Support NeoGAF

[Christberg]

Most of this stuff is basic common sense. But I'm not going to actively avoid women in public just because they're more likely to get assaulted by a man. That's like saying that poor people should avoid me because they're more likely to rob me.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Because there is always a power dynamic at play when it comes to money, unless you're in a relationship where you've hashed that shit out quite well. Financial dependence can and is used a lot to justify controlling and abusive behaviors.

I would think this applies across the board for all things though.

 

[Devolution]

It's actually pretty nice when a guy notices your nervousness of getting home solo and is like "i can take you home", otherwise I feel like I'm imposing and being selfish.

 

[Dragonborn]

Yeah, I really have a problem with some of these points and the overall tone of the list.

The donating 23 percent is especially absurd. If for some crazy reason I thought donating that much of my income was a good idea, I'd spread it out between charities that fight against hunger, illiteracy and stuff like that (which I do though obviously not 23 percent of my earning).

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

List makes huge assumptions and generalisations. The FaQ just strengthens that.

After 3 months of meeting my now wife we bought a house and put both salaries into one account and agreed its all both our money no matter what happens job wise (who earns more, when we have kids etc).

We split work as evenly as we can mixed with who likes and hates what.

We treat each other with equal respect. I treat others with the same respect no matter their gender.

Its not my fault people out there are sexist, prejudice and racist. I will happily tell someone I don't agree with their view point but its not my burdon people are like that.

There are some things on that list that are just common sense but a lot come off almost sexest its self or just worded terribly.

For example the "if a woman tells you somethings sexist" one. Straight up that's dumb. I should believe you just because your a woman? Then you read the FAQ and she says it means think about why they find it sexist and see if there us any truth in that....... So not its sexist if she says it is.

 

[mullet2000]

It's actually pretty nice when a guy notices your nervousness of getting home solo and is like "i can take you home", otherwise I feel like I'm imposing and being selfish.

Yes. I make a point of doing this because I know a lot of girls would think they're being annoying if they ask.

Also, coming over and being "fake boyfriend" for a minute or two at social events/bars if some guy is being annoying with his advances to a female friend. If it's communicated beforehand that they want an "out", of course

 

[Magik]

This list comes off as very dehumanizing towards males.
It's like the author thinks men should be nothing more than ever-vigilant arbiters of some sort of Platonic feminine principle that each woman embodies.
Just tools to be used for female empowerment, defined only by how the relate to women.

That's pretty much how I see it as well.

Some of the items on that list just doesn't sit well even with the "FAQ".

That one item about sitting somewhere else on a bus seems rather bizarre to me. I travel on public transportation all the time which, for the most part is always packed. On top of that, I along with most people have other things on our mind and the last thing one needs to deal with is women's potential paranoia. If I feel I need to sit down... I"m going to sit down.

On top of that, when it comes to politicians, media and what not, I"m going to gravitates towards whoever appeals to me regardless of gender.

Basically, everybody needs to treat each other with some basic respect regardless of gender and adjust it accordingly.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

It's actually pretty nice when a guy notices your nervousness of getting home solo and is like "i can take you home", otherwise I feel like I'm imposing and being selfish.

Yeah I have done that. But I have done that for male and female friends. Males get attacked and assaulted it. To me that's just common courtesy.

 

[Alienous]

There is a lot of "Treat them as equals, by treating them differently" in that list. Especially from a chivalrous standpoint, which I thought was sexist from a feminist viewpoint.

The best I think I can do as a guy is to treat people equally independent of their gender. Going out of my way to artificially support, or be a subordinate, to women doesn't wash with me.

Good luck to the dudes who follow every tool.

 

[P44]

I dislike this list, a lot of it seems overly bending backwards and seem to have nothing to do with equality and more to do with some sort of weird appeasement. In my view that's probably the quickest way to create amazing amounts of discontent about the equality in question.

 

[Enco]

23. Don’t treat your spouse like a “nag.” If she is “nagging,” you are probably lagging.

a) Don’t some women treat some men like “nags”?

I’m sure this happens sometimes. But just because women can do something too doesn’t mean it’s not, in general, a hugely gendered phenomenon usually perpetrated by men. The existence of contrary examples to a rule does not mean the rule itself does not exist, shouldn’t be called a rule, and shouldn’t be examined as a rule.

