Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Society favours women, not men


Recommended Posts

An interesting article in Quillette today on the prevalence of misogyny in society. What a review of studies shows is the reverse, that in almost all things, society favors women over men.

Many feminists and progressives argue that the West is plagued by pervasive misogyny. In fact, this claim is made with such frequency, and is so rarely challenged, that it has become part of the Left’s catechism of victimhood, repeated by rote without a second thought. The only real question is how powerful and pernicious the misogyny is. Real-world data, however, suggest a different narrative, complicated by the fact that men have worse outcomes in many domains. For example, they are much more likely to be incarcerated, to be shot by the police, to be a victim of violent crime, to be homeless, to commit suicide, and to die on the job or in combat than women. Furthermore, they have a shorter life expectancy and are less likely to be college educated than women. Although these (and similar) data can be reconciled with the pervasive misogyny theory, they should at least give pause to the open-minded. The best data from contemporary social science tell a rather different story and suggest that the very persistence of the pervasive misogyny narrative is itself a manifestation of the opposite: society is largely biased in favor of women.

https://quillette.com/2020/07/27/the-myth-of-pervasive-misogyny/

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Argus said:

Real-world data, however, suggest a different narrative, complicated by the fact that men have worse outcomes in many domains. For example, they are much more likely to be incarcerated, to be shot by the police, to be a victim of violent crime, to be homeless, to commit suicide, and to die on the job or in combat than women. Furthermore, they have a shorter life expectancy and are less likely to be college educated than women.

I read the Quillette article, and do not entirely disagree with what it's saying.  Our culture, as a whole, has had certain gender expectations and while female gender role-change has had support over the last few decades, the resultant changes in male gender roles hasn't had the same level of support, or even interest.  I believe this has left many men feeling lost and confused, even devalued.  Especially since many of the gender stereotypes from the past are still prevalent in our belief system.  Men are told, from a young age, that their job is to be provider and protector; to be tough and strong.  In my opinion, this harms both men and women - women because they are expected to be 'helpless' and men because they are expected to take on the more dangerous jobs in life, whether it's carpenter, garbage collector or soldier and, that while they can express anger and lust, emotions such as fear, sorrow, grief, pain are to be hidden - it makes them 'weak'.  It's not that men don't feel these things, but the expression of them is discouraged.   

I don't believe this issue an either/or male vs. female proposition.  The same forces that create differences in income between men and women, and a double standard for sexual behavior also result in men being more prone to suicide, violence, incarceration and earlier death.   In my opinion, there needs to be more latitude in gender roles for men, and more support for men in terms of their emotional health.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cringe everytime I hear even the most unintentional biased conventions in the way we speak about reported events that alert us to suffering of "women and children' as though women are naturally linked with adolescent innocence. This is done by most people regardless of politics. I agree to most of what you guys asserted above. What troubles me is how most cannot recognize that ALL OF US created the differences. 

By the way, on the 'children' part, I also think we place too much emphasis on assuming them more valuable as though being naive and relatively stupid is itself a virtue! Shouldn't we also not have more compassion for those who live longer who die or suffer than, say, the baby who dies that lacks the means to interpret their suffering? At least, we should interpret any sex or age as equally valid to life and worthy of needing NOT to suffer! 

Evolution divided species by sex due to necessity of certain distinctions that BOTH sexes benefit by. We are still too confused at our intellectual powers of reflection  that assumes we are evolved to BE intellectually equal while our chemistry and nature itself doesn't give a shit about our differences nor equality. We ALL own the social flaws that create any problems between the sexes. The irrationality of today's protesting leads only to trading which sex is more empowered rather than 'equal'. Thus, modern feminism tends to be Matriarchal rather than Patriarchal,...yet both extremes don't solve the problems. We need a middle ground that recognizes that evolution of the sexes cannot be ideally equal without making us all lack sexual distinction. Evolution of sexes cannot be undone without the same millions of years we had to have created them, though!

Edited by Scott Mayers
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Society naturally favors balance and with two dominant genders this emerges as equality, due to the zero-sum game of gender bias.

In an historical sense this has played out where one gender balances the shortcomings of the other in creating a partnership that, with equality, is capable of withstanding challenges of a far greater magnitude or frequency than the individuals could withstand alone.

Due to the dynamic nature of societies and how we have built them, the aspect of gender superiority can be seen at play both in the margins and out in the open but it is always temporal.

With the passage of time we know that complex civilizations wither to dust, whole religions can rupture into allegory and entire languages lose their meaning but men have always needed women and women have always needed men in order to harvest some sense of completion.

Arguing over which gender dominates the other is merely the precursor to discovering how finite the argument actually is.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 7:29 AM, Scott Mayers said:

By the way, on the 'children' part, I also think we place too much emphasis on assuming them more valuable as though being naive and relatively stupid is itself a virtue!

It is instinctive for humans to protect the vulnerable. The more vulnerable someone is, the more protected he/she often is and should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All people are vulnerable, it doesn't matter how old they are, you are just disagreeing over nuance at this point.

Vulnerability is simply another cadence of society that should resonate between the genders and provides further reasons to unite against those who would try to exploit that vulnerability for their own personal gain, it has never been age or gender-specific.

Edited by Heelaque
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2020 at 11:55 AM, Marocc said:

It is instinctive for humans to protect the vulnerable. The more vulnerable someone is, the more protected he/she often is and should be.

It is instinctive for any animal to protect THEIR OWN if vulnerable, not merely any vulnerable person. The rhetoric though falsely grants predator-victimhood to whole genetic classes in either racist, sexist, or age-biased terms without recognizing them as such nor the actual causes with respect to the logical independent factors of the individuals involved. My points are about the stupidity and hypocrisy of HOW the protectionist rhetoric appeals to emotional triggers that themselves hint at where the real problems lie: irrational judgements based upon stereotypes, whether positive or not.

Example false positive stereotypes:

...that all or most children are 'innocent' and 'cannot 'lie'. [Magically, when we turn of some age, we instantaneously learn how to lie, cheat, steal, and abuse without degrees or differences upon maturity.]

...that all or most women are 'innocent' and likely are 'not lying' when or where they cry "abuse" by some male. [That because most women choose men who have such abusive qualities based upon physical distinctions, begs whether their choices in having male offspring at all was due universally to rape given women cannot be at fault for giving birth to the same genetic males who grow up to become their abusers!?]

...that unknown strangers from another country atttempting immigration are 'innocent' victims of their country of origins and thus need more compassion than those born here as though ALL people here have it better off than ALL people anywhere else. [That bum on our own streets or the Native who just came in from an (animal) Reserve is just a privileged spoiled brat who chose to be desolate for being too lazy to look for work?]

...that women get paid less than men [...but that what is 'paid' in fiscal benefits where men are expected to 'take care of them' universally by cultural standards far exceeds the literal cheques by employers.] [Also ignores that entry-level labor favors women (and teens) at the expense of adult males beginning with the same economic origins by the same standards.]

....etc.

[Edit]

...that more men are in prison in contrast to women because men are more violent and abusive. [Is it possible that women being taught to strategically use indirect means of abuse are just of a form that are impossible to prove accountable?]

 

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/2/2020 at 4:16 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I think society favours men and women in different situations.  It doesn't have to be a competition of victimhood.

It shouldn't be a competition of victimhood but in today's culture  it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mowich said:

It shouldn't be a competition of victimhood but in today's culture  it is.

Ironic too that the most diligent of our virtue signalling water walkers don't see it as a result of their own doing.

They just virtue signal some more...  ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...