Men's Group
Related: About this forumwhy does this crud continue
I come to DU to discuss progressive issues and end up getting into a fight about how I'm a fellow traveller of anti-women forces because I'm a male so I have "privilege".
I just don't get it. I'm lower then the lowest class and I fight with my mother and grandmother to stay afloat, but apparently because I have a penis, I get perks? Like what...?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)it get you down. We leaning toward the left are, unfortunately, often known more for fighting amongst ourselves than with the right. And that's even before the shitstirrers and trolls get started.
(If at least 5 people here aren't ignoring you, you're not trying very hard.)
unreadierLizard
(475 posts)I support women's issues and the like; I'm not denying there was or is still sexism in society.
But the notion of "male privilege" just seems far-fetched for men who aren't rich and are just trying to be loving husbands, fathers and trying to make a good life for their family.
Major Nikon
(36,917 posts)Despite the fact that radical feminists crawled in bed with Ed Meese and the rest of the far right wing thought police back in the 70s and 80s and have yet to crawl out.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)for a lot of their sources.
Weird alliance that.
Response to unreadierLizard (Original post)
eek MD This message was self-deleted by its author.
unreadierLizard
(475 posts)being a straight, white male in America, or North America in general is the same as being Hitler in the eyes of certain people.
And it's no wonder that most white men vote Republican; the drivel they hear from segments of the left is enough to drive anyone away at times.
Major Nikon
(36,917 posts)The thought police were pretty well hooked up to the Santorum campaign and if Rmoney is elected you'll see more of them having an influence over everyone else. Radical feminists have been on the same page as the thought police for at least the last 40 years and you'll even see some of them on DU parroting out their Reich wing pseudo-science garbage. It's important to understand that "certain people" are allied with the GOP at least as much, if not more, than anyone on the left. Right from the start, many feminist recognized the message of radical feminism as divisive, politically toxic, and not to mention just flat out nutty. Betty Friedan, who was a very intelligent and effective feminist predicted that radical feminists' efforts would be counterproductive to their cause. History proved that's exactly what happened. It's important to recognize that the message of radical feminism is not universal among feminists. Many of them reject it flatly. Radical feminists are also a dying breed. New feminists today are not so quick to accept the nutty ideas that the only difference between men and women is the plumbing and that western civilization needs to be reordered (by force if necessary) before women are ever going to escape their bonds of oppression.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Divide us by gender
Divide us by race
Divide us by religion
Divide us by orientation
They know if they allow the working class to come together, they are done. FUCKING DONE. There are way too many of us.
So they engage in this other bullshit, and they have plenty of useful idiots willing to push it.
SnohoDem
(1,036 posts)I started to make a similar reply in this thread, but you said it so well...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)What's necessary at home shouldn't be in politics.
What's intriguing to me is how many men, who are completely ignorant of Warren Farrell's books, are so happy to accept a pair of pom-poms from the women who dislike what he has to say.
I think men are generally vulnerable to the appeal to authority;
"Grover Norquist says that taxes are too high on the rich. I know I'm not rich, but I know that what's good for society is what I'm supposed to support. If he says that cutting my social security/unemployment is the right thing to do, I'll agree."
"My female governor and both my female Senators tell me that women are paid less than men for the same work and are underrepresented as elected officials. I know that unemployment and disability from my work injury doesn't pay all that well and renders me unable to pay my child support, but they must see the bigger picture. I mean, it's a good thing that my ex-wife has a good education to provide for the kids, right? And I'm sure that I'll figure out a way to deal with all that accruing debt eventually. What's good for society is what I'm supposed to support. If they say that I'm not supposed to read serious books written for men, who am I to disagree?"
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)it's easy enough to keep your head down, not say anything, or even support what the radicals are saying.
The alternative is that they will all simultaneously label you a misogynist and probably a wife-beater and repeat it incessantly.
It's childish and unfair but apparently pretty effective.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Comes with the territory. It's only as effective as you allow it to be.
Major Nikon
(36,917 posts)Personal attacks simply reflect the character and insecurity of those who are pathetic enough to use them.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....right around the time you've pretty much torn their rhetoric to shreds.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)As opposed to stage whispers from behind the "protected group" fence.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Maybe she got confused. Us men all kind of look alike.
