7 ms·

Why is it that anytime a women's cause comes up, someone always has to chime in with "but what about men"? Organizations are formed by people with a common visi

Why is it that anytime a women's cause comes up, someone always has to chime in with "but what about men"? Organizations are formed by people with a common vision. You can contact them or participate to try to get them to expand this vision or you can start your own. For whatever reason they decided to target their focus on women. Sidetracking from the main issue to grandstand on gender is not constructive and is no different from the #AllLivesMatter rhetoric that always manages to feign concern and completely miss the point of the movement.

staticelf 9y ago
Because there is rarely a need to be sexist about it. Why not accept everyone? This is my major issue with many "womens causes" because it's not womens causes as much as it is human causes. In fact, it feels like they have something against me as a man by denying men help and it makes me furious. I would never support this movement.
- sverhagen 9y ago
  Studies have shown... that you are probably a white male. For sure I am, yet your attitude, particularly your apparent denial of genuine disadvantages experienced by women, or more generally, by none-white males, is appalling. We are not coming after you, don't be afraid. Here's some homework material that I liked: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_kimmel_why_gender_equality_is_good_for_everyone_men_included https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_kimmel_why_gender_equality... It's not because someone wants to help women or minorities, that they're trying to take (equal) opportunity away from you.
  - crytrubin 9y ago
    Studies have shown that you're a smug, sanctimonious asshole.
  - cabalamat 9y ago
    > particularly your apparent denial of genuine disadvantages experienced by women Yes, women do get worse outcomes than men, on average, for some measures. For example men earn more. It is also true that women get better outcomes than men, on average, for other measures. For example women live longer. (It is apposite that feminists/SJWs think the first issue is something that needs to be solved, but the second issue isn't). However, the thing we are talking about is homelessness. Men are more likely to be homeless than women. Men have, in your words, a "genuine disadvantage" in this measure. > We are not coming after you, don't be afraid. You personally might not be, but SJWs in general want a world where white men heve less rights than people who do not have these characteristics. This needs to be fought against.
    - geofft 9y ago
      Can you explain what feminists or SJWs have to do with this conversation? I don't believe Amazon's effort is a feminist effort. (If you're defining "feminism" so broadly as "anything that benefits women," you can't turn around and define it so narrowly as "a cause that wants white men to have less rights".)
      - cabalamat 9y ago
        I'm defining feminist to mean anyone who calls themselves that. I've read plenty of feminists argue that society needs to solve the problem of women earning less, but never read a feminist argue that society needs to solve the problem of men living shorter. This is, on the face of it, odd, given that one of these issues is a matter of life and death and the other one is not.
        MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
        > one of these issues is a matter of life and death and the other one is not Saying the wage gap isn't a matter of life and death is dishonest. It absolutely is. The worldwide life expectancy gap between the sexes is about 5 years; the life expectancy gap between the richest and poorest Americans is 15 years[1]. [1]http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-...
  - staticelf 9y ago
    I don't understand why americans are so obsessed about race, because I like you assume stuff and I assume you're american. It doesn't matter what my skin color is since this is simply about gender and equality. I visited america recently and I've never been in a more diverse city in my life. You should know this by now. And it's obvious that I am a male since I disclosed it in my first post. > It's not because someone wants to help women or minorities, that they're trying to take (equal) opportunity away from you. Look at my home country Sweden, probably the most "feministic" country on earth, here there are several laws that only applies for women. 3/4 of university opportunities goes to women. Men lose 9/10 of all parental disputes when it goes to court. Recently there was suggestions to the government to pay for womens university education in IT. etc. etc. etc. etc. Yeah, I do not believe you since the facts in my country is the exact opposite. Don't tell me you're for equality if you acts tell another story. I am very tired of that kind of shit. There is NO REASON for the organization to exclude single men. This is why I would never support the organisation or any other organisation that has the similar sexist and toxic goals.
    - Steer 9y ago
      Please provide sources for your statement that "3/4 of university opportunities goes to women". I did a quick check at SCB which keep these kinds of statistics for Sweden and I can't find any support for it. I also tried to find support for your statement on parental disputes, but the numbers I could find differs from yours there as well. There have been many discussions on trying to even the gender-gap for certain professions, for example getting more men to be teachers (or getting more women interested in IT). I do not know how successful they are or if they are worthwhile, but I don't see a clear gender bias.
      - staticelf 9y ago
        Sorry, you are correct. It seems my numbers were pretty skewed. But it is still a majority with 60% women at Swedens universities (Source: http://www.scb.se/sv_/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/utbildning-och-forskning/befolkningens-utbildning/utbildningsstatistisk-arsbok/64475/64482/behallare-for-press/379597/ http://www.scb.se/sv_/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/u...) But on YH (Polytechnic schools) and alike there is even a bigger majority on 69%: http://www.metro.se/artikel/s%C3%A5-stor-%C3%A4r-kvinnornas-dominans-p%C3%A5-h%C3%B6gskolornas-yrkeslinjer-xr http://www.metro.se/artikel/s%C3%A5-stor-%C3%A4r-kvinnornas-... Still with those facts, the swedish government employs an extreme feministic group to suggest stuff that can empower more women in academia: https://www.svt.se/opinion/article2925614.svt https://www.svt.se/opinion/article2925614.svt Sure, all the numbers weren't really correct but the trend is still clear. Feminists only cares about women and really want to diminish men in every way possible.
