"Why can't we hate men?"

[Brainster]

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.

If you really want this, then work on changing the rules of the Democratic Party. It's a hell of a lot easier than changing the Constitution. Simply make a rule that the Democrats will only nominate women for Congress until such time as women make up at least 40% of Congress.

I am certain that the sensitive male politicians in the Democratic party will recognize that it is their duty to step aside as a form of atonement. Think how superior they will feel to the neanderthal Republicans!

 

[Darat]

Those people aren't paid salaries. Their employees are. And that's who works the unlimited hours and gets held responsible for whatever happens to the company (or the part of it that they're in charge of).

That does appear to be what Ziggurat said in the original quote.

From an employer's perspective, that's more burdensome than permanent departure, not less. Someone who's not coming back can be replaced. Someone who is just leaves an unfillable hole in the crew for months at a time. A simple answer to that might be that managers should hire enough people to get by even when some are gone, but then they're paying extra people they don't really need most of the time.

"Surgery" tends to have an implicit sound of urgency and inevitability to it, but the comparison only works for elective surgery.

Nope they were all paid salaries, I was on the renumeration board for one company so can categorically state for that company all the top execs were salaried.

 

[luchog]

It's "nonsense" that we are far more violent and commit far more crimes than our female counterparts? Are you claiming that?

As kind of a tangent, it is, in fact, a little bit nonsense. One of the problems with the "men are violent, women are victims" meme is that so much of the time, much violence by women has been discounted or ignored.

Women committing violent crime against men has generally been treated as a joke, and male victims as contemptible, or not truly victims, by mainstream culture. Or it's been treated as justified regardless of the actual circumstances. One fact that frequently gets ignored is that women are equal with men for committing acts of domestic violence. Although women are more likely to be injured due to physical size differences, they are also more likely to use weapons, either purposed or improvised. That's why so many police jurisdictions have policies to detail both parties in a domestic abuse situation until the actual party at fault is determined. But that doesn't stop the popular perception of domestic abuse as a crime committed by a man against a woman.

Another part of the problem is that, outside of gang/organized crime-related violence, instigators of violence most often target those who they perceive are weaker than themselves and who cannot effectively defend themselves. Men who commit violent crime tend to target weaker men, and women.
Women who commit violence tend to target children, the developmentally disabled, and the elderly.

And there has long been a cultural expectation of women as passive, nurturing, and generally incapable of the kind of assertive behaviour that is stereotypically male. "Girls don't fight, only boys fight, girls talk." And there is the pervasive religious attitude of women being subservient to men, so if they do commit some sort of violent act, it's presumed to be at the behest of a man, or that they were driven to it by a man: eg. Karla Homolka.

This is especially problematic when it comes to child sexual abuse by female perpetrators, which investigations of various sorts have come to the conclusion is badly underreported, and far less likely to be believed when it is reported.

 

[theprestige]

It's "nonsense" that we are far more violent and commit far more crimes than our female counterparts? Are you claiming that?

I'm claiming that "we" is the wrong pronoun for the problem you're trying to describe.

How many violent crimes have you committed, Fubucker? More than Lizzie Borden?

 

[Roboramma]

But those who work in such fields are as likely as their male colleagues to seek advancement and high salaries,

Are they?

except perhaps you believe they shouldn't be recruited because they just go off and have babies instead of working long hours.

Did I say that? I said that they make the choice themselves to work fewer hours, not that someone else does, or should, impose that choice on them.

If I want to work fewer hours so that I can spend those hours in other ways, as I have done many times in my life, that doesn't seem like an intrinsically bad choice to me.

 

[Roboramma]

Your anecdote seems to support what I said?

Yeah, I think so.

 

[pharphis]

As kind of a tangent, it is, in fact, a little bit nonsense. One of the problems with the "men are violent, women are victims" meme is that so much of the time, much violence by women has been discounted or ignored.

Women committing violent crime against men has generally been treated as a joke, and male victims as contemptible, or not truly victims, by mainstream culture. Or it's been treated as justified regardless of the actual circumstances. One fact that frequently gets ignored is that women are equal with men for committing acts of domestic violence. Although women are more likely to be injured due to physical size differences, they are also more likely to use weapons, either purposed or improvised. That's why so many police jurisdictions have policies to detail both parties in a domestic abuse situation until the actual party at fault is determined. But that doesn't stop the popular perception of domestic abuse as a crime committed by a man against a woman.

Another part of the problem is that, outside of gang/organized crime-related violence, instigators of violence most often target those who they perceive are weaker than themselves and who cannot effectively defend themselves. Men who commit violent crime tend to target weaker men, and women.
Women who commit violence tend to target children, the developmentally disabled, and the elderly.

And there has long been a cultural expectation of women as passive, nurturing, and generally incapable of the kind of assertive behaviour that is stereotypically male. "Girls don't fight, only boys fight, girls talk." And there is the pervasive religious attitude of women being subservient to men, so if they do commit some sort of violent act, it's presumed to be at the behest of a man, or that they were driven to it by a man: eg. Karla Homolka.

This is especially problematic when it comes to child sexual abuse by female perpetrators, which investigations of various sorts have come to the conclusion is badly underreported, and far less likely to be believed when it is reported.

Yes proxy violence is a good point that most people haven't really considered. Women can call on their male peers to defend their honour. "if you do X my brother/father/boyfriend will make you regret it". This isn't always called on by the female, of course, but it is pretty unidirectional afaik ("my sister will beat you up" has probably never been said by any boy older than 14)

That said, many police jurisdictions rely on the opposite model: The Duluth model, which presumes male perpetrator, female victim. This is partly why men don't call the cops when they are being abused. They are more likely to be arrested than their abuser (something that if the sex-reversal were true would be touted by feminists in every single mention of the topic "violence against women").

 

[Fudbucker]

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a woman president had had three kids with three different men? Had bragged about sexually assaulting men? Had cheated on every husband, wrote her own doctor's note, tweetstormed about celebrities, saluted a N. Korean general, and a million other things Trump has gotten away with? Of course you can imagine it, which is why I ask the obvious question:

Do any of you think that double standard has nothing to do with gender?

 

[cullennz]

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a woman president had had three kids with three different men? Had bragged about sexually assaulting men? Had cheated on every husband, wrote her own doctor's note, tweetstormed about celebrities, saluted a N. Korean general, and a million other things Trump has gotten away with? Of course you can imagine it, which is why I ask the obvious question:

Do any of you think that double standard has nothing to do with gender?

Similar to the double standard when it comes to the attitude to things like female on male sexual assault and female teachers shagging their young male students

 

[rustypouch]

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a woman president had had three kids with three different men? Had bragged about sexually assaulting men? Had cheated on every husband, wrote her own doctor's note, tweetstormed about celebrities, saluted a N. Korean general, and a million other things Trump has gotten away with? Of course you can imagine it, which is why I ask the obvious question:

Do any of you think that double standard has nothing to do with gender?

Depends. Would this hypothetical president be a Republican or a Democrat?

 

[d4m10n]

As long as we're on the topic of gendered double standards...

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/8r1zdj/the_same_unsolicited_sext_message_that_was_rated/

 

[Mumbles]

As always...

As long as you don't bring your hatred to other people, you can hate whoever you want, it's only your problem. As long as you don't go all Eliot Rodger, a guy can sit around a be angry about how women have too much sex while also having not enough sex as much as he wants. Some random dude sitting around who hates the black people walking by his house, but not causing issues at work, calling 911 on them, or chasing and murdering them like George Zimmerman, isn't a problem.


Of course, this is all in theory only, since hateful people will inevitably bring their hatred to others. And it depends on whether this is pure venting (which people do), or actual, "I go out of my way to ruin lives" hatred (which is obviously a problem). This strikes me as more the former, and given how often we've seen rooms full of men deciding that women's health issues are simply not that important (or John McCain sarcastically using the phrase "women's health" in 2008 - I'm a guy and still cringed at that one), I think it's very understandable.

 

[ThatGuy11200]

As always...

As long as you don't bring your hatred to other people, you can hate whoever you want, it's only your problem. As long as you don't go all Eliot Rodger, a guy can sit around a be angry about how women have too much sex while also having not enough sex as much as he wants. Some random dude sitting around who hates the black people walking by his house, but not causing issues at work, calling 911 on them, or chasing and murdering them like George Zimmerman, isn't a problem.


Of course, this is all in theory only, since hateful people will inevitably bring their hatred to others. And it depends on whether this is pure venting (which people do), or actual, "I go out of my way to ruin lives" hatred (which is obviously a problem). This strikes me as more the former, and given how often we've seen rooms full of men deciding that women's health issues are simply not that important (or John McCain sarcastically using the phrase "women's health" in 2008 - I'm a guy and still cringed at that one), I think it's very understandable.

The fact that it was published in what is ostensibly a major political newspaper suggests it is more than mere venting.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't think it was venting or actual hatred, but edgelord maximalism designed to garner reaction and increase attention. They probably view this as a success.

 

[Mumbles]

The fact that it was published in what is ostensibly a major political newspaper suggests it is more than mere venting.

You hold Op-Eds in considerably higher regard than I do. The Post's section is generally...not complete trash, and it's one of relatively few nationally known US papers I can say that of.

 

[erlando]

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.

This.

 

[erlando]

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.

I agree with this. But your words were "We men have a lot to atone for". Doing your bit for the betterment of women's lives isn't atonement. That's just common human decency IMO.

 

[3point14]

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?

Because it disrupts the business. No matter how well arranged, no matter how well organised, a key figure being out of the business for, what? At a minimum, say, three months, is going to impact on the business.

I realise it's not a happy thought or a useful one , but it is a fact.

 

[Roboramma]

Is this a self reporting of hours?

Yes. It would be interesting if anyone has more reliably reported statistics of CEO or executives' working hours. I've seen some statistics in presentations on youtube before which were in line with those quoted in the article, but if anyone has something better to present I'd be interested.

I can see a possible bias in the reporting (maybe they are exaggerating how many hours they work), but I think it would be hard to exaggerate your way into an extra ten hours/week without deliberate dishonesty and I don't really think there's a motivation for that. It's just a survey, it's not like these numbers are taken from someone's autobiography, and I think the surveys were done in real time (rather than compiled weeks or months after the fact from memory).

 

[Roboramma]

Here's the problem with the line of thinking that biology is the mail culprit: if biology is the reason why men are so violent but biology is not an excuse for that violence, then something must be done about it. The status quo in that kind of situation is untenable.

That a problem should be addressed is certainly a valid statement. That a problem persists, however, doesn't show that it isn't being addressed. It may be that the solution to the problem has reached some equilibrium point where more of it will result in greater negative consequences.

For instance putting violent offenders in prison is a solution to the problem of violence, but it also creates it's own problems for society.

However it's possible to attack this problem from many angles and the different sets of solutions have been making improvements, lowering the rate of violence, for a very long time. They seem to be set to continue, though only through active efforts, and the problem of violence in the US seems to be worse than it should be based on some metrics.