Okay, time for a sociology 101 lecture: ideal culture is your utopian, how things should work social rules etc that we all want. The real is how things end up working in reality.
In regards to the struggle for fairness, this qualifies as the pushing one group forward category-however this is a unique concept because once applied to reality it also pushes other groups back not to the point of a level playing field, but in reality it reverses the playing field itself.
The ideal aspect of affirmative action is that minority groups were at a disadvantage due to prejudice, socioeconomic status, etc. Note this doesn’t necessarily mean not white-the Irish had it rather rough when they originally came to America, and would qualify (Along with their failed union the Knights of St. Crispin-but that’s a totally different topic) so with a disadvantage, grants, scholarships, etc would be beneficial to create diversity. In theory, in fields of education and business, this is a good thing. This makes sense-pushing the disadvantaged forward for whatever reason.
However we live in a real culture. What it does is it often pushes people up without merit and can lead to “preferential treatment” of any minority group to the point where there are quotas in the workforce-a forced diversity under the disguise of political correctness. As a result we see other groups getting pushed back, while unintentional in most cases (simply by the numbers game) that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen and that doesn’t make it less wrong-especially when they do nothing to fix it. more here...
It is not unusual to encounter a woman who will say "I'm a feminist" or "I believe in feminism" even when she then declares that she:
♦ believes equality is a good thing to aim for;
♦ disagrees with 'extremist' feminists;
♦ thinks men get a hard deal in some areas;
♦ wants to be a mother and perhaps even be given the choice to be a housewife;
♦ actually likes men.
As people trying to get a fair deal for men and stop society's increasing misandrist leanings, we should not alienate such women. I will show here that mostly they are not feminists and they need to understand that there is a greater divide between ordinary women and feminists than there is between ordinary women and non-misogynistic men. I believe the pool of women that could be on the side of the anti-misandrist is far greater than the total number of women and men who are misandrist. So, why do so many women think they are feminist?
For a start, they are female. The root word to female, feminine, and feminist is the Latin fēmella. They all have the same kind of sound. They are all connected. If one thinks of oneself as female then by default one associates feminine with oneself. If one thinks of oneself as female then by default one associates feminist with oneself.
Most of us were taught in school that "the suffragettes" achieved equal voting rights for women. As an overall impression, most people hold that the suffragettes are (pretty much) synonymous with the feminist movement and that the suffragettes got women the vote. So therefore, from a gut reaction, to be against feminism is to be against equal voting rights for women and all other forms of equality.
Lastly, there is the simple belief that feminism has done some good for women. There are now equal pay laws; there's maternity pay; there is recognition of and support for battered women;
Updated 14th-June-2012 at 07:05 AM by Douglas
There is a vaccine for prostate cancer! Guess what, it also costs $93,000, also it only expands your life for about four months, but hey it’s a start! Four months is still greater than no months, and the average amount of time other procedures expand one’s life are two months, so its beating everything else.
This means its not really a vaccine in the traditional sense, as it doesn’t prevent cancer from developing, but rather undoes the damage. Its designed for those who already have cancer.
However the average American makes less than 50k a year. It takes 2 years of paying for nothing else to cover the cost of the vaccine to only live to make another $13,000 a year.
So we see its not a cost-effective treatment. Debate has appeared in the government and insurance companies if this should be covered by government involved health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe one day universal healthcare). Because its a lot of money for not a lot of time. We don’t want the government preventing certain types of diseases and not others, and we know that if this was breast cancer, its safe to assume it would have been subsidized already. More here...
When I talked about who suffered the most after leaving the military, I came to the conclusion that because we are putting people who are physically/mentally less capable into a bad situation we are making people less stable workers after the military. More and more end up homeless, addicts, and committing suicide as they have lost their place within society, and are in need of great deals of help. One thing which they need help with is job placement. While I do not want to break down people to simply producers, when looking only at economics you have to be a bit more stern.
So what do we do?
Well the first things are the simplest and most straightforward. These are the things that simply create more jobs in general. Particularly bring manufacturing back to the US, and get rid of this tax cut crap for companies that ship the majority of their production overseas.
