equalizer in this world is not the penis. it's money.

 

poor people in general are the ones who get the shaft and get left behind to fall through the cracks. and being poor doesn't discriminate. it happens to anyone. the homeless population has always been predominantly male but not because men don't have enough rights... it's because men are more expendable. this is more a problem with our nature and less than it is a problem with our culture. women can find shelter and sustenance with any man who wants to have sex with them. it doesn't really work the other way around. this is not a fundamental discrimination against men, it's just sort of the way of the world.

 

your stat about 'work fatalities' is also pretty silly.

men choose to work in such risky and physically demanding careers at their own will. they voluntarily take on jobs that are more dangerous [potentially higher paying] and more stressful than women on average. generally speaking, men are naturally stronger and better suited for jobs that are physically taxing and inherent with more risk. nobody is forcing them into this position and most people wouldn't want to see women working the same job. again it's not a sexist thing, it's an evolutionary thing.

 

just because men are killed more often on the job site or make up a larger number of the homeless doesn't mean they're not also still the most privileged group of people.

 

if this is your only argument, it's not very compelling.

The problem is that despite your argument being logically sound, all people will hear is that you are calling the homeless and poor and working classes "privileged" when their lives are such a struggle. I'm sure you can appreciate how this instantly puts peoples hackles up, even if what you said is completely true.

That's part of the problem with the discussion of privilege, the very word seems to diminish the legitimate suffering and hardship people face. They are offered no compassion, no basic human extension of empathy, and merely characterized as "oppressors" by virtue of the socio-political class they fall into to.

 

Leftist activism is of a Utopian strain, and yet the perception is still that they can only raise people up by dragging others down. It's to the point where I honestly wish the discourse of privilege would be completely reworded, because it's not helpful, and demonises those who are powerless and vulnerable.

[El Dildo 14,388]

yeah but I'm not here to play word games with semantics.

nobody is calling homeless people privileged. I'm not concerned with how my phrasing 'sounds' to someone who doesn't actually get it. words have meaning. I never said anything about individuals. I'm clearly talking about groups of people. I don't have to "appreciate" someone who doesn't understand the argument.

 

you're looking at this way too narrowly.

my argument goes beyond men or women. I'm trying to bring all of us together to combat the real enemy here: rampant and unrestrained Capitalist greed. governments and elites that are more concerned with corporate welfare than human welfare. the Us versus Them of our time isn't men versus women or homeless versus the sheltered. it's the handful of people born with a Silver Spoon in their mouths versus everyone below them. this is the root of our evils.

 

they've found a way to pit the poor against each other by dividing us up into these segmented groups which is completely unrealistic and destroying our ability to build a better world for everyone. blacks or whites. immigrants or citizens. men or women. straight or gay. young or old. fat or skinny. beautiful or ugly.

 

as long as we're fighting with each other, we're letting them get away with murderous oppression. this debate goes far beyond men and women. they want to keep us locked into these petty and useless social battles so that we never realize our true power. as long as the poor fight each other the rich get richer and everyone's opportunities begin to dry up.

[sivispacem 18,732]

I'm mostly familiar with YouTube personalities that either identify as MRA or anti-feminist and they tend to be quite reasonable most of the time.

But what you describe here is literally the opposite of an actual discussion or discourse on the subject. You're referring to what are basically single people voicing their opinions on a subject, without any coherent response or opportunity given for recourse, rebuttal or analysis.

 

The figures aren't wrong but they are used to convey the message that women have it a lot worse than men than they actually do.

Again, that's debatable. The statistics themselves outline a factual disparity but the evaluation of exactly how much of that disparity is down to endemic prejudice is a separate question. I don't think you're really in a position to be declaring that the messages and statements misrepresent the actual finding of these studies.

 

It's not necessarily that they don't entertain other possibilities as much as it is a lack of focus on those aspects.

No, I'd say they downright fail to address other hypotheses that are evidentially more valid and coherent. It's as clear a case of the tail wagging the dog as I can think of.

 

I've seen some of them say that the wage gap is not real but then when they went into more details they did acknowledge that there is still a difference when you control for everything, but it is significantly smaller than what a lot of feminists typically cite.

So, in short, they lie and immediately backtrack when called out on their bullsh*t?

