Misandry: The Ugly Side of Political Correctness?

  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 09, 2011 6:51 PM GMT
    I'm going to throw this out here because this is an issue I've been thinking about for a couple of months, ever since Joel Northrup, a young wrestler from Iowa declined to fight a girl in a state championship. He expressed great respect for the two girls who were competing in the state championship, but he simply said that wrestling is a physical sport which can get rough at times, and he feels like young men and women should not be competing against one another.

    The reaction, following his decision, had nothing to do with the young woman he declined to wrestle or her family, and everything to do with those who seemed to have an axe to grind. The young man was more or less written off by some as a coward who was afraid to lose to a girl, and by others a little more gently as a male chauvinist.

    It all seemed pretty unfair. I mean, I can't imagine how a young man has anything to gain when he's wrestling a young woman: if he wins, it's almost as if there is always an asterisk beside his accomplishment; if he wins, and she is injured accidentally, he may well face violence from other young men for hurting a girl; and if he loses, he's branded a wuss, pussy or whatever nasty emasculating term you can think of.

    So I looked at the situation, and was curious about other ways that men and women are treated differently.

    Reproductive Rights
    - Once a child is conceived, women typically have the exclusive right to terminate the pregnancy.
    - Should the woman carry the child, she can emancipate herself from financial responsibility by way of putting the child up for adoption.
    - In both of these cases, in most Western jurisdictions, men do not have the right to object. The man cannot emancipate himself from financial responsibility for the child if the woman chooses to keep it; he typically cannot prevent her from putting the child up for adoption, even if he wants to raise the baby himself; and of course he has no right to force the woman to carry the baby to term if she does not wish to have it.

    Domestic Abuse
    - Domestic violence shelters frequently cater exclusively to women, even though between 8% and 23% of battered victims are men. This is especially true in the gay community. When men are abused, it often goes unreported; if the abusing partner is a woman, a man is perceived as "unmanly," and often may be shunned!
    - In most shelters, if a battered man appears, he's given numbers to call and a motel voucher, and sent on his way; the shelters will assist him, but he is not welcome to stay in most of them.
    - There are specific acts ("Violence Against Women Act" in the USA, for instance) put in place to address abuse where the victim is a woman, but no such legislation to cater to the specific challenges that abused men face.
    - In general, women are considered to be justified in hitting a man if he says something that offends her; HOWEVER men are never allocated the same justification for hitting a woman, not even when she strikes him without provocation (as happened to me when I was a kid).

    Divorce
    - Women are far more likely to be awarded custody of children.
    - Women are also far more likely to be awarded alimony after divorce- in 2006, just 3.6% of Alimony recipients in the USA were men.

    Education
    - High School drop out rates have risen steadily for men, leading some to suggest that the feminization of education has had an adverse effect on boys.
    - Education in primary and secondary schools is increasingly female dominated: in the UK, for instance, just 15.7% of primary school teachers are men; in Ontario (Canada), just 28% of teachers are men...but when you look at teachers under 30, just 11% of the teachers are men.
    - In spite of the fact that men represent roughly 50% of the population, just 43% of college students in the USA are male.

    Health
    - In 2002 in the UK, Breast Cancer (which primarily impacts women) funding was four times greater than funding for Prostate Cancer (which impacts men), even though Prostate Cancer mortality rates (36.76%) were higher than mortality rates for Breast Cancer (32.5%).
    - Men are between 3 and 10 times more likely to die of suicide.
    - 90% of the homeless are men.

    Sentencing
    - Men are more likely to be sentenced to longer periods of imprisonment or to be sentenced to death than are women who have committed a comparable crime.
    - Men are less likely to receive suspended sentences or community service sentences than are women who have committed a comparable crime.

    The Wage Gap
    - In 2004, women earned less than 77% of what men earned for "comparable work"; however...
    - In September, 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that single childless women between 22 and 30 earned 8% more than their male counterparts; in Atlanta, the difference was women earning 121% what their male counterparts earned. This may be owing to education levels amongst young, childless women...as when higher educations match, men still typically make more.
    * As a side note, having been employed since I was 13, I can honestly say I've never been in a situation where, for doing the same work, I was compensated more than my female peers...and I suspect to a great extent, many men are likely in the same situation. I find myself wondering if this wage gap isn't based primarily on the fact that older generations of men are perhaps earning much more than their female compatriots.

