Is feminism hurting men?

[PineTree2.0]

First off, I'm all for equal rights of men and women, but with such a huge rise in feminism; it's forcing men to stay even more quiet about their personal and social issues. Yes, women have a lot of **** wrong with them in society, but men have just as much, and with (some) women constantly belittling men and their issues; saying that they're "priviliged, and mysoginistic", does that hurt men's social progression?

 

[Lichi]

The original concept of feminism surely did not hurt men. It was about equality and simply aimed to raise women up to the same level as men in society.
Modern feminism is a broad spectrum of ideas, with the most prominent sadly being the one that tries to inflict upon men what happened to women in earlier times, and sometimes even worse. That kind of feminism is harmful to anyone.

 

[twopercent]

it's just as dogmatic as religion and tries to pass itself off as otherwise

also good luck getting far in studying humanities without calling yourself a feminist

 

[Kurri ★]

Absolutely! How'd you know?!

This entire website is primarily cishetero men. You don't honestly believe you won't find a huge bias here do you? Anyways, the real answer is no, it doesn't. You on an individual basis may be facing more problems than an individual woman, but on a whole, men have it a lot better.

 

[Whia]

Absolutely! How'd you know?!

This entire website is primarily cishetero men. You don't honestly believe you won't find a huge bias here do you? Anyways, the real answer is no, it doesn't. You on an individual basis may be facing more problems than an individual woman, but on a whole, men have it a lot better.

While this is true, it doesn't actually address the OP. It wasn't a question of which gender has it better, it was a question of whether or not this particular movement is detrimental to one of them.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand it might be. I say might 'cause 3rd wave feminism is insanely broad and a few subsets thereof are pretty openly and aggressively misandristic, while some others are unabashedly stupid, ignorant and self-righteous, and in this wonderfully technologically advanced age where most people are mostly free to communicate whatever message they want and amass a massive audience, I'd say it has the potential to hurt men.

I don't know if I really anticipate it will, but it certainly could.

 

[DraconicPsycho]

I Wouldn't go so far as to say it hurts men, but it is certainly taking its toll

 

[Kaiduru Zeta]

I wouldn't say hurt but I'd definitely say hinder.

 

[Shiida]

DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE

 

[Shiida]

on a serious note!! feminism itself is not hindering men's social progression in any way, shape or form, but the crazy extremists who take it too far are.

also someone saying "men are dumb" isn't nearly as bad as little girls being forced into marriage and housework and being ***** by older men but yeah ;w;w;w;

 

[Esphas]

ow my ****

 

[Dandy_here]

Won't say hurt just yet, but there have been cases of feminists blocking access to a conference on male suicide simply because they think the one hosting it is a **** apologist, which he is not and the comment which inspired this thinking was taken completely out of context. There are also plenty of feminists who will go out of there way to spite men for no reason at all. Buzzfeed is perhaps the biggest and most idiotic breeding ground of feminists. They hang on to to the wage gap which is false, as the reason women make less is entirely due to the women working less than men. They like to make videos which can be quite nice at first, but then you start to notice some trend that makes these videos quite ridiculous. While not all feminists are like this, a fair amount are pretty ****ty people.

 

[TyDye]

Sorry I'm late to the party but I felt the need to share my thoughts on this one.

1- I am in no way sexist or racist.
2- I am a strong supporter of equal rights for all sexes and races.

This woman says it all and is spot on; however I feel the need to elaborate on a few points that mean something to me.

1- Say an African American Woman, a White Woman, a Hispanic Man, and myself (a White Man) all applied for the same job. All four of us have the exact same qualifications. I would be the last person on this list considered for the position. In fact we would be considered in the order previously listed. Women > Minorities > White Men. I personally believe that if this unrealistic scenario were to take place, the employer should hire who they think is right for the job based on personality not sex or race. Especially since women are not minorities, there is almost and equal number of women and men on this planet. Source

2- As a U.S. Soldier and Afghanistan veteran I have served with many people of different race and sex. I am proud to call these people my family. I am happy that women are finally allowed jobs in combat positions. What I'm not happy with is this. At my age group; physical fitness standards for men are 40 push-ups in 2 minutes, 50 sit-ups in 2 minutes, and a 2 mile run in 16:36. In that exact same age group; physical fitness standards for women are 17 push-ups in 2 minutes, 50 sit-ups in 2 minutes, and a 2 mile run in 19:36.

If you are going to preform the same job as me for the same pay you should be held to the same standards. Especially when our job is life and death. I expect that if I am wounded a female solider should be physically fit enough to drag me to safety especially when I am expected to be physically fit enough to do the same for her.

3- Masculinism. Now if this were to suddenly become as big of an issue as feminism has become, many feminist would scream that it is sexist. Simply put feminism now days has grown into something its not. It has lost its roots and does seem to be more about supremacy than equality. Current day "feminist" strive for equal rights; however if we were to take something away that benefits women in order to make it equal across the board we would have an uproar from the entire "feminist" community.

No. Feminism is not hurting men. Men are not oppressed or under privileged. But I am sick of the double standards.

 

[Sucumbio]

It is possible for 2 people to do the same job and have vastly different physical standards of ability. It's actually quite telling how you've overlooked the wisdom by which the United States Military has gone to great lengths to establish proper benchmarks for men and women who do differ physically.

In other words in the best estimate of DOD doctors and trainers, a man doing 40 push-ups is the SAME as a woman doing 17. Same as in both parties doing this physical stress test would reach comparable levels of fatigue within the same amount of time if asked to do them simultaneously.

I agree 100 percent with Southern's vblog. She is absolutely correct about the men's rights she addresses.

 

[Teran]

Only if the men are weak.

 

[TyDye]

It is possible for 2 people to do the same job and have vastly different physical standards of ability. It's actually quite telling how you've overlooked the wisdom by which the United States Military has gone to great lengths to establish proper benchmarks for men and women who do differ physically.

In other words in the best estimate of DOD doctors and trainers, a man doing 40 push-ups is the SAME as a woman doing 17. Same as in both parties doing this physical stress test would reach comparable levels of fatigue within the same amount of time if asked to do them simultaneously.

I agree 100 percent with Southern's vblog. She is absolutely correct about the men's rights she addresses.

Although I agree that the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women and that there is valid reasoning behind why they do this. I feel that in a combat / life and death situation this is not ok. I believe that the smallest soldier should be able to drag or carry the biggest soldier at least 100 yards no questions asked.

I have also known. Many female soldiers that have been able to do more push-ups, sit-ups, and run faster than myself.

 

[J⩓мє]

Sorry I'm late to the party but I felt the need to share my thoughts on this one.

1- I am in no way sexist or racist.
2- I am a strong supporter of equal rights for all sexes and races.

This woman says it all and is spot on; however I feel the need to elaborate on a few points that mean something to me.

1- Say an African American Woman, a White Woman, a Hispanic Man, and myself (a White Man) all applied for the same job. All four of us have the exact same qualifications. I would be the last person on this list considered for the position. In fact we would be considered in the order previously listed. Women > Minorities > White Men. I personally believe that if this unrealistic scenario were to take place, the employer should hire who they think is right for the job based on personality not sex or race. Especially since women are not minorities, there is almost and equal number of women and men on this planet. Source

2- As a U.S. Soldier and Afghanistan veteran I have served with many people of different race and sex. I am proud to call these people my family. I am happy that women are finally allowed jobs in combat positions. What I'm not happy with is this. At my age group; physical fitness standards for men are 40 push-ups in 2 minutes, 50 sit-ups in 2 minutes, and a 2 mile run in 16:36. In that exact same age group; physical fitness standards for women are 17 push-ups in 2 minutes, 50 sit-ups in 2 minutes, and a 2 mile run in 19:36.

If you are going to preform the same job as me for the same pay you should be held to the same standards. Especially when our job is life and death. I expect that if I am wounded a female solider should be physically fit enough to drag me to safety especially when I am expected to be physically fit enough to do the same for her.

3- Masculinism. Now if this were to suddenly become as big of an issue as feminism has become, many feminist would scream that it is sexist. Simply put feminism now days has grown into something its not. It has lost its roots and does seem to be more about supremacy than equality. Current day "feminist" strive for equal rights; however if we were to take something away that benefits women in order to make it equal across the board we would have an uproar from the entire "feminist" community.

No. Feminism is not hurting men. Men are not oppressed or under privileged. But I am sick of the double standards.

The video you posted, I watched, but it's full of a series of mistruths or fallacies to where I would rather link this article, than reply to it directly to each other than to note a few things. All of the gendered issues which were discussed by Ms. Southern in her video are in fact discussed critically by feminists, sometimes vocally and prolifically, especially those in which she claimed feminists to be silent. The "**** is ****" campaign, spearheaded by Feminists, Feminist groups, and Feminist media, provided the political pressure to cause the FBI to change its definition of **** in 2012 to actually allow for male ***** to be recorded in their unified crime reporting systems. The specific change in question was from "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will", first established in 1929, to "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim". Since UCR is how we collect statistics on crimes like ****, feminist movements were instrumental in our ability as an American society to challenge the norms when it comes to sex crimes against men, and in order to give our own justice system the tools with which to actually give somewhat of an idea as to how prevalent male victimization via **** is based on actually allowing us to keep statistics on the crime reports. For more on rebutting the video please click the article I linked, as it, unlike Southern's video, cites its sources, and for that reason and others it's more capable of being exposed to greater scrutiny and review. Purposefully misleading people by claiming that Feminists are silent on these issues, when a simple google search shows that openly critical feminist discourse on these subjects already existed at the time the video was created, even in non academic media, is irresponsible and reprehensible.

