Post-equality

[Jaerv]

Did you actually read the thread? No? I'm not going to touch the latter issues since I think most of them are pretty self explanatory, or they have been discussed above. what I WILL comment on is the life expectancy comment, which is very important, and which you also got totally wrong.

Looking at things at this shallow level will give you very little information. Instead, ask WHY men in the UK live shorter lives than UK women, and you might be getting somewhere. This is already an issue that is getting a lot of attention by the way. There seems to be several reasons for this gap, one of them being that men go to the doctor less often than women, for instance. This of course means that serious diseases and conditions will not be found at early or treatable stages, which means men will end up dying unnecessarily due to not visiting the doctor early enough.

Further, the gap isn't six years according to the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12205365

The article also highlights that some of the "gap" can be explained to more smoke related deaths among men, for instance.

Another article on the topic, very anecdotal, but if you can get past the whishy washy media language, it is trying to tell us something about social conditioning:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-do-men-die-younger-843401.html

So, in other words, if the world was a more equal place, men would likely live longer.

"Post-equality"

To whomever got angry at "Post-equality" I just made it up to catch your attention. :P Mr Raab didn't use these words, and I certainly don't believe in it either. Howevever, I thought it captured a lot of the meaning in how people like Mr Raab describe reality; as if we lived in a post-equal society where equality has sort of been achieved, and the last bits we don't care about because they aren't really important.

Needless to say, I don't agree with this view. I think fighting for equality in all its forms is a good thing. We may have achieved the right to vote and to work for women, but as illustrated in this very thread, that is only a beginning. There are many inequalities for both women, and also increasingly for men (feminist awakening ahoy!) that ought to be rectified.

First “Discussed above” does not mean that these points have been invalidated.

I completely agree with your last statement that if the world was a more equal place, men would likely live longer. The point of my post was that Raidne argued that feminists can justify to call themselves advocates of equality and, at the same time, act solely as a pressure group for women, because, all in all men are still in a privileged position compared to women. At least this is my understanting of her post. This is the point I disagree with and I cited a few examples of disadvantages for men that are usually completely ignored by feminists although they are not peanunts IMHO. All in all, it is quite unclear in my eyes who is better off in contemporary developed societies at the moment, women or men.

Concerning the difference in life expectancy: The gap has shrunken since the last time I checked and is now five years instead of six according to wiki. Good news and thanks for alerting me to that. However, the picture you try to paint is a bit one-sided IMHO. Another relevant reason for the gap between the sexes is that our societies regularly use males to do the dirty, dangerous and poisonous jobs, for example. Deaths due to work accidents are higher for men compared to women. We should also not forget that women have easy access to doctors who are experts for the specific ailments of their sex. Comparable specialists for the health problems of men are much more seldom (at least in my country).

edited for spelling

[Guest Raids]

I could firmly see you squirm when you wrote that.

Your argument is epistemologically and morally equivalent to blaming female behaviour for “getting themselves raped” by dressing provocatively, hanging out with Bad Boys, or even inviting them home. Illusions seem to be well and alive on both sides of the street, and the sword of explaining crime by pointing to reckless behaviour by the victim swings both ways. We have, after all, equality of argument.

(That being said, I think your argument is valid. When somebody leaves the key to his Porsche on the hood, he’s inviting theft. The person who steals the Porsche is just as much a thief as otherwise, but I’m allowed to tell the victim “What were your thinking, you fucking idiot.”)

I'm not blaming men for having a higher victimization rate. Quite the opposite. In my ideal world women probably would get themselves in more circumstances where they were likely to get assaulted/carjacked/killed.

I don't think you really got what I was saying there. You'd think there would be enough actually stated arguments on this Board for people to not go around imagining new ones.

My point is that while being more concerned about one's safety does probably lead to better outcomes in terms of crime victimization, it also wholly sucks to walk around being concerned about one's safety.