The FAQ is shit.

 

[MacNille]

Reading through parts of it and parts of the FAQ. It is just dreadful. Written like a typical tumblr blog.

 

[Bogey]

Why? You spread the costs around and it'll cost less for the people who need it. If you only make women pay for, say, birth control or pregnancy needs, you're shifting the costs on to women, making healthcare more expensive: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/31/republicans_want_to_make_women_pay_more_for_insurance_again/.

You should read up on how healthcare costs work.

If I may, I would like to finish the sentences:

"You spread the costs around and it'll cost less for the people who need it", and more for the people who don't need it.

"If you only make women pay for, say, birth control or pregnancy needs, you're shifting the costs on to women, making healthcare more expensive" ... for those who actually need those things (women), and less expensive for those who don't (guys). You don't increase health care costs overall, you simply distribute them differently.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying this is how it should be; I'm merely saying, the line of reasoning is not consistent with the blog.
Either you chose to ignore physical (dis-)advantages and spread costs evenly. In that case, guys pay the same amount for insurances & pension (my example), and girls pay their equal share in contraception (the blog post).
Or, you try to make up for physical disadvantages by giving financial advantages. In that case, men would have to pay less for their pension schemes etc., while girls' contraception would be subsidized. Saying the latter should be done, while not applying that reasoning to insurances, pension and everything else, is neither fair nor consistent.

"You should read up on how healthcare costs work."

I would love to, but that article doesn't exactly support your line of reasoning. In fact, it explicitly states
"Before Obamacare, it made sense actuarially for insurers to charge women more than men for coverage on the individual market."
The whole rest of the article is based on the argument of solidarity, which I have explicitly mentioned in my first post and which I have repeated in this one. This is essentially the first way of doing this: Ignore physical differences, and split costs evenly. Which also means: Split costs for contraception evenly.

 

[Skinpop]

I don't know what it's like in the us but I read a study a decade or so ago where they showed that only 5% or so of the income gap(in sweden) could not be explained by education, experience or profession. Basically the conclusion was that women don't earn less for the same work but rather that there are more men in high paying jobs. This is already changing, nowadays more women go to uni than men and they are generally more mobile, willing to move into big cities to pursue their career of choice. Point is it's not one of those things you an just change over a couple of years like adopting proper discrimination laws, there needs to be a switch in generations for the change to show up in the statistics.

Young men without higher education living in rural parts are considered to become the forgotten losers of the coming decades, yet no one ever talks about that.
While 'white straight male' has been the tagline to personify the privileged I think a more accurate one for sweden would be white straight female.

 

[Gr1mLock]

The FAQ is shit.

The issue with these kind of things is that almost eventually at some point they become overzealous and antagonistic.

 

[The Librarian]

If I may, I would like to finish the sentences:

"You spread the costs around and it'll cost less for the people who need it", and more for the people who don't need it.

"If you only make women pay for, say, birth control or pregnancy needs, you're shifting the costs on to women, making healthcare more expensive" ... for those who actually need those things (women), and less expensive for those who don't (guys). You don't increase health care costs overall, you simply distribute them differently.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying this is how it should be; I'm merely saying, the line of reasoning is not consistent with the blog.
Either you chose to ignore physical (dis-)advantages and spread costs evenly. In that case, guys pay the same amount for insurances & pension (my example), and girls pay their equal share in contraception (the blog post).
Or, you try to make up for physical disadvantages by giving financial advantages. In that case, men would have to pay less for their pension schemes etc., while girls' contraception would be subsidized. Saying the latter should be done, while not applying that reasoning to insurances, pension and everything else, is neither fair nor consistent.

"You should read up on how healthcare costs work."

I would love to, but that article doesn't exactly support your line of reasoning. In fact, it explicitly states
"Before Obamacare, it made sense actuarially for insurers to charge women more than men for coverage on the individual market."
The whole rest of the article is based on the argument of solidarity, which I have explicitly mentioned in my first post and which I have repeated in this one. This is essentially the first way of doing this: Ignore physical differences, and split costs evenly. Which also means: Split costs for contraception evenly.

