Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Spectral]

Gender differences do affect grades and it should definitely be looked at considering that we need the best men and women for important positions in society, especially within science.

We're in no danger of a lack of men in science. If anything, there's still a systemic bias against women at the highest levels of science.

[Frozen Death Knight]

We're in no danger of a lack of men in science. If anything, there's still a systemic bias against women at the highest levels of science.

Singling out that I mentioned men in a statement where I included women in the same breath is not really a good way of arguing about bias against women. It looks quite petty, in my eyes.

[Spectral]

Singling out that I mentioned men in a statement where I included women in the same breath is not really a good way of arguing about bias against women.

My apologies, I horribly misread you. I thought you were arguing there was a bias against men.

[Frozen Death Knight]

My apologies, I horribly misread you. I thought you were arguing there was a bias against men.

Apology accepted.

It could very well be that there are different biases men and women face in various subjects. I don't see why we should just look at one gender instead of both.

[Deleted]

Because women still get paid less than men, for doing the same job.
Because women still get judged for their appearance and beauty, rather than their minds.
Because women can only be one body type, according to the media.

Appearance and body type is the same for men, not a reason for feminists to be around.

And about the paid less, same job: changes go to far now, like a company need to have atleast 40% of there employees to be women.

[starlord]

That does not explain why more boys are dropping out from school than ever before. It even happens in my country Sweden and we don't have the same issues like the US has with its education. Saying that they never decreased would also imply the same participant levels as before, but that is not actually the case.

part of that has to do with behavioral problems being more common among males han females, possibly due to the slower maturation rate. and i suspect another part has to do with the lessening value of a college degree. from the paper i linked:

One source of the persistent female advantage in K-12 school performance and the new female lead in college attainment is the higher incidence of behavioral problems (or lower level of non-cognitive skills) among boys. Jacob (2002) finds, using the NELS, a much higher incidence of school disciplinary and behavior problems for boys than girls and a far lower number of hours spent doing homework for boys than girls. Controlling for these non-cognitive behavioral factors can explain virtually the entire female advantage in college attendance for the high school graduating class of 1992, after adjusting for family background, test scores, and high school achievement.

Well, I am not saying my example covers all the bases, but it still is peculiar that it is okay to put disadvantages on grading someone even if that person proves to know the subject. For instance, I excelled at English in school, but because I was born as a lisper and I stuttered from time to time, I had issues with holding speeches as well as speaking in regular conversations. Despite having performed the best scores in everything related to writing, reading, etc., I still did not get the highest grade because my vocal issues messed up one English speech test we had at the end of that year, which happened to be the last year before moving on to higher education levels. Mind you that it was the only time we did do such a test and I was pretty much among the highest achievers in English test scores and essays in my class and very likely the whole school, which is no small feat.

i dont think the current school system is perfect by any means.

[Mehrunes]

that it was what people were using as examples, not me. and its what people will point to as cause for a rape- "you were wearing sexy clothing, and drove a man insane with lust!"

You did not specify that you meant talk about risk factors in this thread alone. I thought it was a general observation. Sorry for misunderstanding. But in this case - both Endus and Diurdi used the example of avoiding walking alone in shitty neighborhoods as a "reasonable precaution" that lowers the possibility of becoming a crime victim (including rape victim). How can this be reduced to accusing rape victims for their clothing?

then you are misreading my posts. diurdi had used it as an example of someone leaving themselves open to a crime.

He was discussing risk factors, in this case, risk factors related to behavior (as opposed to risk factors related to places, that were talked about earlier).

Well, behaviour too. For example, if you have 500 € sticking out your back pocket, you can't expect it to remain there with certainty when you walk in public..

And this was your response:

you are still saying that a woman who is raped was "putting herself out there", in the same sense as someone "leaving money out if their back pocket."

