Intersectional feminsim is where its at and is very much still needed in today's society.

We need to build bridges and understand one another more.

To see why pointing sexism out continually is important, look no further than the history of public racism. It too is a never ending battle, but many of the strides made in how we communicate about race, have been because people have been called out, embarrassed and felt public pressure to reform. This of course causes backlash as we have seen. The "un-PC" crowd out there is one of these, but overall progress continues.

Sexism is no different. Some see a high degree of value to themselves personally in maintaining inequality. Once they see that it does not pay, then things change.

Yes, but when will it stop? When they have equality? Or are they going to try to police opinions and thoughts too until there is only a hive mind and 100% conformity of opinion.

It's getting to the point in my country most rights and freedoms ARE already won for other races and the genders. What are they doing now? Trying to criminalize deviant opinions or shame whoever doesn't belong to a minority, apparently. Until everyone behaves in the same vanilla non-offensive manner I suppose?

There needs to be an end goal, a point at which you stop and realize you have what you set out to do, and then just maintain it. The current mode of intersectional feminism seems to think it has to cram just about every minority and perceived oppressed group under its wing is if it belongs there, and turn it all into a cultural Marxist battle of "oppressed versus oppressor", and probably won't rest until everyone is divided and convinced they are victims of something. To do that you need an enemy to point the finger at, you need to invent an oppressor even if there isn't one, and that's what they've been doing to different aspects of society, even where it isn't deserved. The spirit and intention is good, but ultimately I don't see it ending well unless you know when it is appropriate to stop.

That's probably my last word on the most modern incarnation of feminism I see around me. It seems very belligerent and lacking tangible goals, as they just keep moving the goalposts. It has alienated me.

One of the groups I work with is The Harbor, our local Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault prevention and response folks.  The reorganization several years ago was, in part, to include LGBTQ people and males who face these problems too.  Rather than simply thoughts and opinions, we see real damage to people that can often be attributed to primitive sexism.  Some people have no regard for consent and seem to feel entitled to take what they want from someone they consider weak or inferior.  We are talking about most (not all) victims being women and children.

I suggest we have a very long way to go before we worry about when to stop working for equity and equality.  When one out of three women/girls are still the victims of domestic violence or sexual assault we have a long way to go before mutual respect is the general tenor of culture.  Attitudes and words do matter and we are called to account in the public sphere. 

Feminists and others have called me out for words as common as "guys" when used in reference to a mixed group and that's OK as we are not all guys and I want to treat people with respect at every opportunity.  It may be uncomfortable to learn this way but it's part of growing and building those bridges.

Femme idenified people are simply valued less than what society considers masculine. If a man and women did the same work, her job would be scrutinized more for the same job. It doesn't matter how great her job is, she would need to work twice as hard to get recognized.
In being reconized as feminists I heard that plenty of  times and formed in my childhood. i never liked the idea of masculinity being favored over feminity. Whos the god that says one is better than the other.

QuoteFeminists and others have called me out for words as common as "guys" when used in reference to a mixed group

The overenthusiastic feminist fresh out of gender studies.

  "Hi guys."

*pinches nose* Well actually, there are more than guys here.  Erasing non male identifying persons reinforces sexist power structures. Check your privilege.

I don't get this "women aren't valued" stuff. Women are definitely valued. Men less so. 

If femininity wasn't valued, why is it that men are expendable and women are considered more worthy of protecting? If society is so in love with men, why is it that nobody cares what happens to them, if they get hurt/die/murdered/homeless/washed up? Men are so "loved" they don't have any intrinsic value of their own just by virtue of being men. They have to go out and do something and make themselves useful before anybody gives a flying one about them. Unlike women, who are valued in a sense just for being women without necessarily having to do anything to prove themselves.

There's two sides to that coin and nobody likes to look at the underside of it - that is, women may not have the "prestige" typically afforded men who have proven themselves for something, but society obviously cares more about womens' safety and wellbeing than mens', cares more about providing for them if they need help. Generally cares more about their existence. Women care more about other women than men, and men care more about women than they do men. It's just the natural set-up that women are biologically more valuable than men, and society reflects it.

Not complaining, it's just a fact. I see it around me every day.

When people say men have it all... they're forgetting the rest of the deal they get by being men. Society's got a long way to go to break that biological paradigm, and maybe it never will. It'd be nice if it acknowledged women could have just as much of value to contribute other than the ideal of femininity and encouraged that. And it'd be nice if it actually cared about men.

