Is framing issues in terms of "men and women" necessary in the 21st century?

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

To me, it has poor implications even with the "for the most part qualifier", and doesn't accurately address the motives behind violent or criminal behavior.

Mostly it's cultural, if you want a dangerous dog, there's a motive... 

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

To me, it has poor implications even with the "for the most part qualifier", and doesn't accurately address the motives behind violent or criminal behavior.

I was looking for something along the lines of "You're right, I shouldn't have edited iNow's statement to make it look like he was being unreasonable and ridiculous, I'll avoid fallacious logic in the future." I know you disagree with him, but you can do it honestly. 

It also looks like you're moving the goalposts here by talking about motive. This seems so important to you that you're willing to cheat to make your points. Next you'll be breaking out ChatGPT to argue in bullet points for you.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

I'm assuming that you're basing this assessment on either:

1. Physical differences between men and women which make it more likely that a woman could be overpowered by a male attacker

2. Statistics that show that men are more likely to be instigators of violence.

Correct me if I'm wrong. And if this safety concern is presumably based on biological differences between men and women (e.x. that a man is more likely to be able to physically overpower a woman), I'm curious what solution you propose to it.

Solutions to safety concerns seems like a red herring considering the topic is about whether or not gender is even relevant in terms of framing such concerns in the first place.

[zapatos]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:02 AM, Night FM said:

That would fall into the domain of decisions that people make with personal safety in mind.

Yes, if only those pesky victims would learn to dress in such a way that men don't wish to assault them.

If you keep arguing in threads that women aren't really victims of wage discrimination, violence from men, etc., people will start to assume you are a misogynist. 

Edited September 16 by zapatos

[TheVat]

I sorta assumed that, given the threat title.  The notion that there aren't issues that pertain particularly to a gender would depend on an utter blindness to everything that goes on in the world.  When I have heard people take this tack, it is usually a prelude to "dear Lord, us poor white guys and all the terrible inconvenience we have to deal with because all those other people are laying about pretending to be victims!"  

[MSC]

On 8/30/2024 at 10:55 AM, Phi for All said:

The only thing that's harder about men's mental health is that they usually ignore it due to peer pressure.

Not done reading through everything yet, but this stuck out to me as a bit false. Men are far more likely to commit suicide and are more likely to be the victims of physical violence. 

In general I don't feel like people are being charitable enough in their interpretation of the OP. It may be that posting in the politics channel has some in an unsuitable mindset to interact with the post. (Although I've now seen things got a little heated in the 2nd page)

What I will say to the OP however, is that human health can be broken down into a set of different problems to solve, men and women's health sharing similarities and differences that connect with each other through interaction. Now in terms of researchers and experts, as a species we need them in the fields of mens health, women's health and we still need experts in human health issues that affect both. We have all of that. So I'm assuming the problem OP is trying to address is the frequency at which uninformed and ignorant discussions/debates happen in these areas by laypeople, discussions which do more harm than good because they are expressly for the purposes of acquiring likes, followers, post interaction etc. 

I don't think OP comes across as an all lives matter advocate or someone who is asking for any sort of priority of one groups issues over another, to me this reads more like the sort of thing you'd read in intersectional feminism literature. 

@iNow is correct though, equality is very much not present in our society and poopooing the attempts of those who are mainly focused on those who are most trodden upon, by way of having the most issues of inequality, is like trying to repair the smallest hull breaches in a sinking ship as opposed to the ones that are actually huge. I mean you can choose as an individual where you want to focus more and if OP wants to put his time into different areas of discussion as opposed to any kind of men vs women and who is more important type of thing, he can. But that shouldn't have to disrupt a woman advocating for her right to choose or a man advocating for his right to mental healthcare or whatever other issues you can think of that requires it's own advocates.

The fight for equality across the board is a war. But each issue is a battle that must be had. Although the ideal is us fixing all of these issues at once, that just isn't really possible. It's a massive problem that really does need to be broken down into smaller parts. 

On 8/30/2024 at 10:55 AM, Phi for All said:

The only thing that's harder about men's mental health is that they usually ignore it due to peer pressure.

 

Edited September 17 by MSC
Fixing double post glitch as best I could

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

Not done reading through everything yet, but this stuck out to me as a bit false. Men are far more likely to commit suicide and are more likely to be the victims of physical violence. 

