TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: Trond on January 15, 2019, 09:41:34 PM

Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 15, 2019, 09:41:34 PM
Did you guys notice the "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet" article by Chloe Condon? It's long, self-glorifying, and full of the same old feminist nonsense. But what really struck me was one of the responses she got. It is one of the most hilariously soy-boy responses I have ever seen:

Wyatt Edward Gates responded:
Quote
"I'm sorry you have to deal with men. That's a tax on your mental health and life energy you shouldn't have to pay. No woman should. I hope in the future men are better equipped to behave in mature and considerate ways. I'll try to do as you said and call out bullshit from men wherever I see it."


This guy also writes his own posts and online articles:
Quote
"How should men interact with women in public at night? In brief: stay far away, keep your mouth shut, and don't stare."


Now, normally I would think that this is just another internet crazy person, but reminds me of several of the guys I noticed on RPG.net before they kicked me out. Bailywulf started a thread that was filled with angst and self-hatred. WTF is going on? Why would ANYONE embrace an ideology that treats you like shit, and teaches you to feel like shit? Did any of you encounter such guys in real life?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: RPGPundit on January 21, 2019, 11:02:49 PM
Sorry for the delay in approving this one; it slipped past me.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 21, 2019, 11:52:19 PM
Quote from: Trond;1071490
Now, normally I would think that this is just another internet crazy person, but reminds me of several of the guys I noticed on RPG.net before they kicked me out. Bailywulf started a thread that was filled with angst and self-hatred. WTF is going on? Why would ANYONE embrace an ideology that treats you like shit, and teaches you to feel like shit? Did any of you encounter such guys in real life?

Men love to work for women's approval. There's a few blokes out there who don't care, but most guys will happily throw other men under the bus to prove that they are worthy of that approval.

Combine that with the progressive stance on men as horribly patriarchal rapey bastards, and you get a toxic brew of self-loathing.

AFAICT anyway.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 22, 2019, 12:39:09 AM
Quote from: Trond;1071490
Did you guys notice the "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet" article by Chloe Condon? It's long, self-glorifying, and full of the same old feminist nonsense. But what really struck me was one of the responses she got. It is one of the most hilariously soy-boy responses I have ever seen:

Wyatt Edward Gates responded:

This guy also writes his own posts and online articles:


Now, normally I would think that this is just another internet crazy person, but reminds me of several of the guys I noticed on RPG.net before they kicked me out. Bailywulf started a thread that was filled with angst and self-hatred. WTF is going on? Why would ANYONE embrace an ideology that treats you like shit, and teaches you to feel like shit? Did any of you encounter such guys in real life?

Greetings!

LOL! Hey Trond! Wow. So pathetic, you know?

Beta Cuck Pussy Boy says: "How should men interact with women in public at night? In brief; stay far away, keep your mouth shut, and don't stare."

So says a feminized, Jabba the Hut slug. Women want men that are good-looking, dressed well, successful, and charming. Women *want* sex with men like this. They love being chatted up, and devoured by men like this.

In fact, if these pathetic Jabba the Hut's understood the non-verbal cues and body language that women routinely operate with--and respond to in men--they wouldn't spout such nonsense. If you are a man with the above attributes, women love being approached. They often approach *you* and do all kinds of things to get your attention, focused on them. They stare at you, giggle, talk to you, focus their attention on you, they put their bodies and sex on *display* for you, and a host of other "tells" to keep other women away, and get you to fuck them, and show attention to them.

Dress Well
Be Confident
Have some money
Be Charming--be skilled at flirting and innuendo, being able to get a woman laugh and wonder what it would be like to fuck you.
Be Intelligent--don't just drone on about some pet subject that you love; have the knoweldge and awareness to talk about all kinds of things, with reasonable skill and knowledge.
Be In Shape--Don't be Jabba the Hut, or a beanpole. Be as muscular and physically strong looking as possible. More so is always better than less, but it is not necessary to be a body-builder.

Men that can do these things, have no problems attracting women, anywhere, at all times, day or night. Men that can't or refuse to do these things...well, they end up playing video games, circle jerking themselves into a pathetic and sad life as a celibate troglodyte.

Our SJW feminized society makes things awful, for all men, in general. However, these traits are constantly desired by women, and are what motivates them, regardless of whatever else is going on in society or "online." Many men can't do these things--or refuse to, for whatever reason. These men are on an endless, downward spiral into misery.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on January 22, 2019, 03:25:57 AM
LOL. Woke wankers are the creepiest.

SNL actually nailed it.




Quote
"How should men interact with women in public at night? In brief; stay far away, keep your mouth shut, and don't stare."


Considering how fucked up most American women are, that's pretty good advice.

Nobody really wants to be ground zero staring agape at the freakass fatties.

"Buy American, but don't date American" is my frequent advice to single friends.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on January 22, 2019, 03:44:14 AM
I remember that thread, and it is pretty sad. I'm sorry if it makes a woman uncomfortable to walk on the same street as a man, but that isn't my fault or my problem.

The thing that I found the most hypocritical is replace the word men, with African-American and that thread would have gone in a completely different direction.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 22, 2019, 04:51:31 AM
I definitely try to avoid walking behind a lone woman on the street at night if possible.

I guess walking on streets is something most of you Americans don't have to worry about. :D

edit: Also if I see some other guy who appears to be deliberately walking close behind a lone woman at night, I get pretty uncomfortable. If it's in a secluded area like a park I keep an eye on them. I know the guy won't do anything with other people around - probably wouldn't do anything anyway, but I've seen some men who seem to get a thrill out of making an attractive woman feel uncomfortable/worried. Obviously those men are not going to take advice from Internet soyboys like the writer in the OP.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 22, 2019, 09:38:38 AM
Walking? ...but what do I do with my car?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 22, 2019, 12:42:28 PM
Well on the plus side, these weak guy are less likely to procreate and pass on their weak genes. In some respect it's evolution in practice. Except we get the dubious pleasure of listening to those who mewl and *beg* to ask permission for their own existence from those who have no capacity to understand or care. We'll get to watch them wither away as sure as other species die due to lack of desire of self-definition.

Or to quote the great Marcus Aurelius "A man must stand erect, not be kept erect by others."

I read this guys blog... talk about a pretentious entitled twat? Jesus.

I have no stake in identity politics other than the moment where my masculinity is under attack. Those that want to redefine me as some pitiable creature to be victimized for my own being, well they're in for a surprise. I'll leave lesser men, yes *lesser* men, who in the name of self-loathing take shame in the acts of others as if those acts were their own, to die on the sword of their own ignorant beliefs.

Those "men" have no virtues they fight for. Ever receding backwards and apologizing for every aspect and shred of biological reality and moral necessity that has defined who we are by *action* not just words. What virtues do they fight for that they don't, in turn, tear from themselves and be rendered emasculated? Yeah... having an self-loathing man tell me what it means to be a man from a position of apathetic weakness for lack of understanding is grotesque.

What would our world be if most men were like him? Someone who finds some kind of victory in choosing "pink" as a color over what he pretends is "masculine" - vs. what real masculine people concern themselves with: getting shit done that needs to be done, and doing so correctly. He's the little twat wondering why he doesnt' feel good, without striving to understand or striving to achieve something - which begets of the realization of what it takes to have what we have communally. He mistakes his sensitivity as a virtue outside of putting those sensitivities to the test and sorting out what actually works in practice.

That endurance of putting ones beliefs to the test and honestly and honorably accepting the outcomes is what it means to be a man. Guys like this, they sit by the sidelines criticizing and worse - victimizing themselves and projecting it on others, without getting into the arena and proving it.

TL/DR GTFO with that weak-ass shit.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 22, 2019, 12:53:29 PM
How timely.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/278837/birth-of-the-cool-guy
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 22, 2019, 01:05:13 PM
LOL how timely indeed.

"So what defines the Cool Guy? It might be that Cool Guys are, above all, useless. "

They stand for nothing. They accomplish nothing that matters. They believe in nothing that actually matters. They dare to solve no problems that affects others over their own self-promotion as victim-cheeleaders.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 22, 2019, 01:08:22 PM
Quote from: tenbones;1072247
LOL how timely indeed.

"So what defines the Cool Guy? It might be that Cool Guys are, above all, useless. "

They stand for nothing. They accomplish nothing that matters. They believe in nothing that actually matters. They dare to solve no problems that affects others over their own self-promotion as victim-cheeleaders.

The punchline is that for the most part, feminsts can't stand Cool Guys either.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 22, 2019, 01:13:20 PM
Self-loathing pretty much makes that impossible for "male feminists" too.

Hence the natural evolution-at-work notion (which the article you linked also predicts). We'll have to put up with this nonsense for a bit... it'll die out metaphorically if not literally.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Kiero on January 22, 2019, 01:54:39 PM
Be fair, being "woke" has given pathetic, whiny losers some means to earn social capital. Even if it's ultimately worthless.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 22, 2019, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1072207
I definitely try to avoid walking behind a lone woman on the street at night if possible.

I guess walking on streets is something most of you Americans don't have to worry about. :D

edit: Also if I see some other guy who appears to be deliberately walking close behind a lone woman at night, I get pretty uncomfortable. If it's in a secluded area like a park I keep an eye on them. I know the guy won't do anything with other people around - probably wouldn't do anything anyway, but I've seen some men who seem to get a thrill out of making an attractive woman feel uncomfortable/worried. Obviously those men are not going to take advice from Internet soyboys like the writer in the OP.

I'm not sure if this is the whole topic, but I agree with this. I think it's just basic decency that people should help make each other feel safe walking the streets. It might be a feminist statement, but it's also just a branch of normal decency.

I'm a part of my city, and I take responsibility for trying to make it better - which includes feeling safe when walking the streets.

It fucking sucks, but I do know that women have good reason not to feel safer if a strange man talks to them or walks close to them when on the streets at night. It isn't just supposedly man-hating feminists who think that. Even conservative women will often be nervous walking around alone at night, and are concerned about being harassed or stalked. That fucking sucks, though, and I would like it to change. Obviously, the world isn't going to change to some perfectly safe utopia, but I can do some things to make the situation better where I live, and maybe stand up to some assholes who are threatening.

That goes also for "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet". From my few times of being harassed on the Internet, I thought it was horrendous, and I know that it happens to women much more regularly than men. It's not like the Internet is suddenly going to become a polite society, but I feel like I should do my part in my corners of it - to stand up for basic decency and to call out shit like harassment and doxxing.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: rgalex on January 22, 2019, 02:43:33 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072257
That goes also for "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet". From my few times of being harassed on the Internet, I thought it was horrendous, and I know that it happens to women much more regularly than men. It's not like the Internet is suddenly going to become a polite society, but I feel like I should do my part in my corners of it - to stand up for basic decency and to call out shit like harassment and doxxing.


That's not totally true.  Recent polls (this one for example (http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-harassment/)) have shown that men tend to experience more online harassment overall than women.  When broken down into types of online harassment women receive more stalking and sexual harassment but men suffer more from offensive name calling, intentional embarrassment, physical threats and sustained harassment.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 22, 2019, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072257
It fucking sucks, but I do know that women have good reason not to feel safer if a strange man talks to them or walks close to them when on the streets at night. It isn't just supposedly man-hating feminists who think that. Even conservative women will often be nervous walking around alone at night, and are concerned about being harassed or stalked. That fucking sucks, though, and I would like it to change. Obviously, the world isn't going to change to some perfectly safe utopia, but I can do some things to make the situation better where I live, and maybe stand up to some assholes who are threatening.

But that's not what is being pumped non-stop from the main-stream media. *NO* one is saying anything you said is not true. No one. But the media and the alt-media online are directly attacking the very biological underpinnings of what masculinity is *as* being toxic. With the assumption that it's always true that men are going to attack women, and bully people with the passive-aggressive push for consequences for being merely male. It's become a demand that you prove your non-masculinity less you be branded as "toxically masculine".

Quote from: jhkim;1072257
That goes also for "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet". From my few times of being harassed on the Internet, I thought it was horrendous, and I know that it happens to women much more regularly than men. It's not like the Internet is suddenly going to become a polite society, but I feel like I should do my part in my corners of it - to stand up for basic decency and to call out shit like harassment and doxxing.

Does it happen to women more than men that they get doxxed? I have *never* seen stats for that. I have seen polls saying men are abused more online than women.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/06/higher-proportion-of-men-than-women-report-online-abuse-in-survey

I have seen anecdotally - people get doxxed more by people from the left (including people on the left that doxx themselves for the virtue-signal). Not sure I buy your premise. Nor do I think that standing up for "basic decency" means anything outside of some subjective parameters that when scrutinized by people on the left, should you be so brave as to illuminate those parameters - I can *guarantee* you, that a progressive will happily you attack you for not including where X=pet-outrage trigger.

There is nothing sufficient for them. Whether you think you're part of "them" is irrelevant because at that point you're simply revealing where your limit on the Overton Window is marked. Trust me - they'll go further. This is how "liberals" like Dave Rubin, a Democrat gay jew, is now being called an Alt-right Nazi/white-supremacist, transphobe.

Same is true of people talking about masculinity and femininity. It'll be non-stop deconstruction for the purposes of devolving and othering everyone into an intersectional box - so you can be placed in their new Hierarchy.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 22, 2019, 04:01:16 PM
I guess my view is that it takes strong good men to protect women from bad men, and men should try to be strong and good. Women can be good but very few can be as strong as an average man. And most men are good, at least in our society, but there are also bad men. So it takes strong good men to protect against them.

Socjus/cultmarx does not make men good, but it does make them weak, and so less able to protect against the bad men.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 22, 2019, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1072277
I guess my view is that it takes strong good men to protect women from bad men, and men should try to be strong and good. Women can be good but very few can be as strong as an average man. And most men are good, at least in our society, but there are also bad men. So it takes strong good men to protect against them.

Socjus/cultmarx does not make men good, but it does make them weak, and so less able to protect against the bad men.

As the saying goes:

Hard Times create Strong Men
Strong men create Good Times
Good Times create Weak Men
Weak Men create Hard Times
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 22, 2019, 04:32:02 PM
Quote from: rgalex;1072267
That's not totally true.  Recent polls (this one for example (http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-harassment/)) have shown that men tend to experience more online harassment overall than women.  When broken down into types of online harassment women receive more stalking and sexual harassment but men suffer more from offensive name calling, intentional embarrassment, physical threats and sustained harassment.

Sure, but women feel more afraid. Therefore menfolk have to do something. Because women are incapable to doing anything for themselves.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 22, 2019, 04:37:45 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1072277
I guess my view is that it takes strong good men to protect women from bad men, and men should try to be strong and good. Women can be good but very few can be as strong as an average man. And most men are good, at least in our society, but there are also bad men. So it takes strong good men to protect against them.

Socjus/cultmarx does not make men good, but it does make them weak, and so less able to protect against the bad men.

I understand the idea. I feel quite chivalrous towards women. But chivalry can and has been used for nefarious purposes, to create the threat narratives that have embroiled communities lately.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 22, 2019, 05:24:21 PM
Quote from: rgalex;1072267
That's not totally true.  Recent polls (this one for example (http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-harassment/)) have shown that men tend to experience more online harassment overall than women.  When broken down into types of online harassment women receive more stalking and sexual harassment but men suffer more from offensive name calling, intentional embarrassment, physical threats and sustained harassment.
Thanks for the link. I was speaking mostly from anecdotal experience before. That could be wrong, though I think categorizing and comparing different harassment in polls is difficult. Even ignoring sensitivity and feelings hurt, there is a range of what is more serious and less serious harassment. The stats there are dominated by harassment like name-calling, which I consider less serious compared to others.

Quote from: tenbones;1072276
Does it happen to women more than men that they get doxxed? I have *never* seen stats for that. I have seen polls saying men are abused more online than women.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/06/higher-proportion-of-men-than-women-report-online-abuse-in-survey

I have seen anecdotally - people get doxxed more by people from the left (including people on the left that doxx themselves for the virtue-signal). Not sure I buy your premise. Nor do I think that standing up for "basic decency" means anything outside of some subjective parameters that when scrutinized by people on the left, should you be so brave as to illuminate those parameters - I can *guarantee* you, that a progressive will happily you attack you for not including where X=pet-outrage trigger.
Yeah, I'm not claiming that harassment is purely a conservative thing. I do have the impression that women receive serious harassment more often than men among people I know, but that is hard to quantify - and I could be mistaken.

In the bigger picture, though, the main thing is that harassment sucks - it happens to both men and women, liberals and conservatives, and we should hold against it.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DocJones on January 22, 2019, 05:46:07 PM
Some appropriate satire:
Striking Blow Against Toxic Masculinity, Man Graciously Allows Wife To Shovel Driveway (https://babylonbee.com/news/striking-blow-against-toxic-masculinity-man-graciously-allows-wife-to-shovel-driveway)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on January 22, 2019, 06:03:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072282
In the bigger picture, though, the main thing is that harassment sucks - it happens to both men and women, liberals and conservatives, and we should hold against it.

"I think murder is bad; we should really try to mitigate people being murdered."

Like, what? Who is advocated harassment except sociopaths? This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer doesn't want to wear the ribbon EVEN THOUGH he's participating in the march. Somehow if you don't go out of your way to say bad stuff is bad, you're tacitly approving of said behavior.

You can solve online harassment quite easily: turn off the fucking computer. Done. In real life, women should start slapping dudes who got out of line like in the old days, or start packing heat and use it when necessary. When you create an environment that benefits those who want to engage in bad behavior by disarming the innocent, you end up with a lot more victims.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 22, 2019, 06:27:05 PM
Quote from: Brad;1072289
"I think murder is bad; we should really try to mitigate people being murdered."

For the record, I would like to say that I'm completely against murder.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 22, 2019, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Brad;1072289
In real life, women should start slapping dudes who got out of line like in the old days, or start packing heat and use it when necessary.

(Emphasis mine.) That's battery.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Warboss Squee on January 22, 2019, 09:51:52 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072291
For the record, I would like to say that I'm completely against murder.

The longer I'm online, the less against it I am.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on January 23, 2019, 04:21:54 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1072277
I guess my view is that it takes strong good men to protect women from bad men, and men should try to be strong and good.


No. That's white knight bullshit. Equality killed chivalry.

Now women get to protect themselves as they are equal to men. The privileges of equality come with the responsibilities of equality.

Unless a human has a relationship to me, their welfare is not my concern as I respect their much touted equality.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 23, 2019, 05:05:34 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072325
No. That's white knight bullshit. Equality killed chivalry.

Now women get to protect themselves as they are equal to men. The privileges of equality come with the responsibilities of equality.

Unless a human has a relationship to me, their welfare is not my concern as I respect their much touted equality.

Women aren't equal IRL, whatever the official ideology says. That's why men (and women) are evolutionarily hardcoded to care more about women than men, and why nominally equal processes such as criminal and family law favour women in practice.

Denying it is just as much in denial of reality as Feminism is.

AFAICT 'white knighting' is generally taken to mean the attitude that women are both Equal AND Better at the same time - an Orwellian/1984-ish ability to hold two mutually contradictory thoughts at the same time - and act accordingly.

Edit: Also I don't hold with collective guilt/responsibility unless people choose to be part of the Collective. If a woman is one of the 20%-25% who says "I'm a Feminist" I can see a good case for letting her go look after herself. Most women never made that choice.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Anon Adderlan on January 23, 2019, 05:30:24 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072191
Men love to work for women's approval. There's a few blokes out there who don't care, but most guys will happily throw other men under the bus to prove that they are worthy of that approval.

So much for bros before hoes.

Quote from: SHARK;1072193
Dress Well
Be Confident
Have some money
Be Charming--be skilled at flirting and innuendo, being able to get a woman laugh and wonder what it would be like to fuck you.
Be Intelligent--don't just drone on about some pet subject that you love; have the knoweldge and awareness to talk about all kinds of things, with reasonable skill and knowledge.
Be In Shape--Don't be Jabba the Hut, or a beanpole. Be as muscular and physically strong looking as possible. More so is always better than less, but it is not necessary to be a body-builder.

And honestly IMHE the only thing you really need on that list is the confidence, which many men and women still sadly assume means being an arrogant asshole. What's worse is it's easy to be confident when you're a sociopath unburdened by self-doubt.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1072202
LOL. Woke wankers are the creepiest.

SNL actually nailed it.


Wow. I'm surprised they got away with that.

Quote from: Brad;1072289
Who is advocated harassment except sociopaths? This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer doesn't want to wear the ribbon EVEN THOUGH he's participating in the march. Somehow if you don't go out of your way to say bad stuff is bad, you're tacitly approving of said behavior.

It's all about being able to dictate what you must say and do, which coincidentally is also something sociopaths advocate.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 23, 2019, 12:27:21 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1072328
Edit: Also I don't hold with collective guilt/responsibility unless people choose to be part of the Collective. If a woman is one of the 20%-25% who says "I'm a Feminist" I can see a good case for letting her go look after herself. Most women never made that choice.

Personally, I don't have the time or inclination to sort them out. The world has changed, and we're all still trying to catch up. Reliable birth control and modern hygenie (indoor plumbing, tampons & pads, etc) have radically changed the scope of what women can and can't do. Unless there's a zombie apocalypse type scenario, chivalry is going to continue to become more and more irrelevant, and butt up against how men and women interact in the modern world.
That too is reality.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on January 23, 2019, 01:40:53 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072308
(Emphasis mine.) That's battery.


You must be a lawyer...and autistic.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 23, 2019, 02:01:50 PM
I'm open to any kind of discussion. Any. I'm open to anyone trying to convince me of something I think might be not what I think is true.

Not gonna lie - trying to convince me to dislike myself over the fact I'm male is going to be a tall rhetorical mountain to climb. I'd like to think if I were female the same would be true. My daughter is the closest example of that. She is in all ways that matters a mini-version of me, an adult, and she makes no apologies about reality either and doesn't identify as a victim or as oppressed.

I'll use her as my baseline.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on January 23, 2019, 05:26:01 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1072328
If a woman is one of the 20%-25% who says "I'm a Feminist" I can see a good case for letting her go look after herself.

Where do I pick up the super secret decoder ring which casts Detect Feminist at-will?

If other 75% of women don't like what the 25% has wrought, they should step up.

Meanwhile, men should step down (from the chivalry gig) and enjoy the fireworks.


Quote from: S'mon;1072328
Most women never made that choice.

Tough shit. I didn't choose to be hated for my genetics either, but that's the world we live in.

It's crap sandwiches for everybody!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 23, 2019, 05:43:57 PM
Quote from: Brad;1072367
You must be a lawyer...and autistic.

No, to either one. But if my point went over your head, that's OK.

(Although, on the first one, give me another year to finish up my J.D.)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 23, 2019, 05:54:43 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072380
Tough shit. I didn't choose to be hated for my genetics either, but that's the world we live in.

It's crap sandwiches for everybody!

Despite what you might think from Britain's dystopian ruling class, this (race & sex hatred) seems much more a parts-of-US thing. I pretty much never experience it in daily life (at least since my American ex wife got herself a new boyfriend, and eased off with the hating) :D so I don't see why I should let it affect my on-street behaviour.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on January 23, 2019, 06:38:14 PM
I'm in California, perhaps the epicenter of identity politics stupidity, so its the bread and butter of the media. Glad to here the UK hasn't drowned in that particular Kool Aid...yet.

Ever heard the phrase "When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold"?  That's California and the USA.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: kythri on January 23, 2019, 08:43:53 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072390
I'm in California, perhaps the epicenter of identity politics stupidity

Oooohhhh, watch out!!  Somebody from Portland or Seattle is going to check your privilege!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on January 23, 2019, 09:24:27 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072381
No, to either one. But if my point went over your head, that's OK.

(Although, on the first one, give me another year to finish up my J.D.)

Looks like I was right on both accounts, or at least 2/3. So Aspergers then?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 24, 2019, 10:20:33 AM
Quote from: Brad;1072396
Looks like I was right on both accounts, or at least 2/3. So Aspergers then?

Wrong again, on both counts still. Man you're bad at this... and math. You probably should never advise anyone on anything to do with health, legality, or living in society.

Look, if it makes you feel better, I apologize for pointing out that your advice was an idiotic civil infraction and tort action that would be worse for the people you were trying to advise and that it was indicative a failure of imagination in how to solve a social problem, instead creating more.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: blackstone on January 24, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072390
I'm in California, perhaps the epicenter of identity politics stupidity, so its the bread and butter of the media. Glad to here the UK hasn't drowned in that particular Kool Aid...yet.

Ever heard the phrase "When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold"?  That's California and the USA.

When Cali sneezes, the rest of the USA wants it to die of whatever fucked up communicable disease it got.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 24, 2019, 10:44:19 AM
Key word: communicable.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on January 24, 2019, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072426
Wrong again, on both counts still. Man you're bad at this... and math. You probably should never advise anyone on anything to do with health, legality, or living in society.

Look, if it makes you feel better, I apologize for pointing out that your advice was an idiotic civil infraction and tort action that would be worse for the people you were trying to advise and that it was indicative a failure of imagination in how to solve a social problem, instead creating more.


Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, Chief. Might want to get your sense of humor checked out.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 24, 2019, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Brad;1072430
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, Chief. Might want to get your sense of humor checked out.

The lack of self-awareness in that statement is amazing. :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on January 24, 2019, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072431
The lack of self-awareness in that statement is amazing. :D

And we come full circle. The autist has revealed his hand.

Did you type that amazing retort while puffing on a pipe, ensuring your top hat was firmly in place? All you're missing is a "tut tut" in there.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 24, 2019, 11:08:19 AM
Quote from: Brad;1072434
And we come full circle. The autist has revealed his hand.

Did you type that amazing retort while puffing on a pipe, ensuring your top hat was firmly in place? All you're missing is a "tut tut" in there.

Never enjoyed pipe smoke, top hats look terrible on a man my height (for I have not the dashing looks of Lincoln), but I'll admit tut-tutting crossed my mind.

So you get one of three on that one, Snowflake. Congratulations on your first even partially correct statement.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Joey2k on January 24, 2019, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: Brad;1072367
You must be a lawyer...and autistic.


Nope, TW's just holding women to the same standard of behavior as men.  If there's ever any question, switch the genders around:

Quote
You can solve online harassment quite easily: turn off the fucking computer. Done. In real life, men should start slapping chicks who got out of line like in the old days,


Is it still ok?  Then neither was the original statement.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on January 24, 2019, 01:48:54 PM
Quote from: Joey2k;1072443
Nope, TW's just holding women to the same standard of behavior as men.  If there's ever any question, switch the genders around:

Is it still ok?  Then neither was the original statement.

I guess I shouldn't expect anyone on the Internet to have a sense of humor anymore, but God forbid if I don't make the attempt...and what's the difference? People thought it was okay back then, so are you just starting yet another argument using the whole "we're much more enlightened" spiel? Maybe they WERE right, and smacking around insolent broads was actually a good idea.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 24, 2019, 02:04:04 PM
To jump back to the original topic for a moment,

Quote from: Trond;1071490
Now, normally I would think that this is just another internet crazy person, but reminds me of several of the guys I noticed on RPG.net before they kicked me out. Bailywulf started a thread that was filled with angst and self-hatred. WTF is going on? Why would ANYONE embrace an ideology that treats you like shit, and teaches you to feel like shit? Did any of you encounter such guys in real life?
I'm not sure what the concrete position statement is here. What's the supposed dividing line of what is a self-hating man? In particular, I identify as a feminist - and I'm not sure how I tell if I would be considered part of this group.

Part of the issue of supposed angst and self-hatred seems to be about collective responsibility. That is, if some Muslims engage in terrorism, do moderate Muslims have some level of responsibility for that? If some liberals engage in antifa violence and suppression of free speech, do other liberals have some level of responsibility? More broadly, if some men engage in harassment of women, do other men have some level of responsibility? On some level, obviously the responsibility is squarely with whoever commits the act. But I think people do have some responsibility to make their own community better. Although being born male is an accident of biology, there is a broad male culture and male communities that have their own norms.

In general, communities are more concerned about things done to them than in policing their own - which is understandable, but also a flaw. We should see the bad being done by our community as a real issue. Sexual harassment is predominantly committed by men, so it should be seen as more of an issue for men.

(As a side-note, Trond uses the term "soy-boy" which bugs me. As a Korean-American, soy sauce and tofu have always been a regular part of my diet. It seems like a stupid thing to label on.)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: ThatChrisGuy on January 24, 2019, 02:09:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072448
(As a side-note, Trond uses the term "soy-boy" which bugs me. As a Korean-American, soy sauce and tofu have always been a regular part of my diet. It seems like a stupid thing to label on.)

I think it's a play on the idea that they drink soymilk, and it's not about the fermented stuff that people from soy-consuming places actually eat.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 24, 2019, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072448
To jump back to the original topic for a moment,


I'm not sure what the concrete position statement is here. What's the supposed dividing line of what is a self-hating man? In particular, I identify as a feminist - and I'm not sure how I tell if I would be considered part of this group.

The issue is "feminism", in the current wave, has yet to actually define what the issues are that haven't been long debunked for *decades*. Modern feminism seems to be trying to de-feminize itself and, at the same time, attempt to take on the very cartoony masculine traits they project on men, as if that somehow closes this biological emergent gap they wish to pretend does not exist.

Women generally prefer things that men do not. That generality is measurable, at scale, along with a LOT of datapoints that account for these perceived "inequities" that certainly are not policy in this day and age. There might be some outliers - but those outliers need to be defined for discussion's sake.

Those among the modern feminists that propagate this idea of "Toxic Masculinity" are conflating their cartoonish stereotype of Masculinity to be the root-cause of their perceived problem and crusade for solving these problems that are already largely solved, in order to justify their own existence. Worse they seem to be projecting this those very problems they sought to cure on all men, without circumspection or nuance.

Quote from: jhkim;1072448
Part of the issue of supposed angst and self-hatred seems to be about collective responsibility. That is, if some Muslims engage in terrorism, do moderate Muslims have some level of responsibility for that? If some liberals engage in antifa violence and suppression of free speech, do other liberals have some level of responsibility? More broadly, if some men engage in harassment of women, do other men have some level of responsibility? On some level, obviously the responsibility is squarely with whoever commits the act. But I think people do have some responsibility to make their own community better. Although being born male is an accident of biology, there is a broad male culture and male communities that have their own norms.

The short answer is: yes.

Long answer - Metaphorically if your house has one room filled with a fire, it IS your job, if you value that house, to put that fire out. The means which you go by that is the Devil in the Details. When Christianity was faced with this issue - they had a centuries-long war over, a conflict whose echoes are felt to this da. Ultimately they've largely got tired of the bloodshed, and let go of prescriptive punishment for wrong-think. Now that mode of puritanical thought has been picked up by radical fundamentalists of Islam and leftists of post-modernity in the west.

The funny thing about your quote above is  that you're acknowledging the biological impulse that IS fundamental to being male without fully acknowledging the *ramifications* of building your cultural and personal identification around such an abstraction as "gender-as-culture" (rather than as an emergent quality) that denies fundamental reality of biology itself. Masculinity *cannot* be suppressed without gigantic upheavals in society that have measurably *BROUGHT US HERE* because of the expression of those qualities across culture. The issue is the lack of nuance on the Left that conflates the biological reality that being *male* ISN'T a culture. But being male *does* express behaviors that form functional patterns that produce measurable results in culture.

Femininity does the same thing but with different results because they *are* different. There is no monolithic form of Masculinity that is unto itself a discrete culture. People that push identity politics - you know... Leftists, look at these biological differences which they generally deny as the root, and conflate them to be cultural. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

This is *precisely* why feminists have a hard time grappling with the Islam and Gender identity problems - because they conflate Gender to be a social construct like Islam - rather than a biologically emergent phenomenon. Which of course leads to the natural confusion on "what to do" - because the reality is that history has already shown us time and again: when you wish to create social constructs that are in competition for describing reality, you're in for bloody conflict.

Why? Because people are too ego-bound to let go of their beliefs and feeling outraged for being wrong. They would rather die or kill others to prove themselves right *at all costs*. This is the mindset of two-dimensional dogmatic fundamentalism. I don't even need to call it a discrete religion - but all fundamentalist religious social constructs carry this DNA. It's fueled by cognitive dissonance at the excuse of reason and individual thought in order to justify "the cause". And there always has to be a cause for the collective construct - less you be shown to be 1) a blaphemer or 2) an apostate. The end result is the same.

More reasonable people see this line of thinking for the extinction trap that it is.

Quote from: jhkim;1072448
In general, communities are more concerned about things done to them than in policing their own - which is understandable, but also a flaw. We should see the bad being done by our community as a real issue. Sexual harassment is predominantly committed by men, so it should be seen as more of an issue for men.

Wrong. You should be looking at "the bad" and asking yourself "to what degree?". And "is it actually a real problem - or an aberrant incident that requires actual action and again - TO WHAT DEGREE? Masculinity is not a culture. Which of course to feminists is a ridiculously easy target that actually works like structural bigotry. Because it LITERALLY is "that which is not us".

Is it actually a problem? Relative to "what"? Deaths by lightning bolts? Deaths by automobile mechanical failure? Violence to dog-track greyhounds? What is this quantifiable outrage that "feminists" feel towards those they've othered hypocritcially by action and volition against what they claim they're against? Seems like a bad way to solve problems that are largely solved within reasonable limits.

If it's not sufficient - then the question REALLY is : What would be sufficient to make "feminists" not identify with identity politics as a collective group. Yeah... there's real issue. It's an existential one.

Quote from: jhkim;1072448
(As a side-note, Trond uses the term "soy-boy" which bugs me. As a Korean-American, soy sauce and tofu have always been a regular part of my diet. It seems like a stupid thing to label on.)

Yeah it's more for the sterotype male-feminist that chugs Soy. Though I have seen it applied to tofu-eaters. But not really the Asian variety.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 24, 2019, 04:16:43 PM
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1072451
I think it's a play on the idea that they drink soymilk, and it's not about the fermented stuff that people from soy-consuming places actually eat.

Indeed. From what I have read, Soy reduces testosterone severely. Hence, men that drink Soy have their testosterone levels reduced severely, rapidly making such men more effeminate. The testosterone is reduced; estrogen levels increase; the men become lethargic, less competitive, less aggressive. Such men are steadily losing muscle mass, and increasingly prone to gaining weight as fat. Energy levels and overall vigor tends to plummet, as estrogen levels increase, the men become more lethargic, and continue to become fatter.

Interesting. More men are overweight and obese. More men are increasingly feminine, feminized, and lacking any kind of masculine strength and vigor. Fat, weak, lazy, feminine, pathetic, passive, and conflict-avoidant.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 24, 2019, 04:57:28 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1072460
Indeed. From what I have read, Soy reduces testosterone severely. Hence, men that drink Soy have their testosterone levels reduced severely, rapidly making such men more effeminate. The testosterone is reduced; estrogen levels increase; the men become lethargic, less competitive, less aggressive. Such men are steadily losing muscle mass, and increasingly prone to gaining weight as fat. Energy levels and overall vigor tends to plummet, as estrogen levels increase, the men become more lethargic, and continue to become fatter.

Interesting. More men are overweight and obese. More men are increasingly feminine, feminized, and lacking any kind of masculine strength and vigor. Fat, weak, lazy, feminine, pathetic, passive, and conflict-avoidant.
This is pseudo-scientific bullshit. In particular, South Korea and Japan have the highest rates of soy consumption in the world (ref) (https://www.otsuka.co.jp/en/nutraceutical/about/soylution/encyclopedia/consumption.html) - but also among the lowest rates of obesity. Meanwhile, the U.S. has much lower soy consumption but has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world. If you want to find pathetic fat losers, I'd look first at burger-chomping beer-guzzling sports fans.

What this also ignores is that soy is regularly used by lots of bodybuilders to help beef up. In a page about soy on bodybuilding.com, they conclude:

Quote
The study found no difference between male animals who ate soy protein that contained the plant estrogens and those who ate soy with the estrogens removed, leading researchers to conclude the isoflavones (genistein and daidzein) in soy protein have no apparent negative effects on the reproductive system.[8]

"Our data supports an interpretation that soybean estrogens have tissue specificity in part because of their mixed estrogen agonist and antagonist properties," the scientists concluded.

From this and other data, it seems the phytoestrogens in soy don't, in fact, have systemic estrogenic effects, such as body fat increases.
Quote
More research will need to be done, but if the studies presented here are anything to go by, soy protein could be an excellent anabolic aid, either used independently or in concert with whey protein.

This report is not intended to denounce whey protein or hail soy as the newest miracle product, but, rather, to present another side to the whey-versus-soy story, with the research to help people make more informed choices.
Source: https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/soy-friend-or-foe.html

I also like how you link being feminine or feminized with being weak, lazy, and pathetic.

Side note: I get that this is labelling soy milk in particular more than other soy products, but Asian countries also have high soy milk consumption - partly due to lactose intolerance being more common among East Asians.
Quote
Eight of the top 12 soy drink consuming countries are Asian with Hong Kong residents consuming the most at 17 litres per year each, according to TetraPak data.
Source: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2011/04/20/Asia-continues-to-dominate-soy-milk-consumption

Short form - soy is a fine part of a diet for bodybuilders or anyone else. I personally dislike using soy as a substitute for other ingredients as tends to be common in the U.S., and prefer to eat tofu as its own unique ingredient - but the nutrition value is pretty similar.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on January 24, 2019, 05:19:03 PM
jhkim, do you think rhetoric is validly used only when it is backed up by dialectic?  Why do you often seek to treat rhetoric as a dialectic discussion?  

I see this all the time - and the specific positions argued really don't matter.  But I wonder if its because people don't understand/recognize rhetoric when it's spoken to them, or some other reason.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 24, 2019, 05:37:25 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1072470
jhkim, do you think rhetoric is validly used only when it is backed up by dialectic?  Why do you often seek to treat rhetoric as a dialectic discussion?  

I see this all the time - and the specific positions argued really don't matter.  But I wonder if its because people don't understand/recognize rhetoric when it's spoken to them, or some other reason.

Are you talking the modern use of rhetoric or the classical use of the word rhetoric? Because from your use of dialectic, I would assume the classical... which means that the dialectic discussion is most certainly a part of the ethos of the rhetoric (in terms of pathos, ethos, and logos). Aristotle certainly established the link between the two quite firmly.

I ask only to know how to read your question to jhkim.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on January 24, 2019, 06:00:17 PM
Just a point of interest, actually soy does not reduce testosterone, rather it has estrogen mimicking compounds (known as phytoestrogens or isoflavones). Also I would note that the benefits and drawbacks of soy are highly contestable...

https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a19539170/soys-negative-effects/
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on January 24, 2019, 06:05:51 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072473
Are you talking the modern use of rhetoric or the classical use of the word rhetoric? Because from your use of dialectic, I would assume the classical... which means that the dialectic discussion is most certainly a part of the ethos of the rhetoric (in terms of pathos, ethos, and logos). Aristotle certainly established the link between the two quite firmly.

I ask only to know how to read your question to jhkim.

When I put a 3L on retainer I'll worry about his comprehension of my question to another party.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 24, 2019, 06:12:16 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1072476
When I put a 3L on retainer I'll worry about his comprehension of my question to another party.

I don't care if you're worried about some 3L's comprehension. I asked for my comprehension.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 24, 2019, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072465
This is pseudo-scientific bullshit. In particular, South Korea and Japan have the highest rates of soy consumption in the world (ref) (https://www.otsuka.co.jp/en/nutraceutical/about/soylution/encyclopedia/consumption.html) - but also among the lowest rates of obesity. Meanwhile, the U.S. has much lower soy consumption but has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world. If you want to find pathetic fat losers, I'd look first at burger-chomping beer-guzzling sports fans.

What this also ignores is that soy is regularly used by lots of bodybuilders to help beef up. In a page about soy on bodybuilding.com, they conclude:



Source: https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/soy-friend-or-foe.html

I also like how you link being feminine or feminized with being weak, lazy, and pathetic.

Side note: I get that this is labelling soy milk in particular more than other soy products, but Asian countries also have high soy milk consumption - partly due to lactose intolerance being more common among East Asians.

Source: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2011/04/20/Asia-continues-to-dominate-soy-milk-consumption

Short form - soy is a fine part of a diet for bodybuilders or anyone else. I personally dislike using soy as a substitute for other ingredients as tends to be common in the U.S., and prefer to eat tofu as its own unique ingredient - but the nutrition value is pretty similar.

Greetings!

Great, Jhkim. *shrugs* I don't consume Soy in any form, except for Soy Sauce on my rice when enjoying Asian food. If the idea that Soy milk or whatever decreases testosterone, and increases estrogen--and consequently tends to increase men being fat, lethargic, and feminized is all really "psuedo-science bullshit"--my question would be WHY? Why single out or target Soy as some kind of evil product? Why not pick, I don't know, carrots, or potatoes?

As I said, I have no particular ideological axe to grind about the product, one way or the other. Randomly, I have seen several video productions done by uber-buffed strong men that rant extensively against Soy--while promoting a host of other, general food items. Such men by the way don't seem to be shills for a particular food item--they say eat and drink this list of two dozen things, but stay away from hamburgers, fat, greasy junkfood, soda, and especially SOY. So, from what I've seen, they advocate strong, healthy diets, and avoiding junk food, and so on. But they consistently single out Soy as a terrible product that will make a man fat, lazy, lethargic, and feminine.

What is the reason for such focused hate for Soy? It isn't just *one* uber health guy, I've seen a good number of uber-health guys constantly hammer Soy.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 24, 2019, 06:42:47 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1072470
jhkim, do you think rhetoric is validly used only when it is backed up by dialectic?  Why do you often seek to treat rhetoric as a dialectic discussion?  

I see this all the time - and the specific positions argued really don't matter.  But I wonder if its because people don't understand/recognize rhetoric when it's spoken to them, or some other reason.

From my view - all rhetoric is one-sided, but not all rhetoric is equal. Some rhetoric is close to reality, while some is objectively way off base, and deserves to be debunked. Trying to debunk rhetoric is always going to have problems.

More concretely, I understand that some questions are rhetorical. Like probably Trond's initial question of "why are some men self-hating" isn't really looking for an answer, but rather just a way to express his anti-feminist position and get commiserating posts from other anti-feminists about how soyboys suck. That would be what some would call "virtue signaling." But if I don't think I agree - how do I answer it?

I don't expect anyone here to stop identifying as feminist or anti-feminist based on conversation here, but we may be able to agree or change our minds on smaller, more concrete points.


Quote from: tenbones;1072458
The funny thing about your quote above - is you're acknowledging the biological impulse that IS fundamental to being male without fully acknowledging the *ramifications* building your cultural and personal identification around an abstraction that *denies* that very fundamental reality. Masculinity *cannot* be suppressed without gigantic upheavals in society that have measurably *BROUGHT US HERE*. The issue is the lack of nuance on the Left that conflates the biological reality that being *male* ISN'T a culture. But being male *does* express behaviors that form functional patterns that produce measurable results.

Femininity does the same thing with different results because they're different. There is no monolithic form of Masculinity that is unto itself a discrete culture. People that push identity politics - you know... lefties, look at these biological differences which they generally deny and conflate them to be cultural. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

This is *precisely* why feminists have a hard time grappling with the Islam and Gender identity problems - because they conflate Gender to be a social construct like Islam - rather than a biologically emergent phenomenon. Which of course leads to the natural confusion on "what to do" - because the REALITY is that history has already down us time and again: when you wish to create social constructs that defy the status-quo you're in for bloody conflict.

There is both masculine biology and multiple different masculine cultures. For example, someone might say "Well, men are inherently more violent - that's why we have our rape and murder rates."  But crime rates vary widely in different countries and different cultures. For example, Japan has nearly one-tenth the murder rate of the United States. That doesn't mean that Japan is purely better - they also have a much larger suicide rate, for example. They're repressed workaholics who are messed up in the head (IMO).

But clearly culture and social environment can make a big difference in negative behaviors like sexual harassment, rape, and murder. Culture can change things for the better.

Wanting to reduce the rate of sexual harassment and other crimes isn't denying male biology - it's recognizing that people aren't just animals who are slaves to their hormones. They have cultural and religious values that change their behavior. We can see through history that the status quo has changed. People are still people and problems remain, but some things have unquestionably gotten a lot better.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 24, 2019, 06:46:45 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072480
There is both masculine biology and multiple different masculine cultures. For example, someone might say "Well, men are inherently more violent - that's why we have our rape and murder rates."  But crime rates vary widely in different countries and different cultures. For example, Japan has nearly one-tenth the murder rate of the United States.

Violent crime rates vary. Men committing 10 times the violent crime of women is close to a constant, though. The absolute rates vary far more than the ratios.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on January 24, 2019, 07:17:03 PM
First, thanks for answering.

Quote from: jhkim;1072480
while some is objectively way off base, and deserves to be debunked.

I'm going to ask another question, and while it's not rhetorical, it is more pointed and personal; I don't demand any answers.  But I am curious.

Do you feel the rhetoric of the other point of view is close(r) to reality?  I've never observed you on sites of other political persuasions, other than the facebook screenshot posted here, so I'm wondering if your debunking is equal-opportunity, or selectively used to introduce questions to common talking points of one side only.

Perhaps the other side is graded on the curve because you feel their ends are more legitimate?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on January 24, 2019, 07:48:46 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072477
Last edited by Tanin Wulf; Today at 07:12 PM.


When you graduate, don't ever relay your ego weak point to your opposition.  Because they'll care enough to use it.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 24, 2019, 09:15:05 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1072487
When you graduate, don't ever relay your ego weak point to your opposition.  Because they'll care enough to use it.

I thank you for your advice. Believe me, I spent enough years in the Pentagon managing ACAT I systems to know how to handle people shrewd enough to pick up on that. (Of course I also found the best way to do that was to absolutely telegraph my ego weakness to them; it made them overconfident.) I survived the Obama officials after all.

And I edited that post because I made an accidentally inaccurate statement. I don't want to lie to you.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 24, 2019, 10:03:07 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1072482
I'm going to ask another question, and while it's not rhetorical, it is more pointed and personal; I don't demand any answers.  But I am curious.

Do you feel the rhetoric of the other point of view is close(r) to reality?  I've never observed you on sites of other political persuasions, other than the facebook screenshot posted here, so I'm wondering if your debunking is equal-opportunity, or selectively used to introduce questions to common talking points of one side only.

Perhaps the other side is graded on the curve because you feel their ends are more legitimate?
Well, everyone has their biases, and I'm sure that plays into how I respond. As for other forums - This is by far the most blunt (or sometimes rude) forum that I'm on. I like that - it appeals to a side of me. But my Facebook is almost entirely people I know in my real life, so I'm circumspect. In part that means being more moderate - most of my FB friends are liberal, but I do have some conservative friends and family. I still try to push for what I think is true, but I'm definitely slower to get to some points instead of being quick on the draw.

I do have regular arguments with liberal friends. Free speech, nuclear power, vaccines, and Israel/Palestine are common points of conflict - but there are others. I had an argument a few weeks ago with someone a friend who thought global warming was going to make the whole human race go extinct within a century, based on what a Buddhist monk said.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on January 24, 2019, 10:10:07 PM
Fair answer.  Appreciate it.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 25, 2019, 12:36:54 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1072282
Thanks for the link. I was speaking mostly from anecdotal experience before. That could be wrong, though I think categorizing and comparing different harassment in polls is difficult. Even ignoring sensitivity and feelings hurt, there is a range of what is more serious and less serious harassment. The stats there are dominated by harassment like name-calling, which I consider less serious compared to others.


It is the usual assumption that women have it worse in almost every way. It is not always true of course. EVERYONE gets shit on the internet. Check these forums for instance, the way the guys talk to each other here is often worse than some of the "harassment" some women complain about elsewhere.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 25, 2019, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1072448
To jump back to the original topic for a moment,


I'm not sure what the concrete position statement is here. What's the supposed dividing line of what is a self-hating man? In particular, I identify as a feminist - and I'm not sure how I tell if I would be considered part of this group.

Part of the issue of supposed angst and self-hatred seems to be about collective responsibility. That is, if some Muslims engage in terrorism, do moderate Muslims have some level of responsibility for that? If some liberals engage in antifa violence and suppression of free speech, do other liberals have some level of responsibility? More broadly, if some men engage in harassment of women, do other men have some level of responsibility? On some level, obviously the responsibility is squarely with whoever commits the act. But I think people do have some responsibility to make their own community better. Although being born male is an accident of biology, there is a broad male culture and male communities that have their own norms.

In general, communities are more concerned about things done to them than in policing their own - which is understandable, but also a flaw. We should see the bad being done by our community as a real issue. Sexual harassment is predominantly committed by men, so it should be seen as more of an issue for men.

(As a side-note, Trond uses the term "soy-boy" which bugs me. As a Korean-American, soy sauce and tofu have always been a regular part of my diet. It seems like a stupid thing to label on.)

As a real manly-man I'll have my low fat, organic, free-range, REAL MILK thank you very much. I am kidding of course. But more seriously: try to not let stupid little things bug you. Some people have actually apologized to me for saying things that maybe, perhaps, could be seen as offensive to Norwegians (including being called German, Finnish, or, dare I say it, Swedish). But that's ridiculous. (My wife sometimes jokes that Norwegians seem to have become a bunch of wussies, and what on earth happened to the vikings? She's not entirely wrong.I make fun of Norwegians too)

Oh, and most people avoid any joke about women these days, for fear of the repercussions. My wife's "strong feminist" friend did not appreciate it when I joked that she still needed my help to open a jar. People should chill a bit IMO.

Are you part of the self-loathing group? I don't know, but I am guessing no. You would know it. I think some of these people are ACTUALLY self-loathing, and I'm not kidding in any way here (even if I can't read their minds of course). Notice how the statements I quoted were phrased. "I'm sorry you have to deal with men." No qualifiers. Seriously? Some people on RPG.net were saying it outright that they were ashamed of being men (this is a long time ago though, since I am no longer welcome there). I also have a trans friend who recently transitioned, and while I never thought he was particularly feminine, I remember thinking that he seemed rather uncomfortable with being a man. I just think the trend is a bit disturbing.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on January 25, 2019, 05:33:46 AM
Quote from: Trond;1072505
Some people on RPG.net were saying it outright that they were ashamed of being men (this is a long time ago though, since I am no longer welcome there).

It was like 2-3 years ago (2015-16), not really that long ago. I'm sure it has only increased since then. I banned myself from that place in 2016 as self defense mechanism, I have not once regretted that decision.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 25, 2019, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Trond;1072503
It is the usual assumption that women have it worse in almost every way. It is not always true of course. EVERYONE gets shit on the internet. Check these forums for instance, the way the guys talk to each other here is often worse than some of the "harassment" some women complain about elsewhere.

That's the magic and delightful touch of this place.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 25, 2019, 10:41:33 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072534
That's the magic and delightful touch of this place.

Come to think of it, the "harassment" I got on the strongly anti-harassment site RPG.net was worse. I was told to "shut the fuck up" more than once, someone implied that I was better off dead, etc. If I were a woman, the outrage would probably be heard to the high heavens. The most common reason for me to get such comments was my conviction that there are some fairly obvious statistical differences between men and women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: ThatChrisGuy on January 25, 2019, 10:47:14 AM
Quote from: Trond;1072503
It is the usual assumption that women have it worse in almost every way. It is not always true of course. EVERYONE gets shit on the internet. Check these forums for instance, the way the guys talk to each other here is often worse than some of the "harassment" some women complain about elsewhere.

I like having a forum where I don't have to walk on eggshells or worry much about what I post.  I post stupid shit and I might get called on it, but no one here tries to hound me out of digital existence or damage my actual life.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 25, 2019, 11:05:10 AM
Quote from: Trond;1072545
Come to think of it, the "harassment" I got on the strongly anti-harassment site RPG.net was worse. I was told to "shut the fuck up" more than once, someone implied that I was better off dead, etc. If I were a woman, the outrage would probably be heard to the high heavens. The most common reason for me to get such comments was my conviction that there are some fairly obvious statistical differences between men and women.

Matches my experience too. Much as I may sometimes badmouth this place (on this place only), it is worlds better only BECAUSE it is such an advocate of free speech. That alone is worth so much and something TPB will never match.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 25, 2019, 11:33:10 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1072480
There is both masculine biology and multiple different masculine cultures. For example, someone might say "Well, men are inherently more violent - that's why we have our rape and murder rates."  But crime rates vary widely in different countries and different cultures. For example, Japan has nearly one-tenth the murder rate of the United States. That doesn't mean that Japan is purely better - they also have a much larger suicide rate, for example. They're repressed workaholics who are messed up in the head (IMO).

Ah. But again... you're looking at the surface to justify what you ignore below the murky depths. Culture is informed by Masculine *and* Feminine qualities of their populace. As I said earlier - how one attempts to socially engineer the expression of those traits is relative to the goals of what you're trying to achieve. You're either doing this naturally and ordering your culture along mutally accepted lines, or you're going to force it. Either way you're going to have different results. These traits are *not* monolithic.

So by your own example, which is a perfect illustration of my point about your views: Men in Japan are *vastly* more repressed, depressed and prone to suicide over their U.S. counterparts. This is the price of those cultural pressures which subverts such biological impulses.

You can pick your poison - I merely ask: to what degree are you willing to be a "Male feminist" at such costs? Feminists today have an easy answer: there is no answer. Because the cause of Feminism isn't what you, and other Feminists(tm), pretend it to be - which let's be honest, it's about Male Subjugation and Female Dominance. I'm not saying that hyperbolically. I'm not even sure most people (like you) even tacitly realize it consciously (which would have darker implication if you did). Because there is *no* stated end-goal for Feminism(tm) that isn't already extant, that doesn't rely on males being demonized for being male. There are no policies in America that overtly affect women *because* they're women that do not have biological realities attached to them.

Abortion? Serving in military combat roles? Yeah - all of these have biological functions that underpin them (and are worthy debates unto themselves). No, this is about social engineering for ulterior motives that ironically, Feminists pretend overtly or via cognitive dissonance, do not exist. I'm not sure they really care. (This may or may not include you).

Quote from: jhkim;1072480
But clearly culture and social environment can make a big difference in negative behaviors like sexual harassment, rape, and murder. Culture can change things for the better.

Wanting to reduce the rate of sexual harassment and other crimes isn't denying male biology - it's recognizing that people aren't just animals who are slaves to their hormones. They have cultural and religious values that change their behavior. We can see through history that the status quo has changed. People are still people and problems remain, but some things have unquestionably gotten a lot better.

No one is saying rape, murder, sexual harassment is not bad. But again: to what degree? Are you willing to pay those costs for total elimination? If not - then where is the finish-line? By what means? See? this is the slippery slope of elitist social engineering that is popular on the Left that has historically led to *horrible* results. You're talking about tinkering with fundamental biological expressions in chasing some nebulous abstraction in lieu of *EVERYTHING* else produced by the culture at large in order to chase an unspecified goal for its own unilateral sake. Ironically for you as a "male feminist" - your own potential cultural-worth.

Nah I'm going to go with: Women have all the same rights as Men. We're all individuals that are free to be good to one another, and we largely are. The Government doesn't need to be regulating our behavior. Hence, that's is what allows us to be free, with the caveat - Shit *WILL* happen. This Utopian nightmare is not attainable. Nor is it desirable.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 25, 2019, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: tenbones;1072552

Nah I'm going to go with: Women have all the same rights as Men. We're all individuals that are free to be good to one another, and we largely are. The Government doesn't need to be regulating our behavior. Hence, that's is what allows us to be free, with the caveat - Shit *WILL* happen. This Utopian nightmare is not attainable. Nor is it desirable.


Maybe in the flying car future women and men will relate to each other in totally different ways. But after some basics like the Equal Pay Act, and voting rights, we have to let people decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. If we can accept that a person is non-binary, genderqueer, gay, non-conforming, etc, why can't we accept a burly, stoic guy? Or a feminine woman who wants to be a traditional housewife? There has been an undercurrent of attack against these things since the 60's, and it seems to have gotten worse. "Toxic masculinity", "Cis privilige", etc, etc...
When progressives were bringing awareness of trans and gay issues, I was totally cool with that. When they started crafting threat narratives, they lost me.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on January 25, 2019, 01:38:19 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072560
Maybe in the flying car future women and men will relate to each other in totally different ways. But after some basics like the Equal Pay Act, and voting rights, we have to let people decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. If we can accept that a person is non-binary, genderqueer, gay, non-conforming, etc, why can't we accept a burly, stoic guy? Or a feminine woman who wants to be a traditional housewife? There has been an undercurrent of attack against these things since the 60's, and it seems to have gotten worse. "Toxic masculinity", "Cis privilige", etc, etc...
When progressives were bringing awareness of trans and gay issues, I was totally cool with that. When they started crafting threat narratives, they lost me.


The reason they won't allow you to "choose" traditional gender roles is because they are only interested in power over other people. The mixture of that 'power' being rulership, adulation or financial is dependent on the individual in question.  Anything that supports a 'traditional' role must be quashed without mercy, or some people might discover their situation isn't as bad as they are being told by so-called leaders.

Feminism example...
Who has been a bigger 'rape enabler' by allowing women to be sexually assaulted?

(1) all those 'toxic' men you have met over your the course of your life.
(2) that leading member of the #metoo movement, Ashley Judd, who decide not to say anything about Harvey Weinstein.

The narrative exists solely as a means to grasp power.  
There are a couple of reasons that it looks worse now.

It is easier to notice now because it is harder to hide the true story in this day and age...Think the recent Covington student incident.
The advent of both technology and a 24hr/7days a week 'news' feed has caused the 'seize some power/reset to new outrage/seize more power" cycle to occur much more rapidly.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 25, 2019, 02:37:46 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper;1072567

Feminism example...
Who has been a bigger 'rape enabler' by allowing women to be sexually assaulted?

(1) all those 'toxic' men you have met over your the course of your life.
(2) that leading member of the #metoo movement, Ashley Judd, who decide not to say anything about Harvey Weinstein.

Did not know that. Anyways, the biggest "sinner" in that case is of course Weinstein himself.
I had a minor celebrity crush on Ashley Judd in the 90s, but I have gotten over that. Anyways, I think she has lost track of reality in some respects. I remember her talking about violence towards women in video games, and how it had to end "basta!". And I was thinking; what exactly is she talking about? Does she think that more women are killed in games than men? It's of course the other way round, and not even close. Does she think that you score points by raping women in the games? I know such games do exist, but it's not exactly normal or mainstream (again, not even close to the norm). Should there be no violence whatsoever towards women in games, even if it contains "kick ass" girls as protagonists? Sometimes I wonder if they try so hard to make women to appear "strong" while inadvertently emphasizing that they are weak.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 25, 2019, 02:42:52 PM
Quote from: Trond;1072573
Did not know that. Anyways, the biggest "sinner" in that case is of course Weinstein himself.

While Weinstein is a gross cad, Cassie Jaye (of the Red Pill documentary) had some interesting things to say about the Hollywood culture.

https://youtu.be/ha2Ib8ReArE

(relevant section starts at 13:00)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 25, 2019, 07:21:33 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1072512
It was like 2-3 years ago (2015-16), not really that long ago. I'm sure it has only increased since then. I banned myself from that place in 2016 as self defense mechanism, I have not once regretted that decision.


Its still there. If anything the 'background radiation' of scorn directed towards mean is more apparent if not totally overt. Its seems more prominent among the Tangecites that say they're MtF trans. Their loathing for what they were comes across pretty clearly.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Warboss Squee on January 25, 2019, 09:12:44 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1072579
Its still there. If anything the 'background radiation' of scorn directed towards mean is more apparent if not totally overt. Its seems more prominent among the Tangecites that say they're MtF trans. Their loathing for what they were comes across pretty clearly.

Fuck 'em.

They can sit there and chew on their souls till doomsday.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Joey2k on January 26, 2019, 12:52:57 AM
Quote from: Trond;1072545
Come to think of it, the "harassment" I got on the strongly anti-harassment site RPG.net was worse. I was told to "shut the fuck up" more than once, someone implied that I was better off dead, etc. If I were a woman, the outrage would probably be heard to the high heavens. The most common reason for me to get such comments was my conviction that there are some fairly obvious statistical differences between men and women.

You know, after hearing (reading) you say that, I'm tempted to start a new account over there in the guise of a female to see how many non-far left anti-SJW ideas I can get away with expressing.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Warboss Squee on January 26, 2019, 09:38:47 AM
Quote from: Joey2k;1072587
You know, after hearing (reading) you say that, I'm tempted to start a new account over there in the guise of a female to see how many non-far left anti-SJW ideas I can get away with expressing.

Very few. You toe the line or you're out.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 26, 2019, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Trond;1072505
As a real manly-man I'll have my low fat, organic, free-range, REAL MILK thank you very much.


Pansy! A REAL man drinks raw milk, unpasteurized, sucked straight from the udder of a sickly cow! :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 26, 2019, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: Joey2k;1072443
Nope, TW's just holding women to the same standard of behavior as men.  If there's ever any question, switch the genders around:



There are some unexamined or utterly handwaved double standards between men and women that would bring fire and fury of the genders involved were inverted across a wide swath of topics. I mean you'll catch Hell for making a broad generalizations about women regardless of how you frame them (Unless they're complimentary) but they're par for the course when talking about men.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 26, 2019, 12:27:28 PM
Quote from: Joey2k;1072443
Nope, TW's just holding women to the same standard of behavior as men.  If there's ever any question, switch the genders around:



Is it still ok?  Then neither was the original statement.


This is one of those things that I'm not sure we will ever see a consensus on. I'm even a bit torn myself. On the one hand I would like for everyone to be treated with equal respect. On the other, women are, in fact, a bit more fragile than men when it comes to physical violence.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 26, 2019, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: DocJones;1072285
Some appropriate satire:
Striking Blow Against Toxic Masculinity, Man Graciously Allows Wife To Shovel Driveway (https://babylonbee.com/news/striking-blow-against-toxic-masculinity-man-graciously-allows-wife-to-shovel-driveway)


:D that's brilliant
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on January 26, 2019, 09:51:24 PM
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1072589
Very few. You toe the line or you're out.

I'm still convinced that a few of the more outspoken female members over there were just mod sock puppets initially used for their entertainment and later for baiting posters into outing themselves as non-true believers.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Warboss Squee on January 27, 2019, 09:53:51 AM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1072620
I'm still convinced that a few of the more outspoken female members over there were just mod sock puppets initially used for their entertainment and later for baiting posters into outing themselves as non-true believers.

I highly doubt that. It's more likely there was a conflict between banning a woman's voice or preserving their safe space for all women.

The fact that they made great bait for purges didn't hurt though.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 27, 2019, 10:21:16 AM
Quote from: Joey2k;1072587
You know, after hearing (reading) you say that, I'm tempted to start a new account over there in the guise of a female to see how many non-far left anti-SJW ideas I can get away with expressing.

If you can you (or anyone else that's interested) may want to check out this thread on Positive Healthy Masculinity. I was starting to wonder if there was such in the Tang culture. Apparently there is, but it definitely show there's perspective on things. I'm not sure exactly what I think about it yet.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/the-positive-healthy-masculinity-thread.840342/

This (more so the lengthy tumblr link) post on the "female gaze" (using George of the Jungle...) is particular uh...interesting particularly how some aspects of it hew towards the more romanticized vision of Chivalry (lots of Good somewhat passive men protect women from bad aggressive men, etc).

Quote from: Jian, post: 22358129, member: 3902
Clearly, this is a fictional example (as was Gomez Addams, I guess) and the piece is as much about female gaze as it is about being a male role model, but I like it:



ms-demeanor.tumblr.com/post/1510 (http://ms-demeanor.tumblr.com/post/151068279457)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 27, 2019, 10:24:57 AM
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1072589
Very few. You toe the line or you're out.

The women I knew there didn't get banned so much as fed up with feeling either: Patronized ('mansplained?) by constantly told about what "real women" should thinking, infantilized (I need all you big strong men to speak for me because I'm just a girl?) or having their opinions soundly and conspicuously annoyed, a notable example for me being when a friend of mind tried to participate one of the bi-monthly cheesecake/sexy art threads to say that she liked it and having her characters be sexy badasses.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 27, 2019, 10:48:11 AM
Quote from: Trond;1072601
This is one of those things that I'm not sure we will ever see a consensus on. I'm even a bit torn myself. On the one hand I would like for everyone to be treated with equal respect. On the other, women are, in fact, a bit more fragile than men when it comes to physical violence.

That's really the first I've heard this particularly; I've seen the statistics that women are typically physically weaker than a man of equivalent build and size but not more fragile generally. What's the details if I might ask?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Warboss Squee on January 27, 2019, 12:47:31 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1072643
The women I knew there didn't get banned so much as fed up with feeling either: Patronized ('mansplained?) by constantly told about what "real women" should thinking, infantilized (I need all you big strong men to speak for me because I'm just a girl?) or having their opinions soundly and conspicuously annoyed, a notable example for me being when a friend of mind tried to participate one of the bi-monthly cheesecake/sexy art threads to say that she liked it and having her characters be sexy badasses.

So not banned so much as shown where the line was drawn and that they were on the wrong side of it?

Sounds about right.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 27, 2019, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1072642
If you can you (or anyone else that's interested) may want to check out this thread on Positive Healthy Masculinity. I was starting to wonder if there was such in the Tang culture. Apparently there is, but it definitely show there's perspective on things. I'm not sure exactly what I think about it yet.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/the-positive-healthy-masculinity-thread.840342/

This (more so the lengthy tumblr link) post on the "female gaze" (using George of the Jungle...) is particular uh...interesting particularly how some aspects of it hew towards the more romanticized vision of Chivalry (lots of Good somewhat passive men protect women from bad aggressive men, etc).


Well, I don't log into my rpg.net account any more, but it sounds like One Good Man syndrome to me.

https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-one-good-man/
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 27, 2019, 02:01:28 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1072644
That's really the first I've heard this particularly; I've seen the statistics that women are typically physically weaker than a man of equivalent build and size but not more fragile generally. What's the details if I might ask?

In most of the skeleton, women literally have thinner bones.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 27, 2019, 02:11:28 PM
Quote from: Trond;1072655
In most of the skeleton, women literally have thinner bones.

Makes senses, thanks.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on January 27, 2019, 03:01:40 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1072644
That's really the first I've heard this particularly; I've seen the statistics that women are typically physically weaker than a man of equivalent build and size but not more fragile generally. What's the details if I might ask?

I don't think that the reference was necessarily to women of "equivalent build and size" to men, but to women in general where, on average, they typically have smaller builds.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 27, 2019, 04:08:38 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1072656
Makes senses, thanks.


