International Men's Day is apparently controversial

[marplots]

They claim to be about equality, but they show themselves to be otherwise.

If you'll forgive Orwellness....
They think that some people are more equal than others

Their group claims to be about equality, but only for a certain group. Let me re-post part of the quote again for clarity:

There is no mention of "women" in the committee's name, but for equality. Yet they wish to focus just on women. This is re-enforced by my point that they feel that issues like getting women into more senior positions is more important than male suicide, even though York is particularly effected by this.

And of course there is more to equality than just between men and women, but these two issues are both in the links relating to the story, and so are there for comparison.

Your first link had several quotes explaining their position. They did not express it as "all or none" but as a ranked situation. I got the impression they felt that discrimination, especially structural discrimination - keyword "patriarchy" - was the worst problem on the list, not the only problem.

But it's not my organization, so I feel no particular onus to defend every jot and tittle of their screed. Is it your position that all gender discrimination issues should be set aside until we solve the disparity in male suicide rates?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yep, heaven forbid I didn't use PC language. My bad for being lazy.

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'PC Language' you said all men should take a pay cut to achieve equality, that is simply wrong. A simple 'Sorry, I should have said many instead of all' would have put the matter to rest rather than refering to the people who pointed out that what you posted was factually wrong as 'pedantically ludicrous'. You wouldn't accept that second rate dodge from people you were arguing against.

 

[wobs]

Is it your position that all gender discrimination issues should be set aside until we solve the disparity in male suicide rates?

No, I was just making the comparison as the two issues were raised in the links in relation to the subject of the OP. I see the issue male suicide rather more pressing than getting more women into senior positions. There are other issues in this world as well, but they were not mentioned in the links.

Do you feel that getting more women into senior positions is more important than male suicide?

 

[wobs]

The asterisked items all have the same root cause: that childcare still falls mainly on women and not their husbands. It's easier for a man with a wife and children to work longer hours, commute further, work offshore, etc when it's his wife who's taking the kids to daycare, arranging her hours to be home when school gets out, taking the kids to the doctor, etc.

If there were better options for childcare for working parents (of either sex) it would go a very long way to fixing workplace inequality. In an ideal world, people would earn enough that one parent could actually stay home with the kids until they hit school age but that died out when salaries stagnated decades ago--mine is the likely the last generation where stay-at-home moms was the norm. (Barring a Bernie Sanders democratic socialism revolution, of course.)

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook442pdf.pdf
References this study
http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/...ehind-calls-for-further-equality-legislation/
In which Hakim states:

Nordic women benefit from substantial family-friendly pronatalist
policies, but the effect of these is to impede equality
with men in the labour market, in terms of access to the top
jobs, occupations with authority, or higher pay. This is finally
being admitted by academics, even in Scandinavia, and is
regularly confirmed by European Commission reports on
gender equality. The countries with the lowest pay gaps are Italy
(4.4%), Poland (7.5%), Portugal (8.3%) and Belgium (9.1%). The
largest gaps are in Slovakia and Estonia (26% and 30%). But
Finland (21%) and Sweden (17%) are entirely average.31

Surely we should respect women's choices, and celebrate our differences.

 

[Damien Evans]

meh, men dont need a "day".

Cos you know what? We suck it down and get on with it anyway. Who cares if a significant portion of young males suicide? They just need the harden up. Stop ya whining ya great poofs. Get back to work!

This is what we do, and is the reason why we are the superior sex.

For some reason I picture you wearing khaki and an Akubra while writing that.

 

[marplots]

No, I was just making the comparison as the two issues were raised in the links in relation to the subject of the OP. I see the issue male suicide rather more pressing than getting more women into senior positions. There are other issues in this world as well, but they were not mentioned in the links.

Do you feel that getting more women into senior positions is more important than male suicide?

I have no basis to choose. For example, if male suicide is the result of, and caused by, gender-specific discrimination, then I'd certainly think it rates higher. But without showing that, the issues are not obviously connected. It could be that the higher rates are because women aren't promoted as quickly as men and men are under more pressure because of it. It's possible that solving one issue will solve the other. I can't tell. It may even be that suicide rates are like lifespans, where women enjoy a biological advantage over men. In that case, it's hard to imagine what a solution might be.

And I can't think of a scale they'd both fit on, except maybe emotional outrage, which I'm no good at anyhow. How might we pull out male suicide from overall suicide? A clearer position might be to lessen overall suicide instead of separating out men.

However, this does bring up an interesting point. Should we be more focused on outcome equality (suicide and wages) or on equality of opportunity? As far as I can tell, there is no easy answer to this question.

 

[wobs]

I have no basis to choose. For example, if male suicide is the result of, and caused by, gender-specific discrimination, then I'd certainly think it rates higher. But without showing that, the issues are not obviously connected. It could be that the higher rates are because women aren't promoted as quickly as men and men are under more pressure because of it. It's possible that solving one issue will solve the other. I can't tell. It may even be that suicide rates are like lifespans, where women enjoy a biological advantage over men. In that case, it's hard to imagine what a solution might be.

And I can't think of a scale they'd both fit on, except maybe emotional outrage, which I'm no good at anyhow. How might we pull out male suicide from overall suicide? A clearer position might be to lessen overall suicide instead of separating out men.

However, this does bring up an interesting point. Should we be more focused on outcome equality (suicide and wages) or on equality of opportunity? As far as I can tell, there is no easy answer to this question.

It is indeed interesting.
Where you have career opportunities and other job related metrics, why should we aim for equal outcomes? While unequal outcomes may warrant investigation to check for things that may need addressing, it is no a reason on its own to apply resources to address it, just because men and women do not enter a job in equal numbers.

With suicide and other health issues, I think it more easy to argue for aiming for a more equal outcome when arranging for where resources should be aimed (we should value everyone equally shouldn't we?). However, the politicisation of health has made this difficult, leading to a disproportionate level going to certain areas of health care (link from 2002):
http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/1029c.html

 

[TomB]

No, I was just making the comparison as the two issues were raised in the links in relation to the subject of the OP. I see the issue male suicide rather more pressing than getting more women into senior positions. There are other issues in this world as well, but they were not mentioned in the links.

Do you feel that getting more women into senior positions is more important than male suicide?

Is it not possible to consider both important and work on both issues separately? Does being concerned about male suicide mean you don't care about employment issues for women?

For activists, there seems to be a lot of "Look at me! Look at me! Look at ME! Don't look over there! If you're looking over there you're not looking at me!"

I understand that to a certain extent. If you are raising money to address x, you are competing for limited resources in the amount that people are willing to contribute. If there's ten dollars available, you don't want to split it with other causes, you want it all to go towards the cause you are advocating for.

Still, I don't see the Muscular Dystrophy Association objecting to efforts of the National Cancer Association.

 

[gregthehammer]

As a man, I don't need a calendar to let me know what day is mine; I wake up in the morning seize the day if I damn well feel like it.




or, I hit snooze and sleep in a little longer.

 

[pharphis]

@above dialogue

See, this is an actual fruitful conversation to have. We can talk about disparities without assuming they are automatically problems. We can talk about how to address disparities that are problems.

This, of course, is not what feminists will allow for. They tend to assume
1) All disparities are problems (when they affect women)
2) If men DO have any problems, it's men's faults (patriarchy)
3) We shouldn't focus on men's issues because they overall have more privilege (by some undefined metric)
4) Talking about men's issues is inherently misogynistic and/or NOT a conversation about equality

 

[Corsair 115]

That's how I take it. The vast majority of men are not rich and powerful. As was mentioned previously, there are many issues which disproportionately affect men.

It seems that feminism, or at least the third-wave incarnation of it, wholly focuses on the men at the top and ignores the vast majority of men who are in the middle or at the bottom.

You can see this in the steady shout for more women in politics, corporate boardrooms, and STEM*. These are all high-status positions; what is rarely, if ever, seen is a shout for more women in low-status or working class/blue collar jobs, many of which can be categorized as 'dangerous, difficult, or dirty.' Gender equality is, apparently, far less important in them.

Here is what is rarely, if ever, said:

We need more women as crane and tower operators! (99.8% maie)
We need more women bus and truck mechanics and as diesel engine specialists! (99.7% male)
We need more women in roofing! (99.5% male)
We need more women as brickmasons, blockmasons, and stone masons! (99.3% male)
We need more women as heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers! (98.8% male)
We need more women in tool and die making! (98.7% male)
We need more women in mining machine operation! (98.5% male)
We need more women as pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters! (98.4% male)
We need more women as structural iron and steel workers! (98.0% male)
We need more women in electrical power-line installation and repair! (97.0% male)
We need more women in pest control! (96.3% male)
We need more women in water and wastewater treatment plant and system operation! (95.5% male)
We need more women in logging! (94.6% male)
We need more women in refuse and recyclable materials collection! (91.4% male)

Moreover, you also don't see much said about those industries where women currently dominate. So you rarely, if ever, see the following stated:

We need fewer women as speech-language pathologists! (98.4% female)
We need fewer women in preschool and kindergarten teaching! (97.2% female)
We need fewer women in childcare! (95.5% female)
We need fewer women as dietitians and nutritionists! (92.4% female)
We need fewer women as nurse practitioners! (91.5% female)
We need fewer women as teaching assistants! (90.3% female)
We need fewer women as bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks! (90.2% female)
We need fewer women as paralegals and legal assistants! (87.3% female)
We need fewer women as librarians! (84.8% female)

And so on, for both lists. (The data for the above lists is from the US Department of Labor for 2014. Here's the PDF for 'nontraditional (male-dominated) occupations, and here's the PDF for 'traditional (female-dominated) occupations.)


