Anti-Feminism

[LinusK]

I thought this one was interesting too.

[Matt Kailey’s Tranifesto
Transgender & Transsexual Issues, Information, Advice, & Opinion](Matt Kailey’s Tranifesto
Transgender & Transsexual Issues, Information, Advice, & Opinion)

Testosterone and Sex Drive: My Second Adolescence

One of the most interesting things about the effects of testosterone and trans men is that we have something else to compare it to. Non-trans men do not. And non-trans women do not, which is why I wrote the post “It’s the Testosterone: What Straight Women Should Know.”

When I started testosterone a dozen years ago, I expected my sex drive to increase. The “horror” stories are a part of trans man lore, passed down from generation to generation as we all gear up for male adolescence, no matter how old we are, and take out a line of credit at the adult toy store.

And it did increase, within about four days of my first shot, and I basically squirmed a lot for two years before I got used to it. But I was planning for that. Here are the things that took me by surprise:

> It became very focused on one thing – the goal, the prize, the end. That doesn’t mean that I was not able to “make love.” What it does mean is that there was a madness to my method, because it was goal-oriented. There was a light at the end of the tunnel. There was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There was an unguarded hoop just waiting for a slam dunk – score!

> It became very visual. I saw it, I wanted it – whatever it was. This was a new experience for me, because, in the past, I had not been aroused so much by pictures and body parts (or pictures of body parts) as I had been by words – erotic descriptions, stories, and things said to me.

> It became very visceral – instinctual – with a need to take care of it. It had very little to do with romance or even an attraction that made sense intellectually. You’re hungry, you eat. There was a matter-of-factness about it, especially when I was by myself. Hmm … peanut butter sandwich sounds good. Okay, done. Let’s move on.

…

The third is to totally refute the claims that have been made over the years that “all men are rapists if given the opportunity” and similar accusations. I think this is utter nonsense, as is the idea that men “can’t control themselves.”

Bolding mine: while I liked Matt’s post, the idea that men have no comparison, when it comes to the effects of testosterone is utter nonsense. I vividly remember puberty, and while it would have been nice to experience it at the age of 42 instead of 12, I think I can speak for most men when I say we know the effects very well.

As a side note: I don’t know if Matt did this on purpose, but the “sandwich in your pocket” I believe is a comedy sketch by Bill Burr. (I can’t find it, so maybe I’m wrong.) Either way, the bit was fucking hilarious.

[camille]

Anti-Feminist Theatre of the Absurd: A Play in One Act

It’s A Woman’s World
(The Real Story Feminists Don’t Want You to Know)

(Scene: A woman, lounging on a fainting couch eating bonbons. A man enters.)

Man: I’m home dear.

Woman: Why you’re home early today, dear. Is everything alright?

Man: I have something for you.

Woman: Oh… What is it?

Man: Equality!

Woman: Oh my, what a surprise! How good of you!

**Man: **Yes, well… it seems to be all the rage with the upper classes now, and I must keep up appearances you know.

**Woman: **How does it work, exactly?

**Man: **I’m not sure, but there are no guarantees for it. I suppose I could take it back if I’m not satisfied.

Woman: Whatever you think is best, dear. Shall I get your dinner?

Man: Not now. I think I’ll pop down to the club for a bit. I need to work on drinking myself into alcohol dependency. A man’s work is never done.

Woman: I’ll keep it warm for you then.

Man: I suppose that will do. But I may not be back right away; I could be going to war.

Woman: Are we at war?

**Man: **Hmm… no, not at the moment. Well, perhaps I could start one! I wouldn’t want anyone to think I can’t keep you safe.

Woman: Am I in danger?

Man: You have no idea, do you? Well, you’ll find out soon enough.

**Woman: **What do you mean?

**Man: **I can’t expect you to be logical, so let me explain: Even if I’m not killed in combat, there’s an excellent chance I’ll meet up with some sort of violence. Barring that, I suppose I could kill myself, if it comes down to it.

**Woman: **Oh my! Well, why don’t you stay home then?

Man: What?! And risk being battered by you? I refuse to be a victim! It’s not manly.

Woman: But I couldn’t…

Man: Oh, you say that, but I’ve read the studies; you can’t fool me!

Woman: Really, I just want you to be safe too. And I don’t want you to die.

Man: It simply can’t be helped. It’s my evolutionary destiny. You women are so anti-science!

Woman: But there must be something I can do?

**Man: **Don’t worry your little head about it. Worse come to worst, you can marry again.

Woman: But I don’t want to…

**Man: **What else can you do? Who will kill the bugs for you? I wouldn’t expect too much, though; you’re still young enough to bear children, but you’re not exactly a virgin now are you? Still, I’m sure some man would consider you a bargain, what with the price of pussy nowadays.
The End (or is it?)

[Rune]

@KarlGrenze

I would say over most of the recorded history. And you seem to have a white/black separation, when in reality there are areas of greyness between “modern Western society” and “third world shitholes with shitty cultures and shitty religions”. What cultures, and what religions?

In places like Yemen, Afghanistan and SA girls, children as young as 8/9 – 13/14, are often married off to men in their 40s and 50s. These are not single incidents which goes against the grain of the accepted cultural norms of the places, and I’m sure the result of patriarchal values inherited from shitty and inferior Afghan/Yemenite/Saudi culture and (their version of) Islam as a religion (I don’t think it possible to separate culture from religion). In China/India, as has been mentioned many times, baby girls are being aborted in large numbers (although, if the prejudice against girls does not carry over to after birth – which I’m sure it does – then it’s not really an issue that they’re being aborted as long as the accepted interpretation of abortion is that it’s merely foetuses which are being terminated). Women in India are also subject to things like murder, burning and acid attacks, etc. if the dowry is considered inadequate.
See I can freely proclaim a culture/religion to be shitty and inferior when it does things I consider shitty (like child brides, killing female babies, burning your wife because she didn’t fetch you a high enough price, etc.) and when I see those actions as not being against the cultural norms in general, and I can do that because I do not subscribe to the theory of cultural relativity. You may feel otherwise about the subject and not be able to condemn things in cultures/religions which you’re not yourself part.

@KarlGrenze

Also, I would say most women (and men, humanity in general) live in areas that are not “modern Western society”. Are they not worthy to be included in this discussion?

Absolutely. If you want to talk about discrimination against women in Ancient Greece or 2015 Yemen go ahead. But keep it separate. Saying we in Western nations live in a Rape Culture, because 8yo Syrian girls in Jordanian refugee camps are being married off, raped and discarded by Saudi millionaires is not a good argument of anything.

@KarlGrenze

What issues are those?

Women have issues which are particular to their sex when it comes to things like sexual violence, pregnancy, certain STDs, things like cat-calling also seem to be an issue (not in Scandinavia though, we barely don’t acknowledge people we know, let alone interact with strangers!), and separating their sexuality in professional settings. Men have issues which, as has been mentioned many times in this thread, lands them more often on the absolute bottom of society, homeless or in jail, no family and dying years earlier than women, and also when it comes to being the victims of violence and murder, and they’re now falling substantial behind on the education front, etc.

@KarlGrenze

I do accept that we live in a patriarchy because I have first hand experience in some of the things discussed here

And men have first hand experience of some of the issues which harm them. Therefore Matriarchy.
One often repeated dogma of 3rd wave feminism is that men cannot put themselves in the place of women and as such are unable to comment on the nature of things such as discrimination against women. By the same token women cannot put themselves in the place of men, and are thus unable to comment on the world from a male perspective. Now we live in separate worlds with no common ground for comparison rendering us unable to speculate on who are being disadvantaged in comparison to other.

[Rune]

@MrDibble

Mostly, I was telling camille to ignore your bullshit and letting her know you don’t actually speak for anyone.

I speak for myself, just like you only speak for yourself. And if you’re not here to debate, you might as well not be here at all and stop wasting other people’s time.

[MrDibble]

@Rune

I speak for myself, just like you only speak for yourself. And if you’re not here to debate, you might as well not be here at all and stop wasting other people’s time.

I’m not here to debate with you because I know when my time is being wasted.

That doesn’t mean your paternalism, like deciding what is and isn’t dickish for other groups, should just slide. If black posters do feel having racism compared with feminism, in a discussion that’s already invoked race, is a ‘dickish move’, they’re welcome to call camille on it. Black posters don’t need you to White Knight for them.

[Rune]

@MrDibble

I’m not here to debate with you because I know when my time is being wasted.

That doesn’t mean your paternalism, like deciding what is and isn’t dickish for other groups, should just slide. If black posters do feel having racism compared with feminism, in a discussion that’s already invoked race, is a ‘dickish move’, they’re welcome to call camille on it. Black posters don’t need you to White Knight for them.

What part of “I speak only for myself and you speak only for yourself” did you not understand? Paternalistic or not, I decide what I consider dickish. Also I don’t keep taps of the race or sex or favourite dish of other posters. And I don’t care to. You’re all dogs to me.

You might think that saying you’re black gives you some special privilege to speak on behalf of other blacks. It does not.

[MrDibble]

@Rune

What part of “I speak only for myself and you speak only for yourself” did you not understand? Paternalistic or not, I decide what I consider dickish.

Only if you keep your opinion to yourself. By telling camille it is “kinda” dickish (note, not that you think it is, just that it is), you’re trying to shut down that part of the debate.

Of course, now you’re obviously walking that back as just your opinion. Maaan. Sure, Dude, whatever you say.

You might think that saying you’re black gives you some special privilege to speak on behalf of other blacks. It does not.

I’m not Black and haven’t claimed to be. I’m not speaking on behalf of anyone. I’m just letting camille know at least one racial minority is just fine with the two topics.

Cancelling you out, as it were, since we’re both just giving our opinions here, apparently.

[KarlGrenze]

@Rune

Absolutely. If you want to talk about discrimination against women in Ancient Greece or 2015 Yemen go ahead. But keep it separate. Saying we in Western nations live in a Rape Culture, because 8yo Syrian girls in Jordanian refugee camps are being married off, raped and discarded by Saudi millionaires is not a good argument of anything.

I think I “get” what you would like to separate both things. But the root of the problems are the same, at the end. One is a more severe and worse example and presentation of that.

Also, the OP, in the first part of this thread, tried to tie the supposed “women have the advantage” to biological and cultural notions that have persisted throughout centuries, in various cultures. Since we’re all the same species, something that has such a high biological effect must therefore be present in all groups. So I do think that, with his overarching themes, the OP is not making much distinction between “woman living in an urban area of North America, 2015”, and “Southeastern Asia woman farmer, 2015”.

[wonky]

@camille

Anti-Feminist Theatre of the Absurd: A Play in One Act

Too funny.

[LinusK]

Here’s another interesting story: Judge says man must pay $30K in child support for kid who is not his

Carnell Alexander says he got a shock during a traffic stop in Detroit in the early 1990s. The officer told him he is a deadbeat dad, and that he was under arrest.

The problem? Carnell didn’t have any kids.

He’d been made dad by default after an ex listed him as father when applying for welfare benefits.

There’s a couple of especially noteworthy aspects to it.

One is that, at least in my state, lying on an official government document is a crime. It’s surprising that the mom, given the absolute proof that she lied, was never arrested.

The other is the way hospitals make absolutely sure the right baby goes home with the right mom. A simple DNA test could make sure the right baby goes home with the right dad. Nobody seems particularly concerned about that, though.