[Triple Vacuum Seal 831]

The biggest issue with the MRA's isn't a lack of legitimate concerns. It's the divisive nature of their rhetoric, playing into the hands of those who actually exploit their supposed masculinity. They're afflicted with this zero-sum game paradigm. MRAs always frame fairness in terms of mini rights battles that can only be won at the expense of women as if women benefit somehow in the long term from a male-free society. It's really the corporate state that benefits from an emasculated and docile male populace more than anything. MRAs essentially squabble with women over the scraps of individual rights instead of taking issue with the institutions actually responsible for depriving us all of our so-called rights to begin with. Confronting the weaker aggressors...how alpha.

 

 

Devalued men with legitimate concerns are driven to and eventually co-opted by the more toxic elements of the MRA community (like the elements who make $ speaking misogynist crap @ hotel banquet rooms). It's all another distraction from the actual institutional sources of their exploitation. Listen to them closely and you'll realize that MRAs are often too intellectually vapid to attack the principles of feminism itself. Instead they devolve into criticizing feminists as individuals 99% of the time. And it's hard to take such an attack seriously since all movements are largely composed of poorly-informed and poorly-disciplined followers driven mostly by emotion. It's not a feminist thing. The 'regulars' in virtually every cause are like this.

 

 

Liberal feminists are a bunch of undisciplined hypocrites though. A feminist who supports the state is an oxymoron.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[DEALUX 2,164]

 

I'm mostly familiar with YouTube personalities that either identify as MRA or anti-feminist and they tend to be quite reasonable most of the time.

But what you describe here is literally the opposite of an actual discussion or discourse on the subject. You're referring to what are basically single people voicing their opinions on a subject, without any coherent response or opportunity given for recourse, rebuttal or analysis.

 

 

The figures aren't wrong but they are used to convey the message that women have it a lot worse than men than they actually do.

Again, that's debatable. The statistics themselves outline a factual disparity but the evaluation of exactly how much of that disparity is down to endemic prejudice is a separate question. I don't think you're really in a position to be declaring that the messages and statements misrepresent the actual finding of these studies.

 

 

I've seen some of them say that the wage gap is not real but then when they went into more details they did acknowledge that there is still a difference when you control for everything, but it is significantly smaller than what a lot of feminists typically cite.

So, in short, they lie and immediately backtrack when called out on their bullsh*t?

 

Most of them are quite popular on their platforms much like the opposing voices in the other camp that also express their views on YouTube. They very rarely debate each other and this is mostly because the feminists think that the other side is basically the worst of humanity and there's no point in talking to them. There are some exceptions though, most notably Laci Green who recently decided to try and make peace with the anti-feminists.

 

The problem is that it is hard to track down this "endemic prejudice" in any given institution. Even still, just mentioning the 20-17% wage gap which is not the most accurate study and nothing else is disingenuous. If the cause of this gap is debatable then why do a lot of feminists act like this is clear evidence of sexism?

 

No, most of what I've seen is the difference between mentioning something briefly and addressing the subject in full. I have yet to see an anti-feminist on YouTube (a popular one) outright deny that any gap exists when they actually specifically talk about that topic.

Edited July 20, 2017 by ΣΓ

[Leftist Bastard 1,370]

I just feel it's redundant. Feminism is about bringing everyone up to an equal playing level rather than giving one group an advantage over the other; so in that sense feminism is beneficial for both men and women when practiced correctly. Men's movements quickly dissolve into ''SPERMJACKING AND FEMALE PRIVILEGE'' more often than not rather than being a positive force.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Leftist Bastard

[sivispacem 18,732]

Most of them are quite popular on their platforms

Which may be true, but is entirely irrelevant. Neo-Nazis and violent Islamic extremists are also "quite popular" on social media platforms, it doesn't mean their views have any credence.

 

 

They very rarely debate each other and this is mostly because the feminists

Sorry, this is just laughable. You can't honestly expect people to believe that publicly vocal MRAs, who are absolutely minute in number, don't debate with publicly vocal feminists, who are comparatively absolutely enormous in number, because none of the latter will engage with them? I hope you've got some kind of evidence to support this assertion because, on the balance of probability, I think it's much more likely that the general refusal to engage is becasue most MRAs are vile misogynist pigs who'd rather alternate between incoherent navel-gazing self-pity and sending people rape threats on Twitter than actually having their views challenged.

 

 

The problem is that it is hard to track down this "endemic prejudice" in any given institution.

Which, again, is completely irrelevant. We aren't talking about specific institutions, we're talking societally as a whole.

 

 

Even still, just mentioning the 20-17% wage gap which is not the most accurate study and nothing else is disingenuous.

