It’s Question Time again. I’ve been reading through Susan Faludi’s Backlash and her more recent book on men, Stiffed, as well as some of the discussion surrounding Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men and Kay Hymowitz’ Manning Up. Faludi, writing in 1991, obviously saw the 80s as a time of antifeminist backlash.
My question is how you would characterize the years since she wrote her book. A continuation of that backlash? A time of feminist resurgence, from the Riot Grrls up to Rosin’s predicted End of Men? A mixed period of progress and regression?
I’m wondering both what your general assessment of the situation is, and also what specific evidence you have — either hard data or personal experience — that underlies your overall view. This could be anything from data on employment segregation or the prevalence of rape to your sense of how media representations of women and men have or haven’t changed, or even how people you know have changed the ways they talk about gender. What do you think are the significant data points to look at?
The question isn’t just what has changed for women but what has changed for men as well — with my underlying question being: what if anything in the real world has changed that might be making the angry men we talk about here so angry? I think we can agree that most of their own explanations are bullshit, but could there be a grain of truth to any of them? Or something that they don’t see that’s far more compelling?
In the interest of spurring discussion and providing some data to work with, here are a bunch of articles responding to (or at least vaguely related to the issues raised in) Rosin’s End of Men, including a link to her original Atlantic article. In addition, here are some posts by sociologist Philip Cohen challenging many of Rosin’s claims, as well as more general posts of his on gender inequality. (Feel free to completely ignore any or all of these; I just found them useful resources.)
Night, Argenti! ^^
Come to think of it, women being excluded from the best, or any, jobs, is more like favouritism.
How many times do we hear of people being offered jobs, or promotions, because the “applicant” is a neighbour’s child/relative or a veteran or a member of a particular club or church or a freemason or a catholic or a protestant or barracks for a particular team or has gone out of their way to befriend or suck up to a person who can give them a good reference or is likely to be involved in selections?
This is the main way women were traditionally excluded from both white collar and blue collar employment. You simply can’t get a job in an organisation where _everyone_ is expected to join a particular branch of a men-only organisation unrelated to the workplace.
To a certain extent that’s still how things work now. I’ve worked for companies where the entire management team either went to the same college at the same time and were fraternity brothers or where they all knew each other via college sports. Hiring always favors “people like us”.
“I think they have a lot in common and should be friends.”
Meh, I don’t think either of them is capable of being friends with anyone.
This is a hilariously bad argument. Like, has it honestly never occurred to you that the people running businesses are not perfect profit-maximizing machines? Have you never stopped to consider that CEOs and hiring directors are, in fact, people with prejudices and cognitive biases and all that jazz?
Sexist, racist, libertarian ding-dongs are the best kind of stupid ding-dong.
This is a great example of a case where the term “glibertarian” is useful.
Shared by feminist friendly fellows of mine on facebook. The title alone makes me not want to touch this video with a ten foot pole (“Misandric French law literally criminalizes flirting and male sexuality”)
According to the comment shared by before mentioned fb user, he finds the video title hilarious, and mentioned that he can’t understand how these people could be taken seriously.
I’d rather just see a take down of this without actually watching it – it’s 18+ minutes long for cupcakes’ sake. Description mentions men’s rights reddit. The first comment is someone pointing out how man-hating MRAs generally are and how flirting is not something to be confused with harassment (said comment has been hidden due to too many negative votes and the responses to it really are pretty much what you’d expect.)
Ah…. joe iz upset. He is stamping his feet, and pretending we haven’t got the ability to see what he has said in the past.
Since joe doesn’t like long words (he finds them “pretentious, and evidence of enjoying language is, “pseudointellectual”. He doesn’t understand that one gets tired of having to use the same, short, words, again, and again, and again. Of course, when someone tells him to fuck off, he gets shirty at that too), I shall refrain, as per his request; I’m so accomodating.
(note to all, I’m perfectly willing to be corrected on any of this…)”
Liar.
Maths and economics, you can’t hand-wave [them] away(SVA error corrected).
The way you wave away that men who ask for custody get it half the time?
Liar (there is something to these short words)
The criterion is “making money”.
Liar. It’s a criteron. But if that were the case then no business, anywhere, would ever refuse to serve anyone. Ghandi wouldn’t have been refused a first class ticket. He had the money, he was willing to spend it.
People are not the “rational actors” of the Libertarian Utopia. Case in point, The First Joe.
of course you can’t understand what issues I’m referencing. They’ve only been covered over and over and over and over again, by me and others – on this very site. You just ignore them every time, because you are indifferent to [women’s] suffering. Edited to reflect the actual case: NB to Uncle Joe when we do it, see, e.g. Fade, above) we use these things called citations. That is what people with intelligence (or a decent education; sometimes even both) prefer to use; so other people with intelligence (or education) don’t just point and laugh; something with which I suspect you are familiar).
