Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

Since I am not clear exactly which link you're referring to, or which point I was making with it, all I would say is that while I understand the arguments for quotas in general they are not a mechanism I would choose.

Ok so lets just say these ideas underpin policies within our institutions. Now you say we can identify abuse by these 3 beliefs. Yet they don't seem to be able to identify these ideological beliefs behind ideas like equity and reverse descrimination as cultivating abuse. They actually believe they are the opposite and will make for a equal society and prevent abuse and violence.

How can your tripod of beliefs identify abuse here. It seems to have limits. It cannot identify abusive beliefs if the people using the measure don't think their beliefs are abusive. Or they believe natural beliefs are abusive the other way around. Its all subjective.

I'm not going to chase that red herring off topic, but I don't really agree that this is the problem you're making it out to be.

So you don't think women are being disadvantaged and even attacked for standing up for womens rights in their matters. Its certainly not a Red Herring and is directly related to the heart of this matter. In determining equality between people and broups which seems to be the foundation for abuse and violence.

Just like a male may believe they have a right to deny womens rights is leads to abuse so do the new idea of allowing certain groups to deny other groups their rights.

Just because of the pay? No. But let's not kid ourselves; it's a significant factor. And when I research why there are relatively few male teachers, it's one thing that gets mentioned over and over again. Men look at the relatively low pay in teaching and choose other fields where they will do better financially.

Why don't women then. You seem to be too quick to case a negative reason on men. Always some self serving alterior motive. If pay is a big factor. It seems you make up reasons for men but don't apply them to women.

I think theres been a lot of teachers resigning and theres been a bad rap on the industry especially with the disicipline problem in schoold where teachers are being stressed out and attacked. Ironically its males which we need to help sort out the behaviour problem especially with boys.

Numerous studies have noted that the major motivating factor for males choosing teaching is, like their female colleagues, a desire to work with children and make a difference in their lives

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544531.pdf

First up, this does not exclude men.

Yes it does exclude men. If theres morte men then we have to get more women. If theres less men then this is not the case. We don't have a policy to choose men over women and if we did there would be outrage by the Woke brigade lol. The idea is that males especially white males cannot be disadvantaged as they are the oppressors.

Secondly, the point of these policies is not to fill positions with unqualified people, but to recognise that "merit" doesn't only come in one shape, colour, or cultural package, and to be willing to correct for our inbuilt biases.

No merit comes without any cultural package of race or gender full stop. It shouldn't matter full stop. The idea is to get the best for the job to be able to do ther best overall job.

For example males are naturally better and suited at heavy coinstruction. So they will dominate the candidates as best qualified all things being equal. Males naturally doi well at STEM so they will at least have the majority of best qualified. But if we make STEM 50/50 we will be denying some better males of that position for the sake of DEI. Its unreal to say we can get a 50/50 mix and the best candidates at the same time. It doesn't work that way.

The Unis had this policy under affirmative action which put many minorities into uncomfortable positions where they could not keep up with the course work and either dropped out ofr failed. We have to lower the standards to accommodate this and its happening across many industries.

No; more that the culture which nurtures our boys teaches them not to value academics, to see studiousness as "girly," and so on.

But that wasn't a problem before. They were doing relatively well remember as they were ahead of girls and they probably had those attitudes more in the past than today. No its something else. They study environment has changed and its not suiting boys. Having majority of women teachers doesn't help but that is a result of a feminised system by the fact there are majority females.

I can, however, listen to and read accounts of men. And studies done which do that work with large cohorts. And their results don't match your claims.

But I just linked several articles some from actual mens groups, from the males experience who support what I am saying. ie

“The way teachers teach, what happens in the classroom in terms of pedagogy – and that's the style of teaching, the way lessons are structured – is more suitable for girls. And all research is proving that.

Lessons and exams, with an emphasis on coursework, were now more suited to girls and were seriously disadvantaging boys. The school system does not value enough of the traditional male things like competition.

Christina Hoff Sommers was absolutely accurate in describing, in her 2000 bestseller, The War Against Boys, how feminist complaints that girls were “losing their voice” in a male-oriented classroom have prompted the educational establishment to turn the schools upside down to make them more girl-friendly, to the detriment of males. As a result, boys have become increasingly disengaged.

The thing is if you cannot know what men think and experience then even your investigation will be biased by the fact you will focus on certain issues you think are releeevant and important and as I have seen so far you often come down on deminishing male disadvantage and reality by your language.

No, that's not what I said. I did say that women's unique experiences may allow us to perceive things which men might not so readily be aware of.

Therefore how can I trust that you can fully appreciate males uniqqque experiences which allow them to percieve things that women (you) are not so readily aware of. If your not aware of them in the first place then you don't know what to look for. Just applying the same logic.

I am expressing my distrust of your account of male experience in general. Not least because it doesn't match what actual men in real life tell me.

First you are reverting back to your personal experiences. Have you spoken to every man in Australia. Or are you using your small sample to represent all men.

The actually evidence comes from men in real life captured in surveys and studies and as I linked the evidence shows many males feel disenfranchise from their identity and role within society. I gave you this evdience already. Like with the high suicide and mental illness.

Thats a sign of something seriously wrong with males as a whole. Much of this traces back to self worth and identity. If society keep saying men are toxic which we all know has been the narrative in recent years then its going to rub off.

For example, I've been discussing this thread with my husband as I've been participating in it, and he considers most of your claims about men's lives, experiences, desires, "natural traits" and so on, to be basically ridiculous.

But I am not going to base the truth on your husband. I mean he;s your husband and theres a conflict of interest to start let along whether he is unbias or maybe has a similar ideological outlook to you. We need a wide and vasy survey and other data to determine the truth.

But we can see bits of the symptoms that males are not doing well by the data, high suicide rates, mental illness, imprisonment, high fatherlessness which affects boys more, high addiction and homeless rates, high incidence of violence whether assualt, gang related or family violence, high rates of school drop outs, rapidly decreasing rates of education and now deminishing work markets. Not to mention the many family breakdowns where males usually lose everything including their kids.

Surely that in itself are symptoms like symptoms of a disease that reveals a big underlying problem thats getting worse for males. I cannot see how your husband cannot see this. This is the reality and its reflected in the data and real lived experience.

Why So Many Men Feel Inadequate

I once asked the following question on social media: “Is the word ‘loser’ used to refer to men only?" Respondents were unanimous.

www.psychologytoday.com

I think this is probably a pretty good account.

I started to turn off this article about half way through. A women citing a women about men. I would have thought it better to ask a male about males. Anyway when she started to make out that males feeling more down about losing their job and being supported by their wife and then comparing this to how women don't get as down to make out males should be more like females on this. Like theres no underlying reason why males may be more affected by losing their work and becoming dependent on women.

The evidence shows that males place more importance of work, occupation and are more competitive in this regard than women. Thats because this is their natural state. They are not like women and should not be boxed in to behave and react like women. This stems from the ideology that males and females are exactly the same and should feel and behave the same about everything.

I agree that there is an element of unhealthy behaviour when males put down other males for not working and being a man. But the basic driver of why males do this comes from a natural place. There is an innate inclination for males to be more in tuned with working, with occuptaion for providing for their family and contributing to society. So we should expect they feel more upset and down when they are not working and contributing.

In fact the evidence shows that when men are working and when they are earning more than women marriages and relationships are more healthy and last longer. It seems this balance works best for making a strong relationship and both happier.

Roughly seven-in-ten adults (71%) say it is very important for a man to be able to support a family financially to be a good husband or partner. Men are especially likely to place a greater emphasis on their role as financial providers.
Americans see men as the financial providers, even as women’s contributions grow

The most commonly reported finding from sex difference studies is that males place more emphasis on social connections that provide instrumental support, whereas females tend to seek more emotional support

Across prime working-age groups, men tend to experience higher motivation and commitment in the workplace than women. Researchers conclude that gender differences in motivation and commitment persist across age, managerial level, and tenure. Men have an edge across all the variables that researchers studied.

Overall, Men are more motivated and committed than Women at work, but the motivations of both genders drop after 8 years of activity!

The type of work done within industries and gender make a big difference in Employee Engagement. Employee motivation and commitment trends vary widely by industry but there is an interesting story that goes beyond industry differences.

www.linkedin.com

Men need to work more than women. Here's why.
When a man doesn't have a job, almost everything is bad: mental health, physical health, relationships with friends, relationships with spouse, and relationships with children. If a woman drops out of the workforce, she feels not great but not awful. If a man drops out, he basically is functioning at under 20 percent levels on all major life aspects.

Men need to work more than women. Here's why.

Back in February, I wrote a post about how men were actually working from home and taking care of kids more than women in some contexts. I'm always dubious of these studies because, while I want to believe them, I also think the male attitude about work -- and what to derive from it -- is very diffe

www.linkedin.com

Better-Educated Women Still Prefer Higher-Earning Husbands
With women now surpassing men in educational attainment, and the most educated women more likely to be married, it seems reasonable to assume that a husband’s income would be less important to the marriage contract than in the past, particularly for women with advanced degrees. But recent research indicates that is not the case: male breadwinning continues to be central to not only marriage formation but also marital stability.

Better-Educated Women Still Prefer Higher-Earning Husbands

With women now surpassing men in educational attainment, and the most educated women more likely to be married, it seems reasonable to assume that a husband’s income should be less important to the marriage contract than in the past, particularly for women with advanced degrees. But recent...

ifstudies.org

Men feel happy if they earn more than their wives, study shows

Men feel happy if they earn more than their wives, study shows | City, University of London

New research by City, University of London sociologist Dr Vanessa Gash indicates that men feel happy if they earn more than their wives and are also unhappy if their wives earn more.

www.city.ac.uk

More Money, More Marriage: How Breadwinning Matters for Both Men and Women Today

More Money, More Marriage: How Breadwinning Matters for Both Men and Women Today

In the last 50 years, there have been huge shifts in American society, as women’s participation in the labor force has increased and female earnings have surged, while men’s participation in the labor force has fallen and male earnings have stagnated. Yet women still prefer a husband who can...

ifstudies.org

 

[Paidiske]

Ok so lets just say these ideas underpin policies within our institutions.

Most institutions don't use quotas for their workforces (just before anyone gets carried away, here).

Yet they don't seem to be able to identify these ideological beliefs behind ideas like equity and reverse descrimination as cultivating abuse.

If anything, I would see quotas as an attempt to correct for gender-based hierarchy and rigid roles, so I wouldn't agree that the use of quotas is cultivating abuse, either.

How can your tripod of beliefs identify abuse here.

Well, first up, not getting a job isn't abuse as we're discussing it here, to start with. So you're attempting to apply those principles to an unrelated question.

So you don't think women are being disadvantaged and even attacked for standing up for womens rights in their matters.

I said, I'm not chasing that red herring off topic.

Why don't women then.

Probably because, for many women, who are the primary caregivers of their children, school hours (and school holidays) make balancing work and childrearing easier. Since men don't generally have the same caregiving responsibilities, they are free to prioritise other things.

You seem to be too quick to case a negative reason on men.

I'm not saying it's a negative reason. There was no value judgement from me. Heck, wild horses couldn't drag me into classroom teaching, I'm not going to blame anyone else deciding it's not for them, either.

It seems you make up reasons for men but don't apply them to women.

I didn't make that up. That was what article after article identified as a leading cause of men choosing other careers than teaching.

Yes it does exclude men. If theres morte men then we have to get more women.

Making space for women is not "excluding men." They're still there.

No merit comes without any cultural package of race or gender full stop.

However, hiring practices are not culture-blind or race-blind or gender-blind. This has been demonstrated time and time again. So things like quotas force those doing the hiring to get beyond their own blinkers and preconceptions and seek out a greater diversity of merit.

But that wasn't a problem before. They were doing relatively well remember as they were ahead of girls and they probably had those attitudes more in the past than today.

I don't think that's true. We don't have to look very far back to find widespread beliefs that girls simply didn't have the intelligence or capacity for higher learning, that that was a masculine pursuit. I was reading something recently, written a century or so ago, which argued quite seriously that women couldn't handle learning a second language (where boys were often expected to study Latin and Greek). It was mad, but those were common attitudes.

But I just linked several articles some from actual mens groups, from the males experience who support what I am saying.

I'm not taking seriously any piece engaging in polemic like a "war against boys." There are plenty of men's groups spouting all sorts of misogynistic nonsense.

Therefore how can I trust that you can fully appreciate males uniqqque experiences which allow them to percieve things that women (you) are not so readily aware of.

You are welcome to put an alternative point of view. Sometimes I might even agree with it. But a lot of your claims are not very credible, and not even agreed upon by other men.

First you are reverting back to your personal experiences.

I am pointing out to you that the personal experience of engaging with you in this thread, doesn't necessarily match other personal experiences. It's all personal experience, but not all of it fits together into a coherent whole. You are but one voice in a crowd.

