• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

I find that article's conclusion much too extreme to take it seriously. "Men should help by stepping away, not running for office, we got this, blah blah blah." That's not equality.

Equality is more like everyone doing what they want to do in life and going about their business without gender being a significant factor in those choices. Be a lawyer, run for office, be a stay-at-home parent, join the military. Whatever you like.

I get that the author was probably trying to make a rhetorical point more than anything, but I found it ineffective and irritating.

And needless to say, I don't hate men at all, nor do I blame an entire gender for the outlandishly bad behavior of some members. So while I do think some men need a serious attitude adjustment when it comes to women and sex, I can't understand getting from that sentiment to "why can't we hate men." Why would we want to? It's just senseless.

Terrible tone, arguments weakened by (rather ironic) sexism - 2/5.
 
erlando said:
Because hatred is irrational and counterproductive. Hatred digs trenches where bridges could be built.



A radical feminist telling men to take charge of nothing... So she's quite fine with deadbeat fathers? I don't really think "she has this".

I recognize that women have been and are treated unfairly. But I refuse to take blame for all problems women face just on the basis of my gender.

The author quite clearly wants men to atone for the sins of past men. That is radical feminism in a nutshell. Men must suffer.
Click to expand...

If a group holds all the levers of power in a country (as men currently do), then some men are going to suffer if we carve out a spot for women at the table. I would not be opposed to a law that guaranteed women at least 40% of the seats in Congress. They are over half the population and about 20% of Congress, and 5% of fortune 500 CEO's. It was only 100 years ago women were allowed to vote. That's shameful. We men have a lot to atone for.
 
Fudbucker said:
If a group holds all the levers of power in a country (as men currently do), then some men are going to suffer if we carve out a spot for women at the table. I would not be opposed to a law that guaranteed women at least 40% of the seats in Congress. They are over half the population and about 20% of Congress, and 5% of fortune 500 CEO's. It was only 100 years ago women were allowed to vote. That's shameful. We men have a lot to atone for.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that quota could be enforced without seriously interfering with the democratic voting process. I might not be thinking it all through, but how would that work?
 
Men are raised by mothers. Are women in the mother roles slacking and incompetent and raising their boys to exploit and oppress women?
 
isissxn said:
I don't see how that quota could be enforced without seriously interfering with the democratic voting process. I might not be thinking it all through, but how would that work?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I'm sure it will never happen. One way you could do it is decide how many seats are needed to bring women up to at least 40%, pick districts randomly, and tell the voters of that district that only a woman is going to be seated after the next election. Or you could look at states where the problem is particularly bad and single them out.

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? If you just described such an imbalance of power without referencing the country, or the groups involved, you would probably think something very wrong is going on. We don't see it so much because we're so used to it, but women have very little power in this country. They just recently got the power to speak out about systemic sexual abuse in a way that doesn't ruin their lives.
 
William Parcher said:
Men are raised by mothers. Are women in the mother roles slacking and incompetent and raising their boys to exploit and oppress women?
Click to expand...

In the Evangelical households I've been to? Certainly, that is what's being taught. I had cousins who were hardcore Christians. I heard my uncle tell my dad that his daughter was going to college to get a "Mrs" degree. I was a kid, so of course it had to be explained to me what that meant, but that was the mindset taught to the kids by the mother and father.

Having grown up in this country, the message can be a lot more subtle. For example, when I was going to school, being called a "pussy" or "bitch" (or any female-specific derogatory term) was fightin words. And just being a guy, I know how the conversation changes when the door closes and it's just guys in the room. I work in education. You should hear how we talk about female teachers.
 
Fudbucker said:
If a group holds all the levers of power in a country (as men currently do), then some men are going to suffer if we carve out a spot for women at the table. I would not be opposed to a law that guaranteed women at least 40% of the seats in Congress. They are over half the population and about 20% of Congress, and 5% of fortune 500 CEO's. It was only 100 years ago women were allowed to vote. That's shameful. We men have a lot to atone for.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is a Poe.
 
William Parcher said:
Men are raised by mothers. Are women in the mother roles slacking and incompetent and raising their boys to exploit and oppress women?
Click to expand...

I believe the term of art for this process is "internalized misogyny" but check with an actual gender studies expert before using it.
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't know. I'm sure it will never happen. One way you could do it is decide how many seats are needed to bring women up to at least 40%, pick districts randomly, and tell the voters of that district that only a woman is going to be seated after the next election. Or you could look at states where the problem is particularly bad and single them out.

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? If you just described such an imbalance of power without referencing the country, or the groups involved, you would probably think something very wrong is going on. We don't see it so much because we're so used to it, but women have very little power in this country. They just recently got the power to speak out about systemic sexual abuse in a way that doesn't ruin their lives.
Click to expand...

How many of the candidates have been women?
 
Graham2001 said:
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/
Click to expand...


The problem with that particular criticism is that the analogy falls apart on examination. Institutional subjugation of women substantially benefits men as a group, even though the benefits to any particular man vary considerably. By contrast, Islamic terrorism does not benefit Muslims as a group, and is actually high divisive and harmful to any Muslim not closely aligned to the terrorist faction.

While I tend to disagree with her overall conclusion, finding that hatred is neither productive nor generally justified when directed at people rather than institutions, I do find she makes some valid points, and while her conclusions are at best unhelpful, her premises are not entirely wrong.

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.
 
It seems like someone’s been given too much attention. If you want to hate any group then feel free, but it is a pretty miserable policy and worthy of nothing more than contempt.
 
luchog said:
The problem with that particular criticism is that the analogy falls apart on examination. Institutional subjugation of women substantially benefits men as a group
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t. This is a lie.
 
I was thinking about the author of this piece and echo chambers. She must really live in one there in the Women's Studies department. Among her academic peers, I'm sure they all agree wholeheartedly that men suck and it's all men's fault. That creates the echo chamber. The fact that outside the bubble everyone hates what she has to say just reinforces her beliefs, because the loudest complainers are men. (Men are like that.)

She needs to get out into reality a bit more.

Has anything good ever come out of a Women's Studies department? I did some quick googling on that sort of question and found a bunch of academics trying to persuade college students that the degree wasn't worthless. They weren't all that convincing, but maybe I entered with bias. My favorite one started out by explaining that if you are fed up with a world where women are underpaid, Women's Studies was the degree for you.

So, if you don't like pay disparity, get a degree in a field where you aren't likely to get a high paying job? The only people who will buy into that philosophy are people who just aren't very smart anyway. In the highly unlikely event that there are any young women reading this, my advice is that if you don't lie a world where women are underpaid, study Medicine, and do something real about the problem, by earning more money. (Engineering is also a good choice. Business? Be careful. There be dragons, but it definitely can result in some good pay.)
 
I've been thinking about the function of hate, especially with respect to out-group members.

Content warning: Anti-Japanese racism
https://goo.gl/images/1eLUb9

My best guess (hypothesis) so far is that hate helps you to get the job done, when the job involves killing a bunch of foreigners or putting a bunch of immigrants in prison camps.

Not sure how this is going to play out for feminism, though.
 
Meadmaker said:
Has anything good ever come out of a Women's Studies department?
Click to expand...
quxfqZO.gif
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't know. I'm sure it will never happen. One way you could do it is decide how many seats are needed to bring women up to at least 40%, pick districts randomly, and tell the voters of that district that only a woman is going to be seated after the next election. Or you could look at states where the problem is particularly bad and single them out.

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? If you just described such an imbalance of power without referencing the country, or the groups involved, you would probably think something very wrong is going on. We don't see it so much because we're so used to it, but women have very little power in this country. They just recently got the power to speak out about systemic sexual abuse in a way that doesn't ruin their lives.
Click to expand...

How many Jews should there be in power?

Once again I think you're falling victim to a combination of the Apex Fallacy (that men in power represent the well-being of men in general, and power of men compared to women) and the empathy gap.

If 0.1% of men have lots of power and influence, but only 0.02% of women do, this is somehow supposed to transfer over to men's and/or women's interests, respectively? Or the access to power in general?
What percentage of the population is homeless? How about splitting that by sex? In jail?

The number of people at the bottom of society vastly outnumber those at the top. In both cases (ie each extreme) it is predominantly men. Which group would you rather be in? The group where you're more likely to be homeless or in jail but have a slightly higher chance of being in a position of power, or the group that is closer to the mean in every way?
 
pharphis said:
How many Jews should there be in power?

Once again I think you're falling victim to a combination of the Apex Fallacy (that men in power represent the well-being of men in general, and power of men compared to women) and the empathy gap.

If 0.1% of men have lots of power and influence, but only 0.02% of women do, this is somehow supposed to transfer over to men's and/or women's interests, respectively? Or the access to power in general?
What percentage of the population is homeless? How about splitting that by sex? In jail?

The number of people at the bottom of society vastly outnumber those at the top. In both cases (ie each extreme) it is predominantly men. Which group would you rather be in? The group where you're more likely to be homeless or in jail but have a slightly higher chance of being in a position of power, or the group that is closer to the mean in every way?
Click to expand...

It's not a question of what group I'd rather be in. Nor is it about making sure every subgroup in society is represented.

Again, if I showed you the stats of a nameless country where a group that makes up 51% of the population is vastly underrepresented in government and business, what would you think about that country? I think you would think the obvious: that country has problems, power is not being shared fairly.

So if that's what's going on here, what are we doing about it and what should we do about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom