Empathy Gap, Male Disposability & Reproductive Utility

[cybercoma]

Why is it we save the children and women first in a life boat if they are less valuable then men?

Obviously because all men should be rounded up and chemically castrated.

[Hal 9000]

Obviously because all men should be rounded up and chemically castrated.

I think it's an honest question that maybe you could enlighten us on.

[Freddy]

Obviously because all men should be rounded up and chemically castrated.

In other word you have been destroyed. And have absolutely nothing intelligent to add.

[Bonam]

I have wanted to do this thread for a while but never got around to it. But a recent video by Janice Fiamengo has incentivized me to make this thread.

...

Good thread -1, lot's of good points. Sadly, those who most need to read and understand it, won't, because anything that challenges their deeply held dogmas is instantly rejected as "bigoted" or "sexist". I especially like how the usual suspects instantly accuse you of "hating women" when you posted absolutely nothing to that effect.

In other word you have been destroyed. And have absolutely nothing intelligent to add.

In other words, he's just trolling at this point. Unfortunately, when it comes to topics related to gender issues, it's not possible to have any meaningful conversation with several of this forum's members. They have their opinions, and anyone who disagrees in the slightest way is automatically considered a bigot/sexist. The close-mindedness is quite unfortunate, but expected, given the tenets of the social justice movement.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Bonam

[Guest]

I suppose it could be argued that the male relatives of rape victims feel the impact, and in many ways it's worse for them. As the father of two daughters I can't imagine how awful it would be for me if one of them was raped. I have to say, though, I still think it would be worse for them. Thoughts?

Edited September 10, 2015 by bcsapper

[Hal 9000]

More examples in this thread of MRAs taking a well-worn feminist idea (of how strict gender roles hurt members of both sexes) and using it as a platform for attacking feminists. If, as the OP says somewhere in that TL;DR word salad above, "men's issues are scoffed at or are looked at as 'an attack on women' and therefore should be ignored," it would behoove those trying to raise men's issues to not make attacking women a central part of their philosophy. And yet the entire movement is predicated not on advancing any men's issues, but blaming feminists and ensuring men are privileged as the "real" victim class. There's a reason why there's so much overlap between MRAs, white nativists/racists and other fringe reactionary groups. And why else are there no actual solutions being offered up?

But didn't he just bring up a mens issue only to have you scoff and call it "attacking women". I mean, the irony of you proving his point just doesn't get any better.

[Hal 9000]

I suppose it could be argued that the male relatives of rape victims feel the impact, and in many ways it's worse for them. As the father of two daughters I can't imagine how awful it would be for me if one of them was raped. I have to say, though, I still think it would be worse for them. Thoughts?

Of course it's worse for them. And, I'm pretty sure that if you voiced out loud that it might be worse for you - all hell would break loose.

Using WIP's example; If a woman got paralyzed and her husband said it was worse for him, he would be called the biggest, most insensitive asshole in the world.

[Guest]

Of course it's worse for them. And, I'm pretty sure that if you voiced out loud that it might be worse for you - all hell would break loose.

Using WIP's example; If a woman got paralyzed and her husband said it was worse for him, he would be called the biggest, most insensitive asshole in the world.

Yes, I regretted using that example but you quoted it before I deleted it. Still, the point stands.

[Freddy]

I suppose it could be argued that the male relatives of rape victims feel the impact, and in many ways it's worse for them. As the father of two daughters I can't imagine how awful it would be for me if one of them was raped. I have to say, though, I still think it would be worse for them. Thoughts?

I can't agree with that. It's illogical too me.

[Freddy]

Good thread -1, lot's of good points. Sadly, those who most need to read and understand it, won't, because anything that challenges their deeply held dogmas is instantly rejected as "bigoted" or "sexist". I especially like how the usual suspects instantly accuse you of "hating women" when you posted absolutely nothing to that effect.

In other words, he's just trolling at this point. Unfortunately, when it comes to topics related to gender issues, it's not possible to have any meaningful conversation with several of this forum's members. They have their opinions, and anyone who disagrees in the slightest way is automatically considered a bigot/sexist. The close-mindedness is quite unfortunate, but expected, given the tenets of the social justice movement.

But this is some real legitimate arguments based on solid intellectual grounds.

I guess most people can't live with the idea they are wrong, so they rather stay stupid then acknowledge a new more intelligent way of seeing the world.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Freddy

[Guest]

I can't agree with that. It's illogical too me.

What don't you agree with? Only one point was made, that it would be worse for the victim, regardless of the relatives feelings. I don't think you disagree with that?

[-1=e^ipi]

Another example: Double standards with respect to male infant genital mutilation compared to female infant genital mutilation.

In the west, female infant genital mutilation is seen as immoral and is illegal.

On the other hand, male infant genital mutilation is legal and often encouraged.

Obviously many forms of female genital mutilation are worse than removal of the foreskin, but some aren't.

It's a complete double standard to say that removal of the male foreskin is acceptable, while the removal of the clitoral hood is not acceptable.

[Freddy]

What don't you agree with? Only one point was made, that it would be worse for the victim, regardless of the relatives feelings. I don't think you disagree with that?

Sorry, misinterpreted "them" at the end of your post, Maybe it would be good to better define " them " at the end of your post.

[cybercoma]

In other word you have been destroyed. And have absolutely nothing intelligent to add.

In other words, I think your response was too stupid to dignify with anything other than sarcasm.

[Hal 9000]

In other words, I think your response was too stupid to dignify with anything other than sarcasm.

It was a simple question that you had no answer for, so you resorted to an infantile response.

[Freddy]

In other words, I think your response was too stupid to dignify with anything other than sarcasm.

Ha!!! I sunk your battleship!!!

[Freddy]

It was a simple question that you had no answer for, so you resorted to an infantile response.

Ya well, he's a bit of a sore loser. Who am I kidding. A big sore loser.

He has a hard time rising above his primal instinct of pride.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Freddy

[Bonam]

Only someone with little grasp on reality would think our society values women more than men.

I can only say the complete opposite. The fact that our society places more value on women seems so inherently obvious that not seeing it begs a question about the person's sanity.

Perhaps it is a generational difference. I'm sure your perspective may have had some accuracy in the boomer generation in some way. But as a millennial, it is most definitely not the case.

[Black Dog]

Why is it we save the children and women first in a life boat if they are less valuable then men?

We don`t. That`s a myth.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

Another example: Double standards with respect to male infant genital mutilation compared to female infant genital mutilation.

In the west, female infant genital mutilation is seen as immoral and is illegal.

On the other hand, male infant genital mutilation is legal and often encouraged.

Obviously many forms of female genital mutilation are worse than removal of the foreskin, but some aren't.

It's a complete double standard to say that removal of the male foreskin is acceptable, while the removal of the clitoral hood is not acceptable.

Only a double standards if the two were comparable procedures with similar intent and impact. But they aren`t at all.

You can be against both, but pretending they are the same thing in practice is simply a false equivalence.

But didn't he just bring up a mens issue only to have you scoff and call it "attacking women". I mean, the irony of you proving his point just doesn't get any better.

I didn`t scoff at the OP for attacking women. I was pointing out that his sources (MRAs every mad jack one of them) use the subject of male disposability not to advance male equality or solve the problem, but a base to attack feminists. Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on things when you lack basic understanding of words.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Black Dog

[-1=e^ipi]

Only a double standards if the two were comparable procedures with similar intent and impact. But they aren`t at all.

You can be against both, but pretending they are the same thing in practice is simply a false equivalence.

I'm comparing clitoral hood removal with foreskin removal, not with more extreme forms of female genital mutilation.

The clitoral hood and the foreskin are equivalent and they come from the same set of cells during fetal development.

So yes, foreskin removal and clitoral hood removal are very much equivalent.

I didn`t scoff at the OP for attacking women.

I like how you treat this as some indisputable fact.

I was pointing out that his sources (MRAs every mad jack one of them) use the subject of male disposability not to advance male equality or solve the problem, but a base to attack feminists.

Do you not understand the difference between feminism the ideology and feminists the people?

[Black Dog]

I'm comparing clitoral hood removal with foreskin removal, not with more extreme forms of female genital mutilation.

The clitoral hood and the foreskin are equivalent and they come from the same set of cells during fetal development.

So yes, foreskin removal and clitoral hood removal are very much equivalent.

And how often, when people talk about FGM, are they talking just about clitoridotomies? I'd bet almost never. Conflating the two is an exercise in Orwellian word association.

Here's some info on FGM (warning: talks about lady parts).

I like how you treat this as some indisputable fact.

Treat what as a fact?

Do you not understand the difference between feminism the ideology and feminists the people?

I do. It's not clear your MRA heroes do. They certainly aren't doing much to put forward solutions to the issue of male disposability. Getting dem mad YouTube hitz tho.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Black Dog

[-1=e^ipi]

And how often, when people talk about FGM, are they talking just about clitoridotomies? I'd bet almost never. Conflating the two is an exercise in Orwellian word association.

Removal of the clitoral hood is a form of female genital mutilation, much like removal of the foreskin is a form of male genital mutilation.

I do. It's not clear your MRA heroes do. They certainly aren't doing much to put forward solutions to the issue of male disposability. Getting dem mad YouTube hitz tho.

The first step to solving a problem is identifying that a problem exists.

But this is the 'new' way that 3rd-wave feminists are dismissing arguments put forward by gender egalitarians and MRAs. That because they don't have the political power to enact changes, that somehow their arguments can be dismissed.

[Black Dog]

Removal of the clitoral hood is a form of female genital mutilation, much like removal of the foreskin is a form of male genital mutilation.

But it's not what people talk about when they talk about FGM. T

The first step to solving a problem is identifying that a problem exists.

People have been aware of this issue for a long time (these. Long enough, surely, that some solutions could be proposed). However, some MRAs, like Christina Hoff Summers for example, are open about maintaining rigid gender roles for men.

But this is the 'new' way that 3rd-wave feminists are dismissing arguments put forward by gender egalitarians and MRAs. That because they don't have the political power to enact changes, that somehow their arguments can be dismissed.

For example?

Again, most of this stuff, for me, came out of feminist theory.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Black Dog

[-1=e^ipi]

People have been aware of this issue for a long time (these. Long enough, surely, that some solutions could be proposed).

Not that many people are aware of things like the gender suicide gap.

But regardless, you need to identify the cause, not just the existence of the problem. If you identify the cause of all these problems to be 'the patriarchy', then you are misidentifying the causes.

However, some MRAs, like Christina Hoff Summers for example, are open about maintaining rigid gender roles for men.

Not sure if she self-identifies as an MRA; she self-identifies as a feminist. But she is a bit of a traditionalist, I agree.

For example?

You.

I've seen this argument a lot recently in various comments and articles on Men's Rights where people attack Men's Rights for 'not having any results'. But it's a nonsense argument since MRAs don't have any political power to do anything. It's like saying you shouldn't vote NDP federally because they haven't passed any laws federally in the past 4 years.

Karen Straughan recently did a video on this:

Edited September 10, 2015 by -1=e^ipi