- gldalmaso 9y ago
  When a certain group has historically been underprivileged or target of discriminatory conduct, a sort of social repairing is in order to balance things, it's called Affirmative Action. You are basically accusing the mending of sexism of being sexist. That only makes sense when you either don't understand or don't agree that sexism even exists, or maybe in some level is ok with it existing.
  - staticelf 9y ago
    No it means I don't believe in curing sexism with sexism and yes I am accusing the organization of being sexist because it is.
    - geofft 9y ago
      > No it means I don't believe in curing sexism with sexism Is this an ideological position, or a belief about effectiveness? That is, do you believe that it's fundamentally wrong to take sex-biased actions to fix sexism, or just inefficient? Suppose a city has ten homeless shelters for men and one for women, all built in the early 20th century. Is it legitimate to fund the construction of nine homeless shelters for women without funding more for men? Why/why not?
      - staticelf 9y ago
        I believe it's unethical and deeply hypocitical. Also, I don't believe it's effectiveness. So both I assume. If there was such a scenario in which you describe, the correct act would enable all shelters to accept both genders. If there is no reason to exclude someone, it's better to be inclusive otherwise you will not get an equal society. This is my belief. In reality, there is never an equal amount of anything so by being inclusive we have eliminated any opportunity of being unequal. Let me give you another scenario to illustrate my point. Think about women in IT, surely there are less women in IT. We could potentially boost the stastistic by offering women all educational costs covered by the government (an actual suggestion in my country). Sure, it may work but in the same time, who is to say when it's finished and now we don't need it anymore? When it's exactly 50/50 or when there is more women in field? Also, what about every other field where it's not equal? What about all men that don't get covered and have to pay for their expenses themselves? What do they think about this and how will their view on the subject be in the future? But the biggest question of all that is always unanswered is why should the gender decide who gets a great economical benefit? I asked a lot of questions but my belief is that those people negatively affected by this would feel a deep injustice and would want to fight it at any level. I think they would take some of that blaim on the women that got their expenses paid and perhaps even try to punish the society in some way (like tax avoidence). It may be irrational, but I am pretty sure that is the exact way me myself and others would react. I think by using sexism to fight sexism, you will only introduce more sexism and potentially other problems that is totally unintended (like Donald Trump).
- dang 9y ago
  When something makes you furious, especially on a divisive topic, that easily boils over into flamewar comments. Those are destructive of this site, no matter where the vector of fury is pointing. They're destructive in two ways in fact: they lead to incivility and they clog up the threads with repetitiveness. So please don't post in that spirit. Provisional new guideline: When hot under the collar, please cool down before posting.
  - staticelf 9y ago
    I have argued enough in my life to not get angry over some internet news in another country. But, sexist acts like from this organization acutally makes me furious in a way that I have zero understanding for such acts and I now view them as my enemies. I still stand by everything I wrote, it is a sexist act from a sexist organisation. Until their behavior changes I will forever believe that.
    - dang 9y ago
      Believe whatever you like, but you need to follow HN's rules when posting here.
      - staticelf 9y ago
        Sure and I believe I have?
mmel 9y ago
Why not solve the generic problem instead of only a subset? Cure all cancer, not just prostate cancer.
- falsedan 9y ago
  Why not both?
will4274 9y ago
Mary's place sounds like a commendable organization and if so, Amazon's sponsorship is also commendable. I made sure to say so. My questions were honest - I really don't know if Mary's place serves single men (though it sounds like no?) and I really don't know how Amazon's charitable contributions are proportioned. Where we spend our charitable contributions is indicative of our values (both as individuals and as a society). Some charities are criticized for being too "feel-good" or being inefficient with donor money for emotional heart strings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/heartwarming-causes-are-nice-but-lets-give-to-charity-with-our-heads/2013/12/19/43469ae0-6731-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html?utm_term=.cc218e82cf05 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/heartwarming-causes-... OTOH, this argument taken to it's logical conclusion says we should only ever donate to the Gates foundation and it's ilk. I find it interesting that Amazon is receiving such positive press for making a donation to an organization that is deliberately aimed at a subset of an issue. I've never seen an article about a corporate charitable donation of this small dollar value on hacker news before - not that the value is so small, but most charity news that breaks the media bubble is so high (e.g. billionaires pledging to donate half their wealth). The make a wish foundation existence says something about our values. So does this donation sitting on the front page. Some people love the make a wish foundation and say it reflects positively on our empathy and compassion. Others murmur about warm fuzzies vs the greater good. I don't think this ethical question should be invalid or offensive in the context of politically charged issues.
cabalamat 9y ago
> Why is it that anytime a women's cause comes up, someone always has to chime in with "but what about men"? Because there are many people who think that discrimination against women is bad, but discrimination against men is OK. These people should be fought against.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
I'm female, and absolutely disgusted that most shelters for domestic violence victims or ones that accept children often have a "no males" policy. The first person I met who was abused by their lover was male... she was female. I've met homeless men that risk getting their children taken away because the appropriate shelter wouldn't accept them. These sorts of things cause a negative stereotype for such places. It doesn't matter that most of the victims tend to be female: I'd rather them be gender-neutral on this front. IT isn't just a female problem.

