Men are becoming more like Women

[Ksandra]

I'm not arguing semantics. "Traditional family values" implies something a lot older that lasted a long time, rather than a single decade in the middle of the last century. I'm trying to point out you're giving something a worth or a value that it did not actually have.

except I never said "traditional family values" I said old...and just because it's not as old as you want it to be doesn't make it not have value...you're making no sense.

[aduidarnenye]

I have to admit any lobbying group does fit into that. My main gripes though are that they have a disproportionate amount of power for their numbers, use misleading statistics to generalize claims which haven't gone unnoticed (all while chanting they are "silenced" in the patriarchy), and do not represent the group they claim to.

Women make up about 50% of the population so one would believe they should have 50% of the power?

I do agree that statistics are often used to mislead, but I also believe that is true of all sides.

As for being silenced, women weren't allowed to vote in America until 1920. That's about as silent as you can get in terms of political powers. It takes more than 90 years to shift that kind of behaviour to equality.

I believe that these women are exploiting men's good intentions and sincerity, while simultaneously patronizing women. I don't subscribe to the patriarchy system because I believe that men in general do love and celebrate the women in their lives, and would rather have a partner in marriage than a servant. To claim otherwise is offensive to men, offensive to the women who love men, and divides the sexes. This is the internet though, so if I'm wrong I'll know in like 5 minutes.

There are women who exploit and there are women who do not. There are men who have very good intentions. My husband constantly tells me he's more of a feminist than I am. I don't agree with the ardent feminists because I don't agree with any fundamental, fanatical, or extreme system of beliefs. I also don't believe that most feminists, or even most people of any system of belief fall within that extreme range. All things in moderation.

I think that all people should be equal. I don't think that men should be favoured over women nor should women be favoured over men. I think that most women who identify themselves as feminist understand this and dislike the ardent crazies. Taking a few very ardent man-hating feminists and identifying them with the entire feminist movement is just as crazy as the afore mentioned crazies.

[aduidarnenye]

except I never said "traditional family values" I said old...and just because it's not as old as you want it to be doesn't make it not have value...you're making no sense.

I was using the generalist term that is usually applied to your viewpoint on family values.

And I don't mean to imply it has zero value, just that it doesn't have the value some people place upon it.

If people wish to choose that sort of lifestyle and are able to undertake it, all the more power to them. If they don't, then so be it. Whatever people want they should work for themselves to achieve.

But to say that it is the best way or the old way or the traditional way is kind of silly. It's hard to say what is best for all people, it's certainly not very old, and it's one tradition among many.

[Kashka]

Women make up about 50% of the population so one would believe they should have 50% of the power?

That's what I think too, but what I've been trying to get across is that these crazies as you called them, and which I hope I have adequately categorized as as well, are messing that up. If I have not adequately painted my starting point, I believe in the first feminism I described in my first post; equal opportunity, equal in the eyes of the law etc and would describe myself as such. What I've been denouncing this whole time is the "crazies". These are the people who force changes in universities over the heads of faculty members, the people who lied with their statistics etc. They make up a tiny segment of women yet their agendas are thriving. They are the women who claim they are "silenced", yet are university presidents, professors with tenure, hold workshops to discuss the problems of how to resocialize boys (who gave them that power? yet they are or have tried).

I'm really worried now because I fear I've been misunderstood this whole time.

[Darus Grey]

The real problem that I don't see addressed, is the mounds of evidence that having "female equality" has actually led to the oppression and subjugation of men.

The core of the "Gender Wars" is that men are inclined to only be successful in male dominated environments.

By removing men from that environment, they have been oppressed.

As such the needs of men and women are directly opposed to each other, in what many would consider irreconcilable differences.

The biggest issue is the feminization of the education system, competition has been all but eradicated from education, by women, mainly because ironically, women recognize that they can't compete with men on men's terms...

But competition is the single biggest driving force in a healthy male, it's loss has effected our society negatively.

Edit: My point simply being that equality is a pipe-dream, it cannot exist because we are DIFFERENT, and thus not equal. At best one side will suffer well another side holds power, which is currently women.

Double Edit: I somehow missed the entire last page where this was brought up, so NM.

[SilverBreeze]

Women make up about 50% of the population so one would believe they should have 50% of the power?

I think that all people should be equal. I don't think that men should be favoured over women nor should women be favoured over men. I think that most women who identify themselves as feminist understand this and dislike the ardent crazies. Taking a few very ardent man-hating feminists and identifying them with the entire feminist movement is just as crazy as the afore mentioned crazies.

