Suzanne Venker’s And the War on Men


War on Men has reached a whole new front. Not content with her article last year Suzanne Venker is back with another article to claim that the world is so much  more terrible for men.

In November of last year, I wrote an article for Fox News called The War on Men (which I subsequently expanded to an eBook). To keep it pithy, in the piece I focused on one effect of this war: the lack of marriageable men. But there’s so much more to it. The truth is, men have become second-class citizens.

You would have to live in a literal black hole of ignorance to reality in order to believe this. Like seriously? Texas just ruled to make it harder for women to access basic vital healthcare and we are still discussing whether women have it better or not?

Oh right! Only sluts need birth control and abortions! We are discussing ladies.

The most obvious proof is male bashing in the media. It is rampant and irrefutable. From sit-coms and commercials that portray dad as an idiot to biased news reports about the state of American men, males are pounced on left and right. And that’s just the beginning.

If the biggest problem in your life is sit-coms making fun of you then your problems are awesome.

There are also plenty of good father figures on TV. Let’s take the much maligned Homer Simpson.

I have made this argument before. You may think that Homer is an incompetent bumbling oaf but that doesn’t mean he is a bad father. In fact he is an excellent father when the line is drawn. He is a flawed man, and a man who’s flaws knock him down and he STILL does his best for his family.

There are plenty of these characters here.

As for Sitcoms? Without comedy characters a sitcom would be boring. You watch 30 Rock for the weird neurotics! You watch Red Dwarf for everyman Lister and his uptight compatriot Rimmer. You watch Friends because you know they will get up to zany bullshit. Because Zany Bullshit is FUNNY.

The war on men actually begins in grade school, where boys are at a distinct disadvantage. Not only are curriculums centered on girls’, rather than boys,’ interests, the emphasis in these grades is on sitting still at a desk. 

Except boys from asian groups seem to do as well as girls mainly because they are expected to study before they play.

We don’t treat boys the same as we treat girls when it comes to “studying”.

Plus, many schools have eliminated recess. Such an environment is unhealthy for boys, for they are active by nature and need to run around. And when they can’t sit still teachers and administrators often wrongly attribute their restlessness to ADD or ADHD. The message is clear: boys are just unruly girls.

Girls don’t need exercise?

I agree with this. You need a recess period to promote health for children. Obesity is rife in the USA and kids should play. This is not rocket science.

This isn’t bias against boys, this is a sick education system that places more emphasis on test results rather than education.

The truth is, men have become second-class citizens.

No. Men have just seen a variety of prior benefits get eroded till both genders are “equal”. So a lot of the prior benefits being lost were just things we take for granted.

And honestly? We just had a rape in the USA where football was more important than victims, so we are in a place where men are not second-class citizens.

Hell, we still live in a world where women are not given proper healthcare in places like Texas. The fact of the matter is that women are not first class citizens yet.

White, Straight and Male is Easy Mode in the Game of Life.

 Things are no better in college. There, young men face the perils of Title IX, the 1972 law designed to ban sex discrimination in all educational programs. 

Yes. Because sex discrimination is such a bad thing.

Under Title IX, the ratio of female athletes is supposed to match the ratio of female students. So if not enough women sign up for, say, wrestling and ice hockey, well then: no more wrestling and ice hockey. 

No. Not really.

  • Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
  • The provision of equipment and supplies;
  • Scheduling of games and practice time;
  • Travel and per diem allowance;
  • Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
  • Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
  • Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
  • Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
  • Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
  • Publicity.

AKA women should get facilities that were always available to men. That we took for granted. So far it doesn’t seem to be some death of American Football or Wrestling or what have you. It just means that women atheletes get the same stuff.

What was once viewed equal opportunity for women has become something else altogether: a demand for equal outcomes. Those are not the same thing at all.

Equal outcomes in sensible things. We aren’t expecting female loosehead props to play for England, we are expecting a female rugby team.

Title IX is also abused when it comes to sex. In 1977, a group of women at Yale used Title IX to claim sexual harassment and violence constitute discrimination against women. 

Genuine harassment and violence should be punishable offenses, obviously. But the college campus is a breeding ground for sexual activity, which makes determining wrongdoing (and using Title IX to prove it) extremely difficult. Sexual misconduct does not necessarily constitute harassment—and women have as much of a role to play as men do.

Because sexual violence and harassment are bad?

The argument can be summed up as this. Women and men are having sex, how can we determine if it’s sexual harassment or violence if women are having sex. Why is grabbing a woman’s arse in the context of a bedroom different from grabbing it in the middle of a lecture?