staticelf 9y ago

Because there is rarely a need to be sexist about it. Why not accept everyone? This is my major issue with many "womens causes" because it's not womens causes as much as it is human causes. In fact, it feels like they have something against me as a man by denying men help and it makes me furious. I would never support this movement.

sverhagen 9y ago
Studies have shown... that you are probably a white male. For sure I am, yet your attitude, particularly your apparent denial of genuine disadvantages experienced by women, or more generally, by none-white males, is appalling. We are not coming after you, don't be afraid. Here's some homework material that I liked: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_kimmel_why_gender_equality_is_good_for_everyone_men_included https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_kimmel_why_gender_equality... It's not because someone wants to help women or minorities, that they're trying to take (equal) opportunity away from you.
- crytrubin 9y ago
  Studies have shown that you're a smug, sanctimonious asshole.
- cabalamat 9y ago
  > particularly your apparent denial of genuine disadvantages experienced by women Yes, women do get worse outcomes than men, on average, for some measures. For example men earn more. It is also true that women get better outcomes than men, on average, for other measures. For example women live longer. (It is apposite that feminists/SJWs think the first issue is something that needs to be solved, but the second issue isn't). However, the thing we are talking about is homelessness. Men are more likely to be homeless than women. Men have, in your words, a "genuine disadvantage" in this measure. > We are not coming after you, don't be afraid. You personally might not be, but SJWs in general want a world where white men heve less rights than people who do not have these characteristics. This needs to be fought against.
  - geofft 9y ago
    Can you explain what feminists or SJWs have to do with this conversation? I don't believe Amazon's effort is a feminist effort. (If you're defining "feminism" so broadly as "anything that benefits women," you can't turn around and define it so narrowly as "a cause that wants white men to have less rights".)
    - cabalamat 9y ago
      I'm defining feminist to mean anyone who calls themselves that. I've read plenty of feminists argue that society needs to solve the problem of women earning less, but never read a feminist argue that society needs to solve the problem of men living shorter. This is, on the face of it, odd, given that one of these issues is a matter of life and death and the other one is not.
      - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
        > one of these issues is a matter of life and death and the other one is not Saying the wage gap isn't a matter of life and death is dishonest. It absolutely is. The worldwide life expectancy gap between the sexes is about 5 years; the life expectancy gap between the richest and poorest Americans is 15 years[1]. [1]http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-...
- staticelf 9y ago
  I don't understand why americans are so obsessed about race, because I like you assume stuff and I assume you're american. It doesn't matter what my skin color is since this is simply about gender and equality. I visited america recently and I've never been in a more diverse city in my life. You should know this by now. And it's obvious that I am a male since I disclosed it in my first post. > It's not because someone wants to help women or minorities, that they're trying to take (equal) opportunity away from you. Look at my home country Sweden, probably the most "feministic" country on earth, here there are several laws that only applies for women. 3/4 of university opportunities goes to women. Men lose 9/10 of all parental disputes when it goes to court. Recently there was suggestions to the government to pay for womens university education in IT. etc. etc. etc. etc. Yeah, I do not believe you since the facts in my country is the exact opposite. Don't tell me you're for equality if you acts tell another story. I am very tired of that kind of shit. There is NO REASON for the organization to exclude single men. This is why I would never support the organisation or any other organisation that has the similar sexist and toxic goals.
  - Steer 9y ago
    Please provide sources for your statement that "3/4 of university opportunities goes to women". I did a quick check at SCB which keep these kinds of statistics for Sweden and I can't find any support for it. I also tried to find support for your statement on parental disputes, but the numbers I could find differs from yours there as well. There have been many discussions on trying to even the gender-gap for certain professions, for example getting more men to be teachers (or getting more women interested in IT). I do not know how successful they are or if they are worthwhile, but I don't see a clear gender bias.