I don't feel that one can simultaneously identify how the system sucks for either gender, and direct people critical that system, or trying to build a better system, to only desire the idea of "equality" within that sucky system; as an extreme and nihilistic example, we're all equal in death, but that doesn't mean death is a (or the) solution to our problems, when it comes to discrimination. Feminism, even in its earliest days, was more about liberation of women from the social social roles, structures, laws, standards, et. al, which confined them. Suffrage was about liberating women, the pushes to enhance and renew the Violence Against Women Act (which, as a side note, has through these pushes strengthened protection of male victims of domestic violence), the symbolic acts of bra burning, protesting the commodification and objectification of women, the fight to give women greater control over their destiny and bodies via birth control and reproductive rights, normalization of lesbianism and therefore the normalization of the right of women to express their sexuality, and so many other examples of the history of Feminist movement and its victories are rooted in empowering and liberating women, and not rooted in the idea of simply making women equal to men. Defining Feminism to be a movement purely based around making women equal to men, limits its scope in such a way that one cannot possibly encompass the core issues or social pressures at play when discussing the (often intersecting) issues which result in discrimination or marginalization based on gender, and therefore would not in fact be able to make any meaningful strides towards any goal of justice.

You should have cited whatever evidence nudges your belief towards your being selected last for employment in that pecking order, not whether women are a majority or a minority in the world, which is unrelated to whether or not they are discriminated against or marginalized on various levels in, and in the events leading up to, the hiring process. As it stands your intuition on the topic is anecdotal, and I think misguided.

On a related note, many employers want veterans, but if you feel in any way that you've been discriminated against in a hiring situation based on your veteran status or anything related to your military service, such as a mental or physical injury, this is actually a fairly uncommon and serious issue, and you should use all of the legal tools that you are entitled to under USERRA. There are a lot of ****ty people out there who don't want to respect the contributions of US veterans, and discriminate against veterans either willingly or ignorantly.

While the individuals in the armed forces should be ready and prepared for any threat the nation may face, the minimum standards of the APFT test might not be the ones I'd point to as being the standards for those entering combat roles where life-or-death situations, or the metric I would use to determine if someone is fully fit and mentally & physically capable of ensuring a wounded comrade in full gear reaches safety, which is what basic combat training strives to prepare servicemen and women for. As it stands, women are required to pass the same standards to graduate from Ranger school as men (or hear it from the Rangers themselves). This has been confirmed and repeated by the Army, even after US Representative Steve Russell repeatedly demanded evidence that the Ranger school results, for the first class which included women, weren't fudged or the courses adulterated to assist women in any way.

I'm unclear what you mean when you say "Masculinism" as academically and in literature, the term 'Masculinist' is defined and used to refer to movements which desire male dominance, an enforcement of a hierarchy over women, or clinging to stereotypes of social expectations of the male gender, which, from the context of the rest of your paragraph, you don't seem to think it means.

Edit: had to change the link to an example of the campaign since the URL contained blacklisted word patterns, also changed 1927 to 1929 as that's the actual date the UCR enacted its previous definition.

Edit 2: had to change the link to the Justice Department's website because its URL contained a blacklisted word pattern

 

[Dan Rogers]

I was gonna write a long winded thing, but I can shorten it, relatively easily. Men have been favored socio-politically for quite some time. So no, I don't think feminism is hurting men. If anything, I think it's helping men rather than hurting. Let's take the wage gap for an example (which, yes, still exists because equal pay laws dont give a harsh enough punishment and the idea propagated that people should keep the amount they are payed to themselves because it's 'polite' enables it to continue). Here's a graph describing the pay gap but if you don't take this graphs word for it, there are plenty of articles and other studies that back this one up, so it's worth googling.

If stricter equal pay laws were enacted, it wouldn't just help women, but People of Color in general.

 

[J⩓мє]

Feminism and Feminists in academia have inspired & created a system of studying the way gender affects us through its influence on psychology, sociology, and the the idea of gender studies as a whole. As a result it gives us better tools to identify discrepancies in the treatment of individuals based upon their gender, and less room in which to accept the status quo when disparities occur, which, regardless of how you feel about Feminism based on what you've experienced, or in see in any videos by any atheist, gamer, female conservative thinktank academic, or raging dude with a beard, is massively beneficial towards our ability to build a just society where all individuals can better achieve self-actualization.

