• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Badly educated men have not adapted well to trade, technology or feminism (Economist)

Status
Not open for further replies.

dinazimmerman

Incurious Bastard
The fact that there are feminists who are also selfish and bigoted is not an aspect of feminism.

Can you really state this without proof? For example, if I claimed,

"The fact that there are Christians who are also selfish and bigoted is not an aspect of Christianity." (replace with any religion or ideology)

I would be asked to prove it.
 
If you don't care about women as a whole, then your not worth talking to. People outside of the USA count. You can't ignore them just because they don't fit your narrative. There are women alive today that have NEVER voted.
Oh, no doubt. There are sadly also girls (and boys) who are sold as sex slaves in certain parts of the world. (And unfortunately, probably even a little here in the States.) But my statement was about conditions for women in the U.S., not globally. That's not to say people outside my country are unimportant. But I live in the U.S. so I generally talk about how things are in the U.S since I know it better (or at least I think I do) and it affects me more closely.

Also, I put that caveat on in there because the statement's true when restricted to the subset of the U.S. but does not necessarily hold when broadened to the entire population of the globe. It's not about fitting a narrative. It's just about accuracy.
 
Can you really state this without proof? For example, if I claimed,

"The fact that there are Christians who are also selfish and bigoted is not an aspect of Christianity." (replace with any religion or ideology)

I would be asked to prove it.

No, typically you wouldn't. You can't really ask people to prove negatives like that, you sound sort of silly. Ideologies are typically defined somewhat broadly because, by default, they attract many types of people who have different takes on their common belief.

The fact that there are feminists who are also selfish and bigoted is not an aspect of feminism.

No, it's not, but with a enough members or volume they can alter the direction or take attention away from the feminist movement. It's a complex topic, but radicals are definitely an issue with feminism (or, at the very least, how it's popularly perceived, which is also super important). The prevalence of Tumblr in these discussions is proof enough that it's at least worth talking about.
 

Chichikov

Member
Can you really state this without proof? For example, if I claimed,

"The fact that there are Christians who are also selfish and bigoted is not an aspect of Christianity." (replace with any religion or ideology)

I would be asked to prove it.
He didn't say feminists, he said feminism.
Feminism is about gender equality, other beliefs that feminists have are not really all that relevant, I mean, some feminists are vegetarians, is vegetarianism an aspect of feminism?

Now, you can try and argue that there's a correlation between being a feminist and being selfish and bigoted or even that feminism leads to being such person, it's a bit of a different thing to say, and the burden of proof is on you.
No, it's not, but with a enough members or volume they can alter the direction or take attention away from the feminist movement. It's a complex topic, but radicals are definitely an issue with feminism (or, at the very least, how it's popularly perceived, which is also super important). The prevalence of Tumblr in these discussions is proof enough that it's at least worth talking about.
People who are hostile to the idea of feminism amplify those fringe voices in order to undermine the movement.
I think that if you support feminism, you should not play that game. There will always going to be idiots on the internet.
This is not the first time it happened by the way, the popular image of the crazy man hating radical feminist is mostly a made boogieeoman created be enemies of gender equality.
I mean sure, there were some feminists who were really out there, there are always such people (yes, even before tumblr) but even at the height of 2nd wave feminism, they were a tiny unimportant part of the movement.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
I know these posts are in response to the video about men in college, but this thead is about an entire article demonstrating the very real challenges that working class men face. It's weird to be so flippant about their difficulties when so many are struggling with the current economic realities.

Yeah. It's a little bit distressing to see how easily some people write off any issues specific to men, but it's clear that MRA bullshit is to blame for that. With their whining, those "activists" have actually done more to impede the cause of men's rights than any other group.
 
Yeah. It's a little bit distressing to see how easily some people write off any issues specific to men, but it's clear that MRA bullshit is to blame for that. With their whining, those "activists" have actually done more to impede the cause of men's rights than any other group.

Do you really think there are that many Men's Rights activists in the world that they have the ability shape the mainstreams views on feminism?
 
Yeah. It's a little bit distressing to see how easily some people write off any issues specific to men, but it's clear that MRA bullshit is to blame for that. With their whining, those "activists" have actually done more to impede the cause of men's rights than any other group.

Please don't blame MRAs for people ignoring men's issues. If somebody refuses to acknowledge that men can and do have unique problems of their own that should be addressed that's entirely they're doing and they have no excuse.

This is literally MRA logic, a group that has some good members and a good core message but has largely focused its message on screwing over the radicals on the other side. It's a contagious us vs. them mentality and I hate the way it's treated on Neogaf. Caring about or bringing up men's issues is not enherently MRA (nor is MRA always 100% toxic and wrong about everything ever in some laughable manner) and any discussion about them shouldn't be so quickly brushed aside.
 
Please don't blame MRAs for people ignoring men's issues. If somebody refuses to acknowledge that men can and do have unique problems of their own that should be addressed that's entirely they're doing and they have no excuse.

This is literally MRA logic, a group that has some good members and a good core message but has largely focused its message on screwing over the radicals on the other side. It's a contagious us vs. them mentality and I hate the way it's treated on Neogaf. Caring about or bringing up men's issues is not enherently MRA (nor is MRA always 100% toxic and wrong about everything ever in some laughable manner) and any discussion about them shouldn't be so quickly brushed aside.

