# Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

One of the beliefs of US pop feminists seems to be that there is a stubborn, deep rooted misogyny in US culture - and it's internalized by men and women. However according to this summary by the American Psychological Association women and men, like women more than men.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women.aspx

Here are some snippets from the APA summary;

*"Women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men are to show such favoritism for their own gender, according to a study in the October issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 87, No. 4)"

"Moreover, men and women tended to show high implicit self-esteem and high gender identity; however, men showed low pro-male gender attitudes, according to the study."

""A clear pattern shown in all four studies is that men do not like themselves automatically as much as women like themselves," Rudman says. "This contradicts a lot of theoretical thinking about implicit attitudes regarding status differences."**More specifically, men are historically and cross-culturally viewed as the dominant sex, so it might logically follow that they'd have a greater in-group bias, Rudman says."

"Men and women who implicitly favored their mothers over their fathers--such as by associating more positive words with their mothers than their fathers--also showed a pro-female bias, which suggests the influence of maternal bonding on gender preferences. In addition, people who reported being raised primarily by their mothers also showed pro-female bias on the IAT. "

*This summary is in alignment with the perspective of Masculists like Warren Farrell and Tim Goldich - that our culture doesn't teach us to love and appreciate men. And I do think that this summary is reflective of the US' cultural attitude towards men (and by extension the English speaking west, seeing as the US influences other countries so much). 

I think the 5 mains reasons for the people appreciating women more than men is;

1) Feminism. - I think feminists (of any gender) tends to focus their empathy, compassion and activism towards women's issues. And teach people that men's suffering and issues are by-product of the actual problem, which is women's suffering and issues. (ie. Misogyny is the cause of both women and men's issues). Which contributes to people internalizing the attitude of extending more empathy with men.

2) Chivalry. - I think men have been taught - and still are - to be the protectors, and providers of women. I think they've also internalized the belief through romantic fiction and women's exhortations that they should "make a woman feel special", exert unreciprocated effort to court a woman, and buy gifts to prove they value a woman (ie. an engagement ring).

3) The growing number of single mothers. - Children grow up without positive male role models in their life, so they learn from a younger age to associate value with women and not men. Also some single mothers tend to vocally proclaim they don't need a man to help them raise a child, which I think is proclaiming to their children and society that men are valueless in the context of upbringing and family life.

4) The fear of violent crime. - Men commit the majority of violent crime, which I think leads to men and women internalizes and aversion to men enmasse. 

5) The encouragement of male disposability - I agree with Warren Farrell that culturally we are taught to view men as disposable in pursuit of the survival and progress of society. It's been taught that a 'real man' is willing to sacrifice their health and life to protect and provide for society, women and their family. In order for society to accept that men have that role they had to decrease empathy and compassion for men - if male's were appreciated outside of the context of sacrifice, and compassion was extended towards their suffering people wouldn't accept and expect sacrifice.

*Do you guys agree that appreciating women more than men is prevalent in the english speaking west?

And if so, what do you think is contributing to this phenomenon? 

*(Sorry for the fucked up formatting.)


----------



## intjonn (Apr 20, 2013)

Yeah! Wha he rote!


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> 1) Feminism. - I think feminists (of any gender) tends to focus their empathy, compassion and activism towards women's issues. And teach people that men's suffering and issues are by-product of the actual problem, which is women's suffering and issues. (ie. Misogyny is the cause of both women and men's issues). Which contributes to people internalizing the attitude of extending more empathy with men.
> 
> 2) Chivalry. - I think men have been taught - and still are - to be the protectors, and providers of women. I think they've also internalized the belief through romantic fiction and women's exhortations that they should "make a woman feel special", exert unreciprocated effort to court a woman, and buy gifts to prove they value a woman (ie. an engagement ring).
> 
> ...


1) I don't see this as a fault of feminism. Unless you preferred the status quo. 

2) I agree that this has continued where it isn't necessary. The thing is, some people include this in their values. Should we be pushing for uniform beliefs/values among the population? I can continue to not have this expectation of men and that is about it. 

3) I don't think one gender is more to blame than the other here. Neither can claim innocence. 

4) Agreed.

5) This is a very old problem. How do we fix it? I think things such as the draft should be for both genders. Politicians and voters would think twice about enacting the draft if both their sons and daughters would be called up. 

I think there is an outdated assumption that women are sweet and nurturing. When women aren't sweet and nurturing, they're hammered for it. On the other side of the same coin, strange men are presumed to be a threat, which means they're distrusted. 

The main issue is that opportunities have changed but societal roles and expectations haven't caught up. And frankly, some religious people aren't going to adjust. If you know how to fix this, I'm all ears.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

monemi said:


> 5) This is a very old problem. How do we fix it? I think things such as the draft should be for both genders. Politicians and voters would think twice about enacting the draft if both their sons and daughters would be called up.
> 
> I think there is an outdated assumption that women are sweet and nurturing. When women aren't sweet and nurturing, they're hammered for it. On the other side of the same coin, strange men are presumed to be a threat, which means they're distrusted.
> 
> The main issue is that opportunities have changed but societal roles and expectations haven't caught up. And frankly, some religious people aren't going to adjust. If you know how to fix this, I'm all ears.


Politicans will draft dodge anyway 'cause they're rich.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

It's true, i guess to guys it's like survival of the fittest, which is probably why the MRA thing wouldn't really work out, because a lot of their problems has to do with men, like men not taking their crimes seriously, men making effeminate jokes, even men raping men in prison.

Chivalry is another case, i don't think men perpetuate that, it's women or mothers that do, hence why so many nice guys tend to be mummy's boys, the thing is these mothers tend to be from another decade where we needed nice guys because most of the men back then were assholes.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Ok i might get flack for this but i don't agree with single mothers, i believe fathers make children less unruly and also provide safety in the household. I still resent my mother for making our father leave, when she was mainly the cause of the arguments they had, i'm not that much of a daddy's girl but she did make it unbearable for him, it was often his choice to leave because he couldn't take it anymore and i feel this might be the case for a lot of so called 'feckless' fathers. I do also blame my sister's rebellion on her because if he had been there it wouldn't have happened, she tried to find love from guys that she wasn't getting from him, because he had been thrown out.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I note that there a belief that the traditional role of women is being a slave to man. That's not necessarily true. Right now I'm not speaking about opportunities and the big idea here which I do support women being as equal in opportunities as men. But nowadays there is this sense that being "girly" or being "the housewife" is bad. I know traditionally inclined women such as my stepmother who feel that it is good be those things, just like there are guys who feel it's good to be chivalrous. She enjoys cleaning the house and that stuff and she has the right to choose to be that way, whatever happened didn't just say you have the right to be whatever you want but it said you shouldn't be this because it makes you inferior. I think it you can twist the meaning of anything to serve your goals. Being a housewife used to be considered a good thing for a lady to be but someone just came out and said no this slavery and men did this intentionally to treat us as slaves which I just find unlikely but it definitely made a change.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> Ok i might get flack for this but i don't agree with single mothers, i believe fathers make children less unruly and also provide safety in the household. I still resent my mother for making our father leave, when she was mainly the cause of the arguments they had, i'm not that much of a daddy's girl but she did make it unbearable for him, it was often his choice to leave because he couldn't take it anymore and i feel this might be the case for a lot of so called 'feckless' fathers. I do also blame my sister's rebellion on her because if he had been there it wouldn't have happened, she tried to find love from guys that she wasn't getting from him, because he had been thrown out.


I somewhat agree with this. I think it may be particularly hard for a single mother to manage boys. Just the presence of a father brings discipline to a house. Even though my mom wore the pants in the family and I generally respected her authority, the fact that my dad could kick my ass helped keep me in line.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Some mothers can discipline their children.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

A lot of men in our society treat women like liberals treat minorities. They patronize them. They hold them to lower standards. Simplest example off the top of my head is a traffic stop situation. Male cop inherently will have more sympathy for the woman, even if he doesn't find her attractive. Women get more sympathy from both sexes. They probably get more sympathy from me too, in some situations. 

Also, historically oppressed classes tend to stick together and have a brotherhood. You see this in African-Americans for example. Men have never really had to unify for anything.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> A lot of men in our society treat women like liberals treat minorities. They patronize them. They hold them to lower standards. Simplest example off the top of my head is a traffic stop situation. Male cop inherently will have more sympathy for the woman, even if he doesn't find her attractive. Women get more sympathy from both sexes. They probably get more sympathy from me too, in some situations.
> 
> Also, historically oppressed classes tend to stick together and have a brotherhood. You see this in African-Americans for example. Men have never really had to unify for anything.


As a result the previously considered to be oppressive classes pleads for what they see as inequality are ignored. Example response to men's rights activists: "oh poor men wah wah wah" wanting change doesn't always mean being open. I'm not gonna argue about whether or not men's rights activists or reverse racism claimants are legitimate but I just see them as dismissed just because.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

monemi said:


> 1) I don't see this as a fault of feminism. Unless you preferred the status quo.


Regarding the underlined jab... I don't think feminist theory was and is necessary to campaign for political and social equity for women. I think that can be done from the paradigm of equity-feminism - which is feminism minus feminist theory - but it unfortunately seems to be a minority branch of feminism.

Like I said, IME and IMO gender-feminists tend to focus their empathy and compassion towards women. Feminist theory is their paradigm for analyzing gender related issues, which essentially teaches that the root of any gender issue is misogyny - women are victimized even if the issues isn't directly related to them. Gender-feminism also teaches that men have 'male privilege', and IMO and IME we tend to slightly resent people who we perceive as privileged. I think overall gender-feminism and gender-feminists are pro-women and at the least 'neutral-male' in sentiment and activism. 

IME even male feminists are generally ignorant of men's issues - their focus is on women.



> 2) I agree that this has continued where it isn't necessary. The thing is, some people include this in their values. *Should we be pushing for uniform beliefs/values among the population?* I can continue to not have this expectation of men and that is about it.


I don't think it has to be that black and white, but I think you were being facetious. 

Some men's explicit justification for promoting chivalry (believe me) is that women are more precious or superior than men, essentially esteeming women above men. I don't think that's healthy for the men's sense of self-value. And I think that treating women with chivalry (outside of the context of traditional gender roles) contributes to women having a sense of entitlement in dating and relationships.

For example; it's not socially taboo to expect men to give unreciprocated gifts to express their affection or love for a woman (eg. an engagement ring). Romance is essentially portrayed in the media, and desired by women, as men exerting unreciprocated effort to impress a woman. 

A dominant social meme is 'a man shouldn't hit a woman' (neo-chivalry) which has basically turned domestic violence into a a male>female issue - which I think contributes to people ignoring the problems of domestic violence in same-sex couples and from women towards men. Women assaulting women, men assaulting men, and women assaulting men are in no way treated as social taboos or with compassion by the media in the same way that a man assaulting a woman is IME. The other forms of violence dynamics are presented routinely in sitcoms for comedic effect for example.



