please go on the link and like the picture if you like our message!

Do we actually have empirical evidence that sexism causes harm? I'm not talking isolated cases of teen suicide that appeal to emotion. I'm talking hardcore objectively measured fact.

Do we actually have any?

I ask because we hear a lot about how sexism is harmful. But it's nearly always an empty buzzword when it is used, and is never backed up with anything other than opinion.

Sexist comments from friends--how do you deal with that?

I'm looking for some insight, really, as there's some residual, unspoken sexism at my comic shop. It's typically towards females in the form of unsubstantiated rumors, but of course there's also the expectation of masculine behavior for which there is not a lick of shame.

What about acquaintances? Sure, appealing to logic and reason is helpful, but humanity doesn't always defer to logic and reason. How do we get past the emotional barriers created in someone's life which prevent them from seeing males and females as equals?

WARNING: the following is offensive to many human beings.

Female bodily autonomy. An issue on which everyone seems to have an opinion, it is often talked about, reported on, and, most shockingly, legislated against. In a perfect world, or even just a fair one, it would not be a stretch to require that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her body as she pleases, insofar as she does not infringe on the rights of any other individual. Apparently this simple liberty is too much to ask.

There is plenty of state legislature that legalizes her personal decisions..... as long as she jumps through hoops. A woman may have to be above a certain age (as if the young are not in greatest need) or else demonstrate that inaction would lead to great suffering or death. Some legislature does not even give allowances in the case of rape and incest.

If a woman is lucky enough to find herself in a place where her rights are protected she faces nothing but discouragement and misdirection. Doctors may refuse to help her on ethical grounds. Clinics will offer everything BUT what she asks for. "Are you sure? This isn't something you can take back. Perhaps you should think about it more. Perhaps you should think about it until you reconsider. Perhaps you should think about it until it's no longer an option." People believe that they are helping women, that their morals are absolutely right, that they are saving them. In reality they are affirming that women are incapable of making decisions, unless of course it's the right decision. That's not a decision at all is it?

Despite how staunch the opposition is, if, heaven forbid, the process sorts itself out naturally then the problem disappears. No one is to blame. It's as if the problem is not with what a woman wishes to do but that a woman wishes to do it.

It has been proven time and time again though that even without legal support women will do what they believe to be right. However, without help they may turn to ineffective drugs or even self-mutilation. Does this world have no compassion to prevent suffering?

Not all is lost though. We have come a long way in the past couple decades. Hopefully in the near future women will be enabled and supported to exercise their liberty over their own bodies, to be able to make perhaps the most important choice of all: commiting suicide.

Bet you weren't expecting that were you? Maybe next time you will consider the weight of your arguments and how subjective they could be.

Remember to debate in good faith, have sources when citing and remember YOU COULD BE WRONG so please keep an open mind in here. You can't argue with a closed door and this forum shall remain an open door.

Hi,

over in feminisms someone posted about his experience with his best friend in "/r/feminisms, I need your help please. Can the community educate a very ignorant man".

I don't want to derail the thread/interfere with the echo chamber, but I have severe problems with the situation as described. I would like to take it as is - that is to say, assume that the account by the ignorant man is objective - because this isn't about him specifically, but a wider issue.

Consider:

1. "It irked me because it seemed like every possible moment we talked, she had to get on a soap-box and tell me about how poor women had it. When I would try to engage her in discussion, she would get really angry or I would (or the most common result, both of us would) and we would cease to talk for a few days."

2. "Even now, I am forced not to scream at you, because you would stop listening to me. this is even more privilege, to cast me off as a crazy feminist because I am angry and saying things you don't want to hear."

• "I do not feel safe talking to you right now please understand that I am not being 'dramatic' and I am not 'exaggerating'"

• "The things you said to me, the things that I regurgitated to you made me very uncomfortable, and very angry and very disappointed."

• "this is legitimately how your words made me feel and my feelings cannot be wrong."

• "I just want you to understand that the things I say are valid whether I support them with facts or not– my voice is valid."