    National Defense
    - The "Order of the White Feather" was founded by a British Admiral (a man) and supported by a prominent author (a woman) with the intent of shaming men into signing up for military service in WWI- started in the UK, it spread throughout the Empire. The way it worked...if a woman saw a man, she was to give him a white feather...a badge of cowardice; as one author who was serving in the British Army noted: "idiotic young women were using white feathers to get rid of boyfriends of whom they were tired."

    I think, when pointing this out, I'm nervous that people will think that I am a misogynist. I'm not: I believe that women should have every opportunity that men have in life, and that if something is fundamentally unfair, it should be corrected. I want to see my niece succeed at life...and I want to see my nephew succeed as well! I believe in universal equality, and I believe in steps taken to promote that...within reason.

    However I don't think it is a success if, at the end of efforts to promote equality, what we end up seeing is a society where one gender is regarded with all favour, and the other gender is regarded with nothing but suspicion. And I suspect most people, whether they're men or women, feel the same way!
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 09, 2011 6:53 PM GMT
    Incidentally, I think this video is kind of interesting. I don't take everything this guy says seriously...I think he is something of a chauvinist...BUT I do find some of the video rather surprising...and to some degree, enlightening.

    In particular, the idea that was floated by feminists in Sweden that there should be a "Man tax!"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 09, 2011 7:39 PM GMT
    a-true-woman-real-woman-warrior-kitchen-
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 10, 2011 2:25 AM GMT
    FearTheFall saida-true-woman-real-woman-warrior-kitchen-


    Well at least someone responded...so thanks for that FTF.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 10, 2011 4:17 AM GMT
    Hmmm...interesting Yahoo question I found, as posed by a woman:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110411053948AACyn0G

    For those not wanting to read the link, the woman there asks if you'd prefer to have a son and a daughter. And then she proceeds to say she'd want a daughter because boys are uglier, more violent, the men in her family have a history of criminal behaviour, boys are more inclined to have developmental difficulties, are more likely to be put in prison, more likely to be gay, etc...

    Then, after all of that, she reasons that her misandry and generalizations are acceptable because apparently some members of her family think the idea of having daughters is gross (which frankly, stinks of a lie...but whatever), and because in India and China, boys are preferred...so why should people have a problem with her preferring girls?

    The irony is that she provides numbers (very raw) to show that men commit more crimes...but she doesn't even reason out the preference for boys in India and China: in India, girls are considered more expensive because of the dowry that is given when they marry; in China, with the one child policy, boys are considered the likely breadwinners who will be better equipped to provide for elderly parents in the future.

    Neither of which is a good reason to prefer one gender over the other IMHO...people should just be grateful that their children are healthy, and anything more than passive preference (ie. I'd prefer to have a daughter because I already have a son) would lead me to question whether the person is a suitable parent to begin with.

    I'm going to keep posting to this thread, even if no one else does.

    BTW, I should mention, based on subsequent updates of her question, it seems like a lot of people, including women, objected to her generalizations and her attitudes towards men.

    It reminds us that women are not the cause of misandry...but it seems increasingly that feminists are! And their male compatriots who also perpetuate it by their attitudes towards other men!
  • eddieross69

    Posts: 841

    May 10, 2011 4:44 AM GMT
    I think what the young man did was commendable, in fact, it took balls to walk from the match full wel knowing the consequences of his actions.

    Pitting a male against a female in a physical combat contest like wrestling, to me, is ludicrous. That is not what equality is about.

    I work out with the woman who just won the Strong Woman competition at this year's Arnold Competition a couple of months ago. This woman can outlift everyone in the gym, including a few pro/am bodybuilders who are twice her size. Yet, they have a seperate male and female strong competitions. It makes the competition fair. Physiologically speaking, men and women are not equal and should not be judged against each other in situations such as this. What's fair and equal is having each sex compete against themselves. There should be a boys wrestling team AND a girls wrestling team.

    Where the term misandry even enters into the conversation confuses me. Where is there a display of hatred for men and boys?
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 10, 2011 6:04 AM GMT
    eddieross69 saidI think what the young man did was commendable, in fact, it took balls to walk from the match full wel knowing the consequences of his actions.

    Pitting a male against a female in a physical combat contest like wrestling, to me, is ludicrous. That is not what equality is about.

