Why so much hatred for feminism?

[sgtbaker]

You are still ignoring the issue that privilege does not need to extend to ALL white men in order to exist. You simply repeated your position which I already addressed. Yes, we can argue all day about the definition of privilege. I am using the standard definition, you are quibbling with it.

Quibble all you want, it doesn't change the fact white male privilege exists.

I would take that further and say that the pressures on males in society exist primarily as a result of the priviledge.

 

[crimresearch]

Oh really? I noticed how you haven't been able to quote what claim you you've allegedly disproven.

I sure enjoy pointing out manipulative tactics...oooooh I'm "running away".

I take it you are a feminist, eh? I did indeed mention the use of manipulative tactics by feminists. Thank you for proving my point.



Ahhh... the manipulator paints the target as irrational. Emotional attacks don't work on me. But it is what they teach at FMU, obviously.

Post # 273

Project much?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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 My knowldge of the topic is out of date but in the nineties the issues I described came up a number of places.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.

Quite the cynical conclusion. Did it ever dawn on you that the requirements were simply standardized and lifting a 165lb dead weight was determined not to distinguish a qualified firefighter?

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

One interpretation of this is the requirement was unnecessarily blocking women from a job they were essentially qualified for. You could have a job requirement: penis required. But unless it was a position of male porn star, it doesn't mean the requirement was valid.

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

Like I said ...

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.

And herein lies the sexism. Some women make excellent firefighters. Some are well qualified. Is there any evidence firefighters are less effective with the new standard? Have lives been lost due to changed physical requirements?

Is it beyond your belief that Steinem was right?

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.

Again, you argue for the discrimination based on "it used to be that way" and not based on evidence that how it used to be was necessary. Is there evidence this change had an impact on the professional outcome? Or does it appear now that the requirement was indeed unnecessary?

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 am the one complaining here.

Sentiment against affirmative action neglects consideration of the problem affirmative action was needed to address. It's a one sided argument just like arguing for equal numbers (which is a straw man because I think it depends on the profession what the natural ratio should be). An argument needs to consider both sides of the coin at the same time.

The man, or the white male who fails to get the job because an equally qualified woman or minority had a hiring preference is no different than the thousands of women and minorities that failed to get the jobs because an equally qualified white male had a hiring preference. However, in the case of the white male currently (or recently) it is necessary to restore proper balance. In the case of the women and minorities originally, it was necessary to maintain the status quo.

There are two ways to view affirmative action: one, it is more a necessary evil or, two, it is more an unfair practice. It comes down to point of view. There is no evidence one can base the argument on. Stalemate.

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?

How? What is that a woman as a firefighter can do better than a man?
How is one gender/race going to effect firefighter performance?

You are trying very hard to redefine what I actually said and believe. Your revision is a distortion. It is diversity that is the benefit. All individuals are going to vary in skills ideally with everyone meeting the minimum standard.

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?

It's a judgement call, not an evidence based decision. With religion and sexual orientation chances are you just need to make sure those things are not considered in the applicant evaluation and affirmative action isn't needed. With affirmative action sometimes it is needed to break down some old boy barriers. Just eliminating the discrimination does not do enough to correct an identified problem.


The need for and use of affirmative action should be reassessed on a regular basis. This is the one thing I think hasn't occurred.

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).

I don't understand the relevance of this comment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know the full history here (I was born in the seventies) but when it was a controversial issue in the nineties I never once heard/read the argument that the standards had only been introduced to keep women out. I also read the SFFD chiefs rationalization for waiving the requirements for women and I think if the standards had only been implemented to keep women out he would have known and just said as much. I can also recall my grandmother who was pro feminist on a lot of issues being very annoyed about the idea that feminists were fighting to have women firefighters with lower physical standards.

Change is hard. People resist. Even women can resist change that benefits women.


The proof is in the pudding folks. Are female firefighters in positions they are generally unqualified for or not?

I think not. Take away the underlying bias, (the standards were wrongly changed to let unqualified women into a profession they didn't belong in), and you are left with the evidence which favors the conclusion the requirements, regardless of their initial intent, were an unnecessary barrier to many qualified applicants.

 

[cyborg]

I think it's an unfair question considering a man is more likely to get those job over a woman.

Perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.

"You've crippled yourself today darling? Well f you because I didn't even have the opportunity to cripple myself. You woman hating ass."

 

[sgtbaker]

Perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.

"You've crippled yourself today darling? Well f you because I didn't even have the opportunity to cripple myself. You woman hating ass."

