3 ms·

When Nixon went to China people said it took Nixon to go to China, implying only someone obviously anti-communist could go there without being labeled a communi

by spodek 13y ago

When Nixon went to China people said it took Nixon to go to China, implying only someone obviously anti-communist could go there without being labeled a communist. Likewise, no man could say "Women in 21st century American cities are the privileged of the privileged," as the woman who wrote that article wrote, without being lambasted. I don't know if I would say it so strongly, but the once-standard view that men succeed at women's expense seems to be crumbling as people recognize the glass cellar as powerful as the glass ceiling; that as much as men occupy the top echelons of business and politics, so do they occupy the bottom of homelessness; that as they dominate lucrative fields like engineering, so do they dominate fields that dominate workplace deaths like mining, construction, trash disposal, long-haul trucking, soldiers, etc; that as much as women have trouble entering STEM fields, so do men have trouble entering teaching, nursing, etc. Women are successful in the West -- more of them get college degrees, they live longer, no law forces them to register for the military (in the U.S. at least), the law doesn't imprison them nearly as much, the government has many programs to help them, and so on. It seems that decades ago both men and women had to follow gender roles. Women's roles have since opened up, giving them more options. Men's roles have opened somewhat, but less so. I know a lot of fathers and I've never met one who didn't want to spend more time with his children, but they tend to have fewer options to. Many of the initiatives the author of the article questioned could probably help more if they defined need around issues other than sex. (EDIT: I hope people posting realize that HN weighting sinks stories with more posts than upvotes. If you want a discussion with many people participating, keep the number of posts below the number of upvotes the story gets. Otherwise it drops off the front page.)

pessimizer 13y ago
Do men dominate homelessness, or do old women and single mothers with children? I'd be interested in any links you have. also: >Women are successful in the West In what way? >more of them get college degrees, Oh, that actually is pretty good. >they live longer, Didn't they always? That's just biology, isn't it? >no law forces them to register for the military (in the U.S. at least), That's not a success of women, that's just a sexist (and common) law. Saudi women aren't drafted either. >the law doesn't imprison them nearly as much, Because they don't commit nearly as much crime? I don't understand this at all. >the government has many programs to help them, Yup. More would be even better. >and so on. So more than college, then?
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  That's not a success of women, that's just a sexist (and common) law. Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield? Practically never, from my experience. Last time I saw it mentioned was an activist who was insisting on diluting military training to make it more accessible to women, which... is not a solution, I hope you realize that. But for the most part, it's never discussed. After all, war is hell. If women are not encouraged to go out and die, that's a big advantage, even if a technically sexist one. It's an example of sexism that is actually beneficial to the group that experiences it. Why would they want to fix it? Because they don't commit nearly as much crime? I don't understand this at all. That or they get more lenient sentencing: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114 https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114 Also: "Interestingly, among women, white female defendants receive more severe sentence outcomes than black females." Yup. More would be even better. I guess they would if you value short-term hacks that give specific advantages to a group over actual long-term solutions.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield? Who cares what some strawman feminist thinks, especially since the strawman feminist didn't even support the ERA. I'm saying that characterizing this as a success of women is incoherent. >That or they get more lenient sentencing: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114 https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114 Could you summarize that, rather than throwing it out there? >I guess they would if you value short-term hacks that give specific advantages to a group over actual long-term solutions. And what are these long-term solutions?
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    "Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield?" This is the stupidest argument. Why is this same argument brought up every single time? Feminists would say that selective service IS sexist, and that we should abolish it. In fact several women's organizations have helped challenge the legality of it to the supreme court (The American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project for one). Remember in 1980 when Jimmy Carter urged congress against enacting male only registration and the 97% male congress enacted it anyway? How is this the fault of women?

by spodek 13y ago

pessimizer 13y ago

Do men dominate homelessness, or do old women and single mothers with children? I'd be interested in any links you have. also: >Women are successful in the West In what way? >more of them get college degrees, Oh, that actually is pretty good. >they live longer, Didn't they always? That's just biology, isn't it? >no law forces them to register for the military (in the U.S. at least), That's not a success of women, that's just a sexist (and common) law. Saudi women aren't drafted either. >the law doesn't imprison them nearly as much, Because they don't commit nearly as much crime? I don't understand this at all. >the government has many programs to help them, Yup. More would be even better. >and so on. So more than college, then?

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
That's not a success of women, that's just a sexist (and common) law. Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield? Practically never, from my experience. Last time I saw it mentioned was an activist who was insisting on diluting military training to make it more accessible to women, which... is not a solution, I hope you realize that. But for the most part, it's never discussed. After all, war is hell. If women are not encouraged to go out and die, that's a big advantage, even if a technically sexist one. It's an example of sexism that is actually beneficial to the group that experiences it. Why would they want to fix it? Because they don't commit nearly as much crime? I don't understand this at all. That or they get more lenient sentencing: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114 https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114 Also: "Interestingly, among women, white female defendants receive more severe sentence outcomes than black females." Yup. More would be even better. I guess they would if you value short-term hacks that give specific advantages to a group over actual long-term solutions.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield? Who cares what some strawman feminist thinks, especially since the strawman feminist didn't even support the ERA. I'm saying that characterizing this as a success of women is incoherent. >That or they get more lenient sentencing: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114 https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114 Could you summarize that, rather than throwing it out there? >I guess they would if you value short-term hacks that give specific advantages to a group over actual long-term solutions. And what are these long-term solutions?
- quinnchr 13y ago
  "Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield?" This is the stupidest argument. Why is this same argument brought up every single time? Feminists would say that selective service IS sexist, and that we should abolish it. In fact several women's organizations have helped challenge the legality of it to the supreme court (The American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project for one). Remember in 1980 when Jimmy Carter urged congress against enacting male only registration and the 97% male congress enacted it anyway? How is this the fault of women?