Feminist Activism vs MRM

[ThunderChunky]

Right, and while I agree that women might not want to be software developers at the same rate as men, even after excluding sociological pressures, that does not mean that women in our society are going into the field at their "natural" rate. We don't know what rate we should expect to see women going into the field at. Furthermore, we know there are sociological pressures that could be lowering the rate women enter the field, and should work to correct those. My problem with many MRAs is that they latch onto the biological explanation for the difference, and just decide that is the only reason, without the evidence to back that up.

The sociological factors start from birth and I really don't see much feminist activism focused on child rearing and early child development. That's certainly where an actual difference could be made. I see a lot more of the "don't wear that t-shirt" or "stop that micro aggression" type of activism, which I really doubt are significant factors affecting peoples' career choices.

 

[Corsair 115]

You can't have that debate without understanding the things I described.

You basically asserted in your post there are actual issues which need to be addressed. I'm am not entirely convinced that premise is correct, and that some of what is asserted to be 'issues' aren't actually so.

I'm not clear on why there is so much focus on STEM fields.

Much the same concern is raised in regards to the proportion of women in politics and in the corporate boardrooms. As near as I can tell, it seems to boil down to this: since 50% of the population is female, then one should expect to see about 50% of STEM, politicians, and corporate board members also being women. (The corollary of that would be to expect about 50% of elementary school teachers and nurses to be men.)

 

[Axiom_Blade]

To me this seems like a double standard based on one's preference for one over the other. If both are defined as being for gender equality, why is one unnecessary while the other is required? Does this argument make sense that I am not understanding? Is the MRM full of misogynists who only work to oppose feminism rather than compliment it? (I've seen this claim a lot as well)

I think the idea is that having two groups fighting for equality is redundant. Men don't need rights, because they're already privileged, and if there is a legitimate issue that the MRM brings up, it's related to gender equality in some way, so the feminists are already working on it, thankyouverymuch. From what I can see, the MRM is largely a feminist boogyman. Having a "them" is a good way to galvanize your base and create that good ol' "us vs. them" dichotomy, and "the Patriarchy" is too abstract.

If there is no "them", it becomes necessary to create one. Back in the 80s, the Christian fundamentalists had secular humanism. Secular humanists are about as rare as Scientologists, perhaps rarer, but to hear the fundies talk about us, we ran everything and were everywhere. MRAs are like 9-11 truthers, libertarians, and any other small vocal online community. You turn off the Internet and they go away. They provide fodder for the feminists to get enraged over until the next offensive shirt or video game comes along.

 

[rustypouch]

The sociological factors start from birth and I really don't see much feminist activism focused on child rearing and early child development. That's certainly where an actual difference could be made. I see a lot more of the "don't wear that t-shirt" or "stop that micro aggression" type of activism, which I really doubt are significant factors affecting peoples' career choices.

Unless the t-shirt says "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them," in which case the people who don't like it need to learn to take a joke.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Unless the t-shirt says "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them," in which case the people who don't like it need to learn to take a joke.

Well, see, that's different, because men have privilege, and women don't. I believe feminists call this a "false equivalency".

 

[Fizil]

You basically asserted in your post there are actual issues which need to be addressed. I'm am not entirely convinced that premise is correct, and that some of what is asserted to be 'issues' aren't actually so.

I don't see why the hell you would find it objectionable to study such things. You don't even need to think there may be issues to address, a simple curiosity to find out why the world is the way it is should be enough....

I think it is important to understand why we see the patterns of disparity. Once we understand, we might indeed decide that there is no reason to do anything about it in such-and-such a case. For instance the reason most firemen and construction workers are men has fairly obvious physiological roots, and there is no particular reason to bother achieving parity there. However there is no such obvious cause for such a large disparity in a field like mine, and so I think it is important to determine why it is there, out of scientific curiosity if nothing else. Then, knowing why, it may be the case that some or all of the disparity is caused by factors I find repugnant (such as sexism), and I would find it appropriate to encourage society to work toward correcting them.

 

[Corsair 115]

I don't see why the hell you would find it objectionable to study such things ...

As I never said any such thing, your comment would appear needless.

I think it is important to understand why we see the patterns of disparity.

Let's be more precise: is there disparity in opportunity or is there disparity in outcome? The can be none of the former and yet still end up with the latter. (And, indeed, it ought not be surprising if outcomes are unequal given the variety in individual humans in terms of abilities and preferences).

Once we understand, we might indeed decide that there is no reason to do anything about it in such-and-such a case.