This is exactly how I feel, I'm glad there's people here like Aduidarnenye who can say it much better than I can.

In all groups there are a certain number of radicals and crazy people who can be focused upon to falsely show what the group really stands for. I can honestly say I don't personally know a single woman with a career that wants anything more to be treated equally and given the same chance as a man who is equally as qualified as her.

[Zoolander]

Hmmm, this thread really makes me want to go back and study the socialist feminism we had to drop in my Philosophy of Marxism class because there wasn't enough time. Names are: Sheila Rowbotham, Juliet Mitchell, Heidi Hartmann, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Ann Ferguson. Maybe tomorrow I'll be a more enlightened man when it comes to feminism...

[aduidarnenye]

The real problem that I don't see addressed, is the mounds of evidence that having "female equality" has actually led to the oppression and subjugation of men.

The core of the "Gender Wars" is that men are inclined to only be successful in male dominated environments. By removing men from that environment, they have been oppressed. As such the needs of men and women are directly opposed to each other, in what many would consider irreconcilable differences.

The biggest issue is the feminization of the education system, competition has been all but eradicated from education, by women, mainly because ironically, women recognize that they can't compete with men on men's terms. But competition is the single biggest driving force in a healthy male, it's loss has effected our society negatively.

Edit: My point simply being that equality is a pipe-dream, it cannot exist because we are DIFFERENT, and thus not equal. At best one side will suffer well another side holds power, which is currently women.

Why does it have to be a war with a winner and a loser?

Everyone is different. Not all men are alike. Some are born very strong, some are born very intelligent, and some have neither attribute. The same goes for women. While, I do agree that women tend one way and men tend another, this does not make them so dispargingly different as to always exclude equality for all time. Just because it seems extraordinarily difficult to achieve does not make it impossible. I don't think it is a pipe dream. At least I hope it is not.

The perception that women do not enjoy competition is another falsehood (excluding the whole gender wars argument which I think is silly from both viewpoints). Women just don't tend to compete in the same venues as men nor have it noticed by men. Which has led some men (not all) to believe that women don't like competition. Surely you have met some real female MMO players who are fiercely competitive in game?

[Darus Grey]

Why does it have to be a war with a winner and a loser?

Everyone is different. Not all men are alike. Some are born very strong, some are born very intelligent, and some have neither attribute. The same goes for women. While, I do agree that women tend one way and men tend another, this does not make them so dispargingly different as to always exclude equality for all time. Just because it seems extraordinarily difficult to achieve does not make it impossible.

The perception that women do not enjoy competition is another falsehood. Women just don't tend to compete in the same venues as men nor have it noticed by men. Which has led some men (not all) to believe that women don't like competition.

If two things are different, they cannot be equal. That's all there is to it. No amount of wishful thinking changes that simple fact. Since they cannot be equal, one will always be greater than the other. Thus, there will always be a winner and a loser. That is why.

Second point...fine, they simply eradicated competition that suits men, that really just makes it worse doesn't it? Since it changes it from passive to deliberate.

[aduidarnenye]

You missed my edits!

You can use the balancing scale metaphor. Two different items, one on each side of the scale, come out to the same weight. They're equal in weight. Same amount of weight greatness if you will.

I have no interest in eradicating competition that men enjoy and partake in. I simply wish to be included when I want to be as well as have the ability to have my own competitions with others (be them male or female) taken seriously (or humourously as the case may be).

[Rhyis.]

This thread requires pie.

[Antithesis]

This thread requires pie.

The women are too busy protesting to make it.

[Darus Grey]

You missed my edits!

You can use the balancing scale metaphor. Two different items, one on each side of the scale, come out to the same weight. They're equal in weight. Same amount of weight greatness if you will.

I have no interest in eradicating competition that men enjoy and partake in. I simply wish to be included when I want to be as well as have the ability to have my own competitions with others (be them male or female) taken seriously (or humourously as the case may be).

Scale metaphor is flawed, because it assumes equal commodities, the commodities are different, as such one pound of one is not the same value as one pound of another. Don't go trying to extend the metaphor either to fit into your view, then you're just arguing the metaphor and not reality.

As I said, no amount of wishful thinking, etc. We can never be equal, why is that hard to accept? I'd rather embrace reality than delude myself over fantasy.

[Deadgye]

Fuck this war bullshit, you females keep your drama to yourself. I'm too busy/lazy to have to deal with all your nonsense.