*bangs head against wall*

 

[Infinite]

The issue with these kind of things is that almost eventually at some point they become overzealous and antagonistic.

I think some of you are actively looking for reasons to make this so.

 

[kirblar]

*bangs head against wall*

If you're viewing it as a system of socialized medicine, everyone paying into it equally makes sense. If you're viewing it as an insurance system, like with Car Insurance, paying different amounts based on age/gender makes sense. Your perspective will determine your preferred answer.

 

[danwarb]

Most of this stuff is basic common sense. But I'm not going to actively avoid women in public just because they're more likely to get assaulted by a man. That's like saying that poor people should avoid me because they're more likely to rob me.

Is this true? I'd have thought men were more likely to be assaulted.

 

[The Librarian]

If you're viewing it as a system of socialized medicine, everyone paying into it equally makes sense. If you're viewing it as an insurance system, like with Car Insurance, paying different amounts based on age/gender makes sense. Your perspective will determine your preferred answer.

Only because insurers want money (which is harmful by and large to a country's healthcare spending). Whether it's an insurance or single-payer system, cost sharing helps hold down costs.

 

[Transhuman]

4. Give women space. Many women walk around—especially at night or while alone—feeling on edge and unsafe. Being in close physical proximity to an unknown man can exacerbate this feeling. Recognize that this is not an unreasonable fear for women to have, given how many of us have experienced harassment or abuse or been made to feel unsafe by men when we are in public spaces. Also recognize that it doesn’t matter if you are the kind of man who a woman has any actual reason to fear, because a woman on the street doesn’t have a way of knowing this about you or not.

Using that logic, maybe black people should give white people space when crossing the street. Given how man white people have experienced harassment or abuse or been made feel unsafe from black people, it's just common courtesy to give us our space right? Fuck no. But that's essentially her argument.

I walk the streets at night a lot, usually between 10am-4am, and I've never crossed the street to avoid anyone despite one or two bad experiences. If someone wants to cross the street to avoid walking past me that's their prerogative (never had that experience though, at least not knowingly), but people don't overcome fears and anxieties in a hermetically sealed bubble, me accommodating someone's paranoia is not going to happen.

 

[kirblar]

Only because insurers want money (which is harmful by and large to a country's healthcare spending). Whether it's an insurance or single-payer system, cost sharing helps hold down costs.

Profit motivation isn't inherently problematic. The incentive structure in the US, however, where more tests = more money, is. HMOs were actually great at cost control since everything was under a single "roof" and could be tracked/accounted for.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Using that logic, maybe black people should give white people space when crossing the street. Given how man white people have experienced harassment or abuse or been made feel unsafe from black people, it's just common courtesy to give us our space right? Fuck no. But that's essentially her argument.

I walk the streets at night a lot, usually between 10am-4am, and I've never crossed the street to avoid anyone despite one or two bad experiences. If someone wants to cross the street to avoid walking past me that's their prerogative (never had that experience though, at least not knowingly), but people don't overcome fears and anxieties in a hermetically sealed bubble, me accommodating someone's paranoia is not going to happen.

I think black people have experienced more harassment and abuse from white people

 

[The Librarian]

Profit motivation isn't inherently problematic. The incentive structure in the US, however, where more tests = more money, is. HMOs were actually great at cost control since everything was under a single "roof" and could be tracked/accounted for.

I didn't say that. You're dancing around what I'm saying to say some stuff that's not really relevant.

 

[Soulflarz]

"25. Befriend females. If you don’t have any female friends, figure out why you don’t and then make some. Make sure they are authentic, meaningful relationships.The more we care about and relate to one anther, the better chance we stand of creating a more egalitarian society."

Doesn't that ruin the whole point of a friendship? If someone makes a friend to simply say they have said friend...uhm...that feels really backwards. The main step it tells and the fact that it says they should be authentic and meaningful really don't go well together...

 

[Bogey]

I don't know what it's like in the us but I read a study a decade or so ago where they showed that only 5% or so of the income gap(in sweden) could not be explained by education, experience or profession. [..]