There has already been study on such matters. The question becomes at what point to do we consider the matter 'settled' and decide whether the disparity (in opportunity, presumably, since disparity in outcome seems inevitable given the variety in individual humans) exists or not?

For instance the reason most firemen and construction workers are men has fairly obvious physiological roots, and there is no particular reason to bother achieving parity there.

Your use of the word 'parity' suggests you think one ought to expect a 50-50 split of males in females in a profession simply because that's the split in the overall population. Is that indeed what you are looking at as an end point measure? If so, that would fall under the 'equality of outcome' side of the ledger, which, as I mentioned previously, seems a difficult case to argue for in the best of instances.

 

[pharphis]

I think the idea is that having two groups fighting for equality is redundant. Men don't need rights, because they're already privileged, and if there is a legitimate issue that the MRM brings up, it's related to gender equality in some way, so the feminists are already working on it, thankyouverymuch. From what I can see, the MRM is largely a feminist boogyman. Having a "them" is a good way to galvanize your base and create that good ol' "us vs. them" dichotomy, and "the Patriarchy" is too abstract.

If there is no "them", it becomes necessary to create one. Back in the 80s, the Christian fundamentalists had secular humanism. Secular humanists are about as rare as Scientologists, perhaps rarer, but to hear the fundies talk about us, we ran everything and were everywhere. MRAs are like 9-11 truthers, libertarians, and any other small vocal online community. You turn off the Internet and they go away. They provide fodder for the feminists to get enraged over until the next offensive shirt or video game comes along.

This just sounds the same to me. Preference of one movement over another. Personally, I don't really like either label, but it seems weird to prefer one over another as THE movement to accomplish removing inequality because it just seems like it's gender-focused.

 

[Edx]

1. The main issue about the pay gap is that it is a feminist myth/lie that just won't die that women are literally paid 79c for every dollar a man makes. There is only one reason to make this claim and that's for propaganda purposes. If the argument is about specifics then we don't see that appear until someone calls them on the initial lie. The truth apparently isn't good enough and a large disparity is more emotive even of its not true. You can tell it's not just some misunderstanding because otherwise they'd know the paycheck fairness act is redundant and would never be able to close this gap, an if anything it would cause men to be paid as much as women do since in various areas men are paid less than women are, even in male dominated fields.

2. Pharhis there is a difference between women's rights advocacy and feminism. Feminism is an ideology whereas I have no problem with women rights advocacy. It's just your specific focus. It doesn't necessitate you are looking for special treatment for one sex.

 

[therival58]

I think the good-faith argument among feminists goes something like this:

Our society is so male-dominated, so replete with Male Privilege, that in order for women to gain an equal voice, we must first silence men for a time. In order for women to gain an equal standing, we must first erase men for a time.

Only after women have gained all the privileges to which they are entitled, can we afford to allow men to have--not the overabundant Male Privilege they previously enjoyed--but rather just the same privilege that women enjoy.

That is true equality, and women can only get there if men get out of the way for a while. Any man who refuses to get out of the way, any man who objects to being silenced, any man who objects to being erased, is by definition against equality for women. Obviously such men are horrible douchebags, and are exactly the reason that men need to be silenced and erased.

And since equality is not yet achieved, any example of women enjoying more privilege than men, or infringing on the rights of men, is not a problem with feminism, but rather just a step in the right direction. The sooner men stop complaining about these examples and start getting out of the way, the sooner the march to equality can be completed and the sooner men can get some (but not too much!) privilege back.

Question is, what will that equality look like, and once its achieved, how can we guarantee women will allow men to have the same equal privileges as women? The might enjoy their status and not want things to equalize.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Much the same concern is raised in regards to the proportion of women in politics and in the corporate boardrooms. As near as I can tell, it seems to boil down to this: since 50% of the population is female, then one should expect to see about 50% of STEM, politicians, and corporate board members also being women. (The corollary of that would be to expect about 50% of elementary school teachers and nurses to be men.)

There should be lots of corollaries. HR departments, plumbers, auto mechanics, etc. As I mentioned before, it seems like very few occupations have an even split.

 

[catsmate]

THe MRM might have a point here or there..particulary in regards to child custody battles,where the courts still often have a heavy bias toward the mother,but for the most part the MRM's is not about Male Equality,but about putting women back in their place.

Exactly.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

This just sounds the same to me. Preference of one movement over another. Personally, I don't really like either label, but it seems weird to prefer one over another as THE movement to accomplish removing inequality because it just seems like it's gender-focused.