So, no, Feminism is not hurting men, it enlightens us and subverts the social constructs which discriminate against us all, especially those which guise themselves as morality or normality.

the term "misandry" lacks actual substance beyond its power to contrast other terms, it has no meaning as an institutionalized policy, and occurs comparatively rarely in literature (about 10,000 results, many of which are literally Wikipedia articles) when compared with the institutional and well defined concept of misogyny (which has about 322,000 results). So, to be openly critical of those who use the term, one should generally use other terms, which have more well-outlined meanings, or base one's position more on other parties which have a more nuanced view of the situation, like Feminist author Bell Hook's critical points on the topic of hatred of men by feminists in any of her works like, Feminist Theory, From Margin To Center; Feminism is for everybody: passionate politics; and The will to change: men, masculinity, and love. However, if someone wants to limit their engagement and profile to the same circular uncircumspect circumlocutions on their social networks, subreddits, forums, reactionary publications comment sections, etc; using the term "misandry" is par for the course, while still a shibboleth of being affected by the manosphere or religious studies academics (it's a favorite of Katherine Young, if you search amazon for misandry, for example, the top results all include her as an author).

 

[gmBottles]

I was gonna write a long winded thing, but I can shorten it, relatively easily. Men have been favored socio-politically for quite some time. So no, I don't think feminism is hurting men. If anything, I think it's helping men rather than hurting. Let's take the wage gap for an example (which, yes, still exists because equal pay laws dont give a harsh enough punishment and the idea propagated that people should keep the amount they are payed to themselves because it's 'polite' enables it to continue). Here's a graph describing the pay gap but if you don't take this graphs word for it, there are plenty of articles and other studies that back this one up, so it's worth googling.

If stricter equal pay laws were enacted, it wouldn't just help women, but People of Color in general.

Nah the pay gap doesn't exist. If it did, those that are paying their employees like that would be arrested because it is very illegal. It appears that way because we simply have more white men and women than we do of any other race, which makes the results look skewed in the white's favor. Usually these studies are conducted poorly with small groups of people, or simply taking the information and presenting it in a way that makes things look different than they actually are.

 

[Dan Rogers]

Nah the pay gap doesn't exist. If it did, those that are paying their employees like that would be arrested because it is very illegal. It appears that way because we simply have more white men and women than we do of any other race, which makes the results look skewed in the white's favor. Usually these studies are conducted poorly with small groups of people, or simply taking the information and presenting it in a way that makes things look different than they actually are.

Saying that "they were poorly conducted" when referring to many different independent studies with different people in charge is honestly a ridiculous notion. And just because something is 'very illegal' doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People break the law all the time. Do you honestly think that corporations haven't found a way around the law? Also, I honestly don't see what there is to lose when it comes to simply enacting a law that makes the punishment more harsh for breaking this law. Saying that "it doesn't exist" when there are so many different studies proving that it does simply because you can't see it is like saying that the earth is flat.

 

[gmBottles]

Saying that "they were poorly conducted" when referring to many different independent studies with different people in charge is honestly a ridiculous notion. And just because something is 'very illegal' doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People break the law all the time. Do you honestly think that corporations haven't found a way around the law? Also, I honestly don't see what there is to lose when it comes to simply enacting a law that makes the punishment more harsh for breaking this law. Saying that "it doesn't exist" when there are so many different studies proving that it does simply because you can't see it is like saying that the earth is flat.

If someone is being paid less (and they should know that they are being paid less considering all these studies right?) they should take it to the police, not just sit around and complain. If there is an individual who is paying their employees less, which is something I have never seen before in my life, that truly is an awful thing. However, the employee should take matters into their own hands. Change happens though action right

Anyway I'm honestly not as passionate about this topic as most of the people in this thread, I just hopped in from the front page, so I'll probably end this here.

 

[Dan Rogers]

If someone is being paid less (and they should know that they are being paid less considering all these studies right?) they should take it to the police, not just sit around and complain. If there is an individual who is paying their employees less, which is something I have never seen before in my life, that truly is an awful thing. However, the employee should take matters into their own hands. Change happens though action right

Anyway I'm honestly not as passionate about this topic as most of the people in this thread, I just hopped in from the front page, so I'll probably end this here.

Yeah, I understand that. At the same time though, because of things like salary negotiations, corporations basically have ways around these existing laws. Also the fact that people are frequently afraid to speak out out of fear of losing their job and source of income is what keeps the wage gap in place.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

In other words in the best estimate of DOD doctors and trainers, a man doing 40 push-ups is the SAME as a woman doing 17. Same as in both parties doing this physical stress test would reach comparable levels of fatigue within the same amount of time if asked to do them simultaneously.