I think event hat needs to be qualified, as to the former, men are likely to be successful in suicide. But women are more likely to attempt it. A recent study puts it at 1.78 odds ratio (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.05.096). This is roughly in line with studies dating back to the 80s (going as high as about 2.5 fold).  One of the key differences is the type of suicide attempt. Women tend to try poisoning, which is very ineffective. Men tend to use more violent methods, especially guns.

There is a link to violent behaviour, either against themselves or others, which is indeed a gender difference. Women are less likely to engage in such, for example. The tricky bit is to figure out the psychological impact and how it manifests in men vs women (I am sure there are studies out there, but I am unfamiliar with the topic). 

As mentioned, men more frequently engage in violent behaviour and are more likely to be both, perpetrator and victim. In women, there is an imbalance, especially when  it comes to severe injuries. That being said, there is a very specific burden for men that are victim of abuse, which is related to toxic masculine ideals. I.e. the stereotype that strong men should just suck it up. But there is increasing recognition on this issue, luckily (though still not enough). 

But that points to yet another issue in gender differences in psychological impact. For example when it comes to dealing with trauma, it is likely that societal expectations color how individuals cope or fail to cope with it. Some studies looking at differences between trauma associated with accidents and victimization, it seems that women are roughly similarly affected by either form of trauma (which in itself is interesting), but men are more likely to have more negative self perception and other symptoms when confronted with victimization vs accidental trauma ( https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1975952). Depending on study, women do seem to have an overall higher rate of symptoms, such as PTSD, but also tend to cope better than men. The narrative there has been that women are better at emotion-focussed coping (doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhn004).

Of course, as these studies might be colored by societal expectations themselves (which can be an issue of psychological studies).

 

 

 

[MSC]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

think event hat needs to be qualified, as to the former, men are likely to be successful in suicide. But women are more likely to attempt it. A recent study puts it at 1.78 odds ratio (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.05.096). This is roughly in line with studies dating back to the 80s (going as high as about 2.5 fold).  One of the key differences is the type of suicide attempt. Women tend to try poisoning, which is very ineffective. Men tend to use more violent methods, especially guns.

Now that distinction between success and attempts is very much not picked up on enough it seems, because this is the first time I've seen that claim. Thanks for the explanation, I was quite unaware. 

[Night FM]

On 9/16/2024 at 8:48 AM, Phi for All said:

Solutions to safety concerns seems like a red herring considering the topic is about whether or not gender is even relevant in terms of framing such concerns in the first place.

I'd argue that unless sex and gender are inherent in the issue, then "gendering" the issue, to me, seems like a distraction.

His argument implies that gender is inherent in violence perpetuated by men against women, when I'd argue that it only is in certain types of crimes (such as sexually-motivated crimes).

On 9/16/2024 at 9:46 AM, zapatos said:

Yes, if only those pesky victims would learn to dress in such a way that men don't wish to assault them.

That's a moot point, because, culturally-speaking, modesty exists in all cultures regardless of what the specific standards are. (Everyone could go around naked, but we don't in any notable culture, in part due to modesty). So people already do dress and not dress certain ways in certain circumstances for various reasons.

Not dressing certain ways in certain circumstances, such as in a bad part of town, might be a decision that people make with personal safety in mind, not because the behavior is justified, but simply out of concern for one's wellbeing.

On 9/16/2024 at 9:46 AM, zapatos said:

If you keep arguing in threads that women aren't really victims of wage discrimination, violence from men, etc., people will start to assume you are a misogynist. 

I'm not sure where this strawman came from. I provided a source regarding claims of arbitrary wage discrimination, though others provided sources to argue what the source I provided claimed.

And "violence" from men doesn't mean that gender is a primary factor in or reason for the violence. From a criminological standpoint, if we look at robbery, for example, the primary goal would be to acquire money or valuables from another person, regardless of whether the victim or the perpetrator is male or female. So that wouldn't be the equivalent of a hate crime based on gender, or a sexually-violent crime.

On 9/16/2024 at 10:33 AM, TheVat said:

I sorta assumed that, given the threat title.  The notion that there aren't issues that pertain particularly to a gender would depend on an utter blindness to everything that goes on in the world.  When I have heard people take this tack, it is usually a prelude to "dear Lord, us poor white guys and all the terrible inconvenience we have to deal with because all those other people are laying about pretending to be victims!"  

