homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The ugly reality of misandry (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The ugly reality of misandry
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This video says it all.

Discuss.

(Yes, and even the spellchecker for this site doesn't recognise the word misandry!)

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, as orfeo pointed out in Hell that video glosses over the property inequities that distorted the voting rights and I went on to say that the video also ignores all the pay and employment inequities, educational chances for women within that period and a whole lot more.

Yes, there are some sexist aspects to our cultural and legal systems that are enshrined in law and act to the detriment of men and some that act to the detriment of women. I'm not sure that pointing out just those that affect one gender is any less sexist than refusing to acknowledge that society is inequitable

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What a load of crap. Full of illogic and unsupported accusations. It's "hard to know it's happening" because it's not.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nope, not seeing it at all. I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I've been treated less favourably for being a man, and certainly not as a result of "misandry". It's bullshit. The characterisation of paedophiles and rapists as male is actually a by-product of misogyny - part of the assumption that women are passive, do not have desires for sex or control and are less morally independent.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And all the stuff about "soldiers" dying, not men, and "craftspeople" working, not craftsmen, ignores the fact that women serve in the military and work in formerly all-male trades and professions. We say "firefighters" because some of them are women.

Moreover, just because someone has pieced together a bunch of clips doesn't make this an argument about language and society -- if he wants to do some real research, then maybe we'd pay attention. But I'm afraid that research wouldn't support his claim in the way he'd want it to.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a different video, CK. Not that I think this one is much of an improvement. The news clips part is laughably bad. I could quite happily pick an entirely different set of news clips to 'prove' the exact opposite point.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops, my bad. Couldn't face watching it again, so didn't click.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the crack about "craftsmen" follows a shot with a person with tied back hair who could quite reasonably be female. A tad of misogyny assuming that because they're wearing hard hats and fluorescent jackets they can't possibly be women?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And anothing thing ... lumping "women and children" together as victims infantilizes women and reflects their general perceived or real lack of power in many situations -- it's misogyny, not misandry.

Finally -- at least for the moment -- the one thing I would grant is that we do seem to undervalue men's lives in certain ways. All the discussion about women in combat talking about whether people are ready to have their daughters come home in body bags to me says that we as a people are all too ready to see sons come home in body bags (though I think no one is ever ready to see their own child that way). At the same time, I think this shows how "man" is still the default setting for "human being" -- we say that people are killed when we mean men, because by "people" we mean "men" a lot of the time, and we say "women and children" because women and children are special cases, exceptions, peculiar and particular representations of humanity, not Humanity or Mankind as usually understood.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The nice pictures of people working on the railway line - my daughter is a mechanical engineer and works in that environment - mostly in the office designing but she has the full track orange hi-vis walking gear because she walks it fairly regularly.

The statistics on rape - best we can do with the under-reporting 91% of rape convictions are rapes of women, 9% are rapes of men.

Child abuse - that one has been under-reported too - but the figures now are suggesting 20% of paedophiles are women and that one really does hit the headlines when a woman is convicted.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The thing is misandry is real. It's just so much less significant that misogyny.

And yes that film is a piece of tacky, and very limited propaganda.

As I said on the Male Feminist thread it is a simple fact that women are far more often the victim of sexism than men for lots of historical and cultural reasons.

That in and of itself is no defence for sexism against men of course but it does sound like special pleading (not to mention pathetic or worse hypocritical) to hear men whine about how hard it is to be a man because of the evil feminists.

Let's start with this then:
quote:
Saul of Tarsus (famous for being anti-women...):
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Just a thought.

AFZ

[ 29. August 2013, 19:25: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Although I don't altogether agree with his viewpoint, Yorick was right to point out in hell that indoctrination of children is a form of abuse. Therefore it is wrong - and a form of child abuse - to indoctrinate children with sexist ideas. One only needs to look at the way men are often portrayed in the media and in advertising. A good example is a sitcom like The Simpsons. Homer is a bumbling and irresponsible fool, whereas Marge is mature and sensible. Even the children don't escape the vicious stereotyping. Bart is often nasty and stupid, whereas Lisa is so gifted, responsible and courageous.

It's the drip drip drip effect of subliminal ideas that poisons children's minds by a process of reinforcement. But, of course, it's all justified on the basis of the ethics of revenge: "you once victimised us, therefore we need to rebalance society by victimising you - or rather your children". So anti-Christian, so deluded and so ultimately futile.