Suppose an elderly asthmatic vegan doing 5 pushups is the same as a young healthy omnivore doing 40. Does this mean we should lower the fitness standards for elderly asthmatic vegans?

The "**** is ****" campaign, spearheaded by Feminists, Feminist groups, and Feminist media, provided the political pressure to cause the FBI to change its definition of **** in 2012 to actually allow for male ***** to be recorded in their unified crime reporting systems. The specific change in question was from "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will", first established in 1929, to "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim". Since UCR is how we collect statistics on crimes like ****, feminist movements were instrumental in our ability as an American society to challenge the norms when it comes to sex crimes against men, and in order to give our own justice system the tools with which to actually give somewhat of an idea as to how prevalent male victimization via **** is based on actually allowing us to keep statistics on the crime reports.

Do you realize that this new definition still excludes the vast majority of male **** victims? Even a boy who is ridden while chained down, threatened, and drugged wouldn't be considered a **** victim by this definition unless his rapist also put things up his butt. The definition was changed mainly in order to include women who were drunk or high, even if there was no force and she didn't say "no". The campaign was never intended to help men; it was intended to divert more cash to women's issues. From your own link (emphasis mine):

This will ensure the crime of **** is measured in a way that it includes all ****, and it essentially becomes a crime to which more resources are allocated. It’s intolerable the amount of violence against women, and we feel this will have a significant impact.

Might wanna fact check yourself before calling others "irresponsible and reprehensible".

 

[Sucumbio]

Suppose an elderly asthmatic vegan doing 5 pushups is the same as a young healthy omnivore doing 40. Does this mean we should lower the fitness standards for elderly asthmatic vegans?


Do you realize that this new definition still excludes the vast majority of male **** victims? Even a boy who is ridden while chained down, threatened, and drugged wouldn't be considered a **** victim by this definition unless his rapist also put things up his butt. The definition was changed mainly in order to include women who were drunk or high, even if there was no force and she didn't say "no". The campaign was never intended to help men; it was intended to divert more cash to women's issues. From your own link (emphasis mine):


Might wanna fact check yourself before calling others "irresponsible and reprehensible".

Fair point except an elderly vegan asthmatic would not be enlisted to begin with. My point is you cannot ignore the physical difference between men and women. For this reason women are not typically deployed to the front lines. Though they receive combat training and are in combat - support - positions they will rarely if ever find themselves having to huff a 6 foot 5 350 pound man over their shoulders. It should also be noted many male service members would also fail at achieving this. And though simultaneously we cannot ignore the effect of adrenaline in serious situations.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/superhero-woman-lifts-car-off-dad/story?id=16907591

 

[AfungusAmongus]

It is, of course, right that objectively weaker soldiers of both genders be kept from the front. But why should we have double standards for gender (and not other strength-relevant categories such as age, disability, and diet) for the same job?

 

[Sucumbio]

Here's some interesting hard data

http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/

Age: in the US armed forces typical age for enlisted soldiers is 18 to 30. Only in the recent few decades was the age limit maximum extended to 40. This shows that clearly age is a factor in enlistment standards but that physical fitness obviously is retained at younger ages.

Disability: service members who are disabled cannot be placed in combat positions anyway so it's non sequitur.

Dietary needs: the US armed services choices in dietary needs is in fact open to vegetarian needs though admittedly it's less than optimal

https://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2012issue1/2012_issue1_vegetarian_military.php

 

[J⩓мє]

It is, of course, right that objectively weaker soldiers of both genders be kept from the front. But why should we have double standards for gender (and not other strength-relevant categories such as age, disability, and diet) for the same job?

each US Military branch's test have always had different requirements for passing based on the age of the person undergoing the test. If you had looked up the physical fitness standards, you would have seen this.

 

[J⩓мє]

Do you realize that this new definition still excludes the vast majority of male **** victims? Even a boy who is ridden while chained down, threatened, and drugged wouldn't be considered a **** victim by this definition unless his rapist also put things up his butt. The definition was changed mainly in order to include women who were drunk or high, even if there was no force and she didn't say "no". The campaign was never intended to help men; it was intended to divert more cash to women's issues. From your own link

Might wanna fact check yourself before calling others "irresponsible and reprehensible".

I find your insinuation that finding violence against women is some sort of indicator of a political bias or conspiracy to "divert" attention from other issues, especially given its prevalence to be pretty awful. In short, I don't see it.