I don't think the problem is a "those" but a "her".
Major Nikon
(36,917 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Powerful, the dark side is.
Major Nikon
(36,917 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I refused to take their word on what someone else had said and condemn that person for it.
All I said was that I'd prefer to find out more first prior to forming an opinion.
Apparently that's the same thing as saying rape is A-OK.
Major Nikon
(36,917 posts)Any fans they may have for it are more than likely cut from the same cloth.
If nothing else, there's always the entertainment value which shouldn't be understated.
trumad
(41,692 posts)And you're already crying because those mean mean feminist on DU shouting about your errrrr privilege.
Jesus Christ dude...... Look at the big picture and quit whining.
unreadierLizard
(475 posts)Fighting crushing poverty every day doesn't give me much time to think about any fucking "privilege".
I certainly don't feel privileged living on the brink of financial ruin.
Is there a secret handshake or something I missed?
jorno67
(1,986 posts)but deep down you know being able to write your name in the snow makes up for all of that shit.
trumad
(41,692 posts)because you're a poor white guy, it automatically means that us errr white guys have no privilege because of our race and gender?
Or is this an individual thing?
Because of it is---we'll break it down a bit.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Female---we'll say she's African American---and we'll say she fighting crushing poverty.
So who has the advantage in life?
You..Mr. White Guy--- or---Ms. Black woman?
unreadierLizard
(475 posts)Poverty doesn't discriminate; if you're a male, female, black or white or Hispanic - it doesn't matter.
Kurovski
(34,657 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If you want to talk about racial privilege, take it elsewhere.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)That is the way I took it.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)than white Americans, are more likely to end up in jail, end up dead by violence, live in poverty, become addicted to drugs, drop out of school, and be disproportionately sentenced for the same crimes would you take that as proof of black privilege?
Yes or no.
trumad
(41,692 posts)better?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)would a group that suffered all those stats disproportionately harming them be described fairly as "privileged"?
Yes or no.
Is dying young, in jail, after dropping out of school a sign of being overly privileged?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The markers for racial privilege are understood and accepted.
How can the man holding the unsanitary end of the stick for most if not all of those metrics be considered privileged?
trumad
(41,692 posts)White, black, orange---what the fuck ever....
I don't care if the dude is an alien....
This guy comes in for 30 days and acts all aggrieved because of he's a poor whittle male.
This place is full of the biggest fucking whiners on DU.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)only when you deign to grace us with your presence, Precious.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)we're bringing up various facts and refuting you when you refuse to listen to them.
That isn't whining, that is explaining (albeit getting exasperated at this point). You refuse to answer questions or address real issues, preferring personal attacks.
And so far this group has allowed far greater dissent than what I've noticed in a certain other women's group that shall remain nameless.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think you need to delete that comment. You don't like this group and its members, don't post here.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)maybe when he gets overamped blathering about sports, he needs us to lower his seratonin and blood pressure levels
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I'm shocked, shocked that you wouldn't answer this question.
trumad
(41,692 posts)poor guy.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I sought a yes or no.
You never gave me that.
If black Americans were on average behind in every major category from health to justice to education would this be seen as "proof" of their privilege over whites.
Yes or no please.
trumad
(41,692 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Would a group suffering all of those things I mentioned be rightly described as privileged.
Yes or no.
You see this is an incredibly simple question and the fact that you refuse to answer kinda is an answer in itself.
/I would answer quite confidently: No, dying younger, facing fewer educational opportunities, and being overly represented in our prison system is not a sign of privilege.
Could you please do the same? Thank you.
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #29)
Post removed
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Look, you've by now realized what I'm getting at and you must refuse to answer because otherwise your case would be shot down immediately.
Rather than acknowledging the weakness of your argument in light on contradictory evidence you have chosen to lash out at the person trying to educate you (shooting the messenger).
I have to ask, is this kind of rage and cognitive dissonance really worth it? What are you gaining by clutching desperately to your flawed ideology?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Factors which are evidence of advantage in discussion about race, apparently constitute disadvantage in discussions about gender.
Thus:
Black people who go to jail are there because of racism. On the other hand, men who go to jail are there because of their indoctrination in violent patriarchal social mores.