    I work out with the woman who just won the Strong Woman competition at this year's Arnold Competition a couple of months ago. This woman can outlift everyone in the gym, including a few pro/am bodybuilders who are twice her size. Yet, they have a seperate male and female strong competitions. It makes the competition fair. Physiologically speaking, men and women are not equal and should not be judged against each other in situations such as this. What's fair and equal is having each sex compete against themselves. There should be a boys wrestling team AND a girls wrestling team.

    Where the term misandry even enters into the conversation confuses me. Where is there a display of hatred for men and boys?


    It isn't that having her compete against him was an example of misandry...rather it was more the contempt shown him in the aftermath that led me to look at things in society a little more closely. I was just phrasing what opened the door to my looking at the genders and how they are treated.

    Perhaps another vein in this discussion should be at what point contempt and hatred connect...because it does seem like men tend to be openly supportive of a double standard of treatment that, were it drilled into women, may be construed to be a form of misogyny.

    Of course where I see misandry is, for instance, in the treatment of male victims of domestic violence. Even in a case where a vulnerable, abused man seeks help, he is not trusted enough to reside in a shelter with women and children. The implication, at best, is that he's better equipped to defend himself; at worst, it's that his nature is violent and evil, and women must be sequestered from him at all costs.

    Trust me...I don't expect everyone, or perhaps even most people to see what I'm seeing...so feel free to express your opinions.

  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 10, 2011 7:20 AM GMT
    theantijockOn reproductive rights, for me, the individual is sovereign, so pretty much what she says goes. I feel as strongly about that concerning men's "rights" over her body and its baby as I do concerning states' "rights" over her decision on abortion. I do not see how you can argue taking away her rights a little to give to the father but not to the state so I think you lose that part of your argument completely. Regarding adoption, it does seem the man should have first rights of refusal, what with the baby being property and all.

    My class did accept that there should be more accomodation for abused men, though the issue was somewhat skirted and the women were very quick to cite stats difficult to argue against when considering the allocation of limited funding.

    On divorce, I don't know, I'm not hetero with those problems. I'm pretty glad my mom got me and my step dad turned out to be a great guy. Though my brother has a solid marriage, I'm certain he'd do a wonderful job as a single father, being so involved in his kids' lives. I'd have to review stats but if pressed I'd bet most kids would rather be with their mothers as quickly as I'd bet most father's would rather be out drinking beer and shooting pool. But I would not argue that without research first.

    Education is becoming a problem but I don't know how you fault women for their success. I would have to study the problem and review the suspected causes to really comment here.

    The health discrepancy is pretty simple to understand. Guys don't like going to doctors. I don't know if that's a machismo thing or what. It might be interesting to see if gay guys utilize the medical field more so than str8s but less than lesbians? When was the last time you went for your pap smear? Just kidding to make the point that they go routinely. Most men do not.

    I think it is silly to try and argue the wage gap. Men make more overall and in most catagories, even in some fields populated by more women than men. The Atlanta example couldn't be more absurd, particularly considering the population is about 51% Black and that African American men are about as lowly paid as possible in this society.


    First off, thanks for responding. I actually used the point system to make some commentaries because if I had gone into too much length, I was afraid that either it wouldn't get read, or it would be too much and the post would stop.

    Just some rebuttals I wanted to make to your points:

    On reproductive rights, understand that I'm not actually suggesting that a woman should lose her right of choice. What I'm suggesting however is that there is an apparent double standard in play which favours women.

    On domestic violence: yes, the majority of victims are women. However I disagree with you: I don't think statistics vindicate the decisions of shelters to refuse access to men, and instead send them off to a motel where the closest thing they have for support is a voice on the other end of the phone. Indeed, I suspect that it is this perception that men are never abused which inhibits men from actually acknowledging how often they are abused; moreover, given that men are three times more likely to commit suicide, and given that abuse is often stressful and dehumanizing, I also think it's irresponsible to dump abused men at the nearest motel where they can be alone with their thoughts!

    On education: I'm not faulting women for their successes. Indeed, what you say is something that kind of offends me: I've taken great care not to fault women for these things. The deficiency, in my opinion, rests with government: when women were in the position of disadvantage, studies were completed and quota systems implemented to ensure that women could catch up. Now we see that it's boys and young men who have fallen much further behind...and I'm wondering why those same governments do little to nothing to address it.

