[samfoo]

You're cherry picking statistics: Do you think women are more likely to be homeless? Drug addicts? Do you think women are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime? More likely to be in prison?

I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them.

So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses?

To clarify: I think it's important that women are represented in all professions (obviously software/tech is of specific concern) if only for the fact that diversity breeds innovation and discussion.

[Cushman]

So men's weakness is a predisposition towards violence and irrational behavior, and women's weakness is... men's predisposition towards violence and irrational behavior.

I mean, it'd be funny if it weren't true.

[webXL]

samfoo never made the claim that men and women had the same weaknesses. He was simply stating that men are also disadvantaged because of their own nature. If you're a woman and are able to avoid violent or bigoted men, or are able to defend yourself against them, then you are not disadvantaged as someone who can't defend against those men. And to ricefield's claim that girls are no longer "disadvantaged.", there is some truth to that just looking at what's happened over the last century.

[jamesaguilar]

> You're cherry picking statistics . . .

All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are also associated with mental disorders. While it sucks that men are more susceptible to mental disease than women, that's not a form of discrimination. On the other hand, women that become a member of the statistical sets I picked do so in typical daily interaction with men. They don't have the option to not be around men, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to make that choice if it were available to them. There's no equivalence between your statistics and mine.

> So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses?

No, we cannot.

[samfoo]

I don't understand your point: How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? When men are victimized it's their own fault, but when women are it's men's fault?

[jamesaguilar]

> How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime?

I don't know where I read this, but my understanding is that criminals are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime. For example, 50% of all murder victims are black men under the age of 25, and that is often associated with gang-related violence. I don't have sources for any of this; I read it somewhere, but where I remember not. So absent some conflicting data I consider the typical violent crime one that received somewhat by choice -- it's often associated with some kind of violence or criminality the victim had previously done. One should not have the expectation of being involved in criminal activity and remaining completely safe from violence at the same time.

I realize that in a debate the burden of proof is on me at this point. But since this is not a formal debate and I don't believe there's much hope of convincing you, I'm going to shirk that duty for the time being.

> Who's more likely to be a grade school teacher?

Women, I think. Are you trying to say that being a grade school teacher is a matter of privilege? Because last I checked it's not exactly a super-desirable job on the social ladder.

> Who's more likely to be convicted (or for that matter: charged) with child molestation?

The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?

[samfoo]

I'll accept that victims of violent crime are also more likely to be the perpetrators. I just don't see how that matters: They're still part of the demographic of "men" and still contributing sociological disadvantage to the population (viz. "Men are stupid muscly brutes").

There are disadvantages (and advantages), sociologically speaking, for both genders. I'm not arguing that women are equally enabled at present (I don't think they are). As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other.

(Note: I removed my questions in the edit because I didn't feel it was necessary for this to turn into a quid-pro-quo of discrimination reports)

[jamesaguilar]

> As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other.

I guess our fundamental difference is how much discrimination we believe remains. You seem to think the disparity is small, justifying your frustration with female solidarity. I think the it is still very large.

Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same.

In the areas where men are being discriminated against, the discrimination can be very strong (e.g. custody battles). But these contexts are far narrower than the contexts in which women face discrimination, which are more easily described by listing out the few places women are safe from it. I surely agree that we should work to end discrimination against males where it exists, but I also think as a society it makes sense to address problems in the order of their magnitude (or perhaps, with effort proportional to magnitude).

I agree that compared to historical norms we are doing quite well, but we are far from the point where solidarity is not an important asset to females.

[onemoreact]

I would argue that while discrimination is still significant in the US. IMO, the magnitude of net discrimination is fairly small. It’s not hard to find cases where men have an advantage. However, being a Man is a horrible disadvantage in child custody battles. In the eyes of the law when two drunken people have sex it’s often assumed that the man took advantage of the situation etc. Men receive less support in cases of domestic abuse and are more often killed. Infract only 10 year old boys are less likely than their female counterparts to die in any given year etc.

Biologically you can look at say men’s increased chance of baldness vs. PMS and think men have an advantage. But socially the cost / benefit analysis is harder to balance and harder to suggest that one side has a clear advantage because it comes down to how you weigh different parts of the equation.

[neutronicus]

Alternative hypothesis:

Perhaps the social safety net steps in for women before they are driven to violent crime?

On topic:

I wish both genders would quit moralizing and start negotiating already. I can only feel so guilty before I stop listening.

[sliverstorm]

The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?

It'd be interesting to learn whether this is actually true. The public is blind to incidences of molestation committed by women, so as I understand it many occurrences go unreported or undiscovered.

[jnhnum1]

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism#Masculist_concerns

And after you've read that, please don't make the claim that there is no "real" discrimination against men.

[jamesaguilar]

I never made that claim. Maybe you are responding to the wrong commenter?

[jnhnum1]

look, you said this:

"Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same."

Tell me then, how is it an innocent man's fault when society assumes he is a pedophile when he is simply playing with his kids at the park? Or why is criminal sentencing so much more severe for men than for women who have committed an equivalent crime?

[jamesaguilar]

Most areas, not all.

[Vandy_Travis]

Why can't we focus on correcting injustice for its own sake, rather than picking teams? [Not so much directed at you; I've found this discussing very thought provoking. More directed at "everyone" waves hands that seems to feel its an us-versus-them argument.]