Hispanic people who don't go to college are precluded because of racism. On the other hand, men who don't go to college chose not to because they can make tons of money without an education.
Native american people who die young do so because of the economic and social effects of racism. Men? They make their own irresponsible choices. A privilege that women aren't accorded.
It's a heavily invested and well-funded belief and stereotype... not a conclusion.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)1960: girls are failing in school because the curriculum was not designed with them in mind and there isn't enough focus on getting them to achieve.
2012: boys are failing in school because they are dumb and violent.
I guess it's just such an obvious double standard that I have a hard time believing people are doing it accidentally and without full recognition of what they are engaging in.
Ignorance I can tolerate to some extent. Willful deceit I have a harder time with.
Upton
(9,709 posts)Consider the source. He just comes over here occasionally carrying some water and generally looking to cause a hassle..
A couple months ago, after I mentioned men have had the disadvantage of being drafted for so many years, he told me I had no right to discuss military issues because I had never served in the military..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=1246
I'd love to see him try to apply that "logic" to DU as a whole..
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and he tried this in the HoF forum he'd be banned as a "shit stirrer" after his first post.
Actually I'm rather pleased that this group allows for such dissent. I think being constantly challenged (even by people who are clearly just causes trouble) is a good thing. Forces you to constantly reexamine and research your own beliefs to make sure they are correct.
Also cuts down on group-think with it's tragically hilarious consequences.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... to pull a Walt Starr, but I told him I won't let him off the hook so easy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=120116
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)The absolute refusal by some individuals, yourself in this case, to wrap their heads around the notion that men have it anything other than awesome in every possible way perfectly illustrates the need for a group such as this.
In any possible category where men have it worse you have come back with either flat out denial or accusations of "whining" (I suppose you'd never dare call a woman a "whiner" is she mentions rape stats by gender would you? See the double standard?).
That proves that this is a conversation that must be had until people like you can either be won over to the side of reason or failing that marginalized by the rest of society so the adults can discuss real issues intelligently.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Are you capable of defending an idea?
Defend your views or crawl back to meta. We'll see who is the bigger whiner.
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)Groups are not privileged or disenfranchised by their own innate characteristics. They are positioned relative to other groups with more/less institutional power. A lot of people in this Men's Group suffer under the same gender essentialism as the History of Feminists members you like to poke fun at. In reality, you share more than you differ.
Thus:
The whole argument by MRA champions that males are dropping behind in education, work more dangerous jobs, live shorter lives, etc. because there is some sort of institutional bias against males is problematic for ONE SIMPLE REASON:
MEN oppress each other. It's predominantly MEN crafting all sorts of social and legal frameworks to marginalize other groups, including other men. MEN oppress other groups disproportionate to any other group. Specifically, rich white men. But, I will say that the most powerful indicator of privilege is class, and THAT is one thing you should be focusing on.
All of this is to say: men repressing other groups has nothing to do with the fact that they are MALE. Throughout history and cultures, control and authority are positional, not essential. Until very recently, power was predominantly achieved through force. In more egalitarian cultures, power is granted by displays of generosity facilitated by immediate strategic political alliances. Example: potlatches. As societies became more hierarchical, power was taken by armies and leveraging resources. Eventually, technology came to replace brute human force, but history had still granted men the position of power in terms of creating and profiting from these tools.
These days, being male is starting to rapidly drop in importance, replaced by class and I would even go so far as to say profession. The most effective way to escape your socioeconomic class is to go into a high-prestige profession. The Geek Revolution controls a lot of important consumer products, and along with products comes the software that shapes the way that we use things and access information. Data has become so valuable that consumers themselves are now the product. This is power. Are most STEM professionals men? Yes, but this is changing. Especially in countries like China, India, and Japan where education is less gendered. The US clings to gender essentialism, and it's harming everyone.
There are a lot of great arguments from gender studies that talk about how our society's expectation of stereotypical male and female behaviors force people into narrow, proscribed gender roles that greatly limit what they can and cannot do.