    On divorce: my point still remains- why is it nearly automatic that women get custody of their children, and men typically pay child support and alimony. It's inevitable that there are some men who are better parents than the women who ultimately gain custody of their children when they divorce, and likewise it is inevitable that some of these men would rather care for their kids than "be out drinking beer and shooting pool."

    Indeed, I'd say that view could almost be seen as an example of misandry because in a sense, it devalues the character of men in general. Not responsible enough to be a full time parent to his kids because he'd rather be drinking and playing with his friends. Sadly, I don't believe that view is unique to you...and while in some cases, you may well be right about men wanting their freedom back...in other cases, your observation couldn't be less correct!

    I disagree that the health discrepency is easy enough to understand because if it was framed in the other way (ie. women were under-utilizing health care facilities), people would be looking not only for the why, but also for the how it can be changed. Moreover, in some jurisdictions (like here in Ontario), while women could have breast cancer screening done for free, men had to pay to have prostate cancer screening! It was changed more recently, which is a good sign...but the reality is that for the longest time, it sent the message that one gender was more deserving of care than the other.

    Moreover, why are so many men, particularly young men, killing themselves??? Why are men disproportionately homeless? Why are there not any concrete steps being taken to address this in a gender specific way the way that pay equity issues and post secondary education access has been attacked.

    And now we come to the wage gap, and frankly I don't think it's silly at all to bring this up. I already said that when education is factored in at even levels, men on average are outearning women. However the key is the simple term on average.

    Let's take the USA for an example: women earn significantly less, right? Yes, so we're told: however this is the same country where the top 400 households earn more than the bottom 150,000,000 people combined. The point: these numbers are skewered by the significance of the gap between the wealthy and everyone else.

    And I repeat: I've worked since I was 13 years of age...and I'm now 37...and I've never experienced a situation in those 24 years where I was earning more than a female peer who was doing the same job with the same experience. Indeed, given the way that incomes have risen for those at the top, and stagnated for everyone else, I suspect you have two generations of men who read this, understand it, maybe even accept it...but never think about it! Surely if the wage gap was a universal truth, I would have had some experience working with a female co-worker who was paid less while in the job for as long as I've been.

    And yet, there's the truth: I haven't experienced this. I've worked in jobs where I've been paid more than female co-workers: however in those instances, it's always been a direct result of having been in the position for a longer period of time.

    And what is wrong with using Atlanta as an example? If the gender wage gap is real amongst all groups, then surely the fact that African-American women in Atlanta also work should counter your point about African-American men!

    But anyways, I apologize if I seem abrasive...but I did take exception to a few of the things you mentioned...and in earnest, I think you're misunderstanding me.

    I've no problems with women...I don't hate them, don't have an axe to grind with them...indeed, I often suspect that the men's rights movement goes too far in their generalizations of women.

    It is not women I take exception to: it's government!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2011 1:28 PM GMT

    "I'm going to throw this out here because this is an issue I've been thinking about for a couple of months, ever since Joel Northrup, a young wrestler from Iowa declined to fight a girl in a state championship. He expressed great respect for the two girls who were competing in the state championship, but he simply said that wrestling is a physical sport which can get rough at times, and he feels like young men and women should not be competing against one another."


    Hmmm, he did what they do in the Olympics; men and women in separate competitions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2011 9:30 PM GMT
    When feminisem supports equality for both gender rolls, I too am a feminist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2011 9:36 PM GMT
    He just should not of been put in that situation. I feel he did the right thing; because there is a diffrent set of rules at play, when it involves a female Vs male; the male has restrictions, unwritten laws that are not in place restricting the female.

    Yes the pendulum swings in favor of women in the Family Law Courts, lesbians have never had the battle for acceptance us homo's have; yet they reap the rewards. It still in many ways is "them and us!" Yet they don't fight for full equality, more so advancement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2011 10:23 PM GMT
    I still find The expectation of men to pay for everything when dating - yet women do / want to be earn the same quite laughable. Very much a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2011 11:28 PM GMT


    Reproductive Rights

    Women have the right to terminate pregnancies because it's their body. End of story.

    As for adoption, if the father wants a single parent adoption I do think that option should be made available, but then there should be no child support involved as often economic considerations is why women choose to give away their babies in the first place.

