Masculism - what are your thoughts on it?

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Advertisements targetting young males, where most of the similar sexism and objectifing of women takes place, are a lot less suitle (Buy Lynx, women will want to shag you) and as such are much easier to dismiss off hand as just ridiculous.

Kind of offtopic but some of the latest ones seem to be going more with "men - those crazy kids (kidults?), what will they get up to next!" instead of "use our crap and the women just won't be able to control themselves!"

Either the complaints have actually gotten to them somewhat or perhaps women actually do the shopping for alot of that stinky deoderant and aftershave stuff?

Sgt Pepper

I'd agree with many of your sentiments Wicknight - particularly On Rushton's crediblity. However, he was involved in the american study, which was preceded by an earlier british study - which was overseen by british professors. The american research simply reaffirmed the findings of the british one. Both studies showed differences far too great to be ignored. {Btw Rushton may have inadvertently stumbled onto something when he said we have a trade off between penis size and brains...ie you can't have both - Scott Pitnick of Syracuse University has found an inverse correlation between brain volume and the mass of testes in bats, which in turn are determined by, and proportionate to, female promiscuity. He could be onto something there ya know...

I also agree with your reservations about IQ tests in themselves being somewhat questionable. My own experience of them is something i'd rather forget. I scored below average in an IQ test i was given in 4th year in secondary school, and it affected my confidence greatly for a few years after that. However, i topped my college class 4 years running - albeit years later as a mature student. Had i been given the iq test 2 years later {in 6th year} i know the results would've been vastly different. Why? Because i could feel my own mind developing at 17 or 18 - i could see far more clearly and think far more easily at 18 than i could 15 or 16. That's simply my empirical experience of Iq tests - which is in line with the findings of the above studies at face value...ie boys developing closer to 17 or 18, and when they do, they surpass the girls. The research from both studies offer a plausible, if not likely, reason as to why the boys are falling behind.

To understand what's happening in schools with boys you have to ascertain whether boys are doing worse than they did in previous years, or whether girls are simply improving - after all girls are far more conformist, therefore more 'suited' to classroom life. Boys are far more competitive, and would respond far more to a more competitive approach - though that's an argument for another day, a heated one too no doubt. Are boys doing worse now in school than they did 15 years ago? I'd doubt it, but i don't have any stats on it. It's more likely that girls are simply doing better than they did before, and boys, by comparison, are at a substancial disadvantage because they develop later, and of course are more disinterested too....they have far more energy to burn than girls at that age, far more, and many of them would prefer to be outside kicking a football or getting up to something mischievous instead. I know i did.

Many psychologists still use IQ tests - and debate Iq tests - they are not wholly irrelevant Wicknight, imperfect, yes, but not redundant. I suspect these days they're more likely to be used to ascertain one's inability rather than ability - determining mental disorders. I believe dismissing Iq tests entirely is a huge mistake. They're an 'attempt' to measure intelligence, which as you say comes in many forms - but so do IQ tests. It would be near impossible to argue that IQ tests are not an 'indicator' as they are found to be predictive of later intellectual development, such as educational achievement. IQ also correlates with job performance, socioeconomic advancement, and "social pathologies". Important recent research has shown links between IQ and health, longevity, and functional literacy.

I also agree that evolution in its many forms and guises, is fundamentally at the core of some gender differences, logic alone would dictate that to be the case - not forgetting social conditioning/enviromental factors also of course - which i believe are underestimated greatly, and probably have more relevance/explanations than evolution does as to how we behave nowadays in modern society - we learn , rather than any overwhelming 'instinct' many things. I also firmly believe men and women are far more alike than unalike. Anyways, will post soon bout other points you made in next day or 2 re advertising etc.