[Beckwin]

I would object that some of the figures whose ideas I am attacking are more important than you realize. Specifically, Susan Faludi, Carol Gilligan, Gloria Steinem, David and Myra Sadker, and others who think like them. These individuals have had a hand in such things as a 360 million dollar Equity in Education Act, have had their findings and works quoted by people like Vice-President Biden, have managed to help force schools and workplaces to adhere to ever more expansive interpretations of Title IX and other things. They or their ideals are represented in government and academia. One of the specific problems is that they are a minority and don't represent women, but wield an inordinate amount of power.

These are people that have had and do have a hand in trying to resocialize America into their ideal. I don't think these are minor figures, but they should be.

So you've got a problem with these man-hating RADICAL feminists lobbying for programs that directly help women and do not directly harm men?

Pro-fucking-tip: instead of complaining about this sort of thing, you should support efforts to help men in areas that they need. Support scholarships for K-12 education for males, support grants to encourage males in the arts and humanities, support efforts that target poor and minority males, support efforts to assist young fathers. The feminists won't fight you on any of those.

You can also use that nasty little buzzword "resocialize" to describe the civil rights and now gay movements... if you were a douchebag.

[Beckwin]

The real problem that I don't see addressed, is the mounds of evidence that having "female equality" has actually led to the oppression and subjugation of men.

The core of the "Gender Wars" is that men are inclined to only be successful in male dominated environments.

By removing men from that environment, they have been oppressed.

As such the needs of men and women are directly opposed to each other, in what many would consider irreconcilable differences.

The biggest issue is the feminization of the education system, competition has been all but eradicated from education, by women, mainly because ironically, women recognize that they can't compete with men on men's terms...

But competition is the single biggest driving force in a healthy male, it's loss has effected our society negatively.

Edit: My point simply being that equality is a pipe-dream, it cannot exist because we are DIFFERENT, and thus not equal. At best one side will suffer well another side holds power, which is currently women.

Double Edit: I somehow missed the entire last page where this was brought up, so NM.

Since no one is suggesting that males not be allowed to be competitive (which I think is a somewhat shaky characterization of the "single biggest driving force in a healthy male"; too many years of free market dogma starting to leak into psychology maybe?) nor is anyone talking about forcing men to have muscle reductions or become Arnold in that Mr. Mom movie......... your whole argument here looks pretty bad. Let's play mad libs with it:


The real problem that I don't see addressed, is the mounds of evidence that having "racial equality" has actually led to the oppression and subjugation of whites.

The core of the "Civil Rights Movement" is that whites are inclined to only be successful in white dominated environments.

By removing whites from that environment, they have been oppressed.

As such the needs of whites and coloreds are directly opposed to each other, in what many would consider irreconcilable differences.

The biggest issue is the "equalization" of the education system, competition has been all but eradicated from education, by coloreds, mainly because ironically, coloreds recognize that they can't compete with coloreds on coloreds' terms...

But competition is the single biggest driving force in a healthy white person, it's loss has effected our society negatively.


Remember when we had all this sort of terrible science that made that above mad libs viewed as true in the 1950s and earlier? Phrenology, Craniology, botched IQ tests... hell there've been efforts more recently (see: The Bell Curve). But now after looking at things more soberly and throwing out bad science, we can generally attribute most differences to power relations, economic conditions, and inherent (though not necessarily intently malicioius) biases.

I tend to think the same applies to gender issues.

[Rammses]

In the Sibling Wars, there can only be winners and losers because if two things are different, they cannot be equal. Because they cannot be equal, you should, as a parent, stop your wishful thinking of giving your children equally good lives and instead set up one of them as the winner while oppressing the others, because hey, that's what will ultimately happen anyway, when two things are different.

What a ridiculous argument.

If the genders are so fundamentally different, they wouldn't be striving for largely the same things in the first place.

[Kashka]

So you've got a problem with these man-hating RADICAL feminists lobbying for programs that directly help women and do not directly harm men?

Pro-fucking-tip: instead of complaining about this sort of thing, you should support efforts to help men in areas that they need. Support scholarships for K-12 education for males, support grants to encourage males in the arts and humanities, support efforts that target poor and minority males, support efforts to assist young fathers. The feminists won't fight you on any of those.

You can also use that nasty little buzzword "resocialize" to describe the civil rights and now gay movements... if you were a douchebag.