The scenario you provided, if by 'riding' you mean penetration occurs, would still be regarded as **** under the UCR definition, as the boy could not have provided consent for the penetration of his assaulter. The law does not specify the penetrated as being the victim, which is what you seem to be claiming. If you don't mean that penetration occurred the act that you described is no less heinous, but would fall under sexual assault, apparently (given your description) of a minor, which is not tracked by the UCR, as the crimes it tracks are only the following:

Does the FBI keep statistics on criminal offenses committed in the United States?

Yes. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, which began in 1929, collects information on serious crimes reported to law enforcement agencies. The categories are murder, forcible ****, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The program also collects information on hate crimes and on persons arrested for other less serious crime categories. Hate crime offenses cover incidents motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability.

 

[J⩓мє]

If someone is being paid less (and they should know that they are being paid less considering all these studies right?) they should take it to the police, not just sit around and complain. If there is an individual who is paying their employees less, which is something I have never seen before in my life, that truly is an awful thing. However, the employee should take matters into their own hands. Change happens though action right

Anyway I'm honestly not as passionate about this topic as most of the people in this thread, I just hopped in from the front page, so I'll probably end this here.

The issue of the wage gap is far more nuanced than has been discussed thus far, and the factors which result in pay inequality are sometimes thought to be interrelations of cultural norms and expectations.

This paper from Purdue Sociology professor Richard Hogan is freely available and discusses concepts and arguments on the topic of gender inequality, as well as race & class inequality, summarizing points by various contrasting voices and works.

similarly, it's not culturally acceptable or normal to discuss pay rates openly, which is likely one of the enabling factors. On that there's this video

The employees are not empowered to be able to take matters into their own hands as this is a systemic problem.

However, if anyone reading is a US Citizen and this feels that they have been discriminated against with unequal pay in the workplace on the grounds of sex, a pregnancy, race, national origin, age, or disability, you should know your rights and contact the EEOC.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I find your insinuation that finding violence against women is some sort of indicator of a political bias or conspiracy to "divert" attention from other issues, especially given its prevalence to be pretty awful. In short, I don't see it.

You claimed that feminists changed the definition to include men. Yet your link clearly states that their goal was to get more resources to fight violence against women. The inclusion of men seems to have been accidental - none of the examples in the supporting literature describes **** by envelopment.

Crime data understates the M:F victim ratio. Men are especially unlikely to admit to being sexually victimized, and female perpetrators benefit from prejudice in their favor at all stages of the justice system. Anonymous surveys such as NCVS show that most violence, including most serious violence, targets men. Even sexual violence targets men about 40% of the time if we include prison ****. If feminists really cared about gender equality, they'd campaign to reduce violence against men.

 

[Gamerz31w]

It's hard to say,but some females are feminist quite agressive.I have no idea,why?

 

[***]

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html

This is from Hanna Rosin, who has published a book called "The End of Men". There are hundreds of antifeminist YouTube videos claiming this who are trying to yell at the feminists and tell them their ideology is stupid or women against feminism who apparently have 'Internalized Misogyny'. But this is someone who is claiming that men are becoming less useful and that we need to get used to the inevitable change which is taking place. With the factors addressed here, the gap is 91 cents/dollar. I have heard up to 96 cents/dollar in other articles, but the point is, the wage gap is much smaller.

I am not the type of antifeminist claiming men are so horribly mistreated as a whole. I definitely am open to the idea that feminists have been bashing against men to hurt them, and whenever feminists have claimed to support men, they want to protect men from society and the patriarchy, an evil, mysterious force which is plaguing society with a disease which 47% of the population is afflicted with, misogyny. (This excludes men who are feminists). However, as much as feminists have been indifferent to the brazen harshness of their own means of self-expression, the topic of feminism is a war if you consider Twitter trauma to be a casualty.

I honestly am probably rare in being openly willing to say I don't care about gender inequality. I do not have anything against women. I don't care much in part because I felt guilty for being male when I was younger and bought into the idea that it is my responsibility to help those strong, independent women fight oppression because of my ancestors' mistakes, until I saw how inconsequential the stuff being fought for is. If women are being beaten trying to do something men are supposed to do, I would be furious. However, I tend to hear claims to the effect of "Men have it very easy", but I don't see that in real life. Women are being told that they are doing OK and should stop questioning themselves. The education system tends to girls' learning style. Girls do not like math as much when they are younger than boys; boys do not like school as much when they are younger than girls. The government is suiting its laws to help women more than men, and I really think every minute we are arguing over such inconsequential things, people in the third world have problems which actually deserve more than passive sorrow on behalf of malnutrition death statistics. I am tired of these feminists feeling like their movement is altruistic. That is what I dislike most about the movement.

