Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I...These sociology googles create "realities" that don't exist. ...

Yeah, white men haven't dominated all three branches of the US government for 235 years, that's a reality that does not exist.

 

[KingMerv00]

Ok please tell me the "price" that women have paid and the "disadvantage" that SAHMs have in their lives?


Domineering husbands preventing women from getting an education. Please also back that up. That's what's called a stereotype. The same way Muslim women who choose to wear the Hijab are stereotyped as being forced to wear it.

But I'd really like you to answer the bolded question.

Also please prove that world is missing out on brilliant female scientists. Because unless you are sexist you will acknowledge that the world has many brilliant female scientists. Most of the things you are stating are stereotypes btw.

This conversation has been enlightening for me and I'm glad we are still having it but I'm going to raise an objection before I continue.

Several times, you have quoted me and snipped out huge portions of text which address very important questions you have raised. You then fail to explain why my answers are adequate or inadequate. For example, you said I intentionally ignored evidence of sexism against men. But that's obviously not true. In fact, it is SO untrue it is more accurately described as absurd.

Other times you snip out parts of my posts that raise important questions. For example, I have repeatedly asked why you think socialization only applies to men. You've ignored that question.

Now you are demanding evidence again. Sorry, I've done that. It's your turn. We agree that men have been socialized to work. To that end, please explain why:

1. Men are vulnerable to socialization while women are not.
2. Men are vulnerable to socialization only in the area of career choice (not "baseball" etc.).
3. Women are not indirectly harmed by the socialization of men.
4. Having children requires more career planning for a woman than a man given that most children are born well before the age of 40.
5. Financial dependency and educational limitation are not an legitimate downside of being a stay-at-home spouse.

 

[KingMerv00]

It's a dumb measuring stick. Seriously stupid.

Also, knock off the insults.

 

[truethat]

Look at your wording. "vulnerable" that's victim speak.

Men are not "victims" because they don't want to stay home with their kids. They don't want to. Men who do want to stay home with their kids will usually find a way to do.

Women are not "victims" or "vulnerable" to socialization. It happens but people are intelligent enough to figure out which things they agree with and which things they don't.

Otherwise this would be a nation of Christian Meat Eaters. Consider your suggestions along the lines of "assimilations" during the early days of immigration in the United States. Everyone was trying to be the same. The world doesn't work that way right now.

People are very individual in the US. Outside the US is a different story, but your statistics seem to be aimed at the Western world.

So what is wrong with men not wanting to stay home with their children. How are they now "victims" of "society trying to make them not want to be more involved in their kids lives"

You continually put motives, emotions and reasons into your answers that you have absolutely no way of verifying.

I keep pointing you to "individual choice" and you reject it because you want a statistic that treats groups of people as the same just because they have a penis.


Yes more fortune 500 companies have white men in them. Guess who has a privilege? The white men who work for these fortune 500 companies. NOT OTHER WHITE MEN.

The leap from one statistic to a conclusion is ridiculous. It's racist and sexist.

The reason I keep cutting out your posts by the way is that I am not interested in debating these statistics. Others are, so you should have fun with those people. I find the entire line of thinking utter nonsense. Not scientific or logical at all.

Now could you answer my question. BTW I'm not upset with you. I do think you are intelligent. I'm just really annoyed to understand that people actually think this way.

 

[KingMerv00]

You didn't even try to answer #4 and #5. You got side-tracked by the word "vulnerable" and the concept of victimization. At this point, I don't think it matters because we hit the heart of the matter. In hopes of finding common ground I'm wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch.

Socialization exists but when is it bad? According to you, men being socialized to work can be a bad thing. Look at post #73:

I see for example that most men in society are automatically expected to get a job, pay the bills pay for everything. Divorced men are expected to pay maintenance on wives that don't work. Men are expected to pay maintenance on unwanted children because women don't want to have an abortion. There's a total economic set up in society that creates the hegemony that a man's job is to work.

So because they are expected to work, they often have more money. Then this is turned against them since we live in a capitalistic society. But many men I know have no time for personal development and interests and desires because they are working two jobs trying to pay for everything.

I actually feel a bit sorry for the pressures put on men, mostly because they are completely ignored in society.

When people are automatically expected to support others, exist under a hegemony, can't develop their own self-interests and are ignored by society based on their gender it's called sexism through socialization. People whose lives are constrained by society for arbitrary reasons are victims whether the constraints are overt or subtle, intentional or unintentional. I know you hate the v-word but you need to stop thinking that victims are all helpless. "Victimization" is a mindset that says nothing can be done. That's ********. If we remove the arbitrary constraints, men won't exist under that "hegemony" and will have more options available. He will be more free.

If I could just get you to admit the same thing about women...

 

[KingMerv00]

It happens but people are intelligent enough to figure out which things they agree with and which things they don't. Otherwise this would be a nation of Christian Meat Eaters.

"Christian meat eaters" isn't a bad descriptional of America, actually.

I found this interesting because you assume most people are highly self-aware, take the time to weigh evidence, and are barely affected by the social world around them. Everything in psychology says you are wrong. Hell, you are a regular on a skeptic board. You really should know better.

For example, the the flavor and strength of religiousity is transmitted down parental and societal lines and conversion is uncommon. This is not a coincidence. People absorb ideas from those surroundings and never bother questioning them.

 

[tyr_13]

I hate the way this subject tends to turn into an 'appeal to worse problems' off, and such. What is the point besides dismissing real problems of real people?

I'm skeptical of all the 'women make less/equal to/more than' claims because of an entire host of confounding factors and suspicion of the controls employed. So I'm discounting that line of reasoning.

People critical of feminism, let's say that men do have unfair accusations leveled at them and that feminism over-reaches. What do you want done about it? What specific actions could help lead to that goal?

Feminists, let's say that gender inequality exists and it is much more severe for women. What do you want done about it and by who? What specific actions could help lead to that goal?

I believe gender inequality does exist, but am unconvinced it overall is much more severe for women generally and in most of the US. I further believe that the current most productive way to combat this and help both men and women is to advocate that men take advantage of many of the benefits that women currently employ at a greater rate than men. Men should not feel compelled socially or economically to work more dangerous jobs, worse hours, with fewer health benefits, for more hours per week without taking as much vacation or time off for child care. Regardless of if these factors explain most of the difference or only a smaller part, they certainly appear to exist and be actionable against.

I'm not even going into the race dynamics as I don't see how it is any more than a red herring in the 'who has it worse' off.

 

[bookitty]

I hate the way this subject tends to turn into an 'appeal to worse problems' off, and such. What is the point besides dismissing real problems of real people?

I'm skeptical of all the 'women make less/equal to/more than' claims because of an entire host of confounding factors and suspicion of the controls employed. So I'm discounting that line of reasoning.

People critical of feminism, let's say that men do have unfair accusations leveled at them and that feminism over-reaches. What do you want done about it? What specific actions could help lead to that goal?

Feminists, let's say that gender inequality exists and it is much more severe for women. What do you want done about it and by who? What specific actions could help lead to that goal?

Oh yummy. First and primary, I would like to establish a woman's right to her own body and the right to family planning. Right now in the US, both are under severe attack. It doesn't matter what gains women have made if they have no control of their own reproductive choices. That needs to stop right now.

Everything else, I would like to see happen simultaneously. This following is not listed by priority.

Implement a stronger emphasis on STEM for grade school children with techniques that engage both boys and girls. Critical thinking for all!

Although it sells soda pop and other crap, I'd like to see a larger grassroots movement (boycotts and so forth, not regulation) to challenge negative stereotypical gender roles in the media. Develop and use a Bechdel Test for men, women and the expectations of couples.

Address father's rights and the bias of the court systems. Men need to be given the exact same consideration in custody battles. Allowing bias to drag things out hurts everyone. Not giving custody to the most suitable parent hurts children.

Also simultaneously - tackle every aspect of discrimination against people of color. That list is ridiculously long but unfortunately not germane to this discussion.

 

[truethat]

"Christian meat eaters" isn't a bad descriptional of America, actually.

I found this interesting because you assume most people are highly self-aware, take the time to weigh evidence, and are barely affected by the social world around them. Everything in psychology says you are wrong. Hell, you are a regular on a skeptic board. You really should know better.

For example, the the flavor and strength of religiousity is transmitted down parental and societal lines and conversion is uncommon. This is not a coincidence. People absorb ideas from those surroundings and never bother questioning them.

This is your answer. The reason people hate feminists is that they treat people who don't have the same opinions as them as victims and idiots.


Christians might believe in WOO but that doesn't make them unhappy or dumb or weird. It just makes them doing things differently than you do.

Seriously consider Joe Pantoliano's line in the Matrix, "Why, oh why didn't I take the Blue pill."

It's as if you want everyone to wake up to the reality that they are miserable and trapped. But not everyone feels that way. Just because YOU would want to stay home with your kids, doesn't mean a dad is missing out because he doesn't.