    - staticelf 9y ago
      Sorry, you are correct. It seems my numbers were pretty skewed. But it is still a majority with 60% women at Swedens universities (Source: http://www.scb.se/sv_/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/utbildning-och-forskning/befolkningens-utbildning/utbildningsstatistisk-arsbok/64475/64482/behallare-for-press/379597/ http://www.scb.se/sv_/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/u...) But on YH (Polytechnic schools) and alike there is even a bigger majority on 69%: http://www.metro.se/artikel/s%C3%A5-stor-%C3%A4r-kvinnornas-dominans-p%C3%A5-h%C3%B6gskolornas-yrkeslinjer-xr http://www.metro.se/artikel/s%C3%A5-stor-%C3%A4r-kvinnornas-... Still with those facts, the swedish government employs an extreme feministic group to suggest stuff that can empower more women in academia: https://www.svt.se/opinion/article2925614.svt https://www.svt.se/opinion/article2925614.svt Sure, all the numbers weren't really correct but the trend is still clear. Feminists only cares about women and really want to diminish men in every way possible.
gldalmaso 9y ago
When a certain group has historically been underprivileged or target of discriminatory conduct, a sort of social repairing is in order to balance things, it's called Affirmative Action. You are basically accusing the mending of sexism of being sexist. That only makes sense when you either don't understand or don't agree that sexism even exists, or maybe in some level is ok with it existing.
- staticelf 9y ago
  No it means I don't believe in curing sexism with sexism and yes I am accusing the organization of being sexist because it is.
  - geofft 9y ago
    > No it means I don't believe in curing sexism with sexism Is this an ideological position, or a belief about effectiveness? That is, do you believe that it's fundamentally wrong to take sex-biased actions to fix sexism, or just inefficient? Suppose a city has ten homeless shelters for men and one for women, all built in the early 20th century. Is it legitimate to fund the construction of nine homeless shelters for women without funding more for men? Why/why not?
    - staticelf 9y ago
      I believe it's unethical and deeply hypocitical. Also, I don't believe it's effectiveness. So both I assume. If there was such a scenario in which you describe, the correct act would enable all shelters to accept both genders. If there is no reason to exclude someone, it's better to be inclusive otherwise you will not get an equal society. This is my belief. In reality, there is never an equal amount of anything so by being inclusive we have eliminated any opportunity of being unequal. Let me give you another scenario to illustrate my point. Think about women in IT, surely there are less women in IT. We could potentially boost the stastistic by offering women all educational costs covered by the government (an actual suggestion in my country). Sure, it may work but in the same time, who is to say when it's finished and now we don't need it anymore? When it's exactly 50/50 or when there is more women in field? Also, what about every other field where it's not equal? What about all men that don't get covered and have to pay for their expenses themselves? What do they think about this and how will their view on the subject be in the future? But the biggest question of all that is always unanswered is why should the gender decide who gets a great economical benefit? I asked a lot of questions but my belief is that those people negatively affected by this would feel a deep injustice and would want to fight it at any level. I think they would take some of that blaim on the women that got their expenses paid and perhaps even try to punish the society in some way (like tax avoidence). It may be irrational, but I am pretty sure that is the exact way me myself and others would react. I think by using sexism to fight sexism, you will only introduce more sexism and potentially other problems that is totally unintended (like Donald Trump).
dang 9y ago
When something makes you furious, especially on a divisive topic, that easily boils over into flamewar comments. Those are destructive of this site, no matter where the vector of fury is pointing. They're destructive in two ways in fact: they lead to incivility and they clog up the threads with repetitiveness. So please don't post in that spirit. Provisional new guideline: When hot under the collar, please cool down before posting.
- staticelf 9y ago
  I have argued enough in my life to not get angry over some internet news in another country. But, sexist acts like from this organization acutally makes me furious in a way that I have zero understanding for such acts and I now view them as my enemies. I still stand by everything I wrote, it is a sexist act from a sexist organisation. Until their behavior changes I will forever believe that.
  - dang 9y ago
    Believe whatever you like, but you need to follow HN's rules when posting here.
    - staticelf 9y ago
      Sure and I believe I have?

