I think we’re approaching the topic from two different angles.
You’re talking about role models and individual-to-individual influence. I’m talking about where the power lies within society’s institutions and systems.
And although you might not see or feel the inlfuence of the latter in your day-to-day life, I think the power of the banking, legal, political, industrial institutions, etc. is enormous in shaping the societies we live in; even if we never give them any thought.
It is my assumption that these institutions are still predominantly controlled by men. Ergo, yes, we still live in a male-dominated world.
Not hardly. Moderate power or beta men may bend over backwards to appease attractive women, but unattractive women will not receive such attention. Unfortunately in many cases, attractiveness has become the prerequisite for a woman to be treated decently.
So if you are capable of arguing that your contention “is that they are the ONLY obstacles to changing gun laws, and that there is nothing sacred or immutable about them”, then defining what you mean by “a male dominated world” should not be a question that should be difficult for you to answer.
The US fortunately narrowly avoided having a woman president and should be grateful - and how! Women politicians meanwhile are destroying Europe, Germany’s chancellor Merkel has been a disaster allowing over a million Muslim immigrant men in to the country, few of whom are real refugees but are in reality economic migrants, a lot having the ambition to destroy the identity of Europe which has already happened in Sweden courtesy of a predominantly female government and judiciary,
and still they cry out for more power and preferential treatment. Time to wake up guys.
Luciano, with all due respect, this argument barely qualifies as scraping the bottom of the barrel. You do realize that boys can have a special 16th birthday party, right? Or any other birthday, for that matter? And you do realize that not all girls get a special 16th birthday party, right? In fact, to the best of my knowledge not a single woman in my life had a sweet 16th party. It’s not a thing.
You still aren’t answering the question, other than to say that you think that the Middle East is a patriarchy. You’ve been asked to define your terms, which doesn’t need to take hours and hours. It does require more than, “but yeah”.
What specifically defines a male-dominated society or world?
Alright then to me a male dominated world would include
More attention towards men, more men in advertising, fathers would be the more dominant parents, men’s health would be more promoted, etc etc
Are those good examples?
…so in western society don’t we pay more attention to men?
Don’t they get paid more money?
Don’t they star in and direct more movies?
Aren’t men overwhelmingly in positions of political power?
By this metric alone society in the US would appear to be “male dominated” using your terms of reference.
Only 11% Creative Directors are female. Women make 85% of purchasing decisions, so it is no surprise that marketing targets the female demographic. But there is no shortage of men making decisions on what happens in advertising. Men decide its best to have less men on screen or in print. Men decide what we see in advertising, not women. Men have the power.
You have to be much more specific on what you mean here. Fathers are “less dominant?” How so? What metric are you using to make this determination?
“More” is a subjective measure. More promoted than what? Than women’s health? Bring some numbers into the discussion.
Not really. These are “talking points” not “points to debate”: we can’t meaningfully discuss them unless you make an attempt to substantiate your claims.
I don’t think this is as clear cut as “men have the power”. You say yourself that women make 85% of purchasing decisions. Advertisers have to cater to that. How many times have consumer boycotts forced changes in corporate policies. We’re currently seeing companies drop their associations with the National Rifle Association, presumably because they fear it will cost them customers. Consumerism is a form of power.
Every year, the NFL, a $13-billion-a-year business, spends a month turning things pink for breast cancer awareness. Men’s cancer awareness is a bunch of guys growing mustaches.
It’s not that I agree with the OP that’s it’s a female-dominated world, but I find there to be interesting examples on both sides that the other usually ignores.
Politically and governmentally does not = all the attention
When I start seeing more male teenage drama films and male models, then remind me again about that
Well the reasons dads are not also the dominant parents is because work and child-bearing reasons from women play a big role too. But with stay at home dads soon becoming the norm that’s all about to change anyways
Is about as much of a female-dominated world as it is to males. Power is not source of dominance, while some of it may play a role, is not a big indicator of dominance.
That’s like saying just because black dudes are seen as the best athletes right away they automatically dominate all sports lmao.
Hell I could even use the case of homosexuality being more acceptable for women than men, particularly for white women.
That’s not fair, men probably have more fear of sharing their gayness than women.
…well this is Great Debates. And I’m debating the proposition that “more men in advertising” means…well I’m not entirely sure actually. So I’ve made my own debate. And to be quite frank, I actually do think it is that clear cut.
Advertisers can choose who they cater for. Its an active decision, not a compulsory one. They choose to cater to the 85% of people who make purchasing decisions.
Not very often actually.
The consumer boycotts against the NRA have not been led by women, but by teenagers. So is it a teenage-dominated world?
I strongly suspect that a lot of the companies that have dropped their associations with the NRA have been wanting to do this for a very very long time. But they didn’t do that prior to now because the NRA were very good at painting anybody who “went against them” as the bad guy. This current situation gave them the perfect opportunity to drop their association without the backlash they may once have gotten. So it had less to do with “a consumer backlash” and more to do with “now is the right time to sever the relationship.” But YMMV.
Occasionally a boycott or direct consumer action gets direct results. But it doesn’t happen often enough (in a scalable, duplicatable fashion) to really compare it to the power of a creative executive to hire a female actress.
Hyperbole doesn’t help your point. Millions of dollars are spent on men’s cancer awareness. In my tiny country the government spent 4.3 million dollars (in 2013 over four years) on prostate cancer awareness. That’s more than a “bunch of guys growing mustaches.” It isn’t a competition.
Nothing is being “ignored.” You want more money spent on prostate cancer awareness? Then donate to a relevant charity. Or start your own charity. Lobby the government to increase funding. But if you think that prostate cancer awareness needs more money then make that case without saying that another “worthy cause” should have less money.