It is ridiculously patronizing to suggest you know what is going to make other people happy and think they should do things the way you think are smarter. They aren't victims. People make choices in life. We can offer education about these choices but we can't judge them by our own standards.

 

[KingMerv00]

I hate the way this subject tends to turn into an 'appeal to worse problems' off, and such. What is the point besides dismissing real problems of real people?

I'm skeptical of all the 'women make less/equal to/more than' claims because of an entire host of confounding factors and suspicion of the controls employed. So I'm discounting that line of reasoning.

Discount away if it makes you feel better. The a raw wage gap exists and everyone agrees that is true. Even those who try to deny it by twisting stats (like CONSAD) can't account for the whole thing when variables are controlled.

Serious non-rhetorical question...what more do you want?

People critical of feminism, let's say that men do have unfair accusations leveled at them and that feminism over-reaches. What do you want done about it? What specific actions could help lead to that goal?

Feminists, let's say that gender inequality exists and it is much more severe for women. What do you want done about it and by who? What specific actions could help lead to that goal?

If you read the OP, you'll see I'm rather new to this so I don't have an action plan written up. Not exactly sure how to going about doing it but we need to educate people on the arbitrary nature of gender roles.

I believe gender inequality does exist, but am unconvinced it overall is much more severe for women generally and in most of the US.

That's kinda vague. Do you have anything specific you do or don't believe?

I further believe that the current most productive way to combat this and help both men and women is to advocate that men take advantage of many of the benefits that women currently employ at a greater rate than men.

For give me for the following sarcasm...

You think gender inequality is more or less evenly distributed between the sexes but the best way to rectify it is for ONE sex to obtain more benefits?

Men should not feel compelled socially or economically to work more dangerous jobs, worse hours, with fewer health benefits, for more hours per week without taking as much vacation or time off for child care.

I think this is oddly phrased. If we tell men not take dangerous jobs, those jobs will remain vacant and men would still be subject to disproportionate levels of danger. Why not just encourage women to compete for all the same jobs as men?

 

[Moss]

If I read the discussion correctly (which given my current state of being already half asleep is a possibility, not a likelihood), "white male privilege" as a term seems to be so unspecific as to get people who are not meant by it (those white males that do not benefit) up in arms because they do feel accused of something they are not privy to and guilty of. That does not seem to be a wise course.

 

[KingMerv00]

This is your answer. The reason people hate feminists is that they treat people who don't have the same opinions as them as victims and idiots.

Frankly, I think YOU are the one playing victim now. Religiousity was just an illustration of how society effects us and how ideas persist. I didn't mean that religion was itself necessarily good or bad.

Please address my primary argument. You said at great length that men were put upon because of societal pressure. We both agree that's unfair. Why is it bad to educate society in hopes of releasing a bit of that pressure?

 

[truethat]

Frankly, I think YOU are the one playing victim now. Religiousity was just an illustration of how society effects us and how ideas persist. I didn't mean that religion was itself necessarily good or bad.

Please address my primary argument. You said at great length that men were put upon because of societal pressure. We both agree that's unfair. Why is it bad to educate society in hopes of releasing a bit of that pressure?

No we don't. Unfair means there's a victim. People are socialized with all sorts of feelings. That we should be "patrotic" that MacDonalds is a nice place to eat. That we should spend money on expensive clothing. That we should buy a lot of gizmos and gadgets.

Part of being an adult is sorting out what you are down with, and what you don't like. You are not cruising through life like a hapless dolt. Even idiots out there can make very good choices about their lives based on the priorities in them.


To pretend that if they don't choose what you think they ought to choose, they are miserable or victim of an unfair thing, is 100 percent completely wrong, patronizing, egocentric and downright dumb in my opinion.

I'm not going to keep discussing it with you, but I think you make a whole heck of a lot of assumptions about people and what they believe.

 

[dirtywick]

There are other problems too. For example, it attributes most of the wage gap to two factors. First, the women's choice to have children and be stay at home moms. I've already discuseed this above; the fact that women are biologically required to carry the child does not explain why men almost never stay at home in the first place. Looking at perceived gender role statistics, the answer appears that "men aren't good caregivers" and "women aren't good breadwinnters". That is sexism by definition.

I think there are more practical reasons.

A woman, having no choice but to carry the child misses 3 months of work, unpaid, consecutively for maternity leave, assuming she works until the day she goes into labor. It's probably more realistically. Depending on the size of the business, she's not guaranteed her job on return either.

