Topic: Sex Rights

[AxeGrrl]

Just as people who say "I haven't seen women stand up against male circumcision" are wrong to say.....

Such people have obviously never visited this forum

[Lancezh]

I'm very glad i now have a german soldier in my pants so don't generalize please

[Plastique]

Largely, out of my ignorance. Just as people who say "I haven't seen women stand up against male circumcision" are wrong to say so, I say I haven't seen MRAs go for a very long time without being hostile to women in general. In other words, it's called an availability heuristic. All the feminists I now or listen to are great people who care about men as much as women. Meanwhile those who rail against feminism are using dated 80s stereotypes.

(click to show/hide)

(Just like there are radical atheists there are radical feminists, usually in university where everyone is radical. People usually grow out of that.)

Meanwhile the MRA is a recent movement. While I've heard of men that have to fight against the system, the MRA websites for forums I am aware of are filled with hostility toward women. They seem to represent the same radical university student mindset, don't criticize those in their own movement who encourage violence against women (and I don't mean just hitting back).

Though I admit that there may be forums, blogs and groups that support the equality of men and women from a men's perspective but I don't see it. The MRA websites I am aware of (and this may be my ignorance speaking) actually voice concern that women are given the same opportunities as men at times, and tend to be filled with conspiracy theories.

I.e., watching people up vote comments on reddit's MRA topics that include violence against women, and the same for other websites quoted on this web forum in this or the MRA thread that's going on at the same time.

Actually, I've very interested in the topic of men's rights and would appreciate anyone recommending a place I can go to hear about more of the ways that sexism effect men negatively. Back in the 1950s sexism effected men far more than they do now.

Consider what I wrote here: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,41326.msg9207452.html#msg9207452

Fair enough. (For what it's worth, and it might not matter to you, but a qualifier like "in my experience" might help reflect your position more accurately. Based on the quoted post, you seem more reasonable than you first appeared, at least to me.)

As a man, I resent the stereotype that I should do all the heavy lifting and yard work.

Yard work, sure, but isn't the heavy lifting thing based on the average respective physical capabilities of women and men?

[SVoid]

As a man, I resent the stereotype that I should do all the heavy lifting and yard work.

Yard work, sure, but isn't the heavy lifting thing based on the average respective physical capabilities of women and men?

Is it just me, or did it suddenly get less combative in here? I'm really like the tone over the last several hours.

Yes. Basing things on averages is neither fair or based on merit. If I were hiring someone I wouldn't hire a candidate based on averages. I suspect I am rather weaker than an average male, though not by much. Also, even if I am stronger than certain men or women in some respects (power, for example) I may not be in other (the endurance to actually carry something once picked up).

But yes, it's sexist to assume certain things about a particular person because of their sex. That would be prejudice.

On your other point, everything is my opinion. Recently I've been steeped in MRA and MRM information from biased sources. But I don't think that those sources wrong, even if biased. The fact remains then when I hear of quotes from the Spearhead, A Voice for Men, and the MRA subreddit I see sickening behaviour. I don't know why the MRA subreddit was classified as a hate group, but I've seen them quotes as encouraging hatred and violence toward women in general and feminists in specific. (And they assume that most women are feminists, which is not true. They will tell you they are not on their way from their job to the voting station.)

[seamas]

- the fact that it's easier for the woman to gain custody of the child(ren) in a divorce than the man and that, in some areas, the man almost has a "guilty until proven innocent" burden of showing not only why the woman should not have custody but why he would be a better choice than some third party

Is this a fact?

- the tendency on domestic disturbance calls, where both partners have been fighting/trading blows and it is he-said/she-said about who started it, to take the male away in handcuffs rather than the female or both

You have any proof of this tendency being the case, any studies?  Any written police procedures?
Somethings saying that police will not arrest someone who assaulted someone just because she is a woman?
Even if the man wants to press charges?

- the fact that even if both a husband and wife have careers and there are no kids, in some jurisdictions, the husband must still pay alimony to the wife in the event of a divorce - seriously, how is this holdover from the 1800s that assumes a woman can't survive without the support of a man (even when she has a well-paying job) still in existence?

