I’ll give Sofia, the antifeminist bloggress behind the blog Sofiastry, credit for one thing: unlike a lot of Men’s Rightsers, she doesn’t deny that there is a wage gap between men and women. She just thinks that it’s justified – that women should be paid less.
Why? Well, I admit I don’t quite understand her explanation, which has something to do with women getting worse grades in school, working less, and, well, whatever the hell she’s trying to say here:
women who are likely seen in executive and higher-earning positions are estrogenically flawed in their lack of sufficient desire to prioritize family life. Its the equivalent of a man who has no creative, intellectual or ambitious drive — all hallmarks of testosterone.
Oh, and because, like Barbie, women think that math class is tough:
can it not simply be reduced to the fact that the average man has more of of an aptitude for finance and numbers than the average woman?
No, I’m pretty sure it can’t.
In a followup post, Sofia raised a critical issue that she somehow had overlooked in her earlier analysis: women are a bunch of blubbering crybabies.
I couldn’t count on one hand the number of times a female co-worker cried on the job (myself included), but I couldn’t name a single male (homosexuals excluded & even then…). Women are more emotional, more likely to take days off for such reasons (or no reason) and quantifiably put in less hours on the job. Depending on the field, I’d also wager that women are less likely to revolutionize an industry or make the same amount of exceptional contributions men do.
Seriously, gal. Don’t be a bunch of Lady-Boehners. Stop all of your sobbing! (Oh, oh oh.)
qwert666 The wage gap exists alright! The problem is that you can’t, and won’t ever be able to convincingly prove, or demonstrate, that the wage gap is a result of gender bias. Every differing job has a differing rate of pay, every different company pays a differing rate of pay to other companies. Every worker works differing hours to the others. The longer a worker works with the same company (think maternity leave) the more rises in pay they earn. The more over-time a worker works, the more pay they receive etc etc etc. How many variables are there exactly?, and yet people can claim with certainty that “men are paid more than women”: it isn’t true and it can’t be proven to be so.
That’s why statisticians do regressions, and compare rates of pay across several variable; to control for the problem of x vs. y. But when you have a large enough population, you can spot actual trends.
@Cynikal–
Barca (Dawn still tend bar there), huh? I miss that place and Seattle in general, but was always more of a Bad Juju kind of girl.
MRAL: Ah… you are trying to be a prescriptivist, and conveniently the definition you describe means exactly, and only, what you want it to mean.
And you’ve used it in exactly the way Rutee uses it, but right now that makes it impossible for you to beat up on the people whom you want to beat up on.
So… I’m not convinced.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people who say they’re libertarian are actually just control freaks. They want the world to run according to THEIR rules. They don’t want anyone in charge of them, and they don’t really want to be in charge of everyone else, they just want for everyone to do things they way these supposed libertarians think they ought to be done.
They mostly don’t take the time to examine their beliefs or preferences, because if they did, they’d realize that most of their beliefs are in direct opposition to each other.
I’d find them more entertaining if so many of them weren’t in positions of power in North America.
Well I actually think misandry is a far more widespread problem than misogyny, but I think debating about that is just a big fucking waste of time here.
Secondly, I’d like a link to a non-feminist, reputable sociologist(s) or a sociological journal that defines misandry and misogyny as based on societal harm. Otherwise, I think you’re talking out of your ass.
So let’s accept your (incorrect) worldview for a second. Let’s say misogyny is a bigger problem than misandry (again, it’s not). So what? That makes absolutely no difference in our argument. You’re saying sexism towards men, for some reason, has to cause large-scale problems to be termed “misandry”. That is not the case. I don’t give a flying fuck about anything else. Game Over.
Pecunium, seriously, are you a fucking idiot? It’s not *my* definition. Again-
Definition of MISANDRY
: a hatred of men
That’s the only given definition, by the way. There’s really not a lot of room for interpretation. If you hate men, you’re a misandrist. If you make that known through any means, you’re practicing misandry. It’s really that simple. Rutee is somehow trying to say that it’s only misandry if there are… large-scale repercussions to this hate. I mean, really? Is my hating trees going to cause them to wither and die the world over? No, but I’d still hate them. Likewise, if some bitter female divorcee in Connecticut kicks some random man in the testicles for being male, there aren’t going to be repercussions for men the world over. But she’s still a misandrist, and has committed an act of misandry. Jesus Christ.
Secondly, I’d like a link to a non-feminist, reputable sociologist(s) or a sociological journal that defines misandry and misogyny as based on societal harm. Otherwise, I think you’re talking out of your ass.
Are you going to define “reputable”? Because last I heard, you’re still an undergrad.
Robert Jensen doesn’t count.