First of all, how did you even come to the conclusion that he was saying that "a woman who is raped was "putting herself out there""? It's nowhere in that post. Here is an example of behavior that is a risk factor: accepting drinks from a stranger in a club. Why is it a risk factor? Because there's a chance you didn't see the barman preparing the drink, which gave the stranger an opportunity (and as you said earlier, rapists act based on opportunity) to slip drugs to that drink. The fact that someone who you don't know and who doesn't know you gives drinks specifically to you may arise suspicion to the motives of that stranger. And it isn't even related to rape alone. He can use drug you to kidnap you for ransom, to ritually kill you, to steal the keys to your car. The possibilities are endless. The victim is not responsible for any of these crimes, but by taking precautions you may avoid situations like these and as an effect, reduce the possibility of becoming a victim of a crime. You admitted to taking precautions against rape somewhere in this thread. I don't know what forms of precautions you take, but in general, what are these precautions if not activities that lower the risk of getting raped?

But more important part. You called Diurdi's example of 500 euro sticking of one's back pocket a horrible comparison to his stance on the existence of risk factors of becoming a rape (and in general - crime) victim. To think of it, it's hardly a comparison at all, since he didn't give an actual example of what he'd consider a risk factor related to one's behavior. Anyway, as implied to your response to him, it's not right to say that raped women are "putting themselves out there" for the possibility of getting raped. And that's true. Then you contrasted that to his example of someone leaving cash visible in back pocket. In reply to me, you described such a person as "someone leaving oneself open to a crime". But calling someone behaving that way "leaving oneself open to a crime" is the exact same rhetoric as accusing raped women as "putting themselves out there for rape". It is victim blaming. What? Are people not allowed to leave cash in their back pockets? Is there any law prohibiting such behavior? Do people who leave cash in their back pockets want to be robbed?

1 in 6 women in the US is sexually assaulted in her lifetime, most likely by a member of the opposite sex. it would be ridiculous to not teach precautions, and that 1 in 6 would grow higher. the fact is, women dont have as much potential to rape as men. female rape is extremely rare vs male. it may be poisonous, but women are put in that position out of necessity. remove the necessity, then talk about sexism.

Except when you described the thing that are women taught, you used the words "to be afraid of men" (in order "to avoid" rape). Not "some men" or "men in some situations", not "being near men", not "sight of men". Just "men". And fine, you don't teach fear of women to avoid rape, because of the low probability of woman-on-woman rape. Waste of resources and whatnot. It doesn't make pointing men and men alone as potential rapists not sexist though. And yes, women have the same potential as men to rape, to rob, to kill. The probability of them doing so is lower, but probability does not equal potential to commit a crime. You didn't say about teaching the fear of rape itself and you didn't mention anything about teaching precautions either. Or is fear of men is a precaution? Using the example from the OP of "Why are women so afraid" thread which you used as your argument: you walk alone on the street and notice a terrifying man. Does your fear prevent you from getting raped in any way? Does it emanate from your body and repel that man? My guess is that it doesn't, yours most likely as well, so, as in the same example from that thread, you go to the other side of the road. Switching side of the road is the precaution here, the fear is only a motive for it, the driving force for taking that precaution. You "take" precautions, they are an activity. Fear is a feeling. So I don't think that you didn't mention teaching precautions in "women are taught to be afraid of men to avoid {rape}" post of yours. And if that was your intention then, it did not translate well.

As I said, if fear of all men makes you feel more comfortable and motivates you to take precautions that may save you from rape, it's in the end a positive thing, despite the fact that the fear (not the precautions) can be found offensive. So what if people are offended? They get offended by all sort of things, including many insignificant stuff. Do you shorten your fear of "all men - potential rapists" to fear of "all men - rapists"? Do you also hate all men because of your fear? Are your precautions violent actions against men made in advance to make them not rape you in the future? If the answer to these questions is "no", then who are you hurting with your slightly sexist fear? And technically hatred alone isn't hurting anyone as well. So be afraid of men all you want, it hurts no one. Personally speaking I will forget about your fear the moment I close this tab.

the difference between feminists and the Mens rights people is that feminists have a long history of trying to better society, and continue to this day towards that goal. there are very few "mens issues" that arent directly related to losing privileges in society as it became more equal. i wish them all the best in finding their way but its not going to be successful with people attacking women for daring to stand up for themselves and causing change.

