"Why can't we hate men?"

[Graham2001]

An interesting counter article from an evangelical Christian, I think his last point is the most telling
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/06/is-it-okay-to-hate-men/

I just found a video by a Non-Cis white male discussing both the article I linked to above and the article in the Op. He makes some very interesting points of his own.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_NgEguvEiI

 

[3point14]

"women are likely to get pregnant and need to take too much time off, and we need someone more likely to stick around for the long term".

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but isn't this, er, true?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't perceive its relevance. And I am sharp-eyed enough to notice that you don't state that

Multimillionaire men and multimillionaire women have more in common than multimillionaire men and poor men​

but that

Multimillionaire men and multimillionaire women have more interests in common than multimillionaire men and poor men​

Gender is not solely an "interest", as it entails significant specific physical attributes, while perhaps social class is more an "interest". At all events the inclusion of that word renders your comparison incomprehensible.

You haven't been paying attention, then. This is how the issue came up:

As noted, men as a group benefit from sexism, in ways both blatant and subtle, which varies depending on individual and circumstance; but the benefit is still there. Just like white people benefit from a long history of subjugation of non-white ethnicities to varying degrees.

And the call for men to step out of the run for power is... misguided, because that will only leave unsupportive men running for power; but she is right that more women need to be in power. Political power worldwide is held by men to a wildly disproportionate degree, even in the developed world. More women do need to be in power. I mean, when you have a government committee making decisions about women's health programs composed exclusively of men, without a single woman giving their input, and all conservative men at that, that's indicative of a much deeper, systemic problem with the government and culture.

The theory is that men having political power will tend to benefit all men, at the expense of all women. But that's really not true. To the extent that politicians act for the benefit of their own groups over others, rich men wielding political power will use that power for the benefit of rich women, not poor men. Regardless of their common properties, the interests of rich men and rich women diverge. The use of the word "interest" doesn't undermine my point, it is at the very heart of any correct understanding of political power.

 

[Ziggurat]

If there are not enough women running for office, then yes, you're going to see women voting for men simply because there are no other choices.

How do you decide what counts as "enough"? For what purpose?

If your purpose is just to get proportional representation in office, well, that's not a very productive purpose.

Saying that "well, women aren't elected because women aren't running" is an evasion,

I didn't say that. I said choice is a factor one must consider.

an attempt to isolate the problem, treat it as if it were happening in a vacuum, rather than understand the complex cultural problems that actively discourage women from running for office

If that's the reason that fewer women are running for office, then that is a problem. But how much of a factor is that now? Not in the past, but today. I don't dispute that it may be a factor, but how big, quantitatively? How do you know it's that big? And supposing we eliminated it, do you think that equal numbers of women would run for office?

Gerrymandering is commonplace. Many states are still closing polling stations in minority districts, restricting hours at polling stations, and adding additional restrictions such as voter ID laws designed to suppress minority voters.

None of those things are gender issues.

 

[Craig B]

You haven't been paying attention, then. This is how the issue came up:



The theory is that men having political power will tend to benefit all men, at the expense of all women. But that's really not true. To the extent that politicians act for the benefit of their own groups over others, rich men wielding political power will use that power for the benefit of rich women, not poor men. Regardless of their common properties, the interests of rich men and rich women diverge. The use of the word "interest" doesn't undermine my point, it is at the very heart of any correct understanding of political power.

Now you've added another obfuscatory qualification

To the extent that politicians act for the benefit of their own groups over others​

so I'll leave you to meditate on that topic to your heart's content.

 

[Sabrina]

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but isn't this, er, true?

Not so much anymore. Perhaps when women were first joining the corporate workforce it might have been, but increasingly women are the breadwinners in the family, or are single moms who, while they might have had to take maternity leave, fully intend to be back to work not long after their child is born. The notion that women will get pregnant and permanently leave the workforce as a result is not really an issue any longer. Yes, women may still get pregnant and will have to take maternity leave, but it's not a permanent thing, and most companies have workarounds in place or plan well ahead to be able to deal with a prolonged absence of a worker for whatever reason. It's hardly different from someone who has to take time off for an intensive surgical procedure of some kind; they certainly intend to return to work once they're recovered, and there's no objections to that sort of thing from most sane workplaces, so why should women getting pregnant and then coming back to work be a huge issue?

