Once again, feminists prove that they don't give a damn about equality, and will support any policy that favours women, even if it means discriminating against men. Remember, meritocracy is a tool of the patriarchy.
It's definitely an awkward situation. The problem is, people tend to work on the assumption that biology has nothing to do with a person's interests, and therefore future career. I remember seeing a documentary which brought up the issue of a certain paradox in Norway, a country that has strived for gender equality for some time now. However, there are now even less female engineers and male nurses than in previous years, with those numbers falling. However, in third world countries where gender equality is definitely a huge issue, there is comparatively a higher percentage of women in technology related fields. The conclusion was that in third world countries, the desire to make money and pull themselves up the socio-economic ladder was a huge motivation, where in western society men and women are "more free" to choose any career path that interests them. Unfortunately, those interests are heavily influenced by biology. I'm currently on mobile, so I can't post too many links. Here's a link to a little write-up about the documentary. Hopefully you can navigate your way to the full thing.
Oh yeah, I remember watching that documentary, for many people it's been an eye-opener. One of the faults of feminism has been to explain men and women's behaviour solely through the lens of social theories, while ignoring that biology plays a big part in our life choices, and therefore our career choices as well.
I wouldn't assume that people ascend in an organization entirely because of merit. Have you seen this research, for example. It would be nice to think that merit is the only factor, but even to prove one's merit there are many steps along the way that might leave very capable people in the dust. Legislation to change things at the top -- company boards -- might eventually profoundly change things at the bottom (education), or it might not. Perhaps there will be insufficient women capable of holding 30% of board seats. Maybe they prefer to occupy 80% of the lowest level jobs in these companies. Germany is actually a little behind in Europe: Other countries, including France, Spain and the Netherlands, have followed with similar requirements.
In Sweden, the new government wants to introduce quotas to bring more women onto company boards if businesses don't act themselves during the next two years. Can they all be wrong? What's interesting is that this legislation was backed by a three-party coalition. 60% of the members of parliament are men. Can they all be wrong? Can they all be feminists? Defining the problem and the solution is not simple. Here's an interesting article from the NYT a year ago looking at the successes and failures of it legislating women onto company boards.Once again, feminists prove that they don't give a damn about equality
In 2003, Norway became the first country in the world to impose a gender quota requiring at least 40 percent of public limited company board members to be women.
So you're saying "not everyone who gets a promotion deserved it". Well, I don't think anybody would disagree with that, but how do you go from "we need more meritocracy" to "let's pass a law that rewards people because of their sex and not their merit"? We want equality, so let's discriminate against men. When I say equality, I mean equal opportunity, while feminists usually mean equal outcome (to be accomplished through discrimination), or more generally anything that improves the condition of women. Of course they can all be wrong, a lie repeated by a hundred people is still a lie. Maybe they're not all feminists in the sense that they identify as feminists, but feminism is one of the dominant cultural paradigms in modern Western society and most people operate within that paradigm, simply because it's what they grew up with and they never seriously questioned it. They're taught from a young age that feminism is about equality, and if you're not a feminist you're a misogynist. For politicians it's also a matter of appealing to the female voters, obviously. Some of the men who voted for this law might very well be aware of the injustice they're contributing to create, but lack the courage to speak against it, as they know they would be offering the side to accusations of sexism. I read that article you linked, which is interesting but written from a feminist viewpoint. It asks whether quotas have helped women, why they haven't been as helpful as they were supposed to, what can be done to further give women more power- the unstated premise is that if it's good for women, it can't be wrong. Men don't matter, and neither do principles. Feminism is about power, equality is just a smokescreen.Can they all be wrong? What's interesting is that this legislation was backed by a three-party coalition. 60% of the members of parliament are men. Can they all be wrong? Can they all be feminists?
At the point where 80% of the board room is men, you have to assume qualified women are being passed up at some point and it's not a meritocracy. Additionally, less-qualified men are being promoted over more-qualified women. This is bad for businesses and corporations. If the status-quo was a perfect meritocracy, then we would expect to see (on average) a 50/50 male/female make up of every board room (I am obviously starting with the premise that your sex doesn't affect your ability to lead a company). But we don't see that, so we have to assume that something is going on somewhere in the system that ultimately produces the over-representation of men in the board room. By forcing companies to promote more women, we are forcing companies to figure out what is preventing them from promoting qualified women. It wouldn't be forcing them to choose worse candidates, and it would be stupid of them to do so (note that in the status quo, they are already passing up better female candidates for worse male candidates). It would be forcing them to make the effort to find those qualified women, and if they have to change the culture of the company to make it easier to find those women, then that is a good thing. Another thing to consider is that our society puts different pressures on men and women, steering them towards different career choices. There is a lot of pressure for women to choose "safe" career paths (how many women drop out of college to run a start-up company?), to go into careers that are already dominated by women, and occasionally to choose between having a family and having the career they want. By requiring quotas in the board room, women can feel that their sex will less likely be a handicap as they pursue their career goals. Thus, those pressures society places on women will be lessened. It is true that because of these pressures, the pool of women to choose from is smaller. That is why Germany only imposed a 30% requirement. Hardly onerous. So to sum it up, in my view we don't live in a meritocracy right now, because a meritocracy would produce closer to a 50/50 representation of men and women in the board room. You and I both agree that we want a meritocracy, and I think Germany's 30% requirement brings us closer to that goal. Lastly, I think you and I have a different definition of what feminism is. To me, feminism isn't represented by extremists, aka "man-haters." For me, feminism means "men and women are equal" and that's it. So I'm a feminist.