Thinner bones, also more body fat and less muscle, even when the same size and weight, which of course most aren't. When I was doing army training it was notable and commented on how much more easily female trainees were injured - the problem seems a lot worse now they have women in the infantry. These were women who seemed large, strong and fit - and certainly thought of themselves that way - vs fairly average men. We were only the Royal Signals, not the Paras.

Apparently if you remove body fat, humans are actually the most sexually dimorphic ape.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 27, 2019, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1072659
....
Apparently if you remove body fat, humans are actually the most sexually dimorphic ape.

That part, for the record, is incorrect. In orangutans and gorillas the sexual dimorphism is huge. And by that, I mean that there is usually absolutely no doubt if it's a male or female if you look at a skeleton.

Edit: having said that, if you place a naked man next to a naked woman, I could agree that the dimorphism is more striking than in chimpanzees (except when the female chimps are swollen in oestrus)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 27, 2019, 08:14:50 PM
You do find out some interesting things on this forum from time to time.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: crkrueger on January 28, 2019, 12:00:16 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1072659
Thinner bones, also more body fat and less muscle, even when the same size and weight, which of course most aren't. When I was doing army training it was notable and commented on how much more easily female trainees were injured - the problem seems a lot worse now they have women in the infantry. These were women who seemed large, strong and fit - and certainly thought of themselves that way - vs fairly average men. We were only the Royal Signals, not the Paras.

Apparently if you remove body fat, humans are actually the most sexually dimorphic ape.

Pretty sure that's Orangutans, who are double the size IIRC.  Then again, I don't know the BMI of the average Orangutan, so removing body fat from the great apes might chop that ratio down a lot.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 28, 2019, 01:01:25 AM
Quote from: CRKrueger;1072671
Pretty sure that's Orangutans, who are double the size IIRC.  

That's correct.

(aaaand, just to beat the dead horse even more, here's a photo of male and female orangutan skulls. Now those are some males with self respect :D)

(https://53744bf91d44b81762e0-fbbc959d4e21c00b07dbe9c75f9c0b63.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/media/F9/F925F504-AD23-4381-B79F-FA298F0AA2BA/Presentation.Large/Bornean-orangutan-male-left-and-female-skull-showing-sexual-dimorphism.jpg)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on January 28, 2019, 02:54:38 AM
The first man to drink milk was definitely badass:




Quote from: jhkim;1072497
I had an argument a few weeks ago with someone a friend who thought global warming was going to make the whole human race go extinct within a century, based on what a Buddhist monk said.


Stop making me love global warming so much!!!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: rawma on January 28, 2019, 09:49:42 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1072479
If the idea that Soy milk or whatever decreases testosterone, and increases estrogen--and consequently tends to increase men being fat, lethargic, and feminized is all really "psuedo-science bullshit"--my question would be WHY? Why single out or target Soy as some kind of evil product? Why not pick, I don't know, carrots, or potatoes?


An obvious conspiracy theory would be that soy threatens producers of meats like beef in a way that carrots and potatoes don't.

Quote
What is the reason for such focused hate for Soy? It isn't just *one* uber health guy, I've seen a good number of uber-health guys constantly hammer Soy.


A long time ago I visited New York City and saw a giraffe diorama at the natural history museum. The display carefully explained that many people incorrectly believe that giraffes don't have vocal cords. While I was pondering this information, an older man with a small boy approached the display and the man carefully explained to the boy that giraffes do not have vocal cords. If Zen enlightenment consisted of understanding the boundlessness of stupidity, that was the moment I would have attained Zen mastery.

Quote from: rgalex;1072267
That's not totally true.  Recent polls (this one for example (http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-harassment/)) have shown that men tend to experience more online harassment overall than women.  When broken down into types of online harassment women receive more stalking and sexual harassment but men suffer more from offensive name calling, intentional embarrassment, physical threats and sustained harassment.


So ... polling shows that men are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Yes, that fits my observations here.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: rgalex on January 28, 2019, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: rawma;1072739
So ... polling shows that men are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Yes, that fits my observations here.

Nope.  While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 29, 2019, 12:18:45 AM
Quote from: rgalex;1072740
Nope.  While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.

It's easier to call them snowflakes than to face male vulnerability.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 29, 2019, 02:50:33 AM
Quote from: rgalex;1072740
Nope.  While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.

This. Although 'harassment' is not the right word in most cases - it's usually just abuse. Women are more likely to see abuse as harassment. Of course there are exceptions - I'm pretty fragile and tend to see abuse directed at me as threatening, whereas eg Ann Coulter doesn't seem to care, and Michelle Malkin seems to suck up tons of abuse without being deterred.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 29, 2019, 03:44:58 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1072754
This. Although 'harassment' is not the right word in most cases - it's usually just abuse. Women are more likely to see abuse as harassment. Of course there are exceptions - I'm pretty fragile and tend to see abuse directed at me as threatening, whereas eg Ann Coulter doesn't seem to care, and Michelle Malkin seems to suck up tons of abuse without being deterred.

Greetings!

I have always liked Ann Coulter. She's very smart, though sometimes she can be abrasive. Michelle Malkin--damn, that woman brings enough sugar to be sweet--and at the same time being razor sharp and having a really persuasive wit. I love Michelle Malkin. Oh, and Oh My God!--Michelle Malkin is also a WOMAN OF COLOUR!!!! :) How come the SJW's and Feminists don't bow down and kiss Michelle Malkin's Asian ass? :) When Michelle Malkin gets up in the morning and burps before she brushes her teeth, she has more wit and grace than SJW's have in their entire life.:)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on January 29, 2019, 07:39:37 AM
Quote from: rawma;1072739

So ... polling shows that men are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Yes, that fits my observations here.

Could you unpack this a bit please?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Joey2k on January 29, 2019, 01:17:15 PM
Quote from: rawma;1072739
So ... polling shows that men are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Yes, that fits my observations here.

Do you also call women who complain about (or simply acknowledge) harassment directed at them "Whiny snowflakes"?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 29, 2019, 01:30:22 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1072766
Could you unpack this a bit please?

Rawma is either a massive troll, or a massive hypocrite.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 29, 2019, 02:14:32 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1072759
I have always liked Ann Coulter. She's very smart, though sometimes she can be abrasive.

I read her a lot in high school, but am not as enamored with her writings now.

Quote
Michelle Malkin

I like her work a bit better than Ms. Coulter's, but still her policy work tends to be underwhelming. (But, then again, she's not a deep policy person, she's a... what's a non pejorative term for what used to be called Agitator?)

EDIT: I do have to caveat that with one thing. Her book Internment was... a bit of a fanciful rewrite of history and had some highly disturbing implications that should absolutely be discussed in depth.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 29, 2019, 04:05:19 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072789
Rawma is either a massive troll, or a massive hypocrite.

It is also possible to be both at the same time. Telling a bunch of us that we have poor reading skills was a good one :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 29, 2019, 04:22:54 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1072754
This. Although 'harassment' is not the right word in most cases - it's usually just abuse. Women are more likely to see abuse as harassment. Of course there are exceptions - I'm pretty fragile and tend to see abuse directed at me as threatening, whereas eg Ann Coulter doesn't seem to care, and Michelle Malkin seems to suck up tons of abuse without being deterred.
From my experience, the women I know have had significantly more cases of being stalked online than men - where people pull personal information on them, following them to other online realms or pull details about offline life.

I think name-calling is much less significant and personal than this.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 29, 2019, 05:50:05 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072802
From my experience, the women I know have had significantly more cases of being stalked online than men - where people pull personal information on them, following them to other online realms or pull details about offline life.

I think name-calling is much less significant and personal than this.

While it certainly seems likely that women suffer more stalking, men may be less likely to complain or even to notice. Someone abusing me in a different forum may just be because we both happen to hang out in two related forums.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on January 29, 2019, 06:41:14 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1072759
How come the SJW's and Feminists don't bow down and kiss Michelle Malkin's Asian ass? :)

Probably because somebody would frame bowing to an Asian individual as being racially or culturally insensitive and an obvious first step towards an inevitable hate crime.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 29, 2019, 07:00:54 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze;1072808
Probably because somebody would frame bowing to an Asian individual as being racially or culturally insensitive and an obvious first step towards an inevitable hate crime.

Greetings!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! So true, HappyDaze!

I just love how Michelle Malkin, *an Asian Woman*--and a *minority*--just takes SJW's apart. :) I have in my library one or two of her books. She's really smart, funny, and has a sharp wit. I was blown away when I found out that the girl has been a long-time gamer, playing AD&D for *years*. She even held up her original copy of AD&D DMG, and told the SJW's to suck it. :) She's fucking brilliant, classy, and sweet.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 29, 2019, 07:52:20 PM
Quote from: jhkim
From my experience, the women I know have had significantly more cases of being stalked online than men - where people pull personal information on them, following them to other online realms or pull details about offline life.

I think name-calling is much less significant and personal than this.
Quote from: S'mon;1072806
While it certainly seems likely that women suffer more stalking, men may be less likely to complain or even to notice. Someone abusing me in a different forum may just be because we both happen to hang out in two related forums.
It seems difficult to get an objective measurement on this, but again - in my experience, a lot of online men are like Pundit - they have no problem giving and receiving insults, but they are extremely sensitive about any of their personal information being tracked, from their real name to any other details. I'd say that the people who are most sensitive about this that I know are all men.

Is your experience different?

I'd be curious. I do know some women who are guarded about their online identities, but not nearly to the extent of many men.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 29, 2019, 10:34:33 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1072809
Greetings!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! So true, HappyDaze!

I just love how Michelle Malkin, *an Asian Woman*--and a *minority*--just takes SJW's apart. :) I have in my library one or two of her books. She's really smart, funny, and has a sharp wit. I was blown away when I found out that the girl has been a long-time gamer, playing AD&D for *years*. She even held up her original copy of AD&D DMG, and told the SJW's to suck it. :) She's fucking brilliant, classy, and sweet.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It probably has more to do with her understanding of Korematsu v. United States and the 14th Amendment for why they don't like her.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Tait Ransom on January 30, 2019, 12:57:28 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1072806
While it certainly seems likely that women suffer more stalking, men may be less likely to complain or even to notice. Someone abusing me in a different forum may just be because we both happen to hang out in two related forums.


I'm betting you're right but I've seen exceptions.  I work in conduct and do some Title IX work on my campus.  The vast majority of stalking cases I've seen were male on female, but hands down the worst one was a female student stalking a male prof.  She was arrested at least 3 times and had him terrified.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 30, 2019, 01:08:19 AM
Quote from: Tait Ransom;1072824
I'm betting you're right but I've seen exceptions.  I work in conduct and do some Title IX work on my campus.  The vast majority of stalking cases I've seen were male on female, but hands down the worst one was a female student stalking a male prof.  She was arrested at least 3 times and had him terrified.

My dad had that with a PhD student (although not quite as bad, and it was partly his own fault).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 30, 2019, 01:11:54 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1072810
It seems difficult to get an objective measurement on this, but again - in my experience, a lot of online men are like Pundit - they have no problem giving and receiving insults, but they are extremely sensitive about any of their personal information being tracked, from their real name to any other details. I'd say that the people who are most sensitive about this that I know are all men.

Is your experience different?

I certainly stress about it, but I don't know how typical I am.

I do know that if I see a woman being attacked/insulted online I am much more likely to have a desire to defend her than if it's a man. That seems to be programmed-in behaviour for most people, as Karen Straughan (pbuh) pointed out, and the source of many imbalances in supposedly egalitarian society. And the reason is that women really are more physically vulnerable IRL.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 30, 2019, 07:26:15 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1072827
I certainly stress about it, but I don't know how typical I am.

I do know that if I see a woman being attacked/insulted online I am much more likely to have a desire to defend her than if it's a man. That seems to be programmed-in behaviour for most people, as Karen Straughan (pbuh) pointed out, and the source of many imbalances in supposedly egalitarian society. And the reason is that women really are more physically vulnerable IRL.

And thus the public perception that women deserve more protection than men, and that when men do it, it's terrible, awful, get your guns and ammo and protect the wimmin-folk, and gosh darn, why are men all rapey bastards? Men, do better! Buy Gilette razors.

I think that while there are gendered* aspects to harassment, that it's not a gendered issue. It's bad when anyone does it, and society tends to blame men as a group much more than blaming women as a group.

*I use the word gender because it's the best descriptor, despite being a clumsy and mutilated term.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on January 30, 2019, 11:19:50 AM
Are you dudes ever going to stop worrying about randos on the Internet?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 30, 2019, 11:56:22 AM
Quote from: Brad;1072846
Are you dudes ever going to stop worrying about randos on the Internet?

No. Just as we won't stop talking incessantly about pretending to be elves.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: crkrueger on January 30, 2019, 12:57:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072810
It seems difficult to get an objective measurement on this, but again - in my experience, a lot of online men are like Pundit - they have no problem giving and receiving insults, but they are extremely sensitive about any of their personal information being tracked, from their real name to any other details. I'd say that the people who are most sensitive about this that I know are all men.

Is your experience different?

I'd be curious. I do know some women who are guarded about their online identities, but not nearly to the extent of many men.

Women might not be as guarded, but then increasing they have no need to.  Disagree with one in any way and you'll be digitally erased by the social media corps for Misogynist Hate Speech. :D

Also women have no need to fear being fired for expressing opinions on the internet. ;)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 30, 2019, 01:14:37 PM
Oh? (https://abcnews.go.com/International/woman-fired-tweet-aids-africa-sparks-internet-outrage/story?id=21298519)

Someone may want to inform the rest of society of that. (https://triblive.com/local/allegheny/14314918-74/woman-claims-bny-mellon-fired-her-for-facebook-post-because-shes-white)

People, regardless of gender, get fired for saying stupid shit all the time.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 30, 2019, 02:13:16 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072852
Oh? (https://abcnews.go.com/International/woman-fired-tweet-aids-africa-sparks-internet-outrage/story?id=21298519)

Someone may want to inform the rest of society of that. (https://triblive.com/local/allegheny/14314918-74/woman-claims-bny-mellon-fired-her-for-facebook-post-because-shes-white)

People, regardless of gender, get fired for saying stupid shit all the time.

I took the winkey as an indication he was being sarcastic.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 30, 2019, 02:35:06 PM
Quote from: Brad;1072846
Are you dudes ever going to stop worrying about randos on the Internet?

No. I'm worried about never getting to kiss Kiera Knightly. This is VERY AWKWARD.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 30, 2019, 02:37:36 PM
Quote from: tenbones;1072862
No. I'm worried about never getting to kiss Kiera Knightly. This is VERY AWKWARD.

Psst. Chances are very small but slightly higher if you spell her name correctly ;)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 30, 2019, 02:40:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072858
I took the winkey as an indication he was being sarcastic.

Perhaps so... which, in that case, I apologize. I'm very tired and very cold since my power went out this morning.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on January 30, 2019, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: tenbones;1072862
No. I'm worried about never getting to kiss Kiera Knightly. This is VERY AWKWARD.

Here's a secret: I'm actually Keira Knightley.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 30, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072865
Perhaps so... which, in that case, I apologize. I'm very tired and very cold since my power went out this morning.


Ick. :(
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: kythri on January 30, 2019, 05:45:34 PM
Quote from: Brad;1072872
Here's a secret: I'm actually Keira Knightley.

Sup, girl?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 30, 2019, 06:11:55 PM
Quote from: Brad;1072872
Here's a secret: I'm actually Keira Knightley.
So, are you going to kiss tenbones?  I'm asking for him to avoid awkwardness, because I know how shy he can be.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: rawma on January 30, 2019, 11:15:55 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1072766
Could you unpack this a bit please?


I don't think a poll is much use for judging this; it judges, at best, subjective experiences, and when you add in the tendency to politicized nonsense like "White people are the real victims of racism!" you won't get a lot of value from such polls. A better experiment would correspond to that used to examine name discrimination in hiring; test whether the same opinions get more abuse if they appear to come from a man or a woman (and test whether people rate the same exchange as more abusive if it appears to be directed at a woman, which would not be surprising).

If this poll separated out the results by "whiny snowflake" versus "everyone else" wouldn't you expect to find that whiny snowflakes are treated much worse than everyone else, even if they had exactly the same experience? Or, for another thought experiment (and be honest, with yourself if nobody else), if a similar poll indicating that women reported being significantly more mistreated online than men were linked to, would you:
[LIST=A]

Consider the responses on this forum when it's been pointed out here that rape reports are no more likely to be false than reports of other crimes.

Quote from: rgalex;1072740
While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.


So it's a more serious problem for women than for men, even if less frequent? You want to claim that men suffer more but at the same time don't actually suffer? :confused:

Quote from: Trond;1072798
It is also possible to be both at the same time. Telling a bunch of us that we have poor reading skills was a good one :D


You have poor reading skills, or you are intentionally dishonest; for you, it's [STRIKE]possible[/STRIKE] probable it's both at the same time. But your claiming to diagnose autism based on forum posts was an even better one than anything I've ever posted.

Quote from: jhkim;1072810
It seems difficult to get an objective measurement on this, but again - in my experience, a lot of online men are like Pundit - they have no problem giving and receiving insults, but they are extremely sensitive about any of their personal information being tracked, from their real name to any other details. I'd say that the people who are most sensitive about this that I know are all men.

Is your experience different?

I'd be curious. I do know some women who are guarded about their online identities, but not nearly to the extent of many men.


My guess is that women are more likely to avoid these sort of online free-for-alls; I can't name five posters here that I was sure were women. But maybe women who hide their personal information primarily hide their gender? Then you could only judge by women you know in real life whose online activity you are aware of. I don't know enough women in real life who engage in online disputes to say. I've known plenty of women who were more guarded about things that would reveal their gender, like only putting initials in a phone book listing or next to the doorbells at their apartment building.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spike on January 30, 2019, 11:55:19 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072792

I like her work a bit better than Ms. Coulter's, but still her policy work tends to be underwhelming. (But, then again, she's not a deep policy person, she's a... what's a non pejorative term for what used to be called Agitator?)

EDIT: I do have to caveat that with one thing. Her book Internment was... a bit of a fanciful rewrite of history and had some highly disturbing implications that should absolutely be discussed in depth.



Is calling someone an Agitator that perjorative now?  I mean, I get that there are a lot of bad-actors out there who don't want to be called agitators, because they'd like to think everyone else is stupid and can't see them for what they are, but honestly, I like having agitators for 'my side' and respect the 'other side' right to have their own agitators. Let the best Agitators win!

Also, it gives me a chance to whip out the "Are you not entertained?" quote more often.



FAKE EDIT: At the risk of being ignorant, I'm going to guess that her revisionist history book Interment is about the Japanese Interment in WWII?  In that regards it may also be worth noting she is not Japanese herself (phillipino?), and her family may have a bad history with the Japanese circa WWII that colors her outlook?   Again: I'm doing some guesswork (eg Ignorant), but perhaps what you call Revisionist is more accurately 'A different perspective', as she presumably has different biases than you do.  We all have biases, which is one thing I find that makes reading so very exciting: Its a chance to see the world through different eyes.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 31, 2019, 12:46:23 AM
Quote from: rawma;1072898

You have poor reading skills, or you are intentionally dishonest; for you, it's [STRIKE]possible[/STRIKE] probable it's both at the same time. But your claiming to diagnose autism based on forum posts was an even better one than anything I've ever posted.




So, lecturing on "reading skills" again. Also; in the very same post, responding to "While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.":

Quote from: rawma;1072898
So it's a more serious problem for women than for men, even if less frequent? You want to claim that men suffer more but at the same time don't actually suffer? :confused:


No Rgalex said they don't VIEW it as serious or FEEL as threatened.

Guys, I'm almost feeling sorry for Rawma here, maybe we should just leave him alone.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 31, 2019, 02:08:41 AM
Quote from: rawma;1072898
Consider the responses on this forum when it's been pointed out here that rape reports are no more likely to be false than reports of other crimes.

I must have missed that one. Got a link to the thread?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 31, 2019, 09:28:18 AM
Quote from: Spike;1072901
Is calling someone an Agitator that perjorative now?  I mean, I get that there are a lot of bad-actors out there who don't want to be called agitators, because they'd like to think everyone else is stupid and can't see them for what they are, but honestly, I like having agitators for 'my side' and respect the 'other side' right to have their own agitators. Let the best Agitators win!

Also, it gives me a chance to whip out the "Are you not entertained?" quote more often.

I'm not sure if Agitator is pejorative or not, but I feel like it has a more negative connotation than I was trying to throw around. I could be wrong. But, indeed, she is a verbal gladiator, so "are you not entertained?!" fits.

Quote
FAKE EDIT: At the risk of being ignorant, I'm going to guess that her revisionist history book Interment is about the Japanese Interment in WWII?  In that regards it may also be worth noting she is not Japanese herself (phillipino?), and her family may have a bad history with the Japanese circa WWII that colors her outlook?   Again: I'm doing some guesswork (eg Ignorant), but perhaps what you call Revisionist is more accurately 'A different perspective', as she presumably has different biases than you do.  We all have biases, which is one thing I find that makes reading so very exciting: Its a chance to see the world through different eyes.

Yes, it was about the Japanese internment during WW2. I'm not sure what her family ethnicity is, nor is it terribly relevant for the points she made. She was trying to draw a parallel to say that because we used interment camps on Japanese in the Second World War, it's totally OK to do it again to Arabs in the GWOT (back when it was called the GWOT instead of "Overseas Operations," which is when the book was written also). Only she downplayed the things that happened considerably and got a rebuke from Korematsu himself on it (Korematsu v. United States, which was the legendary Supreme Court case that was all about the internment camps).

Which was... interesting to see her opinion on the matter because Conservative legal circles have, for decades now, considered the Korematsu case to be as terrible of a decision as Dredd Scott. It allows legalized government interment camps to round up American citizens and throw them into internment without any real justification other than, "We are at war with someone who looks like you." So to see a leading Conservative pundit defend it so much was an exercise in mental gymnastics akin to justifying drone strike assassinations on US citizens (thanks, Obama). (Fun fact: Korematsu is still the law of the land, probably because there's been no case that allowed it to be re-examined.)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 31, 2019, 09:42:03 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072938
It allows legalized government interment camps to round up American citizens and throw them into internment without any real justification other than, "We are at war with someone who looks like you."

"...And who doesn't look like Us."

While there was a mild security threat on West-Coast USA from Japanese-Americans, there was a much bigger potential security threat on the East-Coast USA from German-Americans. But the Germans counted as "us", and the Japanese didn't.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 31, 2019, 09:44:11 AM
Good point.

...hmm, does that mean if we truly are becoming a more melting pot society, "And who Don't Look Like Us," is becoming a smaller and smaller group?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 31, 2019, 12:31:56 PM
Greetings!

Well, on the West Coast, there were also concerns that the ordinary citizens were going to riot en masse and hunt the Japanese down and kill them all. It certainly wasn't an issue that local law enforcement could even dream of handling during those times. The government *was* geneuinely concerned that there were going to be mass lynchings and other executions of Japanese people. The people everywhere, to every law enforcement and government official, everyone--was demanding that the government do something about the Japanese. No one was going to listen to sweet, reassuring talk about how we need to love the Japanese. So, in some ways, the internment camps were a sort of emergency response not only to make efforts to curb any internal Japanese assistance to any Japanese attacks or invasion of the West Coast, but also to protect the Japanese Americans from annihilation.

I think something that is often entirely lost on most modern-day Americans is how desperately exposed, and vulnerable *everyone* felt during those days after Pearl Harbor. And when I say *everyone*--I mean of course, all normal people, but also the *government*. People, in the *millions* believed that the Japanese were going to invade the West Coast. Fear of this reality was everywhere. The government itself was terrified as well, because the government was honestly doubtful about the nation's ability to resist such an invasion in any meaningful way.

I think also that many people now have the supreme luxury of historical hindsight. I remember my own father telling me, as he was a veteran of World War II, that everyone thinks this is all swell now, but he told me,

"Back then, we weren't certain at all that we were going to win. In fact, there was a distinct possibility that the goddamn Nazis and Japs were gonna conquer everyone."

So, even the government was kind of groping its way in the dark, as panic and fear was everywhere. America, and the Western Allies, and all of our friends, when you think about it, everyone was weak compared to the forces of evil. Everywhere, we were stupid, and blind. The enemy was always three steps ahead of us, the French, the British, the Australians, the Phillipines, India, the Chinese. No one had an answer for the Japanese, except we were fucked. Our forces were pathetic. Old, obselete, and slow. No supplies. Little fuel. No spare parts. Lack of training, lack of knowledge. Everyone was confused, and no one knew what to do.

Imagine trying to remain calm, and reasonable, when all of the so called "experts" have all been horribly, terribly proven wrong? Of course, there's a reason why President Roosevelt, General George C. Marshal, and Admiral Ernest J. King got together, and proceeded to fire nearly all of the brass of the United States Army and United States Navy. Wholesale changes in command structure and leadership were undertaken after Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor, the crushing defeat, the absolute, helpless slaughter of our people on that Sunday morning deeply traumatized this country in absolute, profound ways.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 31, 2019, 12:48:13 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1072973
Greetings!

Well, on the West Coast, there were also concerns that the ordinary citizens were going to riot en masse and hunt the Japanese down and kill them all. It certainly wasn't an issue that local law enforcement could even dream of handling during those times. The government *was* geneuinely concerned that there were going to be mass lynchings and other executions of Japanese people. The people everywhere, to every law enforcement and government official, everyone--was demanding that the government do something about the Japanese. No one was going to listen to sweet, reassuring talk about how we need to love the Japanese. So, in some ways, the internment camps were a sort of emergency response not only to make efforts to curb any internal Japanese assistance to any Japanese attacks or invasion of the West Coast, but also to protect the Japanese Americans from annihilation.

That would be convincing if not for the fact that EO 9066, which authorized it all, happened within 60 days of Pearl Harbor, well before any local violence, beyond isolated and sporadic incidents, happened. In fact, the only recordings we really have of any mass violence before EO 9066... was conducted by the FBI and the Navy, both of which were invading homes and locking up random Japanese Americans suspected of spying. (Nothing was ever found.)

Further, many reports of violence and calls for them to be locked up came from the infamous DeWitt Report. And they were almost all fabrications completely made up by LTG DeWitt (and his staff) to convince the government that EO 9066 was needed. Originally, he proposed Italians and Germans as well, but the government was having none of that.

Only a few of the camps actually did things like college-release programs. Many suffered from deteriorating conditions and hard labor camps that were pretty terrible. While they never approached the level of systematic eradication of the concentration camps in Europe, they certainly were NOT there to protect the Japanese. (For example of how they were better, there were at least attempts to hold schools and religious centers in several of the internment camps.)

If anything, it more resembled a return to chattel slavery than it did concentration camps.

Quote
I think something that is often entirely lost on most modern-day Americans is how desperately exposed, and vulnerable *everyone* felt during those days after Pearl Harbor. And when I say *everyone*--I mean of course, all normal people, but also the *government*. People, in the *millions* believed that the Japanese were going to invade the West Coast. Fear of this reality was everywhere. The government itself was terrified as well, because the government was honestly doubtful about the nation's ability to resist such an invasion in any meaningful way.


Many people did, but the government certainly did not feel that way. The government did, however, certainly stoke those fears as it was productive to its own interests. We know, from their own declassified reports, the government knew that Pearl Harbor was a stretch operation. The Japanese could not invade the mainland. They simply lacked the logistics to do it. That's part of why the European theater was so heavily favored in the early days of the war (that and it's all-but-inevitable collapse if we didn't intervene).

Quote
I think also that many people now have the supreme luxury of historical hindsight. I remember my own father telling me, as he was a veteran of World War II, that everyone thinks this is all swell now, but he told me,

"Back then, we weren't certain at all that we were going to win. In fact, there was a distinct possibility that the goddamn Nazis and Japs were gonna conquer everyone."

My grandfather was in the Pacific Theater and stationed all over the place. He told a very different story about concerns of a Japanese invasion.

Quote
So, even the government was kind of groping its way in the dark, as panic and fear was everywhere. America, and the Western Allies, and all of our friends, when you think about it, everyone was weak compared to the forces of evil. Everywhere, we were stupid, and blind. The enemy was always three steps ahead of us, the French, the British, the Australians, the Phillipines, India, the Chinese. No one had an answer for the Japanese, except we were fucked. Our forces were pathetic. Old, obselete, and slow. No supplies. Little fuel. No spare parts. Lack of training, lack of knowledge. Everyone was confused, and no one knew what to do.

This... is not true at all. Churchill gives a decent (if British-centered and British-serving) overview of what's going on in the Pacific Theater in his first hand accounts in The Grand Alliance, the Hinge of Fate, and Closing the Circle.

We had answers for the Japanese, and we were using them all throughout the war. It's part of why China ended up the way it is.

Quote
Imagine trying to remain calm, and reasonable, when all of the so called "experts" have all been horribly, terribly proven wrong? Of course, there's a reason why President Roosevelt, General George C. Marshal, and Admiral Ernest J. King got together, and proceeded to fire nearly all of the brass of the United States Army and United States Navy. Wholesale changes in command structure and leadership were undertaken after Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor, the crushing defeat, the absolute, helpless slaughter of our people on that Sunday morning deeply traumatized this country in absolute, profound ways.


Who else besides Admiral Kimmel was fired over Pearl Harbor? He's the only one of the brass that I'm aware of who got canned over Pearl Harbor itself.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 31, 2019, 01:30:06 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072976
That would be convincing if not for the fact that EO 9066, which authorized it all, happened within 60 days of Pearl Harbor, well before any local violence, beyond isolated and sporadic incidents, happened. In fact, the only recordings we really have of any mass violence before EO 9066... was conducted by the FBI and the Navy, both of which were invading homes and locking up random Japanese Americans suspected of spying. (Nothing was ever found.)

Further, many reports of violence and calls for them to be locked up came from the infamous DeWitt Report. And they were almost all fabrications completely made up by LTG DeWitt (and his staff) to convince the government that EO 9066 was needed. Originally, he proposed Italians and Germans as well, but the government was having none of that.
Thanks, Tanin!  This has been investigated many times - with no finding of any factual grounds for the internment, and the U.S. government has officially apologized multiple times.

I don't see why it should be controversial that the government was racist at the time of WWII. I mean, we had a frickin segregated army at the time, and plenty of politicians (especially Democrats) made openly racist statements. Denying that is ridiculous.

To be clear - I am very much anti-Japan. My father grew up under Japanese occupation, and they did plenty of atrocities. But then, so did the Nazis - yet German-Americans were largely untouched by internment. There were some German-Americans who were separately detained, but that was selective based on suspicion, and on a much lesser scale than Japanese-Americans who were all rounded up regardless of their history.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 31, 2019, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072976
That would be convincing if not for the fact that EO 9066, which authorized it all, happened within 60 days of Pearl Harbor, well before any local violence, beyond isolated and sporadic incidents, happened. In fact, the only recordings we really have of any mass violence before EO 9066... was conducted by the FBI and the Navy, both of which were invading homes and locking up random Japanese Americans suspected of spying. (Nothing was ever found.)

Further, many reports of violence and calls for them to be locked up came from the infamous DeWitt Report. And they were almost all fabrications completely made up by LTG DeWitt (and his staff) to convince the government that EO 9066 was needed. Originally, he proposed Italians and Germans as well, but the government was having none of that.

Only a few of the camps actually did things like college-release programs. Many suffered from deteriorating conditions and hard labor camps that were pretty terrible. While they never approached the level of systematic eradication of the concentration camps in Europe, they certainly were NOT there to protect the Japanese. (For example of how they were better, there were at least attempts to hold schools and religious centers in several of the internment camps.)

If anything, it more resembled a return to chattel slavery than it did concentration camps.

 

Many people did, but the government certainly did not feel that way. The government did, however, certainly stoke those fears as it was productive to its own interests. We know, from their own declassified reports, the government knew that Pearl Harbor was a stretch operation. The Japanese could not invade the mainland. They simply lacked the logistics to do it. That's part of why the European theater was so heavily favored in the early days of the war (that and it's all-but-inevitable collapse if we didn't intervene).



My grandfather was in the Pacific Theater and stationed all over the place. He told a very different story about concerns of a Japanese invasion.



This... is not true at all. Churchill gives a decent (if British-centered and British-serving) overview of what's going on in the Pacific Theater in his first hand accounts in The Grand Alliance, the Hinge of Fate, and Closing the Circle.

We had answers for the Japanese, and we were using them all throughout the war. It's part of why China ended up the way it is.

 

Who else besides Admiral Kimmel was fired over Pearl Harbor? He's the only one of the brass that I'm aware of who got canned over Pearl Harbor itself.

Greetings!

Hah!! Tanin Wulf, yes, I love Winston Churchill as well. I've read "The Grand Alliance", "The Hinge of Fate" and "Closing the Circle." Churchill's inspiring faith and hope, though, while certainly inspiring, and in some ways prescient, "The New World, like an avenging angel, will come to the rescue of the Old World and Western Civilization, Hitler and the Japanese will be ground into the dust and ashes of defeat, etc." at the time though, didn't correspond to the reality of Malaysia, Burma, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Phillipines, the Dutch East Indies, the utter crushing of the HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Renown in the open sea by Japanese Carrier Air Power, the loss of the Solomon Islands, Pearl Harbor, and the Battle of the Coral Sea. Had we not been triumphant at Coral Sea, and at Guadalcanal, the Japanese would have invaded and conquered Australia. Japan essentially broke British power in the Asian and Pacific Theater.

Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, the Solomon Island campaign, and Midway were all hair-thin strokes of fortune for the Allies, Tanin. We could have easily lost any one of those battles, any of which would have had extreme and dire consequences for defeat. So, our victory was certainly *not* guaranteed, or a foregone conclusion, despite what a few may have hoped for and believed at the time.

I think the author is Geoffrey Perrett, "How the United States Army Won World War II" details how Washington cleaned house with the brass of both the Navy and Army being fired, retired, dismissed, or otherwise sidelined from major command after the disaster of Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, according to what I have read from General George Patton, as well as General Douglas MacArthur, our military forces were in absolute disarray, and we were not certain of victory. Perrett goes into extensive detail on the secret meetings, reports, and documents throughout the war from Washington, and the wholesale changes through command and control, administration, training, as well as equipment, tactics, and doctrine that were necessary to avoid losing the war, and gradually marching to victory.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 31, 2019, 01:46:47 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072982
Thanks, Tanin!  This has been investigated many times - with no finding of any factual grounds for the internment, and the U.S. government has officially apologized multiple times.

I don't see why it should be controversial that the government was racist at the time of WWII. I mean, we had a frickin segregated army at the time, and plenty of politicians (especially Democrats) made openly racist statements. Denying that is ridiculous.

To be clear - I am very much anti-Japan. My father grew up under Japanese occupation, and they did plenty of atrocities. But then, so did the Nazis - yet German-Americans were largely untouched by internment. There were some German-Americans who were separately detained, but that was selective based on suspicion, and on a much lesser scale than Japanese-Americans who were all rounded up regardless of their history.

Greetings!

Yep! Indeed, to their credit and great honour, Japanese Americans who served in I think it was the 442nd Regiment of the United States Army fought with outstanding valour throughout the war in Europe, especially during their exploits in the Italian Campaign.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 31, 2019, 02:38:34 PM
Greetings!

I'm also reminded of despite our own fortunate superiority in Intelligence over the Japanese through Magic, even that was not enough to ensure victory. I've read top secret documents uncovered in Japan that relates how the Japanese were far advanced in their own research into the Atomic Bomb, and were far closer to achieving the operational deployment than our own Intelligence at the time ever suspected. The Japanese had detailed plans on deploying an Atomic attack by using their superior long-range submarines to detonate an Atomic attack and annihilate San Diego and San Francisco, with additional bombs planned for execution against American invasion forces gathered to invade the home islands of Japan. The Japanese maintained secret testing and manufacturing facilities in hidden bases deep in Korea, as well as subterranean laboratories in Japan itself. The Japanese furthermore had an elaborate "front" scheme to feed us a false estimation of where they were in regards to their research and development of Atomic weapons. The real truth of the matter, the scope and depth of the Japanese Atomic program was not known or understood in detail until well after the end of World War II. Unsurprisingly, such inconvenient documentation is uncomfortable for many idealistic academics, even to this day, who prefer to marinate themselves in the soothing, smug and self-righteous anti-American narrative, where the Empire of Japan is forever cast in the role of being the poor "victim" of American bloodlust with the atomic attacks against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is certainly sobering to think that had the war continued on for much longer, America could have been annihilated with Japanese Atomic Bomb attacks.

The Japanese were also developing deadly chemical weapons, and had plans to deploy them during an American invasion of Japan. The Japanese had hundreds of thousands of Chinese, Korean, and other Asian women forced into sexual slavery to their Japanese masters. The Japanese also enslaved hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, of other Asians who, according to Japanese Imperial doctrine, were subhuman, and inferior. They were born to be slaves to the glorious Empire. The Japanese also had several torture camps, secret medical facilities where they researched and conducted biological experiments on conquered people, including American and Allied prisoners of war. The Japanese also had research and operational jet rockets and aircraft, as well. It is a great and wonderful thing that we liberated Asia from tyranny, and crushed Japan precisely when we did. Another six months, or a year of fighting may have seen us suffer utter calamity.

Oh, and strangely, I don't remember if Churchill ever admitted such, but I remember reading somewhere that at one point, the Nazi U-Boat campaign against Britain was so ruthlessly successful that Britain was *SIX WEEKS* away from mass starvation, which would have resulted in their defeat and subjection by the Nazis. The American and British efforts at desperately saving Britain from annihilation also hung by a thread, and such a victory was also achieved in the beginning by strokes of fortune unforeseen.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on January 31, 2019, 02:44:49 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072982
To be clear - I am very much anti-Japan. My father grew up under Japanese occupation, and they did plenty of atrocities. But then, so did the Nazis - yet German-Americans were largely untouched by internment. There were some German-Americans who were separately detained, but that was selective based on suspicion, and on a much lesser scale than Japanese-Americans who were all rounded up regardless of their history.


German-Americans had largely had their moment of "who am I" with WW1.  Lots of suspicion, and some divided loyalty.  But there was a war answering that question in the rear view mirror.

Internment was nothing to be proud of, but there weren't the same Qs for both pops.  And there was the issue with the J-As on Hawaii helping and hiding one of the pilots attacking Pearl from US Authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident

Quote
Historian Gordon Prange notes that it was "the rapidity with which the three resident Japanese went over to the pilot's cause" which troubled the Hawaiians. "The more pessimistic among them cited the Ni'ihau incident as proof that no one could trust any Japanese, even if an American citizen, not to go over to Japan if it appeared expedient."[13]


Yes, it's wikipedia.  Cut-and-paste or nothing atm.

Like I said - doesn't make it a red-letter-day for the US.  Let's not pretend there weren't concerns stemming from objective experience.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on January 31, 2019, 02:47:08 PM
Quote from: Brad;1072872
Here's a secret: I'm actually Keira Knightley.


Holy shit. I KNEW IT
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 31, 2019, 03:23:28 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1072994
German-Americans had largely had their moment of "who am I" with WW1.  Lots of suspicion, and some divided loyalty.  But there was a war answering that question in the rear view mirror.

Internment was nothing to be proud of, but there weren't the same Qs for both pops.  And there was the issue with the J-As on Hawaii helping and hiding one of the pilots attacking Pearl from US Authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident

 

Yes, it's wikipedia.  Cut-and-paste or nothing atm.

Like I said - doesn't make it a red-letter-day for the US.  Let's not pretend there weren't concerns stemming from objective experience.

Greetings!

I agree, EOTB. I did some work on various topics of America during World War II. I had to research through lots of primary sources, and documents *at the time* and while there was certainly racist elements in our propaganda for exapmple, sifting through newspaper clippings, government documents, interviews and testimonies, radio programs, and so on, it became clear to me that this country was absolutely terrified. The government was most certainly not in total control of a damned thing, and there was plenty of fear, speculation, rumour, and uncertainty to go around for everyone.

The Japanese did have spies in Hawaii, and as you mentioned, there were traitors also involved.

My earlier commentary also alludes to the dissonance between what we often smugly conratulate ourselves on knowing *now*--but at the time, there was not anywhere near such certainty. We most certainly did not KNOW that Japan couldn't invade the West Coast. Stupid, smug bastards at the time assured us that Japan couldn't attack us at Pearl Harbor, either, that Pearl Harbor was secure, that Pearl Harbor was beyond the reach of Japan, and so on. It was a lot of smug arrogance that also died in the oil-soaked, burning American battleships in the waters off Ford Island, besides our heroic men. The early years of the war are full of surprises and achievements by the Japanese that the "experts" all reassured us were impossible beforehand. The fact is, there was a great deal of racism, and institutionalized arrogance and smugness in both the US and the British government and high commands that were proven to be disastrously stupid and wrong in the ensuing events. Whole doctrines, whole careers, government, academic, and military--were fucked after the early years of the war, and thrown into the ashheap of history, hopefully as lessons for future generations of citizens and soldiers alike.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on January 31, 2019, 03:52:08 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1072984

Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, the Solomon Island campaign, and Midway were all hair-thin strokes of fortune for the Allies, Tanin. We could have easily lost any one of those battles, any of which would have had extreme and dire consequences for defeat.


It was quite a stroke of luck that Australia didn't get invaded. But the US could make so many more aircraft carriers than Japan, and was so much better at keeping them in action - and at keeping the pilots alive - that the longer the war went on, the stronger the US was bound to get. It would have taken a lot more than 1, 2 or 3 more defeats for the US, I think. A Nazi invasion of Britain was a longshot, but it was contemplated. A Japanese invasion of the USA was much less likely.

edit: Of course Hawaii might have been invaded, which would have been no fun for the inhabitants.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on January 31, 2019, 04:42:44 PM
Invasion jitters lasted about 3 months after Pearl Harbor. Four months after the attack Tokyo was bombed (Doolittle Raiders) and within 6 months the initiative of the war had almost entirely gone from Japan to the USA (Battle of Midway). Eleven months after Pearl Harbor the Battle for Guadalcanal had decisively gone in favor of the US and the Japanese had completely abandoned efforts at expansion.  

The Battle of Midway was not remotely a close thing. The "Miracle at Midway" was a fabrication of the US media further supported by the leadership of post-war Japan to excuse their failure. The Japanese had zero chance of taking Midway island.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on January 31, 2019, 04:50:55 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1073009
It was quite a stroke of luck that Australia didn't get invaded. But the US could make so many more aircraft carriers than Japan, and was so much better at keeping them in action - and at keeping the pilots alive - that the longer the war went on, the stronger the US was bound to get. It would have taken a lot more than 1, 2 or 3 more defeats for the US, I think. A Nazi invasion of Britain was a longshot, but it was contemplated. A Japanese invasion of the USA was much less likely.

edit: Of course Hawaii might have been invaded, which would have been no fun for the inhabitants.

That is another fun piece of information. In 1941 the US had 7 fleet carriers vs 10 Japanese. During the war the US built 48 new fleet carriers and about 100 small escort carriers, vs the Japanese who built 6.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 31, 2019, 05:00:36 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1072992
I'm also reminded of despite our own fortunate superiority in Intelligence over the Japanese through Magic, even that was not enough to ensure victory. I've read top secret documents uncovered in Japan that relates how the Japanese were far advanced in their own research into the Atomic Bomb, and were far closer to achieving the operational deployment than our own Intelligence at the time ever suspected. The Japanese had detailed plans on deploying an Atomic attack by using their superior long-range submarines to detonate an Atomic attack and annihilate San Diego and San Francisco, with additional bombs planned for execution against American invasion forces gathered to invade the home islands of Japan. The Japanese maintained secret testing and manufacturing facilities in hidden bases deep in Korea, as well as subterranean laboratories in Japan itself. The Japanese furthermore had an elaborate "front" scheme to feed us a false estimation of where they were in regards to their research and development of Atomic weapons.
From what I read (and having worked as a high energy physicist) , the Japanese were aware of the possibility of nuclear weapons, and had skilled physicists with knowledge of the principles. However, they flatly didn't have the resources to carry out the enrichment necessary to produce anything close to a working bomb. As far as I can tell, they didn't even achieve a chain reaction in research and development. They had one cyclotron and a few experimental enrichment setups. Producing even a single atomic bomb was years away, and they would have needed a lot more resources to manage it than they had.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/japanese-atomic-bomb-project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 31, 2019, 05:11:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1073017
From what I read (and having worked as a high energy physicist) , the Japanese were aware of the possibility of nuclear weapons, and had skilled physicists with knowledge of the principles. However, they flatly didn't have the resources to carry out the enrichment necessary to produce anything close to a working bomb. As far as I can tell, they didn't even achieve a chain reaction in research and development. They had one cyclotron and a few experimental enrichment setups. Producing even a single atomic bomb was years away, and they would have needed a lot more resources to manage it than they had.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/japanese-atomic-bomb-project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program

Greetings!

I'm sorry I don't have the name of the scholar or the book at hand, Jhkim. The book I read by this historian I have in mind though laid all this research out about what the Japanese were up to with their Atomic research. The impression I got from his work, with the documentation, analysis and so on, was that the Japanese were closing in on the Atomic bomb. Much closer than we ever suspected at the time, so far that the Japanese had plans to deploy them and strike America. They planned on using some of their large, dvanced, super-submarines to load an atomic bomb inside it, and detonate it inside San Francisco Bay. A second target was San Diego, and other bombs were to be used in a similar fashion against American invasion fleets, known to be soon gathering for the invasion of Japan. His documentation and research of primary Japanese documents, memos and so on seem to be pretty persuasive to me.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 31, 2019, 05:26:01 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1073014
 
The Battle of Midway was not remotely a close thing. The "Miracle at Midway" was a fabrication of the US media further supported by the leadership of post-war Japan to excuse their failure. The Japanese had zero chance of taking Midway island.

Greetings!

Really, Toad? I have to ask then--what historian has claimed that idea? Indeed, we had an advantage in Intelligence--we knew what the Japanese objectives were, but the fact remains that the Japanese Imperial Navy under Admiral Isoruko Yammamoto outnumbered our own naval forces in a huge way. I have read dozens of historians, as well as diaries and interviews with men who were actually present during the Battle of Midway, as well as conferring with recent, teaching scholars--and no source I have ever heard of would agree with your assessment.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on January 31, 2019, 06:17:42 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1073018
I'm sorry I don't have the name of the scholar or the book at hand, Jhkim. The book I read by this historian I have in mind though laid all this research out about what the Japanese were up to with their Atomic research. The impression I got from his work, with the documentation, analysis and so on, was that the Japanese were closing in on the Atomic bomb. Much closer than we ever suspected at the time, so far that the Japanese had plans to deploy them and strike America. They planned on using some of their large, dvanced, super-submarines to load an atomic bomb inside it, and detonate it inside San Francisco Bay. A second target was San Diego, and other bombs were to be used in a similar fashion against American invasion fleets, known to be soon gathering for the invasion of Japan. His documentation and research of primary Japanese documents, memos and so on seem to be pretty persuasive to me.
I only know basically what is in the links I gave, but those have accounts from Los Alamos people who reviewed what was captured in Japan. I could believe that there were plans, but they would only be wishful thinking / remote contingencies - much like U.S. plans for how to defend against a ground invasion. I have no doubt that if they could, the Japanese military would have used atomic bombs on the U.S. mainland. But they didn't have the capability.

Particularly at the time, nuclear enrichment was a really intensive process - it's not like you could hide a full facility in a cave. The Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people. The Japanese had only a few dozen people working on R&D and collecting raw material. From everything I read online, they produced no chain reaction and had no weapons-grade material.

If you can find the book, I'd be curious about the reference. The Wikipedia article I linked earlier mentions a similar theory, but it sounds pretty thoroughly debunked. I found this paper with some more details. It's more about attitudes of people, but it incidentally includes more details on the researchers.

http://www.academia.edu/9733384/Revised_Version_of_Searching_for_the_Objective_Analysis_Japanese_Atomic_Bomb_Research_and_the_Victimhood_Narrative
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 31, 2019, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1072994
Like I said - doesn't make it a red-letter-day for the US.  Let's not pretend there weren't concerns stemming from objective experience.


It's curious that if the objective experience were truly that convincing, why DeWitt's report still tried to trump things up and tried to target Germans and Italians as well.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on January 31, 2019, 06:42:06 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1073026
It's curious that if the objective experience were truly that convincing, why DeWitt's report still tried to trump things up and tried to target Germans and Italians as well.

Are you saying the incident didn't happen?  Or are you taking my statement beyond where I left it?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on January 31, 2019, 06:55:33 PM
Beyond.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on January 31, 2019, 07:34:12 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1073019
Greetings!

Really, Toad? I have to ask then--what historian has claimed that idea? Indeed, we had an advantage in Intelligence--we knew what the Japanese objectives were, but the fact remains that the Japanese Imperial Navy under Admiral Isoruko Yammamoto outnumbered our own naval forces in a huge way. I have read dozens of historians, as well as diaries and interviews with men who were actually present during the Battle of Midway, as well as conferring with recent, teaching scholars--and no source I have ever heard of would agree with your assessment.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The Japanese were outnumbered from the beginning. Their invasion of Midway was planned around a defensive force of around 750 Marines and 50 aircraft. In reality Midway had nearly 2000 Marines and more than 100 aircraft. Then you add in the submarine force, 2 carrier groups and the lack of surprise.


As far as historians I'd recommend reading Shattered Sword, it blows holes in many of the popular myths.

http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on January 31, 2019, 10:41:17 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1073033
The Japanese were outnumbered from the beginning. Their invasion of Midway was planned around a defensive force of around 750 Marines and 50 aircraft. In reality Midway had nearly 2000 Marines and more than 100 aircraft. Then you add in the submarine force, 2 carrier groups and the lack of surprise.


As far as historians I'd recommend reading Shattered Sword, it blows holes in many of the popular myths.

http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/

Greetings!

Wait, Toad. I'm not necessarily talking about the specific *assault* on Midway Island. I'm talking about the entire naval battle. The naval battle where the largest units of the IJN were there--they had their main Fleet Carriers there, the Kaga, the Soryu, Hiru, and the Akagi, I think. Plus battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and lots of submarines. The IJN amphibious operation, and its accompanying ships, were actually a seperate force.

American naval and air forces were outnumbered, and outclassed, in every conventional way. Our third carrier, the U.S.S. Yorktown wasn't even at full strength, having been damaged severely in battle earlier. The aircraft on Midway were old, and obelete. By all standard expectations, they were negligable.

However, those 100 plus land-based aircraft stationed on Midway Island, obselete as they were--were flown by United States Marines! Marine Aviators. The Japanese forgot about the US Marines, and would pay for their mistake.

Historian John Keegan said that Midway was the most stunning naval victory in history. Clearly, it was an upset. America was expected to be crushed, and swept aside.

Forces Involved: United States
3 fleet carriers
7 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
15 destroyers
233 carrier-based aircraft
127 land-based aircraft
16 submarines[1]

Imperial Japanese Navy
1st Carrier Striking Force:
4 fleet carriers
2 battleships
2 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
12 destroyers
248 carrier-based aircraft[2]
16 floatplanes

Midway Support Force:
4 heavy cruisers
2 destroyers
12 floatplanes

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on January 31, 2019, 11:07:25 PM
I'm not an expert on this, but I also think that Midway was not a done deal, it could have gone particularly badly if the Americans hadn't deciphered the Japanese plans.

But as a whole, the Japanese war on America was doomed. America has massive resources, and also managed to use its capabilities for production (normally used in capitalistic endeavors) for its wartime effort. There is a (possibly apocryphal) quote somewhere of a Japanese military leader saying after Pearl Harbor "I think we may have woken a sleeping giant". Even if they didn't say it like that, some of them must have realized it.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on January 31, 2019, 11:49:44 PM
Quote from: Trond;1073040
I'm not an expert on this, but I also think that Midway was not a done deal, it could have gone particularly badly if the Americans hadn't deciphered the Japanese plans.

But as a whole, the Japanese war on America was doomed. America has massive resources, and also managed to use its capabilities for production (normally used in capitalistic endeavors) for its wartime effort. There is a (possibly apocryphal) quote somewhere of a Japanese military leader saying after Pearl Harbor "I think we may have woken a sleeping giant". Even if they didn't say it like that, some of them must have realized it.

That "sleeping giant" quote was from Admiral Yamamoto, who was against going to war with the USA IIRC.

Also IIRC, the US Navy got very lucky in having a fighter group engage one of the Japanese carriers while the flight deck was jammed with planes being rearmed with bombs. I need to reread that battle history, I've forgotten too much.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on February 01, 2019, 02:28:08 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1073038
Greetings!

Wait, Toad. I'm not necessarily talking about the specific *assault* on Midway Island. I'm talking about the entire naval battle. The naval battle where the largest units of the IJN were there--they had their main Fleet Carriers there, the Kaga, the Soryu, Hiru, and the Akagi, I think. Plus battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and lots of submarines. The IJN amphibious operation, and its accompanying ships, were actually a seperate force.

American naval and air forces were outnumbered, and outclassed, in every conventional way. Our third carrier, the U.S.S. Yorktown wasn't even at full strength, having been damaged severely in battle earlier. The aircraft on Midway were old, and obelete. By all standard expectations, they were negligable.

However, those 100 plus land-based aircraft stationed on Midway Island, obselete as they were--were flown by United States Marines! Marine Aviators. The Japanese forgot about the US Marines, and would pay for their mistake.

Historian John Keegan said that Midway was the most stunning naval victory in history. Clearly, it was an upset. America was expected to be crushed, and swept aside.

Forces Involved: United States
3 fleet carriers
7 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
15 destroyers
233 carrier-based aircraft
127 land-based aircraft
16 submarines[1]

Imperial Japanese Navy
1st Carrier Striking Force:
4 fleet carriers
2 battleships
2 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
12 destroyers
248 carrier-based aircraft[2]
16 floatplanes

Midway Support Force:
4 heavy cruisers
2 destroyers
12 floatplanes

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Add up your numbers right in your post

US had 3 fleet carriers and the unsinkable USS Midway (Island), 360 US aircraft including land based medium (B26) and heavy bombers (B17) vs 4 Japanese carriers and 248 Japanese aircraft (US had a 50% advantage in aircraft), US had 7 Heavy cruisers vs 2 Japanese Battleships (actually WW1 era battlecruisers) and 2 heavy cruisers, US had 15 destroyers to 12 japanese, and the US had 16 submarines to 0 Japanese. The Japanese carriers were under constant attack between the (rarely reported) land based bombers and the attacks by carrier aircraft which severely hampered their efforts to launch attacks because they were constantly having to rearm and refuel their fighter cover. Midway was also the only recorded use of the B26 Marauder as a torpedo bomber.  

The problem is most US historians have repeated the same incorrect information. The Miracle at Midway made a good rah rah story for the home front, and it offered an excuse for the defeat for the Japanese. It remains popular today despite the fact there has been good proof it didn't happen that way. Many historians keep going back to John Ford's propaganda film The Battle of Midway instead of looking at original sources.

Shattered Sword was the first major English language history to include Japanese history and documentation. There are many areas where it was clear that older US histories made assumptions about how the Japanese operated, and they were very wrong assuming they operated like the US. Much of the time line has also been poorly reported, like the sacrifice of torpedo bombers allowing the dive bombers to attack unopposed. In reality the dive bomber attack occurred well after the torpedo bombers attack and their loss played very little if any part in their success. It does however make for a much better story and gives some purpose to their loss to the families so it remains a popular belief.
It is also rarely reported that the Japanese torpedo bombers suffered similar losses to the US. Torpedo bombing was a very dangerous and vulnerable mission even when flown by more modern aircraft and both sides moved away from it after Midway.

The SBD Dauntless dive bomber was likely the finest dive bomber of the war, the Stuka had nothing on it. The US Navy and Marines actually invented dive bombing (first recorded dive bombing attacks were carried out by the USMC in Nicaragua during the 1920s). Ernst Udet became fascinated with the concept after watching a US Navy demonstration in the 1930s, and he brought the idea to Germany (along with 2 Curtiss Hawk II fighters he used to sell the idea).



Quote from: jeff37923;1073045
That "sleeping giant" quote was from Admiral Yamamoto, who was against going to war with the USA IIRC.

Also IIRC, the US Navy got very lucky in having a fighter group engage one of the Japanese carriers while the flight deck was jammed with planes being rearmed with bombs. I need to reread that battle history, I've forgotten too much.

Most evidence disputes Yamamoto ever actually making that statement (most attribute it to the film Tora Tora Tora), although it is believed he did more or less believe that.

The deck loaded with fuel and bombs is another one of the myths disproved by looking at actual Japanese operational documentation. It simply couldn't have happened that way, unlike the US Navy who did refuel rearm on deck, the Japanese did all of their work below decks so they would have never have had the deck piled with fuel and ordnance.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on February 01, 2019, 02:34:17 AM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1073033
The Japanese were outnumbered from the beginning. Their invasion of Midway was planned around a defensive force of around 750 Marines and 50 aircraft. In reality Midway had nearly 2000 Marines and more than 100 aircraft. Then you add in the submarine force, 2 carrier groups and the lack of surprise.

How many soldiers did the Japanese force have?

AFAICS Japan certainly could have got lucky and won the naval Battle of Midway, and I don't see that 2,000 marines would necessarily have stopped them taking the island.

But they were still going to lose the war. The only war Japan could have won against the USA was a limited war, like the 1905 Russia-Japan war, which went off the table with Pearl Harbor. The war Japan could win was one where the USA attacked Japan, with limited support among the US public, and Japan could be presented as the victim not aggressor. The moral level of war is the highest one, for sure.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on February 01, 2019, 04:34:43 AM
Greetings!

Well, the actual forces that were able to engage in battle--the forces noted, above--were comparable. The IJN had one more ship. Not engaged though--due to Japanese fuck up--is a considerable force of battleships, etc, including the Yamato. We were not grossly outnumbered, as propaganda claims--but Toad, you claimed that WE outnumbered the Japanese. American forces naval forces did not outnumber the Japanese. At best, we had comparable forces. We did, in fact, have a few more aircraft, the land-based ones--but everything I have read was that they were obselete, and never a major factor, in the primary assault and decisive strikes against the Japanese capital ships.

The book sounds interesting, Toad! I'm looking forward to getting the book for my collection.

However, my original point still stands. Midway was not, like the other battles I mentioned, ever a guaranteed victory. Had we lost at Midway, or Guadalcanal, the Solomon Campaign, or the Coral Sea, we would have been really fucked, you know? As it was, even with victory in those, the Japanese put up a hell of a fight at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, which came a bit later. In truth, it was a sequential series of all of these battles which together broke the power of the Imperial Japanese Navy, with such cumulative defets being too severe for the Japanese to ever be able to recover from.

I should also note, that our valiant submarine forces--ultimately over 400 submarines--undertook precisely what the Nazis tried to do with Britain. US submarines were--as I recall from this huge book written by a veteran US submarine Commander--responsible for sinking over 60% of all Japanese ships during the war, including annihilating Japan's entire mechant fleet. After several years of unrestricted submarine warfare, Japan was also deeply fucked, as by that time, they were suffering enormous food shortages as well as other supplies, due to the powerful and enduring success of the US submarine forces during the war to that point.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on February 01, 2019, 04:55:57 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1073050
How many soldiers did the Japanese force have?

AFAICS Japan certainly could have got lucky and won the naval Battle of Midway, and I don't see that 2,000 marines would necessarily have stopped them taking the island.

But they were still going to lose the war. The only war Japan could have won against the USA was a limited war, like the 1905 Russia-Japan war, which went off the table with Pearl Harbor. The war Japan could win was one where the USA attacked Japan, with limited support among the US public, and Japan could be presented as the victim not aggressor. The moral level of war is the highest one, for sure.

The Japanese landing force was 5000 men. Wake Island was an unsupported, under strength outpost defended by 450 Marines and 12 aircraft and they held out for 2 weeks against a force 1/2 the size of that sent to Midway (2 aircraft carriers, 2 heavy cruisers and misc smaller vessels, plus a landing force of 2500 infantry).

The Defenders at Midway had 4-5x the number of Marines, 10x the aircraft and much better defensive positions than Wake had available. Midway was also a submarine refueling and rearming base, so there were 19 submarines operating in the area. Midway also had a detatchment of 8 PT boats.

So even lacking the intel scoop that placed 2 US carrier task forces at Midway, taking the island was far from certain and would have been a very bloody ordeal for the Japanese who had a poor record when it came to opposed amphibious landings. Like the Germans when they looked at invading England, the Japanese lacked effective landing craft capable of putting men and equipment on the beach. To give some comparison in US amphibious landings they attempted to provide a landing force approximately 5x the size of the defenders.

It is also unclear what victory would have provided to the Japanese. Midway is a rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that would have been very difficult for them to support. Much like what happened in the Aleutian islands (a completely separate operation from Midway, not a diversionary attack has often been claimed). That was an ongoing issue for the Japanese, they seized a lot of ground early in the war, but this added territory provided little material gain, and became a drain on resources (the Dutch East Indies oil being an exception).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on February 01, 2019, 05:06:23 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1073054
Greetings!

Well, the actual forces that were able to engage in battle--the forces noted, above--were comparable. The IJN had one more ship. Not engaged though--due to Japanese fuck up--is a considerable force of battleships, etc, including the Yamato. We were not grossly outnumbered, as propaganda claims--but Toad, you claimed that WE outnumbered the Japanese. American forces naval forces did not outnumber the Japanese. At best, we had comparable forces. We did, in fact, have a few more aircraft, the land-based ones--but everything I have read was that they were obselete, and never a major factor, in the primary assault and decisive strikes against the Japanese capital ships.

The book sounds interesting, Toad! I'm looking forward to getting the book for my collection.

However, my original point still stands. Midway was not, like the other battles I mentioned, ever a guaranteed victory. Had we lost at Midway, or Guadalcanal, the Solomon Campaign, or the Coral Sea, we would have been really fucked, you know? As it was, even with victory in those, the Japanese put up a hell of a fight at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, which came a bit later. In truth, it was a sequential series of all of these battles which together broke the power of the Imperial Japanese Navy, with such cumulative defets being too severe for the Japanese to ever be able to recover from.

I should also note, that our valiant submarine forces--ultimately over 400 submarines--undertook precisely what the Nazis tried to do with Britain. US submarines were--as I recall from this huge book written by a veteran US submarine Commander--responsible for sinking over 60% of all Japanese ships during the war, including annihilating Japan's entire mechant fleet. After several years of unrestricted submarine warfare, Japan was also deeply fucked, as by that time, they were suffering enormous food shortages as well as other supplies, due to the powerful and enduring success of the US submarine forces during the war to that point.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

A 50% superiority in aircraft is insignificant in a battle won and lost with air power? Also your numbers don't add up. The forces you yourself posted showed advantage in most cases to the US. Yes the Japanese had a 4th aircraft carrier, but the US had an island with a complement of aircraft comparable to 2 Japanese carriers and it is damn hard to sink an island.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on February 01, 2019, 05:29:05 AM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1073055
It is also unclear what victory would have provided to the Japanese. Midway is a rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that would have been very difficult for them to support. Much like what happened in the Aleutian islands (a completely separate operation from Midway, not a diversionary attack has often been claimed). That was an ongoing issue for the Japanese, they seized a lot of ground early in the war, but this added territory provided little material gain, and became a drain on resources (the Dutch East Indies oil being an exception).

To me this is the big issue.

The Japanese had an effective strategy for defeating the European empires, who were either fighting for survival against Nazi Germany or had been defeated by Nazi Germany. They could drive them from the Pacific and Burma, and make retaking the territory impossible with European resources. But they had no strategy for winning an all-out war against the USA, a Pacific power, and most did not really understand what they were up against. Taking far-flung Pacific territory was just spreading their forces and weakening them, making their defeat easier.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on February 01, 2019, 12:57:17 PM
This thread sure has taken an informative turn though to an unexpected topic.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Dimitrios on February 01, 2019, 01:08:59 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1073088
This thread sure has taken an informative turn though to an unexpected topic.

Also a more interesting topic.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2019, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: Dimitrios;1073090
Also a more interesting topic.

My eyes started to glaze over when people started listing the numbers and types of ships involved in the pacific theater. I'm sure it's interesting to some people, otherwise they wouldn't post it! But man, I couldn't care less if there were 12 or 13 destroyers floating around Midway at X time. But, threads have tangents, and I don't bitch about it, I just skip those posts.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Dimitrios on February 01, 2019, 01:42:46 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1073096
My eyes started to glaze over when people started listing the numbers and types of ships involved in the pacific theater. I'm sure it's interesting to some people, otherwise they wouldn't post it! But man, I couldn't care less if there were 12 or 13 destroyers floating around Midway at X time. But, threads have tangents, and I don't bitch about it, I just skip those posts.

Meh. If it's a choice between the pathetic dude who was the subject of the first post in this thread, or nit picking details about the battle of Midway...bring on the nit picking details I say!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on February 01, 2019, 02:03:29 PM
Partly just thinking out loud, I think the topic trail was:

- harassment of women on the Internet (referred to in the OP)
- opposition and harassment of conservative women Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin
- Malkin's attitudes on Japanese-American internment as motivation for opposition
- justifications of Japanese-American internment
- the threat of Japanese victory in WWII
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on February 01, 2019, 02:05:59 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1073105
- Malkin's attitudes on Japanese-American internment as motivation for opposition

That one was my fault.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on February 01, 2019, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: kythri;1072876
Sup, girl?


Quote from: jhkim;1072878
So, are you going to kiss tenbones?  I'm asking for him to avoid awkwardness, because I know how shy he can be.


Quote from: tenbones;1072996
Holy shit. I KNEW IT


Where do I file my #metoo outrage? Twitter?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on February 01, 2019, 05:46:14 PM
Quote from: Brad;1073115
Where do I file my #metoo outrage? Twitter?

That's passe now. I recommend putting it on a usenet to make sure it trends with the appropriate hipster crowd.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on February 01, 2019, 10:22:20 PM
Quote from: Brad;1073115
Where do I file my #metoo outrage? Twitter?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIP-4Nu33Q
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on February 02, 2019, 03:53:23 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072945
...hmm, does that mean if we truly are becoming a more melting pot society, "And who Don't Look Like Us," is becoming a smaller and smaller group?

The exact opposite is happening.

Everyone is dividing into tighter identity factions so the number of "those who are NOT us" only gets bigger.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: spon on February 02, 2019, 11:08:18 AM
TL:DR  Japanese could have won Midway but it wouldn't have mattered in the long run.