 

[Fudbucker]

If there are not enough women running for office, then yes, you're going to see women voting for men simply because there are no other choices.

Saying that "well, women aren't elected because women aren't running" is an evasion, an attempt to isolate the problem, treat it as if it were happening in a vacuum, rather than understand the complex cultural problems that actively discourage women from running for office, that penalize and punish those who do in ways subtle and not-so-subtle, and the fact that until very recently women in politics were not taken seriously by the the overwhelming majority of the system, were treated as outsiders and ignored.

Within living memory, there was a time when the political population of this country were almost exclusively straight cisgendered Christian white men. Women and minority politicians were notable for their rarity. To say that that's because women and minorities were just not running for office is to engage in ignorance of history bordering on revisionism. It ignores the constant, ongoing efforts made by the mainstream political machine to prevent women and minorities from running for office. It ignored decades of attempts to suppress minority votes through restrictive and discriminatory laws and regulations, and practices such as gerrymandering or closing of polling stations in minority communities. It also ignores illegal attempts to suppress women and minority voters with disinformation regarding polling and regulations, voter intimidation tactics, and outright harassment and assault.

Candidates who were women or minorities, or who openly supported women and minorities, could face similar tactics. And those who persevered and pushed through all the legal roadblocks could find themselves also the subject of disinformation and harassment campaigns. If they still managed to persevere, they could be assaulted or outright murdered by police. Look at what happened to the Black Panther Party, for one example of many.

And all these things exist to this day. Maybe not to the same extremes as they did in the 1950s and 1960s, but are still very much a problem. Gerrymandering is commonplace. Many states are still closing polling stations in minority districts, restricting hours at polling stations, and adding additional restrictions such as voter ID laws designed to suppress minority voters. The now-conservative-leaning US Supreme Court just ruled in favour of a state that is in the process of purging voter roles of minority voters. In the last presidential election, GOP campaign organizations and supporters sent out mailers and phone calls to minority voters with erroneous information on polling locations and times. Police showed up at polling locations to intimidate minority voters under the pretense of "preventing disturbances".

Minority politicians are still routinely harassed and dismissed by their colleagues. Many receive death threats. Women in politics are still subject to sexual harassment.

The barriers to entry for women and minorities in American politics are huge, in some cases nearly insurmountable. And they're going to remain that way for the near future. Parties in power are always reluctant to give up that power, and the current administration has made it quite clear the depths to which they will sink to preserve their power against any challenges.

Perhaps the existence of a tax-payer funded sexual harassment payoff fund in Congress is a hint that women aren't welcome? Is that still a thing, or did they finally change it? What about the onerous procedures women had to go through to report sexual harassment? Are those still on the books?

 

[Fudbucker]

Well, forced quotas can't be the answer. I think Sabrina was onto something with her last post. The next generations need to be educated to see certain things differently. Once somebody's well into adulthood with a particular set of beliefs and paradigms, trying to change those paradigms is frequently a lost cause.

Here's a VERY minor example. My dad still calls things "unladylike" sometimes. I've told him it kind of pisses me off when he says it to me, and he can't even wrap his mind around why that might be. I try and explain, but he doesn't get it. He looks at me like I'm speaking an alien language. He's got no issues with women, he's just old-fashioned as hell. And he's in his seventies. There's no point in digging my heels in about it.

However, should I ever have a son of my own, I would not encourage him to conceptualize "unladylike" as a thing. "Unmanly" either. These are, in my opinion, loaded and antiquated judgments. They don't have much place in a more equal world.

I hope that made sense. I've got a fever.

When discrimination of minorities became intolerable, we passed legislation that forced businesses to serve everyone, regardless of race.

So there's precedent for forcing change down peoples' throats.

 

[Sabrina]

When discrimination of minorities became intolerable, we passed legislation that forced businesses to serve everyone, regardless of race.

So there's precedent for forcing change down peoples' throats.

And yet we still have people refusing to serve individuals because of their discrimination against a minority (see the Colorado baker case). Legislation isn't always the be-all, end-all solution. We have to start teaching the next generation to treat everyone equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other qualification you could name. Then, and only then, will the legislation actually work unequivocally.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now you've added another obfuscatory qualification

To the extent that politicians act for the benefit of their own groups over others​

so I'll leave you to meditate on that topic to your heart's content.