I have yet to see an honest to god sustained and credible movement for trying to fix men's issues (other than some freminist groups actually) that doesn't blame women and feminists
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Do you really think there are that many Men's Rights activists in the world that they have the ability shape the mainstreams views on feminism?

Not on feminism per se, but when the majority of people who purport to support the rights of men are mostly concerned with attacking feminism or any individuals who do not conform to their often misogynistic worldview, the general cause definitely takes a hit.

Needless to say, this town needs a better class of men's rights activists.
 

Damerman

Member
LolChristinaSommers
P.S. Who in their right mind would spend an hour listening to bullshit right-wing gator nonsense?

jesus christ. I'm a feminist... But am i wrong for agreeing with a lot of the things she says just because she is "allegedly" right-wing? and why are you calling it nonsense? clearly this woman didn't sit there and pull shit out of her ass, she gave evidence. She said she is a feminist. she's done research... so how is it nonsense?
 
jesus christ. I'm a feminist... But am i wrong for agreeing with a lot of the things she says just because she is "allegedly" right-wing? and why are you calling it nonsense? clearly this woman didn't sit there and pull shit out of her ass, she gave evidence. She said she is a feminist. she's done research... so how is it nonsense?

I would agree. She definitely comes off as dismissive in her tone, and she tends to look down on people who disagree, so I understand why a lot of people on this forum don't like her (even if they're dismissive themselves). But with the amount of facts and statistics she throws into her stuff I don't think she can be completely ignored without some form of dissonance.

She's not perfect, and I haven't watched this specific video so I won't comment on it, but it might be useful for some people to take a step out their echo chamber and give her a listen every once in a while.
 

Yrael

Member
jesus christ. I'm a feminist... But am i wrong for agreeing with a lot of the things she says just because she is "allegedly" right-wing? and why are you calling it nonsense? clearly this woman didn't sit there and pull shit out of her ass, she gave evidence. She said she is a feminist. she's done research... so how is it nonsense?

I would agree. She definitely comes off as dismissive in her tone, and she tends to look down on people who disagree, so I understand why a lot of people on this forum don't like her (even if they're dismissive themselves). But with the amount of facts and statistics she throws into her stuff I don't think she can be completely ignored without some form of dissonance.

She's not perfect, and I haven't watched this specific video so I won't comment on it, but it might be useful for some people to take a step out their echo chamber and give her a listen every once in a while.

I may as well leave this here - you might want to give this a read if you want to know why people are being dismissive:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/sommers2.html
 

Wiktor

Member
I have yet to see an honest to god sustained and credible movement for trying to fix men's issues (other than some freminist groups actually) that doesn't blame women and feminists
There are some in Europe at least. But yeah, generally there's no big good org like this. Which is sad, because it's needed. Feminist organizations, for all good effort of some of them, simply aren't well suited to fixing those issues.
 
I may as well leave this here - you might want to give this a read if you want to know why people are being dismissive:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/sommers2.html

Sure, I won't refute any of that. You get the vibe of some of that just from watching her. Don't take anything she says at face value.

However, omitting facts isn't as bad as making them up, so at worst she's just not giving the full story. Which is largely unacceptable for someone in her position, don't get me wrong, but I also get the vibe a lot of people in this thread and on this forum do the same in the opposite direction, reading about the stuff that hurts girls and women and downplaying or ignoring the rest (possibly unintentionally). Reading only things like that, only things that protect and support that one world view, can be just harmful.

She shouldn't be a primary source for most things, no one person should be, but I do try to keep up with both sides and understand where different arguments come from, and I think she's effective for that. Everyone interested in this discussion should make sure they get a fairly consistent taste of both sides in order maintain the image of everyone as humans instead of enemies, or just to be sure your owns ideas stand up to rigor. It works so long as you keep an open but skeptical mind about things and use your critcal thinking skills.

So no, I still don't approve the scoffing and jokes about her being posted. Plenty of equally bad people get posted on here but are left completely alone if they help reinforce the current popular opinion.
 
There are some in Europe at least. But yeah, generally there's no big good org like this. Which is sad, because it's needed. Feminist organizations, for all good effort of some of them, simply aren't well suited to fixing those issues.

Agreed.


You know what's sad, more men voted for Romney than Obama.

That's your problem right there. Low income Men are voting more against their own interests things won't change till they step up to the plate like the feminists have done. Feminism is going to help and can do a lot of great things but I don't think it can wholescale work and fully deconstructing toxic masculinity and Kyriarchy /patriarchy, and it won't happen if 54% of men keep voting in status quo/regressives like the GOP and it won't change if the only people that represent your interests in zeitgeist are misogynistic MRAs who blame feminism for everything.
 

Yrael

Member
Sure, I won't refute any of that. You get the vibe of some of that just from watching her. Don't take anything she says at face value.

However, omitting facts isn't as bad as making them up, so at worst she's just not giving the full story. Which is largely unacceptable for someone in her position, don't get me wrong, but I also get the vibe a lot of people in this thread and on this forum do the same in the opposite direction, reading about the stuff that hurts girls and women and downplaying or ignoring the rest (possibly unintentionally). Reading only things like that, only things that protect and support that one world view, can be just harmful.

