Over on Reddit, DoktorTeufel has a problem: he likes the ladies, but he doesn’t like the feminists. Unfortunately, some ladies are also feminists! And therein lies the danger. Naturally, he turns to the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit for help.
I’m just going to come out and say it: I will never knowingly enter into a romantic relationship with a feminist. I do have some female relatives and acquaintances who are feminists … and it’s not like they all wear signs that proclaim I’M A FEMINIST. (Some do.)
Aside from obvious telltales (feminist bumper stickers, etc.) or outright asking them “Are you a feminist?”, what are some discreet ways to ferret out a woman’s views on gender activism without creating an awkward situation? Feminism is a minefield topic, and I certainly wouldn’t broach the subject directly with a woman I’ve just started dating.
Naturally, this being the Men’s Rights subreddit, he received much helpful advice. Celda broke it down for him:
You don’t really care whether she identifies as a feminist or not – you care what her views are.
For instance, does she feel women have the right to force men into parental obligations against their will?
Does she feel women are oppressed in Western society?
Does she think that women make less money than men for the same work?
If yes to these questions or similar, then you probably want to avoid her.
Exactly. Always avoid those with a basic grasp on reality. They’re the worst!
Naive1000 suggested looking for more subtle clues.
Ask their thoughts on “benevolent sexism” if they know what your talking about you likely have a feminist. Just to make sure go into male privilege, it’s the feminists’ most popular talking point. Let her talk about it then you can see what she’s really like. But, there are some women who call themselves feminists, but are really egalitarian: they just don’t know the term.
Memymineown also suggests a subtle approach, and holds out hope that some of the younger feminist girls can be won back to the path of righteousness:
Bring Men’s Rights issues into the conversation subtly. I was talking with my family about Justin Beiber and brought up the paternity charge and no rape charges filed against the woman.
That led into a discussion about how women aren’t punished for rape.
Just do things like that.
But you shouldn’t exclude all feminists. I would say that the vast majority are just girls(I do use that word on purpose) who have been lied to. Once you show them the real facts they will probably come around.
ThePigman, by contrast, urges DoktorTeufel to go for the jugular:
Why do you need to be discrete about it? Just ask her. If she is a member of the cult she will start screaming about the patriarchy, then her head will explode.
It’s true. Pretty much every conversation involving feminists quickly devolves into screaming about patriarchy. Heck, a feminist friend and I once screamed about patriarchy for five hours straight. We probably could have gone longer, but the manager at Applebee’s, evidently not a feminist, threw us out. Sometimes I start screaming about patriarchy when no one else is around, just to keep in practice.
Conversations with feminists pretty much all go like the conversation in the video below, only instead of a cat you need to picture a feminist, and instead of the word “no,” the word “patriarchy.” You can see how annoying that might get, and not just to Hitler.
I’ve lost track of the various attempts to make me feel bad. Meller pretends I am some sort of something.
CrackEmcee said that I was some sort traitor to veterans for taking his nonense apart. Brandon called me stupid, any number of people have said I was wound up in petty details when I called them on logical fallacies.
Marc (I think) said I was the biggest liar of all liars that ever lied.
NWO used to call me a white night.
Hengist, and Ion both had some fly up their ass about something.
Dani: thanks, I was too tired to recap all of that.
This is the problem with feminism. It’s always find the worse case example of the worse man in history as the model and reason to fear and hate men.
Well, yeah. You, the working poor, are subsidizing the wealth class at a greater rate than ever before, and it will be even worse for your children (actual or hypothetical). This is the worst example of government gone wrong in American history so far. And yes, I do fear and loathe the men AND women at the top pulling the strings to make it possible.
The difference between us isn’t rage at the system, because it’s certainly broken. Nor is it that I think motherhood is worthless shit and should be stomped out. It’s a job way too hard for me, so I leave it to those better equipped than myself.
The difference comes down to, as other posters have put so eloquently, that you enjoy licking the boots of those who keep you in slavery. I don’t. Simple as that.
Enjoy your hiatus. I’m sure I’ll see you here again tomorrow or the next day, chasing your own tail.
My dad at one point was tens of thousands of dollars behind on child support and never spent a day in jail. Maybe it’s state by state, but Minnesota is about as liberal as they come and I know at least a couple other people who got way behind on their child support and never spent any time in jail for it.