Uh, no you don't. It might simply be that men are better at that kind of job, maybe because they're more competitive or more willing to sacrifice their family life for the sake of the company. You shouldn't automatically assume sexism in any situation where there's a disparity between the sexes. Remember that men and women are different. If 9 out of 10 nurses are women, it's not because of anti-male biases. Sorry but this is just silly. Aside from the fact that women seem to actually be favoured in the selection process, companies are profit-oriented. How can anyone seriously believe that a company wouldn't want to promote the most qualified employees? Even if we accept that premise, it doesn't justify the implementation of sexist policies that favour women over men. That belief rests on the assumption that men and women are exactly the same, think and feel the same way, want the same things, etc; which is not true. That's nonsense. Affirmative action is the opposite of a meritocratic system. You're one of those feminists I wrote about in my post. You say you want equality but you only really care about women.At the point where 80% of the board room is men, you have to assume qualified women are being passed up at some point and it's not a meritocracy.
Additionally, less-qualified men are being promoted over more-qualified women.
Another thing to consider is that our society puts different pressures on men and women, steering them towards different career choices.
So to sum it up, in my view we don't live in a meritocracy right now, because a meritocracy would produce closer to a 50/50 representation of men and women in the board room.
You and I both agree that we want a meritocracy, and I think Germany's 30% requirement brings us closer to that goal.
Lastly, I think you and I have a different definition of what feminism is. To me, feminism isn't represented by extremists, aka "man-haters." For me, feminism means "men and women are equal" and that's it. So I'm a feminist.
I'd just like to point out that you don't know who I am, what I believe, and your last claim that I only care about women is insulting and stupid, especially considering that I am a man. You need to get off the internet, and realize that in the real world people are not defined by extremist positions.
That's the problem, that I'm not talking about radical feminism (the one that actually plans to reduce the number of men 10% of the total population); just regular, mainstream feminism. If you're a man and a feminist, you're basically supporting your own enslavement. Remember that the choice is not between feminism and misogyny; that's just a false dichotomy that feminists use to keep reasonable men and women from joining the anti-feminist side.
> So to sum it up, in my view we don't live in a meritocracy right now, because a meritocracy would produce closer to a 50/50 representation of men and women in the board room. Grendel has a point here. There's no way a perfect equal-opportunity society would lead to a 50-50 split. It's unreasonable enough to say this to qualify you as "that kind of feminist". If you want we can talk about this, but it would be more productive it you would look for the facts yourself. There is research that shows that in this kind of discussions the more arguments the other party offers, the more convinced people become they are right. But just in case it helps: - men and women have different _preferences_. Not capabilities, research actually goes towards almost identical capabilities, but they want wildly different things from life. Of course, you can go and say it's society's blame that people are different, which is another can of worms I'm not really keen to open, but fact is - they do want different things. So they make different choices. And men's choices tend to lead to the boardroom more often than women's. Now you could go and say that's nor right and "educate" both men and women and teach them what to want - personally I don't find this idea particularly attractive - but we're talking current facts here. - and speaking of preferences, women have children. There is absolutely no way you can say equal opportunity would lead to 50-50 split, when women have the children. Again, I'm not saying about how society might "fix" this "problem" - again I see it as a preference issue and as a matter of principle I don't think that it's a good idea to have the society teach people what to want. But fact is, women get pregnant and tend to want to bond and raise their children at least for a while, which on average HAS to have some impact on final performance. So you see, you are "that kind of feminist", looking beyond reason toward an ideal and trying to twist the facts to fit that ideal. I really wouldn't want to be in your shoes right now, having to chose between accepting this truth and finding some shred of maybe falsehood in the other guy's comment and convincing myself that it makes the whole argument invalid.
I would argue that this is the "social pressures" I mentioned. When all your life you see women do a certain set of things and men do a different set of things, it is hard to go against the norm. Yes, and in America today they don't get maternity leave. If women (and men) were guaranteed adequate parental leave, then this wouldn't be a problem. After the first few months of the child's life, if there was affordable child care for every child, then parents wouldn't have to worry about having one parent stay home, and both women and men could return to their careers with minimal disruption. I make no apologies for my belief that women and men are equal. That's what I believe, that's what the women I've talked to believe, and so I form my opinions from that starting point. If you guys think men are inherently better at having a career, that it isn't just normalized discrimination and an unwillingness to accommodate women's healthcare that has existed in our culture for centuries, then we aren't going to come to an agreement.men and women have different preferences
women have children
See? This is what I was talking about. I _can't_ change your mind. Not that I don't have the arguments (I do, plenty), but each argument I use gets turn jiu jitsu style and supports your world view. I can (and will) continue to argue for fun, but as far as actually reaching you, I might as well fight a shadow. (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Confirmation_bias). Now, as far as arguing for fun goes: > I make no apologies for my belief that women and men are equal. They are equal. I know of no-to-little research that says they have significantly different _capabilities_. What I strongly disapprove is feminism (or however you call it, "society") trying to tell women what to want. That's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The first, when confronted with an obvious imbalance (women in STEM, army, board room) will do its best to lower barriers, including btw with child care which most of Europe has. And surprise surprise, the more health care and government support you have, the more women still stay away from STEM/army/boardroom. It's as if more freedom actually allows them to express their real preferences. Equality of outcome is something I find repugnant, both because I was born in a totalitarian regime and because it insults my sense of justice. And I also find illogical to the point of being insane - I read when I was a child about an archaeologist found chipping away at the corners of a burial chamber, because it did not conform with its calculations. This is the kind of behavior I'm seeing, not honestly trying to find out what the reality is, but shaping reality to conform with a pre-decided idea of equality and to hell with the truth. If as a side-effect it makes lots of people unhappy, too bad, the Equality won!