How does that even follow? I would like to also thank you for adding the "woman hating ass" though. I must have completely forgot that part and silly of me because I can't possibly have a discussion without flinging accusations of misogyny in every direction.

Let's say, for an example, a job opened up painting the rails of bridges in NYC. Let's say two people saw the job opening in the paper and both a man and a woman saw the ad. They both have families to feed and need more than one would earn in other industries that don't require degrees. If they both apply, who do you think is going to get the job?

 

[bookitty]

Yes, and I'm sure people like the Koch brothers or Bill Gates, who are no where near average, don't skew these numbers.

Nor do they have the same amount of female counterparts.

 

[Naive1000]

You are still ignoring the issue that privilege does not need to extend to ALL white men in order to exist. You simply repeated your position which I already addressed. Yes, we can argue all day about the definition of privilege. I am using the standard definition, you are quibbling with it.

Quibble all you want, it doesn't change the fact white male privilege exists.

Well then women are much more privileged and we need to address that issue as well. The use of social services, affirmative action for women, more college degrees, over representation in courts, the right to innocent until proven guilty that's disappearing for men, equal protection under the law (since their are now gendered laws like VAWA), no federal support for men's shelters, and so on. What privilege do men have? I really would like to know, because every time I hear it it just wreaks of dogma since I've seen zero proof on the subject. But, I have plenty for female privilege.

Where are the campaigns to stop violence against men since they're more likely than women to be victims? Where are the stop rape for men and boys or awareness for male victims of female rape (which is commonly swept under the table) since when you count prison rape men are more likely to be victims (or look at the CDC data)? Where are the programs to help boys in school or male only scholarships and grants? Why are their still federally funded girls schools but all the male only ones have all been disbanded? Why is okay for women to play in men's and boy's sports teams, but not the reverse? Why are female only sports teams in many places allowed but boys only teams are not? Why are womens only nights and womens clubs okay but men's only nights and men's only clubs are protested and/or closed down?

And let me just mention the feminist bigotry that just happened at a college in Montana. The feminist groups made waves there that killed the "men's issues" forum at the college. They tore down all the signs, hundreds were put up. The businesses refused to allow posters in their stores, even though they were having a week in support of men (sales for men), because they were scared of losing business (threats from women's groups). And guys were scared to go because of rumors they would be tarred as misogynists and harassed for going. Yea, men are the ones with all the rights ... sure that's why men are scared to even go to an event about men's/father's rights. Women have no power at all . And yes, I know this happened for fact because I just got done talking to my friend who was speaking there. She told me about the whole situation. Feminism is for equality my but. This kind of discrimination and sexism really piss me off. But, of course, NAFALT right? (Link)

 

[cyborg]

How does that even follow?

It's called satire dear; you'd understand if you were as white and male as me.

 

[sgtbaker]

It's called satire dear; you'd understand if you were as white and male as me.

Good thing no one attributed effective satire to whiteness and maleness.

 

[Naive1000]

Nor do they have the same amount of female counterparts.

So, all men are in the one percent? Yes, I'm sure that Malinda Gates has no control over the wallet. And the problem is that those at the top are protecting themselves from competition, not that they're men. Most men are screwed in that way too. Most of these people inherit or are there because of a screwed up system that has been in place for almost a century. Just because they are leftovers from a sexist decade does not mean that men are perpetuating it. It's those at the top doing it to protect themselves, not sexism. They don't want women or men to get a chance at the top. Making it about sexism is just turning the real issue of oligarchy into seemingly a partisan sexist issue, which I feel it's not. Making it about sexism is a great way to break down support for a common issue.

How does that even follow? I would like to also thank you for adding the "woman hating ass" though. I must have completely forgot that part and silly of me because I can't possibly have a discussion without flinging accusations of misogyny in every direction.

Let's say, for an example, a job opened up painting the rails of bridges in NYC. Let's say two people saw the job opening in the paper and both a man and a woman saw the ad. They both have families to feed and need more than one would earn in other industries that don't require degrees. If they both apply, who do you think is going to get the job?

There was an article written on this not long ago where they put out ads just for women to get them into some of these jobs and got zero applicants (these were extremely dangerous jobs -- just for context most men don't want them either). I'll have to try and find it. While some women may want into these jobs the vast majority of women seem uninterested in the lower paying more dangerous jobs that men are the primary workforce in. I've heard of no women fighting for access to these jobs: it's always the CEOs and the tippy top positions. It's understandable not going for the dangerous jobs. Many places have quotas for the number of women and those jobs are much safer and/or pay more. But, what I also find odd is that I never here women complain about the reverse. Many retail and sales jobs will give preference to women because it makes sales easier. Just recently a friend was job hunting and he was told at no less than five places they were currently only hiring women. They wouldn't even dare say to woman we're only hiring men. They'd be sued and lose. Women commonly work in men's sections of stores but you never see men working in the women's sections. Of course, we know why, men are all violent rapist sex fiends who can't control their overactive libidos, or at least that's what the TV, Ads, and campaigns keep telling me.

