3 ms·

This article totally misses the forest for the trees. Frankly, both prostate cancer research and disparities in wealth/power/self-determination between men and

by rmxt 12y ago

This article totally misses the forest for the trees. Frankly, both prostate cancer research and disparities in wealth/power/self-determination between men and women deserve greater attention in public discourse than they currently receive. The tone of the article is no better than the "Everyday Sexism" proponents that it decries: neither of the issues discussed are all-or-nothing propositions. So, what's the point here, then, other then a hyped up anti-(anti-?)moral panic? What's the connection between public backlash against a tennis poster and the author's claim that not enough money goes towards prostate cancer research? (Hint: there is none, other than the author's wishful thinking and news reading habits.) > The drip-drip narrative of the Everyday Sexism Project – along with the continued demonisation of young men in the media and on University campuses – would have us believe Britain is intrinsically more sexist against women than it has ever been. No. It's that the awareness of disparities is perhaps at the highest it's ever been, not that the disparities themselves are the greatest they've been.

zo1 12y ago
>"What's the connection between public backlash against a tennis poster and the author's claim that not enough money goes towards prostate cancer research" For one, how the public can be so outraged about something so small, petty[1] and inconsequential. And yet completely ignore real issues, disparities in funding in this case, that affect thousands of individuals of a specific gender. I don't necessarily think it has a "direct" connection, but is there more to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the "equality" movement that is seemingly ignoring an issue affecting a specific gender. [1] Might not be petty to some, and it might represent bigger issues to them. In this case, it's outrage over a poster, taken decades ago, that became part of pop-culture and was on display at some cultural event.
- rmxt 12y ago
  There is no global mandate that says everyone has to be outraged by all "real issues". Plain and simple, that is the fallacy of relative privation. A person isn't a hypocrite if they post a tweet against this poster hubbub without following up with one about prostate cancer, it just means that they have their own unique interests. Furthermore, the author of the article has played a sort of mind game regarding the prostate cancer "real issue": he didn't take to Twitter to personally ask the "Everyday Sexism"/"equality movement" proponents if they also believed that funding for prostate cancer was worthy of concern. To assume that these same people wouldn't also be disappointed about a lack of funding for men's issues is really jumping to unfounded conclusions. But, then again, I never got the impression that this article was trying to inspire real conversation... just add divisive fuel to the fire.
  - zo1 12y ago
    >"There is no global mandate that says everyone has to be outraged by all "real issues". Plain and simple, that is the fallacy of relative privation. A person isn't a hypocrite if they post a tweet against this poster hubbub without following up with one about prostate cancer, it just means that they have their own unique interests." We're discussing the public in aggregate. I don't think anyone is expecting each person to be outraged equally by all things that deserve it. As you say, they have their own unique interests. But if the public, in aggregate, ignores (or doesn't get vocal about) an issue while simultaneously giving another issue a disproportionate amount of attention then we can infer things. Such as that, on average, more individuals have a personal unique interest in promoting X, and ignoring Y. Or maybe there are simply more individuals promoting X than there are for Y. >"Furthermore, the author of the article has played a sort of mind game regarding the prostate cancer "real issue": he didn't take to Twitter to personally ask the "Everyday Sexism"/"equality movement" proponents if they also believed that funding for prostate cancer was worthy of concern." Again, we're discussing the public in aggregate. His actions, and the actions of the "Everyday Sexism" group are mere relays/amplifiers for public opinion. The author is merely commenting on the current state of funding, which has supposedly been driven by the up-until-now public opinion on the the topics. >"To assume that these same people wouldn't also be disappointed about a lack of funding for men's issues is really jumping to unfounded conclusions. But, then again, I never got the impression that this article was trying to inspire real conversation... just add divisive fuel to the fire." I'll go ahead and reiterate my point one more time, as you seem to be a little overly hostile towards this article for some odd reason. Even if these groups/individuals are disappointed with the lack of funding of mens issues, public opinion still overrides them. The proverbial "do as I say, not as I do" difference where people say one thing, but do another.
    - rmxt 12y ago
      My gripes are that these extrapolations and inference from a select audience, "Everyday Sexism", to the general public are both tenuous and myopic. The "Everyday Sexism" people have their concerns, prostate cancer advocates have their concerns... the world is a good place for equality and the furtherance of all humankind! News articles on Sky News and tweets from a sexism advocacy group are completely independent. There are no public opinion statistics in this article. What basis is there for assuming that the majority of the people in the Western world act according to and adhere to the "Everyday Sexism" tenets? I might be coming off as hostile to this article because I can't shake the feeling that the author is looking for outrage where there is none to be found. They consciously skirt the middle ground I mentioned in my first post, so as to rile up a mainly male audience. The article drops lines like "you can bet your life if women, or minorities of any ethnicity, sexuality or transgender were killing themselves at four times the rate of straight white men, it would be front page news" which is the opposite of a grounded, good-faith interpretation of "public opinion". This article simply doesn't explore "public opinion" with a holistic approach. The statistics given at the end of the article are misused to show that "we are better off (re: sexism) than we were before, so we might as well not talk about it anymore."
ashwinaj 12y ago
I think most level headed people would accept the fact that there is sexism (botth men and women). I think the author is trying to say that sexism against men is passe. There is a tremendous amount of hue and cry over women's sexism versus sexism against men in today's world (please stop bringing up 1000's of years of injustice, an act of sexism should be treated as an act of sexism, irrespective of gender). And there are a lot of people out there in denial about it, which is a shame.