So then explain to me how two equal things would have different outcomes? If I have two cars, they both are equally good at driving, but one wins 80% of races, then I can assume something is slowing down the other one. A perfectly level race track would mean each car would win 50% of the time (well, actually I guess they would tie, but that's not the point). If I offer a bunch of people a choice between two $5 bills, and people tend to pick the one in my right hand over the one in my left 80% of the time, then I can assume something is influencing them to pick the bill in my right hand. That's where I'm coming from. I don't understand how you can think men and women are equal and then be OK with men "winning" 80% of positions in a board room. The only way a meritocracy could put more men than women in a board room would be if men were better than women at the job. But neither of us agree with that. You also seem to think that requiring a certain portion of women in executive positions means that men would be unfairly discriminated against. I see it the other way around, that men who would have been unfairly promoted would be replaced by women who should have been promoted in the first place. >I_can't_change_your mind Do you see how that can go two ways?
> At the point where 80% of the board room is men, you have to assume qualified women are being passed up at some point and it's not a meritocracy. Good point. But then shouldn't the law require company boards to have at least 30% women and at least 30% men? Because a board with 80% women cannot be a meritocracy.
I wouldn't be opposed to that at all! Although since the under-representation of men isn't a widespread problem, I doubt it would be anything other than symbolic. But you're right, if women are being over-represented, that would also point to a problem.
Thank you for your answer. I imagine we will just disagree with this one. We live in challenging times. I hope that truly equal, merit-based opportunity will eventually be the outcome. I wish, too, that it could happen of its own accord, just by people paying more attention to all applicants and all employees. Do you think that employers and boards actually look at all applicants equally and don't immediately default to the male applicant? I've personally talked to too many women who couldn't make the step to "partner" in the case of law and accounting firms or couldn't get on the board despite numerous awards and merit-based recognition. It might all be wrong. Maybe they'll change it in one year. I tend to agree with MLKing: It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. In my experience, feminism is about power -- with a goal to sharing power, not replacing one power with another. Again, thanks for considering my points.pass a law that rewards people because of their sex and not their merit"?
I imagine merit is also a factor.But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated.
Why would they default to the male applicants? Women are more likable than men, a phenomenon known in psychology as the "women are wonderful" effect. Both men and women prefer women, and women especially prefer other women. So if anything, we should expect the male employees to have a harder time because of their sex, not the opposite. Can you make some examples of how feminists have tried to improve the lives of men? I can think of a thousand examples where they've tried to destroy them.Do you think that employers and boards actually look at all applicants equally and don't immediately default to the male applicant?
The “women are wonderful” effect is the phenomenon found in psychological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with the general social category of women compared to men. This effect reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Eagly & Mladinic (1994) after finding that both men and women participants tend to assign exceptionally positive traits to women (men are also viewed positively, though not quite as positively), with woman participants showing a far more pronounced bias. The authors supposed that the positive general evaluation of women might derive from the association between women and nurturing characteristics.
In my experience, feminism is about power -- with a goal to sharing power, not replacing one power with another.
Because of feminism, women have been able to get more jobs. Occasionally these jobs are well-paying. Even at 77% of what men make (Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/career), these jobs allow women to contribute to feeding their families. Men don't have to feel totally responsible for supporting their families. Women can help. Without feminism, women would be stuck in the 19th century. Are you familiar with The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments produced for the Woman's Rights Convention, Held at Seneca Falls, N.Y., July 19th and 20th, 1848. Here's a bit of it. I think you'll find it interesting. He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise. He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice. He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men—both natives and foreigners. Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides. He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns. He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement. He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women—the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands. After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it. He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known. He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education—all colleges being closed against her. He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church. He has created a false public sentiment, by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man. He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God. He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life. Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States. Meanwhile, it's obvious that you feel aggrieved and you probably have good reason.Can you make some examples of how feminists have tried to improve the lives of men?