Which is precisely how stupid this sounds. CONTEXT and CONSENT determine sexual harassment and violence (because S&M is a thing).

Here again men are in an impossible situation, for there’s an unspoken commandment when it comes to sex in America: thou shalt never blame the woman. If you’re a man who’s sexually involved with a woman and something goes wrong, it’s your fault. Simple as that.

Except we routinely blame women for getting raped. Except for the pro-life laws being brought into place that specifically PUNISH women and force them to either take on a massive financial responsibility affecting their careers and life in general or have unsafe medical practices. (AKA Forced to have a baby or unsafe abortion).

We regularly blame women for being out too late or not leaving their deadbeat boyfriend or wearing those clothes. More than we do for men.

I am afraid you are assuming that men and women rape each other equally. That is simply not the case. Most rapists are men, most victims are women. As for violence? While female on male domestic violence exists the severity of male on female domestic violence is much much higher. One in Five victims of violence are men, it is still a female dominated demographic.

This is just reality.

Judith E. Grossman shed light on this phenomenon in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. A former feminist, Grossman concedes that in the past she would have expressed “unqualified support” for policies such as Title IX. But that was before her son was charged with “nonconsensual sex” by a former girlfriend.

Why! If we didn’t illegalise rape then we would not have any rape!

“Title IX has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof, is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct,” she writes.

Actually, in order to get a rape conviction you have to provide evidence of rape (and we can tell) and the problem with rape convictions is that they are hard to get.

Firstly? Victims are terrified.

Secondly? There is a forensic time limit for both victim and perpetrator. IF you exceed this then there is no “evidence”.

Thirdly? Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t work in this case because the average rapist doesn’t randomly attack women in broad daylight.

Fourthly? Most of the victims know the rapist personally and so find it difficult to oppose them.

Here is the thing.

Paedophiles also fulfil the same four points as above but we aren’t seeing Suzanne here defend them because there is often little physical evidence in a paedophile case. The victims are scared, there is often little evidence unless the child was picked up by forensics immediately after, there is always a reasonable doubt that the person isn’t a paedophile and most paedophiles attack kids near them and so make it hard for the kid to complain.

Yet Suzanne isn’t claiming that the law harms all men because we can easily be accused of paedophilia.

When men become husbands and fathers, things get really bad. In family courts throughout America, men are routinely stripped of their rights and due process. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is easily used against them since its definition of violence is so broad that virtually any conflict between partners can be considered abuse.

Domestic Violence, Date Violence, Rape, Sexual Assault and Stalking.

It’s very very specific on what it considers abuse.

Suzanne just chooses to be vague. Don’t hit your partner, don’t rape your partner, don’t insert objects into them against their will and don’t follow them around.

“If a woman gets angry for any reason, she can simply accuse a man and men are just assumed guilty in our society,” notes Dr. Helen Smith, author of the new book, “Men on Strike.” This is particularly heinous since, as Smith adds, violence in domestic relations “is almost 50% from men and 50% from women.”

Yes. It is.

The severity of domestic violence however is massively different. Now the problem here is we assume domestic violence is a one way  street. In some cases, it’s a fight. Both of the individuals are pushing and grabbing each other. These count too. In most domestic violence situations that start such things occur.

This is not the case. Many women do fight back. The 50% domestic violence stat seems to be from the “have you been violent to each other”. In addition? Women are more likely to remember instances like pushing and consider them to be violence while men don’t. There is no proper classification of domestic violence by style or methodology.

And finally we must look at severity. In the studies where women and men were asked as to what actions they did that were considered violent and the same for victims the startling revelation was that women considered pushing to be violence. Many women who pushed and showed the initial stages of a fight considered that as aggression Possibly because it’s not a socially accepted thing for women to do. Pushing a guy in a pub and grabbing him is a Mancunian Friday. Women doing the same would be rather novel. Pushing, Grabbing and Holds were considered violence by women. Not by men.

In addition? Severity. Men are more likely to use a weapon to threaten a woman. Men are more likely to use a weapon on a woman. Men are more likely to use a closed fist or cause injuries.

Pure incidence is not a good indicator as much as severity. A man pushed against a wall is abused just as a man who was beaten up, but the severity varies. One is mainly fear, the other is pain. BOTH are abuse but one is much more serious.