She shouldn't be a primary source for most things, no one person should be, but I do try to keep up with both sides and understand where different arguments come from, and I think she's effective for that. Everyone interested in this discussion should make sure they get a fairly consistent taste of both sides in order maintain the image of everyone as humans instead of enemies, or just to be sure your owns ideas stand up to rigor. It works so long as you keep an open but skeptical mind about things and use your critcal thinking skills.

She does make things up though - the omission of facts plays into this. The "facts and statistics she throws into her stuff" means absolutely nothing when they are so wildly misrepresented. The review goes into this in great length.

Misleading suggestions of data suppression. Sommers suggests that the feminist researchers she criticizes have suppressed their data and inconvenient findings. For example, she insinuates that Myra and David Sadker have mysteriously failed to publish or make available their study that found that boys called out unsolicited answers eight times more than girls (107, 126n5). In fact, the Sadkers have acknowledged that the 8-to-1 callout ratio, based on preliminary findings, was erroneous. They have published a more comprehensive study superceding their symposium presentation, which found a lower callout ratio still favoring boys--consistent with the 2-to1 ratio reported by Sommers’ own source (107). This study confirmed the far more important finding of their preliminary report, that teachers tend to reward boys’ callouts with positive interactions, but discourage girls’ callouts by correcting their conduct (Sadker and Sadker 1984, 114). By failing to report that the Sadkers have made public available their final, complete, and corrected study, Sommers misleadingly suggests that they are trying to hide something.

Sommers accuses the AAUW of failing to publish data that show that students perceive that teachers favor girls over boys. Yet, in reporting this data herself, she cites an AAUW publication (124)! Although she falsely labels the data “unpublished,” what she really means is that the AAUW did not report this data in their executive summary of their published study. Sommers thinks this is damning, because she accepts students’ perceptions of antiboy bias at face value. She is mistaken. Although students perceive that teachers compliment, pay more attention to, and call on girls more often than boys, objective measures of teacher interaction, reported in numerous studies, reveal that teachers tend to favor boys on these criteria (Sadker, Sadker, and Klein 1991, 294–304). If even the relatively little attention girls receive from teachers is seen as favoring girls over boys, this is evidence, not of a classroom climate favoring girls, but of sexism on the part of students.[2]

Sommers claims that the AAUW failed to publicize a study it commissioned from Valerie Lee (Lee, Chen, and Smerdon 1996), because it supposedly contradicted their earlier, highly publicized study that found the schools shortchange girls (117). Lee herself has publicly repudiated this charge, observing that she did not authorize the AAUW to publicize her study because she and her fellow researchers retained the copyright, so they could publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals (Lee 1996). Sommers’ contribution to SFE reprints work she published in 2000. Thus, in SFE she makes an unfounded, malicious accusation for the second time, although she had years to correct herself.

Falsely claiming that feminist research ignores respects in which boys are disadvantaged. Sommers accuses the AAUW of ignoring and dismissing boys’ problems (123). To support these accusations, Sommers cites research by Lee, Chen, and Smerdon (1996) (sponsored by the AAUW itself!), Kleinfeld (1998) and others on gender differences in educational outcomes that she claims contradicts what she represents as a monolithic picture of antigirl bias in the schools painted by the AAUW in its 1992 report. But the idea that the 1992 AAUW report painted a monolithic picture of antigirl bias is absurd. In fact, the 1992 AAUW report scrupulously noted many of the gender differences in outcomes disfavoring boys that Sommers implies were only revealed later by her favored researchers. (Some of the others were revealed only in research that postdated the 1992 AAUW report.[3]) Check it out the parallel claims for yourself:

Girls attempt suicide more than boys, but boys more often succeed in killing themselves (110). (AAUW 1992, 79)

Boys are more often assigned to special education instruction than girls (109). (AAUW 1992, 19).

Girls get higher grades than boys (108). (AAUW 1992, 22, 33, 52)

More boys than girls are held back (109). (AAUW 1992, 35)

Gender differences in enrollment in high school math and biology courses are small (110). (AAUW 1992, 26-27)

Boys have higher high school dropout rates than girls. (AAUW 1992, 47)

More girls than boys take AP exams (108). (AAUW 1992, 36)

The gender gap in math achievement tests (favoring boys) is small and narrowing (116). (AAUW 1992, 24)
Boys have consistently scored lower than girls on the NAEP reading and writing tests (116). (AAUW 1992, 23)
The pattern of gender differences in school achievement is inconsistent in direction, sometimes favoring boys, sometimes girls (117). (AAUW 1992, 22-27, 33)

Girls have higher educational aspirations than boys (108, 119). (AAUW 1992, 35)

Girls have higher college attendance rates than boys (113-114). (AAUW 1992, 47, 52)

African-American women attend college at far higher rates than African-American men (122). (AAUW 1992, 47-8)

Sommers claims that studies documenting gender gaps in educational achievement that disfavored boys “began to surface” only in the late 1990s (122). In reality, as the above citations demonstrate, the 1992 AAUW report candidly reported numerous gender gaps disfavoring boys. Sommers could have written her article about the crisis in boys’ achievement by heavily relying on this report. But that would have ruined her story, according to which the 1992 AAUW report promulgated an “antiboy climate” (122) that denied that schools were failing boys, too.

Brainfreeze said:
So no, I still don't approve the scoffing and jokes about her being posted. Plenty of equally bad people get posted on here but are left completely alone if they help reinforce the current popular opinion.