Because of feminism, more women have been able to get educated. Because of education, they have been able to contribute to running all societal institutions: political, judicial, educational, spiritual, financial and so on. Thus, they have improved the lives of men, by taking some of the pressure off them. They don't have to feel responsible for everything all the time. Women can help.The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Actually, women entering the workforce hasn't helped men in any way. It hasn't taken pressure off men, since they're still expected to provide for themselves and their families, and most women are not comfortable with the idea of having a partner who earns less than themselves. The fact that women can now contribute financially to the household income is cancelled by the fact that before women entered the workforce, there wasn't a need for two incomes for every family; the influx of millions of new workers into the marketplace has lowered wages and made it more difficult for men to find entry-level jobs. The "77 cents for every dollar" is a feminist myth that has been debunked so many times, one wonders why people still repeat it. No, I hadn't read that declaration before, but it's typical feminist whining. For a long time women couldn't vote and had to obey laws that they had no say in? Well, neither did men, but this fact seems to have escaped them. Women didn't have to work, unlike men; a woman could go through her whole life without ever having to work, her husband being legally required to support her even after the union had been broken (I'm still waiting for feminists to try and abolish alimony). They weren't forced (and still aren't!) to fight and die in pointless wars from which they had nothing to gain (curiously enough, feminists are not asking for 50% of soldiers to be female). Women were so oppressed that they could often get away with killing their husbands, and even today they receive lighter sentences for the same crimes. This is a quote by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the mothers of feminism. Does it sound like she just wanted equality to you? While we're on the topic of first-wave feminism, did you know that in 1912 a man could be jailed if his wife refused to pay her taxes? And some suffragettes -those paragons of virtue- apparently decided to take advantage of this. Link You're right! I'm a self-respecting man, and I'm sick and tired of being lied to by feminists. Feminists have destroyed the traditional family, they've deprived men of the right to see their children, they've made marriage a suicidal choice for men, they've sent innocent men to jail for crimes they never committed, they've tried their best to make it impossible for a man to defend himself from an accusation of rape, they've justified female violence and ignored male victims of violence. Hate hate hate. Everywhere they go they demand that rules be changed to favour women, that more money be spent on programs that help women, more rights, more attention, more sympathy. More more more. They don't give a fuck about men and boys, and never have. Whenever they talk about men, it's either to say "men are the problem" (we need more feminism) or "men are starting to do worse than women" (good, but not good enough! we need more feminism). Try asking a feminist what she thinks about the problems that men face and what can be done about them. I've tried, and the responses ranged from "men's problems are not important", "men have problems too but women have it worse", "men's problems will magically disappear if we just help women more", "you're sexist for suggesting that men deserve help". I've never met a feminist who was even a little empathetic. But they'll tell you that they want equality, and that you're a misogynist if you disagree with them.One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.
We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free and developed, healthy in body and mind, as we should be under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That function gives women such wisdom and power as no male can possess.
Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income tax - $185 - and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless his wife pays or the law is changed. When at liberty he is a teacher in Clapton.
Meanwhile, it's obvious that you feel aggrieved and you probably have good reason.
I'm guess that you haven't had many real relationships with women. I'm not just talking about fucking but friendships, positive work relations, mentors, and lovers. The amount of fear you seem to feel towards women is frightening to me. I'm frightened for you. Be gay, stick with guys. With your creepy attitude it'd be best. The chances of you having an equitable and stimulating relationship with women you respect looks to be real low. I'm an older White male. I have seen time and again how much that gets me. Not all the time, just most the time. I'm guessing you are a White male. There are a few real issues with how White men are treated in society but every one else has got it worse. There are a few issues with how men are treated in society, but women have it worse. For every man falsely accused of rape there are at least ten women (and I'm guess that this is a severe underestimate of the numbers) who's rape is ignored by the powers that be when they file a complaint. I'm guessing you are young and don't have a lot of perspective. Alimony isn't as common as it used to be when men were the only ones that worked. You may hate that it still exists but it's faded compared to yester year. The same goes for getting custody of kids. I know men who won custody of their kids, not because their ex's were drug addled maniacs but just because the man could provide a more stable and positive environment. That didn't happen when I was a kid. It's changing, change takes time. A very small number of feminist have the attitudes that ascribe to the group. Guess what, a very small number of people in any group have fucked up views. You are part of a group that has very fucked up views. Guess what, MRA guys are gutless fucks that have no idea how to relate to women as equals, see no value in them as anything other than a cooker of dinner and something to fuck. MRA guys are sad little men who instead of living a good life surrounded by people they value and love of all sex's cut themselves off from half the race unless that other half has no self respect for themselves at all. You are filled with hate. I'm not surprised that you haven't had many positive interactions with feminist, it's be a lot like me having a positive interaction with a KKK member. My wife is a self ascribed "feminist." She thinks alimony has got to be on it's way out. She has compassion for men that are getting fucked over by their ex-wives. She believes that rape accusations need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. She doesn't think that when a guy and girl have some drinks and the girl regrets it later that a rape has happened. Stop listening to the MRA guys. Go out, live life and take each person as an individual without sweating what does or doesn't dangle between their legs. The MRA guys will turn you into a sad fearful little man. Keep listening to them and the chances you ever have a real relationship with a women you respect are dim. You aren't a "self-respecting man" you are a coward that huddles in the corner fearful of the boogeywoman feminist, unable to have honest relations with half the human race because there is a tinsey tiny chance that something unfair might happen to you. Guess what, life can be unfair, it's a chance you need to take. Wait till you see a few friends and loved ones cut down in the prime of life, wait till you lose the baby after you've painted the nursery, watch a friend get his ass sued off because someone tripped on his sidewalk and maybe then you'll realize that occasionally someone has to pay alimony or gets charged with a crime he didn't commit and that life is just fucking unfair sometimes.Feminists have destroyed the traditional family, they've deprived men of the right to see their children, they've made marriage a suicidal choice for men, they've sent innocent men to jail for crimes they never committed, they've tried their best to make it impossible for a man to defend himself from an accusation of rape, they've justified female violence and ignored male victims of violence. Hate hate hate.
I'm not afraid, I'm not creepy, and I'm not filled with hate. I'm surprised that you didn't call me a virgin, since your post reads like something straight out of a shaming language manual. Unfortunately for you, I'm immune to it. Whether you like it or not, men are discriminated against in our society. This is not my opinion, it's a fact; you can downplay it all you want, but it won't go away; and it's also a fact that feminism is largely to blame for this situation. Your wonderful feminist wife could very easily ruin your life if she wanted, take everything you have, send you to jail without the need to provide any evidence of wrongdoing on your part. It happens to a lot of men, which apparently your wife doesn't care about, since she doesn't see a problem with describing herself as a feminist. It's not about being afraid, or hateful; it's about not being blind to the reality of the pathetic status of men in Western society, and recognising sexism when you see it, and not hating yourself for being a man, and not being afraid of speaking the truth. Feminist fucking HATE you, man; they see you as a PROBLEM that needs to be solved; and they've made that exceedingly clear. They don't see you as an individual and they don't think you deserve their sympathy. Being a male feminist makes as much sense as being a black KKK member.
I know. I'm glad someone has the courage to speak the truth, to point out that we now only have 80% of each house of Congress, 86% of G7 heads of government, 95% of chief executive positions at S&P 500 companies, 66% of the Supreme Court, 73% of cabinet secretaries, and all of the presidents in history. Pathetic. At his rate we'll only have half the power positions in the world by the end of two centuries from now.It's not about being afraid, or hateful; it's about not being blind to the reality of the pathetic status of men in Western society...
I had to look that one up. My many years of casually reading philosophy hadn't introduced me to the term "apex fallacy." When the top Google result is Urban Dictionary, one might be forgiven for being skeptical that the term in question is a real thing. But you did provide me with a good laugh, so....thanks? A psuedoscientific term created by the misogynists who call themselves "Men's Rights Activists" to justify their claim that just because men control almost all the positions of power (the "apexes") doesn't mean that any discrimination against women happened. Normal human: "You ever notice all 43 American presidents have been men?" Misogynist: "That's the apex fallacy, I can find 43 poor guys, too! Therefore, women have just as much power as men -- no, even more power than men! Child support is theft! All rape reports are false!" foams at the mouthApex Fallacy
Your many years of reading philosophy have been wasted, apparently. Disregarding an argument just because it doesn't have a wikipedia article is not logical. The page you quoted contains a strawman fallacy (maybe you've heard about that?). Saying that men as a group can't be the victims of discrimination because every American president has been a man is fallacious thinking. The apex fallacy doesn't imply that women have just as much power -or more- as men; therefore that urban dictionary article is attacking a strawman.The apex fallacy refers to judging groups primarily by the success or failure at those at the top rungs (the apex, such as the 1%) of society, rather than collective success of a group. It is when people marginalize data from the poor or middle class and focus on data from the upper class.
I don't happen to agree with Grendel's disdain for feminists. However, I would like to mention that as a fly on the wall of this conversation thread, the only person that hasn't thrown out personal attacks or laughed out of hand at the other is Grendal. I also have never heard of the apex fallacy, and though the sources for it online may be questionable at best, and clearly the definition you found makes it sound ridiculous, is there not a potential for it to be valid? It is not unreasonable to me that the experience of those at the top of a social class is much different than those at the bottom. Meaning, the elite and wealthy men and women of the world may have a very different experience than the average Joe's/Jane's
I say yes, lots of unconventional explanations are potentially valid; they don't self-contradict. To decide if it is true, we can follow b_b's suggestion and look for evidence. Looking for evidence isn't any harder than looking for quotes and theories and analysis that support our idea, and we might even find evidence that improves our understanding of the real world! Suppose we find a pattern like this: Men hold the highest positions of power in politics and commerce, but just below the top level women hold all the "middle management" positions. You hardly see men again until you get down to menial positions. Since leaders depend on underlings for guidance, and there are far more middle managers than leaders, women hold most of the power in this scenario. I suggest you try it, really! We learn a lot more by reading about the world than arguing. I'll try it for where I live (I am searching as I type this, and intend to share what I find whether it confirms my current belief or not). In the United States, the highest political office is the President. It's a man. Next, symbolically, anyway, is the VP. He's named Joe. A photo of the president's "senior advisors" caught attention for having 90% white men. The cabinet appears to be majority male. On to Congress. A PDF says 104 of 535 seats are held by women. On the business side, women represent 4.6% of CEO positions among Fortune 500 companies. Looks like the national apex is pretty clearly male dominated. In my state, the top government positions are held by three men. The House of Delegates has 16 women and a much larger number of men. The governor is male. The company I work for has a male CEO, a male president, and a management team of seven, all men. The city I live in has a council of two women and five men (not counting the clerk). I find that I did learn something by looking at evidence: the pattern of leadership is more skewed than I thought. Of course it's possible that my location is unusual. To make the apex theory work, I would reword it like this: If you throw a dart and look at the organization it strikes, you will probably find more men than women holding leadership positions in that organization, regardless of the scale of the organization. Yet women really have all the power, because "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck!" It's not quite as convincing that way.I also have never heard of the apex fallacy, ... is there not a potential for it to be valid?
The broader point is this: The much easier thing to do when all the evidence suggests the opposite of what your ideological position leads you to believe is to invent an alternate reality. Have you heard of anogsognosia? It's a term applied to the phenomenon where by individuals will deny the existence of a disability, because they are unable to process that they have a disability due (likely) to some concomitant brain damage. In the term "apex fallacy" we find a good social analogy to that biological example. Some people have the idea that women have been responsible for some shortcoming in their life (which perhaps in some cases a woman was responsible, and the person decides all women are equally to blame). So they look for evidence around them, and what do they find? None, because none exists. Rational people look around and say, well I guess it was just my circumstance and not a general phenomenon. Irrational people (and what can make a person more irrational than ideology?) look around and say, "My arm isn't disabled! I choose not to move it!" 'Apex fallacy' is the pinnacle of denial for the ideology, a rhetorical trick that was made to sound intellectual because it has a philosophy word in it. I used ridicule in a previous response, and thenewgreen called me out for it, rightly I might add. That's not the right response. I actually feel bad for people who have fallen prey to their own inner demons. It's much easier to look outward than inward. But that doesn't really excuse the behavior, either. I don't think anyone who has a close personal relationship with a woman who makes her living in the corporate world could ever be convinced that women and men are treated equal. Even if the silly MRA crew is an insular internet-based community, attitudes like this thinly veiled woman hating have real consequences in the world for real people. Laughing at them isn't the most productive response, but sometimes laughter is all we have. It'd just be sad otherwise.
Eh, I have ridiculed your ideas before, so I'm not going to give you a hard time about it. You cited some figures instead of slinging mud, which elevates your contribution above much of this dialog. The fact that the best citation for the theory is on Urban Dictionary doesn't mean that it's wrong, but it does make me think that it is either nonsense or there is a very unusual set of circumstances in which an important truth is hidden behind widespread delusion. There are controversial theories on Wikipedia; the bar for inclusion is pretty low. There is a deleted article with some arguments about suitability for inclusion on the Talk page. The fallacy is described as "judging groups primarily by the success or failure at those at the top rungs." Now that I read it, that doesn't seem like nonsense. Someone might argue that some petroleum-rich country is doing well because the GDP per capita is high, ignoring that most people are poor and the wealth is concentrated in the royal family. Applying this to men in the United States, we could rightly argue that it's a mistake to conclude that all men are doing well simply because men in leadership positions are doing well. The fallacy is to suppose that this tells us anything about how women are doing compared to men. Grendel makes some other interesting points about biological differences, and has elsewhere given me interesting material to think about. But the handpicked quotes from pre-1902, vague allusions to antique laws, and unsubstantiated assertions like "If 9 out of 10 nurses are women, it's not because of anti-male biases" do not deserve better than ridicule. No, nor to the related Caloric reflex test: "squirting ice cold water into the left ear," which can "provide temporary pain relief from phantom limb pains in amputees." Facts are so much more interesting than arguments!I used ridicule ... That's not the right response
Have you heard of anogsognosia?
You should further investigate the source material. The quote in question is from a piece written by Alison Beard of the Harvard Business review (even though there are two citations, the other just points to the original), where she is describing how a person from the MRA group described the "apex fallacy" to her. It's a circular way to try to legitimize that which isn't legitimate. It is true that women have done remarkably well in progressing toward parity in mid-level management positions in recent years. So there's a legit and interesting question about why they don't have many positions of real power. I'm sure there are a variety of factors that contribute, but bias is definitely one of them. Using rhetorical obfuscations to inhibit what should be a very important debate about why corporate America and government are structured the way they are does us all a giant disservice. It's very difficult to fix problems we don't understand.There is a deleted article with some arguments about suitability for inclusion on the Talk page. The fallacy is described as "judging groups primarily by the success or failure at those at the top rungs." Now that I read it, that doesn't seem like nonsense.
The background is interesting, but to me it is irrelevant to answering the question "Is the Apex Fallacy a meaningful concept that could be useful in some cases?" I think it is a fair answer to someone who says "Men are doing great, because men hold most positions of power." I don't see how it says anything about men compared to women. If you learned that the article was in error, and the concept was actually introduced by some respectable source, would that change your opinion of it? I do believe that we can make some heuristic judgments about how worthwhile it will probably be to look into what appears to be a crackpot theory by seeing where it came from and who is interested in propagating it. We just have to be careful, because heuristic judgements can be unreliable. It is an interesting subject. Why do we have women's sports? Why is there a Women's World Chess Championship? Wouldn't it be strange to have race-segregated sports, on the basis of cultural bias and discrimination preventing different races from competing on equal footing?You should further investigate the source material.
That's a completely irrelevant hypothetical, because the "apex fallacy" (which I shall continue to put in quotes due to the fact that it's not an actual fallacy) is a rhetorical argument set against data driven conclusions. It is literal nonsense. I'm racking my brain, and the only good analogy I can come up with is if I said, "Man Texas is hot." And you replied, "NO, that's the 'apex fallacy'. Only its really hot days are hot, and sometimes it's hotter in Minnesota." If you can find a better one, I'd like to hear it. Or, if there were some actual scholarship on the matter, then yes, I would take it a lot more seriously, even if I disagreed I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that here. I'm not sure I get the sports analogy, unless we're relating one's business and administrative acumen to their physicality. On the subject of chess, it might just be a numbers game. That's what Yasser Seirawan suggests in this book, although it is speculation. He estimates the numbers of males and females who play chess and based on the huge number of men compared to women who play, estimates that the odds are against women for having a world class player (if we assume random chance). I'm not going to defend or rebuke that claim, because I have no idea; just putting it out there, because it's the only thing I've ever read about it. The same can't be said of women in the business world, because they occupy a proportionate number of low and middle jobs, but lack representation at the top.If you learned that the article was in error, and the concept was actually introduced by some respectable source, would that change your opinion of it?
I gave an example similar to this: "Man, it must be nice to live in Dubai! People are so rich they abandon luxury cars all over the place!" "You dunce, that's the apex fallacy. Lots of people in Dubai are poor immigrant laborers working in awful conditions." It's a kind of fallacy of composition, and it's debatable if it happens often enough that we need a special name for it. With the sports question, I am wondering about male/female differences generally. It seems obvious that men have natural advantages in power lifting, but it is much harder to tell if they have natural advantages at power lunches. Clearly women face social obstacles unrelated to their natural ability in the workplace. It's very hard to tease these factors apart. It's possible that fewer women are recognized for chess skill, and are less encouraged to perform, and discouraged by tradition. I don't know if that is enough to explain male dominance in chess. It is cool that the strongest female player never competed for the Women's World Championship: "I always say that women should have the self-confidence that they are as good as male players, but only if they are willing to work and take it seriously as much as male players." Perhaps we will see greater participation by women. I like the awkward dialog in Cryptonomicon, starting where the word "geek" appears. The highlight: "Whereas women can’t?" "I suppose women can. They rarely seem to want to. What I’m characterizing here, as the female approach, is essentially saner and healthier." And here is an abandoned Ferrari Enzo."If there is any generalization at all that you can draw about how men think versus how women think, I believe it is that men can narrow themselves down to this incredibly narrow laser-beam focus on one tiny little subject and think about nothing else."
I'll just leave this here. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differentlyScientists have drawn on nearly 1,000 brain scans to confirm what many had surely concluded long ago: that stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains.
No. The "apex fallacy" is better termed "evidence". Using data to construct an argument is exactly the opposite as using a dubious fallacy. And I did actually laugh when I saw that result. It was and continues to be hilarious....is there not a potential for it to be valid?
You're a sad fearful man who is doomed to live a hollow life, cutting yourself off from half the population. Bad things can happen in many different ways from many different threats, your fear of women is way out of proportion to the risk. Stop listening to the MRA losers if you want to not live in fear of half the human race. There's nothing wrong with being a virgin but there is something wrong with living your life in paranoid fear fueled by snake oil salesmen. Yes you are creepy. Seeing as you brought it up, might be the real reason you fear women so much. Are you scared that no women can love you so you've joined the hate crowd?
Did you even read anything I wrote? Dude, you called my attitude "creepy" in your previous post. You don't even read your own posts? What's hateful about believing that men are human beings and have rights?Yes you are creepy. Seeing as you brought it up, might be the real reason you fear women so much.
Are you scared that no women can love you so you've joined the hate crowd?
So, about 450,000 people pay alimony in the U.S. I'd say that alimony is far from making marriage tantamount to suicide when it's effecting 00.14% of the U.S. population. Sure, injustice anywhere should be viewed as injustice everywhere... Anyway in 2010 3% of the people receiving alimony were men and divorce lawyers across the nation have since reported that it's a trend that is increasing. Alimony is also facing the stiff winds of reform all across the nation. If alimony is a scourge inflicted upon men it's definitely facing far reaching changes. Hooofuckingray for the poor men! But, but, men can be convicted for raping their wives with no evidence or raping other women with no evidence. Sure injustice happens, the courts get stuff wrong, generally the legal system is more than equitable for White males, but I don't suspect you can believe it. Waaaaayyyy more women will never see their rapist get convicted for their crimes than there will ever be men falsely accused and convicted of rape. I'm not going to try to dig out statistics, and I don't suspect you would care, but it would pretty much be like comparing the size of the sun to the size of the moon. Marital rape does happen, it can be pretty fucking awful, but I don't expect you would care. There are many reasons why men don't get charged with or convicted of rape, some of which are the victims "fault" but I suspect that it doesn't have any impact on this discussion, nor will anything have an impact on this discussion. As far as feminist just being filled with hate for men and boys and you've talked to a lot of feminist and blah blah blah. I've both known and dated a number of self avowed feminist. I've slept with a number of them and never once been charged with rape! I mean not even once! While all we have here is anecdotal evidence, all the vicious man hating feminist that you've talked to, all the feminist that have wrapped their lips around my cock after making me dinner... I think somehow we have had very different experiences. I'll admit that feminist aren't really concerned with making the lives of men and boys better. They are primarily concerned with making the lives of women better. I've found that they are mostly interested in living in an equitable society where men and women have equal opportunities and women don't have to be sexually harassed, make less money, get promoted less, listen to a historical narrative where men are the only ones that matter and so on and so on, but shit, I'm a pretty good cook and am in no way afraid of lady parts (I'm all about equity). I'll admit that I haven't always seen eye to eye with my feminist friends. I still don't understand why it's wrong to say "Mankind" when talking about the historical human experience but it's not wrong to say "Man hole cover" when talking about the metal disk in the middle of the street. Overall I'd say feminist are pretty awesome to date, they are generally well read critical thinkers, who can hold their own in a conversation or debate, probably not qualities valued by your average MRA advocate. Yes I do think that you are creepy and paranoid. You are the front line of a cynical, hateful machine that gleefully counts it's money while it twists the minds of men. There is so much injustice and misfortune in the world. I find that my Black friends don't bitch and moan near as much about the really abhorrent things that happen to them in proportion to the way that a White man can bitch about the slightest whiff of inequity. Yo, I read your opinions about AA, you have no perspective at all on what others have to face in this world. It's no surprise when a MRA advocates marriage goes south, any relationship based on she spends the paycheck and he gets to fuck her, have her cook dinner and raise the kids, is bound to be contentious when divorce happens. MRA's are just another shade of those who spend their time hating on Jew's, Blacks, Immigrants, The Homeless or any other marginalized group. Yes, yes, men have rights too. They have way more rights than everyone else, especially when they are White men. Society is generally becoming more equitable. Are there anecdotal points where men get fucked over? Hell yes there are. Is it in anyway in proportion to the way that every other person who isn't a White man gets fucked over? No. Are there some vile hateful feminist out there with extreme views that in no way lead to a just and equitable society? Of course there are, you'll find such people in every walk of life but they are the minority. MRA's are guys who either got into terrible marriages built on misogyny and now have to pay the price of the fact that their relationships that were built on fucking sand or guys that can't get a decent piece of trim at any cost what so ever. Which ever one you are, it's time to reexamine your life, you can do better. The whole MRA movement follows a pretty standard script, identify and marginalized population, find a few anecdotes of that population hurting the most powerful segment of society, demonize them, get the marginal crazy members to persecute them and watch the guys at the top profit and become powerful. It's what the anti-Semites do with the Jews, it's White power organizations do with the Blacks, the right does it to the immigrants and the gays we could find examples big and small. You are being baited into hating a group you know nothing about, you are part of one of the most privileged groups in all of human history and you are straight up bitch whining about your fate. I held some hateful views in my youth, they were generally targeted at minority groups who were getting a smaller slice of the pie than I did. If I hadn't been throw into the larger world and lived, worked with, befriended, depended, loved and valued, gays, lesbians, blacks, immigrants, feminists, fat people the disabled I'd probably still be the vicious prick I was as a young man. I'm lucky. I've seen how unfair life is, I know how easy I've had it. Your afraid that you're not going to be able to keep flying first class when SJW just want to enable everyone to fly coach. I can understand your rage and fear, society has told you and given you an unprecedented level of privileged and justice and when a few cracks appear in that facade it can be shocking. With no perspective on the general unfairness of life a bit of unfairness really stings. Your creed, paranoia and fear is frightening to me. Your lack of perspective is dangerous when aggregated over a movement. Do men suffer instances of injustice? Of course. Does that mean that feminist have "destroyed the family" made "marriage suicidal" that feminist are anti man or just filled with "Hate, Hate, Hate." No. That is the kind of language and creed that tends to be extremely dangerous when the most powerful group in society applies it to a less powerful group.
I watched my own mother start a business, run for local school board and write op-eds for our local paper. These things had a strong impact on me and without feminism, it's unlikely she would have had these opportunities.Because of feminism, more women have been able to get educated.
Children (boys and girls) that are raised by parents that attended college are vastly more likely to attend college than children whose parents did not attend. Having an educated mother is a HUGE leg up as a foundation for a young man.
A few months ago b_b, mk and I (And possibly blackbootz, I don't remember perfectly because alcohol) were having a discussion about hiring processes, and how there are a number of assumptions behind the meritocratic system that many people (Myself included) who support the idea don't consider. First, there's the assumption that team/corporate success is best predicted by individual merit of candidates. Second, the assumption that you have good metrics for merit. That is, you are assuming that you are able to accurately measure the presence or absence of qualities that you believe to be good predictors for productivity/success. Regarding Can they all be wrong?
It is entirely possible for them all to be wrong. Doesn't matter who 'them' is, as long as the group is composed of people. Lots of peopled believed that the earth was flat, and every single one of them was wrong.