What are some examples of misandry? Top end and bottom end?
MRAL: Well I actually think misandry is a far more widespread problem than misogyny
Really? You think, (based on your definition?) that more people hate men that hate women.
And, since it’s merely a question of, “hates men” who cares? Does this hate have some manifestation?
Oh, wait, that would be the definition you deny.
Secondly, I’d like a link to a non-feminist, reputable sociologist(s) or a sociological journal that defines misandry and misogyny as based on societal harm.
What’s stopping you from finding it? You are at an institution with .edu domain, so JSTOR is wide open to you. I’ll wager you have some top-flight referece librarians whom you can ask to help you in the search.
Pecunium, seriously, are you a fucking idiot? It’s not *my* definition. Again-
Definition of MISANDRY
: a hatred of men
And your definition is counterproductive to your argument. It requires that “misandrist” behavior be the result of actual animosity to men.
Are you so fucking clueless that you can’t parse the simple logic of that.
Because you are taking the systemic issues, and trying to make the issues of intent. Hatred of men, as opposed to systemic bias against men.
The definition you are trying to use is worse because it means you can’t call things, like the draft, misandrist, unless you can prove it’s done out of hatred for men .
I don’t, quite, agree with the example you give. A single attack isn’t dispositive. If she went kicking every man she saw in the balls, that would be. A sudden lapse, not.
But it’s irrelevant. You’re definition isn’t consequence based. If someone passed a law that said, “only women can be president” and the justifications were based on things that had nothing to do with male hatred, it’s not misandrist; by your definition
You’ve increased your burden of proof.
Stamping your feet and saying, “they are misandrists, because you say so. Good luck with that. I reccomend you try it in an ethics class, or Philosphy 101. Get back to us.
Really? You think, (based on your definition?) that more people hate men that hate women.
NO, NOT BASED ON MY DEFINITION. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS THE DICTIONARY’S DEFINITION, NOT MINE. SECOND OF ALL, THE DICTIONARY’S DEFINITION OF MISANDRY IS “HATRED OF MEN”. THE DEFINITION DOES NOT INCLUDE WHETHER SAID HATRED IS MORE COMMON THAN MISOGYNY. I HAPPEN TO THINK IT IS, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEBATE, WHICH IS WHY I DON’T WANT TO GET IN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT IT. CLEAR? HOLY FUCK.
Oh, wait, that would be the definition you deny.
No it’s not. Rutee says that only a manifestation of hate that has “large-scale consequences” counts as misandry. A manifestation of hate can be minor and inconsequential, in my opinion. Say a group of housewives talk about how useless men are. Not a big deal. It happens regularly, I’m sure. No men are going to be hurt by them talking that way. But it’s still misandry. Rutee would have us believe it’s not.
What’s stopping you from finding it?
I don’t think I will find it, because I don’t think it exists. I’m not a major, but I’m taken two basic sociology courses, and I never ran across that definition.
And your definition is counterproductive to your argument. It requires that “misandrist” behavior be the result of actual animosity to men.
Well… yeah. I mean, I’m sure it’s not always *conscious* animosity, but yes, to be misandrist one needs to have some level of animosity towards men, in some capacity.
The draft’s misandry is debatable. On one level, it can be seen as a relic from a society that believes men simply make better soldiers. That’s not misandrist. It still sucks for men, but it’s not indicative of hatred. On another level, you can argue that the draft is a result of a culture of male disposability. That is misandry. Unconscious misandry, but still.
You’re definition isn’t consequence based. If someone passed a law that said, “only women can be president” and the justifications were based on things that had nothing to do with male hatred, it’s not misandrist; by your definition
It’s not possible to pass that law without misandry. It is by definition misandrist.
It’s not possible to pass that law without misandry. It is by definition misandrist.
How is it,”hatred” of men?
What is the requisite hatred of men? What if it’s that’s men’s inherent aggression, and the way Alpha’s are all that ever get elected, and the entire point is to overthrow the “Greek System”.
That would be doing it out of a sense of the injustice of the present system.
Your definition requires actual malice for something to by misandrist. Hatred is, by definition, a conscious emotion.
What’s stopping you from finding it?
I don’t think I will find it, because I don’t think it exists. I’m not a major, but I’m taken two basic sociology courses, and I never ran across that definition.
So the entire discipline of Sociology doesn’t understand the meaning of the word?
Or perhaps the dictionary isn’t up to date?
Look, Pecunium, it’s not my job to do Rutee’s research for her. Presumably she has run across that definition, since she came in here talking about it, so I’m asking for a link to it.
What if it’s that’s men’s inherent aggression, and the way Alpha’s are all that ever get elected, and the entire point is to overthrow the “Greek System”.
As I’ve said once before, I subscribe to the notion that contempt and prejudice are a form of hatred of men- or, at least, a hatred of aspect(s) of men. Thus, an assumption that men are “too aggressive” implies a hatred of this supposed “aggressive” aspect of masculinity, which is hatred of men.
And STOP saying “my definition”. It’s not “my definition”. It’s Merriam-Webster’s very, very simple, four-word definition.
“MRAL, I’m taking you off moderation.”
But not me?
Hmmpf!
@Hellkell
Yet you can’t provide evidence. Hell, you think harsh language against *you* is misandry. And have yet to show harsh language against *you* is systematic and widespread against all men.
Yet you never do. Grow up. You have personality problems. The system isn’t out to get *you*, you’re just too self absorbed to actually understand people don’t like you because you suck at behaving.
MRAL: It’s your definition because it’s the one you are using. Language isn’t a platonic ideal. It’s a consensus activity.
Impact doesn’t mean affect. Children are reared, not raised.
Booked are lend you a book, I don’t, “borrow it” to you. Money is lent. Due to is different from because, over is not the same as more than, I am doing well, not good (unless I am making the world a better place). People move quickly, not quick.
All of those are the way the dictionary defines things, and they happen to be they way I use words, but language isn’t static.
Wench doesn’t mean, “woman”, nor is “boy” something you dare call a white man in Mississippi, unless you are a cop.
More to the point, you have already said that using any source you don’t like doesn’t count.
So this comment, from Allan Johnson you will dimiss, out of hand, because you define him out of the realm of, “reputable”
… “misandry” has no place in a male-identified, male-centered world. Moreover, Johnson states: “And it takes almost no criticism at all in order for men to feel “bashed,” like it’s “open season on men.” In fact, just saying “male privilege” or “patriarchy” can start eyes rolling and evoke that exasperated sense of “Here we go again.” (Allan Johnson, “Privilege, power and difference,” p. 197) “Accusations of male bashing and man hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people. Given the reality of women’s oppression, male privilege, and some men’s enforcement of both, it’s hardly surprising that EVERY woman should have moments when she resents or even “hates” men.” (Allan Johnson, “The gender knot,” p. 107
Why? Because he uses the word in a way that MRAL, Lord of the Lexicon, Lictor of Linguistics disagrees with.
MRAL: Look, Pecunium, it’s not my job to do Rutee’s research for her. Presumably she has run across that definition, since she came in here talking about it, so I’m asking for a link to it.
Bullshit, this is what you said, “Secondly, I’d like a link to a non-feminist, reputable sociologist(s) or a sociological journal that defines misandry and misogyny as based on societal harm. Otherwise, I think you’re talking out of your ass.
You didn’t ask for a source, you asked for a source that wasn’t one you don’t like. Until, and unless, you explain who is, “reputable” and justify why you (the admitted non-sociologist) exclude them, your conditions are just a way to avoid having your pet definition shown to be nothing more than the way you make misandry mean what you want it to mean.
Pecunium, you’re just being an smug, obtuse douchebag. Linking to Feministing.com or an excerpt from Andrea Dworkin or Robert Jensen would merely confirm that a certain strain of feminists has repurposed this word to operate within a larger societal context. I think we all know that. But, by saying “sociologist” as opposed to “feminist” Rutee has implied that it’s not just an obscure feminist idea, but a more mainstream one. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to, in turn, ask for a non-feminist link.
By the way, that was a whole lot of philosophical bullshit that amounted to absolutely nothing. No, language isn’t static. That doesn’t mean you can take a word and immediately redefine it to something that is actually AT ODDS with the current accepted definition as written. Well, I mean, you can, but don’t expect anyone else to go along with you.
I’m a sociology major and, yeah, the common use of the term is in line with Rutee’s definition.
Let’s see a quote, then. Also, sociology is a fucking waste of time.
Does anyone else get the sense that MRAL is actually… calmer? Trying harder, maybe, with less keyboard smashing? o.O
MRAL: But, by saying “sociologist” as opposed to “feminist” Rutee has implied that it’s not just an obscure feminist idea, but a more mainstream one. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to, in turn, ask for a non-feminist link.
Ozy: I’m a sociology major and, yeah, the common use of the term is in line with Rutee’s definition.
MRAL: Let’s see a quote, then. Also, sociology is a fucking waste of time.
Which you can, of course, determine from having taken two (count them! TWO!) courses in it. If you think that an entire academic discipline is “a waste of time,” why did you demand that Rutee find you examples of its practitioners talking about sexism? Is it so that you can move the goalposts some more?