And there are also fractions of feminist movements that want women be on top and all other types of crazy feminists or feminists calling for inequality in favor of women. In extreme cases you have feminists calling for extermination of men. And they are immediately dismissed as such, like the ones in the video which started this thread. Why is feminism given the right to have crazies under it's banner and to have them automatically ignored, because they "don't represent whole movement" and yet men's rights are altogether lumped in the category of "can't take this seriously" because of crazies that spout their misguided bullshit under the banner of men's rights? And how is the amount of issues that men face relevant to their importance and significance? Today's feminists face less issues than those 50 years ago. Is modern feminism less significant than feminism 50 years ago? The idea that the number of issues is relevant stems from positions like "We have it worse, which prohibits you from complaining ever", which is damn ignorant. Orphans in Ethiopia have it even worse than women in western world. Does it take any importance from the rights of women? There are areas in family law, employment law, criminal law and other areas of activity that men are discriminated against (keep in mind that your mileage may vary depending on your location). I don't know exactly how many issues more are women facing and I don't intend to, because this isn't a "who has it worse" contest. And it's not going to be successful if people keep ridiculing the notion that in few areas men can be discriminated against, brand them as related to rejection of losing privileges and dismissing any kind of movement in this direction because of fringe extremist groups.

The logic only translates if you assume a key aspect in this debate to be an absolute truth, that life and protection by the law as an individual being begins at birth. So in that case... would a mother who drinks during her pregnancy be vulnerable to legal action for attempting, intentionally or no, to harm the unborn child?

Well, in some legal systems there are situations in which someone can face legal action for causing harm to an unborn child. However, I'm not aware of any of them falling under criminal law.

this is the inequality.
men are up here, vvvvv going down
equality:-----------------------------------
women are down here, going up ^^^^

yes, you are unequal. for completely different reasons.

Treating equality as a singular and solid social construct isn't the best option in my opinion. Women already have equal voting rights. They don't need to go any higher, because that would women into advantageous position. And analogically it mean that issues that men face (even if it's one issue against a hundred or even kirdillion women's issues) can be pointed out, discussed and fixed, despite the fact that because in large scope of things men have it better. It isn't a competition who has it worse. I'm not saying this as a response to you per se, but to the voices in this thread dismissing the very idea of men's rights because "women have it worse" and this offered a good basis.

It goes without saying that some men have faced injustice, but you have to discern between injustice and deep-seated institutional discrimination; men do not suffer the latter strictly because they are men.

Family courts are institutions. Institutions that are biased in favor of women. In this example it's not "some men" who face injustice, but a significant part of them. And although, as dareyon pointed it out "family courts bias has its basis in the old idea "women should be caretakers of children.", the basis of this situation is irrelevant (especially since nowadays the idea that women=caregivers is viewed as outdated and discriminatory), because the outcome is that the men are discriminated against there, because they are men.

That doesn't contradict what I said. When someone's accused of a crime, investigating seems like a pretty decent idea. There's no evidence that false rape accusations are more common than false accusations of other crimes. There is, however, ample evidence that rape is wildly underreported because of women's fear of being told they just regretted consensual sex.

The thing is, no one should be cuffed and taken into custody before the investigation takes places and provides reasonable suspicion of the cuffed one having committed a crime. And while rape is wildly underreported, it includes rape where the victims are male, for example jail rape. And when men report rape they are not only blamed for the crime but also ridiculed. Things like "You probably enjoyed it" if the rapist was female, or questioning of sexual orientation when it was man-on-man rape.

its no different for those accused of murder. what solution do you propose?

First of all, it Radux was talking about investigation. During investigation no one is accused yet. The ability to arrest a suspect is very limited. And I think Radux was hinting at "she said, he said" situations, where the only "proof" of the crime is the word of a woman. That's not enough to arrest anyone, because of the in dubio pro reo rule of criminal trial, which in most western legal systems also applies to the investigation. If the police issues an investigation about a rape in this situation and they find evidence of the crime, they can issue an arrest and in general the suspect can be held for 24 hours so that the police can find more evidence to build a case against him. Now, only when there is enough evidence to begin a process, the the suspect becomes an accused, and arresting him is entirely different thing.

i dont know, i guess the police think its best to err on the side of caution. better inconvenience a few than let violent criminals potentially escape.