The second, which isn’t even about economics, but human decency is stop going to war. Cut back military contract funding and make it less profitable to send guns a blazing across the seas. If we don’t send them off, then they don’t suffer. I think we can all agree this is the best option. more here
There are a lot of sitcoms based on families out there. And a lot of them have a common theme: Dumb, incompetent dads who are always failing at what they do with their family and go unappreciated (despite their hard work to provide) are paired up with strong, smart mothers who have no trouble flaunting this power and then go behind their husbands back and lie to them often about finances as well as other things. At the end of the day, the man is always the butt of the joke.
In the past few years some of the biggies have been taken off the air. Everybody Loves Raymond, the King of Queens, According to Jim, The Bill Engval Show, and Yes, Dear, (focusing on two families for the double whammy) have all been cancelled in the fairly recent years.
Regardless the Simpsons (Which I admit to loving) is till on and somehow Family Guy is still liked.
There seems to be some sort of theory that we are crazy and ignore domestic violence and deny that rape occurs.
I think we all know it rape/DV occurs, but our beliefs are rather clear. To put it simply, our argument is that the media blows actual rapes and domestic violence out of proportion and ignores most false rape accusations, with the exception of the most extreme cases (Duke Lacrosse), or the occasional token case to appear neutral.
The response is: A false accusation is not a serious crime, we are trivializing true victims, and we are “rape sympathizers” (whatever that means), encourage the beating of women, or we simply don’t care about actual victims. More here...
Yup I’m pulling the old ASA card again :P. This free piece is called Gender and Entrepreneurship as a Career Choice: Do Self-assessments of Ability Matter? Lengthy, I know but the main premise is this: gender roles relating to our identity determine our confidence and knowledge when we plan and decide to start a business or not. It is an interesting concept, little has been done to see how much our gender identities psychologically affect us in these manners. Of course it all sounds like feminist bullshit, and a big part of it is in the beginning, as they argue that male traits are seen as more superior for running a business. (no point in lying) but its not all crap. Lets cut out the feminist aspects, and take a deeper look. More here...
So I searched for more info on the infamous Warren Farrell penthouse typo. I found an article on feministing mentioning him and the struggles of men entering primarily female careers, it referred to him as an ass-hat psychologist.
Essentially the argument they proposed is that the glass ceiling still exists because men move up higher faster in what is considered a primarily female carreer. Of course they fail to mention the standards about men working more hours, etc. Push any and all emphasis on biology, etc.
Essentially they argued that it was the glass elevator and positive discrimination towards men due to an old boys club.
The other proposal was that they needed more men for PR purposes making it harder for women to get hired. There was even a comment that said they didn’t want men to get hired into female dominated industries because it took away the jobs of women (whether it was for PR purposes or not).
Wait? What? I thought that was a bullshit argument when men were the victims of it? Turns out it only works in one direction according to these women (and some men). Apparently it can only work in one direction.
Reality doesn’t work in one direction.
Recently men refused to let kids in a pool changing room. This was in order to prevent them from being labeled pedophiles. This is a bit of a turnaround seeing as normally its everyone else pushing the men out of the changing rooms. However we see things like this all the time. Recently on Reddit a man decided to start to back out of helping with the Special Olympics because of strange looks he was getting and the fear that he will receive a false accusation. We see this a lot, men are backing out of helping all the time because of what has become a rather disturbing trend, and to a certain extent a valid fear.
We are a backing out of helping people and we don’t bother to help people at all. Then again, how much risk should we put ourselves in when it comes to helping people? This is something you will have to answer for yourself, as it can only be confronted on a personal level. However, whenever I hear people encourage someone to back out of helping others saying they made the right choice I feel a little torn.
The past few generations have been radically different for a variety of reasons. There has been a near complete economic shift in America. We have moved away from production and now focus more on services, for better or (far more often) for worse. Without manufacturing there is a longer period of time people go without working full time. There is nothing wrong with this in itself. The pursuit of higher education is something that should never be looked down upon. However what does this mean for us mentally?
Obviously with more room to find what we wish to do with our lives there is more stress, it comes naturally when you have more options. However during this time people tend to not mature as fast. It gets held off for a lot of reasons. Enjoying the free time, college life, and general exploration of life. Before you want to take the next step you want to take a look at your options. However when you find what you are passionate about (or you have no other choice) you get serious, and you do what needs to be done and you do it to the best of your capabilities. Whether it be running a business, working construction or being one of the few who are crazy enough to be sociology majors. We do what we do, and as a whole we like it. More Here...
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.