But I am not going to base the truth on your husband.

It does, however, mean that I'm not getting a message that you speak for all men, in some kind of coherent way. You don't.

I cannot see how your husband cannot see this.

Where we disagree is on the causes. You want to blame feminism and social change. We don't find that explanation convincing.

Anyway when she started to make out that males feeling more down about losing their job and being supported by their wife and then comparing this to how women don't get as down to make out males should be more like females on this. Like theres no underlying reason why males may be more affected by losing their work and becoming dependent on women.

No; her point is that there is an underlying reason; our society sets men up to invest their self-worth in their employment in unhealthy ways.

The evidence shows that males place more importance of work, occupation and are more competitive in this regard than women. Thats because this is their natural state.

Nonsense. The idea of work and occupation in itself is entirely socially constructed and has nothing to do with a "natural state."

 

[stevevw]

Not cancelled out, but part of a much more complex picture.

Why is it always rationalised away as part of a more complex picture. It doesn't matter what the reasons are. When a group is identified as having poor potcomes where they are not equal compared to other groups its deemed a disadvantage full stop. We then try to support that group regardless of whose fault it is to become more equal.

By making out its more complex thats more or less code for its not our problem and we can't do anything because theres other reasons beyond our control. First thats an assumption and second it should not matter as not having equal outcomes is all that matters so everything should be done to help that group have equal outcomes. According to the Woke that is.

A premise I wouldn't even seriously entertain. For example: Academic Leadership by Gender

First I find it ironic that the article uses females outpacing males a evidence there is no excuse for women not having equal representation in leadership. Citing male disadvantage as evidence is not a good way to prove female disadvnatge.

Second why is it always about the elite positions, on boards, at the top and not on the lower levels which show women dominate. Why don't womens activists protest the lack of women in brick laying or truck drivers at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Third there may be other reasons women are not as represented in certain leadership or upper level positions besides denying them due to gender. Women dominate the Humanities in the upper levels and males the STEM fields. But when we consider the natural propensity of males to STEM and females to Humanities its only natural that there will be more suitable candidates by gender in each sector for leadership roles.

https://www.science.org/content/article/gender-pay-gap-hits-university-faculty

I don't think a $6,000 difference is a great deal and I am not sure this can even be attributed to any systemic oppression. Your article notes
It’s not clear why women in the study were paid less than men, but the authors suggest men may be more aggressive or successful in their negotiations.

As mentioned earlier males are more competitive by nature. That is a more a natural trait that males are expressing than being oppressive. If someone is more competitive and has the drive to get the position then good for them. But we should not then deny this because it may be causing more males to get the position. It just means they have either sold themselves better or wanted it more.

Also as mentioned the article is using the STEM fields which is more natural to males so of course they are going to be more confident and on average have more representation and chances of outcompeting women.

It seems male and female graduates seek out different career paths. Half of law and medical students these days are women, but women choose less demanding and competitive specialties. Women are hugely dominant in veterinarian, social work, and education schools. Professionally, they are large majorities in caring professions such as nursing and in what one might call the Karen professions — corporate HR departments and university diversity-equity-inclusion bureaucracies.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/the-feminization-of-america-what-will-it-look-like

Which are readily ignored when it suits employers.

Then you report them. The avenues for reporting people who breach workplace laws are many. In fact if you don't report then people are actually promoting unfair world conditions. An employer that will underpay will also be one that rips you off other ways like with supa or sick pay and overtime ect.

It reflects my experience pretty well. Discrimination, over-representation of men at senior levels, harassment and demeaning comments from other students and academics, exclusion of women from mentoring and support... I've done two degrees at two very different universities, but those things were pretty consistent.

Not sure when you did your degrees but Uni's are now well represented for women and women dominate most HR and Student support departments. All my classes were dominated by women and young people lol so I really felt the odd one out. In some ways it world against me as it was assumed I knew little or did not understand modern ways of thinking.

Other times it worked in my favor as some of the topics I actually liked through like Neo-LIberalism in the 80's and 90's. I better be careful I am giving my age away.

And given that I've had a lecturer refuse to answer my questions as "women don't belong in science," I can see how that's a factor.

I don't think its fair that you general your personal experience. I don't think there are male lecturers going around dismissing women everywhere and to imply that is wrong harmful itself.

I mean people are getting in trouble for micro agressions and have all these trigger warnings for saying or not saying the right thing even if it was an innocent misunderstanding. So I would image a teacher blanatly dismissing a student would be an obvious wrong that would not be tolerated for long today.

Saying a system is patriarchal isn't to say it's men's fault. Men have been conditioned and acculturated to that system just as much as women have.

Are you kidding, the narrative has been its mens fault, their toxic, they natural mascullinity is something we must eradicate and make men think and behave more like women.

Tell me what specifically should men feel and think like. Whenever I hear ideologues they say men should eb more emotional, express feelings, be nurturing and sensitive. Never assertive, courageous, competitive, agressive or manly. Thats more or less telling them to be more like women. Thats the message they get.

Well, no, because we don't live in one.

But how do we know that women are not denying a Matriarchy just like they claim males did. You may be blind to your own self supporting ideology that causes you to not see the reality lol. If you asked most males they would say theres no Patriarchy. So how is women denying this any different.

How do we know the advantages women are having now and the predictions about women continuing to dominate in education and work even more won't eventually lead to a Matriarchy. If women are dominating education and now work the natural evolution is that women will dominate work before too long. So we are cultivating a Matriarchy. Women are simply joining males at the top and will eventually take over.

Because I see no evidence for such a claim. Neither that our systems are "feminised," nor that that is what is causing issues for males.

Of course you won't see any advantages or feminisation of society because your female who has strong views on this. You can easily recognise female disadvantage but not males. Thats only natural as each gender is more biased to their own.

But I gave you clear evidence that society is being feminised. When you have something like an 80% dominance in an industry of one gender theres going to be an influence of that gender on how that industry works. Its only natural. They are in the positions of influence to make policies more female friendly. They admit to making policies and the curiculum more female friendly. Female friendly means less male friendly.

One of the most striking features of advanced capitalist economies is the feminization of the labor force. The causes of feminization are complex, but clearly they link to the substantial growth in service-sector activity and employment. In most advanced countries, the manufacturing sector has declined, with most new jobs being created in services. In one sense, this advantages women, since they have long been associated with service work, especially jobs involving caring for and catering to the needs of clients. Women have predominated numerically in clerical work, retail, catering, and the health and education professions, all of which are important providers of jobs in the modern service-based economy (Bradley et al., 2000; Webster, 1999).

While the rise of the service economy has led to a feminization of the labor force, these new forms of work to some extent replicate old patterns of sex segregation.

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/items/2df63575-a2d4-43f2-9bd6-7fe8daf24e6e

FEMINISATION OF SCHOOLING: UNDERSTANDING THE DETRADITIONALIZED GENDER
To sum up, males are victimized by feminising cultures in which the feminine is enhanced whereas the masculine is worsened. Gender equilibrium is required at school in order for high educational outcomes to be achieved.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334731364_FEMINISATION_OF_SCHOOLING_UNDERSTANDING_THE_DETRADITIONALIZED_GENDER

Male elementary school teachers in extinction. The gender gap and the feminisation of elementary schools
One misunderstanding is that only women have been impacted by gender stereotypes and discrimination. However, it should be given attention to the fact that men have also been impacted in some occasions. This is particularly profound in careers related to education (e.g., teachers) and health services. Most publications, describe the situation as a “feminisation” of schools since the beginning of 21st century (e.g., Deliyanni-Kouimtzi, 2008).
https://www.euroscientist.com/feminisation-elementary-schools/

Feminization of Schools
The 21st century is becoming the era of the woman. The feminization of our schools and other learning organizations has placed females in a role of increasing achievement while leaving behind their male counterparts.
https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=5642

The rights won by women are not what is causing men's problems, and wellbeing is not a zero-sum game, where a gain by one group automatically means a loss by another.

Yes it is sometimes and its unreal to deny this. Trans rights to allow biological males identifying as females in sports and their private spaces disadvantages women and pushes their rights back not forward.

As the evidence above states womens gains in feminising society to be more female friendly has come at the cost of society not being as male friendly. It stands to reason. make only one groups rights the focus and priority and you neglect others.

males are victimized by feminising cultures

We could talk about capitalism and consumerism and the ways these impact men negatively and there's plenty to say there. Those are real systemic issues which impact men negatively. But it's not due to women having won rights.

But it may be a factor that denies certain groups, maybe males unfairly. That we place more importance and emphasis on certain groups at the expense of others is the problem. We don't here people protesting at the plight of old people descrimination or how young boys are being misdiagnosed and drugged out through the health system. We need some consistency and not giving special privil;edge to certain groups.

This is an interesting piece from a (male science) teacher about the value of competition in academic learning: Disengaged boys: just make it a competition, right?

Yeah that was very interesting. We need more thinking like that. We can incorporate competition but in structured ways that also incorporate ways that make kids think, work out things to complete the task. Or even incorporate some social interaction as part of finding the solutions ie boy and girl teams. Theres lots of ways to do this. I use to coach young guys in footy and we use to incorporate team work and communication skills with a very competitive game.

I'll stop you right there. I don't accept this claim, to start with, so anything that follows from it is not going to be something I'll find to be reliable.

So would you accept independent evidence say from the social sciences. Do you think some aspects of Feminism such as radical feminism and its derivatives ever pushed radical ideas that may have undermined the insitution of marriage and family.

What feminism has done is removed the need for women to enter into or remain in unsafe, unhealthy or dysfunctional families. That hasn't weakened the family; it has just given us more options in responding to already weak families.

No one denies that. But you can have perhaps unintended consequences from an ideological and political movement. All political movements have nobel causes. But they can also become political powers themselves which can be exerted on people and society. This is a fact.

It is well know by most academics the role that feminism played in reshaping social norms and its relationship to later Critical theories such as Social Justice and Queer theory. How this has been influenced by Marxism which is designed to attack the institutions of society and tear them down.

I can supply you with evidence if you want. This is not some fringe idea but widely known fact.

I'm not responding to the off topic stuff about unrelated social issues.

OK fair enough. But it seems to me each so called unrelated topic I bring up ends up being related.

But can you see what I mean by how we need to understand these upstream beliefs and assumptions about differences quite often not being about abuse or oppression and therefore its vital that we investigate to understand the dynamics. Because they are linked and however we treat these upstream beliefs and assumptions will influence what happens at the coal face where abuse and violence will come out.

Its important we understand the mindset, the thinking behind abusive control because in that way we have insights into the upstream thinking and belief formation that underpins actual abuse before it happens, before and as new beliefs are cultivated to nip them in the bud.

Unfortunately that requires a lot of research, data, understanding lived experience. It requires grounding beliefs in reality, in the facts to expose unreal thinking and beliefs. Otherwise we risk using one set of beliefs as the measure of another set of beliefs and no way to truely know which set of beliefs underpin abuse and violence.

I know your going to claim 'we already know which beliefs underpin abuse and violence'. But I am sorry that is not enough. That is ignoring the vast amount of evidence that shows it way more than this.

 

[Paidiske]

Why is it always rationalised away as part of a more complex picture.

Not rationalised away. But saying that taking one piece of a puzzle and claiming it's the whole picture is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

By making out its more complex thats more or less code for its not our problem and we can't do anything because theres other reasons beyond our control.

No. Not at all what I am saying.

Why don't womens activists protest the lack of women in brick laying or truck drivers at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Actually, there are women working for more women to be in construction and the like. I've even linked you some of those sources.

Women dominate the Humanities in the upper levels

Not according to anything I can find. At senior academic levels, men still have a clear advantage. Not that I agree about the different genders having different natural tendencies to different fields, but your claim falls flat.

I am not sure this can even be attributed to any systemic oppression. Your article notes
It’s not clear why women in the study were paid less than men, but the authors suggest men may be more aggressive or successful in their negotiations.

And I wonder why that might be? Women are often punished when they are aggressive in their negotiations. https://guwli.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PnishingFemaleNegotiators.pdf

As mentioned earlier males are more competitive by nature.

(Not really). Eg. See here: Women, men have different motivations for competing, UArizona expert says | University of Arizona News

Then you report them. The avenues for reporting people who breach workplace laws are many.

And the consequences for doing so usually worse than putting up with it in the first place.

Not sure when you did your degrees but Uni's are now well represented for women and women dominate most HR and Student support departments.

Which doesn't change a thing I just said.

I don't think its fair that you general your personal experience. I don't think there are male lecturers going around dismissing women everywhere and to imply that is wrong harmful itself.

That was one example; I could give you more. You might dislike that I refer to my personal experience; I refuse to be silenced just because some bloke on the internet finds it uncomfortable. This is the lived reality of far too many women, right now. If you can't deal with that reality, then this discussion is probably not one you should be engaging in.