As above. And it's not better to cause inconvenience a few during the investigation period, because they are still only suspects then (and especially before they even reach the status of a suspect - and jsut an accusation is not entirely enough for that), because they have the benefit of doubt. To undermine the in dubio pro reo rule is to undermine the fundaments of criminal trial and allow deviations and abuse of power in all stages of trial and investigation. You can't just arrest a suspect and hold him indefinitely until you find enough evidence to accuse them of crime. Once they are accused and face trial, then yes, you can prevent their escape if, for example, there are reasons to believe that the accused will attempt said escape.

False accusations happen all the time. True, in many occasions is it just regret. However, there are still situations of "he raped me" when there was essentially 0 bodily contact.

Believe me, people are put into cuffs, then there is an investigation of the events that supposedly unfolded. (at least in a university setting)

False accusations don't happen all that often though. You actually mentioned it in earlier post. But no matter their prevalence, each false accusation of rape is a hideous crime, penalty for which should be increased. Of course false accusation of any crime should be punishable, but those falsely accused of rape are treated worse that those falsely accused of theft. Especially if the amount of time it took to prove the falseness of the accusation was large.

I'm not keen on the idea of women getting to decide if men have to pay 18 years for a child that they want aborted. Women should keep their authority but not force men to pay.

The topic of "legal abortion" for men always ends in the sides who see even a shred of reason behind it either choosing the stance that rights of the child come before the rights of the man or vice versa. With a lot of people calling this notion all sorts of things. So I'd say it's better to avoid this topic in a thread about feminism, because it would side track it into the polar opposite of it's purpose.

Great, I wrote another wall...

[starlord]

i think you are just overanalyzing things mehrunes.

[Deleted]

Because women still get paid less than men, for doing the same job.

I think i will never get this argument... if you could actually pay women less for the same work, why not hire 100% women? If they get pregnant the men could take care of the child after a few weeks since they'd have no job anyways!

What do you say? It's the evil patriarchy plotting against women? Better get your tinfoil hats!

[Sam the Wiser]

I can't really speak my mind to much on this topic,but was trying to watch the video in the OP. What was it about since it has been removed.

[Eroginous]

Boobs are mysterious and sexy so you can't show them in public, therefore boobs are mysterious and sexy.

No, I did not say that. I said just because it might be legal to walk around topless in public as a women, doesn't mean it's good to do so. I also pointed out that leaving something to the imagination was a good thing.

No where did I say that you can't show your boobs in public for X reason.

[Cybran]

We're in no danger of a lack of men in science. If anything, there's still a systemic bias against women at the highest levels of science.

What bias would that be? That women "intuition" gets in their way? Have you even read anything he said?

i dont think the current school system is perfect by any means.

http://phys.org/news66925169.html

Brain research has shown differences in male and female brains that can affect preferred learning styles and communication,” says Mary Ann Clark, UF associate professor of counselor education and principal investigator. “It has been suggested that public school curriculum may not be teaching ‘to the boys’ and that teaching styles are more suitable for girls

In my highschool we had 3 male teachers and over 65% girls. The same trend is clear all across Europe as well. School is biased against men, just like courts. The feminist goal is to make boys girls or hinder their education. This system creates males without future that are far more likely to resort to crime or violence.

[skwizna]

As someone who dates a self professed "feminist" in the legit and reality based world, I can say this thread is filled with people who haven't got a clue.

True test to see how deep a "feminists" convictions are? Take her on a date and do nothing chivalrous, and ask her to pay for her 1/2 of the date.

At the end of the day, a true feminist just wants to be treated as an equal, with no special treatment or coddling, so if the "feminist" you know complains about you doing anything i listed above, they aren't looking for equality, they are looking for a handout.

Two very different things.

[zerocoolhack]

We're in no danger of a lack of men in science. If anything, there's still a systemic bias against women at the highest levels of science.

There is no systemic bias in science. I dont remember who did a study on it but they found that women were not and did not want to go into those fields. It's not bias if a majority of them dont want to go into that field.

