Men's Rights Movement

[GrandizerII]

Edited above. Why was such assistance given to only women in your view?

I have no idea. My husband certainly worked much harder than I did, did better, and got nothing.

He doesnt need the scholarship then. Good, now if all things equal in terms of intelligence and hard work and no sfholarship at all, then you wouldve probably seen things more clearly with regards to male privilege. Your husband is more likely to get a high status job than you, given all things equal except for gender. Again, because of male privilege fostered by gender expectations imposed by traditional society.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't take seriously pretty much anyone living in a Western liberal democracy who cries about being oppressed.

Says someone who is lucky enough to be both white and male.

You are conflating disadvantage with oppression. They arent the same thing.

[Catholic_Lady]

That's what I think too

[Edwardo Piet]

It would have helped, I think to have specific definition of feminism to work from to begin with. Maybe this whole thread would be in better shape. But, whether or not you committed the no true scotsman fallacy (and I think you made your case that you didn't) wouldn't it be more correct to say they've taken feminism too far than to say that they are not feminists altogether (or "beyond" which is synonymous with "outside the scope of")? I mean, radical feminists are feminists, right?

The 'radical' part about 'radical feminists' has nothing to do with the feminism.

A so-called 'radical feminist' isn't any more 'extremely feminist' than a Janeist who happens to be violent is a 'radical Janeist'.

I use the actual definition of feminism: Being pro women's rights. (Which is very clearly what I have been talking about this whole time hence why I kept saying that people who claim to be 'feminist' but don't actually support women's rights aren't feminists any more than someone who claims to be 'Christian' is a Christian if they don't actually follow the teachings of Christ.

It's not about what you identify or what group you claim to speak for or represent, it's whether you actually practice what that group is supposed to practice.

[GrandizerII]

Says someone who is lucky enough to be both white and male.

You are conflating disadvantage with oppression. They arent the same thing.

Seems like thats your problem. Where did Thena argue about oppression in the sense youre thinking of? You still have privileges she doesnt get anyway.

[CapnAwesome]

No true Scotsman

I knew that was coming and I'm too tired of explaining what the fallacy actually is.

Most people who call it out don't even understand the fallacy and they're doing the equivalent of saying that "No true circles have five sides" is a fallacy.

I would bother to explain what the fallacy actually is (the misunderstanding of the fallacy seems infinitely more common than a correct understanding of the fallacy!!!) but I've done it so many times it's getting tiring.

---

Fallacy fallacy.

No. Incorrectly calling out a fallacy is not the Fallacy Fallacy . . . you are just incorrectly calling out an incorrect calling out of a fallacy. That's what you're doing.

I'll explain the Fallacy Fallacy because it's an easy one to explain and I'm not super tired of explaining it (almost no one seems to understand the NTS fallacy because the common misunderstanding is so widespread that people just repeat that misunderstanding over and over without bothering to read up on it properly): The Fallacy Fallacy is when you say that the truth of someone's conclusion is necessarily false just because the way they got there was fallacious. That itself is a fallacy because someone could be right about the conclusion by accident. Their reason for believing in their conclusion is faulty but the conclusion that they believe in nevertheless represents something true in reality.

Yeah your mostly right, for a change, except for the parts part of it not applying to Catholic Lady on saying "no true scotsman" because her entire argument is that the person is wrong because they used a no true Scotsman. How is that anything other than " say that the truth of someone's conclusion is necessarily false just because the way they got there was fallacious" when it's the entirety of her post. That is in fact, all you are saying when you make a post like that. Unless you presume that she thought the person she was replying to was right. Which obviously she didn't.

I know it bothers you that even though you are obsessed with pointing out logical fallacies, I know more about them then you.

[Rev. Rye]

I have no idea. My husband certainly worked much harder than I did, did better, and got nothing.

He doesnt need the scholarship then. Good, now if all things equal in terms of intelligence and hard work and no sfholarship at all, then you wouldve probably seen things more clearly with regards to male privilege. Your husband is more likely to get a high status job than you, given all things equal except for gender. Again, because of male privilege fostered by gender expectations imposed by traditional society.

That's certainly a good part of it, but I think the problem runs a bit deeper than that: in my experience, a crucial part of actually getting a job is networking. The old saying "it's not what you know, it's who you know" is very true in aspects of getting a job. People tend to be far more likely to hire someone if they know someone or have some sort of bond with them. A lot of times, this bond is something like attending the same college as them, but, of course, having similar genitalia or melanin levels ends up becoming a factor, unconsciously or not (perhaps more unconsciously these days than in decades past). It was certainly a factor in keeping the cycle of poverty in the Jim Crow South (you're not likely to get in a position of power on par with white people when you're literally not allowed in the same room with them.) 

Maybe in most circumstances, a woman is less likely to be hired than a man, but perhaps if the person hiring was a woman herself (admittedly, less common than one might like), it seems she does have an advantage.

You raise a good point, but your analysis is a bit reductive is all I'm saying.

[GrandizerII]

He doesnt need the scholarship then. Good, now if all things equal in terms of intelligence and hard work and no sfholarship at all, then you wouldve probably seen things more clearly with regards to male privilege. Your husband is more likely to get a high status job than you, given all things equal except for gender. Again, because of male privilege fostered by gender expectations imposed by traditional society.

That's certainly a good part of it, but I think the problem runs a bit deeper than that: in my experience, a crucial part of actually getting a job is networking. The old saying "it's not what you know, it's who you know" is very true in aspects of getting a job. People tend to be far more likely to hire someone if they know someone or have some sort of bond with them. A lot of times, this bond is something like attending the same college as them, but, of course, having similar genitalia or melanin levels ends up becoming a factor, unconsciously or not (perhaps more unconsciously these days than in decades past). It was certainly a factor in keeping the cycle of poverty in the Jim Crow South (you're not likely to get in a position of power on par with white people when you're literally not allowed in the same room with them.) 

Maybe in most circumstances, a woman is less likely to be hired than a man, but perhaps if the person hiring was a woman herself (admittedly, less common than one might like), it seems she does have an advantage.

You raise a good point, but your analysis is a bit reductive is all I'm saying.

Where in the article does it say women have the advantage when its a woman doing the hiring? It looks more like its saying 50/50. But perhaps I skipped something in the article that states there is an advantage.

In other studies, btw, specifically in academic settings, it has been shown that even women hirers were more likely to employ men rather than women, so in some contexts, women still dont get 50/50 chance with women hirers.

As for reductive vs holistic, Im not too concerned about that, so long as the point being made is based on the facts gleaned through social experiments and other studies. But sure, I dont disregard your point at all. It doesnt contradict the existence of male privilege anyway.

[Rev. Rye]

Actually, it’s closer to 50/40.

In the gender experiment, female employers were much more likely to hire women than male employers were. When a woman was making the decision, women were hired 50 percent of the time, yet when a male employer was making the call, women had only a 40 percent chance of getting hired. This was true with the birth month groups, too: Even-month employers were much more likely to hire even-month workers than odd-month employers were. In fact, when birth month was the consideration, rather than gender, the difference was even bigger, with odd-month employers hiring even-month workers only 30 percent of the time.

Clearly, sharing the same social identity can have an impact on hiring choices.

“It seems to be the case that all employer types, on average, are willing to engage in discrimination against members of the lower-performing group,” the paper says. “But the extent of this discrimination is reduced when the employer shares a known demographic characteristic with the lower-performing group.”

Feel free to search for that section in the link. Sounds like a 25% increase in success rate to me.

And I’m not disagreeing that male privilege is a thing, just so we’re clear. I just think sometimes, the effects of it can be due to a lot of factors in addition to privilege (which clearly doesn’t help matters) that are even harder to overcome than prejudice (and often even more absurd.) And I do think to ignore those other factors that cause the problem may very well be a hindrance to change.

Remember House? A lot of the patients on the show had what looked like more common diseases that didn’t respond to treatment, often because they were more unusual. If a doctor decides to treat a disease when the patient is suffering from a different one than the remedy is designed to treat, that patient isn’t likely to get better anytime soon. And I strongly suspect in cases like this, we got a lot of diseases to treat. We don’t keep an eye on them, we might just lose the patient. And remember to bring your Vicodin.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You are conflating disadvantage with oppression. They arent the same thing.

Seems like thats your problem. Where did Thena argue about oppression in the sense youre thinking of? You still have privileges she doesnt get anyway.

Cry me a river. I grew up in a home that didn't even have a bathroom in it. But you're right. I had the privileges of being smart and persistent. Now I live in a home with 2 bathrooms.