Yes, I do have a problem with these radical women who lobby for programs that directly "help" women and do not directly help men. They have been using misinformation to spread the idea that young girls have a self-esteem crisis, that getting married is the most dangerous thing a woman could do for her health, that one in four women will be raped in their lifetime, and that no matter what, women are the victims of men and men should be feared, blamed, and women should be angry.

This image of women as victims has opened the way for a disproportionate amount of things like trying to get girls to catch up to boys in math/science (which should happen, just not to this extent) which prevents money from going to the appropriate places. The money spent to help boys catch up in verbal and writing skills is far less than girls have gotten even though boys' deficiency in that area compared to girls is far larger. Anyone who tries to help change this is also subject to being accused of sexual discrimination, because "everyone knows girls are the ones who are shortchanged". Look at some of the responses in just this thread; some people have claimed that they are uncomfortable talking about it because they feel it's just not something men should have a say in, and I would claim that that sentiment is largely due to the current false image of women as victims, when in truth they are thriving more than any time in the history of civilization, and outpacing men in many fields.

There is also an enormous effort to stem sexual harassment in schools, but boys are rarely acknowledged as potential victims and when looking at bullying/harassment in general, are more likely to be targeted at all. Obviously some girls have a nightmarish time in school, and efforts need to be done to help them, but installing such a strong fear of litigation in schools that forces them to react violently to every accusation does not help. Individuals who should have been suspended get expelled because the school just cannot afford to be sued. Radical feminists also have a tendency to overlook the fact that girls can and do bully other girls. For them, anything that does not conform to their false-truths that America is a haven of violence against women, sexism, and an oppressive patriarchy needs to be squelched, even if it's the truth.

That's the problem with radical feminists; they have a lot of influence but don't want the truth. Without the truth we cannot appropriately address current social issues like the decline of america's educational system in the face of other countries, battery, rape, and gender discrimination in general. The money ends up going to the wrong people or the wrong places, and there isn't an infinite amount to go around.

--

By resocializing boys, I am talking about things that just don't really make sense to force on a child. Forcing them to play with dolls, excluding them from "National take your daughter to work day" (which has since been rectified), making them sit through classes which reinforce the idea of them as a bad guy, failing to distinguish between positive aggression (rough and tumble play, competition) and negative aggression (for the purpose to hurt) and blaming masculinity in general. The message is that boys are not allowed to be themselves, they should be more like girls. Radical feminists have an idea of a woman-centered world and for them all masculinity is a target. "Boys will be boys" turns into "Boys should be girls". It does not celebrate the differences in the sexes and in actuality is essentially trying to enforce an androgynous, politically correct, and stifling world.

[Darus Grey]

Remember when we had all this sort of terrible science that made that above mad libs viewed as true in the 1950s and earlier? Phrenology, Craniology, botched IQ tests... hell there've been efforts more recently (see: The Bell Curve). But now after looking at things more soberly and throwing out bad science, we can generally attribute most differences to power relations, economic conditions, and inherent (though not necessarily intently malicioius) biases.

I tend to think the same applies to gender issues.

I would disagree, they're unrelated. The difference is at the core a black man and white man are the same mentally; their differences are often cultural. When comparing genders, our mental differences are a huge gaping chasm where only a quack would suggest our psychology is even remotely equal to one another.

Why is it that male drop-out rates, male declining grades, and loss of male productivity all tend to coincide with the "feminization" of the education system?

You say that you don't want to stop men from competing...but our education system does exactly that, with it's everyone is a winner mentality. We did things like make grades private as oppose to public(something for example done in Japan, look how competitive they are...), so that no one feels butthurt if they did poorly. We've mostly eliminated recess because males tend to rough-house(which is GOOD for them), but is an activity females can't participate in. As a teacher you're heavily discouraged from giving competitive incentives to students, because it's "unfair" to anyone who doesn't make it.

As I said, the change in the education system to accommodate females actually led to the oppression of males. Unless we segregate the genders during education we cannot have a system where both benefit equally. If we design it in favor of men, it will hurt women, if we design for women, it hurts men. There's an endless wealth of research and discussion on this just a google search away, it's a major topic among educators who are appalled by what is going on to male students these days.

I don't pretend to know everyone's age, but if anyone is around 20-24 years old, they should be able to think back to middle school, which for them would be around the time this major paradigm shift happened, and compare the before/after.

Edit:

^ Kashka definitely gets it.

[Kuya]

Physical differences... means different value, different rights, different everything. This thread has presented many examples of nasty sophistry.