This is still relevant even though we have equal pay.

[TheBeardedOne]

feminists are like minorities and disabled people, they say they want equality but they really want preferential treatment because they see themselves as some sort of victim(dem evil white guys). Of course the idea of them been victims is utter bullshit in any decent country, they have equality now but don't let that get in the way of taking more

[Cybran]

feminists are like minorities and disabled people, they say they want equality but they really want preferential treatment because they see themselves as some sort of victim(dem evil white guys). Of course the idea of them been victims is utter bullshit in any decent country, they have equality now but don't let that get in the way of taking more

Women, minorities and disabled people still have a lot of problems and disadvantages. Society has to improve to make everyone more equal, but as a movement feminism is nothing more than a supremacist group. The main driving force behind them is Hate and the pursuit of Power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYAVROaIcs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her statement that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men

They are 1 step away from bombing churches.

[Simulacrum]

part of that has to do with behavioral problems being more common among males han females, possibly due to the slower maturation rate. and i suspect another part has to do with the lessening value of a college degree. from the paper i linked:

Don't you think it's ironic that, while feminists are the first to pop up to decree that women make less than men because of workplace discrimination, or do worse in certain scientific fields because of gender bias, (the major unstated premise there being that there are no gender differences), they're also the first to pop up to say that boys preform worse than girls in school because of gender differences? No bias there, eh?

It's almost as if they have a sexist agenda that doesn't care about the truth at all.

[gnomergon]

Because women still get paid less than men, for doing the same job.

This has been shown time and time again to be a product of either women being on maternity leave, or because the jobs being compared with actual different jobs. This is still a problem, but the inequity is no where near what the skewed numbers show.

Because women still get blamed for getting raped, rather than the rapist.

This is definitely not the case in most situations nowadays. and stop confusing "prevention preparedness" for "blame". Telling a woman that it would not be a bad idea to get self-defense training is the same as saying that to a guy. the ONLY situation where your point is applicable is when they are told that they were "asking for it". That is just sick and wrong and stupid

Because women still get judged for their appearance and beauty, rather than their minds.

So do men, fucktard.

Because women can only be one body type, according to the media.

According to an overwhelming amount of females, there is a FAR narrower view of what men can and should look like to be appealing. Can you say "tall, dark, and handsome"? Until women are mature, they DESTROY men who look any different. There is a MUCH bigger view according to men what women can look like. I know men who like only tall skinny girls, or short skinny girls or tall average girls or short average girls or tall curvy girls or short curvy girls. or multiples of the above. Fuck the media, they're just stupid. The media isn't a feminist problem, its an EVERYONE problem.

Because men think feminism doesn't need to be around anymore, that's why feminism still needs to be around. It's just women being 'oh it's so 1900's.'

Ignorance and mere difference of opinion are not reasons.

No, women are still oppressed, and if you think that they are not, you're the reason why women are fighting for equality.

Again, ignorance and mere difference of opinion are not reasons.




Just to add why I think feminism in America is still important, which is really just small things (relative to actual problems that other groups face such as child laborers in asia, AIDS victims in Africa, women and girls living in forced prostitution etc):

Pronouns. It can feel pretty shitty to have your sex constantly ignored when group pronouns are used. "You guys" being the prime example. Sort of a prodding notion that you don't belong. For the guys in this thread: if you like cooking/cooking shows, watch something like "Paula's Best Dishes" on Food Network, and you'll get that feeling whenever she calls the audience "girls" or "gals". Again, SUUUPER relatively minor, but improvement can be made.

Gender Attitudes. Simply put, the attitude that each gender should like a specific thing or act a specific way.

Though to be honest, these two things pretty much apply to both men and women in different ways.

[Deleted]

No, I did not say that. I said just because it might be legal to walk around topless in public as a women, doesn't mean it's good to do so. I also pointed out that leaving something to the imagination was a good thing.

What do you mean "doesn't mean it's good to do so"?

I don't particularly like seeing men who are obese walking around without a shirt on during summers. :/

[Elim Garak]

What do you mean "doesn't mean it's good to do so"?

Some men will stare, some will feel uncomfortable trying not to stare.