Is this a fact?
Which jurisdictions is this the case?

- the social norm responsible for the stay-at-home dad who takes his kids to the park getting the stink eye from everyone else there as a potential child molester.

You have anything other than anecdotes to support this?

I have taken my kids to the park literally thousands of times--many parks in numerous neighborhoods (neighborhoods where neither I nor the kids are known) in several States. Weekdays and weekends.
I don't get the "stink eye', and see plenty of other fathers in the parks with their children.
Of course my experience is anecdotal, I suppose our anecdotes cancel each other out.

[SVoid]

- the fact that even if both a husband and wife have careers and there are no kids, in some jurisdictions, the husband must still pay alimony to the wife in the event of a divorce - seriously, how is this holdover from the 1800s that assumes a woman can't survive without the support of a man (even when she has a well-paying job) still in existence?

Is this a fact?
Which jurisdictions is this the case?

Yes, I think this is probably misquoted. My understanding is that in many places the person who makes more has to pay alimony to the person who makes less. But I would like to point out that this is not required. I.e., if you divorce this doesn't mean you get alimony. If you ask for it it doesn't mean it will be granted by the courts. Having been divorced let me tell you: we didn't have any lawyer, not appearances in courts. We filed the paper work. Cost about $500. Because we were civil.

If you live with someone making 80 000 and decide on certain life choices that including you not advancing in your career because you could afford this, and you wouldn't have made that decision if your spouse made less money, then perhaps you do need a little help to get your life on track after a divorce.

I can't say that such a provision is always bad. It certainly did not apply to my situation.

So the real question is: in places where alimony provisions exist, does it go to the woman or the person making less money?

- the social norm responsible for the stay-at-home dad who takes his kids to the park getting the stink eye from everyone else there as a potential child molester.

You have anything other than anecdotes to support this?

I have taken my kids to the park literally thousands of times--many parks in numerous neighborhoods (neighborhoods where neither I nor the kids are known) in several States. Weekdays and weekends.
I don't get the "stink eye', and see plenty of other fathers in the parks with their children.
Of course my experience is anecdotal, I suppose our anecdotes cancel each other out.

I mean, is anyone claiming the prejudiced people don't exist?

Also, sometimes people misinterpret things when they are self-concious. Maybe it was stink eye. Maybe it was. Maybe they were looking down on your social status, not your gender. Though to be honest, I'm sure it does happen. (Though you don't need to be the primary parent to bring you child to the park. Give your spouse a break once in a while. Geez.)

[seamas]

The only form of prejudice we would encounter in the playgrounds was the fact that our kids are quite blond with straight hair, and my wife has very dark and very curly hair, many would upon seeing her would assume she is the nanny.
By other parents, as well as many of the the nannies (who would speak to her in Spanish).

I'm certainly NOT saying prejudice doesn't exist, but the idea that a stay at home dad--or any dad in a playground with the kids is somehow terribly unusual or looked upon as "possible molesters" is a phenomenon of yesteryear or paranoid fantasy.

[AxeGrrl]

I'm very glad i now have a german soldier in my pants so don't generalize please

What do your Nazi-tinged sexual proclivities have to do with any of this?   

[Johnny Slick]

In fairness, I think that women *without kids* are able to get into jobs/hobbies which deal with kids more easily than men without kids. I don't have a lot more to go on there than anecdotal evidence though.

[Plastique]

But yes, it's sexist to assume certain things about a particular person because of their sex. That would be prejudice.

I agree, but think there are physical exceptions.

About the lifting thing, I suppose I'm saying that generally assuming a man has a greater ability than a woman to move heavy stuff isn't unreasonable because in an overwhelming majority of cases it's true. I think that's less about societal/sexist expectations and gender roles, and more about biological, physical reality.

[SVoid]

But yes, it's sexist to assume certain things about a particular person because of their sex. That would be prejudice.

I agree, but think there are physical exceptions.