Instead of defending a purveyor of shoddy information simply because she represents the contrarian view, it would be better to point out the flaws in studies that you believe people are overlooking if it supports their own worldview.
 
She does make things up though - the omission of facts plays into this. The "facts and statistics she throws into her stuff" means absolutely nothing when they are so wildly misrepresented. The review goes into this in great length.


I would disagree with your claim to the extent of her misrepresentation, and I'd written a good bit about it, but, in the end, it's not worth pursuing. Misinformation is misinformation and she (and I) should do better.

However, I will say that this report is more than a decade old. From what I can tell, she's better about this now. She's about as good as most other mainstream sources at this point.

Instead of defending a purveyor of shoddy information simply because she represents the contrarian view, it would be better to point out the flaws in studies that you believe people are overlooking if it supports their own worldview.


I can occasionally get perspective or insight from her works (which I then fact-check) and correct what I see as incomplete conclusions on both sides, they are not mutually exclusive. I think she's an adequate introduction to a certain view of the argument, it doesn't mean I think she's the end-all be-all. I would say the same about someone like Anita Sarkeesian. They're quick, digestible, pop feminists with a simplified look at the subject matter, not every interaction or discourse on feminism needs to be a full academic undertaking but, when they arise, I won't comment if I'm not ready to do the heavy lifting with research beyond figures like those 2. Or, at least, that's my goal.

I already said Sommers is unnecessarily antagonistic and far from a perfect source, but that doesn't mean she's worth mocking or has absolutely no merit. Especially when most of the mocking seems to come more from the fact that she's 'conservative,' than anything else. Disagreeing with her is fine, implying 100% of her material is worthless does more harm than good.

Either way, she seems to make money being the alternative to typical feminism, so some sensationalism is to be expected. I'll try to be more careful with her in the future, thanks.
 

daniels

Member
At some point we're (a society) going to have to focus on getting more men to go to college and for boys to do better in school we'll they're young. The widening gap of men and women in education is beyond horrible.

Getting equality in schools for boys would help but eh whatever its not like its going to happen anytime soon.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah. It's a little bit distressing to see how easily some people write off any issues specific to men, but it's clear that MRA bullshit is to blame for that. With their whining, those "activists" have actually done more to impede the cause of men's rights than any other group.

I'm fairly sure this is just not true from an numerical perspective. We're all pretty clued in on who MRA people are because GAF is a predominantly male-forum with the largest age bloc in the 24-30 group that I think is likely to be statistically better educated and *certainly* more liberal than the average. Meanwhile, if I ask my dad what an MRA is, he won't have a clue. Most of my friends won't either, and they're university-going people of my own age. It'd be very difficult for MRA groups to have that much determinative power given just how small they are.
 
I went to college and now I can't find a job.
My fiancee dropped out of college and got job that pays nearly 50k a year and she didn't even make a resume. It's basically the same job I did before I was laid off in 2009 of which I received awards for.

Figure that one out.
I actually get more call backs when I dumb down my applications, but still no cigar.
 
I'm guessing this is pretty much what my brother and his wife figured out.

He's married to a biologist but failed to break into the film industry after college. I don't know what he does with his time every day other than watching movies and taking care of their two kids. He recently got a part-time job to help pay for getting them into a better school. I've had other family members run into serious issues regarding employment and finding mates and whatnot. I'm starting to think the women in my generation of the family are doing much better than the men.

I wonder if we'll start to reach a point where more western countries end up like Japan in terms of birthrates because of this.

Raising 2 kids pretty much is a fulltime job, especially when they are younger. Yet since he is a man it is seen as 'doing nothing'.
 

Renekton

Member
Heck, even for the educated, I feel like I'm slowly losing out to women in the IT consulting world where I earn my bread.

They just seem to have better soft skills and EQ making them better equipped to take upper tier consulting roles.

(Not sure if my personal experience is statistically relevant)
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
It's such an unfortunate thing there's a very real stigma of MEN=PEDO every time an adult male in close proximity with children in the society right now, considering it may play a real part in why men in general just don't seem interested pursuing a career as early educators.
 
Heck, even for the educated, I feel like I'm slowly losing out to women in the IT consulting world where I earn my bread.

They just seem to have better soft skills and EQ making them better equipped to take upper tier consulting roles.

(Not sure if my personal experience is statistically relevant)

Dont worry, soon everyone will lose their jobs because computers can do it better.
 

Yrael

Member
I would disagree with your claim to the extent of her misrepresentation, and I'd written a good bit about it, but, in the end, it's not worth pursuing. Misinformation is misinformation and she (and I) should do better.

However, I will say that this report is more than a decade old. From what I can tell, she's better about this now. She's about as good as most other mainstream sources at this point.

Nah, her arguments and tactics are still exactly the same as they were when that academic review was written. For instance, I can pick up a Washington Post article of hers in which she criticises the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence survey:

Consider: In a telephone survey with a 30 percent response rate, interviewers did not ask participants whether they had been raped. Instead of such straightforward questions, the CDC researchers described a series of sexual encounters and then they determined whether the responses indicated sexual violation. A sample of 9,086 women was asked, for example, “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”

What does that mean? If a woman was unconscious or severely incapacitated, everyone would call it rape. But what about sex while inebriated? Few people would say that intoxicated sex alone constitutes rape — indeed, a nontrivial percentage of all customary sexual intercourse, including marital intercourse, probably falls under that definition (and is therefore criminal according to the CDC).

However, what CHS included there was not actually the full quote from the CDC. The bolded is what she left out:

Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever...​
The full text has a much clearer emphasis on the "unable to consent" part, rather than "drunk." CHS has only included the second line, which rather distorts the survey. (Several other anti-feminist pundits did this as well - these articles were shared hundreds of times in the conservative blogspace.)

Brainfreeze said:
I can occasionally get perspective or insight from her works (which I then fact-check) and correct what I see as incomplete conclusions on both sides, they are not mutually exclusive. I think she's an adequate introduction to a certain view of the argument, it doesn't mean I think she's the end-all be-all. I would say the same about someone like Anita Sarkeesian. They're quick, digestible, pop feminists with a simplified look at the subject matter, not every interaction or discourse on feminism needs to be a full academic undertaking but, when they arise, I won't comment if I'm not ready to do the heavy lifting with research beyond figures like those 2. Or, at least, that's my goal.

I already said Sommers is unnecessarily antagonistic and far from a perfect source, but that doesn't mean she's worth mocking or has absolutely no merit. Especially when most of the mocking seems to come more from the fact that she's 'conservative,' than anything else. Disagreeing with her is fine, implying 100% of her material is worthless does more harm than good.

Which of her works do you gain insight from? You've said that she's a valid source with at least some merit, but haven't given specific examples of her opinions that you think have merit.

Brainfreeze said:
Either way, she seems to make money being the alternative to typical feminism, so some sensationalism is to be expected. I'll try to be more careful with her in the future, thanks.

Yep, she is employed by the AEI, a conservative think-tank (the same one that offered scientists $10,000 to write articles critical of climate change, heh). Honestly, CHS is more accurately an anti-feminist than a feminist. She self-identifies as an "equity feminist," but it's terminology of her own invention and required the re-casting of feminism as "victim feminism" in order to muddy the waters, inaccurately represent her targets's views and make her own views seem more legitimate at the same time. (It's not really any great surprise that her articles so often end up being pushed by people hellbent on trying to prove that feminism is destroying the world, women need to relearn their place and society should return to "traditional values." I keep thinking of The Simpsons' send-up of Fox News, but with "racism" replaced by "sexism." Not sexist, but #1 with sexists!)
 
The fact that there are feminists who are also selfish and bigoted is not an aspect of feminism.
But it kind of is, because they muddy and poison the good parts of the cause. Especially when they bring that bigotry into their feminists views. I'm thinking of the Patricia Arquette quote as a pretty good example of this, and more often than not, that sort of thing usually comes from white female feminists.

I'm not particularly vexed to implore into the "why" of the matter, just stating part of the reality. Again, they are not the ones who are "winning" the fight for mainstream representation of the feminist movement, but they do slow it down noticeably.

It's akin to the good Muslims (that make up the majority of the Muslim population, I might add) who want to end Islamaphobia, but every other week an ISIS member blows up a children's school and the media gives them the spotlight. Progress in Western acceptance of Islam and Muslims would be going quite better if the asshat Muslim terrorists weren't attacking innocent civilians in their own countries, or innocent foreigners (who, fwiw, know of the risks of visiting such locations in the first place).
 

Fuchsdh

Member
But it kind of is, because they muddy and poison the good parts of the cause. Especially when they bring that bigotry into their feminists views. I'm thinking of the Patricia Arquette quote as a pretty good example of this, and more often than not, that sort of thing usually comes from white female feminists.

I'm not particularly vexed to implore into the "why" of the matter, just stating part of the reality. Again, they are not the ones who are "winning" the fight for mainstream representation of the feminist movement, but they do slow it down noticeably.

It's akin to the good Muslims (that make up the majority of the Muslim population, I might add) who want to end Islamaphobia, but every other week an ISIS member blows up a children's school and the media gives them the spotlight. Progress in Western acceptance of Islam and Muslims would be going quite better if the asshat Muslim terrorists weren't attacking innocent civilians in their own countries, or innocent foreigners (who, fwiw, know of the risks of visiting such locations in the first place).

This is always going to be an issue, though. I'm sure there are a lot of people who wanted to effect positive change to how skeevy the games press has always been, who say that the people sending death threats ruined GamerGate. Or the misandrists ruin feminism, or the misogynists ruin men's rights, or the violent looters ruin civil rights protests. And I don't know if there's some actual bright line where you can say that "these people *do*/don't represent your movement"—it's a matter of exposure, messaging, and (occasionally) actual raw numbers. The KKK probably isn't going to ever divorce itself from its initial platform. GamerGate is probably in the same boat. Ditto with ISIS, et al. But those extreme organizations are necessarily the fringe.

For any movement, though, there will always be people on either side saying "X doesn't represent me" and "People like Y are why I don't like Z". If people were angels or just more empathic, understanding individuals, then there wouldn't need to be men's rights movements or feminism, but here we are. There are always going to be people under your banner you probably wouldn't want there, and with the internet—especially, as we saw with GamerGate, with movements started on the internet—you can't always enforce who gets to wave that banner.

This is all a very longwinded way of saying that my personal belief is that ultimately you have to ignore those kinds of arguments. GamerGate might be toxic as a whole, and why I could never say that it aligns with my beliefs; however if they actually do point out a journalistic problem, that doesn't mean it's automatically wrong because it came from a group of people who badger and harass their critics. Because some dumbasses destroy their own neighborhoods doesn't mean that Baltimore doesn't have problems with economic inequality or excessive force by police.