You only consider it disingenuous because you don't like it as a statistic. Moreover, the number of outlets who presented the raw figure in the explicit context of gender bias is infinitesimally small compared to those that present the report's conclusions fully in this context, so why obsess over the former?

 

The actual raw figure from the survey that was extensively quoted was 21%, by the way. The statistics below that are far more interesting. For instance, did you know that, unadjusted, on average Asian women earn 84% as much as white men, white women earn 75% and Hispanic women only 55%?

 

 

If the cause of this gap is debatable then why do a lot of feminists act like this is clear evidence of sexism?

The cause of the adjusted pay gap isn't really debatable. That's kinda the point; once all tangible factors such as education levels, working hours, patterns in promotion, differences in roles et cetera are taken into account there's still a pay gap of between 3% and 6%. What's debatable is how much of the adjustment factors are likely to be due to gender bias. For instance, is the fact women are less likely to be promoted than men because of performance factors or because of cultural factors? If women are less likely to request promotion than men, is that necessarily a voluntary decision on their part or a failure of organisations to properly understand common gender-based behavioural differences?

 

 

I have yet to see an anti-feminist on YouTube (a popular one) outright deny that any gap exists when they actually specifically talk about that topic.

That's an explicit contradiction to the statement "I've seen some of them say that the wage gap is not real" which appeared in your last post. Which one is true, then?

[Chiarii 441]

Male privilege is a myth and feminism seeks supremacy rather than equality.

 

People who say things like 'fight the patriarchy' are delusional.

 

Women (not minorities) benefit the most from affirmative action.

Women are 97% of the alimony recipients.

Women overwhelmingly win custody battles.

Women are almost never given the death penalty.

Women pay less for car insurance and life insurance.

Women have more privileges in general.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Chiari

[sivispacem 18,732]

And above we have a demonstration of the very statistical cherry-picking that I referred to in my initial post.

 

Can you cite some evidence to support the assertion that women are the primary recipients of the benefits of affirmative action, or that they have "more privilege in general"? Indeed, is there any actual evidence that any of the additional cherry picked statistics are indicative of endemic, societal prejudice?

[Chiarii 441]

I didn't read your initial post, wanna give a synopsis of it?

 

Honestly though, if you believe that women aren't already equal to men in America I'm gonna laugh at you.

 

 

E: Why don't you dispute something rather than beg for sources?

Edited July 20, 2017 by Chiari

[sivispacem 18,732]

Honestly though, if you believe that women aren't already equal to men in America I'm gonna laugh at you.

Equal in what sense? Not in pay, even taking into account tangible factors. Not in economic power or social and political influence. Not in healthcare if the American Health Care Act passes in anything resembling it's current firm, and nor up until a couple of years ago when health insurance policies were gender weighted against women even excluding the costs of maternity care in the same way that you alleged other insurance policy are against men. Not in the workplace, where gender-specific restriction on dress code and appearance are almost invariably placed on women above men and are subject far more frequently to sexual harassment. Not when it comes to questions of violence against the person, with women suffering far more violence at the hands of men than the inverse. There's still implicit cultural biases associating women with family instead of career, which are frequently borne out by statistical analysis in the subject.

 

Accepting that the US has come a long way in the last couple of decades (I mean, at least sposal rape isn't legal anymore) doesn't mean there aren't still intrinsic cultural, societal and economic biases against women.

 

E: Why don't you dispute something rather than beg for sources?

Because a statement you're not willing to back up with evidence should be dismissed as valueless.

[Chiarii 441]

Equal in what sense? Not in pay, even taking into account tangible factors. Not in economic power or social and political influence. Not in healthcare if the American Health Care Act passes in anything resembling it's current firm, and nor up until a couple of years ago when health insurance policies were gender weighted against women even excluding the costs of maternity care in the same way that you alleged other insurance policy are against men. Not in the workplace, where gender-specific restriction on dress code and appearance are almost invariably placed on women above men and are subject far more frequently to sexual harassment. Not when it comes to questions of violence against the person, with women suffering far more violence at the hands of men than the inverse. There's still implicit cultural biases associating women with family instead of career, which are frequently borne out by statistical analysis in the subject.

Accepting that the US has come a long way in the last couple of decades (I mean, at least sposal rape isn't legal anymore) doesn't mean there aren't still intrinsic cultural, societal and economic biases against women.

Watch me skim through your post

 

You're right, women actually come out ahead in pay when car insurance (which is legally mandated) and life insurance are included.

If women spend more on health care for services that are unique to them, that is fair.

Not following whatever bullsh*t you're spouting about a dress code.

Violence against a person has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Women tend to choose careers that aren't life-consuming and this isn't an equality issue anyway.

 

 

E: Why don't you dispute something rather than beg for sources?

Because a statement you're not willing to back up with evidence should be dismissed as valueless.

 

 

I don't need to defend the claims that I make because I already know I'm right. As a result, if you disagree with them I know you're wrong. I'm not going to run around defending what I already know to be true and impeccable.

 

E: Me saying something is evidence in itself.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Chiari

[sivispacem 18,732]

You're right, women actually come out ahead in pay when car insurance (which is legally mandated) and life insurance are included.

Car insurance is only legally mandated if you own a car, and life insurance isn't legally mandated at all, so neither of these examples is remotely relevant.

 

Even if they were, I doubt the difference between costs between men and women equate to more than 21% of a man's average annual salary, as that's the unadjusted difference between men's and women's pay.

 

If women spend more on health care for services that are unique to them, that is fair.

Except that even excluding the costs of services unique to women, they paid more until a few years back and likely will again if the AHCA is finally passed.

 

Not following whatever bullsh*t you're spouting about a dress code.

Violence against a person has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Then you should probably try reading rather than skimming.

 

Women tend to choose careers that aren't life-consuming and this isn't an equality issue anyway.

Do they? Isn't it? Strikes me as an equality issue if there are any societal and cultural norms driving women away from careers and towards conforming to stereotype. Are you staying, categorically and definitely, that that doesn't happen? Because if you are, I'm going to laugh at you.

 

I don't need to defend the claims that I make because I already know I'm right.

Insisting you're right without substantiating it doesn't make you right. Frankly, it makes you look like a tool. I'd you want to look like a tool that's your prerogative I suppose, but good luck trying to maintain a semblance of credibility next time you want to make an argument from assertion without getting laughed at.

 

Not like you've got prior form for posting perplexing drivel that you assert is true then tactically disappearing for several months the moment its questioned...

[Chiarii 441]

 

Car insurance is only legally mandated if you own a car, and life insurance isn't legally mandated at all, so neither of these examples is remotely relevant.

 

A majority of people have life insurance. An overwhelming majority of people own cars, so this is absolutely relevant.

 

 

.Even if they were, I doubt the difference between costs between men and women equate to more than 21% of a man's average annual salary, as that's the unadjusted difference between men's and women's pay.

 

This figure has been debunked repeatedly.

 

 

Except that even excluding the costs of services unique to women, they paid more until a few years back and likely will again if the AHCA is finally passed.

 

Irrelevant past. Speculative future.

 

 

Do they? Isn't it? Strikes me as an equality issue if there are any societal and cultural norms driving women away from careers and towards conforming to stereotype. Are you staying, categorically and definitely, that that doesn't happen? Because if you are, I'm going to laugh at you.

 

Yes, no, and of course it does, because you seem to get off on fighting oppression where it doesn't exist... similar to many other members in this area.

 

I am not saying there are no exceptions to it. Are you saying there is no validity to stereotypes?

 

 

Insisting you're right without substantiating it doesn't make you right. Frankly, it makes you look like a tool. I'd you want to look like a tool that's your prerogative I suppose, but good luck trying to maintain a semblance of credibility next time you want to make an argument from assertion without getting laughed at.

Not like you've got prior form for posting perplexing drivel that you assert is true then tactically disappearing for several months the moment its questioned...

 

 

Like I said, me putting a claim out there is evidence enough. I've also never made any claims that turned out to be inaccurate. Your opinions are often in conflict with mine and that's fine, but it doesn't make me wrong.

 

Also, I don't disappear the moment it's questioned. I sometimes lose interest when unintelligent people challenge me and I sometimes lack the time to post here. However, I'm here today, so you can be thankful for that.

[sivispacem 18,732]

A majority of people have life insurance. An overwhelming majority of people own cars, so this is absolutely relevant.

Naa, it's not. Ownership of a car and purchasing life insurance are both choices. Even if they weren't, we're talking about statistical risk here. You might have a point if the costs of insurance were wildly disproportionate compared to the elevated risk, but that would require you to demonstrate this, and I'm pretty sure you can't.