Long version:

Just to add to the Midway info - from what I've read, Midway wasn't a "miracle", it was a well-planned ambush of the Japanese. The Japanese didn't do themselves any favours, though. Their wargame of the battle had one of their own carriers sunk early on. This was "reversed" by the umpires in charge. The Japanese plan was about as complicated as it could be, several separate fleets unable to give each other cover if required. They had a commander who was confused on the day: His orders were to suppress the Midway defences and then be ready to destroy the Americans when they rushed to defend the island. Unfortunately his initial attack failed to suppress the island, and he was caught in two minds whether he should attack Midway Island again, or keep his bombers ready for when the American carriers were found. By the time he made up his mind (to attack Midway) events overtook him.

And Midway was way past what the Japanese could comfortably support. The invasion attempt was made because it was something that the Americans would have to fight for, and it would not require much in the way of army co-operation (the army refused to give much help, they were busy in China).

On the other hand, the American victory was not pre-ordained. Although they knew the Japanese target (Midway) they did not know exactly where or when the attack would come, they only had reasonable guesses. The land-based aircraft were not good at hitting moving ships. Their attack was uncoordinated with the fleet aircraft, and the attacks from the carriers went in piecemeal. The final (devastating) attack only went in because the strike force decided (on a hunch) to follow a lone destroyer which was hurrying to catch up with the fleet. Finally, the attack was as devastating as it was because the Japanese carrier decks were full of rearming and refuelling aircraft. Had the attack come an hour earlier of later, things might well have been different.

So it was quite possible for the Japanese to have sunk the American carriers and not lost all theirs.

However, this would not have really affected the long-term strategic balance. The Japanese could not replace their lost pilots, let alone their lost carriers. The American were building a dozen or more fleet carriers and had enough pilots to man them when they came on line. Even if the Japanese won Midway and a following battle, attrition would have reduced their carrier fleet to uselessness.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on February 02, 2019, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1073169
The exact opposite is happening.

Everyone is dividing into tighter identity factions so the number of "those who are NOT us" only gets bigger.


I do see considerably more balkanization than I remember, but I have no data to say whether or not that's my perception and biases or objective reality.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on February 02, 2019, 03:06:33 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1073105
Partly just thinking out loud, I think the topic trail was:

- harassment of women on the Internet (referred to in the OP)
- opposition and harassment of conservative women Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin
- Malkin's attitudes on Japanese-American internment as motivation for opposition
- justifications of Japanese-American internment
- the threat of Japanese victory in WWII


It hasn't gotten to Hitler yet.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 08, 2019, 01:09:29 PM
Seeing as this is International Women's Day, its seemed appropriate to discuss this question and it does fit the tone of the thread. Do you feel the there is a "War on Men" and/or that the minority Radical Feminist idea that its not female equality but female superiority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality#Superiority) that is becoming increasingly mainstream and advocated.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/obama-women-superior-men-washing-up-driving-patriarchy

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009/07/05/why-i-hate-men-part-1-and-then-it-hit-me/

http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html

Personally, I think this is the an extreme mouthing off on the internet but it does indicate possible future social trends and changes so its worth some discussion (There's always been a sort of 'competition' between the boys and girls but like so many other things its become Serious Business in our age of Culture Wars)As this board is home to some extreme opinions (IMO) but pretty open talk about them (In all honesty, I don't think this thread would last long in Tangency)  I hoped this might be productive or at least interesting.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 08, 2019, 01:33:54 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1078206
Seeing as this is International Women's Day, its seemed appropriate to discuss this question and it does fit the tone of the thread. Do you feel the there is a "War on Men" and/or that the minority Radical Feminist idea that its not female equality but female superiority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality#Superiority) that is becoming increasingly mainstream and advocated.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/obama-women-superior-men-washing-up-driving-patriarchy

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009/07/05/why-i-hate-men-part-1-and-then-it-hit-me/

http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html

Personally, I think this is the an extreme mouthing off on the internet but it does indicate possible future social trends and changes so its worth some discussion (There's always been a sort of 'competition' between the boys and girls but like so many other things its become Serious Business in our age of Culture Wars)As this board is home to some extreme opinions (IMO) but pretty open talk about them (In all honesty, I don't think this thread would last long in Tangency)  I hoped this might be productive or at least interesting.

I think the "war of the sexes" is as old as humans.
I think it became particularly ideological with the rise of modern feminism. (Specifiying women and men as separate "classes", and creating an oppressor/oppressed narrative)
People like to use hyperbole and analogy, which I think dilutes the discussion.
I think there's some shadow of a point in the idea of feminism, but it's seriously corrupted by the oppressor/oppressed idea, which ignores or downplays other factors between the sexes.

So, to answer your question, I think there's a thread of female superiority running through feminism, we can see that in the activism against "toxic masculinity" (IE any masculinity that isn't approved by feminism) and the demonizing of male sexuality. "Male gaze", etc. For two examples.
Women should be free to do whatever they want with their lives, but should also accept consummate responsibility for their decisions, which is one of the main talking points of the Men's Rights Movement.
Some random thoughts off the top of my head.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 08, 2019, 06:21:32 PM
I'm a man.  

I don't feel that there is a war on men.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Joey2k on March 08, 2019, 06:33:20 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078260
I'm a man.  

I don't feel that there is a war on men.

There are certainly double standards, albeit in both directions
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 08, 2019, 09:07:59 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1078206
Seeing as this is International Women's Day, its seemed appropriate to discuss this question and it does fit the tone of the thread. Do you feel the there is a "War on Men" and/or that the minority Radical Feminist idea that its not female equality but female superiority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality#Superiority) that is becoming increasingly mainstream and advocated.

Yeah there is a war on men but the main problem is that science is on mens side. 200,000 years of evolution does not go away because someones feelings are hurt.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 09, 2019, 02:25:20 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1078287
Yeah there is a war on men but the main problem is that science is on mens side.

Science may be, but nature isn't - most men historically have often failed to reproduce, and generally been treated as disposable. "All Men Matter" is a pretty recent development, and we seem to be going back to the earlier norm of "All Women Matter - Plus A Few Men".

I think "All Men Matter" creates much more pleasant societies for everyone (by giving all men a stake in the society's future), so it's definitely a shame.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 09, 2019, 03:19:33 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1078313
Science may be, but nature isn't - most men historically have often failed to reproduce.

True, most men died out when they were kids which is why 200,000 years of evolution works generally.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 09, 2019, 04:23:51 AM
Feminism is destroying itself and alienating women. Its amazing how all those promoting virulent man-hate forgot that many women love their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons. And its equally amazing how these "intersectionist" clowns demanding all feminists accept trannies as women have forgotten that many feminists joined feminist groups to promote the concerns of fellow women, not helping dudes with tits.

I suspect feminism is going to splinter. The MSM loves the man-haters and heavily promotes that agenda (aka, watch most any TV commercial or sitcom), but it doesn't match what the majority women actually want in their real life.  Polls show women are getting less happy, not more. And as more men check out from the rat race and married life, that unhappiness factor will grow further.

But fuck it. Sexbots are coming and will solve everything for everybody. Men won't need women and women won't need men. Everyone will be equally screwing their perfect toasters.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on March 09, 2019, 05:56:18 AM
I think to a large degree, Spinachat is right. Feminism is showing signs of splintering, largely due to intersectionality driving wedges between otherwise likeminded women. That said, there is a war on men, but it is already largely lost as it is instantiated in law. Without changes to family courts and laws concerning divorce, alimony and child custody, and selective service. Men have been on the losing end of that battle for some time now and are only now starting to make inroads to change it all.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 09, 2019, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078327
Feminism is destroying itself and alienating women. Its amazing how all those promoting virulent man-hate forgot that many women love their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons. And its equally amazing how these "intersectionist" clowns demanding all feminists accept trannies as women have forgotten that many feminists joined feminist groups to promote the concerns of fellow women, not helping dudes with tits.

I suspect feminism is going to splinter. The MSM loves the man-haters and heavily promotes that agenda (aka, watch most any TV commercial or sitcom), but it doesn't match what the majority women actually want in their real life.  Polls show women are getting less happy, not more. And as more men check out from the rat race and married life, that unhappiness factor will grow further.

But fuck it. Sexbots are coming and will solve everything for everybody. Men won't need women and women won't need men. Everyone will be equally screwing their perfect toasters.


Sexbots, eh, it might work for guys who actually don't like women. I think that what we need more is to emphasize male pride and self-respect again. How about men holding their ground (as men) for once? I haven't seen that in a couple of decades. It might actually get us more respect from the women too.

All this talk about MGTOW and "incels". WTF? Or what about the hypocrisy of men nervously clapping along while at last years Oscars there was one anti-men joke after another? It seemed particularly hypocritical coming from Jimmy Kimmel, who used to do puns where women would put their hands in his pants. It would have been funnier, given the situation and all, if we were simultaneously able to take jokes at the cost of women, but it seems like we can't (individual women can, but not the media and certainly not the Oscars, I would have loved to see a "women can't drive" joke thrown into that mix just to see the reaction).

Speaking of sex: Did you guys notice that Playboy corporation went from having "entertainment for men" as their slogan to "entertainment for all"? Because surely men can't even have that anymore, a magazine with relatively tasteful nude pictures of women. (apparently magazines still sell to a certain degree, and there are always several shelves in the store with women's magazines, but hardly any for men). Have guys just caved in and accepted that "yes, sorry, we're a bunch of losers"? If men like non-rapey, tasteful, pictures of nude women (which they generally do), how about owning it? Oh, and one thing that I noticed when I saw the old "Beverly Hills Cop" movie again a while back. Eddie Murphy's character likes to go to strip clubs. That's right, the HERO likes to go to strip clubs. Can you even imagine that today? If you like this sort of thing (or similarly manly, harmless, "non-feminist" things), how about going "yeah, I'm a good guy, I work hard, I don't treat people like shit, and I also enjoy them naked girls, if you don't like it then f**k off!"

OK rant over.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Brand55 on March 09, 2019, 11:09:47 AM
Quote from: shuddemell;1078335
I think to a large degree, Spinachat is right. Feminism is showing signs of splintering, largely due to intersectionality driving wedges between otherwise likeminded women. That said, there is a war on men, but it is already largely lost as it is instantiated in law. Without changes to family courts and laws concerning divorce, alimony and child custody, and selective service. Men have been on the losing end of that battle for some time now and are only now starting to make inroads to change it all.
There was a recent ruling against the Selective Service rules so we'll almost certainly see a change to that law in the coming years. Unless the Supreme Court is willing to revisit their old ruling, there's almost no way we won't see a change forcing women to enroll soon.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 09, 2019, 11:36:50 AM
Quote from: Brand55;1078364
There was a recent ruling against the Selective Service rules so we'll almost certainly see a change to that law in the coming years. Unless the Supreme Court is willing to revisit their old ruling, there's almost no way we won't see a change forcing women to enroll soon.

We are blessed to live in a time in the west where service in the military is mostly a choice and where that service is comparatively light on casualties. I don't think women in the military will ever be as impactful on women as it has been on men. We can include women in selective service, and require them to fight on the front lines, but it's not like we currently have a Vietnam or Korea where they'll be mutilated or killed.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 10, 2019, 04:21:02 AM
Quote from: Trond;1078357
Sexbots, eh, it might work for guys who actually don't like women.


Sexbots will succeed because like porn, it sells a uncomplicated fantasy. The most wonderful human relationship has its bad days. The sexbot won't have bad days, not even bad hair days. And it will cook and clean too.


Quote from: Trond;1078357
I think that what we need more is to emphasize male pride and self-respect again. How about men holding their ground (as men) for once? I haven't seen that in a couple of decades. It might actually get us more respect from the women too.


That only works on an individual level. I can't see it happening on any organized level.


Quote from: Trond;1078357
All this talk about MGTOW and "incels". WTF?


Too very different groups.

MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way does not have to include celibacy, but often does. It can even include men in relationships who just checked out of the feminized, anti-male culture.

INCEL - Involuntary Celibates, are guys who never learned how to get nookie and blame women for it. I'd feel bad for them, except too much of their online presence involves an idiotic level of hate against women based on listening to the MSM and not talking to actual women. Wanna hate nasty bitches? Sure, no problem. Want to declare every woman is a nasty bitch? That's too dumb for the gene pool.


Quote from: Trond;1078357
Or what about the hypocrisy of men nervously clapping along while at last years Oscars there was one anti-men joke after another?


Actors are puppets and whores.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 10, 2019, 04:56:00 AM
Actocracy - rule by actors - seems pretty synonymous with Kakistocracy. :)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 10, 2019, 10:32:00 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078438
Sexbots will succeed because like porn, it sells a uncomplicated fantasy. The most wonderful human relationship has its bad days. The sexbot won't have bad days, not even bad hair days. And it will cook and clean too.
Don't hold your breath unless you're prepared to pay an arm and a leg for something only vaguely resembling a sex partner. I remember they announced that they had invented mechanical honey bees, but in reality they weren't even close :D. Humans are a bit more tricky. Besides, all sorts of machines can have bad days. Time for a rather embarrassing tech support phone call. If relationships get tiring I think I'd rather spend money on a call girl actually. The laws do have some loopholes (but it should be legal, seriously, look at what they are hired to do in porn). I actually like women's chit-chat, but I don't think Siri would do the trick.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 10, 2019, 10:33:10 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078438
Sexbots will succeed because like porn, it sells a uncomplicated fantasy. The most wonderful human relationship has its bad days. The sexbot won't have bad days, not even bad hair days. And it will cook and clean too.

Don't hold your breath unless you're prepared to pay an arm and a leg for something only vaguely resembling a sex partner. I remember they announced that they had invented mechanical honey bees, but in reality they weren't even close :D. Humans are a bit more tricky. Besides, all sorts of machines can have bad days. Time for a rather embarrassing tech support phone call. If relationships get tiring I think I'd rather spend money on a call girl actually. The laws do have some loopholes (but it should be legal, seriously, look at what they are hired to do in porn). I actually like women's chit-chat, but I don't think Siri would do the trick.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on March 10, 2019, 02:03:05 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078438
The sexbot won't have bad days, not even bad hair days.
Bullshit. I have a laptop and wifi-enabled printer. They have good days and bad days. On the bad days they inexplicably stop communicating. Even on good days, I get the cold shoulder from the laptop while I have to "wait for updates" - some of which take multiple passes before they sink in. Skynet kills us not all at once with bombs and bullets, but minute by minute of waiting through loading bars and updates. I'd imagine sexbots will have the same flaws "You want to fuck? Sorry, but I have an update right now..."
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 10, 2019, 05:35:46 PM
A sexbot can't love you.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 10, 2019, 05:57:32 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078493
A sexbot can't love you.

Dont be so racist against Sexbots!  I am sure that their love algorithms will get better and  better over time ;0)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: sureshot on March 10, 2019, 06:17:11 PM
All these talk about Sexbots who knew that we would actually see what we saw int the Cherry 2000 movie become a reality.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 10, 2019, 10:46:47 PM
Quote from: sureshot;1078498
All these talk about Sexbots who knew that we would actually see what we saw int the Cherry 2000 movie become a reality.

Pfft. :D What we have are elaborate rubber dolls with vibrators and tape recorders built in. None of them can do the very basic of tasks, like wash out their crevices after use, much less carry on a coherent conversation or bring you a beer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cN8sJz50Ng
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on March 11, 2019, 01:58:13 AM
Quote from: Trond;1078357
Sexbots, eh, it might work for guys who actually don't like women. I think that what we need more is to emphasize male pride and self-respect again. How about men holding their ground (as men) for once? I haven't seen that in a couple of decades. It might actually get us more respect from the women too.

All this talk about MGTOW and "incels". WTF? Or what about the hypocrisy of men nervously clapping along while at last years Oscars there was one anti-men joke after another? It seemed particularly hypocritical coming from Jimmy Kimmel, who used to do puns where women would put their hands in his pants. It would have been funnier, given the situation and all, if we were simultaneously able to take jokes at the cost of women, but it seems like we can't (individual women can, but not the media and certainly not the Oscars, I would have loved to see a "women can't drive" joke thrown into that mix just to see the reaction).

Speaking of sex: Did you guys notice that Playboy corporation went from having "entertainment for men" as their slogan to "entertainment for all"? Because surely men can't even have that anymore, a magazine with relatively tasteful nude pictures of women. (apparently magazines still sell to a certain degree, and there are always several shelves in the store with women's magazines, but hardly any for men). Have guys just caved in and accepted that "yes, sorry, we're a bunch of losers"? If men like non-rapey, tasteful, pictures of nude women (which they generally do), how about owning it? Oh, and one thing that I noticed when I saw the old "Beverly Hills Cop" movie again a while back. Eddie Murphy's character likes to go to strip clubs. That's right, the HERO likes to go to strip clubs. Can you even imagine that today? If you like this sort of thing (or similarly manly, harmless, "non-feminist" things), how about going "yeah, I'm a good guy, I work hard, I don't treat people like shit, and I also enjoy them naked girls, if you don't like it then f**k off!"

OK rant over.

Greetings!

Certainly, Trond! Our society has become swamped with Feminism, while embracing Misandry at every opportunity. It can seem like there is a "War on Men"--men in general, but White Men in particular. Just think about how family law, courts, judges, lawyers, and divorce courts in particular are stacked against men. Men *routinely* get destroyed in divorce courts. Their chidren are taken away, the men are thrown out of their homes, and the men are forced to pay enormously in alimony, and supposed "Child Support." Strangely, the divorced women are then getting fucked silly by their new stable of boyfriends, and going on single mommy cruises with their cock-carrasel riding girlfriends, driving new SUV's, going out partying every weekend--while the divorced husband has to work two jobs, comes home exhausted to a darkened, tiny apartment in the shitty part of town. He's lost his family, his children, his wife, and his home; his whole life that he has worked hard to build for many years, even *decades*--is, in a matter of a few months, all taken from him. All because his ex-wife said she was "Unhappy" after 10, 15, 20 years or more of marriage--and he also learns along the way, that for the last 18 months to 2 years of their marriage, his wife who had told him she was willing to go to counseling, and work on their marriage--was secretly fucking a co-worker from her job for all of that time.

Now, the boyfriend gets to fuck his ex-wife, in his old house, and having her making *him* dinner, while he raises his children. And the ex-wife's lifestyle is sweet and delicious, with her also taking fun trips with the children and her boyfriend--all helped along and paid for by the divorced ex-husband.

The divorced ex-husband drinks himself into a stupor for several weeks, months, or even a few years, as his life becomes harder and harder with each passing month; his life becomes harsh and dark, and hopeless.

Then he places his gun to his head, and shoots himself in a final act of doomed hopelessness and despondancy.

Men's drug abuse and alcohol abuse has gone way up, as have suicide rates among men, including men in the age ranges of 40 to 60--especially older White Men.

And we wonder WHY?

Hypergamy is very real, and coupled with aggressive Feminism, our social landscape and sexual relations, especially *marriage*--is being devastated. Alas, even women are more *unhappy* than ever before. They shriek and cry "Where have all the good men gone?" The irony entirely escapes them. As the divorced women spend the last few years before they hit the wall, or begin to cross over it, the stable of young studs fucking them senseless becomes fewer and fewer. More and more men merely want to pump and dump them. Few men (that the women deeply desire and are attracted to)--want a used up, divorced skank with three brats from another man, meanwhile she's hit the wall, become a bloated land whale, chopped her hir short, and gotten plastered with fresh new tattoos. As she ages into her late 30's, 40's and even 50's, she increasingly wonders what happened to the promised land of feminist bliss as a newly divorced, powerful, strong single mommy? Increasingly, she only has her cats to keep her company. She laments loudly and constantly, why don't the good men want her?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Playboy is caving in to the new social mantra. Sad, too. But it is going the way everything that has been for MEN. Men can't have anything all-male. Nothing can be there to cater to men--the women never want that. And men in our society continue to bend over and let women rule them like the spineless cucks they are. Every group of years passes, with greater acceleration, our society is rotting and corrupting at a quickened pace. With society being filled by more and more feminized, metrosexual soyboys and white-knight simpering cucks, the more fevered and desperate the women become in their biologically-driven hind brain to breed with a truly masculine, dominant male--even if such has to be with increasingly social outliers, young boys, thugs, and criminals--or poaching other women's masculine husbands, thusly creating more drama and chaos, as well as more divorces and broken homes. Along the way, as her eggs are drying up, they frantically seek to breed a few more times. They can't get a good man, so they spread their legs for whatever stud thug comes along, and is eager to bend her ass over and give it to her. Hence, more illegitimate children, born into a fatherless home, and raised by a strong, independent, single mommy.

Yay Us! All because her "lazy", bastard ex-husband only made 60K a year, or didn't have enough status, or didn't do the housework to her liking, or she just became "bored" and then rapidly changing to UNHAPPY, and needed to "Find Herself."

Men need to wake the fuck up, an start standing up to society, and to women in particular, and refuse to be feminized cucks. Stop whining and begging for a woman's fucking approval. Stop centering their entire fucking lives around serving and pleasing a woman. Do this, do that, don't do this, stop doing that. The lists are endless. And if you can't change, or won't change, or change fast enough, according to HER timetable--guess what that light at the end of tunnel of your relationship is? No, it isn't the freedom and bliss of daylight. LOL. It is an oncoming train of divorce, and financial, emotional, and social ruin. Men are hopefully increasingly becoming aware that for millions of men, for years and years, you are manipulated like that rat on a wheel, in the big plastic yellow rat house thing. Men are prodded onto that wheel, always working, always running, always seeking to please the woman, and make her "happy." No matter how fast they run, they only realise too late when they are handed the divorce papers, that they were running and running, and getting nowhere.

There's something terribly unequal, unfair, and even monstrous about how relationships with women, and especially marriage, is run and organized in our society.

More men should ask themselves, "How would I feel if any of my close men friends *talked to me* or *treated me* the way the wife does?" A frequent answer might likely be, "Well, they don't treat me the way she treats me!" Well, if men wouldn't accept their men friends talking to them with disrespect, treating them terribly--why do they put up with it from their wife, the woman that claims to love them! The woman that claims to be their *best friend*?

More and more things that men everywhere in our society should be thinking about, critically, with a newfound attention and purpose.

Rant on, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 11, 2019, 02:46:46 PM
My wife is a feminist and she has a father a brother and a husband that she loves.

I'm a feminist and I'm a man - I have male friends, colleagues, brothers, a father, and positive role-models in my life.  I'm a member of a men's only fraternal order.  

There may be people that tell you 'feminism is this' or 'feminism is that', but any group is going to attract a fringe and you can be a member of that group and assert what you believe.  

I believe that feminism is the radical notion that women are equal.  Full stop.  That's why I'm a feminist.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 11, 2019, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078598
I believe that feminism is the radical notion that women are equal.  Full stop.  That's why I'm a feminist.

How do you feel about the activism that prominent feminist organizations, like NOW have done? Specifically, I'm talking about their activism against assumed shared parenting (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow-last-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies).

How do you feel about the feminist Duluth model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model) of domestic violence that assumes men are the perpetrators.

And how do you feel about the feminist model of patriarchy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)?

Personally, I am not a feminist, because prominent, mainstream feminism is never just "the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop." There's all kinds of ideological baggage that comes with it. Baggage that makes feminism come across as man hating, and why most people do not consider themselves feminists (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: sureshot on March 11, 2019, 03:13:07 PM
I am a big believer in treating everyone and anyone equally. With jobs being given only for the right person who has the skills, knowledge and experience to do it. I don't need any ideology to tell me how to behave or treat others properly and with respect.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Armchair Gamer on March 11, 2019, 03:23:01 PM
Feminism has become a nearly useless term that can extend from 'the right not to be killed or mutilated at birth' to 'the right to kill or mutilate up to the point of birth.'
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 11, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Speaking of feminism, I can understand that some people still like the term (I believe Steven Pinker still counts himself among them) but something went terribly wrong with it a long time ago. Not sure when, some say 3rd wave, but I think before that, since I rarely agree with some of the biggest names from the 70s (like Gloria Steinem). It was probably gradual. But today, something is clearly amiss. In my home country, every time someone started with "as a feminist....." I knew that it was bad news. They would march against the most inane things (sexy pics in magazines, eeep!) while guys were STILL forced to join the army simply for being guys.

Anyway we are not the only ones who have noticed. For example:

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2Fcharen_book_announcement.jpg%3Ffit%3D789%252C460%26ssl%3D1&f=1)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 11, 2019, 04:32:25 PM
Quote from: Trond;1078615
Speaking of feminism, I can understand that some people still like the term (I believe Steven Pinker still counts himself among them) but something went terribly wrong with it a long time ago. Not sure when, some say 3rd wave, but I think before that, since I rarely agree with some of the biggest names from the 70s (like Gloria Steinem). It was probably gradual. But today, something is clearly amiss. In my home country, every time someone started with "as a feminist....." I knew that it was bad news. They would march against the most inane things (sexy pics in magazines, eeep!) while guys were STILL forced to join the army simply for being guys.

Anyway we are not the only ones who have noticed. For example:

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2Fcharen_book_announcement.jpg%3Ffit%3D789%252C460%26ssl%3D1&f=1)

Christina Hoff Sommers has a book, "Who stole feminism?".   Also see, Erin Pizzey's "This way to the revolution".

Personally, I think feminism has always been wrong, since the term was coined by Charles Fourier.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier) Yes kids, feminism was "invented" by a man. The idea that women should be equal to men has, AFAICT, always been tinged with sexism, IE men oppress women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 11, 2019, 05:57:07 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking
I believe that feminism is the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop. That's why I'm a feminist.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078603
How do you feel about the activism that prominent feminist organizations, like NOW have done? Specifically, I'm talking about their activism against assumed shared parenting (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow-last-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies).

How do you feel about the feminist Duluth model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model) of domestic violence that assumes men are the perpetrators.

And how do you feel about the feminist model of patriarchy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)?

Personally, I am not a feminist, because prominent, mainstream feminism is never just "the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop." There's all kinds of ideological baggage that comes with it. Baggage that makes feminism come across as man hating, and why most people do not consider themselves feminists (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html).

My perception is that when talking about women in the workplace and women in the military, anti-feminists point out how women are geared more towards child care, and are less violent than men. However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.

I find it believable that there is a bias against fathers in divorce courts for child custody. However, ultimately the courts should choose in favor of what is best for the child. Often, more custody with the mother is a better choice - and mandating 50% custody to the father regardless of quality of parenting makes no more sense than mandating equal pay for a woman worker regardless of the work done. There are many cases where women are discriminated against as workers, and where men are discriminated against as care-takers. But it's not the whole story.

For both of these situations, we need to both reduce bias among bosses/judges, and help people adapt to non-stereotypical roles. From my view, it seems to me that portraying fathers as nurturing child-carers equal to mothers is more of a liberal and feminist thing than a conservative thing.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 11, 2019, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078632
My perception is that when talking about women in the workplace and women in the military, anti-feminists point out how women are geared more towards child care, and are less violent than men. However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.

I can see how that could be your perception. In discussing feminism topics such as these, there are a couple of important points to keep in mind.
Regarding the military, I don't think I've seen the argument that women are less violent than men. (If it's been made, I haven't seen it.) The argument I have seen anti-feminists make is that women are, on average, not as physically strong as men, and this is important for a physically demanding job. Another point made is that men's innate and culturally enforced chivalry may make fighting with women problematic.
My personal opinion is that if a woman wants to get shot in the face and killed or disfigured, suffer real mentally crippling PTSD, and miss out on huge chunks of time with her spouse and children due to deployment, possibly leading to divorce, well they should go for it. But I seriously doubt that sexism can really be overcome. If a war broke out with a real possibility that America could be defeated, I think women and men would revert to sexist roles. And this would probably be a good thing, in the practical, survival of the country sense.

Regarding DV and child care, it is important to realize that women are human beings, capable of cruelty and violence, both physical and psychological abuse. All of the anti-feminists I have listened to on the topic agree that there is a gendered expression of such violence. It's one of the big MRA talking points that women have an empathy advantage re- being perceived as victims of men, versus men being perceived as victims of women. This is probably the most aggresious thing that feminism has done, with the aforementioned Duluth model, politicizing the way we handled domestic violence, erasing male victims and preventing women perpetrators from getting the help they needed. There is literal blood on the hands of feminists who participated in this.

http://www.academia.edu/33839193/Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

Quote
I find it believable that there is a bias against fathers in divorce courts for child custody. However, ultimately the courts should choose in favor of what is best for the child. Often, more custody with the mother is a better choice - and mandating 50% custody to the father regardless of quality of parenting makes no more sense than mandating equal pay for a woman worker regardless of the work done. There are many cases where women are discriminated against as workers, and where men are discriminated against as care-takers. But it's not the whole story.

For both of these situations, we need to both reduce bias among bosses/judges, and help people adapt to non-stereotypical roles. From my view, it seems to me that portraying fathers as nurturing child-carers equal to mothers is more of a liberal and feminist thing than a conservative thing.

I mostly agree. I think the separating couple should decide between themselves what setup works best for them and their children. A judge should only be involved when it becomes a dispute, and that judge should not default to giving the mother custody, but make a decision in the best interests of the child.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 11, 2019, 06:53:04 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078632
However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.

My impression is that it changes over time - mothers are more important early on, and fathers are more important later on. Teenagers seem to need fathers more, whereas infants seem to need mothers more.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 11, 2019, 06:56:25 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1078641
My impression is that it changes over time - mothers are more important early on, and fathers are more important later on. Teenagers seem to need fathers more, whereas infants seem to need mothers more.

I think both are important, and that a family should only get divorced in cases of serious/serial abuse. Before children, I don't care what two married people do, but once kids enter the scene, people need to think about their kids and the impact they have on them.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 11, 2019, 08:01:39 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078632
My perception is that when talking about women in the workplace and women in the military, anti-feminists point out how women are geared more towards child care, and are less violent than men. However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.



That is kinda true. Both sides claim to be more for equality, but self-contradictions abound. Feminists also seem to want women to be protected from serious things, such as violence, and sometimes even the smallest things, like open speech about sex differences and jokes about women. But women are also strong, capable, and don't need men to protect them, somehow. Women are sometimes even seen as better at virtually everything, better leaders, and more intelligent than men (this is no exaggeration, I have been told this both to my face, and a feminist said the same thing on KPCC radio). This has been emphasized so much, that when I asked a feminist of this ilk how women ever came to be of low social status in any society, she came up with nothing. I suggested that men were naturally better at fighting, since that would immediately put women at a disadvantage if a man wanted to, but this caused just a lot of "but" and "however". In the debates we had in Norway, women were both not supposed to take care of kids, AND supposed to take care of kids when that suited better (when the argument for female military service came up) in this case I know for a fact that it was proposed by literally the same people. We (including women) seem to be unable to decide if women are strong and powerful or fragile wallflowers.

Further, gender is apparently a social construct, but LGBT people usually say that they are born that way.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 11, 2019, 08:58:45 PM
Quote from: jhkim
My perception is that when talking about women in the workplace and women in the military, anti-feminists point out how women are geared more towards child care, and are less violent than men. However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.
Quote from: Trond;1078650
That is kinda true. Both sides claim to be more for equality, but self-contradictions abound. Feminists also seem to want women to be protected from serious things, such as violence, and sometimes even the smallest things, like open speech about sex differences and jokes about women. But women are also strong, capable, and don't need men to protect them, somehow. Women are sometimes even seen as better at virtually everything, better leaders, and more intelligent than men (this is no exaggeration, I have been told this both to my face, and a feminist said the same thing on KPCC radio).
Fair enough. Another way of saying this is that people on either side are often biased, which is certainly true. I've also seen the opposite argued - that when pointed out how men politicians and CEOs outnumber women, it's because men are better leaders. It's pretty hard to measure this objectively, as far as pure genetic potential of men vs women.

Quote from: jhkim
However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.
Quote from: S'mon;1078641
My impression is that it changes over time - mothers are more important early on, and fathers are more important later on. Teenagers seem to need fathers more, whereas infants seem to need mothers more.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078643
I think both are important, and that a family should only get divorced in cases of serious/serial abuse. Before children, I don't care what two married people do, but once kids enter the scene, people need to think about their kids and the impact they have on them.
As far as mothers vs fathers... Certainly having two parents who love each other throughout childhood is an ideal. Mothers obviously have extra importance during nursing, but other than that, I don't see definite importance with age.

As far as divorce, I think kids can have problems from being in households where the parents don't want to be together. I'm divorced myself, and I cooperated well with my ex-wife when she left. I think it was actually better for my son after we split, than before separation when we were in conflict.

What really bugs me is parents who fight in front of and/or about their kids (verbally or physically). This can be fighting over divorce, or fighting within a marriage. Either way it upsets kids and gives really bad lessons. There are good ways to model conflict and resolution for kids, but too many relationships don't do that.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 11, 2019, 10:03:51 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078661
As far as mothers vs fathers... Certainly having two parents who love each other throughout childhood is an ideal. Mothers obviously have extra importance during nursing, but other than that, I don't see definite importance with age.

As far as divorce, I think kids can have problems from being in households where the parents don't want to be together. I'm divorced myself, and I cooperated well with my ex-wife when she left. I think it was actually better for my son after we split, than before separation when we were in conflict.

I won't cast judement on your specific situation.

Quote
What really bugs me is parents who fight in front of and/or about their kids (verbally or physically). This can be fighting over divorce, or fighting within a marriage. Either way it upsets kids and gives really bad lessons. There are good ways to model conflict and resolution for kids, but too many relationships don't do that.

This I very much agree with. Kids may not listen to what their parents say, but they damn well pay attention to what their parents do.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: RPGPundit on March 12, 2019, 06:57:46 PM
It's is unquestionably true that women have been treated as varying degrees of chattel in every culture that has existed throughout history since the dawn of time... except one. Given that one civilization, the West, that is the one and only that has given them full equality to men (among countless other benefits to women and humankind in general that NO OTHER CIVILIZATION EVER has been able to produce), the fact that a significant proportion of women would now be seemingly determined to undo and destroy the ideological principles of human liberties that allowed that equality to exist in the first place, and replace it with an arbitrary and utterly nihilistic concept of semantic might-makes-right (which can SO easily turn into physical might-makes-right, which they ALSO seem to want to inflict on men) is the very definition of insanity.

Because ladies, if you take away the philosophical foundations for the ONE AND ONLY society that ever gave you freedom and equality, the end result isn't going to be "feminist-run soviet utopia", it's going to be going back to being legally beaten by the husband you're forced to marry until you make him the right sandwich.
That's the Historical Default State. The West you hate so very much? It IS the nearest thing that ever existed to Utopia for women, the absolutely unique and exceptional thing you should be willing to give your life to defend because any alternative for you is an absolute living nightmare by comparison.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 12, 2019, 07:46:58 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;1078774
It's is unquestionably true that women have been treated as varying degrees of chattel in every culture that has existed throughout history since the dawn of time... except one.

*Facepalm* Both women and men were treated as chattel slaves in the west.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on March 12, 2019, 07:55:17 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078782
*Facepalm* Both women and men were treated as chattel slaves in the west.

Greetings!

Initially, yes, Ratman. However, it is only true in Western Civilization that rights for both men and women, and especially women, have expanded in a progressive manner through the years. Other societies have never been close to the progressive, institutionalized freedoms and rights as promulgated by Western Civilization.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 12, 2019, 09:30:55 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf
*Facepalm* Both women and men were treated as chattel slaves in the west.
Quote from: SHARK;1078787
Initially, yes, Ratman. However, it is only true in Western Civilization that rights for both men and women, and especially women, have expanded in a progressive manner through the years. Other societies have never been close to the progressive, institutionalized freedoms and rights as promulgated by Western Civilization.
I would certainly give credit to Western civilization, which has many good points - but it is rampant ignorance to say that the West is the only place where rights made progress. For example, Korea had a gradual process for the emancipation of slavery starting in 1775 - with the majority of slaves freed in 1801. Limited slavery remained for over a century, but then, it didn't have a civil war.

Since the time that women's rights movement started in the West (mid-1800s), both the West and other societies went through many changes - often massive ones. Within the timespan of whole civilization, 150 years is a pretty small blip. On this time scale, ideas often originate in one society and filter out to another - like how gunpowder filtered out from China to the West, or communism filtered out from the West to elsewhere. Civilizations should get credit for originating ideas, but there's also a big question of what they do with them.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on March 12, 2019, 09:49:52 PM
I honestly cannot take modern American feminism seriously when their leaders advocate jihad against Trump for getting elected but do not bother to say a word about female genital mutilation (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation) around the world and instead rage on about mansplaining and manspreading. I'm pretty convinced that they are just tools being used politically as such.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 12, 2019, 09:52:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078802
I would certainly give credit to Western civilization, which has many good points - but it is rampant ignorance to say that the West is the only place where rights made progress. For example, Korea had a gradual process for the emancipation of slavery starting in 1775 - with the majority of slaves freed in 1801. Limited slavery remained for over a century, but then, it didn't have a civil war.

Since the time that women's rights movement started in the West (mid-1800s), both the West and other societies went through many changes - often massive ones. Within the timespan of whole civilization, 150 years is a pretty small blip. On this time scale, ideas often originate in one society and filter out to another - like how gunpowder filtered out from China to the West, or communism filtered out from the West to elsewhere. Civilizations should get credit for originating ideas, but there's also a big question of what they do with them.

Sure sure, both of you. But Pundit's first sentence is demonstrably false.

Quote
It's is unquestionably true that women have been treated as varying degrees of chattel in every culture that has existed throughout history since the dawn of time... except one.

I get his point, but this kind of reductionist, gender specific nonsense is exactly what feminists use to paint a picture of women as property until some -ism came and "liberated" them.
IMO the technological inventions, specifically and especially modern birth control, did more to liberate women than any -ism or cutural movement.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on March 12, 2019, 11:02:53 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078807
Sure sure, both of you. But Pundit's first sentence is demonstrably false.



I get his point, but this kind of reductionist, gender specific nonsense is exactly what feminists use to paint a picture of women as property until some -ism came and "liberated" them.
IMO the technological inventions, specifically and especially modern birth control, did more to liberate women than any -ism or cutural movement.

Greetings!

DOH! I'm sorry, Ratman. I didn't realize on the first read-over that Pundit had quite worded it that way. You are correct for pointing that out, my friend.

SHARK puffs on his pipe, slowly shaking his head. Damn, how did I not read that close enough to catch that? SHARK the Bonehead. LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on March 13, 2019, 12:52:11 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078807
IMO the technological inventions, specifically and especially modern birth control, did more to liberate women than any -ism or cultural movement.

Do not underestimate the power of labor saving inventions for what was traditionally considered women's housework. If you have ever spent time on a farm or ranch, without a nearby grocery store to buy what you want to eat, you have seen how much effort goes in to making and preparing food. Women were traditionally bound to home and hearth before then because of the amount of work that had to go into just sustaining the family.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Motorskills on March 13, 2019, 01:08:08 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1078814
SHARK the Bonehead. LOL.

Hammerhead.

Jeez SHARK, way to miss the softball. :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on March 13, 2019, 03:11:29 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;1078824
Do not underestimate the power of labor saving inventions for what was traditionally considered women's housework. If you have ever spent time on a farm or ranch, without a nearby grocery store to buy what you want to eat, you have seen how much effort goes in to making and preparing food. Women were traditionally bound to home and hearth before then because of the amount of work that had to go into just sustaining the family.

If you have you ever done laundry by hand, then you have a great appreciation for the modern washer and dryer. The list of labor saving devices is long and very much underappreciated in the modern world. There is a reason that people had large families in the past and it wasn't just about birth control and higher mortality rates, they needed a work force to get all the needed chores done.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on March 13, 2019, 12:09:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078802
I would certainly give credit to Western civilization, which has many good points - but it is rampant ignorance to say that the West is the only place where rights made progress. For example, Korea had a gradual process for the emancipation of slavery starting in 1775 - with the majority of slaves freed in 1801. Limited slavery remained for over a century, but then, it didn't have a civil war.

At what point did Korea stop forced prostitution via family sale? That continued in Japan through the end of WWII.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on March 13, 2019, 12:17:29 PM
It basically continued in Texas, legally, until 2017. (And still is, more-or-less, legal in many States. Note that I'm vastly oversimplifying that issue to boil it down to its barest elements: child prostitution through enforced child contract marriages.)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on March 13, 2019, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Motorskills;1078825
Hammerhead.

Jeez SHARK, way to miss the softball. :D

Greetings!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Nice, Motorskills. :) Yeah, I did miss it! That was excellent. I was laughing like crazy at your quip, Motorskills. Love it!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 13, 2019, 02:35:04 PM
Quote from: jhkim
I would certainly give credit to Western civilization, which has many good points - but it is rampant ignorance to say that the West is the only place where rights made progress. For example, Korea had a gradual process for the emancipation of slavery starting in 1775 - with the majority of slaves freed in 1801. Limited slavery remained for over a century, but then, it didn't have a civil war.
Quote from: Lynn;1078863
At what point did Korea stop forced prostitution via family sale? That continued in Japan through the end of WWII.

Korea has many moral faults, but they did not have that practice. Indeed, to this day, Koreans remain outraged over the Korean "comfort women" that Japan forced into prostitution for the military during the Japanese occupation (before and during WWII). There is a recent statue in San Francisco that commemorates the comfort women, which has caused a rift between the city and Japan, with Osaka calling off its sister city status with SF over it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/osaka-sf-comfort-women-statue.html

In the larger sense, though, there are plenty of moral faults that Koreans have had - including the status of women. They have not been more progressive than the West in general - far from it. However, my point is that Pundit went way overboard in quotes like this:
Quote from: RPGPundit
It's is unquestionably true that women have been treated as varying degrees of chattel in every culture that has existed throughout history since the dawn of time... except one.
which SHARK followed up with
Quote from: SHARK
However, it is only true in Western Civilization that rights for both men and women, and especially women, have expanded in a progressive manner through the years.

I credit Western civilization with a bunch of advances, but these are just wacky. No other civilization has ever progressed in rights? That's just nonsensical.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on March 13, 2019, 03:46:43 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078884
Korea has many moral faults, but they did not have that practice. Indeed, to this day, Koreans remain outraged over the Korean "comfort women" that Japan forced into prostitution for the military during the Japanese occupation (before and during WWII). There is a recent statue in San Francisco that commemorates the comfort women, which has caused a rift between the city and Japan, with Osaka calling off its sister city status with SF over it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/osaka-sf-comfort-women-statue.html

In the larger sense, though, there are plenty of moral faults that Koreans have had - including the status of women. They have not been more progressive than the West in general - far from it. However, my point is that Pundit went way overboard in quotes like this:

which SHARK followed up with


I credit Western civilization with a bunch of advances, but these are just wacky. No other civilization has ever progressed in rights? That's just nonsensical.

Greetings!

Jhkim, I never said that no other civilization ever progressed in rights. None have been *as progressive* as Western Civilization, though. That isn't *nonsense* at all. It is historical fact.

QED.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on March 13, 2019, 04:12:42 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1078875
Greetings!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Nice, Motorskills. :) Yeah, I did miss it! That was excellent. I was laughing like crazy at your quip, Motorskills. Love it!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


And now he's gone full basking shark.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 13, 2019, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: SHARK
However, it is only true in Western Civilization that rights for both men and women, and especially women, have expanded in a progressive manner through the years.
...
Quote from: SHARK;1078899
Jhkim, I never said that no other civilization ever progressed in rights. None have been *as progressive* as Western Civilization, though. That isn't *nonsense* at all. It is historical fact.
SHARK, you have a fail in phrasing there. That's not what your first sentence says.

For the more general point, at this moment in time, I would Western countries highest for civil rights compared to any other grouping. There are a bunch of non-Western countries that are doing fine. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others are roughly equivalent to Europe and the Americas - but on average the West is doing fine.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 13, 2019, 06:44:01 PM
On the status of women in the West vs elsewhere, well first remember that "elsewhere" is a big place :) BUT I'll say one thing where I often get a lot of disagreement from others, but I think I can support it; women have had it better in the West compared to many other places for much longer than many people dare to admit. This is another thing I think is a bit of a flaw in western feminism; in order to get their way they have to exaggerate the ills of women in the past. Gender roles were of course much more set in the stone in the past, which could be unfair, but it was not as bad as some seem to think. Many have also have a tendency to blame Christianity for it (e.g. see Gloria Steinem), when in fact the combination of the old warrior codes plus Christianity led to European chivalry, which enhanced the role of women in many parts of Europe (see e.g. The Middle Ages, by Bishop). Now, some groups had higher status of women (e.g. relatively egalitarian hunter gatherers, although this is sometimes a bit rose tinted as well, and some matrilineal societies), but I dare say that European women of e.g. around the 1500s had higher status than in the Middle-East (Ottomans, and Persia), China, India and many other places.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 13, 2019, 06:44:08 PM
Colonization by the European powers brought Western culture, concepts and Christianity to the colonized nations, and nations which did significant local trade. It's no surprise many Western cultural concepts (democracy, women's rights, etc) became embraced by Eastern nations. Korea and Japan have sizable Christian populations, and all the Eastern nations had a long history of literacy so its not surprising to see Western ideals become part of Eastern history from the 18th century onward.


Quote from: Trond;1078448
Don't hold your breath unless you're prepared to pay an arm and a leg for something only vaguely resembling a sex partner.


They will be like Teslas.

The first ones will be incredibly expensive toys of the rich.

The second round will be costly, but available as premium rentals. Like how people rent sports cars or big SUVs on vacation.

The third round will be Uber4sex.
 

Quote from: Trond;1078448
Besides, all sorts of machines can have bad days. Time for a rather embarrassing tech support phone call.


THAT is an SNL skit begging to happen.


Quote from: HappyDaze;1078471
I'd imagine sexbots will have the same flaws "You want to fuck? Sorry, but I have an update right now..."


I fully agree that early models will have LOTS of technical issues. And I mean LOLZ worthy technical hysterics.

BUT...remember doing system updates 20 years ago? I remember working at firms where "the server's down" meant "do something else until the tech guy shows up which might be tomorrow". Now I just reboot.


Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078493
A sexbot can't love you.


True, but many people develop "love" for favorite objects. We've all met THAT guy who is extra weird about his car.

Also, considering the length and depth of most marriages, humans don't "love" that much either. They mostly co-exist as room mates.


Quote from: Shasarak;1078497
I am sure that their love algorithms will get better and  better over time ;0)


Just like any AI. Compare machine learning in 2010 vs. 2018 and its insane how far we've advanced.


Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078532
What we have are elaborate rubber dolls with vibrators and tape recorders built in.


This is 100% correct...for today.

A horse was argued as the better option than a Model T...but the car/horse comparison ended in just a decade.


Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078598
I believe that feminism is the radical notion that women are equal.  Full stop.  That's why I'm a feminist.


That definition of feminism isn't the current one, especially because "equal" is a politicized term.

I believe men and women should be equal under the law. We are biologically different genders which is going to produce different results in different tasks in life, and that's okay.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 13, 2019, 07:43:29 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1078540
Men *routinely* get destroyed in divorce courts.

Until recently, I did divorce consulting. As you might imagine, its lucrative, but the child custody aspect is soul crushing.  

It's 100% true men get it worse in court, but what courts destroy most is families. The "family law" system actively makes divorce much worse than necessary and kids are the losers. And courts don't give a fuck how damaged the kids become. Nobody has the "legal right" to a good home, happy childhood or a future.

If you look at the stats post-divorce, husbands do better than their ex-wives...long term. The MSM and feminism tell women how awesome divorce is gonna be (with lots of money and a cock carousel!!), but reality for most women is loneliness and getting by with much less.

Also, divorce courts have huge power to hammer men with standard salary jobs to pay child support, but the system falls apart trying to deal with men who walk away if they have non-standard finances.

The men I've seen who get the most fucked are the ones who "play by the rules" and keep thinking that appeasing the ex-wife is best for the kids. These poor guys don't understand they're not dads anymore. At 25% time-share, they are uncles now.


Quote from: SHARK;1078540
He's lost his family, his children, his wife, and his home; his whole life that he has worked hard to build for many years, even *decades*--is, in a matter of a few months, all taken from him.

But this isn't new. That's been the story for decades.

Here's the advice I gave to all my clients:

1) Divorce Inc is a money machine. Divorce is a mega-billion dollar industry for the lawyers, therapists, monitors, judges, clerks, interpreters, and the rest of the fucking assholes whose livelihood depends on divorces becoming more acrimonious. [And yes, that included me] The only way to win is not to play. And if you have to get divorced, do what it takes to minimize your involvement with the courts.

2) Never get married. You have to be an utter idiot in America to get married once you see how the system works. If you want kids, adopt. We have millions of abandoned little crumb crunchers who need a devoted parent. Sure, you can use test tubes and surrogates, but I promote adoption because a good adoptive parent saves a kid's life.

3) Most people who get remarried get divorced again. Why? The same bullshit from the first marriage as both parties do the same dance with new partners. Enjoy paying spousal support to two ex-wives dumbass.

Yes, I know its taboo to be anti-marriage, but I've spent too much time in the divorce trenches. You have no idea how common it is for judges to order payments of "wedding and honeymoon debts" into the divorce judgments and I've actually watched multiple screaming fights about the wedding cake pieces in the freezer being saved for future anniversaries.


Quote from: SHARK;1078540
Increasingly, she only has her cats to keep her company.

Cats are awesome.

They kill for fun and don't give a fuck. They will literally do something super shitty, then look you directly in the eyes with a "so what the fuck are you gonna do about it" attitude.

The little beasts are pure heavy metal.


Quote from: SHARK;1078540
Playboy is caving in to the new social mantra.

In the age of unlimited free internet porn on demand, I have no idea how Playboy even exists.

I don't see what economic niche they have anymore.


Quote from: S'mon;1078641
My impression is that it changes over time - mothers are more important early on, and fathers are more important later on. Teenagers seem to need fathers more, whereas infants seem to need mothers more.

Fathers and mothers parent differently. It's rare for a divorce judge to understand that, or be bold enough to consider that.

Moms can't be dads and dads can't be moms. Many single parents can be great parents, far better than two morons, but kids are best served by receiving mom and dad attention, which aren't the same.

As a former special education teacher, I assure you both boys and girls need both mom and dad through all ages. They play different, but equally important roles through the growth process (if engaged with their child). The difference between a kid's progress who had a two parents vs. one parent vs. foster care home were sobering.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on March 13, 2019, 08:01:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078884
Korea has many moral faults, but they did not have that practice. Indeed, to this day, Koreans remain outraged over the Korean "comfort women" that Japan forced into prostitution for the military during the Japanese occupation (before and during WWII). There is a recent statue in San Francisco that commemorates the comfort women, which has caused a rift between the city and Japan, with Osaka calling off its sister city status with SF over it.

Yes, but those are not really the same things.

The closest thing I could find on Korea having something similar was Kisaeng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisaeng), but some evolved into a skilled or entertainment trade (like geisha). This same wikipedia article also mentions some class based slavery as well, that reminds me very much of Burakumin in Japan.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 13, 2019, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: Trond;1078919
Many have also have a tendency to blame Christianity for it (e.g. see Gloria Steinem), when in fact the combination of the old warrior codes plus Christianity led to European chivalry, which enhanced the role of women in many parts of Europe (see e.g. The Middle Ages, by Bishop). Now, some groups had higher status of women (e.g. relatively egalitarian hunter gatherers, although this is sometimes a bit rose tinted as well, and some matrilineal societies), but I dare say that European women of e.g. around the 1500s had higher status than in the Middle-East (Ottomans, and Persia), China, India and many other places.
Regarding Christianity, it depends on the society. I know that the status of women declined in Iceland after Christianization. In the pagan period, women could at least own property and be heads of households. The role of women is illustrated in pre-Christian epics like the Laxdaela Saga, where a number of women were noted leaders. After Christianity, their rights were reduced and they mostly could only act through their father, husband, or sons.

As for the 1500s - I roughly agree with you, but the difference can be overstated. Elizabeth I was more notably successful than Sultana Shajar al-Durr or Empress Wu Zetian, for example, but in all of these, women's rights are pretty limited and these women leaders were the rare exception that did not change the norm.


Quote from: Spinachcat;1078920
Colonization by the European powers brought Western culture, concepts and Christianity to the colonized nations, and nations which did significant local trade. It's no surprise many Western cultural concepts (democracy, women's rights, etc) became embraced by Eastern nations. Korea and Japan have sizable Christian populations, and all the Eastern nations had a long history of literacy so its not surprising to see Western ideals become part of Eastern history from the 18th century onward.
Is this regarding abolition in Korea?  This is bullshit, because Korea and Japan were never colonized by the West until the 1940s. Both countries were extremely resistant to foreign philosophy in the 1700s and 1800s, and never adopted Christianity, democracy, or other Western concepts at the ruling level. Christianity was rare and suppressed, and mostly among the masses rather than the elites. Further, the start of abolition of slavery in Korea in the 1700s was prior to abolition becoming mainstream within the West.

I would say rather that these were both parallel reactions to ongoing social conditions. As another example of parallel development, moveable metal type was invented in Korea nearly a century prior to Guttenberg in Europe. This was not Koreans benefiting from the spread of European technology, or Europeans borrowing Korean technology. Both civilizations were advancing.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 13, 2019, 09:11:31 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1078931
Is this regarding abolition in Korea?  This is bullshit, because Korea and Japan were never colonized by the West until the 1940s.


Korea and Japan weren't truly colonized, even then. No comparison to the rule of French Indochina or British control of China. But the spread of information via trade was occurring from the silk road onward, and it was a two way street. That's how humans interact.  

Korea and Japan definitely pushed back against "Western intervention" in their political control, but their elites weren't ignorant of Western concepts. We talk about memes and ideas as mind worms today. Humans weren't any different 3 centuries ago.  

But you're right both civilizations were advancing, so there would be parallel reactions to social conditions. Your moveable metal type discussion is particularly relevant as printed texts increased literacy which only hastened the transfer of cultural concepts.

I'd happily argue "Western Civilization" isn't even 100% "Western" in origin. Human history is a glorious hodge podge of "cultural appropriation" and we forget that not just the Ship's Captain did the exploring and travelling.  All the crew who came back from voyages shared what they saw, ate and learned, inspiring others with new ideas that brewed and got brought forth in some fashion, now lost in time.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on March 13, 2019, 09:43:13 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078920
The third round will be Uber4sex.

Wouldn't that be considered prostitution?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Thornhammer on March 13, 2019, 09:49:53 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1078940
Wouldn't that be considered prostitution?

Probably not, unless the courts give AIs personhood.

Otherwise, it's sex toy rental at best.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 13, 2019, 09:52:08 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078927
2) Never get married. You have to be an utter idiot in America to get married once you see how the system works. If you want kids, adopt. We have millions of abandoned little crumb crunchers who need a devoted parent. Sure, you can use test tubes and surrogates, but I promote adoption because a good adoptive parent saves a kid's life.

I am not a Psychologist and I only play one on the Internet and on the other hand it seems to me that Marriage is the best of the worst options we have for getting two people to stay together long enough to raise a family.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on March 13, 2019, 10:07:19 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer;1078942
Probably not, unless the courts give AIs personhood.

Otherwise, it's sex toy rental at best.

We're one step of the way there already. AI-based trading systems already have limited personhood for the ability to enforce contracts.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 14, 2019, 03:34:18 AM
Re Christianity and female status.

From what I can see, women had low status in most pre Christian middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. Christianity raised female status there. Women generally had higher status in northern European cultures. By spreading Mediterranean norms, Christianity could lower female status there.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 14, 2019, 11:58:38 AM
In Martin Luther King's 'I have a Dream Speech', he pointed out that those seeking Civil Rights were repeatedly asked, "When will you be satisfied?".  There were small victories here and there (like desegregation of buses in Montgomery) and a lot of people pointed out that conditions in the United States of America, even for a legally oppressed minority were often better than in other countries.  Post-war prosperity existed, and even if the benefits weren't shared equally, everyone received SOME benefits.  

But being better off than SOME people still doesn't mean that you're being treated fairly.  

In an earlier speech announcing the boycott of the Montgomery buses, King said, "And certainly, certainly, this is the glory of America, with all of its faults. This is the glory of our democracy. If we were incarcerated behind the iron curtains of a Communistic nation we couldn't do this. If we were dropped in the dungeon of a totalitarian regime we couldn't do this.  But the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right."

Women should agitate for full equality.  Pointing out that 'you have it better than someone else' is NOT a defense against full equality - it is simply an admission that true equality has not been granted and that historical oppression is undeniably true.  

In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex.  That is NOT TRUE for my sisters.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on March 14, 2019, 11:58:39 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078938
Korea and Japan weren't truly colonized, even then. No comparison to the rule of French Indochina or British control of China. But the spread of information via trade was occurring from the silk road onward, and it was a two way street. That's how humans interact. Korea and Japan definitely pushed back against "Western intervention" in their political control, but their elites weren't ignorant of Western concepts. We talk about memes and ideas as mind worms today. Humans weren't any different 3 centuries ago.


After the fall of the Shogunate and Meiji Restoration (ie rule of the Emperor), there was a very strong push to adopt methodologies that the Japanese thought would give them a leg up against foreign powers - which is where those ubiquitous blue school uniforms come from that look so militaristic. Although the US quite distinctly created the 'crack' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ships) that brought down the Shogunate, the Meiji government modeled their updated military on European standards.

Changes in human rights did progress a little, but your 'unit' of measurement wasn't the individual but the family. There are still many institutions that focus on family rather than the individual that can be quite confounding.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 14, 2019, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004
Women should agitate for full equality.  Pointing out that 'you have it better than someone else' is NOT a defense against full equality - it is simply an admission that true equality has not been granted and that historical oppression is undeniably true.  

Historical oppression affected everyone.

Quote
In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex.  That is NOT TRUE for my sisters.

Name one legal right in the west, especially America, that men have and women don't.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 14, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079008
Name one legal right in the west, especially America, that men have and women don't.

Why does it have to be a legal right?  

The laws are on the books, but that doesn't mean they're enforced.  Just because I have a legal right not to be murdered, it doesn't mean that I'm going to put myself in a dangerous situation on purpose.  And if I see dangerous situations, I want to make sure they're taken care of.  There are places I go where I know I'm safe and some of those are places that I don't think would be safe for a woman.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 14, 2019, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079014
Why does it have to be a legal right?  

To delineate between systemic oppression, and the choices of women.

Quote
The laws are on the books, but that doesn't mean they're enforced.  Just because I have a legal right not to be murdered, it doesn't mean that I'm going to put myself in a dangerous situation on purpose.  And if I see dangerous situations, I want to make sure they're taken care of.  There are places I go where I know I'm safe and some of those are places that I don't think would be safe for a woman.

Men are more likely to be harmed than women.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10752232/Our-attitude-to-violence-against-men-is-out-of-date.html

People and society have an exaggerated incination to protect women that is, frankly, sexist. Violence against anyone is wrong, but focusing on women is only seeing a portion of the picture.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 14, 2019, 12:45:37 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079015
Men are more likely to be harmed than women.

I know that.  Roughly 80% of homicide victims are men; roughly 90% of murderers are men.  Of the ~20% of female murder victims, more than half are killed by their intimate partner.  

I have issues with gang violence.  That's a big issue that affects primarily men.  We should deal with that.

I have issues with domestic violence.  That's a big issue that affects primarily women.  We should deal with that.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 14, 2019, 12:55:35 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079014
Why does it have to be a legal right?  

The laws are on the books, but that doesn't mean they're enforced.  Just because I have a legal right not to be murdered, it doesn't mean that I'm going to put myself in a dangerous situation on purpose.  And if I see dangerous situations, I want to make sure they're taken care of.  There are places I go where I know I'm safe and some of those are places that I don't think would be safe for a woman.


You're full of shit. Those places? You ain't safe either. But you don't know/care - because you're a man.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 14, 2019, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079017
I have issues with domestic violence.  That's a big issue that affects primarily women.  We should deal with that.

No, although domestic murder is mostly on m-on-f.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 14, 2019, 12:58:46 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079015
People and society have an exaggerated incination to protect women that is, frankly, sexist.

There are perfectly cromulent evolutionary reasons why we are hardwired to prioritise female safety. Even in societies where women are second-class, they are not disposable - or at any rate they are less disposable than low-status males.

I am in the slightly weird position where I sympathise more with the PROTECT THE WAMMEN!! Soc-Jus types than I do with the Right-Libertarian EVERYONE IS EQUAL!! types - even though I'm not a chivalrous white-knighting Paleocon, I can see where they're coming from.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 14, 2019, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079017
I know that.  Roughly 80% of homicide victims are men; roughly 90% of murderers are men.  Of the ~20% of female murder victims, more than half are killed by their intimate partner.  

I have issues with gang violence.  That's a big issue that affects primarily men.  We should deal with that.

I have issues with domestic violence.  That's a big issue that affects primarily women.  We should deal with that.


Incorrect.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/the-number-of-male-domestic-1284479771263030.html

Quote
Roughly 40 percent of the victims of severe physical violence were men.


To put perpetration rates in perspective, 100% of domestic violence in lesbian relationships is committed by women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 14, 2019, 01:19:15 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079014
Why does it have to be a legal right?  

The laws are on the books, but that doesn't mean they're enforced.  Just because I have a legal right not to be murdered, it doesn't mean that I'm going to put myself in a dangerous situation on purpose.  And if I see dangerous situations, I want to make sure they're taken care of.  There are places I go where I know I'm safe and some of those are places that I don't think would be safe for a woman.

Well, there are some things women can do because of their gender and men cannot, many of them might seem trivial (and to be fair, some are) but there are social limits sometimes backed by laws or how they enforced. Speaking generally, some of them involve men entering female only space (locker room, toilets, etc) vs females entering male only spaces, such as how female reporters can enter male locker rooms to do their job. A man asking for such access would likely at best be viewed skeptically due to social/cultural assumptions about men. Or how in jurisdictions women are allowed to use male facilities if the lady's room is too crowded.

In fairness, the advent of unisex faculties and semi private showers and locker may be changing this, though in high school  our lady PE teachers didn't have the slightest hesitation about popping in the male lockers or shower at a moment's notice while the men had procedures follow (making sure things were clear, verbal announcement before entering including giving a reason. I didn't participate in college level sport and physical activities but hearsay indicated things were much the same. Violating these prohibitions too much can cost a man his job and reputation; it tends to take something more overt and damning to have the same results as a women.

Or that a man requesting a male physician may very likely be condemned as sexist rather than modest while a woman requesting a female physician IME, barely draws notice. I'm not claiming that women don't face some real inequities in "Western Civilization" and elsewhere or that men are oppressed just things in the real world are more nuanced than come across in internet discussions.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 14, 2019, 02:51:19 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1079027
Well, there are some things women can do because of their gender and men cannot, many of them might seem trivial (and to be fair, some are) but there are social limits sometimes backed by laws or how they enforced. Speaking generally, some of them involve men entering female only space (locker room, toilets, etc) vs females entering male only spaces, such as hoe female reporters can enter male locker rooms to do their job. A man asking for such access would likely at best be viewed skeptically due to social/cultural assumptions about men. Or how in jurisdictions women are allowed to use male facilities if the lady's room is too crowded. In fairness, the advent of unisex faculties and semi private showers and locker may be changing this, though in high school  our lady PE teachers didn't have the slightest hesitation about popping in the male lockers or shower at a moment's notice while the men had procedures follow (making sure things were clear, verbal announcement before entering including giving a reason. I didn't participate in college level sport and physical activities but hearsay indicated things were much the same. Violating these prohibitions too much can cost a man his job and reputation; it tends to take something more overt and damning to have the same results as a women.

Or that a man requesting a male physician may very likely be condemned as sexist rather than modest while a woman requesting a female physician IME, barely draws notice. I'm not claiming that women don't face some real inequities in "Western Civilization" and elsewhere or that men are oppressed just things in the real world are more nuanced than come across in internet discussions.


Was that intentional?  :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 14, 2019, 02:55:23 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1079023
There are perfectly cromulent evolutionary reasons why we are hardwired to prioritise female safety. Even in societies where women are second-class, they are not disposable - or at any rate they are less disposable than low-status males.

I am in the slightly weird position where I sympathise more with the PROTECT THE WAMMEN!! Soc-Jus types than I do with the Right-Libertarian EVERYONE IS EQUAL!! types - even though I'm not a chivalrous white-knighting Paleocon, I can see where they're coming from.

I'm sympathetic too. But it can lead to unbalances, like the gender sentencing gap (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html), where women are given more leniency because of their sex.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 14, 2019, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004


In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex.  That is NOT TRUE for my sisters.


I'm curious. What's this about?

Anyway, as a man I have sometimes been discriminated against because of my sex, and some of your male relatives probably have too. For several years, I was hounded my the military of my country to do service in the only battalion that has seen actual fighting in the last few decades. I delayed (blaming it on my studies) until I left the country. Recently, the laws have been changed so that women also get to deal with this shit (I would have preferred that it was voluntary), but it is still easier to drop out of military service if you're a woman. If you're from America, probably some of your relatives were enlisted in Vietnam or some other war. During WWI there were women's groups that were shaming men who were avoiding going to the trenches. Some areas of Europe were actually depleted of men after that war. I find it bizarre that so many people are unwilling to see that being a man, with whatever benefits that entails, has usually come at a price, and often a pretty steep one.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 14, 2019, 05:53:43 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004
In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex.  That is NOT TRUE for my sisters.


I am struggling to think of even one thing that I could do that my sister could not.  Maybe use the male toilet?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 14, 2019, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079017
I know that.  Roughly 80% of homicide victims are men; roughly 90% of murderers are men.  Of the ~20% of female murder victims, more than half are killed by their intimate partner.  

I have issues with gang violence.  That's a big issue that affects primarily men.  We should deal with that.

I have issues with domestic violence.  That's a big issue that affects primarily women.  We should deal with that.

The current stats that I saw indicated that 50% of domestic crime was fueled by alcohol abuse.  Maybe that would be a better target to "deal" with.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 14, 2019, 06:18:09 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079008
Historical oppression affected everyone.


I think this is a huge point that feminists just gloss over.  There was no one going out of their way to "oppress" women, men and women were striving together against crushing poverty to eke out an existence for them and their families.

Do these people even bother to study history?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 14, 2019, 08:53:15 PM
Quote from: Trond;1079048
Was that intentional?  :D


If it made me seem clever and witty then yes, but if it didn't definitely no. Now just what did I fuck up? :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 14, 2019, 09:04:26 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1079075
I think this is a huge point that feminists just gloss over.  There was no one going out of their way to "oppress" women, men and women were striving together against crushing poverty to eke out an existence for them and their families.

Do these people even bother to study history?
Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.

That's nonsense.

Nobles weren't all baby-eating monsters, but conversely, not everyone was just warm good guys just trying to help each other. In all times, people generally act in self-interest. If they have power and can benefit from using that power on the less powerful, they will frequently do so. They can act in greedy ways, exploit what they can, and use power over others to benefit at their expense. The people lower in status, with less power, would often be treated unfairly.