> 3) I don't think one gender is more to blame than the other here.


Nor do I.



> 5) This is a very old problem. How do we fix it? I think things such as the draft should be for both genders. Politicians and voters would think twice about enacting the draft if both their sons and daughters would be called up.


It's beyond the draft IMO. I think the expectation of men to sacrifice their health and well-being for society, family and women is something that is still internalized by many men, and is still expected by many women. 

However men are beginning to explicitly reject that notion ie. MGTOW and Masculists. 

I think in order to not see men as disposable, perhaps culturally we can give empathy and compassion to men more. I've noticed that (at least PC or leftist) society tends to give empathy and compassion to women, transmen and transwomen (which I think is good) but when it comes to men they are ration those sentiment, by only extending them to gay men, or ethnic minority men - they don't extend those sentiments to men in general.



> The main issue is that opportunities have changed but societal roles and expectations haven't caught up. And frankly, some religious people aren't going to adjust. If you know how to fix this, I'm all ears.


I don't presume to know how to fix a complex social problem, but I'm guessing you were being facetious anyway. 

I think the main thing is to promote more empathy and compassion towards men. And I think it's up to men's movements to promote that attitude - but they are so fucking disorganized, and most members are in the 'angry phase' IME.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

sole observer said:


> I know traditionally inclined women such as my stepmother who feel that it is good be those things, just like there are guys who feel it's good to be chivalrous. She enjoys cleaning the house and that stuff and she has the right to choose to be that way, whatever happened didn't just say you have the right to be whatever you want but it said you shouldn't be this because it makes you inferior.


I think that's the problem. Traditional femininity and masculinity are archetypes that might authentically resonate with many people, however when it's justified by notions of male or female inferiority it becomes problematic.

On a side note: A common complaint I see in the manosphere is that many men believe that women don't want to be traditionally feminine, whilst complaining if men aren't traditionally masculine.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> A lot of men in our society treat women like liberals treat minorities. They patronize them. They hold them to lower standards.


I agree wholeheartedly.

A lot of men let shit slide with women that they wouldn't let slide with men. 



> Also, historically oppressed classes tend to stick together and have a brotherhood. You see this in African-Americans for example. Men have never really had to unify for anything.


Whilst I don't believe that women in the English speaking west are oppressed now (I define oppression as a disproportionate lack of social rights and opportunities) I see what you are saying. I think that sentiment which was necessary in the past to fight for social rights has continued.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

googoodoll said:


> Ok i might get flack for this but i don't agree with single mothers, i believe fathers make children less unruly and also provide safety in the household.


Warren Farrell has a theory that men are more likely to behave in ways that encourage the development of delayed gratification in children. eg. "If you eat your peas, then you can have ice cream" and not matter how much the kid whines, pleads, or cries, the dad will calmly remind the child of what's required of them if they want ice cream.

Delayed gratification is one of the most important traits a parent can teach a child according to research.

Delayed gratification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)




----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

I'm curious as to how you interpret studies such as this one. Do you see a contradiction between it and the one that you shared in your OP? You seem to have researched this topic quite thoroughly, so I'm sure you have an answer ready, but I'm struggling to figure out what it might be.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> I'm curious as to how you interpret studies such as this one. Do you see a contradiction between it and the one that you shared in your OP?


Not personally, the summary (I haven't read the original) in the OP seems to be about non-context specific gender bias, whereas the pro-male bias you presented is context specific (ie. science faculties). 

Here's a study summary of female teacher's attitudes towards boy students which is in alignment with the summary in the OP.

Female Teachers Give Male Pupils Lower Marks, Claims Study

Female teachers accused of giving boys lower marks - Education News - Education - The Independent



> You seem to have researched this topic quite thoroughly.


A kind misperception.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

I do like women more in general.

Why:

1. Generally speaking, there are more good-looking women than men. Men insist on passing their physical flaws as manliness (e.g. hairy chest/legs, baldness, neglected skin) and imposing it on women in general to like it, overlooking the female person in front of them and her preferences, often causing contradictions and pushing to the point they appear as desperate, tasteless and undesirable. They ask for what they don't give and they don't have to offer much in return - not even nearly as much as the size of their ego. Lame.

2. In relation to 1. the same happens with their traits and insistence of domination rather than cooperation, various frustrations and flaws of charter caused, I suspect, in considerable degree by 'gender roles' a.k.a. how you're supposed to look, feel, think, behave based on your genitalia type. Which makes them seem stupid often. It's like having a mewling brat spouting drivel and pointing accusatory finger desperate to prove he's better 'he's the man'

Bringing up argument it's women's work as if it were written in stone. While once it there were reasons for it, now we live in new times that demand different things. 

3. Being a man in terms of child raising 



> Indeed, men just enjoy the process of making them, spend most of their days doing their dream job, give away some of the earned money for the nanny-mommy, come back to warm dinner served, everything cleaned, play with children a bit, then woman is to please them in bed. They get to have it all and still be called 'good parents' despite not doing any actual parenting.
> 
> 
> Have 5 children and perfect body. Blame her for not working out nvm that she works all the time. Tits hanging from nursing? You're getting old, time to look for something younger.
> ...


Coming up with 'scientific' excuses (that apply to 99-100% of female population) as to why women would babysit children 24/7, not them almost ever. It all just proves they aren't all that useful and can be lived happily ever after without if one has other means to provide for children financially.

Pseudo-ethical attempts to control female reproductive system also. We love children being born but not ensuring them life quality. We don't care much why exactly is it that women abort, only to prevent it.

Add to all that the astonishing domestic violence rates committed by males. Also rape. 

Men that 'conservative' society beats into 'manly' mold from an early age is not only outdated, but also undesirable and mostly useless - if not outright harmful and destructive.

Luckily there are many men who aren't anything like this, but the point is still there as to the cases you referred to.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@_Nightchill_

I respect your open admisssion, though it seems you cross into misandry rather than just having a 'neutral' perception of men?

I speak a lot to open misogynists, so I'm not going to immediately dislike you for being a misandrist.

I too have a general bias towards men, but I'm more generally neutral towards women than a misogynist.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nightchill said:


> Add to all that the astonishing domestic violence rates committed by males.


In the UK it's not as lopsided as public perception seem to think it is - though men still make up the majority of perpetrators...

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals | Society | The Observer

The invisible domestic violence


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

strangestdude said:


> Not personally, the summary (I haven't read the original) in the OP seems to be about non-context specific gender bias, whereas the pro-male bias you presented is context specific (ie. science faculties).
> 
> Here's a study summary of female teacher's attitudes towards boy students which is in alignment with the summary in the OP.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I suppose that makes sense. 

I guess what I'm having trouble with is figuring out when this so called "non-context specific" bias actually surfaces in real life. I read through that link you provided in your OP, and I have trouble believing that it's actually revealed anything meaningful. One issue that I had with it is that I question whether or not the words that were considered "positive" could be considered equally positive regardless of what gender they were assigned to. Also, I'd be curious as to what contexts the participants had in mind, and if they didn't have a context in mind, I question how well the results translate to a real life context. The summary that you provided also gives another possible explanation, "Another possibility the researchers didn't test: Heterosexual men may be concerned about being labeled a homosexual if they show a bias toward their own gender, Rudman says. Women may be less concerned about this stigma, she adds." 

I find studies such as the one you just provided me with to be much more convincing. But on that, unless I missed something, that study doesn't identify a universal pro-female bias. Instead, male teachers tended to favour male students where as female teachers seemed to favour female students. (I'm inclined to ignore the part that says, "men treat all students the same, regardless of gender" because the opposite it said _twice_ elsewhere.) Even if it did reveal a universal pro-female bias, I would hesitate to believe that it was the same bias that was (apparently) identified in the study in your OP.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> @_Nightchill_
> 
> I respect your open admisssion, though it seems you cross into misandry rather than just having a 'neutral' perception of men?


You spend too much around 'feminists'.



strangestdude said:


> In the UK it's not as lopsided as public perception seem to think it is - though men still make up the majority of perpetrators...
> 
> More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals | Society | The Observer
> 
> The invisible domestic violence


I know of this, but there you just did that finger-pointing thing -_- 

The thing is this doesn't change the fact that many men are perpetrators and after such negative and traumatic experience (especially repetitive ones -all of her partners turned out to be violent) it's normal for women to show a strong reserve towards men initially, since they aren't usually dragged by their hair into a relationship, such tendencies usually show later on.

If a woman starts hitting another woman, it's easy to defend oneself, but with the men it's much harder, especially with the previous and still in places prevailing 'traditional' systems that put woman in such a dependent position that she has to stay with the monster for a life time because male is the alfa in shining armor in every sense.

Add a bit of various sh*t and it all comes together as a big wave. 

P.S. I laughed to tears when I discovered a case of woman who abused her children, yet pointed to her ex-husband as a monster for beating her and the children. Some people are really f*cked up.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Fair enough. I suppose that makes sense. I guess what I'm having trouble with is figuring out when this so called "non-context specific" bias actually surfaces in real life.









> One issue that I had with it is that I question whether or not the words that were considered "positive" could be considered equally positive regardless of what gender they were assigned to. Also, I'd be curious as to what contexts the participants had in mind, and if they didn't have a context in mind, I question how well the results translate to a real life context.


That's pretty much the problem with any social 'sciences' research, as far as I can tell. How to isolate variables, how to deal with the problem of consciousness, etc. My mate has a degree in psychology and said another core problem with psychology as a 'science' is sample size, can rationally argued that it's never big enough or diverse enough (regarding socio-economic, environmental, and cultural differences).

I don't consider it social sciences, sciences FWIW - I consider it social philosophy. And my conclusion that there is a general pro-female bias isn't based on that summary. There are some people who do though, so I thought they might be inclined to question their feminist analysis of culture.



> The summary that you provided also gives another possible explanation, "Another possibility the researchers didn't test: Heterosexual men may be concerned about being labeled a homosexual if they show a bias toward their own gender, Rudman says. Women may be less concerned about this stigma, she adds."


I don't think that's a significant factor, but it could be.



> But on that, unless I missed something, that study doesn't identify a universal pro-female bias. Instead, male teachers tended to favour male students where as female teachers seemed to favour female students..