It is gender-focused, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Women are interested in women's issues first; men are interested in men's issues first. It's only natural to be concerned about the issues that affect your group the most. Where it becomes a problem is when one side sees the other as an enemy, and that is (unfortunately) the situation between feminists and MRAs. (Personally, I would love to see a moderated debate between the two sides.) Interestingly, Emma Watson gave an amazing speech at the UN where she addressed some men's rights issues. She received cheers, because she was a woman and she spoke about it in a feminist context. If it was a male MRA saying these things, though, he'd get flamed to Hell and back.

 

[Edx]

Axiom, Emma Watson gave a terrible speech and is case in point for the problems feminism has. She made the same false wage gap claims about women being paid less because they are female, and while she did mention some male issues she ended her talk saying what we need to do is have MEN commit to help women. The organisation she endorses is called HE for SHE yet she acts like feminism is about helping both genders. It's like a domestic violence organisations saying they care about male victims and that what we need to do is get men to commit to not abusing women and stand up for women they see being abused. The organisation isn't even saying women should help women, it's feminisms "accidental" demand for chivalry, men need to fix it, and to do that they need to help women. Male problems will be solved when men fix all of women's issues apparently. To the kind of feminists Emma Watson represents this is what they see as gender equality, helping women. They don't understand what equality really looks like, and if you describe what actual equality would be (not what they feel) they really don't like it.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Axiom, Emma Watson gave a terrible speech and is case in point for the problems feminism has.

You might disagree with the content of the speech, but rhetorically it was great. She was masterful at getting the audience's sympathy. It was quite moving.

She made the same false wage gap claims about women being paid less because they are female,

How are the claims false? Are women not paid less than men?

They don't understand what equality really looks like, and if you describe what actual equality would be (not what they feel) they really don't like it.

What would actual equality look like?

 

[Corsair 115]

How are the claims false? Are women not paid less than men?

According to a complete transcript of her speech found here, this is what she said:

Because the reality is that if we do nothing, it will take seventy-five years, or for me to be nearly 100, before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work.

The above is a vague statement; it offers no framework nor details, and these matter very much in terms of being able to assess its veracity. In the U.S. and other western countries, for example, paying a woman less for the same work is illegal, and has been for many years. The statement also tends to get made interchangeably with the statement that women (in the U.S.) are paid 77 cents for each dollar a man earns (often with the added enhancement of 'for the same work').

 

[Edx]

You might disagree with the content of the speech, but rhetorically it was great. She was masterful at getting the audience's sympathy. It was quite moving.

So? Hitler gave great speeches too, preachers can be quite moving and often get a great reaction from their audiences, conspiracy theorists can be quite competent and successful in spinning a false narrative. I'm not sure being good at selling propaganda is something I should be impressed with when it comes to asking if something someone is saying is true or not.

How are the claims false? Are women not paid less than men?

No they aren't paid less, if anything we actually have affirmative action causing many women to be paid more, even in male dominated industries. Single women under 30 working full time earn more on average than men do, even 20% more in some areas (probably more by now).

The general claim of the wage gap is comparing all earnings of men and women, this shows that men on average earn more than women. This is comparing the earnings of cleaners to oil rig workers, 18 year olds working in McDonalds to investment bankers, ushers in theatres to plastic surgeons. Using these statistics they claim women are discriminated against and we need legislative action to force employers to pay men and women equally for the same work. Another way to look at it, they are asking why an 18 year old working in Mcdonalds earns less than a plastic surgeon or investment banker. Do you see the problem yet? They will argue this is why we need "equal pay day" to highlight how many days women have to work "for free" compared to men. This is an embarrassing lie yet so widely believed and so widely promoted it's amazing it just won't die. Obama and Hilary both talk about the wage gap like this, but of course you compare the wages of their staff and men are still earning more on average than the female staff. That's because they aren't getting paid less for the same work.

When you point out that it's not comparing the same work and no legislative action could equalise the statistics they use unless they advocate paying women more for less work or unequal work, they will start moving goal posts and saying that women are being pressured or brainwashed to behave in ways that lead to them earning less money. There is a fair discussion to have but feminists would rather use false and misleading claims for emotional emphasis, because apparently the truth isn't good enough.

What would actual equality look like?

Depends what the subject is, that's a very broad topic. If we are talking about debating a feminist on how we treat rape in society, when I explain what treating things equally (for men and women) would look like they find it abhorrent. Their view of things like how we should deal with rape literally demands we give women special treatment, and doesn't have the ability to treat it equally without them becoming the "rape apologists" and "victim blamers" themselves. It's always a shock because they have never considered what it would actually entail.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The above is a vague statement; it offers no framework nor details, and these matter very much in terms of being able to assess its veracity. In the U.S. and other western countries, for example, paying a woman less for the same work is illegal, and has been for many years.