So Joe I suggest you sleep on a mattress of ocotillo, near some subterranean hymenoptera.
“when we do it, see, e.g. Fade, above) we use these things called citations”
*yawn* Yeah, I got bored with offering manboobzers carefully researched citations (which I was careful to do when I first started posting here ages ago), when none of you friggin’ read them / hand-waved the stats away / minimised anything bad that happens to men / just responded with victim-blaming, assdata and name-calling.
So now I treat you the way you treated me.
Annoying isn’t it? Haha!
People will adapt* to the way you treat them.
Which is my point, relevant to the topic of the thread, made in my very first post in this thread.
Men are ticked off, because they’re suffering and at the same time are being told by feminists that they are soooo fuckin’ priveleged, and their suffering doesn’t count so: “shutupshutupmansplaining whatabouthewimminz arghTehPatriarchy???”
= The root of why a whole load of men have no time for feminism.
Which manboobzers missed entirely by: doing these EXACT things (that I pointed out are the root of feminism’s unpopularity) over and over again, in this same thread.
My point is proven. Case closed.
Obviously feminists will continue doing these things forevAR, and feminism will continue to get more and more unpopular with men: as society / the economy goes down the tubes. Everyone will be having a shittier time, and being told you’re priveleged while you are in fact fucked over, will become even more of an insult added to injury.
But feminists in general and manboobzers in particular will not be able to stop themselves preaching their dogma. I don’t think any of you could even if you tried. You’re too indoctrinated.
*See also: why I never, ever say anything about my personal life on here anymore, because everything I ever said on here before was twisted into some personal insult.
Right, Joe, only YOU know the truth. Fuck off.
Joe: *yawn* Yeah, I got bored with offering manboobzers carefully researched citations (which I was careful to do when I first started posting here ages ago), when none of you friggin’ read them / hand-waved the stats away / minimised anything bad that happens to men / just responded with victim-blaming, assdata and name-calling.
Liar.
My point is proven. Case closed.
Liar.
*See also: why I never, ever say anything about my personal life on here anymore, because everything I ever said on here before was twisted into some personal insult.
Liar.
Wow! The Uncle Joe School of debate is easy, and fun!
The reason you shouldn’t say anything about your personal life is that my anecdotes are no less valid than yours, and your (alleged) personal experiences prove nothing. Especially since other participants in your alleged experiences (hint: women) aren’t here to dispute your account. But hey, way to miss that lesson.
He just can’t stay away from that cross, can he?
Annoying isn’t it? Haha!
Now Joe. Do you, honestly, think I care what you think of me? That you calling me names has much effect? If it makes you feel better, than ok. But dude, for your sake, at least try to hit the mark.
Let’s look at your present line of attack: First, you are scattershot. Everyone who has offended you is tarred with the same brush. Moreover, you tipped your hand (telling us, in advance that any attempt to actually critique your blathering of MRM talking points and shibboleths was proof that we were pseudo-intellectuals).
Clumsy. You may know that we will add insult to critique, but the trick is to guide us to a specific sort of response, and then sandbag us with a targeted turn of phrase. The reason I keep post all those different portraits of the patron saint you chose, is because your rhetoric both made me think of him, and made it clear the comparison would be offensive to you.
You had a glimmer of this awareness when you referenced my adding, “dickless” to the litany of failings possessed by Micheal Coren. But you failed in the execution. First, I doubt you read it (any more than I think you have been paying attention to my using a different picture every time I link your name to Stalin). Secondly, you don’t convince me you think the insult I leveled at him is actually a moral failing. You are trying to make me feel shame at betraying my principles. Since you don’t know what they are; and didn’t stop to think that I might be a coherent enough moral thinker to have chosen to use that word because it was apropos.
So the only way to actually make the critique you were pretending to make stick is to engage the concept. Since you don’t believe in the concept, you can’t. This is where your lack of intellectual rigor, or skill, fails you. You can’t look inside the ideas you disagree with. It’s why you don’t cite things to refute us. You don’t even admit the possibility of them being credible; so you fail to investigate. It’s a failure of imagination.
Third, to make an insult stick, it has to be something which cuts near the bone. Intellectual may be offensive to folks in your circle. It’s not in mine. That someone who thinks intellectual is an insult is then saying I (or anyone else) is a “pseudo” intellectual… that I am aspiring to it, and failing… isn’t even stupid. It’s an utter failure to understand me, or himself. What are you trying to do?