Shocked? If so, that’s in part because the media don’t believe men can be victims of domestic violence—so they don’t report it. They would rather feed off stories that paint women as victims. And in so doing, they’ve convinced America there’s a war on women.

VAWA includes men and specifically mentions protections for men.

And the biggest group of people putting a kibosh on men coming forward are not feminists but the Men’s Rights movement. It’s the men who mock other men who were raped or who were attacked. In fact many feminists would want proper universal laws that apply to both genders.

Yet it is males who suffer in our society. From boyhood through adulthood, the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced. Unlike women, however, men don’t organize and form groups when they’ve been persecuted. They just bow out of the game.

As I said. White, Male and Straight in western society is easy mode in the game of life..

A litany of taunts? You mean like the socially acceptable notions about various races? Or the unconscious racism? Or the homophobia?

I am sorry? Are they stopping American Men from voting? Are they refusing to educate him? Are they forcing him to stay at home and raise kids? No? I am afraid your gripe is “WHITE AMERICAN MEN HAVE TOO MUCH FREEDOM AND ARE NOW JEALOUS OF THE CAGES WOMEN USED TO SIT IN”. Metaphorical cages.

While Male Privilege has fallen and while White Privilege has fallen over the years it is still there. The gripe is that the once unassailable “Ivory Phallic Symbol” is no longer as unassailable and people who would have had that leg up are now facing a world where they aren’t getting as many leg ups as they once did.  They are being forced to compete with uppity coloured people and women and now they can’t even blame the gays.

And there are “Men’s Groups”. The problem is this. Men’s Rights Movement is less about the rights of men and more about bashing women and “The Game”. There are no Men’s Rights groups trying to run a men’s shelter but there are ones trying to defend Afghan culture and it’s treatment of women.

America needs to wake up. We have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction—from a man’s world to a woman’s world.

That’s not equality. That’s revenge.

It’s still a man’s world. You just don’t quite realise it because Suzanne is specifically in a position of privilege where the things that affect women negatively either don’t affect her or don’t affect the things that she is interested in.

Comments

  1. CaitieCat says

    It’s not so much that there are no mens’ groups running shelters. There are. Not many, but there are. It’s that the mens’ groups running the shelters don’t call themselves “Men’s Rights” organizations, because that name has been largely co-opted by the anti-feminist he-men women-haters clubs we know and loathe as “MRAs”.

    The term I’m seeing used for the positive-approach mens’ groups is “Men’s Issues”. And they do exist, and as far as I’m aware, all the feminists I know are very much in favour of them, and work happily alongside them when it’s appropriate.

    Men being abused is a thing. It happens. It needs to be treated appropriately. The points you make are true too, though, and so it’s not unreasonable if much of the effort goes to combating the abuse of women because of, as you note, the different prevalence and severity of the two categories. But most of the people fighting against extending support to women’s shelters are men. Male politicians, male lobbyists, priests, MRAs, the anti-women brigade has its Women’s Institute/Ladies’ Auxiliary, but it’s largely men fighting us. Men’s issues groups join us in those fights.

    MRAs join the status quo groups, standing astride reality shouting “MICROWAVE BUCKET HANDLES!”

  2. thascius says

    She’s right that boys lag behind girls in the American education system, but I think the problem isn’t so much an Evil Feminist Conspiracy as the patriarchal message that “book learning” is for girls and athletics are for boys. A professor of mine related an event his family had been out where young children of both sexes were running around, the boys were allowed to do so but the girls were told to “sit down and be little ladies.” We give children messages about what’s appropriate for their gender from a very young age, then act like it’s some proof of essential gender differences when children act out the differences they were taught. And the notion that a woman can accuse a man of rape and he automatically gets convicted-no investigation, no lawyer for the defense, no trial, reads like someone who either has no idea how the American justice system works, or thinks her audience doesn’t.

  3. firsttimereader says

    I am a straight male in the west, and I personally have nothing to complain about with regard to being treated badly by society. I am not an MRA.

    I have grown up treating women as equals, and for the last 20 years I have seen them rising through the professions, catching up, and sometimes overtaking men. Long may it continue until we see a reasonable balance across the board. I don’t support quotas, I support identifying barriers and removing them and punishing those who create them. It takes a while and some people are impatient.

    I have a few other points.

    Those Canadian MRA’s that you call Taliban supporters, for reasons that I still do not understand, had among their ranks Earl Silverman. It seems he was a victim of partner abuse and tried to set up the first men’s refuge in his area. He committed suicide after years of fighting the “system” and being refused a single dollar of aid from the authorities. I won’t link to this as you may accidentaly see some more Taliban propoganda!