So yeah, these people undermine the causes they profess to believe in. But from an individual standpoint I think the onus is on you and I to focus on content, not the conduct.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
I'm fairly sure this is just not true from an numerical perspective. We're all pretty clued in on who MRA people are because GAF is a predominantly male-forum with the largest age bloc in the 24-30 group that I think is likely to be statistically better educated and *certainly* more liberal than the average. Meanwhile, if I ask my dad what an MRA is, he won't have a clue. Most of my friends won't either, and they're university-going people of my own age. It'd be very difficult for MRA groups to have that much determinative power given just how small they are.

The issue is that nobody else is actively bringing up men's issues. Because the majority of activists have ill intentions (or at least execute their activism very poorly), their behavior is massively damaging to the issue of men's rights.

I don't think MRAs will ever effect legislation, but they've done a lot of harm to the cause they claim to promote.
 

anaron

Member
while on paper it makes sense, history and and all too common and gross trend of educated bigots of behaviour illustrate that education has little to do with someone's capability in empathy and believing in equality.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever...​
[/URL])

I'm not sure I follow. How does this change the context all that much? Care to elaborate?

I will give you my position on this. I've always found this quite a grey area to be honest. As I have argued before, it is a very common practice for students to get drunk on the weekend and engage in drunken sex. However, the line where drunken sex turns into rape isn't all that clear. Is it for instance rape if the victim believed she would not have consented, even though she did consent, if she was not intoxicated? Some people would consider that rape, others would not. I personally would not consider it rape.

There is no clear line made between what is simply drunken sex and what constitutes rape. That I find problematic with this question.
 
no one is more easily offended than the cishet white male. it's super hilarious.
I think it's because we don't have any real sort of societal persecution whatsoever, so a lot of us never learn how to deal with adversity properly; most of us live lives that don't have any built-in empathy-creating or character-building moments unless we consciously choose to get involved in something. The archetypal fedora-clad neckbeard, for instance, seems to be almost exclusively part of the aforementioned group. The fact is we just have the luxury of being lazy fuck-ups, because there are very few social repercussions for it.
 

kirblar

Member
while on paper it makes sense, history and and all too common and gross trend of educated bigots of behaviour illustrate that education has little to do with someone's capability in empathy and believing in equality.
Pretty much- criminality stays at the same level regardless of education level- the upper levels are just way better at masking it.
 

Yrael

Member
I'm not sure I follow. How does this change the context all that much? Care to elaborate?

I will give you my position on this. I've always found this quite a grey area to be honest. As I have argued before, it is a very common practice for students to get drunk on the weekend and engage in drunken sex. However, the line where drunken sex turns into rape isn't all that clear. Is it for instance rape if the victim believed she would not have consented, even though she did consent, if she was not intoxicated? Some people would consider that rape, others would not. I personally would not consider it rape.

There is no clear line made between what is simply drunken sex and what constitutes rape. That I find problematic with this question.

(I'm pretty sure you've stated your position a few times before, including to me.)

Let me make it clearer for you - CHS et al are making their argument by interpreting the question as:

"“When you were [drunk, high, drugged,] or [passed out and unable to give consent], how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?”
(In other words, implying that the CDC believes all intoxication is non-consent, muddying the waters and trying to make out that it is a "grey area.")

As opposed to:

“When you were [drunk, high, drugged, or passed out] and [unable to give consent], how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?
”

The additional missing paragraph makes it clear that it is the latter and not the former, since they say quite explicitly "Sex that someone is unable to stop happening" [due to being drunk, on drugs, being passed out, etc]. If the CDC had been counting all sex while intoxicated as rape, then they would simply have said: "Have you had sex while drunk or high?"

More additional context from the questionnaire, emphasising that the sex is unwanted:

"Women and men may experience unwanted and uninvited sexual situations by strangers or people they know well, such as a romantic or sexual partner, friend, teacher, coworker, supervisor, or family member. Your answers will help us learn how often these things happen. Some of the language we use is explicit, but it is important that I ask the questions this way so that you are clear about what I mean. The questions we ask are detailed and some people may find them upsetting. The information you are providing will be kept private. You can skip questions you don’t want to answer and you can stop at anytime.

I’m going to ask you about different types of unwanted sexual situations. In general, these are: unwanted sexual situations that did NOT involve touching and situations that DID involve touching. I will also ask you about situations in which you were unable to provide consent to sex because of alcohol or drugs, and about your experiences with unwanted sex that happened when someone used physical force or verbal pressure."
 

leadbelly

Banned
(I'm pretty sure you've stated your position a few times before, including to me.)

Let me make it clearer for you - CHS et al are making their argument by interpreting the question as:

"“When you were [drunk, high, drugged,] or [passed out and unable to give consent], how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?”
(In other words, implying that the CDC believes all intoxication is non-consent, muddying the waters and trying to make out that it is a "grey area.")

As opposed to:

“When you were [drunk, high, drugged, or passed out] and [unable to give consent], how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?
”

The additional missing paragraph makes it clear that it is the latter and not the former, since they say quite explicitly "Sex that someone is unable to stop happening" [due to being drunk, on drugs, being passed out, etc]. If the CDC had been counting all sex while intoxicated as rape, then they would simply have said: "Have you had sex while drunk or high?"

