Men's rights/issues thread- Grab 'em right by the willy

[butterbumps!]

14 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Nah

well, this is a promising start then!   If you don't believe everyone experiences the exact same violations/ discriminations in the same way, how do you identify, and respond to, various violations/ discrimination people face in your quest for broad "civil rights"?

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

well, this is a promising start then!   If you don't believe everyone experiences the exact same violations/ discriminations in the same way, how do you identify, and respond to, various violations/ discrimination people face in your quest for broad "civil rights"?

In various ways. Among the least productive I find, as I said earlier, is vaguely defined identitity politics.

 

[butterbumps!]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

In various ways. 

Like what and how?   How do you identify and treat violations?

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Like what and how?   How do you identify and treat violations?

In various ways. Asking a vague question doesn't necessarily  deserve a more than vague response.

[mankytoes]

14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Lots of stuff. The sexual violence stats, the stats on domestic violence, the reason that the Violence against Women act was put into place (especially relevant as it is being repealed now). There's a lot of data.

That is my belief, yes. The science on it is fairly undecided. Both that being the case and that doctors fail to treat women's pain as real pain when reported makes it really bad. This has been more of a personal thing for me, as I have had probably half the women in my life go to the doctor for something that turned out to be incredibly bad, but was first poo-pooed as not a big deal.

I've read the stats on domestic violence link, it seems to be talking about how women are failed by their partners, not the justice system? It's a difficult one, because I think a lot more people would consider a man slapping his partner domestic violence, than a woman slapping hers. On tv, for example, it's normal for women characters who are overall good/neutral to hit their partners. If a man ever hits a woman in a modern show, he's a villain for certain.

I'm not saying I totally disagree with that though. For example, my friend got attacked by his ex girlfriend in a nightclub, she just started hitting him. Now obviously that's wrong, but he's a foot taller than her, she wasn't really capable of hurting him. I can't honestly say I view that as equal to him attacking her, regardless of damage caused. 

That's the trouble with health, we all tend to rely on anecdotes. We have loads of reports in this country (England) about our struggling healthcare, I just pretty much ignored it, it's all alright really. Then my grandma gets left in a corridor for hours and hours in a lot of pain, and suddenly it's all very real to me.

 

[Savannah]

8 hours ago, Squab said:

Don't really know what that means, sorry. Equality of Employment Opportunity

"Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, or other factors. This discrimination may seek to redress social inequalities under which minority groups have had less access to privileges enjoyed by the majority group. In such cases it is intended to remove discrimination that minority groups may already face. The label reverse discrimination may also be used to highlight the discrimination inherent in affirmative action programs. Reverse discrimination can be defined as the unequal treatment of members of the majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities.[1][2]"

That's the theory. 

[Savannah]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

It's a widely-supported finding in educational research that boys do tend to believe exactly this and that it has a serious impact on their academic performance.

I would love to take a look at that research. 

[mormont]

Just now, Savannah said:

I would love to take a look at that research. 

That's what Google is for. There's literally reams of it out there.

[Savannah]

19 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's what Google is for. There's literally reams of it out there.

I'm sorry I simply can't find any. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

I've read the stats on domestic violence link, it seems to be talking about how women are failed by their partners, not the justice system? It's a difficult one, because I think a lot more people would consider a man slapping his partner domestic violence, than a woman slapping hers. On tv, for example, it's normal for women characters who are overall good/neutral to hit their partners. If a man ever hits a woman in a modern show, he's a villain for certain.

I'm not saying I totally disagree with that though. For example, my friend got attacked by his ex girlfriend in a nightclub, she just started hitting him. Now obviously that's wrong, but he's a foot taller than her, she wasn't really capable of hurting him. I can't honestly say I view that as equal to him attacking her, regardless of damage caused. 

I think its a difficult one to judge though if you base abuse on how much physical damage someone is capable of doing to you with their fists. Would that mean that a small weak man hitting a big woman would be brushed off? 

I can also say personally that I've been in a couple of relationships where the women felt it was perfectly ok to throw punches and slaps at me if they were angry, and of course I would never do anything to physically harm them, but it is incredibly hard to keep your cool in those situations, I can imagine how easy it is to react once you are sitting there having blows aimed at you. 

Anyway, I think something that doesn't get brought up in conversations about domestic abuse is mental abuse. Men suffer this in a lot of relationships, I think mainly because women cannot use physical violence so use their words instead to inflict pain. I don't think men are particularly well equipped to deal with this.

[mormont]

20 minutes ago, Savannah said:

I'm sorry I simply can't find any. 

Really? That's a hell of a fail on your part. Any time you claim you literally can't find any research on a topic with a Google search, I think people are entitled to be sceptical about whether you ever looked.