    Women are human, and I see no reason to think they cannot behave in the same self interested or corrupt ways as the men who went before them. We have to be objective, open and honest about these things as they crop up. It seems to me that feminist groups are not likely to help much with the epidemics of suicide, homelessness and alcoholism that plagues the male half of my society, so I guess men are just gonna have to keep pushing somehow.

    Avi, young boys are falling behind at school, and I’m sure this is partly due to the idea that “studying is for cissies”. However, a significant majority of primary school teachers are female and I have seen a study recently claiming to show a distinct bias towards the girls in the class. More research will show this to be a problem, I suspect. Only recently, I saw on the BBC, an interview with a headmistress desperately trying to get more male teachers to address the balance. Young “pakistani” boys particularly are doing badly these days in the UK. Take a look at this if you are ever bored…. Its a very well respected organization.

    http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2063-education-schools-achievement.pdf

    Regarding Title IX. Well, everyone knows that having a high burden of proof means that some people are going to get away with crimes. It has been that way for a long time in the west, and for ALL crimes. Lowering the burden of proof means that less people will get away with it, but also MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE will be found guilty by the courts. I do not support lowering the burden of proof for that reason.

    I was very pleased to see comment @1 above. Somehow I had that commenter filed under A for anti-men. I was clearly wrong :-)

  4. says

    Yes, but it’s not women telling boys that studying is for sissies. The people who bullied me in school for being educated were other men.

    I pointed out that Chinese and Indian cultures don’t discriminate between boys and girls in education in middle and upper class families. So boys do as well as girls. And amusingly the gender difference in Maths is not seen.

    50% of Engineers in India are women. India sends more female engineers to the west than the west produces simply because of social pressure in the west.

    Social pressure is what is causing this.

  5. Myoo says

    Regarding Title IX. Well, everyone knows that having a high burden of proof means that some people are going to get away with crimes. It has been that way for a long time in the west, and for ALL crimes. Lowering the burden of proof means that less people will get away with it, but also MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE will be found guilty by the courts. I do not support lowering the burden of proof for that reason.

    Title IX does not apply to judicial courts, it regulates conduct in schools, universities and other such institutions. The “lowering” of the burden of proof is simply the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is the standard used in the vast majority of civil proceedings, which is only appropriate for the kind of institutions that Title IX applies to.

  6. MaryL says

    So, there are some males getting a very tiny taste of what it has long meant to be a female. Welcome to our world.

  7. smrnda says

    I thought a number of suits were recently brought up against colleges in the US who didn’t really seem to do anything over allegations of rape? This was nearly a month ago and I’ve forgot the names of the schools, but can anyone remember?

    On the ‘school is oppressing boys’ – I used to work part-time in child care with kids birth through age 6. At that age kids have had already had a lot of social conditioning, but far less than they’ll get later. As far as I can tell, both boys and girls have high energy levels and frequently want time to run around and play, so this isn’t really a gendered issue as far as I can tell.

    Perhaps more male elementary school teachers would help, but you’d have to get men willing to do the job, and working with kids hasn’t been an okay think for a man to do most of the time. It may be changing, though I’m somewhat skeptical that this is really going to be a fix-all for that. Maybe boys are doing worse at school because more video games are aimed at a male audience; I knew quite a few guys who failed out of college for playing video games too much. More research would need to be done.

    On the whole idea of masculinity, my brother has lived the last 10 years or so in China or Japan, and he tells me that he gets tired of US writers talking about American-style ‘masculinity’ as if it were some sort of universal thing. (He’s also told me he prefers to live there.) Even within the US we don’t really have a common culture. Is what’s normal for a white guy in Tennessee the same as for a white guy in New York City?

  8. firsttimereader says

    WMDCitty@6.

    Take a look at the blogs Ally is writing, the comments section includes comments from at least one DV worker and he often points to studies to defend the idea that women-on-men DV is more of a problem than previously believed. (depending how you calculate it of course).

    Anecdote…
    A few months ago my local police force did a “tweetathon” where they tweeted each and every reported crime for 24 hours. The police force covers around 1 million people. There were some reports of DV and although we shouldn’t read too much into it, it’s fair to say that women on men DV IS a problem. The numbers were fairly evenly spread as I remember.

