8 ms·

this doesn't happen in non feminist countries (ie usually 3rd world).

withad 13y ago
There are a lot of societal differences between first and third world countries and they exist for a lot of reasons. I really don't see why you would pin this particular one, if it even exists, on feminism.
- adrianbye 13y ago
  i know, feminism is a sacred cow. the truth is that men tend to be highly valued in the 3rd world. by comparison in the west they tend to kill themselves as they get older: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/ElderlyWhiteMenAfflictedbyHighSuicideRates.aspx http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/ElderlyWhiteMenAfflictedbyH... are you aware we've blocked right wing research out of academia, so these issues never get researched properly? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0 and that margaret mead was basically a fraud? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman (margaret mead is an early feminist)
  - withad 13y ago
    Yes, men do tend to be highly valued in some countries. And women in such countries tend to be treated as property. What does that have to do with suicide rates of men in the US? And what does any of it have to do with your original point about feminism somehow causing media scare stories? It's unfortunate that politics can have such an influence on science and psychology and sociology are far from the only fields it happens in. But, again, that doesn't somehow prove feminism wrong or your original point correct. Did you even read that link you provided about Margaret Mead? Freeman was accusing her mostly of incompetence (taking jokes/lies as fact is the main example) and Freeman's attacks on Mead's work have themselves been heavily criticised. And even if they hadn't... so what? You're going to condemn the entirety of feminism (and the field of sociology, I suppose) because one person early in its history may have lied?
    - adrianbye 13y ago
      Margaret Mead provided the foundation for feminism to advance by "proving" that culture drove society, not genetics. Unfortunately that isn't true. Genetics shapes culture. One of the interesting things from Mead's "research" was that Samoan women were having a lot of premarital sex in the 1920's. Yet somehow none got pregnant but that was overlooked. When you force people too far out of their natural roles, bad things happen. There's a whole lot more to this and its fascinating to see how people don't realise it. I respect that feminism is the moral case. Genetics is the scientific one, which currently is not respected. There's a balance between the two
      - withad 13y ago
        And all that would mean something if (a) all of sociology was somehow based on the work of Margaret Mead, (b) Margaret Mead had been proven fraudulent, (c) proof of bad evidence on one side automatically meant the correctness of the opposite, and (d) you provided any evidence of your claims that genetics somehow drives society towards an ideal that coincidentally lines up perfectly with your preferred gender roles. Since none of those things are true, I'm left to ask again - what the hell does any of this have to do with men getting weird looks in parks?
        adrianbye 13y ago
        margaret mead effectively founded "cultural anthropology" which basically means "research which makes people feel good". many people have followed her: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.htm... this ties into funny looks for men in parks because men as a gender have been devalued into being potentially dangerous, rather than as a source of strength and value for communities. challenging feminism is a little like investigations into wall street executives after the financial crisis, it just hasn't happened. things are starting to turn - we have the internet now so we're much better informed... either that or the USA economy continues its downward slide.. i really don't care either way. the truth is that as the left becomes too strong, whether it is socialism, feminism or whatever, the economy gets destroyed. this is likely why rome collapsed, too. the moral case is very important. so too is the economy.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - argonaut 13y ago
    > and that margaret mead was basically a fraud? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman Did you even read your own linked articles? Generally, Freeman's critique has not been accepted in the anthropological community. Several Samoan scholars who had been discontent with Mead's depiction of them as happy and sexually liberated thought that Freeman erred in the opposite direction [1] Much like Mead's work, Freeman's account has been challenged as being ideologically driven to support his own theoretical viewpoint [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa I don't claim that Margaret Mead was necessarily right. I'm not an anthropologist. But your own sources contradict what you're saying.
    - adrianbye 13y ago
