Angry Men

[Halbhh]

Have you ever said or done anything while angry that you felt ashamed of or needed to apologize for later on? There’s your answer. ;-)

We’re addressing a continual form of anger that doesn’t go away.

Mm.... You know, the 'angry men' thing has been widely thought to be about how so many found the American economy of the 50s, 60s, 80s, 90s....

....ended for them, and it seemed there is no way for them to achieve their goals in life, which were about status and material earning power and....well, without real faith, that loss is so bad it makes them angry. Women in contrast were still catching up, for decades, so didn't experience it as a loss of position/status.

The best solution for the angry ones is to seek something of infinite value instead, to find Christ.

 

[Paidiske]

Surprised by this.

If two people want the same land....they can both have the opportunity to compete for it, but only one can own. If two people want the same job....it's essentially the same thing, is it not? Unless there's two openings...only one can get the job.

So the problem in my opinion are people who say "five men work this job....the sixth opening should go to a woman". I disagree. A woman should be able to compete for it, but it should go to whomever the employer wants to hire.

Well, two things here. One is the assumption that there is a fixed number of jobs (or other opportunities). That isn't true. When we have more educated, capable people looking for something worthwhile to do, there is actually job creation going on (this also happens when people migrate, which is why I have no time for the "migrants are taking our jobs!" trope). So women entering the workforce doesn't automatically mean men will be out of jobs, but it does mean the overall job landscape might change for everyone.

Second, I also don't think quotas are the answer. (Although I think a job should go to the best candidate, who may not be "whomever the employer wants to hire"). Intervention needs to be earlier in life so that women can compete for those jobs, but nobody is owed a particular job due to her (or his) sex.

Well let's start with the "gender pay gap". Is it real? Almost certainly. Is it 0.80$ to the dollar? It sure doesn't look that way when you crunch the numbers....

Dispelling Myths About The Gender Pay Gap

It's more like 0.98$ to the 1.00$.

When comparing two people in the same profession, with the same seniority, working the same number of hours, and so forth, women earn $0.98 for every dollar that a man earns.

Now....maybe that 2 cents is because of discrimination. Maybe it's because of some kind of factor not considered. It's hard to say. What I can say is that the statistical data shows the feminist movement appears to be deliberately lying about inequality and demanding unearned wealth, opportunities, and advantages just because they're women.

That's wrong, and should be fought against.

There are different ways at looking at the question of the gender pay gap. Interpreting data differently doesn't mean anyone is "deliberately lying" or "demanding unearned wealth" etc. That's a very uncharitable take.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, two things here. One is the assumption that there is a fixed number of jobs (or other opportunities). That isn't true.

What?!? Of course they're limited. If they were infinite there would be no point in arguing for either jobs or opportunities.

When we have more educated, capable people looking for something worthwhile to do, there is actually job creation going on (this also happens when people migrate, which is why I have no time for the "migrants are taking our jobs!" trope).

Endless economic growth is a myth and frankly, it's killing the planet.

So women entering the workforce doesn't automatically mean men will be out of jobs, but it does mean the overall job landscape might change for everyone.

I'm not saying it means men will be "out of jobs".

Second, I also don't think quotas are the answer. (Although I think a job should go to the best candidate, who may not be "whomever the employer wants to hire").

Best is a subjective value judgement.

Intervention needs to be earlier in life so that women can compete for those jobs, but nobody is owed a particular job due to her (or his) sex.

The fact that more women than men graduate college indicates that we no longer need "intervention".

Further intervention could end up being oppressive to men.

There are different ways at looking at the question of the gender pay gap. Interpreting data differently doesn't mean anyone is "deliberately lying" or "demanding unearned wealth" etc. That's a very uncharitable take.

Those who push the idea are well aware of the deliberate skewing of data they are complicit in. If they aren't, they should be open to being educated about it.

 

[Paidiske]

What?!? Of course they're limited. If they were infinite there would be no point in arguing for either jobs or opportunities.

I didn't say there weren't limited; I said they weren't fixed (the number available doesn't stay the same). My point was that allowing women employment opportunities didn't automatically mean fewer opportunities for men.

Endless economic growth is a myth and frankly, it's killing the planet.

Certainly our economy needs some significant restructuring (although that is not my area of expertise).

Best is a subjective value judgement.

Agreed. But there should still be criteria against which it is assessed, that don't include things like, "This guy is my good friend from college."

The fact that more women than men graduate college indicates that we no longer need "intervention".

College attendance isn't the be-all and end-all of everything.

Further intervention could end up being oppressive to men.

We need to make sure it isn't.

Those who push the idea are well aware of the deliberate skewing of data they are complicit in. If they aren't, they should be open to being educated about it.

It seems to me that skewing might be in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My point was that allowing women employment opportunities didn't automatically mean fewer opportunities for men.

Which was never my argument.

Certainly our economy needs some significant restructuring (although that is not my area of expertise).

Well it's a bit beside the point....

No matter if you think it's not fixed, at any given time there are only so many jobs in the world and not necessarily enough for everyone. Indeed increasing automation could mean far fewer in the future.

Agreed. But there should still be criteria against which it is assessed, that don't include things like, "This guy is my good friend from college."

There are....you can't legally discriminate against someone based on sex, race, age, etc.

College attendance isn't the be-all and end-all of everything.

Graduation...not attendance.

Fast Facts: Graduation rates (40)

Since it is closely linked to job opportunities and the wealth associated with those job opportunities....I'm curious just how many more opportunities you think women need.

Seems like they're doing just fine.

We need to make sure it isn't.

How would you do that? You said earlier that feminism was always needed lest we slide back into some medieval oppression of women.

At some point it will have either made all the gains needed....or it will be oppressing men.

How will you know when it's done?

It seems to me that skewing might be in the eye of the beholder.

No....one figure is factually correct, the other isn't. If you'd like to discuss which is which...I'd be more than happy to.

 

[Paidiske]

Which was never my argument.

You suggested that women's gains might be your loss. I was suggesting that viewing someone else's gain as your loss might not be seeing the whole picture.

There are....you can't legally discriminate against someone based on sex, race, age, etc.

That's important, but not the same as: the skills, qualifications, attributes (etc) that we need in this job are as follows, and candidates will be assessed against those. I'm suggesting that that kind of metric, and not other more biased reasons for preference, ought to be the rule.

Graduation...not attendance.

Fast Facts: Graduation rates (40)

Since it is closely linked to job opportunities and the wealth associated with those job opportunities....I'm curious just how many more opportunities you think women need.

Seems like they're doing just fine.

Okay, graduation then. It's still not the whole picture.

Let me go back to my example of: despite holding the relevant tertiary qualifications, there are whole areas of the world (or indeed Australia) where I am ineligible to work in the kind of role I hold now because they won't appoint a woman. My university degrees make no difference to that situation.

How would you do that? You said earlier that feminism was always needed lest we slide back into some medieval oppression of women.

It is still needed, will always be needed. At no point will vigilance about equality be obsolete.

That said, we can make sure that we don't then structure things in ways which oppress men. That's important too.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You suggested that women's gains might be your loss.

Because we have equality....women can pursue the same opportunities as men, and they do.

If we begin to grant them opportunities, wealth, jobs that we aren't granting to men....then yes, it is a loss for men.

Feminism is done and no longer needed.

That's important, but not the same as: the skills, qualifications, attributes (etc) that we need in this job are as follows, and candidates will be assessed against those. I'm suggesting that that kind of metric, and not other more biased reasons for preference, ought to be the rule.

Then you would be taking opportunities away from employers and denying them the right to choose who they see fit. What's the word for that? Oppression?

Okay, graduation then. It's still not the whole picture.

You keep insisting that yet fail to fill in the rest of the picture. Why?

Let me go back to my example of: despite holding the relevant tertiary qualifications, there are whole areas of the world (or indeed Australia) where I am ineligible to work in the kind of role I hold now because they won't appoint a woman. My university degrees make no difference to that situation.

Let's go back to my statement about not being able to do squat about things like genital mutilation in Sudan. I mean, we could, by taking over the place and forcing it to stop. My guess is you'd call that oppression. +

It is still needed, will always be needed. At no point will vigilance about equality be obsolete.

We have the law. We need no feminist movement to enforce the law.

That said, we can make sure that we don't then structure things in ways which oppress men. That's important too.

Then I would suggest women be required to take combat roles. I'd suggest that men be given the same preference for parenthood as mothers. I'd suggest the full abolishing of all women's only institutions. I'd suggest that in a divorce, each party leaves with what they earned. I'd suggest that if women can abort a baby, men can at least abandon it....my money my choice.

 

[Paidiske]

Because we have equality....women can pursue the same opportunities as men, and they do.

If we begin to grant them opportunities, wealth, jobs that we aren't granting to men....then yes, it is a loss for men.

That's the zero-sum thinking I was challenging. Women will also create opportunities which men will be able to take up. It's not one person's gain at another's expense, but a net gain to the overall system.

Then you would be taking opportunities away from employers and denying them the right to choose who they see fit. What's the word for that? Oppression?

Denying them the right to choose in a way which unfairly disadvantages some? Yes, I would do that. It's not oppression to insist that someone not be oppressed. It's creating a just society.

Let's go back to my statement about not being able to do squat about things like genital mutilation in Sudan. I mean, we could, by taking over the place and forcing it to stop. My guess is you'd call that oppression.

There's a middle way between ignoring the problem, and taking over the place. That middle way looks an awful lot like a feminist movement.

We have the law. We need no feminist movement to enforce the law.

A) the law as it stands doesn't do enough, and b) yes, we certainly do need to make sure laws are actually enforced. Even the laws that exist now aren't adequately enforced.

Then I would suggest women be required to take combat roles.

I'd suggest nobody should be required to take a combat role. (That's my pacifism again).

I'd suggest that men be given the same preference for parenthood as mothers.

Do you mean, things like leave provisions from employers? I completely agree.

I'd suggest the full abolishing of all women's only institutions.

I'm open to considering that on a case-by-case basis. If the institution can't be shown to be contributing to the common good by doing what it does exclusively for women, I agree there's no reason for it to be able to exclude men.

I'd suggest that in a divorce, each party leaves with what they earned.

This system exists in some places (the French have a "séparation de biens" form of marriage which is like this) and it can have benefits and drawbacks. The French have a system where at the outset you choose the "regime" of marriage that you prefer to operate under, and that seems to me that that might allow options for people who want to do marriage differently.

I'd also want to see some financial protections for those who've been abused.

I'd suggest that if women can abort a baby, men can at least abandon it....my money my choice.

With some caveats, I'd be open to at least a window of time within which this could be the case. Although I note that abandoning babies doesn't seem to be all that difficult for men now.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's the zero-sum thinking I was challenging. Women will also create opportunities which men will be able to take up. It's not one person's gain at another's expense, but a net gain to the overall system.

No offense....but your idea of jobs for everyone is a little naive to me.

29% of families make 100k or more in the US, which I would call "comfortably middle class". They are really wealthy but they're far enough from poverty to not need worry about it.

Even if we assume a few million job openings in this range....that's not going to cover more than a third of US. Everyone else has to struggle a little (or a lot) harder.

Denying them the right to choose in a way which unfairly disadvantages some?

So you're pro-oppression when it serves your interests. So much for changing the world huh? Lol...seriously, what's an "unfair advantage"? Definition please.

There's a middle way between ignoring the problem, and taking over the place. That middle way looks an awful lot like a feminist movement.

Says the woman who would trample employer's rights if she had her way. Just because women are doing doesn't make it any less oppressive.

A) the law as it stands doesn't do enough, and b) yes, we certainly do need to make sure laws are actually enforced. Even the laws that exist now aren't adequately enforced.

Did you read the article I linked? It features a professor who believes that she's unfairly paid less than her male colleagues. She learned that wasn't the case, and they actually did more work.

That's why the law is important. The feminist movement led her to believe something untrue. The law doesn't just protect her, it protected her male colleagues and the university.

Do you mean, things like leave provisions from employers? I completely agree.

I mean when parents divorce or split men have as much right to their children as women.

This system exists in some places (the French have a "séparation de biens" form of marriage which is like this) and it can have benefits and drawbacks. The French have a system where at the outset you choose the "regime" of marriage that you prefer to operate under, and that seems to me that that might allow options for people who want to do marriage differently.

How progressive of you.

With some caveats, I'd be open to at least a window of time within which this could be the case. Although I note that abandoning babies doesn't seem to be all that difficult for men now.

Financially?

 

[Paidiske]

No offense....but your idea of jobs for everyone is a little naive to me.

29% of families make 100k or more in the US, which I would call "comfortably middle class". They are really wealthy but they're far enough from poverty to not need worry about it.

Even if we assume a few million job openings in this range....that's not going to cover more than a third of US. Everyone else has to struggle a little (or a lot) harder.

Jobs for everyone? Maybe not. My point, though, was that we aren't dealing with a situation where if a woman gets a job, it automatically means a man doesn't have a job. The system is a heck of a lot more complex, and adaptive, and able to expand, than that.

So you're pro-oppression when it serves your interests. So much for changing the world huh? Lol...seriously, what's an "unfair advantage"? Definition please.

Oh, come on. We require employers to pay a minimum wage. We require employers to ensure the safety of their workplaces. We require employers to allow their workers time off. We "oppress" employers in all sorts of ways to ensure they don't abuse their power over their employees. I see this as no different; it's the government protecting the weak from the strong.

I mean when parents divorce or split men have as much right to their children as women.

Here I think the metric should be the welfare of the children, not the "rights" of either parent. In general the welfare of the children is served by robust relationships with both parents, but that is not always the case.

Financially?

In every way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Jobs for everyone? Maybe not. My point, though, was that we aren't dealing with a situation where if a woman gets a job, it automatically means a man doesn't have a job. The system is a heck of a lot more complex, and adaptive, and able to expand, than that.

And my point is that the more wealth a job creates the less opportunities there are for it. These are limited at any given time.

Oh, come on. We require employers to pay a minimum wage. We require employers to ensure the safety of their workplaces. We require employers to allow their workers time off.

People fought bled and died for those things as well....but there was a general understanding that concentrating wealth in the hands of a few businesses was detrimental to all of us....those businesses included.

We "oppress" employers in all sorts of ways to ensure they don't abuse their power over their employees. I see this as no different; it's the government protecting the weak from the strong.

Lol I'm sure you do....people who want to oppress some other people usually think it's the "right thing to do". Regardless, can you tell me what an unfair advantage is? Or are you just making these things up as you go?

Here I think the metric should be the welfare of the children, not the "rights" of either parent. In general the welfare of the children is served by robust relationships with both parents, but that is not always the case.

I agree....but the idea of "what's best for the child" is skewed by matriarchy and this bizzare idea that "children need their mothers".

 

[Paidiske]

Lol I'm sure you do....people who want to oppress some other people usually think it's the "right thing to do". Regardless, can you tell me what an unfair advantage is? Or are you just making these things up as you go?

An unfair advantage would be things like the old boys' (or girls') network, where people hire people who went to the same college or previously worked in the same place that they did. It's endemic, but it shuts out others who might be just as good or better but don't have that shared history with the employer.

Or it might be the bias in the employer to hire people "like them," whether that's in terms of race or gender or whatever else. All that sort of stuff.

I'm not sure why it's such a terrible idea to require a transparent hiring process.

I agree....but the idea of "what's best for the child" is skewed by matriarchy and this bizzare idea that "children need their mothers".

We don't have a matriarchy. If there is any bias towards mothers having custody of their children, it's because our society still wants to relegate women to home making and child rearing as our "natural" role. And I think this is partly age-dependent; a babe still being breastfed, for example, is in a different place with regard to needing its mother than a teenager of fifteen.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree....but the idea of "what's best for the child" is skewed by matriarchy and this bizzare idea that "children need their mothers".

Children need BOTH parents, a loving mother and father alike, which should all just go without saying really in a rational and sane world. Unfortunately, we don't live in a solidly rational and sane world, do we?

Sociologically speaking, it boggles my mind that any of us might continue to wonder why, through all of the familial dysfunction that pervades society, why 'men' are angry. It also boggles my mind why men would be surprised that some number of women are angry, too. Could it be that it's really because our society keeps misplacing its focus on the North Star? I think it is, but so many seem to be in denial of this point of consideration.

 

[Ana the Ist]

An unfair advantage would be things like the old boys' (or girls') network, where people hire people who went to the same college or previously worked in the same place that they did. It's endemic, but it shuts out others who might be just as good or better but don't have that shared history with the employer.

Or it might be the bias in the employer to hire people "like them," whether that's in terms of race or gender or whatever else. All that sort of stuff.

What exactly would be the criteria for something like this? If you ever worked with someone you can't work with them again? If they were once your friend or casual acquaintance....you can't hire them? Only total strangers can work together?

We don't have a matriarchy. If there is any bias towards mothers having custody of their children, it's because our society still wants to relegate women to home making and child rearing as our "natural" role. And I think this is partly age-dependent; a babe still being breastfed, for example, is in a different place with regard to needing its mother than a teenager of fifteen.

Oh I see lol...it's men's fault women are favored by the courts.

To recap...when men have an advantage, it's men's fault. When women have an advantage....it's men's fault.

Is that about right?

 

[Paidiske]

What exactly would be the criteria for something like this? If you ever worked with someone you can't work with them again? If they were once your friend or casual acquaintance....you can't hire them? Only total strangers can work together?

No. What I suggested upthread was a transparent process where criteria were made clear (education, experience, etc) and each candidate was measured against those criteria. If your friend is the best at meeting the criteria, great. But if he's not, he shouldn't be able to get the job just for being your friend.

Oh I see lol...it's men's fault women are favored by the courts.

To recap...when men have an advantage, it's men's fault. When women have an advantage....it's men's fault.

Is that about right?

Being the default parent isn't always an advantage.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. What I suggested upthread was a transparent process where criteria were made clear (education, experience, etc) and each candidate was measured against those criteria. If your friend is the best at meeting the criteria, great. But if he's not, he shouldn't be able to get the job just for being your friend.

Unfortunately, that might put an employer in an awkward position legally. Let's say someone meets all the criteria...then loses the job to someone less qualified.

The employer went with someone else they "felt" had a better attitude...or some other intangible unquantifiable factors....is that wrong?

Being the default parent isn't always an advantage.

What's one advantage women have that you believe results in an inequality women are responsible for? Can you come up with any?

 

[Paidiske]

Unfortunately, that might put an employer in an awkward position legally. Let's say someone meets all the criteria...then loses the job to someone less qualified.

The employer went with someone else they "felt" had a better attitude...or some other intangible unquantifiable factors....is that wrong?

Attitude could be a criterion.

The aim here would be to eliminate bias, not to remove an employer's assessment of the candidates.

What's one advantage women have that you believe results in an inequality women are responsible for? Can you come up with any?

No.

There are some advantages women have - our discussion has touched on some of them, such as not generally being combatants in war - but I don't believe they result in inequalities for which women are responsible.

 

[mama2one]

What's one advantage women have that you believe results in an inequality women are responsible for?

where husband works
company now has a woman in top position & now they hire mostly woman
also, men are quitting in record numbers as they say woman are allowed to slide on things for which men get in trouble
a group of men even met with a lawyer to see if they could claim discrimination

 

[Ana the Ist]

Attitude could be a criterion.

How?

No.

There are some advantages women have - our discussion has touched on some of them, such as not generally being combatants in war - but I don't believe they result in inequalities for which women are responsible.

Right....well....I suppose it's easy to suggest other's need to change when one imagines themselves blameless.