As an addendum, i lodged a formal complaint with the editors of rte 6/1 news a few weeks ago, because over the years i noticed on junior and leaving cert results days far more girls than boys were interviewed, and far more girls were shown celebrating in every news report for the last 4 years or so...i only went back 4 years, but i suspect it was going on a lot longer than that. that's 7 'results days' leaving and junior cert inclusive - every single one of those reports were 'weighted' in favour of the girls, which to me was more than enough evidence to suggest there was an intentional and systematic exclusion of boys in these news reports. All of the reports showed a clear bias/favourtism toward girls in terms of air time - possibly a ratio as high as 6:1, and it really pissed me off over the years, 'specially against a backdrop of young fella's underperforming. I was glad to see the rte junior cert results 6/1 news report was much more balanced a week or 2 back, i'm curious if it was directly related to my complaint. RTE were supposed to respond to me within 21 working days {under their own complaints guidelines} with an explanation, but i heard nothing back as of yet. It was late August when i complained. Will keep you posted.

Apologies to the board for side tracking off topic somewhat..will be more considerate in future.

What Minister did you mean i should write to btw? I'd certainly be up for that. Prob Brian Lenihan, Seamus Brennan, or that clown mcdowell? None of which have ever done anything for men - empty promises and posturing only.

Mick86

simu wrote:

We get many posters complaining about feminism on here but you hear very little about masculism (the male version of feminism). Well, it's a bit more complicated that that - see ......

Feminists cannot be taken seriously why should masculinists. Imagine thje embarrassment of discovering that there exists a male version of Germaine Greer.:D

fly_agaric

Sgt Pepper wrote:

As an addendum, i lodged a formal complaint with the editors of rte 6/1 news a few weeks ago, because over the years i noticed on junior and leaving cert results days far more girls than boys were interviewed, and far more girls were shown celebrating in every news report for the last 4 years or so...i only went back 4 years, but i suspect it was going on a lot longer than that. that's 7 'results days' leaving and junior cert inclusive - every single one of those reports were 'weighted' in favour of the girls, which to me was more than enough evidence to suggest there was an intentional and systematic exclusion of boys in these news reports. All of the reports showed a clear bias/favourtism toward girls in terms of air time - possibly a ratio as high as 6:1, and it really pissed me off over the years, 'specially against a backdrop of young fella's underperforming. I was glad to see the rte junior cert results 6/1 news report was much more balanced a week or 2 back, i'm curious if it was directly related to my complaint. RTE were supposed to respond to me within 21 working days {under their own complaints guidelines} with an explanation, but i heard nothing back as of yet. It was late August when i complained. Will keep you posted.

I hate to say it but that paragraph makes you sound like a crank. I say that because I know I am a crank...
I don't think that is a deliberate bias but simply a reflection of reality. The way things are.
The high achieving students who get the 7,8,9A1's or whatever it is and attract all the media attention at exam time are usually girls, and often from girls' schools are they not? Girls get more top grades in every single subject at all levels AFAIR. I don't ever remember the media ever paying much attention to students who did badly in their leaving cert or failed it altogether but if they do I'm sure boys will figure much more in the reports, which would not contain many scenes of joyful celebrations. They would be depressing.:)

Education is dominated by women from primary school through to university.
They heavily outnumber men in university now, earn more degrees etc. Although you would not think so at times from the extent of media reporting about the "problem" (i.e. male dominated and generally leading onto to good paying jobs which women will have to get a bigger proportion of if we are to get the magic 50/50 division of wages...) areas like Engineering and Physics and Computer Science (see earlier in this thread).
The media are probably also interested because there must be something funny going on if these areas still buck the trends apparent in the rest of the education system.
Academic achievement and success is very much perceived to be a "girl" thing now - and is expected of girls in a way it is not of boys. The media just reflect that.

If we were back in the old days where families had to make decisions about which kids to sink the "education money" into I'd say it would be spent on the daughters now instead of the sons.

Sgt Pepper

fly_agaric wrote:

I hate to say it but that paragraph makes you sound like a crank. I say that because I know I am a crank...
I don't think that is a deliberate bias but simply a reflection of reality. The way things are.
The high achieving students who get the 7,8,9A1's or whatever it is and attract all the media attention at exam time are usually girls, and often from girls' schools are they not? Girls get more top grades in every single subject at all levels AFAIR. I don't ever remember the media ever paying much attention to students who did badly in their leaving cert or failed it altogether but if they do I'm sure boys will figure much more in the reports, which would not contain many scenes of joyful celebrations. They would be depressing.:)

Education is dominated by women from primary school through to university.
They heavily outnumber men in university now, earn more degrees etc. Although you would not think so at times from the extent of media reporting about the "problem" (i.e. male dominated and generally leading onto to good paying jobs which women will have to get a bigger proportion of if we are to get the magic 50/50 division of wages...) areas like Engineering and Physics and Computer Science (see earlier in this thread).
The media are probably also interested because there must be something funny going on if these areas still buck the trends apparent in the rest of the education system.
Academic achievement and success is very much perceived to be a "girl" thing now - and is expected of girls in a way it is not of boys. The media just reflect that.