Make me feel bad.
You are trying to insult my intelligence (and impugn my honesty; saying I am stooping to conquer when I use insult against a misogynist asshole). But you don’t actually want to admit I am intelligent (sort of like the idiot who was saying I lacked in reading comprehension. Repeating something no one else thinks is the case doesn’t make it suddenly true; see anyone who prattles about the gold standard, or male disposability). Not being willing to grant me some smidgeon of the trait you want to insult makes it hard for you to make it stick, because you don’t really believe the poo you’re flinging.
You are a gong, and clanging cymbal. At insult (as with so many things), you suck.
You do realize that now your posts are basically pointless, then. It’s like this
joe: I know the truth
us: Well prove it
joe: NOOOO you’ll just hand wave it away!!!!
There’s no reason for us to believe you, except your incredibly dishonest word. So what are you doing here?
for the 100th time, saying your point is proven does not actually make your point proven
Joe really thinks if he repeats lies about what feminism is over and over they will become true. Sad, that. I long ago learned that anyone who actually says “Case closed” in an argument is doing it because they know their argument won’t stand up to scrutiny.
Seriously, Joe, go away. This amount of rage can’t be healthy for you. Go take a walk, hang out with your friends, whatever.
A normal, honest person who believed the things Joe claims to believe about us would have left in disgust by now. So, is Joe a. not normal. b. not honest, or c. both?
If you say that this question is unfairly framed then you are a LIAR. How do I know? Well, I just do, from my learnings. You don’t believe the validity of my learnings? Ha ha ha, that proves my point!
(Trying to think like Joe makes my head hurt.)
An honest person, who knew his points were supported would keep linking to citations (and more citations). Joe doesn’t.
An honest person, who believed the public audience was adamantly not going to pay attention would leave, unless as, Uncle Joe would have us believe, he’s trying to convince others.
In that case citations would be de rigeur because otherwise the field is ceded to either the better rhetoritician (and when outnumbered, the odds are at least one person will have a better turn of phrase on a topic. It probably won’t be the same person every time, which adds to the effectiveness of the refutations). Evidence can be ignored by the hostile group, but good evidence will sway the honest person.
Joe doesn’t do his silent audience that courtesy.
An honest person wouldn’t pretend things which weren’t said were said. An honest person wouldn’t misrepresent what was actually said.
Joe, from his more than a year of posting, has shown he is not an honest person. As I said elsewhere, in reference to him:
Joe is a liar.
Are we finally just calling Joe the liar that he is? Because I have a chorus for that
He’s going to have a fit about “I want your suffering” but fuck it.
Sigh. I’m gonna try this. Joe, some of the stuff youre bitching about? That’s not feminism. That’s a hybrid, empowerment ,hmmm, drawn from feminism but mated with old school special snowflake fragile flower how to trap a man crap. Worship me cuz i’m female but i am woman hear me roar. Not independent I can take care of myself and choose to marry, have a famil.
@trtina – yes, “cafeteria” feminism is particularly frustrating. It’s also hella popular.
Example:
A one-time internet acquaintance of mine (grown adult woman, still at that time living in the family home) claims to be Feminist (capital F), and yet went into a long and extended internet rant on her Tumblr at how angry she was with her father for suggesting she get to destination A under her own power / initiative, rather than him taking / escorting her there.
She was afraid of All Men Are Rapists (in a big city in Canada) and wanted Family Patriarch to fulfil his duty to protect her.
And no, I didn’t say a thing to her.
There is literally no win to be had from attempting to point out the inconsistencies between: I Am Independent Woman Hear me Roarrr
vs.
Daddy Won’t Be Free Taxi, He Such a Meanie.
Example:
Cool story bro.
I’ll bet that, even in this, you are a liar.
Here’s Ally Fogg, pretty much the most moderate men’s issues writer out there, who genuinely believes and wants that men’s advocates and feminists should be if not allies then at the very least amicable neighbours –
In this article he explains with much more patience than I ever have, the problem(s) with the oh-so-popular feminist meme: “Misandry is not a thing”*
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2013-04-why-feminists-should-stop-saying-misandry-doesnt-exi
(*Hellkell’s favourite pet meme.
I imagine it as a big long haired white cat that periodically yacks up hairballs on her organic fibre rugs.
And when it hacks them up the noise is something like “Hhhkkkkmmnnnsplng!!! KKkkkshtthfkup!!” :p)
@pecunium – whatever. *rollseyes*
(Yes I imagine Hellkell as a Bond villian. And no, not one of the sexy ones.)