    Domestic Abuse
    I do think that male victims of abuse should get more attention and help, however, the majority of domestic abuse victim are women and they have fought for their rights and for domestic abuse against women to be taken seriously. My grandmother was beaten by her no-good alcoholic husband and she had nowhere to turn to because women being beaten by their husbands was considered a "private matter" and not taken seriously by the authorities for a long time. Hell, women "couldn't" be raped inside marriage until just a few decades ago. Men being abused in their relationships are in the same situation today as women used to be but it's no good just pointing it out and whinge about how unfair it is. Women fought for the right to not be abused (or rather for it to be illegal for men to abuse their wives), men need to do the same.


    - In general, women are considered to be justified in hitting a man if he says something that offends her; HOWEVER men are never allocated the same justification for hitting a woman, not even when she strikes him without provocation (as happened to me when I was a kid).


    I have never in my life heard anyone justify a woman hitting a man because she was feeling offended by something he said. Most people would consider that an extreme overreaction. If you had that happened to you, especially as a child, that is horrible. I'd call that child abuse which is never acceptable.


    Divorce
    - Women are far more likely to be awarded custody of children.
    - Women are also far more likely to be awarded alimony after divorce- in 2006, just 3.6% of Alimony recipients in the USA were men.

    I live in a country where alimony is pretty much non-existant; there's child support to the parent who raises the child but that's it. On the other hand most women here work and are able to support themselves. If you live in a country where housewives are common then it does makes sense that women should recieve alimony because they just spent years off the work market taking care of their husband and children and are thus less likely to get hired and be able to provide for themselves. Quid pro quo.


    Health
    On the other hand women are more likely to be misdiagnosed when they have a heart attack and most medicines (even those used specifically by women) are tested on men even though men and women sometimes react differently to them.

    I do think research and medicine should be more gender specific.

    The Wage Gap

    The problem starts when women pass the age of thirty and/or wants to start a family. Men's careers keep on going (often they benefit from having a family) while women's careers stalls. Also women still tend to end up with all the unpaid work necessary to make things work (household chores, child minding etc). If you look at the top of companies, universities, organizations etc, men are in absolute majority.

    National Defense
    How is bringing up a practice from seven decades ago relevant to anything? Especially since today women serve in the army and see combat as well?

    This point, if anything does make you seem like a misogynist because it makes you look like you're grasping at any straw you can find to "prove" how oh so unfair men are treated.

    Fact is, in most areas of life, us men (and white men especially) have massive privilege. Pointing out the few areas where women may have a slight advantage and ignoring the ones where they don't just seems a bit wanky to me.

  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 11, 2011 1:50 AM GMT
    Well, at least people are talking about this...even if it seems rather mean to suggest that my mentioning the Order of the White Feather makes me a misogynist.

    For the record, I'd never heard of the Order of the White Feather before a few days ago...but I have studied "Feminist International Relations Theory," and I attended a university which, at the time, was 76% female.

    The irony is that feminism has historically regarded conscription as "benevolent chauvinism," and feminist international relations theory attributes conflicts to the role men have played in the world order: namely, that men are more prone to violence, and therefore a more matriarchial political order would be more conducive to peace and global goodwill.

    So perhaps you could understand my surprise when I read about this "Order of the White Feather," and the role women played in encouraging men to enlist in the military. Or perhaps you can't.

    Either way, I didn't expect that many people would agree with my point...though let me throw this open: what are the significant advantages that men have over women at this time?

    theantijockIt is lovely for you to want to bring equal rights to men, but not when that is not in the best interest of the child. It is wrong of you to use the child as a sliding weight and to do so brings no justice on that scale.


    I'm sorry, but I don't agree. See, I'm not arguing that men should get custody X% of the time...I'm suggesting that the "best interest of the child" is not necessarily serviced by an approach which favours giving custody of the child to the mother. I'm suggesting that a more through case by case basis should be made, and that at current it is not being made in that way.

    I'm in no way suggesting that Charlie Sheen should be given custody of his children to prove that men are being treated fairly...but I am suggesting that if the courts were really looking at children's best interests on a case by case basis, someone like Theresa Knorr should never have been permitted to retain custody of her children. In her case, when she divorced from her second husband Robert, she denied him access to his four children, and ultimately she ended up torturing and killing two of their daughters!

    theantijockYou'll forgive me if I do not take your word without you citing reliable sources.


