Men Aren't Necessarily Stupid (mild)

[A_Priori_Tea]

@catsix

You actually think that having shit flung at them is good for men? Deriding an entire gender in commercials by painting them as bumbling idiots who would die if they ever had to live on their own, depicting them doing such stupid things as sucking on a wolf’s teats and being unable to add 2+2 is good for men? Is it good for the little boys who watch these commercials and TV shows? How about when little girls are showing up at school wearing T-shirts that say things like 'Boys lie. Poke ‘em in the eye.’ and ‘Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.’ without being punished?

Is that good for men? Is it good for men when it’s considered wrong to make a T-shirt that says ‘Boys are good.’?

You have a very strange idea about what is good for men, and society in general. I’ve said before on these forums and others that mass media that is deliberately mocking of all men is wrong, it’s wrong the same way it would be if it mocked women. It is not because women are the victims of sexist male-bashing, either. Anyone who thinks so is a misandrist shit head.

Well, since you quoted me, please allow me to add a little more context into what you’ve quoted, so you won’t be reversing my position on the issue by taking one sentence out of context.

@Me

That’s both a good thing and a bad thing, for the men in question - they’ve got the power positioning, culturally, to withstand a lot of shit-flinging, because most of it won’t stick. Unfortunately, that seems to mean that a lot of people are going to fling shit, to try and be the one to make it stick, whether it’s accurate or not.

It is a GOOD thing for men that they are in a power position, BECAUSE it means that most of the shit flung at them won’t stick. This is not true for the stereotyping shit flung at other groups, because there are so many more people likely to use the stereotype to inform and define their opinions of the depicted group. It is a BAD thing for men to be in that position, BECAUSE it means that lots of people will feel it’s perfectly acceptable to mock and belittle them, because a) it probably won’t hurt and b) if it does, they’ll have a culturally legitimized position of attacking “The Man,” rather than a more openly victimized group.

Weirdly enough, we agree completely on this issue; I think our modern culture is growing increasingly misandrist, and I am fighting that in all the little ways I can in every day life. I think that the “Boys are stupid” shirts are ridiculous and offensive - the only time I think they’re funny is when boys wear them, because then it’s an exercise in irony. I wish that we could make it to a gender-neutral culture without having to do this distressing swing in the opposite direction, but apparently that’s not going to happen.

Edited to add:

@Justin_Bailey

Personally, I always thought it would be a riot to send a pair of twins (one boy and one girl) into school with the boy wearing a “Girls Are Stupid” and the girl wearing a “Boys Are Stupid” shirt. Then sit back and see which one comes home with a note from the teacher.

That is the best idea I’ve heard all day! Now I just have to get someone to let me dress their school-age twins…

[Marley23]

@Justin_Bailey

I’ve been in this discussion before. I think women are pretty equal all things considered. Other people don’t. Neither side seems like they’re going to change their mind anytime soon.

Right. While “pretty equal all things considered” seems to be admitting some inequality, I think we would agree that a lot of things have evened out. Moving along-

My point is that in a few years these women will be graduating college and entering the real world. In a very short period of time the working world will be flooded with qualified (and ambitious) female employees in every industry. Women will hold all of the cards when it comes to high level management positions in my lifetime. In my chosen field (libraries), they already do.

I think women have been the majority of college students for some time - I know they are in journalism, I think by a significant amount. My point is that it takes time for some of those changes to filter all the way upward, which is when things would even out to a greater degree.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Marley23

Right. While “pretty equal all things considered” seems to be admitting some inequality, I think we would agree that a lot of things have evened out. Moving along-

It’s not so much inequality as it is special cases. Like, for example, female CEOs. There are few women in this country who have the experience required of a high level CEO. But the equality of oppurtunity is there today, it’s just a matter of women gaining the “on-the-job” experience.

And that’s just a matter of time.

[catsix]

A Priori Tea said:
Weirdly enough, we agree completely on this issue;

We don’t agree completely. I would never say that men are in the ‘power position’ or that it’s OK for sexist shit to be flung at them because it won’t stick.

I don’t excuse behavior that I claim to find repugnant, and you do.

Justin_Bailey said:
But the equality of oppurtunity is there today,

Feminists do not want equality of opportunity. They want enforced equality of outcome, no matter how unfair it is or how little it has to do with the actual merits of the individuals in question.

[A_Priori_Tea]

@catsix

We don’t agree completely. I would never say that men are in the ‘power position’ or that it’s OK for sexist shit to be flung at them because it won’t stick.

I don’t excuse behavior that I claim to find repugnant, and you do.
Feminists do not want equality of opportunity. They want enforced equality of outcome, no matter how unfair it is or how little it has to do with the actual merits of the individuals in question.

If you’d be so kind as to quote evidence for either of the two assertions you made above, I’d appreciate it. You’re saying things that are patently untrue, and I would like to see you support your point with more than wild accusations.

Moreover, you’re beginning to strike me as the sort of “debater” who would much rather make wild accusations or sweeping assertions without proof than actually counter the arguments put forth. I would greatly enjoy you proving me wrong by backing up any of the assertions you’ve made in the post quoted above.

[Rubystreak]

@catsix

Feminists do not want equality of opportunity. They want enforced equality of outcome, no matter how unfair it is or how little it has to do with the actual merits of the individuals in question.

Why isn’t it physically painful for people to make sweeping generalizations like this without any regard for accuracy or veracity? I know it hurts me to read it.

[catsix]

A Priori Tea said:
If you’d be so kind as to quote evidence for either of the two assertions you made above, I’d appreciate it.

You’re either thick as a brick, or deliberately putting it on.

A Priori Tea in post # said:
It is a GOOD thing for men that they are in a power position, BECAUSE it means that most of the shit flung at them won’t stick.

The whole position of power thing… was yours to begin with. I don’t see men as being in a ‘power position’. You do. Hence, we do not ‘agree completely’ in any regard.

You excuse the insults flung at men by saying ‘most of the shit flung at them won’t stick’. It doesn’t matter to me if it ‘won’t stick’. It shouldn’t be flung in the first place. Again, a position where we do not ‘agree completely’.

. I think that the “Boys are stupid” shirts are ridiculous and offensive - the only time I think they’re funny is when boys wear them, because then it’s an exercise in irony.

Jokes denigrating men are OK as long as men are the ones making them, huh? Would you laugh if a black person wore a shirt that said ‘Darkies are stupid’ because it’s an ‘exercise in irony’?

I wouldn’t. And I don’t laugh when boys feel the need to belittle themselves in order to follow the feminist cultural tide that undervalues (or worse, vilifies) anyone with a penis. You, on the other hand, give it a pass.

Moreover, you’re beginning to strike me as the sort of “debater” who would much rather make wild accusations or sweeping assertions without proof than actually counter the arguments put forth.

And despite the ass kissing you’re getting in that thread you started, I think you’re running a con.

Rubystreak said:
Why isn’t it physically painful for people to make sweeping generalizations like this without any regard for accuracy or veracity? I know it hurts me to read it.

Considering that Title IX forces the elimation of men’s athletic programs unless women have exactly the same number of athletic programs available to them, whether or not the actually want to use these, and that it’s a feminist hallmark of equality legislation, I think the generalization is apt.

Of course, I could also point to affirmative action and the idea that women should comprise a certain percentage of interview candidates (and hires) for particular jobs, the lowering of standards for female candidates for jobs in which physical ability are important to the actual job function (firefighters, paramedics, cops, soldiers, etc.), supported by and large by feminists who want to women in these professions.

What about all the cries of inequality because high political office still sees more men elected than it does women? None of those cries of gender biases and unfairness seem to account for the fact that women have no less opportunity than men to run for office, do they? Instead what you see is bitching and moaning that Congress is majority male - but no admission that women simply are not choosing to use their equal opportunity and run for office. Nope, all the bitching is about the outcome.

[athelas]

@Rubystreak

Why isn’t it physically painful for people to make sweeping generalizations like this without any regard for accuracy or veracity? I know it hurts me to read it.

Sure, those generalizations will stop when feminist groups stop making statements like “Only X percent of CEOs are women” and claiming that that alone demonstrates sexism, without proving any discriminatory mechanism - and insist that women get free stuff until the numbers even out.

In other words: the statements will stop when they are actually untrue.

[Rubystreak]

@catsix

I think the generalization is apt.

Of course you do, dear. You’re riding your one-trick pony again, and therefore you think all your generalizations are apt. Cherry pick the examples that will support your point, ignore that “feminism” means a hell of a lot more than what you’re offering… it’s your MO. And it’s not really worth arguing with you when you get like this. I hope A Priori Tea has lurked long enough to realize this, though it might be fun to watch someone else take you on with this bullshit.

[Autolycus]

I dont understand this argument anymore. Time to drink a beer and then go messin’ with sasquatch!

[vison]

Oh, my goodness, I am SO up for that!!! I do love a good go-round with someone who makes blanket statments like this: “Feminists do not want equality of opportunity. They want enforced equality of outcome, no matter how unfair it is or how little it has to do with the actual merits of the individuals in question.”

But then one asks oneself, is it worth it? Does such an effort ever penetrate the substance such a person has enclosed his brain in? Does one have the Magic Ray Gun of Reason? One does have the Magic Ray Gun of Reason, but perhaps the poster in question has the Thick Headed Protective Armour Hat and/or The Splenetic Steel Shirt of Contempt?

A nice question, indeed.

Upon mature considertion, I, me myself that is, decline to enter the lists *just now. * Too much work to do and no time for fun on such a grand scale.

[Marley23]

@Autolycus

I dont understand this argument anymore. Time to drink a beer and then go messin’ with sasquatch!

WAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAP!!!

By the way, an ad that implies ‘men don’t know what they are doing and need to be taken care of full-time’ is not good for women either. It basically sets men up as a class that needs to be pampered at all times - which is not good for women, just as ads that imply those kinds of things about women do not do anything good for men. Whoever coined “Dr. Mom” was not suggesting women are so brilliant that they understand medical science without trying.

[catsix]

Rubystreak said:
Of course you do, dear. You’re riding your one-trick pony again, and therefore you think all your generalizations are apt. Cherry pick the examples that will support your point, ignore that “feminism” means a hell of a lot more than what you’re offering… it’s your MO.

I take it this means you have no actual way of refuting any of the examples I gave which are blatant depictions of feminism’s focus on forcing equality of outcome, so you have to resort to the usual method of feminists, the personal attack.

Go ahead, sweetie. Tell me what ‘feminism’ really means. Tell me how it’s not all just womynz studies and professors who deliberately give men worse grades than women (looking at you, Jeanie of the now defunct Ms. Magazine forums). Tell me that it’s not all ‘Take Back The Night’ rallies full of statistics that aren’t true (Super Bowl myth, anyone?) on everything from rape to salary disparities.

Nobody is going to tell me what feminism is about. They’re going to wait for examples of feminism being discriminatory, dishonest, and outright disgusting, and then throw me a no-true-Scotsman Hail Mary of ‘That’s not what feminism is about.’

It’s as fucking predictable as sunrise tomorrow.

[Rubystreak]

@catsix

I take it this means you have no actual way of refuting any of the examples I gave which are blatant depictions of feminism’s focus on forcing equality of outcome, so you have to resort to the usual method of feminists, the personal attack.

I’m going to need some cites for your examples. Sorry that I can’t just take your word for it, but I need to know who said these things you are attributing to feminists before I even bother expending the energy to debunk them. If you can provide reputable cites for all these examples, primary sources of feminists saying these things, and the context in which they said them, then maybe I or someone else will take the time to examine them. Right now, they are just you, singing your same old song.

[catsix]

Too late, Rubystreak. You’ve already made it plain that your agenda doesn’t include the possibility of me being right.

I’m not in any kind of mood to dance because you command it.

[Rubystreak]

@catsix

Too late, Rubystreak. You’ve already made it plain that your agenda doesn’t include the possibility of me being right.

I’m not in any kind of mood to dance because you command it.

Can you honestly believe you’re right about all feminists? There are excesses in all major sociopolitical movements, but I don’t believe any thinking person can paint credibly with as broad a brush as you are here and get away with it, unless you just admit that you are biased as hell and grinding an axe, signing away your objectivity and claim on full righteousness in this matter.

And since when is asking for cites telling someone to dance? Think about it-- how am I supposed to answer your examples if I don’t know who said it or why, in what context? Am I supposed to research your tossed out allegations for you, then also do the work of explaining why they don’t represent feminists as a monolith? You’re dodging the issue, bigtime, which is that you can’t or won’t back up your slurs on feminism with cites. Fight ignorance or stop bleating, please.

[placebo]

À propos of nothing, there was a commercial for an entire show based around this premise on tv last night. Men left to their own devices for an entire week. Will they make it out alive? :rolleyes:

[catsix]

Rubystreak said:
You’re dodging the issue, bigtime, which is that you can’t or won’t back up your slurs on feminism with cites. Fight ignorance or stop bleating, please.

I don’t need to slur feminism. It’s already done enough to throw its own reputation in the toilet.

I know your game too well, because I’ve seen it played by feminists before you. If I give you specific examples of specific feminists, you’ll just bitch that they aren’t representative of feminism as a whole. Nothing makes your type happy.

Feminism is bullshit. It’s sexism. It’s wrong. And it’s time for it to go.

[vison]

Perhaps catsix is one of those persons who believe “feminism” is a monolithic structure composed of femnazi robots?

It ain’t.

The title of this thread is “Men Aren’t Necessarily Stupid”. No, they are not, I agree. Some are, though. So I guess that settles that.

[Rubystreak]

@catsix

I know your game too well, because I’ve seen it played by feminists before you. If I give you specific examples of specific feminists, you’ll just bitch that they aren’t representative of feminism as a whole. Nothing makes your type happy.

If one group of feminists says something, guess what? It’s NOT representative of feminists as a whole. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Feminism is a general term that encompasses a lot of different people, men and women, who take a lot of different approaches to the issue. One group of people who are wrongheaded do not define the entire movement, which includes the women who helped get you the right to vote in this country. If you can’t even concede that, then you are being irrational and are not interested in a debate, only in being agreed with 100%.

You’re not going to offer cites. Therefore, you have nothing real to contribute to this as a debate. You’re just going to cast aspersions and call names, then run away. You’re really doing nothing to bolster your position’s credibility.