 

[cyborg]

Good thing no one attributed effective satire to whiteness and maleness.

I'd explain Brass Eye to you if you were as British, White and Middle Class as me. As it is I'd advise you'd leave well alone.

 

[sgtbaker]

So, all men are in the one percent? Yes, I'm sure that Malinda Gates has no control over the wallet. And the problem is that those at the top are protecting themselves from competition, not that they're men. Most men are screwed in that way too. Most of these people inherit or are there because of a screwed up system that has been in place for almost a century. Just because they are leftovers from a sexist decade does not mean that men are perpetuating it. It's those at the top doing it to protect themselves, not sexism. They don't want women or men to get a chance at the top. Making it about sexism is just turning the real issue of oligarchy into seemingly a partisan sexist issue, which I feel it's not. Making it about sexism is a great way to break down support for a common issue.



There was an article written on this not long ago where they put out ads just for women to get them into some of these jobs and got zero applicants (these were extremely dangerous jobs -- just for context most men don't want them either). I'll have to try and find it. While some women may want into these jobs the vast majority of women seem uninterested in the lower paying more dangerous jobs that men are the primary workforce in. I've heard of no women fighting for access to these jobs: it's always the CEOs and the tippy top positions. It's understandable not going for the dangerous jobs. Many places have quotas for the number of women and those jobs are much safer and/or pay more. But, what I also find odd is that I never here women complain about the reverse. Many retail and sales jobs will give preference to women because it makes sales easier. Just recently a friend was job hunting and he was told at no less than five places they were currently only hiring women. They wouldn't even dare say to woman we're only hiring men. They'd be sued and lose. Women commonly work in men's sections of stores but you never see men working in the women's sections. Of course, we know why, men are all violent rapist sex fiends who can't control their overactive libidos, or at least that's what the TV, Ads, and campaigns keep telling me.

It's interesting that you would qualify that with lower paying, more dangerous jobs, though, especially considering that the more dangerous jobs tend to pay better than typical nondegree-type jobs.

 

[sgtbaker]

I'd explain Brass Eye to you if you were as British, White and Middle Class as me. As it is I'd advise you'd leave well alone.

Believe it or not, girls can read and type in google. If I were British, you probably wouldn't need to explain it to me because I would probably have heard of the program. If your joke didn't go over as intended, just say so. So far, the only thing I have to go on, when trying to figure out your intent behind that statement is your previous entry to this thread which appeared to amount to nothing more than a sweeping dismissal of the entire feminist movement as just a need to feel like victims.

 

[bookitty]

So, all men are in the one percent? Yes, I'm sure that Malinda Gates has no control over the wallet. And the problem is that those at the top are protecting themselves from competition, not that they're men. Most men are screwed in that way too. Most of these people inherit or are there because of a screwed up system that has been in place for almost a century. Just because they are leftovers from a sexist decade does not mean that men are perpetuating it. It's those at the top doing it to protect themselves, not sexism. They don't want women or men to get a chance at the top. Making it about sexism is just turning the real issue of oligarchy into seemingly a partisan sexist issue, which I feel it's not. Making it about sexism is a great way to break down support for a common issue.



There was an article written on this not long ago where they put out ads just for women to get them into some of these jobs and got zero applicants (these were extremely dangerous jobs -- just for context most men don't want them either). I'll have to try and find it. While some women may want into these jobs the vast majority of women seem uninterested in the lower paying more dangerous jobs that men are the primary workforce in. I've heard of no women fighting for access to these jobs: it's always the CEOs and the tippy top positions. It's understandable not going for the dangerous jobs. Many places have quotas for the number of women and those jobs are much safer and/or pay more. But, what I also find odd is that I never here women complain about the reverse. Many retail and sales jobs will give preference to women because it makes sales easier. Just recently a friend was job hunting and he was told at no less than five places they were currently only hiring women. They wouldn't even dare say to woman we're only hiring men. They'd be sued and lose. Women commonly work in men's sections of stores but you never see men working in the women's sections. Of course, we know why, men are all violent rapist sex fiends who can't control their overactive libidos, or at least that's what the TV, Ads, and campaigns keep telling me.

