(December 25, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Actually, yes, I am nitpicking. Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse. Its that they are less likely to be CEOs or surgeons. And in the example you provided earlier, even in the case of a low status job like bouncer, you wouldve still gone for men over women in most cases. You were being selective yourself by conveniently selecting between two specific members.

(December 25, 2017 at 8:07 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: 2. You confuse patriarchy with men . Patriarchy is not a evil group of men who are oppressing women. It's a cultural idea(often held by men and women ) that locks woman and men into a certain  social context  . Often to the detriment of both genders. 

Devil's advocate here. I remember reading some time back that CEOs tend to be "taller than average" and that being over six-feet-tall was commonplace among CEOs.

Anyway, isn't "patriarchy" a bit too broad of a brush to paint with? Women on average are not as tall as men. Perhaps other factors (like height) come into play that have little to do with patriarchy or traditional gender roles, but still add to the disparity between genders concerning professional pursuits.

Tizheruk, I don't identify as feminist nor MRA. So I try to keep an open mind about those topics. I'm seeing the point about trying to change societies thinking as a whole, but I don't see how it is possible. Maybe for future generations it can work. Like maybe in the year 3000 when everyone is pressured to be gender fluid.

But it also seems to me like the last of the patriarchy as you call it, is not going without a fight. Hence why Trump is president etc. But That's a different story. Just looking at it from an outsiders/neutral perspective. Sorry for making that conversation about the radical feminist. But I do find those interactions very entertaining and funny. It actually happened in this thread. Again apologies for being immature and finding it funny. I need to stop this patriarchy.

(December 25, 2017 at 8:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Actually, yes, I am nitpicking. Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse. Its that they are less likely to be CEOs or surgeons. And in the example you provided earlier, even in the case of a low status job like bouncer, you wouldve still gone for men over women in most cases. You were being selective yourself by conveniently selecting between two specific members.

(December 25, 2017 at 8:07 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: 2. You confuse patriarchy with men . Patriarchy is not a evil group of men who are oppressing women. It's a cultural idea(often held by men and women ) that locks woman and men into a certain  social context  . Often to the detriment of both genders. 

Devil's advocate here. I remember reading some time back that CEOs tend to be "taller than average" and that being over six-feet-tall was commonplace among CEOs.

Anyway, isn't "patriarchy" a bit too broad of a brush to paint with? Women on average are not as tall as men. Perhaps other factors (like height) come into play that have little to do with patriarchy or traditional gender roles, but still add to the disparity between genders concerning professional pursuits.

Im with you. In fact, Rev Rye basically argued the same thing. And I agreed with him/her. But just because there are other factors involved doesnt mean this one factor (male privilege) has been ruled out or no longer partly explains what we see in this reality. The problem with MRAs and other such groups is they deny totally the existence of male privilege as a factor in todays Western society, whether explicitly or implicitly.

And its not like experiments have not shown that there is gender discrimination going on against women in such settings as academic settings for example. When asked to select between this candidate or that candidate knowing only their names and nothing else, studies showed both men and women were more likely to hire those whose names sounded male over those considered names for women.

To be clear, the type of discrimination happening isnt consciously based on some bitter and angry prejudice against women. Rather whats happening is people are more likely to trust men over women in higher status jobs and thus more likely to hire them.

Examples of patriarchies (as described in context of feminism ) harm to men .

1. The presumption of male disposability in war . Traditional masculine values push the idea men need to be warriors or hunters and in that high risk role they will be viewed as inherently expensable . 

2. Male suicide . The idea men need to be stoic and never vulnerable and are shamed if they do . 

3. It shames men who would rather be home makers then bread winners . 


5. The idea of domestic violence being purely male . As men are viewed as stronger thus the offender . Or the cultural shamed into not being vulnerable . 

6. Also of course prison. Men once again are viewed as stronger and thus more dangerous 

7. Homelessness . Again men are not suppose to be vulnerable  

And i can point out plenty more . As a feminist i oppose these and the system that maintains them . But i point out some of the very MRA's who bring these issues up.  shame men who act vulnerable or ask for help or don't live up to the masculine image. while there are real groups who encourage men to break these restraints. 

https://goodmenproject.com/

(December 25, 2017 at 8:22 pm)SaStrike Wrote: Tizheruk, I don't identify as feminist nor MRA. So I try to keep an open mind about those topics. I'm seeing the point about trying to change societies thinking as a whole, but I don't see how it is possible. Maybe for future generations it can work. Like maybe in the year 3000 when everyone is pressured to be gender fluid.

But it also seems to me like the last of the patriarchy as you call it, is not going without a fight. Hence why Trump is president etc. But That's a different story. Just looking at it from an outsiders/neutral perspective. Sorry for making that conversation about the radical feminist. But I do find those interactions very entertaining and funny. It actually happened in this thread. Again apologies for being immature and finding it funny. I need to stop this patriarchy.

Youre not neutral. You basically just agreed with the feminist side here.

(December 25, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 10:22 am)Whateverist Wrote: And the saddest part about this is you not getting any Khem in your forum diet, and I definitely enjoy his posts.  Of course few can stick it to you as well as he can and I agree he seems to have something going with you.  You know his wife is a believer, right?  Maybe he is telling you all the things he can't/won't say to her?  That would kind of make you his forum wife.   

But you also have quite a following.  We all just hate to see two of our faves fight.  Like kids in a bad marriage, we're really the victims here.  

Yeah I found out recently his wife is Christian. I was thoroughly surprised considering some of the awful things he's said about me being a Christian, and how he generally treats all the Christians in this forum. Thought it was pretty interesting.

Meh, I don't fight with him anymore. I just finally put him on ignore and my experience here has been much better lol.

Ya gotta do whatcha gotta do. Be comfortable.

(December 25, 2017 at 8:22 pm)SaStrike Wrote: Tizheruk, I don't identify as feminist nor MRA. So I try to keep an open mind about those topics. I'm seeing the point about trying to change societies thinking as a whole, but I don't see how it is possible. Maybe for future generations it can work. Like maybe in the year 3000 when everyone is pressured to be gender fluid.

But it also seems to me like the last  of the patriarchy as you call it, is not going without a fight. Hence why Trump is president etc. But That's a different story. Just looking at it from an outsiders/neutral perspective. Sorry for making that conversation about the radical feminist. But I do find those interactions very entertaining and funny. It actually happened in this thread. Again apologies for being immature and finding it funny. I need to stop this patriarchy.

I am a feminist . And appreciate your insight . But i must point out that just because we can't achieve something now . Does not mean the seeds can't be sown . And some of the ails can't be  medicated . And yes it the system that hurts us all will not die in my life or possibly 4 . It just means there is a lot of work ahead . As for the humor i think it was fine no need to apologize.

---

I generally really like Khem . Especially on politics . It did not surprise me his wife's a Christian . I just imagine he's nicer to her .

---

(December 25, 2017 at 8:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Actually, yes, I am nitpicking. Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse. Its that they are less likely to be CEOs or surgeons. And in the example you provided earlier, even in the case of a low status job like bouncer, you wouldve still gone for men over women in most cases. You were being selective yourself by conveniently selecting between two specific members.

(December 25, 2017 at 8:07 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: 2. You confuse patriarchy with men . Patriarchy is not a evil group of men who are oppressing women. It's a cultural idea(often held by men and women ) that locks woman and men into a certain  social context  . Often to the detriment of both genders. 

Devil's advocate here. I remember reading some time back that CEOs tend to be "taller than average" and that being over six-feet-tall was commonplace among CEOs.

Anyway, isn't "patriarchy" a bit too broad of a brush to paint with? Women on average are not as tall as men. Perhaps other factors (like height) come into play that have little to do with patriarchy or traditional gender roles, but still add to the disparity between genders concerning professional pursuits.

Which ties into the notion of ideal masculine form . Tallness is often associated with masculine dominance . And shortness in men is often met with some degree of derision. And is met with some very unfortunate stereotypes .

(December 25, 2017 at 8:43 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 8:22 pm)SaStrike Wrote: Tizheruk, I don't identify as feminist nor MRA. So I try to keep an open mind about those topics. I'm seeing the point about trying to change societies thinking as a whole, but I don't see how it is possible. Maybe for future generations it can work. Like maybe in the year 3000 when everyone is pressured to be gender fluid.

But it also seems to me like the last of the patriarchy as you call it, is not going without a fight. Hence why Trump is president etc. But That's a different story. Just looking at it from an outsiders/neutral perspective. Sorry for making that conversation about the radical feminist. But I do find those interactions very entertaining and funny. It actually happened in this thread. Again apologies for being immature and finding it funny. I need to stop this patriarchy.

Youre not neutral. You basically just agreed with the feminist side here.

I meant stop it within myself. Anyone else is free to do what they want. Im not the activist type. I don't mind being a feminist though so I'll take it.

Im officially a feminist now. As long as I don't need to go protest topless and constantly tell people to check their privilege or have discussions about rape. Then I accept the title.