7. "…That really kind of angry defensive feeling you got in your gut while you read this post where you felt attacked? That was your privilege kicking.” — Brendan from a blog my friend showed me. "

I have two broad issues, one personal, and limited in applicability because OP's story is a one-sided account, regardless of what I asked earlier, and one general.

• OP's friend is preaching, but gets angry when the sermon isn't swallowed obediently (1). OP also got angry, and eludes to one of the reasons: feeling personally attacked.

• OP's friend creates a situation in which OP is wrong and OP's friend has to restrain herself from escalating the level of "violence", but for external reasons, not because this is the proper thing to do. This is justified by anticipating furture "bad behaviour" by the OP and victimhood. (2)

• OP's friend doesn't feel save, but whether this is overly dramatic is not up for debate - OP has to understand this fact, it isn't up for debate. (3)

• OP's friend now has intensified the guilt tripping, and has become patronising on top of it. (4)

In every other context, this could arguably be seen as gaslighting. What OP's friend does is punish OP for his deviant behaviour. She threatens to withhold (friendly) affection, says more or less directly that OP is responsible for her anger and desire to scream at him, she accuses him of being dangerous for not agreeing with her perception of reality. She is utterly self-centered and doesn't consider his side at all, demands that her feelings be the only relevant metric. It is of course likely that OP did something similar. The situation had apparently escalated already. However, it is OP who is now begging to be corrected, not his friend. This is generally a problem with gaslighting as a concept - it can only be verified externally, and by an unbiased observer. The person gaslighting or being gaslighted can not make any objective judgement about it. I'd wager that many "gaslighting"-situations can be seen (and are seen) any which way.

I understand that people in /r/femnisms will sympathise with OP's friend, but this behaviour is absolutely unacceptable.

Secondly, this peculiar form of romanticism, the triumph of emotion over reason, really bothers me. This isn't the first time I've heard of this idea; in fact, it is relatively common in debates and discussions with feminists, although it is by no means an exclusively feminist idea. It is also utterly insane. "I feel you wronged me, and my feelings can't be wrong. Therefore you wronged me" is not an argument. Feelings don't reflect reality accurately. Feelings, whilst not being wrong in a "you can't feel this"-sense in this case, can be unjustified. They are a fundamental bias. In this case, they are used as a weapon, because there is nothing OP can do at this point. He's trapped in a Catch-22, or a Kafkaesque absurdity. The only thing he can do is submit (and lo, he does). In a bigger context, these kinds of arguments can support any and all manners of insanity if they are accepted. "I feel very strongly that there lives an invisible dragon in my garage. Who are you to disregard my feelings?"

Can we discuss this, in this context, and a bigger context of science, society, and objectivity? Or, rather than us discussing it, perhaps some people more knowledgeable than I could provide their viewpoint and arguments to support it.

Edit: Fixed typo (feminism->feminisms), thanks demmian

I have multiple theories, as well as having multiple theories on the internet to read. But, the best place to ask is here, where people who are directly involved in it.

I don't want to sound like an egotist, but most of the vocal MRA's on twox probably already know me by now. I really want to understand why is it they do what they do?

How they feel justified in derailing, arguing semantics, and otherwise really not offering anything positive to the community?

I have seen countless women in their be able to police themselves and their own users, do we really need men to extol the virtues of a penis and mens rights?

Why can't you people relegate your selves to places like this, or other feminist subs where you are already arguing the same stuff you argue in twox?

Why not focus on men's rights issues in your own sub, why the need to invade?

Would it be right if people invaded MR and did the same thing?

There really should be a moratorium where the MR people generally stay away from twox as a battlegrounds, otherwise I am seriously considering leaving twox in general and amassing all my feminist friends to start joining MR and oneY to otherwise make it harder for them to actually have decent conversations.

Would I be right in doing this? If not, why? Also if it isn't right, how is it right for you all to do the same?

From a man's perspective, I honestly can't fathom what it is you are all hoping to achieve and want to know.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/

Just curious, because it seems to cite enough philosophers and is on a reputable site.