I like you, I think you're heart is in the right place. So let's not get into TV, ads, expectation and the male gaze. Media is complicit in exploiting nearly every harmful gender stereotype. It's a draw.

The question was about white male privilege not male privilege. White male privilege exists. If you were to break down your stats by gender and race, they would look very different.

Of course there will be those who argue that the white western male is the most down-trodden critter on earth. (They can't even say the n-word in public! It's like the worst reverse discrimination!!!!)

 

[Naive1000]

It's interesting that you would qualify that with lower paying, more dangerous jobs, though, especially considering that the more dangerous jobs tend to pay better than typical nondegree-type jobs.

Lower pay than a profession or college degree job was what I was referring to. And yes, some do pay more than other non-degree jobs to compensate for the danger, but not all of them.

 

[sgtbaker]

Lower pay than a profession or college degree job was what I was referring to. And yes, some do pay more than other non-degree jobs to compensate for the danger, but not all of them.

I would certainly have to see the study, type of job and compensation to make a further contribution on the topic. I would especially like to see how the want ad was worded so as to specifically ask for women.

 

[Alan]

This is a riddle I've used for years in my classes. It's actually considered a "brain teaser."

Question

A man and his son were in a terrible accident, the man died. The son was rushed into emergency surgery. The doctor walked into the room looked down at the boy and said "I can't operate on this boy, he's my son". Who was the doctor?

Answer

The doctor is his mother

You'd be surprised how many people can't figure it out even now.

It is not the only possibility. The doctor could also be a father. It is a heterosexist puzzle.

 

[cyborg]

Believe it or not, girls can read and type in google.

That makes them almost like real people! Without penises Which is what is really important when it comes to equality. Without differently shaped genitals how could we possibly formulate sexual battlefronts?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well then women are much more privileged and we need to address that issue as well. The use of social services, affirmative action for women, more college degrees, over representation in courts, the right to innocent until proven guilty that's disappearing for men, equal protection under the law (since their are now gendered laws like VAWA), no federal support for men's shelters, and so on. What privilege do men have? I really would like to know, because every time I hear it it just wreaks of dogma since I've seen zero proof on the subject. But, I have plenty for female privilege.

Where are the campaigns to stop violence against men since they're more likely than women to be victims? Where are the stop rape for men and boys or awareness for male victims of female rape (which is commonly swept under the table) since when you count prison rape men are more likely to be victims (or look at the CDC data)? Where are the programs to help boys in school or male only scholarships and grants? Why are their still federally funded girls schools but all the male only ones have all been disbanded? Why is okay for women to play in men's and boy's sports teams, but not the reverse? Why are female only sports teams in many places allowed but boys only teams are not? Why are womens only nights and womens clubs okay but men's only nights and men's only clubs are protested and/or closed down?

And let me just mention the feminist bigotry that just happened at a college in Montana. The feminist groups made waves there that killed the "men's issues" forum at the college. They tore down all the signs, hundreds were put up. The businesses refused to allow posters in their stores, even though they were having a week in support of men (sales for men), because they were scared of losing business (threats from women's groups). And guys were scared to go because of rumors they would be tarred as misogynists and harassed for going. Yea, men are the ones with all the rights ... sure that's why men are scared to even go to an event about men's/father's rights. Women have no power at all . And yes, I know this happened for fact because I just got done talking to my friend who was speaking there. She told me about the whole situation. Feminism is for equality my but. This kind of discrimination and sexism really piss me off. But, of course, NAFALT right? (Link)

You continue to re-define privilege as who is better off. That is not the definition. Who is better off is a different question. I still think most people would say white men as a group are better off but measures of what constitutes "better off" are indeed subjective.


Keep two key things in mind, white male privilege has nothing to do with who is better off, that is an individual values thing, and white male privilege does not apply to all white males automatically.

White male privilege can be seen in the following:

Privilege is systemic.
It’s the people who do the hiring, who make the art, who market it.
It's in the fact that higher economic status neighborhoods are more often de facto white neighborhoods, with households more often headed by males, and include better schools than minority neighborhoods.
School funding is higher and there are differences in the education that students in rich white neighborhoods receive.
How directors are men, or white, or both? How many executives of television studios or record labels? How many big sports club owners are white men compared to the number of black players?
How many Presidents were not white males?
What is the percentage of white males in Congress, on boards of directors, or are CEOs of the fortune 500 companies?

These are the measures by which white male privilege is defined, not the measures you've chosen which tell us something different.

White male privilege is about who is in positions of power, not who is better off or who has it easier and so on. You are arguing a different question by the measures you are using.