 

[Gamerz31w]

GENDER and LGBT political idealogies.Why do you hate Julian Machulski's polish science-fiction comedy of 80's in XX century?

 

[DunnoBro]

I don't generally paint those I disagree with in broad strokes, but plain and simple anyone who denies feminism has hurt men is an idiot. It's tantamount to saying nationalism, or religion hasn't hurt anyone. No, the core concepts of those don't directly hurt anyone but the creeds and mindsets they spawn have. Feminism is no different.

Even the movement of racial equality managed to harm whites, but instead of trying to ignore them, they just accepted it as a necessary or unfortunate sacrifice for equality. My only explanation is that feminists know that a lot of the damage done to men brought no actual equality or good to the world so they just try to ignore it.

You can claim they "aren't real feminists" or try some mental gymnastics to dismiss it because "women's suffering is still greater" but if you're going to tell me career feminists riling everyone up about their supposed suffering has not lead to ANY kind of damage, you're kidding yourself.

Saying that "they were poorly conducted" when referring to many different independent studies with different people in charge is honestly a ridiculous notion. And just because something is 'very illegal' doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People break the law all the time. Do you honestly think that corporations haven't found a way around the law? Also, I honestly don't see what there is to lose when it comes to simply enacting a law that makes the punishment more harsh for breaking this law. Saying that "it doesn't exist" when there are so many different studies proving that it does simply because you can't see it is like saying that the earth is flat.

If you think mass media doesn't intentionally conduct misleading or otherwise ambiguous studies to further agendas, I have some news for you.

The fact is, there's almost no instances of exact position male/females being paid differently, except at the veeeeery top. (Talking 250k+ per year vs 300k+, but it's still only a handful)

And all the studies citing wage gaps only compare overall male and female earnings, ignoring positions or case by case comparisons. Women just make less throughout their lifetime due to maternity leave, childcare, or their inclinations towards lesser paying fields.

The wage gap is a complete myth. Not every corporation is a patriarchal mastermind that would rather spend time covering up wage inequality and risking class-action lawsuits than just doing their job.

In fact, discrimination against men in recent years has much more documentation. Such as Toronto-based buzzfeed canada declaring white males "need not apply": http://archive.is/3gJ3k

(Coincidentally, Toronto has likely the highest density of feminists on the planet, as well as the most instances of radical feminism)

 

[totesmagotes]

Suppose an elderly asthmatic vegan doing 5 pushups is the same as a young healthy omnivore doing 40. Does this mean we should lower the fitness standards for elderly asthmatic vegans?
.....
....
The campaign was never intended to help men; it was intended to divert more cash to women's issues. From your own link (emphasis mine):
.

Off-topic here, but I just wanted to help bust the myth that vegetarians/vegans are anemic. We're not. I'm a vegetarian, and I'm in pretty good shape. I go to the gym a few times a week, I've also served in the military, and was able to out-perform the majority. I've also known some pretty athletic vegans. I knew one that was a body-builder.

You might be interested to know that the Canadian military changed its fitness requirements a few years ago. The whole thing is different, and it's the same for everyone, regardless of age and gender.

"Divert more cash"? Can you explain this? I find it really strange that someone would look at a positive legal change someone made, and try to turn it into something negative.
"Never intended to help men": Yes it was. And who cares if it wasn't? It still helped men didn't it? **** of men in prison is a huge problem that gets overlooked often... probably because people care less about criminals. Though I understand that in certain states like Florida, they've made some reforms that have drastically reduced the **** problem in prisons: i.e. it's better now than it was in the 80's. More needs to be done for sure, but I don't see how ******** about feminists will help.

Also, to Tydye, who shared that youtube video: I wouldn't waste my time with Rebel Media. The channel was founded by Ezra Levant of the late "Sun News" network, and he's a regular contributor. Sun News was basically a Canadian Fox News that went off the air last year. "You should critique the message, not the person saying it..." I know, I know, but at some point, but after watching a couple of "Rebel Media" videos, I already know that to expect, so I don't waste my time with it.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Off-topic here, but I just wanted to help bust the myth that vegetarians/vegans are anemic. We're not. I'm a vegetarian, and I'm in pretty good shape. I go to the gym a few times a week, I've also served in the military, and was able to out-perform the majority. I've also known some pretty athletic vegans. I knew one that was a body-builder.

I'm well aware that SOME vegans are exceptionally fit. I lived with one who did Brazilian Ju-Jitsu and could probably take most Marines in a fight. For that matter I know a woman who can out-lift most men. But we're talking averages, and vegans and women both tend to be weaker. The same is true of, say, Asians and gamers: the variety of strength-relevant identities shows how arbitrary it is to adjust military standards based on a select few. I'm glad Canada agrees.

