The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Nick_Miller on November 19, 2018, 10:35:27 AM

Title: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on November 19, 2018, 10:35:27 AM
Sorry if this is a weird thought. I get them from time to time. Basically, I look at American entertainment (movies, sports, music) and I see a lot of this...

Men follow...Male sports teams. Male actors. Male singers/bands. Etc. We hardly ever "fanboy" for a female. Our favorite movies, tv shows, music acts, sports teams, are almost always male-dominated.

Women follow...Male and female sport teams. Male actors and female actors. Male and female singers/bands. They seem to "fangirl" for both genders.

I could give lots of examples, but I wonder why this is true? Are men socialized not to "look up" to women? Do we view their music/stories/sports as "too girly?"

Why do women so readily support entertainers of all genders? Is it just because options for all-female entertainment are more limited? Or are they just more open-minded?

Any thoughts?

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on November 19, 2018, 10:40:38 AM
Quote
Are men socialized not to "look up" to women?

Probably.  With the whole "me too" thing, a lot of stuff coming out of the wood work, and so many men saying they don't know how to talk to women, and "boy am I glad I'm not dating anymore, that would be hard!"

Here's my husband, who fanboys both men and women (though generally, not sports!)  But he's baffled at how men would be afraid to talk to women, or not know how to - because his parents taught him how to respect people.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on November 19, 2018, 10:46:32 AM
I'm just as baffled as is your husband about why men would be afraid or unsure how to talk to women. I just find that really weird.

But I'm guilty of not following women's sports. I mean, I watched the women's basketball final four last year, and it was pretty entertaining, but that's pretty much it.

I like some female actors, but honestly I'm not sure I like any of them enough to see a movie because she is in it.

I like some female singers, but the last female singer I saw in concert was Jewel like five years ago.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 19, 2018, 10:47:40 AM
Yup. Sexism. Men are seen as the default. Women are a "specialized" thing.

Also, institutionalized homophobia. Women aren't looked at as (lesbian) for following, say, a men's football team. But many men would feel "gay" liking a "chick" thing.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: PoutineLover on November 19, 2018, 10:47:48 AM
I've noticed this as well, and I've read that the phenomenon is very pronounced in which authors people choose to read as well. I think it's due to a few different factors
-the fact that there are probably more male idols to choose from, since women are typically underrepresented in movies, sports and books
-the fact that female traits are not viewed as favourably as male traits, especially when choosing who to emulate and look up to
-women get far less screen time, funding and sponsorships in movies and sports
-the screen time they do get is focused on their value as sexual objects, and not for their accomplishments
-a lot of gender conditioning is changing, but often only in one direction. Girls can wear pants, but boys can't wear skirts. Girls can be anything now, but boys are made fun of for wanting to do "girly" jobs
-women aren't as strictly conditioned to only like stereotypical girl things, so they are more open to also looking up to male figures, and the selection of male figures to look up to is so much wider so it's harder to just have female role models.
Hoping that more men start to see that women can and should be role models as well, not just in entertainment but in politics and business as well.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on November 19, 2018, 10:55:00 AM
Yes to @Kris. You phrased that much better than did I, especially the "specialized thing" part. I would point out that "women's" is treated as an actual genre in publishing, which I guess supports your "specialized thing" statement pretty well.

And I am mindful of viewing men as "default." I am guilty of it. But I'm trying to improve myself. When I write a story, my brain almost always "defaults" to a male main character. But I am getting better at overriding my default instincts. I'm currently working on a project with a female main character and she is super fun to write.

@PoutineLover, Yup, men really limit ourselves with our own toxic masculinity approach. My favorite TV show these days is "This Is Us" and I got SOOOOO much grief from my buddies when I said that. You wouldn't f'ing believe how they rode me out. (and it has a very balanced cast)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Adam Zapple on November 19, 2018, 11:50:26 AM
Really interesting topic.  I am guilty of this.  The only distinction I would make is that with certain sports, like basketball, the professional male teams provide a much more entertaining product due to the fact that the men are faster/able to jump higher etc.  This is not true in other sports, like tennis, where men and women are more evenly matched in skill.  That being said, I don't think too many boys are hanging Serena Williams posters on their walls.

When I was a teenager, I liked the Irish rock band The Cranberries enough to go see them in concert.  When I admit this to people now, I am made fun of.  The only reason for this, I assume, is because the lead singer was female.  If the same exact songs were sung by a male I don't think this would be the case.  When it comes to music, wrapped up in here somewhere is a cultural norm of what is or is not an acceptable amount of emotion that men are supposed to feel or express.  I can't really articulate my point on that though.

I completely agree with @PoutineLover that women's screen time is directly related to their "value" as sex objects.  You see this where lead women hit their late thirties or forties and no longer get leading roles.  This does not happen to men.

My observation on books is that men tend to read books written by men and women read books written by women.  This rule is broken more by women who will occasionally read male authors.  This is just my observation of friends and family so may not be the norm.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dollar Slice on November 19, 2018, 12:07:50 PM
Exactly what Kris said. Women are treated as a specialized minority thing in the arts/sports/etc.

I remember a female musician telling a story about how her manager told her she might get rejected from playing at a big festival because, even though the promoters really liked her, they already had booked another female-fronted band who played the same lead instrument as her (keyboard/piano). So basically they already had their token gender diversity taken care of and didn't want to overdo the whole "woman" thing. They didn't have a problem booking literally a dozen "men playing the guitar" bands.

It's also a huge problem in classical music where female composers are hugely underrepresented. Many major orchestras play entire seasons with no female composers at all, or maybe one short piece by one woman. (I'm not talking so much about, e.g., Baroque/Romantic music where women didn't generally work as composers much back then, but orchestras who include 20th/21st century music.)

A few music festivals (including my favorite one) have committed to booking at least 50% non-men (women, trans, nonbinary, etc.) going forward. And I do see a lot of my male friends following female musicians. But I definitely don't hang out with a "toxic masculinity" crowd...
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Hula Hoop on November 19, 2018, 12:57:52 PM
I was talking to some mom friends the other day and I recommended a particular book that my younger daughter just loves (Dory Fantasmagory - a great book for anyone with a 6-7 year old).  The other mother told me that her daughter loved it to and then recommended it to the mother of a boy who was standing with us by saying "the main character is a girl, but I think [her kid] would still like it as she's a real rebel and very funny and not girly at all."  So already in second grade, it's assumed that boys won't want to read about female characters.  But of course this never happens with the millions of books that my girls read with male main characters.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: DS on November 19, 2018, 12:59:44 PM
Femininity viewed as weaker. Women are associated with femininity. Many things associated with femininity are seen as way to please men.  These are not my thoughts, just observances.

As a gender nonconforming ("Drag" etc) male, I enjoy many things women are stereotyped to enjoy. At the cost of having sexuality and gender questioned by each new person I meet. People are so confused as to why you would associate yourself with feminine things, and really want the explanation to be sexuality or some other LGBT identity they can slap on. Because enjoying these things that are stereotyped with women must mean you either want to have sex with other males or change your body?

At the end of the day, most of my life is within the boundaries of stereotyped male activities, but that small percentage of my time demands a 100% identity label, when really I just want to do these things the same as someone would with different reproductive parts.

The reason I tell you this is to show how participation in activities that aren't traditionally within the realm of males leads to questions. Being seen as someone who indulges in "feminine" activities leads to questioning, even if the activities aren't even inherently feminine, but rather just "things women have traditionally done." The policing of these gender roles is very strict. Not saying it's anywhere near what it was in the past, but we still have some way to go.

Hope this is helpful. Brief summary of years of thoughts. Hard to condense like this.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 19, 2018, 01:02:26 PM
Femininity viewed as weaker. Women are associated with femininity. Many things associated with femininity are seen as way to please men.  These are not my thoughts, just observances.

As a gender nonconforming ("Drag" etc) male, I enjoy many things women are stereotyped to enjoy. At the cost of having sexuality and gender questioned by each new person I meet. People are so confused as to why you would associate yourself with feminine things, and really want the explanation to be sexuality or some other LGBT identity they can slap on. Because enjoying these things that are stereotyped with women must mean you either want to have sex with other males or change your body?


Agreed. My husband enjoys many pursuits deemed "feminine." When I first met him and was describing my new boyfriend to people who had not yet met him, I lost count how many times casual acquaintances and even friends jokingly or not-so-jokingly asked me whether he was gay.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: foghorn on November 19, 2018, 01:05:29 PM
The MGTOW Movement may have something to do with it.

If you are not familiar, look it up.  Explains a lot.

Also, a great book may help provide some guidance.

Men On Strike

https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Slee_stack on November 19, 2018, 01:06:58 PM
Most (all?) men's sports are more physical...faster throws, higher jumps, quicker turns, larger impacts, whatever.

Not that extremes have to make a sport more entertaining, but I suspect many prefer that.

For instance, Women's tennis tends to have longer points/rallies.  Men's tennis tends to be quicker points (aces, serve/volley).  Actually, in this way, I prefer women's tennis.

On a flip side....there is no women's baseball or football, so one doesn't even have a choice.  I really don't like football or basketball personally.


I never thought about actors/actresses though I have recently liked a couple TV directors..(Sam Esmail, Noah Hawley, Vince Gilligan) and they are all male so there's that. Typically, I just like weirder/mind F/deeper shows. I don't really care who produces them as long as they just keep doing it!

Music, I'm pretty even keeled.  I enjoy all sorts of male, female, and mixed groups.  I think the last album I purchased was Goldfrapp. 

Maybe I am influenced, but I just follow what looks or sounds interesting or fun.  Who's behind the camera or writing or starring, or whatever is truly secondary.  Except for Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise.  Sorry, I just despise those guys.  Apologies to any fans.  I can;t think of an actress that I dislike in such a way.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Sailor Sam on November 19, 2018, 01:20:45 PM
The MGTOW Movement may have something to do with it.

If you are not familiar, look it up.  Explains a lot.

Also, a great book may help provide some guidance.

Men On Strike

https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620

I seek a point of clarification. Are you saying that you view the MGTOW movement as a potential reason some men won't follow women-created entertainment, -or- are you personally ascribing to the MGTOW movement?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: foghorn on November 19, 2018, 01:55:22 PM
I am simply pointing out that many men feel that they are no longer valued in society and that interactions with women (particularly the workplace) can have severe (negative) consequences. 

With that in mind, the MGTOW movement seems to be gaining steam.  I am not specifically involved the movement, but do find it a fascinating and rational reaction for some men. 

I also read the book - "Men On Strike" and the author also makes a great case for men acting rationally and stepping aside from parts of society.

 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Philociraptor on November 19, 2018, 02:15:21 PM
Not sure why women tend to be more equal in their fandom, but I imaging men not looking up to women comes from sexism and a general sense of how anything feminine is seen as inferior. In many respects I like to think that I value men and women in a field equally, but I have my biases as well.

A few examples from my own life:
 - I listen to male vocalists almost exclusively because I like to sing along; I tend to have a harder time hitting the notes on songs with a female lead. Women don't have as much an issue with this because the majority of popular male artists sing in the tenor range.
 - I don't really follow team sports, but I do like watching impressive feats of strength (weightlifting, powerlifting, strongman); however, I imagine my wife wouldn't be too happy with me following female stars of the sports on Instagram, so I don't.
 - Same thing with female actors, showing an interest in them would probably make my wife jealous, so I only follow men.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Sailor Sam on November 19, 2018, 02:43:48 PM
I am simply pointing out that many men feel that they are no longer valued in society and that interactions with women (particularly the workplace) can have severe (negative) consequences. 

With that in mind, the MGTOW movement seems to be gaining steam.  I am not specifically involved the movement, but do find it a fascinating and rational reaction for some men. 

I also read the book - "Men On Strike" and the author also makes a great case for men acting rationally and stepping aside from parts of society.

Thanks for clarifying.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cromacster on November 19, 2018, 03:11:57 PM
An interesting community to look into would be the Crossfit community.

At the competitive level the female stars are bigger than many of the top men and the fans are both male and female.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RyanAtTanagra on November 19, 2018, 03:35:21 PM
I've noticed this in myself but have never heard anyone else mention it before, thank you for bringing it up.

I don't watch sports, and most of my favorite bands/singers are female, so I'm not too guilty there, but I have noticed pretty much all my favorite actors/actresses are male.  I don't know if this is sexism on my part, or just more strong male leads, but there are definitely actors where I'll watch a movie just because they're in it, but don't know if I have any actresses where I'd do the same.  I'm aware of it, but not sure what to do about it, or if I even should do something.

My favorite authors are male as well, so same issue there too, for possibly same reasons.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: calimom on November 19, 2018, 07:33:15 PM
I was talking to some mom friends the other day and I recommended a particular book that my younger daughter just loves (Dory Fantasmagory - a great book for anyone with a 6-7 year old).  The other mother told me that her daughter loved it to and then recommended it to the mother of a boy who was standing with us by saying "the main character is a girl, but I think [her kid] would still like it as she's a real rebel and very funny and not girly at all."  So already in second grade, it's assumed that boys won't want to read about female characters.  But of course this never happens with the millions of books that my girls read with male main characters.

Right? Like Harry Potter for example. No one tells little girls they might like the books - even though the main character is a boy. The conditioning, the conditioning.

One of my own favorite books, made into one of my favorite movies is The Hours by Michael Cunningham. Sure, he's a gay man, but he totally nails the perspectives of all the female characters. IMO it's truly a masterpiece.

Interesting topic and discussion, Nick Miller.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Paul der Krake on November 19, 2018, 08:00:49 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: marble_faun on November 19, 2018, 08:01:25 PM
In so many forms of media, men are just the default "person." 

We (women) grow up reading books or seeing TV shows about characters like Huck Finn, Harry Potter, Christopher Robin, Frodo Baggins, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles... etc. etc.  There are girl heroes too, of course, but many fewer.  So if we want to enjoy the widest range of stories, including some of the absolute most-popular, we have to identify with male characters. After a while it just seems normal. 

As a little kid I remember reading an old book called "Adventure Stories for Boys." I thought it was weird and sexist even then, before I had a word for that. I read it anyway, because I wanted to experience the stories and just had to ignore the fact that they weren't "for" girls.

Boys don't experience the same type of socialization with girl characters, I don't think (though maybe things are different now).  Girl stories remain niche.  It's easy to just ignore girl stories, because even ruling those out, boys still have access to a wide range of popular narratives.

Essentially women learn from an early age to relate to both girl and boy characters, while the reverse is not necessarily true.  As adults, we don't consider "movies about men" as niche "man movies," but just... movies.  Meanwhile just having female leads in one version of Ghostbusters seems to melt some viewers' minds.

But just to turn this around and offer a sign of change... I present this story of manly men (Marines!) crossing over to the girly side, from This American Life: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/606/just-what-i-wanted/prologue
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on November 20, 2018, 02:15:10 AM
For years I didnít give a fuck about any sports whether played by men or women.  I only recently began following professional football.  Really no other sport seems worth following.

However, in 2008 I was watching YouTube and chanced on a vid about one of our nuclear aircraft carriers in a Pacific storm.  Waves were crashing over the flight deck. If youíve ever seen a nuclear aircraft carrier you know the flight deck is absurdly high over the water line.  The next video was of Roz Savage rowing across the Pacific in a 23 foot long row boat.  Roz Savage quit a life as a business consultant to row across the Atlantic Ocean for environmental awareness. Then she rowed the Pacific. Then the Indian ocean. Sheís the first woman to do all three, essentially rowing around the world.

I seriously fan boyed.  It wasnít long before I was sending serious money to help her along plus military gear I bought at clothing and sales. Sheís done rowing oceans now but still active in environmental causes. I had the privilege to attend one of her speaking events recently.  A phenomenal woman.  Look her up!
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on November 20, 2018, 07:16:38 AM
The more I think about it, and at the risk of sounding boorish, I think men are just so focused on sex that we struggle to view women through a non-sexual lens.

It's easier when a woman is much older/not attractive (yes, RBG is a good example) because then the focus is on her other qualities. But as long as she's at least borderline sexy, men's minds go just one place.

I think when many men "dig" a female celeb, what it means is that the guy wants to have sex with her, date her, marry her (i.e." claim her"), NOT "cheer her on from afar with her other adoring masses, hooting 'Yayyyyy Taylor, I love you!!'" There may be an element of affection or admiration, but it's all wrapped up in this ball of sexual energy.

Even a fairly progressive guy like President Obama felt the need to (publicly) comment on Kamala Harris's looks. Considering that he said that, does anyone really think he hadn't already pictured having sex with her? And Obama is like 100 times better than we mere mortal men.

(again, sorry if this is boorish. I was in the mood to be very honest. I know this doesn't exactly make me or other men look great. And I'm sure many guys will disagree with all of this)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: DS on November 20, 2018, 07:28:05 AM
(again, sorry if this is boorish. I was in the mood to be very honest. I know this doesn't exactly make me or other men look great. And I'm sure many guys will disagree with all of this)

Good qualifier haha.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Milkshake on November 20, 2018, 07:37:12 AM
Slightly off topic, but in a similar vein, why is there a separate tournament for women's chess? I would think everyone would want to make it an even playing field. You just go play chess. There is even a separate title for "woman grandmaster", which is distinct from a "grandmaster".

The whole thing seems dumb to me. I would think men and women alike would want one, open-to-all chess style.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OtherJen on November 20, 2018, 07:54:36 AM
Slightly off topic, but in a similar vein, why is there a separate tournament for women's chess? I would think everyone would want to make it an even playing field. You just go play chess. There is even a separate title for "woman grandmaster", which is distinct from a "grandmaster".

The whole thing seems dumb to me. I would think men and women alike would want one, open-to-all chess style.

I wonder if it started as a way to give women an opportunity after being excluded (explicitly or tacitly) from male clubs and tournaments.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OtherJen on November 20, 2018, 08:01:26 AM
Dollar Slice mentioned the paucity of female composers in classical music. Iíve been a choral singer for 25 years. Most of my directors have been men, and they rarely (if ever) selected pieces by women. In my current group, one of the other women pointed this out to our (male) director who was initially shocked and defensive, but acknowledged the issue once he spent some time reflecting. His default was ďmale composer,Ē and he gravitated toward those works without ever considering that he might be excluding a lot of repertoire. We now have two very well-written pieces by female composers on this yearís holiday program, and they seem to be favorites of everyone in the group.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 20, 2018, 08:48:48 AM
Dollar Slice mentioned the paucity of female composers in classical music. Iíve been a choral singer for 25 years. Most of my directors have been men, and they rarely (if ever) selected pieces by women. In my current group, one of the other women pointed this out to our (male) director who was initially shocked and defensive, but acknowledged the issue once he spent some time reflecting. His default was ďmale composer,Ē and he gravitated toward those works without ever considering that he might be excluding a lot of repertoire. We now have two very well-written pieces by female composers on this yearís holiday program, and they seem to be favorites of everyone in the group.

What songs?  I joined a choir this year, and most of our songs are by men (including Henry VIII) or traditional.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dabnasty on November 20, 2018, 09:06:23 AM
The more I think about it, and at the risk of sounding boorish, I think men are just so focused on sex that we struggle to view women through a non-sexual lens.

It's easier when a woman is much older/not attractive (yes, RBG is a good example) because then the focus is on her other qualities. But as long as she's at least borderline sexy, men's minds go just one place.

I think when many men "dig" a female celeb, what it means is that the guy wants to have sex with her, date her, marry her (i.e." claim her"), NOT "cheer her on from afar with her other adoring masses, hooting 'Yayyyyy Taylor, I love you!!'" There may be an element of affection or admiration, but it's all wrapped up in this ball of sexual energy.

Even a fairly progressive guy like President Obama felt the need to (publicly) comment on Kamala Harris's looks. Considering that he said that, does anyone really think he hadn't already pictured having sex with her? And Obama is like 100 times better than we mere mortal men.

(again, sorry if this is boorish. I was in the mood to be very honest. I know this doesn't exactly make me or other men look great. And I'm sure many guys will disagree with all of this)

Boorish perhaps, but honest and an important part of the sexism conversation that rarely gets brought up. Sometimes I wonder if it's just me, but I think the truth is a majority of men have difficulty not seeing women this way. Some would blame it on toxic masculinity, and maybe that's a part of it, but I think most of it is biology. After all, survival of the horniest is what got us here.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this makes it ok to objectify women. If your actions harm someone else, it doesn't matter how hard it is to control them, it's your responsibility. But I am saying it takes real effort to look past our base desires when they tap you on the shoulder to remind you to preserve your genes every time you see a woman. It's exhausting.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: driftwood on November 20, 2018, 09:51:08 AM
I can't speak to the trend, but I'd say I'm the opposite (straight male, because it's pertinent to the convo).

I follow two people on Instagram that aren't real people I know:

Jessica Graff - she's a stuntwoman who is constantly posting pictures of her playing and climbing and doing various fun things. I follow her because I like being reminded to 'play' as an adult instead of being sedentary. She's also a badass.

The Rock - The more I see of his personality (which I recognize is filtered for social media), the more I like the guy. It's nice to see the other side of actors.  For most actors all I know of them is the characters they play. In fact, I won't stream movies anymore because of how following him made me think about the whole thing. I feel better paying for entertainment because I recognize that people are working their asses off to create it and deserve to be paid.

I used to follow Jessica Biel as well, I always thought she was a cool actress. I probably unfollowed because she doesn't post things I find interesting anymore.

Sport teams and athletes... never really got into watching others play sport, and I don't like organized sports anyways, so that whole category is out for me. I'd rather go play outside on a mountain than watch people on a field.

Now that Wonder Woman has come out as a good movie I'd add Gal Gadot to someone I'm a 'fan' of.

It's already recognized that there is a lack of women role models and heroes in popular American culture. As we see more in movies and real life they may attract more men. Growing up I all my action hero options were men.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: driftwood on November 20, 2018, 10:00:13 AM
An interesting community to look into would be the Crossfit community.

At the competitive level the female stars are bigger than many of the top men and the fans are both male and female.

Straight Male again... if I fanboy out on anyone in the CF community, it's usually the women. I think I've seen muscular men for years. So seeing fit women that can destroy these challenges is more exciting to me.

I don't know if that makes it more or less sexist if I am more of a fan of women in Crossfit because I'm attracted to them. As opposed to being a fan of the guys because I could identify with them or see them as role models? It's hard to figure out how my brain works. I respect both genders when I see them out perform me, but I think I'm more amazed when the women do it.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Philociraptor on November 20, 2018, 10:02:57 AM
The more I think about it, and at the risk of sounding boorish, I think men are just so focused on sex that we struggle to view women through a non-sexual lens.

It's easier when a woman is much older/not attractive (yes, RBG is a good example) because then the focus is on her other qualities. But as long as she's at least borderline sexy, men's minds go just one place.

I think this hits the nail on the head.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: ketchup on November 20, 2018, 10:15:59 AM
This is a fascinating topic.
I was talking to some mom friends the other day and I recommended a particular book that my younger daughter just loves (Dory Fantasmagory - a great book for anyone with a 6-7 year old).  The other mother told me that her daughter loved it to and then recommended it to the mother of a boy who was standing with us by saying "the main character is a girl, but I think [her kid] would still like it as she's a real rebel and very funny and not girly at all."  So already in second grade, it's assumed that boys won't want to read about female characters.  But of course this never happens with the millions of books that my girls read with male main characters.

Right? Like Harry Potter for example. No one tells little girls they might like the books - even though the main character is a boy. The conditioning, the conditioning.
This specifically I would wholeheartedly disagree with.  As someone that lived through the Harry Potter phenomenon at the exact right age (I read the first three at age 8, and the last came out when I was 16), it was absolutely both boys and girls that were into those books.  It was everyone.

However, Joanne Rowling definitely deliberately chose to publish as "J. K. Rowling" without it being clear she was a woman, and that's definitely a sign of what we're talking about here.  She's since published as "Robert Galbraith" for presumably the same reason.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 20, 2018, 10:25:50 AM
This is a fascinating topic.
I was talking to some mom friends the other day and I recommended a particular book that my younger daughter just loves (Dory Fantasmagory - a great book for anyone with a 6-7 year old).  The other mother told me that her daughter loved it to and then recommended it to the mother of a boy who was standing with us by saying "the main character is a girl, but I think [her kid] would still like it as she's a real rebel and very funny and not girly at all."  So already in second grade, it's assumed that boys won't want to read about female characters.  But of course this never happens with the millions of books that my girls read with male main characters.

Right? Like Harry Potter for example. No one tells little girls they might like the books - even though the main character is a boy. The conditioning, the conditioning.
This specifically I would wholeheartedly disagree with.  As someone that lived through the Harry Potter phenomenon at the exact right age (I read the first three at age 8, and the last came out when I was 16), it was absolutely both boys and girls that were into those books.  It was everyone.

However, Joanne Rowling definitely deliberately chose to publish as "J. K. Rowling" without it being clear she was a woman, and that's definitely a sign of what we're talking about here.  She's since published as "Robert Galbraith" for presumably the same reason.

I think that's the point that Calimom was trying to make. Both girls and boys read those books because the main character was a boy. No one had to try to convince girls that the books would be any good even though there was a male protagonist.

Imagine if the book had been Hermione Potter. And Harry was her secondary character friend. Pretty sure that would have been a book lots of boys wouldn't want to read because it was a "girl" book.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: ketchup on November 20, 2018, 10:28:54 AM
This is a fascinating topic.
I was talking to some mom friends the other day and I recommended a particular book that my younger daughter just loves (Dory Fantasmagory - a great book for anyone with a 6-7 year old).  The other mother told me that her daughter loved it to and then recommended it to the mother of a boy who was standing with us by saying "the main character is a girl, but I think [her kid] would still like it as she's a real rebel and very funny and not girly at all."  So already in second grade, it's assumed that boys won't want to read about female characters.  But of course this never happens with the millions of books that my girls read with male main characters.

Right? Like Harry Potter for example. No one tells little girls they might like the books - even though the main character is a boy. The conditioning, the conditioning.
This specifically I would wholeheartedly disagree with.  As someone that lived through the Harry Potter phenomenon at the exact right age (I read the first three at age 8, and the last came out when I was 16), it was absolutely both boys and girls that were into those books.  It was everyone.

However, Joanne Rowling definitely deliberately chose to publish as "J. K. Rowling" without it being clear she was a woman, and that's definitely a sign of what we're talking about here.  She's since published as "Robert Galbraith" for presumably the same reason.

I think that's the point that Calimom was trying to make. Both girls and boys read those books because the main character was a boy. No one had to try to convince girls that the books would be any good even though there was a male protagonist.

Imagine if the book had been Hermione Potter. And Harry was her secondary character friend. Pretty sure that would have been a book lots of boys wouldn't want to read because it was a "girl" book.
Oh crap, you're right.  I completely misread that.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: J Boogie on November 20, 2018, 12:01:11 PM
For thousands of years, it's been mostly men that have been the ones tasked with (or viewed another way, have had the opportunity to go out and do) activities such as hunting, fighting, building and many other forms of work. Often these activities are dangerous, exciting, or interesting.

Women, on the other hand, have largely been tasked with domestic activities for millennia. Often these activities are repetitive, mindless, and in comparison, boring. Any Moms out there received snarky or underwhelming reactions when they shared that they are *just* a stay at home mom? As if being an account manager or an insurance broker or a data analyst is like being Sinbad the Sailor.