[Miller]

@LinusK

The other is the way hospitals make absolutely sure the right baby goes home with the right mom. A simple DNA test could make sure the right baby goes home with the right dad. Nobody seems particularly concerned about that, though.

Who, exactly, is supposed to be concerned about that? If you think your wife had a kid by another man, get the DNA test yourself. Why should that be anyone else’s responsibility?

Or are you just upset that more men don’t instinctively distrust their wives?

[Sherrerd]

@iiandyiiii

… And even when religions disapproved of extra-marital sex for men, the concept of purity was never emphasized nearly as much for men as it was for women.

Good point. “Purity balls” have been a thing since the late 1990s, for instance–and so far as I can tell, always consist of daughters pledging to their fathers to ‘remain pure.’ I can’t find evidence of any equivalent surge or trend for ceremonies in which sons pledge to remain pure.

[Lamia]

@LinusK

This originally comes from Reddit, via Tumblr. Having said that, it seems authentic to me.

Given your track record with regard to your sources, I take this to mean that it’s actually totally phony.

[wonky]

@iiandyiiii

And even when religions disapproved of extra-marital sex for men, the concept of purity was never emphasized nearly as much for men as it was for women.

The RCC tolerated prostitution for a long time. See Augustine’s writings, and Thomas Aquinas’s. Heck, some bigwigs in the RCC owned and operated brothels, including on church property. The women who were in the brothels? Quite often were there because they had been raped or otherwise “defiled” and couldn’t hope to marry. Or sometimes they were just poor and desperate.

[LinusK]

@robertliguori

The book, incidentally, was The Self-Made Man, and my own summary of Nora’s weighing in on Who Is More Privileged is “It’s complicated, also body dysmorpia and the social role equivalent thereof are bitches.”

I also get really confused whenever I see that difficulty metaphor being bandied around. We might respect the skill it takes to build an edifice in Minecraft on the highest difficulty level in Hardcore, but someone in Creative with console commands can stamp out a dozen greater structures in that time, at no risk. And if we want employees who can accomplish tasks, and we don’t want to worry about them being taken out by a surprise Creeper and losing all their hard work, isn’t the best tactic for each individual actor to hire as privileged as possible, because every axis of privilege is an objective negative multiplier on your expected results?

I’m only guessing at what that means, but in my admittedly limited experience, hiring the least privileged person you can find leads to an employee who is happy with her job, and is willing to work hard at it. It’s just that in my world, skin color and gender doesn’t tell you much about privilege.

[LinusK]

@Sherrerd

There are too many of these studies (showing that the exact same material–CV or essay or what have you–is rated according to the gender of the name at the top), and the studies come from far too reputable sources, for the findings to be argued away.

You should probably add this one too: Academics rate women job applicants higher than identical men

When hundreds of U.S. college faculty members rated junior scientists based on scholarly record, job interview performance and other information with an eye toward which should be hired, they preferred women over identically qualified men two-to-one, scientists reported on Monday.

The “candidates” were invented in order to see which factors - professional ones as well as things like gender and parental status - affect the evaluation of potential hires, part of an effort to explain women’s underrepresentation in academic science.

The bias toward women “was totally unexpected,” said psychologist and co-author Wendy Williams of Cornell University. “We were shocked.”
Women have always been scarce in academic science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), now making up one-fourth of full professorships in science, engineering and health, according to the National Science Foundation.

That has been attributed to gender bias, prejudice against women who take maternity leave and other discrimination.

Recently, however, women with advanced STEM degrees have had a better chance of getting university jobs. For example, out of 96 mathematics hires from 1995 through 2003, 20 percent of applicants were women, but 32 percent of those offered jobs were female.

Some scholars have said this apparent female advantage was because women who overcome the hurdles to a STEM Ph.D. are generally stronger candidates than male counterparts.

[LinusK]

@iiandyiiii

Possibly. It’s very possible that this is yet another casualty of enforced gender roles (your favorite p word). If mother’s are much more likely to stay home with the kids, then courts may think the child is better off with them.

Except that mothers aren’t more much more likely to stay home with the kids.

The share of married-couple families with children where both parents worked was 60.2 percent.

-Google.

The labor force participation rate of mothers with children under 18 years of age was 69.9 percent in 2013.

-Google.

From WhiteHouse.gov:

NINE FACTS ABOUT AMERICAN FAMILIES AND WORK

Fact 1: Mothers are increasingly the household breadwinners.

Fact 2: Fathers are increasingly family caregivers.

In any case, are you really saying that working disqualifies you from being a good parent?

[LinusK]

Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
Is an 400% difference in the likelihood of getting custody evidence of sexism?

Absolutely:

Originally Posted by census.gov
Daily Time With Children. Children generally spend more time with their mothers than their fathers on any given day, possibly reflecting higher levels of employment among fathers than mothers. In two-parent families, this time difference is not terribly large: children ages 12 and under spend on average 2 hours and 21 minutes a day with their mothers, compared to 1 hour and 46 minutes with their fathers.
…
Men and women differ on whether one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together. In 1994, 42 percent of women agreed that one parent can bring up a child just as effectively as two parents together, compared to just 26 percent of men.
…
In 1996, almost one in five children ages birth to five (18 percent) had their fathers as their primary caregivers while their mothers were working, attending school, or looking for work.

Now, the stat I was looking for is one I couldn’t find. Namely, in what percentage of 2-parent families is the father the primary caregiver. But the stats I did find show:
-Dads end up working outside the home more, with women being in the home more. That indicates sexist attitudes about division of labor in families.
-Dads are less likely to believe that one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. A judge might be less likely to grant custody to the person who thinks that a single parent can’t do the job as well.
-Not many dads married to working moms take care of their kids. I’ll hazard a guess that more moms married to working dads take care of their kids.

If moms spend more time with kids, are more often primary caregivers, and are more confident in their ability to single-parent-it-up, it’d be sexist for judges to grant custody equally to moms and dads.

Your link doesn’t work. The part that you quoted says, “this time difference is not terribly large,” and refers to 1994 and 1996 - 21 and 19 years ago, respectively.

I give you a C+ for effort. But don’t feel bad. It’s an A+, in the context of this thread.

[iiandyiiii]

@LinusK

Except that mothers aren’t more much more likely to stay home with the kids.

-Google.

-Google.

From WhiteHouse.gov:

Your cites don’t conflict with my assertions. Not all work is full time, and “increasing” doesn’t mean “equal” or “majority”. From my understanding, even as most women work, mothers are still the primary caregivers for children in terms of time spent in far more cases than men are. This can be true even if more and more women work, and even if there are increasing numbers of male caregivers.

Not that this is a good thing – I think men are just as capable of caring for children, and there should be no stigma whatsoever for fathers who want to stay home. This is another negative effect on men from patriarchal culture (or enforced gender roles - whatever you’d like to call it).

In any case, are you really saying that working disqualifies you from being a good parent?

No, I’m saying that it might be reasonable in some cases to give primary custody to the parent (male or female) that has spent the most time in caring for them. In some cases it probably is not the best choice.

[camille]

**LinusK **- From your cite about female advantage in STEM fields:

@LinusK

Academics rate women job applicants higher than identical men

Some scholars have said this apparent female advantage was because women who overcome the hurdles to a STEM Ph.D. are generally stronger candidates than male counterparts.

What I said about how privilege works:

@camille

LinusK, do you know what a variable is?

Race is only one of a set of variables that comprises an individual.

Other variables can include: wealth, health, education level, gender, appearance, personality traits, family support, etc.

And there is much, much, more; some might seem trivial to you, but there is a cumulative effect. It also means someone who isn’t white needs to be in a higher range of other variables (e.g., education, experience, appearance) in order to overcome the disadvantage of being non-white, and play on a level field.

Your own cite makes my point.