      you can see my link above to the NYtimes and the lack of research for the right in academia. there will be 10,000 papers supporting the left position to every 1 paper supporting the right position. they're just forced out of academia. this is a huge blind spot for society and is a little like how wall street wasn't prosecuted after the financial crisis. that derek freeman was successful in what he did (and he was, mead was dropped from anthropology) was a minor miracle. if you want to learn more, watch this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyOD-qNaiL0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyOD-qNaiL0
      - argonaut 13y ago
        Okay, it's pretty clear you didn't even read the articles you linked to.
        adrianbye 13y ago
        of course i did. the point is that academia doesn't research the opposing viewpoint virtually at all. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0 "He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three. “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals."
- makomk 13y ago
  Well, as far as anyone can tell the idea that women are naturally better parents than men was originally e feminist one, and for the most part feminists are so attached to the idea they never even seem to really question it - after all, it's about doing what's best for the child, and why would you want to get in the way of that? (That's an actual, widely used argument mainstream feminists justify their support for the status quo with.) I've also seen, for example, feminist mums argue that their kids' stay-at-home-dad is unfairly dumping work on them because they have to organise playdates and other social events, when that's almost certainly the result of sexist bias against dads - apparently mums are uncomfortable letting dads get involved in this, it's a common complaint of single dads. They don't even think about whether there may be gender-based reasons why their partner doesn't have access to the social circles they do.
karmajunkie 13y ago
In other words, in countries where men make all the rules and run the show nobody dares look askance at a man in a public setting? Go figure.
- adrianbye 13y ago
  by your statement you'd almost think people like margaret thatcher, Dilma Rousseff and benazir bhutto never existed.
  - ceol 13y ago
    Obviously the existence of a handful of women leaders means sexism is dead, men and women are completely equal, and feminism has warped into an evil movement bent on making men social pariahs.
- hobs 13y ago
  Does that mean women are setting the rules in America?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    No, the inference from karmajunkie's post is that in America men don't make all the rules.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Where the heck did that come from? For example, China is arguably a very matriarchal society, and guys take their kids out all the time.
  - ceol 13y ago
    Are you talking about the Mosou? Because they're only about 40,000 strong in a country of 1.34 billion, and aren't even a true matriarchy, as political power tends to be in the hands of men.[0] If you're talking about the rest of China, the absence of modern women leaders has been a concern.[1] I don't see any way you could call China "very matriarchal". [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo [1]: http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/07/6206108-chinas-leadership-where-are-the-women?lite http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/07/6206108-ch...
ccsalvesen 13y ago
This doesn't happen here in Norway either. It might have something to do with the (more or less) mandatory 14 week paternity leave.
Killah911 13y ago
I'm not quite so sure that this is a 1st world thing necessarily. It think it's more of an American thing. During our last vacation in Europe, I was surprised by how people, even at random rest stops along the autobahn were interacting with my kids and did not feel threatened or run off with their kids b/c I was the one taking the kids to the play area. (Albeit, I wasn't the only father/male there) All things being equal, I think it may just be our media. I noticed other parents were playing peek-a-boo with my 2 year old, whereas in the US, I face the same kind of treatment at parks as the author of the article and people in general aren't quite as friendly to kids they don't know(possibly due to similar sentiments).
- adrianbye 13y ago
  happens in europe, here's an example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401416 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401416
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  It does happen in European countries. A few years ago, there was a big pedophilia case involving a male day care worker who had made over 80 victims over the year. Ever since then, male day care workers get confronted with suspicion and distrust from parents - especially homosexual male day care workers - and have major trouble getting a job. A lot quit the job. Men working with children are being increasingly distrusted every time a new case like that pops up. It's blatant sexism, but understandable to a degree.
  - azar1 13y ago
    The patriarchy affects all of us negatively. The sexism here is in favor of keeping women in the home and the men anywhere else (preferably in positions of power). Any person not falling into their respective gender role prescribed by these rules will be punished.

There are a lot of societal differences between first and third world countries and they exist for a lot of reasons. I really don't see why you would pin this particular one, if it even exists, on feminism.

adrianbye 13y ago
i know, feminism is a sacred cow. the truth is that men tend to be highly valued in the 3rd world. by comparison in the west they tend to kill themselves as they get older: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/ElderlyWhiteMenAfflictedbyHighSuicideRates.aspx http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/ElderlyWhiteMenAfflictedbyH... are you aware we've blocked right wing research out of academia, so these issues never get researched properly? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0 and that margaret mead was basically a fraud? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman (margaret mead is an early feminist)
- withad 13y ago
  Yes, men do tend to be highly valued in some countries. And women in such countries tend to be treated as property. What does that have to do with suicide rates of men in the US? And what does any of it have to do with your original point about feminism somehow causing media scare stories? It's unfortunate that politics can have such an influence on science and psychology and sociology are far from the only fields it happens in. But, again, that doesn't somehow prove feminism wrong or your original point correct. Did you even read that link you provided about Margaret Mead? Freeman was accusing her mostly of incompetence (taking jokes/lies as fact is the main example) and Freeman's attacks on Mead's work have themselves been heavily criticised. And even if they hadn't... so what? You're going to condemn the entirety of feminism (and the field of sociology, I suppose) because one person early in its history may have lied?
  - adrianbye 13y ago
    Margaret Mead provided the foundation for feminism to advance by "proving" that culture drove society, not genetics. Unfortunately that isn't true. Genetics shapes culture. One of the interesting things from Mead's "research" was that Samoan women were having a lot of premarital sex in the 1920's. Yet somehow none got pregnant but that was overlooked. When you force people too far out of their natural roles, bad things happen. There's a whole lot more to this and its fascinating to see how people don't realise it. I respect that feminism is the moral case. Genetics is the scientific one, which currently is not respected. There's a balance between the two
    - withad 13y ago
      And all that would mean something if (a) all of sociology was somehow based on the work of Margaret Mead, (b) Margaret Mead had been proven fraudulent, (c) proof of bad evidence on one side automatically meant the correctness of the opposite, and (d) you provided any evidence of your claims that genetics somehow drives society towards an ideal that coincidentally lines up perfectly with your preferred gender roles. Since none of those things are true, I'm left to ask again - what the hell does any of this have to do with men getting weird looks in parks?
      - adrianbye 13y ago
        margaret mead effectively founded "cultural anthropology" which basically means "research which makes people feel good". many people have followed her: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.htm... this ties into funny looks for men in parks because men as a gender have been devalued into being potentially dangerous, rather than as a source of strength and value for communities. challenging feminism is a little like investigations into wall street executives after the financial crisis, it just hasn't happened. things are starting to turn - we have the internet now so we're much better informed... either that or the USA economy continues its downward slide.. i really don't care either way. the truth is that as the left becomes too strong, whether it is socialism, feminism or whatever, the economy gets destroyed. this is likely why rome collapsed, too. the moral case is very important. so too is the economy.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- argonaut 13y ago
  > and that margaret mead was basically a fraud? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman Did you even read your own linked articles? Generally, Freeman's critique has not been accepted in the anthropological community. Several Samoan scholars who had been discontent with Mead's depiction of them as happy and sexually liberated thought that Freeman erred in the opposite direction [1] Much like Mead's work, Freeman's account has been challenged as being ideologically driven to support his own theoretical viewpoint [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa I don't claim that Margaret Mead was necessarily right. I'm not an anthropologist. But your own sources contradict what you're saying.
  - adrianbye 13y ago
    you can see my link above to the NYtimes and the lack of research for the right in academia. there will be 10,000 papers supporting the left position to every 1 paper supporting the right position. they're just forced out of academia. this is a huge blind spot for society and is a little like how wall street wasn't prosecuted after the financial crisis. that derek freeman was successful in what he did (and he was, mead was dropped from anthropology) was a minor miracle. if you want to learn more, watch this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyOD-qNaiL0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyOD-qNaiL0
    - argonaut 13y ago
      Okay, it's pretty clear you didn't even read the articles you linked to.
      - adrianbye 13y ago
        of course i did. the point is that academia doesn't research the opposing viewpoint virtually at all. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0 "He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three. “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals."
makomk 13y ago
Well, as far as anyone can tell the idea that women are naturally better parents than men was originally e feminist one, and for the most part feminists are so attached to the idea they never even seem to really question it - after all, it's about doing what's best for the child, and why would you want to get in the way of that? (That's an actual, widely used argument mainstream feminists justify their support for the status quo with.) I've also seen, for example, feminist mums argue that their kids' stay-at-home-dad is unfairly dumping work on them because they have to organise playdates and other social events, when that's almost certainly the result of sexist bias against dads - apparently mums are uncomfortable letting dads get involved in this, it's a common complaint of single dads. They don't even think about whether there may be gender-based reasons why their partner doesn't have access to the social circles they do.

karmajunkie 13y ago

In other words, in countries where men make all the rules and run the show nobody dares look askance at a man in a public setting? Go figure.

adrianbye 13y ago
by your statement you'd almost think people like margaret thatcher, Dilma Rousseff and benazir bhutto never existed.
- ceol 13y ago
  Obviously the existence of a handful of women leaders means sexism is dead, men and women are completely equal, and feminism has warped into an evil movement bent on making men social pariahs.
hobs 13y ago
Does that mean women are setting the rules in America?
- icebraining 13y ago
  No, the inference from karmajunkie's post is that in America men don't make all the rules.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Where the heck did that come from? For example, China is arguably a very matriarchal society, and guys take their kids out all the time.
- ceol 13y ago
  Are you talking about the Mosou? Because they're only about 40,000 strong in a country of 1.34 billion, and aren't even a true matriarchy, as political power tends to be in the hands of men.[0] If you're talking about the rest of China, the absence of modern women leaders has been a concern.[1] I don't see any way you could call China "very matriarchal". [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo [1]: http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/07/6206108-chinas-leadership-where-are-the-women?lite http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/07/6206108-ch...

ccsalvesen 13y ago

This doesn't happen here in Norway either. It might have something to do with the (more or less) mandatory 14 week paternity leave.

Killah911 13y ago

I'm not quite so sure that this is a 1st world thing necessarily. It think it's more of an American thing. During our last vacation in Europe, I was surprised by how people, even at random rest stops along the autobahn were interacting with my kids and did not feel threatened or run off with their kids b/c I was the one taking the kids to the play area. (Albeit, I wasn't the only father/male there) All things being equal, I think it may just be our media. I noticed other parents were playing peek-a-boo with my 2 year old, whereas in the US, I face the same kind of treatment at parks as the author of the article and people in general aren't quite as friendly to kids they don't know(possibly due to similar sentiments).

adrianbye 13y ago
happens in europe, here's an example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401416 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401416
Cthulhu_ 13y ago
It does happen in European countries. A few years ago, there was a big pedophilia case involving a male day care worker who had made over 80 victims over the year. Ever since then, male day care workers get confronted with suspicion and distrust from parents - especially homosexual male day care workers - and have major trouble getting a job. A lot quit the job. Men working with children are being increasingly distrusted every time a new case like that pops up. It's blatant sexism, but understandable to a degree.
- azar1 13y ago
  The patriarchy affects all of us negatively. The sexism here is in favor of keeping women in the home and the men anywhere else (preferably in positions of power). Any person not falling into their respective gender role prescribed by these rules will be punished.