But sure, if you're angling for me to provide links, I'm on lunch and it takes about two minutes. These are a completely random sample.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13664530300200191

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212100554.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20130214/Research-determines-causes-of-boys-underachievement-at-school.aspx

There is, as I said, a whole body of literature on the topic even if somehow it's hidden from you.

This is of course one of those times when research tells us what we all knew anyway from having been, and having known, adolescent and pre-adolescent boys.

[Jo498]

As for health, we do not need to rely on anecdotal evidence. There are some indubitable stats, e.g. that women's live expectancy in western countries is roughly 5 years higher than men's while the difference varies depending on social class/stratum. In Germany it is more than 10 years between rich women and poor men. A very common bottom line is, that it's men's fault anyway because they live unhealthily, don't "listen to their bodies", "cannot admit weakness" etc. And of course quite a bit is due to higher rates of substance abuse, risky behavior, homelessness etc. And work related injuries (about 90% of fatal work accidents happen to men - probably most were drunk, just kidding!). No gender quota in dangerous work as we all know and never complain (and of course we shouldn't, men ARE more expendable and should do the dangerous stuff).

I think "men's rights" are bs. The whole thing rests on the general mistake of "identity politics" instead of stressing equal rights and opportunities. But because everyone and their dog formed "identity" special interest groups and had some success, it is hardly surprising that men do so as well now.

Another main issue is the eternal confusion around equal rights, equal opportunity and equal outcomes. Equal rights for men/women are already the law in most countries in most contested fields. Equal societal outcomes are impossible and would be unjust because people are different and we are supposed to be some kind of meritocracy, in any cases the structures are such that some talents, some life choices etc. can and usually will be rewarded or leveraged to improportional advantages (in income, status, power etc.). I am very much in favor of laws (taxes, socialised medicine etc.) that dampen those advantages to get less unequal outcomes. But this should be done generally, not favoring some special groups for specious reasons. And it is poor methodology to claim that any unequal outcome must be grounded in unfair treatment. Or, is this is not detectable, some very subtle societal or structural unfairness. Especially if the obvious structural causes, namely that some talents and skills are in far higher demand, or that some poor choices, faults of character or medical/psychological issues are in certain circumstances "punished" more severely, are all but ignored in favor of hypothetical unfairnesses along the identity groupf fault lines.

[mormont]

5 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

A very common bottom line is, that it's men's fault anyway because they live unhealthily, don't "listen to their bodies", "cannot admit weakness" etc.

I wouldn't say these things are presented as 'men's fault anyway'. They're more usually depicted as problems produced by the prevailing culture. Men suffer because of those problems: they don't create them.

8 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Equal rights for men/women are already the law in most countries in most contested fields.

Making something the law doesn't make it reality, though.

8 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

And it is poor methodology to claim that any unequal outcome must be grounded in unfair treatment.

But generally, unequal outcomes are a good indicator that it's at least worth exploring the question of whether there is unfair treatment going on, or some systemic imbalance that can be fixed. That's good methodology: in any field, anomalies are worth investigating.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

Really? That's a hell of a fail on your part. Any time you claim you literally can't find any research on a topic with a Google search, I think people are entitled to be sceptical about whether you ever looked.

But sure, if you're angling for me to provide links, I'm on lunch and it takes about two minutes. These are a completely random sample.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13664530300200191

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212100554.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20130214/Research-determines-causes-of-boys-underachievement-at-school.aspx

There is, as I said, a whole body of literature on the topic even if somehow it's hidden from you.

This is of course one of those times when research tells us what we all knew anyway from having been, and having known, adolescent and pre-adolescent boys.

Thanks for those links. I thought that boys actually ARE slower at some linguist skills at lower ages than girls and need to catch up a bit, which could hinder development throughout their school years. 

I think there is also huge pressure for boys to be 'cool' at school which generally doesn't go hand in hand with being academic. If you consider than teenage boys spent a lot of their time competing for the attention of girls in one form or another then if being good at school actually lowers your social position then you are unlikely to see the advantages of improving.

[Jo498]

14 hours ago, Squab said:

Physics, one of the few subjects where boys are doing well has been ruined here. In the very late 90's the Education department in Australia started to change physics courses to appeal to more girls. Looking at power generation, rather than formulas on electricity flow and understanding how much energy is made, students are asked to white essays about power stations. Actual examples of questions in senior physics:

1998: about a diagram and description of a dc circuit powering a pump:

1. Sketch the magnetic field around the wires
2. On the diagram, show the direction of the force on wire A due to the current in wire B.
3. What is the magnitude of the magnetic flux density at point P midway between the wires?

From 2001 and 2006:

1. Discuss the impact that developments in electronics have had on society
2. Computer developments since World War II have been characterized by increasing performance at decreasing cost. This trend may or may not continue in the future. Assess this statement.