Hello everyone, as you have probably heard frequenting the gender equality boards there has been a lot of debate in the United Status on whether or not birth control should be covered by all health insurance providers. I have started this thread in order to present my unpopular position in an organized and easy to follow format and provide all of you with an opportunity to engage in debate or get some new insight on the issues. With that out of the way:

Be it resolved that insurance companies should remain free to reject coverage for recreational birth control

Definitions:

• Recreational Birth Control: any medically unnecessary drug or procedure that temporarily, consistently, and reversibly makes the user infertile.

• Medically necessary: Treatment for a condition is medically necessary if that condition will directly shorten the lifespan of the patient or if it physically restricts the patient from engaging in any activity that they would otherwise have the right and opportunity to do. I confess that I do not have a medical background so that is the best definition I can come up with for now, feel free to post a better one.

• Insurance Company: A legal entity that accepts payments in regular intervals (called premiums) and in exchange compensates the contractee (in part or in whole) in the event of a predetermined costly event.

• Recreational: Not medically necessary.

What This Debate Is NOT About:

• Medically necessary birth control: Female birth control which utilizes a mixture of female hormones has been recognized as an effective treatment for a number of medically relevant conditions (for example rare and painful effects of menopause.) In this regard birth control is not recreational and not a subject for debate

• Why I hate women: I know that male birth control does not currently exist and I know that we are all looking forward to an effective, hormone free, reversible male contraceptive. The fact that I am arguing against recreational birth control (which at this time happens to be limited strictly to female options) does not imply in any way that I hate women or that I do not want women to have things simply because (at the moment) men cannot have them.

• How difficult it is to get birth control: I am not here to host a pity party. You have to jump through a hoop or two to get birth control because it is HORMONE THERAPY. That is a slightly bigger deal than over the counter headache medication. If you feel that an examination by a doctor is degrading then I'm happy you have so little regard for their professional integrity. If you feel that these precautions are antiquated then you can petition the FDA to make a revision, drive to Mexico, or perform a suitable voodoo ritual. Whichever you choose it is outside the scope of this debate. Sometimes life's inconveniences aren't a grave injustice to your person.

What Points I Will Specifically Neglect

• Freedom of religion: In the United States there was much confusion and anger over why women were barred from a discussion regarding mandatory birth control coverage. This discussion was about whether or not such legislature should be binding for religious organizations whose precepts directly forbid any form of birth control (I believe some types of Catholicism are like this.) The issue at hand was whether or not it was right to force these organizations to pay for something that went against their religious beliefs often times using money that came from those who held the same religious beliefs. Since this debate was strictly Religious Rights vs Government it is not a feminist or women's issue. Since I do not have much respect for religion I will not comment one way or the other, if this topic is important to you or you feel that I have misrepresented the point then please explain your position and I will be happy to read it.

The Arguments

• Business Freedom: the more astute reader should have noticed that I am actually arguing AGAINST the premise Insurance Companies Should Cover Birth Control. I chose to re-frame my position as an affirmative purely for linguistic purposes: makes more sense for the first post to be an opinion rather than its negation. Therefore the burden of proof falls on those who believe in that stated premise and in turn wish to restrict the freedoms of private businesses.

• Premiums will go up: Insurance companies cannot simply conjure money out of thin air, the costs of providing birth control for all women who want it will increase premiums. This will make health insurance less affordable to lower income people who have made life styles choices to not be sexually active. Keep in mind that those people will NOT have the option to pay less and forego birth control coverage. If they could then everyone who will not use the service can opt out and those that don't will have their premiums rise by an amount equal to the average cost of birth control, thus accomplishing very little for a whole lot of work.

• People should pay for their hobbies and pastimes: This is just a simple fact of the society we live in. We do not expect anyone else to pay for our movies, our internet access, our gym membership, our ski pass or any other modern luxury that has the unfortunate down side of costing money. On that point people can still buy birth control if they desire, if they can afford, just like with any other pastime. Methods of birth control exist at every price point (with corresponding degrees of efficacy.) No one is arguing that women should not have birth control at all.