As far as I know, studies with similar results have been done for some other European countries as well. Most important factors for differences were more frequent employment in less well paid sectors (e.g. education vs. sciences), more often working on a part-time basis, and breaks from the job due to maternity leave.

And indeed, which company in their right mind would pay women in equal positions in their company less? Colleagues do talk about their salary, and if this actually hits public, that company would be completely murdered in press, not to mention facing tons of very very costly lawsuits outweighting any potential benefits by saving a tiny bit of salaries by orders of magnitudes.

Of course that still leaves some questions, e.g. whether it's fair to pay people less who opted for pausing their jobs for some time due to having kids. For companies, it makes a lot of sense - why pay equal salaries for less experience? From a society point of view, this might be different of course, as the government should have an incentive to reward having kids. Anyway, this particular thing might equalize very soon, when I have a look at my own friends, it has become a lot normal for both parents to stay at home for a while, so the gender gap because of that particular reason should reduce a bit relatively soon.

 

[And_Gignac]

I agree with all the points except point 4. Point 4 only perpetuates paranoia between females and it doesn't represent (or ignores) actual, real life social situations.

Oh also, the contraception one is not necessary. It should be a democratic expenditure based on which partner is earning more or has more disposable income at the moment.

 

[kirblar]

I didn't say that. You're dancing around what I'm saying to say some stuff that's not really relevant.

I was originally saying that your point of view on the issue (societal responsibility v individual one) will determine how you think costs should be distributed. It's a normative question, not a positive one.

 

[Gorilla Shark]

Why would any man want to help further the feminist revolution? Just curious.

 

[The Librarian]

I was originally saying that your point of view on the issue (societal responsibility v individual one) will determine how you think costs should be distributed. It's a normative question, not a positive one.

Er...one's more effective at holding down costs for everyone than the other.

 

[fader]

Using that logic, maybe black people should give white people space when crossing the street. Given how man white people have experienced harassment or abuse or been made feel unsafe from black people, it's just common courtesy to give us our space right? Fuck no. But that's essentially her argument.

I walk the streets at night a lot, usually between 10am-4am, and I've never crossed the street to avoid anyone despite one or two bad experiences. If someone wants to cross the street to avoid walking past me that's their prerogative (never had that experience though, at least not knowingly), but people don't overcome fears and anxieties in a hermetically sealed bubble, me accommodating someone's paranoia is not going to happen.

....what? That is in no way a great example of her logic and i don't know if you realize this, but you are reinforcing the "scary black-man" stereotype.

 

[Transhuman]

I think black people have experienced more harassment and abuse from white people

It's about fear, not about keeping score. I don't have statistics but I'd be willing to bet more white people would say they're afraid of black men than black people would say the same about white men.

....what? That is in no way a great example of her logic and i don't know if you realize this, but you are reinforcing the "scary black-man" stereotype.

Yeah...no. Ignorant assholes are reinforcing the "scary black-man" stereotype. I'm reinforcing the "white people are more likely to be ignorant assholes" stereotype.

 

[kirblar]

Er...one's more effective at holding down costs for everyone than the other.

Correct. But people aren't looking at these issues through the lens of economic rationality.

 

[Bogey]

Only because insurers want money (which is harmful by and large to a country's healthcare spending). Whether it's an insurance or single-payer system, cost sharing helps hold down costs.

For which you have yet to provide any evidence.
There's not exactly any logical reason why the price of any medication, or of any doctors bill should become any cheaper in total if split between two people, instead of being paid by one.

FYI, when different rates for men and women were ruled illegal in my country, men's rates were increased while women's rates remained constant.

*bangs head against wall*

Personally, I think it's easier to lead discussions with arguments instead of rude behaviour lacking any arguments, but hey.. that's up to you.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Just went through the first ten to see if I was on track:

1. Yep, I tend to do 75% of the housework in order to compensate for women being expected to do the majority of the housework.

2. I guess I don't do too well on the emotional support side of thing, but then I am pretty closed emotionally..

3. I do try, but it's hard due to the pervasive presence of male cultural products. I can't even think of a movie that was directed by a woman.

4. Oh yes, I am well aware of how awful women have it, and take every step possible to ensure that they never have reason to have it any shittier when out and about.