It depends on the work. If it's something like working at McDonald's or Target, where there's a fixed wage for a certain type of job, then yes, I can believe that women make the same wage as men. If there was inequality there, it'd be so disgustingly obvious that it would be fixed immediately. Other types of work, such as desk jobs, have variable salaries, though. I could be making $30,000 a year, while the person in the cubicle next to me makes $35,000 a year for doing the same job, because they were better at negotiating their salary. I remember reading a study somewhere that said the reason for the inequality there is because women are less likely to ask for raises than men are. Women are just less assertive in the workplace overall, so they get overlooked for promotions and pay raises.

So, should women be taught to be more assertive? Sure! I don't know how to do that, though. It would probably be better to educate management. I'm pretty shy and withdrawn myself, especially in the workplace. It can be very difficult to get your ideas across during a meeting. I've even heard female friends complain about proposing an idea and being ignored...only to have a male co-worker take their idea and run with it and then get all the credit! Managers need to listen to all voices, not just the loud alpha types.

So? Hitler gave great speeches too,

Second page, and we have Godwin already? Daaaaaammnn.

Depends what the subject is, that's a very broad topic. If we are talking about debating a feminist on how we treat rape in society, when I explain what treating things equally (for men and women) would look like they find it abhorrent. Their view of things like how we should deal with rape literally demands we give women special treatment, and doesn't have the ability to treat it equally without them becoming the "rape apologists" and "victim blamers" themselves. It always a shock because they have never considered what it would actually entail.

Rape is an absurdly complicated topic, due to sex-negative culture, gender politics, and the fact that it's a very emotional topic. Most people don't even know what rape is. They think it's just some masked guy jumping out of bush holding a knife. It's not.

Hell, 50-60 years ago, struggling and fighting was considered a normal part of love-making.

 

[Edx]

Wow that's the only response I get?

Also Godwin's law isn't a fallacy, and if you notice I gave other analogies. You just defended Watson by arguing how emotive her message was and how well received the audience was to her speech is relevant to whether what she is saying is true or not.

And are you ready to accept that Watsons claims about the wage gap are false? Go look at the quote Corsair posted then reread that part of my post. It's just false, there's no other way to represent it. Now she is probably just ignorent rather than lying, having never questioned the rhetoric from other feminists, but it doesn't take a genius to know better than to claim an organisation that wants men to commit to helping women is not what gender equality looks like. If you're going to give an example of a feminist that genuinely wants real equality Emma Watson is demonstrably not one you want to be using.

 

[Arcade22]

The argument goes that because feminism is for gender equality (I'll accept this as a majority view for the sake of argument - I believe it is probably true but I don't actually know), that the Men's Rights Movement is unnecessary.

The problem with that although feminist may honestly be in favor of what they call "gender equality" many of them have quite insane and illiberal ideas of how they are going to achieve that.

Depending on the "feminists" in question they might be in favor of policies such as:

• Banning all production, sale, possession and watching of pornography. Likewise all stripclubs should be banned as should prostitution as it's a form of violence against women perpetrated by men through slavery and abuse.
• Forcing corporations and companies to hire 50% men and women. This includes forcing corporations to make the board of the companies be made up of at least 50% women or some-other percentage.
• Force universities and places of higher education to equalize the enrollment of both males and females to make "unequal" programs more "equal" by reducing the requirements for women or men depending on which gender is over-represented.
• Banning any and all forms of media that "objectify" women and "sexualizes" them. Likewise any and all media that shows women in "traditional roles" is unacceptable and should be banned or at least boycotted.

Again that might seem like something only deranged extremists with no influence would argue for but just take a look at where feminist nutjubs have gotten into actual power and they have a tendency to enact such policies. Freedom and autonomy is simply of no value to those feminists and just something to be stamped while marching towards the their utopia.

Edit: on the prostitution part it should be noted that by "banning prostitution" it doesn't mean legally punish women for prostituting themselves (feminist largely ignore male prostitutes and sex workers when they take the role of "female victim") rather it's a part of legally punishing people for purchasing sex from prostitutes, running brothels and pimping. Again, to many feminists the "prostitutes" are all actually victims of harm, abuse and "exploitation". Even if they prostituted themselves completely freely, without any direct outside influence and harm, they are still "victims of patriarchal society structures that turn women into sexual objects that are to be used by men".