More additional context from the questionnaire, emphasising that the sex is unwanted:

"Women and men may experience unwanted and uninvited sexual situations by strangers or people they know well, such as a romantic or sexual partner, friend, teacher, coworker, supervisor, or family member. Your answers will help us learn how often these things happen. Some of the language we use is explicit, but it is important that I ask the questions this way so that you are clear about what I mean. The questions we ask are detailed and some people may find them upsetting. The information you are providing will be kept private. You can skip questions you don’t want to answer and you can stop at anytime.

I’m going to ask you about different types of unwanted sexual situations. In general, these are: unwanted sexual situations that did NOT involve touching and situations that DID involve touching. I will also ask you about situations in which you were unable to provide consent to sex because of alcohol or drugs, and about your experiences with unwanted sex that happened when someone used physical force or verbal pressure."

I've read the questions.

My stance is a little different to this, although the more I think about it the more I wonder how many did interpret the question the way suggested. I will get to that later in my post though.

Reading Sommers post, the findings of the study really are quite surprising. Sommers also makes this claim:

A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”

Now the findings I haven't read so I can't be sure of the accuracy, but I will assume it is accurate. The post claiming Sommers, and others, misrepresented the study makes no mention of it, so. If 61.5 percent of the projected victims are associated with alcohol or drug facilitated penetration then it makes that specific question very significant to these findings.

I do find the question inherently problematic though. I find it problematic because it does not define what 'unable to consent' means in relation to intoxication. In recent years this has become a highly political and sensitive topic.

Take this information given from Boston University for instance:

Is the person capable of giving consent?

If someone is drunk or high on drugs, then that person cannot give consent, which means that, even if someone seems eager to engage in sexual behavior, doing so can legally be considered sexual assault or rape if he or she is intoxicated. Having sex with someone under the age of consent (16 in Massachusetts) is considered a crime called statutory rape, even if the person under the age of consent says that she or he wanted the sexual behavior to take place.

And here lies the problem. Depending on what demographic you are speaking to, there may be different interpretations of what 'consent' means. Clearly to a number of people, the act of intoxication itself means you are unable to consent. This kind of makes the question irrelevant. Pretty much all sexual encounters while intoxicated are potentially without consent. And the truth is, the people who claimed they did have sex without consent, may not really believe they were actually raped, just that they were intoxicated. This is where the methodology comes in. Because they don't explicitly use words like 'rape' and 'sexual assault', a person may think of an incident in the past where they feel they were too intoxicated to properly give consent, but would stop short of calling it rape.

However, the reason I am starting to wonder how many actually interpreted the question in the way suggested by Sommers and others is because there is something being overlooked here. First of all, the question is worded poorly. Even the person claiming it is a misrepresentation of the survey agreed with that point.

“When you were [drunk, high, drugged, or passed out] and [unable to give consent], how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?”

Perhaps what they actually heard was:

“When you were [drunk, high, drugged,] or [passed out and unable to give consent], how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?”

That would be a problem. Maybe the researchers should have put that question into some sort of context, making it clear what they were referring to? You know, like the actual, full text of the question from the survey did:

It does show quite clearly just how easily that question can be misinterpreted. Of course he does mention that there was greater context given to the question. Here's the thing though, what is being overlooked is the nature of the survey. It was not a written survey it was a phone survey. The questions seemed to be read out by automated voice. The questions were divided into sections with an intro that summarised what the questions were about. A question is asked and you type, 1, 2 or 3. Once the question are completed you go to the next section where another intro starts and then another series of questions. It's basically just a monotonous exercise. There is an assumption here that the people taking this survey were actually paying attention enough to fully grasp everything that was being said. If you were going to be caught out by a badly worded question though, surely it would be more likely to happen when it is read out by an automated voice on the phone than the written word on the paper?

That's not to say everyone was caught out by it, but I think it would be more likely to happen in that circumstance than it would if it was written on a page.

Edit: I really should read my posts before posting them. I never do. lol
 

Yrael

Member

I think you've pretty much reached the point of conjecture when you're having to say: "Well...maybe people tuned out and misheard the survey." (CHS in particular doesn't get that benefit of the doubt - which is, of course, the point I was making.)
 

leadbelly

Banned
I think you've pretty much reached the point of conjecture when you're having to say: "Well...maybe people tuned out and misheard the survey." (CHS in particular doesn't get that benefit of the doubt - which is the point I was making and you're avoiding.)

There are two arguments I make here. :p

The question is ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation. That is the problem with it. As I clearly demonstrated, the question of consent in relation to intoxication is murky. When simply being intoxicated means you are unable to consent in certain jurisdictions, then the question becomes problematic.

The second thing I suggest is really me just thinking about the nature of the survey. It was a phone survey not a written survey. The question is bad regardless of the context given. The very nature of a phone survey means that there is an additional requirement expected of the participant. That being careful attention to the point where you fully grasp and understand everything that is being said to you. That is not guaranteed.
 

Yrael

Member
There are two arguments I make here. :p

The question is ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation. That is the problem with it. As I clearly demonstrated, the question of consent in relation to intoxication is murky. When simply being intoxicated means you are unable to consent in certain jurisdictions, then the question becomes problematic.