  9. freja says

    @3 firsttimereader

    It seems to me that feminist groups are not likely to help much with the epidemics of suicide, homelessness and alcoholism that plagues the male half of my society, so I guess men are just gonna have to keep pushing somehow.

    I think you underestimate a lot of feminist groups, but you’re right, it’s not their issue. Although that doesn’t mean large parts of feminism wouldn’t benefit men either, specifically the parts about opposing forced gender roles.

    a significant majority of primary school teachers are female and I have seen a study recently claiming to show a distinct bias towards the girls in the class. More research will show this to be a problem, I suspect.

    Do you know if primary school teachers are more likely to be female now than in the past? If primary school teachers are more likely to be female in countries where boys do badly in school (such as England) than in countries where the sexes perform more similarly (such as Japan)? And if that is indeed the case, do you know if this can reliably be attributed to the larger amount of female primary school teachers? It seems to me that making claims about the effect of female primary school teachers without examining these things is an expression of certain assumptions about the sexes which have yet to be supported.

    I have also seen several studies claiming to show bias against girls, and studies claiming that the disadvantages boys have are mostly unintended consequences of being treated in ways that are often considered “better” (e.g. being told they’re brilliant when they do good, rather than being praised for their hard work). That hasn’t stopped various anti-feminists and non-feminists from claiming gender differences are hard-wired every time girls do worse in an area.

    Young “pakistani” boys particularly are doing badly these days in the UK.

    This seems to contradict your previous claim. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seemed to be suggesting either that boys had special biological needs which weren’t met in most schools, or that boys are treated worse because of the many female primary school teachers, or both. If that’s the case, then Pakistani boys should not perform worse because of their sex than ethnically British boys, since both are equally male and both receive the same public education. And in a similar vein, Chinese and Indian boys should perform at least as badly as ethnically British boys.

    But that is obviously not the case, as Avicenna has already explained. Cultures where boys learn to sit still and concentrate rarely have the same issues of boys underperforming in school. And cultures where math and science are not considered especially male fields rarely have the same issues of girls underperforming in math and science. Which fits pretty well with what I know of feminist theory in the area, that gender is more of a social construct than most people are willing to admit.

    I was very pleased to see comment @1 above. Somehow I had that commenter filed under A for anti-men. I was clearly wrong :-)

    I think this is because opposing MRAs is often seen as opposing men, which I can understand to some degree, since people claiming to only oppose feminism usually just oppose women. The difference, imo, is that MRAs are, for the most part, legitimately terrible (as Avicenna has provided examples of several times before), and have done a spectacular job alienating feminists while simultaneously failing to do anything useful for men.

  10. freja says

    @9 firsttimereader

    Take a look at the blogs Ally is writing, the comments section includes comments from at least one DV worker and he often points to studies to defend the idea that women-on-men DV is more of a problem than previously believed. (depending how you calculate it of course).

    Could you be a little more specific? Ally has a couple of dozens of blogs, many of which have over 100 comments. Finding a particular DV worker making a particular comment on a particular blog with no further clue is a pretty daunting task.

    That being said, I don’t think anyone here denies that domestic violence against men happen, and probably in greater numbers than many people believe. The issue is that since it’s only ever brought up to blame feminists, pretend VAWA only applies to women, and derail conversations about domestic violence against women, many people are more defensive and dismissive about it than they would be if the issue hadn’t been co-opted by MRAs.

    For instance, contributors at A Voice for Men are quick to point out that men are the real victims of everything, including domestic violence. But at the same time, they also have several articles where they talk about how easy it is to beat up women, how no woman is a physical match for a man, and how the only reason the streets aren’t littered with women’s bodies is because men know that women are not worth it. That’s hardly a supportive attitude for male victims of DV who have to combat the notion that they were never in danger and could have easily defended themselves.

    In the same vein, AVfM’s stand on rape is similarly contradictive. On one hand, the contributors insist that men are the biggest and most frequent victims (as usual), but those very same contributors also insist that most rape victims are drunken, lying bitches and whores who voluntarily have sex they regret and then refuse to take responsibility for it afterwards. Even though this attitude is aimed exclusively at women, it’s going to hit male rape victims even harder, because they’re less likely to be physically overpowered and threatened, and more likely to be in a position where they could be seen as wanting it.

    The sad reality is that the majority of men who bring up male victims of rape and domestic violence on the internet are hypocritical assholes (pardon my lack of civility) who have nothing to contribute and are far more interested in increasing the number of female victims than decreasing the number of male victims, and this makes people defensive and inclined to dismiss the issue.