To Jaerv, nope, that's not what I was saying. I'm saying there is an essential tension in this particular moment regarding feminism between our goals for women and our goals for equality generally. And I'm saying that it is not so simple as saying "well, we're equal now, so now feminists are gender bigots." Not to that point yet, if it will ever be that simple, which I doubt.

[Jaerv]

Don't forget auto insurance rates.

I have never said that the goals of feminists, if achieved, would not lead to significant benefits for men.

The thing is for every disadvantage for men, there is a paired disadvantage for women. Whereas, OTOH, for every disadvantage for women, there is often an advantage for men.

For instance, if it was just as acceptable for men to consider themselves a homemaker, some of the disparity in unemployment rates would fall away. Homemakers don't report themselves as unemployed. Additionally, this identification of women with the home, and not men, leads to the outcomes we see in family court. But it also means that women are identified with the home, that men will get promotions before women, even a single mother, because they "have a family support" (lifted right out of the class action suit against Wal-Mart, that one), that women will do more of the domestic work, etc.

Also, young girls are raised different than young boys with a higher premium placed on conformity, which leads to better behavior in class, on-time assignments, and other traits more likely to make the child, as a student, favored by their teachers. Except, that is, for the best teachers in the top courses, who are often iconoclasts themselves and generally ignore all that stuff in favor of insight, creativity, and brilliance.

Lastly, women are often afraid to be on the street alone. Men end up homeless or the victim of a violent crime because men are more likely to be (possibly wrongly) certain that they can take of themselves in that situation. Women - having struggled with a lifelong victim mentality - have no such illusions.

But there will probably always differences in crime rates, because crime is mostly perpetrated by men, and that might have something to do genetics, just like life expectancy may have something to do with fewer genes available on the Y chromosome, and just like the average woman will never as physically strong as the average man.

Your point concerning promotions essentially pertains to the pay gap, which is also a promotion gap. I agree with you in believing that this gap still exists (see above). However, we should also not forget that Homemakers have a better psychological well-being than unemployed persons. If you insist I can give you about half a dozen studies that demonstrate this. So, your homemaker-argument does not balance the unemployment-argument IMHO.

Concerning teachers: Top courses and top teachers are a small minority. I think the average treatment of the average pupil is more relevant here. If you give real German teachers real essays written by real children and experimentally vary the assigned name and the gender that is implied in this name, you get significantly better grades for the essays supposedly written by girls compared to boys. That was the finding of a recent study here. Clear case of sexism if you ask me. Males are perceived as deficient, deviant and generally problematic in our Society, even when they are still children.

The violence argument has already been answered by HE.

Concerning life expectancy: At least two studies with cloistered populations have demonstrated that monks die only one year earlier than nuns. Cloisters are a very interesting case because the rules and living environments are very comparable there for men and women. So okay, I will give you one year that is probably due to biological reasons. Then we have still a “Life gap” of four years in western societies. Imagine please, just for one moment, how outraged you and most feminists would be if this gap were to the disadvantage of women, not men. And then tell me again that you truly are an advocate of equality…

[Guest Raids]

However, we should also not forget that Homemakers have a better psychological well-being than unemployed persons.

J, I'm a little frustrated, I have to be honest. This is pretty much exactly what I said. That it would be great for everyone if some of the unemployed men on the labor market instead felt comfortable becoming homemakers and identifying as such. This goes for the rest of what you wrote that I'm leaving unquoted also. If you looked back to what I have posted on the Board in the past, shoring up disadvantages for men has been my main focus for years now. But what I'm saying is that it is true that to some extent it is a means to a different end. And I can see how that could be problematic.

(Regarding life expectancy, taking the results of your study to be true, I'd guess that we are looking at the health effects of stress vis a vis being the primary earner and just all the accumulated stress that goes with having a serious career, which I would be the first to agree, can be a LOT.)

...you get significantly better grades for the essays supposedly written by girls compared to boys. That was the finding of a recent study here. Clear case of sexism if you ask me. Males are perceived as deficient, deviant and generally problematic in our Society, even when they are still children.