If we were back in the old days where families had to make decisions about which kids to sink the "education money" into I'd say it would be spent on the daughters now instead of the sons.

I am a crank - been converted by a servile, agenda driven media.

The reports showed 'average' female students receiving results mostly, not simply the high fliers by any stretch - this makes it very much a deliberate bias. How you could possibly suggest, straight-faced, that an experienced RTE reporter couldn't find a few lads who had reasonable results to interview? Bemuses me greatly. Nonsense.

The media don't 'reflect' the state opf the education system

The reasons behind the pay gaps have been shown time and time again not to be gender driven, but vocation driven.

Sgt Pepper

fly_agaric wrote:

I hate to say it but that paragraph makes you sound like a crank. I say that because I know I am a crank...
I don't think that is a deliberate bias but simply a reflection of reality. The way things are.
The high achieving students who get the 7,8,9A1's or whatever it is and attract all the media attention at exam time are usually girls, and often from girls' schools are they not? Girls get more top grades in every single subject at all levels AFAIR. I don't ever remember the media ever paying much attention to students who did badly in their leaving cert or failed it altogether but if they do I'm sure boys will figure much more in the reports, which would not contain many scenes of joyful celebrations. They would be depressing.:)

Education is dominated by women from primary school through to university.
They heavily outnumber men in university now, earn more degrees etc. Although you would not think so at times from the extent of media reporting about the "problem" (i.e. male dominated and generally leading onto to good paying jobs which women will have to get a bigger proportion of if we are to get the magic 50/50 division of wages...) areas like Engineering and Physics and Computer Science (see earlier in this thread).
The media are probably also interested because there must be something funny going on if these areas still buck the trends apparent in the rest of the education system.
Academic achievement and success is very much perceived to be a "girl" thing now - and is expected of girls in a way it is not of boys. The media just reflect that.

If we were back in the old days where families had to make decisions about which kids to sink the "education money" into I'd say it would be spent on the daughters now instead of the sons.

I'm certainly a crank - was converted by a servile, agenda driven media. Unfortunately, that's the singular point i agree with you on. The rest of your points i find disturbing in their sheer hypocrisy, and see them as little other than misguided drivel, wrapped in a blanket of smug reactionary feminism perhaps? I think so.

How can you seriously suggest that an experienced RTE reporter couldn't find - for years on end - a couple of young fellas with reasonable results to interview? Nonsense. The reports carried interviews primarily with students - mainly female - with 'average results'. This further embellishes my argument.

The reason girls are associated with education is likely attributable to reports like this - which ignore boys by comparison.

Look, here's an example of your logic, there are more men on the receiving end of domestic violence than women for example {www.amen.ie } I've no doubt that statement will make you angry, it'll make a lotta women angry - wouldn't it make you a lot worse if the media only ever showed male victims of domestic violence and not females? It's also a true statement btw...look into it, check the research and you'll find it to be true. All the recent evidence suggests there are as many - if not more - male victims of domestic violence than women.International research is showing the same trends. Does that mean we should stop showing female victims of domestic violence in the media fly, because there are less female victims than men? By your logic we should. Btw, many women will find it impossible to agree with what i just said re violence against men, that's because of 'perception' - often created by the media, feminists with a hotline to a servile media, and feminist groups backed by government money that continue to try to shape policy on research that's full of ****.

To be honest fly, i don't see the sense in any of your points. I think you're shadow boxing with yourself here.