Specifically what happens is that whilst both men and women favor their own gender when it comes to grading, women mark boys lower than their externally examined grade, whereas men don't do the same to their female student they just mark boys higher (from other articles on the research I read elsewhere). So whereas women have a pro-female anti-male approach to grading, men have a pro-male and neutral-female approach to grading.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Regarding the underlined jab... I don't think feminist theory was and is necessary to campaign for political and social equity for women. I think that can be done from the paradigm of equity-feminism - which is feminism minus feminist theory - but it unfortunately seems to be a minority branch of feminism.
> 
> Like I said, IME and IMO gender-feminists tend to focus their empathy and compassion towards women. Feminist theory is their paradigm for analyzing gender related issues, which essentially teaches that the root of any gender issue is misogyny - women are victimized even if the issues isn't directly related to them. Gender-feminism also teaches that men have 'male privilege', and IMO and IME we tend to slightly resent people who we perceive as privileged. I think overall gender-feminism and gender-feminists are pro-women and at the least 'neutral-male' in sentiment and activism.
> 
> ...


I'm honestly not being facetious in any of my points. You see all feminism as anti-men. You've already made up your mind on this, so I don't see a point in arguing it. 

As for chivalry, again not being facetious. What do you suggest we do? I can make a point of not teaching my kids chivalry, which isn't that hard given that my parents didn't. It's all very well pointing these things out, but what remedy are you offering? How do we change these attitudes? 

The draft is my best suggestion for things that we can actively work towards to change this attitude. Okay, more empathy and compassion for men. That's very general. 

Maybe it's a personality type thing but general 'more empathy and compassion' isn't helpful to me. I've said the same to feminists making complaints but don't have specific ideas to change things. Could you be more specific?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nightchill said:


> You spend too much around 'feminists'.


I was specifically talking to you. I don't think you like men generally... I could be wrong.



> Add a bit of various sh*t and it all comes together as a big wave.


So do you think that women enmasse in the west don't like men?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

monemi said:


> I'm honestly not being facetious in any of my points. You see all feminism as anti-men.


No, I don't. 

I personally support equity-feminists. And I think the many gender-feminisits are sincere, but are supporting feminist theory which contributes to a lack of cultural empathy towards men.



> You've already made up your mind on this, so I don't see a point in arguing it.


I haven't, I just haven't been presented any convincing counter arguments from gender-feminists. Simply because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm closed minded.

I went from being a devout muslim who structured his life around Islam, to being a non-muslim heathen... If I find compelling arguments I'll contemplate them. I haven't however.



> Maybe it's a personality type thing but general 'more empathy and compassion' isn't helpful to me. I've said the same to feminists making complaints but don't have specific ideas to change things. Could you be more specific?


Sure...

Essentially apply the same recognition and awareness of female social experiences to men. Everything you do as a feminist towards women's issues and women's social experiences, towards men's issues and social experiences. Essentially treating men and masculinity as valuable, in the same way that I assume you've been treating women and femininity as valuable.

FWIW I honestly don't think women to be the social motivators to change things for men. I think that's going to be down to the men's movements, in the same way that changing things for women was down to women's movements.

I didn't make this thread to discuss MRA or masculist strategy though. I'll discuss that with them.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Feminism was, originally, the view that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. That men and women are equal in terms of being deserving of rights & humane treatment, even if we are not 'the same.'

Feminism today, at least in USA, has devolved largely into 'men and women are THE SAME' which means that women can be 'liberated' by fucking as many men as they please, not needing a man, earning their own salary to take care of themselves, beating men in fights and so forth; and some of these people are still able to have equal relationships with men , but most of them emasculate their partners with an attitude of 'strong woman who doesn't need you' which leaves their partner feeling helpless.

Women are only screwing themselves over with this attitude. I will list some of the many reasons.

- By sleeping with who you want, conquering, etc; you are not doing the same thing that men are doing when they behave this way. Women are more likely to get diseases. Women get UTI's. Women get pregnant. Women, when they orgasm, are exposed to the release of a hormone that causes us to feel attachment feelings. This does not happen to men to the same degree. In order to endure this lifestyle we must experience tremendous emotional hardening which can be difficult to shake. By sleeping around, we are not "equal" but rather, putting ourselves in a worse position because our bodies respond to this behavior in a way that can be detrimental to us physically and psychologically. I won't even begin to list the social repercussions, because personally I don't care about them.

This is not a judgement. I know this from personal experience.

- If you have the attitude that you are strong and independent and don't need a man, you will attract a man who has nothing going for him… someone who is riding off your salary. He may worship you for your strength, but deep down he resents that he has nothing to offer you. Again, I know this from personal experience. 

The solution, imo, is not to become 'weak and dependent' but rather, to appreciate what men have to offer, to realize you're _human_ and therefore _need love_, etc. Vulnerability, communication, and compromise are strengths, not weaknesses. Going out of your way to show love and make your relationship work is honesty and humanity, not co-dependency.

- If you see men as weak, how do you think they will see you?

- Your body is not built to beat men in fights. You might beat some men in fights, if you're really strong and training and amazing at combat. There are combat tricks and self-defense that work for small people and women. You can take someone out with pepper spray or a keychain. I am not suggesting you shouldn't defend yourself or learn to fight, but what I'm saying is, men on the whole, still have the advantage on the battlefield or the fighting ring, any way you slice it. If you think you are one-upping men by beating them at fights, you are actually playing by mens' rules on their turf. Why not win on your own turf? Women are better at empathy and subtle emotional cues and managing many things at once and so much more. Enjoy fighting if you want to, but also don't forget to appreciate who you naturally are, and give your man credit where it's due.

Yet again, this comes from personal experience.



I imagine someone will be offended by this perspective, but it is not meant as a judgement. I'm a woman raised in a highly feminist area, with a non-gendered self image and male friends and "male hobbies' and strength who has high testosterone and is oversexed and so forth; I am only speaking honestly about the down-side of seeing yourself as 'the same' as a man. I have no plan to downplay my strength, physical prowess or sexuality; but I have come to see, through life experience, that women and men are equal but not the same. This revelation is humbling but also empowering.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I was specifically talking to you. I don't think you like men generally... I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> So do you think that women enmasse in the west don't like men?


I don't like anyone based solely on their genitalia, but I don't hate either.

They don't like that which men in their life represent such as they are for various reasons.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nightchill said:


> I don't like anyone based solely on their genitalia, but I don't hate either.


Fair enough.



> They don't like that which men in their life represent such as they are for various reasons.


I didn't understand the reply.

Do you think that women generally in the country you live, don't like men generally where you live? For whatever reasons.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> I personally support equity-feminists. And I think the many gender-feminisits are sincere, but are supporting feminist theory which contributes to a lack of cultural empathy towards men.
> 
> ...


Okay, so you're grouping gender-feminists and equity feminists. I've seen the two groups more as feminism and extremists feminism. Any kind of extremism isn't helpful. 

Not sure that I would consider myself an feminist activist, although I do tend to engage my community. I volunteer at a breastfeeding clinic, I attend Critical Mass, volunteer at a food bank, spring clean-up and some years back volunteered at a place that worked with homeless youth. I don't think that I treat masculinity as less valuable than femininity. I've been married ten years, my parents are married after 35 years (or some redonkulous long time), my grandparents on both sides are all still married. I'd say I value the men in my life, just as I was raised to. I'm not really emotionally supportive of people. But I'm practical. If I can see something that I personally can do to make things better, I'll do that.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Animal said:


> If you have the attitude that you are strong and independent and don't need a man, you will attract a man who has nothing going for him…


I think that's a great point.

When women say that if they mean that they can survive without a man, I agree with them wholeheartedly and I think that's a positive thing to believe.

However if they expressing the belief that a man will add no value to their life, then no man who highly values themselves will want to be in a relationship with that woman. A need that human beings have in the context of a romantic relationship is to be valued by their partner, and I agree that the only guys who will want to get in a relationship with a woman like that are guys who don't value themselves.

I don't think a lot of women realize that many men (rightly or wrongly) interpret 'I don't need a man' as 'a man will add no value to my life'.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

monemi said:


> Okay, so you're grouping gender-feminists and equity feminists. I've seen the two groups more as feminism and extremists feminism. Any kind of extremism isn't helpful.


Which one do you consider extreme?

Feminists who believe in feminist theory (ie. gender-feminists) make up the overwhelming majority of feminists IMO and IME. It also makes up the majority of academic feminism.



> I don't think that I treat masculinity as less valuable than femininity.


You don't sound like you are part of the problem.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I think that's a great point.
> 
> When women say that if they mean that they can survive without a man, I agree with them wholeheartedly and I think that's a positive thing to believe.
> 
> ...


Exactly! I am glad you understood what I meant.

I am not a weepy, needy person. I have a great family, friends. I've been single for a while and doing fine. But when I fall for someone, if I am honest with myself, I do need him. I come to crave the hugs at night, the emotional support, the chance to give or receive something meaningful, the companionship. I used to resist expressing these sentiments and act like "I'll be fine either way" so that I would avoid being vulnerable, but this is a relationship-killer, not to mention, being dishonest with myself.

Being a strong, independent person with goals and friends and 'my own life' is still possible, while admitting that deep down I want to submit to my partner in bed, I want to have someone to fall asleep next to, I want to have someone whose arms I can cry in, and that I enjoy giving support, gifts or little signs of affection and appreciation to someone who wants that from me. It's not the easiest balance to find, and some people weigh too heavily in one direction or another. For me, I was always too heavy on the autonomy/ independence department, and only later in life am I coming to terms with allowing myself to be vulnerable or admit that I have human love-needs. But whichever direction you come from, balance is key here, and it is crucial to realize that the ability to survive on your own does not mean that humans are built to be alone, and you can be strong and still crave to be vulnerable to someone you love and trust.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Which one do you consider extreme?
> 
> Feminists who believe in feminist theory (ie. gender-feminists) make up the overwhelming majority of feminists IMO and IME. It also makes up the majority of academic feminism.


I think academic (many are extremists) feminists don't reflect most feminists in the general population. I see people declaring they aren't feminists. But when I ask them if they prefer women being able to work outside the home and support themselves independently of a man, they do support that choice. And that's the core of what feminism is about. Being able to own property. Being able to vote. Being about to hold an official elected position in government. 

There are angry, cynical, resentful men and women that make wide sweeping judgments of the opposite sex. I'm interested in fixing that, but I don't know how. I mean, I've had bad experiences with sexist men. But they are individuals and don't represent the thoughts, feelings and actions of their sex. It seems there are individuals of both sex's that have really big, angry mouths and they're getting all the attention.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Do you think that women generally in the country you live, don't like men generally where you live? For whatever reasons.


Yes and vice-verse. Though, in many cases for good reasons. People don't like each other. Infidelity, violence, irresponsibility etc.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Animal said:


> Exactly! I am glad you understood what I meant.
> 
> I am not a weepy, needy person. I have a great family, friends. I've been single for a while and doing fine. But when I fall for someone, if I am honest with myself, I do need him. I come to crave the hugs at night, the emotional support, the chance to give or receive something meaningful, the companionship. I used to resist expressing these sentiments and act like "I'll be fine either way" so that I would avoid being vulnerable, but this is a relationship-killer, not to mention, being dishonest with myself.
> 
> Being a strong, independent person with goals and friends and 'my own life' is still possible, while admitting that deep down I want to submit to my partner in bed, I want to have someone to fall asleep next to, I want to have someone whose arms I can cry in, and that I enjoy giving support, gifts or little signs of affection and appreciation to someone who wants that from me. It's not the easiest balance to find, and some people weigh too heavily in one direction or another. For me, I was always too heavy on the autonomy/ independence department, and only later in life am I coming to terms with allowing myself to be vulnerable or admit that I have human love-needs. But whichever direction you come from, balance is key here, and it is crucial to realize that the ability to survive on your own does not mean that humans are built to be alone, and you can be strong and still crave to be vulnerable to someone you love and trust.


I find I'm pretty laid back in relationships. I can financially support myself and capable of being independent. I excel in sales and when I've quit, employers have said I'm welcome back if I want. But I am and have been financially dependent on partners in the past. I am assertive in the work place and can lead. But I prefer not to lead. 

That said, I prefer to be dominant in the bedroom. Always did. I know what I want and I get exactly what I want when I take over. I don't have to be in charge, but it's usually better that way.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

monemi said:


> I find I'm pretty laid back in relationships. I can financially support myself and capable of being independent. I excel in sales and when I've quit, employers have said I'm welcome back if I want. But I am and have been financially dependent on partners in the past. I am assertive in the work place and can lead. But I prefer not to lead.
> 
> That said, I prefer to be dominant in the bedroom. Always did. I know what I want and I get exactly what I want when I take over. I don't have to be in charge, but it's usually better that way.


Aside from dominant in the bedroom, I have a similar spirit. I am a strong leader. I lead my band, with male members who were more 'experienced' but I had a tighter, solid vision and a stronger work ethic and leadership skills. In my apartment I kept in NYC, I had the rooms built, managed everything, collected checks, managed month to month changing roommates, and bills and everything, single-handedly, rewarding myself with lower rent quite openly. Everyone saw how much work I was doing so they were happy to make that agreement. I am a strong leader and tend to take charge in every social, financial or creative scenario of which I am part.

In relationships, the way it's always been: I like to be submissive in the bedroom, but submission is not a free gift. It has to be earned, and it has to be honest. What I want is a partner strong enough to dominate me, no matter how hard I fight for dominance. This is a truly dominant male. If I cannot have my way, despite my powerful efforts, then I have found an equal. Because outside the bedroom, it is likely that I'm making a lot of decisions. I need a chance to be vulnerable, softened, to lose myself, to lose control. I can almost never do this outside the bedroom.

Usually, I end up with men who defer to me to take charge in life, but I have been single for a while because I'm sick of being someone's mom. I've always been so strong that I attract men looking for that strength in someone else. At this point I'm strong enough to make myself a little vulnerable and seek a mirror of my strength rather than someone who I know will 'never leave me', or adores me and worships me. I am hoping there is someone as strong as I am, who is strong enough to be vulnerable, but also can make some of his own decisions, and who will stand up to me and inspire me to grow. Deep down, I kind of want to be whipped into submission, but I know that isn't possible for very long.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Hmm, really? I find that kind of surprising, because I've seen plenty of women say they prefer the company of men over the company of other women, for example.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Well I've never seen men band together and say we are men yippee, we are better than you.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

qaryoqa said:


> i think that all of this is actually related to how our society is patriarchal.


Women and men liking women more than men, is related to a system where women are deemed inferior and disliked?

I don't see how that's possible.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Women and men liking women more than men, is related to a system where women are deemed inferior and disliked?
> 
> I don't see how that's possible.


Women living longer than men is patriarchal. Because men don't think women can take care of themselves and therefore, most of the funding for gender specific healthcare is spent on women.

Remember, though. This is the same patriarchy that supposedly condones rape against women. Because men hate women.

I see no logical inconsistency here at all.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

googoodoll said:


> It's true, i guess to guys it's like survival of the fittest, which is probably why the MRA thing wouldn't really work out, because a lot of their problems has to do with men, like men not taking their crimes seriously, men making effeminate jokes, even men raping men in prison.
> 
> Chivalry is another case, i don't think men perpetuate that, it's women or mothers that do, hence why so many nice guys tend to be mummy's boys, the thing is these mothers tend to be from another decade where we needed nice guys because most of the men back then were assholes.




It's got more to do with fear of feminists than competition... on both the social and MRA fronts.
If you show a preference for men, you're a misogynist. So you NEED to show a preference for women and support of women if you don't want to lose your job and social standing.


Feminists have gone out of their way to attack MRA people and groups. It's almost like a holy war for feminists, but without all the mass slaughter(so far).


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Women and men liking women more than men, is related to a system where women are deemed inferior and disliked?
> 
> I don't see how that's possible.


it's easier to like the gender that has fewer expectations placed upon it and whose mistakes are more tolerated. also, if a person isn't being hard on themselves about not being a super-human they are more pleasant to be around for most people. (i also think that biology may play a role in this to some extent as women i think are more likely to lend a sympathetic ear. people often like those who are kind to them and listen to them more than those who they feel they have to shut themselves off around, for instance. (i don't necessarily think women are on average "kinder" than men though they may be on average more openly sympathetic and cooperative.)


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

qaryoqa said:


> it's easier to like the gender that has fewer expectations placed upon it and whose mistakes are more tolerated. also, if a person isn't being hard on themselves about not being a super-human they are more pleasant to be around for most people. (i also think that biology may play a role in this to some extent as women i think are more likely to lend a sympathetic ear. people often like those who are kind to them and listen to them more than those who they feel they have to shut themselves off around, for instance. (i don't necessarily think women are on average "kinder" than men though they may be on average more openly sympathetic and cooperative.)


So women are considered inferior, but are also liked more?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

qaryoqa said:


> it's easier to like the gender that has fewer expectations placed upon it and whose mistakes are more tolerated.


You seem to be saying that the system promotes circumstances where women are more likeable than men. 



> also, if a person isn't being hard on themselves about not being a super-human they are more pleasant to be around for most people.


You seem to be saying that the system promotes roles where men have generally lower levels of self-compassion than women do.

I don't see how those 2 quotes are congruent with the notion of male privilege. A system which (according to what you seem to be saying) creates general circumstances where women are more likeable, and less self-hating doesn't sound like a privileged system for men.

People who are disliked tend to be treated with verbal and physical abuse, alienation, and a lack of empathic concern. I wouldn't call that privilege (though what we consider privilege depends on our values).


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Cheveyo said:


> It's got more to do with fear of feminists than competition... on both the social and MRA fronts.
> If you show a preference for men, you're a misogynist. So you NEED to show a preference for women and support of women if you don't want to lose your job and social standing.
> 
> 
> Feminists have gone out of their way to attack MRA people and groups. It's almost like a holy war for feminists, but without all the mass slaughter(so far).


How many feminists do you know that do that? You're generalizing without much knowledge, I think. Easy to drag feminism through the mud though, isn't it?


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> How many feminists do you know that do that? You're generalizing without much knowledge, I think. Easy to drag feminism through the mud though, isn't it?




Is it really me doing the generalizing without knowledge? The only reason you disagree with me is because you don't want it to be true, not because you have proof that it isn't. You don't want feminists to be the bad guys, you don't want THAT kind of feminist to be the majority. However, you have no proof that they aren't, where as the opposite can be seen in so many places.


You should start doing reading outside the feminist approved literature. Look into what feminists get up to from outside the safe haven you've created.


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> You seem to be saying that the system promotes circumstances where women are more likeable than men.
> 
> You seem to be saying that the system promotes roles where men have generally lower levels of self-compassion than women do.


 yes, i am.



> I don't see how those 2 quotes are congruent with the notion of male privilege. A system which (according to what you seem to be saying) creates general circumstances where women are more likeable, and less self-hating doesn't sound like a privileged system for men.
> 
> People who are disliked tend to be treated with verbal and physical abuse, alienation, and a lack of empathic concern. I wouldn't call that privilege (though what we consider privilege depends on our values).


 male privilege is not about being liked more... it's about power and who holds the power when it comes to, say jobs, political pull, and so on. the realms of jobs, politics/law, force (e.g. the police, the military), political/corporate leadership, etc. have traditionally been male realms. these realms hold the overt power in society. traditionally women were viewed as unable to to manage these realms ("inferior" in that sense). laws and decisions made in these realms generally overlooked women and their needs in society as these realms were managed by men and women were considered in a sense subservient to men (under their protection or dominion, depending on which way you look at it). feminism as a movement i think was responding to this power imbalance, at least initially.

women have been traditionally seen as overly emotional fluff heads who can't handle the important matters in society or make important decisions. but they were at least allowed to be emotional without "losing face" and allowed to be more open with their feelings. as all humans have emotional needs and need to be able to talk about their feelings, people probably naturally like those who they feel they can be more open around more often--people who they can begin to discuss their emotional needs and inner experiences with. as such, women as a group who were denied power and rights but not denied their emotions by society, are in a sense, more likable.

eta: the other point here though is the general devaluing of emotion as though you cannot be an emotional human being and manage the "important matters" in society. you can't if you take it the point of hysterics, but arguably being in touch with your emotions actually makes you a better leader, manager, decision maker, whatever. patriarchal society emphasizes competition over cooperation and it emphasizes strength, aggression, and force. it emphasizes being invulnerable. it emphasizes high performance at the expense of your personal life and relationships. this kind of standard harms everyone and denies their basic humanity as emotional persons. i don't fully understand why this structure has arisen, but it doesn't have to be this way. i suppose this is a structure/pattern that may arise out of difficult times when high competition is necessary for survival. it's just that at this point, globally, a lot of people don't have to live in that world anymore... it's like it's burned into our heads and we keep re-creating it just to live in it again, because we are animals and we know nothing else?


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

qaryoqa said:


> yes, i am.
> 
> male privilege is not about being liked more... it's about power and who holds the power when it comes to, say jobs, political pull, and so on. the realms of jobs, politics/law, force (e.g. the police, the military), political/corporate leadership, etc. have traditionally been male realms. these realms hold the overt power in society. traditionally women were viewed as unable to to manage these realms ("inferior" in that sense). laws and decisions made in these realms generally overlooked women and their needs in society as these realms were managed by men and women were considered in a sense subservient to men (under their protection or dominion, depending on which way you look at it). feminism as a movement i think was responding to this power imbalance, at least initially.
> 
> women have been traditionally seen as overly emotional fluff heads who can't handle the important matters in society or make important decisions. but they were at least allowed to be emotional without "losing face" and allowed to be more open with their feelings. as all humans have emotional needs and need to be able to talk about their feelings, people probably naturally like those who they feel they can be more open around more often--people who they can begin to discuss their emotional needs and inner experiences with. as such, women as a group who were denied power and rights but not denied their emotions by society, are in a sense, more likable.


Do you see any possible way in which none of these things can actually be considered power? Did you ever try to approach your views regarding gender issues in way where holding political office or being a 'higher up' in the corporate world isn't 'power'?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

qaryoqa said:


> male privilege is not about being liked more... it's about power and who holds the power when it comes to, say jobs, political pull, and so on.


I thought you were gonna say that.

If your sole criteria for determining privilege is the opportunity to influence others, then it can be argued (and I agree) that men have had privilege historically. I don't think that's a particularly beneficial definition of power and prilvilege *if *our primary concern is about human fulfillment, because the opportunity to influence others doesn't necessarily equal fulfillment. 

If we include others concerns like; receiving empathy, compassion and appreciation in our analysis of 'privilege' then things look very different IMO. 

People like Warren Farrell define power as; the ability to control one's own life, to live in accordance with one own's values - because he values autonomy, authenticity and fulfillment. So he is primary concerned with the opportunity to find fulfillment, rather than the ability to influence others. 

People who are generally liked tend to have positive social connections than people who are generally disliked (obviously). So how is being less prone to having positive social connection a privilege? (But again that presupposes that well-being is our primary concern.)



> but they were at least allowed to be emotional without "losing face" and allowed to be more open with their feelings. as all humans have emotional needs and need to be able to talk about their feelings, people probably naturally like those who they feel they can be more open around more often--people who they can begin to discuss their emotional needs and inner experiences with. as such, women as a group who were denied power and rights but not denied their emotions by society, are in a sense, more likable.


It still make no sense to me to say that a system based in male chauvinism and misogyny (the patriarchy), is also a system where women are liked more by women and men. 

I would think that misogyny (the dislike of women) and male chauvinism (believing males to be superior) would contribute to a dislike of women. 

You are saying that the dislike of women means that women are liked.


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> Do you see any possible way in which none of these things can actually be considered power? Did you ever try to approach your views regarding gender issues in way where holding political office or being a 'higher up' in the corporate world isn't 'power'?


 i don't understand the question? this is fairly basic stuff. say you're a woman before women could vote and you've done your homework and you have an idea of how you think society should go. you would have all of these obstacles in your path to being able to take action on your views in the normal channels. it would be a struggle to even get an education and especially in a field that's a "male" field, like law or politics. someone would have to finance this for you (you need a compassionate patriarch who will aid you). if you merely want to vote according to your views, you can't do that either. you could however try to convince the men in your life to vote your way. the point is, you are fairly helpless and have to go through one of the men in your life to get anywhere (you have to make appeals). and so your autonomy is limited. you don't have as much "power" as your husband or father or brother, or as much freedom. you can't influence the course of your community or society to the extent that the men in your life might be able to. were the men in your country put into this kind of situation by a foreign power, they would revolt and fight to get their rights back. you however are in this same situation in an arguably "free" society. how is this not about power?


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> It still make no sense to me to say that a system based in male chauvinism and misogyny (the patriarchy), is also a system where women are liked more by women and men.
> 
> I would think that misogyny (the dislike of women) and male chauvinism (believing males to be superior) would contribute to a dislike of women.
> 
> You are saying that the dislike of women means that women are liked.


 i think the issue here is that you think that misogyny is a necessary condition in a patriarchy--it is not. i don't view the US for instance as being based on woman-hating even when women did not have as many rights as men. if one sex has less power then that does open the door for individual haters to take advantage and for hate-based crimes to go unnoticed for what they are, but i don't think it necessarily means that society as a whole is centered around a hatred of that sex.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> So women are considered inferior, but are also liked more?


You misunderstood what she said... she meant we're more empathic than lets say most of these MRAs online anyway, that make it their mission to troll feminist videos and leave horrible comments, feminists might tend to brush aside men's issues but when faced with it they do sympathise, MRAs have clearly shown they can't sympathise with women's issues and in fact mock them or say it happens to men too but it rarely does to the same extent.

In other words they seem to care more about bashing feminists than actually fighting for men's rights hence why the MRA movement doesn't have much stick to it.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

qaryoqa said:


> i think the issue here is that you think that misogyny is a necessary condition in a patriarchy--it is not.


So to clarify, you don't believe that misogyny and chauvanism is part of the patriarchy (at least in the modern US)? (If so IME yours is a minority position in feminism - feminist cultural commentary always concludes that the reason behind gender related problems is cultural misogyny and chauvinism).

And to further clarify, the patriarchy to you is simply more men in positions of power than women? (Please no treatise, I'd like a few sentences if possible).


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

googoodoll said:


> feminists might tend to brush aside men's issues but when faced with it they do sympathise,


Not in my experience - it's 50/50. (Based on observing interactions, as well as being a part of them).


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> So to clarify, you don't believe that misogyny and chauvanism is part of the patriarchy (at least in the modern US)? (If so IME yours is a minority position in feminism - feminist cultural commentary always concludes that the reason behind gender related problems is cultural misogyny and chauvinism).
> 
> And to further clarify, the patriarchy to you is simply more men in positions of power than women? (Please no treatise, I'd like a few sentences if possible).


i don't think that misogyny is nearly as significant as you seem to think it is, at least in US culture (there are some patriarchal cultures where you could argue it's very significant--for instance if a woman needs to burn herself to death when her husband dies, i find it hard to believe that misogyny is not in some way involved in that kind of custom). perhaps the fewer rights women have, the more burdensome they become... another whiny mouth to feed who doesn't contribute financially to the family at all and just moans about hardships. 

also i don't really consider my position a "feminist" one. i think that society is hurting men and it is hurting women with gender roles. it's just that the way in which it is hurting men has been even less obvious than the way it has hurt women. it's like when you meet someone and they appear to have it all, but unbeknownst to you they spend a lot of time suffering in private and eventually slit their wrists. iow, i think that how society hurts men (with gender roles) has been more deeply hidden.

i also suspect that this is untrue: "feminist cultural commentary *always* concludes that the reason behind gender related problems is cultural misogyny and chauvinism." to me that seems like an extreme position, and it seems unlikely to me that it would be universal. as i understand it, there is a lot of diversity in "feminism" and such a position would only be one among many.

to me, a patriarchy is a system driven by masculine values, where masculine values are defined by society (when it comes to the individual male, these values define ways he is *expected* to be, not necessarily ways that men actually or naturally are) and where laws/customs/rules grant men more control and influence in the direction that society takes than they do women. in short, the male gender is represented more than the female gender. the male gender and "male issues" according to society's definition of masculinity are in the foreground; while female issues are more in the background.

in a society that emphasizes gender roles, arguably everyone's *real* issues are suppressed to some extent.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

qaryoqa said:


> i don't understand the question?


What's there not to understand? Is there any in way in which what you perceive/presuppose as _power_ is actually not power at all? I'm asking for your own counter-argument and analysis to your argument. Surely, if you are so convinced of your argument, you've gone through the lengths of constructing viable counter arguments that you have then debunked? Or you've sufficiently _defined_ power?

For example. I'm a voluntaryist and my views allow for private property. Therefore, I spent a sizable amount of time formulating arguments that contradict the logic or existence of private property. Etc, and thought about what private property means and what it implies.

Surely, you have approached your argument of male power the same way? If not. Don't you believe it's intellectually irresponsible to argue for it if you can't see the other side of the argument? Or haven't even analyzed your own?



qaryoqa said:


> this is fairly basic stuff.


Indeed it is.



qaryoqa said:


> say you're a woman before women could vote and you've done your homework and you have an idea of how you think society should go. you would have all of these obstacles in your path to being able to take action on your views in the normal channels. it would be a struggle to even get an education and especially in a field that's a "male" field, like law or politics. someone would have to finance this for you (you need a compassionate patriarch who will aid you). if you merely want to vote according to your views, you can't do that either. you could however try to convince the men in your life to vote your way. the point is, you are fairly helpless and have to go through one of the men in your life to get anywhere (you have to make appeals). and so your autonomy is limited. you don't have as much "power" as your husband or father or brother, or as much freedom. you can't influence the course of your community or society to the extent that the men in your life might be able to. were the men in your country put into this kind of situation by a foreign power, they would revolt and fight to get their rights back. you however are in this same situation in an arguably "free" society. how is this not about power?


And now the complete picture? Remember, we're discussing gender. Gender issues exist in a binary (I am saying _gender issues_, not _gender_). Since gender issues exist in a binary, there needs to be some sort of ying to that yang, right? Ways in which the norms you describe affect men as well?

For example. You explained that women weren't allowed to vote, but didn't factor in all the women who _didn't_ want to be burdened with the responsibility of voting or the possibility that, much like men, women would have to be conscripted into the army in exchange for voting rights -- something women were eventually not required to do, unlike men who were reduced to being the state's canonfodder. Essentially making it so that women could co-decide on whether men could go to war, but men couldn't co-decide if women went to war.

I mean, this is one of many counter-points or expanasion on what you said but I didn't want to ramble on for too long. 

Basically, you keep making the argument of power, without analyzing or trying to consider what this power implies or means. And you argue gender issues strictly from what women experience, without looking at the underlying societal structure and how it affects all of society and men as well.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm off to the movies so I'll answer the rest tomorrow, but...



qaryoqa said:


> the male gender and "male issues" according to society's definition of masculinity are in the foreground; while female issues are more in the background.


You think that represents US society then?

Men's issues (the kind of things MRAs and Masculist highlight) are given cutlural precedence, and female issues (the kind of them feminists highlight) are given less respect, attention and empathy?

(The ratio of women's studies to men's studies courses for example, note: that is a single example I'd like you to think about).


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> You misunderstood what she said... she meant we're more empathic than lets say most of these MRAs online anyway, that make it their mission to troll feminist videos and leave horrible comments, feminists might tend to brush aside men's issues but when faced with it they do sympathise, MRAs have clearly shown they can't sympathise with women's issues and in fact mock them or say it happens to men too but it rarely does to the same extent.
> 
> In other words they seem to care more about bashing feminists than actually fighting for men's rights hence why the MRA movement doesn't have much stick to it.


I believe you're either projecting or confused about what thread you're posting this is and you're going on a bit of a tangent on MRAs.

This is the argument I jumped into was about how women like women more than men like men is supposedly "patriarchal".



strangestdude said:


> Women and men liking women more than men, is related to a system where women are deemed inferior and disliked?
> 
> I don't see how that's possible.





qaryoqa said:


> it's easier to like the gender that has fewer expectations placed upon it and whose mistakes are more tolerated. also, if a person isn't being hard on themselves about not being a super-human they are more pleasant to be around for most people. (i also think that biology may play a role in this to some extent as women i think are more likely to lend a sympathetic ear. people often like those who are kind to them and listen to them more than those who they feel they have to shut themselves off around, for instance. (i don't necessarily think women are on average "kinder" than men though they may be on average more openly sympathetic and cooperative.)