This I have an issue with though. Not the study, but your broad conclusion. And yet, you get opposite results in the same sort of studies on job applications, in the hard sciences, and orchestra auditions. So I don't think it's about perceptions of deviant and problematic behavior - it's just this idea that girls are better-organized and better at writing coming through. You know, the whole "girls are verbal/boys are spatial" thing.

I don't really mind Morgan's thesis in Black Man about our fear of male deviance - that really made sense to me, actually - but your generalization of it to include the entire male sex doesn't wash for me.

[MinDonner]

The thing that bugs me about the "men do more dangerous jobs" argument is that it's rarely used in any productive sense, other than as a sort of Gotcha. Is anyone suggesting any solutions to this, such as encouraging women to take up these careers as well to even things out a bit? Cos otherwise it just sounds a bit like whining about something irrelevant, in order to justify different injustices elsewhere.

Anyway, what about prostitution? That's gotta be at least as dangerous as what most of these men are doing, but tends not to get much of a mention in comparative job-risk analyses.

[Guest Raids]

It just reminds me of North Country. I mean, nobody's really forcing these men to take these dangerous jobs. They could work as bussers in a restaurant instead. But the more dangerous jobs pay a liveable wage. Which is precisely the reason that women would also like to be considered for them.

[Jaerv]

If you looked back to what I have posted on the Board in the past, shoring up disadvantages for men has been my main focus for years now.

I did not recognize this, I am obviously not often enough here, but I appreciate that you take this stance, which is probably a difficult minority position on this board…

This I have an issue with though. Not the study, but your broad conclusion. And yet, you get opposite results in the same sort of studies on job applications, in the hard sciences, and orchestra auditions. So I don't think it's about perceptions of deviant and problematic behavior - it's just this idea that girls are better-organized and better at writing coming through. You know, the whole "girls are verbal/boys are spatial" thing.

I don't really mind Morgan's thesis in Black Man about our fear of male deviance - that really made sense to me, actually - but your generalization of it to include the entire male sex doesn't wash for me.

I agree that the conclusion is probably too broad to base it on this single study. Nevertheless, It simply is my impression that males, and not only black males, are increasingly perceived as a problem/danger/nuisance. If I had more time I would search for data pertaining to this question, but sadly, I have not.. <_<

However, yours and Min's points concerning working conditions disappoint me a bit. So now you two try to construe working in a bureau, which women do more often than men, as a disadvantage? Interesting logic...

[MinDonner]

However, yours and Min's points concerning working conditions disappoint me a bit. So now you two try to construe working in a bureau, which women do more often than men, as a disadvantage? Interesting logic...

what

You're going to have to be a bit clearer about your position here. Cos it looks like you're stating that, because some men have dangerous jobs, all women have some nebulous advantage (and so, what, shouldn't complain about their lower rates of pay?), and that fighting for equal representation in these jobs is "disappointing". Speaking of dubious logic. Now, if you want to advocate for better safety standards for men, then by all means do so, but I really can't see how it has any bearing on the discussion.

[Guest Raids]

However, yours and Min's points concerning working conditions disappoint me a bit. So now you two try to construe working in a bureau, which women do more often than men, as a disadvantage? Interesting logic...

No I am construing working as a waitress at a diner as being less advantageous than working in a factory.

It's all pretty academic now, as men can't get those jobs anymore either.

FYI, the 20 most dangerous jobs in America (and it's probably comparable elsewhere) are:

(1) Fisherman (far and away the most dangerous, at 200 fatalities for every 100,000 workers per year)

(2) Logger (61.8 fatalities per 100,000 workers)

(3) Aircraft pilot

(4) Farmers and ranchers

(5) Roofers

(6) Structural iron and steel workers

(7) Refuse and recyclable material collectors

(8) Industrial machinery installation, repair, and maitenance workers

(9) Driver/sales workers and truck drivers

(10) Construction laborers

None of these jobs require a college degree, whereas a clerical job, these days, really does.