The key, to me, is NOT to single out men as either victims or oppressors but to look at the economic and social pressures which result in disproportionate access to freedom and resources. Stop poking fun at those who point out the "Patriarchy". The "Patriarchy" is not just Men vs. Women. It a PATERNALISTIC system of authoritative influence over everyone, a hierarchy of "suitable" behaviors for both/all genders. Men who do not fit into the dominant role of provider/sexual agressor/competitor/etc. are also marginalized. This has been the default mode of thinking for much of Western history, and it's silly to dismiss its pervading influence.
Gender essentialism is tied to homophobia, too, as seen by the recent transphobia in the History of Feminists Group. I'd like to stick evolutionary psychologists who perpetuate this bullshit with nebulous, poorly-constructed or outright misleading "studies" on a fucking island somewhere. They can fight it out while the rest of us evolve 
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)However, for someone who just got here, you seem to be awfully well versed on some of the issues which have plagued certain groups. Interesting.
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)The very existence of this group is gender essentialism, not to mention threads like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1114204
Not sure why you are casting aspersions on my knowledge of the groups. Another thing you have in common with History of Feminism group.
Several things, although I don't really owe you an explanation:
1. I don't do one-line, drive-by responses so I don't really participate much. Don't have time, and that kind of engagement doesn't interest me. I like to browse forums, and as I have a background in social sciences, so intergroup dynamics fascinate me even though I don't personally participate. I've taken an exception here because I really think the formerly amusing vendetta of this group and History of Feminism is actually pretty toxic now. I've largely given up on engaging in politics here, as people are very factionalized and it ends up being talking points volleyball.
2. I've had several accounts over the years, as far as I know all in good standing. I'm fairly paranoid about data tracking, so I register under emails I don't always remember and I don't save logins. Not sure why this is a problem for you, as it's not my intention to create a lasting online persona in any forum.
Feel free to alert on me if you think this is sock puppetry, but you'd just be reinforcing my point about factionalism and identity-based discourse (vs. exchange of ideas). I find your posts extremely defensive for little reason.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That's not defensive, that's fact.
My "Problem" is that trolling and sockpuppets are major issues on this site, and have caused no small amount of havoc over the years. I find it personally offensive to be lectured by someone about things like "the rules" (not saying this is you, but it's been done) when that person is pretending to be 5 different other agreeing yes-bots slapping themselves on the back, or that person can't abide by the simple rule of "if you're banned, stay banned".
Your issues or paranoia around data tracking aren't my concern, nor, would I think, are they the admins. This site has some basic, simple, straightforward rules, and people who want to post here need to follow 'em. If that is too onerous, there are plenty of other places on the web that don't have those rules.
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)I don't think your reaction is warranted. I have no problem with this group per se, I'm only contributing my perspective on gender essentialism. I have no plans to gang up on you or anyone else.
Data tracking should be everyone's concern, I don't think my approach to my online personas is anything unusually paranoid.
Again, feel free to report me if you feel strongly. I have no horse in this race.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)or otherwise posting contrary to the spirit of the SOP is not permitted in the group.
There are plenty of other places on DU, as you are no doubt aware.
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)I've done nothing that hasn't been done before. I linked to one post to prove my point, but I did not mention anyone by name. I'm a man, I don't have a problem with the group existing at all.
Edit to add: my problem is on the focus of "us vs them" that seems pervasive in this trend of cross-group stalking. If it makes you feel any better, I chose to post here and not History of Feminism because I would be banned immediately for bringing up gender essentialism and homophobia. I thought I stood a better chance of a discussion here.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There is no "cross-group stalking", and really meta is the best place to hash that stuff out anyway.
The OP is not currently defending the premise of the thread, as far as I can tell, which I don't actually agree with, anyway.
I'm happy to discuss my own ideas, in the other threads.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)that not only posits some insane penis-plot as the source of ALL human oppression, ever, everywhere, but also makes goofy-ass, absurd assertions like "penetrative PIV sex is an oppressive, artificial social construct implimented by the patriarchy™"
I've acknowledged repeatedly that Western Civ, and particularly Western Religion, have historically had a Patriarchal Orientation, (duh) which is NOT the same thing as imagining some spooky "Patriarchy™" that personally approves every boob picture that goes on the internet with an evil "MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA".
In fact, I think that things like constrictive gender roles and expectations have gotten much better, not because of legions of Dwork "battling against The Patriarchy™" but because of many of those same things the 2nd Wavers bleat and moan about; namely, the sexual revolution, freedom, openness, and the dreaded idea that "private behavior between consenting adults is their own business" eyeroll eyeroll.
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)But you dilute them with this knee jerk caricature. I am not a fan of Dworkin nor would I defend anyone who is.
It seems like porn is the big sticking point here. For the record, I love porn. I watch it. I have no problem with porn as it exists between freely consenting parties. However, let's be honest here, there is some pretty horrific content out there. I'd even go as far to say that I think most of it is pretty degrading to both men and women. Even if a person signs a contract and consents, there's something about being grabbed roughly by the hair and forced to the point of gagging on an erect penis, having many people ejaculate on one's face, being penetrated by multiple large foreign objects, being passed around like a receptacle, etc. that bothers me.
Does this mean I want it outlawed? No, not at all. I don't think that would be effective or ethical in our culture of free expression. But we should choose not to consume such content, and call it out when we see it.
Does this mean I want all porn turned into 2 hour romantic film with no action? Not at all. I think there are plenty of ways to film good old fashioned fucking that don't demean people. But porn has changed just by the overwhelming variety and availability of it, and this deserves reflection. Producers are forced to make more and more shocking content just to stand out.
There was an interesting study, and I will try to find it, that said the psychological damage that can result from porn isn't even from any degrading acts depicted, but the sheer number of imaginary "partners" an average porn viewer has, which leads to depersonalization of the experience. Not so long ago, people would have these projected relationships with preferred porn actors. These days, people search primarily by sex act and not by a particular actor. I don't know how much stock I put into this, but it's an interesting point.
I'm somewhere in the middle, I prefer Viv Thomas productions because his actors are absolutely gorgeous and he respects them.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)smut producer was.
What I did explain was who, and what, was being "poked fun at" regarding "The Patriarchy™". Since you brought it up.
God, I have the strangest feeling of Deja Vu. Have you met Scootaloo? You'd get along splendidly, in fact I think I was fed that exact line verbatim from that poster, not 3 weeks ago. For the record, I didn't mention porn, nor am I going to play the game of "now you've gotta defend this yucky thing I went to all this trouble of finding on the internet".
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)I wasn't even going to get into it, but I did because it seemed like your main objection to Dworkin acolytes (fairly enough)
" that personally approves every boob picture that goes on the internet with an evil "MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA". "
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Now, either agree or don't, but if you're coming in here to lecture the group on things like the existence of "The Patriarchy", I'm telling you once and for all, you're in the wrong place.
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)I'm offering my perspective. If you believe anything I've posted here warrants banning, go ahead.
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)I'm not asking you to defend porn, no more than I'm asking you to defend eating meat. They are both human behaviors, both things that can be done with minimal harm if we cared enough. I eat meat and I watch porn.
All I ask is that you care about the ethics of what you consume. Or at the very least commit to a conversation about it without defensive theatrics. I don't even know you well enough to know what your reputation might be, but I think you're fully capable of this. I jumped into this thread from a meta thread by Trumad and was interested in the exchange.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Frankly, it's presumptuous.
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)I'm not talking about you personally. Maybe I should be more careful with my words, but it was actually you who personified the conversation with comments like "I'm not going to defend XYZ". I mean it is my wish for everyone to do the least possible harm. I responded to your original post, meaning to discuss these issues from the perspective of society. Arguing personalities is pointless.
I've obviously upset you, so I will bow out now.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)For starts.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and who isn't, then?
Here's my proposal and request: Make a list of all of the "multiple accounts" you've got, including this one- all the names, and put them in the PROFILE of EACH of your "multiple accounts". That way, the process is transparent and everyone who interacts with "you" knows who "you" are, and no one has to be bothered with, for instance, telling "you" the same thing twice.
Good idea?
DeadParrotz
(12 posts)Please don't accuse me of attacking when I wasn't even speaking about you in particular.
Good night.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You can thank us later!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)response to your viv thomas thing, and it was intended ironically to boot.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Second I would contend that "the patriarchy" of wealthy and powerful men actively conspiring to keep women down doesn't exist. It's paranoia.