5. Never been in a situation like this, but I'll be sure to keep this tip in mind.

6. Sure, why wouldn't I believe her?

7. No means no, even if the no is non-verbal or implied - got it.

8. Condoms, check. Will also get my sperm ducts snipped eventually.

9. Yep, got the HPV vaccine already.

10. I'm all for creating a new surname if I were to get married, I don't think the practice of taking someone's surname is worth adhering to.

Doing pretty well on the remaining points from a quick skim through them, so I feel good about my contribution towards a more feminist society.

 

[Paracelsus]

Maybe it's a bannable term so I won't use it but there's a single word to express what she wants men to be and it unquestionably is w-something. No, that word is not "wanker".

 

[kirblar]

There's not exactly any logical reason why the price of any medication, or of any doctors bill should become any cheaper in total if split between two people, instead of being paid by one.

Lumping people together into larger groups reduces overall costs by tempering out variance/risk over a larger population. It's part of the reason why larger businesses have an easier time with our health insurance system in the US than smaller ones do.

In addition, the limits of the ability of taxation to raise revenue end up placing a soft cap on health care costs in countries where the majority of care is provided through government-run or subsidized programs.

 

[The Librarian]

Correct. But people aren't looking at these issues through the lens of economic rationality.

So...you're taking issue with something I said that's correct? Um, what?

 

[kirblar]

So...you're taking issue with something I said that's correct? Um, what?

No, I'm pointing out that you can't win your "debate" because it's not actually about economics, it's about individually held beliefs and values.

 

[Gr1mLock]

I think some of you are actively looking for reasons to make this so.

Not really (I'll speak for myself). I stated before i agree with a great chunk of the list. When people say 'i treat everyone equally' its not a malicious statement. People take offense when someone points out that we need exceptionalism. In case of men and women im for it. I can imagine being a 130 pound girl walking home at 2 am with a six foot 200 pound guerrilla following you can be a bit scary. I am not a 130 pound girl so i can't speak about her life experience. I can however also imagine that the six foot guerrilla is just trying to get to the train. People take offense when someone asks more from them than what they give on their own accord. At the end of the day men really should treat women in general a bit better, but saying 'ill treat you as an equal' seems like a pretty good start to me.

 

[The Librarian]

No, I'm pointing out that you can't win your "debate" because it's not actually about economics, it's about individually held beliefs and values.

That characterizes just about any debate.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I swear no matter what the subject is, it's only a matter of time before it gets compared to Hitler or black people.

 

[Dragonborn]

....what? That is in no way a great example of her logic and i don't know if you realize this, but you are reinforcing the "scary black-man" stereotype.

I don't think he is. He's just making a good point (in my opinion at least). It's the same kind of irrational fear. Just becausr someone is an African American doesn't mean they'll hurt you, yet people still have that fear. Similar to how the great majority of men would never lay a hand on a woman yet the fear exists. In fact, please correct me if I'm wrong, but most sexual abuse (the majority of it) is commited by people you know, not strangers.

So he's drawing up the analogy, should a black man move to the other side of the street to make some other person less uncomfortable?

Of course he shouldn't, because it's an irrational fear.

 

[Drinky Crow]

th' fuck? i'm a successful dude and none of these precepts compromise me. most of them improve ME, not just life for the ladyfolk..

finding a female mentor is IMPORTANT shit. you won't move in business these days unless you actively CHOOSE to learn from women as well as men. i got a number of female mentors. they're right evil bastards and worth mentoring with.

edit: except this: "When in a romantic relationship, be responsible for events and special dates associated with your side of the family." FUCK REMEMBERING PEOPLE'S BIRTHDAYS. that's facebook's job. i don't expect my wife to remember my fam's birthdays either, and if they give her some shit about that being "the wife's biz" i'll unleash the xy-chromosome beast on 'em

 

[Log4Girlz]

Maybe it's a bannable term so I won't use it but there's a single word to express what she wants men to be and it unquestionably is w-something. No, that word is not "wanker".

Werewolf?

 

[Dragonborn]

th' fuck? i'm a successful dude and none of these precepts compromise me. most of them improve ME, not just life for the ladyfolk..

finding a female mentor is IMPORTANT shit. you won't move in business these days unless you actively CHOOSE to learn from women as well as men.