It was solely about how women liking women more than men like men relates to patriarchy theory.


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I think the 5 mains reasons for the people appreciating women more than men is;
> 
> 1) Feminism. - I think feminists (of any gender) tends to focus their empathy, compassion and activism towards women's issues. And teach people that men's suffering and issues are by-product of the actual problem, which is women's suffering and issues. (ie. Misogyny is the cause of both women and men's issues). Which contributes to people internalizing the attitude of extending more empathy with men.
> 
> ...


Those are some pretty stellar points - never quite saw it that way before. 

It has only been recently that girls are told that they have equal opportunities as men to do what they want and be as strong if they want to. Gender equality isn't much of an issue here in terms of education and job opportunities (In fact, there are more women than men attending higher level education institutions). However, objectifying and sexualising women is still prevalent and that is more of an issue to me than it is with anything else. 

I agree that men have been depended upon for protection and survival, in my opinion, I think it is due to archaic gender roles. In a lot of families, men are expected to go out and get a job no matter what while women may consider becoming a housewife if they wish to. I suppose that this role has been handed down to generations that it becomes a natural thing to see your dad working and other children's dads working and to see other children's moms being a housewife. It slowly becomes instinctive, I guess, that as a woman you do the home making while the men do the "_hunting_". 

While that explains that, I think a lot of feminists only have issues with men objectifying women sexually. In a lot of cases like education and job opportunities, I don't think it's much of an issue in the Western society. I think in the Western society, men do not perceive women to be the weaker sex but I wouldn't really know, I don't live in a Western society. It's just that from where I come from, the Western world looks like a better place for women to be in.


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> What's there not to understand? Is there any in way in which what you perceive/presuppose as _power_ is actually not power at all? *I'm asking for your own counter-argument and analysis to your argument.* Surely, if you are so convinced of your argument, you've gone through the lengths of constructing viable counter arguments that you have then debunked? Or you've sufficiently _defined_ power?
> 
> For example. I'm a voluntaryist and my views allow for private property. Therefore, I spent a sizable amount of time formulating arguments that contradict the logic or existence of private property. Etc, and thought about what private property means and what it implies.
> 
> Surely, you have approached your argument of male power the same way? If not. Don't you believe it's intellectually irresponsible to argue for it if you can't see the other side of the argument? Or haven't even analyzed your own?


 wow. why don't you just offer the counter-argument you're looking for? i'm not going to cater to arguing which things you want me to just because you want me to. i don't post on demand.



> For example. You explained that women weren't allowed to vote, but didn't factor in all the women who _didn't_ want to be burdened with the responsibility of voting


 nobody has to vote if they don't want to. it's about having the right to, should you want to.



> or the possibility that, much like men, women would have to be conscripted into the army in exchange for voting rights -- something women were eventually not required to do, unlike men who were reduced to being the state's canonfodder. Essentially making it so that women could co-decide on whether men could go to war, but men couldn't co-decide if women went to war.


 but you see this still actually fits into my argument. men are the able-bodied, superior ones. i mean god, you can't expect the emotional wimpy fluff-heads to go into combat. women are protected by the patriarchy from such things by virtue of being considered incapable and under the protection of men. remember, my argument is essentially that men suffer as a result of the "patriarchy" and gender roles as well despite the powers it grants them. if you're trying to give me examples of the hardships men face and how "unfair it is," it's likely i'll end up pointing it back at gender roles/our patriarchal system as i suspect that system is the cause of a lot of these problems. (eta: although the matter of war is a giant mess. if i were drafted into the military to go kill people in the middle east, i would probably refuse. i don't agree with what we're doing, and as far as i'm concerned the assholes who do should go fight it themselves, personally. you can't make me do things i think are wrong.)



> Basically, you keep making the argument of power, without analyzing or trying to consider what this power implies or means. And you argue gender issues strictly from what women experience, without looking at the underlying societal structure and how it affects all of society and men as well.


 i'm using the word "power" to represent the situations/contexts i already have tried to explain in previous posts. you should add the things you think are missing into the discussion, not try to milk me for them.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

qaryoqa said:


> wow. why don't you just offer the counter-argument you're looking for? i'm not going to cater to arguing which things you want me to just because you want me to. i don't post on demand.


I'm criticizing your one-sided approach in where you argue about constructs that affect all of society (gender norms) strictly from the point of view of how the archetypal woman would experience them. If your worldview was in any way complete, you would've been able to respond appropriately.

I ask myself to attempt to debunk my own views and have views fit the big picture. It wouldn't be too much for you to ask the same of yourself.



qaryoqa said:


> nobody has to vote if they don't want to. it's about having the right to, should you want to.


So even men who didn't _want_ to vote were conscripted into the army. Whereas women who didn't want to vote, but still could, weren't. Male privilege at work!



qaryoqa said:


> but you see this still actually fits into my argument. men are the able-bodied, superior ones. i mean god, you can't expect the emotional wimpy fluff-heads to go into combat. women are protected by the patriarchy from such things by virtue of being considered incapable and under the protection of men.


Those privileged men who had no say in whether they could join the military, were dropped in a foreign land and slowly bled to death as they were hurt by enemy fire. Yes, women definitely had the short end of the stick here.

Black people, an actually oppressed class in American history, were on the frontlines of each battle where the caught the majority of the bullets. This is how American society treated individuals it deemed inferior on the battlefield. It didn't keep them safe and sheltered. If American society actually deemed women inferior, women would've been on the frontlines catching bullets along with black people.

Secondly, it were only societies determined as being 'patriarchal' by feminists that battled each other in wars. If those society really valued those men more than women, they would've all just had those women fighting each other. Since there would've been no 'strength' advantage.



qaryoqa said:


> i'm using the word "power" to represent the situations/contexts i already have tried to explain in previous posts. you should add the things you think are missing into the discussion, not try to milk me for them.


There's little point to it since you're only posting presuppositions and regurgitate common feminist mantra. Hence me wondering if you had actually carefully analyzed your own views. I'm cloncuding that you haven't.


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> I'm criticizing your one-sided approach in where you argue about constructs that affect all of society (gender norms) strictly from the point of view of how the archetypal woman would experience them. If your worldview was in any way complete, you would've been able to respond appropriately.
> 
> I ask myself to attempt to debunk my own views and have views fit the big picture. It wouldn't be too much for you to ask the same of yourself.


 wtf. i have been trying to say this whole time that gender norms hurt men. women isn't even my point (although these norms harm them also). and no, i don't have to approach topics the way that you do and debunk them for you on an internet forum. the problem is that you seem to approach views as fixed and so one cannot explore them or argue them according to one's current interest/thoughts, but must develop some fixed system. to me this is an exercise in imagination, and attempt at argumentation or getting my thoughts into words, and i don't need it to be anything more than that. if it doesn't meet your standards, then that is your problem.



> So even men who didn't _want_ to vote were conscripted into the army. Whereas women who didn't want to vote, but still could, weren't. Male privilege at work!


??? you obviously have some grand point here and i have no idea what it is.

but i'll cut through all of your heated points: if society is not patriarchal in your view, do you believe it is matriarchal? (i ask this question because i don't understand what your supposed position is.) you seem to be saying that male privilege is a fiction and that society is not patriarchal. in a matriarchal system, women hold the direct power and decision making to a larger extent than men. feminine values as defined by that society trump masculine values. often a matriarchal system will value cooperation over competition in some notable way. is the US currently a matriarchal system? was it always? and why? (do we need to agree on a definition for patriarchal and matriarchal to continue so we don't just argue totally different things at each other?)

another thing i'd add regarding your points is that there is a difference between being deemed inferior or less capable and being devalued. both can occur together, sure, but there has long been a value (which i see as right in line with patriarchy) to defend the women and children (which is to say, they are valued) even at the cost of oneself (where "one" is a man). why? women are viewed as more helpless, weaker, and less capable--they're kind of like over-sized children really if you think about it. this value is particularly interesting when considering when it doesn't apply. for instance, black women and children were not valued in, say, 1930.



> There's little point to it since you're only posting presuppositions and regurgitate common feminist mantra. Hence me wondering if you had actually carefully analyzed your own views. I'm concluding that you haven't.


 i agree that society is patriarchal. i think i've explained why i think it is. it's increasingly less so now, but it is still i suspect more defined by masculine values (as it defines them) than by "feminine values."


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

qaryoqa said:


> to me, a patriarchy is a system driven by masculine values, where masculine values are defined by society (when it comes to the individual male, these values define ways he is *expected* to be, not necessarily ways that men actually or naturally are) and where laws/customs/rules grant men more control and influence in the direction that society takes than they do women. in short, the male gender is represented more than the female gender.


Your definition of the patriarchy seems pretty unique - IME every feminist who talks about the patriarchy believes that it is justified and motivated by male chauvinism and misogyny (perpetuated by any gender though).

Also...

What do you mean by masculine values?

What do you mean by 'represented more'?



> the male gender and "male issues" according to society's definition of masculinity are in the foreground; while female issues are more in the background.


You think that Men's issues (the kind of things MRAs and Masculist talk about) are given cultural and media precedence over female issues (the kind of them feminists highlight)?

(eg. The ratio of women's studies to men's studies courses for example.).


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

qaryoqa said:


> but i'll cut through all of your heated points: if society is not patriarchal in your view, do you believe it is matriarchal? (i ask this question because i don't understand what your supposed position is.) you seem to be saying that male privilege is a fiction and that society is not patriarchal. in a matriarchal system, women hold the direct power and decision making to a larger extent than men. feminine values as defined by that society trump masculine values. often a matriarchal system will value cooperation over competition in some notable way. is the US currently a matriarchal system? was it always? and why? (do we need to agree on a definition for patriarchal and matriarchal to continue so we don't just argue totally different things at each other?)


If I could interject in this discussion between yourself and my esteem colleague.

Here is an alternative position to analyzing gender issues...

(A post I directed to someone else in another thread.)

From what I've observed from debating feminists...

1) The Patriarchy is the doctrine of male/masculine superiority.

And/or

2) The Patriarchy is a social system where males are the heads of social organizations.

And/or.

3) The Patriarchy is a social system where males are the heads of social organizations, and use their influence to benefit men as a demographic.

I've been listening to a lot of Warren Farrell, and IMO and IME he presents the most cogent argument against the notion of the patriarchy. (If the patriarchy is a combination of the above.)

_I'll try to summarize;

Males and females were culturally assigned roles for the survival and proliferation of tribe, religion, or nation. The male role was to be the protector and provider, whilst women were expected to be baby makers, child carers, and home makers. (Hence why men had more social rights than women, because it was necessary for their role.) 