"Divert more cash"? Can you explain this? I find it really strange that someone would look at a positive legal change someone made, and try to turn it into something negative. "Never intended to help men": Yes it was. And who cares if it wasn't? It still helped men didn't it?

We're supposed to take your word over the president of the organization, about that group's intentions? Evidently she thinks that male victims are negligible, and she views the new definitions in terms of resources for women, which obviously would be diverted from other projects and causes. Intentions are crucial to understanding the overall impact of feminism. They may have accidentally helped men in this case, but in many other cases they advocate for women against men. A movement that consistently advocates gender equality is very different from a women's movement, and feminism appears to be the latter.

**** of men in prison is a huge problem that gets overlooked often [...] More needs to be done for sure, but I don't see how ******** about feminists will help.

I suspect that most feminists are on board with reducing incarceration rates and promoting rehab rather than punishment as a goal of prison. But they routinely push biased studies whose numbers about male victimization are off by an order of magnitude, contributing to public ignorance on male victimization both in and outside of prison.

 

[***]

I was gonna write a long winded thing, but I can shorten it, relatively easily. Men have been favored socio-politically for quite some time. So no, I don't think feminism is hurting men. If anything, I think it's helping men rather than hurting. Let's take the wage gap for an example (which, yes, still exists because equal pay laws dont give a harsh enough punishment and the idea propagated that people should keep the amount they are payed to themselves because it's 'polite' enables it to continue). Here's a graph describing the pay gap but if you don't take this graphs word for it, there are plenty of articles and other studies that back this one up, so it's worth googling.

If stricter equal pay laws were enacted, it wouldn't just help women, but People of Color in general.

The pay gap may not give what you consider sufficient punishment, but you only said the wage gap still exists; you have not demonstrated that it doesn't.

The case against its existence is that the actual study which says women earn 77 cents per dollar men earn, compares the actual money earned between men and women. There are studies which account for career choices, overtime pay, location, etc. which shrink the wage gap to between 5 and 10 percent.

 

[***]

The issue of the wage gap is far more nuanced than has been discussed thus far, and the factors which result in pay inequality are sometimes thought to be interrelations of cultural norms and expectations.

This paper from Purdue Sociology professor Richard Hogan is freely available and discusses concepts and arguments on the topic of gender inequality, as well as race & class inequality, summarizing points by various contrasting voices and works.

similarly, it's not culturally acceptable or normal to discuss pay rates openly, which is likely one of the enabling factors. On that there's this video

The employees are not empowered to be able to take matters into their own hands as this is a systemic problem.

However, if anyone reading is a US Citizen and this feels that they have been discriminated against with unequal pay in the workplace on the grounds of sex, a pregnancy, race, national origin, age, or disability, you should know your rights and contact the EEOC.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm

Ok, true. I have never seen the point of keeping secret your salary as a social norm. It's probably one of the more frivolous ones.

So yes, it would be harder to ascertain whether you were being discriminated. I don't see it getting much easier even if asking someone their salary were as normal as asking their occupation. If other employees in the company earned more, it's easy to say they had more qualifications or experience, or worse, general work quality. But it is pretty much impossible if you are the only person at your work working a certain job, because nobody who is more 'priviliged' can be put in similar conditions and shown to have more earning capability.

But there are also studies which account for factors like overtime.

 

[Hi/VOLT]

I was gonna write a long winded thing, but I can shorten it, relatively easily. Men have been favored socio-politically for quite some time. So no, I don't think feminism is hurting men. If anything, I think it's helping men rather than hurting. Let's take the wage gap for an example (which, yes, still exists because equal pay laws dont give a harsh enough punishment and the idea propagated that people should keep the amount they are payed to themselves because it's 'polite' enables it to continue). Here's a graph describing the pay gap but if you don't take this graphs word for it, there are plenty of articles and other studies that back this one up, so it's worth googling.

If stricter equal pay laws were enacted, it wouldn't just help women, but People of Color in general.

That doesn't take into account the actual occupations.

 

[Eryx]

First off, I'm all for equal rights of men and women, but with such a huge rise in feminism; it's forcing men to stay even more quiet about their personal and social issues. Yes, women have a lot of **** wrong with them in society, but men have just as much, and with (some) women constantly belittling men and their issues; saying that they're "priviliged, and mysoginistic", does that hurt men's social progression?

Both? One thing I read was people being more self-conscious about their actions which can indirectly harm someone. Its like you start thinking any thing you do might cause offence and in that behavior you sort of indirectly cause offence.