[ 29. August 2013, 19:33: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
At the same time, I think this shows how "man" is still the default setting for "human being" -- we say that people are killed when we mean men, because by "people" we mean "men" a lot of the time, and we say "women and children" because women and children are special cases, exceptions, peculiar and particular representations of humanity, not Humanity or Mankind as usually understood.

Oh, tosh. It simply tells us that it is men whom we expect to get killed in war situations. Because they still make up the vast majority of combatants in all wars, including those wars fought by the few nations that do allow women in frontline combat. Furthermore, from old chivalry to modern humanism, there is an expectation that one affords at least some level of protection to non-combatants of the enemy. And "women and children" is code for that, largely because it remains an accurate description for the majority of such non-combatants, at least in large conflicts. Where big groups of mostly (or often exclusively) men clash in war, talking about the killing of "women and children" basically indicates that some of the combatants have started to indiscriminately kill all of their enemy.

[ 29. August 2013, 19:37: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog
That in and of itself is no defence for sexism against men of course but it does sound like special pleading (not to mention pathetic or worse hypocritical) to hear men whine about how hard it is to be a man because of the evil feminists.

What is actually pathetic and childish is the inability to respect people as individuals, and to refrain from stereotyping.

But one theme comes up again and again on this site when discussing sexism and racism, and this is the seeming inability of those who feel they are standing up for the 'victims' to refrain from stereotyping their supposed oppressors. It's all "whites are racist, men are sexist, middle aged white men are bigots" and so on. And if these "white middle aged men" DARE to complain about hypocrisy, they are then dismissed as pathetic whingers.

So crass it's unbelievable.

[brick wall]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Homer is a bumbling and irresponsible fool, whereas Marge is mature and sensible. Even the children don't escape the vicious stereotyping. Bart is often nasty and stupid, whereas Lisa is so gifted, responsible and courageous.

WHo has the bigger fan base, Bart or Lisa?

And those degrading stereotypes of men hide privilege-- Homer can't handle the most basic of fatherly tasks, so it is up to Marge to manage the kids, the house, and him "because she is so superior." Bart gets to do all the daring, adventurous, attention-getting stuff while Lisa's role is to constantly piss on his parade-- "because she is so wise and sensible." The compliments are not really compliments-- they are designations of duty.

Oh,and by the way, all those degrading stereotypes were crafted by a man. A man created this premise:"You can't hope to be adequate at even the most basic aspect of contributing to the smooth running of a household, so it's better if you just drink beer and watch sports all day. People won't judge you; in fact you can spend the bulk of your life doing that and, if you throw in a heart-to-heart with the kid of your choice once a month people will talk about what a wonderful father you are."

I agree, the stereotypes of Homer and Bart are hugely sexist, but why are guys not picketing Matt Groening over it?

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's what happens when we don't acknowledge our privilege and lay it down.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
One only needs to look at the way men are often portrayed in the media and in advertising. A good example is a sitcom like The Simpsons. Homer is a bumbling and irresponsible fool, whereas Marge is mature and sensible. Even the children don't escape the vicious stereotyping. Bart is often nasty and stupid, whereas Lisa is so gifted, responsible and courageous.

Sorry, but your example of male oppression is that most comedies have male leads? The "bumbling and irresponsible fool" (or the "nasty and stupid" one) is the character getting the most laugh lines. That's the nature of comedy and has been well know since Aristotle, who famously (though not famously enough apparently) observed that the distinguishing feature of comedy is that it portrays characters who are worse than normal.

At any rate, I'm not going to cry a river over how men are always "oppressed" by getting the lead roles in comedy, though it should be noted that "Bart Simpson" is actually a woman.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aravis
Shipmate
# 13824

 - Posted      Profile for Aravis   Email Aravis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I get the impression that in the past ten years, misogyny has become much less socially acceptable in the "middle classes" (potential tangent alert!) and misandry has taken its place, with some vague and unfounded sense that this is redressing the balance. It can get nasty. I was recently asked to give evidence at an employment tribunal in a case of workplace bullying where there was obvious misandry (the case was settled out of court, to my great relief).

However, further down or further up the social scale, misogyny is still alive and well.

Both appal me and I find it very difficult to understand the mentality behind either attitude.

Posts: 689 | From: S Wales | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
At the same time, I think this shows how "man" is still the default setting for "human being" -- we say that people are killed when we mean men, because by "people" we mean "men" a lot of the time, and we say "women and children" because women and children are special cases, exceptions, peculiar and particular representations of humanity, not Humanity or Mankind as usually understood.

Oh, tosh. It simply tells us that it is men whom we expect to get killed in war situations. Because they still make up the vast majority of combatants in all wars, including those wars fought by the few nations that do allow women in frontline combat. Furthermore, from old chivalry to modern humanism, there is an expectation that one affords at least some level of protection to non-combatants of the enemy. And "women and children" is code for that, largely because it remains an accurate description for the majority of such non-combatants, at least in large conflicts. Where big groups of mostly (or often exclusively) men clash in war, talking about the killing of "women and children" basically indicates that some of the combatants have started to indiscriminately kill all of their enemy.
English has a tendency to throw up autohyponyms. Which is to say when we have a class of words, we tend to use one of them for the generic usage as well as its specific usage. If I say "where's your house?", I'm really just asking where you live. You may well live in a cellar/castle/apartment etc. House has taken on a generic meaning.

It may well be that you are indicating how that comes about. The potential negative issue with it in the case of "man" is well-discussed. "Woman" is the marked form, "man" the unmarked. A similar thing is going on here, which I think was more RuthW's point. Linguists use the word "marked" for more than just words that have just received an extra syllable etc. as a mark.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
"Woman" is the marked form, "man" the unmarked. A similar thing is going on here, which I think was more RuthW's point. Linguists use the word "marked" for more than just words that have just received an extra syllable etc. as a mark.

Yes, thanks, that's a better way to put it.

IngoB, you're quite right in what you say about whom we expect to see as combatants -- which is why I said what I did about undervaluing men's lives. Being the default setting for humanity has both upsides and downsides for men. In the case of war, it depends on how you view war. As a pacifist, I will say again that I think we as a people are far too ready to see our sons come home in body bags. But many people see serving one's country in military uniform as a high honor and privilege, and it's one that has traditionally been reserved for men. We are still arguing about whether women should have the (to me dubious) honor of serving in combat.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Homer is a bumbling and irresponsible fool, whereas Marge is mature and sensible. Even the children don't escape the vicious stereotyping. Bart is often nasty and stupid, whereas Lisa is so gifted, responsible and courageous.

Actually Marge is nagging, neurotic, and overbearing, while Lisa is irritatingly goody-goody, socially inept, and naive. (Even Maggie is a vicious attempted-murderer). In comedy women are presented in unflattering terms just as much as men. For the simple reason that perfect, well-adjusted people aren't funny.

Your analysis of popular culture betrays your simplistic, preconceived prejudices I'm afraid, and your firmly attached blinkers to anything that doesn't support them.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The great irony is that the video wheels out all these examples of a generic term being used where a man is involved, and complains that this means men doesn't exist, when it actually means that people can be relied on to assume a man is meant. That's sexist, but not in the way the video intends!

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The "bumbling and irresponsible fool" (or the "nasty and stupid" one) is the character getting the most laugh lines.

I thought of that later. Yeah, that, too. The dignified, sensible ones are the "straight men/ women." And who wants that role?

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712

 - Posted      Profile for PaulBC         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I could only tolerate about 90 seconds of this
video. Sounds a bit silly to me

--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8

Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717

 - Posted      Profile for Plique-à-jour     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lol

--------------------
-

-

Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB, you're quite right in what you say about whom we expect to see as combatants -- which is why I said what I did about undervaluing men's lives. Being the default setting for humanity has both upsides and downsides for men. In the case of war, it depends on how you view war. As a pacifist, I will say again that I think we as a people are far too ready to see our sons come home in body bags. But many people see serving one's country in military uniform as a high honor and privilege, and it's one that has traditionally been reserved for men. We are still arguing about whether women should have the (to me dubious) honor of serving in combat.

I'm not a big fan of the military. However, I do not see there a general "undervaluing of men's lives". An officer in the army certainly has ample opportunity for doing that in a tactical sense, but I do not think that it is right to attribute this to the military as such. The high honour and privilege of serving in military uniform, and on top of that the particular honour given those serving in combat, exactly provide the "valuing" of soldiers' lives. Part of the salary package of soldiering is gaining social esteem. Where soldiers sign up voluntarily, rather than being drafted, we know that this package is better than other options in men's (and these days women's) minds.

As for the question whether it is right and just for women to have access to the same deal, I think this boils down to a more fundamental question. Are the sexes good for something, are they aimed at general purposes (even with lots of individual variation), or are they accidental like hair colour and at most provide annoying practical restrictions to the individual will. The question had to wait in the military till technology had largely removed the impact of physical differences between the sexes. An all female phalanx would have lost 9 times out of 10 against an all male one, but an all female squad with modern firearms has a basically equal chance against an all male squad with modern firearms, at least in ranged combat (which is now the much preferred type of combat). I assume there are considerable issues with both logistics and maintaining discipline in switching to a mixed sex army. But apart from these, the discussion of women in combat is mostly interesting for the conflict between modern ideals of equality and near instinctive evaluations of what is proper to the sexes.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318

 - Posted      Profile for kankucho   Author's homepage   Email kankucho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A [Devil] part of me hopes this video goes viral. He's going to feel a right Charlie* in a few years time when he realises his C-minus graded fourth-form sociology essay is immortalised for all time on the internet.

(*Oo-er. Bit o' misandry there, ladies 'n' gennerman, yes indeed!)

--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues

Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for the question whether it is right and just for women to have access to the same deal, I think this boils down to a more fundamental question. Are the sexes good for something, are they aimed at general purposes (even with lots of individual variation), or are they accidental like hair colour and at most provide annoying practical restrictions to the individual will.

In regards to military service we're not talking about "general purposes", but rather a very specific purpose. In other words, the question becomes if there's something inherent in women that makes them unsuitable (or at least less suitable than the vast majority of men) to pilot an F-16 or repair a tank. (Modern warfare requires about eight to ten support personnel for every front-line combatant.)

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
A [Devil] part of me hopes this video goes viral. He's going to feel a right Charlie* in a few years time when he realises his C-minus graded fourth-form sociology essay is immortalised for all time on the internet.

(*Oo-er. Bit o' misandry there, ladies 'n' gennerman, yes indeed!)

It's only misandry if you despise him for being male, not if you despise him for being analytically incompetent.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In regards to military service we're not talking about "general purposes", but rather a very specific purpose. In other words, the question becomes if there's something inherent in women that makes them unsuitable (or at least less suitable than the vast majority of men) to pilot an F-16 or repair a tank. (Modern warfare requires about eight to ten support personnel for every front-line combatant.)

Nope, that's not the fundamental question. That's simply a practically significant but conceptually shallow question about abilities, which is inevitably being asked only once the question I've pointed out has been answered. If we say that war is a thing that only men should do, then it becomes entirely irrelevant whether women could perform some or even all of the tasks that warring men have to do. Your question is already operating on the assumption that there are no such general themes to the sexes. In which case we basically consider people as sexless when assigning them to tasks, and merely ask whether they are "up to the job". We may be forced by biological realities to acknowledge that certain jobs will continue to be male-dominated, say because they require a lot of upper body strength. But that is then not a sign for anything, but simply a statistical "brute fact", a mere accidental correlation of some characteristic with sex that has no further relevance other than that it exists. If you happen to be a woman with massive upper body strength, then the fact that most women cannot do this job means nothing concerning whether you should get this job. It's not a man's job, it's an "upper body strength" job.

My point was that concerning soldiering, we see the final holdout of the old "this is a man's job, this is a woman's job" thinking against modern "this is a job for whoever can do it" thinking. People still feel queasy when thinking of a woman firing a machine gun to kill enemy soldiers, and not because they think that the woman would miss a lot. Whether they are right or wrong in feeling that is a different question. I'm just pointing out that I think that this is what is happening there.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not just in the military though where men are the default. Surely, IngoB, you hear people say things like "It was me and two other people on the train car and then this woman came on..." The other two people of course turn out to be men. And that's an anecdote, but I hear that kind of thing all the time, and say it sometimes too, I'm sure. Anyone who disagrees that men are the default, I challenge you to listen for a day to the way people around you talk.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point was that concerning soldiering, we see the final holdout of the old "this is a man's job, this is a woman's job" thinking against modern "this is a job for whoever can do it" thinking. People still feel queasy when thinking of a woman firing a machine gun to kill enemy soldiers, and not because they think that the woman would miss a lot. Whether they are right or wrong in feeling that is a different question.

As blogger Fred Clark pointed out on a similar subject, assuming that personal distaste or a queasy feeling is a sufficient argument is a mistake.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not a big fan of the military. However, I do not see there a general "undervaluing of men's lives". An officer in the army certainly has ample opportunity for doing that in a tactical sense, but I do not think that it is right to attribute this to the military as such.

I didn't mean that within the military men's lives are undervalued. I meant that in our society as a whole men's lives are sometimes undervalued, and that we are willing to sacrifice men's lives in combat is one example of that. Dangerous work is still generally seen as men's work, though of course more women are doing some of those jobs.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Dangerous work is still generally seen as men's work, though of course more women are doing some of those jobs.

Do we have any ideas as to how this came about?

I'm certainly aware that there's been a history, when women express an interest in dangerous or tough work, of looking at them with a degree of puzzlement and asking "why would you want to do that?" Basically it gets suggested to a woman that she ought to be pleased that she's 'protected' from such work.

But one could ask the exact same question of a man: what is it that motivates you to undertake something you know to be dangerous? But a man doesn't tend to be asked to justify whatever motivational drivers lead him to decide that he wants the job in spite of the danger.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It's not just in the military though where men are the default. Surely, IngoB, you hear people say things like "It was me and two other people on the train car and then this woman came on..." The other two people of course turn out to be men. And that's an anecdote, but I hear that kind of thing all the time, and say it sometimes too, I'm sure. Anyone who disagrees that men are the default, I challenge you to listen for a day to the way people around you talk.

There's the old brain teaser:

A man and his son are in a car accident. The father dies and the son is rushed to the hospital. The boy is wheeled into the operating room. The surgeon walks in and says "I can't operate on this child, he's my son." How is this possible?


The answer being of course that the surgeon is the child's mother. At least there's hope for the future!

http://patients.about.com/b/2010/09/12/riddle-me-this-who-is-the-surgeon.htm

quote:
It was posed again recently by the producers at Good Morning America. A group of adults were asked - the general public - people on the streets of New York - and the great majority could not come up with the right answer.

But then the producers asked a group of fifth graders from a school in NYC - and the majority of them got it right.


Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It's not just in the military though where men are the default. Surely, IngoB, you hear people say things like "It was me and two other people on the train car and then this woman came on..." The other two people of course turn out to be men. And that's an anecdote, but I hear that kind of thing all the time, and say it sometimes too, I'm sure. Anyone who disagrees that men are the default, I challenge you to listen for a day to the way people around you talk.

The plural of anecdote is not data, whether in YouTube videos or in SoF posts. Furthermore, in the particular example given I would say "people" actually acts as a mask for sex. Let me write the statement with sex:
  1. It was me and two other men on the train car and then this woman came on...
  2. It was me and two other women on the train car and then this woman came on...
In both cases, I would expect that the sex of the other people in the train car has been flagged for me because it will be important in what comes next. That is to say, if the speaker continues either 1. or 2. with the following
  • ... and she was talking to someone on her mobile. I say "talking", I mean "screaming". And this was the quiet coach. After a few minutes I couldn't stand it any longer...
Then I would be wondering at least a little why he (1) or she (2) had bothered to mentioned the sex of the other people in the coach. Whereas if the speaker had continued in the following matching fashion
  1. ... and she started looking us over, one after the other. It was really quite obvious. I guess she fancied the guy next to me most, because she leaned over to him ...
  2. ... and she said something like "Isn't this nice, just us girls together." as if we were her best friends instead of total strangers. She then started talking about ...
then it would make total sense to mention the sex of the other occupants.

I think language is rarely "neutral", it always operates on prior expectations. If I say
  1. 300 people attended the yoga seminar.
  2. 500 people visited the school fair.
  3. 200 people clashed violently with police.
then what would you say were the compositions of "people" in this? I would say more women than men and few if any children in 1., about equal proportions of men, women and children in 2. (perhaps more children, perhaps slightly more women), and mostly men in 3. with perhaps some women but no children. Nevertheless, it's always the same word "people".

And often this lack of neutrality is more subtle. For example, if I say "Suddenly I saw two people running towards me!" then who is that? Well, the statement as such (without wider context) for me triggers the "fight or flight" category. Sudden incoming motion is potentially dangerous, in particular if exclaimed. And because of that, I would expect you are probably talking about men. Because two children running towards me are not dangerous, and two women running towards me are (on average) less dangerous.

So basically, I don't buy simplistic language usage stats, whether they try to prove or disprove misandry/misogyny. Language is gloriously complicated.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Dangerous work is still generally seen as men's work, though of course more women are doing some of those jobs.

Do we have any ideas as to how this came about?

Historically, I can hazard a guess. In times when maternal mortality was sky high the rich and powerful, even on a relative scale within a village, might lose a wife before producing an heir, or at least reaching the point where they're not bothered about sex anymore. Greater wealth will make it easier to secure a bride. Unless some way is found to equalise the mortality rates for men and women, you have a whole load of surplus men knocking around. Count this double if the society allows polygamy. War, risky hunting, dangerous sports etc. give an opportunity to eliminate men and reduce the risk of social unrest resulting from men not being able to find a wife.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Dangerous work is still generally seen as men's work, though of course more women are doing some of those jobs.

Do we have any ideas as to how this came about?
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. For example, dangerous sweatshops will often preferentially recruit women. (e.g. virtually all the casualties from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire were women) I think it's more accurate to say that the dangers inherent in certain male-dominated professions have been glamorized to a degree that they're now seen as an attractive part of the job.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Looking at deaths on the job in the U.S., it looks like on page 8 that 92% of the people who died on the job were men though that's somewhat offset when you look at hours worked. (Though I don't think one should take into account hours worked since women who work at home with the children don't even count in those numbers. It's not like very many people of either gender are just sitting around.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Dangerous work is still generally seen as men's work, though of course more women are doing some of those jobs.

Do we have any ideas as to how this came about?
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. For example, dangerous sweatshops will often preferentially recruit women. (e.g. virtually all the casualties from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire were women) I think it's more accurate to say that the dangers inherent in certain male-dominated professions have been glamorized to a degree that they're now seen as an attractive part of the job.
Sorry, I think you're confusing working conditions maintained by particularly heinous employers with inherent dangers of a job. There's nothing about sewing clothes that screams 'dangerous profession' to me other than when a particular employer decides that the sewing ought to be conducted in a building of inferior quality.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I meant that in our society as a whole men's lives are sometimes undervalued, and that we are willing to sacrifice men's lives in combat is one example of that.

Yes, I understood that. And I have disagreed with this suggestion. I do not think that men being sent to the battlefield is in general an undervaluing of their lives. It can be, but in fact in places with strong military traditions it usually isn't. Rather, the massive ado about soldiers, alive, veteran or dead, is precisely that valuing of their lives. If you are an electrician, grab the wrong wire and fry to death, then there will be no parade, no flag on your coffin, no gun salute and certainly not a national news report. As far as anyone but your loved ones is concerned, that's strictly "shit happens". It is different for soldiers, and that's part of the deal that they get. You may think that it is a bad deal to trade social honour for high risk to life. Well, a good number of men throughout the ages have disagreed and these days some women apparently do, too.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. For example, dangerous sweatshops will often preferentially recruit women. (e.g. virtually all the casualties from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire were women) I think it's more accurate to say that the dangers inherent in certain male-dominated professions have been glamorized to a degree that they're now seen as an attractive part of the job.

Sorry, I think you're confusing working conditions maintained by particularly heinous employers with inherent dangers of a job. There's nothing about sewing clothes that screams 'dangerous profession' to me other than when a particular employer decides that the sewing ought to be conducted in a building of inferior quality.
Leaving aside the fact that I was talking about the preference for female hiring in sweatshops (not the garment industry specifically), which pretty much by definition means "working conditions maintained by particularly heinous employers", I think there's a bit of a gendered assumption that running an industrial sewing machine is perfectly safe in a way we wouldn't say about an industrial drill press or any other piece of powered industrial equipment.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fair enough, I suppose it does depend on the size and scale of the machine in question.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB: Yes, dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori. You can go with Horace if you like, but I'm with Wilfred Owen.