There are some wealthy and powerful men and most of the wealthy and powerful are men. But they also represent a fraction of a percent of the male population. An average man is only just slightly more likely to be in this position of power and privilege as he is to fly in to space.
They aren't conspiring to keep women down, they're conspiring to keep themselves "up". Which means that 100% of women and 99.999999% of men don't get those benefits. I would hesitate to label that male privilege.
By most every quantifiable metric it is worse to be a man today than a woman. Unless dying young in jail is your goal.
I'm not claiming that some matriarchy exists to keep men down. But pretending the men have it great is absurd. Men have real problems in many areas that ought to be addressed. Unfortunately due to watching too many reruns of Mad Men some people assume men have it all and that anyone who says otherwise is engaging in an intentionally dishonest campaign in order to keep women down.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)
MEN oppress each other. It's predominantly MEN crafting all sorts of social and legal frameworks to marginalize other groups, including other men. MEN oppress other groups disproportionate to any other group. Specifically, rich white men. But, I will say that the most powerful indicator of privilege is class, and THAT is one thing you should be focusing on.
Are the men in power applying the same kinds of marginalization to women? Obviously not because "men fall behind in education, work more dangerous jobs etc". For purposes of this discussion, "who is doing the oppressing?" is irrelevant.
The power structure considers powerless men disposable and extraneous. They put programs in place to protect vulnerable women (WIC, VAWA, EEOC) but don't do the same for vulnerable men. Class is important, but the impact of class on people is very gender selective.
Which requires college, does it not? The bar for boys to get into college is much higher than girls and it manifests in the fact that a girl is 50% more likely to go to college than her brother.
And yet when the topic of single sex classrooms and its correlation to a 50% improvement in girls test scores and a 300% improvement of boys test scores is brought up, the idea is ridiculed and mercilessly attacked. If the "narrow proscribed gender role" in question is boys belief that school really isn't for them, it's immensely threatening.
Some kinds of oppressive paternalistic authoritative influence are apparently okay. Also, the broad range of acceptable gender roles for kids consist of points on the spectrum of normal girl behavior, outside that boundary lies pathology.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Can you tell me more about this?
First of all, I am not disputing it. I am genuinely curious about the much higher college graduation rate for women than for men.
I have two questions:
1. How is the bar higher for boys than girls? (I don't know, I don't have children, I don't pay attention, and I would really like to know.)
2. Why do you think more girls than boys are going to (and graduating from) college (may or may not be the same as #1)?
I do see this as a real problem (snarky commentary elsewhere aside) and I am trying to understand how it got to be this way.
Thanks.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The attitudes of boys in school is drastically different than when I was young. In my graduating class at a small rural school (1980), the valedictorian and the salutatorian were both male. The class speaker was female. The top 10 were made up of about half boys and girls and their average gpa was about 3.6 or 3.7. In the class of 2012, every single one of the top 10 students were female, with an average gpa of 3.95-ish, yet they're largely ignorant of things I knew well by 10th grade.
Are the boys truly not learning? Oddly, despite having poor grades, boys standardized test scores are better than girls. Apparently, teachers are assigning grades primarily on other factors than apprehension of the subject matter.
What's the difference in the last 30 years? When I was in grade school, there were several male teachers with whom I could identify, and I understood the expectation that I was to do my best. Discipline was immediate and effective. Students today are unlikely to experience a male teacher until middle school (only 8% of primary school teachers are male). Discipline is deferred, used indiscriminately and in the least effective form. ("Suspension? Pfft!"
.
In second grade, my now 19 year old son was suspended by the female principal for "pre-gang activity". (Every guy who wasn't a member of an army, tribe, gang or club in 2nd grade - raise your hand) He was later suspended for a week in the 8th grade for passing notes about airsoft guns. When my 22 year old son (who gets married on Sunday) started kindergarten, I clearly remember the conversation with his teacher who expressed dread at the coming school year because there were more than half boys in her class. (11, iirc)
If a male student gets through high school while retaining any degree of academic interest (it is apparent that none from my alma mater did so this year), they are then faced with the hurdle of financing. For every scholarship for boys there are at least two (well funded) ones for girls.