What would you guess that most women without college degrees do?

[Masonity]

You are missing my point. While I believe that tackling India's homelessness and immunizations is worthwhile, this is not about state issues in particular. This is about Raab blaming the feminist movement, which brought the “equality and diversity agenda” that he deemed obsolete, for the wrongs. Did I expect him to push third world governments to improve the lives of women there? No, how could he? But I expected a more enlightened viewpoint from him, considering that this is a published piece. (Hah, maybe I expected too much). People who think that feminism is over just because some women have become arseholes and/or getting better pay are myopic and parochial. The thought that feminism is over and done on account of wage, career, etc., is also dangerous because it is a hindrance to the feminist movement, which I think is still evolving.

There's the difference. You are viewing him as a public speaker, a philosophiser, looking at the whole of the issue. I am viewing him as a politician, trying to sell himself and his party to his constituents, and to the country as a whole.

As for a danger to the feminist movement, it IS best that it dies, being replaced by a bi-gender, cross race, cross faith and cross sexuality push for equality. I would say that the days of feminists, gay rights and racial right campaigners is over. I'd say that they have good points, but also act as a magnet to a small minority of people who don't care about equality, but rather want to become the favoured class. A single "Equality" push is what's needed, encompassing everyone and leaving no gap for one group or another to try to exploit. It shouldn't be feminists striking out at Andy Gray's comments. It shouldn't be gay right groups striking out about the B&B owner who wouldn't let a gay couple stay in his B&B. It should be all of us. Men or women, gay, straight or bi, black, white, yellow blue or purple. "Equality" should be the goal, not "equality for my group".

The thing that bugs me about the "men do more dangerous jobs" argument is that it's rarely used in any productive sense, other than as a sort of Gotcha. Is anyone suggesting any solutions to this, such as encouraging women to take up these careers as well to even things out a bit? Cos otherwise it just sounds a bit like whining about something irrelevant, in order to justify different injustices elsewhere.

Anyway, what about prostitution? That's gotta be at least as dangerous as what most of these men are doing, but tends not to get much of a mention in comparative job-risk analyses.

But then, if women are more likely to be prostitutes, men are more likely to be drug dealers, a job that may even be more dangerous! Ultimately in countries where it is criminal, and the risks are mostly related to that fact, it just fall under "life of crime", which sucks and is dangerous for either sex.

In countries where prostitution is legalised, the dangers are pretty small. Protection from STDs would be compulsory, protection from violent customers would probably be faster responding than for, say, a cleaner doing a private apartment, and the threat of violence from one's employer would be all but non-existent. Yeah, we really need to legalise. Think of the tax money alone that it'd raise!

[Chaldanya]

In countries where prostitution is legalised, the dangers are pretty small.

Not to get all opression Olympics here but I would think that being raped/sexually assauted is quite a big danger...

N

[Lyanna Stark]

First “Discussed above” does not mean that these points have been invalidated.

I completely agree with your last statement that if the world was a more equal place, men would likely live longer. The point of my post was that Raidne argued that feminists can justify to call themselves advocates of equality and, at the same time, act solely as a pressure group for women, because, all in all men are still in a privileged position compared to women. At least this is my understanting of her post. This is the point I disagree with and I cited a few examples of disadvantages for men that are usually completely ignored by feminists although they are not peanunts IMHO. All in all, it is quite unclear in my eyes who is better off in contemporary developed societies at the moment, women or men.

How do you know these are things ignored by feminists? I am a feminist and I am wildly in favour of men getting more paternity leave, that male domestic violence cases get looked at far more seriously than they are now, etc etc ad infinitum.

You are creating an enemy out of feminists which isn't there, just like Mr Raab. The people who disagree with these things are not very likely to be feminists, they are likely to be very socially conservative.

