r/Egalitarianism

not saying these are EXACTLY the reasons of hatred towards each other. I'm just saying it's mostly because of these things.

This Oakland Post Article explains the real goal of feminists and why feminists are still continuing their victim card. She didn't even hesitate to say this now. Feminists have reached a point. Now wake up men.

Much is made of, "Male Privilege," in feminist discourse, and I am not about to deny it:

-In many situations, men are taken more seriously than women, on the presumption that we are innately more skilled or knowledgeable about this or that particular, e.g. cars, tools, sports, etc

-There are absolutely, "Boy's Clubs," in certain industries that make it difficult for women to find or advance in employment.

-Men face less expectation to perform "domestic" chores such as cleaning or child-rearing; in an emergency, men are often put in charge even if they are clearly unsuited for the task compared to a woman in the group.

These are not small things and by no means am I suggesting that women face no issues in the world or that we should not work to fix them or that the right-wing jerks trying to exploit the "men's side" of the "gender war" should be taken at all seriously. Screw them; strong letter to follow.

Some of the claims are either incorrect or otherwise problematic, though:

-"Men don't have to be afraid just walking down the street." In point of fact, men are 80% of the victims of violent crime, and more than that of random violence; women are overwhelmingly assaulted by people they know, and their reports to the police dramatically more likely to be acted upon. There are not even good numbers on the worst forms of male child abuse, because so few reports are followed up on.

-"Men make more money." This is the, "Elon Musk and 10 bums in an elevator, on average they are all billionaires," fallacy; yea, most of the richest people are men, but then, men work significantly more hours per year, and more years over their lifetime. If you cut out the top 0.1% and look at actual hourly wage, men are getting screwed.

-"Some fields are so discriminatory that women just can't break in." Name one; the closest you can get is Hedge Fund manager, and it's less that women can't break into that field than that the demands of the job are prohibitive for any woman that wants to have children, i.e. 80 hour weeks with no vacations for 20 years. The "Boy's Clubs" can be sued for discrimination. Academia is actively trying to get more women into fields like Physics and Computer Science (and largely failing due to lack of interest), yet there are no programs trying to get more men into Biology or Nursing, despite them being similarly skewed the other way (on top of the extreme gender disparity in college students and faculty; 60% female).

-"Women face discrimination in reproductive rights." First, let me say that I am pro-choice and happy to support women's reproductive rights. Second, why do you refuse to even acknowledge men's reproductive rights? They have been trying to develop male birth control pills since 1971, and the backlash was so fierce that the very idea has been forgotten; vasectomies are often irreversible, have higher failure and complication rates than tubal ligation, and the social stigma in many communities often rises to the level of violence; men are held financially liable for children even in cases where the woman committed fraud or sexual assault in order to become pregnant, while also regularly being denied equal parental involvement.

At any rate, let's look at, "Female Privilege:"

-Women asking for or apparently in need of help are dramatically more likely to receive it, in so many different ways that it would exceed the character limit of this post to try to explain them all, the short list is: Homelessness, sudden collapse in public, standing next to a car with a flat tire or the hood open, being the victim of abuse and/or crime, having a visible disability, drowning, trapped in a house fire, mental health, etc. One discrepancy: Women are less likely to receive bystander CPR if they collapse in public, but the reason is that men are afraid to be accused of inappropriate touching if they do so.

-Women are presumed to be adequate and competent parents, while men, even if clearly experienced, are not (and the one exception to the rule about receiving help; men with children will CONSTANTLY be asked if they need help or know... anything). The result in family courts is that men face a much higher burden to get custody or even visitation, child support is set higher for men than the rare occasion that a father has primary custody, etc.

-Women are not expected to take on dirty, dangerous, or demeaning jobs; mining, logging, sanitation, construction, etc. 92% of on-the-job deaths are men.

-Women are not required to sign up for military conscription. Note that I oppose all military conscription, at all, but if they are going to require it, it should be gender-neutral.

-Women are less likely to be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted of the exact same crime with the exact same record as men, and receive, on average, 60% shorter sentences.

Note that most of these fall under the general concept of women having inherent value, whereas men are valued only for their actions, and implicit expectation to contribute to society (while the analog for women is to have children as their contribution).

This is not the Oppression Olympics

I am not interested in getting into any kind of argument about "which side has it worst." That's divisive, and these issues require solidarity.

Both men and women face issues; both men and women have privileges; both men and women need and deserve help.

If I have an issue, it is exactly that point wherein women are more likely to get help when they need it; not that they do not deserve help, but that men do, too.

Because the alternative is to decide that women don't deserve help, either, and that would be a terrible world.

I just had a really frustrating situation, i was trying to explain why two people working the very same job should be getting paid the same. His only argument was that that "men work to feed their families." Which is clearly a false argument so I responded with "not all men work to feed their families, just like not all women work just to spend the money on themselves" which is true because some women also need the money to feed their families, need the money to feed themselves, need the money. But that's not the point because when you are interviewing for a job, they don't ask you what you're gonna do with this money. You don't get paid for the mouths you or for the reason on why u need it, you get paid for what you doing. So two people no matter what are their genders, if they are working the very same job, they're both giving the same amount of labor, they both should be getting paid the same. For example driving heavy trucks, and that's a job thay needs a huge amount of labor and power. Even though yes this is a male dominated field but that doesn't mean their is no women working on, they can actually work this job. It's crazy how women have to argue with people just to prove that they deserve an equal right as basic as having the same payment when doing the same labor.

DISGUSTING

I’m currently in Season 4 of Suits, and I think I’m done.

When I started watching, something felt consistently off, and it took me a while to name it: the show doesn’t know what to do with its women. It treats them like props. Elegant, sharp-tongued props, but props nonetheless.

Yes, I understand the show is built around Harvey and Mike. That’s fair. But centering two men doesn’t have to mean stripping dignity from everyone around them. Yet here we are.

Jessica Pearson is a *name partner*. She built that firm. And somehow, her role has narrowed down to two modes: nodding along while the men present their brilliant plans and say “I am listening” and barking “You better win this goddamn case” when things fall apart. She exists to validate or to pressure, rarely to lead in her own right.

And then there’s the emotional support function. The women in this show are reliably on standby to help emotionally unavailable men pick out the right gift or patch up their relationships. Like a very glamorous personal concierge service.

I held on until Season 4 hoping it would evolve. Then Mike’s secretary from his investment banking stint showed up, same template, different woman. That was the moment I lost hope.

Women are so much more than this. And a show this sharp about legal maneuvering really has no excuse for being this lazy about half its cast.

*Has anyone felt the same? Does it get better — or does the show double down?*