Like Farrell I agree that no single gender is responsible for the formation and conformity of these roles, and they probably proliferated due to a mixture of cultural and religious memes, and pragmaticism. (Pragmaticism in the sense that drafting men and women would; a) Lead to a prevalence of orphans, b) would jeopardize survival because the gender capable of giving birth would die, and the infant mortality rate was high, as was death during childbirth, before medical advances.) 

Gender-feminists on the other hand believe that the roles were assigned due the doctrine of male/masculine superiority.

Also if we use Warren Farrell's primary definition of power as; control over one's own, to live in accordance with one's own values - then no gender has had power historically. And considering one gender role as more privileged than the other is comparing apples and oranges. Because whilst men had greater social rights than women, men were also considered disposable for the protection and proliferation of the tribe, nation, society, etc. (Hence the legal and cultural drafting of men to become military combatants, and the notion of "Women and children first.")

The above provides a very different framework to analyze gender issues than gender-feminists typically use, for example;

Many gender-feminists analyze the cultural disapproval of boys and males expressing vulnerability as a by-product of the notion of female inferiority. They posit that women are deemed inferior or disliked, and so traits deemed feminine are discouraged for a man to express due to misogyny.

Whereas Warren Farrell's paradigm interprets the cultural disapproval of boys and male's expressing vulnerability as a by-product of gender roles. Males expressing vulnerability is discouraged, because gender conformity is encouraged - which has nothing to do with the notion of female inferiority. Hence why women have also been discouraged traditionally from displaying traits that don't conform to their gender roles.
__
I've read however from a few masculists that Warren Farrell's paradigm actually comes from 2nd wave feminism (which he was an integral part of) before the patriarchy and male privilege became the dominant paradigm for analyzing social issues._


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> What do you mean by masculine values?


i think what i mainly mean is that the way men are expected to be in our society and the roles they are expected to fulfill in order to be "real men" reflect the masculine values of our society. these are cultural/social expectations. if the majority of key power structures in society (corporate, political, military) are still run by a majority of males and the expectations in these structures are things like, aggression, competition > cooperation, being invulnerable (not crying, not showing fear or weakness), being able to exert considerable influence over others (whether through persuasion or through force), being able to be a well-honed performance machine who gets it done and does not cave, & so on, and in every layer of society we find that this is largely what is silently expected of the male sex, then we are looking at the masculine values of the patriarchy. i think it's important to differentiate values because if the balances in society's power structures between men and women was largely equal (both are equally running the show) but this same set of values persists, then i might think that we're still looking at a patriarchy. a certain set of values were established and linked to the male gender and the ideal way for men to be... just because now they are expected of both sexes does not change their origin. i think that some of these "values" are linked to biology, but not in any dramatically clear cut way that is helpful to this discussion. i also don't think that such values would always be "masculine" in every possible society. for instance, if you consider war which necessarily involves violence, aggression, and implies competition; matriarchal systems can war as well--this does not change that they are still matriarchies. the celts for instance were considered matriarchal and they highly valued war and engaged in many wars. (perhaps this kind of thing is the reason why values usually aren't in definitions of patriarchy and matriarchy, because the bottom line isn't what the values are, but which sex is dominant in society.)



> What do you mean by 'represented more'?


 probably that you find these values dominant in society's power structures: if you want to get anywhere or be anyone this is how you need to be. perhaps even that sort of valued competition of outperforming everyone else is a masculine value?




> You think that Men's issues (the kind of things MRAs and Masculist talk about) are given cultural and media precedence over female issues (the kind of them feminists highlight)





> ? (eg. The ratio of women's studies to men's studies courses for example.).


 my guess would be no, but that doesn't really have a bearing on this as the only things that could would be the reasons *why* that is the case. since you're talking about "gender feminists" in your next post, i'm sure this abstract group of people would just say it has to do with seeing women as inferior and if men step out and admit they too have issues, they're acting like girls. gawd, how inferior.


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

> Also if we use Warren Farrell's primary definition of power as; control over one's own, to live in accordance with one's own values - then no gender has had power historically. And considering one gender role as more privileged than the other is comparing apples and oranges. Because whilst men had greater social rights than women, men were also considered disposable for the protection and proliferation of the tribe, nation, society, etc. (Hence the legal and cultural drafting of men to become military combatants, and the notion of "Women and children first.")


 i'll address this because it is the main point of contention. i think that if we define power this way that the majority of individuals have not had a lot of power historically. but if we go back to 1910 USA for instance, which sex could potentially "have it all"? the only person who could sit at the top of society with all of the money and all of the power to affect not only their freedom, but the course of all of society, would be a man. it does not balance out, imo. what you have is a system where almost no woman can largely control her own destiny, and where some men can (at the expense of everyone else often). i don't think that "patriarchy" or "male privilege" implies that all is peachy for every man. not at all. i also think that men can be considered expendable by the state for reasons that have little to do with women. the state may consider women inferior in waging battle and it wants to wage battle. those in power don't care greatly about all the little people who will die in conquest. all the little people are expendable, it's just that the men are more capable of fighting, while the women are seen as weak idiots and perhaps are akin to animals or property (yes, the inferior sex). perhaps we could call this the ancient rome model.

slightly unrelatedly, i would like to add on to what i said before about misogyny and how it is not, imo, a necessary condition for a patriarchy. i don't see misogyny generally as a cause of something like a patriarchy, but it can be a product of it. a hatred of one sex in society is largely a sign that there is in fact a power imbalance, that something is not equal.

i can only speculate as to the causes of matriarchies or patriarchies. many animals live either patriarchally (e.g. lions, chimpanzees) or matriarchally (e.g. killer whales, bonobos) as i see it. there is an origin in nature. when it comes to human beings and the mass of human culture and extent of human civilization and technology i don't know really what to consider. i feel i would have to probe history searching (it would require that i were more educated than i am). i do think that if we could see the earliest humans it would typically be something along the lines of the men doing the hunting and a lot of decision making regarding what geographical course to take while the women gathered, had the babies and cared for them. this makes sense because when humans were hunter-gatherers they relied on methods such as on persistence hunting* supposedly, and the average male really would have been physically better at this, having greater speed, stamina, strength and endurance most likely (and perhaps also, having greater motivation to hunt). also someone had to constantly care for babies and young children (it was a full-time job), and the women would have been more suited for this coming from a long line of female animal ancestors that took this role. in such a society i imagine neither sex would have been deemed inferior... it would just be the way that hunter-gatherer groups survived. there would probably be a sense of kinship and concern for all members of one's "tribe" although there would of course be some competition between individuals. how human gender roles 1.0 developed into complex patriarchal, matriarchal, or egalitarian-ish systems in different regions over time is probably an incredibly complex matter to consider.

*persistence hunting: Persistence hunting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

qaryoqa said:


> i'll address this because it is the main point of contention. i think that if we define power this way that the majority of individuals have not had a lot of power historically.


Exactly. 



> but if we go back to 1910 USA for instance, which sex could potentially "have it all"? the only person who could sit at the top of society with all of the money and all of the power to affect not only their freedom, but the course of all of society, would be a man.


First counter point is that money and institution authority doesn't necessarily equal the ability to live in accordance with one's own values. I think that people born into royalty in the UK for example receive far more social pressure to conform to expectations of of conduct and character far more than the average working class person.

A mate of mine grew up wealthy, and had wealthy friends into adulthood and said that a lot of them experience enormous social pressure from their family and social circles to conform to expectations. And he honestly believes (after shunning help from family and wanting to make his own way in the world) that working class people (not poverty stricken obviously) have more potential for living their life in accordance with their values than upper middle class people.

(The movie dead poets society tried to illustrate that perspective.)

Another point Farrell makes is that people have look at the 1% and have said that because they see mostly men, that men as a demographic have greater social freedom than women do. Forgetting that the 99% of men don't and won't have access to that class, and are analyzing our social system based on 1% of society.

My main point however is that money and institutional authority doesn't necessarily mean being in control of one's own destiny IMO. And that men in positions of institutional authority doesn't necessarily equal privilege for men. I think social freedom is more do with a social environment that encourages psychological authenticity/congruence (as does Warren Farrell). 

I've began to get the impression (not just from yourself but also debating other feminists) that they are incredibly neo-capitalist in their values IMO - they believe that being wealthy, pursuing careerism, and having institutional authority = social freedom and fulfillment. 



> while the women are seen as weak idiots and perhaps are akin to animals or property (yes, the inferior sex).


Again this comes back to what I think are incongruent beliefs.

You seem to believe that in the english speaking west in 2014 women are deemed as inferior, and also believe that women are liked more by men and women.

Some historical counter-examples that pop to mind are the treatment of native americans and black people by white people who believed they were inferior. Also the treatment of Jews in Nazis Germany by a political party that deemed them as inferior.

Of course those are extreme examples, but generally when entire demographics are deemed inferior by the dominant culture they are liked less. So I don't see how you can assert that women are deemed inferior by society, and simultaneously liked more by society.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

qaryoqa said:


> since you're talking about "gender feminists" in your next post, i'm sure this abstract group of people ...


Gender-feminists are feminists who believes in feminist theory.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

What I find really strange about this discussion is that when I showed you that study about a bias against women in science faculties, you agreed that it was there and I assume you agree that it's a problem (right?). And I think we found a lot of common ground when discussing the study about biased school teachers as well. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression that I got is that we both thought it was an issue worth addressing. 

In relation to the current discussion, you said this:


strangestdude said:


> Another point Farrell makes is that people have look at the 1% and have said that because they see mostly men, that men as a demographic have greater social freedom than women do. Forgetting that the 99% of men don't and won't have access to that class, and are analyzing our social system based on 1% of society.


I find it strange that you'd hesitate to define that top 1% as being powerful, but to an extent I don't really care. What I'm much more concerned about is whether or not you think there are any biases that make it harder for women to reach that 1%, if that happens to be something that they want to do.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> What I find really strange about this discussion is that when I showed you that study about a bias against women in science faculties, you agreed that it was there and I assume you agree that it's a problem (right?). And I think we found a lot of common ground when discussing the study about biased school teachers as well. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression that I got is that we both thought it was an issue worth addressing.
> 
> In relation to the current discussion, you said this:
> 
> I find it strange that you'd hesitate to define that top 1% as being powerful, but to an extent I don't really care. What I'm much more concerned about is whether or not you think there are any biases that make it harder for women to reach that 1%, if that happens to be something that they want to do.


Who benefits more of that 1%ers wealth and influence? 99% of all men, or the wives, daughters and female loved ones of that 1%er? And with women controlling 70-80% of a household's expenditure on average, who reaps the most benefit of that "power" and influence, without sharing any of the risks or the same type of work required of the 1%er male?