Though perhaps my dad was a case of “inability” to pay. His law practice got legislated out of existence a couple of years after the divorce and it took him a long time to recover financially.
One of my friends got pregnant from her boyfriend. He wanted a kid too but then everything went downhill and he disappeared. She never tried getting child support from him nor does she really want to.
@Anti-Moron’s-Rights
MRAs idealize the suburban life of the 1950s and believe that everybody was part of it. And at the same time, they know that none of them are part of the upper class and can afford to have a stay-at-home wife – that’s one of the reason many choose to be alone and become part of the MGTOW or become PUA. Basically they want a stay-at-home wife but they don’t want to pay anything for her. Among the women that married guys in the manosphere, in many case it’s woman that work while the guy is jobless. Only desperate women that have low self-esteem can want these guys. Even women that don’t see themselves as militant feminist despise these guys. I’ve known women that read The Daily Mail, Pajama Media, watch Fox News and are against immigration (one of them was a Christian that had taken a virginity pledge with her boyfriend) ridicule these guys. It’s the reason these guys see feminists everywhere.
OT, but have you seen that Roissy/Heartiste has posted about a ridiculous software that track periods and ovulation so that guys can know when their girlfriend are likely to cheat :
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/period-and-ovulation-tracker-as-seduction-tool/
Oh, wait, I remember now. Brandon called me a “man-hater” and everyone called him on that shit and he basically admitted that he’d pulled it out of his ass.
Anyone whose heart is in the right place, though, I hold in very high regard. People who campaign against their own interests, and hope to destroy the lives of those around them in the process, especially because basic facts elude them, not so much”‘
@anti moron’s rights.
That’s about all there is to it, really. Heh.
But I wanna add that I think that as many people as possible running information from as many honest vantage points so that we all CAN start oming to the best understanding possible of how,exactly, we’re all getting screwed over by the state corporate system probably is job one, so,that’s a pretty good start you’ve got going already, I’d say. 🙂
Meller tries to make me feel bad and dismisses me and then comes back for my validation. It’s really interesting.
He hasn’t responded to my query as to how libertarian doll hareming was catching on yet, though. Sad 🙁
@Kyrie That study does not control for various other factors only age and childlessness. It finds prior to having children women between the ages of 22-30 earn more than men in the same age bracket who are also childless. The rest of the women on the worse side of the wage gap have not been adjusted for simple factors like hours worked and time off.
@Pecunium that GOA study does not control for factors, it compares average earning. It does so between many groups, i linked it to rebut the idea that men with children earn 10-15% more than childlessmen, the goa study shows that average earnings are 2.5% higher however this is again not adjusted for factors such as age and etc.
‘Care to justify your claims that the studies show that they have controlled for those differences and they negate the wage gap?’ Well ok I’ll give it a go.
http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/ec483/katz.pdf
‘We identify three primary proximate factors that can explain the large and rising gender
gap in earnings: (1) a modest male advantage in training prior to MBA graduation combined
with rising labor market returns with post-MBA experience to such training; (2) gender
differences in career interruptions combined with large earnings losses associated with any
career interruption (of six or more months); and (3) growing gender differences in weekly hours worked with years since MBA’ The modest male advantage in training is covered in the study as taking more finance classes prior to graduation.’ ‘
‘Their conclusion: while gender discrimination may be a minor contributor to the male-female wage differential, it is desire – or the lack thereof – that accounts for most of the wage gap. The economists identified three main factors:
Women have slightly lower GPAs than men and, perhaps more important, they take fewer finance courses. All else being equal, there is a strong correlation between a finance background and career earnings.
Over the first fifteen years of their careers, women work fewer hours than men, 52 per week versus 58. Over fifteen years, that six-hour difference adds up to six months’ less experience.
Women take more career interruptions than men. After ten years in the workforce, only 10 percent of male MBAs went for six months or more without working, compared with 40 percent of female MBAs.
The big issue seems to be that many women, even those with MBAs, love kids. The average female MBA with no children works only 3 percent fewer hours than the average male MBA. But female MBAs with children work 24 percent less. “The pecuniary penalties from shorter hours and any job discontinuity among MBAs are enormous,” the three economists write. “It appears that many MBA mothers, especially those with well-off spouses, decided to slow down within a few years following their first birth.”’
