Why so much hatred for feminism?

Okay I'm going to lay out my opinion as clearly as possible.
The reason men are expected to get jobs is because they CAN. The reason women an not expected to get jobs is because they CAN'T.
 
Naive1000 said:
Last answer, TJ is not an MRA and has never claimed to be, he is an anti-feminist, they are not the same thing. His attitude on rape and suicide suck, he can be a real scumbag sometimes, but he's just one person and his opinions are his own. He's just an Internet celebrity with no pull and no power, so why does he matter?
Click to expand...

For those who have escaped this putrid mess (most of you I'm guessing, he's far from a "celebrity"_ - TAA's "attitude on rape" is that triggers don't exist and that it is perfectly ok to prove this by attempting to trigger PTSD in a rape victim using the most violent possible language and imagery. (Interestingly enough he stuck to male-on-female imagery even though the victim was male.)

When called out on it, he defended himself by pointing out that being called a jerk is the same as experiencing rape.
 
ginjawarrior said:
on that note could you not use custody as part of your arguments (unless you live in a society that has neutral laws)

someone earlier in this thread suggested egalitarianism that IMO is what we should strive for any other label does nothing but divide
Click to expand...

I am and have always been a vocal advocate for father's rights. The family courts are rife with examples of harmful gender stereotypes being used against men.
 
bookitty said:
Adrea Dworkin has been dead for 7 years and expect the rest of your quotes are just as dated. (Except the Marilyn French which is both dated and a quote taken out of context.)

The MRA's, MGTOW's and PUA's are new, they are vocal now and they have an entire internet culture which bounces it back with increasingly violent overtones.
Click to expand...

Not really. When I look at most of the quotes on those sites, I remember most of them from the various Men's Movements of the 1980s.

But even if they are, what of it? Feminism is not without fault, and it certainly wasn't always without fault, simply because various men's rights organizations also suck. There is no reason to believe that all movements are in lockstep even in a single culture, let alone around the world.

I don't think that many people assume that because people have problems with some of the things that men's rights activists are saying that critics are therefore anti-progressive (or even anti-conservative) idiots. Yet this is frequently assumed of anyone who criticizes any feminist, under any context, for any reason.

Also, if it's bad bad to bring up what Andrea Dworkin said 20 years ago, then why is it automatically just fine to bring up what some man said 50 years ago without showing that it is relevant today?

I was a men's rights activist in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I'm not any more, because we were successful. We have men's shelters now. We didn't back then. Maybe not enough, but that takes time, and it would be rather obsessive of me to try to extract massive outrage for something that is in the process of being fixed. Hell, everywhere I go in the US, there are baby-changing stations in the men's rooms. When I even suggested this around 1990, feminists told me it was horrible because everyone knew that men were all child-molesters. Now they don't.

What follows truly amazed me. Back in the 1980s, there was immense hostility toward the idea of battered men, to the extent that Suzanne Steinmetz got a bomb threat when she was going to speak about the Battered Husband Syndrome. Yet a few years ago on NPR, hardly a bastion of regressive conservative thought, a woman on an all-woman panel about domestic violence, without provocation, volunteered the information that it happened to men, too. Mirabile dictu!

It's not perfect, but I expect it will get better, and simple humanism will deal with the rest. So I'm perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones, except for the purpose of always remembering the history lest it happen again.

Yet I still see complaints about sex-based earnings based on 20-year-old data, which anybody who looks at series P-60 of the Current Population Reports can see is out of date. During the 80s, feminists regularly used data from the 50s. If it is not legitimate to bring up Andrea Dworkin or Robin Morgan or Susan Brownmiller, then by the same token, this should not be legitimate either.
 
vwgub said:
Okay I'm going to lay out my opinion as clearly as possible.
The reason men are expected to get jobs is because they CAN. The reason women an not expected to get jobs is because they CAN'T.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense and isn't backed by facts:

Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces
Women’s slender lead was highest last month, when they held 50.3 percent of the nation’s nonfarm payroll jobs in the raw numbers. (Link)

MARKETING TO WOMEN QUICK FACTS
Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth in the United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in our country’s history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion. Many Boomer women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents and husband. The Boomer woman is a consumer that luxury brands want to resonate with. (Link)

