> Is it marginalization? That isn't a given. You take it as a given.
Fair enough. That's legitimate.
Of course, then you proceed to list exactly one statistic that isn't marginalization and then throw down three that are.
There is a weak bias that teachers should be women. I expected the breakdown to be more pronounced by state, but I couldn't find numbers within a minute. I did find this: http://www.edweek.org/media/pot2011final-blog.pdf : which has an unsubtle chart on page 12 showing that the female percentage of teachers has been going up over the last 30 years. You're going to tell me that that means it's men who are marginalized, but guess what? Teachers are a marginalized group to begin with. (Also, I see 83% on that page, not 76%.)
20% sounds like the effects of marginalization to me, especially when SCOTUS does much better. Fun fact: you basically never hear about misogyny from a SCOTUS decision. Ratio there? About one-to-one.
Crime is multi-faceted, and I'll try to cover it succinctly. There are two major aspects. One: criminals are the ones who actually did something charge-worthy. Why does this tend to be men? Two: profiling happens, and people expect men to be a criminal and women to be victims. Thus arrests predominantly happen to men. So yes, there's a marginalization of women going on here. Of course, this is overshadowed by the fact that far too many people are being arrested in the first place, and far too many people arrested are conveniently of minority races. Part 1 isn't addressed by the police; it's addressed by fixing sexism in society itself, which would result in a more balanced ratio of inmates without touching the justice system at all.
Also, I do hope that science figures out how to get men pregnant. That's a thing being worked on. It's not really the more important thing ever, though.
> Once again, my gripe is mainly with the type of feminism I originally, way back responded to. The kind that says we can't have men's groups because "every other group is a men's group".
Then why are we even discussing anything? I could dig out an explanation of why your semantics are wrong, but I think we've established that the exclusionary policy you're objecting to isn't what was actually being called out. Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
> If the men's rights poster implies that women are sluts, then the City's poster implies that men are rapists.
No, it doesn't. I've seen lots of women drink who I haven't subsequently fucked. This is because drinking is not a sexual act. Why do I have to explain this?
Yes, there is a problematic fuzziness in the line of women who decide to report a rape because they regretted a one-night stand after the fact. The appropriate response isn't to say, "Just because you call it rape doesn't make it rape." The appropriate response is to get women the emotional education they need to stop doing that, whether it means fewer one-night stands or more recognition of why they're regretting the previous night's decision.
And even if you were right, that women are taking advantage of a compliant legal system in order to abuse men. Does that actually make it okay to advocate rape in return? Sure, it's understandable. I can sympathize with the desire to lash out and be self-defeating. But "she did it first" is not exactly the kind of moral foundation I hope people above the age of 10 are using.
> Nobody wants to think about that one logically, though. People just want to react.
And that's exactly how I feel about the way you treat it. You don't "think about that one logically". You just "react", because men have a plight and you have to advocate for it.
> I don't really understand what kind of warning bells "men need advocates too" claims would set off, and forgive me if after reading your posts I don't see what in your posts should have illuminated that for me. I still fervently believe that men do need advocates
Of course they do. It's just that most of the people who claim this, in my experience, have been people who don't need advocates and are just relishing another opportunity to slam the door in the face of women. Women need advocates too, and groups who say otherwise are, frankly, an enemy to justice as far as I'm concerned.
>One: criminals are the ones who actually did something charge-worthy. Why does this tend to be men?
Are all charge-worthy laws just? No. Are they going to let all the prisoners free en masse who committed MJ-related drug crimes now that it's basically legal? Is the drug war really working, or just creating more casualties than necessary?
Say a kid is born into a gang family. The gang's existence is only possible because drugs are illegal in the US. The kid grows up around violence and drugs, no 'mainstream-style' support from the parents so there's no school or work involved, then ends up in the gang himself. Eventually he goes down on charges. Was his demise systemic? Or is he "just a bad guy" who did something charge-worthy?
>No, it doesn't. I've seen lots of women drink who I haven't subsequently fucked. This is because drinking is not a sexual act. Why do I have to explain this?
That's the point.
The fact that posters exist telling you not to get rapey on a woman just because they're drinking is why we have to explain this. Drinking is not a sexual act, why are the posters making it one? Not all men are rapists, why are these posters presuming all men are?
>The appropriate response isn't to say, "Just because you call it rape doesn't make it rape."