 

Next you'll be alleging that it is unfair men pay more for food as they typically need to consume a higher number of calories.

 

This figure has been debunked repeatedly.

Actually, the figure is entirely accurate. The unadjusted pay gap is 21%; that's a categorical fact.

 

Irrelevant past. Speculative future.

...and?

 

because you seem to get off on fighting oppression where it doesn't exist

There's a distinction between "oppression that doesn't exist" and "oppression you don't think exists". Thankfully, you're not the arbiter of truth in this matter and I'm inclined to side with the wealth of academic evidence over the ramblings of a lone MRA sympathiser.

 

Are you saying there is no validity to stereotypes?

I don't think I am, but I'm questioning if there's any validity in this specific one.

 

Like I said, me putting a claim out there is evidence enough.

You might get away with an appeal to your own authority if you were a subject matter expert who had a clear grounding in the topic at hand, but you aren't and don't.

 

I've also never made any claims that turned out to be inaccurate.

This isn't remotely true.

 

Your opinions are often in conflict with mine and that's fine, but it doesn't make me wrong.

Conversely, it doesn't make you right either.

 

However, I'm here today, so you can be thankful for that.

And I am, but unfortunately I've got a 5AM start tomorrow so you might have to wait until tomorrow for a reply to whatever your response happens to be here.

[Chiarii 441]

Naa, it's not. Ownership of a car and purchasing life insurance are both choices. Even if they weren't, we're talking about statistical risk here. You might have a point if the costs of insurance were wildly disproportionate compared to the elevated risk, but that would require you to demonstrate this, and I'm pretty sure you can't.

Next you'll be alleging that it is unfair men pay more for food as they typically need to consume a higher number of calories.

 

 

 

Purchasing healthcare coverage, degree plans, and occupation are also choices, so what is your point? The insurance rates don't need to be wildly different, they need to be consistently different and they are.

 

 

Actually, the figure is entirely accurate. The unadjusted pay gap is 21%; that's a categorical fact.

 

I'm more interested in an adjusted figure, as reality isn't black and white. Sometimes the simplest answer isn't the best answer.

 

 

...and?

 

Outdated information and speculation don't have a place in our discussion.

 

 

There's a distinction between "oppression that doesn't exist" and "oppression you don't think exists". Thankfully, you're not the arbiter of truth in this matter and I'm inclined to side with the wealth of academic evidence over the ramblings of a lone MRA sympathiser.

 

'Wealth of academic evidence on the oppression of women in America: 2017' LMAO

 

Oh and you can piss off with the MRA sympathizer bullsh*t. I couldn't care less that women have advantages over me; I still excel professionally and personally because I am that good. I'm just being pragmatic about this.

 

I.E. I don't care that women can get free drinks at a bar because I can pay for my own. Understand?

 

 

I don't think I am, but I'm questioning if there's any validity in this specific one.

 

Let me know when you arrive at my conclusion.

 

 

You might get away with an appeal to your own authority if you were a subject matter expert who had a clear grounding in the topic at hand, but you aren't and don't.

 

I have determined that gender inequality is a sham... a political division tactic. It doesn't really exist.

 

 

This isn't remotely true.

 

It is 100% true. I have no doubt about this.

 

 

Conversely, it doesn't make you right either.

 

Well... yes you are correct. However, I can't remember the last time I was wrong about something so I don't doubt myself now.

 

 

And I am, but unfortunately I've got a 5AM start tomorrow so you might have to wait until tomorrow for a reply to whatever your response happens to be here.

 

 

Fine. I hope you have a good night.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Chiari

[Triple Vacuum Seal 831]

feminism seeks supremacy rather than equality.

 

Nice claim. Too bad you can't back it up though.

 

 

While many pop-feminist (like the young ditzy types) do tend to exploit the women's rights movement for their own ends without actually adopting feminist attitudes, this is a far cry from feminism = female supremacy. In its most direct terms, feminism is an extension of egalitarianism. This isn't some obscure movement of radicals looking to dominate men. In fact, I'm struggling to even imagine what societal female supremacy even looks like.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Saggy 815]

Personally I find one valid grievance to be with domestic violence laws, or more specifically with the way it's not okay for men to talk about them.

 

I think my own personal experience with this and in my state might make it kind of a "special" argument, but basically there seems to be a pretty well-held belief among both men and women, that is supported by the evidence, that if you are a female and accuse a male of any kind of domestic violence, he will go to jail.