All in all, 1%er women enjoy all the perks of their husbands, have the mobility and freedom to pursue their passions (be it work, or anything) and control most of their husband's income, without the accountability, work and self-sarcifice. 1%er wives are in a better place than 1% men. Those 1%er wives _don't need that "power" because they're already reaping the benefits of it_ and they don't _want_ it because they don't want its drawbacks either.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> Who benefits more of that 1%ers wealth and influence? 99% of all men, or the wives, daughters and female loved ones of that 1%er? And with women controlling 70-80% of a household's expenditure on average, who reaps the most benefit of that "power" and influence, without sharing any of the risks or the same type of work required of the 1%er male?
> 
> All in all, 1%er women enjoy all the perks of their husbands, have the mobility and freedom to pursue their passions (be it work, or anything) and control most of their husband's income, without the accountability, work and self-sarcifice. 1%er wives are in a better place than 1% men. Those 1%er wives _don't need that "power" because they're already reaping the benefits of it_ and they don't _want_ it because they don't want its drawbacks either.


I said that my main concern is whether or not there are any biases that make it harder for women to reach that 1%, if that happens to be something that they want to do. I don't see how anything you wrote addresses that concern. There's a lot more that I could say, but I'd rather not get distracted.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Planisphere said:


>


omgosh please don't post pictures of me online i'm so embarrassed

:blushed:


----------



## theredpanda (Jan 18, 2014)

I can see that. Honestly it plays to the stereotype of women being sweet, soft spoken, pretty, etc and men being more aggressive, dominant, etc, because men would prefer the stereotypical woman in order to "dominate" her and women would prefer the stereotypical woman because she's "nicer".


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> I said that my main concern is whether or not there are any biases that make it harder for women to reach that 1%, if that happens to be something that they want to do. I don't see how anything you wrote addresses that concern. There's a lot more that I could say, but I'd rather not get distracted.


You don't understand my point or you're avoiding it. I am thinking the latter.

Women have just as much access to being a 1%er as men do, and when they are in a 1%er household, they control 80% of the income. An income that the husbands worked for. You wouldn't say that the slave picking the cotton is the one in charge, since they don't control what happens to the cotton. So you would be inaccurate to say that the one making the money is in charge when they can't control it.

Your point is a red herring. You're claiming that because women don't access the 1% through the market as much as men do, it's because they're oppressed. Neglecting the fact that they have an alternative pathway into the 1%, a social one, that shares none of the drawbacks or reponsibilities and grants them control over 80% over the household's income.

You're presupposing the patriarchy and looking for things to support it. You're not actually looking at who is realistically more privileged in society.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> You don't understand my point or you're avoiding it. I am thinking the latter.
> 
> Women have just as much access to being a 1%er as men do, and when they are in a 1%er household, they control 80% of the income. An income that the husbands worked for. You wouldn't say that the slave picking the cotton is the one in charge, since they don't control what happens to the cotton. So you would be inaccurate to say that the one making the money is in charge when they can't control it.
> 
> Your point is a red herring. You're claiming that because women don't access the 1% through the market as much as men do, it's because they're oppressed. Neglecting the fact that they have an alternative pathway into the 1%, a social one, that shares none of the drawbacks or reponsibilities and grants them control over 80% over the household's income.


I'm talking about a woman becoming a part of the top 1% in the same way that a man would, not marrying into it. I'm choosing not to talk about marrying into it because I'd rather focus on this for now. Once this is settled, sure, I'll comment on that.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> I'm talking about a woman becoming a part of the top 1% in the same way that a man would, not marrying into it. I'm choosing not to talk about marrying into it because I'd rather focus on this for now. Once this is settled, sure, I'll comment on that.


I already commented on it. Women _choose_ to marry into it over working towards it, because it takes less effort and reaps better results. And this is why it happens.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> I already commented on it. Women _choose_ to marry into it over working towards it, because it takes less effort and reaps better results. And this is why it happens.


You're only close to answering it. I'm asking about whether or not you think there are any biases. You've implied that you don't think that there are, but you haven't said it explicitly yet. Anyway, if that's your position, isn't it possible that biases such as the one outlined in these two studies (and possibly others) might have something to do with it?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> What I find really strange about this discussion is that when I showed you that study about a bias against women in science faculties, you agreed that it was there and I assume you agree that it's a problem (right?). And I think we found a lot of common ground when discussing the study about biased school teachers as well. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression that I got is that we both thought it was an issue worth addressing.


For the record...

I believe women in the 'first world' still face social and institutional issues that I would like to see addressed.

I support equity feminists and egalitarians who try to present and change those social issues. I don't support gender-feminists.



> I find it strange that you'd hesitate to define that top 1% as being powerful, but to an extent I don't really care.


Depends on the working definition. 

Power as; 

Influence over others - an unquestionable yes.

Control over their own lives and to live in accordance with their values - I don't know.

Warren Farrell here presents what I think is a great story involving a female doctor to question what we consider power. 








> What I'm much more concerned about is whether or not you think there are any biases that make it harder for women to reach that 1%, if that happens to be something that they want to do.


Yes, I do. I've seen research that suggests that women face prejudice when attempting to gain positions of institutional authority.

To make it clear;

I believe that (generally) women face serious social problems that men don't, and vice versa. I strongly disagree with gender-feminism because I believe it is contributing to a lack of cultural empathy and compassion for men.


----------



## WoLong (Jan 29, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> If we were talking about individuals, then yes, women are given ample opportunity to influence others, but what I'm talking about is influence on a much larger scale, and in this area the biases strongly favour men. Not only that, since these biases exist on a societal (i.e. large) scale, men are in the best position to influence them. See the problem?





> What I'm most concerned about is biases, not results. If there were no biases and we still happened to be "ruled by men", then it's not a problem in that sense.


Evidence for impediments faced by women but not men in specific fields?

Disparity is not sufficient evidence for discrimination.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@_strangestdude_

That was a brilliant post. Really - it's rare I encounter a post on psychology or sex and say, "That makes perfect sense but I never thought of it that way."

I think you may have solved the mystery of why certain men turn me on and 'overly macho men' don't. This could be why I fall for men who, as I claimed earlier, are more in touch with their feminine side. I still want a strong man, but I like him to feel free with his emotions. I wonder if this is _exactly because_ I am turned off by someone's expectation that I should control him entirely. I fall for people who get affection elsewhere. This way we love each other, and depend on each other, but he is not overly needy and thus rendered weak and ineffective in my presence.


----------



## qaryoqa (May 31, 2013)

> So I ask you. How is your relationship with your brother, your father, your son and your male friends?





> Now I’m not saying you have to go around hugging men or telling your guy friends that you love them, but I think you get my point. The fact that women have such an upper hand in the affection department is a huge advantage in their relationships with men.


 just thought i'd point out that not everyone is the way these categories want to paint them. my most affectionate relationship in a way is with my one male friend (who is currently my only friend who i see in person) and we are just friends--there's no interest on either end of being anything "more" than that. my family relationship kind of is and kind of isn't affectionate. my mom tries to be more openly affectionate but my sister and i feel rather uncomfortable with it. this was largely because my dad felt uncomfortable with affection, revealing of softer feelings, and so on, and it was discouraged in our household because my dad was the dominant and authoritarian one. the only relationships i've felt i can be as affectionate as i am (which is very) in are intimate and romantic ones. but to me affection goes with closeness... i wouldn't want to be affectionate with just anyone--only those i'm really close to. i don't really feel comfortable in groups of girls in general because i feel like there's more talking behind people's backs and gossiping and i'm not really an incredibly "girly" person. if guys can be "insensitive," girls can be nasty back-stabbing bitches (when in groups). but still that generalization doesn't work either. 




> Women can’t quite understand why a guy is so willing to do/agree to anything (her agenda) just to keep getting her pure female affection. They are puzzled as to why some guys are so needy for their comfort, caress and understanding. But I‘m pretty sure they’re not complaining when they consider what they get out of it.





> Women have such a variety of affection in their lives, that the affection they get from their boyfriend is sweet, but it’s really just one small piece in an overall lifestyle of affection. Remember, women get us hooked on their affection, not sex.


 i've never felt like a guy is "so willing to agree to my agenda." i've noticed these sorts of relationships where a girl kind of expects her bf to behave certain ways and follow her around all the time and do certain things to assist her and so on. i don't think this is all relationships at all. in any case, i'm the needy one in relationships it appears. and i wish there weren't any agendas i suppose.




> Women can easily still rack up tons of orbiters and male friends no matter what their relationship status is. Whereas a taken man comes to rely more and more on his one and only source of affection. She now controls both your sex life and your affection life.


 i've never been the one who doesn't have fewer social connections and i'm usually drawn more to men who are sensitive in some way, or who might understand me emotionally or care how i actually feel. i've always been the needy one. but i don't come to feel that a guy controls both my "sex life" and my "affection life." i don't really view it in terms of control. i simply don't have a "sex life" or "affection life." i think if someone was more needy than me i might feel better in a way because i also just really don't want the other person to leave me (even if this is just pathological, i don't know).




> The lack of affection in other areas of your life leads to extreme neediness for affection from this ONE woman. You can’t be affectionate with your guy friends and you have to act manly at work. The only place you can hide from the cold harsh world is in the arms of your woman. Where you can give and receive affection without being judged. When no one is looking you let her call you "fuzzy bear" and you call her "shmoopy".


 i definitely think that the male world is on average "colder" than the female one and that men are expected to be hard and tough and insensitive and so on. and really it's very unfortunate because a lot men can be incredibly callous and insensitive in a relationship or friendship. i still as i said before largely think that this role for men arose out of a patriarchal structure (but i don't want to go into this debate again). i also think that perhaps this is biological to some extent.

i also think that intimacy itself invites affection and that any two people can have an intimate relationship, including two men, and it doesn't have to be sexual. and in a way i guess i think if one wants that they should try. i mean i complain about how i don't have barely any close social connections and about how i feel like people just leave me, and i can list all of my social issues and talk about how messed up i am, but really i don't try very hard. i don't even try to talk to people.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Hmm, really? I find that kind of surprising, because I've seen plenty of women say they prefer the company of men over the company of other women, for example.


I think the difference could partially be the difference between Scandinavian and US culture. Scandinavians have less of a nurturing idea of women as a whole, if looking at it conservatively anyway.

To clarify, women should be more cheery, upbeat, emotionally expressive etc as well as be more inclined to show affection. The movie stereotype is not untrue at all.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I think the difference could partially be the difference between Scandinavian and US culture. Scandinavians have less of a nurturing idea of women as a whole, if looking at it conservatively anyway.
> 
> To clarify, women should be more cheery, upbeat, emotionally expressive etc as well as be more inclined to show affection. The movie stereotype is not untrue at all.


Hmm, possibly.


----------



## kindaconfused (Apr 30, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> A lot of men in our society treat women like liberals treat minorities. They patronize them. They hold them to lower standards..


Jesus Effing, here we go again. Stop with your right-wing nonsense. Save it for the Debate Forum.


----------