The Counter Arguments

• It's medically necessary The argument goes something like this:

Birth control prevents pregnancy which is an expensive medical condition, therefore birth control is preventative medicine, therefore it should be covered by health insurance

Just because a condition is medically relevant, it does not mean that a particular method of prevention should be covered by health insurance. Take for example the medical condition known as "broken bones", we can all agree that this condition is both medically significant and costly. Performing certain physical activities without adequate protection CAN lead to broken bones. Using the exact same logic it can then be argued that Health Insurance should cover sports safety equipment because it is a proven preventative treatment for sports injuries. We can see that this logic can be extended to create plenty of other absurdities. The problem is that just because we have a right to perform an activity doesn't mean that society has an obligation to finance it.

EDITS: have made grammatical changes, this was not written in a text editor. Additional points will appear below here with a datestamp for your convenience.

The words I have in mind are "misogyny/ist", "misandry/ist", and "sexist".

The American Heritage Dictionary. Second College Edtion. 1985. It's a bit dated, but it's the only dictionary I have.

Sexism: 1. Discrimination based on sex, esp. discrimination against women. (o_o wow... This really is dated. According to this, sexism against men was not acknowledged in 1985. And I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm finding this stuff out as I'm typing.) 2. Attitudes or conditions that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Misogyny: hatred of women. (duh)

Misandry: No definition in this dictionary. However, we all know that it means "hatred of men".

Having lived in the southern U.S. most of my life, I often heard things like "That's racist!" or "I can't believe that you're suggesting that black students are dropping out of high school more than white students are! You're racist!" Eventually, "racist" became a word that meant "anyone who speaks negatively about minorities, even objectively".

I feel like this is also happening to the words above. They are losing their power. For instance, in one of my early arguments, someone tried to end a conversation with me because they "didn't want to waste time talking to a misogynist". Nowhere in any of my comments had I expressed a hatred of women, or anyone for that matter. I believe I had tried to point out something that I felt was BS. However, I became a misogynist in that person's eyes, because "misogynist" has come to mean "anyone who speaks negatively about some women". The same goes for "sexist" and "misandrist" (which is not a word, according to my iPod).

I guess my question is this: Has anyone else noticed this trend, or does anyone else feel this way? If so, how do you think that it can be reversed in order to give this words the power and proper meaning that they once had? Perhaps education?

I would like to see standards for schools. Be it we make different schools so that boys can learn their way and girls theirs, or one school standardization across the board.

–]Donkey_Schlong 12 points 6 hours ago

Do not feel guilty for things you have not done. The concept of patriarchy is a pseudo scientific concept. It is not falsifiable, and when shown to be the trash it is they came up with kyriarchy to fill the void and keep their ideology afloat.

Even if the types of privilege that feminists claim are so pervasive existed in the real world, you would not be held for the sins of your forefathers, nor should you feel guilty [this is of course assuming your forefathers did any sinning at all -- most clearly did not.] Just as many try to drive a wedge between those alive today using white guilt for slavery, they deny the facts that the vast majority of southerners did not own slaves, and 2% of the elite owned the majority of slaves. They will also deny or obfuscate the issue that Africans captured and sold their own and competing tribes into slavery.

The crux of the matter is that most people do not want to accept their own actions and choices as the direct arbiter of their life's course. They would rather blame others, or create systems of institutionalized "-isms" to blame. I cannot but help think of the young lady who posted in r/pics the other day of the dress she spent 2 months weaving on a loom. Apparently her degree was in traditional weaving. What is she to do in a modern economy of international business with this degree? Why would someone pay for her labors? I find the typewriter and printing press valuable as human art, but I do not waste time on them when I can use a $100 dollar laptop to self publish a book. I wonder in a few years if she will be part of an "occupy" movement, or raging on some blog how she cannot find a job? I wonder who subsidized her choice to forgo competent education and competent skills in an increasingly cutthroat modern marketplace? Was it her parents, was it student loans? If loans, will she join the increasing numbers of drones who want debt forgiveness for their bad choices?