 

Now obviously this is like, going to a prison, and then hearing all the prisoners say, "I didn't do it, I'm innocent," and concluding that false conviction rates are 100%... Obviously pretty much every guy is going to say he didn't actually do anything wrong, but I've heard this from the women themselves! They even brag about it in some instances, talking about how "Yeah now he's in jail and can't call me or have any of his friends come over and I'm just kicking it in his place until the court date." I use to be the type to think, "Oh that's a load of crap," but I had ex-girlfriends text their friends about this while I basically read over their shoulder and there they were bragging about it, giving advice how to put make-up on to look like bruises, etc. Would never have believed any of this if I hadn't seen it for my own eyes.

 

I saw a story in the paper about how hard it is for them to secure domestic violence prosecutions because so many women are unwilling to stand trial, but nowhere does it occur to them that maybe it's because half the women are full of sh*t. You can't even bring that possibility up without being accused for trying to deny women's issues. It's as if they think you're trying to pain the women as villains, but really they get caught up in it too. I have a girlfriend whose baby's dad got all hostile and vocal, so she called the cops and they arrested him; now they won't drop the no-contact order and let him back in the house until she takes "victim's classes". All he did was yell at her, and she didn't even want them to press charges. Now they say this is to "protect victims", but I'm sure they don't mind all the extra court fees and the costs of the classes too.

 

If you go take a look at Washington state courts, 90% of the cases are domestic violence cases. With all the court fines, the revenue for the court officials on the cases, the anger management and "victim's awareness" classes, there is a whole industry built upon the way the domestic violence laws are written in this state. It's a lot different than most others, because there doesn't even need to be actual "violence", and the "victim" doesn't get the choice of whether to press charges or not. SO if you even have a loud argument, and your neighbors call the cops, chances are someone is going to jail. cha-ching. One time I got in a fist fight with my dad, the neighbors called the cops, and he said, "Just lie and say nothing happened or we'll both go to jail." So half the time it's not even involving a woman. Btw, yeah, I'm white-trash to the max; got my wife beater and KFC bucket at idle.

 

But what perpetuates it and enables those laws to be written as such in the first place? It's all these ideas of women being too scared to come forward and testify, or fears of them killing them after the police leave, etc and so forth. Well, for all this fear-mongering that's been spread around predicated on helping women escape violence, all it has done is afforded the state millions of dollars in fines and fees that they wouldn't have had otherwise. The question of how much it actually protects women is questionable; very recently one man was released out of court and then went and bludgeoned his girlfriend to death with a baseball bat. Obviously protections are needed, but they don't seem to be actually helping anyone but the state. The statistics would bear out whether it's "Better safe than sorry," worth it, but that's not the point...

 

What I find unfortunate is that as a man you can not even bring up this issue without being suspected of being a wife beater or something ugly like that. The issues with the faulty justice system effect both men and women (probably a little disproportionately effecting men), but it's men who are distinctly vilified for trying to speak out about it in the least. It's not until a woman brings up the same issues that anyone grants them any merit.

[Triple Vacuum Seal 831]

Sad to hear that about Washington state, but that makes sense considering how their courts made Hope Solo out to be the female Ike Turner or something. Sounded like Florida for a moment because apparently the domestic violence laws are draconian af down there.

 

 

On that topic more broadly, it's a tough call on whether or not the laws go overboard. I've been to family celebrations where all out brawls nearly break out among grown adults and then we're all kumbaya with each other 30mins later. No law enforcement involvement necessary. But from the perspective of the cops, passions run high in these domestic disputes, making them some of the riskiest calls they respond to.

 

 

As far as domestic violence double standards go, a blatant cultural contradiction exist around corporal punishment in the south especially. It's somehow seen as a choice, a matter of personal taste, whether or not it's okay to hit a defenseless child. Yet the same people who hit their kids think women-beaters are the scum of the earth. Though neither should be tolerated, hitting a child should be less acceptable than hitting a grown woman. I mean ffs how is it possible to hit your kids without abusing them, but even so much as yelling at your wife is abuse? Seems like a load of sh*t to me.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[sivispacem 18,732]

Purchasing healthcare coverage, degree plans, and occupation are also choices, so what is your point? The insurance rates don't need to be wildly different, they need to be consistently different and they are.

What you seem to be failing to grasp is that insurance is a business based on risk. People considered higher risk pay more. If being male correlates to a higher risk then you pay more. That's not prejudice or bias, it's common sense.