mmel 9y ago

Why not solve the generic problem instead of only a subset? Cure all cancer, not just prostate cancer.

falsedan 9y ago
Why not both?

will4274 9y ago

Mary's place sounds like a commendable organization and if so, Amazon's sponsorship is also commendable. I made sure to say so. My questions were honest - I really don't know if Mary's place serves single men (though it sounds like no?) and I really don't know how Amazon's charitable contributions are proportioned. Where we spend our charitable contributions is indicative of our values (both as individuals and as a society). Some charities are criticized for being too "feel-good" or being inefficient with donor money for emotional heart strings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/heartwarming-causes-are-nice-but-lets-give-to-charity-with-our-heads/2013/12/19/43469ae0-6731-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html?utm_term=.cc218e82cf05 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/heartwarming-causes-... OTOH, this argument taken to it's logical conclusion says we should only ever donate to the Gates foundation and it's ilk. I find it interesting that Amazon is receiving such positive press for making a donation to an organization that is deliberately aimed at a subset of an issue. I've never seen an article about a corporate charitable donation of this small dollar value on hacker news before - not that the value is so small, but most charity news that breaks the media bubble is so high (e.g. billionaires pledging to donate half their wealth). The make a wish foundation existence says something about our values. So does this donation sitting on the front page. Some people love the make a wish foundation and say it reflects positively on our empathy and compassion. Others murmur about warm fuzzies vs the greater good. I don't think this ethical question should be invalid or offensive in the context of politically charged issues.

cabalamat 9y ago

> Why is it that anytime a women's cause comes up, someone always has to chime in with "but what about men"? Because there are many people who think that discrimination against women is bad, but discrimination against men is OK. These people should be fought against.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

I'm female, and absolutely disgusted that most shelters for domestic violence victims or ones that accept children often have a "no males" policy. The first person I met who was abused by their lover was male... she was female. I've met homeless men that risk getting their children taken away because the appropriate shelter wouldn't accept them. These sorts of things cause a negative stereotype for such places. It doesn't matter that most of the victims tend to be female: I'd rather them be gender-neutral on this front. IT isn't just a female problem.