If you research the wage gap issue - you'll find report after report internationally shows clear reasons for this 'perceived' wage gap. It's largely due to vocation, not actual pay rates. A lot of women go it to the service sector and take up vocations that are low paid - and always have been low paid. I think you misunderstand the wage gap issue. If you or i started the same job tomorrow, we'd be on the same wage. If you or i went into different jobs, we wouldn't. It's that simple. Very often women will be more likely to go into what society would consider 'caring jobs' or vocations. These have always been low paid jobs - it doesn't matter whether men or women took up these jobs, they'd still be low paid.

fly_agaric

Sgt Pepper wrote:

The rest of your points i find disturbing in their sheer hypocrisy, and see them as little other than misguided drivel

Well, we are all entitled to our opinions...
My post rambled and was unclear in parts but "drivel"...?:D

Sgt Pepper wrote:

wrapped in a blanket of smug reactionary feminism perhaps? I think so.

If you'd read any of this thread at all you know I have very little time for feminism or feminists and they are something I enjoy ranting about.

Sgt Pepper wrote:

How can you seriously suggest that an experienced RTE reporter couldn't find - for years on end - a couple of young fellas with reasonable results to interview? Nonsense. The reports carried interviews primarily with students - mainly female - with 'average results'. This further embellishes my argument.

I just find it hard to believe that RTE or other media deliberately ignore male students when they do these reports (one reason is that would make me feel like a crank because it seems crazy...) so I was trying to think of other possible reasons for the sex imbalances (I think I have noticed them too so I believe you on that).

One I came up with was the public and media perception of education and learning as a female persuit. Then I tried to give some reasons why education may be seen in this way at present.
You think that explanation for the imbalance is crap and say there is a deliberate agenda at work. Fair enough.

I know they could easily find more boys who are happy with their results to get reactions from after the exams - but alot of the coverage (not all I know, and not the type you seem to be referring to) is about the high achievers - who are girls.

An additional point: I think the number of boys schools is going down isn't it? Many are mixed. Who will be most happy with their results in the mixed school and make photogenic group-hugs and happy stories for the media?
And what happens if RTE's people go to a girls school?

Sgt Pepper wrote:

The reason girls are associated with education is likely attributable to reports like this - which ignore boys by comparison.

The reason girls are associated with education is because they are the high achievers and girls/women dominate the various levels of the system.

Sgt Pepper wrote:

Look, here's an example of your logic, there are more men on the receiving end of domestic violence than women for example {www.amen.ie } I've no doubt that statement will make you angry - wouldn't it make you a lot worse if the media only ever showed male victims of domestic violence and not females? It's also a true statement btw...look into it, check the research and you'll find it to be true. All the recent evidence suggests there are as many - if not more - male victims of domestic violence than women.International research is showing the same trends. Does that mean we should stop showing female victims of domestic violence in the media fly, because there are less female victims than men? By your logic we should.

That is a bad example, because even if that was true, it's exactly the opposite of what the public believe about domestic violence and the victims of it and also the opposite of what we are shown by the media. I think even the fact that you think you will "anger me" or make me cry "heretic" or something by even suggesting it shows that.

It would only become a good example if girls were in fact doing worse educationally than boys and education was male-dominated and yet girls managed to garner most of the media coverage when it comes to exams etc.

Sgt Pepper wrote:

If you research the wage gap issue - you'll find report after report internationally shows clear reasons for this 'perceived' wage gap. It's largely due to vocation, not actual pay rates. A lot of women go it to the service sector and take up vocations that are low paid - and always have been low paid. I think you misunderstand the wage gap issue. If you or i started the same job tomorrow, we'd be on the same wage. If you or i went into different jobs, we wouldn't. It's that simple. Very often women will be more likely to go into what society would consider 'caring jobs' or vocations. These have always been low paid jobs - it doesn't matter whether men or women took up these jobs, they'd still be low paid.

I only mentioned the "pay gap" in an education context as an aside because it is one driver of feminist's interest to see more girls/women in the Engineering/Physics/Computing areas of education. They do not give a damn how many male students or old crusties there are still lingering in University Dept's where the graduates may not have a shot at power and wealth or having an impact on the world.
The reporting of that issue in the face of girls/womens dominance in the rest of the education system is a better example of the media being driven by a feminist agenda than the number of girls/boys interviewed/shown by RTE on results day.
Again however, what you believe about the reality of a pay gap is wildly divergent from what the media or the public believe about it.