The 10 most dangerous jobs in the US are fisherman, logger, airplane pilot, farmer/rancher, mining machine operator, roofer, sanitation worker, truck driver/delivery man, industrial machine repairman, and police officer. (I've used "man" here where the cited article does.) Of those, I'd guess women are more likely to turn up in the fields that are less physically demanding than the others: pilot and police officer.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Historically, I can hazard a guess. In times when maternal mortality was sky high the rich and powerful, even on a relative scale within a village, might lose a wife before producing an heir, or at least reaching the point where they're not bothered about sex anymore. Greater wealth will make it easier to secure a bride. Unless some way is found to equalise the mortality rates for men and women, you have a whole load of surplus men knocking around. Count this double if the society allows polygamy. War, risky hunting, dangerous sports etc. give an opportunity to eliminate men and reduce the risk of social unrest resulting from men not being able to find a wife.

Really? We need to construct conspiracy stories about elites of the distant past now to avoid saying the obvious, namely that men on average enjoy "war, risky hunting, dangerous sports etc." more than women, and indeed are better at it? That they are to a considerable extent made for such endeavours, in particular combat, whereas women are not? Compare the bone structure of male and female skulls, compare their strength, speed and endurance, compare peak performance in throwing, hitting and punching. Why are there so few sports - originally derived from warfare as civil equivalents - in which men and women compete with each other on equal terms? If I tell you that chimpanzees form "killer squads" that patrol the boundaries of their territory and try to wipe out other chimpanzee groups if they can, what would you guess how many female chimpanzees are found in those "killer squads"? Right, adult males it is.

I'm sure one could also point to plenty of relevant differences in the emotional and social makeup of men and women, but unfortunately those things are hard to measure and the playground for ideology. But there is exactly one reason why women are even being considered as soldiers now: technology. Where most kills come from pressing buttons at a distance, one can think of integrating women into the high tech war machine. For most of the existence of humankind though, there simply was no question who was doing the regular fighting. And that's not because of gender role ideologies, that's because men on average had a considerable edge in all manner of fighting prior to modern firearms. And having an edge counts in war. A lot. (All this includes, by the way, ancient ranged combat. How many women could shoot six arrows a minute over ten minutes with an English longbow of draw-weight of around 600 Newton?)

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess they're not including prostitution as a job.

[ 30. August 2013, 17:44: Message edited by: QLib ]

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(All this includes, by the way, ancient ranged combat. How many women could shoot six arrows a minute over ten minutes with an English longbow of draw-weight of around 600 Newton?)

You obviously don't share my devotion to Pixar movies. [Biased]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
How many women could shoot six arrows a minute over ten minutes with an English longbow of draw-weight of around 600 Newton?

It's a bloody stupid example when the only reason men could do it was years of enforced practice that resulted in huge deformities. Get women to do the same training and then make the comparison.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB: Yes, dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori. You can go with Horace if you like, but I'm with Wilfred Owen.

I'm not friend of war or any actual violence. My position is reflected by my choice: faced with (short) compulsory military service, I did not become a conscientious objector in order to do (somewhat longer) social service, but rather chose to do many years (a decade when I signed up) of social service most weekends with the German Red Cross as replacement activity. I still do not know how to shoot a gun, nor do I have a desire to learn. But I'm also no pacifist. (I also really like martial arts in a typical nerd over-compensation move. It's not logical, but it sure is fun...)

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Of those, I'd guess women are more likely to turn up in the fields that are less physically demanding than the others: pilot and police officer.

Actually, I really like the idea of women in the police force. Policing should not be a kind of ongoing civil war on behalf of the state against misbehaving citizens. Regular police should not maximise its fighting force, but rather they should optimise their civilising influence. It seems to me that men and women working together tend to keep each other in a green zone away from excess. Of course, that's only a trend not a guarantee...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's a bloody stupid example when the only reason men could do it was years of enforced practice that resulted in huge deformities. Get women to do the same training and then make the comparison.

It's a perfectly valid example. One simply could not have trained up a sufficient numbers of women for these tasks, even if one had wanted to. Sure, some women could have done it as well after gruesome training, but most men could do it after gruesome training. And that they got deformed by these strains on their body is neither here nor there for that difference: the few women that could be trained to do this kind of continuous explosive application of upper body strength would have suffered the same deformities (or worse, given the usually more fragile skeleton of women). There simply are serious physiological differences between the sexes, and they do make men better "fighters" on average. Deal.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools