a question for the men here

(1000 Posts)
Mitchy1nge Tue 29-Jan-13 01:01:05

what makes you think you have anything of real value to bring to discussions about women's experiences and expectations?

obviously some men can make interesting contributions (although those sorts of men don't often announce themselves here) to some discussions but generally, on the whole, everything everywhere else is already pretty saturated in Male Voice so was just wondering where you got the idea from

Snorbs Fri 01-Feb-13 17:25:22

I thought misogyny meant "hatred of women" in a similar way that misanthropy means "hatred of people"? Or have I been reading the wrong dictionaries?

For that matter I thought patriarchy covered "institutionalised oppression of one sex".

Going back to something OneMoreChap touched on, I suspect most situations where there is anti-male sexism - eg, in certain child care/custody issues - a lot of that sexism is rooted in our patriarchal society's biases. But I'm sure I'm not saying anything revelatory in that.

snorbs - I think I'd say that's the etymology rather than the meaning?

But this is something that's been debated at a lot of length, so I am aware I'm putting my opinion across.

I agree with you completely that patriarchy is bad for men too and results in stuff like the childcare stereotyping.

OneMoreChap Fri 01-Feb-13 17:31:42

LRD
If misogyny exists, and you admit it exists, then logically, misandry cannot also exist - not unless you think there's a race of aliens who discriminate against all of us, and then we can just call it mis-humanism.

That's gone straight over my head.

I thought misogyny was the term for hatred of women not a
term for institutionalized oppression of one sex
Hatred of people was misanthropy not mis-humanism, surely?

Misandry was hatred of men, as I've said, I've not seen it; but I'm surprised that you think not only that it doesn't exist, but that it can't exist.

OMC, see ... I am worried I am derailing here.

But the way I see it is:

Misogyny is the term for institutionalized oppression. It means 'hatred of women', and that means 'women as a class', I think.

'Sexism' means 'discrimination on grounds of sex. But, you could be sexist towards one person and not towards another; you could be sexist without intending harm, etc. etc.

The comparison would be to white supremacy and racism.

It's possible for a white person to be racist, but it's also possible for my black neighbour to be racist (she isn't!). It's not possible to be a 'black supremacist', because we just don't have the structure in society that would do that.

That is how I see it, anyway. I'm aware it's a huge topic.

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 17:45:37

Ok Daddelion, I engaged with you because I thought you were genuine. Obviously not.

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 17:54:00

Daddelion. I said least oppressed.

I didn't say 'most privileged'.

Sure rich white heterosexual guys have more privilege than poor white heterosexual guys. Neither demographic is oppressed by women, POC or homosexuals though. And if we are going to look at poverty, we are going to have to do it through a feminist lens due to the feminization of poverty.

I must say I'm hugely impressed with all of your for continued articulate responses in the face of such pig-headed refusal to see what you're trying to explain. I couldn't do it. I've been catching up on this thread and trying extremely hard not to scream, so thank you all for saying what from me would come out as "aaahhhrrrrrggggggwhhhhhyyyyystooooppppp".

The level of refusal to acknowledge privilege from some posters on this thread is startling considering what fantastic explanations they're being given.

The thread asks for what you think you have to contribute of 'real value' to FWR, Daddelion.

It doesn't ask you to turn the spotlight on to issues that affect men specifically, ignoring those that affect women.

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 18:21:06

United Kingdom

Women in the United Kingdom (UK) are deprived of employment opportunities and income, which places them at the highest risk of poverty in the country. In a 1990 study conducted in the United Kingdom (UK), nearly half of the employees in the study were women but these women counted for less than a third of the total weekly earnings. Women’s weekly earnings were less than half of those of men. Although more women began to actively participate in providing for their families, over half of people in poverty were female and over 40% of impoverished households were lone-mother households. Lone-mother households were twice as likely to be poor as male-headed households.

Women in UK are denied equal opportunities in employment. Women’s earnings in family income decrease as men’s incomes increase. Inequality tends to be lower in households in which women gain access to full-time formal employment. Although married women’s involvement in the labor market helped to keep their families out of poverty, their relatively low earnings were overall ineffective in moving their families up to the highest level of income distribution.

Employment

Employment opportunities are limited for women worldwide.[25] The ability to materially control one’s environment by gaining equal access to work that is humanizing and allows for meaningful relationships with other workers is an essential capability.[26] Employment is not only about financial independence, but about higher security through an established legal position, real world experience, deeply important for sheltered or shy women, and higher regard within the family, which gives women a better bargaining position. Though there has been major growth in women’s employment, the quality of the jobs still remains deeply unequal.

There are two kinds of employment: Formal and Informal. Formal employment is government regulated and workers are insured a wage and certain rights. Informal employment takes place in small, unregistered enterprises. It is generally a large source of employment for women.[23] The burden of informal care work falls predominantly on women, who work longer and harder in this role than men. This affects their ability to hold other jobs and change positions, the hours they can work, and their decision to give up work. However, women who have University degrees or other forms of higher learning tend to stay in their jobs even with caring responsibilities, which suggests that the human capital from this experience causes women to feel opportunity costs when they lose their employment.[27] Having children has also historically affected women’s choice to stay employed. While this “child-effect” has significantly decreased since the 1970s, women’s employment is currently decreasing. This has less to do with child-rearing and more with a poor job market for all women, mothers and non-mothers alike.

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 18:26:12

From the UN

The majority of the 1.5 billion people living on 1 dollar a day or less are women. In addition, the gap between women and men caught in the cycle of poverty has continued to widen in the past decade, a phenomenon commonly referred to as "the feminization of poverty". Worldwide, women earn on average slightly more than 50 per cent of what men earn.

Women living in poverty are often denied access to critical resources such as credit, land and inheritance. Their labour goes unrewarded and unrecognized. Their health care and nutritional needs are not given priority, they lack sufficient access to education and support services, and their participation in decision-making at home and in the community are minimal. Caught in the cycle of poverty, women lack access to resources and services to change their situation.

Just catching up and I'm at the aaarrrrgggghhhhhhhhhwhhhhyyyysttttoooooppppp stage too.

For the women on here who argue with Larry - I salute you. thanks

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 18:43:35

I have to confess it was funny and frustrating in equal measure Sabrina grin

GetOrf Fri 01-Feb-13 18:48:09

Dadelion I thought you were going because you had the world to run.

I very much doubt you can adequately run your microwave, tbh.

But why come back here and talk to us inadequates? Seriously. You must enjoy the goading.

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 18:53:52

Of course they enjoy it. They want to get one over on the wimmin (and probably think they have because we haven't followed the rules of Socrates or whatever) <head explodes as it is just far to technical for my female brain>

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 01-Feb-13 19:18:14

"However, she implied it was absolutely fine for blacks to discriminate against whites in areas where she did not have to go. Several posts later she claimed she never said it."

OK, for the hard of thinking, I'm going to explain why saying "so what" does not imply that it's absolutely fine for blacks to discriminate against whites.

I don't think it's "absolutely fine". It's unfortunate, it's unkind and it's not very nice.

However.

It doesn't affect white people as a caste in their daily lives. It implies nothing about how much they will earn, whether they will be employed, whether they will be policed fairly, whether they will have the same access to law, education, housing, employment etc. in their normal everyday lives.

It doesn't affect them in any way except that their neighbours are a PITA. I too have neighbours who are a PITA but as soon as I get in my car and drive away from them they stop having any impact on my life.

Racism isn't like that. You can't drive away from it. Same with sexism, same with homophobia, same with anti-Semitism, same with any systemic, institutionalised hatred.

"I believe there are some false rape accusations. A tiny miniscule proportion of those rapes that aren't reported, and a tiny proportion of those rapes that are reported and not acted upon." What's the point you're making there OMC? That that's misandry? I don't think that's necessarily so. Any more than falsely accusing someone who happens to be female of stealing your ipod, would be misogyny. It may be but I don't think one can assume it IYSWIM. Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 01-Feb-13 19:25:21

Oh Daddelion.

"You're more likely to die earlier than her." - he should take more responsibility for his health then and stop relying on the woman in his life to nag him to see the doctor.
"You're more likely to commit suicide. " - because men are more violent than women and so also more likely to turn their violence on themselves. See Raoul Moat for an example. Tackle male violence and this risk will be reduced.
You're more likely to be assaulted or murdered. - not by your partner or ex, by another man. Tackle male violence and you reduce that risk.
You're more likely to be homeless - because women's homelessness is hidden. They tend to sleep on friends' sofas etc. and they tend to allow themselves to be used as wank-socks and skivvies to avoid homelessness.
You're more likely to be an alcoholic or drug addict. - er. Perhaps men should take responsibility for their own addictions?
You're more likely to lose contact with your children after a relationship breakdown. - Um. You don't "lose contact" like you lose an umbrella on the bus, you make the decision not to bother to contact your children or you are forbidden to by courts because you have been such a bad father.

And this is what so many of the men come here for. To assure us that they have it worse than us.

<applauds FB>

OneMoreChap Fri 01-Feb-13 19:31:45

FastidiaBlueberry

"I believe there are some false rape accusations. A tiny miniscule proportion of those rapes that aren't reported, and a tiny proportion of those rapes that are reported and not acted upon." What's the point you're making there OMC? That that's misandry? I don't think that's necessarily so. Any more than falsely accusing someone who happens to be female of stealing your ipod, would be misogyny. It may be but I don't think one can assume it IYSWIM. Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

That if there is misandry (pace LTB, but I suspect there might possibly be) that it is so tiny and insignificant in proprortion to the widespread misogyny evident in the media and the enforcement of the laws, it is inconsequential.

This infographic might help a bit.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/the-saddest-graph-youll-see-today/

Let's deal with the unreported/unconvicted rapes before we worry too much about the false accusations.

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 01-Feb-13 19:39:59

Oh I thought that's what you meant but just wanted to check.

confused

Forgive me for asking the blindingly obvious, OMG, but why are you telling 'us' to stop worrying about false accusations? You're the one who brought it up in the first place!

MiniTheMinx Fri 01-Feb-13 19:51:44

Certainly women are the worlds poor and this means millions of children also live in poverty. But if women are two thirds of the world workers and two thirds of the worlds poor, the problem is capitalism. Capitalism has created "feminised poverty".

In the western/nothern hemisphere where women have made the greatest gains in education and career, we now have a situation where two incomes are needed to keep a family. So not all women have gained. The losers are working class women lower down the socio/economic scale who are partnered and also single women with children. The gains made by middle class women have actually eroded the incomes of working class women.

OneMoreChap Let's deal with the unreported/unconvicted rapes before we worry too much about the false accusations.

Um. It's actually nice to see a bloke posting that on here - so thank you.

But, yunno, its not the feminists who bring the number of false rape accusations into feminist discussions. Like, not EVER.

It's always something thrown at us by MRA trolls, wanting to deny and minimise the incidence of rape.

OneMoreChap Fri 01-Feb-13 20:52:40

LRDt
Forgive me for asking the blindingly obvious, OMG, but why are you telling 'us' to stop worrying about false accusations? You're the one who brought it up in the first place!

Boggle.

I'm suggesting that whining about putative misandry, or sexism against men is about as important as bleating about "wimmin making false rape accusations".

In theory, it's possible. In actuality, inconsequential compared to the real issues.

Ok then. confused

I'm glad you agree it's not important. I just didn't get why you brought it up and then posted to say we shouldn't talk about it.

Are we both confusing each other here?!

OneMoreChap Fri 01-Feb-13 21:01:31

I suspect so - or at least I'm confusing you with poorly phrased posts. I did the same a couple of days ago to AbigailAdams.

I tried to think of something that's an easily recognised example of "not a key issue", the infographic had stuck, so I thought of that.

This thread is not accepting new messages.