Sure I understand when people say "women aren't valued" what they are probably getting at. Like they want women to be valued in every possible way. But don't forget the rest of it. It's only fair if women get that, that men get it too.

Though I think it'll be a cold day in hell we get that.

What you see around you every day is subject to change. I understand what you are saying and there were times that i shared some of those same thoughts, but equality has a definite set of measurements that simply are not met. These include but are not limited to; wage gap, sexual harassment and assault danger, access to health care, hiring and job equality, simple and basic legal protections in many states, reproductive rights, and more.

This is not to say that men have it easy, they do not. Being a human is hard in general but we should be on the exact same plane of hard, the exact same starting point. This is not to say women are not valued and supported in society, they are from many parts of our society. Feminism to me is striving for that simple equality and not giving in until it is attained. You can call that idealistic and yep plenty of society makes jest of that, but it it what it is.

Forced change and terms like social engineering and Marxism are always used by those who don't want change as ways to maintain a status quo that they benefit from. They also decry it as "division" when of course the existing division that favors them is just hunky dory. I encourage anyone to read Marx he is not a boogyman, maybe a bit non-understanding of the future ahead but the concept of a more just and equal society, he helped bring to the front of peoples minds.

Men are falling behind women in at least one area, education advancement and success. That is not good. We don't need more inequality, so we'd better figure that thing out.

I heard a concept recently that i am liking more and more. Imagine a future where gender identity and expression is actually pretty trivial. It has no deep effect on the critical parts of life such as what is described. It just is, it is varied and diverse, it may be less static, it is valued but its not a source of objectification, safety concern, etc. To me that is not an Orwellian or Marxist or even political it is just a more moral and kind world.

Quote from: Kylo on January 19, 2017, 06:22:04 PM
I don't get this "women aren't valued" stuff. Women are definitely valued. Men less so. 

If femininity wasn't valued, why is it that men are expendable and women are considered more worthy of protecting? If society is so in love with men, why is it that nobody cares what happens to them, if they get hurt/die/murdered/homeless/washed up? Men are so "loved" they don't have any intrinsic value of their own just by virtue of being men. They have to go out and do something and make themselves useful before anybody gives a flying one about them. Unlike women, who are valued in a sense just for being women without necessarily having to do anything to prove themselves.

There's two sides to that coin and nobody likes to look at the underside of it - that is, women may not have the "prestige" typically afforded men who have proven themselves for something, but society obviously cares more about womens' safety and wellbeing than mens', cares more about providing for them if they need help. Generally cares more about their existence. Women care more about other women than men, and men care more about women than they do men. It's just the natural set-up that women are biologically more valuable than men, and society reflects it.

Not complaining, it's just a fact. I see it around me every day.

When people say men have it all... they're forgetting the rest of the deal they get by being men. Society's got a long way to go to break that biological paradigm, and maybe it never will. It'd be nice if it acknowledged women could have just as much of value to contribute other than the ideal of femininity and encouraged that. And it'd be nice if it actually cared about men.

Sure I understand when people say "women aren't valued" what they are probably getting at. Like they want women to be valued in every possible way. But don't forget the rest of it. It's only fair if women get that, that men get it too.

Though I think it'll be a cold day in hell we get that.

Respectfully..

My life experience contradicts almost every point made in this post. That isn't meant to be an insult, nor a challenge for a rebuttal contest. But without taking these assertions point by point, what I will say, is that I have lived 'as a man', and amongst men, for decades. I was socialized as a man, though I was actually female, though I now live as a woman, so my perspective is perhaps broader than many. While some assertions have merit, they do make assumptions that are not inclusive of the full range of facts and perspectives that a wider base of real-life experience indicates. Perhaps this is a cultural blind spot, I am assuming you live in a Scandinavian or Northern European country. I am of such lineage, my forebears only recently arrived here, and I am not totally unaware of recent political leanings in that region. My best guess is that your opinions are based more on your local situation, and not on life here in the United States, and that may color your views as much as your gender itself does.

Men are not disposable here, not that they have it easy. Femininity is valued here, but only as it relates to the pleasure of those that dominate the feminine. Feminine men are at risk, feminine women that are not deemed attractive have little social value, and masculine women face an even harder struggle for being valued appropriately. All humans are capable of being limited by self-interest and tunnel vision. Those that have power benefit from such limits, and will not relent power voluntarily in most instances.