So I would image a teacher blanatly dismissing a student would be an obvious wrong that would not be tolerated for long today.

When I tried to complain about him I got fobbed off with a story about how he was about to retire in a year, his wife had just died, the university didn't want to make his life any more difficult (and he published lots of papers, so there was that). The clear message was, he is more important than you, so he gets a pass with this behaviour.

Are you kidding, the narrative has been its mens fault, their toxic, they natural mascullinity is something we must eradicate and make men think and behave more like women.

That is a complete misrepresentation of the discourse.

Tell me what specifically should men feel and think like.

The whole point is to remove gender stereotypes and rigid roles that dictate how anyone should think and feel (and act) based on their gender.

But how do we know that women are not denying a Matriarchy just like they claim males did.

I'm not treating such a ridiculous question seriously. Get back to me when we have a majority of women across every position of power on the planet.

But I gave you clear evidence that society is being feminised.

No, you didn't. You gave me a bunch of polemic.

When you have something like an 80% dominance in an industry of one gender theres going to be an influence of that gender on how that industry works. Its only natural.

But that's only a problem for you in the industries where women dominate?

Female friendly means less male friendly.

A premise I reject. It should be possible to create an environment that is safe and "friendly" for everyone.

Yes it is sometimes

Sorry, no. I am not buying this idea that men are losing because women are gaining. Like I said, wellbeing is not a zero-sum game.

So would you accept independent evidence say from the social sciences.

Can you find any that isn't ideologically freighted to begin with?

Do you think some aspects of Feminism such as radical feminism and its derivatives ever pushed radical ideas that may have undermined the insitution of marriage and family.

I know that some schools of feminism saw marriage as irredeemably oppressive and discouraged it. What I see, though, as the fruit of that is that generally our understanding of marriage has changed. We do see it much more as a partnership of equals than it was in the past. So the radical critique was effective in driving very much needed change. Ultimately, that's not an undermining; that's a strengthening.

But can you see what I mean by how we need to understand these upstream beliefs and assumptions about differences quite often not being about abuse or oppression and therefore its vital that we investigate to understand the dynamics. Because they are linked and however we treat these upstream beliefs and assumptions will influence what happens at the coal face where abuse and violence will come out.

I agree; that's why we need to tackle any "upstream" beliefs and attitudes which encourage the acceptance of violence, the valuing of hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles. The rest, however, is just not relevant.

I know your going to claim 'we already know which beliefs underpin abuse and violence'. But I am sorry that is not enough. That is ignoring the vast amount of evidence that shows it way more than this.

What evidence? I've been working in this space for years, and I don't see a "vast amount of evidence" that the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse are anything other than what I have been explaining.

 

[stevevw]

You do realise that something like nursing still involves a lot of heavy lifting when moving patients? I've seen claims that nursing is the occupation with the highest rates of heavy lifting. See here for eg: The Top 8 Jobs with the Highest Injury Rates

This is not just about doing heavy work but also lifting techniques as the nurse if often bending over the patient to move them rather than keep their back straight. My wife is a nurse.

But if so many nurses are getting injured lifting then how would they go in the heavy labor industries that require even heavier lifting like builders labourers which often are lifting loads of bricks, beams, sections of buildings ect. Or heavy oil rigging machinary or digging coal by pick and shovel all day. Most would not last.

I think a lot of it is socialisation. Some of it is discrimination. Very little of it has to do with men and women just liking different things.
This is worth a read: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214790X21000277

I disagree. I think most of it is the natural way in which each gender is more suited for particular jobs and not just physically but also psychologically and emotionally. People freely choose what they relate to and feel suited for when there is no barrier to equality.

I'd doubt any claim that there's any context where all things are truly equal. I've certainly never experienced it.

The Scandinavian nations are the most elgalitarian nations and thats where the studies were done. They show that the more equal a society is the more the differences between males and females choices in work and other choices. This actually enhances differences and supports the natural inclination of males and females,

Even to prevent abuse? Wow. Let's just say I can't even begin to fathom that.

If there is a red flag then of course we should investigate. But we should not just allow the State to encroach on how parents generally bring up their kids. An example of overreach is how the State indoctrinates kids in education with their ideology such as DEI.

The Perils of Co-Parenting with the Government

The Perils of Co-Parenting with Government

"Co-parenting” with the government is ultimately an overreach and intrusion into the authority parents already have.

familyfreedomproject.org

The Dangerous Legal Illusion of ‘Parental Rights’

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/03/no-parent-right-unmask-child-509090

At the core of the conflict is the ongoing debate about what constitutes responsible parenting in a world increasingly obsessed with child safety. While statistics show that children are dramatically safer today than ever before,8 media sensationalization of potential dangers in the world, are prompting parents to err on the side of overprotection.9 There is mounting evidence that such overprotection does more harm than good,10 but parents, like the Meitivs, who resist the hyper-parenting trend, are running afoul of the legal system.

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=faculty_scholarship

Newsflash: they do this already. Generally everyone gets at least one home visit post-partum from the maternal and child health nurse, in part to check on everyone's safety. And they do ask about domestic violence.

Yes but that is to do with birth not abuse. That question may be included along with a list of other health related questions but its not purely for checking on abuse.

Besides I think its an intrusive question. Its like asking if a parent drinks or takes drugs. Its not of their business. What would you expect a parent to say to such a question, "oh yeah I commit DV". No one is going to admit that and for the majority of parents where this is not even on their minds its making assumptions and casting a negative view of parents.

Or, you know, actually limiting control.

You can't completely limit control. Its a natural part of society. So its by clearly laying out the roles, the level of control each person or sector has (job description and responsibilities) the chain of command (who is your accountable to) and the checks and balances to stop abuse (anti descrimination laws, code of conduct and audits).

I mean these are all controls. Codes of conduct and work place laws for excample control peoples behaviour to stop them abusing. Social moors control peoples behaviour. You have to have controls to stop abuse.

But do nothing on prevention. Because "meddling" is worse than actual abuse.

Yes we should work on preventing abuse. But that is my point. That even prevention measures can be abusive. Its how we approach prevention. The beliefs and attitudes behind prevention ,easures and policies. What exactly constitutes the right kind of prevention.

There seems to be disagreement on this. The Stae and its agents are imposing an ideological belief on parents, schools and society about how we should prevent abuse and violence. Its not based on factual evidence but an ideological belief. A belief is being used to prevent what they consider abusive beliefs. You can't use a belief to prevent a belief.

Except we know which beliefs underpin abuse. This sort of hypothetical is just an unhelpful distraction.

No we don't because we promote abusive beliefs right now in society by the people in power who are suppose to prevent abuse. You are even unsure of which beliefs because you accused innocent people of holding beliefs that underpin abuse.

Thats because what is being used toi determine beliefs that underpin abuse are being determined by belief itself, an unfounded assumption about what causes abuse and how to order society to prevent abuse.

Probably not, but that doesn't mean I think it's abusive, either.

Yes it does. This is the narrative that has been created in society by such a resistent support for such idea. The fact its left out of the equation as a viable and optimal setup because its seen as not being inclusive. This itself is a belief, an ideological belief about how society views parenting and families. Its certainly not based on the evidence.

No, it doesn't. Abusive behaviour can be "natural," and so what? It doesn't make it any more okay than if it weren't.

A real life example may help. The narrative has been that mascullinity is toxic. But mascullinity is a natural trail of males. Part of why mascullinity is made out to be toxic is that mascullinity is a social construction. The idea is that males can hypothetically be socialised to be feminine and women masculline. These fall on a spectrum.

This whole narrative, ideology being pushed undermines mascullinity full stop. There's no talk of positive mascullinity and it being a natural part of being male. Thats because this message is percieved to undermine the idea that gender is fluid. And it doesn't just happen to males. This same idea undermines femininity.

This is the same logic as aligning natural hierarchies, control, competition. protection as inherently abusive. Certain ideas are given a negative narrative because of belief, not fact or reality but beliefs. So as I said people don't have to explicitly state something is abusive. They impliccitly do that when they push false narratives that end up harming others in more underlying ways.

Like how the meme toxic mascullinity casts a negative shadow on all things manly, boistrious and competitive behave, being a protector, being brave ect. Their all discouraged in the name of a nobel cause to stop abuse when they are actually abusive themselves in how they denegrate men and male traits.

I would have thought the actual abuse was the problem, rather than people accurately describing it.

But if your talking about prevention then we have to understand, be able to accurately describe what cultivates abusive situations, abusive and controlling thinking.

This is not so easy and can itself be hijacked by belief. Because when we are dealing with 'beliefs' unless we have some grounding it is quite possible and more likely that we will use another 'belief' to judge whether that belief will cultivate abuse.

Its easy to identify when abuse happens. But ultimately we want to identify the types of thinking and beliefs that are hallmarks that will cultivate abuse.

No! "Natural" might or might not be abusive; but if it's abusive, it's never justified.

Natural can meran two things I think. First we have the nurture verses nature. The whole reason we have this debate is that we believe some behaviour is natural, naturally happens. That means we cannot help but act that way. You cannot moralise something that naturally happens as its not based on choice ie fear, hunger, sex, aggression ect.

So really much of bad behaviour is the distortion of these natural inclinations. We have to learn not to abuse these just we we abuse people. Like sex is natural but rape is abusive. Hunger is natural but greed is abusive. So its really tempering the natural.

But then related to this is the natural expressions in how we behave and interact and organise society. Like with hierarchies and the need for control, protection, safety ect. Like aggression or hunger these form naturally. People cannot help but see things that way and act accordingly.

But like the natural inclinations or instincts these cognitions can be abused.A natural hierarchy or necerssary control or protection can be abused and used to control others for not justified reason.

Thats why its vital to have a holistic view, a multilevel view that includes nurture (culture, socialisation, norms ect) socially constructed aspects and the natural aspects to fully understand what exactly is abusive or unjustified control or not.

 

[Paidiske]

But if so many nurses are getting injured lifting then how would they go in the heavy labor industries that require even heavier lifting like builders labourers which often are lifting loads of bricks, beams, sections of buildings ect. Or heavy oil rigging machinary or digging coal by pick and shovel all day. Most would not last.

The difference being that in many of those workplaces, specialised equipment, team lifting and the like are the norm. I'm just pointing out that "heavy lifting" isn't limited to male-dominated industries.

If there is a red flag then of course we should investigate.

Of course, that's not really prevention.

Yes but that is to do with birth not abuse. That question may be included along with a list of other health related questions but its not purely for checking on abuse.

They've rolled screening for abuse into the same visit as other services; but it is definitely happening.

Besides I think its an intrusive question. Its like asking if a parent drinks or takes drugs. Its not of their business. What would you expect a parent to say to such a question, "oh yeah I commit DV". No one is going to admit that and for the majority of parents where this is not even on their minds its making assumptions and casting a negative view of parents.

It's intrusive, sure. But for a good reason. As I recall it, I was asked with every MCHN appointment (right up to the last one at four years) about violence at home. I suppose at least some people who are abused do disclose.

You can't completely limit control.

Good thing that wasn't what I was saying, then.

Its not based on factual evidence but an ideological belief.

Incorrect. The evidence is very clear.

Yes it does.

You are telling me what I think, now? Really?

A real life example may help. The narrative has been that mascullinity is toxic.

No, that has not been the narrative. That is certainly not a "real life example."

There's no talk of positive mascullinity

I'll just pause to note that a quick google brings up plenty of examples of discussions of positive masculinity.

But if your talking about prevention then we have to understand, be able to accurately describe what cultivates abusive situations, abusive and controlling thinking.

We can. We do. This is not some great mystery.

The whole reason we have this debate is that we believe some behaviour is natural, naturally happens. That means we cannot help but act that way. You cannot moralise something that naturally happens as its not based on choice ie fear, hunger, sex, aggression ect.

We might not be able to control experiencing fear, hunger, sexual attraction, or the like; but we certainly can control our behaviours in reponse to those experiences. And we certainly can think ethically about our behaviours and choices.

But then related to this is the natural expressions in how we behave and interact and organise society. Like with hierarchies and the need for control, protection, safety ect. Like aggression or hunger these form naturally. People cannot help but see things that way and act accordingly.

I disagree. We certainly can choose to explore different ways of seeing things, different ways of behaving and interacting. You cannot justify abuse by appeal to "nature."

 

[stevevw]

Not rationalised away. But saying that taking one piece of a puzzle and claiming it's the whole picture is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

But that is exactly what is happening when we want to take a more nuence look at womens disadvantage. Women say there is no more complex situation its all about oppression. Any difference is a sign of oppressive inequality.

You have rationalised male disadvanage away by simply not acknowledging it, not even contemplating that any male disadvantage could possibly be because of the feminisation of society.