That was the subject to begin with. The fact that you needed clarification on what we were talking about is not obfuscation on my part.

 

[Fudbucker]

I just found a video by a Non-Cis white male discussing both the article I linked to above and the article in the Op. He makes some very interesting points of his own.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_NgEguvEiI

Good read. This is what I mean when I said "we men":

"First, female anger toward men is understandable; if I were a woman I would be extremely angry that I cannot just go anywhere, anytime, even in a “safe neighborhood” at night, without worrying about being attacked. I would be extremely angry that I cannot go on a date without being afraid of being raped. The whole situation of valid female fear for safety does justify anger and men should be angry for women and should get involved in making sure women are safe and their attackers punished. I am angry for women and I ought to do more for them. All men should be involved in promoting safety for women."

Just being a nice guy who doesn't mistreat women isn't enough. We have to step up and change the misogynistic culture that exists. One of the things men can do is make misogyny a deal-breaker in a friendship, if it already isn't.

 

[Fudbucker]

And yet we still have people refusing to serve individuals because of their discrimination against a minority (see the Colorado baker case). Legislation isn't always the be-all, end-all solution. We have to start teaching the next generation to treat everyone equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other qualification you could name. Then, and only then, will the legislation actually work unequivocally.

I totally agree. And things are moving in the right direction. If I were running things, I wouldn't implement quotas. I would hope present trends continue. I would do what you're suggesting.

 

[Ziggurat]

We have to start teaching the next generation to treat everyone equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other qualification you could name.

I hope you didn't understand the full implications of what you just said. Why on earth would you treat everyone the same? You most definitely should NOT do that. You should absolutely treat people differently, because to not do so would be a disaster. For example, you should not hire pedophiles as babysitters. You should not hire blind people to fly airplanes. You should not get brain surgery from someone with an IQ of 70.

It is reasonable to ask that people not be judged on qualities that aren't relevant to the issue at hand, which I suspect is the point you intended. But it's not what you said. There will never come a time when there won't be relevant differences between people. The difficulty is that there is no universal agreement about what differences are or are not relevant. And it isn't just social conservatives who judge too broadly.

 

[pharphis]

Good read. This is what I mean when I said "we men":

"First, female anger toward men is understandable; if I were a woman I would be extremely angry that I cannot just go anywhere, anytime, even in a “safe neighborhood” at night, without worrying about being attacked. I would be extremely angry that I cannot go on a date without being afraid of being raped. The whole situation of valid female fear for safety does justify anger and men should be angry for women and should get involved in making sure women are safe and their attackers punished. I am angry for women and I ought to do more for them. All men should be involved in promoting safety for women."

Just being a nice guy who doesn't mistreat women isn't enough. We have to step up and change the misogynistic culture that exists. One of the things men can do is make misogyny a deal-breaker in a friendship, if it already isn't.

Well this is the problem isn't it. Unwarranted fear. Men are more likely to be victims of random violence or violence in general. I myself was jumped in broad daylight and kicked on the ground next the a major road while my GF was beside me. They left her untouched.

So men have a higher risk of being the victims of violence, and yet it's a "women's issue" that women are more afraid than men are. Either the women have been mislead or are hyper sensitive, or perhaps the men are far too stoic if they are at greater risk but still not petrified and even buy into the myth that women are at great risk when alone at night, relative to men.

 

[Fudbucker]

Well this is the problem isn't it. Unwarranted fear. Men are more likely to be victims of random violence or violence in general. I myself was jumped in broad daylight and kicked on the ground next the a major road while my GF was beside me. They left her untouched.

So men have a higher risk of being the victims of violence, and yet it's a "women's issue" that women are more afraid than men are. Either the women have been mislead or are hyper sensitive, or perhaps the men are far too stoic if they are at greater risk but still not petrified and even buy into the myth that women are at great risk when alone at night, relative to men.

Do you think the fact that men are violent to each other somehow excuses the violence we do to women? Don't worry your pretty little head, darlin. We do bad things to each other too. It's all good.