Title IX precludes any kind of meaningful outreach to recruit men to college, but that doesn't appear to be the case for women. The US department of education maintains a program entitled "the women's educational equity" program which gives out grants and funding for programs to increase the margin by which women dominate education.
My kids are both very intelligent, and they're going to do fine, but I had different aspirations for them when they were little. The older went to truck driving school in Utah, and the younger is taking diesel mechanics classes at the local community college. We've produced a generation of missed opportunities in the name of gender justice.
In fairness, "50% more likely" is a bit hyperbolic. Women are about 57% of college graduates so .57/.43 = 32% more likely.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Appreciate hearing your thoughts. I asked you because it was a comment you made that poked my curiosity... it is also something my male partner mentions a lot but he doesn't know much about the background or the details when I ask him about it.
I will investigate more.
As a feminist, I want good things for women (and I know I can sometimes be snarky and dismissive about men's concerns, that is my frustration coming through), but I really don't want men to be hurt along the way. 
To me this seems like a clear case where we are failing to nurture and support boys.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)90% of what I told you was anecdotal. Everyone has a different experience. YMMV
For a more rigorous treatment of the subject matter, I recommend the boys project
Broderick
(4,578 posts)that was pretty interesting.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)You want to talk about the ideas? Fine, do that.
How to tell the difference? If the first word in your subject is "You", then you might be doing it wrong.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)How I look at this is that privilege is reserved for the big (usually white) fat cats who pull all the strings and not for any of the schmucks like us.
There certainly are/were things that I was excluded from because I am a woman/was a girl. But that applies to men and boys too in different ways, not as much - but this is from my own point of view and personal experience, but I can't pretend to know what others (meaning men and boys) experiences are.
Sorry if I'm not being clear but I've been giving this a lot of thought lately and so far have come to the conclusion (but still working on it) that we are all screwed by the same top tier for their own purposes of control - this includes religion, politics and everything in between.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)They look at all the top dogs and say "hey, most are male. Therefore there must be some advantage for men since they're going to look out for each other. Bros before hoes and all that".
When in reality those at the top look out for themselves. There is no gender-solidarity there.
So a poor man is no more advantaged than a poor woman and in many quantifiable ways less so.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)1st) Every man for himself.
2nd) Women and children first.
There's no brotherhood.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)looking after each other first at the exclusion of women (not based on evidence per se, just on a hunch) are the first to declare female solidarity.
Women have to stick together because of their shared genital confirmation.
Men are bastards if they even think the same thing.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Poor? Your handicap is -100
Black, hispanic or american indian? - 80
GLBT? - 60
Woman? IMHO, the net effect is a wash. Yes, women have a harder time getting into a physically dangerous job, but because society doesn't want women to do those jobs, women have an easier time getting into college. Yes, the impact of childrearing falls harder onto women, which is why courts shift the financial burden onto fathers. Yes, women's traditional careers pay less, but they are women's traditional careers because they are less physically dangerous and because they afford the flexibility that women value.
Is spending 60 hours at work power? I think that the opposite is true. Power is having agency over your own life. Employment is selling ones agency to the employer.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)maybe your life would be worse without the hypothetical perks?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . you'd likely be dead without male privilege. 
Or, if you were only smart enough, you'd be able to use all that male privilege to advance your fortunes and become a real oppressor, like you really desire.
MORE
Seriously, if you look at some commercials or shows from the 50s & 60s on youtube, you will see blatant male privilege depicted in them. You will go, wow, this culture has changed. And it has.
There is still male privilege in this culture, but it's not evenly distributed by class, because money enforces it now. Today it's not even significant in the lower classes (that is to say, the lower and the middle class). So, I guess, theoretically, you could be privileged if you had enough money.
And definitely there are men in the lower classes who are nostalgic for the good ol' days of male privilege.
Sick of the GOP
(65 posts)The consensus here is penis = evil.
And you'll wonder why you lost the south and midwest AGAIN...
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....I suggest you take it META. Don't bring it here.
And the consensus at DU is NOT that.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I appreciate a place that allows people to say what's on their minds. The problem is the attitudes, not the fact that Skinner allows them to express it.
Iggo
(48,681 posts)
Iggo
(48,681 posts)Jeez.