    Reliable sources for the top 400 households earning more than the bottom 150,000,000 Americans? Seeing as how liberals typically are friendlier to the cause of women, would this suffice: http://liberalsarecool.posterous.com/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than

    The point: in 2009, the top 400 households pulled in $1.27 trillion in wealth, while the bottom 150,000,000 people pulled in less than $1.22 trillion in wealth. It also points out, of the 25 richest Americans, only 3 are women.

    So isn't it possible that, as has been my experience (whether you believe me or not), the male-female wage gap isn't a gap that applies to most people on average...it applies to the super wealthy, or those who are old enough to have benefitted from a time when the roles of women were sufficiently constrained that they could get away with earning much more for doing the same relative job?

    And if this just might be the case, how does it possibly benefit equality to incorporate broad based measures to reduce income disparity that for most people, simply doesn't exist?

    LoracThe problem starts when women pass the age of thirty and/or wants to start a family. Men's careers keep on going (often they benefit from having a family) while women's careers stalls.


    Ah, but there are a few problems with this scenerio.

    First of all, we're talking about pay rates for doing the same job: advancement in a career field implies that it's no longer the same job.

    Secondly, we're talking about a disparity of between 20 and 25% if you believe the quoted studies. Maternity leave varies, but given the fact that lower and middle class incomes have stagnated over the past 30 years, I think you're going to find it pretty difficult to say that a woman who starts a family and returns to the workforce when her maternity leave runs out will find that her pay is suddenly 20-25% lower.

    Now in a scenerio where she opts to stay home and care for her child/children, ultimately that is a choice...and so if she is away from work for, say, five years, is it reasonable to expect that she should still be compensated to the same degree as a co-worker (male or female for that matter) who was there to begin with as long as her, and has been there for the five years that she opted to take leave from her career to care for her children?

    Finally, the reality is that Western nations are heading for a future where the young will be outnumbered by the elderly because increasingly, more couples are opting to either have no children, or to put an emphasis on their careers. My point: staring families is actually increasingly becoming a misnomer. Even when women have children now, many of them are returning to the workforce either because of the access of quality child care, or because the income of their partner's is no longer sufficient to sustain a quality standard of living.

    That last part in and of itself implies that the average income of men is not so significantly higher.

    theantijockSorry but your personal experience is not my proof. Maybe my personal experience can be yours though (kidding).


    Actually, what I am advocating is that people use their own proof.

    I mean, given that men are earning on average 20-25% more than their female peers...and even more when racial differences are taken into account, what are these companies that are getting away with paying employees of a different race and gender less for doing the same job?

    Seriously, if it is as wide ranging as your proof suggests, it should be more or less easy to find these racist, sexist companies and punish them for mistreating their employees.

    But that's just it...I hear studies like the one you quoted, and they don't apply to me because I've never experienced that. My pay scale is formulated on a grid. My prior employment also saw my pay scale formulated on a grid...as was the job I held before that one.

    So how does your proof apply to me? Should my female co-workers get a 20% raise because a broad based metric on pay scale determines that women are underpaid to that degree? If they do, suddenly I'm the one who is worth 80 cents on the dollar...and how does that benefit equality?

    LoracWomen fought for the right to not be abused (or rather for it to be illegal for men to abuse their wives), men need to do the same.


    Why does anyone in this day and age have to fight to be taken seriously when they are being physically abused?

    For the record, I'm familiar with physical abuse. My poor Paternal Grandmother, and my Dad were both abused by his bastard father. Fortunately my Dad for the most part bucked the trend.

    Needless to say however, while my Mom, my Sisters and my younger Brother was spared my Dad's rage...I was not.

    Abuse robs you of almost everything that makes you unique...and without support, the rest just fades away. If male victims of domestic abuse need men to fight for their rights to services, it will never happen because to be a "victim" is "unmanly."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 1:57 AM GMT
    There is such a history of discrimination and hatred in this country that it's natural to be oversensitive to statements and actions.

    That said, not everything is a putdown, or a slur or meant to be. I just read an article today that during a press conference last night after the Miami/Celtics games a reporter asked Dwayne Wade if the takedown he did on Rajon Rondo the game before that resulted in a slightly dislocated elbow should be considered a "dirty play".