It is very possible to be 'almost right' to such a degree as to feel absolutely right.

Here in the US, there is still tremendous need for a rebalancing of both power and privilege.

Quote from: RobynD on January 19, 2017, 06:42:06 PM
What you see around you every day is subject to change. I understand what you are saying and there were times that i shared some of those same thoughts, but equality has a definite set of measurements that simply are not met. These include but are not limited to; wage gap, sexual harassment and assault danger, access to health care, hiring and job equality, simple and basic legal protections in many states, reproductive rights, and more.

This is not to say that men have it easy, they do not. Being a human is hard in general but we should be on the exact same plane of hard, the exact same starting point. This is not to say women are not valued and supported in society, they are from many parts of our society. Feminism to me is striving for that simple equality and not giving in until it is attained. You can call that idealistic and yep plenty of society makes jest of that, but it it what it is.

Forced change and terms like social engineering and Marxism are always used by those who don't want change as ways to maintain a status quo that they benefit from. They also decry it as "division" when of course the existing division that favors them is just hunky dory. I encourage anyone to read Marx he is not a boogyman, maybe a bit non-understanding of the future ahead but the concept of a more just and equal society, he helped bring to the front of peoples minds.

Men are falling behind women in at least one area, education advancement and success. That is not good. We don't need more inequality, so we'd better figure that thing out.

I heard a concept recently that i am liking more and more. Imagine a future where gender identity and expression is actually pretty trivial. It has no deep effect on the critical parts of life such as what is described. It just is, it is varied and diverse, it may be less static, it is valued but its not a source of objectification, safety concern, etc. To me that is not an Orwellian or Marxist or even political it is just a more moral and kind world.

Where I live women have all the reproductive rights. They don't get paid any less per hour for their work than any man, as that is definitely illegal here. You could argue how unfair it is that women have to take time off to have children (if they choose to) and therefore end up earning less on the whole, but that's not a problem we can currently fix with technology. Harassment for women is a problem (I've experienced it); assault danger is actually less for them though, judging by some of the figures I've seen. Men are more typically targeted for random assault and mugging on streets and more likely to die in violent altercations. Women appear to be more afraid of being attacked, even though the stats seem to suggest they are less likely to be randomly violently attacked than a male.

I see too many problems with Marx for all of this to be effectively applied to society in its current paradigm. Not least because it is not really in the nature of human beings to operate like a hive of insects, it is not in their nature to excel where there is no pressure. Some aspects do work well within smaller communities and families, but some things never work well on a grand scale. Not everyone can be equal in every way, and I say that as an egalitarian, for the most part. Rights and freedoms we can hope to have, but problems stemming from biology are harder to fix. Not until we undo aspects of our biology. One of them is gender identity and expression. Some think it's just a social construct but I wouldn't be here going through transition if that's all it was. A future where it didn't matter would be nice; I don't think we'll be alive long enough to see it though, just as I don't think it's in our nature to dispense with things like war. It sounds like a world that might be possible if humans became "more" than human or evolved further - into something that was no longer what we'd recognize.

I like your idealistic view and I would have felt the same a few years ago - that we could do it if we only "try hard enough". Now I'm just not so sure such things are possible. We have potential but are still very much slaves to our biology and our impulses for the most part.

Quote from: MissGendered on January 19, 2017, 07:07:38 PM
Respectfully..

My life experience contradicts almost every point made in this post. That isn't meant to be an insult, nor a challenge for a rebuttal contest. But without taking these assertions point by point, what I will say, is that I have lived 'as a man', and amongst men, for decades. I was socialized as a man, though I was actually female, though I now live as a woman, so my perspective is perhaps broader than many. While some assertions have merit, they do make assumptions that are not inclusive of the full range of facts and perspectives that a wider base of real-life experience indicates. Perhaps this is a cultural blind spot, I am assuming you live in a Scandinavian or Northern European country. I am of such lineage, my forebears only recently arrived here, and I am not totally unaware of recent political leanings in that region. My best guess is that your opinions are based more on your local situation, and not on life here in the United States, and that may color your views as much as your gender itself does.

Men are not disposable here, not that they have it easy. Femininity is valued here, but only as it relates to the pleasure of those that dominate the feminine. Feminine men are at risk, feminine women that are not deemed attractive have little social value, and masculine women face an even harder struggle for being valued appropriately. All humans are capable of being limited by self-interest and tunnel vision. Those that have power benefit from such limits, and will not relent power voluntarily in most instances.