The gender discrimination is listed as a possible minor cause, however they have used only 3 controlling factors.
http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=2a1f8ad4-f649-4ad3-a742-268d946962db
‘Data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Bureau of Labor Statistics that women earned 80 cents for every dollar that men
earned in 2008 and in 2009’ Ok pay attention 80% of mens earning is reduced to…
‘When the wage gap is analyzed by individual occupations, jobs and employee
characteristics, regional labor markets, job titles, job responsibility, and
experience; then the wage gap shrinks even more. When these differences are
considered, many studies show that men and women make about the same. For
instance, a 2009 study by the economics consulting firm CONSAD Research
Corporation, prepared for the Labor Department, shows that women make
around 94% of what men make. The remaining six cents are due to unexplained
variables, one of which might be discrimination.’ so from a 20% gap to 6% gap, with economists who say the 6% is down to other variable, one of which may be discrimination but again may not be.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
‘the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public.’
‘There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent’
‘Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap.’
http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction
‘A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O’ Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.’
2% gap with these 3 factors…
‘Warren Farrell, three-time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women New York City, exhaustively debunks the wage gap myth in his book “Why Men Earn More.” Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor’s degrees in which women’s starting salaries actually exceed men’s. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts’ salaries.’
‘Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women’s expressed preferences, this isn’t a problem that needs to be solved.’
ed Wannell and Nathalie Caron did a study for Statistics Canada “THE GENDER EARNINGS GAP AMONG RECENT POSTSECONDARY GRADUATES, 1984-92” (11F0019MPE No. 68, ISBN: 0-662-22499-X).
I can’t link this one, if you have an academic pass or are willing to pay to read it online then please do.
‘ Do the models provide evidence of discrimination against women?
The models provide incontrovertible evidence that women interact differently with the labour market than men. However, it would be very tenuous to conclude that the differences are due to widespread discrimination against women. Keep in mind the four conditions introduced at the beginning of this section.
The first two conditions ask the questions: “Are women rewarded differently than men?” and “Is the net effect of these differences negative for women?”. In every model except one the answer to both of these questions is “Yes.”6, providing consistent evidence that female and male graduates interact differently with the labour market. However, the third condition — a negative and significant intercept term — is met only for two of the 1988 university models for full-time workers. But when the population is expanded to include all workers, women are estimated to earn higher wages all else being equal. This was also the case for almost every other “All Earners” model. Therefore, net of the effects captured by the model, women earned higher wages than men. Chart 1 illustrates this point for 1992.’
‘Therefore, net of the effects captured by the model, women earned higher wages than men. Chart 1 illustrates this point for 1992.”
Earn higher wages than men when controlling for other factors such as interaction.
tldr: Yes there are studies that show that controlling for other factors the wage gap is reduced or reversed.
@Bee
‘But according to the study you cite, Ullere, just a few lines down, fathers do get paid more than men without children.’
Yes bee, but it does so with out controlling for age. Older men are more likely to be fathers and older men earn more.
@nomoremrniceguy: It’s telling that Roissy and his goons need an app to keep track of their own girlfriend’s menstrual cycles. Just shows how much energy they actually put into keeping track of what goes on in their lovers’ life.
tl;dr Ullere: this horse isn’t dead yet.
If you show interest, she’ll start doing the tampon buying shit test,at worse, or just decide you are maybe not a completely aloof super alpha, at best? Best to covertly use app?
Ullere,what the goatfucking fuck is wrong with you?
Anecdote time!
I’m really proud of my (bio)dad for making some real contributions in his field, and for becoming well-known and respected within a certain small community. He loves his work and he is very good at it. But there is no way, absolutely no way, he could have gotten there if he’d actually spent time with and gotten to know his children when we were young, never mind actually spent some time doing labour in the house–cooking, cleaning, child-rearing. I’m sure he would have done well in any case, but being such a name within his field? Very doubtful.
We weren’t a poor family. I actually had quite a privileged upbringing. It wasn’t “work 80 or 90 hour weeks or starve.” He would have kept his high-paying job if he’d worked standard weeks, he just might not have advanced as far or as fast. Besides, my mom wasn’t sitting around eating bonbons, she had a good job too. She just couldn’t spend every waking moment at work, since she had to take care of the house and children. When she wasn’t around, a nanny cared for us – a luxury that for many families is more of an expense than the loss of one income would be.