About the lifting thing, I suppose I'm saying that generally assuming a man has a greater ability than a woman to move heavy stuff isn't unreasonable because in an overwhelming majority of cases it's true. I think that's less about societal/sexist expectations and gender roles, and more about biological, physical reality.

I never said it was unreasonable. I was saying it was sexist, and possibly wastes time, and maybe money.

I noticed some odd wording there: "generally assuming a man" ... What does this mean?  Did you mean to say "in general assuming men will be able to life more than women isn't unreasonable?" No, not sexist. Born out by statistics. If you mean to say "assuming that a specific man has a greater ability than a specific woman to move heavy stuff on the bases of their sex and no other information" is sexist, and may be horribly wrong.

For example. Take the average man. Is he stronger than 50% of women? (And is that because of their genetic heritage or their life history?) Than 60%? 75%? Not 100%, surely.

Knowing that men are stronger is great, but how much stronger? Especially as women take more positions that require them to develop precisely those skills.

[Kayto]

I am 5 feet tall. My ex-husband was 6 feet tall. He could NOT help put away bedding on the top shelf of the linen closet because it was SEXIST! I had to go to the basement, drag up the ladder, put the bedding on the top shelf, and drag the ladder back down.

We are now divorced due to petty things like that and some big major issues as well. I now keep a step stool on the first floor so that I can reach the top shelves. (I could not do that while I was married, because a step stool would get in his way ----- he did not need it.)

[Plastique]

I noticed some odd wording there: "generally assuming a man" ... What does this mean?  Did you mean to say "in general assuming men will be able to life more than women isn't unreasonable?" No, not sexist. Born out by statistics. If you mean to say "assuming that a specific man has a greater ability than a specific woman to move heavy stuff on the bases of their sex and no other information" is sexist, and may be horribly wrong.

For example. Take the average man. Is he stronger than 50% of women? (And is that because of their genetic heritage or their life history?) Than 60%? 75%? Not 100%, surely.

Knowing that men are stronger is great, but how much stronger? Especially as women take more positions that require them to develop precisely those skills.

By "generally assuming a man", I mean that the application of the assumption is limited. It's as useful as any generalization can be, which is as a mental short cut, not a hard and fast rule to be used for discrimination when more reasonable and fair methods of choice are available.

To take your second example about an unseen man and woman, if my life depends on a split-second selection of the person able to lift the most heavy stuff, I'm choosing the man every time.

However, it wouldn't be appropriate grounds to decide a job applicant (for example).

[Plastique]

I am 5 feet tall. My ex-husband was 6 feet tall. He could NOT help put away bedding on the top shelf of the linen closet because it was SEXIST! I had to go to the basement, drag up the ladder, put the bedding on the top shelf, and drag the ladder back down.

Fuck, what a drag. Sounds like a douche.

[SVoid]

I noticed some odd wording there: "generally assuming a man" ... What does this mean?  Did you mean to say "in general assuming men will be able to life more than women isn't unreasonable?" No, not sexist. Born out by statistics. If you mean to say "assuming that a specific man has a greater ability than a specific woman to move heavy stuff on the bases of their sex and no other information" is sexist, and may be horribly wrong.

For example. Take the average man. Is he stronger than 50% of women? (And is that because of their genetic heritage or their life history?) Than 60%? 75%? Not 100%, surely.

Knowing that men are stronger is great, but how much stronger? Especially as women take more positions that require them to develop precisely those skills.

By "generally assuming a man", I mean that the application of the assumption is limited. It's as useful as any generalization can be, which is as a mental short cut, not a hard and fast rule to be used for discrimination when more reasonable and fair methods of choice are available.

To take your second example about an unseen man and woman, if my life depends on a split-second selection of the person able to lift the most heavy stuff, I'm choosing the man every time.

However, it wouldn't be appropriate grounds to decide a job applicant (for example).

"As a man, I resent the stereotype that I should do all the heavy lifting and yard work." I think you missed that second I. You can explain away prejudice attitudes all you want. It doesn't change my experience. And that, ultimate, is what is wrong with all forms of prejudism. I mean, luckily, now, in the 21st century. Prejudism used to be much worse back in the day. It's getting better, man.