It is very possible to be 'almost right' to such a degree as to feel absolutely right.

Here in the US, there is still tremendous need for a rebalancing of both power and privilege.

Your experience is as valid as mine. I'm a Brit, so my knowledge of American culture is lacking, even though I have family there, it's not enough to get a clear picture.

What I mean by disposability probably needs some clarification. I'm talking about the visceral reaction people have when they see a man in distress - or dying - versus a woman in distress, or dying. I'd say it's probably a universal given that people worry more about women in situations like that than men, wouldn't you say? Let's imagine a kidnapping of a young woman versus a young man all over the media. I've seen cases of it in the US as well... I noticed a lot more concern if the victim was female, even to the point of media hysteria in the UK. And I notice that if a girl goes missing, there's a lot of coverage for a much longer period of time than for boys who go missing. Many of the atrocities committed in other countries receive far more news attention here too if they're done to women. Does the US press do this? I'm not sure. It is just something I've noticed consistently over a few decades. Personally I think it's biological in origin. People are programmed to respond to the cries of babies, and I think they're also more inclined to respond to a woman in distress than a man. It's not "wrong" or bad, it just is.

Woman and children, are, after all, the core of society. It makes perfect sense to worry about maintaining the core rather than worrying about the periphery. In many ways society revolves around making sure women are provided for and protected, yet we insist that women serve some kind of male centre. It's simply not what I see. Many men base their sense of value on whether or not they can be a good man to a woman (and keep her happy), or a good father to their children. Or to be useful to this society in some way, which serves that mother-child-family core as well. If society was truly all about men and being male, why would they bother? I don't see the male as "dominant" over female at all if it must do these things to feel valuable. I don't personally do these things to feel valuable, but a lot of males do. A lot of them fret over whether they can ever find a female partner, whether they can ever do what it is society expects them to do. And some kill themselves or fall into wreckage because they can't.

So who really has the power? They both do, although of a different sort. I'd say women have a more covert sort of power, but no less powerful. Now if I was a woman in this society I'd say I want the other kind of power, not the one society or nature has "prescribed" for me. So I get it. I do. But the vast majority of men are also chained up by the expectations of society just in a different way, aren't they?

As for the idea an unattractive woman isn't valued... she may have some problems as a result, but I doubt she'd be thrown on the scrapheap by society for it. She won't be denied welfare if she needs it, she won't be denied reproductive rights or any other legal right because of it. She will likely still be respected as a woman, as a mother, etc. Her lack of attractiveness doesn't generally endanger her. I've seen people say some nasty stuff about people with medical conditions that render them extremely 'unattractive', but I think that goes for men too in that case. Disfigurement tends to provoke similar visceral reactions in people and is why most of us are afraid of it happening to us.

The problem we're going up against here isn't just social conventions but biology itself in some cases. How is that going to be dealt with? How will human nature be subverted?

Quote from: Kylo on January 19, 2017, 07:23:06 PM
Where I live women have all the reproductive rights. They don't get paid any less per hour for their work than any man, as that is definitely illegal here.

You say you live in the UK, here's what I found for official government figures on pay equity in the UK

QuoteOn the 26th October 2016 the ONS released provisional results for the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings.

Key points

In April 2016 the gender pay gap (for median earnings) for full-time employees was 9.4 per cent, down from 9.6 per cent in 2015.
When part-time employees are included, the gap decreased from 19.3 per cent in 2015 to 18.1 per cent in 2016, the largest year-on-year drop since 2010. This is also the lowest gender pay gap since the survey began in 1997, when the gap for all employees was 27.5 per cent.

If what you mean by it's illegal, is that there's a law mandating equal pay for equal work, sure, we have the same law. In neither our case nor yours has this yet resulted in actual equity in pay.

Quote from: Lady_Oracle on January 18, 2017, 06:21:48 PM
Intersectional feminsim is where its at and is very much still needed in today's society.

Indeed. Right on sister.

The patriarchy is bad for men too. That doesn't mean it isn't still the patriarchy.