Concerning the difference in life expectancy: The gap has shrunken since the last time I checked and is now five years instead of six according to wiki. Good news and thanks for alerting me to that. However, the picture you try to paint is a bit one-sided IMHO. Another relevant reason for the gap between the sexes is that our societies regularly use males to do the dirty, dangerous and poisonous jobs, for example. Deaths due to work accidents are higher for men compared to women. We should also not forget that women have easy access to doctors who are experts for the specific ailments of their sex. Comparable specialists for the health problems of men are much more seldom (at least in my country).

edited for spelling

"Our society" uses? You mean our patriarchal society? Again, you are fighting the wrong thing by targeting feminists as the ones to blame.

Direct your righteous anger at the target it ought to fight instead. Hint: it's not the feminists.

Regarding gender and health, it seems the UN disagrees with you: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/integrate.htm

A quick google search will give you more info that there are inequalities for both men and women in health care, but will also inform you that historically, the large majority of inequality certainly hasn't favoured women.

I know for certain there has been a lot of discussions in Sweden during the last two decades about how to treat women's heart disease as it differs in symptoms from men's, yet previously, the research was done almost solely on men, making it harder to quickly diagnose and help female patients.

Imagine please, just for one moment, how outraged you and most feminists would be if this gap were to the disadvantage of women, not men. And then tell me again that you truly are an advocate of equality…

Are you serious?? Really?

Why are you so angry at feminists? Have you been beaten up by a band of anarcho-feminists or something? You are soooooo angry and you just flail and direct all your completely misguided anger at feminists. Why? You blame everything from earlier deaths to longer work hours on Feminists, although as pointed out loads of times, feminists have nothing to do with that. I can't fathom why on earth you think they do. The leap in logic is completely astounding.

As already pointed out: feminists aren't gleefully partying because men die younger. I have no idea where you get this from. Nor that feminists automatically think it's great that women live longer. It's total 100% strawman.

ll in all, it is quite unclear in my eyes who is better off in contemporary developed societies at the moment, women or men.

This has to be a joke, right?

Masonity:

In countries where prostitution is legalised, the dangers are pretty small. Protection from STDs would be compulsory, protection from violent customers would probably be faster responding than for, say, a cleaner doing a private apartment, and the threat of violence from one's employer would be all but non-existent. Yeah, we really need to legalise. Think of the tax money alone that it'd raise!

Really? You know this how?

Also; as to legalising prostitution, if you are in favour, I guess you won't mind if your wife, your mum and your daughters become prostitutes? It's only a job after all. And think of the tax revenue!!

[TerraPrime]

Re: Nas

Are we certain that this guy isn't being ironic?

You obviously forgot what Jaerv's track record is on these issues.

Re: Jaerv

The point of my post was that Raidne argued that feminists can justify to call themselves advocates of equality and, at the same time, act solely as a pressure group for women, because, all in all men are still in a privileged position compared to women. At least this is my understanting of her post. This is the point I disagree with and I cited a few examples of disadvantages for men that are usually completely ignored by feminists although they are not peanunts IMHO.

Indeed you cited a few examples. But that hardly constitutes an argument, or even, proof.

To wit: People who are blind congenitally tend to have heightened tactile response. If we use your logic, then we must now throw into question whether someone who has full eyesight really has an advantage over those who don't.

The fallacy you fell into here is that you presume that men, as a group, cannot be in privileged position, when compared to women as a group, if women have some advantages that men don't. It's no different than citing the relative lack of men in the pre-K education as evidence that women do not suffer negative consequences at the workplace.

All in all, it is quite unclear in my eyes who is better off in contemporary developed societies at the moment, women or men.

