Why do modern day feminists dismiss or downplay these facts?

[fromderinside]

Its much simpler than that. How many women have you seen pushing a cream pie in the face of anyone? Women don't need to explain why they actually get something besides dollars out of education. They are raising the next generation!

 

[PyramidHead]

This article is timely, as it discusses a book devoted to examining OP's topic:

http://anotherbookblog.com/2014/08/21/lets-talk-about-sexism/#more-2083

In fact, some feminists see this as a symptom of a patriarchy-driven society itself:

Because of the patriarchal society we’ve always lived in, there is an anti-male bias in education and preventative medicine. This is because men—-historically the dominant half of the species—-aren’t the ones that supposedly “need” the help. The result: our school system fails them. Many end up dropping out. Our mental health system, too, is focused only on helping those who seek out assistance.

But the blame needs to be placed directly on our own heads. Society needs to directly address man’s predilection to suffer silently, sure. But we shouldn’t feel the need to keep quiet in the first place. We’re getting better at admitting our weaknesses or seeking help, but there’s still a long way to go.

Do Benatar and Farrell have a valid point? Statistics seem to lend credence to their arguments:

Men are more likely to be conscripted into military service
Men are more often the victims of violence
Men overwhelmingly lose custody of their children in the event of a divorce
Boys are a year behind girls at reading in every industrialised country
In terms of health, on average, men develop heart disease 10 years earlier than women
Young men are three times more likely to commit suicide.

But is this the result of a strange form of sexism, as Benatar suggests, or, I wonder, is this simply the price men are paying for the dominance that’s been handed to them? It would be hard to argue against the fact that our society, as far as it’s come, is still ruled by men. Are the disadvantages they face just the price they are willing to pay? It’s a tough call, one that I feel completely incapable of making right now.

If we dismantled the patriarchy, would it end up being better for men, too?

 

[fromderinside]

This article is timely, as it discusses a book devoted to examining OP's topic:

http://anotherbookblog.com/2014/08/21/lets-talk-about-sexism/#more-2083

In fact, some feminists see this as a symptom of a patriarchy-driven society itself:

Because of the patriarchal society we’ve always lived in, there is an anti-male bias in education and preventative medicine. This is because men—-historically the dominant half of the species—-aren’t the ones that supposedly “need” the help. The result: our school system fails them. Many end up dropping out. Our mental health system, too, is focused only on helping those who seek out assistance.

But the blame needs to be placed directly on our own heads. Society needs to directly address man’s predilection to suffer silently, sure. But we shouldn’t feel the need to keep quiet in the first place. We’re getting better at admitting our weaknesses or seeking help, but there’s still a long way to go.

Do Benatar and Farrell have a valid point? Statistics seem to lend credence to their arguments:

Men are more likely to be conscripted into military service
Men are more often the victims of violence
Men overwhelmingly lose custody of their children in the event of a divorce
Boys are a year behind girls at reading in every industrialised country
In terms of health, on average, men develop heart disease 10 years earlier than women
Young men are three times more likely to commit suicide.

But is this the result of a strange form of sexism, as Benatar suggests, or, I wonder, is this simply the price men are paying for the dominance that’s been handed to them? It would be hard to argue against the fact that our society, as far as it’s come, is still ruled by men. Are the disadvantages they face just the price they are willing to pay? It’s a tough call, one that I feel completely incapable of making right now.

If we dismantled the patriarchy, would it end up being better for men, too?

Wow. Now I'm back in the seventies. Literally. I mean, it's this reason's fault or that reason's fault but it never the one acting out's fault. Yeah we live in a place where women aren't equal and we've lived there for some generations, millennium, now. Guy are bigger and that means they can beat the shit out of those who are smaller.

Still, we've been at this removing weapons from society now for some time too, at least since the middle ages. Women are recognized now to be something other than property, unevenly, even poorly, but recognized. With the loss of the earth at the world's center went men as the only ones with brains. Still, we're nowhere near removing that thump rule.

Things are better and its not the fault of patrician society or residue that they aren't gone. Women need to accept they are man's equal, that they don't need strong arms to protect the family, that they are responsible for their well being. When they take this in and internalize it things will begin to get better. Not instantly, but, gradually things will get better.

Hell, we even use robots to do the military work and heavy lifting now. Look at things, realize everyone has brains, realize everyone can find ways to put harm away from oneself without needing a nice strong brutish man to protect one and things will get better. Not, just you, every one of you.

 

[Toni]

I think fair questions to ask would be to ask why there is so much violence? We know that men are more likely to be arrested for and convicted of violent offenses, so perhaps looking at male propensity towards violence would be a start, but it is hardly the whole picture. How does our criminal justice system work? Is there really justice? Is there bias based upon gender? race? socioeconomic factors?