How many men are raped by women each year? How many women are raped by men? And robbed, beaten, murdered, etc. by men? Men commit the vast majority of crime. Do you not see how this is a problem we men have to address? Why do we commit so many more crimes than women?

 

[Sabrina]

Well this is the problem isn't it. Unwarranted fear. Men are more likely to be victims of random violence or violence in general. I myself was jumped in broad daylight and kicked on the ground next the a major road while my GF was beside me. They left her untouched.

So men have a higher risk of being the victims of violence, and yet it's a "women's issue" that women are more afraid than men are. Either the women have been mislead or are hyper sensitive, or perhaps the men are far too stoic if they are at greater risk but still not petrified and even buy into the myth that women are at great risk when alone at night, relative to men.

I think the issue at hand has little to do with generalized violence and more to do with sexual assault, which, you have to admit, women are much more likely to suffer. Then too, as Fudbucker said, men in general commit more violent crimes than women do, regardless of the gender its perpetrated against. Women are also more likely to be harassed sexually, both in public (catcalling, making obscene gestures or suggestions, and the like) and on the job, and THAT is what the person you quoted is referring to when saying women cannot go anywhere, anytime, in a so-called "safe" neighborhood without fear of being "attacked". "Attacked", in this case, doesn't necessarily refer to being jumped and beaten up; it refers to sexual harassment, assault, and rape. I know I personally do not feel safe walking alone at night; heck, I didn't feel safe walking alone at night when I was on a military base in both the US and in Kuwait, given the prevalence of women being attacked and sexually assaulted. The point isn't violence alone; it's the sexual violence women are much more likely than men to suffer. That's not to say men don't suffer it; the number of men who have been sexually assaulted or raped is scary, but it pales in comparison to the number of women. I think the most recent statistic I heard was that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, but that may have changed; I don't know for sure.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you think the fact that men are violent to each other somehow excuses the violence we do to women?

Are you violent towards women? If not, then why are you using the word "we"?

And that wasn't offered as an excuse. It was offered for perspective. Risk levels are what they are regardless of who is to blame.

Men commit the vast majority of crime. Do you not see how this is a problem we men have to address?

Men are addressing the problem. They make up the majority of police, and men are incarcerated far more than women. Even for the same crimes, men receive greater punishment than women. That's actually unfair to men, isn't it?

 

[theprestige]

These are undemocratic solutions, but can a nation really call itself "democratic" when 51% of the population has only 20% of the seats in Congress? And has never been president? And are underrepresented in the judiciary?

What about when 49% of the population is overrepresented among the homeless, and in the prisons, and in workplace accidents? Is that a problem?

 

[Craig B]

I think the issue at hand has little to do with generalized violence and more to do with sexual assault, which, you have to admit, women are much more likely to suffer. Then too, as Fudbucker said, men in general commit more violent crimes than women do, regardless of the gender its perpetrated against. Women are also more likely to be harassed sexually, both in public (catcalling, making obscene gestures or suggestions, and the like) and on the job, and THAT is what the person you quoted is referring to when saying women cannot go anywhere, anytime, in a so-called "safe" neighborhood without fear of being "attacked". "Attacked", in this case, doesn't necessarily refer to being jumped and beaten up; it refers to sexual harassment, assault, and rape. I know I personally do not feel safe walking alone at night; heck, I didn't feel safe walking alone at night when I was on a military base in both the US and in Kuwait, given the prevalence of women being attacked and sexually assaulted. The point isn't violence alone; it's the sexual violence women are much more likely than men to suffer. That's not to say men don't suffer it; the number of men who have been sexually assaulted or raped is scary, but it pales in comparison to the number of women. I think the most recent statistic I heard was that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, but that may have changed; I don't know for sure.

All of that is true, but does this reaction to it make sense?

Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.​

 

[pharphis]

Do you think the fact that men are violent to each other somehow excuses the violence we do to women? Don't worry your pretty little head, darlin. We do bad things to each other too. It's all good.

How many men are raped by women each year? How many women are raped by men? And robbed, beaten, murdered, etc. by men? Men commit the vast majority of crime. Do you not see how this is a problem we men have to address? Why do we commit so many more crimes than women?

I feel like you didn't read my post.