    Behind his hand and under his breath Lebron James, who was sitting next to Wade, responded "that's retarded".

    The president of some advocacy group for mentally challenged people held a press conference and stated that "millions" of americans were offended.. bladedy blahblahblah.

    Political correctness goes to far when it is obviously taken out of context. James was NOT insulting handicapped people, for gods sake.

    Discrimination should not be tolerated, but make sure it's actually discrimination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 1:59 AM GMT
    Political correctness is for retarded fags.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 2:09 AM GMT
    FearTheFall saidPolitical correctness is for retarded fags.


    You have no idea how much I appreciate that!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 2:20 AM GMT
    FearTheFall saidPolitical correctness is for retarded fags.


    If the members of Realjock were to go on a field trip together, we'd most likely be riding the short bus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 2:25 AM GMT
    FearTheFall saidPolitical correctness is for retarded fags.


    I think you meant to say intellectually challenged homosexuals.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 11, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    TrentGrad said

    I'm sorry, but I don't agree. See, I'm not arguing that men should get custody X% of the time...I'm suggesting that the "best interest of the child" is not necessarily serviced by an approach which favours giving custody of the child to the mother. I'm suggesting that a more through case by case basis should be made, and that at current it is not being made in that way.

    I'm in no way suggesting that Charlie Sheen should be given custody of his children to prove that men are being treated fairly...but I am suggesting that if the courts were really looking at children's best interests on a case by case basis, someone like Theresa Knorr should never have been permitted to retain custody of her children. In her case, when she divorced from her second husband Robert, she denied him access to his four children, and ultimately she ended up torturing and killing two of their daughters!


    Again, you are picking out one or two examples with some built in shock value which is a nice sounding way to drive home a point when summing up an argument that you have failed to make by providing facts & stats to back up assertions. I do not believe that the judiciary hands children over in an institutionalized willy-nilly way without due consideration of the circumstances of individual cases. While you make such accusations, you have not offered objective proof.

    Reliable sources for the top 400 households earning more than the bottom 150,000,000 Americans? Seeing as how liberals typically are friendlier to the cause of women, would this suffice: http://liberalsarecool.posterous.com/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than

    The point: in 2009, the top 400 households pulled in $1.27 trillion in wealth, while the bottom 150,000,000 people pulled in less than $1.22 trillion in wealth. It also points out, of the 25 richest Americans, only 3 are women.

    So isn't it possible that, as has been my experience (whether you believe me or not), the male-female wage gap isn't a gap that applies to most people on average...it applies to the super wealthy, or those who are old enough to have benefitted from a time when the roles of women were sufficiently constrained that they could get away with earning much more for doing the same relative job?

    And if this just might be the case, how does it possibly benefit equality to incorporate broad based measures to reduce income disparity that for most people, simply doesn't exist?


    Your thinking is a little confused here. Providing information on the distrubution of the overall wealth of the nation does not tell us (though even there you show that only 3% are women so you are sort of arguing against your own point with that, aren't you?) what percent of the money goes to men and what to women at all the different levels. Instead, you might consider some cross sectional surveys (I do not know the technical terms but it just makes sense). Look at each occupation by gender. Look at upper management of each. Middle and lower levels of each. Blue collar levels, etc. When you do that, you probably wind up with similar stats as I provided you above which refute your point. If you find other reliable numbers, I look forward to you reporting them.

    Actually, what I am advocating is that people use their own proof.

    I mean, given that men are earning on average 20-25% more than their female peers...and even more when racial differences are taken into account, what are these companies that are getting away with paying employees of a different race and gender less for doing the same job?

    Seriously, if it is as wide ranging as your proof suggests, it should be more or less easy to find these racist, sexist companies and punish them for mistreating their employees.

    But that's just it...I hear studies like the one you quoted, and they don't apply to me because I've never experienced that. My pay scale is formulated on a grid. My prior employment also saw my pay scale formulated on a grid...as was the job I held before that one.

    So how does your proof apply to me? Should my female co-workers get a 20% raise because a broad based metric on pay scale determines that women are underpaid to that degree? If they do, suddenly I'm the one who is worth 80 cents on the dollar...and how does that benefit equality?