That's a silly notion, since race (white, black, or otherwise) wouldn't be relevant to any issue of alleged victimhood unless it was a primary in an act, such as in a racial hate crime. There would also be a big difference in personally being a victim (e.x. of a crime), and merely claiming to be a victim by association with a demographic which, say, has been statistically more likely to have been a victim of a certain thing. (Or for that matter, having a "victimhood mindset" irrespective of whatever "things" a person may or may not have actually been a "victim of).

Again, I'd argue that for an issue to pertain to a specific gender, the gender would have to be an inherent factor in the issue. And I can think of plenty of examples of things being marketed to a specific gender (e.x. "men's fitness") when it's arguable that they don't overly pertain to a specific gender (e.x. most would agree that "fitness" is beneficial for men and women), and some of this may be a product of an overly "gendered" view of culture.

[TheVat]

Gender Discrimination and Misogyny Over, Men Declare!

 

 

 

[Night FM]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Gender Discrimination and Misogyny Over, Men Declare!

That's just gender-baiting and doesn't attempt to subjectively define terms like "misogyny" or how they could be "over".

If misogyny is a view that some people hold, then while people can discourage behavior and change laws that align with misogyny, I'm not sure how one could prevent individuals determined to hold such a view from doing so. Especially given that the views may originate in the individuals themselves rather than some element of wider society which can be effectively addressed, such as by legislation. If anything, education is probably the best remedy to misogynistic views.

This also doesn't address the reasons or the necessity for marketing subject matter such as fitness specifically to men or to women, when the subject matter is a broad enough category that it should generally be applicable to both men and women.

Edited September 28 by Night FM

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Night FM said:

This also doesn't address the reasons or the necessity for marketing subject matter such as fitness specifically to men or to women, when the subject matter is a broad enough category that it should generally be applicable to both men and women.

Some necessity is physiological. Some is social. Some issues are not generally applicable to both men and women. To pretend otherwise is, at best, just parading one’s ignorance

 

[MSC]

I think part of what makes some men so hyper vigilant towards misandry is in large part due to the paranoia that comes with being in the advantaged situation unfairly. 

I mean sure you have real misandrists, but there is a distinct difference between a misandrist saying "all men are pigs" vs a woman saying "men are disgusting when they behave like this."

Now as to ambiguity in wage differences, as I can name a few career paths where women can make more than men; there is far less ambiguity when it comes to a wealth gap. As it stands, on average, for every dollar of wealth that a man owns, women own substantially less and we can't ignore how a long history of male dominated capitalism has exacerbated and solidified wealth inequalities. From healthcare, clothing, hygiene etc, women pay more to live, are less likely to own property or receive capital funding for their business ventures. Due to ingrained biases surrounding how we identify job roles with either masculine or feminine (even though those jobs themselves have nothing to do with gender), women are more likely to be passed over for leadership roles. 

As someone who has been a caregiver, as a man, I've definitely come across an assumption that I must be a less effective caregiver than a women, while simultaneously acknowledging myself that there are many women far better suited to leadership roles than myself. 

Although it's interesting when you look at traditional gender roles and leadership roles in their full context. Take a general, identify what the ins and outs of his job are, then tell me if his role is more paternal or maternal. I personally notice more of similarity between the maternal role and leadership than I do with the paternal role. I mean think about it.

"Go out and win us some bread, here are your clothes and equipment, here is some lunch, be careful out there."

"At once... Sweetie"

[MigL]

On 9/17/2024 at 7:45 AM, MSC said:

(Although I've now seen things got a little heated in the 2nd page)

Yeah ... my apologies for that.
It is not that Phi and I think differently on this matter.
Reading back, I realize the I took his comment too personally because of past history.
I suppose having grudges doesn't make for good discussions.
My bad; I'm working on it.

Men and women have physiological and psychological differences, as well as similarities, and sometimes they need to be treated differently, sometimes not.
The century we're in will not change that; education about which differences need to be treated differently is what is slowly changing.
Women are more than capable of doing most of the jobs men do, so there is no need for pay disparity.

In terms of the employment/pay issue ( purely anecdotal ), I work with a few women who are very intelligent, pleasant and attractive; no one accuses them of using their 'attributes' to get their positions, then again, we are Canadian, and unionized, so we get equal wages for the same job titles. One I work closely with, however, still insists that her date must pay for dinner, even if she asks him out ( no we haven't dated, she's 30 years younger, and I used to work with her dad ).

I would point out however, that men who are pleasant and easy to work with often also get promotions ahead of the ones who are difficult, even if comparably qualified.
This is often the problem for women as ignorant people will assume they are promoted for 'other reasons'; men don't have that problem.