  11. garnetstar says

    Because Black American Males (and Females) never suffer taunts, assumptions, grievances about their existence, or being murdered for being “suspicious” when carrying Skittles as weapons.

  12. firsttimereader says

    @10 freja.
    Caps are for emphasis, not because I’m angry :-)

    Thanks for comment. Just to clear things up, my starting position is that there is no meaningful biological differences between girls and boys, and that environment is everything (both inside and outside the classroom). Don’t know why you think I have biology as a reason, but anyway that’s not what I think.

    I don’t think it’s contradictory to suspect (not ASSERT) that teaching methods or lack of male role models might have an affect AS WELL AS outside cultural effects. There are lots of variables, as you note. Regarding Chinese and Indian boys performing well, it could be that the parent of these boys push them harder than girls which might explain the effect.

    In the case if Pakistani boys, there seems to be something specific going on there, I won’t speculate for now.

    Yes, there are studies showing boys get preferential treatment in the classroom. It was a bit of a minefield trying to find some even handed analysis. I think what threw me in the end was a forum thread on mumsnet, which consisted of some female educators and parents, and they seemed to come to a consensus that teaching methods and lack of male role models contribute to the effect. I can’t find it now and don’t have time to search.

    I don’t identify as a feminist, because I am unconvinced of the theories. As I wrote somewhere else, I haven’t done Fem101 so I rely on listening to what feminists say about the issues, and take it from there.

  13. firsttimereader says

    freja @11.

    Yes, I’ll do your searching for you, my middle name is google. ;-)

    This is a good one:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/02/report-mens-experience-of-domestic-violence-in-scotland/

    Also this one, where he get into a fight with an MRA (get the popcorn ready).
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/03/dear-paul-elam/

    The DV worker is called Maria, but I didn’t see her name while I was scanning those.

    Oh, and @11, I guess you feel better to get that off your chest!

    PS – I see you there fighting with an MRA or two.

  14. coleopteron says

    Those Canadian MRA’s that you call Taliban supporters, for reasons that I still do not understand, had among their ranks Earl Silverman. It seems he was a victim of partner abuse and tried to set up the first men’s refuge in his area. He committed suicide after years of fighting the “system” and being refused a single dollar of aid from the authorities. I won’t link to this as you may accidentaly see some more Taliban propoganda!

    Well, I could always provide a few links.

    This article written for the National Coalition for Men says Silverman was given a government grant to the tune of one thousand “single dollars” all at once when they referred him his first client. This benefit is apparently given to DV victims of either gender

    http://ncfm.org/2011/04/action/mens-shelter-gets-government-grant-in-canada/

    There’s also a video linked here on MRA site “A Voice for Men” cites a newspaper article stating that he had less than 20 clients in three years. This would seem to make it difficult to justify increased government attention.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/rip-earl-silverman-you-wont-be-forgotten/

    According to this SPLC blogger, Silverman’s personal blog suggests that he was provided with a government liason, invited to conferences and granted interviews with ministers, so it doesn’t sound like they were ignoring him.

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/05/14/another-mens-rights-activist-suicide-exploited-by-ideologues/

    If this had been a women’s shelter, the government wouldn’t have kept it afloat either. Of course, if this had been a women’s shelter they might have been able to keep the doors open longer through donations and activism from the feminist community.

    Unlike the MRAs, feminists have a support network which allows them to actually do useful things – rather than whinging and moaning. Indeed, if he was with a group like the Men’s Issues groups CatieCat talked about in the first post, he might have been able to take advantage of working alongside feminist groups to get the message out using their already established networks and experience in fundraising.

  15. thascius says

    @10-In the US at least male teachers are few and far between below the college level, and very rare at the elementary school level. At the elementary school I attended 2 out of 36 teachers were male, both taught 5th grade-the highest grade at that school. There are probably a number of factors why, teaching is considered a female occupation, the pay is generally poor, the demands are great while the rewards are minimal. There are studies claiming both genders are disadvantaged in school, and they may all be right. What we can say, though, is that boys are less likely to successfully finish high school in the US than girls, and that difference has grown over the last few decades. Some people have dismissed that gap by claiming it’s because boys were more able to get high-paying, low-skilled jobs than girls, but the gap has been growing even as those low-skilled, high-pay jobs have been disappearing. The gap is also worse for minority boys than for white boys, and there’s no evidence that minority boys without a high school diploma are getting better paying jobs than their white counterparts.
    As far as DV goes I think most feminists and feminist sympathizers do agree that female on male DV is a problem and one frequently overlooked. As Caitie Cat @1 noted there are groups trying to provide resources for male DV victims. Unfortunately, most of what gets seen on the internet from MRA’s on the issue is complaints about what female victims are getting and attempts to minimize male on female DV.