This has had the wonderful result of turning even more students (regardless of gender) away from physics and reducing the quality of those that did actually complete senior physics. No wonder South Australia cant keep the lights on.

IMO it would be o.k. to have up to maybe 20% questions of the second type in a test, but if not 80% are of the first (1998) type, this is not a Physics class but a class on "Society and Technology". Nothing wrong with that but I think it is a little too specialized and one should learn some Physics first.

I admit that I don't quite understand the causes. What has to be understood is not mainly the current relative performance but how this changed in the last decades. When I was in high school in the mid/late 1980s (Western Germany) it was largely before "girl's days". Anecdotally, I'd say that in my high school experience it certainly was not true that "From a very young age, children think boys are academically inferior to girls" (link below) or at least this was irrelevant as boys slightly outperformed girls at the top (e.g. as far as I recall 4 of the 5 best GPAs in my graduating class were by males but there might have been ca. 60:40 males overall to begin with) while among the weakest students there were also more boys. This was not a representative sample anyway because Germany has and had "tracks" and my school was probably dominated by those in the top 25-30% academically. And while it might have been true that it was "not cool" to be working/studying a lot as a boy, neither were poor grades, so ideally one would get good or at least decent grades while studying as little as possible...So I wonder if and what has changed in about 30 years.

I am also wary about the power of stereotypes. In any case it would be a huge failure of societal reform to have preached against all kinds of stereotypes for decades and now find them so prevalent and stable that they are more powerful than 30 years ago... Sure, there are cases where stereotypes are enforced by a powerful industry and the media, e.g. toys are FAR more gendered today than 40 years ago. If one looks at 1970s toy catalogues one will often not be sure if there is a girl or a boy playing with lego because in the 70s hairstyles and clothes they look the same anyway. So 40 years of "enlightenment" on gender issues etc. have not availed us anything because the toy industry wants to sell more stuff?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212100554.htm

[Savannah]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thanks for those links. I thought that boys actually ARE slower at some linguist skills at lower ages than girls and need to catch up a bit, which could hinder development throughout their school years. 

I think there is also huge pressure for boys to be 'cool' at school which generally doesn't go hand in hand with being academic. If you consider than teenage boys spent a lot of their time competing for the attention of girls in one form or another then if being good at school actually lowers your social position then you are unlikely to see the advantages of improving.

 

That describes immature boyish behaviour not the perception that intelligence is not masculine. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, Savannah said:

 

That describes immature boyish behaviour not the perception that intelligence is not masculine. 

Intelligence at school is associated with the geek and the nerd. Not stereotypes that any boy really wants to be associated with if he wants to be popular with girls.

[Savannah]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Intelligence at school is associated with the geek and the nerd. Not stereotypes that any boy really wants to be associated with if he wants to be popular with girls.

The geek and the nerd are not universally cool when you are immature, for both girls and boys. 

[Jo498]

Again, the question is what changed in the last decades. Geeks and nerds were not considered cool in the 60s either, I guess and if anything, the developments of the last 50 years should have lessened the importance of stereotypes. So either the main cause is that girls were suffering more strongly from stereotypes in former times, therefore performing more poorly and now that this has been improved (by girls days etc.) they outperform boys. There is obviously some tension between the claim that girls are impeded by stereotypes according to which science/tech is for boys and the claim that boys are generally impeded by the stereotype that academic excellence is nerdy and unmanly. But it could be that different groups are affected differently by such stereotypes. I looked into one of the other papers linked above and this seems to show (I only read the beginning) a large class difference in male stereotypes in Britain that would explain working class boys staying behind but not (lower) middle class ones.

Or could it even be that stereotypes are WORSE todays in spite/because? of decades battling stereotypes and traditional gender roles...?

[Savannah]

2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

Again, the question is what changed in the last decades. Geeks and nerds were not considered cool in the 60s either, I guess and if anything, the developments of the last 50 years should have lessened the importance of stereotypes. So either the main cause is that girls were suffering more strongly from stereotypes in former times, therefore performing more poorly and now that this has been improved (by girls days etc.) they outperform boys. There is obviously some tension between the claim that girls are impeded by stereotypes according to which science/tech is for boys and the claim that boys are generally impeded by the stereotype that academic excellence is nerdy and unmanly. But it could be that different groups are affected differently by such stereotypes. I looked into one of the other papers linked above and this seems to show (I only read the beginning) a large class difference in male stereotypes in Britain that would explain working class boys staying behind but not (lower) middle class ones.

Or could it even be that stereotypes are WORSE todays in spite/because? of decades battling stereotypes and traditional gender roles...?

Interesting post.

Maybe we should stop obsessing about gender all together at schools?