As far as I see, based on my experience, the social drive of 'protect the woman, let the guy rot' is tied up in a lot of things. But critically, I think at least one of these is racism. At least in the West, the default 'innocent woman who needs saving' is a pretty, white, healthy and able-bodied cis woman. And if she isn't one of those things, well, society doesn't spend nearly as much time worrying about it, let alone when she isn't more of those things. And conversely, the social treatment of men that you talk about reflecting "disposability" I think has a lot to do with racism and xenophobia. The default picture that much of the west has developed for the 'scourge of society' is a young non-white guy. In many countries these are also immigrants. When there's a young white guy accused of sexual assault, all anyone wants to talk about is how the allegation will ruin his life; when it's a black guy, he's a "superpredator". And the worst part is that psychological experiments reveal that this bias is even deeper than we might think, and certainly deeper than we want. It's ingrained into society (I don't think there's really a need to posit a biological basis for this), just like we could say the same of its treatment of women.

One thing I think you're right about, women and children are perceived (unconsciously or subconsciously) to be the core of society. But I think one powerful side effect of that is that, rather than 'women serving the male centre', it's actually 'men wanting to control the female centre'. And doing so, quite effectively. As long as there is this continuing pattern of domestic violence and sexual violence that disproportionately affect women, I find it hard to take seriously the argument that society places women (as a whole) on a pedestal when I see so painfully the way in which so many are ignored, or worse, subject to the full, undiluted brutality of society; rather it seems to me that certain women—certainly those with the social capital earned from other positions of power (whether race, social class/wealth, etc.)—are 'protected' from the 'threat' of everything that lies below.

The thing about social contructs is that I think when people say 'gender is (just) a social construct', it's commonly misunderstood to mean 'gender isn't real'. But it is real. Gender is real and race is real and sex is real and social class is real and money is real. But they're all social constructs too: the meaning of all of these things is determined and maintained by society. What qualifies someone as 'white' today in the United States is different from what it was one hundred years ago. Who knows, maybe trans people will eventually have some impact on society's understanding of gender, too—and if so, we might say that the social construct has shifted to include some impact of individual expression.

I don't think it's idealism to speculate on what the world could be like if the rigid division of society on the basis of arbitrary social categories assigned messily to people who have themselves been given bodies that rather messily fit (hence all the exceptions falling out the edges, i.e. us; it's all somewhat random in the end). I'm not sure such things are possible either, in practical terms at least if not in theoretical terms, but that more reflects my pessimism on the world as a whole. I also think misogyny and racism are here for the long haul and will ruin the lives of millions and millions more—hell, probably billions more. And a lot of those people will be men. But in the end, I fight because I think the way things are right now is wrong, profoundly so. So what if some of that reason is bound up in 'human nature'/genetics? I think that's all the more reason to work against it vociferously, because it means that more people will suffer if people don't learn to fight that unconscious bias.

One thing I will say, it's easy to talk about the fact that in much of the Western world, women (or non-straight people, for a similar example) are afforded equal or nearly-equal rights under the law. But what is the case under the law does not match fully with what is the case in fact. If a company can get away with paying you less as a woman (and you don't have the money to sue), then all the laws in the world won't change it. What is a full slate of reproductive rights if it's only afforded to the people that can afford it? If you can't report a case of sexual assault or domestic violence because the police won't believe you, what does it even mean that rape is illegal?

These are heavy topics, but I don't bring them up lightly either. For me, for my personal experience, being female is tied up inexorably in surviving a society and a world that hasn't been kind to me. That ignores my words because of who they're coming from. That calls me 'crazy' and 'bitchy' when I'm angry at this because it doesn't take me seriously. That decides my worth based on my attractiveness and my willingness to put on makeup and smile. That has hurt and abused me no matter what I do to please it.

Quote from: SadieBlake on January 19, 2017, 09:00:25 PM
You say you live in the UK, here's what I found for official government figures on pay equity in the UK

If what you mean by it's illegal, is that there's a law mandating equal pay for equal work, sure, we have the same law. In neither our case nor yours has this yet resulted in actual equity in pay.

And have you found the reason for it? It isn't that women are forced to work less hours by men or excluded from full time jobs. We know that.

Might it be that women choose to work less overtime, take more time off, or prefer different working habits to men? Might it be maternity leave, or more days off sick? More women choosing to take part-time jobs for the flexibility it offers them?

If they are not paid less by the hour and not excluded from full time work, what is causing it on a national average scale, because we aren't talking just testosterone-fueled high-flying bankers jobs here. Talking average jobs for the average person.

The "pay gap" fails to mention working patterns often differ between genders. And if it is a matter of personal choice, it ain't sexism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214854/Pay-gap-Women-earn-men-till-40s-20-woman-paid-men-age-group-decade.html

Women out earn men in young adulthood.
What happens is motherhood hits at 40, women become primary caretaker most times, so the averages go down.

And as far as domestic violence goes,
http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/
But the feminist duluth model doesn't incorporate this at all and only refers to men as batterers and women as victims:

http://www.theduluthmodel.org/change/mens-nonviolence.html
Actually read that^

And I should mention that with sexual assault the number varies from 1 in 5 to 0.03 in 5 depending on methodology:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/

Quote from: kinz on January 19, 2017, 09:12:52 PM
The patriarchy is bad for men too. That doesn't mean it isn't still the patriarchy.

How is there a patriarchy in the West when Hillary Clinton came so close to being president of America? When Germany's leader is a woman? When the UK's leader is a woman? A woman is in the lead for the French election polls? America is such a racist patriarchy it voted for a black man as its most powerful figurehead twice, and very nearly got a woman this time. What kind of self-respecting and powerful patriarchy allows this?

Companies can't get away with paying women less legally in average jobs, if they are exposed for it they get into trouble. There will always be someone doing something illegal whether it's paying cash in hand or paying one person a different amount than another and not allowing discussion of wages. The important thing is that it is not allowed and most don't do it. You have to accept some will always slip through the net, the main thing is society sees this as bad and doesn't permit it. And it sees rape as bad. And domestic violence as bad. Those things will always occur even in the best of societies somewhere. You can't eliminate the possibility altogether. And interestingly in our horribly patriarchal society we have the Duluth model and we have the fact Western society is such a rape culture in which we love rape so much it can ruin your career/life just for someone to falsely accuse you of it. And if the police turn up at your house after a domestic incident, guess who they are going to assume is innocent first?

We live in such a misogynistic hellscape that misogynist is something people don't want to be called and affects reputations significantly on social media. We don't typically celebrate people who beat women, or rape women, or say nasty things about women. Some people might, but the society in general doesn't like or tolerate it.

Just because someone out there is trying to push this idea by repeating it so many times everyone believes it doesn't mean it's true.

What does a real patriarchy look like? Something like what they have in Saudi Arabia. No women in charge, no women driving, no women in many select professions, no women allowed to leave the country without a man's permission, no women allowed to walk around without a male relative, immediate harassment in the streets if they don't dress how they're told, more difficult for them to get easy contraception, abortion is illegal, beating your wife is ok, women get half a man's worth of inheritance, testimony of a woman in court worth half of a man's, the list is huge. "Rape culture" exists in that region for sure. If you don't stick to the rules it's expected you'd be raped or sexually assaulted as corrective. Their authorities see nothing wrong with child brides. Not only that but if you do get raped you're likely to be punished for it with a public flogging (or worse) because proving you were raped and not having illegal sexual relations is almost impossible for a woman to do.

To think many people see nothing wrong with that, but insist our culture is somehow as bad or worse is beyond me. There's room for improvement ofc but calling it a patriarchy these days is starting to sound like a joke.

Quote from: izzy on January 19, 2017, 05:22:22 PM
Femme idenified people are simply valued less than what society considers masculine. If a man and women did the same work, her job would be scrutinized more for the same job. It doesn't matter how great her job is, she would need to work twice as hard to get recognized.
In being reconized as feminists I heard that plenty of  times and formed in my childhood. i never liked the idea of masculinity being favored over feminity. Whos the god that says one is better than the other.

Except, interestingly, in fields dominated by women. I work with people with TBI. I previously worked with people with mental illness. In these fields men are a definite minority and women are treated with more respect. I can't say whether men are discriminated against in those fields. I transitioned between situations and the agencies had very different cultures.

Kylo, perhaps this helps the point. There's still a patriarchy dispite your examples because those very examples are rare enough to be news. Just as airline crashes are rare enough to be news and frequent car crashes get no mention.

QuoteJust because someone out there is trying to push this idea by repeating it so many times everyone believes it doesn't mean it's true.

Pot, meet my friend kettle?

Kylo, you established in your first post in this thread that you don't subscribe to feminism and since then you have spent a lot of time trying to suggest that Western society has moved on to a post-sexist period. Let me suggest that continued citing of facts that you think bolster your case aren't helping. I disagree with your thesis because your "facts"  don't represent my experience and when I've posted objective facts (I.e. actual studies, not isolated anecdotes) you have simply added more explanations why your theories are correct rather than responding to my (and others') points.

I'm not right, you're not right, 'nuf said.