  16. firsttimereader says

    @15coleropton.
    Thanks, I’ll take your info in good faith and leave it there.

    Note to self:Don’t ever even mention MRA’s at FTB!

  17. firsttimereader says

    @17Thascius. Thanks.

    I’ve only been commenting here for a little while.

    I think that among other things, I have learned that whenever I see feminists not seeming to take it seriously, they are almost always arguing with an MRA at the time. This happens a lot, I notice :-)

    I must say I really didn’t realize how deep this feud is. Not my war though.

    I’m reasonably sure that if I went to avfm and tried to say “those feminist have a point though….” ,I would get a similar number of people who are prepared to spend a lot of energy to prove me wrong.

  18. firsttimereader says

    @19 Nathaniel.

    Commenter @6 seemed to question one of Avicenna’s statement’s. I don’t know exactly where he got the figures from, but I helpfully pointed out that some links, and a decent discussion could be found on another blog within FTB. I remembered it coming up on more than one of his posts.

    Ally hasn’t really make a huge number of posts, and the titles often give it away, so I didn’t link directly.

    Happy now, mr grumpy?

  19. freja says

    @13 and 14, firsttimereader

    I don’t think it’s contradictory to suspect (not ASSERT) that teaching methods or lack of male role models might have an affect AS WELL AS outside cultural effects.

    Yes, but in order to check whether that suspicion is valid, it would be worth looking into whether there actually is a correlation between a larger number of female teachers and boys doing badly, which means looking into where and when female teachers are most common. We’d also have to check to see if any possible correlation could be caused by certain boys (such as the aforementioned Pakistanis) having less respect for female teachers, but that’s a bit harder to check up on.

    Regarding Chinese and Indian boys performing well, it could be that the parent of these boys push them harder than girls which might explain the effect.

    Yes, but it could also be that parents and teachers from other cultures don’t make the same demands of boys as they do of girls, resulting in the girls being better equipped to deal with the demands of education.

    In the case if Pakistani boys, there seems to be something specific going on there, I won’t speculate for now.

    Actually, this is not specific to Pakistani boys. American minority boys (minus a few of the aforementioned groups) also do worse in school, to the point where I’ve heard some people say that the alleged “boys’ crisis” is a racial issue, not a gender issue. Interestingly, it seems that boys from cultures where the masculine ideal is one of machismo are the ones to do worst. I wonder why…

    On a slightly related note, I googled a bit, and found this study (highlights mine):

    “analyses show that reported school effort explains a significant part of the gender differences in school achievement for the Pakistani sample, but not as much of the gender variation in the ethnic Norwegian sample. Working hard in school is characteristic for the Pakistani sample, especially the girls.”

    Which seems to support Avicenna’s theory that it has to do with culture.

    Yes, there are studies showing boys get preferential treatment in the classroom. It was a bit of a minefield trying to find some even handed analysis. I think what threw me in the end was a forum thread on mumsnet, which consisted of some female educators and parents, and they seemed to come to a consensus that teaching methods and lack of male role models contribute to the effect. I can’t find it now and don’t have time to search.

    Teachers and parents are as biassed as everyone else. If they have no actual observations of this (e.g.. the presence of a male teacher suddenly causing an increase in male performance), they’re just guessing. There are studies which shows that even female teachers devote more attention to boys than girls. When the number of times they call on boys compared to girls are actually counted, they’re as surprised as everyone else when it turns out they call on boys much more often, and when they treat both sexes equally, both they and their students feel that they spend a disproportionate amount of time on the girls.

    One of our most common prejudices is that women are drudges while men are thinkers. Women do routine menial labour while men create things. That’s one of the reasons girls are more often complimented on their hard work while boys are more often complimented on their smartness and creativity. It’s easy to imagine the proud, active, creative, fragile, genius male spark being crushed by the dreary routine of female-dominated education. It just so happens that it’s all made up. In fact, the last time I checked, discipline was a more important predictor of male performance, and yet girls often face harsher restrictions while “boys will be boys”. In the times where boys did better, they were also beaten more often. You might as well say that boys need a good slap now and then to keep them in line, and the lack of corporal punishment is what causes them to not reach their potential, and you might actually have a stronger argument.

    The reasons we give for things like the worse performance of boys usually reflect our attitudes more than they do evidence. If you start with the assumption that boys are naturally brilliant and hard-working, you will end up with arguments about how boys’ lower performance is because they’re not catered to as they deserve, and boys performing equally to girls is because they work much harder. If you start with the assumption that patriarchy is a thing and that this is still a man’s world, you end up with arguments about how machismo and “boys will be boys” attitudes cause boys to have less discipline and be less hard working in school.

    Yes, I’ll do your searching for you, my middle name is google. ;-)

    What Nathaniel Frein said.

    This is a good one:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/02/report-mens-experience-of-domestic-violence-in-scotland/

    Also this one, where he get into a fight with an MRA (get the popcorn ready).
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/03/dear-paul-elam/

    The DV worker is called Maria, but I didn’t see her name while I was scanning those.

    You talked about a male DV worker making comments and pointing to studies. When I ask for links so that I can see those comments and studies, you link me to two blogs not written by that male DV worker, and tell me the male DV worker is a woman named Maria and that you haven’t seen any of her comments in the comment section. How does that make sense?

  20. freja says

    @16, thascius

    @10-In the US at least male teachers are few and far between below the college level, and very rare at the elementary school level.

    That wasn’t what I asked. I asked about the past and other countries, because I remember seeing Little House on the Prairie, and they went through several school teachers, all of whom were female. That’s not to say this is historically accurate, but then again, the stereotype of a primary school teacher seems to have always been female, and I wonder why that is if male teachers were so common before. It would also be interesting to look at classes who have only one teacher (or at least one primary teacher), and see if that teacher’s sex made any difference.

    The same with male role models, I recall being told by people who were alive during the glorious 50s that men spent most of their time at work, or with male friends, or napping, so how come they managed to be role models then and not now? Especially given that much of fiction seems to have become even more male dominated, and men spend more time with their children.

    There are studies claiming both genders are disadvantaged in school, and they may all be right. What we can say, though, is that boys are less likely to successfully finish high school in the US than girls, and that difference has grown over the last few decades. Some people have dismissed that gap by claiming it’s because boys were more able to get high-paying, low-skilled jobs than girls, but the gap has been growing even as those low-skilled, high-pay jobs have been disappearing.

    And yet, men are still richer, more powerful, and generally more likely to be hired and paid well in a variety of jobs, especially the more prestigious ones. If school is supposed to prepare you for a career, it seems to prepare girls much worse than boys,which means there is actually a girls’ crisis in education, and more should be done to bring girls up to par with boys.

  21. says

    Still waiting for a cite on the “50% of domestic violence is committed by women”.

    I know, from personal experience, that most violence done by women (in that specific situation) is in response to violence done by men, i.e. pushing him to get him off of me, when he’s got his hands ’round my throat…

  22. firsttimereader says

    @21 Freja.
    Well, I’m not going to apologize for stating that I had a suspicion that some effect may occur, based on initial reading around.

    We are both speculating about the Chinese/Indian issue.

    As for the Pakistani boys, I didn’t want to comment but I had a suspicion (and I have lived in/near those communities but I am not of Pakistani origin) that the tendency might be to not push the boys very hard at school, and instead catch them straight out of basic school and into the family business.

    The level of employment in those communities in family businesses is relatively high This is speculation on my part, and a little bit anecdotal.

    As for the quotation, I did my bit to help, if you don’t like it, tough. The person who asks for info (not from me by the way…..) can either follow those links and see the discussions and context and evidence, or not.

  23. firsttimereader says

    Sorry, I meant the citation/Evidence for the 50/50 split, not quotation. Silly me.

  24. thascius says

    @22-You’re right that men in general are better paid and hold higher positions career wise than women. That does not mean school prepared them better. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I think men are favored many ways in workplaces, some subtle, some not so subtle. Those things add up over time. And also in the workplace, particularly with people at the top, you’re looking at people who’ve been in their careers 20-30 years or longer, just when women were starting to enter the workforce in large numbers. Is there any evidence that men without a high school diploma are more successful than women with one? I don’t think anyone could argue that in the US women in general are doing better economically than men in general. And the educational system does fail some girls as well as some boys. But to say that there’s a crisis in girls’ education but everything is fine for boys, because men who were educated 30 years ago are more successful than women who were educated 30 years ago is absurd.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>