(December 25, 2017 at 8:07 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 7:31 pm)SaStrike Wrote: I get fighting for making it legal. But fighting for it for other reasons like cultural and societal pressure is stupid. If majority of society thinks it's weird for men to do nursing then they think it's weird! (Unless you want to mind control the entire population into changing its opinion to suit your tastes?) Personally I don't see why women are pressured not to do engineering (went from a 50/50 split in high school to a like an 8-2 split in college, which I was not happy about)

Anyway back to the point. Yes there are forms of "pressure" affecting men and women's  (alphabetical order!) decisions but I don't get the control freak nature of the radical feminists and mra who want to mind control the whole world to fit their own insecurities and reasoning. For example some "feminists" who openly criticize women who want to be house wives. They just refuse to accept the choice and try to back track entire centuries of history to find a way to be a victim. Imagine how a house wife must feel when there are "feminists" shaming her for her decisions. That's oppression???

---

Let's play a game of spot the radical feminist.

Woman 1 - I don't want to be president I want to be a nurse.
Woman 2 - WTF are you serious right Now? These fucking men have caused this shit.
Man 1 - I disagree. How can men cause It? I don't see anything wrong at all with a woman president.
Woman 2 - STFU society has pushed this agenda onto us women. If you don't agree you're an alt right sympathizer. I'm literally shaKing right now. These fucking dipshits.
Woman 3 - I wanna be a housewife!
Woman 2 - ..... please kill yourself.
Man 2 - I wanna be a stay at home dad!
Woman 2 - OMG!!1! SO CUTE :33

---

1. It's not mind control it's simply altering culture . Just like every other civil rights movement . You can pass all the laws you want . If the culture remains unchanged no progress will be made . And this has fuck all to do with tastes . 

2. You confuse patriarchy with men . Patriarchy is not a evil group of men who are oppressing women. It's a cultural idea(often held by men and women ) that locks woman and men into a certain  social context  . Often to the detriment of both genders. 


3. There may be 00000000000'1 percent of feminist who object to women being house wives .But it's not mainstream position by any stretch . And i point out there are more then enough MRA's who don't believe men should be stay at home dad's and will call them "Cucks" or "Manginia's " if they choose it .

4. As for this strawman of "radical feminists " it's just that a strawman . Woman 2 is figment of your imagination . And funny enough sounds a lot more like a typical poster at a AVFM just reverse the genders and the politics.

---

Quote:In terms of job roles there might be some valid criticism of unequal opportunity, but in cases of equal opportunity there'd still be unequal outcomes due to the difference in choices men and women make in their lifestyles. 

The life choices argument does not work . As i have said . Via the notion of cultural pressure in a broad social context . (Please note i'm not saying men are oppressing women neither are most mainstream modern feminists .  Most men and women have no clue their in this dance and both are being hurt by it.)

---

Sorry to Strike and Paul if my tone seems hostile . It's nothing personal .  Just a subject i have been deeply involved in both professionally and personally . 

I don't take anything you've said personal.

My argument isn't that there is no involvement in cultural pressure in relation to choices.

But it's also that men and women do have different innate behavioral tendencies which would still result in different job choices.  It's true that men and women exhibit different tendencies in a lot of areas such as violence, risk taking, becoming obsessive over different types of things in different ways, different levels of autism.  

Going back to music production again, the higher rate of autism might account for the higher rate of males wanting to sit behind a computer staying awake for days obsessively looking over music related things such as samples and synths.  But I do think part of the choice for men to do that is also cultural. 

This isn't an argument about any particular job role or CEO statistics or to suggest sexism doesn't exist or anything of that kind of nature.

It's just an observation, and scientifically backed up, that the contribution of biology to the differences between males and females in terms of behavior isn't 0.

(December 25, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 25, 2017 at 6:23 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: This is overwhelmingly not the case . And social pressures to conform to societal standards overtly influence decisions of either sex. So pulling the" different life choices" card does not work.

When I was in high school and we were all getting counseled on choosing a career path for college, I never once felt any pressure to do anything or not do anything in particular. If I had wanted to be a surgeon, there wouldn't have been a single person trying to stop me. Much the opposite actually, I think people would have highly encouraged it.

This was definitely the case with me, growing up in the 60s-70s. I think this is a good example of social progress. I had more than one person tell me, no lie, that I should not go to college, that I was taking a seat away from a man, and that I would just end up having kids and staying home anyway, so it was a waste of time and money. I was steered toward "Secretary school" and more female-related jobs, even though it was always clear to me and everyone around me that I wanted to pursue veterinary medicine. 

Fortunately, I was aware of how ludicrous that was, but not all girls my age were.