by rmxt 12y ago

zo1 12y ago

>"What's the connection between public backlash against a tennis poster and the author's claim that not enough money goes towards prostate cancer research" For one, how the public can be so outraged about something so small, petty[1] and inconsequential. And yet completely ignore real issues, disparities in funding in this case, that affect thousands of individuals of a specific gender. I don't necessarily think it has a "direct" connection, but is there more to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the "equality" movement that is seemingly ignoring an issue affecting a specific gender. [1] Might not be petty to some, and it might represent bigger issues to them. In this case, it's outrage over a poster, taken decades ago, that became part of pop-culture and was on display at some cultural event.

rmxt 12y ago
There is no global mandate that says everyone has to be outraged by all "real issues". Plain and simple, that is the fallacy of relative privation. A person isn't a hypocrite if they post a tweet against this poster hubbub without following up with one about prostate cancer, it just means that they have their own unique interests. Furthermore, the author of the article has played a sort of mind game regarding the prostate cancer "real issue": he didn't take to Twitter to personally ask the "Everyday Sexism"/"equality movement" proponents if they also believed that funding for prostate cancer was worthy of concern. To assume that these same people wouldn't also be disappointed about a lack of funding for men's issues is really jumping to unfounded conclusions. But, then again, I never got the impression that this article was trying to inspire real conversation... just add divisive fuel to the fire.
- zo1 12y ago
  >"There is no global mandate that says everyone has to be outraged by all "real issues". Plain and simple, that is the fallacy of relative privation. A person isn't a hypocrite if they post a tweet against this poster hubbub without following up with one about prostate cancer, it just means that they have their own unique interests." We're discussing the public in aggregate. I don't think anyone is expecting each person to be outraged equally by all things that deserve it. As you say, they have their own unique interests. But if the public, in aggregate, ignores (or doesn't get vocal about) an issue while simultaneously giving another issue a disproportionate amount of attention then we can infer things. Such as that, on average, more individuals have a personal unique interest in promoting X, and ignoring Y. Or maybe there are simply more individuals promoting X than there are for Y. >"Furthermore, the author of the article has played a sort of mind game regarding the prostate cancer "real issue": he didn't take to Twitter to personally ask the "Everyday Sexism"/"equality movement" proponents if they also believed that funding for prostate cancer was worthy of concern." Again, we're discussing the public in aggregate. His actions, and the actions of the "Everyday Sexism" group are mere relays/amplifiers for public opinion. The author is merely commenting on the current state of funding, which has supposedly been driven by the up-until-now public opinion on the the topics. >"To assume that these same people wouldn't also be disappointed about a lack of funding for men's issues is really jumping to unfounded conclusions. But, then again, I never got the impression that this article was trying to inspire real conversation... just add divisive fuel to the fire." I'll go ahead and reiterate my point one more time, as you seem to be a little overly hostile towards this article for some odd reason. Even if these groups/individuals are disappointed with the lack of funding of mens issues, public opinion still overrides them. The proverbial "do as I say, not as I do" difference where people say one thing, but do another.
  - rmxt 12y ago
    My gripes are that these extrapolations and inference from a select audience, "Everyday Sexism", to the general public are both tenuous and myopic. The "Everyday Sexism" people have their concerns, prostate cancer advocates have their concerns... the world is a good place for equality and the furtherance of all humankind! News articles on Sky News and tweets from a sexism advocacy group are completely independent. There are no public opinion statistics in this article. What basis is there for assuming that the majority of the people in the Western world act according to and adhere to the "Everyday Sexism" tenets? I might be coming off as hostile to this article because I can't shake the feeling that the author is looking for outrage where there is none to be found. They consciously skirt the middle ground I mentioned in my first post, so as to rile up a mainly male audience. The article drops lines like "you can bet your life if women, or minorities of any ethnicity, sexuality or transgender were killing themselves at four times the rate of straight white men, it would be front page news" which is the opposite of a grounded, good-faith interpretation of "public opinion". This article simply doesn't explore "public opinion" with a holistic approach. The statistics given at the end of the article are misused to show that "we are better off (re: sexism) than we were before, so we might as well not talk about it anymore."

ashwinaj 12y ago

I think most level headed people would accept the fact that there is sexism (botth men and women). I think the author is trying to say that sexism against men is passe. There is a tremendous amount of hue and cry over women's sexism versus sexism against men in today's world (please stop bringing up 1000's of years of injustice, an act of sexism should be treated as an act of sexism, irrespective of gender). And there are a lot of people out there in denial about it, which is a shame.