Further, doctors recommend breast feeding for at least a year. Obviously pumping at that point is an option, as is formula. But direct feeding is, supposedly, the most beneficial.

For each child a woman has, she misses several months of work the first year, and perhaps isn't available to be at the work site due to feeding. 2-3 children can have a fair impact on a career IMO

 

[tyr_13]

Discount away if it makes you feel better. The a raw wage gap exists and everyone agrees that is true. Even those who try to deny it by twisting stats (like CONSAD) can't account for the whole thing when variables are controlled.

Serious non-rhetorical question...what more do you want?

Better data and a clear understanding of the controls. For example, if someone brings up that men work more hours than women a week, about four if I remember correctly, what control is employed? If it's simply the hours in wage difference, that control is inadequate. A person who works four hours a week more doesn't just have four hours a week more money, but 200 or so more hours of experience per year. How much is that experience worth? How is that controlled for? What of the assumption that an hour is worth an hour? After a certain number of hours, the worth of each additional hour goes up. How much? These questions require value judgements some of which can be 'hard' (backed up by clear methodology and data) and others cannot. How much is working during the day worth over working over nights? In some cases we can say, 'well that job gets payed 40 cents more an hour for over nights' but the jobs themselves aren't always the same. How much are safe environments worth, and how much should they be worth? Are the pay levels in some fields messed up in ways unrelated to gender that confound the data?

It's a messy estimate that I'm not qualified to sort out with conflicting claims by experts but one consistent theme is a lament by researches for better data. I discount it because I can't use it to my satisfaction in a value judgement.

If you read the OP, you'll see I'm rather new to this so I don't have an action plan written up. Not exactly sure how to going about doing it but we need to educate people on the arbitrary nature of gender roles.

[/I]

That's kinda vague. Do you have anything specific you do or don't believe?

That the differences and problems of gender inequality aren't as a significant factor for most people as other factors, such as the rich-poor divide. This does NOT detract from cases where gender inequality has negatively impacted individuals and the 'women/men have it worse than men/women' isn't nearly as productive as working on specific inequalities without regard to who generally has it worse. Men die more on the job in dangerous environments. What does this tell us about a man or woman who doesn't work in those places? Not much.

For give me for the following sarcasm...

You think gender inequality is more or less evenly distributed between the sexes but the best way to rectify it is for ONE sex to obtain more benefits?

Yes. There are more effects from that happening for everyone than just the men getting more benefits.

I think this is oddly phrased. If we tell men not take dangerous jobs, those jobs will remain vacant and men would still be subject to disproportionate levels of danger. Why not just encourage women to compete for all the same jobs as men?

And then those vacant jobs will have to adapt to the workforce's new priorities, which would make those jobs better for men and more attractive for women. More women will then be inclined to compete for those jobs. It would, hopefully, change the reasons why women currently aren't attracted to those jobs, and change other fields to be more man attractive. A high tied raises all boats.

 

[KingMerv00]

No we don't. Unfair means there's a victim.

You made a list of things men have to put up with and how you feel bad for them. This means you think they have suffered and it is not their fault. I think you are just obsessed with the word "victim" and it's negative implications.

People are socialized with all sorts of feelings. That we should be "patrotic" that MacDonalds is a nice place to eat. That we should spend money on expensive clothing. That we should buy a lot of gizmos and gadgets.

Part of being an adult is sorting out what you are down with, and what you don't like. You are not cruising through life like a hapless dolt. Even idiots out there can make very good choices about their lives based on the priorities in them.

Yep. Socialization can be good, bad, and neutral. No argument there.

It becomes "bad" when the socialization is based on arbitrary assumptions and causes harm.

To pretend that if they don't choose what you think they ought to choose, they are miserable or victim of an unfair thing, is 100 percent completely wrong, patronizing, egocentric and downright dumb in my opinion.

Still putting words in my mouth and harping on their supposed implied meanings.

Never said or thought people should choose anything. People should be made aware of how arbitrary gender roles are so people can make more informed choices. If they still want "traditional" gender roles after that, they are welcome to them.

If you think people already have all the information they need, I refer you to my earlier link on how society assumes without evidence that mothers are better parents by default.

I'm not going to keep discussing it with you, but I think you make a whole heck of a lot of assumptions about people and what they believe.

I never assumed anything. Hell, I even posted some statistics that directly measured what people believed but you outright said you didn't care.

Ah well. To the lurkers in the thread on both sides...whatcha think? Was I unfair or illogical?

You'd think it would be easy to get someone to admit to "arbitrary suffering is unfair". Could someone grant me a single point?



Even a little one?




Hello?

 

[KingMerv00]

I think there are more practical reasons.

A woman, having no choice but to carry the child misses 3 months of work, unpaid, consecutively for maternity leave, assuming she works until the day she goes into labor. It's probably more realistically. Depending on the size of the business, she's not guaranteed her job on return either.

Further, doctors recommend breast feeding for at least a year. Obviously pumping at that point is an option, as is formula. But direct feeding is, supposedly, the most beneficial.

For each child a woman has, she misses several months of work the first year, and perhaps isn't available to be at the work site due to feeding. 2-3 children can have a fair impact on a career IMO

Seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Have any evidence to back it up? Has anyone done surveys that suggest those lost months impact national income as a whole? Maybe there are studies that control for this variable? How much, if any, of the 23% does it account for?

 

[truethat]

That the differences and problems of gender inequality aren't as a significant factor for most people as other factors, such as the rich-poor divide. This does NOT detract from cases where gender inequality has negatively impacted individuals and the 'women/men have it worse than men/women' isn't nearly as productive as working on specific inequalities without regard to who generally has it worse. Men die more on the job in dangerous environments. What does this tell us about a man or woman who doesn't work in those places? Not much.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[truethat]

You made a list of things men have to put up with and how you feel bad for them. This means you think they have suffered and it is not their fault. I think you are just obsessed with the word "victim" and it's negative implications.



Yep. Socialization can be good, bad, and neutral. No argument there.

It becomes "bad" when the socialization is based on arbitrary assumptions and causes harm.

You've never demonstrated the "harm." What is the harm in men not wanting to stay home with their kids and women wanting to stay home with their kids. What's harmful about that.

What's harmful about women not going into science as frequently as men. What's harmful about women not wanting to be firefighters as frequently as men?

Where is the harm? The only harm I see, is in the beholders deciding to tell women that they don't know how to make good choices in their lives because you think there's some mysterious harm attached to it.

What harm?



Also King Merv your arguments are classic feminist speak usually by women who don't have any children. So perfect example you just assume that there's a problem with women staying home. You don't honor women as intelligent autonomous empowered women who choose to stay home because they want to and enjoy it tremendously. No somehow there's a problem because they are not "furthering their career" which you have deemed more important.

Still putting words in my mouth and harping on their supposed implied meanings.

Never said or thought people should choose anything. People should be made aware of how arbitrary gender roles are so people can make more informed choices. If they still want "traditional" gender roles after that, they are welcome to them.

If you think people already have all the information they need, I refer you to my earlier link on how society assumes without evidence that mothers are better parents by default.



I never assumed anything. Hell, I even posted some statistics that directly measured what people believed but you outright said you didn't care.

Ah well. To the lurkers in the thread on both sides...whatcha think? Was I unfair or illogical?

You'd think it would be easy to get someone to admit to "arbitrary suffering is unfair". Could someone grant me a single point?



Even a little one?

Thank you for your permission as long as we all do the prerequisite self education that you require. How about stop telling other people what's going to make them happy.

 

[dirtywick]

Seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Have any evidence to back it up? Has anyone done surveys that suggest those lost months impact national income as a whole? Maybe there are studies that control for this variable? How much, if any, of the 23% does it account for?

I'd wager that the impact is going to vary from field to field. A person on hourly pay is going to take a big hit missing 1/3 of a year. Somebody on salary probably has varying stipulations depending on the employer.

I do know that my current wife, as a massage therapist, is still recovering and our son is over a year old. She missed a few months of work, lost clients to other therapists, and is lower on the "on call" list as a result. It takes a lot of time to work your way back from that. My ex wife, when we had our daughter, was in the military and neither her pay nor position changed.



But there is more to that to consider. A couple, hypothetically with all things being equal, decides to have a child. OK, now somebody needs to take some time off right? Well the mother is going to lose three months as it is because she's the one with the stitches in her vagina, taking pain medication at home, who can't walk and her doctor isn't recommending her return to work anyway. The father doesn't miss a day unless he takes vacation. Logically, the stay at home parent, at least for those months, is the mother. Six months from then though? Do people fall into a pattern then? Does the mother have to start over in her career? Does she even still have a job? Who is closer to a promotion and a pay raise? Maybe a part time job for less but with flexible hours makes more sense?

Then two years later they decide to have another one. Repeat the process.

I don't have any evidence of anything though. Just observations from conversations and thoughts I have had going through some of this twice.