Hence why I made that topic about relationship dynamics.
Well, if we’re going by numbers, I would have said we live in an ant-dominated world, but it turns out it’s actually a copepod-dominated world!
(And I, for one welcome our new . . . No? OK.)
Also, I’ve noticed that all the porn I watch is full of women! What’s with that? (Although I hesitate to use the term “female-dominated” in this context, for fear of creating assumptions about my tastes.)
To answer the OP’s question: Yeah, kinda’. But it depends on what you mean by “male-dominated”. What do you think other people mean by “male-dominated”?
If the question is whether men overwhelmingly control the political, industrial, commercial, financial, legal, military, and entertainment institutions and systems of the world, without knowledge of the actual statistics I would still say confidently “yes, obviously”.
Despite the alusions you and others may make to a few circumstances specific or vague, in which women are perceived to have some advantage over men, it seems clear to me that most of the significant influences governing our lives, beyond the choices of the individual, are stil primarily dictated by the decisions of men.
But I do think we’re seeing a positive, if gradual change towards balance.
And those are all decisions that those men are in charge of.
The key point being, so long as those thirsty, thirsty men are willing to do those things. The notion that women’s attractiveness to men somehow balances the numerous ways in which men exercise power over women (and society in general) is bonkers.
You are both conflating strength and determination with power and opportunity.
(Still a funny joke, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the discussion, and is completely devoid of any underlying truth.)
Of course, by the time you got that far you were almost at the end, so I guess you figured you might as well soldier on.
And I thought you were the one who brought race into the . . . discussion?
I could be wrong. It’s been a pretty bumpy ride.
Men have historically dominated women simply because they had the strength and ability to do so. Now things have become reversed, the female is now the dominant sex. In our current times, men continually bend over backwards to appease women.
In the public sphere, like politicians and media figures, that’s true, although it has lessened over the years. I’m not sure that those public figures are the most significant influences on us. If women are still primarily responsible for child rearing, and more likely to get custody in a divorce, that gives them a huge influence on how we grow up and what we think.
So speaks the voice of ancient Rome (who, while being a notorious lady-killer, apparently is not comfortable with the woman-on-top position).
That is an excellent counterpoint to what I wrote regarding influences governing our lives. I will acknowledged that in terms of child-rearing and effect on our pre-adult lives, women have a huge influence. Although I don’t feel this is equivalent to the male-dominated inlfuences on our adult lives.
I do think you’re misinterpreting my intent in refering to the ways in which men still dominate society. I’m not talking about public figures as such (eg, the politicians and media personalities who dominate the airwaves), I’m talking about the public and private institutions by which society functions: banks, courts, law-enforcement, policy-making, manufacturing.
Do I know for certain that all these institutions are male-dominated? Nope.
Do I strongly suspect they are? Hell yes.
But sure, I’d say we’re getting better.
My own workplace is fairly well balanced.
Although the top brass are almost all men.
Yeah I am autistic, do I care neurotypicals rule still almost everything and that we are still very under-spoke?
#diversity
Since probably everyone ITT wants to discuss male priviledge then I highly recommend checking this thread out
If something like banking is male-dominated, I’m not sure it makes a difference to anyone except the bankers. I give my bank money, they hold on to it for a while, then later they give it back to me. I’m not sure how a woman would do that any differently than a man. The head of my bank may be a woman; I have no idea. Now, to be clear, women should have access to those jobs. If the head of a bank is a man and he favors other men in terms of hiring, promotion, lending, or business opportunities, that’s unacceptable. But for the vast majority of people, I don’t think bankers are much of an influence on our lives.
It’s rather the same with courts, law enforcement, manufacturing, and quite a few others. The standards by which they perform their jobs don’t really give them a lot of leeway in how they choose to operate. The courts just interpret the law, they don’t (or aren’t supposed to) write it. The head of a car company has to make vehicles that he thinks the public will buy, or someone else will. A great teacher can make big difference in a child’s life, but they don’t write the textbooks or set the curriculum.
I know that role models are important, and I hope everyone can see people like them in different professional settings and be inspired by them. That’s not what I was getting at, either.
That’s why I phrased my statement the way I did. I was trying to think of those people who really have the freedom to set an agenda, to choose what subjects we are exposed to, and to influence what we will think about them. That’s a much smaller list.
Notice also how the catcalling experiment video seemed to only use homeless and black mem, wonder why?
https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/subjective-annoyance-or-lets-call-it-street-harassment-the-not-so-subtle-racism-of-hollaback/
…one of the hallmarks of a “great debate” is that you do the debating yourself. “A voice for men”, the website you linked to, was founded by Paul Elam, and a little bit of googling would reveal Pauls disgusting legacy. So I’m not going to click on your link and I would encourage other people to avoid it as well. If you want to debate: then debate, don’t “debate by proxy.” If you hold the same editorial views as the people that run a voice for men then you should be perfectly capable of defending those views yourself.
I challenged a whole lot of your assertions earlier in this thread. Do you want to try to “bring the debate back to great debates” and respond to my post?
Well the thread really isn’t about male priviledge. Yes the two really are almost the same, but not really because priviledge and dominance are not the same thing. But I don’t want to have to explain semantics right now.
Sure what was the last post? I may have forgotten some.
…what on earth are you talking about?
Scroll up.
I am saying dominating does not = having priviledge
Dominance means having more representation off, priviledge means having certain benefits.
I am bit sleepy, sorry about that.
…what does any of that have to do with anything I said?
I was inferring about my article, that I think posting it was a stupid move.
But let’s cut to the chase.
…the article that I said I hadn’t clicked, and that I encouraged everybody else not to click? You know I didn’t read it, so why are you talking to me like I had read it?
Yes, lets.
Because you still made some commenting on it
I honestly think the only truly male-dominated country out there is perhaps Saudi Arabia.
…I made zero comment on it. I told you I hadn’t clicked it. I suggested that you don’t debate by proxy. I said nothing about “privilege” or “dominance” or whatever else it was you said to me. I suggest you go read what I wrote again.
I don’t actually think you know what you mean when you say “male-dominated country.” How about we start by defining your terms. When you say “male dominated” what exactly is it that you mean?