My mom didn’t demand that my dad go out and work long into the night and weekends to support her decadent spending time with her children habit. She actually asked him to cut down his hours and spend more time with his family. He refused. Apparently no one told him that being at work is always a shit time and being at home is always the best.
Recently I shared a visit with my dad. He took me out to a business dinner with some of his peers. Good ol’ Dad, even when he’s visiting with his kids, he’s still working. I had fun, and they’re all lovely people. But it’s worth mentioning that around that table were several men in their 50s and 60s, most whom had offspring. In order to get to where they were, they also must have had their spouses or former spouses do the bulk of the child-rearing. Hopefully not to the same extent as my dad–I hope they actually interacted with their young children– but to at least some extent. Now, in the abstract, that’s a perfectly acceptable way to arrange a family; one partner doing a great deal of work outside the home, the other taking up the slack inside the home. But you’re not very likely to see a mother sitting at that table with those good ol’ boys, drinking beer and making dirty jokes while hubby minds the kids. Because the word we use for women with children who spend all day and all night working isn’t hard-worker, or breadwinner, or great provider; it’s selfish.
He’s a pedantic jackass who has only a passing familiarity with standard English grammar?
Once again, folks, I remind you of the many other fine men who my nation has spawned. Can we just pretend Ullere is actually from Mars?
Nice to finally find a MRA troll capable of using his computer’s copy and paste functions. /s
@CassandraSays –
Easily.
@Ullere
Everything you posted completely misses the point. WHY do women interact with the labor market differently? Why aren’t they choosing the same careers as men?
1. Why do women take less finance courses?
(hello, Stereotype Threat)
2. Why do women disproportionally take time off to raise kids?
(Three cheers for rigid gender roles surrounding parental responsibility!)
“‘A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O’ Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.’”
So what factors influence experience, education, and number of years on the job? Could it be women are less likely to pursue higher degrees in certain fields? Why are they less experienced? The analysis you presented is shallow.
Saying that “the wage gap disappears when you control for education” like saying “None of the clinical trial patients died when we controlled for cardiac arrest, kidney failure, and pulmonary edema!”
A story from my childhood: for a while, my mom and I lived with my Aunt Karen, Uncle Don, and their daughter Kim. Never mind why; my family is weird. Karen and Don were both high-powered executives, and while they were at work my mom would tidy up the house, run errands, cook, and take care of us kids.
One evening Karen came home from a long day at work, was greeted by the two little girls all scrubbed and dressed up, sat down at the head of the dining room table while my mother served dinner, looked around, and said brightly, “Isn’t it nice to have a wife!”
NWO, snoogums, I hope you’ve left Manboobz to reply to my offer. Because I’m waiting. I’m sitting in front of Facebook like Mark Zuckerberg at the end of his movie.
Ullere: You didn’t qualify that statement about it being only about men with children. Your rebuttal study is based on a very limited set, MBA students. I don’t think that counts as “controlling for all other factors” as you imply.
In 1970, the median usual weekly earnings for women working full-time was only 62.1 percent of those for men; by 2007, the raw wage gap had shrunk from 37.9 percent to just 21.5 percent.
That’s the conclusionary paragraph to the opening of the Consad Report.
‘Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap.’
In plain English, we want to say something which the evidence doesn’t support, so we shall handwave it with saying stuff we didn’t study might cover our ass.
If you look at the meat of the study, it has exactly the same problems of self-fulfilling positive feedback loops I was talking about before.
greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.
A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.
See my comments supra.
They admit to a raw wage gap larger than that feminists argue exists, and then use things related to the above to argue (not prove) the gap is smaller; by doing things like extrapolating what a full-time job would pay, were the part-time wages extended to full-time hours.
In short, the size they admit to, is still a gap, and relies on pretending women are making more money they are, in the guise of “norming” the reduced hours as being purely the result of rational actors making informed decision, rather than constraints placed on women by a standard operating procedure which takes advantage of prevailing stereotypes to systematically disadvantage them in relation to men.
Which is, not so surprisingly, the methodology of the third study you cite.
@theLaplaceDemon
‘Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women’s expressed preferences, this isn’t a problem that needs to be solved’