4 ms·
Generally speaking, the clearly oppressed and disadvantaged group is the one we focus on in terms of equity. Men are not, nor have they ever been, that group.
by standardUser 6y ago
Generally speaking, the clearly oppressed and disadvantaged group is the one we focus on in terms of equity. Men are not, nor have they ever been, that group.
- zepto 6y agoThis is the problem with making it about sex or gender. ‘Men’ as a category may not be that group with respect to ‘Women’ as a category. But there are a huge number of men who are in fact, just as disadvantaged as a huge number of women even if that number is marginally smaller. There is no reason at all why those men’s problems should not be receiving the same attention that women’s problems are receiving, other than the framing as a response to oppression of groups.
- LanceH 6y agoThis is the issue with scoping our solutions based on identity rather than to those suffering the symptoms we would like to address.
- DC1350 6y agoMen are the disadvantaged group when you look at things they do worse than women though. There’s no such thing as being disadvantaged overall.
- busterarm 6y agoYou know that the article is about a study demonstrating that women are outachieving men academically, right? It's outright suggesting that there is some as-of-yet-identified disadvantage there. So while you say "no, not ever", I say "are you even having the same conversation we are?"
- ganzuul 6y agoBeing coerced into fighting wars that have nothing to do with you is clearly oppressive. Maintaining a society which accepts this, is oppressive. Violence for entertainment is male-focused, and oppressive. Men are very, very oppressed. A few who have escaped into financial independence does not make a trend.
- garmaine 6y agoMaybe we should be focusing on outcomes and equality, not equity?
- dudul 6y agoYou're literally commenting on an article that shows you that boys are the disadvantaged group.
- Veen 6y agoIt may be true that men have historically dominated the top of most institutions—that most "oppressors" are men—but it doesn't follow that the majority of men are privileged or that most women are oppressed and disadvantaged, especially in modern western societies.
- at_a_remove 6y agoYes, that is called the "apex fallacy."
- jl2718 6y agoOne thing I’d really like to see less of on this board, is argumentation by labeling an idea with some obscure field-dependent term, with no other logical support presented. Admittedly we allow this in mathematically rigorous fields, and there is, perhaps, some discussion to be had about what is rigorously proven as an inviolable natural law in the social sciences. It seems to me that such terms are admissible in the natural sciences only when based on clear parameters of disproof, and evidence, broadly sought, has never been shown to refute it. But in progressive social sciences, and nearly all denominations of politics and religion, these terms are used to deny the admissibility of any evidence against an assertion. This is a fundamental disagreement of the mechanisms of reasoning and communication, and I’m not sure how the two can exist together, but for some reason they always have. For academics, the required canon has simply shifted from Catholicism to social justice. I wonder if there would be some fatal flaw within any gathering of the purely rational such that they must be balanced by the irrational. Or perhaps it is a mutual exchange of the long-term respect and value creation due to risk and rigor, for the short-term financial support of those that would rather pay tuition to pretend.
- at_a_remove 6y agoFortunately, I was not arguing against the parent to whom I replied by simply vomiting out a little term. I was saying, "Hey, there is a common name for this idea you just mentioned, you may find it useful going forward."
- Der_Einzige 6y agoIn America, the chances of you being mutilated (non-medically necessary circumcision) are astronomically higher as a man than as a woman. Men have been that group when it comes to their foreskin.