On what basis do you think this? Simply because there are no longer any laws which explicitly disadvantage women?
For example, do you think women are equally likely to be discriminated against on the basis of sex as men? Do you think they are equally likely to be abused domestically, or harassed on the street? Do you think men and women are equally likely to be the target of sexual harassment in the workplace? Do you think the two groups are equally likely to be raped?
I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them. And these are only explicit forms of discrimination. This does not account for latent discrimination, which is quite difficult to measure but probably exists more copiously than explicit discrimination.
You're cherry picking statistics: Do you think women are more likely to be homeless? Drug addicts? Do you think women are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime? More likely to be in prison?
I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them.
So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses?
To clarify: I think it's important that women are represented in all professions (obviously software/tech is of specific concern) if only for the fact that diversity breeds innovation and discussion.
So men's weakness is a predisposition towards violence and irrational behavior, and women's weakness is... men's predisposition towards violence and irrational behavior.
samfoo never made the claim that men and women had the same weaknesses. He was simply stating that men are also disadvantaged because of their own nature. If you're a woman and are able to avoid violent or bigoted men, or are able to defend yourself against them, then you are not disadvantaged as someone who can't defend against those men. And to ricefield's claim that girls are no longer "disadvantaged.", there is some truth to that just looking at what's happened over the last century.
All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are also associated with mental disorders. While it sucks that men are more susceptible to mental disease than women, that's not a form of discrimination. On the other hand, women that become a member of the statistical sets I picked do so in typical daily interaction with men. They don't have the option to not be around men, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to make that choice if it were available to them. There's no equivalence between your statistics and mine.
> So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses?
I don't understand your point: How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? When men are victimized it's their own fault, but when women are it's men's fault?
> How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime?
I don't know where I read this, but my understanding is that criminals are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime. For example, 50% of all murder victims are black men under the age of 25, and that is often associated with gang-related violence. I don't have sources for any of this; I read it somewhere, but where I remember not. So absent some conflicting data I consider the typical violent crime one that received somewhat by choice -- it's often associated with some kind of violence or criminality the victim had previously done. One should not have the expectation of being involved in criminal activity and remaining completely safe from violence at the same time.
I realize that in a debate the burden of proof is on me at this point. But since this is not a formal debate and I don't believe there's much hope of convincing you, I'm going to shirk that duty for the time being.
> Who's more likely to be a grade school teacher?
Women, I think. Are you trying to say that being a grade school teacher is a matter of privilege? Because last I checked it's not exactly a super-desirable job on the social ladder.
> Who's more likely to be convicted (or for that matter: charged) with child molestation?
The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?
I'll accept that victims of violent crime are also more likely to be the perpetrators. I just don't see how that matters: They're still part of the demographic of "men" and still contributing sociological disadvantage to the population (viz. "Men are stupid muscly brutes").
There are disadvantages (and advantages), sociologically speaking, for both genders. I'm not arguing that women are equally enabled at present (I don't think they are). As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other.
(Note: I removed my questions in the edit because I didn't feel it was necessary for this to turn into a quid-pro-quo of discrimination reports)
> As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other.
I guess our fundamental difference is how much discrimination we believe remains. You seem to think the disparity is small, justifying your frustration with female solidarity. I think the it is still very large.
Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same.
In the areas where men are being discriminated against, the discrimination can be very strong (e.g. custody battles). But these contexts are far narrower than the contexts in which women face discrimination, which are more easily described by listing out the few places women are safe from it. I surely agree that we should work to end discrimination against males where it exists, but I also think as a society it makes sense to address problems in the order of their magnitude (or perhaps, with effort proportional to magnitude).
I agree that compared to historical norms we are doing quite well, but we are far from the point where solidarity is not an important asset to females.
I would argue that while discrimination is still significant in the US. IMO, the magnitude of net discrimination is fairly small. It’s not hard to find cases where men have an advantage. However, being a Man is a horrible disadvantage in child custody battles. In the eyes of the law when two drunken people have sex it’s often assumed that the man took advantage of the situation etc. Men receive less support in cases of domestic abuse and are more often killed. Infract only 10 year old boys are less likely than their female counterparts to die in any given year etc.
Biologically you can look at say men’s increased chance of baldness vs. PMS and think men have an advantage. But socially the cost / benefit analysis is harder to balance and harder to suggest that one side has a clear advantage because it comes down to how you weigh different parts of the equation.
However, being a Man is a horrible disadvantage in child custody battles.
Citation needed.
From what I've read, men who choose to contest custody, usually win. That's because he's likely making more money and is therefore in a better financial position to take care of the children.
Women usually get custody because men don't usually contest it. That's not to say that it doesn't come up. But men often trade the threat of a custody battle for other things in divorce proceedings.
Without going into the rest, I would note that even if you're right, you haven't refuted onemoreact. If it is ”known” that men are at a disadvantage in custody battles, you might expect men to only contest if they had significant other advantages.
I did not claim to have refuted onemoreact's claim. However I made it clear that that particular claim needs more support and isn't exactly obvious.
That said anyone quoting statistics should be able to back them up. I encountered the custody figure, along with a lot of other useful information about how the results of divorce are harder on women than men, in http://www.amazon.com/Price-Motherhood-Important-World-Value.... It is an interesting read, though not exactly the sort of thing you want your wife to encounter during her first pregnancy. (Which is how I learned about that book...)
While I have not read that book it looks fairly biased. And as they say it's easy to lie with statistics but let's compare the fact that "Men win more custody battles" with:
"Despite changes in the law and social custom, custody arrangements remained remarkably stable over the past three decades. National estimates in the 1970's and 80's indicated that women had sole custody of the children approximately 85% of the time, and men retained sole custody 10% of the time, with the remaining 5% spread over a variety of custody arrangements, including grandparent, split or joint custody. More recent data sets indicate that father custody figures may be closer to 15%. " http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Child%20Custody%...
It goes further as said as joint custody became an option an increasing number of family's took that option. This suggestion a large scale imbalance where large numbers of men would like to have more custody but they are far less likely to get it.
While I have not read that book it looks fairly biased.
Argument ad hominem much? I agree that the author has an axe to grind, but she backs her claims up with research.
And anecdotally her claims match my experience. I've seen a lot of friends/relatives/acquaintances get divorces, and from what I've seen the men generally want to see the kids some, but usually want the women to take the bulk of the child-raising work. Exact visitation arrangements get contested, but men seem more than happy to leave most of the work to the mom.
> Perhaps the social safety net steps in for women before they are driven to violent crime?
I can't think of any reason to believe this is the case, nor have you offered any evidence, so I'm going to tentatively reject this hypothesis.
> quit moralizing and start negotiating already . . .
I have no idea what you mean by this. "You guys stop discriminating against us in the workplace and we'll let you down easier when you proposition us on the street?" Something like that?
Re: your feelings of guilt: you probably don't need to feel guilty unless you are exploiting your privilege. Just being aware of it, not being a jerk, and not accepting it when other men act like jerks is all that's needed most of the time.
You've given about as much evidence for your hypothesis as I have mine. We're just bullshitting on the internet here. Anyways, for what it's worth, I buy your hypothesis (men are just violent people who kill each other more than women do) as well as mine (people are more likely to lend a helping hand to women in desperate straits).
I have no idea what you mean by this. "You guys stop discriminating against us in the workplace and we'll let you down easier when you proposition us on the street?" Something like that?
Not quite so flippant, but more or less. Women have a lot of leverage, they're half the population after all. A more unabashedly self-interested agenda would be a breath of fresh air (and possibly more effective).
The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?
It'd be interesting to learn whether this is actually true. The public is blind to incidences of molestation committed by women, so as I understand it many occurrences go unreported or undiscovered.
"Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same."
Tell me then, how is it an innocent man's fault when society assumes he is a pedophile when he is simply playing with his kids at the park? Or why is criminal sentencing so much more severe for men than for women who have committed an equivalent crime?
Why can't we focus on correcting injustice for its own sake, rather than picking teams? [Not so much directed at you; I've found this discussing very thought provoking. More directed at "everyone" waves hands that seems to feel its an us-versus-them argument.]
I very much agree with the bulk of your post, most people are surprised to learn that woman on man domestic abuse is not at all uncommon. To quote wikipedia:
Straus and Gelles found in couples reporting spousal violence, 27% of the time the man struck the first blow; the woman in 24%. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same.
Gay and lesbian couples also have similar rates of domestic violence.
However, due to differences in strength women are much less likely to be seriously injured or killed by domestic abuse by men than vice versa. On the other hand, battered men are less likely to receive help from society for various obvious reasons. We really have to work against domestic violence in general, rather than just "violence against women".
Outside of the home, though, almost all violence committed against strangers is done by men, whereas almost all the violence that women commit is some form of domestic abuse.
However, again, I agree that women often suffer discrimination in the workplace and suffer disproportionately from sexual harassment.
For example, do you think women are equally likely to be discriminated against on the basis of sex as men? Do you think they are equally likely to be abused domestically, or harassed on the street? Do you think men and women are equally likely to be the target of sexual harassment in the workplace? Do you think the two groups are equally likely to be raped?
I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them. And these are only explicit forms of discrimination. This does not account for latent discrimination, which is quite difficult to measure but probably exists more copiously than explicit discrimination.