I don't know whether or not it's appropriate, but it logically holds. As does "just because you regret a one-night stand doesn't mean it's not consensual". It's implying a default suspicion of women just as the other posters imply a default suspicion of men. If people don't like the tactic, maybe they shouldn't use it. Using it in the service of feminism rather than some other ideology doesn't magically make it okay.
>And even if you were right, that women are taking advantage of a compliant legal system in order to abuse men. Does that actually make it okay to advocate rape in return?
Huh? Who's advocating rape? Not me, and certainly not those posters...
>And that's exactly how I feel about the way you treat it
Fair enough, I can't tell you how to feel. But I've made my share of logical arguments in this thread, and they'll stand on their own.
>It's just that most of the people who claim this, in my experience, have been people who don't need advocates and are just relishing another opportunity to slam the door in the face of women
There's a contingent of women-haters out there for sure, just as there's a contingent of man-haters too. [1] But it's a mistake to assume that just because one advocates for a group, that person auto-hates The Other Group. In fact, that's kinda the same mistake you accuse me of making, isn't it? Thinking that because my experience with feminism has been way more confrontational and politically-charged than the majority of other people's, that my judgment of feminism as a whole is skewed?
[1] - Robin Morgan, influential writer, editor, general cultural producer. "I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- http://books.google.ca/books?id=PatzOnRJCf4C&pg=PA202#v=onep...
Fair enough. That's legitimate.
Of course, then you proceed to list exactly one statistic that isn't marginalization and then throw down three that are.
There is a weak bias that teachers should be women. I expected the breakdown to be more pronounced by state, but I couldn't find numbers within a minute. I did find this: http://www.edweek.org/media/pot2011final-blog.pdf : which has an unsubtle chart on page 12 showing that the female percentage of teachers has been going up over the last 30 years. You're going to tell me that that means it's men who are marginalized, but guess what? Teachers are a marginalized group to begin with. (Also, I see 83% on that page, not 76%.)
20% sounds like the effects of marginalization to me, especially when SCOTUS does much better. Fun fact: you basically never hear about misogyny from a SCOTUS decision. Ratio there? About one-to-one.
Crime is multi-faceted, and I'll try to cover it succinctly. There are two major aspects. One: criminals are the ones who actually did something charge-worthy. Why does this tend to be men? Two: profiling happens, and people expect men to be a criminal and women to be victims. Thus arrests predominantly happen to men. So yes, there's a marginalization of women going on here. Of course, this is overshadowed by the fact that far too many people are being arrested in the first place, and far too many people arrested are conveniently of minority races. Part 1 isn't addressed by the police; it's addressed by fixing sexism in society itself, which would result in a more balanced ratio of inmates without touching the justice system at all.
Also, I do hope that science figures out how to get men pregnant. That's a thing being worked on. It's not really the more important thing ever, though.
> Once again, my gripe is mainly with the type of feminism I originally, way back responded to. The kind that says we can't have men's groups because "every other group is a men's group".
Then why are we even discussing anything? I could dig out an explanation of why your semantics are wrong, but I think we've established that the exclusionary policy you're objecting to isn't what was actually being called out. Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
> If the men's rights poster implies that women are sluts, then the City's poster implies that men are rapists.
No, it doesn't. I've seen lots of women drink who I haven't subsequently fucked. This is because drinking is not a sexual act. Why do I have to explain this?
Yes, there is a problematic fuzziness in the line of women who decide to report a rape because they regretted a one-night stand after the fact. The appropriate response isn't to say, "Just because you call it rape doesn't make it rape." The appropriate response is to get women the emotional education they need to stop doing that, whether it means fewer one-night stands or more recognition of why they're regretting the previous night's decision.
And even if you were right, that women are taking advantage of a compliant legal system in order to abuse men. Does that actually make it okay to advocate rape in return? Sure, it's understandable. I can sympathize with the desire to lash out and be self-defeating. But "she did it first" is not exactly the kind of moral foundation I hope people above the age of 10 are using.
> Nobody wants to think about that one logically, though. People just want to react.
And that's exactly how I feel about the way you treat it. You don't "think about that one logically". You just "react", because men have a plight and you have to advocate for it.
> I don't really understand what kind of warning bells "men need advocates too" claims would set off, and forgive me if after reading your posts I don't see what in your posts should have illuminated that for me. I still fervently believe that men do need advocates
Of course they do. It's just that most of the people who claim this, in my experience, have been people who don't need advocates and are just relishing another opportunity to slam the door in the face of women. Women need advocates too, and groups who say otherwise are, frankly, an enemy to justice as far as I'm concerned.