*A further complication with STEM jobs is that at the same time there is a rallying cry for more women in STEM, one can find numerous articles which paint STEM as an environment filled with sexism and misogyny. Such 'scare' articles only dissuade women from entering STEM fields, thus perpetuating the supposed problem and the consequent cries to solve it.

The asterisked items all have the same root cause: that childcare still falls mainly on women and not their husbands.

What your analysis leaves out is a very important question: how many of those women taking the primary childcare role want that role?

 

[pharphis]

What your analysis leaves out is a very important question: how many of those women taking the primary childcare role want that role?

If they do it's only because of internalized misogyny.

To be honest, I think it's a mix of biology and culture and I would never expect 50/50 split in the vast majority (if any) fields. Assuming there's no nuclear war or anything crazy I suspect in a few generations we'll reach some kind of equilibrium and it won't be 50/50

 

[The Big Dog]

You can see this in the steady shout for more women in politics, corporate boardrooms, and STEM*. These are all high-status positions; what is rarely, if ever, seen is a shout for more women in low-status or working class/blue collar jobs, many of which can be categorized as 'dangerous, difficult, or dirty.' Gender equality is, apparently, far less important in them.

Here is what is rarely, if ever, said:

We need more women as crane and tower operators! (99.8% maie)

We need more women in roofing! (99.5% male)
We need more women as brickmasons, blockmasons, and stone masons! (99.3% male)
We need more women as heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers! (98.8% male)

We need more women as pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters! (98.4% male)
We need more women as structural iron and steel workers! (98.0% male)
We need more women in electrical power-line installation and repair! (97.0% male)

I can assure you that the Building Trades are all constantly saying that they need more women in their ranks.

 

[wareyin]

<snip>
We need more women in tool and die making! (98.7% male)
...
We need more women in logging! (94.6% male)<snip>

I am surprised that there is a higher percentage of women who are loggers than women who are tool and die makers. I would have thought that it would be the other way around.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What your analysis leaves out is a very important question: how many of those women taking the primary childcare role want that role?

Are you asking how many working women prefer to juggle work and childcare because they think that's the ideal situation? Or are you asking how many women settle for doing that because they lack better options?

If I give you the choice between cutting off your own hand or cutting off your own leg, can I then announce to the world about how you wanted to do whichever one you did?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'PC Language' you said all men should take a pay cut to achieve equality, that is simply wrong. A simple 'Sorry, I should have said many instead of all' would have put the matter to rest rather than refering to the people who pointed out that what you posted was factually wrong as 'pedantically ludicrous'. You wouldn't accept that second rate dodge from people you were arguing against.

Well I shall flog myself 30 times.

My bad for giving you chip-on-the-shoulder-men a semantic sidetrack, nitpicking something I've already said I didn't mean literally.

How about addressing the actual issues instead of a gotcha misstatement?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you miss the part where I said I thought wage disparities disappeared when seniority and hours worked were accounted for?

Bull!

We all know how those stats are manipulated to make that case. But I personally experienced how nurses were underpaid for decades, and saw the change when we finally got some pay equity, but there is still a gap, it's just smaller. The Sony Picture email leak showed women were being seriously underpaid in the movie industry. The Lilly Ledbetter case alone disproves your claim.

 

[wareyin]

Bull!

We all know how those stats are manipulated to make that case. But I personally experienced how nurses were underpaid for decades, and saw the change when we finally got some pay equity, but there is still a gap, it's just smaller. The Sony Picture email leak showed women were being seriously underpaid in the movie industry. The Lilly Ledbetter case alone disproves your claim.

Are you claiming that male nurses earned more than female nurses with equal experience working equal hours?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Id be extremely interested in examples where men were doing the same role/hours at the same seniority, and were getting paid significantly more than women.

See the Sony email leak re Jennifer Lawrence's pay.

Read the Lilly Ledbetter case.

Look at how Group Health in Seattle pays nurse practitioners less doing the same job as physician's assistants despite the fact the NPs have more education and greater scope of practice than PAs. The NPs are classified in the nursing department while the PAs are classified in the medical department.

As an NP I have full independent practice authority. A PA can only work under supervision of an MD.

I did hear that there's an issue when salaries are fully deregulated (in private businesses), as men seem to negotiate harder than women. Im not sure whether that leads to a significant (5%) gap though.

Right, blame the victims. We just aren't skilled enough, shame on us.

 

[Belz...]

We all know how those stats are manipulated to make that case.

No, we don't all know this. Please don't assume that we all secretly share the same mind, and that anyone who disagrees with you is, consequently, dishonest.