 

By the logic you employ here, any weighting based on increased risk is "prejudicual". Should all insurance premiums be of equal cost despite the differences in risk? I don't think you believe that; in fact you've suggested pretty strongly you don't already in this discussion.

 

I'm more interested in an adjusted figure

I don't particularly care what figure you're more interested in. What I am interested in is the assertion that the figure has been "debunked" when it hasn't. Funny, given your later statements about being wholly correct.

 

Outdated information and speculation don't have a place in our discussion.

And yet arguments from assertion with no supporting evidence made by someone who isn't a subject matter expert and has no clear exceptional knowledge, supported solely with a false claim that can be paraphrased as "well I know I'm right because I'm never wrong" are?

 

Thankfully you're not the arbiter of what does and doesn't have place in this discussion, I am.

 

Oh and you can piss off with the MRA sympathizer bullsh*t. I couldn't care less that women have advantages over me; I still excel professionally and personally because I am that good. I'm just being pragmatic about this.

If it walks like a duck...regardless, I don't think "I'm so awesome it doesn't matter anyway" constitutes an argument. Frankly, the notion that "women are societally advantaged over men because reasons I can't be bothered to explain but it's true" isn't much of one either.

 

I.E. I don't care that women can get free drinks at a bar because I can pay for my own. Understand?

Not really, but then again I don't really see women flirting their way to free sh*t from gullible fools on the blindly hopeful off-chance they might f*ck then to be an example of how societally advantaged women are.

 

I've never really felt the need to hand out free sh*t to minutely increase the odds of taking someone home so conceptually that kind of thing is pretty alien to me. If I want to buy someone a drink, regardless of gender, I'm going to do it because I want to, not because I'm hoping to get something out of it.

 

Let me know when you arrive at my conclusion.

I'd advise against holding your breath.

 

I have determined that gender inequality is a sham... a political division tactic. It doesn't really exist.

Which is nice, and good on you for thinking about stuff, but your determinations carry little weight in the absence of supporting evidence.

 

However, I can't remember the last time I was wrong about something

Excluding this statement itself, or the "100% true" one (though I don't think I should on either count), the prior post you made:

 

This figure [the claim that women, unadjusted, earn on average 79% of the salaries of men] has been debunked repeatedly.

 

And because I'm both petty and am stuck waiting for data that hasn't arrived yet, I thought I'd dig out a few more. I hope you don't mind that I haven't bothered citing the assertions that I'm claiming are wrong; if we're going to play the argument from assertion game I figure I'm more likely to be believed by most thread participants anyway:

 

Jimmy Carter [who] was a left-wing president

[Ayn Rand, whose philosophical ideas underpin every popular movement on the American Right since the Tea Party Republicans] is only ever brought up by liberals

the spike in terror attacks there [in the UK] is very new

this standard [direct vote tampering]...[is the only thing that] would retroactively invalidate the 2016 election

Obama's administration tried to oust the prime minister of one of our closest allies [israel]

[Regarding Scandinavian societies] Freer: No

history is...worthless

History...lacks stimulation and does not advance one's intellectual abilities.

 

I could go on, but reading three pages of your posts has made me woefully misanthropic and I'm concerned I'll start banning entire country IP address ranges based on a spin of a globe if I continue.

[DEALUX 2,164]

Sorry, this is just laughable. You can't honestly expect people to believe that publicly vocal MRAs, who are absolutely minute in number, don't debate with publicly vocal feminists, who are comparatively absolutely enormous in number, because none of the latter will engage with them? I hope you've got some kind of evidence to support this assertion because, on the balance of probability, I think it's much more likely that the general refusal to engage is becasue most MRAs are vile misogynist pigs who'd rather alternate between incoherent navel-gazing self-pity and sending people rape threats on Twitter than actually having their views challenged.

I'm mostly familiar with popular YouTubers on both sides. I take it we're not talking about the same people. Also, a lot of the people I watch on the anti-feminist camp are not "vile" necessarily. Some of them are trolls, sure, but there are a few women in that group as well. You can't really accuse them of being misogynist.

 

So you dismiss YouTube personalities as non-representative of the MRA movement but then you think trolls on Twitter are part of it? Sounds confusing to me.

 

You only consider it disingenuous because you don't like it as a statistic. Moreover, the number of outlets who presented the raw figure in the explicit context of gender bias is infinitesimally small compared to those that present the report's conclusions fully in this context, so why obsess over the former?