Wait, what do you mean? The majority of (well pretty much all) of my social connections and networking involves men and it's gotten me to a pretty good point in life, and no doubt it'll help me in the future. Why wouldn't you be able to move up?

 

[YoungHav]

Transhuman just betrayed white people by calling them shook lol.

 

[Infinite]

Not really (I'll speak for myself). I stated before i agree with a great chunk of the list. When people say 'i treat everyone equally' its not a malicious statement. People take offense when someone points out that we need exceptionalism. In case of men and women im for it. I can imagine being a 130 pound girl walking home at 2 am with a six foot 200 pound guerrilla following you can be a bit scary. I am not a 130 pound girl so i can't speak about her life experience. I can however also imagine that the six foot guerrilla is just trying to get to the train. People take offense when someone asks more from them than what they give on their own accord. At the end of the day men really should treat women in general a bit better, but saying 'ill treat you as an equal' seems like a pretty good start to me.

You have to also consider the societal context in which these statements are being made which is what many of the people in this thread are not doing and this actively finding reasons to think of these very practical suggestions as something negative. Like there's a clear precedent set in society as to why women would feel uncomfortable with a man tailing them too close.

 

[Gotchaye]

Using that logic, maybe black people should give white people space when crossing the street. Given how man white people have experienced harassment or abuse or been made feel unsafe from black people, it's just common courtesy to give us our space right? Fuck no. But that's essentially her argument.

I walk the streets at night a lot, usually between 10am-4am, and I've never crossed the street to avoid anyone despite one or two bad experiences. If someone wants to cross the street to avoid walking past me that's their prerogative (never had that experience though, at least not knowingly), but people don't overcome fears and anxieties in a hermetically sealed bubble, me accommodating someone's paranoia is not going to happen.

There are some pretty obvious differences here, though, such that someone who wants to say that men have a duty to be careful not to make women uncomfortable isn't necessarily committed to saying that black people have the same duty re: white people. Let's pass over the white privilege angle and just talk about the anxiety being felt by the woman or white man walking down the street.

The fears aren't equally reasonable. We're not going to have exactly the statistics we'd want, but as a first pass we can look and see that for every black-on-white homicide there are about five white-on-white homicides, which is pretty close to the black:white ratio in the population (actually it is slightly lower). On the other hand, male-on-X homicide is much more common than any other sort. Rape, at least outside of prisons (which obviously is a different context than walking down the street), is heavily skewed towards male offenders and female victims. Some studies also suggest that female victimization is depressingly common, such that it's not unreasonable for women to be somewhat anxious in many situations where white men wouldn't be anxious and shouldn't be anxious, even if there are scary black people around.

 

[Dragonborn]

I don't understand this neo-feminism. Feminism was needed when women didn't have equal rights and were treated like shit. I find that the feminists of today feel superior than men which is equally bad.

I believe there's a difference between feminists and radical femnists. The ones who seek superiority rather than equality are the radical side. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can chime in that as I'm not 100% sure on that.

There are some pretty obvious differences here, though, such that someone who wants to say that men have a duty to be careful not to make women uncomfortable isn't necessarily committed to saying that black people have the same duty re: white people. Let's pass over the white privilege angle and just talk about the anxiety being felt by the woman or white man walking down the street.

The fears aren't equally reasonable. We're not going to have exactly the statistics we'd want, but as a first pass we can look and see that for every black-on-white homicide there are about five white-on-white homicides, which is pretty close to the black:white ratio in the population (actually it is slightly lower). On the other hand, male-on-X homicide is much more common than any other sort. Rape, at least outside of prisons (which obviously is a different context than walking down the street), is heavily skewed towards male offenders and female victims. Some studies also suggest that female victimization is depressingly common, such that it's not unreasonable for women to be somewhat anxious in many situations where white men wouldn't be anxious and shouldn't be anxious, even if there are scary black people around.

But by the same token that most white homicides are comittes by another white person (hence making fear of African Americans irrational), aren't most sexual abuse cases commited by people close to the victim (hence making fear of random dudes rather irrational)?