It would be a fair question to ask if our education system is serving children and students as it should, and if not, do the failures hit one group harder than others? Is the system more biased along gender lines? Racial lines? Socieo-economic lines? Actually, all of these. The questions remain: How? Why? How can this be remedied?

Are our social institutions designed to support all people? To provide well for our most vulnerable? Our children? Our elderly? Families? Single people? What changes need to be made?

Frankly, these are questions that feminists and others interested in the idea of a just and fair society have been asking for many years. These questions are not asked in the OP.

Why?

 

[dismal]

One reason why women might be overepresented in college is the number of women that GO for nursing or teaching, two huge fields that skew the statistics.

So you're saying it's not surprising there is so much pro-female bias in our education system because most of the teachers are women?

 

[Mumbles]

I see no point to this thread.

Here's the thing...I don't think it's the job of every guy to advocate for equality in education.

And actually, I've never seen a feminist advocate for less education for boys.

But it you're going to advocate...march, rally,show solutions, and so on.

In short, instead of complaining about how people you don't like issue, then just *talk about your issue*. Do it yourself.

 

[bigfield]

The OP is based on the premise that if someone calls themself a feminist, then they should be expected to advocate justice with respect to every form of victimisation or disadvantage that affects one gender more than the other, regardless of which gender is on the receiving end.

Feminism is primarily a women's rights movement. Or rather, a movement that advocates for justice with respect to forms of violence and discrimination that disproportionately affect women. This is exemplified by the National Organisation for Women, the USA's largest feminist activism organisation.

So it makes sense that homelessness, incarceration, suicide, Selective Service, or any number of MRA talking points don't get much airtime within feminist activism.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Biology and the maternal instinct always seem to go overlooked in these discussions. A lot of those educated women choose not to use the degrees they get.

It isnt all unfair hiring or sexist society pushing women away from high paying jobs.

This is why those educated women should not marry or have children with men who are unwilling to share 50% of the child-rearing and home-making.

 

[Frikki]

One reason why women might be overepresented in college is the number of women that GO for nursing or teaching, two huge fields that skew the statistics.

So you're saying it's not surprising there is so much pro-female bias in our education system because most of the teachers are women?

No I did no say that.

Don't be a Dismal, ok?

 

[Axulus]

If saying "the patriarchy is Doing just fine" isn't Dismissive to those facts, I don't have a clue what your definition is of the word "dismissive"

You posted some "facts" that you claimed feminists dismiss or downplayed without providing one citation or site to back up your claim. Now you are trotting out "the patriarchy is Doing just fine" as some sort rebuttal. You have not provided one reason why there is a necessary or even tenuous logical why ""patriarchy doing just fine" is either dismissing or downplaying those "facts".

The OP more closely resembles a misogynistic burp than a reasoned position.

Did you even watch the videos I posted? The feminists on the MSNBC panel, in response to the facts that boys are doing poorly in education in comparison to girls, said "I think the patriarchy is doing just fine". So the fact that women are getting 130 bachlor's degrees for every 100 men isn't worth being concerned about because "the patriarchy is doing just fine".

 

[Axulus]

If saying "the patriarchy is Doing just fine" isn't Dismissive to those facts, I don't have a clue what your definition is of the word "dismissive"

Huh? That's a pretty broad brush. I suppose you could throw high blood pressure, prostate cancer, blue balls and shark attacks under the umbrella of "the patriarchy is Doing just fine".

You are obviously another individual who didn't watch the video I posted in the OP - this was a direct quote from one of the feminists on the MSNBC panel, in response to a discussion of the gender disparity in education.

 

[Axulus]

The OP is based on the premise that if someone calls themself a feminist, then they should be expected to advocate justice with respect to every form of victimisation or disadvantage that affects one gender more than the other, regardless of which gender is on the receiving end.

Feminism is primarily a women's rights movement. Or rather, a movement that advocates for justice with respect to forms of violence and discrimination that disproportionately affect women. This is exemplified by the National Organisation for Women, the USA's largest feminist activism organisation.

So it makes sense that homelessness, incarceration, suicide, Selective Service, or any number of MRA talking points don't get much airtime within feminist activism.

Uh no. I am specifically referring to feminists who say things like "I think the patriarchy is doing just fine" when these kinds of facts are pointed out to them. Not mere silence (hence my use of the specific words "dismiss" and "downplay", instead of "remain silent". Words do have meanings, you know?

 

[Axulus]

This article is timely, as it discusses a book devoted to examining OP's topic:

http://anotherbookblog.com/2014/08/21/lets-talk-about-sexism/#more-2083

In fact, some feminists see this as a symptom of a patriarchy-driven society itself:

Because of the patriarchal society we’ve always lived in, there is an anti-male bias in education and preventative medicine. This is because men—-historically the dominant half of the species—-aren’t the ones that supposedly “need” the help. The result: our school system fails them. Many end up dropping out. Our mental health system, too, is focused only on helping those who seek out assistance.

But the blame needs to be placed directly on our own heads. Society needs to directly address man’s predilection to suffer silently, sure. But we shouldn’t feel the need to keep quiet in the first place. We’re getting better at admitting our weaknesses or seeking help, but there’s still a long way to go.

Do Benatar and Farrell have a valid point? Statistics seem to lend credence to their arguments:

Men are more likely to be conscripted into military service
Men are more often the victims of violence
Men overwhelmingly lose custody of their children in the event of a divorce
Boys are a year behind girls at reading in every industrialised country
In terms of health, on average, men develop heart disease 10 years earlier than women
Young men are three times more likely to commit suicide.

But is this the result of a strange form of sexism, as Benatar suggests, or, I wonder, is this simply the price men are paying for the dominance that’s been handed to them? It would be hard to argue against the fact that our society, as far as it’s come, is still ruled by men. Are the disadvantages they face just the price they are willing to pay? It’s a tough call, one that I feel completely incapable of making right now.

If we dismantled the patriarchy, would it end up being better for men, too?

I'm not exactly sure what it means to "dismantle the patriarchy", but, yes, ending gender bias and discrimination of all kinds, both against men and women, will definitely be better for both men and women. It is so obvious I can't believe it needs to be questioned.

 

[Jokodo]

It does translate into pay afterwards.

Young, single, college-educated women are outearning their male peers.

FALSE. I assume this is another attempt by you to misrepresent this story that conservatives dishonesty touted as evidence against anti-female gender bias, with headlines like "Young Women's Pay Exceeds Male Peers"

But the data only shows that if you ignore education, then young, single, childless females in many major cities make more than same age males in those cities. But these males are not their "peers", because they have less education.
The greater pay for young women in those cities is due to them being more likely to have a college degree than same age males. And this only holds in major cities where male dominated high paying blue collar jobs have been lost. In rural areas, young women still make less than young men, despite having more education. And young single females everywhere, including major cities earn less than same age males with the same level of education, experience, and hours worked in most professions.

IOW, women go to college and have the motivation to graduate more than men, because they need to try and make up for their lower pay due to their gender. Having more education than a man if about the only way they can avoid earning less. Then there is the fact that some males do not attend college because their father or a friend of their father offers them a good paying job out of high school. Such opportunities are offered far less to daughters, even when clearly more competent and mature than their brothers.

Apparently, I "must spread some Reputation around before giving it to doubtingt again."

So, thanks for saying what I was going to say in a much briefer and snarkier way - "You claimed it before, it was shown to be false then, repetition didn't make it true in the meantime" is probably all the in-depth analysis I would have mounted at this point.

 

[laughing dog]

You posted some "facts" that you claimed feminists dismiss or downplayed without providing one citation or site to back up your claim. Now you are trotting out "the patriarchy is Doing just fine" as some sort rebuttal. You have not provided one reason why there is a necessary or even tenuous logical why ""patriarchy doing just fine" is either dismissing or downplaying those "facts".

The OP more closely resembles a misogynistic burp than a reasoned position.

Did you even watch the videos I posted? The feminists on the MSNBC panel, in response to the facts that boys are doing poorly in education in comparison to girls, said "I think the patriarchy is doing just fine". So the fact that women are getting 130 bachlor's degrees for every 100 men isn't worth being concerned about because "the patriarchy is doing just fine".

"The patriarchy" refers to the current male establishment, not some segment. If one thinks there is an imbalance towards men today, why would one be concerned about some trend that might rectify that imbalance in the future? Seems to me, they are being logically consistent, even if one disagrees with their premise.

 

[Bronzeage]

So, because they make up the majority of the top ends of society (CEOs, politicians, etc.), which demonstrates that they have incredible "privilege", we can just dismiss all the sorry saps who didn't make it, because obviously such failures in a society where they have such incredible "privilege" demonstrates their own personal failure. This is the kind of narrative brought about by modern day feminism, where the focus is exclusively on areas where male do better than females (and how we need to implement policies to correct that) and we just hand wave away where males do worse than females as personal failure.

So despite having a smaller pool of less qualified men, based on education, most CEO's and office holders are men. Got it.

Is this what modern day feminists are objecting to?