Ok then.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

As for a danger to the feminist movement, it IS best that it dies, being replaced by a bi-gender, cross race, cross faith and cross sexuality push for equality. I would say that the days of feminists, gay rights and racial right campaigners is over. I'd say that they have good points, but also act as a magnet to a small minority of people who don't care about equality, but rather want to become the favoured class. A single "Equality" push is what's needed, encompassing everyone and leaving no gap for one group or another to try to exploit. It shouldn't be feminists striking out at Andy Gray's comments. It shouldn't be gay right groups striking out about the B&B owner who wouldn't let a gay couple stay in his B&B. It should be all of us. Men or women, gay, straight or bi, black, white, yellow blue or purple. "Equality" should be the goal, not "equality for my group".

This right here makes me think that you are a white, straight, cisgendered, *middle-class male. The way society treats me, a white, cisgendered, *middle-class woman, is very different from the way it treats a black, transgendered, queer woman. (Or a gay man, or a black man, or anyone who is a member of at least one non-privileged class.) If we have to find one single focus in order to get all of us treated as equal to white, straight, cisgendered men, it's going to be even more difficult than it is now.

Seriously? Purple people? Seriously?

[Eyelesbarrow]

There's the difference. You are viewing him as a public speaker, a philosophiser, looking at the whole of the issue. I am viewing him as a politician, trying to sell himself and his party to his constituents, and to the country as a whole.

Doesn't make any difference to me if he's a public speaker, philosophiser (!), or politician or whether or not you listen to him or what you think of him. What came out of his mouth was generalized bullshit and it's out there.

[Lummel]

I'm at a loss over the workplace as more dangerous for men arguement. Surely that's relevent to arguing for greater health and safety in the workplace and has nothing to do with discrimination - unless you happen to believe that women are given protective equipment or better H&S training then men.

I don't think there is anything new in the view that girls are quiet, attentive and made of sugar and spice in the classroom while boys are rowdy, disruptive and snot stained, yet despite this as men we go on to, on average, earn more which I feel rather takes the sting out of being marked down in early years education.

If anybody is interested Mr Raab has restated his opinions in the Telegraph, this time in a grammaticaly coherant manner.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8281812/Are-men-victims-of-obnoxious-feminism.html

[Blaine]

Seriously? Purple people? Seriously?

I really need to write a blog post called "Annoying things people do in internet arguments Part 7: Linking to a blog post as if it's some sort of authority on everything"

Then I'm going to link to it when ever feminism is discussed.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Concerning the difference in life expectancy: The gap has shrunken since the last time I checked and is now five years instead of six according to wiki. Good news and thanks for alerting me to that. However, the picture you try to paint is a bit one-sided IMHO. Another relevant reason for the gap between the sexes is that our societies regularly use males to do the dirty, dangerous and poisonous jobs, for example.

Our society does expect men to do dangerous jobs. But is this the fault of feminists? It is transparently obvious that the opposite is true.

1) A woman who applied for most dangerous jobs would be laughed at so hard the guffaws would be ringing in her ears for days. This is not feminism. This is the opposite of feminism. Feminism says that all jobs should be available to all genders.

2) Women and men are culturally conditioned to think of certain jobs as off-limits for their sex. So you get more female nurses, and more male construction workers. Male nurses are made a figure of fun - think of Rory in Doctor Who - and it is not the feminists who are doing this, it is the proponents of traditional gender roles. Feminists would be in favour of more male nurses and more female construction workers, not the opposite. You absolutely cannot blame feminists for people who hold the opposite opinion to them.

[Lord of Oop North]

To hell with purple people. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I really need to write a blog post called "Annoying things people do in internet arguments Part 7: Linking to a blog post as if it's some sort of authority on everything"

Then I'm going to link to it when ever feminism is discussed.

I never said it was an authority. On the other hand, it does raise some points that are eminently appilcable. Of course, you could also just start with "Annoying things people do in internet arguments Part 1: dismiss the concern because they don't see how it affects them or anyone around them"

Or, you know, since the discussions about feminism seem to (and the arguments about feminism definitely seem to) irritate the hell out of you, how about you just don't hit the fucking reply button? Or do you think we really need to hear every single time how little you think of us and these sources?