 

The actual raw figure from the survey that was extensively quoted was 21%, by the way. The statistics below that are far more interesting. For instance, did you know that, unadjusted, on average Asian women earn 84% as much as white men, white women earn 75% and Hispanic women only 55%?

No, it's not a good study because a gap could exist for any number of reasons other than sexism. It would actually be weirder if the pay for both genders would be exactly equal. Saying that the 21% gap is inherently evidence of sexism is like saying that the fact that most prisons are filled with men is evidence that we let women get away with murder.

 

The cause of the adjusted pay gap isn't really debatable. That's kinda the point; once all tangible factors such as education levels, working hours, patterns in promotion, differences in roles et cetera are taken into account there's still a pay gap of between 3% and 6%. What's debatable is how much of the adjustment factors are likely to be due to gender bias. For instance, is the fact women are less likely to be promoted than men because of performance factors or because of cultural factors?

 

If women are less likely to request promotion than men, is that necessarily a voluntary decision on their part or a failure of organisations to properly understand common gender-based behavioural differences?

I was talking about the high number (21%, though I assumed it was smaller than that) and I got the sense that you were too. The reason why women on the whole earn less then men is debatable.

 

What does that even mean? It's not like all people who ask for promotions actually think they deserve it. I think the whole hand-holding act that a lot of feminists do in regards to "empowering" women is disgusting and kinda sexist when you think about it. It tacitly assumes that women are weak and are in desperate need of support.

 

That's an explicit contradiction to the statement "I've seen some of them say that the wage gap is not real" which appeared in your last post. Which one is true, then?

Both, like I said. If they mention it in passing, they say it's a myth and technically it's not fully false because the 21% study is not useful in understanding the source of the gap to begin with. It just points out that this difference exists. Sexism is automatically implied by feminists.

[sivispacem 18,732]

I'm mostly familiar with popular YouTubers on both sides.

Who may well be representative of the MRA movement, but who definitely aren't representative of feminism.

 

Most actual discourse on the subject of feminism takes place in the educational and academic space because it's a longstanding political and social movement ideologically intertwined with numerous other disciplines.

 

Most discourse on male oppression takes place on Reddit because it's intellectually vapid, lacking in ideological coherence, represents nothing more than than knee jerk reactionism to the erosion of male social and political hegemony, and is intertwined pretty much solely with the alt-right.

 

You can't really accuse them of being misogynist.

Alleging that there's a grand social and political conspiracy orchestrated primarily by indeterminate persons unknown to erode the rights of, and finally subjugate, men- which is word for word the belief of most MRAs- is absolutely mysoginistic. If you replaced the target with "white people", you've got the drum that pretty much every white supremacist groups in the US has banged for the best part of sixty years.

 

So you dismiss YouTube personalities as non-representative of the MRA movement but then you think trolls on Twitter are part of it?

They're one and the same.

 

No, it's not a good study because a gap could exist for any number of reasons other than sexism.

The accepted academic consensus is that the adjusted wage gap is most probably as a result of intrinsic bias. If you want to contest that consensus, it's up to you to suggest a viable alternative hypothesis, properly evaluate available evidence and demonstrate that conclusion is sound.

 

Saying that the 21% gap is inherently evidence of sexism is like saying that the fact that most prisons are filled with men is evidence that we let women get away with murder.

What a ridiculous and completely incoherent analogy.

 

I was talking about the high number (21%, though I assumed it was smaller than that) and I got the sense that you were too.

I've been extremely clear throughout my responses where I've been referring to adjusted versus unadjusted figures.

 

It's not like all people who ask for promotions actually think they deserve it...It tacitly assumes that women are weak and are in desperate need of support.

You've completely misrepresented what I've said. It's not about providing additional support to women to women, it's about a failure to properly base promotion and pay on performance rather than by request. It's not just confined to women, but statistics show that they are typically less willing to approach the subject even when their performance meets or exceeds that of male peers.

 

Both, like I said. If they mention it in passing, they say it's a myth and technically it's not fully false because the 21% study is not useful in understanding the source of the gap

No, stating it's a myth is empirically untrue. Suggesting otherwise is simply wrong. You can question the validity of unadjusted figures without contending that a statistical gap which is unequivocally there- in both adjusted and unadjusted figures- is nonexistent. Doing so simply makes them liars and reinforces the notion that their views are driven by prejudice and mysoginy rather than any desire to properly evaluate evidence and reach a coherent conclusion.