The second thing I suggest is really me just thinking about the nature of the survey. It was a phone survey not a written survey. The question is bad regardless of the context given. The very nature of a phone survey means that there is an additional requirement expected of the participant. That being careful attention to the point where you fully grasp and understand everything that is being said to you. That is not guaranteed.

The survey even added a qualifier that being unable to consent is akin to being "unable to stop [sex] happening," and gave a whole lot of additional context to the notion of consent by making the unwanted aspect of sex clear. Hence why the question is not as problematic as you're making it seem (once again, narrowing in on that specific line - and then rationalising ignoring the rest of it by saying that maybe participants had selective hearing.)

*shrug* All I can say is that at the end of the day, Ampersand (the guy I linked to) sums it up best: there is very little that CDC could do to word such a question that people such as CHS would not be able to somehow contrive and rationalise away.
 

leadbelly

Banned
The survey even added a qualifier that being unable to consent is akin to being "unable to stop [sex] happening," and gave a whole lot of additional context to the notion of consent by making the unwanted aspect of sex clear. Hence why the question is not as problematic as you're making it seem (once again, narrowing in on that specific line - and then rationalising ignoring the rest of it by saying that maybe participants had selective hearing.)

*shrug* All I can say is that at the end of the day, Ampersand (the guy I linked to) sums it up best: there is very little that CDC could do to word such a question that people such as CHS would not be able to somehow contrive and rationalise away.

I read the questions. There was no such qualifier.

This was the context given before the question:

Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.1

Where are you getting that from?
 

Yrael

Member
Yrael said:
The survey even added a qualifier that being unable to consent is akin to being "unable to stop [sex] happening,"

I read the questions. There was no such qualifier.

This was the context given before the question:

Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.1

Where are you getting that from?

Bolded it for you.

(This is getting to be a ridiculous derailment of the thread. >_> I suggest that you PM me instead if you want to keep going with this.)
 

leadbelly

Banned
*shrug* All I can say is that at the end of the day, Ampersand (the guy I linked to) sums it up best: there is very little that CDC could do to word such a question that people such as CHS would not be able to somehow contrive and rationalise away.

I think there is though. 'unable to consent' suggests to me someone who has passed out, or so incapacitated that they are unable to actively participate. That is defining what 'unable to consent' means. They don't do that.

In terms of the question, it is worded badly.
When you were [drunk, high, drugged, or passed out] and [unable to give consent], how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?”

I can think of many ways to word that better. For instance.

Has anyone had vaginal sex with you when you were passed out or so incapacitated that you are unable to actively participate or consent?

If Yes

How many times has that happened?
 

leadbelly

Banned
Bolded it for you.

(This is getting to be a ridiculous derailment of the thread. >_> I suggest that you PM me instead if you want to keep going with this.)

Okay. That is kind of less explicit than you were suggesting wasn't it. It states or stop it from happening. That can be interpreted as one or the other.
 

Yrael

Member
leadbelly said:
I think there is though. 'unable to consent' suggests to me someone who has passed out, or so incapacitated that they are unable to actively participate. That is defining what 'unable to consent' means. They don't do that.

In terms of the question, it is worded badly.

I can think of many ways to word that better. For instance.

1) You moved back to focusing solely on that line again, leaving out the additional context added by the survey that expanded on what they meant.

Okay. That is kind of less explicit than you were suggesting wasn't it. It states or stop it from happening. That can be interpreted as one or the other.

2) I think the vast majority of people understand that in this context, "or" is being used as a way of introducing a clarification, or a synonym, of what "unable to consent" actually means. (See what I did there?)
3 This is still shifting the posts away from CHS's incorrect presentation of the survey as one that indicated all drunk sex as rape, despite the survey's repeated emphasis on non-consensual and unwanted sex.
4) Finally, you completely disregarded me when I asked you to PM me!
So on that note:

=== ATTEMPTING TO MOVE BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD ===

Reading through The Economist article, something I do agree with is the need for more endeavours to aid men's mental health and emotional well-being (touched on by the "men's sheds," the alternative to counselling that may otherwise be avoided for fear of being "too unmanly"). I've briefly heard of men's sheds in Australia before, but I don't know how well known they are by the community at large. Has anyone else heard of these?
 

Valhelm

contribute something
=== ATTEMPTING TO MOVE BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD ===

Reading through The Economist article, something I do agree with is the need for more endeavours to aid men's mental health and emotional well-being (touched on by the "men's sheds," the alternative to counselling that may otherwise be avoided for fear of being "too unmanly"). I've briefly heard of men's sheds in Australia before, but I don't know how well known they are by the community at large. Has anyone else heard of these?

Men's clinics, shelters, or "sheds" won't be effective until it's not an embarrassment to visit one. A possibly better solution in the meanwhile might be government funding for workplace or discrete community therapists.
 

leadbelly

Banned
1) You moved back to focusing solely on that line again, leaving out the additional context added by the survey that expanded on what they meant.



2) I think the vast majority of people understand that in this context, "or" is being used as a way of introducing a clarification, or a synonym, of what "unable to consent" actually means. (See what I did there?)
3 This is still shifting the posts away from CHS's incorrect presentation of the survey as one that indicated all drunk sex as rape, despite the survey's repeated emphasis on non-consensual and unwanted sex.
4) Finally, you completely disregarded me when I asked you to PM me!
So on that note:

I will PM you. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom