Sexism either way is a problem. The way this post is worded it implies that women are more important than men which is sexism in itself.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You misinterpret. I meant that misogyny is a more serious problem. Like pneumonia vs the common cold.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah. Misogyny is both more severe and widespread, so it is more important to take care of first. Most sexism against men is superficial and intangible. Only in certain places are men truly suppressed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay but we should fight sexism in general not just specifically helping women.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But sexism against women is worse. If we fight it first, eventually both genders will be treated equally unfairly, then we can fight both at once.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It isn't worse though. Sexism is bad for everyone who suffers from it and the fact that you disagree with that just proves my point

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Huh? Women are paid less than men, even factoring in money lost through maternity leave. That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there are other tangible losses.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay sorry but it's taken me two hours to think of a reply. Women are paid less that's true, but in most middle Eastern countries men are rounded up and killed just for being men, which I think is a lot worse.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Really. My mother used to beat my father after my sisters died of spankings. Women aren't the only ones who suffer from sexism.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wait what? are you serious? I always thought the Middle East was like the most anti-woman place on Earth? Women need 4 male witnesses to sue for rape, and if they win, the compensation is marriage.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No in some Middle Eastern countries, it is very Pro-Female. We learned all about it in Social Studies.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I lived in the middle east for 24 years and only escaped a few years ago. The horrors I have experienced there just because of my gender will never leave me.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wow...I can't even imagine. We studied it so intensively and the rituals and shit they did...nightmares for years

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah I watched the Blair Witch Project, also and the Blair Witch captured and killed five men on coffin rock for some sick ritual. Disgusting. Also sergio it looks like you haven't NW'd this post yet.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh silly me forgot to do it...sorry wat, have I offended you?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am a little offended, but you did what's right in the end and so I forgive you. Blockhead on the other hand had better PM me an apology in proper essay form explaining why he's wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree, this post must have been traumatizing for you.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry i didn't know... Our social Studies is pretty much propaganda... I get all my info on this from my mom. we live like a third way round the world so she's the only one who feels the need to educate me on this IRL.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

He isn't saying sexism toward men isn't a problem or that it shouldn't be taken care of. Worldwide, sexism toward women is more abundant and harsh and more would need more to be done about it and it would take a longer time, women need more help worldwide. "sexism is bad for everyone who suffers from it and the fact that you disagree with that just proves my point" WHAT? Also, this is the 5th or 6th time I've seen you two have a conversation to back each other up and say something about being offended and apologizing, Sergio and Watsatroll, if you're going to be the same person be less obvious. Besides that, being spanked to death by your parent has nothing to do with sexism.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry I shouldn't have expected you to be able to understand that. The fact that he disagrees that sexism towards men is as prevalent just shows it really is because he didn't even think of it as as much of a problem as sexism towards women.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's ok, no one expects you to understand that sexism toward men isn't as bad as it is for women worldwide, or that saying so isn't a sexist statement.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But it is just as bad. You clearly don't understand.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yep.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay this is the point where you thumb all my comments down and leave since you know that you're wrong

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Trollbowl, that's hardly an argument...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I thumbed down your comments before I began talking to you. No shit yep is not an argument, it wasn't supposed to be.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

@Sergio and Watsatroll Great comments, masters!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You two are great users, but I can see why some people might think you're the same person. I don't see why it matters (Amirite? will lose more by banning you two than letting you seem more right). And be careful about voting up your own comments. If you were the same person, it would be pretty easy to think you were logged into the other account and vote up your own comment. It would probably help dispel any ideas that you're one and the same if you applied equal vigour to arguments where you disagree with each other.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Almost all of the sexism against men comes in the form of double-standards which is pretty hard to eradicate. So in one sense, it does make sense to get rid of wage inequality and other non-social forms of sexism (mostly against women) first. However, the only way social sexism will end is if both men and women stand together against sexism.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Could you give me an example of where men and women are working the same job but getting paid differently? I'm not trying to call you out, but a lot of people don't understand why there is a difference in the //average// that men and women get paid. If more men work higher paying positions than women, then the average pay of women will be lower but it's because the majority of women aren't seeking high paying jobs. For example: While things are changing, more men are currently engineers and doctors while a lot of women are still stay at home moms or are seeking teaching or nursing jobs that don't have as high of incomes. So when the liberal agenda compiles this "average" of wages between men and women, they're throwing them all in one pile and averaging them out as a whole rather than looking at each different job and whether or not a man and woman who are doing that same job are getting paid equally.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Part of the reason for that isn't that women aren't seeking high-paying jobs, it's that they find it harder to get them. If a man and a woman both work the same job, the man is far more likely to get chosen for a promotion - that's not even taking into account the whole glass ceiling effect. This eventually leads to women generally being paid less than their husbands/boyfriends, so they're more likely to stay home and take care of kids, which makes them less employable, which perpetuates the cycle. Another thing to remember is the fact that women in their 20s, 30s and sometimes even early 40s often find it hard to find long-term employment (particularly for high-up jobs) because employers are worried that they'll take time off to have babies etc. And I think you also need to ask WHY women aren't seeking as high-paying jobs. This is partly due to girls being raised to be less ambitious than boys, but I reckon it's also partly because women know they will have a harder time being successful in careers, so they're reluctant to go after high-flying jobs, since they'll be making the same sacrifices as the men they work alongside but they'll be reaping fewer benefits.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

i think I made a post about this. Women were biologically 'cursed' to be the child-bearing gender and so they are the ones who have to be pregnant. Since maternity leave is taken during pregnancy, the company incurs massive costs whenever a highly paid woman becomes pregnant. For instance, let's say there's a woman paid $30k per month. She takes four months off for maternity leave. Jsut there, the company loses 120k worth of work, and still has to pay her the full amount. Then they have to hire a part timer who is paid 35k per month (part timers get more per unit time than full timers ). That's another 140k. THen there's the loss of productivity durign the other 5 months and during child raising. Being so highly paid, the husband should stay home because he likely makes less in this case. Even then, maternal instinct forces her to worry for the next few years, causing a long-term drop in productivity. I think the lower pay for the same job (yes it's true. Some people say it's 60% of a man's pay, which I find completely unreasonable, but most people I know personally IRL say it's more like 90%. I did calculations and I think this is to offset maternity leave or something)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ideally, companies won't have to incur this cost because the government pays for it, but unfortunately, that's part and parcel of promoting a woman. until soemthing can be done to fix this, companies will have a preference for statistically mroe reliable employees even though the unreliability is not the fault of the employee herself.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But this is assuming that all women are both married and planning on having children, which isn't true. And that whole mentality is totally unfair to women who are never planning on starting a family but still are viewed as a risk factor because all women totes have babies.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly! That's why if the government pays, then any cost at all is only incurred if she gets pregnant, and risk isn't a factor. There are plenty of women who claim to never want kids, but change their minds, so even those who don't are risk factors. Plus, women can lie, etc, and it's probably illegal to force the to give up the right to a family for more pay... and even then, if thye renege, the money on training and experience is a bit wasted. This is why if there was a government payment system, then, and only then, would risk be eradicated.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Actually the medical field is predominately women. What happens is when a women chooses to have a child(which is in her right to do so) she has to take time off of work and her male counterpart is able to get ahead because nothing is stopping him. And when a women gives birth, it is expected for her to stay home and take care of the baby because societal expectations demand it(which again if she chooses to, it is within her right to do so) and by the time she gets back to work she's 1-2 years behind her male counterpart and she will never catch up. Also employers will be hesitant to hire fertile women because pregnancy is a liability to them so many women end up working part time.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why can't they be dealt with at the same time?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Often in attacking a lot of misogyny you effectively attack misandry. Not to mention the fact that misogyny is much more prevalent in almost all societies to the point that we are no longer aware of it so its a bigger job to tackle

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They should be made equally severe first. Now, misogyny is more severe, so we should reduce it to the severity of misandry, then deal with them simultaneously.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'd just like to say I really like this post and how OP is addressing arguments in a calm, well thought out manner. Four for you, OP.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So misogyny, the hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, is worse than misandry, the hatred, dislike, or mistrust of men? So it's "worse" to hate a woman than it is to hate a man? Why? Do you not realize the blatant double standard? That one is not as bad as the other??

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Look higher in the page. Or, I'll copy and past e my comment here. Both are equally bad, but misogyny is both more widespread and is taken to a greater degree in most places. It's like a tumour in the brain and a tumour in the spinal column are both equally bad, but if the tumour in the spinal column is bigger than the one in the brain, it deserves more urgent action.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ok, so you claim 2 things. 1. Misogyny is more widespread. 2. Misogyny is taken to a greater degree. However, your metaphor that you used only reflects upon #1. What exactly do you mean that it is "taken to a greater degree"? Do you think that misogyny is more severe? More important? If you just meant #1, then I would agree. Your metaphor is perfect and both facts are actually true, but in that case you should have just said that "misogyny is more abundant" instead of "worse". But if you actually meant more than #1, then please develop more on #2.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"but if the tumour in the spinal column is bigger than the one in the brain"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"1. Misogyny is more widespread." "If you just meant #1, then I would agree. Your metaphor is perfect and both facts are actually true..." Did you even read my comment?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That quote was to directly address #2. My bad, I wasn't clear as to why I quoted that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't know for sure since I didn't create this post, but I think OP meant that, overall, misogyny is worse. That sounds obvious, but think about everything that covers. "Worse" in this situation, I believe, refers not only to abundance, but also in severity. I don't think that stopping misogyny is more important than misandry, but misogyny is a bigger issue. Hopefully that makes sense.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you're only saying that it's more severe due to it being more prevalent, then I agree. If you're saying it's more severe because an action in misogyny compared to an equal action in misandry is more important, I do not agree. If it's the first one, then (as a repeat of my comment above) I think that the phrase "misogyny is more abundant" should be used instead of "worse".

by Anonymous 11 years ago

While I did say the first part, I don't think I thoroughly explained my second point. If the two actions are equal, then disregard what I'm about to say in clarification. In addition to being more prevalent, the actions against women and the actions against men are often unequal to the disadvantage of the women, though this is certainly not always the case. This is why I think that saying "worse" is more appropriate for this post than "abundant" because there are other factors which "abundant" doesn't cover, while "worse" does.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hm, imo, I would have still said abundant. I do see what you're saying though, that there are far harsher acts of misogyny than there are misandry which leads to it being a worse problem. In that context, the //problem// is worse, due to it being more prevalent and the cases more severe than the cases of misandry, but the post straight up said that misogyny was worse and not the public problem thereof. However, OP cleared it up in a comment in this thread, and he actually was referring to equal acts, but more abundant ones, so it's all good and I agree

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay to clear everything up: Misogyny and misandry are both equally despicable, but misogyny is more widespread, and usually appears more severe in places where it is present. Misogyny and misandry taken to the same degree are equal, but more often than not, misogyny takes worse forms than misandry does.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thanks, I agree now.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, maybe not "worse" but a much bigger problem.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Car Insurance premiums for 17 year old males is very high because statistically, they get in more accidents, even though they have never had a chance to prove themselves yet. Women are less desirable as employees because of maternity leave, even though she may not even intend to have kids. Should things like this be allowed? probably not. Although statistically they add up.

by Anonymous 11 years ago