Women now the backbone of American economy
Women are now the backbone of the U.S. economy. About 60 percent of them work, and they comprise 46 percent of the labor force, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ... Women now occupy 51 percent of managerial and professional jobs, up from 26 percent in 1980. More women are graduating from college than men. Seventy-five percent of women say they make the shopping decisions, so they're the consumers too. (Link)

Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top
... there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. (Link)

Cities Where Women Outearn Male Counterparts
The greatest disparity is in Atlanta, where young, childless women made 121% of their male counterparts, according to Reach Advisors. See the ratios for the top 50 metro areas below. (Link)

The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men (Link)
Click to expand...
 
bookitty said:
I am and have always been a vocal advocate for father's rights. The family courts are rife with examples of harmful gender stereotypes being used against men.
Click to expand...

bookitty said:
Single parents in poverty - 34.2% with a female householder : 17.3% of families with a male householder
Click to expand...

to me that there is harmful and keeps up the idea that men arent fathers

while i've lurked this thread from the start i only popped into it on this issue :)

on a side note was trawling youtube today for david mitchel rants and i came across this and thought it pretty relevant to discussion

tongue in cheek here ;)
 
vwgub said:
Okay I'm going to lay out my opinion as clearly as possible.
The reason men are expected to get jobs is because they CAN. The reason women an not expected to get jobs is because they CAN'T.
Click to expand...
vwgub said:
What did you so look up every link that shows women have more jobs than men? And they don't even do that look again.
Click to expand...

You said, quite clearly, that women can't get jobs, but they make up the majority of the workforce now. Plus, they are 51 percent of managerial and professional jobs. So, your statement is obviously false or misinformed.

And no, I have lots of bookmarks on the subject :D.
 
Naive1000 said:
The problem is then women are also privileged and it all comes to naught. The only reason I hear privilege brought up is to silence dissenting opinions or shame others who disagree with the facts. Also, perception has much to do with privilege, what some women may see as privilege many men see as obligation and duty (something they have no choice in and have to do)....
Click to expand...
You are missing the point.

White men are paid more, on average, for the same work as women.

White men hold more positions of power.

White men have more opportunity to succeed, on average.

Despite all your links the above statements are still true.
 
Last edited:
bookitty said:
median income of FTYR workers (US 2009) - Men $47,127 : Women $36,278
Click to expand...

Young women.

You do realize that the oldest workers, who tend to make the most money, entered the workforce around 1967, right? What were things like in 1967?

One of my girlfriends is 63, and she was one of only four women admitted to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that year, compared to 1000 men. When I was admitted to MIT in 1978, there were about 7 men to 1 woman. Now I hear from people who were at MIT more recently that it's about 50/50.

Around 1990, the last time I checked, young women were making about 87% of what young men made. During the 1980s, IEEE reported that female engineers made 102% what male engineers made. It's just that there were far fewer women going to school to become engineers, physicians, etc. going to school than there are now.
 
Naive1000 said:
You said, quite clearly, that women can't get jobs, but they make up the majority of the workforce now. Plus, they are 51 percent of managerial and professional jobs. So, your statement is obviously false or misinformed.

And no, I have lots of bookmarks on the subject :D.
Click to expand...

Okay I should have said specifically in my profession.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You are missing the point.

White men are paid more, on average, for the same work as women.

White men hold more positions of power.

White men have more opportunity to succeed, on average.

Despite all your links the above statements are still true.
Click to expand...

There also more likely to fail. More likely to fall through the system. More likely to work themselves to death. And, a number of other problems. Plus, more women vote than men, so why the disparity? Women are less likely to want those jobs or run for them.

The few advantages men have are outweighed by the many downsides for a lot of men. Also, when you start discounting facts you've delved into dogma and left critical thinking skepticism behind.

@psionl0: You're right, I misread what was there. Sorry, Bookity. I'll have to look into that and how it's calculated.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There is nothing on this page about female vs male requirements in multiple countries: Fire Fighter Fitness Testing

CPAT for Seattle Fire Department.
I just went through a half dozen of these and cannot find a city or department that has a different standard for men and women.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the good links. I don't see any mention of gender differences either. My knowldge of the topic is out of date but in the nineties the issues I described came up a number of places. Firefighters traditionally had intense physical training requirements which were much harder for women to pass and either the standards were relaxed/ignored or the departments wouldn't get many female hires because woman would often fail the physical (men would fail a lot to, but at a much lower rate.) The CPAT of today lacks the most demanding test that I recall which was the 165 lb dummy carry (sometimes down a ladder) and now it's a just a dummy drag. It looks to me like the tests were made easier which makes sense since departments that didn't alter the tests for women risked getting sued.

Here is an example from Chicago in 2011:

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court claims that the test, which includes arm exercises, carrying a 2 1/2-inch hose and stair-climbing tasks designed to determine strength and endurance, has an adverse impact on female applicants and is not related to the skills needed to be a firefighter.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...an-firefighter-candidates-female-firefighters

Here is a good summary of the issue from an online legal resource on gender discrimination:

An example is the policy of many fire departments that had strength requirements for hiring firefighter that far exceeded the strength needed by an individual to work effectively as a firefighter. Such excessive strength requirements had a disparate impact on women, many of whom had enough strength to be a good firefighter, but not enough strength to meet the department's requirement. The fire department may not haven been intentionally trying to exclude female firefighters, but the disparate impact was illegal.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/discrimination/gender-discrimination.html

Not mentioned is that the strength requirements were not thought of as excessive until women wanted to be fire fighters but felt obstructed by the physicals men had been doing all along. Is it sexist to think fire fighters should be able to carry an adult person as if theoretically rescuing them from a burning building? Feminists like Gloria Steinem argued it was and if one looks at the lawsuits and the CPAT requirements it looks like feminism won that battle.

This may occur but I don't believe it is common. It is not the case in any of the departments I work with.
Click to expand...
I am most familiar with San Francisco but I recall reading about similar things happening in other of cities in the nineties. In retrospect I kind of wish I made more of a stink about it at the time because I seriously wonder how truly legal what was going on with regard to the written test portion really was.

I can't speak for the military, I'm not familiar with their rules. Statistically women are at a disadvantage in police and fire departments. Do you see 50:50 gender ratios among police and fire personnel?
Click to expand...
What's the disadvantage? You seem to be using an argument that if the numbers are not equal then there must be a disadvantage. When I took the written test I got a score that would have gotten me to the next stage if I was a women or minority but since I wasn't no job for me. Wasn't I the one who was disadvantaged?

I'm not aware feminists are complaining about this. They may be complaining that women are not promoted and some departments have no women at all, but unequal numbers, I don't think so.
Click to expand...
I am the one complaining here.;)

There was written test that was scored radically differently based upon one's gender and race. Then there were physical requirements that were waived for women. Is that fair? Is that the equality?

Adequately, better, better in some cases,...
Click to expand...
How? What is that a woman as a firefighter can do better than a man?

none of what I said was intended to suggest men could not adequately do the same job, or that all men or all women were always better at some things. A department with both men, women, and minorities as well, benefits from the diversity because there are times when one's gender and/or race can contribute to a better outcome. It's naive to deny that.
Click to expand...
How is one gender/race going to effect firefighter performance?

Since you are setting up the rationalization for differential hiring based upon race and gender the next consideration is how do you weight the benefit of a women or minority hire? How much lower does their test score get to be for them to get the job before a white male? Do you look for any kinds of diversity besides gender and race? Religion or sexual orientation perhaps?

And vice versa, woman are just as capable as men. ;)
Click to expand...
I think it's more an issue of there is no way to really know a persons capabilities when all you know is their gender (or race).
 
epepke said:
Young women.

You do realize that the oldest workers, who tend to make the most money, entered the workforce around 1967, right? What were things like in 1967?

One of my girlfriends is 63, and she was one of only four women admitted to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that year, compared to 1000 men. When I was admitted to MIT in 1978, there were about 7 men to 1 woman. Now I hear from people who were at MIT more recently that it's about 50/50.

Around 1990, the last time I checked, young women were making about 87% of what young men made. During the 1980s, IEEE reported that female engineers made 102% what male engineers made. It's just that there were far fewer women going to school to become engineers, physicians, etc. going to school than there are now.
Click to expand...
And what led to these changes? Magic pixie dust that caused the male bosses, deans, et al. to suddenly become magnanimous, or feminism?
 
Not mentioned is that the strength requirements were not thought of as excessive until women wanted to be fire fighters but felt obstructed by the physicals men had been doing all along
Click to expand...
.

All along? Or were the tests changed in the 70s and 80s to focus on upper body strength as a pretext for keeping women out, by adding a measure that favored even out of shape men?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom