JackRiddler » 08 Dec 2015 17:27 wrote:I can't see anything wrong with that joke.
By the way, this thread title originated in response to one called "Study: Everyone hates feminists and environmentalists." That's the kind of coverage out there, where even many who call themselves feminists (among the young) feel compelled first to apologize and protest that they aren't man-haters or horrible hags, etc.
slomo, there is no doubt the reports on prison populations and number of homeless, etc., cited actually say what your MRA attack graphic claims. And it doesn't matter. The inclusion of the longevity statistic is laughable, indicating a kitchen sink approach and an willingness to ignore a distinction between the social and biological if it has the appearance of supporting one's argument. The juxtaposition and spin of these data turns them into truthy factoids, with the intent of pushing a particular agenda and thesis that isn't supportable. It isn't even definable, since it relies on the MRA strawman version of patriarchy/sexism as some kind of monolith of male dominance in all spheres and all levels and better outcomes for all men always, rather than anything actually taken from gender theory. Thus no definition of what would be a "man's world" is or can be provided.
The disrespect for actually seeing what feminist or gender theory says (here shown by your shabby treatment of PW) and arguing with it as it presents itself, is also "data."
On specifics, "same crime" and "same crime" can definitely vary. What crimes are being included isn't specified so 3x the sentence might mean years or days of difference. On murder (i.e., presumably almost all of the capital crimes) and prison sentencing you're dealing with a huge pool of men and a much smaller one of women. In homicides the latter will have almost always acted within relationships, the former will have a higher rate of killing people they don't know. What are the relative recidivism rates? Do judges and juries see men as potentially more dangerous in the future than women? (That could even be a product of patriarchy!)
In any case, none of this "proves" your case. "Patriarchy" does not mean better outcomes in all things for men, or total lack of any privileges or total defenselessness for women.
ON EDIT: I see responses already. To correct guruilla's version of me:
I looked at the infographic, and it incompetently pushes a preconceived narrative that it can barely even define, with an undercurrent of unjustified rage, and constitutes an embarrassment for anyone, especially a scientist, who claims to present it as "data." Since the premise already implodes from the start, no actual peer reviewed research has been advanced for the premise (although some peer reviewed research has been abused in the citation on behalf of the premise). All this does not give me permission to ignore the rest of the "data" thread. That is because I already have this "permission" as a natural right. I'd love to spend another twenty or two hundred minutes going further with the fine "data" to come, and learning that men get longer sentences for DUIs or are more often depicted in the media as raging stupid hulks with guns, or whatever else is supposed to prove that this is a woman's world. But nevertheless feel I must choose now to return to my boring paying work.
You know, my position is quite a bit more nuanced than you would characterize. You'd know that if you actually perused the thread. First of all, there is a paper that looks at the mortality issue, and parses it on the basis of biology and choice (in addition to social factors that could legitimately be said to refute Patriarchy). Choice. The very same phenomenon that drives the wage gap (supported by a newspaper article that cites BLS figures). As far as the wage gap goes, I also cite an article that demonstrates a wage gap in nursing of about 10% after adjusting for various choice-related causal factors. It turns out to be consistent with other figures (see the article above it) as well as the figure Karen Straughan cites in the video guruilla embedded in another thread. (She goes on to suggest that this gap is explained by factors that are hard to measure, but I am comfortable with discounting that as non-evidence-based, even though I think it might be true.) So I even
admit to a wage gap, but I disagree that it is as high as 22%.
See how easy that was? You're welcome to counter-argue on the same level, and I might even reconsider my position if the argument is convincing.
As for PW, well I don't know her as a person, but I am hostile to a position that she implies she holds (although she doesn't come out and say it): retroactive withdrawal of consent (this inference is based on her stating that she has been called a "useful idiot", a term I reserved for those who hold this position). That is a legal abomination that should scare anybody, particularly left-leaning members of this board. Of course, I could easily be mistaken that she holds this position. Moreover, PW is the one who characterized my position as "virulent", which is her right of course, but it isn't exactly friendly. And yes of course I took that as directed towards myself, because I am the initial author of the anti-feminist arguments appearing in the gender thread (a thread which, BTW, could never have been anything other than flame-bait now that I consider it). The "look in the mirror" comment refers to discussions earlier in the gender thread in which it is suggested that the inflexible, authoritarian positions of "progressives" are actually the most convincing argument for the opposite set of positions. Hence, the normalization of anti-feminism, which, yes, is a growing phenomenon, and I welcome it. BTW, it is a really cheap tactic to conflate anti-feminism with "woman-hating", because many women are anti-feminists, many men are feminists.
BTW, guruilla is innocent of the uncharitable characterization, I take full responsibility for it.
, BTW) with people I know well. The one exception is reviewing manuscripts. It takes a lot to piss me off, so I usually look for the positive even if I am criticizing something. But if I get pissed off, I can be extremely brutal. And I'm OK with that.
X 3