    Using similar logic, there is no need for your new men's movement because it is not possible that we might be discriminated against, what with the world watching and all. Revisionism is easiest when avoiding the facts.


    #1: The Theresa Knorr case actually proves that courts do at times "willy-nilly" award custody. I'm not going to dig up the stats for you...but I will say that in the event of divorce, unless one of the parents has done something to harm the children, both are supposed to have an even shake at custody. I think we both know that it's generally awarded to women...accept it, or don't.

    #2: The problem with your statistics is that they are way too broad based. Even if you compared the salaries of men and women at specific levels of management, you're going to have the same problem. Why? Well for starters, because compensation varies between companies! When you study men and women working within the same company, I bet the compensation gap, especially for people under, say, 45, is significantly lower...but who wants to undertake that study?

    #3: When did I EVER advocate a "new men's movement?" Sorry, but I think your opinions are a byproduct of Political Correctness, and my view of it is shifting! You and everyone else are entitled to your opinions and beliefs...but I don't see anything in what you've written that I haven't already read before...and frankly, I don't buy it anymore!

    In future, perhaps you could try your best to avoid some rather snide remarks...I figured we were actually chatting much better...and then you slid your last remark in there, and as a result, I feel much more defensive!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 5:14 AM GMT
    The guy that wouldn't wrestle the girl was an asshole. Treating a woman like a precious fragile object that must be protected is sexism at its worst. Worst of all, he took her moment. She trained to compete at the level and this was made all about him and his beliefs and his problems and his notions of how he thinks women should behave.

    And he was scared of being beat by a girl.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 12:02 PM GMT
    I've said for years --to women who won't stop talking about it-- that I'll get behind 'equal-pay' just as soon as a woman's life insurance premiums equal mine and young ladies at age 18 are required to register for Selective Service or face penalties just like young men do.



    That shuts them up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 12:37 PM GMT
    I think it was fine to refuse to fight, and legislative equalization of men´s and women´s rights is always goign to be a very uneven path forward...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 9:27 PM GMT

    LoracWomen fought for the right to not be abused (or rather for it to be illegal for men to abuse their wives), men need to do the same.


    Why does anyone in this day and age have to fight to be taken seriously when they are being physically abused?

    For the record, I'm familiar with physical abuse. My poor Paternal Grandmother, and my Dad were both abused by his bastard father. Fortunately my Dad for the most part bucked the trend.

    Needless to say however, while my Mom, my Sisters and my younger Brother was spared my Dad's rage...I was not.

    Abuse robs you of almost everything that makes you unique...and without support, the rest just fades away. If male victims of domestic abuse need men to fight for their rights to services, it will never happen because to be a "victim" is "unmanly." [/quote]





    I agree that people shouldn't have to fight for their right to be taken seriously when abused; unfortunately TPTB don't listen to my opinions that often. icon_rolleyes.gif What should be and what is are two very different things.

    I'm very sorry you had to live through an abusive childhood, that is a horrible, horrible way to grow up.

    But I think you misunderstand my point?

    If male victims of domestic abuse need men to fight for their rights to services, it will never happen because to be a "victim" is "unmanly.

    Then who is going to fight? This is my point. Women have fought and are still fighting for their rights which keeps them kinda busy and while most sane people agree that domestic abuse is wrong no matter who the victim is, women are still going to be more concerned with their own issues which are to protect themselves and their children (not that there aren't plenty of men who fight against child abuse). And I don't think it's fair or realistic that they should have to shoulder the fight for the rights of adult males as well.

    So then there are two options left: men get over the fear of being called unmanly and speak up against domestic abuse against men OR nothing changes. We can't expect other groups in society to fight our battles because usually those groups are busy fighting their own.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2011 11:18 PM GMT
    andymatic saidThe guy that wouldn't wrestle the girl was an asshole. Treating a woman like a precious fragile object that must be protected is sexism at its worst. Worst of all, he took her moment. She trained to compete at the level and this was made all about him and his beliefs and his problems and his notions of how he thinks women should behave.

    And he was scared of being beat by a girl.


    That's unintelligent. It's fact, not opinion, that women are physically inferior to men in terms of general bone density and, probably most notably, musculature. Especially since musculature is spurred by high levels of testosterone, which IS the male hormone, after all.

    Now I wish he'd fought her just to prove the point. icon_neutral.gif