Forgive the off topic rant, but I fully feel that encompasses the creation of "-isms" and why people must create institutional bogeymen to shift blame to: they just don't want to own up to their own choices. Unlike Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, they do not see that the only thing to focus on are their responses to actions, not the actions themselves. permalink

report

reply

[–]reidhasguitar[S] 4 points 5 hours ago

On that third paragraph: I think people being able to do things the traditional way is great, and I think the degree is simply a side effect of them learning how to do it.

Having a hobby is great, as long as you have a marketable skill to supplement it, and if your hobby can get you a job - so much the better. One thing that I have an issue with the no-one seems to agree with me on, is that sports needs to take a secondary position to academics in schools. If you want to play rugby - that doesn't hurt anybody, and it's fine - but only a handful of people can play it professionally, and they can't do it for very long, so you can't depend on becoming a professional sports player, you've got to be good at literacy, numeracy, and you've got to have some other skill. I'm tired of second-rate education in schools with first-rate sporting.

My school is building a multi-million dollar sports complex, while the music department is using egg cartons in lieu of insulation, the IT department has make-shift everything all over the place, and all students are destroying their backs on shit tables and chairs, in classes of 30.

The government is starting sporting initiatives all over the place, while our computing qualification standards haven't been updated since the dawn of the century. Hell, I'm practically a second-class citizen for not being a sports player.

People often cite that "Our obesity rate is one of the highest in the world, and you want to take away sports?" - I don't want to take away sports in the least, I just want everybody to receive an education, and if our obesity rate is so high, maybe it's got something to do with how people can't cook themselves healthy meals because they never learned how. You can't maintain a healthy lifestyle by playing a game of rugby before chowing down on McDonalds and KFC for every meal. Something that people fail to realise also, is that the people in the All Blacks (our national rugby team) have to be well-rounded, and above all - good role models. I know only about two guys who I can truly say meet that criteria: they're passionate about their sport, but they get good grades and they understand that not everyone is as interested in rugby as they are. Thanks to one of those guys, I can now throw a rugby ball properly, because he was patient and helpful when teaching me how.

Don't even get me started on institutionalised racism. I feel bad for saying this as a white man, but - fuck up. Oh, so your ancestors were treated poorly by someone with the same skin colour as me (I'm not descended from the European settlers)? Well that's great, now how about you get off your ass and try and make something of yourself. You have no-one to blame for your position other than yourself. The government literally pays your wages if you can't earn them. Do them a favour and try to find a job, or at least feed and clothe your kids with that money, instead of blowing it on cigarettes and alcohol. Clean up your house, teach your kids to obey the law. God knows it would improve society. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own problems. When I say something stupid and I get into trouble, it's my own fault and I accept responsibility.

In a perfect society, we wouldn't need the government or the police, because everyone would be honest in their dealings, and they would treat everyone fairly, and they would do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because they're worried that the police will catch them, or that God will punish them.

On our list of priorities; proper education needs to be on the top. permalink parent

report

reply

If you can tell me how to set this up better please feel encouraged to do so, but as I am not reddit savy please include how to do this.

Similar to how IAMA moderators verify the legitimacy of the OP and how the /r/science community tags users by profession, would anyone be opposed to creating a optional, not mandatory, system where we expose our credentials and background to the mods for verification?

I've been in countless situations where I'd like to pull out the I'm a doctor card, but don't because it's a double edged sword that often does more harm than good. More harm, because anyone can say they're anything here, and doubt, while warranted, is deeply ingrained in our thought processes.

In the end, I believe it would create an atmosphere of trust and help increase the viability and visibility of what we're trying to do here.

To give a fair equal ground for people to come and discuss their side of the story, trolls will be removed and banned as quickly as possible. One day old accounts please be warned about posting for those will be highly suspect.