It's all well and good to hope for happy Barney land where the people in power will be nice to everyone below them. But real life usually isn't like that. That applies to anyone with lesser power, whether serfs, women, gypsies, Jews, or whoever. And it applies to all societies - Western, Eastern, Indian, etc. It's basic human nature.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 14, 2019, 09:09:29 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079095
Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.

That's nonsense.

Nobles weren't all baby-eating monsters, but conversely, not everyone was just warm good guys just trying to help each other. In all times, people generally act in self-interest. If they have power and can benefit from using that power on the less powerful, they will frequently do so. They can act in greedy ways, exploit what they can, and use power over others to benefit at their expense. The people lower in status, with less power, would often be treated unfairly.

It's all well and good to hope for happy Barney land where the people in power will be nice to everyone below them. But real life usually isn't like that. That applies to anyone with lesser power, whether serfs, women, gypsies, Jews, or whoever. And it applies to all societies - Western, Eastern, Indian, etc. It's basic human nature.

Way to strawman that post, dude.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 14, 2019, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079095
Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.

That's nonsense.

Nobles weren't all baby-eating monsters, but conversely, not everyone was just warm good guys just trying to help each other. In all times, people generally act in self-interest. If they have power and can benefit from using that power on the less powerful, they will frequently do so. They can act in greedy ways, exploit what they can, and use power over others to benefit at their expense. The people lower in status, with less power, would often be treated unfairly.

It's all well and good to hope for happy Barney land where the people in power will be nice to everyone below them. But real life usually isn't like that. That applies to anyone with lesser power, whether serfs, women, gypsies, Jews, or whoever. And it applies to all societies - Western, Eastern, Indian, etc. It's basic human nature.

I did not say that everyone was warm good guys working together, that is the whole point - there was no warm good guys working together; men and women worked together in their family units to try and survive all that life could throw at them.  You had Noble men and women and you had serf men and women, gypsy men and women and jewish men and women.  Where was the suppression against women exactly?

You just need to spend 5 minutes looking at a history book to see that was not true.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 14, 2019, 10:03:58 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1079094
Now just what did I fuck up? :D

The bolded part (see my previous post)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Anon Adderlan on March 14, 2019, 11:41:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1072448
if some Muslims engage in terrorism, do moderate Muslims have some level of responsibility for that? If some liberals engage in antifa violence and suppression of free speech, do other liberals have some level of responsibility? More broadly, if some men engage in harassment of women, do other men have some level of responsibility? On some level, obviously the responsibility is squarely with whoever commits the act. But I think people do have some responsibility to make their own community better. Although being born male is an accident of biology, there is a broad male culture and male communities that have their own norms.

In general, communities are more concerned about things done to them than in policing their own - which is understandable, but also a flaw. We should see the bad being done by our community as a real issue. Sexual harassment is predominantly committed by men, so it should be seen as more of an issue for men.


Can't disagree.

Quote from: Trond;1072545
Come to think of it, the "harassment" I got on the strongly anti-harassment site RPG.net was worse. I was told to "shut the fuck up" more than once, someone implied that I was better off dead, etc.


Not surprising.

Quote from: rawma;1072739
A long time ago I visited New York City and saw a giraffe diorama at the natural history museum. The display carefully explained that many people incorrectly believe that giraffes don't have vocal cords. While I was pondering this information, an older man with a small boy approached the display and the man carefully explained to the boy that giraffes do not have vocal cords. If Zen enlightenment consisted of understanding the boundlessness of stupidity, that was the moment I would have attained Zen mastery.


Perhaps they were a little distracting trying to be the authority figure.

Quote from: rgalex;1072740
Nope.  While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.


On the other hand women have a wider definition for what counts as harassment.

Quote from: SHARK;1072973
Well, on the West Coast, there were also concerns that the ordinary citizens were going to riot en masse and hunt the Japanese down and kill them all. It certainly wasn't an issue that local law enforcement could even dream of handling during those times. The government *was* geneuinely concerned that there were going to be mass lynchings and other executions of Japanese people. The people everywhere, to every law enforcement and government official, everyone--was demanding that the government do something about the Japanese. No one was going to listen to sweet, reassuring talk about how we need to love the Japanese. So, in some ways, the internment camps were a sort of emergency response not only to make efforts to curb any internal Japanese assistance to any Japanese attacks or invasion of the West Coast, but also to protect the Japanese Americans from annihilation.


Imprisoning people 'for their own safety' is the kind of thing I'd expect from a #JudgeDredd comic, and the only reason things didn't go south is that America wasn't as frightened or unreasonable as you imply.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072976
That would be convincing if not for the fact that EO 9066, which authorized it all, happened within 60 days of Pearl Harbor, well before any local violence, beyond isolated and sporadic incidents, happened. In fact, the only recordings we really have of any mass violence before EO 9066... was conducted by the FBI and the Navy, both of which were invading homes and locking up random Japanese Americans suspected of spying. (Nothing was ever found.)

Further, many reports of violence and calls for them to be locked up came from the infamous DeWitt Report. And they were almost all fabrications completely made up by LTG DeWitt (and his staff) to convince the government that EO 9066 was needed. Originally, he proposed Italians and Germans as well, but the government was having none of that.

Only a few of the camps actually did things like college-release programs. Many suffered from deteriorating conditions and hard labor camps that were pretty terrible. While they never approached the level of systematic eradication of the concentration camps in Europe, they certainly were NOT there to protect the Japanese. (For example of how they were better, there were at least attempts to hold schools and religious centers in several of the internment camps.)


Literally the seeds of fascism, and were this to have occurred elsewhere it might have germinated.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004
In an earlier speech announcing the boycott of the Montgomery buses, King said, "And certainly, certainly, this is the glory of America, with all of its faults. This is the glory of our democracy. If we were incarcerated behind the iron curtains of a Communistic nation we couldn't do this. If we were dropped in the dungeon of a totalitarian regime we couldn't do this.  But the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right."


Same reason Mahatma Gandhi was able to successfully protest in British ruled India. It's a detail the #CtrlLeft continually miss, which doesn't surprise me as they've pretty much dismissed MLK as irrelevant in this day and age.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004
In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex.


No, but there were certainly times you were forced to do something because of it.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on March 15, 2019, 01:40:46 AM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1079117
Can't disagree.



Not surprising.



Perhaps they were a little distracting trying to be the authority figure.



On the other hand women have a wider definition for what counts as harassment.



Imprisoning people 'for their own safety' is the kind of thing I'd expect from a #JudgeDredd comic, and the only reason things didn't go south is that America wasn't as frightened or unreasonable as you imply.



Literally the seeds of fascism, and were this to have occurred elsewhere it might have germinated.



Same reason Mahatma Gandhi was able to successfully protest in British ruled India. It's a detail the #CtrlLeft continually miss, which doesn't surprise me as they've pretty much dismissed MLK as irrelevant in this day and age.



No, but there were certainly times you were forced to do something because of it.

Greetings!

Well, Anon Adderlan, yes, thankfully things didn't go south. After all, in just two years time, we had Japanese Americans serving in the United States Army, killing Nazis in Italy. I wouldn't think that the internment of Japanese Americans at the time was the best response. I'm not entirely sure what the best response would have been, under the cicumstances. Even some Japanese American citizens *at the time* felt sympathy for what the government was doing. *shrug* I didn't live then, obviously. However, I have done a great deal of research on America's War in the Pacific, and studied extensive primary source documentation. The impression I got from that research is that the situation at the time was a lot more precarious and nuanced than people here, in our modern era, typically like to allow. A whole *lot* of people were screaming, and threatening all kinds of Chaos. The West Coast was screaming at the Federal government to do something, *now*. Evacuations, drills, air raids, the place was a literal powder keg. It's a good thing that calm was gradually restored. I was only pointing out some of the nuances and difficulties facing the leadership at the time, and many of those factors were very real concerns. Some turned out to be exaggerated, which is true. That doesn't mean though that the circumstances were not extraordinarily difficult, and the Federal government was involved in a whole lot of different things, trying to find answers and solutions.

Thankfully, we emerged victorious over the Japanese Empire, and won World War II.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 15, 2019, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: Trond;1079107
The bolded part (see my previous post)

*face palm* No, that was a goof. Bad typing more embarrassing as it wasn't even the contextually 'right' spelling of Ho for to a sexist Freudian slip...
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 15, 2019, 03:27:26 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004
In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1079117
No, but there were certainly times you were forced to do something because of it.

This is going to be entertaining.  Please, pray tell, what I have been forced to do because of my sex.  It'd probably be helpful if you explain who forced me in each situation.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on March 15, 2019, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079224
This is going to be entertaining.  Please, pray tell, what I have been forced to do because of my sex.  It'd probably be helpful if you explain who forced me in each situation.

US Government...Selective Service
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 15, 2019, 04:32:55 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079224
This is going to be entertaining.  Please, pray tell, what I have been forced to do because of my sex.  It'd probably be helpful if you explain who forced me in each situation.

I am more interested in what you can do that your sisters can not?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 15, 2019, 05:00:56 PM
Quote from: jhkim
Nobles weren't all baby-eating monsters, but conversely, not everyone was just warm good guys just trying to help each other. In all times, people generally act in self-interest. If they have power and can benefit from using that power on the less powerful, they will frequently do so. They can act in greedy ways, exploit what they can, and use power over others to benefit at their expense. The people lower in status, with less power, would often be treated unfairly.

It's all well and good to hope for happy Barney land where the people in power will be nice to everyone below them. But real life usually isn't like that. That applies to anyone with lesser power, whether serfs, women, gypsies, Jews, or whoever. And it applies to all societies - Western, Eastern, Indian, etc. It's basic human nature.

Quote from: Shasarak;1079103
I did not say that everyone was warm good guys working together, that is the whole point - there was no warm good guys working together; men and women worked together in their family units to try and survive all that life could throw at them.  You had Noble men and women and you had serf men and women, gypsy men and women and jewish men and women.  Where was the suppression against women exactly?

You just need to spend 5 minutes looking at a history book to see that was not true.

OK, let me break down the logic for you here:

1) In history, there have been people with political/economic power, with dominance over other people without political/economic power -- like nobles over serfs.
2) Those with power will often abuse that power, and exploit those under their power.
3) Women in history have often lacked political/economic power.

Your claim is that there was no oppression of women in history. That women and men just worked together.

I claim that this is a happy Barney land vision at odds with reality. In fact, women and men would often be in conflict - just like men and men would be in conflict, and women and women. Marriages were never all true love and harmony. Husbands and wives would often fight in history, just as they often do today. Anyone who opens a history book will see innumerable cases of such conflict - affairs, separation, revenge, and so forth. The history of every royal family (and every non-royal family) is filled with such conflicts.

When men and women were in conflict - and women lacked rights - then women would suffer. It was on this basis that women began to organize for establishing their rights - to be able to own and control property, to vote, to serve on juries and in government, and so forth.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 15, 2019, 05:50:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079241
OK, let me break down the logic for you here:

1) In history, there have been people with political/economic power, with dominance over other people without political/economic power -- like nobles over serfs.
2) Those with power will often abuse that power, and exploit those under their power.
3) Women in history have often lacked political/economic power.


There is one notable exception to your examples. Women were both nobles and serfs. Queens and pesants. I doubt you will  find a person who is both a queen and a pesant at the same time, or both a noble and a serf at the same time. But you will find somone who is both a woman and a noble, or is both a woman and a queen. (Or pesant, or serf) Women often held political and economic power. And sometimes abused their power over others.

Quote
Your claim is that there was no oppression of women in history. That women and men just worked together.
I'll let Shasarak answer this, but I note that is not what he was saying.

Let me break down the logic for you.

Along all of the social strata thoughout history, women have occupied them all. There were gendered roles, and these roles were limiting to women, but they were equally limiting to men, in a different way.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 15, 2019, 08:53:51 PM
I'm replying to an earlier comment from S'mon that I didn't note.

Quote from: jhkim
Regarding Christianity, it depends on the society. I know that the status of women declined in Iceland after Christianization. In the pagan period, women could at least own property and be heads of households. The role of women is illustrated in pre-Christian epics like the Laxdaela Saga, where a number of women were noted leaders. After Christianity, their rights were reduced and they mostly could only act through their father, husband, or sons.

As for the 1500s - I roughly agree with you, but the difference can be overstated. Elizabeth I was more notably successful than Sultana Shajar al-Durr or Empress Wu Zetian, for example, but in all of these, women's rights are pretty limited and these women leaders were the rare exception that did not change the norm.
Quote from: S'mon;1078951
Re Christianity and female status.

From what I can see, women had low status in most pre Christian middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. Christianity raised female status there. Women generally had higher status in northern European cultures. By spreading Mediterranean norms, Christianity could lower female status there.
I don't know enough to make that generalization. It's sounds not unreasonable as an average - but I have some doubts. Early Christianity did have some notable women involved - and I'd buy that it raised the status of women compared to Judaism and some surrounding cultures. On the other hand, I think of Zenobia and Cleopatra in pre-Christian Egypt - and I don't see the post-Christian equivalents for a long time. Christianity quickly moved women out of spiritual authority - as compared to the priestesses in a number of pre-Christian Mediterranean religions, like the Vestal Virgins in Rome. It may have slightly helped women's status on average, but I feel like that record is pretty checkered at least.

As you say, though, I think the issue is more spreading social norms from specific Mediterranean societies including Judaism, rather than the teachings of Christ.


Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079251
Along all of the social strata thoughout history, women have occupied them all. There were gendered roles, and these roles were limiting to women, but they were equally limiting to men, in a different way.
OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 15, 2019, 08:59:36 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079241
OK, let me break down the logic for you here:

1) In history, there have been people with political/economic power, with dominance over other people without political/economic power -- like nobles over serfs.
2) Those with power will often abuse that power, and exploit those under their power.
3) Women in history have often lacked political/economic power.

Your logic skips a connecting step between 2 and 3.  You can open any history book and find women with political and economic power; Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria.  If that was not enough then just consider for a second that every King had a Queen.  Is it your conjecture that those Queens had no political or economic power?

Quote
Your claim is that there was no oppression of women in history. That women and men just worked together.

No, I am claiming that there was no one going out of their way to specifically target women for oppression.  There were never any roving bands of tyrannical patriarchs scouring the lands looking for women to oppress.  Its just a fantasy.

Quote
I claim that this is a happy Barney land vision at odds with reality. In fact, women and men would often be in conflict - just like men and men would be in conflict, and women and women. Marriages were never all true love and harmony. Husbands and wives would often fight in history, just as they often do today. Anyone who opens a history book will see innumerable cases of such conflict - affairs, separation, revenge, and so forth. The history of every royal family (and every non-royal family) is filled with such conflicts.

When men and women were in conflict - and women lacked rights - then women would suffer. It was on this basis that women began to organize for establishing their rights - to be able to own and control property, to vote, to serve on juries and in government, and so forth.

Yes I would agree that anyone who claims that men and women are never in conflict is definitely pushing a happy Barney land vision.  Personally I have never ever seen anyone make that type of claim but if you can quote them then I will join with you in soundly mocking them loudly with pointed finger.

Because in the real world people fight.  They fight all the time.  Men fight Women, Men fight Men, Women fight Women.  Its never only one sex doing the fighting.  Anyone who tells you that it is the fault of only one sex is lying to you.

Which is why one of the common commitments when two people get married is "to death do us part".  Because life is hard, it is not fair and the two of you are going to fight but in the end you only have the other person to lean on so you damn well better sort it out so you can at least pull in the same direction.  Was it perfect?  Of course not obviously but marriage was one of the ways that the church used to protect womens rights.

Now it may come as a surprise to you but men and women are biologically different from each other and therefore have different advantages and disadvantages.  For example women can have children and men can not.  Women are biologically wired to look after their children.  This is not some kind of tyrannical patriarchal social invention designed to oppress women it is just biology.  Why are men out labouring in the fields, the forests, the mines?  Because their muscles are stronger then womens muscles, it is not oppression it is biology.

Honestly if you find yourself arguing against science then it is just time to stop, not to double down.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 15, 2019, 09:49:47 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper;1079231
US Government...Selective Service

I wasn't forced to do Selective Service.  I opted to do so.  I'm also in favor or requiring women to register for Selective Service.  

Remember, I was in ROTC.  It certainly wouldn't offend me that I was allowed to let my country know that they could count of me if it ever came to it.  Of course, I also knew it wouldn't have.  We have had an all-volunteer army and I would have volunteered before I was drafted.  

And of course, if I chose NOT to register, there were potential consequences, but nobody FORCED me to do it.  

If I hadn't gone to college, there would have been consequences.  We all make choices based on the consequences.  If people 'force' you to do things you don't want to do REGULARLY you are a doormat.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on March 15, 2019, 10:28:38 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079270
I'm replying to an earlier comment from S'mon that I didn't note.



I don't know enough to make that generalization. It's sounds not unreasonable as an average - but I have some doubts. Early Christianity did have some notable women involved - and I'd buy that it raised the status of women compared to Judaism and some surrounding cultures. On the other hand, I think of Zenobia and Cleopatra in pre-Christian Egypt - and I don't see the post-Christian equivalents for a long time. Christianity quickly moved women out of spiritual authority - as compared to the priestesses in a number of pre-Christian Mediterranean religions, like the Vestal Virgins in Rome. It may have slightly helped women's status on average, but I feel like that record is pretty checkered at least.

As you say, though, I think the issue is more spreading social norms from specific Mediterranean societies including Judaism, rather than the teachings of Christ.



OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.

Greetings!

Well, Jhkim, the early centuries of christianity are absolutely *FULL* of women. Christian and early Roman sources discuss such all over the place. Were women involved as *spiritual leaders*? No, because the Bible does not authorize women to fulfill such a role. That does not mean, however, that women were not heavily involved. Women were key financial backers--even Paul talks about this in the Bible. There are women financing churches and home communities, financing, organizing, and leading food banks, kitchens, nurseries, orphanages, schools--all over the Roman Empire at the time, all aimed at serving and helping the Christian community and beyond. The fact is, Christianity *hugely* elevated the status of women all across society, far far more than the Pagan cultures of Rome, Greece, or Egypt, for example. Christianity elevated women as spiritual beings, made by God for Man, and with a divine purpose on the mortal world, and worthy of respect and being cherished. The Pagans essentially viewed women as slaves, breeders, and playthings.

Zenobia and Cleopatra don't count. By virtue of them both being *Queens* they are historical stand-outs, and were incredibly notable because of their beauty, intellect, and status. Christianity changed the social status of millions and millions of ordinary women in ways that were entirely alien to the Pagan cultures at the time. Christianity revolutionized society, humanity, and even the Roman Empire specifically because of the doctrines of Christianity. The enormous differences of how women were viewed by God, how women were viewed spiritually, and women were to be viewed by men was so enticing and refreshing to millions o women, it's a primary drive for why millions of women, often wealthy women, financed and supported the growth and strength of the Church throughout the Empire. Christianity spread like wildfire because WOMEN wanted Christianity. And well, as go the women, so too, go the men. The Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilot, his *wife* became a Christian. It's not clear, but it can be imagined that had quite an effect on Pontius Pilot.

In later centuries, in different regions, Christianity tamped down on various kinds of women's rights. It's variable, and at times, was quite strict. Overall, however, Chrisstianity raised the social status of ordinary women in unimaginable ways compared to the Pagan cultures, and also laid the foundations, ironically enough, for women to address the shortcomings, and gain more rights over time.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 16, 2019, 12:21:33 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079276
I wasn't forced to do Selective Service.  I opted to do so.  I'm also in favor or requiring women to register for Selective Service.  

Remember, I was in ROTC.  It certainly wouldn't offend me that I was allowed to let my country know that they could count of me if it ever came to it.  Of course, I also knew it wouldn't have.  We have had an all-volunteer army and I would have volunteered before I was drafted.  

And of course, if I chose NOT to register, there were potential consequences, but nobody FORCED me to do it.

If I hadn't gone to college, there would have been consequences.  We all make choices based on the consequences.  If people 'force' you to do things you don't want to do REGULARLY you are a doormat.

Are those potential consequences the same for women?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 16, 2019, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079270
OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.

No, I'm saying gender roles were equally limiting to men and women. Not that they were identical roles.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 16, 2019, 02:52:11 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079270
I don't know enough to make that generalization. It's sounds not unreasonable as an average

I was only generalising, ie talking about 'on average'. I can think of cultures in the Mediterranean where women had higher status - the Etruscans are an obvious example. But it seems like in general these cultures tended to be replaced by Greek and Roman culture, where women had notably low status - again, in general. Cleopatra was Greek, but inherited the Egyptian convention that a woman could be Pharoh. Queen Artemisia of Halicarnassus had a similar sort of 'fringe Greek' situation, 4 centuries earlier, within the Persian sphere. And the Queen of Sheba was presumably Semitic, but women tend to have low status in Semitic cultures - on average.

The possibility of a female ruler may say something about female status in a society, but IMO it's generally not as significant as indications of how normal free women are regarded in eg portraiture, grave goods, any writings.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 16, 2019, 02:57:18 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1079271
Why are men out labouring in the fields, the forests, the mines?  Because their muscles are stronger then womens muscles, it is not oppression it is biology.

I've read more than once that in most African societies women do 80% of the agricultural work... although the men are stronger. So there is definitely a cultural element too. Or at least a non-muscle element!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 16, 2019, 03:00:36 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079270
Christianity quickly moved women out of spiritual authority - as compared to the priestesses in a number of pre-Christian Mediterranean religions, like the Vestal Virgins in Rome.


Have to say, bringing up the Vestal Virgins feels like a particularly weak argument! :D The Greek oracles also had 'spiritual authority' - but I'd say this counts as 'in office but not in power', a phrase used recently about our own Prime Minister.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 16, 2019, 03:02:39 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1079280
Greetings!

Well, Jhkim, the early centuries of christianity are absolutely *FULL* of women. Christian and early Roman sources discuss such all over the place. Were women involved as *spiritual leaders*? No, because the Bible does not authorize women to fulfill such a role. That does not mean, however, that women were not heavily involved. Women were key financial backers--even Paul talks about this in the Bible. There are women financing churches and home communities, financing, organizing, and leading food banks, kitchens, nurseries, orphanages, schools--all over the Roman Empire at the time, all aimed at serving and helping the Christian community and beyond. The fact is, Christianity *hugely* elevated the status of women all across society, far far more than the Pagan cultures of Rome, Greece, or Egypt, for example. Christianity elevated women as spiritual beings, made by God for Man, and with a divine purpose on the mortal world, and worthy of respect and being cherished. The Pagans essentially viewed women as slaves, breeders, and playthings.

Zenobia and Cleopatra don't count. By virtue of them both being *Queens* they are historical stand-outs, and were incredibly notable because of their beauty, intellect, and status. Christianity changed the social status of millions and millions of ordinary women in ways that were entirely alien to the Pagan cultures at the time. Christianity revolutionized society, humanity, and even the Roman Empire specifically because of the doctrines of Christianity. The enormous differences of how women were viewed by God, how women were viewed spiritually, and women were to be viewed by men was so enticing and refreshing to millions o women, it's a primary drive for why millions of women, often wealthy women, financed and supported the growth and strength of the Church throughout the Empire. Christianity spread like wildfire because WOMEN wanted Christianity. And well, as go the women, so too, go the men. The Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilot, his *wife* became a Christian. It's not clear, but it can be imagined that had quite an effect on Pontius Pilot.

In later centuries, in different regions, Christianity tamped down on various kinds of women's rights. It's variable, and at times, was quite strict. Overall, however, Chrisstianity raised the social status of ordinary women in unimaginable ways compared to the Pagan cultures, and also laid the foundations, ironically enough, for women to address the shortcomings, and gain more rights over time.


I basically agree with this - if early Christianity wasn't seen as female-friendly, why were rich urban women such enthusiastic backers?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 16, 2019, 03:45:03 AM
"Women had no power until the SJW era" doesn't fly in the face of history books and anthropology.

There's a reason women were called the power behind the throne and men in most cultures needed to be married to have full social stature. The wife was clearly viewed as more than a powerless servant in the union. Women, throughout history, have wielded a different form of social power.

Was it equal power? Depends how you look at it. Looking at pre-modern history, there was nearly constant war among nations and the men did most of the dying.

Being stabbed or shot to death was royally suckass.


Quote from: Shasarak;1078943
I am not a Psychologist and I only play one on the Internet and on the other hand it seems to me that Marriage is the best of the worst options we have for getting two people to stay together long enough to raise a family.


Until the last 50 years (or so), you were 100% correct. However, US Family Law and the MSM propaganda about the kewlness of divorce and single parenthood have combined to nigh-erase that marriage / family bond.

Divorce fucks up kids, but adults are selfish so we're cool with fucked up kids and just rationalize everything with platitudes.  


Quote from: jhkim;1079095
Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.

That's nonsense.


It's not entirely nonsense. The serfs and nobles had a symbiotic relationship - an especially close one when looking at local nobles (aka, not kings and princes). The nation only held together if both nobles and serfs kept their side of the social bargain. Of course, plenty of nobles abused their power horrifically, and that was the common cause of rebellions.

Unlike the modern age where CEOs can get their next meal from anywhere and easily pop their business into a new city or country, the local noble could be starved out and his lands made effectively worthless via banditry, poaching and refusal to maintain crops and livestock.  

I believe both the French and American Revolutions could have been adverted with just 25% less douchebaggery by the King's Court. But no, history shows that the Kings bought their own propaganda and pushed their peasants into a fight-or-die corner.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on March 16, 2019, 06:37:41 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079224
This is going to be entertaining.  Please, pray tell, what I have been forced to do because of my sex.  It'd probably be helpful if you explain who forced me in each situation.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1079231
US Government...Selective Service

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079276
I wasn't forced to do Selective Service.  I opted to do so.  I'm also in favor or requiring women to register for Selective Service.  

Remember, I was in ROTC.  It certainly wouldn't offend me that I was allowed to let my country know that they could count of me if it ever came to it.  Of course, I also knew it wouldn't have.  We have had an all-volunteer army and I would have volunteered before I was drafted.  

And of course, if I chose NOT to register, there were potential consequences, but nobody FORCED me to do it.  

If I hadn't gone to college, there would have been consequences.  We all make choices based on the consequences.  If people 'force' you to do things you don't want to do REGULARLY you are a doormat.

That was definitely entertaining!

You really are an ignorant fuckwit.  

If you are discounting 'threat of legal consequences by the government' as force then you just invalidated your entire argument.  That leaves the term 'forced' to apply in the 'someone has a gun to your head' or 'is currently physically overpowering you' situations.  But, your own argument invalidates those as well because I have the option of letting myself be maimed or killed in those circumstances.  By the logic in your own argument...No one in all of human history has ever been 'forced' to do anything.[/B]
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 16, 2019, 07:08:48 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1079295
I've read more than once that in most African societies women do 80% of the agricultural work... although the men are stronger. So there is definitely a cultural element too. Or at least a non-muscle element!

When we were Hunter-Gatherers the women used to do the Gathering because the men were doing the Hunting.  Maybe that is the case in Africa?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 16, 2019, 07:20:08 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079270
OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.


I think that the Pope is a pretty good example of the foolishness of trying to falsely equivilate position with gender.  OK so we can say that women can not be Pope so on the face of it it appears as if there is significant gender discrimination there.  And on the other hand I am a male and I also can not be Pope.  So now we have significant discrimination against men too.  In fact the vast majority of the world can not be Pope.  Its not Popes all the way down.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 16, 2019, 08:45:14 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1079321
When we were Hunter-Gatherers the women used to do the Gathering because the men were doing the Hunting.  Maybe that is the case in Africa?


These are farming cultures. The San/Bushmen hunter-gatherers are actually one of the more egalitarian societies.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 16, 2019, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: moonsweeper;1079319
By the logic in your own argument...No one in all of human history has ever been 'forced' to do anything.[/B]

No, that doesn't follow.  Rape could very clearly be 'forced'.  Snatching my wallet could clearly be 'forced'.  

Sexual relations could also be 'coerced'.  Taking my wallet could also be 'coerced'.  

When you're coerced, you make the decision that you feel gives you the fewest complications you can deal with.  Neither one is usually fair, but they are very clearly different.  

As for women and Selective Service, it could change (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft), but I don't think it is clearly an imposition on men.  At the very least, jackasses on the internet keep insisting that because women couldn't register for the draft, and men were required, that men deserve a special status in society.  If that's all it's done, it clearly benefits men and not women.  Like, obviously.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 16, 2019, 11:33:00 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079270
OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079342
No, that doesn't follow.  Rape could very clearly be 'forced'.  Snatching my wallet could clearly be 'forced'.  

Sexual relations could also be 'coerced'.  Taking my wallet could also be 'coerced'.  

When you're coerced, you make the decision that you feel gives you the fewest complications you can deal with.  Neither one is usually fair, but they are very clearly different.  

As for women and Selective Service, it could change (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft), but I don't think it is clearly an imposition on men.  At the very least, jackasses on the internet keep insisting that because women couldn't register for the draft, and men were required, that men deserve a special status in society.  If that's all it's done, it clearly benefits men and not women.  Like, obviously.

You're both dancing around a subject that it seems you don't want to deal with. Men have usually been in charge, but it comes at a price, and often a steep one. Men's lives have always been riskier, even if you take into consideration things like the risk of childbirth in the past. My grandparents were in many ways fairly traditional, with the women generally assumed to be staying at home, though there were some options. My grandfather worked hard as a mason, and it made him permanently sick at one point. He also had to fight in WWII, was captured by the Nazis, and they hanged some of his inmates in front of him (most likely he was spared because he looked like such an "aryan" specimen). Men were generally assumed to be in charge, but at their home this was not always the case (as a personal observation). Anyway I don't think the women would have swapped places if they could. As I mentioned before, some areas of Europe were depleted of men after the world wars.

Another example; in some parts of Europe, family vendettas have been a thing until recently (maybe still in some areas; Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and Crete all have reputations for this). The people killed are almost always men. Men are again assumed to be in charge of the families, but their lives are again more risky. In fact, in Europe, the killing of women has generally been seen as dishonorable, so women would sometimes throw themselves between fighting parties to avoid murder from happening.

So in the west, men have usually been in charge, but their lives have always been riskier; with more dangerous jobs, military service, and assumed willingness to risk their lives. And this is not some special case, it probably affects virtually every single family if you go back a couple of decades. In many places (America too, it seems) this assumption is STILL embedded in the laws, while most (all?) restrictions on women have been removed.  And men's lives are still shorter. Notice also that certain countries in the West, e.g. Britain, have had quite a few women as rulers. That's because it is not men on top with women at the bottom. It is more like two skewed columns, where royal men are above women, but royal women are above aristocratic men, aristocratic women are above commoner men etc.

The situation is a bit different in some other countries where the situation is weighed more heavily against women, where for instance women are often the first to get killed when honor is at stake. But I often feel that the plight of women in the West has been exaggerated. Still, many changes have been for the better; I think personal freedom is good, rather than your "role" being more set in stone. But I remember someone in a debate comparing the situation of women in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to Medieval Europe. But then a historian objected and said women in Europe have NEVER been treated like that. He was right.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on March 16, 2019, 11:41:57 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079342
No, that doesn't follow.  Rape could very clearly be 'forced'.  Snatching my wallet could clearly be 'forced'.  

Sexual relations could also be 'coerced'.  Taking my wallet could also be 'coerced'.  

When you're coerced, you make the decision that you feel gives you the fewest complications you can deal with.  Neither one is usually fair, but they are very clearly different.  


So you are trying to thread the needle between the parsing of 'coerced' and 'forced'???
Apparently, to you, coerced means that the target has a choice of some sort versus no choice...otherwise my maimed or killed argument still stands.
If I buy that definition then, to be forced, someone would have to be completely incapacitated and incapable of action or choice in the matter???
Explain to me how that aligns with the use of the word 'force' in your earlier reply.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079276
We all make choices based on the consequences.  If people 'force' you to do things you don't want to do REGULARLY you are a doormat.


Am I a doormat because I am constantly being incapacitated and forced to do things I wouldn't want to do?  And how does that relate to the word 'choice' in the preceding sentence about consequences?  Or did you just back yourself into a corner and are trying to work your way out by redirecting the conversation towards definitions of words that you yourself apparently used improperly?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079342

As for women and Selective Service, it could change (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft), but I don't think it is clearly an imposition on men.  At the very least, jackasses on the internet keep insisting that because women couldn't register for the draft, and men were required, that men deserve a special status in society.  If that's all it's done, it clearly benefits men and not women.  Like, obviously.


Ahh...
It IS a redirect. Never mind my questions, then, since you won't give an honest answer to them anyway.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 16, 2019, 01:04:00 PM
I used 'forced' in quotes because I cannot imagine what you actually mean by it.  

If someone does something while you are actively resisting, you are forced.  I will also use the term to mean 'a false choice', ie like a card trick where you have to pick the card that they've already chosen for you.  The government garnishing your wages is forcing payment.  Sending you a tax bill is coercive, but not forced.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 16, 2019, 03:28:23 PM
OK, I'm wondering at this point how much is just spin doctoring compared to factual disagreement.

Quote from: Shasarak;1079075
I think this is a huge point that feminists just gloss over. There was no one going out of their way to "oppress" women, men and women were striving together against crushing poverty to eke out an existence for them and their families.
Quote from: jhkim
Your claim is that there was no oppression of women in history. That women and men just worked together.
Quote from: Shasarak
No, I am claiming that there was no one going out of their way to specifically target women for oppression. There were never any roving bands of tyrannical patriarchs scouring the lands looking for women to oppress. Its just a fantasy.
This seems like wordplay to me. So you agree that women were oppressed - just that people did it in place, rather than going out of their way to do it? Obviously, in most times it wasn't a political cause to suppress women's rights - because that was the status quo. People would just do things the way they always had, which was that women had low status without political, economic, or religious power.


Quote from: jhkim
Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.

That's nonsense.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079306
It's not entirely nonsense. The serfs and nobles had a symbiotic relationship - an especially close one when looking at local nobles (aka, not kings and princes). The nation only held together if both nobles and serfs kept their side of the social bargain. Of course, plenty of nobles abused their power horrifically, and that was the common cause of rebellions.
...
Quote from: Trond;1079352
You're both dancing around a subject that it seems you don't want to deal with. Men have usually been in charge, but it comes at a price, and often a steep one. Men's lives have always been riskier, even if you take into consideration things like the risk of childbirth in the past. My grandparents were in many ways fairly traditional, with the women generally assumed to be staying at home, though there were some options. My grandfather worked hard as a mason, and it made him permanently sick at one point. He also had to fight in WWII, was captured by the Nazis, and they hanged some of his inmates in front of him (most likely he was spared because he looked like such an "aryan" specimen). Men were generally assumed to be in charge, but at their home this was not always the case (as a personal observation). Anyway I don't think the women would have swapped places if they could.

On the one hand, there were down sides to being in charge. Absolutely, the nobles had some problems that serfs did not, and men had problems that women did not. But I disagree that this meant there was some sort of equality, and that people would willingly choose lower status.

Stories like The Prince and the Pauper and The Taming of the Shrew are about how people are really happiest in their natural place, but those are just stories. In actuality, if people had a choice - yes, they would most often choose to be the higher status. Historical women would wish for a son far more than they would wish for a daughter. This is frequently attested to in historical accounts that I've read.

As for lifespan, it's not clear to me that men's lives were riskier given childbirth, at least not as a major effect across all times and places. For example, in 1850, American men's life expectancy was 38 compared to 40 for women, which is pretty comparable. For broader history, it's difficult to generalize - but here's one survey study on the subject, for example:
Quote
Nevertheless, numerous signs indicate that female mortality exceeded male mortality during most of the history of the human species. In Greece from about 3,500 to 1,150 B.c. and again from 1,200 to 150 B.C., according to Hishinuma, male life expectancy was found to be above female levels at all ages from birth through the "upper adult" years of those eras. During the earlier of the two periods, the size of the excess was about three years at age zero, rising to about eight years at age 18 and then decreasing to two years at age 56. During the second period, the excess was again three years at birth, increasing to about eight years at ages 10-18, and then declining before seemingly disappearing at age 56. In both, the peak excess of male over female life expectancy appears to have occurred shortly before or early into the childbearing years, a reflection of the enormous toll of maternal mortality.
Source: https://www.soa.org/library/research/transactions-of-society-of-actuaries/1989/january/tsa89v414.pdf

Obviously, across all of history there will be a ton of variance. But mostly, I think the lifespans are comparable rather than significantly favoring women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 16, 2019, 03:38:31 PM
I just want to thank S'mon here - Even though we disagree on some points, I appreciate that you pull in real historical information, and note differences in women's status between different societies.

Quote from: Shasarak
Why are men out labouring in the fields, the forests, the mines? Because their muscles are stronger then womens muscles, it is not oppression it is biology.
Quote from: S'mon
I've read more than once that in most African societies women do 80% of the agricultural work... although the men are stronger. So there is definitely a cultural element too. Or at least a non-muscle element!
Quote from: Shasarak;1079321
When we were Hunter-Gatherers the women used to do the Gathering because the men were doing the Hunting.  Maybe that is the case in Africa?
Quote from: S'mon;1079329
These are farming cultures. The San/Bushmen hunter-gatherers are actually one of the more egalitarian societies.

I think S'mon has a strong point here that there are important cultural factors. There are biological concerns - especially around childbirth - but women's status and rights do differ between different historical societies.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 16, 2019, 03:58:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079372
On the one hand, there were down sides to being in charge. Absolutely, the nobles had some problems that serfs did not, and men had problems that women did not. But I disagree that this meant there was some sort of equality, and that people would willingly choose lower status.

It depends on what you mean by equality. Men could not take on an equal share of gestaing and giving birth to children, it was biologically impossible. But women could have taken on their fair share of devastatingly hard work and soldering. But they didn't. If a man takes on the majority of these responsibilities, he needs consumate authorities to execute those responsibilities. Women's authority tended towards the household, where their roles were needed.

It is an odd sort of oppression where the oppressors are expected to labor and die for the oppressed. The most famous example is in the demographics of the survivors of the Tianic.

(https://i.imgur.com/6wffSf0.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 16, 2019, 04:14:36 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079372
This seems like wordplay to me. So you agree that women were oppressed - just that people did it in place, rather than going out of their way to do it? Obviously, in most times it wasn't a political cause to suppress women's rights - because that was the status quo. People would just do things the way they always had, which was that women had low status without political, economic, or religious power.

I dont know how to explain it more simply.  Yes women were oppressed.  Men were oppressed.  Children were oppressed.  Christians were oppressed.  Jews were oppressed.  Muslims were oppressed.  Underwater basket weavers were oppressed.

There is literally no bottom, it is oppression all the way down.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 16, 2019, 04:21:51 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079374
I think S'mon has a strong point here that there are important cultural factors. There are biological concerns - especially around childbirth - but women's status and rights do differ between different historical societies.


http://geography.name/gender-roles-and-sexuality/

Quote
Early theories about biological and social development in humans stressed the importance of meat eating and of men's roles as hunters. Today, however, researchers know that women were the primary economic producers in many early societies. Between 60 and 80 percent of the calories consumed by people in the existing hunting-and-gathering societies come from the fruits, roots, grains, nuts, honey, and other foods gathered by women.

This pattern did not change after agriculture took hold across most of Africa. Women today perform between 60 and 80 percent of the continent's agricultural labor. Throughout most of rural Africa, their roles in farming differ from men's, a fact that is illustrated by the way particular tools are associated with gender. The ax is considered a man's tool because men clear and prepare the land. They also plow the fields. The hoe is reserved for women, who plant, harvest, process, and store the crops. Women are also responsible for most tasks involved in producing food for families, including obtaining water and firewood, often across long distances.


So it looks like this article supports both my proposition as well as S'mon's; women do 60 to 80% of the labour and men do the physical plowing and preparation of the land.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 16, 2019, 05:01:23 PM
Jhkim, it's as if you're constantly sidestepping what I'm actually talking about.  I wasn't talking about the difficulties of nobles vs serfs or if someone would choose to be a serf. I was talking about my grandmothers :D.  And no, those couple of years in the 1800s are not insignificant at a time when men supposedly held all the cards, it's a 5% longer life for women. So again, the plight of women in the west of the past is not completely made up, but it is frequently exaggerated. As for ancient Greece, well that's known to have been a pretty bad time and place for women, except for certain areas such as Sparta, but it sort of illustrates my point about before vs after Christianity in Europe. Conditions generally got better with the development of western chivalry.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DocJones on March 16, 2019, 05:43:29 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079276
I wasn't forced to do Selective Service.  I opted to do so.  
...
And of course, if I chose NOT to register, there were potential consequences, but nobody FORCED me to do it.  

Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both.
Yes you were FORCED to register for Selective Service.  This is the essence of the concept of government force.
You don't opt out of paying taxes, nor do you just opt out of following burglary or murder laws.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 16, 2019, 06:30:16 PM
Quote from: Trond;1079389
As for ancient Greece, well that's known to have been a pretty bad time and place for women, except for certain areas such as Sparta

(edited for initial misreading)

Yes, other Greeks regarded Spartan women as having uncommonly high status - one of the weird things about the Dorian Greeks (eg Spartans) from the POV of the Ionian Greeks (the Athenians, and the other Greek cultures of Homer's pre-Dorian Invasion Iliad/Siege of Troy). It's in Athens that Pericles said a good woman is one who stays silent! Whereas a man was expected to actively contribute to politics.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 16, 2019, 07:14:36 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079342
As for women and Selective Service, it could change (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft), but I don't think it is clearly an imposition on men.


You are only looking through our modern post-Vietnam filter.

Look up the death stats from the Korean and Vietnam wars. Those were our last wars primarily fought by men instead of machines, and the men were drafted, not volunteers. The numbers (on both sides) were brutal. Most of our losses were young men who didn't want to go, but got drafted and thrown into a meatgrinder...and the drafted were FORCED to go or be imprisoned.  

As wars become more mechanized with robotic combatants and satellite-assisted vehicles, of course the Selective Service requirement becomes less important and/or less gender focused as both men and women can desk jockey drones.  

Selective Service was not an imposition to YOU because of WHEN you were born. No other reason.

I was at UCLA during Iraq 1 and people forget now how the MSM was howling Bush 1 was going to start Vietnam 2e. Fortunately for us 18-22 year old males, Bush 1 went with blitzkrieg instead, perhaps because of his own military service.

If Iraq had gone sideways and there was a draft, no women would have served, but my ass might have been in the sand trying not to suck down Saddam's chemical weapons (from his old USA gift stockpile!).  


Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079378
It is an odd sort of oppression where the oppressors are expected to labor and die for the oppressed.


LOL. So true and it all comes down to the Magical Power of Pussy.

Which is also the reason for modern male support of feminism. Men desperately want wet dick and women have always controlled the sex faucet.

White knights want to posture about their moral virtue and egalitarian intellect, but its all laughable bullshit. Males in 2019 AD aren't any different than males in 2019 BC. Civilization is a thin veneer over ancient biological needs and imperatives, all controlled by chemicals deep in our brains.

Chemicals, not thoughts, platitudes or indoctrination.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 16, 2019, 08:14:51 PM
Quote from: Trond;1079389
Jhkim, it's as if you're constantly sidestepping what I'm actually talking about.  I wasn't talking about the difficulties of nobles vs serfs or if someone would choose to be a serf. I was talking about my grandmothers :D.  And no, those couple of years in the 1800s are not insignificant at a time when men supposedly held all the cards, it's a 5% longer life for women. So again, the plight of women in the west of the past is not completely made up, but it is frequently exaggerated. As for ancient Greece, well that's known to have been a pretty bad time and place for women, except for certain areas such as Sparta, but it sort of illustrates my point about before vs after Christianity in Europe. Conditions generally got better with the development of western chivalry.
As for being frequently exaggerated - people get history wrong all the time, in many different directions. Sure, the plight of women is often exaggerated, as is the plight of men. Regarding life expectancy, it is not uniform across regions and periods. For example, the following is from an analysis of the adult deaths of 115,650 nobles in Europe from 800 to 1800. The fitted difference in years between male and female life expectancy is listed as D_female.

[table=class: grid, align: left]
[tr][th]Year[/th][td]800-1000[/td][td]1000-1340[/td][td]1340-1500[/td][td]1500-1600[/td][td]1600-1700[/td][td]1700-1800[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]D_female[/th][td]+3.1[/td][td]+0.9[/td][td]-0.5[/td][td]-0.4[/td][td]+0.1[/td][td]+2.5[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC/core-reader

According to this, from 1340 to 1600, noble women had lower life expectancy as well as lower status. From the claims about how men have been dying in droves, I would expect a more significant and consistent difference. And this goes counter to your claim about chivalry - since the code of chivalry developed around 1200, and the lifespan of women in this sample went *down* after that, and didn't start to rise until centuries later.

As for Christianity more broadly, I think the answer is more mixed. Personally, I'd say Christian Europe was on average better for women than other large civilizations - notably Islam, China, and India. But that isn't the whole story. S'mon and I at least agree that in Northern Europe, the status of women went notably down after Christianization. Women in Iceland could own their own property in the pre-Christian period and had leadership roles attested to in the sagas, but afterwards could only act through their father, husband, or son. Around the Mediterranean, it did go up in some cases, but not all.

The short form - history is complicated. Purely one-sided simple political narratives tend not to fit the data.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 16, 2019, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079412
S'mon and I at least agree that in Northern Europe, the status of women went notably down after Christianization.

Even that is probably a bit over-simplistic - or, to put it another way, a generalisation! :D I think it depends on a lot of factors, such as who the woman was, her social status. I think for instance that women low down the social ladder in pagan Northern Europe may have benefited from Christianisation, along with lower social status men. Whereas women of high social status could face increased restrictions.

I think in pagan northern Europe there was probably more scope to be a Xena Warrior Princess skull-cracking leader type, than after Christianisation. Whereas if you were a slave girl Christianisation may have meant being raped a bit less. Maybe you even got to be a serf.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DocJones on March 16, 2019, 08:29:48 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079412
As for being frequently exaggerated - people get history wrong all the time, in many different directions.
One of the problems is that history of the period records the lives of the 1%.  For example, while arranged marriage was an obsession of the European noble class, it wasn't at all common among the peasants.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 16, 2019, 09:43:30 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1079415
Even that is probably a bit over-simplistic - or, to put it another way, a generalisation! :D I think it depends on a lot of factors, such as who the woman was, her social status. I think for instance that women low down the social ladder in pagan Northern Europe may have benefited from Christianisation, along with lower social status men. Whereas women of high social status could face increased restrictions.

I think in pagan northern Europe there was probably more scope to be a Xena Warrior Princess skull-cracking leader type, than after Christianisation. Whereas if you were a slave girl Christianisation may have meant being raped a bit less. Maybe you even got to be a serf.
I agree with you that it's a generalization - but it's what we have to go on. I only know for sure about Iceland because of reading that sagas - plus confirming information from archeology. And yes, the sagas are mostly about high-class women - though there are some notable slave girls that feature as well. (Though the main one I recall was actually high-born before she became a slave.) There is less data on lower-class women as well as less data on most other places in Northern Europe - but lack of data is lack of data. It doesn't show anything either way.

I'm not sure how to judge there being less rape of slave girls.

One common misconception is stereotypes about what early Christianity was like - that it meant jumping to 20th century Christian behavior, which of course isn't true. For example, I recall that one of the early advocates of Christianity in Iceland killed a man for insulting Christianity, was outlawed, left the country for years, then came back and killed another man for insulting his religion. How actual Christians behaved was often at odds with the teachings of Christ, in every era of history. Even centuries later, slave girls were regularly raped by their Christian masters. Sadly, it took a very long time for abolition to become a mainstream force within Christianity.

In short, Christianity may well have had a positive influence on slaves in Northern Europe, but I don't take it as a given.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 16, 2019, 11:04:03 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079412
The short form - history is complicated. Purely one-sided simple political narratives tend not to fit the data.

Exactly.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 17, 2019, 04:56:06 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079425
In short, Christianity may well have had a positive influence on slaves in Northern Europe, but I don't take it as a given.

My feeling is that the church pretty consistently took an "all people have inherent dignity" approach, from way back, and that this likely had some effect on moderating behaviour. In the 6th century Codex Justinian it calls slavery "Against the Law of God/Nature, though part of the Law of Men". In pre-Christian Northern European cultures, people have dignity or worth on account of their behaviour and status - a free man or woman has worth, if they act bravely and honourably. Thralls & slaves do not.

My impression from everything I've read is that the Christian church consistently disapproved of slavery, but initially saw it in  "Render unto Caesar" type terms as an inevitable part of the Fallen secular world, thus trying to abolish it was beyond the church's remit. The abolishment of slavery in England following conquest by the secular Normans was a secular project and seems due to economics rather than morality. But once slavery had fallen into disuse in western Europe, after its revival as racial slavery in the Age of Exploration it became practical for the church to actively campaign against it.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 17, 2019, 11:46:42 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079412
As for being frequently exaggerated - people get history wrong all the time, in many different directions. Sure, the plight of women is often exaggerated, as is the plight of men. Regarding life expectancy, it is not uniform across regions and periods. For example, the following is from an analysis of the adult deaths of 115,650 nobles in Europe from 800 to 1800. The fitted difference in years between male and female life expectancy is listed as D_female.

[table=class: grid, align: left]
[tr][th]Year[/th][td]800-1000[/td][td]1000-1340[/td][td]1340-1500[/td][td]1500-1600[/td][td]1600-1700[/td][td]1700-1800[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]D_female[/th][td]+3.1[/td][td]+0.9[/td][td]-0.5[/td][td]-0.4[/td][td]+0.1[/td][td]+2.5[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC/core-reader

According to this, from 1340 to 1600, noble women had lower life expectancy as well as lower status. From the claims about how men have been dying in droves, I would expect a more significant and consistent difference. And this goes counter to your claim about chivalry - since the code of chivalry developed around 1200, and the lifespan of women in this sample went *down* after that, and didn't start to rise until centuries later.

As for Christianity more broadly, I think the answer is more mixed. Personally, I'd say Christian Europe was on average better for women than other large civilizations - notably Islam, China, and India. But that isn't the whole story. S'mon and I at least agree that in Northern Europe, the status of women went notably down after Christianization. Women in Iceland could own their own property in the pre-Christian period and had leadership roles attested to in the sagas, but afterwards could only act through their father, husband, or son. Around the Mediterranean, it did go up in some cases, but not all.

The short form - history is complicated. Purely one-sided simple political narratives tend not to fit the data.


Well, that's interesting. The data goes a bit counter to some earlier sources, as you probably know since you looked it up, but also some of what people in medieval times said themselves (some noted that women live longer). The rate of violence was high with corresponding high death rates among men. Anyway, the paper does give one of the main reasons for the high mortality rate of noble women in the period you mention: "Surprisingly, it appears that noble women faced an increased probability of a plague death." The plague hit hard in the 1300s and kept coming back for several centuries in Europe but started receding in the 1600s. Maybe women were supposed to take care of the sick, and so were more exposed? Still, the overall curve for the whole period under study shows women's peak death year a little above 70, while that of men is a little above 60.

But what I said about chivalry and higher status for women is not something I simply claim. It's covered in books on Medieval times, such as Bishop's classic "The Middle Ages". Other more specialized books, for instance on tournaments and jousting, mention similar things; women were not allowed to attend earlier, but as chivalry developed they were present with their own pavilion, and frequently picked the winner.

Where do you have the notion from that women in Northern Europe lost their rights to own property? It does not seem to be the case in Norway. The reason we know women had property in the viking age is basically because of evidence from stories and graves showing women with property. How do we know that they didn't end up with their property the same way powerful medieval women did (by being widowed or the lack of male heirs, or sometimes simply manipulating the system)? I have seen a trend towards exaggerating the status of viking women (women warriors etc.) but viking society was in many ways hyper-masculine. I have seen people talk about Icelandic "viking law" which was in fact Christian medieval law extrapolated backwards. For instance, people have often referred to extremely strict Icelandic laws about rape, but those were in fact from Christian medieval times. Things were generally less organized during the time of the vikings (perhaps with the exception of the kingdom of Harald Fairhair, who had a reputation for being extremely harsh). Most likely individual viking chieftains made up their laws as they went. I think they avenged rape with a family vendetta.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Verdant on March 17, 2019, 07:56:23 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079008
Historical oppression affected everyone.



Name one legal right in the west, especially America, that men have and women don't.



Men have the legal right to custody of their children, but the courts are biased against them. So women having all the legal rights as men doesn't really mean anything.

In theory a homeless person has the same rights as Bill Gates, but a millionaire is always going to get lighter sentencing because they have the resources to take full advantage of the system.

I think that narratives affect how a society focuses its resources. The narrative that men are inherently violent means that male victims of domestic violence, and prisoners don't get as much help as they need because they are seen as a disposable resource. Narratives about women mean that they are denied different kinds of resources.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 17, 2019, 07:58:33 PM
Any discussion of "vikings" should limit the block of years and named countries. Are we talking about the 8th or 12th century? Iceland, Finland or Russia? Even the terms pre-Christian and post-Christian don't hold up well without being more exact in time/place.

Kinda like "Ancient China" or "Ancient Egypt" (though now you're talking 1000s, not 100s of years).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on March 17, 2019, 09:15:03 PM
I ran across this little tid bit of information the other day, more than 90% of work related deaths occur to men. In 2017 there were 5147 worker deaths reported, 4761 (92.5%) were men vs 386 (7.5%) women. 5.8 men and 0.6 women die per 100,000 worker hours. The numbers do not change significantly over the years.


Work related homicides are included, not just accidents. Looking specifically at homicides there is still a 6-1 ratio although homicides do account for the second largest single cause of women's workplace deaths most years (slightly edged out by transportation accidents), and is #5 for men.

24% of the work related homicides against women were committed by a relative or partner vs only 2% for men.  


Source Bureau of Labor Statistics

2017

https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0319.htm


Compiled data 2003-2017

https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi-chart-data-2017.htm
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 17, 2019, 09:26:25 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079543
Any discussion of "vikings" should limit the block of years and named countries. Are we talking about the 8th or 12th century? Iceland, Finland or Russia? Even the terms pre-Christian and post-Christian don't hold up well without being more exact in time/place.

Kinda like "Ancient China" or "Ancient Egypt" (though now you're talking 1000s, not 100s of years).

"Vikings" to me means Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes (and their immediate colonies) about 800-1050 AD. I don't think we will get very far if we limit ourselves more, since the sources aren't that detailed. A lot of it comes from the Norwegians who settled on Iceland. But most researchers seem to think the culture(s) of those areas were rather similar anyway.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 17, 2019, 09:35:30 PM
Quote from: Verdant;1079542
Men have the legal right to custody of their children, but the courts are biased against them. So women having all the legal rights as men doesn't really mean anything.

In theory a homeless person has the same rights as Bill Gates, but a millionaire is always going to get lighter sentencing because they have the resources to take full advantage of the system.

I think that narratives affect how a society focuses its resources. The narrative that men are inherently violent means that male victims of domestic violence, and prisoners don't get as much help as they need because they are seen as a disposable resource. Narratives about women mean that they are denied different kinds of resources.

Just so. Narratives are magnitudes more powerful than facts. The trick is to have the facts and a compelling narrative to hang them on.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on March 18, 2019, 11:45:46 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079425
One common misconception is stereotypes about what early Christianity was like - that it meant jumping to 20th century Christian behavior, which of course isn't true. For example, I recall that one of the early advocates of Christianity in Iceland killed a man for insulting Christianity, was outlawed, left the country for years, then came back and killed another man for insulting his religion. How actual Christians behaved was often at odds with the teachings of Christ, in every era of history. Even centuries later, slave girls were regularly raped by their Christian masters. Sadly, it took a very long time for abolition to become a mainstream force within Christianity.


When the church was sending missions to convert Northern Europe to Christianity the priests found it more effectively to adapt Christian stories to fit what the local populous wanted to hear. For example, Jesus died for our sins, but his spirit then stormed Hell like a warrior king, setting free many Old Testament heroes (I think Adam and Eve were smoking one there) and delivering them to heaven.

The plus of Christianity (and for that matter, Buddhism, too) is that 'mercy' is considered a virtue in those beliefs, and was exactly the thing the populous wanted from their ruling classes, which historically showed little propensity towards it.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 18, 2019, 11:49:33 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079403
Which is also the reason for modern male support of feminism. Men desperately want wet dick and women have always controlled the sex faucet.

This is false.  

Obviously, if women were controlled in a form of sexual slavery a la 'The Handmaid's Tale', men would generally have more sex.  For myself, personally, any statements I make on this website will have no positive impact on the amount of sex I have.  It's possible to believe that people are people and they deserve consideration without regard to sex.  There are children who have not yet developed sexual urges who understand that treating people as equals is the right thing to do.  This is just a cynical attempt to discredit anyone who advocates for equality by assigning them repugnant motives.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 18, 2019, 12:05:50 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079637
This is false.  

Obviously, if women were controlled in a form of sexual slavery a la 'The Handmaid's Tale', men would generally have more sex.  For myself, personally, any statements I make on this website will have no positive impact on the amount of sex I have.  It's possible to believe that people are people and they deserve consideration without regard to sex.  There are children who have not yet developed sexual urges who understand that treating people as equals is the right thing to do.  This is just a cynical attempt to discredit anyone who advocates for equality by assigning them repugnant motives.

While Spinachcat puts a coarse edge to it, I do think that modern male feminists are simply playing a role that men have played since forever. Protecting the women. In the modern age, what they're protecting and why have become much more abstract.
Ironically, this keeps women in a subservient role to men. As long as women are not expected to take on male types of responsibility, they will never achieve male types of authority. (As a group, individual exceptions have always existed.(
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 18, 2019, 01:42:00 PM
Quote from: Lynn;1079636
When the church was sending missions to convert Northern Europe to Christianity the priests found it more effectively to adapt Christian stories to fit what the local populous wanted to hear. For example, Jesus died for our sins, but his spirit then stormed Hell like a warrior king, setting free many Old Testament heroes (I think Adam and Eve were smoking one there) and delivering them to heaven.


This is true. For instance, the Norse were sold a version of Jesus called "White Christ" (Kvitekrist), who was far more hard core than Jesus himself.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 18, 2019, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079638
While Spinachcat puts a coarse edge to it, I do think that modern male feminists are simply playing a role that men have played since forever. Protecting the women. In the modern age, what they're protecting and why have become much more abstract.


The basis for your claim appears suspect.  Do you have any evidence that this is what is happening?  I'm not trying to protect women; I'm making it clear that I stand with them.  Equal rights and equal opportunity have as much to do with enlightened self-interest as any chivalrous inclination I have.  My wife works and she earns as much as I do; you can be sure that I'm interested in 'gender equity' pay raises for concrete reasons that don't involve 'white knighting'.  

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079638

Ironically, this keeps women in a subservient role to men. As long as women are not expected to take on male types of responsibility, they will never achieve male types of authority. (As a group, individual exceptions have always existed.(


I also disagree with this.  If admitting that gender bias exists only 'keeps women subservient', and refusing to admit gender bias exists 'keeps women subservient', then you might as well try the first one.  Even if it doesn't WORK, it's at least trying something DIFFERENT.  

There are many examples (https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/inter-war-years-1918-1939) of women entering the work force and being successful; and just as many examples of people trying to keep them from doing so.  It took a lot of coordinated action to get to a place where legally women have the same rights as men (generally); now it's a matter of making sure that those rights are enforced.  You can bet that there are people who don't believe that women should have the same rights as men (or blacks as whites, or whatever), but that's not the law of the land.  Enforcing those laws means ending illegal discrimination. Much of that discrimination is carefully hidden (for example, not releasing aggregate pay data), and some of that is the result of implicit bias.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on March 18, 2019, 04:15:11 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1079412
As for being frequently exaggerated - people get history wrong all the time, in many different directions. Sure, the plight of women is often exaggerated, as is the plight of men. Regarding life expectancy, it is not uniform across regions and periods. For example, the following is from an analysis of the adult deaths of 115,650 nobles in Europe from 800 to 1800. The fitted difference in years between male and female life expectancy is listed as D_female.

[table=class: grid, align: left]
[tr][th]Year[/th][td]800-1000[/td][td]1000-1340[/td][td]1340-1500[/td][td]1500-1600[/td][td]1600-1700[/td][td]1700-1800[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]D_female[/th][td]+3.1[/td][td]+0.9[/td][td]-0.5[/td][td]-0.4[/td][td]+0.1[/td][td]+2.5[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC/core-reader

According to this, from 1340 to 1600, noble women had lower life expectancy as well as lower status. From the claims about how men have been dying in droves, I would expect a more significant and consistent difference. And this goes counter to your claim about chivalry - since the code of chivalry developed around 1200, and the lifespan of women in this sample went *down* after that, and didn't start to rise until centuries later.

Quote from: Trond;1079480
Well, that's interesting. The data goes a bit counter to some earlier sources, as you probably know since you looked it up, but also some of what people in medieval times said themselves (some noted that women live longer). The rate of violence was high with corresponding high death rates among men. Anyway, the paper does give one of the main reasons for the high mortality rate of noble women in the period you mention: "Surprisingly, it appears that noble women faced an increased probability of a plague death." The plague hit hard in the 1300s and kept coming back for several centuries in Europe but started receding in the 1600s. Maybe women were supposed to take care of the sick, and so were more exposed? Still, the overall curve for the whole period under study shows women's peak death year a little above 70, while that of men is a little above 60.

I suspect sources at the times were talking about the tail end of old age rather than true survival statistics. i.e. More women lived to be 70 or 80 than men. That's still true in the 21st century - and the causes remain unclear.

Men did have more violent deaths, but women still had some violent death plus death in childbirth - which seems to roughly balanced out. The ages of death are a little different as a result, hence the different shapes of the curves, but overall it was not significantly safer to be a woman than a man.


Quote from: Trond;1079480
Where do you have the notion from that women in Northern Europe lost their rights to own property? It does not seem to be the case in Norway. The reason we know women had property in the viking age is basically because of evidence from stories and graves showing women with property. How do we know that they didn't end up with their property the same way powerful medieval women did (by being widowed or the lack of male heirs, or sometimes simply manipulating the system)? I have seen a trend towards exaggerating the status of viking women (women warriors etc.) but viking society was in many ways hyper-masculine. I have seen people talk about Icelandic "viking law" which was in fact Christian medieval law extrapolated backwards. For instance, people have often referred to extremely strict Icelandic laws about rape, but those were in fact from Christian medieval times. Things were generally less organized during the time of the vikings (perhaps with the exception of the kingdom of Harald Fairhair, who had a reputation for being extremely harsh). Most likely individual viking chieftains made up their laws as they went. I think they avenged rape with a family vendetta.


The difference in Iceland is that we have the testimony of the historical sagas, which is largely backed up by the archeological evidence. These don't describe warrior women, but they do describe high-status women leaders like the matriarch Unn the Deep-Minded and others who participated in the warlike culture. This is consistent with the burial and other archeological evidence.

One of the themes of the sagas - which were written in fixed form post-Christianity - is the contrast of the willful pagan women with good obedient Christian women. For example, a core story of the Vinland saga is the contrast between the bad pagan woman Freydis with the good woman Gudrid who later converted to Christianity. In sagas like the Laxdaela Saga, pagan women are portrayed as having their own property rights (though not political rights).

Also, it is notable that prior to Christianity, women had positions as spiritual leaders. There were priestesses and prophetesses as a regular position. That declined under Christianity.

Christianity did bring many benefits, but in this case, the status of women declined overall.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 18, 2019, 04:35:40 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079669
The basis for your claim appears suspect.  Do you have any evidence that this is what is happening?  I'm not trying to protect women; I'm making it clear that I stand with them.  Equal rights and equal opportunity have as much to do with enlightened self-interest as any chivalrous inclination I have.  My wife works and she earns as much as I do; you can be sure that I'm interested in 'gender equity' pay raises for concrete reasons that don't involve 'white knighting'.  


It's just an idea based on observations. Note that a huge ass chunk of feminist talking points revolve around protection and provision. (Pay gap, rape, domestic violence) and I'd even make the attempt to broaden the definition of "provision", to encompass rights and opportunites, as men search for something to provide for women who have less and less need for direct provision from men.

Quote
I also disagree with this.  If admitting that gender bias exists only 'keeps women subservient', and refusing to admit gender bias exists 'keeps women subservient', then you might as well try the first one.  Even if it doesn't WORK, it's at least trying something DIFFERENT.  

There are many examples (https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/inter-war-years-1918-1939) of women entering the work force and being successful; and just as many examples of people trying to keep them from doing so.  It took a lot of coordinated action to get to a place where legally women have the same rights as men (generally); now it's a matter of making sure that those rights are enforced.  You can bet that there are people who don't believe that women should have the same rights as men (or blacks as whites, or whatever), but that's not the law of the land.  Enforcing those laws means ending illegal discrimination. Much of that discrimination is carefully hidden (for example, not releasing aggregate pay data), and some of that is the result of implicit bias.


The idea of implicit bias has come under scrutiny lately. (https://qz.com/1144504/the-world-is-relying-on-a-flawed-psychological-test-to-fight-racism/)

And while I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to disclose their income information, it might reveal some interesting data. (https://www.msn.com/en-ae/money/topstories/google-reviewed-pay-equity-and-learned-it-was-underpaying-men/ar-BBUnX0V)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 18, 2019, 06:08:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079676
It's just an idea based on observations.


Counterpoint...  Maintaining your opinion means willfully ignoring data points that run contrary to it.  Effectively you're cherry picking data and only accepting that which reinforces your preconceived notions.  That's bad science.  

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079676

 Note that a huge ass chunk of feminist talking points revolve around protection and provision. (Pay gap, rape, domestic violence) and I'd even make the attempt to broaden the definition of "provision", to encompass rights and opportunites, as men search for something to provide for women who have less and less need for direct provision from men.


So what do you think are APPROPRIATE talking points?  The US Declaration of Independence frames life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights.  I think if women were arguing about the availability of hot coffee that the stakes were a little too low.  

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079676

The idea of implicit bias has come under scrutiny lately. (https://qz.com/1144504/the-world-is-relying-on-a-flawed-psychological-test-to-fight-racism/)


It's good that these things are coming under scrutiny.  That doesn't mean they don't exist.  My wife works as a university professor.  I see reviews for her and her peers.  At the University level, there is a gap in student evaluations between male and female professors after controlling for other factors.  Some of the things that male professors are extolled for tend to be vilified when they come from a woman.  Of course, I don't have to use her experience or example - in the business world I've seen leaders who were decisive, tough, driven, exacting aggressive and competitive.  In a man that is often seen as leadership; in a woman that is often described as bitchiness.  

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079676

And while I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to disclose their income information, it might reveal some interesting data. (https://www.msn.com/en-ae/money/topstories/google-reviewed-pay-equity-and-learned-it-was-underpaying-men/ar-BBUnX0V)


I think that aggregate data should be available. In this specific case, Google has not been transparent; there have been accusations that their methodology is flawed.  In fact, Google admitted that they were only looking at one kind of pay equity:

Quote

Barbato addressed other factors in the blog post, saying, "Our pay equity analysis ensures that compensation is fair for employees in the same job, at the same level, location and performance. But we know that's only part of the story. Because leveling, performance ratings and promotion impact pay, this year, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of these processes to make sure the outcomes are fair and equitable for all employees."


The US Department of Labor is currently investigating Google for systemically underpaying female employees (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-labor-google-gender-pay-gap).  

Of course, if past is precedent, you'll ignore counter examples and choose to only accept sources that feed your 'gut' feeling.  

Meanwhile, we're still two weeks out from Equal Pay Day (https://www.pay-equity.org/day.html).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on March 18, 2019, 06:14:06 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079669
There are many examples (https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/inter-war-years-1918-1939) of women entering the work force and being successful; and just as many examples of people trying to keep them from doing so.  It took a lot of coordinated action to get to a place where legally women have the same rights as men (generally); now it's a matter of making sure that those rights are enforced.  You can bet that there are people who don't believe that women should have the same rights as men (or blacks as whites, or whatever), but that's not the law of the land.  Enforcing those laws means ending illegal discrimination. Much of that discrimination is carefully hidden (for example, not releasing aggregate pay data), and some of that is the result of implicit bias.


Do you know why much of the discrimination is hidden?  Because there is no top down discrimination, it is just individuals making their own individual decisions and the other people getting upset because more women dont want to work as loggers or garbage collectors.

Hidden discrimination give me a break.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 18, 2019, 06:45:26 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079683
Counterpoint...  Maintaining your opinion means willfully ignoring data points that run contrary to it.  Effectively you're cherry picking data and only accepting that which reinforces your preconceived notions.  That's bad science.  

I'm not following you. Which data are you referring to?

Quote
So what do you think are APPROPRIATE talking points?  The US Declaration of Independence frames life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights.

I think if women were arguing about the availability of hot coffee that the stakes were a little too low.  

Amusingly, that was actually a thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_17th_and_18th_centuries)

Quote
It's good that these things are coming under scrutiny.  That doesn't mean they don't exist.  My wife works as a university professor.  I see reviews for her and her peers.  At the University level, there is a gap in student evaluations between male and female professors after controlling for other factors.  Some of the things that male professors are extolled for tend to be vilified when they come from a woman.  Of course, I don't have to use her experience or example - in the business world I've seen leaders who were decisive, tough, driven, exacting aggressive and competitive.  In a man that is often seen as leadership; in a woman that is often described as bitchiness.  



I think that aggregate data should be available. In this specific case, Google has not been transparent; there have been accusations that their methodology is flawed.  In fact, Google admitted that they were only looking at one kind of pay equity:



The US Department of Labor is currently investigating Google for systemically underpaying female employees (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-labor-google-gender-pay-gap).  

Of course, if past is precedent, you'll ignore counter examples and choose to only accept sources that feed your 'gut' feeling.  

Meanwhile, we're still two weeks out from Equal Pay Day (https://www.pay-equity.org/day.html).

Well, you got spicy really quick. In honor of Equal Pay Day, I'll link to Warren Farrell's work on the topic.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/1542751292

It may shine a light on "Pay Inequality".
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 19, 2019, 01:19:08 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1079673
I suspect sources at the times were talking about the tail end of old age rather than true survival statistics. i.e. More women lived to be 70 or 80 than men. That's still true in the 21st century - and the causes remain unclear.

Men did have more violent deaths, but women still had some violent death plus death in childbirth - which seems to roughly balanced out. The ages of death are a little different as a result, hence the different shapes of the curves, but overall it was not significantly safer to be a woman than a man.




The difference in Iceland is that we have the testimony of the historical sagas, which is largely backed up by the archeological evidence. These don't describe warrior women, but they do describe high-status women leaders like the matriarch Unn the Deep-Minded and others who participated in the warlike culture. This is consistent with the burial and other archeological evidence.

One of the themes of the sagas - which were written in fixed form post-Christianity - is the contrast of the willful pagan women with good obedient Christian women. For example, a core story of the Vinland saga is the contrast between the bad pagan woman Freydis with the good woman Gudrid who later converted to Christianity. In sagas like the Laxdaela Saga, pagan women are portrayed as having their own property rights (though not political rights).

Also, it is notable that prior to Christianity, women had positions as spiritual leaders. There were priestesses and prophetesses as a regular position. That declined under Christianity.

Christianity did bring many benefits, but in this case, the status of women declined overall.

Well, one of those benefits was that certain things, like rape, were punished more harshly, at least in Norway and it seems in Iceland too. And the property thing.....well, they could own property both before and after, and inheritance usually went with the men in either case, so what's the difference?

Yes, I do know some of the archaeological evidence. The Oseberg burial, likely an important noble or queen's grave, is right next to where my brother lives. But I know of rich memorials to christian medieval women too, although Christians generally did not make burial mounds. It is possible that viking women were allowed to be more outspoken, but women were ideally supposed to be chaste and faithful both before and after Christianization (and portraying the others as improper is sort of theme you see in many cultures).  According to Jackson Crawford the worst thing you could call a viking man was a sissy and the worst thing you could call a woman was "whore". My suspicion is mostly that things were a bit more touch-and-go before they were Christianized, and after the conversion many things were a bit more set in stone. I suspect that we simply hear less about those wives of the viking men who beat their women if they opened their mouth.

And as for chivalry, I forgot to mention that many of the ideals of that way of thinking came from medieval women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on March 19, 2019, 05:03:33 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079685
I'm not following you. Which data are you referring to?



Amusingly, that was actually a thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_17th_and_18th_centuries)



Well, you got spicy really quick. In honor of Equal Pay Day, I'll link to Warren Farrell's work on the topic.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/1542751292

It may shine a light on "Pay Inequality".

Turns out, like every serious multivariate analysis done on the subject, the pay gap is almost entirely illusory.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/04/google-found-its-underpaying-some-men-as-it-studies-wage-equity.html
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on March 19, 2019, 11:41:44 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079669
There are many examples (https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/inter-war-years-1918-1939) of women entering the work force and being successful; and just as many examples of people trying to keep them from doing so.  It took a lot of coordinated action to get to a place where legally women have the same rights as men (generally); now it's a matter of making sure that those rights are enforced.  You can bet that there are people who don't believe that women should have the same rights as men (or blacks as whites, or whatever), but that's not the law of the land.  Enforcing those laws means ending illegal discrimination. Much of that discrimination is carefully hidden (for example, not releasing aggregate pay data), and some of that is the result of implicit bias.


Workplace rights are set by law, but there is a difference between proactive or coercive enforcement and a system in which everyone has the same rights to pursue remedies. Ability to relatively easily pursue remedies for everyone is fair. But if you assume all members of one group are going to be victimize by another, despite the obvious differences of individuals, then it is discriminatory by whatever class the other group is.

Neither aggregate pay data or results of any test for implicit bias is in fact, discrimination.  They are suggestive, but not conclusive - and acting as if they are conclusive seems to me to be a strong reason why there is so little opportunity for agreement.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 19, 2019, 12:57:33 PM
Quote from: shuddemell;1079753
Turns out, like every serious multivariate analysis done on the subject, the pay gap is almost entirely illusory.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/04/google-found-its-underpaying-some-men-as-it-studies-wage-equity.html

Also, there are demographics within the groupings by sex.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Or by profession.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/10-jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men.html
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on March 19, 2019, 09:01:48 PM
The current "equal pay" push isn't to bring women's pay up, its all about further wage stagnation! It's to decimate anyone's ability to earn more based on achievement and negotiation. Corporations will just use "we can't pay you more than Sally" as an excuse to keep YOU in check. Whether or not you work smarter, faster or better than Sally, you won't be able to demand more...because equality!!

You want a raise? How sexist of you! And we need you to work through lunch because Sally has to leave early for her daughter's recital. Yes I know you worked through all your lunches last week, but Sally's son had the sniffles and we still needed the project finished on deadline. You wouldn't want to jeopardize the company, would you? No, of course you don't qualify for any stock options. That's only upper management.

But hey, if you choose to be a corporate wage slave, that's the tradeoff for a "steady paycheck".

People joke that independent business owners "work 60 hours a week to avoid having a 40 hour job" and there's some truth to that, but the trade off is not being a corporate wage slave. Yes, being independent is really scary and really hard (there are bad months, even bad years), but at some point, "scary and hard" just might be worth keeping your dignity instead of sucking down endless PC bullshit.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on March 21, 2019, 12:19:53 PM
So in other words, the cure for being a Beta-male is to nut-up?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 22, 2019, 02:10:54 PM
An ironic notion is that a culture that was totally egalitarian, neither sex receiving any innate deference, advantage, disadvantage or  protection might appear "sexist" to our modern eyes. None of the assumed manner and deference (Ladies First?  Why? I got here before her.") no softening of words and critques to spar feeling, no so called gendered insults (It acceptable to call some a dick or a pussy) violence to or by men or women is treated exactly the same etc. I can easily see how this hypothetical culture migt be 'problematic' , at least to the more ardent social justice types that aren't really arguing for equal treatment but special treatment.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 22, 2019, 02:19:22 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1080283
An ironic notion is that a culture that was totally egalitarian, neither sex receiving any innate deference, advantage, disadvantage or  protection might appear "sexist" to our modern eyes. None of the assumed manner and deference (Ladies First?  Why? I got here before her.") no softening of words and critques to spar feeling, no so called gendered insults (It acceptable to call some a dick or a pussy) violence to or by men or women is treated exactly the same etc. I can easily see how this hypothetical culture migt be 'problematic' , at least to the more ardent social justice types that aren't really arguing for equal treatment but special treatment.

I think Deadpool joked about something like this. "Wait, is it sexist to beat this evil villain woman or NOT to beat her?"
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 22, 2019, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: Trond;1080284
I think Deadpool joked about something like this. "Wait, is it sexist to beat this evil villain woman or NOT to beat her?"

Amusingly enough, I've seen this argument in real list carried out without a trace of irony and humor more than once. Most recently about Batman and Catwoman. Admittedly it started with a joke (something about Catwoman robbing mainly to cover her medical and dental bills) but spiraled in a 'deep' discussion of sexism and misogyny.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on March 24, 2019, 12:43:04 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1080283
An ironic notion is that a culture that was totally egalitarian, neither sex receiving any innate deference, advantage, disadvantage or  protection might appear "sexist" to our modern eyes. None of the assumed manner and deference (Ladies First?  Why? I got here before her.") no softening of words and critques to spar feeling, no so called gendered insults (It acceptable to call some a dick or a pussy) violence to or by men or women is treated exactly the same etc. I can easily see how this hypothetical culture migt be 'problematic' , at least to the more ardent social justice types that aren't really arguing for equal treatment but special treatment.

This reminds me of someone I know in federal government. Apparently at their agency, there was an effort to try to parallel hiring based on population percentages (ie 'by race / ethnicity', so if one scored too low based on current employees, the 'group' would get more points in the hiring). It was determined very quickly to be a racist policy and discarded. The reason for that is that, some groups that get hired that are far, far proportionately smaller by population were being hugely advantaged by the previous status quo, and are massively over represented in the federal government.

Apparently what is 'fair' means nobody loses anything unless you are white and male.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on March 24, 2019, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Lynn;1080547
This reminds me of someone I know in federal government. Apparently at their agency, there was an effort to try to parallel hiring based on population percentages (ie 'by race / ethnicity', so if one scored too low based on current employees, the 'group' would get more points in the hiring). It was determined very quickly to be a racist policy and discarded. The reason for that is that, some groups that get hired that are far, far proportionately smaller by population were being hugely advantaged by the previous status quo, and are massively over represented in the federal government.

Apparently what is 'fair' means nobody loses anything unless you are white and male.


Still happening. The Federal Government gets it worse than some because those with a "equality agenda" use national numbers not locality based numbers. I did hiring the last 10-12 years of my career with the Feds in a rural area. We would be pressured to meet "targets" based on National numbers, but we were still required to follow the law. As subject matter experts who could recommend hiring we did not get race / gender information so there really wasn't much we could do anyway whether or not we wanted to.

It was no uncommon to have higher management encourage hiring based on names which is of course illegal. It still makes me laugh when I recall a very blond, blue eyed girl with a very black name who got hired because a manager trying to increase her minority numbers and assuming this young woman was black hired her based on her name. She was woefully unqualified and unprepared for the job, but she made a sincere effort.

Eventually they moved from phone interviews to video interviews (face to face interviews are seen as preferential to those not in the local area). It was quite obvious that this change to video interviews was so the hiring officials see the candidates and therefore better discriminate based on race gender. They continued to cut the supervisors out of hiring because we were making merit based decisions, we had to work with these people so we were looking for the best candidates, not playing illegal social engineering games.

It was very frustrating to me, I used to get to develop a lot of new employees many of whom would stay with the agency so I would continue to run into them years later as they moved up the organization. In later years when I no longer had input into who worked for me it became a revolving door and not many stayed. Also funny because as I got less involved, the new hires became whiter and more male because when they took out the supervisors they lost the most effective recruiters. Used to be we could directly talk to potential applicants, and we intimately knew the hiring system so we could help them. When the hiring went completely behind doors in HR all we could do was direct them to a website, it became very impersonal and I think that led to a decline in non-local (more diverse) applicants.

Nationally the USA is 73% White, 17% Hispanic, 12% African American, 6% Other and 5% Asian, 4% 2 or more races (adds up to more than 100% because Hispanic and Mixed race are merged categories).

It isn't too hard for an agency with jobs in San Francisco or Los Angeles to hit numbers close to these for jobs in those locations. Trying to fill a job in Idaho, Maine, Iowa or West Virginia where the local employee pool is 90%+ white it is a lot harder. Even parts of California, once you get out of the major cities the state heavily skews white with many counties in the high 80%, low 90% ranges.
Even if you are able to recruit, retention is poor because they have no local family and in general people like to live around people who look like them. The novelty of being "The Chinese Guy" in a 90% white community wears off very quickly for most even if the locals are polite (and unfortunately in some areas they aren't).

At least with state or local government they are only looking to represent the make up of the state or local area, so they at least in theory have a candidate pool that looks like the local population.  

From my personal experience there is a lot of discrimination going on in the name of equality.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Anon Adderlan on March 24, 2019, 10:34:41 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079362
I used 'forced' in quotes because I cannot imagine what you actually mean by it.


Not like this is a case of SJWs trying to redefine a term (https://www.google.com/search?q=force).

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079378
It is an odd sort of oppression where the oppressors are expected to labor and die for the oppressed. The most famous example is in the demographics of the survivors of the Tianic.

(https://i.imgur.com/6wffSf0.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic


And I think this says as much if not more about power and class.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079559
Just so. Narratives are magnitudes more powerful than facts. The trick is to have the facts and a compelling narrative to hang them on.


True.

Quote from: Lynn;1079636
The plus of Christianity (and for that matter, Buddhism, too) is that 'mercy' is considered a virtue in those beliefs, and was exactly the thing the populous wanted from their ruling classes, which historically showed little propensity towards it.


In theory.

In practice those in power often redefined what 'mercy' meant, or found situations where everyone agreed it wasn't applicable.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079683
The US Department of Labor is currently investigating Google for systemically underpaying female employees (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-labor-google-gender-pay-gap).


Good. Then perhaps they'll also find that Google is actually underpaying their male employees (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html).

P.S. Link is to New York Times, which only allows access to a certain number of articles before cutting you off, but I deliberately picked to avoid accusations of bias.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 25, 2019, 02:15:00 AM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1080657
And I think this says as much if not more about power and class.

I disagree.  If we look at the percentages, the worst are for men, across the board. You have to get out of the Men category altogether to get to the next worst percentages.
Berth class does seem to be a factor within the specific categories, I'll give you that. Though note that 2nd class children were all saved. (% are not consistently first-second-third) So there might have been some affect of the layout of the ship and how it sank. I'm no expert on the incident, so I can't say for sure.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on March 25, 2019, 06:03:16 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1080679
I disagree.  If we look at the percentages, the worst are for men, across the board. You have to get out of the Men category altogether to get to the next worst percentages.
Berth class does seem to be a factor within the specific categories, I'll give you that. Though note that 2nd class children were all saved. (% are not consistently first-second-third) So there might have been some affect of the layout of the ship and how it sank. I'm no expert on the incident, so I can't say for sure.

Look at the number of children and then look at the numbers for women. 3x as many 3rd class children as 2nd class, and 10 as many as 1st class. Terrible to think about, but many were probably babies and small children which can be difficult to control in an emergency. 3rd class women also had a significantly lower survival rate than 1st and 2nd class. Presumably many of the 3rd class children were with their mothers and they simply could not reach the life boats in time.


3rd class was located well below deck, and 3rd class passengers did not have free range of the ship which would limit egress once the abandon ship order was given. Remember that order was delayed until the situation got really bad, because after all the ship was supposed to be unsinkable.

Many lifeboats went unfilled, so it is likely most of the 3rd class women and children lost simply could not reach the boats in time rather than being turned away in favor of the higher social status passengers. Although much is made about there not being enough life boats for all on board, the reality is many life boats went down with the ship because of the delays to evacuate. By the time it was clear that the ship was sinking, many could no longer be launched.


2nd class men is the real oddity with a 92% loss rate, worst of all on board. I'd be really curious about the answer to that one, perhaps men without families as I understand tradition places fathers just below women and children in the pecking order. With so many 3rd class women and children on board it is likely a good number of the 3rd class men were married with children. There were nearly 3x as many 3rd class men as women, but the number saved is nearly identical (75 men, 76 women) while the numbers are vastly different between 1st and 2nd class men and women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 25, 2019, 07:50:49 AM
It's good to be a First Class Woman!

The difference between First & Second class children is just that one first class child was lost - clearly the intent was to save all first & second class children.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spike on March 26, 2019, 12:56:08 AM
Quite a lot of discussion in darker corners of the internet regarding the "Women and Children First" policies of the Titanic, and other naval disasters.  The fact is many lifeboats were launched with plenty of seats available, not because of 'time' but because men weren't allowed to fill the empty seats. Women died because they wouldn't leave their husbands, and the 'sorting' of people by precedent actually slowed the rate of filling the lifeboats drastically.  

I believe I've seen an analysis that showed that most, if not all, the passengers could have gotten aboard life boats if not for the powerful ineffeciencies created by the Women and Children First policy.   Its one of those things that sounds really good and noble and honorable and all that in theory, but in practice its a brutal, ugly murderous method of ensuring more death and suffereing all around, even among those it is meant to serve.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 26, 2019, 04:14:42 AM
Quote from: Spike;1080867
I believe I've seen an analysis that showed that most, if not all, the passengers could have gotten aboard life boats

Well there weren't enough life boats for everyone, but certainly more could have been saved; and the disaster did prompt a shift towards keeping families together.

The main beneficiaries though would have been the First & Second class men; the class disparity would have remained, and some Third Class women might have lost out. They needed more life boats as well as quicker & more efficient evacuation.

BTW my relatives were aboard the Herald of Free Enterprise when it sank at Zeebrugge, two of my female cousins drowned along with the elder's fiance. My aunt's (remarried) husband was a hero and apparently saved many lives, such as my aunt and her two surviving children.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on March 26, 2019, 11:18:08 AM
While there were not enough lifeboats, the boats they did have were not filled to capacity.  This was not the result of inefficiencies in the policy; there was a fear of overloading the boats and causing them to capsize.  This would have resulted in even more casualties.  

Besides carrying enough craft to save the passengers, crews are now trained in how to fill them to capacity.  

Keep in mind that many of the boats were being loaded in a chaotic and changing situation, which also made it difficult to assess and fill the boats to capacity.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 27, 2019, 01:39:34 PM
An article involving ;toxic masculinity" in a high school (https://s2.washingtonpost.com/11a32fd/5c9ba096fe1ff677b1f46d7a/a2ttZm9zdGVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ%3D%3D/7/39/d82a4f76139c8e8d6c0a939f60ae7cb3) (Washington Post) that might be of interest to the this discussion's members.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 27, 2019, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1081107
An article involving ;toxic masculinity" in a high school (https://s2.washingtonpost.com/11a32fd/5c9ba096fe1ff677b1f46d7a/a2ttZm9zdGVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ%3D%3D/7/39/d82a4f76139c8e8d6c0a939f60ae7cb3) (Washington Post) that might be of interest to the this discussion's members.


I remember we did similar things when I was in high school. I don't think we made a list though  but we ranked girls according to looks. The girls would also tease the guys with various ways to "figure out" how well hung they were (measuring their fingers etc.)
While I think the making of an actual list was rude, I do think this was an over-reaction. See e.g. how they go from discussing the insulting parts to this quote, where suddenly it's about "safety":

"We want to know what the school is doing to ensure our safety and security," Schmidt said.

I guess the worst thing here is that I have absolutely no reason to think that this sort of outrage will make anyone happier in the long run. People have been getting more and more neurotic. Quotes like the one above make young people feel less safe for all the wrong reasons.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 27, 2019, 05:00:02 PM
Article's behind a paywall. But I feel secure in assuming the tone from the title.

Having been bullied and generally been an outcast kind of kid, and also dishing it out when I had the chance, I think most kids (and young adults) are horrible, horrible people whose only excuse is that their brains aren't fully developed yet.
Putting this down to "toxic masculinity" is once again an attempt to gender the general phenomenon of children being awful to each other. Like Trond pointed out, girls can be just as, or even worse than, boys.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Blink_Dog on March 27, 2019, 05:31:37 PM
Quote from: tenbones;1072243
Well on the plus side, these weak guy are less likely to procreate and pass on their weak genes. In some respect it's evolution in practice. Except we get the dubious pleasure of listening to those who mewl and *beg* to ask permission for their own existence from those who have no capacity to understand or care. We'll get to watch them wither away as sure as other species die due to lack of desire of self-definition.


So true.

I have often thought that the big reason (puts on his tin foil hat) why this type of thing is happening along with the transgender and furry movements is to get people to stop having kids and weed out the genetically weak. So in other words gents find good breeding females and give them your warrior seed to create a race of super gamer ubermenschen!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 28, 2019, 04:04:15 AM
Quote from: Trond;1081133
I remember we did similar things when I was in high school. I don't think we made a list though  but we ranked girls according to looks. The girls would also tease the guys with various ways to "figure out" how well hung they were (measuring their fingers etc.)
While I think the making of an actual list was rude, I do think this was an over-reaction. See e.g. how they go from discussing the insulting parts to this quote, where suddenly it's about "safety":

"We want to know what the school is doing to ensure our safety and security," Schmidt said.

I guess the worst thing here is that I have absolutely no reason to think that this sort of outrage will make anyone happier in the long run. People have been getting more and more neurotic. Quotes like the one above make young people feel less safe for all the wrong reasons.

The rule of thumb appears to be if women do things like rating people based on physical attributes, make sexual jokes, etc they're 'empowered' while men are sexist or misogynist and engaging in toxic masculinity in modern parlance.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on March 28, 2019, 04:45:20 AM
Quote from: CarlD.;1081206
The rule of thumb appears to be if women do things like (rated based on physical attributes, etc) they're 'empowered" while men are sexist or misogynist and engaging in toxic masculinity in modern parlance.

Yeah, the WaPo is particularly vile, picking on schoolboys for being schoolboys, when they'd be celebrating schoolgirls doing the same to boys.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: spon on March 28, 2019, 09:43:44 AM
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I saw this recently and was reminded by the talk of women and children first. It's the origin of the "Birkenhead Drill" and a tale of heroism that I hadn't heard before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYW49K5nQFA
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on March 28, 2019, 11:24:01 AM
Quote from: spon;1081247
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I saw this recently and was reminded by the talk of women and children first. It's the origin of the "Birkenhead Drill" and a tale of heroism that I hadn't heard before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYW49K5nQFA

This guy clearly needs to read up on toxic masculinity!

(but seriously, interesting video)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on March 31, 2019, 12:27:34 PM
Quote from: Trond;1081262
This guy clearly needs to read up on toxic masculinity!

(but seriously, interesting video)

Its ironic how, often in entertainment which does reflect society but in the fun-house mirror way that Internet does, that female characters that behave in way that would be blamed on "toxic masculinity" in a male character are considered strong willed, empowered or at worse, rightfully acerbic.

But then many things have become warped or reinterpreted into negatives in the current era. Look at "Nice guys", what's considered 'stalkerish' (pining from afar when you're too shy to approach the object of your affection Charlie Brown is stalking the Little Red Headed girl) and "rapey" (any overly passionate, spontaneous or seductive sexual or romantic encounter where this isn't an explicit practically legalistic set up of consent usually from the female party, the male's is often assumed though I've seen exceptions.) Even groveling and pleading for pity sex has been called coercive or approaching a woman for sex when she's sexually aroused (thus not in her right mind).

I don't think these are the norms now a days, just some of the extremes things to get pushed too usually in online discussion (probably among people that really need more direct social interaction). I do wonder as more and more humans experience more life online before in reality how this will effect cultures overall in later years.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Dimitrios on April 01, 2019, 11:55:38 AM
Quote from: CarlD.;1081644
I don't think these are the norms now a days, just some of the extremes things to get pushed too usually in online discussion (probably among people that really need more direct social interaction). I do wonder as more and more humans experience more life online before in reality how this will effect cultures overall in later years.

I recently read an article in The Atlantic on the "sex recession" (decline in frequency of sex and increase in celibate singlehood, especially among younger people). Various explanations were proposed, but one thing that came up in interviews was the change around the norms of asking people out. It's now become so expected that there will be some kind of social media interaction first, that approaching someone directly is now perceived by a lot of people as just inherently creepy, regardless of how politely/tastefully it's done.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 01, 2019, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: Dimitrios;1081739
I recently read an article in The Atlantic on the "sex recession" (decline in frequency of sex and increase in celibate singlehood, especially among younger people). Various explanations were proposed, but one thing that came up in interviews was the change around the norms of asking people out. It's now become so expected that there will be some kind of social media interaction first, that approaching someone directly is now perceived by a lot of people as just inherently creepy, regardless of how politely/tastefully it's done.

Hm, hints of the future? Social media displacing personal interaction all together? Maybe VR and augmented reality technology will make the difference largely moot anyway. I'm reminded of a "Transhumanist" setting from GURPS where a significant and growing minority of people are product of parents who have been physically in the same room.

Better than the dystopian vision of men forced to where electrical shock rings on their testicles so women can immediately express their displeasure with their male boorishness :D (I'm kidding, of course, just trying to lighten the mood a little :)

Edit: Interestingly, from what I've read hook up are more advantageous to men especially if they're physically attractive but not picky and women who want to get laid without the hassle of an S.O. Brave new world, I guess :)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Anon Adderlan on April 01, 2019, 03:54:58 PM
Quote from: Spike;1080867
Quite a lot of discussion in darker corners of the internet regarding the "Women and Children First" policies of the Titanic, and other naval disasters.  The fact is many lifeboats were launched with plenty of seats available, not because of 'time' but because men weren't allowed to fill the empty seats. Women died because they wouldn't leave their husbands, and the 'sorting' of people by precedent actually slowed the rate of filling the lifeboats drastically.  

I believe I've seen an analysis that showed that most, if not all, the passengers could have gotten aboard life boats if not for the powerful ineffeciencies created by the Women and Children First policy.   Its one of those things that sounds really good and noble and honorable and all that in theory, but in practice its a brutal, ugly murderous method of ensuring more death and suffereing all around, even among those it is meant to serve.

Paving the road to hell.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1080919
Keep in mind that many of the boats were being loaded in a chaotic and changing situation, which also made it difficult to assess and fill the boats to capacity.

You might not be aware of this, but those are exactly the conditions lifeboats are typically loaded in.

Quote from: Trond;1081133
I remember we did similar things when I was in high school. I don't think we made a list though  but we ranked girls according to looks.

People were using glow sticks at the event I was just at to do exactly the same thing, only difference being it was LGBT friendly so all genders were game.

...

I can't wait for the robot apocalypse.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 01, 2019, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1081767

People were using glow sticks at the event I was just at to do exactly the same thing, only difference being it was LGBT friendly so all genders were game.

?? Glow sticks? How does that work?

...
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1081767

I can't wait for the robot apocalypse.


Enough with the negativity. Not for me. Life is too short anyway. There are books I'd like to read and people I'd like to meet (women mostly, don't tell my wife :D)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on April 02, 2019, 01:59:35 AM
Quote from: Trond;1081823
There are books I'd like to read and people I'd like to meet (women mostly, don't tell my wife :D)

That reminds me - my game on Sunday, three beautiful women across the table from me, hanging on my every word.
It's good to be the DM. :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on April 02, 2019, 03:36:14 AM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1081767
I can't wait for the robot apocalypse.


Oh, yeah, Mr Roboto on repeat 24/7 :cool:
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 02, 2019, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1081842
That reminds me - my game on Sunday, three beautiful women across the table from me, hanging on my every word.
It's good to be the DM. :D


Dang. I'm too far away to join your campaign. :)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 02, 2019, 07:29:06 PM
Happy Equal Pay Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Day)!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 03, 2019, 01:41:07 AM
Quote from: CarlD.;1081965
Happy Equal Pay Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Day)!

Oh, you!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 03, 2019, 08:13:54 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1080919
While there were not enough lifeboats, the boats they did have were not filled to capacity.  This was not the result of inefficiencies in the policy; there was a fear of overloading the boats and causing them to capsize.  This would have resulted in even more casualties.  

Besides carrying enough craft to save the passengers, crews are now trained in how to fill them to capacity.  

Keep in mind that many of the boats were being loaded in a chaotic and changing situation, which also made it difficult to assess and fill the boats to capacity.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1081767
You might not be aware of this, but those are exactly the conditions lifeboats are typically loaded in.

You removed most of my quoted statement.  Yes, obviously lifeboats are loaded in chaotic situations.  Dealing with chaotic situations requires training.  If the situation hadn't been chaotic, I'm sure they would have been able to figure it all out without training, but that's a lot to ask under pressure.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 04, 2019, 07:13:57 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081996
Oh, you!

The pay gap issue has been a subject that's intrigued me for awhile. I've read good, thoughtful and well considered articles arguing all sides of the issue: that there is a pay gape, that there isn't, that its a product of misreading statistics, its exists but there are reasons others than institutionalized sexism, etc, etc. That its exists and is a sexist artifact, a product of the so called Patriarchy has become such a practical dogma recently that discussion that questions that assumption is pretty thin on the ground these days but I think there is still room for discussion.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Haffrung on April 04, 2019, 08:56:18 AM
Quote from: CarlD.;1082173
The pay gap issue has been a subject that's intrigued me for awhile. I've read good, thoughtful and well considered articles arguing all sides of the issue: that there is a pay gape, that there isn't, that its a product of misreading statistics, its exists but there are reasons others than institutionalized sexism, etc, etc. That its exists and is a sexist artifact, a product of the so called Patriarchy has become such a practical dogma recently that discussion that questions that assumption is pretty thin on the ground these days but I think there is still room for discussion.

Single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn. The gender pay gap is almost entirely down to roles in child-rearing, and decisions couples make about work and money once they have kids.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 04, 2019, 11:22:41 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;1082188
Single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn. The gender pay gap is almost entirely down to roles in child-rearing, and decisions couples make about work and money once they have kids.

And never married women who have never had children make more than men, on average, per Warren Farrell, who researched the issue thoroughly. I don't know if my feed is any indication, but when equal pay day was trending on the twitter, there was a lot of pushback with those kinds of sources. And a lot of hard liners who still insist that women are still blatantly and on a huge scale, being paid less for the exact same work, despite being shown evidence that it's not the case.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 04, 2019, 12:28:31 PM
Remember, female complaints about male behavior are unimpeachable words or hard won wisdom from a group that has been victimized and marginalized everywhere for Millennia. Male complaints about female behavior are driven by sexism at best, more likely by flat out misogyny.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 04, 2019, 03:45:56 PM
Here is some easy to digest (https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/) information on the pay gap.

It's a real thing.  In an apples to apples comparison, it is starkly obvious.

It is very easy to avoid an apples to apples comparison.  It turns out that there is a thing where when women move into an industry broadly, it becomes perceived as a woman's career, and wages fall.  When looking at the amount an elementary school teacher makes (male or female), the gap in pay is small (https://www.weareteachers.com/gender-pay-gap-in-education/).  Personally, I'd consider a 9% wage cut significant, but that's better than many other industries.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 04, 2019, 04:13:20 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082241
Here is some easy to digest (https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/) information on the pay gap.

It's a real thing.  In an apples to apples comparison, it is starkly obvious.

It is very easy to avoid an apples to apples comparison.  It turns out that there is a thing where when women move into an industry broadly, it becomes perceived as a woman's career, and wages fall.  When looking at the amount an elementary school teacher makes (male or female), the gap in pay is small (https://www.weareteachers.com/gender-pay-gap-in-education/).  Personally, I'd consider a 9% wage cut significant, but that's better than many other industries.

Shall we trade links?

https://iea.org.uk/media/gender-pay-gap-reporting-produces-another-round-of-misleading-statistics/
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Haffrung on April 04, 2019, 05:09:33 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082241
Here is some easy to digest (https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/) information on the pay gap.

It's a real thing.  In an apples to apples comparison, it is starkly obvious.

It is very easy to avoid an apples to apples comparison.  It turns out that there is a thing where when women move into an industry broadly, it becomes perceived as a woman's career, and wages fall.  When looking at the amount an elementary school teacher makes (male or female), the gap in pay is small (https://www.weareteachers.com/gender-pay-gap-in-education/).  Personally, I'd consider a 9% wage cut significant, but that's better than many other industries.

I don't know where you live, but in Canada teachers are very well paid. After 10 years, they make 99k in Alberta. Excellent time off and benefits. A guaranteed and generous pension for life that most start taking at 58. It's a very good job. And most of the people who do it are women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 04, 2019, 08:37:48 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082250
Shall we trade links?

https://iea.org.uk/media/gender-pay-gap-reporting-produces-another-round-of-misleading-statistics/

The introduction to your article says:

Quote from: IEA
to illustrate how the crude figures create a misleading picture, especially for companies that have hired large numbers of female staff into lower paid roles

This is the apples/apples comparison I'm talking about.  There are multiple issues with gender equity.  The first is that women in the same job as men often earn less.  Secondly, there is an issue where men are more likely to advance within a company than women, even if the women appear objectively to be more qualified.  The article I linked to on teacher pay mentioned a perceived difference between men and women in primary education in terms of deference.  

Effectively, your article admits that women are paid less; it just argues that it is justified because they are over-represented in entry-level roles.  It does not quantify or even claim it CAN quantify that effect; just implies that it MIGHT be sufficient to explain any difference.  

There's a limit to what 'median pay' can tell you - drilling down further into the details is important.  But even differences in median pay (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/) indicate differences in the way opportunities are presented.  This article does break down further and includes similarly qualified individuals (ie, men over 25 with a bachelors degree).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 04, 2019, 08:58:46 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082292
The introduction to your article says:



This is the apples/apples comparison I'm talking about.  There are multiple issues with gender equity.  The first is that women in the same job as men often earn less.  Secondly, there is an issue where men are more likely to advance within a company than women, even if the women appear objectively to be more qualified.  The article I linked to on teacher pay mentioned a perceived difference between men and women in primary education in terms of deference.  


The article also says.

Quote
Problems with the pay gap reporting measures

No like-for-like comparisons

The government's reporting measures do not take into account key differentials, such as job, background, education or degree level, age, or years of experience

The measures do not distinguish between full-time workers and part-time workers

They do not take into account 'number of hours worked', which renders the bonus pay gap statistics meaningless


And then link to a PDF with a list of their sources.

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Pay-Gap-Reporting-2019-FINAL.pdf

I find it most interesting that when challenged, proponents of the "wage gap" fall back on other means to "justify" the difference, but from the very article you linked to-

Quote
If women were paid what men were paid, women would gain billions in earnings every year.


If women were paid what men were paid, they would also be putting in the same hours (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm), and working the same job (https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobody-talks-about-the-gender-workplace-death-gap/)s. But this article blatantly gets that part dead wrong.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 04, 2019, 11:21:06 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082241
Here is some easy to digest (https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/) information on the pay gap.

It's a real thing.  In an apples to apples comparison, it is starkly obvious.

It is very easy to avoid an apples to apples comparison.  It turns out that there is a thing where when women move into an industry broadly, it becomes perceived as a woman's career, and wages fall.  When looking at the amount an elementary school teacher makes (male or female), the gap in pay is small (https://www.weareteachers.com/gender-pay-gap-in-education/).  Personally, I'd consider a 9% wage cut significant, but that's better than many other industries.


How do you explain that the Uber pay algorithm discriminates against women (https://www.aei.org/publication/the-gender-pay-gap-for-uber-drivers-can-be-completely-explained-by-three-factors-and-not-discrimination/) and it does not even know the sex of the person that it is paying.

That is as apples to apples as any other study that you are going to be able to find.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on April 05, 2019, 02:48:52 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1082305
How do you explain that the Uber pay algorithm discriminates against women (https://www.aei.org/publication/the-gender-pay-gap-for-uber-drivers-can-be-completely-explained-by-three-factors-and-not-discrimination/) and it does not even know the sex of the person that it is paying.

That is as apples to apples as any other study that you are going to be able to find.
I'd agree that it's an interesting data point - but I think that shows quite the opposite of what you're saying. The earnings gap among Uber drivers is only 7%. That's quite small compared to the earnings gap in many industries and in the country as a whole, which is more like 15-20%. If women had a 7% earnings gap overall, that would be huge progress.

A general issue I have with many claims is imagining that the gender earnings gap is some kind of universal constant across all places and industries, and must be either purely discrimination or purely personal choices. That simply doesn't make sense. If one study find gender gap in one industry and city, and another finds no gender gap in another industry and city - those aren't contradicting each other. They can both be true. Men and women in different places and industries may make different choices - and they may experience different forms of discrimination.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 05, 2019, 04:51:47 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1082325
I'd agree that it's an interesting data point - but I think that shows quite the opposite of what you're saying. The earnings gap among Uber drivers is only 7%. That's quite small compared to the earnings gap in many industries and in the country as a whole, which is more like 15-20%. If women had a 7% earnings gap overall, that would be huge progress.

What do you mean that it shows the opposite of what I am saying?  The gender blind computer algorithm results in men getting paid more then women.  How do you explain that.  You can not just try to sweep it under the carpet by saying that its only 7% more.

Quote
A general issue I have with many claims is imagining that the gender earnings gap is some kind of universal constant across all places and industries, and must be either purely discrimination or purely personal choices. That simply doesn't make sense. If one study find gender gap in one industry and city, and another finds no gender gap in another industry and city - those aren't contradicting each other. They can both be true. Men and women in different places and industries may make different choices - and they may experience different forms of discrimination.

There are so many factors that determine how much money someone gets paid that trying to tie it all into gender is ridicullous at best.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 05, 2019, 05:54:51 AM
Fun Fact: One industry where women consistently make more than men of porn performer.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on April 05, 2019, 06:20:13 AM
No real evidence of wage gap or systemic discrimination against women as far as pay goes. It would be more useful to actually fight real discrimination in this world rather than tilting at imaginary windmills. It should also be noted that the assumption that any disparity is due to discrimination is wildly inaccurate. All multivariate analysis of this issue debunk this notion as there are a whole host of factors which affect rate of pay which have absolutely nothing to due with systemic sexism.

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-pay-gap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/?fbclid=IwAR3i7nmEB-wkcTOHNwW2rSyUYt-yNY9oz-0aS_fWR2JAUCFNRskXWJhMf5M
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 05, 2019, 11:53:32 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1082332
What do you mean that it shows the opposite of what I am saying?  The gender blind computer algorithm results in men getting paid more then women.  How do you explain that.  You can not just try to sweep it under the carpet by saying that its only 7% more.

One might opine that the uber data is free of human bias that may magnify the reporting of the "wage gap".
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on April 05, 2019, 12:01:16 PM
Quote from: jhkim
I'd agree that it's an interesting data point - but I think that shows quite the opposite of what you're saying. The earnings gap among Uber drivers is only 7%. That's quite small compared to the earnings gap in many industries and in the country as a whole, which is more like 15-20%. If women had a 7% earnings gap overall, that would be huge progress.
Quote from: Shasarak;1082332
What do you mean that it shows the opposite of what I am saying?  The gender blind computer algorithm results in men getting paid more then women.  How do you explain that.  You can not just try to sweep it under the carpet by saying that its only 7% more.
I haven't read the actual paper yet (it's pay to read), but I'm fine to temporarily assume that the 7% difference is caused by gender blind causes like driver preferences.

Numbers matter. You can't just ignore that it's 7% and not 1% or 30%.

If we take that this 7% figure represents the gender-blind results of women's choices in the U.S., then that would imply that the *rest* of the national earnings gap (8% to 13%) are caused by something other than gender-blind choices.

Now, we can't actually assume that, because we don't know that Uber drivers are representative of the larger workforce. It's very difficult to prove anything for sure in the national data, but the collection of multiple studies across different industries does become suggestive. Most of the studies that I've seen have shown similar results, though. Roughly half of the national pay gap is from gender-blind choices, but that leaves the other half.

As far as proving discrimination absolutely, it's pretty difficult to do so. There are always going to be some differences on average between men and women, which can be used to explain the gap. A good case for showing discrimination is in gender-blind trials. In most, but not all, of cases where gender-blind trials are done - the study has shown evidence of some bias against women. So, for example, many orchestras changed to auditioning musicians playing behind a screen, so judges could not see the sex or race of the candidate. That saw a major rise in number of women and minorities hired. However, there is plenty of potential for discrimination in places other than the hiring step - plus in most industries, it really isn't practical to have gender-blind trials like this.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 05, 2019, 12:03:26 PM
I think the Uber article doesn't support your point as well as you think.  

First off, there exists both OVERT discrimination and discrimination resulting from IMPLICIT BIAS.  If we determine that men and women enter the workforce in roughly equal numbers and men and women make roughly the same amount of money until she has children, in which case the wages begin to diverge, there's a real question about equitable division of labor.

I know for my wife's job, after having a child you're permitted a semester off if you're the primary caregiver.  A number of men have availed themselves of this perk even though they were not the primary caregiver.  This allows the men to complete more work and potentially advance their career faster than a woman who uses the benefit as intended.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 05, 2019, 12:08:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082371
I haven't read the actual paper yet (it's pay to read), but I'm fine to temporarily assume that the 7% difference is caused by gender blind causes like driver preferences.

Numbers matter. You can't just ignore that it's 7% and not 1% or 30%.

If we take that this 7% figure represents the gender-blind results of women's choices in the U.S., then that would imply that the *rest* of the national earnings gap (8% to 13%) are caused by something other than gender-blind choices.

That is tautological.

Quote
Now, we can't actually assume that, because we don't know that Uber drivers are representative of the larger workforce. It's very difficult to prove anything for sure in the national data, but the collection of multiple studies across different industries does become suggestive. Most of the studies that I've seen have shown similar results, though. Roughly half of the national pay gap is from gender-blind choices, but that leaves the other half.

As far as proving discrimination absolutely, it's pretty difficult to do so. There are always going to be some differences on average between men and women, which can be used to explain the gap. A good case for showing discrimination is in gender-blind trials. In most, but not all, of cases where gender-blind trials are done - the study has shown evidence of some bias against women. So, for example, many orchestras changed to auditioning musicians playing behind a screen, so judges could not see the sex or race of the candidate. That saw a major rise in number of women and minorities hired. However, there is plenty of potential for discrimination in places other than the hiring step - plus in most industries, it really isn't practical to have gender-blind trials like this.

https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-gender-discrimination-a25a48e1d02

Such a snappy title.

Quote
So, in conclusion, this study presents no statistically significant evidence that blind auditions increase the chances of female applicants. In my reading, the unadjusted results seem to weakly indicate the opposite, that male applicants have a slightly increased chance in blind auditions; but this advantage disappears with controls.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 05, 2019, 12:39:29 PM
I'm surprised no one's posted this yet.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyncenteno/2019/04/03/what-if-toxic-masculinity-is-the-reason-for-climate-change/#1cad183437e4
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on April 05, 2019, 12:55:58 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;1082188
Single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn. The gender pay gap is almost entirely down to roles in child-rearing, and decisions couples make about work and money once they have kids.


The problem with any fact supporting this is that if you focus only on outcomes and not causes, then the facts are treated as irrelevant.  The outcome-focused views cause correction as discriminatory rather than 'having my cake and eating it.'
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 05, 2019, 01:56:11 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082372
I think the Uber article doesn't support your point as well as you think.  

First off, there exists both OVERT discrimination and discrimination resulting from IMPLICIT BIAS.  If we determine that men and women enter the workforce in roughly equal numbers and men and women make roughly the same amount of money until she has children, in which case the wages begin to diverge, there's a real question about equitable division of labor.

I know for my wife's job, after having a child you're permitted a semester off if you're the primary caregiver.  A number of men have availed themselves of this perk even though they were not the primary caregiver.  This allows the men to complete more work and potentially advance their career faster than a woman who uses the benefit as intended.


The overt discrimination is overwhelmingly against men in the West. I know a lot of people will look at me as if I'm crazy when I say stuff like that, but I trust my own eyes. I have been to meetings where people are bending over backwards to hire women, forming task groups designed to accommodate women in tech or this and that, keep women in the short lists of people for higher positions etc etc. I've seen objections against good candidates like "but the two most highly qualified people are white men, and we have been told to show that we have diversity in mind" leading to unqualified people being considered instead. I have seen no similarly overt discrimination like this against women, and to be frank, it would seem cartoonish and absurd. This sort of thing has turned into a never-ending drone from certain politicians and lots of the media, and I think many people are sick and tired of it. It's not even new, I have seen similar talking points since at least the 70s. Sadly, when the backlash came, it came in the form of Donald Trump (I honestly think he fell backwards into this goldmine simply by being the only candidate who didn't give a damn about political correctness).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 05, 2019, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082371
I haven't read the actual paper yet (it's pay to read), but I'm fine to temporarily assume that the 7% difference is caused by gender blind causes like driver preferences.

Numbers matter. You can't just ignore that it's 7% and not 1% or 30%.

If we take that this 7% figure represents the gender-blind results of women's choices in the U.S., then that would imply that the *rest* of the national earnings gap (8% to 13%) are caused by something other than gender-blind choices.


That's not who it works. It represents the gap between men and women in Uber. It could be smaller in other work paces, but it could be a larger percentage, but for similar reasons. I suspect that men have more ways to earn more in more complex jobs.

There are some reasons why men earn more that I thought should be pretty obvious. Sometimes I wonder if people (not talking about Jhkim specifically here) are being deliberately obtuse. There are several reasons why men have extra incentives to earn more. To me it has always been obvious. Let's see if anybody can guess what I'm getting at.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on April 05, 2019, 02:56:17 PM
Regarding demonstrations of discrimination,

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082374
https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-gender-discrimination-a25a48e1d02

Such a snappy title.
This is a blog post from a biologist, Pallesen, pulling out a few tables from the paper and trying to come to the opposite conclusion of the paper's authors. In particular, the biologist appears to completely ignore the discussion of the different data sets. Pallesen reads Table 4 and concludes So, this table unambigiously shows that men are doing comparatively better in blind auditions than in non-blind auditions. The exact opposite of what is claimed. (from your link)

If one reads the text of the article, though, it notes and analyzes this. The problem with raw data is that the sample of musicians who come to a blind audition is different than people who come to a non-blind audition. The paper authors, Goldin and Rouse, found was that more women came to blind auditions, including women who are less qualified. As they report (from the paper): In Table 5 we report audition success statistics, by round and overall, for musicians who appear more than once in our sample and for whom at least one audition (or round) was blind and one was not blind. The evidence tells a very different story from that in Table 4, and taken together they suggest that blind auditions expanded the pool of female applicants to include more who were less qualified. When we limit the sample to those who auditioned both with and without a screen, the success rate for women competing in blind auditions is almost always higher than in those that were not blind. (from the cited paper (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715))

Ultimately, one can always find someone to dispute any paper. There are qualified scientists who dispute evolution. The problem that I prefer to avoid is deciding on a conclusion, and then only believing posts that follow that conclusion.

The solution I prefer to follow is *peer review science*. It's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's better than any other process out there. Peer reviewed papers are more reliable than blog posts, and the mainstream of peer reviewed papers is better than a single peer-reviewed paper. Particularly given that Pallesen doesn't seem to address the text of the paper, I don't take his non-peer-reviewed blog post over Goldin and Rouse's paper.


Quote from: Trond;1082392
The overt discrimination is overwhelmingly against men in the West. I know a lot of people will look at me as if I'm crazy when I say stuff like that, but I trust my own eyes. I have been to meetings where people are bending over backwards to hire women, forming task groups designed to accommodate women in tech or this and that, keep women in the short lists of people for higher positions etc etc.
And here's where we get into the problem of anecdotal evidence. I know of tons of people - including most of the women I know - who come to the opposite conclusion. Especially when we're looking for 10 - 20% type effects across a wide range of industries, people will often have very different experiences, which can all be true.

I don't know what industry you're in, Trond, but it could well be that in your meetings, there was bias in favor of women. Conversely, the women I know could also be right in saying that there was bias against them in their careers. Again, this is why I favor peer-reviewed studies and analysis over just going with my gut.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 05, 2019, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082401
Regarding demonstrations of discrimination,


This is a blog post from a biologist, Pallesen, pulling out a few tables from the paper and trying to come to the opposite conclusion of the paper's authors. In particular, the biologist appears to completely ignore the discussion of the different data sets. Pallesen reads Table 4 and concludes So, this table unambigiously shows that men are doing comparatively better in blind auditions than in non-blind auditions. The exact opposite of what is claimed. (from your link)

If one reads the text of the article, though, it notes and analyzes this. The problem with raw data is that the sample of musicians who come to a blind audition is different than people who come to a non-blind audition. The paper authors, Goldin and Rouse, found was that more women came to blind auditions, including women who are less qualified. As they report (from the paper): In Table 5 we report audition success statistics, by round and overall, for musicians who appear more than once in our sample and for whom at least one audition (or round) was blind and one was not blind. The evidence tells a very different story from that in Table 4, and taken together they suggest that blind auditions expanded the pool of female applicants to include more who were less qualified. When we limit the sample to those who auditioned both with and without a screen, the success rate for women competing in blind auditions is almost always higher than in those that were not blind. (from the cited paper (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715))

Ultimately, one can always find someone to dispute any paper. There are qualified scientists who dispute evolution. The problem that I prefer to avoid is deciding on a conclusion, and then only believing posts that follow that conclusion.

The solution I prefer to follow is *peer review science*. It's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's better than any other process out there. Peer reviewed papers are more reliable than blog posts, and the mainstream of peer reviewed papers is better than a single peer-reviewed paper. Particularly given that Pallesen doesn't seem to address the text of the paper, I don't take his non-peer-reviewed blog post over Goldin and Rouse's paper.



And here's where we get into the problem of anecdotal evidence. I know of tons of people - including most of the women I know - who come to the opposite conclusion. Especially when we're looking for 10 - 20% type effects across a wide range of industries, people will often have very different experiences, which can all be true.

I don't know what industry you're in, Trond, but it could well be that in your meetings, there was bias in favor of women. Conversely, the women I know could also be right in saying that there was bias against them in their careers. Again, this is why I favor peer-reviewed studies and analysis over just going with my gut.


Did they tell you that somebody (in Europe or North America) said "sorry, we need to hire more men, not women?" Because that's what I call overt sexism.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 05, 2019, 03:29:17 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082401
This is a blog post from a biologist, Pallesen, pulling out a few tables from the paper and trying to come to the opposite conclusion of the paper's authors. In particular, the biologist appears to completely ignore the discussion of the different data sets. Pallesen reads Table 4 and concludes So, this table unambigiously shows that men are doing comparatively better in blind auditions than in non-blind auditions. The exact opposite of what is claimed. (from your link)

Do you think being a biologist disqualifies him in some way from critiquing their research methods? Or is this an appeal to authority?

Quote
If one reads the text of the article, though, it notes and analyzes this. The problem with raw data is that the sample of musicians who come to a blind audition is different than people who come to a non-blind audition. The paper authors, Goldin and Rouse, found was that more women came to blind auditions, including women who are less qualified. As they report (from the paper): In Table 5 we report audition success statistics, by round and overall, for musicians who appear more than once in our sample and for whom at least one audition (or round) was blind and one was not blind. The evidence tells a very different story from that in Table 4, and taken together they suggest that blind auditions expanded the pool of female applicants to include more who were less qualified. When we limit the sample to those who auditioned both with and without a screen, the success rate for women competing in blind auditions is almost always higher than in those that were not blind. (from the cited paper (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715))

He also makes the observation that the paper in one table only uses three audtitons as a sample size. This is a far cry from the assertation you made in your previous post.

Quote
So, for example, many orchestras changed to auditioning musicians playing behind a screen,

Now, "many" is a very vague term. Did you mean three or five or a hundred?

Quote
The sample sizes are small, and the proportions vary wildly, indicating that the results are not significant. No p-values are listed in the table. I calculated a Fisher's exact test for the largest category (hired) and got a p-value of 0.28, far from the significance limit of 0.05.
The analysis is limited by having only 1–3 orchestras of the blind / non-blind type depending on the category. So even if there was clear discrimination, this could be caused by very few people.

Quote
Ultimately, one can always find someone to dispute any paper. There are qualified scientists who dispute evolution.

Now this is a an attempt to associate the rebuttal with evolution denial. Your attempts to use such tactics are noted.

Quote
The problem that I prefer to avoid is deciding on a conclusion, and then only believing posts that follow that conclusion.

I do not claim to believe anything. I present the blog as a rebuttal. Your objections are noted. Perhaps his conclusions are wrong. I am not a statician or any kind of researcher, and so perhaps his criticisms are flawed, and I lack the expertise to detect that. The same can be said for the original study. IE I do not know if their methods are sound, either.

Quote
The solution I prefer to follow is *peer review science*. It's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's better than any other process out there. Peer reviewed papers are more reliable than blog posts, and the mainstream of peer reviewed papers is better than a single peer-reviewed paper. Particularly given that Pallesen doesn't seem to address the text of the paper, I don't take his non-peer-reviewed blog post over Goldin and Rouse's paper.

So, what did you determine about the peer review status of the original paper?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 05, 2019, 04:28:10 PM
Oh, and the blogging biologist DOES address table 5 too. Discussing some of the very objections presented by Jhkim. Either way, using this specific article to claim sexism in hiring is fishy as hell given how weak and contradictory the data actually are. And I heard them discussing this very paper on the radio as if it were gospel.

I (also a biologist btw) once looked at a similarly sloppy article about false rape accusations on a university campus. They simply could not accept that false accusations sometimes happen more than some people would like to admit, so they did not compare like with like in their analysis.

Again in my experience (take it or leave it) there are some results that many publishers do not want to see in print, even if academic studies remain rigorous in other fields.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 05, 2019, 04:35:25 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082372
I think the Uber article doesn't support your point as well as you think.  


Because....?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 05, 2019, 04:41:02 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082378
I'm surprised no one's posted this yet.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyncenteno/2019/04/03/what-if-toxic-masculinity-is-the-reason-for-climate-change/#1cad183437e4

You know we never suffered from climate change before Feminism.  Coincidence?  o_O
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on April 05, 2019, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: jhkim
The problem that I prefer to avoid is deciding on a conclusion, and then only believing posts that follow that conclusion.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082404
I do not claim to believe anything. I present the blog as a rebuttal. Your objections are noted. Perhaps his conclusions are wrong. I am not a statician or any kind of researcher, and so perhaps his criticisms are flawed, and I lack the expertise to detect that. The same can be said for the original study. IE I do not know if their methods are sound, either.
I apologize if I was putting words into your mouth. Thank you for expressing doubt. I'm decently skilled at statistics in general, but this isn't my field - and I think it is good to have some doubt about any single paper particularly in the social sciences (including economics).

Quote from: jhkim
The solution I prefer to follow is *peer review science*. It's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's better than any other process out there. Peer reviewed papers are more reliable than blog posts, and the mainstream of peer reviewed papers is better than a single peer-reviewed paper. Particularly given that Pallesen doesn't seem to address the text of the paper, I don't take his non-peer-reviewed blog post over Goldin and Rouse's paper.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082404
So, what did you determine about the peer review status of the original paper?
The paper was published in the American Economic Review, which as far as I can tell is a respectable peer-reviewed journal. There is a well-sourced Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Economic_Review) that cites a number of distinctions.

Again, it's one paper about a particular effect in a particular field. It doesn't make conclusions about the gender earnings gap on the national scale - which is very difficult to interpret given limited data.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on April 06, 2019, 01:06:32 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1082325

A general issue I have with many claims is imagining that the gender earnings gap is some kind of universal constant across all places and industries, and must be either purely discrimination or purely personal choices. That simply doesn't make sense. If one study find gender gap in one industry and city, and another finds no gender gap in another industry and city - those aren't contradicting each other. They can both be true. Men and women in different places and industries may make different choices - and they may experience different forms of discrimination.

While this is true, it is deceptive in the sense that one can NEVER glean specific instances from statistics (particularly in the social "sciences"), only the likelihood of that being an issue in a particular case. As such we are limited to using statistics to make general assumptions about the overall situation, not to address specific situations. What this does speak to is the idea of a systemic bias in hiring which obviously does not exist. Individual instances of sexism (both male and female) do exist, but evidence tells us that they are not a systemic issue but rather one offs that need to be treated individually, for which laws and processes are already in place to address.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on April 06, 2019, 07:06:20 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1082325

A general issue I have with many claims is imagining that the gender earnings gap is some kind of universal constant across all places and industries, and must be either purely discrimination or purely personal choices. That simply doesn't make sense. If one study find gender gap in one industry and city, and another finds no gender gap in another industry and city - those aren't contradicting each other. They can both be true. Men and women in different places and industries may make different choices - and they may experience different forms of discrimination.

While this is true, it is deceptive in the sense that one can NEVER glean specific instances from statistics (particularly in the social "sciences"), only the likelihood of that being an issue in a particular case. As such we are limited to using statistics to make general assumptions about the overall situation, not to address specific situations. What this does speak to is the idea of a systemic bias in hiring which obviously does not exist. Individual instances of sexism (both male and female) do exist, but evidence tells us that they are not a systemic issue but rather one offs that need to be treated individually, for which laws and processes are already in place to address.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 06, 2019, 08:29:46 AM
Quote from: shuddemell;1082485
What this does speak to is the idea of a systemic bias in hiring which obviously does not exist. Individual instances of sexism (both male and female) do exist, but evidence tells us that they are not a systemic issue but rather one offs that need to be treated individually, for which laws and processes are already in place to address.

It is neither obvious that a systemic issues does not exist, nor does it follow that the laws we have are adequate to address 'individual cases'.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on April 07, 2019, 06:02:08 AM
Quote from: Trond;1082396
There are several reasons why men have extra incentives to earn more. To me it has always been obvious. Let's see if anybody can guess what I'm getting at.

PUSSY!!!

And BOOBIES!!!

And competition for dominance.

It always boils down to biology. Can't fuck with that reptilian brain stem.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 07, 2019, 11:13:57 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1082568
PUSSY!!!

And BOOBIES!!!

And competition for dominance.

It always boils down to biology. Can't fuck with that reptilian brain stem.

Uh......yes. I was thinking "women like men with money and resources" as the answer but I think we agree :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on April 08, 2019, 06:16:43 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082497
It is neither obvious that a systemic issues does not exist, nor does it follow that the laws we have are adequate to address 'individual cases'.

It would be highly surprising for it to exist and yet no statistical evidence of it be found. As for the laws, that is a different discussion, as I would submit it is due to lax enforcement rather than lack of laws, but that is a supposition open to debate.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on April 08, 2019, 02:17:38 PM
Quote from: Trond
There are several reasons why men have extra incentives to earn more. To me it has always been obvious. Let's see if anybody can guess what I'm getting at.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1082568
PUSSY!!!

And BOOBIES!!!

And competition for dominance.

It always boils down to biology. Can't fuck with that reptilian brain stem.
This seems rather contradictory, though. You're trying to say that men are driven by their reptilian brain stem impulses to work more than women - but conversely, that there's no way that men would *discriminate* against women, and that of course they're completely fair and unbiased in how they treat women in the workplace.

If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.

And all of this is a theoretical argument. How much of this is reality is about measuring workplace behaviors and motivations. It's a fundamentally very difficult to demonstrate what people's motivations and behaviors are.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on April 08, 2019, 02:38:04 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082699
And all of this is a theoretical argument. How much of this is reality is about measuring workplace behaviors and motivations. It's a fundamentally very difficult to demonstrate what people's motivations and behaviors are.

And yet wiykd you dismiss the work of people like Thomas Sowell, and other economists that have answered this question over 40-years ago during the 80's? And it's been verified over and over that the wage gap, once you take into consideration the work habits of men and women and their chocies - backed up as recently as this very decade in Norther European nations where they actively pursue the Equaniminity Agenda, shows when left to their own choices women gravitate towards other less lucrative and competitive jobs than men?

Men are wired to compete. Women are less so. There are exceptions to the rule. This seems to be the point where your quote is appropriate but it doesn't acknowledge the larger established truth.

Unless you're insuating that *men* have some idiotic drive to work against their own interests at scake? Sorry I don't buy that. In fact there is ZERO evidence of that. If this is your contention and it were true - we likely wouldn't even have civilization above the standard of your average jungle tribe.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on April 08, 2019, 03:03:45 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082699

If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.


Eh... men are more likely to keep OTHER MEN down. MEN are the sexual competition for MEN. Women are more likely to keep other women down, likewise.

I'm just grateful for both my gay male mentors! #NoHomo :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on April 08, 2019, 03:07:16 PM
Quote from: tenbones;1082701
Norther European nations where they actively pursue the Equaniminity Agenda


Damn, I wish we really did have an Equaniminity Agenda! Things would be so much more relaxed! :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: kythri on April 08, 2019, 03:33:35 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082699
If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.

Wouldn't it stand to reason, then, that men would employ more women and less men?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on April 08, 2019, 03:36:36 PM
Quote from: kythri;1082706
Wouldn't it stand to reason, then, that men would employ more women and less men?

IME that's exactly what happens - and straight women tend to employ men.

Only homosexual-dominated organisations are likely to create self-sustaining employment lines, especially lesbians I think. And lesbians are fairly rare so there's a limit to how much that can happen.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on April 08, 2019, 04:29:31 PM
Quote from: tenbones;1082701
Men are wired to compete. Women are less so. There are exceptions to the rule. This seems to be the point where your quote is appropriate but it doesn't acknowledge the larger established truth.

I don't think that genetic wiring is the main explanation for the gender wage gap. For example, in South Korea, the gender wage gap is 35% compared to the OECD average of 13% (source (https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm)). I don't think that this reflects Korean men and women being wired differently - I strongly suspect that it is mainly environmental factors rather than genetic that are driving that.

More generally, there is a wide range of different gender wage gaps in different countries. I'll buy that a genetic effect exists, but I suspect that most of that variation between countries is about social differences - not genetic differences.

That is open to debate, of course. Like most Nature vs Nurture arguments, it's difficult to prove either way.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 08, 2019, 05:19:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082699
This seems rather contradictory, though. You're trying to say that men are driven by their reptilian brain stem impulses to work more than women - but conversely, that there's no way that men would *discriminate* against women, and that of course they're completely fair and unbiased in how they treat women in the workplace.

If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.

And all of this is a theoretical argument. How much of this is reality is about measuring workplace behaviors and motivations. It's a fundamentally very difficult to demonstrate what people's motivations and behaviors are.


If men are competing for dominance in the workplace then why would they only compete against men?  Logically they woul compete against everyone in the workplace and therefore if there is any discrimination then it would be against everyone.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on April 09, 2019, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1082713
If men are competing for dominance in the workplace then why would they only compete against men?  Logically they woul compete against everyone in the workplace and therefore if there is any discrimination then it would be against everyone.

Quote from: jhkim
If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.

Logically (the only reason I care about this argument): these are not mutually exclusive statements. Both can be true without excluding the other. You could discriminate against everyone and discriminate more against a particular group. It does not follow that if some quantifiable thing is applied to every group that it is always applied evenly, which seems to be an assumed axiom in the argument for "...it would be against everyone," otherwise that statement, logically, adds no value to the argument.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 09, 2019, 09:52:29 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1082699
This seems rather contradictory, though. You're trying to say that men are driven by their reptilian brain stem impulses to work more than women - but conversely, that there's no way that men would *discriminate* against women, and that of course they're completely fair and unbiased in how they treat women in the workplace.

If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.

And all of this is a theoretical argument. How much of this is reality is about measuring workplace behaviors and motivations. It's a fundamentally very difficult to demonstrate what people's motivations and behaviors are.


I didn't take that "reptilian" part very seriously, TBH. But yes, many men do know that earning more money will get them more women, or it will get them more attention from women in general so it's easier to pick the woman they want. The incentives aren't exactly the same the other way round.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 10, 2019, 10:38:54 AM
Quote from: Trond;1082845
The incentives aren't exactly the same the other way round.

I don't know that this is true, and I'd appreciate some citations.  It has been my observation that well-to-do women typically marry well-to-do men, and well-to-do men typically play around with poor women but seldom tie the knot.  Having money and a successful career as a woman is a good way to be more successful/raise healthier children/find a more attractive/powerful husband.  And if we are talking reptilian brains, there is NO difference between men and women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Haffrung on April 10, 2019, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082882
I don't know that this is true, and I'd appreciate some citations.  It has been my observation that well-to-do women typically marry well-to-do men, and well-to-do men typically play around with poor women but seldom tie the knot.  Having money and a successful career as a woman is a good way to be more successful/raise healthier children/find a more attractive/powerful husband.  And if we are talking reptilian brains, there is NO difference between men and women.

Affluent men don't often marry poor women, but they do often marry middle-class women who earn less than they do. Male doctors marry nurses. Male executives marry HR professionals. Male accountants marry payroll clerks.

The reverse is much less common. I'd wager the average salary of the spouses of female doctors is substantially higher than the average salaries of the spouses of male doctors. In fact, I'd bet a third or so of the spouses of male doctors don't work at all, while I'd be shocked if that held true for the spouses of female doctors.

Women have a strong preference, regardless of their own income, to partner with a man who makes as much or more than they make. To the extent that they'll typically go without a partner at all - even raise children without a partner - in preference to partnering with a low-income, low-status man. Which is one of the reasons marriage has collapsed and single-parent families have become the norm among the working class.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 10, 2019, 01:33:54 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082882
I don't know that this is true, and I'd appreciate some citations.  It has been my observation that well-to-do women typically marry well-to-do men, and well-to-do men typically play around with poor women but seldom tie the knot.  Having money and a successful career as a woman is a good way to be more successful/raise healthier children/find a more attractive/powerful husband.  And if we are talking reptilian brains, there is NO difference between men and women.


One source is "Biological Anthropology" By Stanford et al. (4th ed).

What on earth are you basing that bolded part on?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on April 10, 2019, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: Trond;1082892
What on earth are you basing that bolded part on?

Feelz? :D

Re reptilian brain, a female friend of mine who'd been 'happy slapped' marvelled at how I was instinctively aware on the street when I was about to be attacked - she didn't have that at all. I suspect that's a typical sex difference, and one reason muggers & purse snatchers favour female targets, along with lower strength.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 10, 2019, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: Trond;1082892
One source is "Biological Anthropology" By Stanford et al. (4th ed).

What on earth are you basing that bolded part on?


Here's a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences)

The 'reptilian brain' includes the brain stem and the cerebellum.  There are no observed sexual differences between those elements of the brain.  

Please note that I did not make a claim that there are no differences at all between the male and female brain; just the part that was implicated in competition for mates.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 10, 2019, 10:32:25 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082915
Here's a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences)

The 'reptilian brain' includes the brain stem and the cerebellum.  There are no observed sexual differences between those elements of the brain.  

Please note that I did not make a claim that there are no differences at all between the male and female brain; just the part that was implicated in competition for mates.

We don't really know all the parts implicated in the competition for mates (probably a whole lot), but we do know that men and women differ in that regard, from purely behavioral studies. It makes sense that it would too.  The 'reptilian brain' or 'lizard brain' is a bit of a silly term, usually used for parts of the brain stem (midbrain mainly as far as I have seen, because it is seen as a part that has changed very little), but these are certainly not the only parts involved.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 10, 2019, 10:38:48 PM
By the way; here's an observation. Relatively few people actually say that there are no biological behavioral differences between men and women (though I have seen some people doing just this), and I don't know anyone who claims that all our behaviors are biologically determined.

BUT if find that one group of people are remarkably unwilling to agree that any specific behaviors are biologically influenced. Every time evidence is presented, they object. While another group is much more willing to say that e.g. interest in certain things is more typical for this sex versus that. In some cases, like libido, I seriously think that these questions should have been settled long ago. The difference is obvious to me, at least.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on April 11, 2019, 01:51:36 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;1082884
Affluent men don't often marry poor women, but they do often marry middle-class women who earn less than they do. Male doctors marry nurses. Male executives marry HR professionals. Male accountants marry payroll clerks.

The reverse is much less common. I'd wager the average salary of the spouses of female doctors is substantially higher than the average salaries of the spouses of male doctors. In fact, I'd bet a third or so of the spouses of male doctors don't work at all, while I'd be shocked if that held true for the spouses of female doctors.

Women have a strong preference, regardless of their own income, to partner with a man who makes as much or more than they make. To the extent that they'll typically go without a partner at all - even raise children without a partner - in preference to partnering with a low-income, low-status man. Which is one of the reasons marriage has collapsed and single-parent families have become the norm among the working class.


So much so, it has a name, it's called hypergamy.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 23, 2019, 12:23:48 PM
Hypothetically, how do you see the gender... schism (calling it a war seem hyperbolic) progressing? Not really much at all, reaching an equilibrium most people are ok with or one that most hate, some kind of aggressively matriarchal society at least in tradition and culture or even with some of aspect of "Women's Privilege" or even a pushback that results in unfortunate and unforeseen consequence, including hardening and bolstering some apsects of gender relations that many find suspect (MRAs, Incels, MGTOW, etc) or plain Bad (Patriarchy!, Rape Culture!)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 23, 2019, 04:25:05 PM
Things are getting better.  Slowly.  Painfully.  

Forty years ago telling your secretary that BJs were the primary performance metric that determined whether she could keep her job was 'not a big deal'.  It still happens an awful lot, but there are more legal protections and such.

There are still a lot of people that pay women less, but all of the reasons they would have given before are not permitted.  If it can be shown that they're doing it for illegal reasons then employees have more options to demand fair treatment.  

The biggest issue(s) remaining are about the cost of standing up for your rights.  But even that is changing in a positive way.  Women who have been coerced in various ways have spoken out against the system.  If it can happen to famous, successful women, it can happen to anyone.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on April 23, 2019, 05:51:01 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1084273
Forty years ago telling your secretary that BJs were the primary performance metric that determined whether she could keep her job was 'not a big deal'.  It still happens an awful lot, but there are more legal protections and such.

In 1979? Forcing a secretary to suck you dick or lose her job certainly was a fucking big deal. Sexual assault, blackmail, and coercion has been almost universally derided since prehistory, and that was 10 years after the sexual revolution and well into the era of the working woman. Things like that did happen, certain types of assholes bragged to their buddies about it, and it was often more consensual than you'd expect (it's a good thing we tend to frown more on relationships when there's a direct supervisory role today, that is a real improvement), but it was nothing like your twisted masturbatory fantasies.

Stop fucking lying. Pretending any history except the last couple years was a complete horrorshow, where everyone gleefully raped everyone and nobody had any morals or agency doesn't make you look better, by comparison. It makes you look like a scumbag.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on April 23, 2019, 07:00:49 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1084273
Forty years ago telling your secretary that BJs were the primary performance metric that determined whether she could keep her job was 'not a big deal'.  It still happens an awful lot, but there are more legal protections and such.
Quote from: Pat;1084278
In 1979? Forcing a secretary to suck you dick or lose her job certainly was a fucking big deal. Sexual assault, blackmail, and coercion has been almost universally derided since prehistory, and that was 10 years after the sexual revolution and well into the era of the working woman. Things like that did happen, certain types of assholes bragged to their buddies about it, and it was often more consensual than you'd expect (it's a good thing we tend to frown more on relationships when there's a direct supervisory role today, that is a real improvement), but it was nothing like your twisted masturbatory fantasies.

I tend to agree with Pat. For example, Anita Hill started working for Clarence Thomas in 1981 which is pretty close to this time period. Her claims in 1991 of his behavior were taken seriously and considered a big deal. I also don't think that legal protections have changed much since 1979. There was the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended a number of points of the original Civil Rights Act, but it wasn't that big of a change. I think there were huge changes in the 1960s into the 1970s, but since 1980 the change has been incremental and slow.


Quote from: Trond;1082938
By the way; here's an observation. Relatively few people actually say that there are no biological behavioral differences between men and women (though I have seen some people doing just this), and I don't know anyone who claims that all our behaviors are biologically determined.

BUT if find that one group of people are remarkably unwilling to agree that any specific behaviors are biologically influenced. Every time evidence is presented, they object. While another group is much more willing to say that e.g. interest in certain things is more typical for this sex versus that. In some cases, like libido, I seriously think that these questions should have been settled long ago. The difference is obvious to me, at least.
I think this is consistent with the state of the evidence. People agree that behavior is biologically influenced - but for specific effects it is hard to separate out genetics and environment. Sayings like "the difference is obvious to me" isn't helpful, since through history - many sex stereotypes that people previously thought were obvious turned out to be wrong or misunderstood. Many might well be right, but I don't trust gut feeling to distinguish them and separate Nature from Nurture. This especially since even clear biological factors like level of testosterone have been proven to be influenced by culture, and not just genetics.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 24, 2019, 05:58:27 AM
Quote from: Pat;1084278
In 1979? Forcing a secretary to suck you dick or lose her job certainly was a fucking big deal. Sexual assault, blackmail, and coercion has been almost universally derided since prehistory, and that was 10 years after the sexual revolution and well into the era of the working woman. Things like that did happen, certain types of assholes bragged to their buddies about it, and it was often more consensual than you'd expect (it's a good thing we tend to frown more on relationships when there's a direct supervisory role today, that is a real improvement), but it was nothing like your twisted masturbatory fantasies.

Stop fucking lying. Pretending any history except the last couple years was a complete horrorshow, where everyone gleefully raped everyone and nobody had any morals or agency doesn't make you look better, by comparison. It makes you look like a scumbag.

Times were different and the 'norms' (for the better in significant ways, not so much in others. That's why there is room and opportunity for discussion) have changed but at times it feels like many people want to make any time before 2000 as some mixture of Gor (- the female Slave Masters)  and Gilead. :-/

And on the more radical end and all men need to be punished for that until the 'debt' is paid. Its an angry, disturbing side of feminism that, in my reading, is edging towards the more mainstream; but these are divisive angry times.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 24, 2019, 09:42:47 AM
I find it stunning that the strong willed driven outspoken women that have surrounded my for my life, the women I've seen succeed, defend themselves, excel and over come are freakish outlier among a gender that is almost universally victims oppressed, used and ignored the penis enabled. Or are considered so my modern standard

For example,  Women performing "unpaid work" (domestic and similar task) is massive unfair imbalance as women perform more of it. The amount of paid work men do is not counted in this. If a man works 10 hours a day, comes home and does work 4-5 more hours at home. It unfair to the woman, even if she does not work outside the house. Apparently, men need to take on more work, we're lazy and not doing enough in the circumstance.

That's not the entire story, but that is the slant it is frequently given, like the men working the fields, mining or doing whatever being in the money/material are sitting around turtle waxing their genitals while women do the Real Work. :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 24, 2019, 09:42:59 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1084285
I think this is consistent with the state of the evidence. People agree that behavior is biologically influenced - but for specific effects it is hard to separate out genetics and environment. Sayings like "the difference is obvious to me" isn't helpful, since through history - many sex stereotypes that people previously thought were obvious turned out to be wrong or misunderstood. Many might well be right, but I don't trust gut feeling to distinguish them and separate Nature from Nurture. This especially since even clear biological factors like level of testosterone have been proven to be influenced by culture, and not just genetics.

No what you're saying here, THAT isn't helpful. It's turning into an endless "we can't really know" when we do know. Despite individual variation and environmental influence, testosterone is obviously at very different concentrations in men and women. This is information that is used in clinical therapies of emotional/behavioral problems on a daily basis. This is actually starting to look like science denial.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 24, 2019, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: CarlD.;1084255
Hypothetically, how do you see the gender... schism (calling it a war seem hyperbolic) progressing? Not really much at all, reaching an equilibrium most people are ok with or one that most hate, some kind of aggressively matriarchal society at least in tradition and culture or even with some of aspect of "Women's Privilege" or even a pushback that results in unfortunate and unforeseen consequence, including hardening and bolstering some apsects of gender relations that many find suspect (MRAs, Incels, MGTOW, etc) or plain Bad (Patriarchy!, Rape Culture!)


Hard to tell. There is a lot of digging in on all sides going on right now. Some (Steven Pinker at least) say that there was actually a wave of feminism and social justice in the 90s that receded, and then came back with a vengeance more recently. Hopefully it will die down a bit, but that does not seem to be the way it's going; I think that the antics of Donald Trump aren't helping, having more the effect of disturbing the hornet's nest. Most people I interact with don't seem to take the 'schism' too seriously, EXCEPT many people in power (e.g. at the university where I work) seem to think that the only thing to do is to bend over to the SJWs or to be SJWs themselves. Notice that the American Psychological Association (APA, which is VERY influential) has apparently completely given in to SJW-isms: traditional masculinity is bad. Meanwhile several articles have been written on the APA memo, ridiculing it. Maybe these are signs that it will get worse before it gets better (shudder).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Haffrung on April 24, 2019, 10:51:48 AM
Quote from: Pat;1084278
In 1979? Forcing a secretary to suck you dick or lose her job certainly was a fucking big deal. Sexual assault, blackmail, and coercion has been almost universally derided since prehistory, and that was 10 years after the sexual revolution and well into the era of the working woman. Things like that did happen, certain types of assholes bragged to their buddies about it, and it was often more consensual than you'd expect (it's a good thing we tend to frown more on relationships when there's a direct supervisory role today, that is a real improvement), but it was nothing like your twisted masturbatory fantasies.

Stop fucking lying. Pretending any history except the last couple years was a complete horrorshow, where everyone gleefully raped everyone and nobody had any morals or agency doesn't make you look better, by comparison. It makes you look like a scumbag.

The most obnoxious thing about the Gillette commercial was showing a bunch of behaviour typical (though still regarded as boorish) in the 50s-60s, and then acting as though this was the norm until last year, when people finally took a stand with MeToo. What nonsense.

Progressive activism is emotional rather than rational. Why is why its advocates go ballistic whenever the empirical progress we've made is brought up. Facts don't matter, feelings do. A liberal like Steven Pinker gets attacked far more from the left than the right for simply documenting the enormous progress humans have made in the last couple hundred years.

In some cases the denial of progress is a political tactic. Never take your foot off the pedal. Maintain a state of crisis at all times. But some younger activists are genuinely ignorant, and believe the world before about 2002 was an endless and undifferentiated nightmare of oppression and injustice. For instance, they don't seem to realize that white-collar workplaces historically had a lot more women than men working at them, as for each male accountant or engineer at a company there were typically 2-3 female secretaries or clerks. And since people married young, and most women quit their jobs once they started a family, an unmarried accountant or engineer would be quite a catch to a secretary or typist. So the great majority of office relationships absolutely were consensual, and many resulted in marriage and kids.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 24, 2019, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Trond;1084373
Hard to tell. There is a lot of digging in on all sides going on right now. Some (Steven Pinker at least) say that there was actually a wave of feminism and social justice in the 90s that receded, and then came back with a vengeance more recently. Hopefully it will die down a bit, but that does not seem to be the way it's going; I think that the antics of Donald Trump aren't helping, having more the effect of disturbing the hornet's nest. Most people I interact with don't seem to take the 'schism' too seriously, EXCEPT many people in power (e.g. at the university where I work) seem to think that the only thing to do is to bend over to the SJWs or to be SJWs themselves. Notice that the American Psychological Association (APA, which is VERY influential) has apparently completely given in to SJW-isms: traditional masculinity is bad. Meanwhile several articles have been written on the APA memo, ridiculing it. Maybe these are signs that it will get worse before it gets better (shudder).

That doesn't bode well. Is that article available online?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 24, 2019, 02:40:35 PM
Speaking of 40-50 years ago, something that may seem bizarre today was going on. Because of the sexual revolution, "free love", and all that (primarily on the left), many far left progressives expected that women would soon be as horny and sexually aggressive as men. Sex would be as casual as a handshake, some suggested. Even if nobody actually took it that far, I believe that there were quite a few misunderstandings because of this attitude. But women never came around as they had expected, because sex is inherently a bit private, and women and men are not as alike as some like to think. Then the conversation started to shift so that it was no longer just conservatives who held back (sex and church rarely mix), but progressives too ("rape culture" and all that) even sometimes leaning towards those who interpreted sex as some sort of oppression of women (these have always been around but became more prominent). Of course, most people were simply decent human beings throughout, but you can see some of this going on in the literature for instance, and there are still some that seem to expect women in general to become as sexually interested as men.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on April 24, 2019, 02:41:28 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1084403
That doesn't bode well. Is that article available online?

Try looking at https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 24, 2019, 02:43:47 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1084403
That doesn't bode well. Is that article available online?

Here's one article, with link to the APA PDF

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/briannaheldt/2019/01/07/american-psychological-association-labels-traditional-masculinity-as-harmful-n2538637
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 24, 2019, 03:37:17 PM
Quote from: Trond;1084411
Here's one article, with link to the APA PDF

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/briannaheldt/2019/01/07/american-psychological-association-labels-traditional-masculinity-as-harmful-n2538637

Thank you, it looks like an interesting read.

One thing that as struck me (from my male perspective) as odd is the hostility I've seen and ran into from women about the idea of male candidate picking a female running mate. Its true that VP is a side kick position, fair enough, but the anger is something else. It would have been something before Obama to see of black VP and these folks almost like they want a rule where being a "cis" man prevent you from running, even of you're not a Straight White Guy (different ethnicites and sexual orientations are in play among the men in the race). Honestly, and perhaps tellingly for me I thought Buttigieg would be getting more 'SJW" support (OTOH, I thought there would be much more unsavory pushback due to his orientation as well).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 26, 2019, 07:34:00 PM
Oh boy, I have some more bad news. I used to read a lot of magazines in the past, and I still occasionally check what they are writing about. It seems that both Playboy (as mentioned before) and GQ have gone completely woke.

GQ has this article (https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-fake-male-feminists), in which they point out the "fake" male feminists (perhaps indicating that the author is the real thing), including mean men bossing women around. And as a cherry on top GQ seems to take the #Metoo accusations against Ansari seriously. "For as headline-grabbing the Weinstein story has been, the Ansari story feels just as instructive. Both nonchalantly placed male desire above female distress." Yay. To me, the author is as fake as any of the others, because he does not seem to think that women can take care of themselves enough to say no to a guy like Ansari. Does he think women are children? Doesn't he know that women bosses can be complete psychos as well (my wife has had two)? They also had that interview where they put a female feminist up against Jordan Peterson and trying to tear him down. Wasn't Gentlemen Quarterly  supposed to be for.....you know GentleMEN? Again WTF?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 26, 2019, 10:19:37 PM
Quote from: Trond;1084703
Oh boy, I have some more bad news. I used to read a lot of magazines in the past, and I still occasionally check what they are writing about. It seems that both Playboy (as mentioned before) and GQ have gone completely woke.

GQ has this article (https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-fake-male-feminists), in which they point out the "fake" male feminists (perhaps indicating that the author is the real thing), including mean men bossing women around. And as a cherry on top GQ seems to take the #Metoo accusations against Ansari seriously. "For as headline-grabbing the Weinstein story has been, the Ansari story feels just as instructive. Both nonchalantly placed male desire above female distress." Yay. To me, the author is as fake as any of the others, because he does not seem to think that women can take care of themselves enough to say no to a guy like Ansari. Does he think women are children? Doesn't he know that women bosses can be complete psychos as well (my wife has had two)? They also had that interview where they put a female feminist up against Jordan Peterson and trying to tear him down. Wasn't Gentlemen Quarterly  supposed to be for.....you know GentleMEN? Again WTF?

I always love the term male feminist.  So Oxymoronic.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 27, 2019, 12:38:01 AM
Quote from: Trond;1084373
Hard to tell. There is a lot of digging in on all sides going on right now. Some (Steven Pinker at least) say that there was actually a wave of feminism and social justice in the 90s that receded, and then came back with a vengeance more recently. Hopefully it will die down a bit, but that does not seem to be the way it's going; I think that the antics of Donald Trump aren't helping, having more the effect of disturbing the hornet's nest. Most people I interact with don't seem to take the 'schism' too seriously, EXCEPT many people in power (e.g. at the university where I work) seem to think that the only thing to do is to bend over to the SJWs or to be SJWs themselves. Notice that the American Psychological Association (APA, which is VERY influential) has apparently completely given in to SJW-isms: traditional masculinity is bad. Meanwhile several articles have been written on the APA memo, ridiculing it. Maybe these are signs that it will get worse before it gets better (shudder).

I do wonder how 'binary' the question of SJWism is. Most people demonstrate similar behaviors and reactions online if they bother to respond at all both "SJW" and those that say they hate them and those in between. Only the triggers differ very much; the reactions are generally the same type of STFU, you're stupid blind, biased, insane, etc and need to be silenced in some fashion (from no one should ever listen to you or think about what you say, you game/book/etc should be blocked from market, etc. ANd of course, the "Other Side" started it, is totally wrong (even objectively evil to some extremists) and their side is golden and pure and the victims.

Quote from: Trond;1084703
Oh boy, I have some more bad news. I used to read a lot of magazines in the past, and I still occasionally check what they are writing about. It seems that both Playboy (as mentioned before) and GQ have gone completely woke.

GQ has this article (https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-fake-male-feminists), in which they point out the "fake" male feminists (perhaps indicating that the author is the real thing), including mean men bossing women around. And as a cherry on top GQ seems to take the #Metoo accusations against Ansari seriously. "For as headline-grabbing the Weinstein story has been, the Ansari story feels just as instructive. Both nonchalantly placed male desire above female distress." Yay. To me, the author is as fake as any of the others, because he does not seem to think that women can take care of themselves enough to say no to a guy like Ansari. Does he think women are children? Doesn't he know that women bosses can be complete psychos as well (my wife has had two)? They also had that interview where they put a female feminist up against Jordan Peterson and trying to tear him down. Wasn't Gentlemen Quarterly  supposed to be for.....you know GentleMEN? Again WTF?

Interesting times we live in. Its true that in the mainstream, anything that favors men in automatically suspect of hostile sexism if not outright misogyny. MRAs are assholes even when the espouse things that are documented fact (imbalances in genders number as far as custody, sentencing, domestic violence charges, etcs) MRAs are SJWs... with a focus on gender inequaities that effect men. Some of them are assshurt jokers that have been burned/hurt by women and blame them all as a result same ass some feminists are angry man haters that blame all men for something that hurt them personally and/or are operating under the perception that having a dick is a golden ticker to Win in Life forever.

It's not. Neither is having a Vag (which does some seem to be the assumption SOME MtF gender dysphoria patients operate under, not all but some...)

The issue appears to boil down to humans (generally speakking) what simple, binary answers to complicated problems and "Bad Guys" to blame. Real Life rarely works out that. Maybe more men play RPGs is because its an activity that appeals more to men, like Scrapbooking appears to appeal more to women (No one is worked up about that as far as I've seen but allot of folks are willing to hurl invective and virtual feces at face less people on the internet over the horrid imbalance between how many women as opposed to men what to pretended to be space knights and elves during their free time). The "pay gap" issue, arguably more serious to real life is immensely complex and cherry picked numbers can result in various conclusions so most just pick a corner, follower the numbers that support their choice and dig, IME.

It feels like so much could be learned and perhaps accomplished if we (general we) could set down and actually rationally talk. But humans are emotional, confrontational little monkeys... myself included. We can rise above it but its difficult and often does provide that visceral immediate emotional thrill just wallowing in it can give.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 28, 2019, 03:29:55 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze;1084409
Try looking at https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf)

It is interesting how depictions of "Strong, willful empowered" female characters often have traits that would speak to 'toxic' or problematic masculinity in a male character. Derogatory 'gendering' and type casting is fine as long as it goes in one direction.Men are cruel beasts jealous of strong women and interested only in taking their power for themselves as some of my ardent feminist associates tell me. Apparently we're really jealous that they have babies.

Edit: Actually, I'm okay with some feminist messaging and so called "Grrl Power!" in entertainment. Its' only fair.Hell, I loved the more kick ass females that showed up in th late 80s, 90s, etc...

 But it does get old being hit over the head with the anvil of how horrible I am because I had the misfortune to be born with a penis and owe everyone who wasn't a deep and personal apology for that and for being part of 49% that's holding back the Matriarchal Utopia.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on April 28, 2019, 08:36:57 AM
Quote from: CarlD.;1084860
It is interesting how depictions of "Strong, willful empowered" female characters often have traits that would speak to 'toxic' or problematic masculinity in a male character. Derogatory 'gendering' and type casting is fine as long as it goes in one direction.Men are cruel beasts jealous of strong women and interested only in taking their power for themselves as some of my ardent feminist associates tell me. Apparently we're really jealous that they have babies.

Edit: Actually, I'm okay with some feminist messaging and so called "Grrl Power!" in entertainment. Its' only fair.Hell, I loved the more kick ass females that showed up in th late 80s, 90s, etc...

 But it does get old being hit over the head with the anvil of how horrible I am because I had the misfortune to be born with a penis and owe everyone who wasn't a deep and personal apology for that and for being part of 49% that's holding back the Matriarchal Utopia.

Greetings!

LOL! Great stuff, CarlD.:D I agree. I found myself laughing in agreement entirely with your tone. Spot on, sir.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 28, 2019, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1084860
It is interesting how depictions of "Strong, willful empowered" female characters often have traits that would speak to 'toxic' or problematic masculinity in a male character. Derogatory 'gendering' and type casting is fine as long as it goes in one direction.Men are cruel beasts jealous of strong women and interested only in taking their power for themselves as some of my ardent feminist associates tell me. Apparently we're really jealous that they have babies.

Edit: Actually, I'm okay with some feminist messaging and so called "Grrl Power!" in entertainment. Its' only fair.Hell, I loved the more kick ass females that showed up in th late 80s, 90s, etc...

 But it does get old being hit over the head with the anvil of how horrible I am because I had the misfortune to be born with a penis and owe everyone who wasn't a deep and personal apology for that and for being part of 49% that's holding back the Matriarchal Utopia.


I agree that this isn't new at all. I remember many of the same talking point from when I was a kid in the 80s.

On a more humorous level ; Next time I see a debate about "strong women" I would love for some dry serious dude to look straight into the camera and go "well, I hate to break it to you, and you can say many good things about women, but they are not particularly strong. You see, I always have to open the jars for them" Oh the reaction to that would be precious :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 28, 2019, 01:25:14 PM
That would be fun to see.

Its kind of funny in a ironic fashion ( to me I have a weird sense of humor) that being the sex that carries and births babies is to women kind of like having external genitalia is to men: Symbolic and representative of a certain degree of "power" the Other Side can't have, but also a certain degree of vulnerability. A vulnerability that the Other Side likes to rub in their faces whenever possible. :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Joey2k on April 28, 2019, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Trond;1084915
I agree that this isn't new at all. I remember many of the same talking point from when I was a kid in the 80s.

On a more humorous level ; Next time I see a debate about "strong women" I would love for some dry serious dude to look straight into the camera and go "well, I hate to break it to you, and you can say many good things about women, but they are not particularly strong. You see, I always have to open the jars for them" Oh the reaction to that would be precious :D


I find it humorous and ridiculous when some girl power advocate proclaims we (men) need to step aside and let strong independent women take the lead.  If they really were strong and independent, they wouldn't need anyone to step aside, they would rise to the top on their own.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 28, 2019, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: Joey2k;1084942
I find it humorous and ridiculous when some girl power advocate proclaims we (men) need to step aside and let strong independent women take the lead.  If they really were strong and independent, they wouldn't need anyone to step aside, they would rise to the top on their own.

The "Strong Amazonian Mistresses/Eternal Oppressed Victims" paradox. Its definitely pretty dug in.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on April 28, 2019, 06:48:59 PM
Quote from: Joey2k;1084942
I find it humorous and ridiculous when some girl power advocate proclaims we (men) need to step aside and let strong independent women take the lead.  If they really were strong and independent, they wouldn't need anyone to step aside, they would rise to the top on their own.


I keep waiting for the demands that women be required to sign up for selective service when they turn 18.

Equality of options without equality of responsibility is advantage not equality.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on April 28, 2019, 11:48:19 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1084992
I keep waiting for the demands that women be required to sign up for selective service when they turn 18.

Equality of options without equality of responsibility is advantage not equality.

Like the (https://www.servicewomen.org/swan-updates/congress-wrestles-over-the-question-of-the-draft-for-women/) Service Women's Action Network? (https://www.c-span.org/video/?460139-3/washington-journal-ellen-haring-discusses-women-included-military-draft)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on April 29, 2019, 12:40:00 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085020
Like the (https://www.servicewomen.org/swan-updates/congress-wrestles-over-the-question-of-the-draft-for-women/) Service Women's Action Network? (https://www.c-span.org/video/?460139-3/washington-journal-ellen-haring-discusses-women-included-military-draft)

Wow, April 27 rather timely there.

Good, first I've heard of them. Looking at the goals of the organization I approve. Not only the selective service issue, but also the "separate but equal" standards. I've long felt having different standards for women in the military just leads to many of the issues with women in the military. Nobody can respect a co-worker who is held to a lower standard of performance.

Thanks
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 29, 2019, 01:44:25 AM
One of our Radio Talkback hosts, Sean Plunket, is predicting that the Feminazis will be coming for NZs nation sport (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/04/woke-left-feminazis-will-try-to-ban-rugby-within-two-years-sean-plunket.html) Rugby within the next two years.

Very satirical but that would wake up middle class NZ if it was to come to pass.

Quote
"It's violent, it pits people against each other and is therefore not cooperative or inclusive. It is a game that comes from our colonial past," he says.

"Therefore it is a part of our evil colonial repressive past. It has also been male-dominated so rugby is part of the oppressive male patriarchy which has left women in terror for hundreds and if not thousands of years.

"They'll also say it's violent and it promotes violence amongst men, and from men against women, and they'll quote those statistics about the admissions to women's refuges when the All Blacks lose."
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 29, 2019, 07:58:12 AM
"Supermajority" (https://www.axios.com/supermajority-women-political-activists-planned-parenthood-ba97230d-caa2-4511-8939-ba5a1d8bfb59.html)

I can appreciate the notion of women's political movement, consolidating power and similar goals...but damn, if "feminists" in general want to put the "War on Men" narrative to bed they could turn it down a notch, IMO.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 29, 2019, 12:09:27 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1084712
I always love the term male feminist.  So Oxymoronic.

I'm a male feminist.  

I think we've had this conversation before.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 29, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085090
I'm a male feminist.  

I think we've had this conversation before.

Yeah, there are "legit" male feminists of various stripes.

Feminism is a sociopolitical moment(s). There's no reason a man share even the most extreme Anti-male versions (they all aren't). For an extremely hyperbolic argument for it you have blacks and other ethnicities as card carrying members of groups like the KKK. Issues I have aside, most school and branches of feminism aren't generally as extreme as those groups I worry if they may become that way over time however.

Neither are MRAs though the skew more aggressive, IME. BTW, there are female MRAs, they're oddly cherished in a way as having a woman backing them seems to add some legitimacy when MRA issues come up particularly regarding male victims of domestic violence and rape.

The possible motivations are complicated and nearly endless and I am not a psychologist.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 29, 2019, 05:33:13 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085090
I'm a male feminist.  

I think we've had this conversation before.

It makes me smile everytime.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on April 29, 2019, 08:08:49 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1084712
I always love the term male feminist.  So Oxymoronic.


It's shorthand for "virtue signalling clown begging for a blow job"
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on April 29, 2019, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085189
It's shorthand for "virtue signalling clown begging for a blow job"

Greetings!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!:D Fuck yeah, my friend! My god, I almost choked on my coffee laughing from that. Awesome, Spinachcat!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 30, 2019, 12:27:02 PM
Is Moore just being an ass or does have a point?

Trump Fed Pick Stephen Moore Criticized Wage Equality, Calling It 'Equal Pay for Inferior Work' (https://ktla.com/2019/04/22/trump-fed-pick-stephen-moore-criticized-wage-equality-calling-it-equal-pay-for-inferior-work/)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 30, 2019, 01:13:08 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085189
It's shorthand for "virtue signalling clown begging for a blow job"

Standing up for equality does't have to have ulterior motives.  Being a feminist is not getting me any more nookie than not identifying as one would.  I believe in the fundamental equality of all people despite recognizing that there are many people who are not as smart, good looking, or successful as I am.  People can differ, and you can judge them qualitatively by that, but their intrinsic value as a human being is not determined by any of those abilities.  

I'd also point out that someone with severely restricted mobility is just as much a person as I am.  

Some people just believe that it's important to stand up for what they believe.  I'm clearly not in a place where 'virtual signaling' gets me anything but derision and scorn.  It's still important for me to stand up for my beliefs - otherwise it is too easy to believe that every 'right-thinking individual' agrees with you.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 30, 2019, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1085304
Is Moore just being an ass or does have a point?

Trump Fed Pick Stephen Moore Criticized Wage Equality, Calling It 'Equal Pay for Inferior Work' (https://ktla.com/2019/04/22/trump-fed-pick-stephen-moore-criticized-wage-equality-calling-it-equal-pay-for-inferior-work/)


Both, of course. In the article, he says he was being an ass.
But the argument about women athletes was well put by Rhonda Rousey.



Female athletes should be paid at a rate that matches ticket sales. This is like, basic math stuff.
If women athletes want to be paid more, they should figure out a way to get more butts in seats, not bitch about pay gap nonsense.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: tenbones on April 30, 2019, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313
Standing up for equality does't have to have ulterior motives.

Unfortunately, this is hard to establish given the current circumstances of women in Western society and the history of male-feminists being blowjob-begging liars. Being a male-feminist and making your claim is like trying to bring back the Hitler-mustache and pretending everyone should just not say anything. It shows a staggering lack of perspective.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313
Being a feminist is not getting me any more nookie than not identifying as one would.

You didn't have to tell us, for we non-feminists already know this.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313
I believe in the fundamental equality of all people despite recognizing that there are many people who are not as smart, good looking, or successful as I am.  People can differ, and you can judge them qualitatively by that, but their intrinsic value as a human being is not determined by any of those abilities.

Sounds like you think less of women. Since what you're describing is simply what normal people generally do (here in the West). But your *actual* position is that women are lesser than this state and you're fighting to have others treat women - specifically - that might not be "as smart, good looking, or successful as I am" as if THEY ARE.

This is where that lack of perspective on reality comes in.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313
I'd also point out that someone with severely restricted mobility is just as much a person as I am.

Is this in question by anyone? Interesting that you need to point this out. Are you trying to convince someone other than us of this claim?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313
Some people just believe that it's important to stand up for what they believe.  I'm clearly not in a place where 'virtual signaling' gets me anything but derision and scorn.  It's still important for me to stand up for my beliefs - otherwise it is too easy to believe that every 'right-thinking individual' agrees with you.

That's because "virtue signalling" is intellectually and ultimately morally dishonest. It is part of a construct for dishonest individuals that know less than jack-and-dick about ethics and is instead an umbrella where they can weaponize their self-loathing by trying to inflict it on those that do not think like they do. If find it hilarious that you're insinuating that Virtue Signalling is not deserving of "derision and scorn" and then in the same thought justify your banal claim of "believing it's important to stand up for your beliefs (whatever those are) - or it becomes too easy to believe every 'right thinking individual' agrees with you' - when that is *the precise intent* of what virtue signalling is for.

Which of course only underscores my original point: staggering lack of perspective.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on April 30, 2019, 02:20:47 PM
Quote from: tenbones;1085322
Unfortunately, this is hard to establish given the current circumstances of women in Western society and the history of male-feminists being blowjob-begging liars. Being a male-feminist and making your claim is like trying to bring back the Hitler-mustache and pretending everyone should just not say anything. It shows a staggering lack of perspective.



You didn't have to tell us for us non-feminists to know this.



Sounds like you think less of women. Since what you're describing is simply what normal people generally do (here in the West). But your *actual* position is that women are lesser than this state and you're fighting to have others treat women - specifically - that might not be "as smart, good looking, or successful as I am" as if THEY ARE.

This is where that lack of perspective on reality comes in.



Is this in question by anyone? Interesting that you need to point this out. Are you trying to convince someone other than us of this claim?



That's because "virtue signalling" is intellectually and ultimately morally dishonest. It is part of a construct for dishonest individuals that know less than jack-and-dick about ethics and is instead an umbrella where they can weaponize their self-loathing by trying to inflict it on those that do not think like they do. If find it hilarious that you're insinuating that Virtue Signalling is not deserving of "derision and scorn" and then in the same thought justify your banal claim of "believing it's important to stand up for your beliefs (whatever those are) - or it becomes too easy to believe every 'right thinking individual' agrees with you' - when that is *the precise intent* of what virtue signalling is for.

Which of course only underscores my original point: staggering lack of perspective.

Greetings!

Fucking ON POINT, brother! Keep them tank treads rolling, rolling, rolling!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on April 30, 2019, 04:17:25 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313
Standing up for equality does't have to have ulterior motives.


LOL.

"Standing up for equality" means judging people on merit, not handing out goodies based on their medals in the Oppression Olympics.


Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313
Being a feminist is not getting me any more nookie than not identifying as one would.


It's getting you less nookie. Most women can smell bullshit.

The "I'm a sensitive guy" scam isn't new.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on April 30, 2019, 05:04:46 PM
If you ask me, the real difference is not if someone believe in individual rights or not.
it's e.g. if you believe this story or not:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/4d6ujp/tabletop_gaming_has_a_white_male_terrorism_problem/

Some people look at this and immediately believe that it shows proof of how horribly women are treated on a regular basis by gamers. Others read it, find it lacking in credibility, and conclude (like me) that the link above is full of horse shit.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 30, 2019, 05:19:35 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085347
It's getting you less nookie. Most women can smell bullshit.

The "I'm a sensitive guy" scam isn't new.

I do believe deadDMwalking when he says that he wants equality for everyone and he is right that it is not a popular opinion around here.

The main problem that I personally see with that philosophy is when you start to confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.  Because it is self evident that women already have equality of opportunity, at least here in western countries.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on April 30, 2019, 06:33:54 PM
Equality for everyone =/= modern feminism.

Not by a long shot.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on April 30, 2019, 08:24:48 PM
I think this guy is long for Tang
 (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/trumps-trade-waagh-what-is-it-good-for.833532/post-22563434)

Quote from: the post he was replying too
According to the Pew Research Center and Congressional report,wages have been stagnating for everybody except the very tip-topmost earners, who are overwhelmingly, by the way, white men.

The wage gap has been closing, not because women's pay is increasing - it is not - but because men's on average is decreasing.

And yet men are still paid more on average than women. Under the circumstances, while men's declining wages are a crisis, so are women's flat and considerably lower wages.

When the "cohort" of those whose wages are declining is everybody (except the top men), it is reasonable to consider that focusing only on the men is indistinguishable from sexism.

Quote from: the soon to be former poster
Maybe. Just don't double-down on the accusation when someone wants to discuss the problem. Because we can distinguish a source of social angst from an economic problem from an equity problem. They're all different things. Additionally, stagnation is very different from a decrease.

Nearly everyone on Tang will be able to coherently argue about whether the stagnation of lower wages is a problem. I'm not worried about that. My concern is that people doubling-down on the concern of falling male wages as 'sexist'. It certainly can be, but it needn't be. A 'decrease' is going to cause social problems. There's no part of that data-set that suggests that it's 'good' that men's wages are falling. It causes social issues, merely because it's happening. And no one will argue against the idea of anyone's wages rising is a problem, and if they do, it's because they're actually concerned about an underlying fairness issue.

But, I am confused about your claim that wages are declining for 'everyone'. I'm not disagreeing, but I don't know if your summary is accurate enough. Table 1 of the FAS report shows that male wages are decreasing. Table 2 indicates that the racial disparity is aggravating. It means that people in this cohort are not contributing less to any union that they join, but that their ability to contribute has actually gone down. Unpacking stagnation from declining is important.

One piece of the discussion that commonly fails is that some group decides to say that another group's decrease is 'okay', because they've already gotten too much. I've had right-wingers tell me that wage-stagnation is okay, because we have Xboxes now, and that's better. Now, this is Tangency, so we're happy to have discussions about whether some politicians is too sexist or whatever. But we have to remember to be able to coherently discuss this issue in public, so that we don't just automatically lose the conversation to the ignore feature.    
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on April 30, 2019, 09:42:55 PM
This is very off topic, but you know... I've grown to loathe the ignore feature on forums. It's too easy and tempting of a shortcut to just stop conversing because eff the other guy.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on April 30, 2019, 10:06:16 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085409
This is very off topic, but you know... I've grown to loathe the ignore feature on forums. It's too easy and tempting of a shortcut to just stop conversing because eff the other guy.

Greetings!

Hmmm...interesting. You know, I have never placed anyone on *Ignore*. I enjoy talking with people. Certainly people that are like-minded and join me in agreement, but also those that disagree. I've never been afraid or hesitant to defend my own views on anything.:D Hang in there, Tanin Wulf. Don't become discouraged, but rather, boldly go forth into the battle.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 30, 2019, 10:09:17 PM
The only people I've put on ignore are people who post in an odd color or font. For some reason, it rubs me the wrong way.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on April 30, 2019, 10:37:14 PM
I will use the ignore function if I find myself forever butting heads with someone.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 01, 2019, 12:07:10 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1085415
Greetings!

Hmmm...interesting. You know, I have never placed anyone on *Ignore*. I enjoy talking with people. Certainly people that are like-minded and join me in agreement, but also those that disagree. I've never been afraid or hesitant to defend my own views on anything.:D Hang in there, Tanin Wulf. Don't become discouraged, but rather, boldly go forth into the battle.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Always faithful indeed, Shark.

To Shasarak: I don't begrudge anyone who uses Ignore. It's just become a pet peeve of mine of late. Probably just overreacting to to what it currently symbolizes to me.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 01, 2019, 12:19:10 AM
I have no idea why some guys are feminists. Well, the ones who believe that it simply means equal rights for all, sure, but not the hard-core ones. My wife used to have a coworker that struck me as the most dedicated male feminist I have ever met. One of those people who thinks that old Disney was brainwashing women to think they are supposed to be pretty princesses (rather than people simply watching his movies because they liked what they saw). The department invited a radical feminist speaker who berated everyone in the hall, even though most of them were leftists and SJW-leaning. The men were all misogynists and the women were not feminist enough apparently. Many of the people disliked her attitude as she was pissing everyone off, but this guy LOVED it, trying to convince the others that she behaving like that because she was "fighting rampant misogyny". I'm frankly baffled, and can't explain what's going through that guy's head.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 01, 2019, 12:35:10 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085440
To Shasarak: I don't begrudge anyone who uses Ignore. It's just become a pet peeve of mine of late. Probably just overreacting to to what it currently symbolizes to me.

There was one guy that constantly shilled 4e like it was Gods gift to DnD players who had been wandering the desert for 40 years.

And you know anyone who calls me a Nazi because who has time to talk with half-wits.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 01, 2019, 03:57:45 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1085423
I will use the ignore function if I find myself forever butting heads with someone.


I like theRPGsite ignore function - I still know when someone has posted and if someone has responded to them I might open the post to see the full thing. On ENW where they entirely disappear it can get confusing, especially when I've forgotten about the person I put on IL.

Generally I reserve IL for prolific posters who keep posting the same rubbish, and I already know what they're going to say, more than personal antagonism.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 01, 2019, 04:32:21 AM
I won't ever use an Ignore button.

First, I'm hardcore on freedom of speech. If I'm gonna post my bullshit, then I've gotta be cool with everyone else posting their bullshit, regardless how wankass their bullshit might be compared to my ultracool genius bullshit.

Second, I enjoy seeing everyone's thoughts. I might learn something, or get a LOLZ, or get a chance to bring down the fire in the mosh pit of hate!!!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on May 01, 2019, 07:01:07 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085485
I won't ever use an Ignore button.

First, I'm hardcore on freedom of speech. If I'm gonna post my bullshit, then I've gotta be cool with everyone else posting their bullshit, regardless how wankass their bullshit might be compared to my ultracool genius bullshit.

Second, I enjoy seeing everyone's thoughts. I might learn something, or get a LOLZ, or get a chance to bring down the fire in the mosh pit of hate!!!

On your first point, ignore doesn't impact their freedom of speech at all. They can still say whatever they will even if you are not listening to them.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 01, 2019, 08:27:57 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085485
I won't ever use an Ignore button.

First, I'm hardcore on freedom of speech. If I'm gonna post my bullshit, then I've gotta be cool with everyone else posting their bullshit, regardless how wankass their bullshit might be compared to my ultracool genius bullshit.

Second, I enjoy seeing everyone's thoughts. I might learn something, or get a LOLZ, or get a chance to bring down the fire in the mosh pit of hate!!!

The first point is iffy. An IL listing doesn't stop anyone whatever the Hell they want just people have the freedom not to deal with their shit. Freedom of Speech isn't garuntee of an audience or platform. If I write a book so shitty no one wants to read it and major publisher will handle it my Freedom of Speech hasn't been violated. My book sucks.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 01, 2019, 09:32:21 AM
I don't get notifications of people responding. Is that equivalent to everyone being on my ignore list? :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 01, 2019, 09:45:02 AM
Nah. The notifications from this site long ago got filtered into my junk mail and I've been too lazy to fish them out of there.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 01, 2019, 10:14:41 AM
Quote from: CarlD.;1085507
The first point is iffy. An IL listing doesn't stop anyone whatever the Hell they want just people have the freedom not to deal with their shit. Freedom of Speech isn't garuntee of an audience or platform. If I write a book so shitty no one wants to read it and major publisher will handle it my Freedom of Speech hasn't been violated. My book sucks.

The you're not guaranteed a platform argument is one of the most insidious threats to freedom of speech today. Companies are highly reactive to even the spectre of bad press. Which means if a special interest group representing a small minority makes enough noise, they'll pressure every publisher to drop your book like a hot potato. That should be chilling to anyone who cares even the slightest about freedom of speech.

It's not freedom of speech if you're only allowed to say what you think in a soft voice in the privacy of your own bathroom. Freedom of speech is about people being able to publicly state their views and discuss issues, and allowing the marketplace of ideas to flourish. Having a platform of some kind is absolutely inherent to the idea, especially when you consider how highly centralized social media has become, and therefore how easy it's become to effectively silence people.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 01, 2019, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085518
The you're not guaranteed a platform argument is one of the most insidious threats to freedom of speech today. Companies are highly reactive to even the spectre of bad press. Which means if a special interest group representing a small minority makes enough noise, they'll pressure every publisher to drop your book like a hot potato. That should be chilling to anyone who cares even the slightest about freedom of speech.

It's not freedom of speech if you're only allowed to say what you think in a soft voice in the privacy of your own bathroom. Freedom of speech is about people being able to publicly state their views and discuss issues, and allowing the marketplace of ideas to flourish. Having a platform of some kind is absolutely inherent to the idea, especially when you consider how highly centralized social media has become, and therefore how easy it's become to effectively silence people.

There is a huge difference between being banned from Twitter and being restricted to one's own bathroom. Historically, fringe views have always been restricted in platform - they couldn't get published in the popular newspapers, have their books in mainstream bookstores, and so forth. They would often have to have fringe bookstores, hand out pamphlets on street corners, and so forth. I think that was OK, by and large. There have been historical problems with free speech, but I don't think this was one of them.

I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 01, 2019, 03:18:02 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085574
I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.

I don't like the idea of twitter being the arbiter of which political opinions are allowed on their platform, while claiming to be non-partisan.

Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 01, 2019, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085574
I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.

What if there was only one newspaper?

I love how the sides here have reversed since the 1970s, when the Left was all for free expression and the Right was wanting controlled expression.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 01, 2019, 04:09:35 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085574
There is a huge difference between being banned from Twitter and being restricted to one's own bathroom. Historically, fringe views have always been restricted in platform - they couldn't get published in the popular newspapers, have their books in mainstream bookstores, and so forth. They would often have to have fringe bookstores, hand out pamphlets on street corners, and so forth. I think that was OK, by and large. There have been historical problems with free speech, but I don't think this was one of them.

I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.

I never said a thing about fringe views, that's you deceitfully changing the subject to disguise your opposition to freedom of speech. I was explicitly talking small minorities silencing views they don't like. You even quoted those very words.

Though claiming anyone's view except yours is "fringe" and using extreme outliers to characterizes entire movements are common methods to suppress free speech. So you provided a good example of how it works.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 01, 2019, 04:11:06 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1085582
I love how the sides here have reversed since the 1970s, when the Left was all for free expression and the Right was wanting controlled expression.
It's the same with voter suppression/voter ID. These aren't moral stances, they're tactical positions. The left and right support whichever is currently in their favor.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 01, 2019, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim
I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.
Quote from: S'mon;1085582
What if there was only one newspaper?

I love how the sides here have reversed since the 1970s, when the Left was all for free expression and the Right was wanting controlled expression.
Few people have ever been for free expression per se - they have just argued for the promotion of their own views. So yes, it used to be that the Right had more control over mass media and the Left complained more about suppression. Now the Left has more control over it - and thus tendencies have reversed.

As a free speech advocate - I absolutely support shouting out against neonazis, disrupting their speeches, and turning publishers and mass media against them. At the same time, I will fight for neonazis right to still speak out, and prevent violence against them. I don't think these are contradictory. Free speech is about the rules of engagement - the minimum that any view should be allowed, no matter how extreme or vile. Stalinists, neo-nazis, radical Islamists, and others should still be able to hold those views and express them, but they can and should face a lot of opposition.

If you're fighting against bans of conservatives from Twitter - but you don't give a damn about radical Islamists or neonazis banned from Twitter, then you're just arguing for your own side, not for free speech.

I should say that I would prefer that news media and social media be more politically neutral as far as Left/Right, so that in the U.S. both Democrats and Republicans might read from the same news source and be satisfied with the same social media platforms. I'd support that, but I don't think it should be enforced by the government. That isn't about free speech, though.

A parallel is here on theRPGsite. Pundit still bans people - he just does has a lighter hand about bans than some other sites. I appreciate that and approve of his moderation style, but speech here on theRPGsite still isn't free. It's just broader. I support Pundit's right to ban people - because no one has a fundamental right to post on Pundit's board.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 01, 2019, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085586
I never said a thing about fringe views, that's you deceitfully changing the subject to disguise your opposition to freedom of speech. I was explicitly talking small minorities silencing views they don't like. You even quoted those very words.

Though claiming anyone's view except yours is "fringe" and using extreme outliers to characterizes entire movements are common methods to suppress free speech. So you provided a good example of how it works.


Jhkim reads forum posts like my students read exam questions; by skimming a few sentences and jumping to conclusions on what it's about ;)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 01, 2019, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085586
I never said a thing about fringe views, that's you deceitfully changing the subject to disguise your opposition to freedom of speech. I was explicitly talking small minorities silencing views they don't like. You even quoted those very words.

Though claiming anyone's view except yours is "fringe" and using extreme outliers to characterizes entire movements are common methods to suppress free speech. So you provided a good example of how it works.
On the contrary, I support the right of fringe views to be expressed. I am in *support* of the free speech rights of neonazis, Stalinists, white nationalists, radical Islamists, and so forth. They have a right to speak out. I am concerned about how their rights are often trampled on.

Of course, mainstream people have a right to be heard as well, but they have far less to worry about.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 01, 2019, 04:57:24 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085485
I won't ever use an Ignore button.

First, I'm hardcore on freedom of speech. If I'm gonna post my bullshit, then I've gotta be cool with everyone else posting their bullshit, regardless how wankass their bullshit might be compared to my ultracool genius bullshit.

Second, I enjoy seeing everyone's thoughts. I might learn something, or get a LOLZ, or get a chance to bring down the fire in the mosh pit of hate!!!

I disagree that Ignore stops free speech, it just means that some one can say what they want and I dont have to read it.

Quote from: jhkim;1085593
As a free speech advocate - I absolutely support shouting out against neonazis, disrupting their speeches, and turning publishers and mass media against them. At the same time, I will fight for neonazis right to still speak out, and prevent violence against them. I don't think these are contradictory. Free speech is about the rules of engagement - the minimum that any view should be allowed, no matter how extreme or vile. Stalinists, neo-nazis, radical Islamists, and others should still be able to hold those views and express them, but they can and should face a lot of opposition.

I see actively disrupting someones speech as absolutely contradictory to supporting free speech.  Even shouting down someone is anti-free speech.

How do you square that circle?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 01, 2019, 05:10:35 PM
Quote from: Trond;1085597
Jhkim reads forum posts like my students read exam questions; by skimming a few sentences and jumping to conclusions on what it's about ;)
That's unfortunately become very common. Worse, one point of disagreement is enough to get you labeled as one of Them, and then you have to spend the rest of the conversation patiently pointing out that no, I don't believe in any of that other crap you just assigned to me.

Quote from: jhkim;1085599
Of course, mainstream people have a right to be heard as well, but they have far less to worry about.
I don't agree. Most of the mainstream media labels the president of the U.S. and his supporters as fringe lunatics. Which is patently absurd, because he was freely elected in a general, popular election. By definition, he can't be fringe.

Part of the problem is the increasing polarization of politics, the increased segmentation of political views based on platform, and the demonization of anyone with even slightly divergent views, which are pervasive problems that threaten free speech in general. But in the case of Trump and his supporters, it's almost a matter of definition. They're on the right, but they're not traditional conservatives, and they're not libertarians. They're certainly not traditional liberals, or progressives. They're sometimes described as populist, but that's really missing the point because populism is a method, not a set of beliefs. They don't fit in any of the common, well-defined niches and the various attempts to put politics on a spectrum struggle to accommodate them. It's also not an intellectual tradition, so there's a shortage of works that explain or present it as a coherent philosophy. That makes it hard to understand them, which in turn makes it easy to dismiss them, or conflate them with other beliefs, especially extreme ones.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 01, 2019, 06:57:42 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1085600
I see actively disrupting someones speech as absolutely contradictory to supporting free speech.  Even shouting down someone is anti-free speech.

How do you square that circle?
It depends on what you see as "disrupting" or "shouting down". Generally speaking, I believe in rudeness but not violence. One doesn't have to be polite and quiet in counter-protesting. If something would be a crime if someone did it in a non-political context - like blowing an airhorn at someone, then yeah, it's too far. But if it just would be considered rude, then it's fair game. Interrupting someone with a rude question or comment isn't a crime, so it's fair to do by counter-protesters.

Actual crimes and violence should lead to arrest and prosecution, which unfortunately it doesn't always.


Quote from: jhkim
Of course, mainstream people have a right to be heard as well, but they have far less to worry about.
Quote from: Pat;1085604
I don't agree. Most of the mainstream media labels the president of the U.S. and his supporters as fringe lunatics. Which is patently absurd, because he was freely elected in a general, popular election. By definition, he can't be fringe.

Part of the problem is the increasing polarization of politics, the increased segmentation of political views based on platform, and the demonization of anyone with even slightly divergent views, which are pervasive problems that threaten free speech in general.
I agree that polarization is a problem - but it's not a free speech problem. People calling the president a fringe are wrong - but that's not violating his free speech rights. In terms of rights, a lunatic conspiracy theorist or a radical Islamist cleric have just as much right to speech and right to a platform as the President of the United States.

Demonization and name-calling are problems, but they are legal and do not violate people's free speech rights. I would argue that one of the great things about the United States is that someone can call the President all sorts of horrible names and not be jailed for it - which applies just as much for Obama as for Trump.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 01, 2019, 07:17:46 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085632
It depends on what you see as "disrupting" or "shouting down". Generally speaking, I believe in rudeness but not violence. One doesn't have to be polite and quiet in counter-protesting. If something would be a crime if someone did it in a non-political context - like blowing an airhorn at someone, then yeah, it's too far. But if it just would be considered rude, then it's fair game. Interrupting someone with a rude question or comment isn't a crime, so it's fair to do by counter-protesters.

Actual crimes and violence should lead to arrest and prosecution, which unfortunately it doesn't always.




I agree that polarization is a problem - but it's not a free speech problem. People calling the president a fringe are wrong - but that's not violating his free speech rights. In terms of rights, a lunatic conspiracy theorist or a radical Islamist cleric have just as much right to speech and right to a platform as the President of the United States.

Demonization and name-calling are problems, but they are legal and do not violate people's free speech rights. I would argue that one of the great things about the United States is that someone can call the President all sorts of horrible names and not be jailed for it - which applies just as much for Obama as for Trump.

Bullshit, the reason they're a problem is because once the other group is labeled as fringe, the next thing that happens is they argue that group is no longer within the bounds of permissible conversation, and thus they should be deplatformed and excluded from the conversation. They're attempting to do that with the president, and they've already done it at universities, where views that are conservative or even drifting toward the center are vigorously excluded. That's appalling anywhere, but especially so in an environment that should be a bastion of free speech and opposing viewpoints, like a campus or a political forum. Shouting down speakers is not a form of debate. It's not a coherent rebuttal. It's not an even expression of your personal distaste for the speaker's views. It's preventing anyone else from hearing what they have to say, which is a direct attack on the core principles of free speech.

That assault on the very essence of free speech is the point I was making, which should be clear from what I wrote. Everything else you've written is just feel-good pablum; general statements of support for trivial and long established aspects of free of speech that allow you to pretend to be in support of free speech, while attempting to undercut it in other ways.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 01, 2019, 07:42:43 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085636
Bullshit, the reason they're a problem is because once the other group is labeled as fringe, the next thing that happens is they argue that group is no longer within the bounds of permissible conversation, and thus they should be deplatformed and excluded from the conversation.
You make it sound as though the problem is being labelled as fringe.

My argument is that *everyone* - regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe - has a right to free speech. Do you agree with this?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 01, 2019, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085645
You make it sound as though the problem is being labelled as fringe.

My argument is that *everyone* - regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe - has a right to free speech. Do you agree with this?
It's a tactic, used to quell free speech. Stop trying to distract from the topic with an idiotic purity test.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 01, 2019, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: jhkim
You make it sound as though the problem is being labelled as fringe.

My argument is that *everyone* - regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe - has a right to free speech. Do you agree with this?
Quote from: Pat;1085647
It's a tactic, used to quell free speech. Stop trying to distract from the topic with an idiotic purity test.
Sure, it's a tactic - but equally so, what you're doing is a tactic. That's what happens in debate. Your tactic here is to break out of the content of the debate and attack me by asserting my argument is used to quell free speech, but I don't accept your assertion.

I believe that standing up for fringe groups is important as one of the front lines of free speech rights. It's important to defend neonazis, pornographers, religious extremists, and others - because it establishes the universality of free speech and the widest principle. That is what I consider to be the front line of the fight.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 01, 2019, 09:08:38 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085652
Sure, it's a tactic - but equally so, what you're doing is a tactic. That's what happens in debate. Your tactic here is to break out of the content of the debate and attack me by asserting my argument is used to quell free speech, but I don't accept your assertion.

I believe that standing up for fringe groups is important as one of the front lines of free speech rights. It's important to defend neonazis, pornographers, religious extremists, and others - because it establishes the universality of free speech and the widest principle. That is what I consider to be the front line of the fight.
Horseshit, you supported two tactics used to quell free speech. I was one of the people who pointed that out, and since then you've been avoiding the topic by proudly proclaiming that you support free speech in general, and trying to validate that claim by stating your support of all kinds of unrelated and largely trivial examples of free speech. You even tried to get my tacit support of your derailment by demanding I reply to a purity test. You've done that in lieu of addressing the specific areas where we pointed our your stance is in clear opposition to free speech. To stay on topic, here are the two areas: You have supported the tactic of defining the opposition as a fringe group, which as I pointed out is used to deplatform the other group by claiming they're outside the bounds of normal conversation. And you have supported shouting down the opposition as a form of free speech, when it's not. It's not an argument, or even primarily a personal expression of feelings. It's a concrete and literal attempt to prevent anyone else from hearing opposing viewpoints, and thus is overwhelmingly a form of suppression of free speech.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 01, 2019, 09:35:44 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085656
To stay on topic, here are the two areas: You have supported the tactic of defining the opposition as a fringe group, which as I pointed out is used to deplatform the other group by claiming they're outside the bounds of normal conversation. And you have supported shouting down the opposition as a form of free speech, when it's not. It's not an argument, or even primarily a personal expression of feelings. It's a concrete and literal attempt to prevent anyone else from hearing opposing viewpoints, and thus is overwhelmingly a form of suppression of free speech.
Thanks for the specifics.

For the former, yes, I disagree with that tactic - but I believe it is within the bounds of free speech. Free speech isn't limited to only certain debate styles. It's no-holds-barred wrestling as far as debate. People should be free to use logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and any other nonsense. Logic wins not by banning any illogical arguments, but by being *better*.

As for "shouting down" -- the usual common usage of that term is expressing disapproval until someone gives up, not a literal deafening wall of sound. I did specify that using an airhorn on someone would be considered a crime and should be prosecuted. Heckling, jeering, and other rude reactions are legal.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lurtch on May 01, 2019, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085661
Thanks for the specifics.

For the former, yes, I disagree with that tactic - but I believe it is within the bounds of free speech. Free speech isn't limited to only certain debate styles. It's no-holds-barred wrestling as far as debate. People should be free to use logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and any other nonsense. Logic wins not by banning any illogical arguments, but by being *better*.

As for "shouting down" -- the usual common usage of that term is expressing disapproval until someone gives up, not a literal deafening wall of sound. I did specify that using an airhorn on someone would be considered a crime and should be prosecuted. Heckling, jeering, and other rude reactions are legal.

The Hecklers veto is an anti free speech tool. You do not support free speech.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 01, 2019, 09:56:56 PM
Greetings!

I find it to be so hypocritical and disingenuous of Liberals when in years past, when *they* wanted freedom of speech to chant anti-American slogans at protests, when they wanted to screech about gay rights, racism, feminism, or anything anti-military, they cried non-stop about "freedom of speech". And yet, increasingly in recent years, Liberals everywhere are rabidly championing tyranny against anyone that thinks differently from them. See how liberals act whenever Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern, Stephan Molyneux, Sean Hannity, Milo whatehisname, and other conservative speakers seek to attend universities where they were *invited*. Look how liberals act to limit, restrict, and crush freedom of speech on Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

Why are liberals so afraid of people hearing opposing viewpoints, and opposing narratives? If the Liberal's worldview was really so righteous, so good, so moral, and so right--why would they be threatened by what others wish to speak?

Note well, that such conservative speakers seek no bar on liberals attending their meetings, or reading their books, or accessing their arguments online in any platform.

Maybe because the fucking Liberals are morally bankrupt and it is they who love and embrace tyranny. Fucking cowards is what they are. Fucking cowards, and evil, filthy, corrupt rats. It is they who seek to betray our Republic, and trample our Constitution and our cherished freedoms. Like diseased cockroaches, they seek the downfall and destruction of Western Civilization.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 01, 2019, 09:58:02 PM
I actually had to ponder these specifics, when protesters would blast air horns at college campus speeches, and claim it was their own free speech.

In a public venue, like on a street corner, no one can claim sole ownership of the venue. Therefore it seems that any speech is valid, up to the various ordinances of the city/county/state. Heckle and jeer all you like. I'll heckle and jeer right back.
In a public venue like a college, we have an organizing body recognized as having authority over the venue. The Dean, or whoever runs the place. Thus we agree as a society to follow the rules set down by the college for events. If you go to an event, and they say "We'll have 30 minutes for the speaker, and then 30 minutes for Q&A" you best save the heckling and jeering for your protest outside the hall, and save your questions for the Q&A period. I'm sure no one here wants our college campuses to turn into a 24/7 battle of air horns. I will happily feedback a bullhorn during your gender studies class if that's the rules of engagement you prefer.
Private venues, go mostly without saying. Free speech is at the whim of the person or persons who own the venue. With the very important caveat that if they provide a platform, they had better be goddamn transparent about their biases, and not claim to be non-partisan while administering their platform in a partisan fashion.

IANAL, and I welcome any criticism to sharpen these ideas.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on May 01, 2019, 10:10:48 PM
It seems as if some people know they can't win based on the merit of their argument.
Not that I'm opposed to some well done heckling.

...but air horns and shouting people down seem to be the emotional maturity equivalent of small children covering their ears and screaming so they can't hear something they don't like.



Now that I think about it, that level of emotional maturity actually makes sense...They really ARE spoiled little children.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 01, 2019, 10:49:25 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085632
It depends on what you see as "disrupting" or "shouting down". Generally speaking, I believe in rudeness but not violence. One doesn't have to be polite and quiet in counter-protesting. If something would be a crime if someone did it in a non-political context - like blowing an airhorn at someone, then yeah, it's too far. But if it just would be considered rude, then it's fair game. Interrupting someone with a rude question or comment isn't a crime, so it's fair to do by counter-protesters.

Actual crimes and violence should lead to arrest and prosecution, which unfortunately it doesn't always.

Interrupting with a rude question is not "shouting" them down that is more like heckling.  I think shouting them down has a pretty clear meaning and if you are shouting down someone then that is not free speech.

I see people like Ben Shapiro who get terrorized all the time and yet he is the type of guy who will actually debate you honestly if you have a legitimate difference in opinion.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 01, 2019, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085587
It's the same with voter suppression/voter ID. These aren't moral stances, they're tactical positions. The left and right support whichever is currently in their favor.



Republican efforts to suppress votes are pretty well documented by the media. I am in favor of better control at election sites, but do believe a lot of voter ID efforts are an attempt to eliminate voters likely to vote for the other party.

The DNC in 2016 was not at all tactful or delicate in their attempt to prevent Bernie voters from giving their opinions at the ballot box. Even justifying it as just a primary, so democrats silencing democrats made it all ok, because real democrats would vote Hillary.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 01, 2019, 11:57:46 PM
To be clear, I prefer honest and logical debate, and I would support it. I think people who shout are often rude and do damage to their own cause. Likewise those who use logical fallacies or labelling.

But I don't think that these should be made illegal and considered beyond the bounds of free speech. I think of the Founding Fathers here. Opposition to the British was often unruly and loud, and sometimes even violent. I think we need to restrain the violence, but loud and unruly mobs are part of our founding. I don't approve of the idea of jailing people for shouting in protest.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085667
I actually had to ponder these specifics, when protesters would blast air horns at college campus speeches, and claim it was their own free speech.

In a public venue, like on a street corner, no one can claim sole ownership of the venue. Therefore it seems that any speech is valid, up to the various ordinances of the city/county/state. Heckle and jeer all you like. I'll heckle and jeer right back.
In a public venue like a college, we have an organizing body recognized as having authority over the venue.
Yes, I agree with this. I was talking about a street corner discussion or demonstration. Demonstrators and counter-demonstrators can heckle, jeer, and shout at each other. In a venue like a college, which is technically private property, I agree that the organizing body has authority - and they can eject people who disrupt.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 02, 2019, 12:55:25 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1085688
Yes, I agree with this. I was talking about a street corner discussion or demonstration. Demonstrators and counter-demonstrators can heckle, jeer, and shout at each other. In a venue like a college, which is technically private property, I agree that the organizing body has authority - and they can eject people who disrupt.

But don't a lot of colleges take government subsidies? And how much student debt is in federal loans? Not to mention if the "free college" thing ever becomes a reality. Thus dragging the federal government into the equation.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 02, 2019, 01:05:33 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1085661
For the former, yes, I disagree with that tactic - but I believe it is within the bounds of free speech. Free speech isn't limited to only certain debate styles. It's no-holds-barred wrestling as far as debate. People should be free to use logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and any other nonsense. Logic wins not by banning any illogical arguments, but by being *better*.
That's not how fringing and deplatforming works. It's specifically a tactic used to deny people the right to participate in the debate, by claiming they're extremists and thus should be barred from public debate. You specifically mentioned that you believe it's okay for that fringe groups to be denied access to platforms, but that shouldn't be a problem for those holding mainstream views. Yet that's false, because they're attempting to do that to the most mainstream of all political groups, the supporters of the last person to win a general national election. That needs to be flat-out stopped. It's a backhanded and sleazy, but nonetheless a clear and blatant violation of freedom of speech. That's why I'm suspicious of any attempts to say X is beyond the pale, and should not be allowed to be discussed on most public platforms. Fuck. That.

The stage where they try to paint them as fringe? Yes, that's protected speech. But if it becomes a common tactic, the result is people will only be allowed to hear curated, approved opinions. Which means the end of an open society. So even at that stage, it needs to be vigorously opposed at every avenue by calling it out for what it is, which is a monstrous attack on the basic principles of an open democracy. And we really need to return at least the pretense of openness to the mainstream media, probably with a revival of some form of the Fairness Doctrine.

Others have covered shouting down.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 02, 2019, 01:17:09 AM
Quote from: Pat;1085696
The stage where they try to paint them as fringe? Yes, that's protected speech. But if it becomes a common tactic, the result is people will only be allowed to hear curated, approved opinions. Which means the end of an open society. So even at that stage, it needs to be vigorously opposed at every avenue by calling it out
On this point, I don't think we're disagreeing, actually. If you agree that it's protected speech, I agree that it needs to be vigorously opposed by opposing speech.

I dislike framing it that everyone has a fundamental right to a Twitter account. They don't. That's Twitter's business, just like Pundit has a right to ban people from his forums here.

But we should use our free speech to call for more open and diverse platforms rather than echo chambers.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 02, 2019, 01:48:41 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1085697
On this point, I don't think we're disagreeing, actually. If you agree that it's protected speech, I agree that it needs to be vigorously opposed by opposing speech.

I dislike framing it that everyone has a fundamental right to a Twitter account. They don't. That's Twitter's business, just like Pundit has a right to ban people from his forums here.

But we should use our free speech to call for more open and diverse platforms rather than echo chambers.

That's not what I said. I specifically called out which parts should be considered protected speech (but are still wrong), and which parts are a clear violation of the freedom of speech protections.

And regarding the Twitter example you keep bring up just to rebut even though nobody else has ever mentioned it, the problem with social media is either they have to be treated as public platforms, or we need to start enforcing antitrust laws again, and break up Alphabet and Facebook.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 02, 2019, 02:00:54 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1085697
I dislike framing it that everyone has a fundamental right to a Twitter account. They don't. That's Twitter's business, just like Pundit has a right to ban people from his forums here.

Once Jacinda and Emmanuel get finished with Twitter (and Facebook et al) they are going to wish that everyone had a fundamental right to an account.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 02, 2019, 02:06:46 AM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085681
Republican efforts to suppress votes are pretty well documented by the media.

No they're not. You want to vote? Assuming you're 18, a citizen, don't have your voting privileges revoked for a felony or something of that nature (incidentally, not a fan of that... the franchise should be an irrevocable part of citizenship), register, get your ass down to the polls on election day, and maybe bring some ID, you can vote. Hell, you can vote beforehand, or during extended hours, or using absentee ballots... the system bends over backwards to facilitate it. All the so-called suppression attempts aren't about whether you can or can't vote, or whether you're barred from voting. They're minor administrative hurdles. It's a matter of convenience, not fundamental rights. I'm all in favor of making it even easier, but if the politicians cared they'd be pushing online voting. But they aren't, because they don't care. They're just looking for clear cut tactical advantages that favor their side, whether by requiring voter IDs or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. There is no pervasive problems with either voter fraud, or voter suppression, in general elections. All the sturm and drang is just politics.

The DNC was a real issue, but it involved super-delegates, misappropriation, rigging debates, PACs, a false pretense of impartiality, and other things separate from a general election.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 02, 2019, 05:07:42 AM
The Heckler's Veto is not free speech. Shouting down someone else is the same as trying to silence them because you've made it nigh-impossible for others to hear and make up their own minds.

It takes balls to let your enemy speak freely before you counter their arguments. Cowards blow airhorns.


Quote from: HappyDaze;1085498
On your first point, ignore doesn't impact their freedom of speech at all. They can still say whatever they will even if you are not listening to them.


Agreed, but FOR ME (and I'm NOT saying anyone else needs to do this), I feel the need to have other posters free speech in front of me and not hidden from view if I expect to have my free speech posted in front of them.

AKA, if I'm gonna fling poo at their screens, its disingenuous of me to not let them fling poo at my screen. FOR ME, the Ignore button is a form of deplatforming because I'm refusing for their speech to be even heard by me.


Quote from: Pat;1085587
It's the same with voter suppression/voter ID. These aren't moral stances, they're tactical positions. The left and right support whichever is currently in their favor.


Exactly. It's all about tactical positions. That's why its VERY WEIRD to have held the same positions over decades and find myself on the opposite political spectrum. Its creepy as fuck to see today's SJWs echoing the much of the same bullshit as the fundamentalist church ladies of the 80s.

And a national voter ID would help AGAINST voter suppression.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 02, 2019, 05:53:58 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1085697
On this point, I don't think we're disagreeing, actually. If you agree that it's protected speech, I agree that it needs to be vigorously opposed by opposing speech.

I dislike framing it that everyone has a fundamental right to a Twitter account. They don't. That's Twitter's business, just like Pundit has a right to ban people from his forums here.

But we should use our free speech to call for more open and diverse platforms rather than echo chambers.


True, no one has a right to a Twitter account. However, what they do have a right to is fair treatment by the site regardless of their views, or a fair disclaimer of the site's biases. Since Twitter, Facebook and others have got into the habit of curating information, they are no longer a platform, but a publisher and can be held to legally account for what is published on their site. If this were applied, then we'd see a lot less of corporate censorship, which I see as the main villain these days in the war on free speech.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 02, 2019, 07:25:33 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085711
And a national voter ID would help AGAINST voter suppression.

It wouldn't help illegal immigrants to vote.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 02, 2019, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Pat;1085701
No they're not. You want to vote? Assuming you're 18, a citizen, don't have your voting privileges revoked for a felony or something of that nature (incidentally, not a fan of that... the franchise should be an irrevocable part of citizenship), register, get your ass down to the polls on election day, and maybe bring some ID, you can vote. Hell, you can vote beforehand, or during extended hours, or using absentee ballots... the system bends over backwards to facilitate it. All the so-called suppression attempts aren't about whether you can or can't vote, or whether you're barred from voting. They're minor administrative hurdles. ........


I agree with this. I can totally see why officials would want to see ID of citizens before voting. As immigrants to the US my wife and I managed to get valid IDs within a few days (though we can't vote of course). If you can't even do that, maybe you shouldn't vote. Sometimes, I think this tendency to look after the vulnerable people in the society goes all the way up to and including assuming that they are complete imbecils.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 02, 2019, 01:28:46 PM
Quote from: Trond;1085745
I agree with this. I can totally see why officials would want to see ID of citizens before voting. As immigrants to the US my wife and I managed to get valid IDs within a few days (though we can't vote of course). If you can't even do that, maybe you shouldn't vote. Sometimes, I think this tendency to look after the vulnerable people in the society goes all the way up to and including assuming that they are complete imbeciles.


In Canada, voter ID is a normal requirement. But that just means "photo ID and voter card," and the cards are mailed out automatically.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 02, 2019, 02:00:14 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1085770
In Canada, voter ID is a normal requirement. But that just means "photo ID and voter card," and the cards are mailed out automatically.

Bunch of racists! [/s]
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 02, 2019, 02:21:30 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085701
All the so-called suppression attempts aren't about whether you can or can't vote, or whether you're barred from voting. They're minor administrative hurdles. It's a matter of convenience, not fundamental rights. I'm all in favor of making it even easier, but if the politicians cared they'd be pushing online voting. But they aren't, because they don't care. They're just looking for clear cut tactical advantages that favor their side, whether by requiring voter IDs or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. There is no pervasive problems with either voter fraud, or voter suppression, in general elections. All the sturm and drang is just politics.
Placing administrative hurdles that differently affect some voters compared to others has been widely held to be invalid. In principle, I'm OK with there being hurdles to voting - but in practice, these hurdles are almost always trivial to wealthy, well-connected people - but often more difficult for others. For example, if an ID either requires a fee or requires you to go through extra paperwork to prove you're eligible to get it for free - then that's trivial for a wealthy person to just pay, but requires extra work for someone who doesn't have the money.


Quote from: CarlD.;1085770
In Canada, voter ID is a normal requirement. But that just means "photo ID and voter card," and the cards are mailed out automatically.
The last part is crucial to me. If the government automatically gets IDs out to people, then it's fairly equal.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 02, 2019, 02:29:46 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085780
The last part is crucial to me. If the government automatically gets IDs out to people, then it's fairly equal.

This still meets with a surprising resistance in the U.S. because it would require nationalizing at least part of the election system. But that's coming anyway.

It would also effectively create a national ID system... which is also coming anyway.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on May 02, 2019, 03:26:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085780
Placing administrative hurdles that differently affect some voters compared to others has been widely held to be invalid. In principle, I'm OK with there being hurdles to voting - but in practice, these hurdles are almost always trivial to wealthy, well-connected people - but often more difficult for others. For example, if an ID either requires a fee or requires you to go through extra paperwork to prove you're eligible to get it for free - then that's trivial for a wealthy person to just pay, but requires extra work for someone who doesn't have the money.

The last part is crucial to me. If the government automatically gets IDs out to people, then it's fairly equal.

If you can't be bothered to get an ID, which means you're not able to do all sorts of every day crap like drive a car or have a job, then I don't think you need to be voting.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 02, 2019, 04:35:35 PM
As a citizen, you have a constitutional right to vote.  

There isn't anything in the Constitution about getting a driver's license.  

To get a job you need to provide your social security number; you don't necessarily have to provide an ID.  Further, it costs money to get an ID - maybe a trivial amount, but it certainly doesn't involve a small amount of time - especially for someone that does not and will not drive a car.  

I generally think that you can ask people whether they're legally allowed to vote.  If you have reason to believe they are not eligible, that should be addressed legally.  

Here's One (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xw73j4/kris-kobach-wanted-this-20-year-old-to-go-to-jail-for-accidentally-voting-twice).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 02, 2019, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085801
To get a job you need to provide your social security number; you don't necessarily have to provide an ID.  Further, it costs money to get an ID - maybe a trivial amount, but it certainly doesn't involve a small amount of time - especially for someone that does not and will not drive a car.  

I went without a driver's license for over a decade. I got the same kind of ID from the DMV, with a little message on it that it was only for ID, and not a valid driver's license.
The time and expense were trivial. Maybe an hour at the DMV, and 15 bucks? Something like that.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 02, 2019, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085802
I went without a driver's license for over a decade. I got the same kind of ID from the DMV, with a little message on it that it was only for ID, and not a valid driver's license.
The time and expense were trivial. Maybe an hour at the DMV, and 15 bucks? Something like that.
Sure. And poll taxes were typically cheap as well - say like the Georgia poll tax of $1 in 1937 which would be $17 today. That's not much. But it creates a different burden for different sorts of people, which was why poll taxes were held to be illegal.

The reality is that it's not hard to create a shift of a few percent in votes by creating a few more hurdles that have a differential effect. If we're going to create additional hurdles to vote, then they shouldn't be ones that favor people with more money and ability - compared to, say, a retired person living on Social Security.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 02, 2019, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085802
I went without a driver's license for over a decade. I got the same kind of ID from the DMV, with a little message on it that it was only for ID, and not a valid driver's license.
The time and expense were trivial. Maybe an hour at the DMV, and 15 bucks? Something like that.


Greetings!

Exactly, my friend. I routinely carry two forms of valid, picture identification with me at all times; a driver's lisense, and a state-issued identification card. And yes, getting an ID card takes less than $30 and about an hour. It's trivial. Someone can't be bothered to get off their fucking ass to go to the DMV and spend the money for stuffing their grape with two or three lunches from MacDonald's is just fucking BS.

No whining. No fucking excuses.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 02, 2019, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085801
As a citizen, you have a constitutional right to vote.  

So you just have to prove that you are a legal citizen, right?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 02, 2019, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085809
Sure. And poll taxes were typically cheap as well - say like the Georgia poll tax of $1 in 1937 which would be $17 today. That's not much. But it creates a different burden for different sorts of people, which was why poll taxes were held to be illegal.

Your mildly sarcastic response would make more sense if: A) IDs were huge hurdles to acquire through legal means or B) it was 1937 and not 2019.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on May 02, 2019, 05:42:02 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085801
As a citizen, you have a constitutional right to vote.  

There isn't anything in the Constitution about getting a driver's license.  

To get a job you need to provide your social security number; you don't necessarily have to provide an ID.  Further, it costs money to get an ID - maybe a trivial amount, but it certainly doesn't involve a small amount of time - especially for someone that does not and will not drive a car.  

I generally think that you can ask people whether they're legally allowed to vote.  If you have reason to believe they are not eligible, that should be addressed legally.  

Here's One (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xw73j4/kris-kobach-wanted-this-20-year-old-to-go-to-jail-for-accidentally-voting-twice).


I have a Constitutional right to own weapons, but no one thinks background checks are a bad idea.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 02, 2019, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085809
Sure. And poll taxes were typically cheap as well - say like the Georgia poll tax of $1 in 1937 which would be $17 today. That's not much. But it creates a different burden for different sorts of people, which was why poll taxes were held to be illegal.

The reality is that it's not hard to create a shift of a few percent in votes by creating a few more hurdles that have a differential effect. If we're going to create additional hurdles to vote, then they shouldn't be ones that favor people with more money and ability - compared to, say, a retired person living on Social Security.

I'm not talking about a poll tax. I'm talking about an ID to verifiy the identity of the voter.
We put all kinds of burdens on voters. We require them to be of a certain age, and not be incarcerated. (For now (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-prison-voting.html))
We require them to be citizens of this country and residents of a certain precinct.

If you want to argue that we should have a government provided voter's ID, I'm open to that argument.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 02, 2019, 05:55:16 PM
Quote from: jhkim
Sure. And poll taxes were typically cheap as well - say like the Georgia poll tax of $1 in 1937 which would be $17 today. That's not much. But it creates a different burden for different sorts of people, which was why poll taxes were held to be illegal.
Quote from: jeff37923;1085816
Your mildly sarcastic response would make more sense if: A) IDs were huge hurdles to acquire through legal means or B) it was 1937 and not 2019.

The point is that a $1 poll tax was not a huge hurdle to go through in 1937. It was a minor administrative fee. I'm sure at the time, the argument was that anyone so lazy that they didn't want to pay just a single buck to vote shouldn't really be voting. No excuses or whining - just pay up and vote!

Nevertheless, even a small poll tax like that was held to be unconstitutional. Creating even a minor hurdle was invalid because of creating a different burden on different voters.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 02, 2019, 06:02:13 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085826
The point is that a $1 poll tax was not a huge hurdle to go through in 1937. It was a minor administrative fee. I'm sure at the time, the argument was that anyone so lazy that they didn't want to pay just a single buck to vote shouldn't really be voting. No excuses or whining - just pay up and vote!

Nevertheless, even a small poll tax like that was held to be unconstitutional. Creating even a minor hurdle was invalid because of creating a different burden on different voters.

So explain why proving that you are a citizen of the USA in order to vote for an election in the USA is unconstitutional.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 02, 2019, 06:17:45 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085701
No they're not. You want to vote? Assuming you're 18, a citizen, don't have your voting privileges revoked for a felony or something of that nature (incidentally, not a fan of that... the franchise should be an irrevocable part of citizenship), register, get your ass down to the polls on election day, and maybe bring some ID, you can vote. Hell, you can vote beforehand, or during extended hours, or using absentee ballots... the system bends over backwards to facilitate it. All the so-called suppression attempts aren't about whether you can or can't vote, or whether you're barred from voting. They're minor administrative hurdles. It's a matter of convenience, not fundamental rights. I'm all in favor of making it even easier, but if the politicians cared they'd be pushing online voting. But they aren't, because they don't care. They're just looking for clear cut tactical advantages that favor their side, whether by requiring voter IDs or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. There is no pervasive problems with either voter fraud, or voter suppression, in general elections. All the sturm and drang is just politics.

The DNC was a real issue, but it involved super-delegates, misappropriation, rigging debates, PACs, a false pretense of impartiality, and other things separate from a general election.

I didn't say it was a pervasive issue, but it is a definite thing. The republicans have been less tactful about it in recent years, but you are correct it is not a single party issue. It is just with the current demographics it benefits the democrats to make voting easier which has better optics than trying to restrict voting. Unless of course some independent wackadoodle comes out of nowhere to upset your king making, then you saw the DNC go into full reverse.

California is an open primary state, meaning voters do not have to be a registered democrat or republican to vote in the primary for any party. The democrats challenged the law and won in 2000 so now unaffiliated (or NPP, No Preference Provided) voters can not vote in the presidential primaries with permission. Both parties have traditionally agreed to allow non-affiliated voters to request a democrat or republican ballot allowing them to vote in "their" primary.

Until 2016 this had not been an issue, usually there isn't even a choice to make between candidates by the California primary. In 2016 there were some shenanigans with different dates being provided and a lot of misinformation about the process. The real date to request a democrat ballot was May 31, but some counties were giving dates as early as April 15, when of course it wasn't until May that it was clear Bernie might actually be successful in his challenge and California voters might actually get a choice in June. It is being blamed on bureaucracy, but the DNC was actively trying to retract their permission to allow crossover voters when Bernie was polling way ahead of Hillary among NPP voters in May. Almost 25% of the states voters are registered as No Preference Provided, so this is not a small fringe group.  

I have no problem requiring ID to vote, I'm actually shocked that it isn't a requirement. It is how many of these voter ID proposals have been done. There have absolutely been efforts to make voting harder for certain people. Restricting hours, limiting polling places, making new requirements shortly before an election definitely raise doubts as to the sincerity of the efforts. These typically impact lower income voters more than higher income workers.

I own a car, I have paid leave, I have a flexible schedule, I have an address so I have many ways to make time to deal with voting. Vote by mail is awesome, but boy did the politicians here fight against permanent absentee ballots. What a terrible idea, letting people sit at home where they can comfortably take the time to research each candidate and issue without feeling pressure to just hurry up and pick a few dots to punch out.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 02, 2019, 06:23:22 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085802
I went without a driver's license for over a decade. I got the same kind of ID from the DMV, with a little message on it that it was only for ID, and not a valid driver's license.
The time and expense were trivial. Maybe an hour at the DMV, and 15 bucks? Something like that.


More like 6-8 hours these days. It takes an hour just to get a number, so you can wait.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 02, 2019, 06:34:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085823
I'm not talking about a poll tax. I'm talking about an ID to verifiy the identity of the voter.
We put all kinds of burdens on voters. We require them to be of a certain age, and not be incarcerated. (For now (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-prison-voting.html))
We require them to be citizens of this country and residents of a certain precinct.

If you want to argue that we should have a government provided voter's ID, I'm open to that argument.
Your claim was that $15 wasn't a big deal, and that anyone should be willing to pay that in order to vote. I feel that is effectively a poll tax. To the latter - yes, I'm saying that if the government should just provide people with a free photo ID. It should just issue them out when people turn 18 or are naturalized, which the government is already aware of.


Quote from: jeff37923;1085827
So explain why proving that you are a citizen of the USA in order to vote for an election in the USA is unconstitutional.
The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 02, 2019, 06:49:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085780
Placing administrative hurdles that differently affect some voters compared to others has been widely held to be invalid. In principle, I'm OK with there being hurdles to voting - but in practice, these hurdles are almost always trivial to wealthy, well-connected people - but often more difficult for others. For example, if an ID either requires a fee or requires you to go through extra paperwork to prove you're eligible to get it for free - then that's trivial for a wealthy person to just pay, but requires extra work for someone who doesn't have the money.

Which is an impossibly stupid standard, because literally any change you could ever make to the voting regulations will affect some voters differently than other. That's just another way of saying nope you can't change the voting rules, ever.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 02, 2019, 06:51:26 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085834
Your claim was that $15 wasn't a big deal, and that anyone should be willing to pay that in order to vote. I feel that is effectively a poll tax. To the latter - yes, I'm saying that if the government should just provide people with a free photo ID. It should just issue them out when people turn 18 or are naturalized, which the government is already aware of.



The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.


"voter ID" is the new version of "Only land owning (white) males can vote", a turd of with a long history that's been polished for the modern era including the illusion that its ostensible fair because "anyone" can get X amounts of money with the unspoken assumption those that can't, for whatever their reason, are unworthy to vote/have a say in how their nation is ruled (like True Citizens).
Its a solution in search of a problem, formed in part out of GOP/Right wing terror of their shrinking demographic and the growth of of other, often poorer ethnic group's as influential power blocks. The GOP/Right Wing could court them (and have a good change with Hispanics, IME, which skew socially conservative) but trying to put up fences feels easier or something.

Yes, the requirements to get an ID can hamper people from getting, particularly poorer people regardless of ethnic background.

What difference would mailing out vote/national IDs be? It would solve the (nominal and largely imaginary) problem of at the ballot vote fraud, wouldn't cripple the government cost-wise, empower some citizens and make most others lives a little easier (no trip to get an ID voter pass among other things and who wouldn't like to cut another chore out of their life?) and perhaps increase voter participation and enrich our democracy.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 02, 2019, 06:53:05 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085832
More like 6-8 hours these days. It takes an hour just to get a number, so you can wait.

Eh. When I went to get my Enhanced License at the DMV, it took maybe an hour or two. I can't remember the exact time, but it was definitely less than two hours.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 02, 2019, 06:54:39 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085834
Your claim was that $15 wasn't a big deal, and that anyone should be willing to pay that in order to vote.

That was not my claim at all.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 02, 2019, 07:05:15 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1085838
What difference would mailing out vote/national IDs be?
So... here's a question that may help illustrate the issue with this: what is the constitutional authority for the Federal government to do that? (It's the Elections Clause.) However, that clause only covers congressional / federal elections. It does not cover state elections.

And that's only for a voter ID. What else could a national ID be used for? And for each of those activities, what is the constitutional authority for the government to do that?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 02, 2019, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085844
So... here's a question that may help illustrate the issue with this: what is the constitutional authority for the Federal government to do that? (It's the Elections Clause.) However, that clause only covers congressional / federal elections. It does not cover state elections.

And that's only for a voter ID. What else could a national ID be used for? And for each of those activities, what is the constitutional authority for the government to do that?

Well, if in person voter fraud is such a massive problem its worth limiting the innate right to vote, sounds like something that ought to be worked out after all the feds pass out/control a large number of other nation wide items.

Edit: Either proves your worth to vote and participate in how things are done by taking on an undue and unnecessary burden and endure Taxation without representation (among other Bad Things) rather than change some documents or don't mess with what's not broken (the lack of requirement for voter ids, seriously what its supposed to do stop is hardly real....and most done by Right Wingers.

Its the same "All Power is Belong to us" vote suppression as represented notions like stripping felons of their right to vote. What are the going to do vote in the Purge? No, the bulk of those effected are the 'wrong' kind of voters any way.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 02, 2019, 07:13:44 PM
Yes they do, but each one has some form of (sometimes extremely tortured) constitutional authorization.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 02, 2019, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085831
It is just with the current demographics it benefits the democrats to make voting easier which has better optics than trying to restrict voting.
That's true, but see below.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1085831
California is an open primary state, meaning voters do not have to be a registered democrat or republican to vote in the primary for any party. The democrats challenged the law and won in 2000 so now unaffiliated (or NPP, No Preference Provided) voters can not vote in the presidential primaries with permission. Both parties have traditionally agreed to allow non-affiliated voters to request a democrat or republican ballot allowing them to vote in "their" primary.
I hate the primary system, and it is fundamentally unfair. Not only are there inherent problems in a curated selection of the people you're even allowed to vote for, but there are all kinds of procedural problems. Another example, in states without open primaries (i.e. almost all of them), is how they keep putting ballot initiatives on the primary ballot. Ballot initiatives are real changes, real laws, and are supposed to represent the will of the people. But by putting it on the primary ballot, that doubly excludes independents. Because not only are independents not allowed to vote for anyone, but they probably don't even know there is something they could be voting on because they've been told they're not allowed to vote in primaries.

But that's not a problem with voting in a general election. It's a problem because the government is running the damn primaries, which it shouldn't.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1085831
There have absolutely been efforts to make voting harder for certain people.
Absolutely. Every single proposal to change the election is trying to wring a few more fractions of a percentage point advantage for the party pushing the proposal. That's how it works, and there's no way to ever change that. It's inherent in not just the system, but the very concept.

As you noted, because of the current demographic trends the Democratic party is generally trying to get more people to vote, and the Republican party is generally trying to make it a little harder to vote. Which means the optics favor blue because it sounds better when more people vote than when less people vote. But think about that for a second. None of this amounts to anything significant. None of it amounts to a real burden. It's all just tactics. But if you're arguing that restrictions that might discourage anyone at all from voting are bad, but hey it's great if there are new rules that encourage more people to vote, what you're really doing is creating institutional support for one party over the other. Which is a much more fundamental problem than the voter suppression non-issue.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 02, 2019, 07:21:12 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085848
Yes they do, but each one has some form of (sometimes extremely tortured) constitutional authorization.
There's no reason that a free ID has to be federal. It seems to me that ID could work just as easily under the current Real ID system, issued by the state but conforming to federal standards.

I despise the way that the government uses fees and fines, which inherently make government easy on the rich and hard on the poor.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 02, 2019, 07:29:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085850
There's no reason that a free ID has to be federal. It seems to me that ID could work just as easily under the current Real ID system, issued by the state but conforming to federal standards.

I despise the way that the government uses fees and fines, which inherently make government easy on the rich and hard on the poor.


Good thoughts. The issue feels more emotional than rational, a reaction various fears, some marginally  justified (theoretically someone could organize direct voter fraud on a level where it would have meaningful impact. More likely on a state level which lends more credence to the idea of voter IDs being a State rather than Fed matter) some...not so much.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 02, 2019, 09:48:45 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085850
There's no reason that a free ID has to be federal. It seems to me that ID could work just as easily under the current Real ID system, issued by the state but conforming to federal standards.

I despise the way that the government uses fees and fines, which inherently make government easy on the rich and hard on the poor.


For a federal election, it either would have to be done by the Federal government or authorized by the Federal government for each state to do. (The Elections Clause, again.)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on May 02, 2019, 09:49:43 PM
Quote from: Pat;1085849

But that's not a problem with voting in a general election. It's a problem because the government is running the damn primaries, which it shouldn't.


We have a winner.

Quote from: jhkim;1085850

I despise the way that the government uses fees and fines, which inherently make government easy on the rich and hard on the poor.


I never thought I would see you advocating for less government and regulations in order for citizens to keep more of their money.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 02, 2019, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1085854
Good thoughts. The issue feels more emotional than rational, a reaction various fears, some marginally  justified (theoretically someone could organize direct voter fraud on a level where it would have meaningful impact. More likely on a state level which lends more credence to the idea of voter IDs being a State rather than Fed matter) some...not so much.

This is actually pretty darned accurate. The Heritage Foundation did a study a few years back of positively identified voter fraud: not one was in a Federal election (this was prior to 2016, where there are... 2, I believe: and both were attempting to vote multiple times for then-Candidate Trump). They were all at State or Local levels. The risk-v-reward of violating a federal election law for the average voter is just not there. But at the state and local level, it certainly is. (Though, even then, the numbers were relatively rare and pretty evenly spread across the country.)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on May 02, 2019, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085834
The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.


No, because the citizen has a right not to vote.  Since this right is also fundamental, citizens who wish to vote register to do so.  They affirmatively opt-in to voting.

What this absolutely prevents, is government requiring everyone to whom they've issued a national ID, to vote.  No "we've checked the ballots records and your ID was not presented, comrade."

Having an absolute guarantee against that is worth more than 30 minutes of a citizen's time every few years, as part of an affirmative voting process.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 02, 2019, 10:41:16 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1085884
No, because the citizen has a right not to vote.  Since this right is also fundamental, citizens who wish to vote register to do so.  They affirmatively opt-in to voting.

What this absolutely prevents, is government requiring everyone to whom they've issued a national ID, to vote.  No "we've checked the ballots records and your ID was not presented, comrade."

Having an absolute guarantee against that is worth more than 30 minutes of a citizen's time every few years, as part of an affirmative voting process.

Your logic here seems a little strained, could you clarify please?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on May 02, 2019, 11:19:23 PM
If no one is issued a national ID, the federal government - the level farthest from the people, and least responsive - must go through other entities to abuse the system.  No federal government is going to get silent consent from every state government to abuse state records, as many state govs are held by opposition parties in any election year.

The population were averse to national IDs for reasons of abuse, not logistics.  If the levels of time/effort burden discussed as unconsitutional were always considered so, then all those people who traveled for hours by horseback to the nearest courthouse were really getting hosed.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 02, 2019, 11:23:32 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1085892
If no one is issued a national ID, the federal government - the level farthest from the people, and least responsive - must go through other entities to abuse the system.  No federal government is going to get silent consent from every state government to abuse state records, as many state govs are held by opposition parties in any election year.

The population were averse to national IDs for reasons of abuse, not logistics.  If the levels of time/effort burden discussed as unconsitutional were always considered so, then all those people who traveled for hours by horseback to the nearest courthouse were really getting hosed.

Thanks
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 03, 2019, 02:50:35 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;1085827
So explain why proving that you are a citizen of the USA in order to vote for an election in the USA is unconstitutional.


Quote from: jhkim;1085834
The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.


So how is this unconstitutional?

Come on now, without a photo ID how are people supposed to conveniently link the actual person with the information in records? Fingerprints? DNA testing? Barcode tattoos? RFID chips?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 03, 2019, 06:06:56 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1085826

Nevertheless, even a small poll tax like that was held to be unconstitutional.


Wrongly held. Nothing in the US Constitution about that.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 03, 2019, 06:10:45 AM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085831
Vote by mail is awesome, but boy did the politicians here fight against permanent absentee ballots. What a terrible idea, letting people sit at home where they can comfortably take the time to research each candidate and issue without feeling pressure to just hurry up and pick a few dots to punch out


Heh. We have a huge well known problem with our easy absentee ballots here. They are a recipe for "community" based corruption - Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Somalis etc - ballots are handed en masse to 'community leaders' who have underlings fill them out and mail them in. It gives those 'leaders' huge personal power.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 03, 2019, 09:21:28 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1085925
Wrongly held. Nothing in the US Constitution about that.

Oh? Huh...

Quote from: US Constitution Amend. XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 03, 2019, 09:26:35 AM
Quote from: EOTB;1085892
The population were averse to national IDs for reasons of abuse, not logistics.  If the levels of time/effort burden discussed as unconsitutional were always considered so, then all those people who traveled for hours by horseback to the nearest courthouse were really getting hosed.


I agree with your reasoning completely on this one EOTB.

However, I do think we are approaching a point where the government is also going to make a claim that for logistical reasons we need a national ID (which I am not in favor of), and that there is no longer enough people & states opposing it to prevent it from happening.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 03, 2019, 11:12:00 AM
A Social Security card is a defacto National ID, with all the problems that it entails.  

Failure to provide a SSN is a problem with getting a job that a DL isn't.  For my current job I did submit ID and had a background check, but not every job I've had required a photo ID.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 03, 2019, 11:51:44 AM
Quote from: jhkim
The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.
Quote from: jeff37923;1085910
So how is this unconstitutional?

Come on now, without a photo ID how are people supposed to conveniently link the actual person with the information in records? Fingerprints? DNA testing? Barcode tattoos? RFID chips?
I'm not arguing against photo ID. I'm saying that - particularly if we require a photo ID to vote - the government should make an effort that every citizen is issued a photo ID, and not charge money for it. We should not say that the burden is on the citizen to negotiate through a system and pay to get a photo ID.

Requiring people to jump through hoops and pay money in order to vote is effectively a poll tax, which is definitely unconstitutional (as Tanin pointed out - thanks for the reference, Tanin).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 03, 2019, 12:15:55 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1085971
Requiring people to jump through hoops and pay money in order to vote is effectively a poll tax, which is definitely unconstitutional (as Tanin pointed out - thanks for the reference, Tanin).

Any government system is going to have hoops to jump through. You can't process and distrubute stuff without some kind of organization. This creates a Catch-22, where you have to provide a free ID card, and distritute it without it costing any money or having an organized system to distribute them.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 03, 2019, 12:58:27 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085962
A Social Security card is a defacto National ID, with all the problems that it entails.  

Failure to provide a SSN is a problem with getting a job that a DL isn't.  For my current job I did submit ID and had a background check, but not every job I've had required a photo ID.

It's a really terrible one too.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 03, 2019, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085962
A Social Security card is a defacto National ID, with all the problems that it entails.  

So how do you match the Social Security Card with the actual person without photo ID?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085962
Failure to provide a SSN is a problem with getting a job that a DL isn't.  For my current job I did submit ID and had a background check, but not every job I've had required a photo ID.

I've had several jobs which didn't require an SSN or a photo ID. They all involved me mowing lawns as a teenager for $5-$10 a pop.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: kythri on May 03, 2019, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1085981
I've had several jobs which didn't require an SSN or a photo ID. They all involved me mowing lawns as a teenager for $5-$10 a pop.

That's one way to stay off the grid...
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 03, 2019, 01:59:27 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1085981
So how do you match the Social Security Card with the actual person without photo ID?

So in another thread I asked if you were an idiot.  I don't want to take the overwhelming evidence that you are at face value, but please think about this very carefully.

Before you had your first photo ID, how did you prove that the documents you provided belonged to you?  Your birth certificate did not have your picture on it.  Your social security card did not have your picture on it.  They didn't take a print of your foot to match up against the one that the hospital you were born in might have been kind enough to provide.  So how does your photo ID prove any more positively that you are who you claim to be than the documents you provided when you acquired it?  

But let's set that aside for a moment.  How many times have you had to verify your identity without an ID Card?  I have to do it every time I talk to my bank over the phone.  Clearly we accept that there are situations where we can be sure enough of the identity of an individual without Photo ID.  In fact, I get my tax return without furnishing photo-proof of my identity.  

But even if we say that the only way to be sure of an individual is with a photo ID, what about fake IDs?  I've lived in college towns - they're ubiquitous.  

There are lots of ways to identify people who have registered to vote that don't require a photo ID.  Prosecuting people who vote illegally is the best way to ensure that people don't take illegal voting lightly.  Photo ID laws don't do anything to reduce illegal voting; they are designed to reduce voting among people who are less likely to have those types of IDs (college students, non-drivers, etc).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 03, 2019, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085980
It's a really terrible one too.

Which is one of its few virtues.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on May 03, 2019, 02:22:18 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1085981
I've had several jobs which didn't require an SSN or a photo ID. They all involved me mowing lawns as a teenager for $5-$10 a pop.

In my early 20s I worked on a farm for $10/hr cash. It was all under the table and tax-free and no documents were ever asked for. I was one of the few that spoke English and had a driver's license (with F endorsement). The former made me a crew chief (the farmer didn't want to struggle with Spanglish), and the latter didn't matter for holding the job, just for driving the trucks between locations.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 03, 2019, 02:55:14 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085976
Any government system is going to have hoops to jump through. You can't process and distrubute stuff without some kind of organization. This creates a Catch-22, where you have to provide a free ID card, and distritute it without it costing any money or having an organized system to distribute them.

How is this a Catch-22?!?  That's like saying removing poll taxes is a Catch-22, because someone has to pay for the voting machines and other voting system costs. In practice, though, we were able to get rid of poll taxes - and the system didn't collapse. The government has funds to do things like buy voting machines as well as tons of other stuff. Ultimately, these are paid for by taxes - but that places the burden of it as appropriately as any other government service - like Social Security cards, Selective Service registration, and so forth.

The issue with poll taxes and other hurdles is that they create a barrier that favor some voters over others. It's impossible for the system to be perfect, and voting to have exactly the same barrier for everyone - but that doesn't mean that we can't try to make things more even and fair.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 03, 2019, 03:40:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1086008
How is this a Catch-22?!?  That's like saying removing poll taxes is a Catch-22, because someone has to pay for the voting machines and other voting system costs. In practice, though, we were able to get rid of poll taxes - and the system didn't collapse. The government has funds to do things like buy voting machines as well as tons of other stuff. Ultimately, these are paid for by taxes - but that places the burden of it as appropriately as any other government service - like Social Security cards, Selective Service registration, and so forth.

The issue with poll taxes and other hurdles is that they create a barrier that favor some voters over others. It's impossible for the system to be perfect, and voting to have exactly the same barrier for everyone - but that doesn't mean that we can't try to make things more even and fair.

"But if you stop ALL traffic accidents, why have traffic laws or require licencing at all?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 03, 2019, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1086008
How is this a Catch-22?!?  That's like saying removing poll taxes is a Catch-22, because someone has to pay for the voting machines and other voting system costs. In practice, though, we were able to get rid of poll taxes - and the system didn't collapse. The government has funds to do things like buy voting machines as well as tons of other stuff. Ultimately, these are paid for by taxes - but that places the burden of it as appropriately as any other government service - like Social Security cards, Selective Service registration, and so forth.

I felt like you were casting a pretty wide net. I could argue that since everything provided by the government is paid for by tax dollars, that any government expenditure towards facilitating voting is an indirect poll tax.

Quote
Requiring people to jump through hoops and pay money in order to vote is effectively a poll tax, which is definitely unconstitutional (as Tanin pointed out - thanks for the reference, Tanin).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 03, 2019, 04:36:45 PM
Another interesting, to me anyway, about Tang and those of its target audience is willing to indulged "positive sexism/racism/other ism" IE: if the broad brush sterotype if something positive its Okay or at worse ignored. Fro example even with the intense antipathy most of feel for the Trumps, they're very will to take Melania ad Ivanka is the best light possible or assume it was Bad Men that steered them onto the wrong course when factually that doesn't appear to be the case. These were intelligent, empowered women that knew what they were getting into and who they were dealing with.They were not wide eyed naifs kidnapped into the Dark Lord's castle or whatever. But they are given slack because they are women.

Hell, I've seen some hardcases tear into Baron, a juvenile but apparently an acceptable target because he is, well, a he.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 03, 2019, 05:13:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086022
I felt like you were casting a pretty wide net. I could argue that since everything provided by the government is paid for by tax dollars, that any government expenditure towards facilitating voting is an indirect poll tax.
The core logic is - Person A registers and votes. Person B doesn't. Does person A have to pay more money compared to person B? For the vast majority of taxes and fees, the cost is the same regardless of whether you vote or not. The non-voter still has to pay taxes.

But if something is a prerequisite to voting that costs money, but that the non-voter doesn't need - then yes, it is effectively a poll tax.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 03, 2019, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1086036
The core logic is - Person A registers and votes. Person B doesn't. Does person A have to pay more money compared to person B? For the vast majority of taxes and fees, the cost is the same regardless of whether you vote or not. The non-voter still has to pay taxes.

But if something is a prerequisite to voting that costs money, but that the non-voter doesn't need - then yes, it is effectively a poll tax.

Like gas to drive to the polling station? Vehicle depreciation? A bus ticket? Potential wages lost for the time spend researching candidates? The opportunity cost, when you could have been training or sending out resumes?

At some point, a poll tax has to be a poll tax and not every incidental cost
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 03, 2019, 05:42:53 PM
Quote from: Pat;1086039
Like gas to drive to the polling station? Vehicle depreciation? A bus ticket? Potential wages lost for the time spend researching candidates? The opportunity cost, when you could have been training or sending out resumes?

At some point, a poll tax has to be a poll tax and not every incidental cost
First of all, incidental expenses are different than required government fees.

Nevertheless, I think that many of these are reasonable points to consider. Obviously, nothing is perfect, but we should try to minimize the time and expense of getting to a polling station - which I think most states do. If getting to a polling station is too far a trip for too many people, then I think that is a potential problem.

Also, timing elections so that people have to take off from work is a problem - which drives the extended voting hours that many states handle. Many countries hold their elections on weekends - or make voting day a national holiday - rather than possibly forcing people to take time off from work. That seems like a better idea to me. I'm not clear why the heck we hold elections on a non-holiday Tuesday in the U.S.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 03, 2019, 06:01:59 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1086043
Also, timing elections so that people have to take off from work is a problem - which drives the extended voting hours that many states handle. Many countries hold their elections on weekends - or make voting day a national holiday - rather than possibly forcing people to take time off from work. That seems like a better idea to me. I'm not clear why the heck we hold elections on a non-holiday Tuesday in the U.S.

WA lets everyone do a mail in ballot.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 03, 2019, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1086043
Nevertheless, I think that many of these are reasonable points to consider.

I think they're reasonable to consider.

I don't think they're a constitutional right.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 03, 2019, 06:24:00 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086049
WA lets everyone do a mail in ballot.

I'm OK with that - I do mail-in ballots myself in California, but I am a little wary. It seems to me that there are a lot more potential for fraud with mail-in ballots than with voting without photo ID. I don't believe claims that there are millions of illegal votes with each election, but I'd like to see some more enforcement to prosecute the small amount of voter fraud there is.

For comparison, S'mon earlier claimed that absentee ballots are a huge source of voter fraud in the UK.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 03, 2019, 06:54:36 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992
So in another thread I asked if you were an idiot.  I don't want to take the overwhelming evidence that you are at face value, but please think about this very carefully.

And having an idiot make hash of your arguments so easily just pisses you off, doesn't it.....

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992
Before you had your first photo ID, how did you prove that the documents you provided belonged to you?  Your birth certificate did not have your picture on it.  Your social security card did not have your picture on it.  They didn't take a print of your foot to match up against the one that the hospital you were born in might have been kind enough to provide.  So how does your photo ID prove any more positively that you are who you claim to be than the documents you provided when you acquired it?

Ah, you see the crux of the problem at last! That in order to legally vote, then the voter must prove that they are a legal citizen. Why would citizens fight against such common sense?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992
But let's set that aside for a moment.  How many times have you had to verify your identity without an ID Card?  I have to do it every time I talk to my bank over the phone.  Clearly we accept that there are situations where we can be sure enough of the identity of an individual without Photo ID.  In fact, I get my tax return without furnishing photo-proof of my identity.  

So if you need photo ID for those actions, why not for voting? Is voting less important than banking or taxes?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992
But even if we say that the only way to be sure of an individual is with a photo ID, what about fake IDs?  I've lived in college towns - they're ubiquitous.  
Note how I have not stated that a photo ID was the only form of identification, but what was needed to match records to the individual.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992
There are lots of ways to identify people who have registered to vote that don't require a photo ID.

Name five if you can.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992
Prosecuting people who vote illegally is the best way to ensure that people don't take illegal voting lightly.  Photo ID laws don't do anything to reduce illegal voting; they are designed to reduce voting among people who are less likely to have those types of IDs (college students, non-drivers, etc).

Non-driver photo IDs exist and are used to identify voters. College IDs are specific to the college and not the local, state, or federal area where voting occurs. So you agree that requiring a photo ID to vote does reduce the number of people who shouldn't be voting, thank you.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 03, 2019, 07:10:54 PM
Greetings!

Ah, yes. I don't like what you're saying, so of course, you are an idiot.

Liberals absolutely love engaging in name-calling and belittling a person that doesn't agree with their emotion-based hysterical views.

The wonderful ad hominem fallacy. If I can't defeat your argument by presenting a persuasive argument using reason, evidence, and facts--well, just start the name-calling, and character assassination. Gotta love these supposedly "educated" folks. It's a shame they failed Philosophy 101, where they should have learned the basic rules of Logic, and proper debate protocols.

Screeching to the audience, whipping up a frothing mob of fanatics, baying to have the heretic burned at the stake is so much more satisfying.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 03, 2019, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085962
A Social Security card is a defacto National ID, with all the problems that it entails.  

Failure to provide a SSN is a problem with getting a job that a DL isn't.  For my current job I did submit ID and had a background check, but not every job I've had required a photo ID.

Quote from: jeff37923;1085981
So how do you match the Social Security Card with the actual person without photo ID?

I've had several jobs which didn't require an SSN or a photo ID. They all involved me mowing lawns as a teenager for $5-$10 a pop.

Jeff is right, it has been Federal Law that employers verify a right to work with a passport, or photo ID and SSN or birth certificate since 1986. You've either been working under the table, working for employers who aren't following the law or haven't changed jobs since 1986.

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_I-9



I've had to complete the I-9 process even when changing positions with the same employer.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 03, 2019, 08:10:47 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1085928
Heh. We have a huge well known problem with our easy absentee ballots here. They are a recipe for "community" based corruption - Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Somalis etc - ballots are handed en masse to 'community leaders' who have underlings fill them out and mail them in. It gives those 'leaders' huge personal power.


That was one issue raised here against it, husbands telling their wife and adult children how to vote, people paying for votes, landlords threatening evictions etc.

I'm not aware of any documented cases of that occurring, but do-gooders cost me free pie dammit. Had a local place that would give people a free slice of pie if you showed your "I voted" sticker. Bastards challenged it in court and won saying that it could sway voters even though there was absolutely no politics involved, just a business trying to encourage people to go vote.

Pie is so much tastier when it is free. :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 03, 2019, 10:43:40 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086064
Jeff is right, it has been Federal Law that employers verify a right to work with a passport, or photo ID and SSN or birth certificate since 1986. You've either been working under the table, working for employers who aren't following the law or haven't changed jobs since 1986.
Or they viewed him as a subcontractor.

EDIT: You also don't require a photo ID for this. The I-9 accepts your Voter Registration, which, in Indiana, is not a photo ID. You can also use your draft record, which is not a photo ID. Native American Tribal Documents are also not all photo IDs, and (for people under 18) a report card, hospital record (any hospital record), and a day-care or nursery school record is good enough.

Quote
I've had to complete the I-9 process even when changing positions with the same employer.
Overzealous compliance on their part. Isn't required when you're changing positions unless you did something that would give a reasonable person belief that you are no longer authorized to work in the US.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 03, 2019, 10:44:54 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086064
Jeff is right, it has been Federal Law that employers verify a right to work with a passport, or photo ID and SSN or birth certificate since 1986. You've either been working under the table, working for employers who aren't following the law or haven't changed jobs since 1986.
Or work as an independent contractor.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 04, 2019, 12:39:44 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1086084
Or they viewed him as a subcontractor.

EDIT: You also don't require a photo ID for this. The I-9 accepts your Voter Registration, which, in Indiana, is not a photo ID. You can also use your draft record, which is not a photo ID. Native American Tribal Documents are also not all photo IDs, and (for people under 18) a report card, hospital record (any hospital record), and a day-care or nursery school record is good enough.

 Overzealous compliance on their part. Isn't required when you're changing positions unless you did something that would give a reasonable person belief that you are no longer authorized to work in the US.

A subcontractor works for somebody, somebody who is required to verify employment eligibility. If the employee is not a subcontractor, and for some reason there is an investigation guess who gets held accountable. "I didn't know they were my employee" isn't going to be a very good defense.

A self-employed independent contractor does not have to fill out an I-9, but someone hiring said person for a job is technically buying a service, not providing employment.
 

None of those documents you listed can be used alone, and school ID is only allowed if it is a photo ID. Most are column B items, Tribal documents are listed in B&C, but are either or, the same document can not be used to satisfy both columns.  

Hospital record, report card, and daycare / nursery school record are only accepted for those under 18 (which you note) and again still require a Column C item. The Feds set some broad rules for employing minors, but most states have their own rules that must be met, and many require a work permit for workers under 18, so they will be providing employment eligibility in addition to that required on the I-9.


Thorough, not overzealous. Prior HR person / agency may not have done their due diligence, and it was HR policy at all the Federal agencies I worked for. 4 agencies, 9 locations, all did it.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 04, 2019, 11:45:04 AM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086105
A subcontractor works for somebody, somebody who is required to verify employment eligibility. If the employee is not a subcontractor, and for some reason there is an investigation guess who gets held accountable. "I didn't know they were my employee" isn't going to be a very good defense.

A self-employed independent contractor does not have to fill out an I-9, but someone hiring said person for a job is technically buying a service, not providing employment.
This part of the law treats the two terms interchangeably. (Yes, it's nonintuitive and weird.)
 

Quote
None of those documents you listed can be used alone, and school ID is only allowed if it is a photo ID. Most are column B items, Tribal documents are listed in B&C, but are either or, the same document can not be used to satisfy both columns.  

Hospital record, report card, and daycare / nursery school record are only accepted for those under 18 (which you note) and again still require a Column C item. The Feds set some broad rules for employing minors, but most states have their own rules that must be met, and many require a work permit for workers under 18, so they will be providing employment eligibility in addition to that required on the I-9.
And yet I can create combos from B + C that would not require a photo ID, which was my only point. (For instance: Voter Registration or Draft Record + Social Security card.)


Quote
Thorough, not overzealous. Prior HR person / agency may not have done their due diligence, and it was HR policy at all the Federal agencies I worked for. 4 agencies, 9 locations, all did it.
None of the Federal ones I worked at requires it except the first when I was a lowly GS-7 intern.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 04, 2019, 07:19:44 PM
The only reason to oppose Voter ID is because you want illegals voting.

If you fear the costs of the ID, its easy enough to subsidize. Anyone on welfare or social security can get a free one.

Anyone with a job who doesn't want to spend $20 on an ID sometime in their life wasn't going to vote anyway. Let's be honest. If voting means so much to you, you would skip a few snacks for just one month.
 
And its not an issue of people not having time. People make the time to go to the DMV, go shopping, do chores and all sorts of shit they'd prefer not to do, but do anyway. Again, if voting means so much to you, you'd make the time.

And it can dodge the poll tax complaints if you can take that $20 off your taxes.

But none of that matters because the Democrats are sure the illegals are in their pocket. If illegals voted Republican, we'd all have Voter ID.

Both parties only care about voting rights when their power is endangered.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 05, 2019, 12:33:59 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992
......... Photo ID laws don't do anything to reduce illegal voting; they are designed to reduce voting among people who are less likely to have those types of IDs (college students, non-drivers, etc).


Quote from: Spinachcat;1086179
The only reason to oppose Voter ID is because you want illegals voting.......


I think this perfectly illustrates how people are demonizing their political opponents nowadays. Asking for photo ID is done on purpose to exclude certain legal voters from voting, vs. you don't want voter ID because you want illegals to vote. The opposition is eeevil!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 05, 2019, 01:02:30 AM
There is no valid opposition to Voter ID.

If we didn't require driver's licenses to drive, more people would drive. That's not a good thing.

Its truly amazing how doubleplus extra certification can be demanded for everything EXCEPT voting.

There is zero reason college students or non-drivers can't get a Voter ID. If a college student can't figure out how to get a Voter ID, that dumbfuck doesn't belong in college.

The facts are too obvious: the Left is fully committed to promoting massive illegal immigration and stopping Voter ID. Its not rocket science to figure out the combo move.

It's like gerrymandering and redistricting (when either party does it). They tell you a dozen bullshit reasons, but the truth is easy and obvious. It's always a power play.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: The Spaniard on May 05, 2019, 07:51:42 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086211
There is no valid opposition to Voter ID.

If we didn't require driver's licenses to drive, more people would drive. That's not a good thing.

Its truly amazing how doubleplus extra certification can be demanded for everything EXCEPT voting.

There is zero reason college students or non-drivers can't get a Voter ID. If a college student can't figure out how to get a Voter ID, that dumbfuck doesn't belong in college.

The facts are too obvious: the Left is fully committed to promoting massive illegal immigration and stopping Voter ID. Its not rocket science to figure out the combo move.

It's like gerrymandering and redistricting (when either party does it). They tell you a dozen bullshit reasons, but the truth is easy and obvious. It's always a power play.

Here's a quick list of things you need an ID for in North Carolina.  Need an ID for all of these things, but not to vote?  Bullshit!  "Voter suppression" is agenda driven fear tactics designed to get ignorant people to vote Democrat.

Register for school
Get a library card
Apply for a loan/mortgage
Open bank account
Apply for food stamps
Apply for welfare
Apply for Medicaid or Social Security
Apply for Unemployment or a Job
Drive/buy/rent a car
Get on an airplane
Get married
Buy a firearm
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Rent a hotel room
Apply for hunting or fishing license
Pick up a prescription
Enter a casino
Donate blood
Buy certain video games
Purchase certain cold medications
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2019, 01:43:50 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086211
There is no valid opposition to Voter ID.

If one is opposed to a national ID, one might be concerned that a voter ID would morph into a national ID.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on May 05, 2019, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1086054
I'm OK with that - I do mail-in ballots myself in California, but I am a little wary. It seems to me that there are a lot more potential for fraud with mail-in ballots than with voting without photo ID. I don't believe claims that there are millions of illegal votes with each election, but I'd like to see some more enforcement to prosecute the small amount of voter fraud there is.

For comparison, S'mon earlier claimed that absentee ballots are a huge source of voter fraud in the UK.

I'm fine with making voting day a national holiday.  I would prefer that and require in-person vote hand-ins, with some mechanism for people with medical reasons for not transporting themselves to the polls.  

Vote my mail is a dangerous abuse possibility.  It seems like "we found another six boxes of votes" happens a lot more now that vote by mail is the norm in some states.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086261
If one is opposed to a national ID, one might be concerned that a voter ID would morph into a national ID.

States can verify identity as they've done since invested with that authority.  All that's necessary is that someone voting within a state's boundaries is verified by that state.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 05, 2019, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Trond;1086209
I think this perfectly illustrates how people are demonizing their political opponents nowadays. Asking for photo ID is done on purpose to exclude certain legal voters from voting, vs. you don't want voter ID because you want illegals to vote. The opposition is eeevil!

No, that's only what Evil SJWs  Cntrl-Leftists do. And only the Sith deal in absolutes, BTW.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2019, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1086274
Vote my mail is a dangerous abuse possibility.  It seems like "we found another six boxes of votes" happens a lot more now that vote by mail is the norm in some states.

I'm not too familiar with what happens behind the curtains. How would mail in ballots be more suceptible to this kind of thing?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 05, 2019, 08:17:41 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1086274
I'm fine with making voting day a national holiday.


Make all voting happen on 4th of July!

Or 9/11.

BTW, if we have a national voting holiday, the TV will be blaring "Voting Day Sales!" ads for weeks. "Vote, then come on down to Crazy Bill's Auto BBQ for 20% off!!"

My bet? More people will go to the Voting Day sales at the mall than to the voting booth.


Quote from: EOTB;1086274
Vote my mail is a dangerous abuse possibility.  It seems like "we found another six boxes of votes" happens a lot more now that vote by mail is the norm in some states.


Agreed, but the future is online voting via mobile.

If its good enough for American Idol, its good enough for lesser concerns, like the fate of our democracy.


Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086261
If one is opposed to a national ID, one might be concerned that a voter ID would morph into a national ID.


We have a national ID via our Social Security Number. That's why the IRS uses it for identification.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 05, 2019, 08:40:11 PM
It's a poor form of identification considering it's not unique to you.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2019, 08:48:05 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086326

We have a national ID via our Social Security Number. That's why the IRS uses it for identification.


Take it away, Grey!



I realize it's become a de facto national ID card, but we still don't have an offical national ID.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on May 05, 2019, 09:29:20 PM
There would be a certain sense of forgetful irony, if SSN were used to justify national ID, since the gov had to bend over backwards to assure people it would never be used for such a thing, in order to hold back demands to squash SSNs when they premiered.  

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086303
I'm not too familiar with what happens behind the curtains. How would mail in ballots be more suceptible to this kind of thing?


The ballots can be mailed in a month ahead of time, so the state gov knows long before election day where the wind is blowing on certain issues - on election day they only count the last-minute voters and add to the total.  They also know everyone who was mailed a ballot that isn't included in the vote count.  They have spare ballots sitting around and can print out the voter specific labels that make them official with the click of a button - the signatures aren't ever "matched" to anything...it's just "was it signed? Yes/no"

You're not supposed to fill out anyone else's ballot for them, or trade your ballot to someone for something else, or give your ballot to political action groups for filling in - but these things aren't meaningfully prevented except by honor.  

Voting in person is important because it gives a visual sense of how many votes there are.  Otherwise it can be as real as facebook's advertising reach claims.  "No, really!  We had 99% voter participation on this important issue!"
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 05, 2019, 09:48:07 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1086341
There would be a certain sense of forgetful irony, if SSN were used to justify national ID, since the gov had to bend over backwards to assure people it would never be used for such a thing, in order to hold back demands to squash SSNs when they premiered.


True, but we now have corporations microchipping their (willing?) employees.  

A National ID card is tame by comparison...but we'll soon be chipping babies (for their protection dontcha know) so remembering the past has become rather moot.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on May 05, 2019, 10:06:47 PM
Then is the point of free speech to shit post with flair, since it's all a fait accompli?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 05, 2019, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086345
True, but we now have corporations microchipping their (willing?) employees.  

A National ID card is tame by comparison...but we'll soon be chipping babies (for their protection dontcha know) so remembering the past has become rather moot.

Those who forget the past are doomed to use the newest technologies to create a totalitarian state that makes the dystopian fiction of the last century look like pleasant dreams.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 06, 2019, 03:53:05 AM
Quote from: EOTB;1086349
Then is the point of free speech to shit post with flair, since it's all a fait accompli?


For me? Yeah, that's pretty much true. From where I'm standing, the writing on the wall is screaming in neon.

For others? I support however they wish to use their free speech while it lasts.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 06, 2019, 08:57:42 AM
Quote from: EOTB;1086341
The ballots can be mailed in a month ahead of time, so the state gov knows long before election day where the wind is blowing on certain issues - on election day they only count the last-minute voters and add to the total.  They also know everyone who was mailed a ballot that isn't included in the vote count.  They have spare ballots sitting around and can print out the voter specific labels that make them official with the click of a button - the signatures aren't ever "matched" to anything...it's just "was it signed? Yes/no"

We saw a little bit of this issue in Hamilton County in 2018 (the first issue anyway; where the wind is blowing). The county knew whether or not Joe Donnolley was ahead for over a month ahead of time, but also had the historical data that said, "In Hamilton County, vast bulk of votes cast via mail in ballots are Democrat." Of course, this was also contrasted with more than 2/3rds of the vote was still done on election day, so if the ballot was trending Republican before election day, the GOP knew it had already won the county basically.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on May 06, 2019, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1086341
The ballots can be mailed in a month ahead of time, so the state gov knows long before election day where the wind is blowing on certain issues - on election day they only count the last-minute voters and add to the total.  They also know everyone who was mailed a ballot that isn't included in the vote count.  They have spare ballots sitting around and can print out the voter specific labels that make them official with the click of a button - the signatures aren't ever "matched" to anything...it's just "was it signed? Yes/no"

You're not supposed to fill out anyone else's ballot for them, or trade your ballot to someone for something else, or give your ballot to political action groups for filling in - but these things aren't meaningfully prevented except by honor.  

Voting in person is important because it gives a visual sense of how many votes there are.  Otherwise it can be as real as facebook's advertising reach claims.  "No, really!  We had 99% voter participation on this important issue!"

You've hit on the problems.

We have mail in votes on everything in Oregon. There have been a few cases in which people have been caught having voted in two states, and a few by foreigners. Not many, but some.

Someone else filing out a ballot is a problem that is very hard to analyze. Vote by mail makes it much easier for senior citizens to vote, but it also makes it possible for someone else to fill in their ballot. And it absolutely does happen. There just doesn't seem to be anyone interested in investigating it.

I believe no mail in votes should be counted, let alone opened, until the very end. The reason for this is as you mentioned, but that in our case, we've had politicians ask for 'volunteers' among their staff to go out and collect ballots door to door. They cannot be allowed to act on privileged information. Also, it should be illegal to submit someone's vote for them. We had a case in Oregon in the last (local) election in which one group collected ballots and then failed to turn them in. A fine just isn't sufficient for this.

Oregon democrat dominated legislature also supported registering people at DMV, and the seeming logic to this is that it would increase the number of registered democrats in Oregon. But a strange thing happened - it made it possible for a third party to be recognized in the last gubernatorial election and a surge in 'independents'.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 06, 2019, 04:32:25 PM
Personally I'd like election day to be election week, with ballots mailed out a month in advance, but hand delivered to voting points. This would allow people to make a well informed decision (time to really go over the ballot at their leisure), it would help to ensure they live at their address of record (ballot delivered by mail, although certainly ballots would be needed on site to deal with lost ballots), and with a week to turn in the ballot it helps people work around their schedule (open 24 hours, for 7 days). If you don't want to vote, you still don't have too. Collection points would have to be wide spread and accessible, maybe post offices, fire stations would also be an option since they are well distributed in most communities and often already used as a voting point. Absentee ballots would still be necessary for people who are away from home for extended periods (military, long haul truckers, business travel, extended recreational travel) but the need would be greatly reduced.  

When turned in the voter proves that they are who they say they are (figure that out), and under oath verifies that they are making their vote of their own free will without coercion.

Intentional coercion of a voter (through threat or reward) should be considered an act of treason. At a minimum someone who accepted the sale of their vote could be on the hook for perjury since they had to verify that they had voted there own free will. Greater charges available as appropriate to the situation.



I don't have a problem with voter ID, in fact I am in support of it. What I am against is voter ID laws that are clearly timed or designed to reduce voter turnout or interfere with specific demographics of voters. Examples being student ID being acceptable and then retracting that as an acceptable form of ID a month before an election which clearly impacts the youth vote.


I'd like to see a requirement that any change to voting access occur a minimum of 12 months before an election, including the number and location of polling places.


What makes no sense to me is why voter ID can not be tied to registration to vote? Seems pretty simple. Requiring a photo on the ID card could be more difficult, but not insurmountable. Providing photo services at election points could be done, first time no photo ID but they take your photo when you vote, so it better be your face because it will be on your ID in the future. If a stolen new ID, they just got a photo of the criminal.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 06, 2019, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: Lynn;1086419
I believe no mail in votes should be counted, let alone opened, until the very end.

Agree and in fact I don't think any results should be released until voting closes across the nation. Those on the west coast can be influenced by the results being reported on the east coast, resulting in different votes, or even people staying home because "what's the point".
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on May 07, 2019, 11:20:45 AM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086440
Agree and in fact I don't think any results should be released until voting closes across the nation. Those on the west coast can be influenced by the results being reported on the east coast, resulting in different votes, or even people staying home because "what's the point".

Exactly! Also, primaries need to be held as early as possible in all states. Oregon also quite inferior in this case, has them months later than other states. That means many choices have fallen away at that point or may have suspended campaigns.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Opaopajr on May 08, 2019, 06:55:57 PM
Voting should be a State and/or Federal holiday. :) And we should get that lovely indelible ink that the rest of the world uses for their fingers to show you've voted! Ooh, and maybe super-soakers! :eek: :cool:
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 08, 2019, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Opaopajr;1086816
And we should get that lovely indelible ink that the rest of the world uses for their fingers to show you've voted! Ooh, and maybe super-soakers! :eek: :cool:
That's an unusual use of "the rest of the world". Which I usually assume is just a backhand way of saying Europe, but it looks like only Albania and Turkey have used election ink. It's created in India, and is used in about 30 countries, most of which have serious election problems, like Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Myanmar. It's essentially a substitute for standardized identification documents.

And I didn't know anything about that, before today.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 08, 2019, 09:48:56 PM
A German mother's day ad popped up on my twitter feed, and reactions are mixed.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/a-new-german-commercial-takes-man-hating-to-the-next-level/

On the one hand, I'm not offended so much as exasperated. There's a strong bias towards men being able to take being the butt of this kind of humor, where doing it to women is seen as sexist and misogynist. Some of the twitter replies are along the lines of "It's just a joke, get over it snowflake". But I really think that a reversed sex version of this ad would cause a huge blowup.

Going from the Gilette ad, telling men to "Be better", and this ad showing men as fuckups, it's a trend that I dislike. The underlying assumption is that men are terrible, and are acceptable targets for mockery (thinly disguised as humor) or shaming. With a nice side dish of telling men they better accept it, or they're pussies.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 09, 2019, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086829
A German mother's day ad popped up on my twitter feed, and reactions are mixed.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/a-new-german-commercial-takes-man-hating-to-the-next-level/

...that's rather... special.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Opaopajr on May 09, 2019, 12:40:49 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086829
A German mother's day ad popped up on my twitter feed, and reactions are mixed.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/a-new-german-commercial-takes-man-hating-to-the-next-level/


Aww. :( At first I was laughing and enjoying the commercial. It would have been brilliant as a Father's Day commercial, a bit self-effacing yet stressing "you were always there, in good times and bad, as best you could."

But it ended on a bitter and sour note, disgusted with fathers for making mistakes. :( That is rather mean spirited humor. But then perhaps I am tone-deaf to German humor. It might be funnier if I was a native of the culture and language? :confused:
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 09, 2019, 04:06:36 PM
Quote from: Opaopajr;1086931
Aww. :( At first I was laughing and enjoying the commercial. It would have been brilliant as a Father's Day commercial, a bit self-effacing yet stressing "you were always there, in good times and bad, as best you could."

But it ended on a bitter and sour note, disgusted with fathers for making mistakes. :( That is rather mean spirited humor. But then perhaps I am tone-deaf to German humor. It might be funnier if I was a native of the culture and language? :confused:

The stereotypical German is tone deaf to humor. I'm sure funny Germans exist, but it isn't something they are known for. Even the Soviet Union was known for a having certain style of bleak humor.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 09, 2019, 05:33:04 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086997
The stereotypical German is tone deaf to humor. I'm sure funny Germans exist, but it isn't something they are known for.

My sister had a German boyfriend with a good sense of humour.

With her around, he needed it! :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 09, 2019, 11:31:44 PM
Another "good" thing about Germans is that they are pretty much the lowest on the social justice pecking order, so you can say what you like about them without serious backlash :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DocJones on May 11, 2019, 06:39:47 PM
Quote from: Lurtch;1085663
The Hecklers veto is an anti free speech tool. You do not support free speech.

I have never seen a conservative or libertarian do this, yet I've seen leftists do this all the time.
Someone will attempt to speak and they'll shout "Safety" or "Shame" or some nonsense over and over.
Also 95% of counter-rallies are held by leftists.  Conservatives and libertarians rarely stage counter-rallies.

Finally to put this over the top, the above tactics are exactly the same that Communists and Nazis used in
the Weimar republic, and the Fascists used in Italy against moderates. :->>

It's using "free speech" as a tool to silence someone attempt to speak.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 11, 2019, 06:56:48 PM
Quote from: Trond;1087062
Another "good" thing about Germans is that they are pretty much the lowest on the social justice pecking order, so you can say what you like about them without serious backlash :D


Poor German lawyers. :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 12, 2019, 06:48:43 AM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1087325
Poor German lawyers. :D

I know some - they ain't poor! :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 12, 2019, 06:49:54 AM
Quote from: DocJones;1087321
I have never seen a conservative or libertarian do this, yet I've seen leftists do this all the time.
Someone will attempt to speak and they'll shout "Safety" or "Shame" or some nonsense over and over.
Also 95% of counter-rallies are held by leftists.  Conservatives and libertarians rarely stage counter-rallies.

Finally to put this over the top, the above tactics are exactly the same that Communists and Nazis used in
the Weimar republic, and the Fascists used in Italy against moderates. :->>

It's using "free speech" as a tool to silence someone attempt to speak.

"Free speech does not mean the freedom to speak without being shouted down, beaten up, sacked and jailed!"
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 12, 2019, 04:27:11 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1087422
"Free speech does not mean the freedom to speak without being shouted down, beaten up, sacked and jailed!"
I am very strong about free speech - but it goes in both ways. Freedom of speech does not mean that someone can say whatever they want with no social consequences. At least here in the U.S., employment is usually at-will. So if someone says something I hate, I don't have to keep paying them. Likewise, public speakers or authors who express unpopular opinions will often find that they get fewer customers. I don't think it's workable to say that people have a right to keep their jobs no matter what they say.

Speaking unpopular opinions has always been hard. Freedom of speech isn't going to make it easy. It just establishes a minimum. The government should protect speakers from violence, from jailing or government censure for their speech, and from blacklisting or other illegal conspiracy. But someone can still lose their friends, their job, or other connections over what they say.

I agree that at present in the U.S., left-wing counter-protests are more rude and more regularly go over the line compared to right-wing. On the other hand, right-wing extremists kill significantly more people than left-wing, which is a very important line as well.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 12, 2019, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1087483
So if someone says something I hate, I don't have to keep paying them.


That's a dangerous and slippery slope.

I don't know the specific legal case offhand, but I know there was a major lawsuit against business owners who fired employees who belonged to the opposing political party. Because if that's where we're going, what's next? Please list your party affiliation on your resume? HR demanding to know who you voted for in the latest election to determine your continued employment?

I'm already sick of hearing employers checking employee's social media accounts.

What you do away from work (unless you're arrested) isn't your work's damn business. I do NOT want any SJW freakshow getting fired for going to an anti-Trump rally anymore than I want any Trump supporters to fear getting fired if HR sees their MAGA 2020 bumper sticker on their car.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean "freedom to silently think things in your head". WTF happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it?"

Of course, here's the joke. My opinion on free speech is now "Alt-Right" while I'm prancing about defending the rights of people who hate me and want me silenced ("deplatformed") if I deviate from today's approved doubleplusgoodthink.

I wonder if there may come a day when even I'm done defending the speech rights of leftists.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 12, 2019, 07:28:10 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1087483
I am very strong about free speech"

You really are not!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 12, 2019, 07:50:21 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1087483
I am very strong about free speech
You support all kinds of silencing tactics, from shouting down, deplatforming, bullying, and social ostracization and try to justify it by saying it's okay if they're extremists (even though most of those tactics are just used against minority opinions), that free speech only applies when the government is involved, or because "consequences" (which always seems to mean silencing them is okay). All of those are very anti free speech.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DocJones on May 12, 2019, 10:22:26 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1087483
I agree that at present in the U.S., left-wing counter-protests are more rude and more regularly go over the line compared to right-wing.
My point was there aren't any(hardly any(I just can't name any)) rightwing counter-protests at all.
Rightwingers do not assemble anywhere these days without the left holding counter-demonstrations.
And this seems to be a recent phenomenon, as I don't recall Tea Party rallies being counter-protested back in the 2008-2012 era.

Quote from: jhkim;1087483
On the other hand, right-wing extremists kill significantly more people than left-wing, which is a very important line as well.
This has nothing to do with free speech at all.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Opaopajr on May 12, 2019, 10:50:43 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1087483
I am very strong about free speech - but it goes in both ways. Freedom of speech does not mean that someone can say whatever they want with no social consequences. At least here in the U.S., employment is usually at-will. So if someone says something I hate, I don't have to keep paying them. Likewise, public speakers or authors who express unpopular opinions will often find that they get fewer customers. I don't think it's workable to say that people have a right to keep their jobs no matter what they say.

I get what you are trying to say, jhkim. But I am also getting whiplash from the various topical extremes you are using as examples for your point. Like, those last three sentences is each its own topic. :eek:

Lessee... dislike "at-will" employment laws as written due to exploitative cheap labor metagaming; employee saying stuff and employer payment are wholly different realms (and political speech is the most protected form of speech in the USA); no customer is obliged to purchase products; and there is a right to due process, even in employment, especially concepts like tenure where they are workfields totally dependent upon what you say (which is why you paid for their professional opinion in the first place).

:o Whew! that was a lot to unpack! :p

You're going to get a firestorm just from people stumbling while trying to unpack your points for clarification of your support of free speech position. :) Best of luck!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 12, 2019, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim
So if someone says something I hate, I don't have to keep paying them.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087507
That's a dangerous and slippery slope.

I don't know the specific legal case offhand, but I know there was a major lawsuit against business owners who fired employees who belonged to the opposing political party. Because if that's where we're going, what's next? Please list your party affiliation on your resume? HR demanding to know who you voted for in the latest election to determine your continued employment?

I'm already sick of hearing employers checking employee's social media accounts.
This isn't a new position or something I'm particularly advocating for. For most jobs, it's the law of the land. In most jobs, an employee can be fired with no reason given - known as "at will" employment. There are legal protections currently are against being fired for race, religion, nationality, or disability (plus a few other cases, like retaliation for whistleblowing). And it's difficult to prosecute being fired for those. I was on a jury a few years ago where a former employee sued for being fired over disability and failed.

So for those who are opposed to this - what exactly is your position?  

Is the idea to create a new law parallel to the Civil Rights Act, where employees would be prevented from being fired over their political orientation? I'd want to see such a law and an analysis of its ramifications before advocating. A number of my leftist friends tend to push for restricting the ability of employers to fire people to many more cases. However, I'm doubtful about the effectiveness of this. I'd prefer to help struggling workers other ways, but not through more red tape around employers.

The curious thing is that for the past century, most employers tended to be right-wing. If a leftist hippy wanted to get a job at a bank, they had to cover up and blend in to get hired and stay employed. The main protection against being arbitrarily fired were unions, which are definitely a left-wing cause. But now, it seems, there are some bigger employers showing liberal influence. I'm curious to see what people's ideas for solutions are.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 12, 2019, 11:39:49 PM
Greetings!

All the fucking lazy, window-licking freaks just need to go get another job, and learn how to keep their mouth shut, and work. Just shut up and fucking dig.

Corporations need to be efficient and profitable, running like a lean, mean machine. There's no room for whiny fucking slugs. The fat needs to always be trimmed from the meat. A corporation's first priority is profits, stability, and prestige for it's shareholders and investors.

We need laws that give more power to corporations and management. Trim the fat!:D

Oh, geesus. I need to smoke a cigar after that.:D LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 13, 2019, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1087583

So for those who are opposed to this - what exactly is your position?  


Most Western countries have Unfair Dismissal protection. The USA is certainly a big outlier, just as much as with guns. Fire-at-will for speech certainly makes the no-government-jailing for speech much less impressive. The US simply outsources repression to the private sector, where in Europe it's the government's job.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 13, 2019, 04:44:39 AM
I was wrong about it being a lawsuit. It's actually California law that makes it illegal to fire employees for their political views.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html

LABOR CODE 1101.  
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

Here's some legal discussion on the topic:
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-affiliation-discrimination.html
https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/political-retaliation.html

This should be federal law protecting everyone. Amazingly, California did something right.

Employees should only be fired for being bad employees (or the company doesn't want that position any longer). If they are spewing their political bullshit at work and that's affecting the business, then its not about their politics, its about them negatively affecting the business.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 13, 2019, 04:51:16 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1087587
A corporation's first priority is profits, stability, and prestige for it's shareholders and investors.

And that's why I won't work for a corporation.

Why be a meaningless cog to faceless shareholders when you can own your own business? Or at least work at a small business where you are valued member of an actual team?


Quote from: SHARK;1087587
We need laws that give more power to corporations and management. Trim the fat!:D

That's a slippery slope into a wall of fire. Where's that more power being taken from? The employees? The consumers? AKA, your fellow Americans?

As for "trimming the fat", don't worry! Phenomenally more automation is on its way.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 13, 2019, 12:06:20 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087620
And that's why I won't work for a corporation.

Why be a meaningless cog to faceless shareholders when you can own your own business? Or at least work at a small business where you are valued member of an actual team?




That's a slippery slope into a wall of fire. Where's that more power being taken from? The employees? The consumers? AKA, your fellow Americans?

As for "trimming the fat", don't worry! Phenomenally more automation is on its way.

Greetings!

LOL! Indeed, my friend. I was purposely intending the post to be stupidly extreme. A caricature.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 13, 2019, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: S'mon;1087611
Most Western countries have Unfair Dismissal protection. The USA is certainly a big outlier, just as much as with guns. Fire-at-will for speech certainly makes the no-government-jailing for speech much less impressive. The US simply outsources repression to the private sector, where in Europe it's the government's job.
Having the government and corporations fight each other for the power to repress citizens is a losing deal either way. My ideal would be to keep the government non-repressive, and also reduce corporations' power over people in general - rather than giving the government more power in order to restrain the corporations. Concrete steps are things like breaking up monopolies and universal health care, with the end goal being that people have enough stability that they don't feel that their employer's rules have the force of law.

American law tends to be organized around encouraging lots of lawsuits, which actually favors large corporations who can afford dedicated legal teams. Adding more potential for lawsuits doesn't actually help most workers, and effectively punishes small businesses.


Quote from: Spinachcat;1087618
Employees should only be fired for being bad employees (or the company doesn't want that position any longer). If they are spewing their political bullshit at work and that's affecting the business, then its not about their politics, its about them negatively affecting the business.
I agree that this is what I would prefer. However, I feel that this is best approached by the free market rather than by government regulation to encourage more lawsuits.

If people feel like slaves to their employers who can force them to do anything, the problem is their being effectively slaves.  The solution shouldn't be that employers can force them to do anything in the name of more money, but are restrained if there isn't more money involved.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 13, 2019, 01:11:36 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1087653
I was purposely intending the post to be stupidly extreme.

Dork!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 13, 2019, 03:35:49 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1087665
American law tends to be organized around encouraging lots of lawsuits, which actually favors large corporations who can afford dedicated legal teams. Adding more potential for lawsuits doesn't actually help most workers, and effectively punishes small businesses.

. . .

However, I feel that this is best approached by the free market rather than by government regulation to encourage more lawsuits.

Quote from: Alexis de Tocqueville
There is hardly any political question in the United States that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question.

We've always loved our lawsuits.

The irony here is that less government regulation sometimes results in more corporate power, if the corporation in question controls just enough of the market (which does not have to be a monopoly), which often results in more lawsuits over tort actions. Yet more government regulation can only result in more lawsuits to try and curb behavior.

It is, truly, a very American thing.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 13, 2019, 03:37:02 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087618
I was wrong about it being a lawsuit. It's actually California law that makes it illegal to fire employees for their political views.
I believe, but don't remember for certain, that law was based on the lawsuit you cannot remember. It was codifying something that the California legislature went, "Huh... nope," when they didn't like the result of the lawsuit.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 13, 2019, 04:05:49 PM
I know that in Tennessee, it is covered under Wrongful Termination.

Quote from: Wrongful Termination
Wrongful Termination. ... To be wrongfully terminated is to be fired for an illegal reason, which may involve violation of federal anti-discrimination laws or a contractual breach. For instance, an employee cannot be fired on the basis of her race, gender, ethnic background, religion, or disability.
Wrongful Termination - FindLaw
https://employment.findlaw.com/losing-a-job/wrongful-termination.html
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 13, 2019, 06:03:16 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1087665
However, I feel that this is best approached by the free market rather than by government regulation to encourage more lawsuits.


The problem with "political bias" and the "free market" is superheated humans. That's why I support that nicely basic law.

And we clearly live in a time of political superheat. The anger against anti-Vaxxers has become over-the-top with the MSM acting like we have an ebola epidemic. Anything involving immigration explodes into cries of Nazism. And if a news story hits where there was politically motivated crime? Oy vey. This is where I don't trust the free market to handle the situation because humans are tribal.

And tribes hate non-conformers. So if your workplace is "mostly Team Red" or "mostly LGBT" or "mostly Catholic", those who don't fit into the tribe risk being fired for the politics, regardless of their quality as an employee. The free market would keep a good employee, but a tribe might fire an "outsider" in time of political strife.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 13, 2019, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087707
And we clearly live in a time of political superheat. The anger against anti-Vaxxers has become over-the-top with the MSM acting like we have an ebola epidemic. Anything involving immigration explodes into cries of Nazism. And if a news story hits where there was politically motivated crime? Oy vey. This is where I don't trust the free market to handle the situation because humans are tribal.

Man I hate Anti-Vaxxers.  Now we have a friggin Measels epidemic breaking out just because they are too stupid to get their kids a free vaccine.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 13, 2019, 07:17:19 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1087686
I know that in Tennessee, it is covered under Wrongful Termination.
Quote
Wrongful Termination. ... To be wrongfully terminated is to be fired for an illegal reason, which may involve violation of federal anti-discrimination laws or a contractual breach. For instance, an employee cannot be fired on the basis of her race, gender, ethnic background, religion, or disability.
Right, but note that there are only a narrow set of circumstances that count as wrongful termination. The vast majority of firings - even unfair ones - don't count as wrongful termination in a legal sense.


Quote from: Spinachcat;1087707
This is where I don't trust the free market to handle the situation because humans are tribal.

So if your workplace is "mostly Team Red" or "mostly LGBT" or "mostly Catholic", those who don't fit into the tribe risk being fired for the politics, regardless of their quality as an employee. The free market would keep a good employee, but a tribe might fire an "outsider" in time of political strife.
On the one hand, I agree that now is a time of greater political strife than 30 years ago. But in the bigger picture, political strife is common, and tribalism is constant.

Yeah, it sucks when someone does their job well, but is fired anyway because of office politics / tribalism. However, it happens all the time - and it used to be considered a fact of life. If one want to outlaw unfair firings due to any sort of tribalism, then that is a *huge* number of cases - and it is a huge can of worms for the government to distinguish between fair and unfair firing. I support the Civil Rights Act and its employment clause - but I do think that it is a last-ditch stopgap. If an employer really wants to fire me, and they're just letting me keep my job because of lawsuit, that's a sucky position for both of us.

I do oppose the current extreme partisanship as a cultural force, but I'm reluctant to bring in more lawsuit potential as a cure. I'm considering it, but I don't think the answer is nearly as obvious as people are implying.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on May 13, 2019, 07:33:42 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1087714
Man I hate Anti-Vaxxers.  Now we have a friggin Measels epidemic breaking out just because they are too stupid to get their kids a free vaccine.


While the Anti-Vaxxers are a bit misguided, I wouldn't put much stock in the MSM theory that the current measles outbreak is specifically because of them.  The numbers don't match and there is a lot of political motivation for setting the narrative a certain way.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 13, 2019, 07:57:47 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper;1087722
While the Anti-Vaxxers are a bit misguided, I wouldn't put much stock in the MSM theory that the current measles outbreak is specifically because of them.  The numbers don't match and there is a lot of political motivation for setting the narrative a certain way.

So what are the competing explanations?  We dont have MSM here but we sure do have a Measels epidemic.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 13, 2019, 08:53:48 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1087686
I know that in Tennessee, it is covered under Wrongful Termination.

Firings for political activity is covered under Tennessee's wrongful termination law?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 13, 2019, 09:25:41 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1087729
Firings for political activity is covered under Tennessee's wrongful termination law?

It is not.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 13, 2019, 10:37:39 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1087729
Firings for political activity is covered under Tennessee's wrongful termination law?

No, but I'd bet you could make a case for being fired for belonging to a certain political party under those guidelines.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on May 14, 2019, 12:14:35 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;1087739
No, but I'd bet you could make a case for being fired for belonging to a certain political party under those guidelines.

They wouldn't fire you for belonging to a certain political party; they would fire you for the "disruption" that stems from your coworkers knowing that you belong to it and how it hurts their feelings. IOW, you are fired for being a "poor fit" for the company culture. It is unlikely to be worth the money to fight it in court.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 14, 2019, 01:26:21 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze;1087748
They wouldn't fire you for belonging to a certain political party; they would fire you for the "disruption" that stems from your coworkers knowing that you belong to it and how it hurts their feelings. IOW, you are fired for being a "poor fit" for the company culture. It is unlikely to be worth the money to fight it in court.

Greetings!

Dayum, HappyDaze. Isn't that the truth? And the employers have lots of ways to overload you with work, then dock you for failing consistently to meet expected goals. 1, 2, 3. You're done. Good luck fighting that in court. Employers and management have numerous tools they can employ to make your life fucked, and constantly drag you down, criticize you, fuck your reviews. In six months, they have compiled a file of your "unsatisfactory" work performance, and you are done. Not to mention the ability to transfer you to a different office/shop/store, change your work duties, require you to do *more* work, and unsurprisingly fail at task completion and performance reviews, and apply pressure to stress you with management as well as other colleagues, typically resulting in you making more mistakes, becoming emotional and angry, or depressed, or all three, resulting in more "counseling" and disciplinary action against you.

You're fucked.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 14, 2019, 11:33:36 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;1087739
No, but I'd bet you could make a case for being fired for belonging to a certain political party under those guidelines.


Is there something I'm missing? Because those guidelines seem to match the Federal guidelines pretty well and being fired for belonging to a certain political party is not a protected class.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on May 14, 2019, 12:06:31 PM
Quote from: SHARK;1087751
Greetings!

Dayum, HappyDaze. Isn't that the truth? And the employers have lots of ways to overload you with work, then dock you for failing consistently to meet expected goals. 1, 2, 3. You're done. Good luck fighting that in court. Employers and management have numerous tools they can employ to make your life fucked, and constantly drag you down, criticize you, fuck your reviews. In six months, they have compiled a file of your "unsatisfactory" work performance, and you are done. Not to mention the ability to transfer you to a different office/shop/store, change your work duties, require you to do *more* work, and unsurprisingly fail at task completion and performance reviews, and apply pressure to stress you with management as well as other colleagues, typically resulting in you making more mistakes, becoming emotional and angry, or depressed, or all three, resulting in more "counseling" and disciplinary action against you.

You're fucked.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I've managed for healthcare systems that use a four-step disciplinary process (termination is step 4) and I have been actively encouraged by HR to have every employee up to step 2 ASAP so it's easy to take the final steps whenever it's "beneficial" to be rid of them. Step 3 is not used so lightly because it involves a performance improvement plan, and this is something that HR wants to help develop to ensure its rigged against the employee without appearing to be so rigged. Still, that involves tailoring to the offenses you want to fire for, so it's held back until you're ready to move forward. IME, almost every employee that hit step 3 reached step 4 within one year (exceptions include those involved in ongoing litigation; they were usually termed shortly after resolution of their cases because firing them while the suit is still active can hurt the company).
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 14, 2019, 08:55:13 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze;1087795
and I have been actively encouraged by HR to have every employee up to step 2 ASAP so it's easy to take the final steps whenever it's "beneficial" to be rid of them.


Anyone who thinks any company deserves an iota of their loyalty should read that sentence repeatedly.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on May 14, 2019, 09:30:25 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087872
Anyone who thinks any company deserves an iota of their loyalty should read that sentence repeatedly.


Of course, because HR's first loyalty is to the company...yet their job is specifically to be an employee's "friend" for purposes of interaction with the company.  By definition that makes them the least trustworthy people you deal with, because they are the ones actually responsible for lying to you.  I usually approach HR the same way I approach cops/government ...I don't know anything, didn't see anything and didn't hear anything.

...although the benefit of modern smartphones is personal copies of incident reports/pictures/etc. ;)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: rgalex on May 15, 2019, 07:21:20 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087872
Anyone who thinks any company deserves an iota of their loyalty should read that sentence repeatedly.


Heh, I work for a small company.  We're like 32 people big.  Our HR is also our CFO and, as of 2 years ago, part owner.  

Everyone in the company gets along great, like family, except him.  Everyone hates him because he doesn't trust anyone to not be screwing him over.  I've seen him treat employees who have been here 50+ years like they were shit and trying to pull one over on him.

Last year, when I was going though chemo he actually called me up one morning when I accidentally overslept, you know... because chemo, and told me that it was becoming an issue.  So I dragged myself out of bed, got to work and he cornered me in my office and railed on me.  Told me he felt they were bending over backwards to accommodate* my "situation" and that he really had his doubts that I actually did anything around the place anyway.  Apparently for 15 years people were just covering for me so I could sit around doing nothing.

Where was I going with this?  Sorry, guess I'm still a bit bitter.

*he sent me a letter saying they were understanding of my current situation. I could use my vacation days to cover any extra time I would miss due to treatments.  I ran out of days in month 2 of a 8 month treatment.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 15, 2019, 08:51:49 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1087751
Greetings!

Dayum, HappyDaze. Isn't that the truth? And the employers have lots of ways to overload you with work, then dock you for failing consistently to meet expected goals. 1, 2, 3. You're done. Good luck fighting that in court. Employers and management have numerous tools they can employ to make your life fucked, and constantly drag you down, criticize you, fuck your reviews. In six months, they have compiled a file of your "unsatisfactory" work performance, and you are done. Not to mention the ability to transfer you to a different office/shop/store, change your work duties, require you to do *more* work, and unsurprisingly fail at task completion and performance reviews, and apply pressure to stress you with management as well as other colleagues, typically resulting in you making more mistakes, becoming emotional and angry, or depressed, or all three, resulting in more "counseling" and disciplinary action against you.

You're fucked.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You're working for the wrong company if this is happening to you.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: HappyDaze on May 15, 2019, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1087945
You're working for the wrong company if this is happening to you.

Every company is the wrong company for somebody. The trick is finding the one that isn't the wrong company for you, at least for a while...
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 15, 2019, 04:57:31 PM
Getting back to the male self hatred aspect of the thread some extent, I honestly do wonder if the tone of the gender discussion will eventually come back more to the equality of men and women or, as it sometimes appears to be become increasingly dominated by the emphasis on female superiority. Perhaps I'm just blinkered to it or being thin skinned, but I remember a great deal of support for women in many areas back in ancient dark days of the 90s, even the 80s, but not so much "And men are weak scum (S.C.U.M.?) that have so how managed to overthrow and hold the Goddesses down (Ever watched the series American Gods, that's literally as aspect of its history/mythology).

I really thought it would approach more of equilibrium but I'm starting to wonder. The current loudest feminism have gone from oppression to entitlement and practical domination. Just listen to some of the talk going around about the presidency, beyond yes and no on Trump you get people (men and women) acting like it would be a horrendous event if a male was president, even if a female was vice (suggesting such is often treated as an insult). A woman as president would be fine, IMO, but a man would be as well. It's not as if we have to become Themyscira (a liberal version I guess since men are allowed to be around..Does that mean they don't call it Paradise Island anymore*.) to be fair women or to make any moves to address the issues they fact.

*There was a line in a Wonder Woman comic when someone asked if there really were no men where she came from she responded along the lines of "Yes, we call it Paradise Island for a reason
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 15, 2019, 09:17:20 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1088031
A woman as president would be fine, IMO, but a man would be as well.

Women currently make up roughly 1/2 of the world population.  The United States population is in line with global norms, and roughly 50% of the people in the United States are women.  Women are nominally equal to men; anything men can do, women can, too.  

Except, apparently, be president.

There have been 45 presidents.  None of them have been a woman.  Now, it's historical fact that women couldn't vote until just before Warren G Harding was elected (29th president), but I don't know if they could have registered in time for the election.  So, knowing that women can vote, and that officially, there is no barrier to women voting, it seems that if there is an otherwise equal chance, that one of the following fifteen presidents would have been a woman.  

Now, perhaps you would argue that when women gained the right to vote, they could begin a career in politics, but since President is the highest office in the land, it would make sense that they'd have to work up to it.  I think you could say that a woman born before 1920 probably wouldn't have had the chance.  There have been six presidents born after 1920 (everyone since Carter with the exception of Reagan), so if women had an equal chance, you'd expect at least one of those to have been a woman (the odds of flipping an honest coin and getting the same result six times in a row is 1.5%).  

So maybe women don't have an equal shot at everything in our society, despite people claiming otherwise.  

In the Fortune 500, women make up:
1 of every 20 CEOs
1 of every 10 top earners
1 of every 5 board seats
1 of every 4 senior leaders
1 of every 3 first/mid level managers
1 of every 2 workers

Perhaps you should ask 20 women randomly and see if 19 of them are exactly where they want to be.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 15, 2019, 09:25:12 PM
It will be funny to see what the SJW crew does if Creepy Joe wins the nomination. He'll probably get Warren or Harris as VP...if they pass the sniff test!

I suspect the divide between "actual women" and "online feminists" will continue to widen until the "online feminists" have become so bizarrely extreme, even the MSM can't pretend they speak for anyone in the viewing audience.

Millennials are rushing headlong into a nasty wall in their game of life and I expect the harsh realities will create new factions and divisions. Much akin to how Hippies became Yuppies. I cannot predict which way the Millennials will spin, but none of their utopias appear regardless who wins in 2020 and THAT social revelation will create change. Also, add to that the aging of Millennials out of college, into the workforce and into parenthood...AKA, not cool anymore for advertisers to pander to.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: moonsweeper on May 15, 2019, 09:41:24 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074
Women currently make up roughly 1/2 of the world population.  The United States population is in line with global norms, and roughly 50% of the people in the United States are women.  Women are nominally equal to men; anything men can do, women can, too.  



So maybe women don't have an equal shot at everything in our society, despite people claiming otherwise.


I don't care about the sex (or sex-life) of the candidate...but if women make up 50% of the population, have been voting for almost 100 years and there still hasn't been a woman elected, then I would venture to say most women apparently don't really care about the sex of the candidate either.


Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074

In the Fortune 500, women make up:
1 of every 20 CEOs
1 of every 10 top earners
1 of every 5 board seats
1 of every 4 senior leaders
1 of every 3 first/mid level managers
1 of every 2 workers

Perhaps you should ask 20 women randomly and see if 19 of them are exactly where they want to be.


Want to place a bet on whether or not you get the same results if you ask 20 randomly selected men??
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 15, 2019, 10:49:22 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074
In the Fortune 500, women make up:
1 of every 20 CEOs


I saw a good article about this today.  It said that if you look at the figures men are just as discriminated against as women in becoming CEO of a Fortune 500 company (19 out of 150 million compared to 1 out of 150 million).

Of course that does not fit the narrative though.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 15, 2019, 11:10:55 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1088097
I saw a good article about this today.  It said that if you look at the figures men are just as discriminated against as women in becoming CEO of a Fortune 500 company (19 out of 150 million compared to 1 out of 150 million).

Of course that does not fit the narrative though.

Link?  

Obviously most people aren't president or CEO.  But 19/150M is significantly better odds than 1/150M.  If I could buy two lottery tickets for the same price, and one of them was 19x more likely to pay out, I'd buy that one every time.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 15, 2019, 11:38:13 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088102
Link?  

Obviously most people aren't president or CEO.  But 19/150M is significantly better odds than 1/150M.  If I could buy two lottery tickets for the same price, and one of them was 19x more likely to pay out, I'd buy that one every time.

Link?  I just use your figure divided by the population of the USA.

In contrast the chance to win the Lotto (https://mylotto.co.nz/game-information) here in NZ is only 1 in 3.8M.

You are much more likely to get struck by Lightning in the USA (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/flash-facts-about-lightning/) only 1 in 700,000 chance.

But to be honest, it is much better to worry about the fact that the top 1% of the top 1% are being unfairly discriminated against.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 16, 2019, 02:12:00 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088102
Link?  

Obviously most people aren't president or CEO.  But 19/150M is significantly better odds than 1/150M.  If I could buy two lottery tickets for the same price, and one of them was 19x more likely to pay out, I'd buy that one every time.

There's a distinct reason for this, and it lies in the personality traits of women versus men. Men tend to be higher in conscientiousness and women higher in agreeableness for one. These directly affect the choice to devote their whole lives to these apex positions.

https://youtu.be/Awot-d8U9Cc
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 16, 2019, 02:46:26 AM
Quote from: shuddemell;1088129
There's a distinct reason for this, and it lies in the personality traits of women versus men. Men tend to be higher in conscientiousness and women higher in agreeableness for one. These directly affect the choice to devote their whole lives to these apex positions.

https://youtu.be/Awot-d8U9Cc

Greetings!

Exactly, Shuddemell! All of which and more is merely evidence that men and women are *different*.:D However, Libtards don't like that, because reality and science fuck them in the ass every time they turn around, but it contradicts their fucking mantra for the past 40 years that men and women are the *same*. Still. despite trainloads of evidence and studies from biology, psychology, and so on--the Libtards don't care about truth, evidence, and reality. They keep insisting that if we just swallow enough Kool-Aid, and sob, and chant, and protest enough, then magically we can all live in a supposed utopia where all of the Happy Rainbow Barneys can dance for joy!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 16, 2019, 04:57:57 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074
Women currently make up roughly 1/2 of the world population.  The United States population is in line with global norms, and roughly 50% of the people in the United States are women.  Women are nominally equal to men; anything men can do, women can, too.  

Except, apparently, be president.

There have been 45 presidents.  None of them have been a woman.  Now, it's historical fact that women couldn't vote until just before Warren G Harding was elected (29th president), but I don't know if they could have registered in time for the election.  So, knowing that women can vote, and that officially, there is no barrier to women voting, it seems that if there is an otherwise equal chance, that one of the following fifteen presidents would have been a woman.  

Now, perhaps you would argue that when women gained the right to vote, they could begin a career in politics, but since President is the highest office in the land, it would make sense that they'd have to work up to it.  I think you could say that a woman born before 1920 probably wouldn't have had the chance.  There have been six presidents born after 1920 (everyone since Carter with the exception of Reagan), so if women had an equal chance, you'd expect at least one of those to have been a woman (the odds of flipping an honest coin and getting the same result six times in a row is 1.5%).  

So maybe women don't have an equal shot at everything in our society, despite people claiming otherwise.  

In the Fortune 500, women make up:
1 of every 20 CEOs
1 of every 10 top earners
1 of every 5 board seats
1 of every 4 senior leaders
1 of every 3 first/mid level managers
1 of every 2 workers

Perhaps you should ask 20 women randomly and see if 19 of them are exactly where they want to be.

It does not follow that because a particular portion of society constitutes a given proportion that all fields of endeavor should have exact demographic representation. A lot of this, in our free society, is left to personal choice, and it may be choices that preclude their participation at that level. The actual biological and personality differences constitute a large portion of the motivators and therefore this disparity doesn't necessarily indicate systemic oppression. Also, I suggest you try that experiment on 20 random men, and I would bet most of them aren't exactly where they'd like to be either. Discontent is not an indicator of discrimination. Finally, you might check the representation of women in plumbing, sewer work, lumberjacking, etc. Women are woefully unrepresented in these fields and yet there is no equivalent call for such representation there. Why might that be?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 16, 2019, 08:48:36 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1088097
I saw a good article about this today.  

Quote from: Shasarak;1088111
Link?  I just use your figure divided by the population of the USA.

So you didn't see a good article about this?  

Just to be pedantic, you're guilty of terrible math.  I was talking about CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, and that women represented one of every 20 CEOs.  Since there are 500 companies in the Fortune 500, there are approximately 500 CEOs, and therefore roughly 25 women compared to 475 men serving as CEOs.  

In contrast the chance to win the Lotto (https://mylotto.co.nz/game-information) here in NZ is only 1 in 3.8M.

Quote from: Shasarak;1088097
But to be honest, it is much better to worry about the fact that the top 1% of the top 1% are being unfairly discriminated against.

IF under-representation at the highest levels is caused by systemic discrimination at lower levels, it is a symptom.  Curing the disease would alleviate the symptom; a treatment of just the symptom isn't a true cure.  

Quote from: shuddemell;1088148
A lot of this, in our free society, is left to personal choice, and it may be choices that preclude their participation at that level. The actual biological and personality differences constitute a large portion of the motivators and therefore this disparity doesn't necessarily indicate systemic oppression.

So are you claiming that more qualified women are never passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified men, or are you admitting that it happens and that it isn't a problem?  

Even if I accept that some disparity is the result of differences in ambition resulting from physiologically differences (which I do to a large extent), that also is not a proof that there isn't ALSO systemic oppression.  It seems to me that at the very least, we should be trying to determine how much it does happen and how we can prevent it.  

I mean, a number of people here have claimed that they want the most qualified person to be hired into whatever role we're discussing; systemic oppression makes that less likely.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 16, 2019, 12:15:02 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088164
Even if I accept that some disparity is the result of differences in ambition resulting from physiologically differences (which I do to a large extent), that also is not a proof that there isn't ALSO systemic oppression.  It seems to me that at the very least, we should be trying to determine how much it does happen and how we can prevent it.  

And "we" are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

There does seem to be some evidence that gender equality increases gender imbalance in life choices.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 16, 2019, 01:04:51 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1088194
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

There does seem to be some evidence that gender equality increases gender imbalance in life choices.

This is a limited correlation, but I don't think that the mechanism or causation is well-understood. We can say that in Western countries with legal steps towards gender equality, that women are sometimes less involved in STEM careers and certain leadership positions. However, I would not call the *outcome* of being a CEO or science professor as purely a life choice. It is influenced by a lot of things outside of an individual's control. And even things within an individual's control are strongly affected by environment and culture.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 16, 2019, 04:57:00 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088164
So you didn't see a good article about this?  


I guess I am as good at maths as you are at English.  Here is your link (https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far/) but I am telling you that you wont like it.

Quote
Just to be pedantic, you're guilty of terrible math.  I was talking about CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, and that women represented one of every 20 CEOs.  Since there are 500 companies in the Fortune 500, there are approximately 500 CEOs, and therefore roughly 25 women compared to 475 men serving as CEOs.  

In contrast the chance to win the Lotto (https://mylotto.co.nz/game-information) here in NZ is only 1 in 3.8M.


When your chance of being struck by actual lightning is so much higher then your chance of becoming a CEO I fail to see what the real difference is.

Quote
IF under-representation at the highest levels is caused by systemic discrimination at lower levels, it is a symptom.  Curing the disease would alleviate the symptom; a treatment of just the symptom isn't a true cure.  


Maybe you should look at real problems rather then something that only affects the minutest proportion of the population (500 out of 300 million).  You have genetic diseases that occur at better rates then that.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 16, 2019, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1088200
This is a limited correlation, but I don't think that the mechanism or causation is well-understood.

And I'd say the same about deadDMwalking's points about how we haven't had a woman president, or the number of women CEO's, etc. But there are some who will hold these kinds of data points up as proof of systemic oppression of women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 16, 2019, 06:08:52 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1088236
And I'd say the same about deadDMwalking's points about how we haven't had a woman president, or the number of women CEO's, etc. But there are some who will hold these kinds of data points up as proof of systemic oppression of women.

I bet that England is grateful to have a woman prime minister to guide them through this difficult time.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 16, 2019, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1088228
I guess I am as good at maths as you are at English.  Here is your link (https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far/) but I am telling you that you wont like it.

I don't find it convincing.  He uses the rhetorical device of a false dichotomy multiple times.  He also takes 'equality of opportunity' as a given when it is a large part of any perceived problems from liberals.  But thanks for sharing.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 17, 2019, 03:40:35 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1088238
I bet that England is grateful to have a woman prime minister to guide them through this difficult time.

So glad she overcame all that Systemic Oppression to lead us!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 17, 2019, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088164
So you didn't ...
So are you claiming that more qualified women are never passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified men, or are you admitting that it happens and that it isn't a problem?  

Even if I accept that some disparity is the result of differences in ambition resulting from physiologically differences (which I do to a large extent), that also is not a proof that there isn't ALSO systemic oppression.  It seems to me that at the very least, we should be trying to determine how much it does happen and how we can prevent it.  

I mean, a number of people here have claimed that they want the most qualified person to be hired into whatever role we're discussing; systemic oppression makes that less likely.


No, I am not claiming that it never happens, I am claiming that there is NO evidence that it is a systemic (system-wide) problem and rather it is just individual cases that need to be handled individually. Your implication was that because they aren't represented demographically that it was systemic. I am saying that those are correlation without causation. Unless you have other data which you haven't presented that implication is unfounded. It should be noted that in countries that actively enforce radical egalitarianism (Sweden being one) that these differences of profession and rank within a profession are accentuated rather than mitigated.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 17, 2019, 04:57:01 AM
Quote from: Shasarak;1088238
I bet that England is grateful to have a woman prime minister to guide them through this difficult time.

That depends a lot on whether your a Brexiteer or a Remainer, I would imagine.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: S'mon on May 17, 2019, 05:54:56 AM
Quote from: shuddemell;1088307
That depends a lot on whether your a Brexiteer or a Remainer, I would imagine.

Nope. We are all as one in our opinion of the Dear Leader!
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 17, 2019, 06:54:33 AM
Quote from: S'mon;1088314
Nope. We are all as one in our opinion of the Dear Leader!

So no one likes her....
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 17, 2019, 12:57:17 PM
Quote from: shuddemell;1088306
No, I am not claiming that it never happens, I am claiming that there is NO evidence that it is a systemic (system-wide) problem and rather it is just individual cases that need to be handled individually.

How many individual cases would it take before you consider it a pattern?

The Company That Sells Love to America Had a Dark Secret (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/magazine/kay-jewelry-sexual-harassment.html)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 17, 2019, 08:48:48 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper;1088082
I don't care about the sex (or sex-life) of the candidate...but if women make up 50% of the population, have been voting for almost 100 years and there still hasn't been a woman elected, then I would venture to say most women apparently don't really care about the sex of the candidate either.


If women (as a whole) believed in female candidates, you'd at least see more women lead in primaries (or even show up).

Even the 2020 primary has the female candidates struggling for attention. If liberal women wanted a woman president, why is Creepy Biden in the lead? Followed by Porn Writing Socialist Geezer Dude? And Bern's followed by Bouncing Skateboard Beto Bro. They all have more women behind them than Warren or Harris or the dozen other women scoring at zero in the polls.

Even when the most "liberated" women in history have the chance to promote a woman, most instead choose to support male candidates instead.


Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074
Perhaps you should ask 20 women randomly and see if 19 of them are exactly where they want to be.


You can ask 1000 humans and I doubt 5% would say they are exactly where they want to be.

Even people who are doing great would like a promotion, more wealth or an easier gig.

If women want to be CEOs, that's a no brainer. Go start your own company. Boom! You're the CEO (and the chief bottle washer too!)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 17, 2019, 09:03:42 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088335
How many individual cases would it take before you consider it a pattern?

The Company That Sells Love to America Had a Dark Secret (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/magazine/kay-jewelry-sexual-harassment.html)


Well, if we talk about systemic differences there's also this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6507dcec7c5a
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 17, 2019, 09:07:29 PM
Here's an interesting quote from the same article:

"The perception that STEM fields continue to be inhospitable male bastions can become self-reinforcing by discouraging female applicants, thus contributing to continued underrepresentation"

I have found a lot of the talk about sexism and racism in America to be unhelpful and often self-fulfilling prophecies.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 17, 2019, 10:51:53 PM
Quote from: Trond;1088380
Here's an interesting quote from the same article:

"The perception that STEM fields continue to be inhospitable male bastions can become self-reinforcing by discouraging female applicants, thus contributing to continued underrepresentation"

I have found a lot of the talk about sexism and racism in America to be unhelpful and often self-fulfilling prophecies.


Did you read the whole article?

Quote

"I think it's too soon to say, 'Okay, problem solved,'" Virginia Valian, who researches gender equity at New York's Hunter College, told Science Magazine. "We haven't solved the problem of underrepresentation of women in the sciences...and I wouldn't want people to think that this paper demonstrates that we have solved it."

Speaking to Reuters, Wendy Williams countered that criticism.

"We're not saying women do not face discrimination" in academic science, she said. "But these data speak to a real change. People seem to have internalized the value of gender diversity, and are consciously or unconsciously upgrading women candidates."


Saying 'systemic discrimination has been historically the case and things appear to finally be changing' isn't saying 'men face discrimination in hiring'.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 17, 2019, 10:57:12 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088394
Did you read the whole article?


Yes. Universities have dropped merit as the criteria for tenure and now instead use gender. How not surprising!

The very definition of SJW victory, but a loss for science education.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 17, 2019, 11:26:19 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088394
Did you read the whole article?



Saying 'systemic discrimination has been historically the case and things appear to finally be changing' isn't saying 'men face discrimination in hiring'.


Except they do. I have seen it happen. And this article is sort of, kind of, admitting it within the perimeters that's found to be acceptable (in 2015, maybe not anymore). Besides, did you see the quote I gave above? You're not helping. Your attitude seems to be that women are oppressed, by definition. Can't blame you too much though, because many academic fields now operate the same way; if they didn't find sexism in a given organization they are "doing it wrong".
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on May 18, 2019, 03:02:22 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074
So maybe women don't have an equal shot at everything in our society, despite people claiming otherwise.


"Can" does gatekeep any possibility of "will."

But you also have to want to do it, and then compete against others to even reach the potential pool from which candidates are chosen. Each 'level' is more competitive than the one below it, and if there happens to be a paucity of women at any one level, it affects the available pool from which higher levels are selected. And some industries are by nature more competitive than others.

I have met my share of real, hired women executives and women CEOs (not just ones that are spinning up a start up) and they are 100% hard core executive types, and if they have much of a domestic life, you never see it because it is not relevant. It is really tough to be that competitive, even if you are allocating almost all your waking hours to it. A lot of women simply will choose not to do it because they also want other things in life that will take up some of those hours. Those that have that expectation aren't shut out. They opted out by choice.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 18, 2019, 10:11:34 PM
Quote from: Lynn;1088415
"Can" does gatekeep any possibility of "will."

But you also have to want to do it, and then compete against others to even reach the potential pool from which candidates are chosen. Each 'level' is more competitive than the one below it, and if there happens to be a paucity of women at any one level, it affects the available pool from which higher levels are selected. And some industries are by nature more competitive than others.

I have met my share of real, hired women executives and women CEOs (not just ones that are spinning up a start up) and they are 100% hard core executive types, and if they have much of a domestic life, you never see it because it is not relevant. It is really tough to be that competitive, even if you are allocating almost all your waking hours to it. A lot of women simply will choose not to do it because they also want other things in life that will take up some of those hours. Those that have that expectation aren't shut out. They opted out by choice.


This is one of those weird things in recent history; we went from asking "why not equal opportunities for men and women? Perhaps some women can be bosses too!" To "wait, why aren't the percentages of people in every position exactly 50-50?"
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Haffrung on May 19, 2019, 12:34:28 PM
Quote from: Lynn;1088415
"
I have met my share of real, hired women executives and women CEOs (not just ones that are spinning up a start up) and they are 100% hard core executive types, and if they have much of a domestic life, you never see it because it is not relevant. It is really tough to be that competitive, even if you are allocating almost all your waking hours to it. A lot of women simply will choose not to do it because they also want other things in life that will take up some of those hours. Those that have that expectation aren't shut out. They opted out by choice.

Yep. Almost all male executives are extreme personality types who have little live outside their jobs. If they have families, they have a spouse who devotes virtually all of her time to domestic life so the CEO can devote almost all his time to being a CEO. There are only so many hours in the day.

If more woman want to reach the highest rungs of the ladder, they'll have to:

A) Abandon pretty much all other aspects of their lives.
B) If they want to have a family also (and they don't want that family raised by nannies), marry a man who will devote himself almost entirely to domestic matters.

You don't have have to look at CEOs to see the different choices ambitious men and women make. I think we could agree that women who complete medical school are highly intelligent, ambitious, and independent. The fact 60 per cent of the graduates of medical school today are women shows that women today have no problem entering difficult, competitive fields that were once male-dominated.

However, in spite of making up the great majority of graduating doctors today, women in medicine work far fewer hours over their career than men. Women are more likely to work part-time, to take years off to raise children, and to drop out of the field altogether. I'm going to give those highly intelligence, ambitious, independent women the respect to recognize that they made the choices that were best for them. That they genuine get more satisfaction from raising families than from working 60 hours a week. And that their choice not to sacrifice all other aspects of their lives to their carers is the right choice for them.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 19, 2019, 12:44:54 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;1088553
However, in spite of making up the great majority of graduating doctors today, women in medicine work far fewer hours over their career than men. Women are more likely to work part-time, to take years off to raise children, and to drop out of the field altogether. I'm going to give those highly intelligence, ambitious, independent women the respect to recognize that they made the choices that were best for them. That they genuine get more satisfaction from raising families than from working 60 hours a week. And that their choice not to sacrifice all other aspects of their lives to their carers is the right choice for them.

One anectodal example I've heard a few times, is a woman will plan to take some time off to have kids with plans to re-enter the workforce and continue her career, but after having the kid, decides she likes being a stay at home mom, and shifts her plans accordingly.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on May 19, 2019, 01:35:52 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;1088553
However, in spite of making up the great majority of graduating doctors today, women in medicine work far fewer hours over their career than men. Women are more likely to work part-time, to take years off to raise children, and to drop out of the field altogether. I'm going to give those highly intelligence, ambitious, independent women the respect to recognize that they made the choices that were best for them. That they genuine get more satisfaction from raising families than from working 60 hours a week. And that their choice not to sacrifice all other aspects of their lives to their carers is the right choice for them.


Sure. And this exactly illustrates one problem of looking only at 'undesirable outcomes'.

Other than actually giving birth, both women and men can be "A" and "B"  types, and they can also enter into relationships where there is a stay at home partner that isn't the woman that gave birth.

Some of those 'undesirable outcomes' are actually the result of 'desired or result of a matter of personal choice'.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 19, 2019, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: Lynn;1088560
Some of those 'undesirable outcomes' are actually the result of 'desired or result of a matter of personal choice'.

Which women are going to 'volunteer' to be the miners, loggers and oil riggers that we need to balance the sexist gap in those industries?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 19, 2019, 07:23:25 PM
Being the only one of anything is daunting.  Being the first black professional baseball player wasn't easy.  Breaking down the barriers has to happen first.  

Once those barriers are broken, you'll often find lots of volunteers.  Like in the United States Military (https://www.womensmemorial.org/americas-military-women).  There are often still different expectations, and the military clearly (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1508127/dod-releases-annual-report-on-sexual-assault-in-military/) has a problem with sexual assault - you'd have to be brave to join the military generally, and I think that you have to be braver as a woman.  

I don't think that the term 'volunteer' is appropriate for careers in male-dominated industries.  They tend to be high paying jobs (relatively speaking) but require a significant amount of social disruption.  You can't be an oil-rig worker and be home every weekend.  Whether it is appropriate or not, society in general is more accepting of a career-driven man who doesn't engage in family life versus a woman doing the same.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Shasarak on May 19, 2019, 07:44:27 PM
But we do not need 'lots' of volunteers.  We need enough to fill half of the roles.

I would suggest that the former oil-riggers should learn to change diapers and become children nursery carers.  For the greater good of course.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on May 19, 2019, 09:11:59 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1088567
Which women are going to 'volunteer' to be the miners, loggers and oil riggers that we need to balance the sexist gap in those industries?

The ones that want to, because that's all that matters. Everyone has access to the pie, and everyone competes for a slice if they want pie. Nobody is entitled to a share of the pie.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 19, 2019, 09:40:41 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088583
...

Fuck it. I'm responding to a White Knighting moron.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Toadmaster on May 20, 2019, 10:40:30 AM
Quote from: Lynn;1088591
The ones that want to, because that's all that matters. Everyone has access to the pie, and everyone competes for a slice if they want pie. Nobody is entitled to a share of the pie.

But that isn't all that matters. When 10% of the applicants for a job are women, but less than 50% of the jobs going to women is seen as failure / sexism you get a lot of undesirable outcomes. Hiring should be looking for the most qualified, and when it comes to checking for discrimination the employee pool should be the base looked at, not how many of X happen to be in the world at large.

Go to a written test for a fire department, I can guarantee you that women do not account for anything close to 50% of the bodies in the seats. Go to a Community college and look at the student body in a fire science program, not a whole lot of women in those classes. I've been involved in recruiting for many years, and if you see 4 or 5 women in a class of 30-40 that stands out, 1 or 2 is more common, and it is not really unusual to see none.  

Come hiring time agencies fight over that very small group of women.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Lynn on May 20, 2019, 12:15:40 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster;1088660
But that isn't all that matters. When 10% of the applicants for a job are women, but less than 50% of the jobs going to women is seen as failure / sexism you get a lot of undesirable outcomes. Hiring should be looking for the most qualified, and when it comes to checking for discrimination the employee pool should be the base looked at, not how many of X happen to be in the world at large.

If you want equality and freedom, you have to accept that given equal access, people are still going to be making choices based on their own personal interests.

The automatic 'seen as failure / sexism' of these undesirable outcomes indicates a possible failure of our education system to produce logical and critical thinkers. Like all undesirable outcomes, it isn't a conclusion but is suggestive of a possible problem, either in the process or in the expectations, or both.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 20, 2019, 05:58:58 PM
Quote from: Shasarak;1088567
Which women are going to 'volunteer' to be the miners, loggers and oil riggers that we need to balance the sexist gap in those industries?

None. Modern feminism only demands equal representation in roles of power. The men can keep the powerless jobs.

The Wahmen MUST be 50% of the managers/directors/CEOs of those mining/logging/oil companies, but its perfectly fine if they're 5% of the manual labor.

As usual, feminism and white knighting is only about power and control. How not surprising.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 21, 2019, 12:37:32 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088335
How many individual cases would it take before you consider it a pattern?

The Company That Sells Love to America Had a Dark Secret (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/magazine/kay-jewelry-sexual-harassment.html)


It would take statistical evidence that it happens, rather than just a conglomeration of unsubstantiated anectdotes.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 21, 2019, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: shuddemell;1088796
It would take statistical evidence that it happens, rather than just a conglomeration of unsubstantiated anectdotes.

Unsubstantiated? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/10/25/sexual-harassment-here-some-biggest-cases/791439001/)

Statistical Analysis (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02610150310787559)

Satisfied?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 21, 2019, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088820
Unsubstantiated? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/10/25/sexual-harassment-here-some-biggest-cases/791439001/)

Sensationalist.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088820
Statistical Analysis (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02610150310787559)

Cleverly hidden behind a paywall.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 21, 2019, 04:02:22 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088583
Being the only one of anything is daunting.  Being the first black professional baseball player wasn't easy.  Breaking down the barriers has to happen first.  

Once those barriers are broken, you'll often find lots of volunteers.  Like in the United States Military (https://www.womensmemorial.org/americas-military-women).  There are often still different expectations, and the military clearly (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1508127/dod-releases-annual-report-on-sexual-assault-in-military/) has a problem with sexual assault - you'd have to be brave to join the military generally, and I think that you have to be braver as a woman.  

I don't think that the term 'volunteer' is appropriate for careers in male-dominated industries.  They tend to be high paying jobs (relatively speaking) but require a significant amount of social disruption.  You can't be an oil-rig worker and be home every weekend.  Whether it is appropriate or not, society in general is more accepting of a career-driven man who doesn't engage in family life versus a woman doing the same.


NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

Soldier shares video of her shocking sex assault of another soldier (https://popularmilitary.com/soldier-shares-video-of-her-shocking-sex-assault-of-another-soldier/?fbclid=IwAR0MC4p3erivutCyZo8oaKqq4R0k1lTr1dQBgZUelcXPE4qcf_nHnesqjpE#utm_source=5%20Bravo)

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 21, 2019, 04:14:23 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1088845
Sensationalist.

Are you claiming you speak for Shuddemell, now?  While finding links to news articles is relatively easy, you can find the court documents for those cases; it is a matter of public record.  I would imagine you would accuse ANY news article of being 'sensationalist' since they do want to make them interesting enough to warrant reading; there's always a certain amount of 'edutainment' in consuming the news.  

Quote from: jeff37923;1088845
Cleverly hidden behind a paywall.

You're not a Marxist, are you?  Don't you want to make sure that academic journals are supported?  Especially if you want to avoid 'sensationalist claims'.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Pat on May 21, 2019, 04:39:15 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088853
You're not a Marxist, are you?  Don't you want to make sure that academic journals are supported?  Especially if you want to avoid 'sensationalist claims'.
Fuck that. The money doesn't support research, it goes to the research publishing conglomerates, which are money-sucking parasites that feast on academia.

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-five-companies-control-more-than-half-of-academic-publishing
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Note the company whose website that you linked and are now claiming deserves money because of sarcastic muh capitalism is specifically mentioned in the paper in the second link.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 21, 2019, 05:29:01 PM
You'd think I struck a nerve.....

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088853
Are you claiming you speak for Shuddemell, now?  While finding links to news articles is relatively easy, you can find the court documents for those cases; it is a matter of public record.  I would imagine you would accuse ANY news article of being 'sensationalist' since they do want to make them interesting enough to warrant reading; there's always a certain amount of 'edutainment' in consuming the news.

Nah, Shuddemell can speak for himself quite well.

I just find it funny that you couldn't find any better source than USA Today.



Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088853
You're not a Marxist, are you?  Don't you want to make sure that academic journals are supported?  Especially if you want to avoid 'sensationalist claims'.

Well, if you are trying to prove your point, it is a Major Fail to site evidence that people can't see because they would have to pay for the privilege.

Or was that your intention.....
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: kythri on May 21, 2019, 05:32:21 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1088873
Or was that your intention.....

Of course it was.  You don't think that he actually read the content behind said paywall, do you?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Spinachcat on May 21, 2019, 07:48:49 PM
Are there many incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace? Absolutely. No question about that.

Will the #MeToo screeching ultimately benefit women in the workplace? Absolutely not.

"MeToo Backlash Is Getting Worse" says the HuffingOnGlue Post!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/me-too-backlash-getting-worse_n_5cddd96de4b00e035b8ce786

"Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost" says Dorkberg!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

And these men are right. If you want to avoid MeToo bullshit, avoid female co-workers. "Not being a dick" isn't an defense against false claims, or even against "a misunderstanding", but tactical avoidance provides actual defense. Meet female co-workers with doors open, preferably with others present. Keep work and not-work completely separate. No mixing life stuff with work stuff. Treat female co-workers with respect, but never forget the wrong one can destroy your career, regardless of your innocence. "But I was just telling a joke I heard on TV!" will not protect you...even if she was laughing at the joke.

Yet again, more reasons to own your own business and not be a corporate cog.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 21, 2019, 08:58:24 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1088907
And these men are right. If you want to avoid MeToo bullshit, avoid female co-workers.
The scandal around Kevin Spacey shows that there don't need to be women around at all for there to be MeToo bullshit. So you're never completely safe, unless you avoid people altogether.

On the other hand, there are hundreds of other things that could go wrong - from getting hit by a truck to struck by lightning to cancer.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 21, 2019, 09:03:38 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1088907
Are there many incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace? Absolutely. No question about that.

Will the #MeToo screeching ultimately benefit women in the workplace? Absolutely not.

"MeToo Backlash Is Getting Worse" says the HuffingOnGlue Post!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/me-too-backlash-getting-worse_n_5cddd96de4b00e035b8ce786

"Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost" says Dorkberg!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

And these men are right. If you want to avoid MeToo bullshit, avoid female co-workers. "Not being a dick" isn't an defense against false claims, or even against "a misunderstanding", but tactical avoidance provides actual defense. Meet female co-workers with doors open, preferably with others present. Keep work and not-work completely separate. No mixing life stuff with work stuff. Treat female co-workers with respect, but never forget the wrong one can destroy your career, regardless of your innocence. "But I was just telling a joke I heard on TV!" will not protect you...even if she was laughing at the joke.

Yet again, more reasons to own your own business and not be a corporate cog.

Greetings!

Yeah, my friend. *EXACTLY*. That Rachel Thomas chick at the Huffington article. What a condescending slug. "You should socialize with both men and women equally" No, dumbass, men can quite easily choose to hang out with and socialize with other men, and ignore the stupid women entirely. The narcissism and entitlement with these whiny, self-righteous and smug women is astounding. That's ok, though. More and more men are developing ways and networks that strengthen men, get the job done, and fuck the women. And the men give *zero* fucks for all the whining and sobbing that the greedy, smug, entitled women screech on about. Whaa! Whaa!

I saw all of this coming when "MeToo" was getting into gear. I told my friends, you watch...men will make new ways to minimalize women, and side-line the fuck out of them at work fast. And they have. No more mentoring, no more flirting and playing fuck me grab-ass games that women fucking love at work; no more lunches and dinners, none of that. Choke on it. Strictly business, ladies!

You see though, that's not letting women flirt and fuck to get what they want, and to compete against the other women, so they're whining and crying about all those juicy extra social opportunities that come from just being a broad where they can wiggle their ass and get some action are fucking over with. Whaa. Too bad. Read it and weep, Ladies! STRICTLY BUSINESS!!! They can choke on it. You can tell they sure as fuck don't like it when men treat them with a strictly business policy.

Fucking hilarious!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 22, 2019, 12:05:14 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088820
Unsubstantiated? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/10/25/sexual-harassment-here-some-biggest-cases/791439001/)

Statistical Analysis (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02610150310787559)

Satisfied?

Not at all, primarily because the abstract is all I can see, and I don't trust either that website or the authors without being able to read the paper. Would you like the studies that prove that there is no basis for systemic bias?

Here's the latest one from Harvard to get you started.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 22, 2019, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Pat;1088861
Fuck that. The money doesn't support research, it goes to the research publishing conglomerates, which are money-sucking parasites that feast on academia.

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-five-companies-control-more-than-half-of-academic-publishing
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Note the company whose website that you linked and are now claiming deserves money because of sarcastic muh capitalism is specifically mentioned in the paper in the second link.


This, so much this.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: EOTB on May 22, 2019, 02:25:14 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1088921
On the other hand, there are hundreds of other things that could go wrong - from getting hit by a truck to struck by lightning to cancer.


Yes, and we tell people to avoid smoking entirely because of it, and not to dance around in thunderstorms with metal poles held aloft.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 22, 2019, 02:57:18 PM
Avoiding women would never be my thing. I am far too fond of them :)
However, it might be a good idea to check out people's general online activity/demeanor; for instance Bill Webb should probably have looked up BJ Hensley's online activism before trying to pal up with her and offering her a cigarette (or maybe that's reverse victim blaming :D )
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 22, 2019, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: Trond;1089041
Avoiding women would never be my thing. I am far too fond of them :)
However, it might be a good idea to check out people's general online activity/demeanor; for instance Bill Webb should probably have looked up BJ Hensley's online activism before trying to pal up with her and offering her a cigarette (or maybe that's reverse victim blaming :D )

Who the hell has time or inclination to google everyone they meet and interact with?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 22, 2019, 03:26:49 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1089043
Who the hell has time or inclination to google everyone they meet and interact with?

That, and how do you know that it is accurate and not just an online persona?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 23, 2019, 10:32:51 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1089043
Who the hell has time or inclination to google everyone they meet and interact with?

I think his interest in her probably took it a little further than just anyone he met with, but that's just a hunch. Developing your SJW-radar  (SJW-dar?) is not a bad idea. Not sure about this guy, but some people have no clue even when the red flags are all over the place :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 23, 2019, 10:33:29 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1089043
Who the hell has time or inclination to google everyone they meet and interact with?


I think his interest in her probably took it a little further than just anyone he met with, but that's just a hunch. Developing your SJW-radar  (SJW-dar?) is not a bad idea. Not sure about this guy, but some people have no clue even when the red flags are all over the place :D
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 23, 2019, 10:41:16 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;1088848
NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

Soldier shares video of her shocking sex assault of another soldier (https://popularmilitary.com/soldier-shares-video-of-her-shocking-sex-assault-of-another-soldier/?fbclid=IwAR0MC4p3erivutCyZo8oaKqq4R0k1lTr1dQBgZUelcXPE4qcf_nHnesqjpE#utm_source=5%20Bravo)

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW



Hardly "shocking" to me, but man, would that video have been headlines all over the place if it were a man doing this to a woman.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 23, 2019, 01:54:12 PM
Quote from: Trond;1089158
Hardly "shocking" to me, but man, would that video have been headlines all over the place if it were a man doing this to a woman.

That's the thing, that massive double standard.

To me, this is just a normal day of military fuckery, pretty funny too.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 23, 2019, 02:09:49 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1089180
To me, this is just a normal day of military fuckery, pretty funny too.

Dumb sexual humor, pranks and such are ways for people to bond. I imagine the military will fall apart if soldiers can't blow off steam in this way. They'll all be afraid to treat each other as human beings.
But on the plus side, no one will be offended. [/s]

(And the sexual double standard isn't lost on me.)
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: SHARK on May 23, 2019, 02:41:27 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1089180
That's the thing, that massive double standard.

To me, this is just a normal day of military fuckery, pretty funny too.

Greetings!

SO TRUE, my friend! Every day! I can't imagine the military without constant fuckery and innuendo and such. I don't think civilians understand it at all. That's part of the reason why the military always needs to stand firm against the civilian world, and reject any kind of political correctness, nonsense, and sensitivity. Fuck that.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Trond on May 23, 2019, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1089180
That's the thing, that massive double standard.

To me, this is just a normal day of military fuckery, pretty funny too.


Yup. Here's one of the biggest rifts in the politics of most people today: some look at this video and see a "shocking" scene featuring "sexual assault". Others just chuckle and go "so what, it's nothing". It really does feel like the SJWs are the same way as the religious moralizers of the past.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: shuddemell on May 24, 2019, 01:22:32 AM
Quote from: Trond;1089195
Yup. Here's one of the biggest rifts in the politics of most people today: some look at this video and see a "shocking" scene featuring "sexual assault". Others just chuckle and go "so what, it's nothing". It really does feel like the SJWs are the same way as the religious moralizers of the past.

Indeed, because in both cases they are religious or quasi-religious busybodies who feel they have the moral superiority to tell others how to live.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jhkim on May 24, 2019, 02:47:13 AM
Quote from: SHARK;1089194
SO TRUE, my friend! Every day! I can't imagine the military without constant fuckery and innuendo and such. I don't think civilians understand it at all. That's part of the reason why the military always needs to stand firm against the civilian world, and reject any kind of political correctness, nonsense, and sensitivity. Fuck that.

So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.

Take this recent story, for example, from that liberal rag Fox News:

Quote
Military sexual assaults reported by its female members rose by 44 percent between 2016 and 2018, according to a new Pentagon report released Thursday.

In 2018, 6.2 percent of female military members reported being the victim of sexual assault based on a military-wide anonymous survey. In 2016, 4.3 percent of females in the military reported being sexually assaulted.

The rate of sexual assault for women ranged from 4 percent in the Air Force to 11 percent in the Marine Corps. Nearly 1 in 4 of all women experienced an "unhealthy climate" because of sexual harassment, the report states.

Overall, the survey found that more than 20,000 service members said they had experienced some type of unwanted sexual contact -- with only approximately one-third of those filing a formal sexual assault report. The survey total is about 38 percent higher than two years ago when the last survey was carried out.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/military-sexual-assaults-rise-among-females-pentagon-report

We've had a frickin United States senator and 26-year veteran testify about her sexual assault in the military. I think this points to an actual problem, not just over-sensitive politically correct civilians complaining.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: CarlD. on May 24, 2019, 08:38:24 AM
Oh, rpg.net never change...

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/strange-visitor-receives-a-%F0%9F%94%B4-threadban.846941/

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/grumpygoat-receives-a-%F0%9F%94%B4-threadban.846940/
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: jeff37923 on May 24, 2019, 08:58:18 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1089264
So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.

Take this recent story, for example, from that liberal rag Fox News:


Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/military-sexual-assaults-rise-among-females-pentagon-report

We've had a frickin United States senator and 26-year veteran testify about her sexual assault in the military. I think this points to an actual problem, not just over-sensitive politically correct civilians complaining.


I'd want some more information.

Was the sexual assault done by another member of the US Military?
Did the sexual assault happen in a combat zone?
How many of these sexual assaults were committed by non-US citizens or foreign nationals against US military personnel?
How many of the sexual assaults were committed by US civilians?
Could the sexual assault be proven? How many were false statements from the victim?
Was the sexual assault committed by a superior enlisted or officer against a  subordinate within their own command?

Jhkim you are, like deadDMwalking before you, sensationalizing this subject to appeal to emotion and are very short on specific details which could strengthen your logical argument.

Or disprove it.....
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: DELETE THIS on May 24, 2019, 09:10:37 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1089264
So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.

Yeah...you don't know a fucking thing, then.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Delete_me on May 24, 2019, 09:52:37 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;1089285
I'd want some more information.
I was the SHARP coordinator for PEO Integration from 2010-2012 (formerly Future Combat Systems, now SoSE&I). I can answer some of these because I answered for our office and was able to participate in the Army-wide data collection / processing.

Quote
Was the sexual assault done by another member of the US Military?
Usually.

Quote
Did the sexual assault happen in a combat zone?
Usually not, but it did at times.

Quote
How many of these sexual assaults were committed by non-US citizens or foreign nationals against US military personnel?
Very, very, very few, if any. None that I had ever seen in the Army-wide statistics, but I cannot say 0.

Quote
How many of the sexual assaults were committed by US civilians?
Few, but more than 0.

Quote
Could the sexual assault be proven? How many were false statements from the victim?
In order, many times yes, CID could. As for false statements, about the nationwide average.

Quote
Was the sexual assault committed by a superior enlisted or officer against a  subordinate within their own command?
By a moderate majority, yes.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Gagarth on May 24, 2019, 11:51:45 AM
Quote from: jhkim;1089264
So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military?  I sure as hell don't see that.
If it had been the other way around and she had been in the chair and someone waved a dildo in her face you would see sexual assault. Also  if she had punched him in the balls you instead you would probably not see sexual assault either?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 24, 2019, 01:41:30 PM
Quote from: jhkim;1089264
So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.

Take this recent story, for example, from that liberal rag Fox News:


Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/military-sexual-assaults-rise-among-females-pentagon-report

We've had a frickin United States senator and 26-year veteran testify about her sexual assault in the military. I think this points to an actual problem, not just over-sensitive politically correct civilians complaining.

Quote
Nearly 1 in 4 of all women experienced an "unhealthy climate" because of sexual harassment, the report states.

Define "unhealthy climate".

Really, I'd like to see the survey the report is based on.
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 24, 2019, 01:42:57 PM
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1089293
I was the SHARP coordinator for PEO Integration from 2010-2012 (formerly Future Combat Systems, now SoSE&I). I can answer some of these because I answered for our office and was able to participate in the Army-wide data collection / processing.

Kick ass. Got a copy of the survey questions?
Title: Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be
Post by: deadDMwalking on May 24, 2019, 02:43:29 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;1089285
I'd want some more information.


Why?  

Clearly, you're not going to make 100% of these case