No. Not at all what I am saying.

But what you don't realise is that when you give these short and dismissive replies without explaining exactly how its more complex your leaving it open to interpretation. Your not allowing what you think is more complex to be scrutinised to see whether its actually the case and rules out any disadvantage caused by systemic factors that deny males. Its the silence that opens the door to being blind to male disadvantage.

Actually, there are women working for more women to be in construction and the like. I've even linked you some of those sources.

Yes but its not given the same level of importance as the elite positions. Wonder why. Maybe because they know intuitively that in reality its not the most suitable job. For one you need strength, upper body strength. On average an employer may get 20 loads per hour for males compared to maybe half for females. I know which gender I would be wanting for that job, the facts don't lie.

But pushing the elite positions is really only joining males at the top of the hierarchy and cultivating the same power relations as they accuse males of doing. When women outnumber males as they do in academia they will justify their dominance as being more complex then plain old oppression of males. Thats the biased narrative at present. Thats a belief thats being cultivated which leads to abuse.

Not according to anything I can find.

Once again your research is lacking. A simple Google search for Female dominated management brings plenty of evidence as data doesn't lie.

While the oft-repeated stereotype is that men are the HR decision makers, the Australian reality is that women generally occupy up to two thirds of the HR seats in almost any function from low to high end executive HR positions.

Why HR is Female Dominated - On Being a Male Human Resources Professional

Ok, I admit upfront that having an extended conversation about the seeming female domination of one particular management discipline is a challenging thing to consider and discuss, but I always wondered why HR is predominately female. Let me share my thoughts HR is the only predominantly female prof

www.linkedin.com

In 2021, women made up the highest share of managers in human resources (74.8%). Their share of management in selected other industries was:37

• Medical and health services: 75.1%
• Marketing: 61.5%
• Food service: 48.5%

Women's Workplace Representation Trends & Solutions | Catalyst

Access global data and strategies to advance women's workplace representation. Learn how to measure progress and drive meaningful change.

www.catalyst.org

5 Outstanding Industries With Most Women In Management
Education Sector, Social Services, healthcare, Construction and Real Estate Industry.

5 Outstanding Industries With Most Women In Management - Women's Network Australia

Women are underrepresented in key decision-making roles across almost all industries in the Australian workforce. Two sectors have achieved balance at the managerial level and another three are also leading the way.

www.womensnetwork.com.au

At senior academic levels, men still have a clear advantage. Not that I agree about the different genders having different natural tendencies to different fields, but your claim falls flat.

Then your disagreeing with the science, the studies. They have been repeated many times which is good science.

And I wonder why that might be? Women are often punished when they are aggressive in their negotiations. https://guwli.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PnishingFemaleNegotiators.pdf

Yes both men and women can suffer negative backlash for being competitive or agressive in negociating for themselves. Its interesting as you link says that males suffer this as well in a different way.

It seems competitive females are labelled with negative male traits. But this is something males are experiencing as well with negative backlash for being competitive and assertive and how this is being discouraged generally.

But none of this addresses the point. That basically males by nature are more competitive and aggressive. Its not their fault that society may see competitive women negatively. I think there is a grain of truth why society thinks this way. It is a fact that women are generally more sensitive, emotional and nurturing.

So when women act masculline it sort of goes against our intutions and doesn't seem to align with reality. We can use that against women but I don't think this idea of mascullined women as being at odds with natural feminine traits is unjustified completely.

(Not really). Eg. See here: Women, men have different motivations for competing, UArizona expert says | University of Arizona News

This is just supporting what I have been saying, that men and women have different motivations and reasons for choosing roles and positions and that males are more in tune with the practical, logical reasons and to outcompete other males. Whereas women as your link said are more interested and motivated "by the social nature of the incentive". So generally as a result they are more interested and motivated in social type jobs whereas males are more interested in practical jobs working with things like in STEM.

Because of that difference males are more agressive and competitive in practical ways which are often about promoting self over other males where as women may be more about others and not pushing for self as much. While the female is concerned about others the male is pushing themselves to outcompete those they percieve as a threat. Thats just how males are and we should not blame them for womens lack of competitiveness due to their more emotional and social concerns.

But in a feminised society especially in Humanities and social sciences this is becoming more social overall which should make womens motivating factors like thinking of others an asset and positive trait for the job. That is why we see them dominating these industries. In that sense their different motivations should be an advantage over men.

And the consequences for doing so usually worse than putting up with it in the first place.

I was always one to speak up even if that meant my job. Or if I found that the culture was not good because usually managers, supervisors who deny people usually create a toxic culture as well. If it happens to one, it happens to others and complete sectors and eventually the entire culture.

Which doesn't change a thing I just said.

No of course not, it still happens. Look at how the Jews are being treated in Universities at the moment and in some ways this was university policy to allow such hate and abuse of a group of people based on their race. So we seem to take one step forward and 2 steps back.

That was one example; I could give you more. You might dislike that I refer to my personal experience; I refuse to be silenced just because some bloke on the internet finds it uncomfortable. This is the lived reality of far too many women, right now. If you can't deal with that reality, then this discussion is probably not one you should be engaging in.

No I think lived experience is an important part of understanding human behaviour. Probably the most important aspect. But I think you would agree we cannot generalise from one persons experience though it may be real. I am sure its a minority of male teachers rather than a majority. Just like anything. People may have had a bad experience of certain races with crime. But we should not tar all that race as being criminals.

When I tried to complain about him I got fobbed off with a story about how he was about to retire in a year, his wife had just died, the university didn't want to make his life any more difficult (and he published lots of papers, so there was that). The clear message was, he is more important than you, so he gets a pass with this behaviour.

I think this happens in different ways still within the elites who have a lot of power within age old institutions that are more interested in maintaining their position than individual rights. It becomes more about maintaining power than truth.

That is a complete misrepresentation of the discourse.

Is it really a complete misrepresentation . You say that like it doesn't happen at all. Here is the reality.

Toxic masculinity is a harmful myth. Society is in denial about the problems of boys and men.
“Toxic masculinity” is a counterproductive term. Very few boys and men are likely to react well to the idea that there is something toxic inside them that needs to be exorcized. When it comes to masculinity, society is sending a message that men are acculturated into certain ways of behaving, which can therefore be socialized out of them. But this is simply false. We are tearing ourselves apart over gender issues, with the result that the problems of boys and men are left untreated.

Toxic masculinity is a harmful myth. Society is in denial about the problems of boys and men.

Toxic masculinity is an awful term. Very few males react well to the idea that there is something toxic inside them that must be exorcized.

bigthink.com

Talk of toxic masculinity puts the blame in all the wrong places
Toxic masculinity discourse harms vulnerable boys and men and distracts society from the true sources of gender inequity

Talk of toxic masculinity puts the blame in all the wrong places | Psyche Ideas

Toxic masculinity discourse harms vulnerable boys and men and distracts society from the true sources of gender inequity

psyche.co

 

[stevevw]

The whole point is to remove gender stereotypes and rigid roles that dictate how anyone should think and feel (and act) based on their gender.

But what is a gender stereotype as opposed to natural traits and inclinations. The narrative has been stereotypical traits like mascullinity, aggression, nobel protective qualities, competiveness and adventure are all nasty stereotypes we need to be rid of. Yet they are natural male qualities.

I'm not treating such a ridiculous question seriously. Get back to me when we have a majority of women across every position of power on the planet.

Your actually proving my point. That you don't want to even entertain the idea that the oppression could ever be the other way around. We have to wait until every single women is percieved to have equal status until we bother to think about mens disadvanatge. The exact same logic and measures for women, for all identity groups should be applied to all identity groups.

So any inequality between identity groups should be viewed as unjust disadvantage including male inequality. Otherwise we are favouring one group over another which is the exact definition of descrimination.

No, you didn't. You gave me a bunch of polemic.

So how is academic peer reviewed science polemic.

But that's only a problem for you in the industries where women dominate?

No its a problem for everyone because if the thinking and policies become more feminine as a result of that dominance then its actually changing the thinking, narratives and outlook is reflected in everything, how we treat males, the policies and structure of learning for example, the curiculum.

We already see this with Woke ideology reflected in DEI within the institutions which basically stem from feminist critical theory. I am not just making this up, its researched and factual.

A premise I reject. It should be possible to create an environment that is safe and "friendly" for everyone.

Unreal. I gave you the example of how gender and Trans ideology which basically stems from feminist critical theory has made things unsafe for women in sports and their spaces. The same thing happens with males when institutions are feminised. It creates an uncomfortable and unfriendly space for males.

Sorry, no. I am not buying this idea that men are losing because women are gaining. Like I said, wellbeing is not a zero-sum game.

I gave you the examples of how it is exactly a zero sum gain. Tell me do you think women have lost rights, made to feel unwelcome and unfafe in their own spaces due to the gains of Trans rights to enter biological womens spaces. This is the reality your denying. The exact same thing happens with all identity politics including to men. Its a horrible, divisive and harmful ideology.

Can you find any that isn't ideologically freighted to begin with?

What, science being ideologically frightened. What does that even mean. I am talking about facts. What we actually observe in reality happening. What the science says as to what is a male and female, mascullinity and femininity. What the research says. The same methods we use for all other issues besides race, sex and gender for human behaviour. It seems the science goes out the window when it comes to race, sex and gender.

Though I do agree academia can by indoctrinated with ideology. That is exactly what is happening now when people deny reality in place of subjective beliefs.

I know that some schools of feminism saw marriage as irredeemably oppressive and discouraged it. What I see, though, as the fruit of that is that generally our understanding of marriage has changed. We do see it much more as a partnership of equals than it was in the past. So the radical critique was effective in driving very much needed change. Ultimately, that's not an undermining; that's a strengthening.

The radical critique went far beyond making marriage more equal and I question that it even achieved that considering the mess we are in with marriage and relationships in general and the war between the sexes and genders.

But it did far morte damage. Its no coincident that soon after marriage and families went down the drain and lost all value. What if there was some truth as the Bible seems to suggest that the traditional marriage and family was Gods order for humankind. If thats the case then we are doing everything to undermine this. That surely cannot be good in the long run.

I agree; that's why we need to tackle any "upstream" beliefs and attitudes which encourage the acceptance of violence, the valuing of hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles. The rest, however, is just not relevant.

It is relevant because this will tell us exactly which situations, which beliefs support absuive hierarchies and control as opposed to natural and healthy ones. Otherwise we then assume all hierarchies and control are automatically abusive and therefore commit abuse ourselves by forcing unnatural situations onto people denying what may be healthy, necessary and good for society.

What evidence? I've been working in this space for years, and I don't see a "vast amount of evidence" that the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse are anything other than what I have been explaining.

I have given you ample evidence. You just deny it.

 

[Paidiske]

But that is exactly what is happening when we want to take a more nuence look at womens disadvantage. Women say there is no more complex situation its all about oppression. Any difference is a sign of oppressive inequality.

If by "nuance" you mean, well, women have worse outcomes because that's just natural, that's not nuanced at all, and is rightly rejected.

You have rationalised male disadvanage away by simply not acknowledging it, not even contemplating that any male disadvantage could possibly be because of the feminisation of society.

There is a difference between not acknowledging disadvantage (I did acknowledge it and went into some detail discussing potential explanations for it with you), and rejecting an obviously flawed explanation such as the "feminisation of society."

Yes but its not given the same level of importance as the elite positions. Wonder why.

Probably because elite positions are the ones where it's easiest to identify the weight of cumulative problems.

But pushing the elite positions is really only joining males at the top of the hierarchy and cultivating the same power relations as they accuse males of doing.

A point that I have often seen made by feminists; that the ideal is not simply to colonise patriarchal structures, but to transform them.

When women outnumber males as they do in academia they will justify their dominance as being more complex then plain old oppression of males.

We only outnumber men as undergraduates. At every level after that, men outnumber women.

Thats a belief thats being cultivated which leads to abuse.

If that were true, we would see high rates of abuse of men by women. But that is not the reality.

Once again your research is lacking. A simple Google search for Female dominated management brings plenty of evidence as data doesn't lie.

You claimed that "women dominate the humanities" in universities. We don't.

Yes both men and women can suffer negative backlash for being competitive or agressive in negociating for themselves.

And yet the evidence is clear that women are penalised more, because being competitive or aggressive in negotiations is seen as "unfeminine."

But this is something males are experiencing as well with negative backlash for being competitive and assertive and how this is being discouraged generally.

Obviously not as much negative backlash, since they tend to get better outcomes.

But none of this addresses the point. That basically males by nature are more competitive and aggressive. Its not their fault that society may see competitive women negatively.

No; this is the point. The fact that women are punished for competing means that we are not less competitive by nature; we learn to suppress it because of the reaction to it.

This is just supporting what I have been saying,

No, it isn't supporting what you've been saying; it's saying that women and men are both competitive, although we might express it in different ways.

Whereas women as your link said are more interested and motivated "by the social nature of the incentive".

Again, we have to deal with the fallout of being punished for competing.

So generally as a result they are more interested and motivated in social type jobs whereas males are more interested in practical jobs working with things like in STEM.

(Not at all what the article was saying).

I was always one to speak up even if that meant my job.

Good for you. Other people may not find themselves in the same position.

No of course not, it still happens.

Could this be progress? You are willing to acknowledge that sexism and misogyny and discrimination against women still happen in academia and the workplace. What, then, shall we do about it?

But I think you would agree we cannot generalise from one persons experience though it may be real. I am sure its a minority of male teachers rather than a majority. Just like anything.

Here's the thing, though. Sure, it's #NotAllMen. But every woman ends up experiencing this kind of disadvantage. This is not about tarring "all men," it's about trying to deal with something that impacts on all women.

Is it really a complete misrepresentation .

Yes. The idea of "toxic masculinity" is not saying that men or masculinity are toxic. It is saying that there are particular ideas, norms, expectations of men in our society which are toxic, primarily toxic for men, and that this toxic masculinity needs to be identified and replaced with healthy masculinity.

That is not about making men "think and behave more like women." It is about allowing men to be well-rounded, healthy, flourishing men, rather than punished every time they fail to fit into a very constricting, harmful idea of what a man "should" be.

But what is a gender stereotype as opposed to natural traits and inclinations.

The thing about natural traits and inclinations is that they fall into a normal distribution, for both men and women, rather than a binary distribution between men and women.

The narrative has been stereotypical traits like mascullinity, aggression, nobel protective qualities, competiveness and adventure are all nasty stereotypes we need to be rid of. Yet they are natural male qualities.

No, that hasn't been the narrative at all. (And no, they are not "natural male qualities." They are natural human qualities).

That you don't want to even entertain the idea that the oppression could ever be the other way around.

Perhaps, in some far-distant future or parallel universe, it could be. Right here and now, it so obviously and manifestly is not, that your question is ridiculous.

So how is academic peer reviewed science polemic.

Academic peer reviewed science that society is being "feminised"? First we'd have to agree to a definition of a "feminised" society. But I do not agree that you have presented such evidence.

No its a problem for everyone because if the thinking and policies become more feminine...

My point was you have no problem with the industries where men dominate.

Unreal. I gave you the example of how gender and Trans ideology which basically stems from feminist critical theory has made things unsafe for women in sports and their spaces. The same thing happens with males when institutions are feminised. It creates an uncomfortable and unfriendly space for males.

I disagree with you about "gender and trans ideology," but am, once again, refusing to chase the red herring. But I find it fascinating that you say women's spaces become "unsafe," and then claim that men find spaces "uncomfortable" and "unfriendly" when they have to share them with women.

What is it about having to treat women as equals that makes men "uncomfortable," exactly?

I gave you the examples of how it is exactly a zero sum gain.

An off-topic and irrelevant example.

What, science being ideologically frightened.

Science can't tell you if feminism has weakened "the family." "The family" is a social construct, for a start.

The radical critique went far beyond making marriage more equal and I question that it even achieved that considering the mess we are in with marriage and relationships in general and the war between the sexes and genders.

Of course it achieved that. We now have the ability to leave abusive marriages. Women can now hold property and finances in our own right. We are not longer seen as the property or the chattel of our husbands; we are no longer legally under coverture.

You might see the result as a mess, but it is a vast, vast improvement on the situation we were in before feminism.

Its no coincident that soon after marriage and families went down the drain and lost all value.

(Hyperbolic false statement).

What if there was some truth as the Bible seems to suggest that the traditional marriage and family was Gods order for humankind.

If you want to have that discussion, I suggest you begin by defining what you mean by the "traditional marriage and family."

It is relevant because this will tell us exactly which situations, which beliefs support absuive hierarchies and control as opposed to natural and healthy ones.

Given the context, we could simply work to remove hierarchies and dynamics of control in the household (beyond what is necessary for protecting minors).

I have given you ample evidence.

No, you really haven't.

 

[rturner76]

"Hurt people hurt people." So don't be surprised when a person who was beaten for messing up beats someone when they mess up. "I got beaten as a kid and there is nothing wrong with me except I flog my children with belts and extension cords." A spank on the bottom isn't the end of the world if a child is doing something like sticking pennies in the electric sockets but putting lashes on their legs and back for "messing up" is just sending the abuse downstream/

 

[stevevw]

If by "nuance" you mean, well, women have worse outcomes because that's just natural, that's not nuanced at all, and is rightly rejected.

No I am talking about taking all into consideration, the natural, the cultural, the science, the lived experience all of it and shining the light of rationality on it. Looking at what exactly is going on, what factors cause differences and not assume that its abuse. Applying the same logic to both males and females.

There is a difference between not acknowledging disadvantage (I did acknowledge it and went into some detail discussing potential explanations for it with you), and rejecting an obviously flawed explanation such as the "feminisation of society."

Thats the problem though, your details of why boys and males don't have equal outcomes was anything but that they may be disadvantaged due to norms or policies in society while at the same time dismissing a real factor that contributes. So no your not acknowledging male disadvantage. Your not applying the same standards and logic.

Your doing exactly what you accuse males of doing which is rationalising away womens disadvantage as something else. Whereas any efforts to make women equal should also be about bringing males along so that we see equal outcomes. The fact is we don't see equal outcomes and any inequality regardless of reasons why is according to you and feminist ideology unjust and oppression.

Probably because elite positions are the ones where it's easiest to identify the weight of cumulative problems.

No its not, Its because those who target the elits positions are really about power, getting to the top, fighting men to get to the top. The elite positions suit womens inclinations for safe, clean and well paying work. It is far easier to identify unequal outcomes at the bottom because this is where they are most magnified. Theres only a relative samll difference at the top.

But at the bottom for example we can have 80 to 90% domination of one gender. If that was the case in the elite positions it would be protested in the streets. But women seem awefully quite about the massive difference at the bottom like in oil rigging, mining or contruction, the hard dirty and non elite jobs where theres up to 90% domination by males.

A point that I have often seen made by feminists; that the ideal is not simply to colonise patriarchal structures, but to transform them.

Well they are not doing a good job. They seem to be increasing in numbers at the top while a growing number of poor and disempowered sisters are left at the bottom. Its just creating another power imbalance and these women are doing the eact same thing they accuse males of doing to their own sisters at the bottom.

We only outnumber men as undergraduates. At every level after that, men outnumber women.

Actually females outperform males across all levels of education.

From Kindergarten To College, Girls Are Outperforming Boys. U.K. Study Finds

From Kindergarten To College, Girls Are Outperforming Boys. U.K. Study Finds

Girls are doing better than boys at all levels of education from kindergarten to college, according to new research.

www.forbes.com

This would be similar in other western nations like the US and Australia.

If that were true, we would see high rates of abuse of men by women. But that is not the reality.

You don't have physically abuse to abuse. Women (feminist) claim any inequality within boards, politics, corporations, lower education outcomers ect are oppressive then the same can be applied to any males inequality.

You claimed that "women dominate the humanities" in universities. We don't.

Yes and if you do a quick search for "women dominate the humanities" or similar you will get the evidence. This comes from the first page.

EU cultural studies 2021: women lead, humanities top

EU cultural studies 2021: women lead, humanities top - News articles - Eurostat

DDN-20230703-1

ec.europa.eu

Since 1970 at the master's level and 1998 at the doctoral level, women have earned the majority of advanced degrees in the humanities. In comparison to higher education as a whole, the humanities field granted a larger share of advanced degrees to women throughout the 1966–2015 period.

Gender Distribution of Advanced Degrees in the Humanities

Women currently earn the majority of advanced degrees in the humanities. This has been the case at the master’s degree level since 1970 and at the doctoral level since 1998, and women’s share of degrees at both levels has grown larger in the years since. The share of advanced degrees awarded to...

www.amacad.org

And yet the evidence is clear that women are penalised more, because being competitive or aggressive in negotiations is seen as "unfeminine."

Yes they are. But then you could come up with examples of how men are penalised for being competitive such as boys where that competitiveness is viewed as negative and discouraged. Or how competition by males is generally cast in a negative light as being too aggressive and denying women.

If we are going to identify these upstream disadvantages we have to do it across the board. The idea that its only about women and we should have this one sided view that males are inherently advantaged and women are not is descrimination in itself. The idea of always catering to womens rights and that males don't deserve that same attention is descrimination.

Obviously not as much negative backlash, since they tend to get better outcomes.

I disagree. If we take everything into consideration the general view within society casts a more negative light on male traits like competition, assertiveness and risk taking as being toxic and negative behaviour then they are suffering as well.

No; this is the point. The fact that women are punished for competing means that we are not less competitive by nature; we learn to suppress it because of the reaction to it.

I'm not saying women are less competitive by nature (though its ironic that your using nature when you say you don't believe in it). Its that males and females express it differently.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=561822145664413

It may be that women are trying to be competitive in the ways males are which is unnatural and this is part of why society reacts against it. Thats not to say that women are also not being disadvantaged because of it.

But once again if we are going to find ways women are punished for being competitive then we have to apply the same to males in all the ways they are punished for being competitive. Males are often punished for expressing their competitiveness. I gave the example of how in education policy competition is discouraged thus punishing males by denying their competitive natures.

No, it isn't supporting what you've been saying; it's saying that women and men are both competitive, although we might express it in different ways.

And thats what I have been saying. That there are differences between in their expressions of competition, protection, aggression ect which as you say is a natural way they think and behave. Its that difference that we see in behaviour within society that may also be distorted ie males can become hyper compertitive like its everything.

Females are more agreeable in personality generally so its harder for them to act agressive or competitive in the same way a male does. Likewise males find it harder to be subdued and or preoccupied with emotions. Its more practical due to their different cognitions being more about things, money, material needs, physically competing. Whereas women think more about the social aspects of competition including others more than self.

Then there is the individual personality traits where some people are more agreeable including males but especially females. Or some women are more assertive and agressive but not on avergae as males. All this needs to be considered instead of assuming that all differences as to why males and females have different outcomes is because of malice and oppression.

Again, we have to deal with the fallout of being punished for competing.

Yes and perhaps thats a fallout of how society looks upon competition in males being undesirable and may be doubly undesirable in females as people percievewomen as being more nurturing and emotional, thinking of others rather than promoting self. Either way they are based on assumptions and a distortion of what is really going on.

(Not at all what the article was saying).

It is in a way. Its talking about how males and females are motivateed to compete for different reasons. For women its more about the social aspect and for males its more the status and reproductive benefits. The practical things like resources and the money that gets those resources for self and family to ensure survival so to speak.

This relates to what I mentioned that women naturally choose more social jobs and males STEM fields. So this is the basis for what your articles saying. They are just using that difference to say we need to understand womens motivation as far as competitive natures. Its not necessarily saying we must change mens natural motivation for being competitive but to also consider ways we can accommodate womens motivations so they can compete more.

They mention changing systems. The only problem I see with that is so long as it doesn't affect mens motivationg factors. The same thing could happen to other sectors as with education where its become more feminised and then this further disadvantages males. The problem I see is maintaining the balance so that both males and females are able to express their natural inclinations when it comes to whatever work represents in modern society.

Good for you. Other people may not find themselves in the same position.

I guess thats why I have mostly been self employed. Not now but I have a good job doing what I believe in. I guess like you.

But I really think theres too much stress on people especially young people to perform, to get that education, to get that job, to get that status and things.

Could this be progress? You are willing to acknowledge that sexism and misogyny and discrimination against women still happen in academia and the workplace. What, then, shall we do about it?

Of course I never said it doesn't happen. I am saying things have improved and that males also suffer descrimination and believe it or not contrary to the Woke ideologues white men suffer descrimination.

So my point is that as humans everyone suffers some form of descrimination depending which way you look at it. We need to treat everyone the same, give them all the same value and attention, not focus on some identity groups more than others as far as equality is concerned.

I think most people agree that women can still be disadvantaged but while acknowledging this they are also concerned for males plight and that any remedy to equalise society should have the same criteria for all to be fair. Thats why I think that making it about gender, race or sex or any other category is self defeating as it always pits groups against each other based on the very aspects we are trying to get rid of race, gender and sex.

Its better that we see them as individual humans all part of the same race and Gods children. That way everyone has the same value each unique and different regardless of race, gender or sex.

Here's the thing, though. Sure, it's #NotAllMen. But every woman ends up experiencing this kind of disadvantage. This is not about tarring "all men," it's about trying to deal with something that impacts on all women.

Ok fair enough. Well I hope its not so bad as it use to be. I think we are getting better but in doing so we must ensure that we also make things just as welcoming and accommodating for males, for anyone no matter what their category.

We also have to consider individual behaviour. Its not always about systemic problems but individual nasty people who are angry and intolerant, envious and resentful. These traist or sins if you like are deadly and powerful and humans have a evil side which is selfish just wants to destroy.

Yes. The idea of "toxic masculinity" is not saying that men or masculinity are toxic. It is saying that there are particular ideas, norms, expectations of men in our society which are toxic, primarily toxic for men, and that this toxic masculinity needs to be identified and replaced with healthy masculinity.

But its the narrative that does the damage. If this was applied to any other behavioural problem or percieved problem as often normal mascullinity is deemed toxic. But if it was any other problem we don't call it for example poisonous personality disorder or fatal feminism. Words are powerful in todays Post Modern society where words and language create reality.

Repeating memes like Toxic Mascullinity takes a damaged or poisonous meaning naturally and it does more damage than good. Put it this way the majprity of people especially males think it demeans males. But when you add all the other memes like #KillAllMen, Mansplaining or Manspreading and the many other degrading labels it tends to become a narrative that seeps in to society but especially damaging to males identity and selfesteem especially young boys and adolescents.

That is not about making men "think and behave more like women." It is about allowing men to be well-rounded, healthy, flourishing men, rather than punished every time they fail to fit into a very constricting, harmful idea of what a man "should" be.

I am not saying males don't behave badly and use male negative stereotypes. I am saying labelling this behaviour as toxic mascullinity is wrong. The bad behaviour isn't about mascullinity itself and masullinity cannot be toxic as its the natural sexing of the brain and how males express that. The bad behaviour is bad behaviour. Its using stereotypes socially created. But its also the distortion of natural mascullinity.

When natural healthy mascullinity is not allowed to be expressed then it will be expressed negatively in unhealthy ways. Calling mascullinity Toxic and demoinising natural maleness contributes to allowing unhealthy behaviour.

The thing about natural traits and inclinations is that they fall into a normal distribution, for both men and women, rather than a binary distribution between men and women.

They actual magnify at the extremes and that is where it counts most when we are talking about the elites positions or the other end the most disadvnatged. Thats why we will see at its most competitive males will get on top more often. But they will also have high representation for the extreme negatives like extreeme agression such as assaults, murders and imprisonment.

A good example is math and english. The top percentage of maths are males while the top for writing and reading are females. But we can have both perform well around the middle. But if its a competion for say top jobs at Nasa then males are going to more likely be picked. But if its teaching, or professionals like Psychologists or HR women will more often be most suitable.

No, that hasn't been the narrative at all. (And no, they are not "natural male qualities." They are natural human qualities).

Yes they are human qualities but expressed differently. But my point was that when males express this their way and may be more competitive their way its deemed as negative especially when they may end up dominating certain positions. Its automatically seen as bad when it may well just be males being males.

I don't think the answer is by quelling male competitive or assertive inclinations or motivations. It needs to be harnessed in the right way. And certainly making it out to be toxic makes things worse as it causes males to believe if their maleness is toxic then who am I. I am nothing and this l;eads to negative behaviour, taking on negative versions of being a man.

Perhaps, in some far-distant future or parallel universe, it could be. Right here and now, it so obviously and manifestly is not, that your question is ridiculous.

That I believe is the wrong attitude and one that will only divide people. Its denying that males are not humans. You just said that just about everything I describe as male experience was also females experience. Now your saying males can never experience what females experience. This special experience only belongs to females.

I think this is the same ideological thinking behind how the Woke say that white people can never be victims of racism or that blacks can never be racist because of the colour of their skin. BUt in this case its the gender male. Its actually reverse descrimination as its racialising and genderising people as to what they can and cannot exerience of behave like based on their race, sex or gender.

 

[Paidiske]

Thats the problem though, your details of why boys and males don't have equal outcomes was anything but that they may be disadvantaged due to norms or policies in society

Not at all true. I distinctly remember linking a source which discussed the cultural norm - at least in some contexts - that studiousness was seen as feminine, and that boys therefore avoided it.

No its not, Its because those who target the elits positions are really about power, getting to the top, fighting men to get to the top.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. People seek success and recognition for reasons other than power.

The elite positions suit womens inclinations for safe, clean and well paying work.

(As if men don't want safe, clean and well paying work!)

It is far easier to identify unequal outcomes at the bottom because this is where they are most magnified.

Well, if you want to look at the stats about poverty rates between men and women, literacy rates, and so on, that would also be telling.

But women seem awefully quite about the massive difference at the bottom like in oil rigging, mining or contruction, the hard dirty and non elite jobs where theres up to 90% domination by males.

Are mining jobs "at the bottom"? My understanding was that they were quite sought after for the relatively good rates of pay. I just checked on oil rigging and the average pay is over $200,000 a year, that doesn't strike me as being "at the bottom" at all, when the average Australian earns less than half that.

Actually females outperform males across all levels of education.

I find conflicting data about higher degrees. Some sources claim that men still outnumber women for higher degrees by research, in particular.

You don't have physically abuse to abuse.

Yet my statement remains true. Women do not abuse men at anything near like the rate that men abuse women.

Yes and if you do a quick search for "women dominate the humanities" or similar you will get the evidence. This comes from the first page.

EU cultural studies 2021: women lead, humanities top

EU cultural studies 2021: women lead, humanities top - News articles - Eurostat

DDN-20230703-1

ec.europa.eu

Since 1970 at the master's level and 1998 at the doctoral level, women have earned the majority of advanced degrees in the humanities. In comparison to higher education as a whole, the humanities field granted a larger share of advanced degrees to women throughout the 1966–2015 period.

Gender Distribution of Advanced Degrees in the Humanities

Women currently earn the majority of advanced degrees in the humanities. This has been the case at the master’s degree level since 1970 and at the doctoral level since 1998, and women’s share of degrees at both levels has grown larger in the years since. The share of advanced degrees awarded to...

www.amacad.org

Depends what you mean by dominating the humanities, then. I was looking at the academics, not the students. Humanities departments are still often male-dominated, especially at senior levels.

Yes they are.

So the issue is not then that women are less competitive, or less able and willing to negotiate. It is that even when they do, the outcome is not the same, because women are penalised for behaving "like men."

I disagree.

And yet you provided the statistics that men have better outcomes in negotiations!

I'm not saying women are less competitive by nature (though its ironic that your using nature when you say you don't believe in it). Its that males and females express it differently.

You seemed to be claiming that men were naturally more competitive, that competition is a "male trait."

Females are more agreeable in personality generally so its harder for them to act agressive or competitive in the same way a male does.

I'd say that's just socialisation.

Yes and perhaps thats a fallout of how society looks upon competition in males being undesirable and may be doubly undesirable in females as people percievewomen as being more nurturing and emotional, thinking of others rather than promoting self.

If men are rewarded but women are punished for the same behaviour, then that behaviour is not seen as undesirable in males. It's being rewarded!

It is in a way. Its talking about how males and females are motivateed to compete for different reasons.

But not necessarily in different fields.

This relates to what I mentioned that women naturally choose more social jobs and males STEM fields.

(Again, I don't believe this. I think we are socialised and pressured into such choices).

Its better that we see them as individual humans all part of the same race and Gods children. That way everyone has the same value each unique and different regardless of race, gender or sex.

That will work once we have dealt with the systemic issues. While the systemic and cultural issues are still in place, we need to be aware of them, and that means being aware of the ways people are impacted and treated differently because of race, gender, sex, etc.

But its the narrative that does the damage. If this was applied to any other behavioural problem or percieved problem as often normal mascullinity is deemed toxic.

I don't think it's the narrative that does the damage at all. I think many people wilfully misrepresent the narrative and pretend that it's something it isn't, that it is claiming things about masculinity which it isn't. Instead of actually acknowledging and engaging with what it is talking about.

The bad behaviour isn't about mascullinity itself and masullinity cannot be toxic as its the natural sexing of the brain and how males express that.

But it is about masculinity. It's about ideals and norms and expectations of masculinity, of what it means to be men, which are deeply unhealthy.

Its denying that males are not humans.

No, pointing out that we don't live in a matriarchy is not dehumanising men. Good grief.

 

[stevevw]

"Hurt people hurt people." So don't be surprised when a person who was beaten for messing up beats someone when they mess up. "I got beaten as a kid and there is nothing wrong with me except I flog my children with belts and extension cords." A spank on the bottom isn't the end of the world if a child is doing something like sticking pennies in the electric sockets but putting lashes on their legs and back for "messing up" is just sending the abuse downstream/

Though I agree that belting a child is wrong many kids were smacked and did not go on to have problems and nor did they go on to smack their kids. Its the severity and smacking for no good reason as well as the lack of other forms of discipline and a good relationship that engaged with the child explaining things and setting examples that works.

As opposed to no dicipline or lax discipline which can have its own problems and in some ways is abusive in that you set the child up for being irresponsible and not able to control themselves and thus end up doing something stupid that either harms them or even causes their death or the harm or death of someone else.

We see this now in schools in how students are out of control and many teachers are resigning because they cannot cope. We don't disicipline anymore but rather reward bad behaviour thus setting kids up for failure and misery and unable to cope.

Which shows that the PC reaction to the wrong of harmful physical dicipline has swung too far in the opposite direction and is also based on an ideological belief and not a rational determination.

Today PC culture has it that we must to everything to avoid young people feeling any discomfort and make them feel happy 100% all the time. Any deviation is regardeed as abuse. But have we not just created another monster a different kind of abuse that loves kids to death.

 

[stevevw]

Not at all true. I distinctly remember linking a source which discussed the cultural norm - at least in some contexts - that studiousness was seen as feminine, and that boys therefore avoided it.

I think you done that in the context of the negative effects of the Patriarchy. Thatmale ideas of being a man are toxic even to men. It was still a backhanded complement lol. It wasn't acknowledging any male disadvantage by something other than being associated with males like women do with feminism. It certainly wasn't acknowledging that women may have contributed to male disadvantage.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. People seek success and recognition for reasons other than power.

What else, self recognition, money, to show how good you are compared to others, to be number one. Most people who are nobel, don't want recognition. The system is designed to holdup the individual, to honor them in different ways even if thats honoring them in the name of something worthy.

Its still admired and held up as the measure of success and happiness for which it is not in reality and anyone engaging in it, using it to further themselves up that hierarchy is playing the same game they accuse men of doing. Except now women are doing it better and begining to create their own Matriarchy. Same, same just different application.

(As if men don't want safe, clean and well paying work!)

Actually many men like direty and hard work as it actually fits how they physically experience things. Acting out that physical work and getting direty reinforces the nobel idea of putting ones body on the line to make a contribution to the family, to others and society. They self worth.

But it also supports the idea that males are willing to do stuff they don't like when it comes to work for money as money represents having more resources which they percieve as giving an edge in the competition of life and for mates. This is different to women which is more social, what benefits others socially, in health and wellbeing.

Well, if you want to look at the stats about poverty rates between men and women, literacy rates, and so on, that would also be telling.

Not sure what you mean.

Are mining jobs "at the bottom"?
My understanding was that they were quite sought after for the relatively good rates of pay. I just checked on oil rigging and the average pay is over $200,000 a year, that doesn't strike me as being "at the bottom" at all, when the average Australian earns less than half that.

I mean as far as elite, in board rooms, polititians where its clean, safe and has a lot more glamour and gives more reputation and power within society. If oil rigging is paid so well then why are not women protesting at the vast inequality. I suggest its not the money but the dirt and sheer hard labor than scares them away.

But if they should be consistent they should be demanding equality just as much in these dirty male dominated industries as they do the elite positions. But they don't which reveals an insight that its not just about equality but also power. Women wanting a piece of the pie that maaaaales have enjoyed.

I find conflicting data about higher degrees. Some sources claim that men still outnumber women for higher degrees by research, in particular.

I am not sure, I can't find any. But evenso (1) area compared to all the other levels. You seem to want to cancel out the 90% of disadvantage to males because women still are behind 10% of the time.

Yet my statement remains true. Women do not abuse men at anything near like the rate that men abuse women.

I'm not sure of that today. I agree there is still inequality going on. But it has improved tremedously. While at the same time we have seen male disadvantage increase tremendously. Just like in how males dominated and were privildged in education and now women are this is happening across more and more sectors.

Some say if these trends continue we would not be surpirsed that in 30 years or so there will be a mens movement like feminism, a revolution by men regarding their rights and disadvantage by women.

Depends what you mean by dominating the humanities, then. I was looking at the academics, not the students. Humanities departments are still often male-dominated, especially at senior levels.

No I am looking at both the students, teachers, lecturers, and within the industry in society. Women dominate all these sectors now. In fact this is aprt of why education and society has become more feminised.

We have seen a massive shift from labor intensive industries to service and human resource industries. We can track the decreasing of core subjects like sciences, history, to social studies associated with DEI. Even existing hard science degrees have taken on more DEI as part of their subjects and reduced the actualy practical aspects of the core subject in favor of DEI. So more jobs are now within the HUmanities which suits women.

So the issue is not then that women are less competitive, or less able and willing to negotiate. It is that even when they do, the outcome is not the same, because women are penalised for behaving "like men."

Or percieved to be acting unlike themselves. Seen as trying to be men when they are women. The issue may still be they are less competitive in that they are less competitive when trying to be competitive like a male. They cannot naturally be like a male and therefore compete better than them at their own natural instincts.

The point of your article was to change the criteria for what motivates women for getting the job and not just base it on how males compete for jobs which is about the practical and physical benefits for themselves and their family. But to widen this to include motivations for the social aspects which women can outcompete men in as they are more natural at competing on this level than males.

And yet you provided the statistics that men have better outcomes in negotiations!

For that particular situation. It may be that other industries such as the feminised ones like teaching, social welfare, nursing require more social motivation and not a male type competitor who lacks social motivation.

It seems society is becoming more feminised in it thinking anyway so the male traits seen as a competitive advantage are fast becoming a liability. Not because they should be but because the tide is turning. Just like women found it hard to compete like men no men find it harder to compete in a womanised world.

Part of that feminised world is the narrative that male traits are toxic, are old school and need to go. Competition, agression, adventure are all frowned upon now. So generally I think males are being demonised now more than women, they are becoming like what women experienced in the past.

You seemed to be claiming that men were naturally more competitive, that competition is a "male trait."

I am saying that the difference in how males and females express their competitiveness has different outcomes as well which puts either males or females at some advantage depending on what it is they are competing in.

If that competitiveness involves say more assertiveness to promote self, more aggression to compete in practical and physical ways then yes males in that sense are more competitive. If it was about the social aspects, promoting self with others, concern about the outcomes for others as well then women are better competing than men.

So men and women don't compete in the same way and have different strengths, so there are going to be situations where men will outcompete naturally because women don't have the same level of those traits to tap into. Just like males won't have the same feminine level for competing on a social level naturally,

I'd say that's just socialisation.

These are basic traits in females or males like personality traits. They are based on studies as to which of the Big Five Personality traits are more common in males and females. The Big Five Personality Traits are not completely socialised. They are basically innate in everyone and determined in part by genetics and can also be affected by changes in the neurotransmitters which control moods, ability to cope with stresses and temperament.

Fundementally studies have found men and women generally fall into different personality traits such as women being generally more agreeable and Neurotic. Thats why women suffer much higher rates of anxiety disorders. Males generally may be more agressive and extraverted. But that doesn't mean that males or females can experience all the personality traits to varying degrees. Or that some males can be more agreeable or neurotic than women.

Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five
Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. Gender differences in personality traits are often characterized in terms of which gender has higher scores on that trait, on average. For example, women are often found to be more agreeable than men (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001). This means that women, on average, are more nurturing, tender-minded, and altruistic more often and to a greater extent than men.

Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five

This paper investigates gender differences in personality traits, both at the level of the Big Five and at the sublevel of two aspects within each Big Five domain. Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If men are rewarded but women are punished for the same behaviour, then that behaviour is not seen as undesirable in males. It's being rewarded!

Yes but now it seems society has been turning against these males traits as society becomes more feminised. So generally now male agression and assertiveness and competition itself is being seen as something negative and discouraged. That plays in womens favour especially in the majority of fields today that are more social.

These traits may have been more favourable in the past and still in some male dominated areas but this is quickly changing. As with most other things male as society becomes more feminised in work, services, academia, and more generally with norms.

But not necessarily in different fields.

Yes it can come out depending on which field. So as males relate more to STEM fields and feel more confident that will come out in how assertive and confident they are about the job and whats required. Whereas women will relate and be more confident when it comes to working with people more generally. This will also come out in how they react and respond to their ability to do that job.

(Again, I don't believe this. I think we are socialised and pressured into such choices).

Many studies have proved that when all things are equal and there is no pressure, no barriers to equality between genders women naturally choose jobs associated with social aspects and males with 'things', working with things. We see this even in childs play as boys naturally relate to trucks and tool kits and girls to dolls and dress up in acting out social scenes.

This is also reflected in primates where male infant chimps play with trucks and females with dolls.
Male monkeys prefer boys' toys

Male monkeys prefer boys' toys

It's a sexual stereotype: boys tend to play with toy cars, while girls like dolls. But male rhesus monkeys seem to have the same preferences

www.newscientist.com

Another example is with John Money back in the 60's where he tried to socialise a boy who lost his genitals into a girl only to find when the boy got older he expressed all along he was a boy and went on to do boys things once allowed to. If anything forcing kids to socialise as oppossite sex is harmful.

So theres some nature and there some socialisation involved. But we cannot dismiss nature as this will deny our natural inclinations and screw kids up, confuse them.

That will work once we have dealt with the systemic issues. While the systemic and cultural issues are still in place, we need to be aware of them, and that means being aware of the ways people are impacted and treated differently because of race, gender, sex, etc.

I disagree. Its the hyper focus on gender, race and sex and the constant emphasis of all differences are caused by disparities in gender, race and sex is what is causing descrimination and inequality with gender, race and sex. That includes making the system everything about gender, race and sex.

The Us Consitution and Human Righjts recognised that humans had unalienable rights regardless of race, sex and gender. When you attribute all inequality of differences between people due to race, sex and gender you inadvertently make everything about race, sex and gender.

So that natural differences, differences caused by individuals being nasty or just better are made into advantaged and disadvantaged caused by race, sex and gender when they were not.

In that way everything is being made about identity groups, people are measured by identity groups and the individual gets lost to the identity group.

I don't think it's the narrative that does the damage at all. I think many people wilfully misrepresent the narrative and pretend that it's something it isn't, that it is claiming things about masculinity which it isn't. Instead of actually acknowledging and engaging with what it is talking about.

Unfortunately its not the message males are getting when you actually ask them. You know their real experience you say should not be denied rather than explaining it away like you say should not be hapening with women. Well males deserve thesame treatment and respect.

In fact many females agree that males have been treated badly especially by feminism. Thats why most women are not feminist as they see that this has gone overboard in demeaning males.

A lot of feminist rhetoric today does cross the line from attacks on sexism into attacks on men, with a strong focus on personal behavior: the way they talk, the way they approach relationships, even the way they sit on public transit. Male faults are stated as sweeping condemnations; objecting to such generalizations is taken as a sign of complicity. Meanwhile, similar indictments of women would be considered grossly misogynistic.
Male-bashing not only sours many men — and quite a few women — on feminism. It often drives them into Internet subcultures where critiques of feminism mix with hostility toward women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/30/feminists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism/

The rising rejection of feminism among young men is almost certainly linked to growing feelings that American society has become more hostile to men. In 2019, less than one-third of young men reported that men experienced some or a lot of discrimination in American society. Only four years later, close to half (45 percent) of young men now believe men are facing gender-based discrimination. For some young men, feminism has morphed from a commitment to gender equality to an ideology aimed at punishing men. That leads to predictable results, like half of men agreeing with the statement, “These days society seems to punish men just for acting like men.”

Why Young Men Are Turning Against Feminism

Young men and women have never been more divided over politics

www.americansurveycenter.org

 

[stevevw]

But it is about masculinity. It's about ideals and norms and expectations of masculinity, of what it means to be men, which are deeply unhealthy.

Yes and those ideas are not mascullinitybut ideas about it. Labelling this as actual mascullinity is wrong and misleading and leads males tothink that mascullinity itself is wrong. It doesn't matter how you rationalise it the proof is in the pudding so to speak in that most males and a growing number of females believe males are being demeaned with the narratives within modern society that hyper focus on maleness being bad.

Some of the so called gender norms society speak about actually stem from naturally being a male.

So extreme agression that leads to assaults and unhealthy male behaviour stems from males natural propensity to be more agressive. But agression perse is being demonised out of males. Competitiveness and risk taking is a natural male trait. But extreme competitiveness and risk taking is unhealthy. But competition and risk taking is looked down upon altogether.

So in that sense maleness is being demonised implicitly by demonising normal and natural male traits as evidenced above.

No, pointing out that we don't live in a matriarchy is not dehumanising men. Good grief.

Yes it is because denying there could be a Matriarchy in the first place is dehumanising males by denying their reality, their real lived experience. Afterall you did say that denying womens experience is gaslighting and gaslighting is dehumanising people.

 

[rturner76]

many kids were smacked and did not go on to have problems

And many learned that violence is the best means of either making someone obey your will or they use violence to get people to listen to them. Time rolls on and beating your children is no longer the fashion. People have learned to discipline their children (the littoral meaning of discipline is to make one a follower) without physically harming them.

 

[Paidiske]

It certainly wasn't acknowledging that women may have contributed to male disadvantage.

In this case, I don't believe that we have.

What else, self recognition, money, to show how good you are compared to others, to be number one.

Maybe. Also to actually be able to use one's gifts and talents and qualifications and experience for maximum impact; to be able to serve in a way which really makes a difference. That drives many people, men and women both.

Not sure what you mean.

I am pointiing out that if you want to look at unequal outcomes "at the bottom," we can see the ways women are disadvantaged there, too, with the global literacy gap, with the higher proportion of women in extreme poverty, and so on.

If oil rigging is paid so well then why are not women protesting at the vast inequality. I suggest its not the money but the dirt and sheer hard labor than scares them away. But if they should be consistent they should be demanding equality just as much in these dirty male dominated industries as they do the elite positions.

I don't think it's either dirt or hard labour, but extremely family-unfriendly conditions, more than anything. It's hard to parent while working FIFO. And when people advocate for making jobs more family-friendly, so that there can be more equality, that is resisted...

I am not sure, I can't find any. But evenso (1) area compared to all the other levels. You seem to want to cancel out the 90% of disadvantage to males because women still are behind 10% of the time.

No, I'm pointing out that a (slightly) higher proportion of women as undergraduates doesn't mean that men are disadvantaged, overall.

Some say if these trends continue we would not be surpirsed that in 30 years or so there will be a mens movement like feminism, a revolution by men regarding their rights and disadvantage by women.

We have MRAs now. They mostly thrive on completely false claims, but we have them.

Or percieved to be acting unlike themselves. Seen as trying to be men when they are women.

Which is just gender-stereotypical nonsense.

Part of that feminised world is the narrative that male traits are toxic,

(The only people who say this are men who misrepresent ideas such as toxic masculinity).

These are basic traits in females or males like personality traits.

But personality traits are not binary and gendered. They follow a normal distribution for both sexes, even if that normal distribution does not exactly overlap.

Yes but now it seems society has been turning against these males traits as society becomes more feminised.

And yet those traits are still being rewarded... so such a "seeming" would be a false perception.

Many studies have proved that when all things are equal and there is no pressure, no barriers to equality between genders women naturally choose jobs associated with social aspects and males with 'things', working with things.

I don't believe this. As I said upthread, there is no situation where all things are equal and there is no gendered pressure. That doesn't exist anywhere on earth.

I disagree. Its the hyper focus on gender, race and sex and the constant emphasis of all differences are caused by disparities in gender, race and sex is what is causing descrimination and inequality with gender, race and sex.

No, it isn't causing discrimination and inequality. It is naming it. It might mean that some people who were previously able to be comfortably oblivious are no longer able to do so, which might make it seem to them that it is causing it, but it is not. These things have always been with us.

When you attribute all inequality of differences between people due to race, sex and gender

Well, nobody said "all." I think Julia Gillard put it well; it doesn't explain everything, it doesn't explain nothing, it explains some things.

Unfortunately its not the message males are getting when you actually ask them.

And are they bothering to listen, read, research, and understand? Or are they having a knee-jerk reaction to some populist propaganda?

Yes and those ideas are not mascullinitybut ideas about it. Labelling this as actual mascullinity is wrong and misleading and leads males tothink that mascullinity itself is wrong.

But this is the point! Pointing out that these ideas about masculinity are not actual, healthy masculinity, but are a toxic cocktail of ideology that is deeply harmful, is exactly the point! To speak of toxic masculinity is to point out that there is a healthy masculinity which is something different from this toxic ideology.

Yes it is because denying there could be a Matriarchy in the first place is dehumanising males by denying their reality, their real lived experience.

That would only be true if we actually lived in a matriarchy. But we demonstrably do not.

 

[stevevw]

And many learned that violence is the best means of either making someone obey your will or they use violence to get people to listen to them. Time rolls on and beating your children is no longer the fashion. People have learned to discipline their children (the littoral meaning of discipline is to make one a follower) without physically harming them.

Yes as far as parenting goes we have progressed a lot. We must have at least 20 odd different parenting methods today from Helicoter, Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive, Uninvolved and others. We also have a much better understanding of child behaviour and the effects on kids.

But I am not sure as a society we have learnt the lessons of abuse and violence towards others. We seem to transfer our hate and anger onto new people or we learn new ways of abusing kids such as emotional and online sexual abuse has grown as physical abuse has declined.

We don't seem to be able to shake off this evil nature that wants to harm others, especially kids. If we consider how we are much more at each others throats today than ever before through culture wars even to the point of antisemetism it seems we are not learning the lessons of history of abuse.

Any society that wants to stop child abuse needs to also address abuse across the board because its all related.

 

[stevevw]

In this case, I don't believe that we have.

You don't believe it in any case period lol. I don't think we can know for sure. Is it just that women are singled out or is it maybe a natural reaction. I don't think the typical idea of women being more nurturing, softer, and more caring is a complete social construction. So when women act all hard and agressive like males it can seem intuitively against the grain and hard to go along with.

Maybe. Also to actually be able to use one's gifts and talents and qualifications and experience for maximum impact; to be able to serve in a way which really makes a difference. That drives many people, men and women both.

Yes, any organisation or society that wants to suceed no matter what it is but especially in functioning properly and with minimum chaos needs to utilise anyone regardless of sex, gender or race who is best and most suitable forthe tasks at hand. They will obviously do better than others who choose 2nd best or make identity more important than who is best and most suitable.

But I think when it comes to individual talent and gifts I think this is when the individual and not the identity group is most important. The opportunity for individuals to display their talents and gifts. I think western nations are best at this. Imagine all the talent and individual gifts in all the nations that supress people going to waste.

But then the true value of the individual is not in their talent, qualifications and abilities alone and these are not the most important because many people cannot be that and will never be. Its the fact of just being an individual human, of the human race full stop and nothing else. If we put all these stipulations on humans, view them for their identities then we are devaluing this truth prinicple.

I am pointiing out that if you want to look at unequal outcomes "at the bottom," we can see the ways women are disadvantaged there, too, with the global literacy gap, with the higher proportion of women in extreme poverty, and so on.

The literact gap between males and females is only around 6%. That is not extreme and in fact the worldwide literacy gap is quite good considering with 90% maales and 84% females. So we have progressed a lot and will continue to.

But how about lets clean up our own backyards first where the gap is way bigger against males.

I don't think it's either dirt or hard labour, but extremely family-unfriendly conditions, more than anything. It's hard to parent while working FIFO. And when people advocate for making jobs more family-friendly, so that there can be more equality, that is resisted...

Maybe that type of work is what it is and is not a family friendly industry no matter what they can do. I mean the family can all move and still be together but many don't want to live in those conditions, isolated and away from the friends and networks. But that is not males fault. It just is.

But if there was a dirty and hard job industry close by and family friendly I don't think most women would choose this. Dirt, oil and coal in their fingernails and pours. Its ok for a few days but it becomes hard to live with. Let alone the constant hard yakka that even many males find hard to keep up with.

No, I'm pointing out that a (slightly) higher proportion of women as undergraduates doesn't mean that men are disadvantaged, overall.

Its not a slightly higher % but its even more substancial than the gap men had over women in the 70's. If that gap was deemed bad back then surely an even worse gap is a disadvantage now compared to women.

Gender gap reversed
Since 1970, the number of students enrolled in America’s colleges and universities has more than doubled, to 16,686,893. Over this period, the male-female ratio has changed by 26%. In 1972, the year (Federal) Title IX laws designed to promote gender equity came into force, there were 12% more males on campus than females. Over the next decade the gap vanished. By 2019, a 14-percentage point gap had opened, this time with there being more women than men. This change is manifest in almost every department and faculty.

With 50% more women than men enrolling, is HE failing?

The gender gap in student enrolment in the United States has reversed so strongly since the 1970s that it now raises questions about whether the educa...

www.universityworldnews.com

4125.0 - Gender Indicators, Australia, Sep 2018

www.abs.gov.au

In Australia its even worse. This trend is set to continue and become even wider. So when do we treat this disadvantage in the same way we treated that disadvantage for women in the 70's and onwards.

We have MRAs now. They mostly thrive on completely false claims, but we have them.

Sounds just like Femininism. Well for the genuine ones this is a genuine cause that needs to be acknowledged rather than dismissed as whinging.

Which is just gender-stereotypical nonsense.

No completely. We see this with how society has generally rejected the mascillinisation of women in the media for example by trying to make out women are like males in war, as warriors, as tough as men in everything and its been a complete failure because people realise it does not reflect real life.

’Woke’ feminism plagues Hollywood

https://medium.com/pocket-mirror/woke-feminism-plagues-hollywood-3f6cf1889064

https://medium.com/@pjiwon38?source=post_page-----3f6cf1889064--------------------------------
I could probably find the academics on this phenomena as its a real thing that is happening at the moment. The ideology that men and women are the same has led to the idea of creating women characters that are like men, display strong masculline rather than feminine traits and almost invinsible. Its more or less doing the sdame thing they accuse men of doing in stereotyping gender but the opposite way around by stereotyping masculline traits in women.

(The only people who say this are men who misrepresent ideas such as toxic masculinity).

Men certainly didn't make up the idea of Toxic mascullinity. Why would they make such a name making their own mascullinity poisonous. That would be making themselves poisonous.

So your saying that feminist, women and/or society has not contributed to degrading men with their language, and narratives. That there is not responisibility on the sender of the message and its allthe recievers fault.

But personality traits are not binary and gendered. They follow a normal distribution for both sexes, even if that normal distribution does not exactly overlap.

Yes and like all traits they are expressed differently in males and female where they are most pronounced at the extremes which is where its most important. In that sense there can be a large difference between the most extreme and agressive or competitive males and the most anxious and neurotic females who fear agression and competition.

Or the most socialable and nurturing women and the most antisocial and self serving males. It is these differences that are most important as these are seen in situations such as abuse or the top levels of success.

And yet those traits are still being rewarded... so such a "seeming" would be a false perception.

Ithink both can happen at the same time such is the confusion and unreality of making identity everything. We can attack and reward these traits at the same time. Like I said penalising women for male like traits may happen in certain industries that are traditionally more male. Whereas feminine traits may be rewarded in social type industries.

But overall as society becomes more feminised male traits are being demonised. Then on top of this we have the contradictory reactions when people react to women acting like males which they percieved as unreal and unnatural which has some truth to it. So we have to sort out what is unjustified or not.

I don't believe this. As I said upthread, there is no situation where all things are equal and there is no gendered pressure. That doesn't exist anywhere on earth.

What do you mean by gendered pressure. Me think you are creating another logical fallacy (either/or) Either theres absolutely no gendered pressure or there is and if there is its only gender pressure thats socially constructed.

There may still be some gendered social pressure but its not enough to negate the natural behaviours and choices coming out. Certainly as far as work choices Scandinavian nations have no barriers and if anything more in favour of women as they are more feminised nations with high support for feminism.

Yet study after study shows that males and females continually choice differently where females are more inclined towards social jobs working with people and males working with things. But this is not the only evidence for this natural inclination. I even gave you evdience from primate behaviour and studies on bringing up kids in the opposite sex showing they still chose their innate sex as their gender and gender typical toy choices.

We see it everywhere, males working in construction, into cars, things, building, tool sheds in backyards, the majority taking risks, advanture, 10 times as many men have climbed Mt Everest, choosing things rather than social aspects in just about everything they do.

Then we see women naturally forming social cliches, dominating social jobs, always being better at social aspects, getting together socially while males are in the tool shed lol. This is not all socially constructed. They actually relate and like doing it.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think we can know for sure.

In which case, your complaints seem rather overstated.

But I think when it comes to individual talent and gifts I think this is when the individual and not the identity group is most important. The opportunity for individuals to display their talents and gifts. I think western nations are best at this. Imagine all the talent and individual gifts in all the nations that supress people going to waste.

I'm just going to raise my eyebrows at the idea that western nations are somehow stellar at nurturing individual talents.

The literact gap between males and females is only around 6%.

That there is a literacy gap at all demonstrates the disadvantage women face.

But how about lets clean up our own backyards first where the gap is way bigger against males.

By all means. Have a look here: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/principals/transition/GenderPerformance.pdf Seems we have work to do around attitude formation, in particular:

"the evidence is clear that gender disparities in performance do not stem from innate differences in aptitude but rather from students’ attitudes to learning, their behaviours for learning, how they spend their leisure time and the confidence they have in their abilities as students. "

Maybe that type of work is what it is and is not a family friendly industry no matter what they can do.

Funny how you were asking why more women weren't clamouring for the roles, and then when I point out the significant barriers we face, suddenly there's nothing that can be done about them.

But that is not males fault.

No, but we can look at employers and how they set up conditions, too. Once upon a time mining was not so much FIFO and mining companies provided housing and so forth for the families of their employees. I'm sure FIFO is cheaper for them, but who is paying the price for that company efficiency?

But if there was a dirty and hard job industry close by and family friendly I don't think most women would choose this.

I don't think most people would choose this, given reasonable alternatives. (Which is why we often rely on overseas workers to fill jobs locals deem undesirable). But women will do them if they're the best option, just like men will. I had a bit of a search, and in terms of dirty and hard jobs with reasonably family friendly conditions, things like working in recycling centres came up. Now, there's still more men than women in those jobs, but there's a significant proportion of women.

Its not a slightly higher % but its even more substancial than the gap men had over women in the 70's. If that gap was deemed bad back then surely an even worse gap is a disadvantage now compared to women.

The numbers you cite are for America; the gap is smaller here. I think the reasons why are pertinent, though. The reasons why there are fewer men today, are very different to the reasons why there were fewer women in the past.

So when do we treat this disadvantage in the same way we treated that disadvantage for women in the 70's and onwards.

It's not the same, though. The causes are different. So the response will have to be different.

Men certainly didn't make up the idea of Toxic mascullinity.

Actually, they did. The term originated in the mythopoetic men's movement. They coined the phrase to describe "the social pressures placed upon men to be violent, competitive, independent, and unfeeling as a "toxic" form of masculinity, in contrast to a "real" or "deep" masculinity that they say men have lost touch within modern society." (I've lifted that quote from Wikipedia, but they cite the original sources).

So your saying that feminist, women and/or society has not contributed to degrading men with their language, and narratives.

I'm not saying there's no degrading language or narrative out there. But I'm saying specifically that the idea of "toxic masculinity," firstly, was developed by men working on self-help and therapeutic resources for men (not by women or feminists), and secondly, was not intended, and is largely not used, to degrade men. It is used to describe social pressures which are unhealthy and unhelpful, primarily for men, and secondarily for those with whom those men interact.

In that sense there can be a large difference between the most extreme and agressive or competitive males and the most anxious and neurotic females who fear agression and competition.

For most of us, though, there's very little meaningful difference attributable to gender. We're under that large middle part of the curve, where the normal distributions for the sexes overlap.

It is these differences that are most important as these are seen in situations such as abuse

No, I wouldn't agree with that. Abusers are not only people with extremely gendered personality traits.

So we have to sort out what is unjustified or not.

I'd argue that penalising women for behaviour which is perceived to be "like men," or which would be rewarded in men, is pretty darned unjustified.

What do you mean by gendered pressure.

I mean that from the very earliest ages, boys and girls are socialised differently, have different stereotypes and expectations placed upon them, are guided and advised differently, and so on. And part of this is being rewarded or penalised for pursuing what are perceived to be suitable or unsuitable interests, depending on gender.

There may still be some gendered social pressure but its not enough to negate the natural behaviours and choices coming out.

It's certainly enough to discourage people from pursuing their real interests, in many cases.

Certainly as far as work choices Scandinavian nations have no barriers and if anything more in favour of women as they are more feminised nations with high support for feminism.

And yet even so, women still face barriers to fulfilling their potential. This is about Iceland, but it's instructive: https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58442105/ragnhildur_erna_Arnorsdottir.pdf

"Moreover, the social construction of gender can act as a hindrance for women aspiring for board positions. Pande and Ford (2011) claim that traditional social norms postulate that leadership is associated with male qualities and that women should not be leaders. As this view can be deeply rooted in people, men are often preferred over women based on personal taste. Similarly, Acker (2000) argues that organizational change in this regard is slow and difficult because of deeply embedded and gendered assumptions about organizational structures and processes."

We see it everywhere, males working in construction, into cars, things, building, tool sheds in backyards, the majority taking risks, advanture, 10 times as many men have climbed Mt Everest, choosing things rather than social aspects in just about everything they do.

Then we see women naturally forming social cliches, dominating social jobs, always being better at social aspects, getting together socially while males are in the tool shed lol. This is not all socially constructed. They actually relate and like doing it.

I read this, and I look around at my own context in the church, where men dominate a "social" job, and women are often excluded, and I think, this narrative of yours is very highly selective.