Roughly 60 years now we've been transitioning into an era where women are regularly engaging outside of the domestic arena. And now that we are more advanced in the developed world, with washing machines and industrial agriculture and daycare, women have more options.

But this is the very beginning. Massive, longstanding cultural norms have idiosyncrasies that can linger.








Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OtherJen on November 20, 2018, 01:24:48 PM
Dollar Slice mentioned the paucity of female composers in classical music. Iíve been a choral singer for 25 years. Most of my directors have been men, and they rarely (if ever) selected pieces by women. In my current group, one of the other women pointed this out to our (male) director who was initially shocked and defensive, but acknowledged the issue once he spent some time reflecting. His default was ďmale composer,Ē and he gravitated toward those works without ever considering that he might be excluding a lot of repertoire. We now have two very well-written pieces by female composers on this yearís holiday program, and they seem to be favorites of everyone in the group.

What songs?  I joined a choir this year, and most of our songs are by men (including Henry VIII) or traditional.

I donít have the music handy, but one of them is ďThe Snow Is Deep on the GroundĒ by Katie Kring. A cappella, 8-part splits, absolutely gorgeous.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on November 20, 2018, 01:34:21 PM
Most (all?) men's sports are more physical...faster throws, higher jumps, quicker turns, larger impacts, whatever.

Not that extremes have to make a sport more entertaining, but I suspect many prefer that.

For instance, Women's tennis tends to have longer points/rallies.  Men's tennis tends to be quicker points (aces, serve/volley).  Actually, in this way, I prefer women's tennis.

On a flip side....there is no women's baseball or football, so one doesn't even have a choice.  I really don't like football or basketball personally.


I never thought about actors/actresses though I have recently liked a couple TV directors..(Sam Esmail, Noah Hawley, Vince Gilligan) and they are all male so there's that. Typically, I just like weirder/mind F/deeper shows. I don't really care who produces them as long as they just keep doing it!

Music, I'm pretty even keeled.  I enjoy all sorts of male, female, and mixed groups.  I think the last album I purchased was Goldfrapp. 

Maybe I am influenced, but I just follow what looks or sounds interesting or fun.  Who's behind the camera or writing or starring, or whatever is truly secondary.  Except for Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise.  Sorry, I just despise those guys.  Apologies to any fans.  I can;t think of an actress that I dislike in such a way.
Funny, though my husband and I aren't really "into" sports, this is exactly why we prefer women's sports.

Back in the day (pre-kids), we played a lot of volleyball.  It's our sport.  When he was in grad school and could get into the games for free (I had to pay), we went to a lot of games.  We MUCH preferred women's games because of the longer rallies.  We did recently have a date night to a men's game.  It was good.  Just not as exciting.

Likewise, tennis.  He played tennis in HS, and we much prefer watching women's tennis.  (We don't have cable or over-the-air TV, so it's not a common thing.)

At one point, years ago, I tried to watch a few NBA games, and the TRAVELING drove me effing bonkers after watching HS games with real refs.  I had to stop.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 20, 2018, 04:37:58 PM
Dollar Slice mentioned the paucity of female composers in classical music. Iíve been a choral singer for 25 years. Most of my directors have been men, and they rarely (if ever) selected pieces by women. In my current group, one of the other women pointed this out to our (male) director who was initially shocked and defensive, but acknowledged the issue once he spent some time reflecting. His default was ďmale composer,Ē and he gravitated toward those works without ever considering that he might be excluding a lot of repertoire. We now have two very well-written pieces by female composers on this yearís holiday program, and they seem to be favorites of everyone in the group.

What songs?  I joined a choir this year, and most of our songs are by men (including Henry VIII) or traditional.

I donít have the music handy, but one of them is ďThe Snow Is Deep on the GroundĒ by Katie Kring. A cappella, 8-part splits, absolutely gorgeous.

Thanks.  We are all women, so we do up to 4 part harmony.  Must find it on Youtube and listen.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: koshtra on November 20, 2018, 04:51:17 PM
Dunno. I'm a huge fan of women's soccer, and a total fanboy of Tobin Heath.

Men's soccer is okay, but it feels like a different game -- they can cover so much more of the field, and move across it so fast, that it feels (to someone used to women's soccer) like they're playing on a cramped little field with no real surge and flow. The women's games feel a little more raw and ragged and open.

Plus the women are all playing it just because they love the game, since there isn't a huge pro salary dangling in front of them. And there's a lot less of the injury histrionics. They get knocked down, they just get back up and keep playing.

At this point I'd guess a lot of the disparity is just legacy. There's a huge infrastructure already in place supporting men's sports. It takes decades, generations, to work up a real sports culture. The men's teams and their fans are already there taking up most of the space.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 20, 2018, 04:56:27 PM
Dunno. I'm a huge fan of women's soccer, and a total fanboy of Tobin Heath.

Men's soccer is okay, but it feels like a different game -- they can cover so much more of the field, and move across it so fast, that it feels (to someone used to women's soccer) like they're playing on a cramped little field with no real surge and flow. The women's games feel a little more raw and ragged and open.

Plus the women are all playing it just because they love the game, since there isn't a huge pro salary dangling in front of them. And there's a lot less of the injury histrionics. They get knocked down, they just get back up and keep playing.

At this point I'd guess a lot of the disparity is just legacy. There's a huge infrastructure already in place supporting men's sports. It takes decades, generations, to work up a real sports culture. The men's teams and their fans are already there taking up most of the space.

Omg yes. Menís soccer is freaking ridiculous about this. Any other player gets near someone, and the guy instantly drops to the ground and clutches a random body part like heís being murdered. You donít see that kind of histrionic behavior in womenís soccer.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 20, 2018, 07:26:48 PM
The anatomy of men and women is very different. A lot of it has nothing to do with social norms.

It is proven that testosterone is one of the primary hormones responsibility for intensity, aggression, and muscle mass. A womanís testosterone levels average about 15-70 ng/DL, while menís average around 380-1000 ng/DL.

This is a huge part of the reason that men are faster, more athletic, play with more aggression, etc.

This is why menís roles in movies are often way different than womenís, and, of course, why men would be more attracted to these roles.

I honestly believe that these exact biological reasons are responsible for a lot of other male issues in our society.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: acepedro45 on November 21, 2018, 01:15:48 PM
Very thought-provoking topic and discussion!

I (a hetero middle-aged male) was struggling to come up with women artists/performers/authors that I dig who aren't also trafficking in at least some degree of sex appeal.

I did come up with two examples where my fanboyism cannot be linked to appearance (since I have no idea what either one looks like): Denise Mueller-Korenek, owner of the world's fastest recorded time on a bicycle at just under 184 mph and and the MMM forum's own Laura33.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 21, 2018, 02:00:31 PM
A certain part of the reason that people watch sport is because they want to see some of the best athletes in the world competing against each other.  In the vast majority of sports, women aren't as good as men.  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that a female pro-anything player will run rings around your average Joe . . . but at the upper levels of nearly every sport, women tend to not be as good.  That's the reason that we have separate men's and women's sports to begin with.  If they were mixed the men will dominate.

I think that there's a valid reason why some people wouldn't want to watch women competing in sport for this reason.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: big_owl on November 21, 2018, 03:06:27 PM
A certain part of the reason that people watch sport is because they want to see some of the best athletes in the world competing against each other.  In the vast majority of sports, women aren't as good as men.  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that a female pro-anything player will run rings around your average Joe . . . but at the upper levels of nearly every sport, women tend to not be as good.  That's the reason that we have separate men's and women's sports to begin with.  If they were mixed the men will dominate.

I think that there's a valid reason why some people wouldn't want to watch women competing in sport for this reason.

I was hesitant to respond to this thread for fear of getting flamed, but since you went first...yes that explains my lack of interest in female sports.  I'm into track and field and bodybuilding.  Female bodybuilding...well no.  But track and field...if I look at the 2016 Olympics in the events I'm interested in, as a highschooler my PR times were not far off from the top three Olympic times for women.  It's hard to get excited about female athletes who really aren't any better than I was when I was 17yo.  I'm not much into professional sports like NFL and so on, but for things like WNBA vs NBA, the WNBA are just way more boring than NBA.

The other thing that gets me is that as a almost 40yo male, if I was getting excited about 20-something females I'd be almost universally labeled as a creeper. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 21, 2018, 04:56:43 PM
So those of you who only want to watch the top levels in sports - I trust you do not watch junior hockey, high school football, or any other sport where level of play is not world class?

I have heard people go for the opposite viewpoint, that because women do not have the sheer strength to muscle through in a sport, they go for planning, finesse, and strategy, which can make the game (whatever game it is) equally interesting in its own way. 

Women's curling is just as interesting as men's, and so is mixed.  Each requires different technique.  (Curling is much more interesting than baseball, it is just most people have no clue about what is going on in the game).

Anecdote - I forget where I saw this, in show jumping, when there are multiple people in a tie, sometimes they have the riders trade horses.  Riding someone else's horse, it is usually a woman who wins - because she knows it is the team of the horse and her, not just her, that needs to complete the round.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 21, 2018, 05:19:47 PM
So those of you who only want to watch the top levels in sports - I trust you do not watch junior hockey, high school football, or any other sport where level of play is not world class?

I have heard people go for the opposite viewpoint, that because women do not have the sheer strength to muscle through in a sport, they go for planning, finesse, and strategy, which can make the game (whatever game it is) equally interesting in its own way. 

Women's curling is just as interesting as men's, and so is mixed.  Each requires different technique.  (Curling is much more interesting than baseball, it is just most people have no clue about what is going on in the game).

Anecdote - I forget where I saw this, in show jumping, when there are multiple people in a tie, sometimes they have the riders trade horses.  Riding someone else's horse, it is usually a woman who wins - because she knows it is the team of the horse and her, not just her, that needs to complete the round.

Some sports I believe that you can certainly make that argument.

I like to watch judo, BJJ, boxing, Muay Thai, and the occasional MMA fight.  It's hard to find this stuff televised, and I've watched (and participated in) many local amateur matches.  I'll take what I can get.  :P  The caliber and skill of high level men vs high level women in combat sports that I have seen is not even close though.  It's phenomenally higher for men (maybe because far fewer women take up competitive combat sports?  I don't know.)  Because of this I'd opt for watching men rather than women every time that a pro match is on.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on November 21, 2018, 07:40:30 PM
One mental question I toy with sometimes is how to make a team sport everyone can play. Something men, women, and people with tall and stocky physiques can play together as a team with each making equal contributions. 

Bonus if you can add people in wheelchairs.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: koshtra on November 21, 2018, 08:49:09 PM
Huh. It doesn't occur to me to compare the female to the male athletes. (I mean, I can do it now, as a thought exercise, but it's not something that springs naturally to my mind.) Any more than I'd see a greyhound race and think, "well, a cheetah could outrun any of them, so no point in watching this."

Which is maybe the crudest gender essentialism, on my part...? I dunno.

I'm not aware of anything creepy about my engagement with it. (For that matter, it's not clear to me why watching 20-something young men run about is automatically non-creepy. I think we're just used to it.)

Not sure how much the fact that we have a bunch of world-cup-contending women playing here in Portland has to do with my being a fan. In the universe of women's soccer Portland is an important place, and there aren't all that many universes in which it even appears on the map. (Brewing? Zines? Tiny houses?)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 21, 2018, 09:46:34 PM
So those of you who only want to watch the top levels in sports - I trust you do not watch junior hockey, high school football, or any other sport where level of play is not world class?

I have heard people go for the opposite viewpoint, that because women do not have the sheer strength to muscle through in a sport, they go for planning, finesse, and strategy, which can make the game (whatever game it is) equally interesting in its own way. 

Women's curling is just as interesting as men's, and so is mixed.  Each requires different technique.  (Curling is much more interesting than baseball, it is just most people have no clue about what is going on in the game).

Anecdote - I forget where I saw this, in show jumping, when there are multiple people in a tie, sometimes they have the riders trade horses.  Riding someone else's horse, it is usually a woman who wins - because she knows it is the team of the horse and her, not just her, that needs to complete the round.

Some sports I believe that you can certainly make that argument.

I like to watch judo, BJJ, boxing, Muay Thai, and the occasional MMA fight.  It's hard to find this stuff televised, and I've watched (and participated in) many local amateur matches.  I'll take what I can get.  :P  The caliber and skill of high level men vs high level women in combat sports that I have seen is not even close though.  It's phenomenally higher for men (maybe because far fewer women take up competitive combat sports?  I don't know.)  Because of this I'd opt for watching men rather than women every time that a pro match is on.

Iím also a big MMA fan. While I typically mostly watch the male athletes, I do greatly enjoy some of the top females, primarily Cris Cyborg. Rhonda Rousey, IMO, is a major black eye to womenís sports. I cannot recall a single athlete in personal memory that was such a sore loser/quitter, as she was. She had every potential to become an icon for women athletes, but instead fell into the negative stereotype that society is pushing to move past.

As an example - Cyborg is one of the strongest, hardest strikers in the sport. I remember a fight where she had knocked her opponent wobbly, and was able to continually land hard, heavy face punches over and over and over. Even then, she didnít have the strength to knock her opponent out. Does it happen? Sure, but itís nowhere near the same. For a strength comparison, I believe itís just been in the last few decades that the first woman was able to bench 300lbs. Anymore, for a man, a 300lb bench press isnít even anything that impressive.

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: big_owl on November 22, 2018, 03:41:21 AM
Huh. It doesn't occur to me to compare the female to the male athletes. (I mean, I can do it now, as a thought exercise, but it's not something that springs naturally to my mind.) Any more than I'd see a greyhound race and think, "well, a cheetah could outrun any of them, so no point in watching this."

Which is maybe the crudest gender essentialism, on my part...? I dunno.

I'm not aware of anything creepy about my engagement with it. (For that matter, it's not clear to me why watching 20-something young men run about is automatically non-creepy. I think we're just used to it.)

Not sure how much the fact that we have a bunch of world-cup-contending women playing here in Portland has to do with my being a fan. In the universe of women's soccer Portland is an important place, and there aren't all that many universes in which it even appears on the map. (Brewing? Zines? Tiny houses?)

The difference is that there is no such thing as professional cheetah racing.  But if there was...I bet all of a sudden dog racing would seem slow and it would be much less popular.  There was once a show that compared a greyhound vs a cheetah racing and the cheetah made the dog look like a bumbling idiot.  In slow motion the dog looks pathetic compared to the cat.  But if I had never seen that show then I'd probably still think greyhounds were graceful. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 22, 2018, 05:36:05 AM
Huh. It doesn't occur to me to compare the female to the male athletes. (I mean, I can do it now, as a thought exercise, but it's not something that springs naturally to my mind.) Any more than I'd see a greyhound race and think, "well, a cheetah could outrun any of them, so no point in watching this."

Which is maybe the crudest gender essentialism, on my part...? I dunno.

I'm not aware of anything creepy about my engagement with it. (For that matter, it's not clear to me why watching 20-something young men run about is automatically non-creepy. I think we're just used to it.)

Not sure how much the fact that we have a bunch of world-cup-contending women playing here in Portland has to do with my being a fan. In the universe of women's soccer Portland is an important place, and there aren't all that many universes in which it even appears on the map. (Brewing? Zines? Tiny houses?)

The difference is that there is no such thing as professional cheetah racing.  But if there was...I bet all of a sudden dog racing would seem slow and it would be much less popular.  There was once a show that compared a greyhound vs a cheetah racing and the cheetah made the dog look like a bumbling idiot.  In slow motion the dog looks pathetic compared to the cat.  But if I had never seen that show then I'd probably still think greyhounds were graceful.

Do the comparison you have in real life - dogs versus horses.  People watch horse racing, people watch greyhound racing, they are both valid sports.  Can the be competitive on the same track?  NO.  So instead of looking at women's sports and seeing them as less interesting than the same men's sports (because of the physical presence professional male athletes bring to the game) why not see watching women's sports as a different sport and appreciate what they bring to the game?  Sort of like softball versus baseball, or giant slalom versus slalom.  Otherwise it is the same mind set mentioned way earlier, men are the default and women are the tag-along.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: big_owl on November 22, 2018, 06:04:48 AM
Do the comparison you have in real life - dogs versus horses.  People watch horse racing, people watch greyhound racing, they are both valid sports.  Can the be competitive on the same track?  NO.  So instead of looking at women's sports and seeing them as less interesting than the same men's sports (because of the physical presence professional male athletes bring to the game) why not see watching women's sports as a different sport and appreciate what they bring to the game?  Sort of like softball versus baseball, or giant slalom versus slalom.  Otherwise it is the same mind set mentioned way earlier, men are the default and women are the tag-along.

I don't watch enough sports to really care all that much I guess.  I only have so much time in the day to allot to watching sports and I'm not going to waste it watching anything but the best.  And of the three sports I have interest in - TnF, bbing, and motorcycle racing, only one of then even has women as an option to watch.  Maybe I would feel differently.if I was interested in team sports where the measure of success is less discrete. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 22, 2018, 06:37:48 AM
Do the comparison you have in real life - dogs versus horses.  People watch horse racing, people watch greyhound racing, they are both valid sports.  Can the be competitive on the same track?  NO.  So instead of looking at women's sports and seeing them as less interesting than the same men's sports (because of the physical presence professional male athletes bring to the game) why not see watching women's sports as a different sport and appreciate what they bring to the game?  Sort of like softball versus baseball, or giant slalom versus slalom.  Otherwise it is the same mind set mentioned way earlier, men are the default and women are the tag-along.

I don't watch enough sports to really care all that much I guess.  I only have so much time in the day to allot to watching sports and I'm not going to waste it watching anything but the best.  And of the three sports I have interest in - TnF, bbing, and motorcycle racing, only one of then even has women as an option to watch.  Maybe I would feel differently.if I was interested in team sports where the measure of success is less discrete.

My comment was about how we set up comparisons.  If your favourite sports only have men competing (and why, I wonder) then you will obviously be watching men competing.  But it is the "Men's sports are the norm that women's sports have to be compared to" attitude that I wanted to challenge.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 22, 2018, 07:14:58 AM
One mental question I toy with sometimes is how to make a team sport everyone can play. Something men, women, and people with tall and stocky physiques can play together as a team with each making equal contributions. 

Bonus if you can add people in wheelchairs.

There's gotta be a way that you could rig motorsports to fit this category.  No reason a woman couldn't drive a race car as well as a man, and with accommodations made for the disabilities (some kind of hand rather than pedal accelerator/braking system) I think a fit person without legs would be able to drive pretty well too.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: yakamashii on November 22, 2018, 07:20:20 AM
One mental question I toy with sometimes is how to make a team sport everyone can play. Something men, women, and people with tall and stocky physiques can play together as a team with each making equal contributions. 

Bonus if you can add people in wheelchairs.

There's gotta be a way that you could rig motorsports to fit this category.  No reason a woman couldn't drive a race car as well as a man, and with accommodations made for the disabilities (some kind of hand rather than pedal accelerator/braking system) I think a fit person without legs would be able to drive pretty well too.

Pickleball bills itself as a game for everyone:

https://www.usapa.org/what-is-pickleball-a-game-for-everyone/ (https://www.usapa.org/what-is-pickleball-a-game-for-everyone/)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: runbikerun on November 22, 2018, 07:25:37 AM
A few thoughts, in no particular order:

1. MGTOW is completely irrelevant, because it's a microscopic fringe movement based on weapons-grade bollocks. I appreciate that this sounds dismissive, but that's because it's meant to be. You should have seen what I was originally going to write.

2. I feel a little conflicted when it comes to live music, because I've spent more than a reasonable amount of time playing drums in bands that went nowhere. The heavy male bias you see on festival lineups is replicated at your local bar and even in rehearsal studios - for some reason, playing live non-classical music is a very male endeavour. I can't swear that I've seen ten women in rehearsal studios in my life. There is a very heavy bias in operation somewhere, but  it appears to be at a much deeper level than that of booking agents (although I don't doubt there are booking agents who will make sexist assumptions).

3. With sports, I think we're struggling against history: the idea of elite women's sports in a lot of disciplines is quite recent, and taking those women seriously is too often even more recent. It seems less of an issue in newer sports: triathlon, for example, started relatively recently and has adhered to a very strong standard of gender equality, and Daniela Ryf and Gwen Jorgensen get as much attention as Patrick Lange and Alastair Brownlee.

4. The post suggesting that men have real difficulty in not thinking about women in sexual terms is uncomfortably close to the truth. I don't like it about myself, but I do have a clear idea of whether I'm attracted to almost every woman I meet, regardless of whether it's relevant.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dollar Slice on November 22, 2018, 08:00:18 AM
2. I feel a little conflicted when it comes to live music, because I've spent more than a reasonable amount of time playing drums in bands that went nowhere. The heavy male bias you see on festival lineups is replicated at your local bar and even in rehearsal studios - for some reason, playing live non-classical music is a very male endeavour. I can't swear that I've seen ten women in rehearsal studios in my life. There is a very heavy bias in operation somewhere, but  it appears to be at a much deeper level than that of booking agents (although I don't doubt there are booking agents who will make sexist assumptions).

As far as I can tell, it starts in childhood and never stops. Little girls are not taught to play certain instruments (tuba, drums, trumpet, electric guitar/bass, trombone, etc.) and are strongly encouraged to play certain "ladylike" instruments (violin, piano, flute, voice, etc.). And women stepping out of the stereotype are discouraged at every step of the way by teachers, male musicians, promoters, club owners, etc.

I know a lot of musicians, and I'm amazed at some of the stuff that goes on even in a very progressive music scene. So many men that would seem like the most pro-equality, feminist people still don't hire women to be in their bands ever. Even as a fan I've gotten some weird sexist stuff - older men always seem amazed that a young looking woman knows anything about "their" style of music.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 22, 2018, 08:33:04 AM
2. I feel a little conflicted when it comes to live music, because I've spent more than a reasonable amount of time playing drums in bands that went nowhere. The heavy male bias you see on festival lineups is replicated at your local bar and even in rehearsal studios - for some reason, playing live non-classical music is a very male endeavour. I can't swear that I've seen ten women in rehearsal studios in my life. There is a very heavy bias in operation somewhere, but  it appears to be at a much deeper level than that of booking agents (although I don't doubt there are booking agents who will make sexist assumptions).

As far as I can tell, it starts in childhood and never stops. Little girls are not taught to play certain instruments (tuba, drums, trumpet, electric guitar/bass, trombone, etc.) and are strongly encouraged to play certain "ladylike" instruments (violin, piano, flute, voice, etc.). And women stepping out of the stereotype are discouraged at every step of the way by teachers, male musicians, promoters, club owners, etc.

I know a lot of musicians, and I'm amazed at some of the stuff that goes on even in a very progressive music scene. So many men that would seem like the most pro-equality, feminist people still don't hire women to be in their bands ever. Even as a fan I've gotten some weird sexist stuff - older men always seem amazed that a young looking woman knows anything about "their" style of music.

This. 1000 times this.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 22, 2018, 10:16:24 AM
2. I feel a little conflicted when it comes to live music, because I've spent more than a reasonable amount of time playing drums in bands that went nowhere. The heavy male bias you see on festival lineups is replicated at your local bar and even in rehearsal studios - for some reason, playing live non-classical music is a very male endeavour. I can't swear that I've seen ten women in rehearsal studios in my life. There is a very heavy bias in operation somewhere, but  it appears to be at a much deeper level than that of booking agents (although I don't doubt there are booking agents who will make sexist assumptions).

As far as I can tell, it starts in childhood and never stops. Little girls are not taught to play certain instruments (tuba, drums, trumpet, electric guitar/bass, trombone, etc.) and are strongly encouraged to play certain "ladylike" instruments (violin, piano, flute, voice, etc.). And women stepping out of the stereotype are discouraged at every step of the way by teachers, male musicians, promoters, club owners, etc.

I know a lot of musicians, and I'm amazed at some of the stuff that goes on even in a very progressive music scene. So many men that would seem like the most pro-equality, feminist people still don't hire women to be in their bands ever. Even as a fan I've gotten some weird sexist stuff - older men always seem amazed that a young looking woman knows anything about "their" style of music.

While Iím very ďmale orientedĒ in things such as sports, movies, authors, Iím very pro female vocals when it comes to music. My last 2 concerts were two artist Iíve wanted to see more than anyone right now, both female.

In terms of bands, like rock bands, I can understand men wanting to keep their group male. Mostly in the same sense young males often hang out/go out in groups together. When it comes to sex and that lifestyle, having a woman could make things awkward.

In a sense, itís similar to outside work activities. At work, everyone is professional (usually) and many professions are a blend of men and women. However outside of work, or even work meetings that are just men, it can have a different, rougher tone. I am friends with a few guys at work and we hang out, outside of work, and one girl definitely gets offended when she isnít included. It sucks because we all love the girl, she is a blast, great sense of humor, but thereís just that fear that guys get together, outside of work, and someone says something jokingly and the woman can get really offended or look at you differently moving forward. It sucks, but itís not worth the risk. That being said, when there are obvious work activities, everyone is invited.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 22, 2018, 10:18:09 AM
In a sense, itís similar to outside work activities. At work, everyone is professional (usually) and many professions are a blend of men and women. However outside of work, or even work meetings that are just men, it can have a different, rougher tone. I am friends with a few guys at work and we hang out, outside of work, and one girl definitely gets offended when she isnít included. It sucks because we all love the girl, she is a blast, great sense of humor, but thereís just that fear that guys get together, outside of work, and someone says something jokingly and the woman can get really offended or look at you differently moving forward. It sucks, but itís not worth the risk. That being said, when there are obvious work activities, everyone is invited.

You could just . . . not say offensive stuff.  :P
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 22, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
In a sense, itís similar to outside work activities. At work, everyone is professional (usually) and many professions are a blend of men and women. However outside of work, or even work meetings that are just men, it can have a different, rougher tone. I am friends with a few guys at work and we hang out, outside of work, and one girl definitely gets offended when she isnít included. It sucks because we all love the girl, she is a blast, great sense of humor, but thereís just that fear that guys get together, outside of work, and someone says something jokingly and the woman can get really offended or look at you differently moving forward. It sucks, but itís not worth the risk. That being said, when there are obvious work activities, everyone is invited.

You could just . . . not say offensive stuff.  :P

use2betrix's reasoning was one of the reasons used to keep women out of the workforce, especially blue collar jobs (especially the ones that paid well).

Personally, due to the field I was in, I attended lots of outside work events which were massively male (lots of times there were only 1 or 2 women).  Not an issue, I guess I hung out professionally with a better grade of men.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 22, 2018, 12:46:41 PM
In a sense, itís similar to outside work activities. At work, everyone is professional (usually) and many professions are a blend of men and women. However outside of work, or even work meetings that are just men, it can have a different, rougher tone. I am friends with a few guys at work and we hang out, outside of work, and one girl definitely gets offended when she isnít included. It sucks because we all love the girl, she is a blast, great sense of humor, but thereís just that fear that guys get together, outside of work, and someone says something jokingly and the woman can get really offended or look at you differently moving forward. It sucks, but itís not worth the risk. That being said, when there are obvious work activities, everyone is invited.

You could just . . . not say offensive stuff.  :P

use2betrix's reasoning was one of the reasons used to keep women out of the workforce, especially blue collar jobs (especially the ones that paid well).

Personally, due to the field I was in, I attended lots of outside work events which were massively male (lots of times there were only 1 or 2 women).  Not an issue, I guess I hung out professionally with a better grade of men.

Or maybe they were more professional because you were around? I donít expect that every group of women acts the exact same as they would if you threw a man from work in their group, and vice versa.

My reasoning has nothing to do with work whatsoever or women in the workforce. Itís purely for non-work related activities outside of work. We have ďteam buildingĒ events at least once a month in which everyone is invited to.

A few years back I worked in a woman dominated industry. A woman I worked with wanted to date me but I wasnít interested. She was mad so her and another girl came up with a ďplanĒ in the break room, to make up some story that I sexually harassed her. Fortunately, another lady I worked with and was good friends with overheard their entire plan. She immediately called me and told me and I left the building and immediately called HR. She was so upset that she could potentially tarnish my career for life and even from a legal perspective. That is the worse time something like that had happened, but a couple other similar scenarios as well.

Call it what you want, but I keep my work environment professional and strictly work related. I will unfortunately minimize the amount of time I would hang out with the opposite sex outside of work because of it. Easier to avoid it altogether.

That being said, my wife is always invited to all the work team buildings events, and is now friends with all the ladies I work with, so thatís good.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: PoutineLover on November 22, 2018, 01:06:39 PM
Why am I not surprised that this thread turned into men defending their sexism..
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist. Only hanging out with male colleagues is sexist.
Women have been excluded from networking, sports, jobs, board positions, you name it, for most of history, and its ridiculous and upsetting that people still have these backwards attitudes, even here.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 22, 2018, 01:44:48 PM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 22, 2018, 02:00:20 PM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Wow.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 22, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Wow.

Well - some of the menís special Olympicís powerlifting numbers are actually higher than the numbers from the womenís categories at the regular olympics......
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 22, 2018, 03:09:40 PM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference. So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?                                                                                                     
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 22, 2018, 03:18:17 PM
Or maybe they were more professional because you were around? I donít expect that every group of women acts the exact same as they would if you threw a man from work in their group, and vice versa.


Or maybe they were professional (relaxed but professional) because it was work-related?  I wouldn't expect an all woman group to suddenly act all unprofessional at an after-work but work-related event just because there were no men.  I've been in both situations (all women, or mostly women, work-related) lots of times, and the presence of the men didn't change things much.  Topics of conversation might vary a bit, but women stay on topic work-wise just as well as men - or maybe more so, given your example.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 22, 2018, 03:41:26 PM
Or maybe they were more professional because you were around? I donít expect that every group of women acts the exact same as they would if you threw a man from work in their group, and vice versa.


Or maybe they were professional (relaxed but professional) because it was work-related?  I wouldn't expect an all woman group to suddenly act all unprofessional at an after-work but work-related event just because there were no men.  I've been in both situations (all women, or mostly women, work-related) lots of times, and the presence of the men didn't change things much.  Topics of conversation might vary a bit, but women stay on topic work-wise just as well as men - or maybe more so, given your example.

Aha - well thereís the difference.

When I hang out with those coworkers, itís not work related. We make every effort to not talk about work or our industry. We hang out as friends, not coworkers.

The entire project is invited to the work related functions. As such, they are all more professional.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 22, 2018, 04:08:12 PM
Aha - well thereís the difference.

When I hang out with those coworkers, itís not work related. We make every effort to not talk about work or our industry. We hang out as friends, not coworkers.

To quote poutinelover
Women have been excluded from networking, sports, jobs, board positions, you name it, for most of history, and its ridiculous and upsetting that people still have these backwards attitudes, even here.

If you hang out with a small subset of your coworkers who are friends, you are hanging out with friends, not coworkers*.   Which means you would be more accurate to say you are hanging out with friends.  If you are hanging out with all or almost all of your male coworkers and not your female coworkers, you are hanging out with coworkers and doing exactly what poutinelover referenced, excluding the women but including the men who are coworkers.  Those outside-of-work colleague friendships are more commonly referred to as the "old boys' club" or "old boys' network".  Same old same old.

*I still hang our with some people who were friends at work and are still friends now that we are retired.  We met as colleagues but ended up as friends outside of work. And I think of them as friends I hang out with, not former colleagues I hang out with.   And some of them are male, how shocking.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 22, 2018, 05:03:01 PM
Aha - well thereís the difference.

When I hang out with those coworkers, itís not work related. We make every effort to not talk about work or our industry. We hang out as friends, not coworkers.

To quote poutinelover
Women have been excluded from networking, sports, jobs, board positions, you name it, for most of history, and its ridiculous and upsetting that people still have these backwards attitudes, even here.

If you hang out with a small subset of your coworkers who are friends, you are hanging out with friends, not coworkers*.   Which means you would be more accurate to say you are hanging out with friends.  If you are hanging out with all or almost all of your male coworkers and not your female coworkers, you are hanging out with coworkers and doing exactly what poutinelover referenced, excluding the women but including the men who are coworkers.  Those outside-of-work colleague friendships are more commonly referred to as the "old boys' club" or "old boys' network".  Same old same old.

*I still hang our with some people who were friends at work and are still friends now that we are retired.  We met as colleagues but ended up as friends outside of work. And I think of them as friends I hang out with, not former colleagues I hang out with.   And some of them are male, how shocking.

I only hang out with two ďcoworkersĒ outside work who are friends. And in my entire career this is very very rare for me to hangout with coworkers outside work. This example has still upset other coworkers that werenít included.

Throughout most of history, women have had very different, yet still very important roles in society. In the 30ís, 40ís, and 50ís, not nearly as many women worked outside the home as today. Even today, women are more likely to be stay at home parents or work part time. That is *gasp* womenís choice to be sahm or work part time. I see women on Facebook complain alllll the time about ďwishingĒ they could be sahmís.

Whatís funny, is my wife and I are young (no kids, but plan to have some) and my wife doesnít work. She stays busy with things around where we live, hobbies, etc, but no work. Her earning potential simply isnít worthwhile for us with my income. I got flamed so hard on this forum in a thread because so many people thought she had it ďso badĒ to not work. But... whatís the difference between her not working and having one person in a couple FIRE before another? She doesnít work, has no money concerns, basically FIRE, yet our society is getting so conditioned to think that both spouses ďneedĒ to work for some reason? Kind of funny in a forum where it seems everyone goal is to ďnot work.Ē If anything, itís sad that so many peopleís spending is often so high that both couples need to work.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 22, 2018, 06:09:43 PM

If you hang out with a small subset of your coworkers who are friends, you are hanging out with friends, not coworkers*.   Which means you would be more accurate to say you are hanging out with friends.  If you are hanging out with all or almost all of your male coworkers and not your female coworkers, you are hanging out with coworkers and doing exactly what poutinelover referenced, excluding the women but including the men who are coworkers.  Those outside-of-work colleague friendships are more commonly referred to as the "old boys' club" or "old boys' network".  Same old same old.

I only hang out with two ďcoworkersĒ outside work who are friends. And in my entire career this is very very rare for me to hangout with coworkers outside work. This example has still upset other coworkers that werenít included.

Throughout most of history, women have had very different, yet still very important roles in society. In the 30ís, 40ís, and 50ís, not nearly as many women worked outside the home as today. Even today, women are more likely to be stay at home parents or work part time. That is *gasp* womenís choice to be sahm or work part time. I see women on Facebook complain alllll the time about ďwishingĒ they could be sahmís.

Whatís funny, is my wife and I are young (no kids, but plan to have some) and my wife doesnít work. She stays busy with things around where we live, hobbies, etc, but no work. Her earning potential simply isnít worthwhile for us with my income. I got flamed so hard on this forum in a thread because so many people thought she had it ďso badĒ to not work. But... whatís the difference between her not working and having one person in a couple FIRE before another? She doesnít work, has no money concerns, basically FIRE, yet our society is getting so conditioned to think that both spouses ďneedĒ to work for some reason? Kind of funny in a forum where it seems everyone goal is to ďnot work.Ē If anything, itís sad that so many peopleís spending is often so high that both couples need to work.

So you are hanging out with friends who you met at work, instead of meeting other ways.

I get the impression (so could very much be wrong) that part of the FIRE goal among married couples is that they get to retire together, and be able to do things together.

Re "work", the thing about a spouse (as you say, usually the woman) staying at home is that she may be working very hard indeed, especially if there are small children, but it is not paid work, so there is no income, no pension.  And it can be very socially isolating.   There have been enough comments on various divorce threads that a non-working spouse is "stealing" the working spouse's assets when assets are split, which denies that the "non-working" spouse was also contributing to the marital finances.  And of course the other reality is that a spouse (again usually the woman) is more likely to stay in a bad marriage if she has no financial resources, i.e. a job or easily employable job skills.  Judge Judy said the best divorce insurance is a good job.  I had friends tell me when I left that they were realizing that it was a good thing they were in a happy marriage, because they had no independent financial resources.  Their husbands did.

Anyway, we have strayed far from the topic and hi-jacked the discussion.  Let's give this part a rest and let others chime in on other aspects.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Paul der Krake on November 22, 2018, 06:59:11 PM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Wow.
What's offensive here?

Women are behind men, at all competitive levels, in virtually every sport ever invented. Even in golf, they are behind because of inherent biological disadvantages. Unless humans change dramatically, it's not going to change.

I have no trouble "admitting" that I don't watch women's tennis. I find it too slow and don't feel like I'm watching the best that the sport has to offer. Of course any woman good enough to appear on TV would absolutely destroy me on the court, but that's beside the point. I don't decide which movies to watch based on my own acting skills either.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 22, 2018, 07:22:11 PM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference.

No.  The best weightlifters in the world in every weight class are men.  Men hold every record in weightlifting.  No woman has ever held a world record that was not significantly bested by a dude.  That's why women have a separate division entirely . . . because they are (to date) incapable of competing physically in the sport at the same level.  This isn't really controversial is it?

Don't get me wrong, top level women who do Olympic weightlifting are very strong, and can crush me in every lift.  But they're not the best in the world . . . and I only watch Olympic lifts once every four years for a few hours.  I just want to watch the best in the world and then forget about them for another four years.  :P


So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?
                                                                                                   

Again, no.  The heaviest weight classes because the tactics and techniques tend to be different than the ones that I use.  My preference is to watch the weight classes that I've fought in.  I have no issue with watching women or amateur fights . . . but the level of technique tends to not be as high, so neither would be my first choice.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: koshtra on November 22, 2018, 10:07:49 PM
To me, the pleasure of sport is people excelling in complex difficult tasks, bringing training and grit and intelligence to a competition. The objective measure of their abilities doesn't really have much to do with why it's fun to watch. I guess this is why I gravitate to watching sports in which people play against each other, rather than against objective marks.

The farther down the road you go to objectively measurable "best in the world," the more you're just selecting for genetic freaks, and the less interesting it is to me. It's the real-time improvisation, the sprezzatura that appeals to me. When I watch Tobin Heath bully two defenders backwards just by her feet being never quite where either of them expect them to be -- I just take delight in that. It's the jeu d'esprit, it's human beings playing a silly game. (What could be sillier than knocking a ball around with your feet and arbitrarily deciding no one can use their hands? It's ridiculous, it's useless. I love it.)

To get that kind of delight you need to feel that the players are, in some sense, evenly matched -- if the players ranged against Heath were children, the delight would vanish, and it would suddenly look ugly rather than fun.

I think of men's and women's sports as more or less analogous to weight-classes in wrestling or boxing -- you don't want to see someone just pounding their opponent into the ground because they're a foot taller and fifty pounds heavier.

(Or maybe we watch sports precisely because we do want to see that. I hope not, though.)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dollar Slice on November 22, 2018, 11:42:11 PM
In terms of bands, like rock bands, I can understand men wanting to keep their group male. Mostly in the same sense young males often hang out/go out in groups together. When it comes to sex and that lifestyle, having a woman could make things awkward.

For the record, I wasn't referring to rock musicians - all the musicians I'm friendly with are jazz and classical and avant-garde. All-male bands are rampant in pretty much every genre. It's not because they're traveling the world banging groupies. Most of them are good guys in LTR or married and it just sort of doesn't occur to them that anyone who doesn't look like them should be in their band. Often because they hire their friends and they're not friends with anyone who doesn't look like them.

There are also guys who don't do that and it's immediately obvious who they are because they constantly hire people from other genders/races/religions. (I'm in NYC so "standard" white Christian men are a minority - a random selection of people is incredibly diverse here.) And those people have the best bands because they are picking up band members who are underrated/underutilized by the majority of people hiring... So instead of getting the twenty-fifth best guy, you get the 2nd best woman since women aren't getting hired. And music isn't weightlifting, so that woman is way better than the guy would have been.

As an aside, I'm really perplexed in general by people who don't have friends of other genders. I've heard people say it can't be done, which is obviously BS since I have tons of them. Gender doesn't define a person, it's just a facet of the personality. I'm frankly suspicious of men who don't have female friends, I figure there must be a reason women don't like to spend time with them! It's just so easy and normal to do, I don't get why some people see it as such a huge deal.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: deborah on November 22, 2018, 11:57:23 PM
There is also a sinister sidelight to barracking for teams. In my country, and I suspect it holds everywhere, when the professional menís teams are having finals or big televised matches, the number of domestic violence incidents that result in hospital admissions goes up significantly.

If we encouraged mixed teams and a more equitable sports coverage, I wonder weather domestic violence would decrease.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 23, 2018, 02:01:16 AM
All-male bands are rampant in pretty much every genre. It's not because they're traveling the world banging groupies. Most of them are good guys in LTR or married and it just sort of doesn't occur to them that anyone who doesn't look like them should be in their band. Often because they hire their friends and they're not friends with anyone who doesn't look like them.

There are also guys who don't do that and it's immediately obvious who they are because they constantly hire people from other genders/races/religions. (I'm in NYC so "standard" white Christian men are a minority - a random selection of people is incredibly diverse here.) And those people have the best bands because they are picking up band members who are underrated/underutilized by the majority of people hiring... So instead of getting the twenty-fifth best guy, you get the 2nd best woman since women aren't getting hired. And music isn't weightlifting, so that woman is way better than the guy would have been.

I have other thoughts about this entire thread but I wanted to follow up on this item. Because yes, it is possible to recognize that straight white males have had the mic for a long time and that it might be a good idea to make a real effort to hand the mic off to other people sometimes, and it is possible for that effort to lead to an A-OK result. One example that comes to mind that might resonate here is the Lovett Or Leave It podcast. It's one of the popular Crooked Media productions, and you only have to listen a couple of times before clueing in to the fact that Lovett is making a real, consistent, ongoing effort to feature guests who are not straight white males.* His panels are usually majority female and often majority non-white. And people like his show! Woke millennial lefty dudes listen to it!

I'm getting a strong message here in this thread that liking dude stuff is natural and inevitable, and I'm taking this opportunity to firmly push back against that narrative. We're evolved beings with sophisticated brains. We can decide what we want to pay attention to.


*I truly have nothing against straight white males. The point is that we're already centering them and have done for millennia. Which leads to situations like the OP points out, where content from straight white males is considered standard and enjoyed by all, whereas content from other groups is considered weird and marginal.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 23, 2018, 02:05:26 AM
Countdown to some bro commenting that he likes Lovett but hates his panels ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 23, 2018, 02:35:17 AM
Finally: Sorry. I couldn't resist.

the MGTOW movement seems to be gaining steam.

No. Just, no. No it is not.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: libertarian4321 on November 23, 2018, 02:39:48 AM
It seems less of an issue in newer sports: triathlon, for example, started relatively recently and has adhered to a very strong standard of gender equality, and Daniela Ryf and Gwen Jorgensen get as much attention as Patrick Lange and Alastair Brownlee.

This is true.  None of them gets any attention, so it's equal?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: libertarian4321 on November 23, 2018, 02:53:18 AM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

Not really.  The NBA is huge.  A WNBA game draws about as many fans as a good tiddlywinks competition.

Is that because of sexism, or just because the women are really, really bad at basketball?

Look at it this way, not many people pay a lot of attention to the NBDL/G-League (or other men's minor league basketball), either.  Why?  Because it's second rate basketball (though the worst players in the G-League are still vastly superior to anything in the WNBA).  People just don't want to spend money to watch poor performance. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: runbikerun on November 23, 2018, 03:26:09 AM
The question of sport is quite interesting: how much of the disparity in viewing figures between genders is the result of a difference in quality, and how much is inertia?

In a lot of sports, there's an argument to be made that ever-increasing fitness levels have left the men's game stale and dour. The comment earlier that women's football is more likely to be open and unpredictable than men's rings true: it's the same in rugby, as we now have the men's field being defended by fifteen professional athletes with massive physical strength, superb aerobic and anaerobic capacity, and recovery times measured in seconds. It's still a thrilling contest, but freewheeling seat-of-the-pants play has more or less vanished from the top level of the men's game and been replaced with carefully designed playing patterns.

In cycling, the problem is weirder: the men's tour is built around gruelling distances and race formats which remain unchanged since the 1950s, and has created at least three entirely separate categories of top-class rider, with no real way of saying definitively who the best cyclist is. We now have a situation where the biggest stage races of the year occur almost entirely while people are at work, and the biggest one-day races often stick to a format that makes no sense in the modern day. Milan-Sanremo is 294 kilometres long, and there are huge numbers of serious cycling fans who won't bother tuning in until the race is into the last 10, because 97% of one of the biggest races of the year is absolutely awful to watch. The women's races, for various reasons, tend to be about 130-160km, and so the women's calendar is packed full of races that last about three or four hours at most and feature all of the big names fighting each other. When Coryn Rivera went on a rampage and won almost everything she turned up to, she was the undisputed best in the peloton at that point. On an objective basis, the women's races are better to watch.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Sailor Sam on November 23, 2018, 06:00:44 AM
This thread is surprising me. I'm not talking about the hyperbolic emotions of the internet, I'm genuinely taken aback. Posters are admire for their well organized and well articulated philosophies are flying an unapologetic flag of sexism. Many women have contributed, pointing to the sexism, and the same posters are still saying their responses are not sexist.

These same arguments of physicality and intelligence were used as part of Jim Crow. Yet here we all sit, having the same damn discussion, and these smart posters I admire are doubling down on their positions. It's bizarre.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 23, 2018, 06:31:38 AM
In terms of bands, like rock bands, I can understand men wanting to keep their group male. Mostly in the same sense young males often hang out/go out in groups together. When it comes to sex and that lifestyle, having a woman could make things awkward.


As an aside, I'm really perplexed in general by people who don't have friends of other genders. I've heard people say it can't be done, which is obviously BS since I have tons of them. Gender doesn't define a person, it's just a facet of the personality. I'm frankly suspicious of men who don't have female friends, I figure there must be a reason women don't like to spend time with them! It's just so easy and normal to do, I don't get why some people see it as such a huge deal.

FYI - every point I above was strictly related to female coworker/friends. Aside from work functions, I typically do not hang out with female coworkers outside of work as ďfriendsĒ in the same capacity that I would some male coworkers. I have tons of female friends who are not associated with work that I talk to regularly with and will meet up with (typically with my wife as well).
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dollar Slice on November 23, 2018, 06:45:32 AM
FYI - every point I above was strictly related to female coworker/friends. Aside from work functions, I typically do not hang out with female coworkers outside of work as ďfriendsĒ in the same capacity that I would some male coworkers. I have tons of female friends who are not associated with work that I talk to regularly with and will meet up with (typically with my wife as well).

I wasn't attacking you in that paragraph, I was referring to the earlier paragraph I wrote that you cut from the quote, about male musicians I know only hiring their friends (who are all men).

Although now I'm wondering why you're so defensive about it ;-)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: runbikerun on November 23, 2018, 06:48:31 AM
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: driftwood on November 23, 2018, 07:00:50 AM
This thread is surprising me. I'm not talking about the hyperbolic emotions of the internet, I'm genuinely taken aback. Posters are admire for their well organized and well articulated philosophies are flying an unapologetic flag of sexism. Many women have contributed, pointing to the sexism, and the same posters are still saying their responses are not sexist.

These same arguments of physicality and intelligence were used as part of Jim Crow. Yet here we all sit, having the same damn discussion, and these smart posters I admire are doubling down on their positions. It's bizarre.

It may very well be sexism. I honestly don't care whether something is labeled sexism/sexist or not. Ok, you put a label on it. But what's your solution? Should men feel guilty for only wanting to watch men's sports? If so, should women feel guilty for not supporting women's supports to the same level men's sports are supported? People will spend their time and money to support events they want to watch. Posters on here mentioned specific examples of wanting to watch both women's and men's sports for different reasons.

I guess my point is, for sports, that every single person who watches sports will gravitate towards a sport that attracts them. You can point at racism or sexism but that doesn't change what they're attracted to.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Sailor Sam on November 23, 2018, 07:14:40 AM
This thread is surprising me. I'm not talking about the hyperbolic emotions of the internet, I'm genuinely taken aback. Posters are admire for their well organized and well articulated philosophies are flying an unapologetic flag of sexism. Many women have contributed, pointing to the sexism, and the same posters are still saying their responses are not sexist.

These same arguments of physicality and intelligence were used as part of Jim Crow. Yet here we all sit, having the same damn discussion, and these smart posters I admire are doubling down on their positions. It's bizarre.

It may very well be sexism. I honestly don't care whether something is labeled sexism/sexist or not. Ok, you put a label on it. But what's your solution? Should men feel guilty for only wanting to watch men's sports? If so, should women feel guilty for not supporting women's supports to the same level men's sports are supported? People will spend their time and money to support events they want to watch. Posters on here mentioned specific examples of wanting to watch both women's and men's sports for different reasons.

I guess my point is, for sports, that every single person who watches sports will gravitate towards a sport that attracts them. You can point at racism or sexism but that doesn't change what they're attracted to.

You've misinterpreted the point of my original post. My surprise is not over sports. My surprise is over posters using such trite and recycled language to justify their biases.

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 23, 2018, 08:01:13 AM
In cycling, the problem is weirder: the men's tour is built around gruelling distances and race formats which remain unchanged since the 1950s, and has created at least three entirely separate categories of top-class rider, with no real way of saying definitively who the best cyclist is. We now have a situation where the biggest stage races of the year occur almost entirely while people are at work, and the biggest one-day races often stick to a format that makes no sense in the modern day. Milan-Sanremo is 294 kilometres long, and there are huge numbers of serious cycling fans who won't bother tuning in until the race is into the last 10, because 97% of one of the biggest races of the year is absolutely awful to watch. The women's races, for various reasons, tend to be about 130-160km, and so the women's calendar is packed full of races that last about three or four hours at most and feature all of the big names fighting each other. When Coryn Rivera went on a rampage and won almost everything she turned up to, she was the undisputed best in the peloton at that point. On an objective basis, the women's races are better to watch.

I agree.  Cycling is really about the jockeying for position, timing, and other elements of race-craft.  The women's cycling that I've seen is at least as (if not more) exciting than the men's stuff.  The sad thing is that there are no multi-week stage races for women's cycling.  The Tour de France, the Vuelta, the Giro, all dudes only.  I would watch a women's version of the Tour over a men's version (especially given how Sky kinda makes the men's Tour less and less fun to watch every year).

My argument above about an upper level technique difference is not true across all sport.  It was specific to certain combat sports (BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, and Muay Thai).  It's not even true across all combat sports.  Olympic Taewkondo for example, the competition between men and women is pretty evenly matched technique-wise.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Caroline PF on November 23, 2018, 10:22:38 AM
Throughout most of history, women have had very different, yet still very important roles in society. In the 30ís, 40ís, and 50ís, not nearly as many women worked outside the home as today. Even today, women are more likely to be stay at home parents or work part time. That is *gasp* womenís choice to be sahm or work part time. I see women on Facebook complain alllll the time about ďwishingĒ they could be sahmís.

I just wanted to address this. Yes, women are choosing to stay home, or work part-time, but it is not a decision that is made in a vacuum. They are assessing a bunch of different factors in that decision, and there are a lot of systemic issues that make staying at home more palatable for women. You actually address one in your next paragraph.

Whatís funny, is my wife and I are young (no kids, but plan to have some) and my wife doesnít work. She stays busy with things around where we live, hobbies, etc, but no work. Her earning potential simply isnít worthwhile for us with my income.

A big reason that she stays home is that her earning potential is much less than yours. So unless she absolutely loved her job, why would she keep working? And why is her earning potential so much lower? Her individual choices, of course, but there are systemic, sexist reasons why women end up in lower paying jobs. To start with, back in the 30s to 50s, it was legal to pay women less than a man for the same work. So careers that attracted women were paid less for blatantly sexist reasons. And those careers are still paid less due to inertia, and justified by saying (incorrectly) that free-market just doesn't value those contributions as much, and it's not our fault women like that kind of work (not to mention the cultural forces telling girls and boys what careers they should or should not be interested in when they grow up).

The problem with sexism (and racism) today is that, with rare exceptions, it is not blatant anymore. There are entrenched systemic issues that are not easily seen or fixed, but all people hear when they hear women cry sexism, is 'mad men' type blatant sexism that really isn't a problem anymore.

So nowadays, a woman and a man in the same role, same job, are generally paid the same. But men tend to end up in higher paying careers due to residual effects from blatant sexism decades ago.

And mothers are excluded from promotion tracks because it's 'common knowledge' that a woman will value her children over her career, so don't bother promoting her, cause she'll end up wanting to go part time anyway. And then she eventually does go part time because she has been passed over for promotion repeatedly, while her husband has been promoted several times. So now he makes more, and it makes financial sense for her to go part-time rather than him. And those who originally passed her over feel justified in their decision.

The woman who doesn't have kids avoids that particular booby-trap, but is still promoted at a lesser rate than men if there is a boys' club mentality. It is perfectly natural for those in power to promote their friends, and those that they know well. So if there is a robust friend network that excludes women (because our language might get raunchy and offend; or women just won't be interested in what men are), then promotions will naturally go to the friend group, and to men. Or even worse than the boys club is the leader who won't spend time alone with women (aka Pence) in order to protect his moral purity. So now he can mentor young men into a promotion track, but women are excluded.

All of these things are little, but they are cumulative. And they are hard to eradicate because they are not blatant.



To get this back to the fanboy discussion, I don't believe that most people are being sexist in their choices. Instead I think that our system is set up to favor men, and they are seen as mainstream. So men are promoted and shown more, so more people are exposed to them and like them. For instance, if I want to watch sports on OTA television, I don't have any options other than the most popular (aka mens' sports). And if I have cable or internet, there are simply many more male options than female. Many other posters have pointed this out.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: wordnerd on November 23, 2018, 11:35:14 AM
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

Yes, and people watch the MFing Little League World Series on TV. I think elite female athletes might have the edge on large 12 year olds.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OneStep on November 23, 2018, 11:49:03 AM
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

Yes, and people watch the MFing Little League World Series on TV. I think elite female athletes might have the edge on large 12 year olds.

The was obviously just a scrimmage and I'm sure the boys were trying much harder than the professional women were which the article alludes too. Most people wouldn't read the article but would see that headline that high school freshman and under beat the US Women's soccer team. Interested anecdote.
https://usatodayhss.com/2017/the-fc-dallas-u-15-academy-team-beat-the-u-s-women-s-national-team-5-2
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: wordnerd on November 23, 2018, 01:16:23 PM
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

Yes, and people watch the MFing Little League World Series on TV. I think elite female athletes might have the edge on large 12 year olds.

The was obviously just a scrimmage and I'm sure the boys were trying much harder than the professional women were which the article alludes too. Most people wouldn't read the article but would see that headline that high school freshman and under beat the US Women's soccer team. Interested anecdote.
https://usatodayhss.com/2017/the-fc-dallas-u-15-academy-team-beat-the-u-s-women-s-national-team-5-2

And Billie Jean King beat Billy Riggs, so what ever will we think now?! Anecdata are helpful to people who want to support their preexisting narratives about the world, especially narratives that reinforce their privilege or sense of superiority.

I'm not surprised this discussion has turned to sports because that's the one area where there's the fig leaf of "biological differences" to cover the sexism. Female writers and musicians suffer from the same systemic inequities because the issue is sexism not how hard somebody can kick a ball.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 23, 2018, 01:29:54 PM
I'm not surprised this discussion has turned to sports because that's the one area where there's the fig leaf of "biological differences" to cover the sexism. Female writers and musicians suffer from the same systemic inequities because the issue is sexism not how hard somebody can kick a ball.

Exactly. The sports thing is a distraction.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 23, 2018, 01:34:41 PM
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

Yes, and people watch the MFing Little League World Series on TV. I think elite female athletes might have the edge on large 12 year olds.

12 year olds maybe. But a quick google search shows me that boys high school track records in the 100m, 200m, 400m, and 800m, are all faster than the olympics womenís numbers. I didnít bother looking further, but I would t be surprised if the high school boys track records beat the Olympic womenís in the majority of track and field events.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 23, 2018, 01:36:26 PM
Throughout most of history, women have had very different, yet still very important roles in society. In the 30ís, 40ís, and 50ís, not nearly as many women worked outside the home as today. Even today, women are more likely to be stay at home parents or work part time. That is *gasp* womenís choice to be sahm or work part time. I see women on Facebook complain alllll the time about ďwishingĒ they could be sahmís.

I just wanted to address this. Yes, women are choosing to stay home, or work part-time, but it is not a decision that is made in a vacuum. They are assessing a bunch of different factors in that decision, and there are a lot of systemic issues that make staying at home more palatable for women. You actually address one in your next paragraph.

Whatís funny, is my wife and I are young (no kids, but plan to have some) and my wife doesnít work. She stays busy with things around where we live, hobbies, etc, but no work. Her earning potential simply isnít worthwhile for us with my income.

A big reason that she stays home is that her earning potential is much less than yours. So unless she absolutely loved her job, why would she keep working? And why is her earning potential so much lower? Her individual choices, of course, but there are systemic, sexist reasons why women end up in lower paying jobs. To start with, back in the 30s to 50s, it was legal to pay women less than a man for the same work. So careers that attracted women were paid less for blatantly sexist reasons. And those careers are still paid less due to inertia, and justified by saying (incorrectly) that free-market just doesn't value those contributions as much, and it's not our fault women like that kind of work (not to mention the cultural forces telling girls and boys what careers they should or should not be interested in when they grow up).

The problem with sexism (and racism) today is that, with rare exceptions, it is not blatant anymore. There are entrenched systemic issues that are not easily seen or fixed, but all people hear when they hear women cry sexism, is 'mad men' type blatant sexism that really isn't a problem anymore.

So nowadays, a woman and a man in the same role, same job, are generally paid the same. But men tend to end up in higher paying careers due to residual effects from blatant sexism decades ago.

And mothers are excluded from promotion tracks because it's 'common knowledge' that a woman will value her children over her career, so don't bother promoting her, cause she'll end up wanting to go part time anyway. And then she eventually does go part time because she has been passed over for promotion repeatedly, while her husband has been promoted several times. So now he makes more, and it makes financial sense for her to go part-time rather than him. And those who originally passed her over feel justified in their decision.

The woman who doesn't have kids avoids that particular booby-trap, but is still promoted at a lesser rate than men if there is a boys' club mentality. It is perfectly natural for those in power to promote their friends, and those that they know well. So if there is a robust friend network that excludes women (because our language might get raunchy and offend; or women just won't be interested in what men are), then promotions will naturally go to the friend group, and to men. Or even worse than the boys club is the leader who won't spend time alone with women (aka Pence) in order to protect his moral purity. So now he can mentor young men into a promotion track, but women are excluded.

All of these things are little, but they are cumulative. And they are hard to eradicate because they are not blatant.



To get this back to the fanboy discussion, I don't believe that most people are being sexist in their choices. Instead I think that our system is set up to favor men, and they are seen as mainstream. So men are promoted and shown more, so more people are exposed to them and like them. For instance, if I want to watch sports on OTA television, I don't have any options other than the most popular (aka mens' sports). And if I have cable or internet, there are simply many more male options than female. Many other posters have pointed this out.

This is a good post. Thereís a few small points I could disagree with, but you didnít fall back on so many blatant misconceptions regarding men/women pay that the media falsely portrays. And you make a lot of good points I donít regularly see made. Thanks.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: wordnerd on November 23, 2018, 01:38:29 PM
@Nick_Miller are you still listening? This thread has somewhat predictably led to sexist tropes being trotted out. A lot of people (mostly women) are having to read them and reply to them, which is emotionally difficult, to answer your question. It would be nice to know that you're still here and at least reading...
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on November 23, 2018, 02:53:16 PM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference. So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?                                                                                                     

Interesting thread. A few thoughts on this.

First, this is quite a ridiculous statement. As GuitarStv said, the best men weight lifters are the best weight lifters period. They lift the most. Is this even debatable?

It reminds me of my first humanities class in college. I was nervous and hadn't said anything several classes in until the question came up of "What are natural differences between men and women?" I gave the most bland fair answer I could think, "Men are generally, physically stronger than women." You'd have thought I had said women were the most evil things in the world or something. I got chewed out. I came out of that (being much more conservative then than now) thinking, man, feminists are dumb (it was my first real exposure to people of significantly differing opinions, and it set me up to not think very highly of them).... I think this is important to highlight for two reasons. One, can't we at least agree with basic principles of truth. We already have a ridiculous commander in chief that makes up whatever truth he wants; can't we at least as intelligent human beings admit a basic fact? The other reason why I think it's important to argue against statements like this is that they perpetuate the myth that "general traits" of men are better than "general traits" of women. Yes, men are generally physically stronger; saying they're physically stronger doesn't mean they're better. It means they have the ability often times to perpetuate huge evils by hurting their significant other, for example. It reminds me of an article I read about Wonder Woman, one of my favorite super hero movies. It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society. It reminds me of how professions that are male dominated that turn to being female dominated go from paying higher than average to lower than average because they're dominated now by women. It's all shades of the same hue, that things more generally feminine are bad/less important. Brush aside this point if you will. It doesn't make it a pointless argument because you act like people are hiding behind sports or whatever it was that was said. There's actual repercussions for saying certain things.

Last thought/question. I personally like some women's sports because of things said here. Women's tennis, I like, for example. Women's volleyball, same. I've never watched the WNBA (don't watch much NBA either), but I watched a women's college basketball game, and the talent level was atrocious. I don't watch women's basketball because of that. One question that people haven't really taken up in regards to this is, what are we ethically/morally obligated or should be inclined to do? Is the right thing for me to do, to support with my time or money something I truly don't enjoy to even things out? Genuinely curious as to people's answers.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OneStep on November 23, 2018, 02:56:18 PM
Is it ok to answer that I like what I like? I enjoy both men and women in sports and entertainment. I would say that I look up to more men because I am a man and I relate to men better. I have found that I have very few female friends outside of my wife and I's "couple" friends. I share a lot with my male friends and I fear that if I did that with a female friend then that could be considered emotional cheating on my wife. I just don't know where to draw that line and I choose to, out of respect for my wife, not attempt to build strong friendships with other women one on one. I'm sure I've missed out on some possible good friendships, but I find that it is a worthy trade off in my case.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 23, 2018, 04:31:55 PM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference. So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?                                                                                                     

Interesting thread. A few thoughts on this.

First, this is quite a ridiculous statement. As GuitarStv said, the best men weight lifters are the best weight lifters period. They lift the most. Is this even debatable?

It reminds me of my first humanities class in college. I was nervous and hadn't said anything several classes in until the question came up of "What are natural differences between men and women?" I gave the most bland fair answer I could think, "Men are generally, physically stronger than women." You'd have thought I had said women were the most evil things in the world or something. I got chewed out. I came out of that (being much more conservative then than now) thinking, man, feminists are dumb (it was my first real exposure to people of significantly differing opinions, and it set me up to not think very highly of them).... I think this is important to highlight for two reasons. One, can't we at least agree with basic principles of truth. We already have a ridiculous commander in chief that makes up whatever truth he wants; can't we at least as intelligent human beings admit a basic fact? The other reason why I think it's important to argue against statements like this is that they perpetuate the myth that "general traits" of men are better than "general traits" of women. Yes, men are generally physically stronger; saying they're physically stronger doesn't mean they're better. It means they have the ability often times to perpetuate huge evils by hurting their significant other, for example. It reminds me of an article I read about Wonder Woman, one of my favorite super hero movies. It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society. It reminds me of how professions that are male dominated that turn to being female dominated go from paying higher than average to lower than average because they're dominated now by women. It's all shades of the same hue, that things more generally feminine are bad/less important. Brush aside this point if you will. It doesn't make it a pointless argument because you act like people are hiding behind sports or whatever it was that was said. There's actual repercussions for saying certain things.

Last thought/question. I personally like some women's sports because of things said here. Women's tennis, I like, for example. Women's volleyball, same. I've never watched the WNBA (don't watch much NBA either), but I watched a women's college basketball game, and the talent level was atrocious. I don't watch women's basketball because of that. One question that people haven't really taken up in regards to this is, what are we ethically/morally obligated or should be inclined to do? Is the right thing for me to do, to support with my time or money something I truly don't enjoy to even things out? Genuinely curious as to people's answers.

This reminds me of a college sociology class I took. Our professor asked about differences between black and white people. The class was split about 50/50. No one said anything, so I finally chimed in, ďwhite people tend to get sunburnt easier.Ē

Like your situation, you would think I just let out a string of racist slurs. Man some of those black women just started going off about how theyíve ďbeen sunburnt.Ē

I am white and freckle with light eyes and can get sunburnt in 70 degree weather well before an hour rolls by. I have had skin cancer in my 20ís. Did I say black people cant get sunburnt? No. I just said white people tend to get burnt easier. It is a proven fact, and even skin cancer is far more prevalent in white people.

Itís insane. They argued so hard you would think being sunburnt was a good thing...
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: marty998 on November 23, 2018, 05:22:44 PM
I have tried to stay away from reading any of this thread but curiosity finally got the better of me.

Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference. So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?                                                                                                     

Interesting thread. A few thoughts on this.

First, this is quite a ridiculous statement. As GuitarStv said, the best men weight lifters are the best weight lifters period. They lift the most. Is this even debatable?

It reminds me of my first humanities class in college. I was nervous and hadn't said anything several classes in until the question came up of "What are natural differences between men and women?" I gave the most bland fair answer I could think, "Men are generally, physically stronger than women." You'd have thought I had said women were the most evil things in the world or something. I got chewed out. I came out of that (being much more conservative then than now) thinking, man, feminists are dumb (it was my first real exposure to people of significantly differing opinions, and it set me up to not think very highly of them).... I think this is important to highlight for two reasons. One, can't we at least agree with basic principles of truth. We already have a ridiculous commander in chief that makes up whatever truth he wants; can't we at least as intelligent human beings admit a basic fact? The other reason why I think it's important to argue against statements like this is that they perpetuate the myth that "general traits" of men are better than "general traits" of women. Yes, men are generally physically stronger; saying they're physically stronger doesn't mean they're better. It means they have the ability often times to perpetuate huge evils by hurting their significant other, for example. It reminds me of an article I read about Wonder Woman, one of my favorite super hero movies. It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society. It reminds me of how professions that are male dominated that turn to being female dominated go from paying higher than average to lower than average because they're dominated now by women. It's all shades of the same hue, that things more generally feminine are bad/less important. Brush aside this point if you will. It doesn't make it a pointless argument because you act like people are hiding behind sports or whatever it was that was said. There's actual repercussions for saying certain things.

Last thought/question. I personally like some women's sports because of things said here. Women's tennis, I like, for example. Women's volleyball, same. I've never watched the WNBA (don't watch much NBA either), but I watched a women's college basketball game, and the talent level was atrocious. I don't watch women's basketball because of that. One question that people haven't really taken up in regards to this is, what are we ethically/morally obligated or should be inclined to do? Is the right thing for me to do, to support with my time or money something I truly don't enjoy to even things out? Genuinely curious as to people's answers.

This reminds me of a college sociology class I took. Our professor asked about differences between black and white people. The class was split about 50/50. No one said anything, so I finally chimed in, ďwhite people tend to get sunburnt easier.Ē

Like your situation, you would think I just let out a string of racist slurs. Man some of those black women just started going off about how theyíve ďbeen sunburnt.Ē

I am white and freckle with light eyes and can get sunburnt in 70 degree weather well before an hour rolls by. I have had skin cancer in my 20ís. Did I say black people cant get sunburnt? No. I just said white people tend to get burnt easier. It is a proven fact, and even skin cancer is far more prevalent in white people.

Itís insane. They argued so hard you would think being sunburnt was a good thing...

I agree - I don't think these discussions about strength and sunburn have anything to do with listening to objective fact. People are conditioned now to basically take an opposing view to set up a diametrically opposed argument, which sometimes leads to questioning EVERYTHING including objective fact.

Yes (if you plot the muscular strength of all men and all women) objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman.

Regarding sunburn - yes my dark skin burns but I am certainly not as likely to have my skin peel off after 10 minutes in the sun as a freckled, white skin person.

Now on the flip side, objectively women are much better at articulating points of view and arguments (provided they can be heard over the top of a louder man who doesn't insult her first by calling her shrill).

I'll bet women are much better networkers and socialisers too.

And I've never seen a man put their hand up to want to experience a 48 hour labour before either. I recall seeing a piece of research that women's pain tolerance is much higher than that of men and perhaps related, they make better ultra-marathoners than men (apart from the very elite).

I guess for every ying there is a yang.

And I realise none of this answers the OP question. Sorry.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 23, 2018, 05:48:57 PM
Yes (if you plot the muscular strength of all men and all women) objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman.

That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


objectively women are much better at articulating points of view and arguments.

"Objectively"? Source?


I'll bet women are much better networkers and socialisers too.

On what basis?


Being imprecise and repeating tropes isn't helpful. It's true that there are physical observable differences between men and women. Nothing can change that. But observed differences* in any other category of comparison are not inherent, and therefore can and should be changed if we're ever going to get anywhere near equality and justice. I've had this argument in this forum before. The evidence just isn't there for inherent male/female differences that aren't physical.


*For example: women and men tend to express different emotions in public spaces. Observably true? Yes. Inherent? No.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 23, 2018, 06:47:20 PM
Male athletes are stronger.  Some sports just don't have the same depth of talent in the women's divisions as the men's (why this is the case is a whole other topic and likely related to structural sexism and normative gender streaming), so the level of competition is not as high.  It doesn't make you sexist to prefer to watch men in sports because you want to see the strongest person in the world, or because the sport you're watching tends not to draw as many women.

That said, there are several sexist comments I've read in this thread that make me sad to be a man.

"It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society."

FFS.  No, women are not ruled by their emotions.  This is an old, stupid, stereotype that won't die.

"objectively women are much better at articulating points of view and arguments"

Seriously?  No, women are not inherently better at arguing.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on November 23, 2018, 07:29:46 PM
"It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society."

FFS.  No, women are not ruled by their emotions.  This is an old, stupid, stereotype that won't die.


Wow, strawman much, GuitarStv? I neither explicitly nor implicitly said women were ruled by their emotions. I said in that situation, she was motivated by those emotions and compassion. Motivated, not ruled, and linking emotions to specifically the emotion of compassion. The fact that even the broadest brush touching on the fact that women are generally, not specifically in all instances, but generally more in touch with their emotions and more moved by compassion than men in this positive example triggered you so much you had to for f**'s sake emphasize women aren't ruled by their emotions is a slice off of the same pie I am talking about here. Yes, women tend to be more in touch with their emotions. Yes they tend to be more motivated by compassion. I'm not even going to argue whether or not it's inherent (to address the comment above), but it's there. At least in part because there's the association between women and emotions (that we can all agree is there in stereotype if nothing else), emotions themselves and being in touch with emotions are denigrated. Feeling compassion about something to the point of deeply stirring you is looked down on in society enough that it makes people I'm close to afraid to cry even with people they're close to even when they're crying about a deep hurt they themselves experienced or one they saw with someone else because "emotions are bad", and apparently it triggers you enough you have to make up things for me to say to berate me for.

Edit to add: I wish men would be better about not avoiding their emotions. It's a pretty crappy situation all around, but it's not helped by being so afraid of emotions that if the concept of women and emotions are ever linked together that we recoil like it's a snake. Attack the problem - people attacking women for showing emotions.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 23, 2018, 08:40:33 PM


That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


Itís rather surprising that a statement like this could even be made. There is very little overlap, even vs women who workout a lot vs men who workout very little.

I have been weightlifting more frequently than probably 99.9% of the population for over a decade. Iíve lived in over 8 states and a dozen cities at that time and been a regular at 20+ gyms. So I understand ďaverageĒ pretty well.

For upper body strength, I could maybe count on one hand how many women I have ever seen bench press 135 lbs for reps. As for men, probably 80% of regular gym goers can do that pretty easy.

Iím not ďthatĒ strong compared to plenty of men at the gym, but I can bench 275x6 and squat 335x8. Itís only been in the last few decades that the strongest woman on earth could bench 300lbs. I can do that, and see people do it on a weekly basis on gyms all over the country.

In all of our times at the gym, I could count on one hand how many women I have seen squat more than my wife. She squats 225 for a handful of reps. Women really focused on powerlifting can do that, but itís pretty rare. I see men warm up with that again, virtually every time o ever go to the gym.

Your statement is a vastly incorrect statement by someone who must have no experience with weightlifting. The amount of genetic difference in strength is HUGE and it doesnít even require the weight room to be obvious.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 23, 2018, 09:14:49 PM


That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


Itís rather surprising that a statement like this could even be made. There is very little overlap, even vs women who workout a lot vs men who workout very little.

I have been weightlifting more frequently than probably 99.9% of the population for over a decade. Iíve lived in over 8 states and a dozen cities at that time and been a regular at 20+ gyms. So I understand ďaverageĒ pretty well.

For upper body strength, I could maybe count on one hand how many women I have ever seen bench press 135 lbs for reps. As for men, probably 80% of regular gym goers can do that pretty easy.

Iím not ďthatĒ strong compared to plenty of men at the gym, but I can bench 275x6 and squat 335x8. Itís only been in the last few decades that the strongest woman on earth could bench 300lbs. I can do that, and see people do it on a weekly basis on gyms all over the country.

In all of our times at the gym, I could count on one hand how many women I have seen squat more than my wife. She squats 225 for a handful of reps. Women really focused on powerlifting can do that, but itís pretty rare. I see men warm up with that again, virtually every time o ever go to the gym.

Your statement is a vastly incorrect statement by someone who must have no experience with weightlifting. The amount of genetic difference in strength is HUGE and it doesnít even require the weight room to be obvious.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a dismissive tone. Your comment is focusing on people who go to the gym and lift weights. I'm talking about the population of the world. That's not the same sample. In my sample, yes, the bell curves overlap quite a bit. That's all I said and I stand by it.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: yakamashii on November 23, 2018, 09:37:01 PM

That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


Itís rather surprising that a statement like this could even be made. There is very little overlap, even vs women who workout a lot vs men who workout very little.

I have been weightlifting more frequently than probably 99.9% of the population for over a decade. Iíve lived in over 8 states and a dozen cities at that time and been a regular at 20+ gyms. So I understand ďaverageĒ pretty well.

For upper body strength, I could maybe count on one hand how many women I have ever seen bench press 135 lbs for reps. As for men, probably 80% of regular gym goers can do that pretty easy.

Iím not ďthatĒ strong compared to plenty of men at the gym, but I can bench 275x6 and squat 335x8. Itís only been in the last few decades that the strongest woman on earth could bench 300lbs. I can do that, and see people do it on a weekly basis on gyms all over the country.

In all of our times at the gym, I could count on one hand how many women I have seen squat more than my wife. She squats 225 for a handful of reps. Women really focused on powerlifting can do that, but itís pretty rare. I see men warm up with that again, virtually every time o ever go to the gym.

Your statement is a vastly incorrect statement by someone who must have no experience with weightlifting. The amount of genetic difference in strength is HUGE and it doesnít even require the weight room to be obvious.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a dismissive tone. Your comment is focusing on people who go to the gym and lift weights. I'm talking about the population of the world. That's not the same sample. In my sample, yes, the bell curves overlap quite a bit. That's all I said and I stand by it.

You said more than that. You said that this statement:

Yes (if you plot the muscular strength of all men and all women) objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman.

was "actually not true," which is actually not true. The fact that the bell curves overlap a lot makes the difference less significant, and certainly increases the number of cases where the randomly selected woman is physically stronger than the randomly selected man. However, I don't see how you can argue that a random selection from the set of men on the planet is _unlikely_ to be physically stronger than a random selection from the set of women on the planet.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 23, 2018, 09:59:59 PM


That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


Itís rather surprising that a statement like this could even be made. There is very little overlap, even vs women who workout a lot vs men who workout very little.

I have been weightlifting more frequently than probably 99.9% of the population for over a decade. Iíve lived in over 8 states and a dozen cities at that time and been a regular at 20+ gyms. So I understand ďaverageĒ pretty well.

For upper body strength, I could maybe count on one hand how many women I have ever seen bench press 135 lbs for reps. As for men, probably 80% of regular gym goers can do that pretty easy.

Iím not ďthatĒ strong compared to plenty of men at the gym, but I can bench 275x6 and squat 335x8. Itís only been in the last few decades that the strongest woman on earth could bench 300lbs. I can do that, and see people do it on a weekly basis on gyms all over the country.

In all of our times at the gym, I could count on one hand how many women I have seen squat more than my wife. She squats 225 for a handful of reps. Women really focused on powerlifting can do that, but itís pretty rare. I see men warm up with that again, virtually every time o ever go to the gym.

Your statement is a vastly incorrect statement by someone who must have no experience with weightlifting. The amount of genetic difference in strength is HUGE and it doesnít even require the weight room to be obvious.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a dismissive tone. Your comment is focusing on people who go to the gym and lift weights. I'm talking about the population of the world. That's not the same sample. In my sample, yes, the bell curves overlap quite a bit. That's all I said and I stand by it.

Iím taking such a dismissive tone because you are clearly talking about something you are entirely unfamiliar with. It doesnít matter gym goers in the US or Singaporeans, in basically every single comparable group of men and women, the men are substantially stronger. You have posted zero examples, or even anecdotal evidence. In this thread I have brought facts of high school boys vs Olympic womenís track and field times, testosterone levels of men vs women, and my vast personal experience in the weight lifting community.

You made a baseless statement with nothing to back it up. I canít even believe I am engaging in this discussion. Weightlifting or not doesnít matter. Iíd bet that 25% of men aged 18-35 can bench press 135 lbs. Iíd also bet that less than 1 in 200 women can do the same. My experience may be more US related (although Iíve lifted at gyms in 7 more countries) and the strength differences would merely be on a sliding scale for other countries as well.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 23, 2018, 10:32:11 PM
Guys, can we play nice? I'm not saying anything controversial or ridiculous. Here's what marty998 said:

"objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman."

Here's what marty998 did not say:

"objectively the physical strength of a random 30-year-old physically fit middle-class male weightlifter in America will more than likely be more than that of a random 30-year-old physically fit middle-class female weightlifter in America."

At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason this matters is that not everyone on the planet is a 30-year-old physically fit middle-class American.

Putting aside the thing that marty998 did not say: The thing that marty998 actually did say is not true; the bell curves overlap quite a bit, as I continue to point out. If you want to parse "more than likely," knock yourselves out, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about something I'm not claiming.

Also, the people responding to me are edging pretty close to violating forum rule #1, so if you guys want to be reported, please continue in this vein.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Grog on November 24, 2018, 12:52:56 AM
This talk of strength is ridiculous, it is only but just an aspect. Flexibility agility reflexes dexterity are all part of the athletic effort, why focus on strength
Here in Switzerland we have fan club, predominantly male, for a lot of female sports star. A lot for skiers like Lara gut or Dominique gisin or orienteering legends like simone niggli luder. You literally see bare chested men on snow track painting their names in big letters on their chest.
No one blinks an eye. And it really doesn't seem sexual or anything but true respect.
I remember as a kid looking up to vreni Schneider, another ski legend, and how happy we were when we randomly met her and got a signed postcard.


Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 24, 2018, 06:17:07 AM
Guys, can we play nice? I'm not saying anything controversial or ridiculous. Here's what marty998 said:

"objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman."

Here's what marty998 did not say:

"objectively the physical strength of a random 30-year-old physically fit middle-class male weightlifter in America will more than likely be more than that of a random 30-year-old physically fit middle-class female weightlifter in America."

At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason this matters is that not everyone on the planet is a 30-year-old physically fit middle-class American.

Putting aside the thing that marty998 did not say: The thing that marty998 actually did say is not true; the bell curves overlap quite a bit, as I continue to point out. If you want to parse "more than likely," knock yourselves out, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about something I'm not claiming.

Also, the people responding to me are edging pretty close to violating forum rule #1, so if you guys want to be reported, please continue in this vein.

As I have already asked.

Give some examples of where that strength bell curve overlaps between genders. Like I also said, it doesnít matter if we look at 15 year olds, 30 year olds, 60 year olds, Americans, or Singaporeans. There is very little overlap of that bell curve.

Men have around 10x the natural testosterone levels of women. In weightlifting, testosterone and all the substances that increase it, are the most popular banned substances. Why? Because they increase strength exponentially. As such, it makes no difference of what demographics you consider. Unless youíre trying to state other countries or demographics have significantly different hormone levels..
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 24, 2018, 06:31:25 AM
Lifting a heavy weight is just one aspect.  What about stamina?  What about dexterity?  What about flexibility?  What about stability?  And coming back to bell curves, since the men's strength bell curve is to the right of the women's strength bell curve, of course the strongest men are going to be stronger than the strongest women, you are at the far right of the bell curve for both.  Same for median.  But in a random sample, it would be quite common to get a woman who is stronger than a man.  Plus we have to come back to the nurture side - we are still living in a culture that encourages strength in men (especially upper body) and not in women.  In fact, given the helicopter aspect of parenting these days, I have to wonder if it is worse now than when I was a kid - I could stop at the playground on the way home from elementary school and do lots of dangling and moving on the monkey bars.  Are monkey bars even a thing these days?  So unsafe /s


Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 24, 2018, 06:34:02 AM
This talk of strength is ridiculous, it is only but just an aspect. Flexibility agility reflexes dexterity are all part of the athletic effort, why focus on strength
Here in Switzerland we have fan club, predominantly male, for a lot of female sports star. A lot for skiers like Lara gut or Dominique gisin or orienteering legends like simone niggli luder. You literally see bare chested men on snow track painting their names in big letters on their chest.
No one blinks an eye. And it really doesn't seem sexual or anything but true respect.
I remember as a kid looking up to vreni Schneider, another ski legend, and how happy we were when we randomly met her and got a signed postcard.


Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk

Thank you for posting - so nice to see a non-American (using American in the broader sense, lots of Canadians posting here) viewpoint.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 24, 2018, 06:47:48 AM
This talk of strength is ridiculous, it is only but just an aspect. Flexibility agility reflexes dexterity are all part of the athletic effort, why focus on strength
Here in Switzerland we have fan club, predominantly male, for a lot of female sports star. A lot for skiers like Lara gut or Dominique gisin or orienteering legends like simone niggli luder. You literally see bare chested men on snow track painting their names in big letters on their chest.
No one blinks an eye. And it really doesn't seem sexual or anything but true respect.
I remember as a kid looking up to vreni Schneider, another ski legend, and how happy we were when we randomly met her and got a signed postcard.

There's nothing wrong with cheering for and enjoying competition between women athletes.  Anyone who devotes a big portion of their life to a sport is going to develop skills worthy of respect.  It's been mentioned a few times that in some circumstances it can be more excititing to watch women's rather than with men's sport.  Watching a woman do stuff that I'm not physically able to do is as impressive as watching a guy do something I'm not physically able to do.  That said . . .

We have been focusing on strength.  With regards to being the best in the world at a sport flexibility/agility/reflexes/dexterity are all great too.  The thing is, top women athletes either don't surpass male athletes in these aspects, or these aspects are not as important.  That's why there's a very small percentage of female sports stars who hold records that best those of men.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 24, 2018, 06:55:56 AM
"It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society."

FFS.  No, women are not ruled by their emotions.  This is an old, stupid, stereotype that won't die.


Wow, strawman much, GuitarStv? I neither explicitly nor implicitly said women were ruled by their emotions. I said in that situation, she was motivated by those emotions and compassion. Motivated, not ruled, and linking emotions to specifically the emotion of compassion. The fact that even the broadest brush touching on the fact that women are generally, not specifically in all instances, but generally more in touch with their emotions and more moved by compassion than men in this positive example triggered you so much you had to for f**'s sake emphasize women aren't ruled by their emotions is a slice off of the same pie I am talking about here. Yes, women tend to be more in touch with their emotions. Yes they tend to be more motivated by compassion. I'm not even going to argue whether or not it's inherent (to address the comment above), but it's there. At least in part because there's the association between women and emotions (that we can all agree is there in stereotype if nothing else), emotions themselves and being in touch with emotions are denigrated. Feeling compassion about something to the point of deeply stirring you is looked down on in society enough that it makes people I'm close to afraid to cry even with people they're close to even when they're crying about a deep hurt they themselves experienced or one they saw with someone else because "emotions are bad", and apparently it triggers you enough you have to make up things for me to say to berate me for.

Edit to add: I wish men would be better about not avoiding their emotions. It's a pretty crappy situation all around, but it's not helped by being so afraid of emotions that if the concept of women and emotions are ever linked together that we recoil like it's a snake. Attack the problem - people attacking women for showing emotions.

You implied that emotions are more important to women than men.  To the best of knowledge, this is not true.

At the core of your statements here you're discussing stereotypes.  The stereotype of the emotionless man and hysterical woman appear to form the basis for much of what you're arguing.  This stereotype is wrong.  There are plenty of women who exhibit better control of their emotions than I do.

I also don't believe that women are naturally more compassionate than men, or that men are naturally more emotionally withdrawn than men.  In my own anaecdotal experience this is not the case.  What research do you have to show it to be true?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: KBecks on November 24, 2018, 07:03:29 AM
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 24, 2018, 07:09:02 AM
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on November 24, 2018, 08:12:05 AM
@Nick_Miller are you still listening? This thread has somewhat predictably led to sexist tropes being trotted out. A lot of people (mostly women) are having to read them and reply to them, which is emotionally difficult, to answer your question. It would be nice to know that you're still here and at least reading...

Well it is a holiday weekend, so no I wasn't keeping track over the past two days, but tagging me got my attention..

I'd ask that we refocus on the central question as to why men don't follow women to the same extent women follow men.

Some possible answers that have been raised thus far...(I'm sure I missed some)

1) men are distracted by women's attractiveness and thus don't focus on other attributes as much
2) women have only really been "out there" in the entertainment arena for the past 50-60 years or so, and are just now starting a foothold
3) men are socialized to view women's songs/stories/music as "girly" and inappropriate for manly men (see @KBecks 's comment above as an example)
4) systemic issues and big money make most entertainment arenas "boys clubs" where women are just not welcomed
5) women are socialized to be more open to entertainment from all genders and will happily read boy-centric stories whereas boys will not.
6) sometimes men follow women BECAUSE they are sexy...see Paige Spiranac (golf) as an example. Looks = followers
7) people who simply desire to see the fastest/strongest can always argue that it will be men
8) "women's" stories are seen as a niche, not as the default (see "womens" as a specific genre in publishing)
9) sometimes you just relate better to an entertainer of the same gender (but this doesn't explain why women are more accommodating than are men)

Again, there are probably countless others we have discussed.

I'm as guilty as anyone of perhaps stepping on toes with my comments, but I can promise they were not made to offend or sadden anyone; I just thought a conversation like this called for a good amount of honesty and candor, and I felt that needed to start with being brutally honest with myself. That being said, please don't intentionally try to push others' buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons. That doesn't get us anywhere.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on November 24, 2018, 09:06:15 AM

You implied that emotions are more important to women than men.  To the best of knowledge, this is not true.

At the core of your statements here you're discussing stereotypes.  The stereotype of the emotionless man and hysterical woman appear to form the basis for much of what you're arguing.  This stereotype is wrong.  There are plenty of women who exhibit better control of their emotions than I do.

I also don't believe that women are naturally more compassionate than men, or that men are naturally more emotionally withdrawn than men.  In my own anaecdotal experience this is not the case.  What research do you have to show it to be true?

Look at what you actually said versus what I actually said (thus the strawman). The word I used was motivated. The word you used was ruled. It's not even just a connotation thing, ruled by definition means "exercise ultimate power or authority over." Nothing in my example or any stretch of implication of what I said would mean that emotions have ultimate power and authority over women. You reiterate the point again by using the word hysterical, which I never used nor used anything like. I'm trying to talk nuance, and you're assuming I'm going to the extreme stereotypes of emotionless men and hysterical women, which, again, nothing I've said has stated implicitly or explicitly. You have to make big assumptions to get there that are incorrect for how I believe. That's why I got so frustrated.

Yes, I am saying that women tend to be more in touch with their emotions than men and more compassionate than men. It's not a novel concept that women bring something different than men to the table so to speak. It's one of the best arguments, imo, for being even more intentional than for simple fairness to include women in board rooms, leadership teams, etc. I think women in aggregate tend to be able to empathize with people better among other positive qualities. Again, you may not agree that it's compassion or whatever, but I would say many people feel that women bring things to the table men don't. Having women adds something to the discussion. All that being said, I admit it's anecdotal, so I'm not going to argue it much more than to say it fits what I've seen, and I haven't seen anything disproving it.

Finally, to respect Nick's request to get back on point (not dismissing any comment you may have in the future, feel free of course), I would like to reiterate my question from earlier and actually restate it:

What's the practical implications of this? Open mindnedness and an attempt to go out of your way to look for other things you may like that aren't in the male stereotype, or is the feeling in general that we should do more?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: rdaneel0 on November 24, 2018, 10:44:21 AM
Lots of stuff to think about in this thread, but to the people who say that men are superior at all athletics and that the elite level is why you only watch male sports...can you please comment on gymnastics and figure skating? In gymnastics all the events are different for men and women. You could even say that men "can't" do what the women gymnasts are doing because the men are too heavy, not flexible enough, and slower. In figure skating women can typically do things the men can't do as well, they can jump higher with more rotations, lift their legs much higher, spin faster, be thrown, etc.

I realize this complicates the arguments being made here, because in figure skating and gymnastics (where women dominate) the women's divisions are more popular than the men's. All I know is I definitely disagree with the idea that men are better athletes in general. Consider that most of the athletic pursuits we have now were created primarily for men and by men, so of course they are tailored to men's bodies. But other athletic areas are absolutely female dominated, like contortion (women dominated), ballet (women dominated), acro/trapeze/rings/silks (women dominated). If a sport were invented that utilized flexibility, balance, and agility as the primary skills, women would dominate nearly every time.   

ETA: Oh, and rhythmic gymnastics! There isn't even a male version, it's completely female dominated at the elite level.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: jessmess on November 24, 2018, 11:35:22 AM
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Wow.
What's offensive here?

Women are behind men, at all competitive levels, in virtually every sport ever invented. Even in golf, they are behind because of inherent biological disadvantages. Unless humans change dramatically, it's not going to change.

I have no trouble "admitting" that I don't watch women's tennis. I find it too slow and don't feel like I'm watching the best that the sport has to offer. Of course any woman good enough to appear on TV would absolutely destroy me on the court, but that's beside the point. I don't decide which movies to watch based on my own acting skills either.

@Paul der Krake I HAVE to disagree with you. We are behind men because we are encouraged to be behind men. We are encouraged to trail behind. A woman in competitive sports is treated as though she cannot achieve certain goals. women in sports are given screen time if they are beautiful.

In fact, you statement is false, as women have surpassed men in certain sports. You might not know this because it is rarely publicized. Some places where this has been true has been rock climbing, tree climbing, tennis among others. It isn't celebrated. Men don't like it. The media doesn't give the time of day.

We see muscleless models modelling women's sportswear because the value women are supposed to bring is tied to their looks. Who models mens sportwear? why athletes do, of course. Men are taught that their value is to be strong. 


Let me give you some back story.
I am a female tree climber. This field is my chosen field and I treat it both as a profession and a professional sport. I work daily in this field and I also compete.
Breaking into this field was incredibly difficult. Tree companies aren't interested in hiring a tiny woman. I was able to score a job in a company that treated me well. I transferred though, to a place where turnover was much higher. That's when I learned that I wasn't valued. My boss knew I was capable, as he would have me train men newer to the company, but once these men were trained they would be promoted as my superiors.
My husband and I both run our own business now, and I am often treated as an inferior even though we have similar skills and experience, and work as a partnership. This is before anyone sees me work, of course. I have customers asking what the heck I'm going to do on the job, if I am going to come with, my friends and family still call the business my husbands business. I contribute no less than he does, to be clear.

Actually, when work is finished, and the tasks are done, I often have men express that they are ashamed to have been "outworked by a woman". This isn't said to make me feel good. It's said behind my back to my husband. In fact a lot of sexist things are said behind my back (and sometimes to my face, as our employees cat call other women, solidifying the fact that they see women as objects). I have had to remind people I am their superior, also.

As for the athletic part of things, I was always very physically capable compared to others, but was always discouraged from seriously pursuing an athletic or physical. Boys my age were treated as though this was a reasonable goal. I was always graded by a different measure. I was taught to think of myself as a less capable specimen. this continues to this day. I make a point to surround myself with positive people but it doesn't change the facts.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 24, 2018, 11:59:56 AM
Give some examples of where that strength bell curve overlaps between genders. Like I also said, it doesnít matter if we look at 15 year olds, 30 year olds, 60 year olds, Americans, or Singaporeans. There is very little overlap of that bell curve.

I feel I should point out that you haven't brought any proof other than anecdote, either, so I'm not sure why you feel you're in a position to imperiously demand evidence from me.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 24, 2018, 12:03:39 PM
Lots of stuff to think about in this thread, but to the people who say that men are superior at all athletics and that the elite level is why you only watch male sports...can you please comment on gymnastics and figure skating? In gymnastics all the events are different for men and women. You could even say that men "can't" do what the women gymnasts are doing because the men are too heavy, not flexible enough, and slower. In figure skating women can typically do things the men can't do as well, they can jump higher with more rotations, lift their legs much higher, spin faster, be thrown, etc.

I realize this complicates the arguments being made here, because in figure skating and gymnastics (where women dominate) the women's divisions are more popular than the men's. All I know is I definitely disagree with the idea that men are better athletes in general. Consider that most of the athletic pursuits we have now were created primarily for men and by men, so of course they are tailored to men's bodies. But other athletic areas are absolutely female dominated, like contortion (women dominated), ballet (women dominated), acro/trapeze/rings/silks (women dominated). If a sport were invented that utilized flexibility, balance, and agility as the primary skills, women would dominate nearly every time.   

ETA: Oh, and rhythmic gymnastics! There isn't even a male version, it's completely female dominated at the elite level.

If a sport only exists for women, then I'd say that we don't know who is superior in the sport.  (The same is true for sports that only exist for men.)  I also don't believe that men are better at every sport, but as you mentioned most sports come from male roots and there may be implicit bias in the sports most commonly watched today.

Sport is competitive.  Several examples you've given of female dominated 'sports' include things that are non-competitive (contortion, ballet).  I'd be interested in watching any sports created where a mixed field of men and women can be competitive with each other on a relatively level playing field.  That would be great to watch.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Paul der Krake on November 24, 2018, 01:08:30 PM
In fact, you statement is false, as women have surpassed men in certain sports. You might not know this because it is rarely publicized. Some places where this has been true has been rock climbing, tree climbing, tennis among others. It isn't celebrated. Men don't like it. The media doesn't give the time of day.
Super interesting that there are now women as world-class climbers (and not just in their category), but that doesn't invalidate my claim, and  from some googling it appears the playing field is now basically even. I don't know enough about climbing to determine whether that qualifies as "surpassing", but let's assume it does. So now there's a handful of sports where women are competing at the same level or better than men. Do you really think that it's just a matter of time until that's the case for all sports? That it's just the patriarchy holding young women back, and the current women at the top of their sport just aren't motivated enough?

And in what world have women surpassed men in tennis? Didn't we have this whole debate last year when McEnroe said Serena Williams would be ranked 700 or something? As far as tennis is concerned, it's not up for debate, at all.

And sorry Cressida but the bell curve thing is just nonsense. The whole point of doing statistical analysis is to:
1) run experiments on large sample sizes
2) isolate characteristics, to the furthest extent possible

This is why we self-segregate into categories that we think are fair. We do this in a bunch of ways:
- age
- gender
- how much effort are you willing to put into it, through leagues and divisions systems

The last one is important too! I'm a casual swimmer who swims 3-4 miles a week. When I went to swim meets, I wasn't measuring myself against professional swimmers, or my cousin Danny who swims 50 yards at the beach every other summer.

Of course you can find millions and millions of women who are better than millions and millions of men at sports at time T. We have incredible variance and follow training regimens to push ourselves.

Okay, let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume we can entirely boil down athleticism to a super simple task: tug of war. It requires strength, but a skilled team can win against a disorganized or unprepared opponent. Let's assume each side has 100 humans, entirely randomly selected from the pool of humans currently alive, pulling on that rope like their life depends on it. That's a number high enough to smooth out any luck of the draw in case you happen to draw a large number of 5 year olds or people without limbs.

Experiment 1:
Side A pulls 100 random women from the 3.5B available women. Side B pulls 100 random men. Remember, 100 is a high-ish number but you could get lucky and get a huge advantage if you pull enough of the "right" people. How much money would you bet that side A wins, exactly once? Well actually there is a decent chance, not super high but decent. However, the odds become vanishingly small as the experiment is repeated enough times.

Experiment 2:
Same as experiment 1, except this time the women have an entire year to learn from the best tug of war coach in the world, and train full time for this. Their life depends on it after all. The men, on the other hand, have no idea what they will be asked to do until they are handed the rope.
What do you think the results will be? Personally, I'm betting all my life savings on the prepared women over the unsuspecting men.

Experiment 3:
Both sides are given a year and the best available coaching, and both train like mad because everyone's lives depend on it. Would you bet on the women in this scenario? If you run the experiment 1 million times with a different set of people every time, what do you think the final breakdown would look like?


Preemptive rebuttal: but tug of war is inherently biased because it rewards a quality that doesn't entirely define athleticism? What if we had chosen rock climbing or figure skating instead?

Right. Not all sports reward athleticism in the same way. I think tug-of-war is pretty damn universal and a good enough proxy for overall fitness, but it doesn't cover everything.


Frankly I'm amazed that this is even controversial. Of all the feminist topics that could elicit argument, this is the hill you've chosen for yourself?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: jessmess on November 24, 2018, 01:35:13 PM

Frankly I'm amazed that this is even controversial. Of all the feminist topics that could elicit argument, this is the hill you've chosen for yourself?

who is this directed to?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dollar Slice on November 24, 2018, 01:50:32 PM
I'm fascinated that so many men in this thread have chosen to ignore most of the original post and focus solely on strength/sports, since it's the one area where you can sort of come up with a reason to defend the fact that you ignore women.

There's no defensible reason to ignore female singers, musicians, actresses, etc., so we're just... not going to ever talk about that because it makes a lot of men look like jerks. But we will yell about sports until we all hate each other because it gives us an opportunity to rag on feminists.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Paul der Krake on November 24, 2018, 02:05:53 PM

Frankly I'm amazed that this is even controversial. Of all the feminist topics that could elicit argument, this is the hill you've chosen for yourself?

who is this directed to?
Anyone in this thread downplaying the physical differences and/or over-emphasizing the societal aspects. Or anyone who seriously thinks that watching men's sports but not the equivalent women's sport is sexist.

Look, I don't mean to put you down, I think it's awesome you were able to choose a career and hobby that goes against traditional stereotypes. Not because it goes against the stereotypes, but because that's what you wanted to do. I hope you crush every goal you set for yourself.

It's the stuff not grounded in reality I push back on.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: jessmess on November 24, 2018, 03:02:06 PM

Frankly I'm amazed that this is even controversial. Of all the feminist topics that could elicit argument, this is the hill you've chosen for yourself?

who is this directed to?
Anyone in this thread downplaying the physical differences and/or over-emphasizing the societal aspects. Or anyone who seriously thinks that watching men's sports but not the equivalent women's sport is sexist.

Look, I don't mean to put you down, I think it's awesome you were able to choose a career and hobby that goes against traditional stereotypes. Not because it goes against the stereotypes, but because that's what you wanted to do. I hope you crush every goal you set for yourself.

It's the stuff not grounded in reality I push back on.

thank you for your encouragement but everything I said was grounded in reality. The idea that watching something just because a certain gender is considered superior isn't grounded in reality. Men may pack muscle on easier but women have better balance don't they? In many sports these both play different roles.

What about bears? aren't they stronger than men? why aren't we watching bears in wrestling matches? is it because there is more to the match than simply physical strength? like the competitors ability to stay focussed on the task and come up with a match strategy?

what about male celebrity chefs? traditionally we like to see women at home cooking? how did this bear us male celebrity chefs? shouldn't we only be taking down the recipes of good old nonas who've been cooking meals for entire families for centuries?

The truth is it has very little to do with the fact that men are "physically superior" rather that they are physically different. telling women we wont pay attention to them because they were born to a different body discourages many from ever trying and limits the threshold in any sport. will women ever surpass men everywhere? probably not, but that definitely doesn't make it less interesting!

It's that we like to look at men as authority figures. We don't like to take word from a woman.

You aren't taking anything away from me. Believe me.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: wordnerd on November 24, 2018, 03:16:42 PM
@Nick_Miller are you still listening? This thread has somewhat predictably led to sexist tropes being trotted out. A lot of people (mostly women) are having to read them and reply to them, which is emotionally difficult, to answer your question. It would be nice to know that you're still here and at least reading...

Well it is a holiday weekend, so no I wasn't keeping track over the past two days, but tagging me got my attention..

I'd ask that we refocus on the central question as to why men don't follow women to the same extent women follow men.

Some possible answers that have been raised thus far...(I'm sure I missed some)

1) men are distracted by women's attractiveness and thus don't focus on other attributes as much
2) women have only really been "out there" in the entertainment arena for the past 50-60 years or so, and are just now starting a foothold
3) men are socialized to view women's songs/stories/music as "girly" and inappropriate for manly men (see @KBecks 's comment above as an example)
4) systemic issues and big money make most entertainment arenas "boys clubs" where women are just not welcomed
5) women are socialized to be more open to entertainment from all genders and will happily read boy-centric stories whereas boys will not.
6) sometimes men follow women BECAUSE they are sexy...see Paige Spiranac (golf) as an example. Looks = followers
7) people who simply desire to see the fastest/strongest can always argue that it will be men
8) "women's" stories are seen as a niche, not as the default (see "womens" as a specific genre in publishing)
9) sometimes you just relate better to an entertainer of the same gender (but this doesn't explain why women are more accommodating than are men)

Again, there are probably countless others we have discussed.

I'm as guilty as anyone of perhaps stepping on toes with my comments, but I can promise they were not made to offend or sadden anyone; I just thought a conversation like this called for a good amount of honesty and candor, and I felt that needed to start with being brutally honest with myself. That being said, please don't intentionally try to push others' buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons. That doesn't get us anywhere.
Thanks for responding and for trying to redirect the conversation back on track.

I think something else that could be helpful coming out of this conversation is talking about how we could support women in artistic endeavors, sports, etc. Maybe people could identify a female author whose work they want to read, take their kids to a women's basketball game (cheaper!), etc. I don't think this thread is going to go in that direction, but I'm going to try. ;)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: snacky on November 24, 2018, 03:20:44 PM

What about bears? aren't they stronger than men? why aren't we watching bears in wrestling matches? is it because there is more to the match than simply physical strength? like the competitors ability to stay focussed on the task and come up with a match strategy?

what about male celebrity chefs? traditionally we like to see women at home cooking? how did this bear us male celebrity chefs? shouldn't we only be taking down the recipes of good old nonas who've been cooking meals for entire families for centuries?

I would watch bears wrestle male professional chefs all day long.

Isn't it great that in a thread about why women are ignored in many fields, the women are being ignored? Almost like sexism is systemic and deeply entrenched...
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: jessmess on November 24, 2018, 03:24:56 PM

What about bears? aren't they stronger than men? why aren't we watching bears in wrestling matches? is it because there is more to the match than simply physical strength? like the competitors ability to stay focussed on the task and come up with a match strategy?

what about male celebrity chefs? traditionally we like to see women at home cooking? how did this bear us male celebrity chefs? shouldn't we only be taking down the recipes of good old nonas who've been cooking meals for entire families for centuries?

I would watch bears wrestle male professional chefs all day long.

Isn't it great that in a thread about why women are ignored in many fields, the women are being ignored? Almost like sexism is systemic and deeply entrenched...

almost like that @snacky
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 24, 2018, 04:40:28 PM
I'm fascinated that so many men in this thread have chosen to ignore most of the original post and focus solely on strength/sports, since it's the one area where you can sort of come up with a reason to defend the fact that you ignore women.

There's no defensible reason to ignore female singers, musicians, actresses, etc., so we're just... not going to ever talk about that because it makes a lot of men look like jerks. But we will yell about sports until we all hate each other because it gives us an opportunity to rag on feminists.

I chose to do so because I like male and female actors/musicians at about the same frequency, but tend to find myself watching men in sporting situations more often.

I've actually got a huge long list of women musicians who I've idolized for a long time.  Ani DiFranco (for example) not only is a kick-ass musician and excellent singer, but pretty much gave the finger to the traditional music path and has done really well self promoting/publishing.  She has done things on her own terms all the time, and has had the tenacity and talent to make it all work.  Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holliday, Fiona Apple, Kim Deal, Stevie Nicks, Bjork, Courtney Love, Courtney Barnett, Betty Davis, Holly Cole, Sophia Urista . . . whatever style of music you listen to, there are a ton of strong and talented women who make great music.

As an aside, while it would be fascinating to watch bears trained to wrestle, or perform the clean and jerk, I'm not sure about the ethical implications of forcing animals to perform for us in this manner.  They're also not human, so the lure of watching athletes push the limits of what is humanly possible wouldn't really apply.  This isn't really a good analogy for the difference between men's and women's sport.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 24, 2018, 05:13:33 PM
And sorry Cressida but the bell curve thing is just nonsense. The whole point of doing statistical analysis is to:
1) run experiments on large sample sizes
2) isolate characteristics, to the furthest extent possible

You mention statistical analysis, but the problem is, that's not the way people tend to read marty998's statement. Again, here is what he said:

"objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman."

Now, if you introduce controls (like picking a man and woman with similar age, fitness level, size, etc.), then the statement is probably true (as I stated several comments ago). And if you make the comparison thousands of times (as you just noted), then the statement is probably true. I'm not and have never been arguing that point.

But most people reading the statement aren't thinking that way; most people will read it and think it's saying, "most men are stronger than most women."* And that is not true. My dad died several years ago of COPD and I can guarantee that if we'd done a comparison on the day he went into the hospital, I'd have been stronger than he was.

This is all I've been saying this entire time (and if you go back and read all of my comments, they will bear this out). I've been making a very narrow claim. I'm saying that if all you know is that you've chosen one man and one woman from the population of the world, it is not true that the man will "more than likely" be stronger. There are way too many variables for that.


*If you doubt this, just check reddit. Lots of people believe this.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: former player on November 24, 2018, 05:17:45 PM
I'd be interested in watching any sports created where a mixed field of men and women can be competitive with each other on a relatively level playing field.  That would be great to watch.

Equestrianism fits the bill for you.  Showjumping, three day eventing, and dressage.  All Olympic events in which men and women compete on equal terms and women win as much as the men.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 24, 2018, 05:23:41 PM
I'd be interested in watching any sports created where a mixed field of men and women can be competitive with each other on a relatively level playing field.  That would be great to watch.

Equestrianism fits the bill for you.  Showjumping, three day eventing, and dressage.  All Olympic events in which men and women compete on equal terms and women win as much as the men.

'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 24, 2018, 05:25:47 PM
And the way strength is measured favours men.  And I can't say what measurements would favour women, because we haven't done those experiments - although the women ultra-marathoners do show up a lot.  And of course as mentioned before, women are generally trained to be weak.

The original question was "follow/fanboy/support" women so sports is only a small aspect - we can talk about musicians, actors, etc.

Money flows to audiences, so the more support women get from society in various activities,the more the money will also flow to them.  If advertisers see people coming to games, watching on TV, etc., they will pay for showing those activities.  The Olympics showcase women athletes and well as men athletes, and the networks sure bid for them.  And if you think women can't do amazing things, go watch women snowboarders in the half pipe.

Spoiler: show
And given the number of male posters who say their wives are SAH even without kids, and definitely with kids, how much support are they giving their wives to have a source of income that doesn't depend on the husband?  Apart from divorce, what if the husband became permanently disabled, or died, do they all have enough disability insurance and life insurance that their wives and children would be OK?  Not in a fanboy sort of way, but that would certainly be supporting women.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 24, 2018, 05:31:35 PM
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 24, 2018, 05:37:07 PM
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

I'm sure it's tough to do, it's just not interesting to me.  Much like curling.  Which, other than the yelling is not really athletic.  HURRY!  Hurry HARD!  Hard, hard, hard, SWEEP!  Woah.  WOAH!  *click*
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 24, 2018, 05:44:05 PM
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

I'm sure it's tough to do, it's just not interesting to me.  Much like curling.  Which, other than the yelling is not really athletic.  HURRY!  Hurry HARD!  Hard, hard, hard, SWEEP!  Woah.  WOAH!  *click*

I sooo want to get you out on the ice.  ;-)  Perfect draw at Christmas and you get the turkey.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: former player on November 24, 2018, 06:01:10 PM
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

I'm sure it's tough to do, it's just not interesting to me.  Much like curling.  Which, other than the yelling is not really athletic.  HURRY!  Hurry HARD!  Hard, hard, hard, SWEEP!  Woah.  WOAH!  *click*

What about sailing?  Not the Olympic events, which have different sized boats for men and women, but the Ocean sailing events, such as the single handed round the world race?  Women compete on equal terms in those.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on November 24, 2018, 06:39:37 PM
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?


It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

I'm sure it's tough to do, it's just not interesting to me.  Much like curling.  Which, other than the yelling is not really athletic.  HURRY!  Hurry HARD!  Hard, hard, hard, SWEEP!  Woah.  WOAH!  *click*

What about sailing?  Not the Olympic events, which have different sized boats for men and women, but the Ocean sailing events, such as the single handed round the world race?  Women compete on equal terms in those.

Roz Savage

https://www.rozsavage.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjIv4VWRTNQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqPaHQp4Xw
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 24, 2018, 06:57:59 PM
I'm fascinated that so many men in this thread have chosen to ignore most of the original post and focus solely on strength/sports, since it's the one area where you can sort of come up with a reason to defend the fact that you ignore women.

There's no defensible reason to ignore female singers, musicians, actresses, etc., so we're just... not going to ever talk about that because it makes a lot of men look like jerks. But we will yell about sports until we all hate each other because it gives us an opportunity to rag on feminists.

How so? I gladly and openly admitted that the last few concerts I went to were female singers. I have listened to Lana Del Ray more in the last few years than anyone else x10. Saw her in concert too. I saw Carrie Underwood a few years ago, love her music. One of the best concerts Iíve been to. Miranda Lambert is one of my most played Pandora stations. I do like some male artists as well.

I donít see anything wrong with men liking female musicians or actresses. IMO, most men are fine with it and I think a guy would come off as insecure to be ashamed of it.

Itís funny seeing these other sports brought up.. figure skating, gymnastics, etc. Iíd bet that at the very least, a lot of men enjoy watching womenís gymnastics. Their athletic ability is truly amazing. I donít recall really watching much menís gymnastics. Unfortunately, gymnastics is really only on mainstream every few years and Iím not ďthatĒ into it, to actively search out and watch it more often, same goes for most any sport.

I mentioned earlier in UFC Iím a huge Cris Cyborg fan. I used to enjoy Rhonda Rousey until she turned into basically the biggest embarrassment of the UFC and fell into every negative stereotype that strong women are trying to move past. I follow Cyborg on Instagram and she has both a heart of gold, and the heart of a lion. She embodies everything I would look for in any athlete, male or female. Granted, she hasnít lost, and how a champ loses completely makes or breaks them. You have true champions that come back hungrier than ever, or losers that lose once, quit in their prime, cry, and talk about contemplating suicide cause they canít handle losing. Thatís the final test for the ultimate athlete in my eyes.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Grog on November 25, 2018, 12:46:26 AM
This talk of strength is ridiculous, it is only but just an aspect. Flexibility agility reflexes dexterity are all part of the athletic effort, why focus on strength
Here in Switzerland we have fan club, predominantly male, for a lot of female sports star. A lot for skiers like Lara gut or Dominique gisin or orienteering legends like simone niggli luder. You literally see bare chested men on snow track painting their names in big letters on their chest.
No one blinks an eye. And it really doesn't seem sexual or anything but true respect.
I remember as a kid looking up to vreni Schneider, another ski legend, and how happy we were when we randomly met her and got a signed postcard.


Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk

Thank you for posting - so nice to see a non-American (using American in the broader sense, lots of Canadians posting here) viewpoint.
Well in all frankness we grow up both men and women reading Heidi, which is a positive figure regardless of gender.


Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: rdaneel0 on November 25, 2018, 09:50:11 AM
Lots of stuff to think about in this thread, but to the people who say that men are superior at all athletics and that the elite level is why you only watch male sports...can you please comment on gymnastics and figure skating? In gymnastics all the events are different for men and women. You could even say that men "can't" do what the women gymnasts are doing because the men are too heavy, not flexible enough, and slower. In figure skating women can typically do things the men can't do as well, they can jump higher with more rotations, lift their legs much higher, spin faster, be thrown, etc.

I realize this complicates the arguments being made here, because in figure skating and gymnastics (where women dominate) the women's divisions are more popular than the men's. All I know is I definitely disagree with the idea that men are better athletes in general. Consider that most of the athletic pursuits we have now were created primarily for men and by men, so of course they are tailored to men's bodies. But other athletic areas are absolutely female dominated, like contortion (women dominated), ballet (women dominated), acro/trapeze/rings/silks (women dominated). If a sport were invented that utilized flexibility, balance, and agility as the primary skills, women would dominate nearly every time.   

ETA: Oh, and rhythmic gymnastics! There isn't even a male version, it's completely female dominated at the elite level.

If a sport only exists for women, then I'd say that we don't know who is superior in the sport.  (The same is true for sports that only exist for men.)  I also don't believe that men are better at every sport, but as you mentioned most sports come from male roots and there may be implicit bias in the sports most commonly watched today.

Sport is competitive.  Several examples you've given of female dominated 'sports' include things that are non-competitive (contortion, ballet).  I'd be interested in watching any sports created where a mixed field of men and women can be competitive with each other on a relatively level playing field.  That would be great to watch.

There are lots of ballet/contortion competitions worldwide! I think female dominated sports get less screen time and have less of a fandom around them as someone else mentioned (re: climbing). This is where the historical sexism comes in, sports aren't natural they were invented, and they were nearly all invented to glorify men. I also think it's interesting that in fields where women dominate (figure skating, gymnastics), men compete with entirely different rules yet aren't seen as less able.

Fair enough on rhythmic gymnastics point, but by that logic I assume you agree that we don't really know if men or women are better at tackle football, correct?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: koshtra on November 25, 2018, 09:58:18 AM
Well, statistical arguments tend to be tedious and unilluminating until there are actual numbers involved. I work out regularly, and I know women my age who are stronger than I am (can bench press & squat more than I can.) So there's an N=1 counterexample (if you trust my reporting). I suspect that the older the population gets, the stronger proportionally the women will be, if only because a larger proportion of the men will be at death's door.

The usefulness of discussing something like this in the absence of actual data and numbers -- which presumably are out there if anyone cares to dig them up -- is that we can look at our impulses and identify our biases. What are we trying to make those numbers be & mean? Is our hundred-man/hundred-woman tug-of-war team matchup a 99.999% slam dunk, or a 78%? And why do we care? What's our investment in it?

If we really wanted the answer, we'd just go find it. (Hint: the probability is some number between .5 and 1.0.)

And we can look at how we draw our categories. Are old people, people who are ill, people who are undernourished, babies, children, in our representative sample? Why or why not? Do they "count"? So much of our sense of human life depends on who counts as a real (ordinary, regular, standard) human being. But those judgments tend to get made long before we're conscious of them.)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: marble_faun on November 25, 2018, 05:31:36 PM
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 25, 2018, 06:15:43 PM
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

Yup.

Itís depressing as hell.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 25, 2018, 09:10:42 PM
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

Itís interesting that you are insinuating that men are unable to separate friendships with work.

That was my story you were referencing above, and I can promise you, who I might be ďfriendsĒ with, has nothing to do with work. I am currently in the process of trying to fire one of my longer time friends, however he only partially reports to me, so itís a struggle. I could not care less that Iíve hung out with him several times outside of work or that we talk regularly. If someone fails to perform, they are held to the same standard regardless.

I used to have a lady who worked for me that I couldnít stand a lot of the time. She would cry all the time at work due to her personal relationship problems. Poor attitude, caused some work conflicts with others, etc. that being said - she was one of the best people in her position I have ever worked with. Her attention to detail was second to none. I stood up for her to my boss (and covered her ass) on multiple occasions.

On another occasion, another lady (who I was friends with) was about to be laid off from another department. I did some shifting around in my group, and was able to transfer her to my department to work for me. You know what else is funny? I had more experience, qualifications, etc., and was her manager, yet she made more money than I did. I couldnít care less, as she must have worked a good deal, but itís just a point against all those that think ďmen always make more.Ē

So yeah - I might minimize the amount of times I invite our female coworkers to come boating and drinking with a few coworkers and myself, but you have ZERO reasoning that it at all impacts how I do my job. I have positioned myself into way too good of a career to not always surround myself with the most capable people.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on November 25, 2018, 09:15:32 PM
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

Yup.

Itís depressing as hell.

I guess it depends on what you read.  Amelia Earhart was an early hero.  I followed Roz Savage and supported her rows across two oceans with money and materials.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my favorite TV series of all time.  I'm a fan of female artists ranging from Loreena McKennitt to Pat Benatar.  If I had to choose just one sex for my musical library I'd probably choose women.  And this from a guy who's not particularly liberal on social issues. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: DS on November 26, 2018, 08:15:59 AM
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Saddening that this is the norm. The word "confess" makes this sound really brutal.

It's sad to think that someone would see a person enjoying music, and turn it into something negative just because of their inferred reproductive traits.

"That person has a penis and is singing along to a song by someone with a vagina. Why would they make themselves appear so weak?"
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: DS on November 26, 2018, 08:35:35 AM
The conversation about strength and physical characteristics is a good base for the conversation.

Super basic analysis, observations and not necessarily my opinions:

We have observable differences in sex (binary vs spectrum a whole other can of worms for another thread) that have been seen for thousands of years. From that, we slapped gender on top of it, basically implying that the actions and interests of each sex are predictable and determinable. This has created a whole mess because of all the things that became gendered which just belong to humanity in general, and have nothing to do with our specific sex traits.

The observable differences in strength and all that has been said about sports translates into the realm of what is going on in the mind, aka gender, and everything on each side has become associated with those differences. (Bias: female = weaker)

Now, when a male wants to enjoy something that has wrongly been gendered which is really just a human interest, it is seen as something to do with strength and all of those other observable differences. This makes it uncomfortable for the male person and any who would want to see them as "manly" (spouse, family, etc)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Paul der Krake on November 26, 2018, 09:19:18 AM
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Saddening that this is the norm. The word "confess" makes this sound really brutal.

It's sad to think that someone would see a person enjoying music, and turn it into something negative just because of their inferred reproductive traits.

"That person has a penis and is singing along to a song by someone with a vagina. Why would they make themselves appear so weak?"
Thankfully there's ABBA, where us men can sing along without any judgement since the band is split 50/50 and they all sing.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 26, 2018, 09:46:34 AM
I'll judge you for singing along to ABBA, but it has nothing to do with women being in the band.  :P
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 26, 2018, 09:51:06 AM
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Saddening that this is the norm. The word "confess" makes this sound really brutal.

It's sad to think that someone would see a person enjoying music, and turn it into something negative just because of their inferred reproductive traits.

"That person has a penis and is singing along to a song by someone with a vagina. Why would they make themselves appear so weak?"
Thankfully there's ABBA, where us men can sing along without any judgement since the band is split 50/50 and they all sing.

And for us boomers there were The Mamas and the Papas.   ;-)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dabnasty on November 26, 2018, 12:41:23 PM
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Saddening that this is the norm. The word "confess" makes this sound really brutal.

It's sad to think that someone would see a person enjoying music, and turn it into something negative just because of their inferred reproductive traits.

"That person has a penis and is singing along to a song by someone with a vagina. Why would they make themselves appear so weak?"
Thankfully there's ABBA, where us men can sing along without any judgement since the band is split 50/50 and they all sing.
I think this has more to do with it than men listening to women. I've never seen any men made fun of for listening to Adele but Britney Spears, well... Or even Justin Beiber for that matter. It's more a matter of style than sex but there's probably some of both.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dabnasty on November 26, 2018, 12:58:19 PM
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

I wouldn't focus too much on the direction of the conversation. Most threads tend to find a disagreement and run away with it, the things we agree on don't need to be debated and I've seen a number of good points in this thread. It's just that when someone makes a good point the response tends to be something along the lines of, "yup". Not much to expand on there.

I do think the natural differences in strength leading to male dominated sports was relevant and it would have been nice if we left it at that but just as use2betrix and I think Wolfpack pointed out, some people get offended by verifiable facts and turn the issue into a debate. It's really hard to not keep responding to their comments.

Although based on Cressida's last post, I think it was just a matter of misunderstanding. The bolded below has nothing to do with marty998's comment. "More than likely" means >50% of the time, that's all. No need to limit the sample groups by age, fitness level, size - you can do this with the whole population and the statement is still correct.

And sorry Cressida but the bell curve thing is just nonsense. The whole point of doing statistical analysis is to:
1) run experiments on large sample sizes
2) isolate characteristics, to the furthest extent possible

You mention statistical analysis, but the problem is, that's not the way people tend to read marty998's statement. Again, here is what he said:

"objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman."

Now, if you introduce controls (like picking a man and woman with similar age, fitness level, size, etc.), then the statement is probably true (as I stated several comments ago). And if you make the comparison thousands of times (as you just noted), then the statement is probably true. I'm not and have never been arguing that point.

But most people reading the statement aren't thinking that way; most people will read it and think it's saying, "most men are stronger than most women."* And that is not true. My dad died several years ago of COPD and I can guarantee that if we'd done a comparison on the day he went into the hospital, I'd have been stronger than he was.

This is all I've been saying this entire time (and if you go back and read all of my comments, they will bear this out). I've been making a very narrow claim. I'm saying that if all you know is that you've chosen one man and one woman from the population of the world, it is not true that the man will "more than likely" be stronger. There are way too many variables for that.


*If you doubt this, just check reddit. Lots of people believe this.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 26, 2018, 02:37:48 PM
Although based on Cressida's last post, I think it was just a matter of misunderstanding. The bolded below has nothing to do with marty998's comment. "More than likely" means >50% of the time, that's all. No need to limit the sample groups by age, fitness level, size - you can do this with the whole population and the statement is still correct.

Technically it does, yes, and you're right. The problem is that people tend to round up. "More than likely" becomes "most of the time" becomes "well this is just true." The narrative I'm pushing back against is the old "the weakest men are stronger than the strongest women" story.

And no, not everyone does the rounding up thing, which is why I got such strong push-back. But it's definitely a thing, especially among groups engaging in motivated reasoning.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 26, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Although based on Cressida's last post, I think it was just a matter of misunderstanding. The bolded below has nothing to do with marty998's comment. "More than likely" means >50% of the time, that's all. No need to limit the sample groups by age, fitness level, size - you can do this with the whole population and the statement is still correct.

Technically it does, yes, and you're right. The problem is that people tend to round up. "More than likely" becomes "most of the time" becomes "well this is just true." The narrative I'm pushing back against is the old "the weakest men are stronger than the strongest women" story.

And no, not everyone does the rounding up thing, which is why I got such strong push-back. But it's definitely a thing, especially among groups engaging in motivated reasoning.

If you take a given man and a given woman of the same weight and age the man will typically have more muscle mass.
Quote
Our findings indicate that there are gender differences for regional and whole body muscle mass. On average, SM mass in men was 36% greater than in women. This gender difference remained after controlling for gender differences in body weight and height because SM mass relative to body weight was 38% in men and only 31% in women.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81 (https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81)

This difference in muscle size means that a guy will typically be stronger.
Quote
The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140138708969760 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140138708969760)

The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.



The argument that men's and women's brains are different is not based in evidence though.  The individual variation from person to person eclipses measurable differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html (https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 26, 2018, 06:27:53 PM
Although based on Cressida's last post, I think it was just a matter of misunderstanding. The bolded below has nothing to do with marty998's comment. "More than likely" means >50% of the time, that's all. No need to limit the sample groups by age, fitness level, size - you can do this with the whole population and the statement is still correct.

Technically it does, yes, and you're right. The problem is that people tend to round up. "More than likely" becomes "most of the time" becomes "well this is just true." The narrative I'm pushing back against is the old "the weakest men are stronger than the strongest women" story.

And no, not everyone does the rounding up thing, which is why I got such strong push-back. But it's definitely a thing, especially among groups engaging in motivated reasoning.

If you take a given man and a given woman of the same weight and age the man will typically have more muscle mass.
Quote
Our findings indicate that there are gender differences for regional and whole body muscle mass. On average, SM mass in men was 36% greater than in women. This gender difference remained after controlling for gender differences in body weight and height because SM mass relative to body weight was 38% in men and only 31% in women.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81 (https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81)

This difference in muscle size means that a guy will typically be stronger.
Quote
The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140138708969760 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140138708969760)

The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.



The argument that men's and women's brains are different is not based in evidence though.  The individual variation from person to person eclipses measurable differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html (https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html)

How dare you enter this thread with links and supporting facts. We only do broad generalizations, extremist examples, and baseless claims around these parts.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 26, 2018, 06:44:19 PM
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability


The argument that men's and women's brains are different is not based in evidence though.  The individual variation from person to person eclipses measurable differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html (https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html)

There we are in agreement, although now we're probably *really* going to bring out the trolls.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 26, 2018, 08:50:53 PM
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.


In terms of upper body strength, I would estimate it to be approximately 5-10%. For lower body strength, maybe 10-20%.

The best hope for women to be stronger would be comparing a young fit woman to an elderly or disabled man.

An average male age 15-60 that participated in resistance training semi regularly can pretty easily be stronger than 99% of women barring any disabilities.

As an example - Iíve been to dozens of weight rooms all over the world, witnessing thousands of men and women exercising over the last decade. I can count on one hand how many times Iíve seen a woman bench press 135lbs. I was able to do that easily at 14 years old. I bench double that now for 6 reps.

Regarding leg strength, due to womenís build, they do have a somewhat closer chance of being stronger than men. Iíd say that a woman who follows a nearly perfect strength training regimen for several years, can probably squat more than many men who do not exercise at all. For example, my wife can squat 225 lbs for a few reps, which is a ton for a female. This would be hard for most men that donít workout. A man on an identical training regimen, however, could hit this much sooner with far more potential. I very rarely see women squat as much as my wife. I squat a lot more, and have never in my life seen a woman squat as much as I do, though through research some of the most elite women in the country can squat more. These are literally like 1 in a million women. That being said - I see men squat more than me in a weekly basis, as for a man, my squats really arenít that spectacular.

Again - these are all my personal examples which seem to be far more extensive than any of the women disagreeing in this thread have mentioned. This is stretched between around 2000 workouts, several countries, and easily 30+ gyms in a dozen states.

I know thereís outliers, but genetics among genders all over the world are still relatively similar.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Sailor Sam on November 26, 2018, 09:36:01 PM
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.


In terms of upper body strength, I would estimate it to be approximately 5-10%. For lower body strength, maybe 10-20%.

The best hope for women to be stronger would be comparing a young fit woman to an elderly or disabled man.

An average male age 15-60 that participated in resistance training semi regularly can pretty easily be stronger than 99% of women barring any disabilities.

As an example - Iíve been to dozens of weight rooms all over the world, witnessing thousands of men and women exercising over the last decade. I can count on one hand how many times Iíve seen a woman bench press 135lbs. I was able to do that easily at 14 years old. I bench double that now for 6 reps.

Regarding leg strength, due to womenís build, they do have a somewhat closer chance of being stronger than men. Iíd say that a woman who follows a nearly perfect strength training regimen for several years, can probably squat more than many men who do not exercise at all. For example, my wife can squat 225 lbs for a few reps, which is a ton for a female. This would be hard for most men that donít workout. A man on an identical training regimen, however, could hit this much sooner with far more potential. I very rarely see women squat as much as my wife. I squat a lot more, and have never in my life seen a woman squat as much as I do, though through research some of the most elite women in the country can squat more. These are literally like 1 in a million women. That being said - I see men squat more than me in a weekly basis, as for a man, my squats really arenít that spectacular.

Again - these are all my personal examples which seem to be far more extensive than any of the women disagreeing in this thread have mentioned. This is stretched between around 2000 workouts, several countries, and easily 30+ gyms in a dozen states.

I know thereís outliers, but genetics among genders all over the world are still relatively similar.

Even your fancy gyms, your experiences aren't controlling for the gender discrimination women experienced early in life. Right when girls hit puberty, they tend to leave organized sports. This means they stop improving their sub-conscious muscle coordination and sequence firing at the exact same time when young people are building their adult muscle mass.

So, for example, when boys are learning the exact moment to fire their Latissimus Dorsi when doing a pull up, learning it so deeply it becomes unconscious, girls are NOT learning. Which means they become women who aren't necessarily weak, so much as they are uncoordinated.

Here's my personal example: I was a staff officer at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, where I trained Office Candidates. The previously-civilian women I trained universally needed remedial training on muscle sequence and recruitment for big compound lifts. Once they got that remedial training, they got mysteriously 'stronger' much faster than muscle growth could account for.

Based on my experience, 95% of women can do a pull-up, and 20-25% can bench press 135lbs. They just need some kinesiology training, and they need the motivation of someone screaming blue fucking murder at them if they don't get that weight up.

Our anecdotes conflict. Whatever shall we do?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: PoutineLover on November 26, 2018, 09:36:46 PM
This whole strength discussion is besides the point, but just for the sake of argument, think about the functional strength required to do daily tasks in life rather than the unnatural environment of the male dominated gym in affluent Western society. All the women who carry jugs of water miles to and from the well. The strength required for childbirth and carrying around infants all day. Farming, cleaning, caregiving. Women do more work than men worldwide when you include paid and unpaid labour, and yet male work is valued and paid more. Which is kinda like the argument being made by the women in this tread about the sports and entertainment industries...
Just because western society values certain types of typical male strength and actively works to undermine women's strength by discouraging female participation in sports, spreading the lie that lifting weights will give women huge muscles and make you undesirable, and calling strong women "manly" as an insult, doesn't mean that women in general aren't as strong or stronger than men in arguably more important ways.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 26, 2018, 09:43:14 PM
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.


In terms of upper body strength, I would estimate it to be approximately 5-10%. For lower body strength, maybe 10-20%.

The best hope for women to be stronger would be comparing a young fit woman to an elderly or disabled man.

An average male age 15-60 that participated in resistance training semi regularly can pretty easily be stronger than 99% of women barring any disabilities.

As an example - Iíve been to dozens of weight rooms all over the world, witnessing thousands of men and women exercising over the last decade. I can count on one hand how many times Iíve seen a woman bench press 135lbs. I was able to do that easily at 14 years old. I bench double that now for 6 reps.

Regarding leg strength, due to womenís build, they do have a somewhat closer chance of being stronger than men. Iíd say that a woman who follows a nearly perfect strength training regimen for several years, can probably squat more than many men who do not exercise at all. For example, my wife can squat 225 lbs for a few reps, which is a ton for a female. This would be hard for most men that donít workout. A man on an identical training regimen, however, could hit this much sooner with far more potential. I very rarely see women squat as much as my wife. I squat a lot more, and have never in my life seen a woman squat as much as I do, though through research some of the most elite women in the country can squat more. These are literally like 1 in a million women. That being said - I see men squat more than me in a weekly basis, as for a man, my squats really arenít that spectacular.

Again - these are all my personal examples which seem to be far more extensive than any of the women disagreeing in this thread have mentioned. This is stretched between around 2000 workouts, several countries, and easily 30+ gyms in a dozen states.

I know thereís outliers, but genetics among genders all over the world are still relatively similar.

Again, we've been over all of this. You're talking about (1) anecdotes (2) at gyms. I'm not saying your observation is wrong (I wasn't there), but your extrapolations are unsupported.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on November 27, 2018, 12:01:11 AM
I find this thread troublesome. I'm a male who likes a lot of male dominated sports. I also don't fanboy over anyone and if I do it's in a very minor way. I also have no problems with women at all. I don't think women are weaker emotionally than men. If anything my wife is a lot emotionally rougher than what I am. My wife also works hard. So does my mum. I work with women and they aren't difficult at all. I read books and watch shows with women in them and can definitely like female characters.

I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 27, 2018, 12:43:44 AM
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: former player on November 27, 2018, 02:16:02 AM
I find this thread troublesome. I'm a male who likes a lot of male dominated sports. I also don't fanboy over anyone and if I do it's in a very minor way. I also have no problems with women at all. I don't think women are weaker emotionally than men. If anything my wife is a lot emotionally rougher than what I am. My wife also works hard. So does my mum. I work with women and they aren't difficult at all. I read books and watch shows with women in them and can definitely like female characters.

I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.
i
Focusing on individual improvement does not solve systemic problems.  If it did, the USA would still be a British colony.

Also, this whole debate on stronger implies stronger is better regardless of any circumstances.  Weightlifting has weight classes for men, as do martial arts.  Are the smaller men who win World and Olympic medals in lower weight classes less good, less watchable, less worthy, than the men who win the heaviest weight class?  If not, then whether you are watching a man in his weight class or a woman in her weight class should be irrelevant.  The fact that pages have been used up talking only about how the heaviest weight class for men is likely higher than the heaviest weight class for women speaks volumes about the biases involved.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 27, 2018, 08:05:07 AM
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability

I'll try to do better!  I'm not an intelligence operative, so have never used 'words of estimative probability' before, and don't feel qualified to start doing so based on skimming over a Wikipedia article.

This chart (https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81# (https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81#)) from the first study I posted indicates the information I think you're looking for though.  It deals with muscle mass that men and women carry, and from the second article I posted we know that amount of muscle a person carries is one of the best predictors of strength.

If we compare men and women of the same age BMI and age between the ages of 18 and dead, men on average are always stronger.  (A bit more than 8% more muscle mass on average).  Men exhibit greater skeletal muscle mass on average that women in each age bracket tested.  If we compare men and women of different age groups, the highest muscle mass to BMI ratio is women in the 18 - 29 bracket with an average of 34.1 Ī 5.7.  This group of women is stronger than only the weakest tested bracket of men (the 60-69 group -    33.8 Ī 3.9).  All other age brackets of women are weaker than all other age brackets of men.

So, ignoring differences for age, a rough estimate that we have would be that 8.5% of women are stronger than men of the same BMI.  The extreme outliers would probably bump this number up or down a few percentage points, but I think it's a good place to start unless you have a better interpretation of the data.

If we ignore BMI AND age and just compare relative numbers, all age groups of women carry significantly less muscle mass than all groups of men on average.  Even the most muscled group of women (18-29 at 21.8 Ī 4.6) carries significantly less muscle mass than the weakest group of men (70+ at 27.8 Ī 3.4).  This makes sense since most men are both taller and mass more than women on average.  Only the very strongest from the group of 18-29 year old women (carrying 26.4 kg of muscle mass) would be stronger than the very weakest of the group of 70+ year old men (carrying 24.4 kg of muscle mass) so I guess that this number would be in the low single digits percent-wise (certainly below 8.5%) unless you have a better read on the data than I do.

So,to qualify my initial statement . . . It's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man at random but it's unlikely.  In a hundred comparisons, we're probably going to find this occurring once or maybe twice.


The argument that men's and women's brains are different is not based in evidence though.  The individual variation from person to person eclipses measurable differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html (https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html)

There we are in agreement, although now we're probably *really* going to bring out the trolls.

The idea that women fundamentally think differently, to the best of my knowledge is not really supported by measurable science.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 27, 2018, 08:08:55 AM
Doing this kind of statistical work is not my forte, so if I've made stupid assumptions please point them out and correct them for me.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dabnasty on November 27, 2018, 08:10:22 AM
I find this thread troublesome. I'm a male who likes a lot of male dominated sports. I also don't fanboy over anyone and if I do it's in a very minor way. I also have no problems with women at all. I don't think women are weaker emotionally than men. If anything my wife is a lot emotionally rougher than what I am. My wife also works hard. So does my mum. I work with women and they aren't difficult at all. I read books and watch shows with women in them and can definitely like female characters.

I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.
i
Focusing on individual improvement does not solve systemic problems.  If it did, the USA would still be a British colony.

Also, this whole debate on stronger implies stronger is better regardless of any circumstances.  Weightlifting has weight classes for men, as do martial arts.  Are the smaller men who win World and Olympic medals in lower weight classes less good, less watchable, less worthy, than the men who win the heaviest weight class?  If not, then whether you are watching a man in his weight class or a woman in her weight class should be irrelevant.  The fact that pages have been used up talking only about how the heaviest weight class for men is likely higher than the heaviest weight class for women speaks volumes about the biases involved.

I'm not going to defend everyone who's harping on this, but as far as I can tell the only reason it's overtaken the rest of the conversation is that some are denying that the physical make up of humans has something to do with why male athletes are more watched than female. GuitarStv's suggestion that inherent physical features such as strength, speed, and height have something to do with why fans watch more male sports than female seems pretty obvious to me. When people take offense and try to argue with that point, no wonder it's going to get a response. It seems like a basic fact to many of us.

And sure, it's not the only reason. Perhaps popular sports were developed around physical attributes more common in men. That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered before this thread. Another reason is almost certainly the established fan base which leads to a higher potential for earnings in male sports. Because there is more incentive to become a professional athlete, more young boys will aspire to be great athletes and more talent will be developed at a young age. Another is the direction parents tend to push their children. I have no doubt parents are more likely to push their sons towards playing sports more often than their daughters.

I think if we can't make some of these statements about reality without digressing into arguments that someone is being sexist, the productiveness of these conversations will continue to grind to a halt.




Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on November 27, 2018, 08:20:05 AM
I find this thread troublesome. I'm a male who likes a lot of male dominated sports. I also don't fanboy over anyone and if I do it's in a very minor way. I also have no problems with women at all. I don't think women are weaker emotionally than men. If anything my wife is a lot emotionally rougher than what I am. My wife also works hard. So does my mum. I work with women and they aren't difficult at all. I read books and watch shows with women in them and can definitely like female characters.

I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.
i
Focusing on individual improvement does not solve systemic problems.  If it did, the USA would still be a British colony.

Also, this whole debate on stronger implies stronger is better regardless of any circumstances.  Weightlifting has weight classes for men, as do martial arts.  Are the smaller men who win World and Olympic medals in lower weight classes less good, less watchable, less worthy, than the men who win the heaviest weight class?  If not, then whether you are watching a man in his weight class or a woman in her weight class should be irrelevant.  The fact that pages have been used up talking only about how the heaviest weight class for men is likely higher than the heaviest weight class for women speaks volumes about the biases involved.

I'm not going to defend everyone who's harping on this, but as far as I can tell the only reason it's overtaken the rest of the conversation is that some are denying that the physical make up of humans has something to do with why male athletes are more watched than female. GuitarStv's suggestion that inherent physical features such as strength, speed, and height have something to do with why fans watch more male sports than female seems pretty obvious to me. When people take offense and try to argue with that point, no wonder it's going to get a response. It seems like a basic fact to many of us.

And sure, it's not the only reason. Perhaps popular sports were developed around physical attributes more common in men. That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered before this thread. Another reason is almost certainly the established fan base which leads to a higher potential for earnings in male sports. Because there is more incentive to become a professional athlete, more young boys will aspire to be great athletes and more talent will be developed at a young age. Another is the direction parents tend to push their children. I have no doubt parents are more likely to push their sons towards playing sports more often than their daughters.

I think if we can't make some of these statements about reality without digressing into arguments that someone is being sexist, the productiveness of these conversations will continue to grind to a halt.

I really don't think that's true. Reading back through the thread, the conversation veered toward "well, men are stronger in sports!" pretty early on, after which point it dominated the conversation. When, if we were talking about the entire phenomenon, it probably would have been relegated to one exceptional point before people moving on to other areas in which physical strength is not the issue -- which is the majority of areas.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: DS on November 27, 2018, 08:22:24 AM
Yeah this took a sharp turn quickly and hasn't come back.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 27, 2018, 09:48:23 AM
Yeah this took a sharp turn quickly and hasn't come back.

So let's let the strength people start another thread if they care about it so much, and get back to all the other aspects.  Which was actors (of both genders), and musicians and singers and so on.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Adam Zapple on November 27, 2018, 10:39:01 AM
Is it true that there are fewer male fans of female actors than the other way around?  I am not a movie buff, nor do I care much about celebrity culture so I'm asking a serious question.  My observation is that women consume more celebrity-focused media than men and would, therefore, be more likely to be a "fan" of a certain (non-sports) celebrity, male or female.

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OurTown on November 27, 2018, 11:09:21 AM
I don't follow sports religiously so I can't really speak to that aspect.  I enjoy actors / actresses and musical performers of both genders.  Classical composers were predominately men just because that was the way things were.

How about following internet personalities, e.g. MMM?  Some content is gender specific, like the "Art of Manliness."  That is a fantastic site, btw.  In other cases, I suppose men are probably drawn to emulate other men because they relate to them more easily. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: never give up on November 27, 2018, 11:26:24 AM
I may have a different take on this being from the UK but Iím not sure I agree with the subject line. I know very few people that are fans of actors or actresses. I know lots of people that are fans of films though. Iím not sure I know anyone male or female that would watch a film just because a specific actor or actress was in it. I do know people that wouldnít watch a film because a specific actor or actress was in it though, presumably because they find the person annoying or whatever.

Music wise again I donít know anyone that only listens to music produced by just one gender. If I like a song then I like a song. If it made me tap my foot and wiggle my hips and wave my hands in the air like I just donít care then itís done itís job. I really donít mind if the vocal is male or female, or if the drummer is male or female etc.

Obviously football is big here. Attendances at ladies football is similar to five or six leagues down in the menís game. I think to some extent football is very tribal here. Menís teams have built up rivalries often over 100 years or so and as a result I think this history is embedded completely in the culture. Menís football has a different feel to it than ladies because of it. Far more women watch menís football than ladies. I happily see far more females at football matches now though than when I was younger. I think itís great the ladies game is supported so well by the big clubs and the ladies game is growing.

I think the best comparison of male and female sport is something like the Olympics where I think almost all events have representation of male and female participants. Again I donít know anyone that would tune in for the menís 100 metres but wouldnít watch the womenís. With cycling, or track and field, rowing or more random events we only watch once every four years, everyone I know that enjoys the Olympics watches it all. They never pick an event and only watch either the men or women in it.

Having an interest in sport, music, film is great and should be encouraged at a young age. As long as both males and females have access to participate in and spectate in whatever interests they have, then that is the main thing I think.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: deborah on November 27, 2018, 12:04:29 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/27/which-australian-teams-make-their-fans-most-proud-hint-they-dont-feature-men
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on November 27, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but I certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably at least in the 50/50 range)

Or is it really just as unbalanced as I questioned in my OP?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RyanAtTanagra on November 27, 2018, 12:13:04 PM
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably in the 50/50 range)

My favorite band, mr Gnome, is female lead singer/frontwoman (only other member is the male drummer, who stays in the background), and the concerts are probably at least 50% male.  Definitely not 80% male though.  It's also a lesser known band and the concerts are <100 people, so not the greatest example.  But at least one exists :-)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 27, 2018, 12:27:53 PM
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but I certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably at least in the 50/50 range)

Or is it really just as unbalanced as I questioned in my OP?

You're looking at a genre of music that is heavily marketed to women rather than men.

Heart in the 70s had a female singer and guitarist and played to mostly male audiences . . . actually, I'd be willing to bet that any groups fronted by women in the genre of hard rock / metal would mostly play to guys.  Metal's not really my forte though.

If you look at the modern blues scene, there are several woman who regularly play to male audiences.  Susan Tedeschi, Ana Popovic, Samantha Fish, Heather Gillis, etc.  Again, blues audiences tend to be mostly guys . . . so if you find women fronting a band they'll be playing to mostly guys.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: dashuk on November 27, 2018, 02:18:09 PM
Depressing how this has become not just focused on sports, but specifically on lifting lumps of metal up in the air. I can't imagine why this might have happened.

And the way strength is measured favours men.  And I can't say what measurements would favour women, because we haven't done those experiments - although the women ultra-marathoners do show up a lot.  And of course as mentioned before, women are generally trained to be weak.


Here's a few for you who can kick all comers on equal terms...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lael_Wilcox

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Coker

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Burton#Record-breaker

(the last one's worth reading just for the story about the liquorice allsort)

There is a study out there that shows that while, yes, the top man is faster than the top woman at elite level in most running distance, if you take a man and a woman who can run, say, a half-marathon in the same time, the woman will likely be faster over a full marathon or ultra while the man will be faster over five or ten k. The longer distance diminishes the importance of raw power, makes a different type of body composition advantageous, rewards a less testosterone driven approach to racing, and depends on ability to suffer mentally as much as anything.



Meanwhile in more mainstream pro cycling, it's hard to "fanboy" female athletes without conscious effort because it's not far off impossible to watch women race on TV. Same holds true for plenty of other sports - rugby springs to mind.

No TV means no money to teams, which means non-livable wages, which means very few truly pro athletes with no other jobs to worry about, which means athletes not reaching their full potential before dropping out of the sport, which limits the depth of field, which allows organisers to insist that it's impossible to run womens' races equivalent to the mens, which allows broadcasters to make the same argument being trotted out in that thread that the "product" just isn't that interesting and isn't worth showing and hey look we're going round in a big circle here.


I follow sports because I respect the dedication and skill of the participants and ultimately because it entertains me. We have gender (and weight and age) categories because it takes the boring factors of body composition and ability to produce testosterone out of it that would otherwise mask the interesting bits of how well they have prepared, how skillful they are and how much they want to win.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: jessmess on November 27, 2018, 04:33:47 PM
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

a lot could have to do with a persons environment. Just because it doesn't affect you right now doesn't mean its not a problem for another group of people
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on November 27, 2018, 04:52:47 PM
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves. Are women given a fair go in society today ? Of course they are. Sure some people cop it but both sexes cop it. On the whole though we are living in a world that gives you so many opportunities. Focusing on on structural oppression and marginalization to me comes across as delusional. It's like focusing on the hole in the donut.

Is it okay for men to complain about how the laws are against them ? I work for a big company and women and minorities are definitely promoted as a priority. That means that capable deserving men will not be promoted sometimes. That is discrimination. I think it's crazy for men to complain about this because the modern world provides so many opportunities to all people today.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 27, 2018, 05:03:20 PM
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but I certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably at least in the 50/50 range)

Or is it really just as unbalanced as I questioned in my OP?


This has been answered many times. Yes, it's imbalanced. As a society, we've internalized the norm that guy stuff is universal and chick stuff is marginal.

The point is not (where I suspect you want the conversation to go) that guy stuff is inherently superior to chick stuff. It means we've been taught that it is. It can be unlearned. In fact, we can unlearn the idea that stuff even has to be either guy stuff or chick stuff.

This is really not complicated at all.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 27, 2018, 05:11:18 PM
I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves.

That's because that's often where it is. Under patriarchy, women have systematically been exploited for sexual and reproductive and household and emotional labor, for millennia.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't make this untrue. That you don't recognize that the system is there doesn't prove that it's not there. And that you might not have witnessed that exploitation in your own relationships or in others that you see doesn't prove that it's not pervasive.* I'm surprised at the fallacious reasoning going on here.


*Future commenters, please take note of this sentence.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on November 27, 2018, 07:02:12 PM
I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves.

That's because that's often where it is. Under patriarchy, women have systematically been exploited for sexual and reproductive and household and emotional labor, for millennia.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't make this untrue. That you don't recognize that the system is there doesn't prove that it's not there. And that you might not have witnessed that exploitation in your own relationships or in others that you see doesn't prove that it's not pervasive.* I'm surprised at the fallacious reasoning going on here.


*Future commenters, please take note of this sentence.

Just on this point. I see why we have a difference of opinion. I don't believe a patriarchy exists. You do. That is what it comes down too. You have a theory of the way society functions that is based on somehow giving men an advantage. I don't see that system at all in the world today. I don't view the world through a lens of gender and gender bias within society.

I see society as a whole to have evolved to a place that is so much better than at any time in history where basically all people living in first world countries have the ability to create great lives for themselves.

No need to argue this point. You have a theory that I don't prescribe too.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Sailor Sam on November 27, 2018, 07:14:16 PM
I myself posit that the moon is made entirely of green cheese. None of this namby-pamby 'evidence based science' will sway me, for I am correct. Who's with me!?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dabnasty on November 27, 2018, 07:19:37 PM
I myself posit that the moon is made entirely of green cheese. None of this namby-pamby 'evidence based science' will sway me, for I am correct. Who's with me!?

Nonsense. The moon is a hologram like all of the other pretty lights in the sky. Anything that heavy would fall to our 2-dimensional earth in an instant.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 27, 2018, 07:45:09 PM
No need to argue this point.

Well that's for sure.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 27, 2018, 08:03:30 PM
Although steveo is not convinceable, I imagine there are some posting or reading here who might be swayed by a detailed and cogent explanation for the existence of patriarchy. Luckily, I found one recently, and I'm going to paste it here, just for information. I'm not going to provide the link* because the article as a whole has a lot of controversial content that's separate from the explanation of patriarchy, and I don't want to get sidetracked by that.

So here it is. Note: as I said, this is for information only. I really do not want to get into the minutiae of whether every observation in this quote is factual. The point is, it's a theory of why patriarchy exists, and I'm providing it for the benefit of those who might never have heard this story and might find it interesting. I've bolded the parts I find particularly salient.

Quote
No matter which side you fall on, thereís no question that the world we live in today is pretty fucked up. After all, we live in a society where a human beingís entire future depends on the shape of their genitals at birth! Male babies wear blue and learn to toughen up; female babies get pink dresses, a lifetime of silencing, and a one-in-five chance of sexual abuse. And while it starts in the nursery, it certainly doesnít stop there. This completely imaginary, pointless set of demands will worm its way into almost every aspect of our entire lives, from what kind of shampoo we buy to how much we get paid to whether or not weíre afraid to walk home alone at night. Itíll even determine how people remember us long after weíre gone Ė all because of what a nurse once saw between our legs!

It may be hard to believe, but we werenít always quite so stupid. Early on in human society, the shape of a personís genitals wasnít particularly important. Some social roles like hunting and gathering were split between sexes, but pre-agricultural human cultures were often remarkably egalitarian. Then, about ten thousand years ago, something changed. Between the rise of cities, farming, and private property, female human beings soon found themselves ruthlessly exploited by male human beings for domestic and reproductive labor Ė so much so that, by the time the first written word was developed by the ancient Sumerians, male supremacy was almost universal across the civilized world.

Now, history is absolutely stuffed with examples of oppression, and in every case those stories follow the same pattern. Think of the slave trade, or the genocide of the American Indians, or Britainís colonization of India and Africa. You start with a group of people who want something Ė whether it be diamonds, tea, land, or cheap labor Ė that another group of people has. So they go out and wage war, sow disease, spread terror, and otherwise inflicts abuse until their victims can no longer resist. But then what? Youíve got a huge number of people you need to control, and no matter how many soldiers you might have, you canít have someone standing over them with guns every hour of the day.

The answer is always the same, whether youíre an American slave trader in 1800 or a Roman general in 100 BC. All you have to do is create a system of beliefs and customs that naturalize the hierarchy youíve created, until it doesnít even look like violence anymore. When Britain invaded and colonized Ireland, for example, they immediately set out to portray the native Irish as inherently inferior and childlike, incapable of managing their own country. Soon, the British were no longer aggressive thieves and killers; they were paternalistic guides for an ďIrish raceĒ that couldnít survive without them. This narrative Ė that the Irish and the British were two distinct types of people Ė was key to ensuring that the colonized never questioned their abuse and the colonizer never second-guessed their abusing.

The race system in America served just the same purpose, as did the notion of the ďsavage IndianĒ who could never be tamed Ė except, it just so happens, by being removed from their lands and stripped of their resources. All throughout history, across every continent, this pattern plays out. Luckily, the oppressed peoples of the world have struggled for just as long to assert the truth: That there is only really one type of human being, and that submission isnít the natural state for anyone.

So what does this have to do with gender? Well, we can go back to the ancient Sumerians and see the exact same problem: What do you do with all these female human beings, now that youíre exploiting and abusing them to keep your civilization running? Male supremacy required the exact same justification that white supremacy, colonialism, and capitalism needed. And the name we have for that justification Ė that set of beliefs and practices that justify the domination of male people over female people Ė is called gender.

Gender is the idea that female human beings are a certain type of human called a ďwoman,Ē and male human beings are another called ďman.Ē Itís the belief that these types of humans are fundamentally different, and itís the set of practices that ensure one stays above the other in the social hierarchy. Just like race, and just like class, itís something invented by the powerful to define the powerless.

In other words, itís a fiction. Bullshit. It makes reference to something real Ė our sex Ė but fills up those real human bodies with meaning that is completely invented. Think about race. Do some people have thicker hair and darker skin? Of course. Does thicker hair and darker skin mean youíre destined for slavery and servitude? Of course not. Do some people have a vulva and a uterus? Of course. Does that mean they exist to pump out babies and clean the kitchen? Of course not. Our physical bodies are real, but the mythology created around them is pure fantasy.

So whatís the solution to these fantasies? For the feminist, itís obvious: Just get rid of the damn things! The entire project of feminism is to break apart this nightmarish set of rules and restrictions in their entirety, and to create a world where anyone can dress, speak, move, live, and love as theyíd like to. We imagine a future where whatís between your legs matters about as much as which hand you use to write or how your earlobes hang.



*I know anyone who wanted to find it could do so; that's how the internet works. So be it.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 27, 2018, 08:30:14 PM
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: lhamo on November 27, 2018, 08:39:26 PM
Would anyone like to join me in creating a gender neutral fanclub for the strongest organism on the planet -- the gonorrhea bacterium!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13666-sexually-transmitted-bug-is-the-strongest-organism/

Unfortunately firefox is telling me that the plos website is unsafe so I don't want to click through to the videos.  But I bet we could come up with some pretty clever mascots for Team Gonorrhea!


Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Sailor Sam on November 27, 2018, 08:55:49 PM
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.

Shit! Women who undergo an oophorectomy no longer possess personalities? I'm learning so many a splendid thing today.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 27, 2018, 09:16:55 PM
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.

Sounds like this is your argument:
1. Men have more testosterone than women.
2. Men exhibit more aggressive behavior than women.
3. Therefore, aggression must be a result of testosterone and there's no point in trying to roll back the pervasive gendered expectations that men will be aggressive.

I don't think that's a sound argument.

I doubt hormones have *zero* impact on personality. But men as individuals have varying amounts of testosterone production, whereas all men as a class have been subjected to gendered expectations that they will be aggressive. Let's get rid of the gendered expectations first, and then see if men are still hopelessly aggressive. Then we can talk about truly inherent personality differences.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 27, 2018, 09:36:30 PM
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.

Sounds like this is your argument:
1. Men have more testosterone than women.
2. Men exhibit more aggressive behavior than women.
3. Therefore, aggression must be a result of testosterone and there's no point in trying to roll back the pervasive gendered expectations that men will be aggressive.

I don't think that's a sound argument.

I doubt hormones have *zero* impact on personality. But men as individuals have varying amounts of testosterone production, whereas all men as a class have been subjected to gendered expectations that they will be aggressive. Let's get rid of the gendered expectations first, and then see if men are still hopelessly aggressive. Then we can talk about truly inherent personality differences.

Iím not saying that this is the entire causation of differences amongst genders, itís a scientific fact that testosterone and estrogen have major impacts on personality traits.

Womenís testosterone averages around 15-70 ng/DL, while menís is around 350-1100 ng/DL. Yes, there are variations among men, but those ranges are for healthy average adults. So in healthy adults, men have around 5x-70x more..

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

Iím sorry but no matter how much some people have this dream of being 100% identical in personality traits, unless anatomy changes, itís not going to happen.

Note - Iím not saying that more testosterone is better by any means. Yes, the higher muscle mass can be beneficial in some aspects, although itís often at the cost of flexibility, small motor skills, etc. In ďsomeĒ cases, aggression and drive can be beneficial, although in many cases it can be a hinderence. It also gets a LOT of men in trouble, in addition to the added on issues of the cultural expectations.

Iím in no way disagreeing with many of the cultural issues driving a wedge between genders, however I think instead of having this expectation that women and men will be 100% equal in their thinking some day, I think it would be more realistic to find the equal values that each gender can can contribute to all aspects of society, although of course any gender is able to contribute however they choose. I honestly feel like the hormonal differences (with the added society pressures) do contribute to women typically having better empathy and being better caretakers in terms of nurses, etc. obviously this is just a generalization.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 27, 2018, 09:52:00 PM
use2betrix, your comments and the study you linked don't show causation. So you haven't provided evidence for this comment:

itís a scientific fact that testosterone and estrogen have major impacts on personality traits.

Given that lack of evidence, I see no reason to address anything else you wrote above. I have nothing further to add on this topic, beyond what I've already said.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: former player on November 28, 2018, 02:55:58 AM
I don't believe a patriarchy exists.

You are a fish that doesn't know what water is.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on November 28, 2018, 06:55:51 AM
use2betrix, your comments and the study you linked don't show causation. So you haven't provided evidence for this comment:

itís a scientific fact that testosterone and estrogen have major impacts on personality traits.

Given that lack of evidence, I see no reason to address anything else you wrote above. I have nothing further to add on this topic, beyond what I've already said.

You mentioned that men, as a class, have expectations to be aggressive. My point is that itís not just these cultural expectations, itís biological differences.

The link I provided had a study where testosterone levels were measured in violent inmates vs non-violent inmates, and the violent inmates had higher testosterone levels nearly 90%? of the time.

These are just some differences in the ranges of menís levels, and aggression doesnít always mean violence. The lowest average menís testosterone levels are around 3x less than the highest levels. The lowest menís is still around 5x higher than the highest females levels..

Thereís a ton more articles on the topic, I just chose a more scientific article. I can tell by your unwillingness to really provide any additional feedback, that you really donít want to consider the option as it doesnít fit the feminist agenda that aside from genitals, thereís no difference in genders.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 28, 2018, 07:15:55 AM
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.

Sounds like this is your argument:
1. Men have more testosterone than women.
2. Men exhibit more aggressive behavior than women.
3. Therefore, aggression must be a result of testosterone and there's no point in trying to roll back the pervasive gendered expectations that men will be aggressive.

I don't think that's a sound argument.

I doubt hormones have *zero* impact on personality. But men as individuals have varying amounts of testosterone production, whereas all men as a class have been subjected to gendered expectations that they will be aggressive. Let's get rid of the gendered expectations first, and then see if men are still hopelessly aggressive. Then we can talk about truly inherent personality differences.

Iím not saying that this is the entire causation of differences amongst genders, itís a scientific fact that testosterone and estrogen have major impacts on personality traits.

Womenís testosterone averages around 15-70 ng/DL, while menís is around 350-1100 ng/DL. Yes, there are variations among men, but those ranges are for healthy average adults. So in healthy adults, men have around 5x-70x more..

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

Iím sorry but no matter how much some people have this dream of being 100% identical in personality traits, unless anatomy changes, itís not going to happen.

Note - Iím not saying that more testosterone is better by any means. Yes, the higher muscle mass can be beneficial in some aspects, although itís often at the cost of flexibility, small motor skills, etc. In ďsomeĒ cases, aggression and drive can be beneficial, although in many cases it can be a hinderence. It also gets a LOT of men in trouble, in addition to the added on issues of the cultural expectations.

Iím in no way disagreeing with many of the cultural issues driving a wedge between genders, however I think instead of having this expectation that women and men will be 100% equal in their thinking some day, I think it would be more realistic to find the equal values that each gender can can contribute to all aspects of society, although of course any gender is able to contribute however they choose. I honestly feel like the hormonal differences (with the added society pressures) do contribute to women typically having better empathy and being better caretakers in terms of nurses, etc. obviously this is just a generalization.

Men on average have more testosterone, and women more estrogen.  That's completely true and easily measurable.  The evidence regarding the impact of this hormonal difference on how men and women think is however not very clear cut or well understood at the moment.  Current research seems to indicate that is is a factor, but not the most important related to sexual differentiation, cognition, and emotion.

Quote
In the twentieth century, the dominant model of sexual differentiation stated that genetic sex (XX versus XY) causes differentiation of the gonads, which then secrete gonadal hormones that act directly on tissues to induce sex differences in function. This serial model of sexual differentiation was simple, unifying and seductive. Recent evidence, however, indicates that the linear model is incorrect and that sex differences arise in response to diverse sex-specific signals originating from inherent differences in the genome and involve cellular mechanisms that are specific to individual tissues or brain regions. Moreover, sex-specific effects of the environment reciprocally affect biology, sometimes profoundly, and must therefore be integrated into a realistic model of sexual differentiation. A more appropriate model is a parallel-interactive model that encompasses the roles of multiple molecular signals and pathways that differentiate males and females, including synergistic and compensatory interactions among pathways and an important role for the environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165173/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165173/)

Quote
Testosterone influences the brain via organizational and activational effects. Numerous relevant studies on rodents and a few on humans focusing on specific behavioral and cognitive parameters have been published. The results are, unfortunately, controversial and puzzling. Dosing, timing, even the application route seem to considerably affect the outcomes.

Quote
cultural differences, sex and age have all been shown to impact the physiological effects of testosterone
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330791/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330791/)

Quote
The study of sex/gender differences attracts the attention of a considerable amount of research in addition to the public media, politicians, and laypersons. Many use neuroscientific sex/gender differences to explain and partly justify social and behavioral differences. However, the research of the past 50 years and particularly of the last 10 years has shown that sex/gender differences in terms of cognitive functions are less clear than previously assumed. Both sexes are more similar in respect to many psychological functions, and it is also now clear how strong the influence of culture and social stereotypes is. In addition, the sex/gender differences in brain anatomy and brain function are less clear. There are some relatively strong but also many moderate or even weak sex/gender differences in terms of brain anatomy and brain function. These differences are not large enough to support a clear sexual dimorphism. Thus, there is no strong evidence available supporting the existence of a typical ďfemaleĒ or ďmaleĒ brain.

Most interestingly, there is currently a lack of a direct and strong correlation between these neuroscientific findings and real-life behavior as well as cognition. However, in the context of modern plasticity research, we must take considerably more account of the fact that the brain can adapt and change anatomically and functionally through practice and learning. Therefore, it could be possible that male and female brains might change their structure and functions because of their different experiences and because they are exposed to different social environments. Thus, the brainís anatomical and functional sex/gender differences found so far can also be modulated by experience and not entirely by sex-related genetic influences. However, it is also possible that genetic, hormonal, and social influences interact in a currently unknown manner in forming brain and behavior. In light of these influences on the development of the human brain, a new area of sex/gender research could be established. We should consider the human brain more as a particularly adaptable organ that allows us to adjust to different environments and cultures.]The study of sex/gender differences attracts the attention of a considerable amount of research in addition to the public media, politicians, and laypersons. Many use neuroscientific sex/gender differences to explain and partly justify social and behavioral differences. However, the research of the past 50 years and particularly of the last 10 years has shown that sex/gender differences in terms of cognitive functions are less clear than previously assumed. Both sexes are more similar in respect to many psychological functions, and it is also now clear how strong the influence of culture and social stereotypes is. In addition, the sex/gender differences in brain anatomy and brain function are less clear. There are some relatively strong but also many moderate or even weak sex/gender differences in terms of brain anatomy and brain function. These differences are not large enough to support a clear sexual dimorphism. Thus, there is no strong evidence available supporting the existence of a typical ďfemaleĒ or ďmaleĒ brain.

Most interestingly, there is currently a lack of a direct and strong correlation between these neuroscientific findings and real-life behavior as well as cognition. However, in the context of modern plasticity research, we must take considerably more account of the fact that the brain can adapt and change anatomically and functionally through practice and learning. Therefore, it could be possible that male and female brains might change their structure and functions because of their different experiences and because they are exposed to different social environments. Thus, the brainís anatomical and functional sex/gender differences found so far can also be modulated by experience and not entirely by sex-related genetic influences. However, it is also possible that genetic, hormonal, and social influences interact in a currently unknown manner in forming brain and behavior. In light of these influences on the development of the human brain, a new area of sex/gender research could be established. We should consider the human brain more as a particularly adaptable organ that allows us to adjust to different environments and cultures.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6013760/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6013760/)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OtherJen on November 28, 2018, 07:35:36 AM
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves. Are women given a fair go in society today ? Of course they are. Sure some people cop it but both sexes cop it. On the whole though we are living in a world that gives you so many opportunities. Focusing on on structural oppression and marginalization to me comes across as delusional. It's like focusing on the hole in the donut.

Is it okay for men to complain about how the laws are against them ? I work for a big company and women and minorities are definitely promoted as a priority. That means that capable deserving men will not be promoted sometimes. That is discrimination. I think it's crazy for men to complain about this because the modern world provides so many opportunities to all people today.

Iím curious about the assumption that the women and minorities who are promoted are less capable than their white male coworkers. For most of Western history, white men received such promotions by default, and equally or more qualified women and minorities were not even considered. One could thus view corporate efforts to ensure the consideration of ALL qualified candidates as a means of correcting earlier bias.

For any given position, only one person will be selected. It seems ridiculous to assume that the white man would always be the best person for the job, but again, that was most of Western history.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on November 28, 2018, 10:28:17 AM
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves. Are women given a fair go in society today ? Of course they are. Sure some people cop it but both sexes cop it. On the whole though we are living in a world that gives you so many opportunities. Focusing on on structural oppression and marginalization to me comes across as delusional. It's like focusing on the hole in the donut.

Is it okay for men to complain about how the laws are against them ? I work for a big company and women and minorities are definitely promoted as a priority. That means that capable deserving men will not be promoted sometimes. That is discrimination. I think it's crazy for men to complain about this because the modern world provides so many opportunities to all people today.

OMG let me roll my eyes so hard.

Focusing on structural oppression and marginalization is the only way to dismantle it.  Ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist?  Please.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on November 28, 2018, 11:12:12 AM
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but I certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably at least in the 50/50 range)

Or is it really just as unbalanced as I questioned in my OP?


This has been answered many times. Yes, it's imbalanced. As a society, we've internalized the norm that guy stuff is universal and chick stuff is marginal.

The point is not (where I suspect you want the conversation to go) that guy stuff is inherently superior to chick stuff. It means we've been taught that it is. It can be unlearned. In fact, we can unlearn the idea that stuff even has to be either guy stuff or chick stuff.

This is really not complicated at all.

I do not "want the conversation to go" anywhere in particular. If you think I constructed this debate to slam anyone, you are sorely mistaken. I think this is a fascinating topic, and I would like to think I have a track record on this forum of being reasonable and fair (and sometimes funny).

And I absolutely think unbalanced societal constructs explain many, if not most, of the differences in fandoms that we've discussed. But I'm not convinced it explains all of them.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on November 28, 2018, 12:44:47 PM
I can tell by your unwillingness to really provide any additional feedback, that you really donít want to consider the option as it doesnít fit the feminist agenda that aside from genitals, thereís no difference in genders.

No additional feedback is necessary. My feedback was that neither your statements nor your link showed that testosterone causes aggression. Therefore, you haven't even made a case for me to begin to react to.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on November 28, 2018, 02:16:14 PM
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves. Are women given a fair go in society today ? Of course they are. Sure some people cop it but both sexes cop it. On the whole though we are living in a world that gives you so many opportunities. Focusing on on structural oppression and marginalization to me comes across as delusional. It's like focusing on the hole in the donut.

Is it okay for men to complain about how the laws are against them ? I work for a big company and women and minorities are definitely promoted as a priority. That means that capable deserving men will not be promoted sometimes. That is discrimination. I think it's crazy for men to complain about this because the modern world provides so many opportunities to all people today.

Iím curious about the assumption that the women and minorities who are promoted are less capable than their white male coworkers. For most of Western history, white men received such promotions by default, and equally or more qualified women and minorities were not even considered. One could thus view corporate efforts to ensure the consideration of ALL qualified candidates as a means of correcting earlier bias.

For any given position, only one person will be selected. It seems ridiculous to assume that the white man would always be the best person for the job, but again, that was most of Western history.

I don't believe in positive discrimination but you make a good point and that is why I don't like hearing guys complain about the situation. I also think that lots of women and minorities are extremely capable.

My point is that we shouldn't be looking through promotions and achievements through a gender or other bias. We all are so lucky but some people want to complain. I think that positive discrimination doesn't make things equal. I think it just causes resentment and creates unneeded friction within society.

I've had two really good bosses in my career and one was female. I've managed a lot of people and I don't see women or minorities as being anything other than as capable as white males. I am a white male but I work in IT and I'm the minority.

I should add that I've never experienced people at work going on about gender or whatever bias. I think it's a very small sub-set of society who play the victim. I can't respect people with that outlook and people with that outlook aren't always women. I see it just as much as men reacting to women who believe in the patriarchy.

There are problems within society but I really don't think it's as simple as white males are privileged and everyone else suffers. If you look at the MMM divorce thread and read about divorce people are getting very good at using the legal system to win a battle rather than trying to create a fair outcome.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on November 28, 2018, 02:25:30 PM
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves. Are women given a fair go in society today ? Of course they are. Sure some people cop it but both sexes cop it. On the whole though we are living in a world that gives you so many opportunities. Focusing on on structural oppression and marginalization to me comes across as delusional. It's like focusing on the hole in the donut.

Is it okay for men to complain about how the laws are against them ? I work for a big company and women and minorities are definitely promoted as a priority. That means that capable deserving men will not be promoted sometimes. That is discrimination. I think it's crazy for men to complain about this because the modern world provides so many opportunities to all people today.

OMG let me roll my eyes so hard.

Focusing on structural oppression and marginalization is the only way to dismantle it.  Ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist?  Please.

I definitely don't ignore it. I'm stating that it is far far more complex than what some people want to state it is. I could argue rightly that women use the legal system to their advantage and that the structural oppression is against men. It's a valid argument in today's day and age.

I believe that some people are really up against it but it's not a societal thing. It's a cultural thing that is probably more relevant to their upbringing. For instance Trumps kids (male and female) have been given huge advantages in life whereas the poor aboriginal family in Australia don't have those same advantages. You can't though fix this issue because life is inherently unfair. In Australia they did try and fix this issue and it was disastrous. It let to a whole situation called the stolen generation.

I also think for the vast majority of people they are the ones who have the greatest impact in how they live their lives and the success they have. Societal marginalization probably constitutes .00001% towards everyone on here's chances of success in life.

I'm a short male and yet I want to play in the NBA and be a superstar earning millions of dollars per year. Is it really not fair that I don't get that opportunity or is that just the way the cookie crumbles.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: lhamo on November 28, 2018, 02:38:29 PM

I also think for the vast majority of people they are the ones who have the greatest impact in how they live their lives and the success they have. Societal marginalization probably constitutes .00001% towards everyone on here's chances of success in life.


You really lack insight into how marginalization works in the US system. 

See, for example:

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666993130/zipcode-destiny-the-persistent-power-of-place-and-education

You can click through to the academic articles the podcast summary is based on if you want a more thorough overview.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on November 28, 2018, 02:49:48 PM

I also think for the vast majority of people they are the ones who have the greatest impact in how they live their lives and the success they have. Societal marginalization probably constitutes .00001% towards everyone on here's chances of success in life.


You really lack insight into how marginalization works in the US system. 

See, for example:

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666993130/zipcode-destiny-the-persistent-power-of-place-and-education

You can click through to the academic articles the podcast summary is based on if you want a more thorough overview.

I think that you have it wrong though. Life is inherently unfair. We also live in a world where by your own effort you can improve your situation significantly.

My daughter is not disadvantaged but she sees loopholes in the education system and goes for those loopholes. She doesn't study hard to improve her life. She looks at the loopholes. I don't think that this is unusual at all. I think lots of people prefer scams to hard work.

My mum came from a disadvantaged background but she was white. My wife is a minority but came from a privileged background although her family was and is dysfunctional. Both my mum and my wife though just work freaken hard to improve their lives. They don't look for special support or help and they don't talk about being disadvantaged.

We are all born with different attributes and we all come from different backgrounds. We can all also make an effort to improve our lives.

I should add that I am all for providing everyone with access to education and health care and proper infrastructure and even a basic wage.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Sailor Sam on November 28, 2018, 02:56:04 PM
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves. Are women given a fair go in society today ? Of course they are. Sure some people cop it but both sexes cop it. On the whole though we are living in a world that gives you so many opportunities. Focusing on on structural oppression and marginalization to me comes across as delusional. It's like focusing on the hole in the donut.

Is it okay for men to complain about how the laws are against them ? I work for a big company and women and minorities are definitely promoted as a priority. That means that capable deserving men will not be promoted sometimes. That is discrimination. I think it's crazy for men to complain about this because the modern world provides so many opportunities to all people today.

OMG let me roll my eyes so hard.

Focusing on structural oppression and marginalization is the only way to dismantle it.  Ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist?  Please.

I definitely don't ignore it. I'm stating that it is far far more complex than what some people want to state it is. I could argue rightly that women use the legal system to their advantage and that the structural oppression is against men. It's a valid argument in today's day and age.

I believe that some people are really up against it but it's not a societal thing. It's a cultural thing that is probably more relevant to their upbringing. For instance Trumps kids (male and female) have been given huge advantages in life whereas the poor aboriginal family in Australia don't have those same advantages. You can't though fix this issue because life is inherently unfair. In Australia they did try and fix this issue and it was disastrous. It let to a whole situation called the stolen generation.

I also think for the vast majority of people they are the ones who have the greatest impact in how they live their lives and the success they have. Societal marginalization probably constitutes .00001% towards everyone on here's chances of success in life.

I'm a short male and yet I want to play in the NBA and be a superstar earning millions of dollars per year. Is it really not fair that I don't get that opportunity or is that just the way the cookie crumbles.

Bless your heart, you sweet summer child. What a simple little life you must lead.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: lhamo on November 28, 2018, 03:28:12 PM

I also think for the vast majority of people they are the ones who have the greatest impact in how they live their lives and the success they have. Societal marginalization probably constitutes .00001% towards everyone on here's chances of success in life.


You really lack insight into how marginalization works in the US system. 

See, for example:

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666993130/zipcode-destiny-the-persistent-power-of-place-and-education

You can click through to the academic articles the podcast summary is based on if you want a more thorough overview.

I think that you have it wrong though. Life is inherently unfair. We also live in a world where by your own effort you can improve your situation significantly.

I'm happy for your mother, your wife and your daughter that they have learned to navigate the system.  That is great for them.

But given that you posted a fairly long response 11 minutes after I did, I'm guessing you didn't even bother to dig into the link I posted or the academic research it is based on.  So you are apparently content to continue to operate on your own ideas about how the world works, based on anecdotal evidence from your own immediate family, rather than looking at what actual studies of decades of widespread educational and demographic data say about how much certain things like your ethnic background, gender, economic status, and where you are born and to what kind of family impact the likelihood of your educational achievement and social mobility. 

Yes, everyone has the capacity to achieve things.  Even those growing up in the most disadvantaged, broken circumstances.  But starting from a premise that "life is unfair" and that any attempt to intervene in our social structures to level the playing field is pointless is a cop out.  I find it disgusting, actually.  Thank god there are people in the world running the program I visited this morning, which is making a real difference in the lives of some disadvantaged kids.  Because they care and believe that these kids deserve a shot at a good education and a better life.  That doesn't just happen.  People have to make it happen. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OtherJen on November 28, 2018, 03:42:15 PM
We are all born with different attributes and we all come from different backgrounds. We can all also make an effort to improve our lives.

I should add that I am all for providing everyone with access to education and health care and proper infrastructure and even a basic wage.

I've inferred from several of your comments that you aren't from the USA, which might explain some of the lack of understanding. Access to adequate and affordable healthcare is a joke for many who live here. Access to a good-quality public elementary education depends largely on your parents' ability to establish residency in a wealthy area. Politicians in my own state just today voted to delay an increase in the state minimum wage for another decade. In other words, access to those basic aspects of society is very far from universal.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 09:58:05 AM
steveo's problem is similar to what mine used to be.  He thinks that the playing field is level.  Or, if it's not level, it's equally unfair/difficult for everyone.  He also sees that "making it" in America is hard work, no matter who you are (except for generational wealth). 

What he doesn't see is that these ideas are wrong.  The truth is that the field is persistently and substantially tilted against women and minorities. 

Here's an example - steveo works in IT like I do.  He's probably worked around a lot of minorities and some women.  Here's the key question - how many of his bosses were men and how many were women?  If it's not close to 50-50, that's a problem. 

In today's world its possible for women to be in the workforce, but it's still very, very hard for them to obtain positions of authority.  That's systemic bias.  And if steveo looks around, he'll see it too.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: robartsd on December 07, 2018, 11:49:34 AM
What he doesn't see is that these ideas are wrong.  The truth is that the field is persistently and substantially tilted against women and minorities. 
While I fully agree that there are persistent issues with tilting against women and minorities in many (most?) workplaces in the US; I think most of the time the persisting discrimination is subtle enough that even most of the people perpetuating it are doing so subconsciously. It is also difficult to fully control for non-discriminatory factors that can impact the disparity of outcomes for men vs. women. Biological differences (discussed here mostly relating to sport) are one such factor. More often touted in arguments that the disparity of outcomes for men vs. women in the workplace is that women are more likely to sacrifice career for family; but couples could be choosing to have a woman sacrifice career rather than her male partner sacrificing his due to workplace discrimination (perhaps even subconsciously).
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 11:59:07 AM
What he doesn't see is that these ideas are wrong.  The truth is that the field is persistently and substantially tilted against women and minorities. 
While I fully agree that there are persistent issues with tilting against women and minorities in many (most?) workplaces in the US; I think most of the time the persisting discrimination is subtle enough that even most of the people perpetuating it are doing so subconsciously. It is also difficult to fully control for non-discriminatory factors that can impact the disparity of outcomes for men vs. women. Biological differences (discussed here mostly relating to sport) are one such factor. More often touted in arguments that the disparity of outcomes for men vs. women in the workplace is that women are more likely to sacrifice career for family; but couples could be choosing to have a woman sacrifice career rather than her male partner sacrificing his due to workplace discrimination (perhaps even subconsciously).

Yes, that's precisely correct.  That's why it's called systemic bias.  The people doing it don't even realize it.  It's not their "fault", but it is a logical outcome of a system that favors white men over other groups. 

To answer my own questions re: bosses, even in a fairly progressive field like IT that doesn't have a lot of cultural baggage (because it's so new compared to other career fields), I have had 8 bosses in the time I've been doing IT.  2 were women, 6 were men.  That's a pretty massive tilt toward men.  Oh, and zero of my bosses were minorities. 

Here's a little thought experiment to illustrate my point.  What if you started working at a new company (pay raise, yay!) and once you got in and started working for a while, you realized that 80% of all managers were women.  That'd feel weird, right?  That's because systemic bias has conditioned you by mainly having men in leadership roles at almost all companies. 

Again, it's nobody's fault, it's just what we've inherited from the past.  And it is better than it used to be.  But we still have a long way to go. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on December 07, 2018, 12:36:23 PM
Here's an example - steveo works in IT like I do.  He's probably worked around a lot of minorities and some women.  Here's the key question - how many of his bosses were men and how many were women?  If it's not close to 50-50, that's a problem. 

A couple thoughts:

1.  why should the ratio of men:women bosses in IT be 50:50?  Is the ratio of men:women workers in IT 50:50?  The ratio of degree holders 50:50?  Should the ratio of bosses be pegged at 50:50 or at something closer to one of those other metrics?  If the problem is not enough women going into IT overall that brings me to

2.  If steveo worked in garbage collection, or crab fishing, or as an infantry Marine, or as an electrical lineman, or a nurse, or a teacher, or a Hooter's waitress, should the management team always be 50:50?

Sure, that's trite, but the question remains, are we going to insist if every field is not 50:50 men/women, something's wrong?  If there are truly barriers to women (or men!) entering a particular field, I'm all for removing them as best we reasonably can to encourage both to participate.  But at the end of the day not everything is going to be 50/50, and it won't necessarily be for nefarious or even preventable reasons, so you can't automatically say =/= 50/50  is wrong.

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 01:05:30 PM
Here's an example - steveo works in IT like I do.  He's probably worked around a lot of minorities and some women.  Here's the key question - how many of his bosses were men and how many were women?  If it's not close to 50-50, that's a problem. 

A couple thoughts:

1.  why should the ratio of men:women bosses in IT be 50:50?  Is the ratio of men:women workers in IT 50:50?  The ratio of degree holders 50:50?  Should the ratio of bosses be pegged at 50:50 or at something closer to one of those other metrics?  If the problem is not enough women going into IT overall that brings me to

2.  If steveo worked in garbage collection, or crab fishing, or as an infantry Marine, or as an electrical lineman, or a nurse, or a teacher, or a Hooter's waitress, should the management team always be 50:50?

Sure, that's trite, but the question remains, are we going to insist if every field is not 50:50 men/women, something's wrong?  If there are truly barriers to women (or men!) entering a particular field, I'm all for removing them as best we reasonably can to encourage both to participate.  But at the end of the day not everything is going to be 50/50, and it won't necessarily be for nefarious or even preventable reasons, so you can't automatically say =/= 50/50  is wrong.

Yeah, to answer question 1, the workforce that I've seen in the past 10 years or so is pretty close to 50/50 men/women.  Ergo, the ratio of bosses should also be close to 50/50.

As for the other field, I don't work in them so I don't really have any insight.  But I can say that certain jobs seem to be "traditionally male" and other jobs "traditionally female", so you're dealing with even heavier cultural baggage.  I mean, it just seems weird for a woman to be a crab fisherman, right?  That's historical/cultural bias. 

Anyway, the other reason I chose IT is because it's new enough that it doesn't have a lot of that inherited gender expectation.  And it relies mostly on intelligence/brainwork, so success really depends on how smart you are and how well you solve problems, which is not gendered at all.  And yet, we still see a massive tilt toward men in leadership roles. 

Why do you think that is?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on December 07, 2018, 01:33:44 PM
Here's an example - steveo works in IT like I do.  He's probably worked around a lot of minorities and some women.  Here's the key question - how many of his bosses were men and how many were women?  If it's not close to 50-50, that's a problem. 

A couple thoughts:

1.  why should the ratio of men:women bosses in IT be 50:50?  Is the ratio of men:women workers in IT 50:50?  The ratio of degree holders 50:50?  Should the ratio of bosses be pegged at 50:50 or at something closer to one of those other metrics?  If the problem is not enough women going into IT overall that brings me to

2.  If steveo worked in garbage collection, or crab fishing, or as an infantry Marine, or as an electrical lineman, or a nurse, or a teacher, or a Hooter's waitress, should the management team always be 50:50?

Sure, that's trite, but the question remains, are we going to insist if every field is not 50:50 men/women, something's wrong?  If there are truly barriers to women (or men!) entering a particular field, I'm all for removing them as best we reasonably can to encourage both to participate.  But at the end of the day not everything is going to be 50/50, and it won't necessarily be for nefarious or even preventable reasons, so you can't automatically say =/= 50/50  is wrong.

Yeah, to answer question 1, the workforce that I've seen in the past 10 years or so is pretty close to 50/50 men/women.  Ergo, the ratio of bosses should also be close to 50/50.

Anyway, the other reason I chose IT is because it's new enough that it doesn't have a lot of that inherited gender expectation.  And it relies mostly on intelligence/brainwork, so success really depends on how smart you are and how well you solve problems, which is not gendered at all.  And yet, we still see a massive tilt toward men in leadership roles. 

Why do you think that is?

Why do I think that is?  Because even when I was in college 15 years ago, IT work was considered for nerdy types, recluses, social shutins, this type:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/l2SpV1oWc8MrsXkFW/giphy.gif)

So the guys (yeah, guys) who went into it and got good at it are now running it.  It is probably only in the last 10 years that our image of a "computer nerd" has shifted away from the above and become fashionable and sexy, so it's going to take some time for that to filter into management.  Are some IT types hostile to women?  Of course, there's the whole Gamergate thing, I get that, and it's wrong.  But let's not pretend that a large number of women my age (mid 30s) didn't turn their noses up at IT work for a long time as being not cool/sexy/whatever.

Quote
As for the other field, I don't work in them so I don't really have any insight.  But I can say that certain jobs seem to be "traditionally male" and other jobs "traditionally female", so you're dealing with even heavier cultural baggage.  I mean, it just seems weird for a woman to be a crab fisherman, right?  That's historical/cultural bias. 

Does it seem weird?  Is it due to bias?  Or is it because crab fishing is an EXTREMELY dangerous profession that, outside of the captain of the boat and maybe a few exceptions, tends to pay relatively poorly.  So really, women are wise to avoid it.  My point is that women tend to want gender equality when the jobs are perceived as desirable (IT, management, etc) but not when the jobs are perceived as undesirable (often because they are dangerous) (garbagemen, power line workers, crab fishermen). 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Hirondelle on December 07, 2018, 02:04:01 PM
To add to Tyort's observation, I work in academia. I'm in a pediatric research lab and I'd say up to 70-80% of current PhD candidates is female. The professors/PIs however? Or actually, even at the postdoc level you already see this. There's only a handfull of females while the vast majority is male. This might be an inheritance from the past (for the profs at least) and be subject to change in the near future once the 'new generation' that is 70+% female makes it through the postdoc and tenure track pipelines, but it does seem a pattern in a more female-dominated field.

It's also pretty well documented that people tend to hire someone who looks like them. Like, not necessarily in phycical charactistics, but more overall. So a white male from a middle class family that has to choose between 3 candidates that aren't too extremely different is most likely to pick the one that looks most like himself. Depending on the candidates and his own preferences/views. This can be anywhere between 'Hey cool we're born in the same city/went to the same college' and 'He's a white college-educated male with a decent background' but it's considered one of the reasons the 'old boys network' still excists. Most of these things happen unconsciously though so it's hard to break through the pattern. Btw, this doesn't only happen in 'white male' companies ofcourse. Try to apply for a job in a beauty studio being a white male. Or get a high position in a Chinese or Japanese company as a westerner.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 07, 2018, 02:14:56 PM


Does it seem weird?  Is it due to bias?  Or is it because crab fishing is an EXTREMELY dangerous profession that, outside of the captain of the boat and maybe a few exceptions, tends to pay relatively poorly.  So really, women are wise to avoid it.  My point is that women tend to want gender equality when the jobs are perceived as desirable (IT, management, etc) but not when the jobs are perceived as undesirable (often because they are dangerous) (garbagemen, power line workers, crab fishermen).

Right now thereís around 4500 workplace fatalities a year, with about 93% of those being male (and that percentage has increased in the last 5ish years.

Like you mentioned above - you donít see women just diving into these dangerous, hard, physical labor jobs that they are so many other jobs that have typically been male dominated for the last 50 years. Are there more now than 50 years ago? Sure, but nowhere near the same rate as these dangerous, physical labor jobs. Of course, feminists will say that itís due to the culture and these being ďmenísĒ jobs, but thatís no different than other positions of the past like IT or doctors.

It seems like there is a push to put women in all these amazing, formerly male dominated careers, but how about the other ones? How about the hard physical labor jobs in the elements 80 hrs a week that are contributing to these 93% male industry death rates.

By all means - if these 50:50 management arguments make sense, then the 50:50 death rates should also be there.

Sounds convenient... ďhey we arenít getting equal opportunity with men for all the great jobs in the work place.. oh wait, but men can also keep all the hard physical labor, dangerous jobs to themselves...Ē
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: charis on December 07, 2018, 02:15:31 PM
It is probably only in the last 10 years that our image of a "computer nerd" has shifted away from the above and become fashionable and sexy, so it's going to take some time for that to filter into management.  Are some IT types hostile to women?  Of course, there's the whole Gamergate thing, I get that, and it's wrong.  But let's not pretend that a large number of women my age (mid 30s) didn't turn their noses up at IT work for a long time as being not cool/sexy/whatever.

This is a steaming pile of hostile sexism.  Women didn't want to work in IT because it wasn't fashionable, cool or sexy? 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-first-women-in-tech-didnt-leavemen-pushed-them-out-1512907200
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 02:21:13 PM
Here's an example - steveo works in IT like I do.  He's probably worked around a lot of minorities and some women.  Here's the key question - how many of his bosses were men and how many were women?  If it's not close to 50-50, that's a problem. 

A couple thoughts:

1.  why should the ratio of men:women bosses in IT be 50:50?  Is the ratio of men:women workers in IT 50:50?  The ratio of degree holders 50:50?  Should the ratio of bosses be pegged at 50:50 or at something closer to one of those other metrics?  If the problem is not enough women going into IT overall that brings me to

2.  If steveo worked in garbage collection, or crab fishing, or as an infantry Marine, or as an electrical lineman, or a nurse, or a teacher, or a Hooter's waitress, should the management team always be 50:50?

Sure, that's trite, but the question remains, are we going to insist if every field is not 50:50 men/women, something's wrong?  If there are truly barriers to women (or men!) entering a particular field, I'm all for removing them as best we reasonably can to encourage both to participate.  But at the end of the day not everything is going to be 50/50, and it won't necessarily be for nefarious or even preventable reasons, so you can't automatically say =/= 50/50  is wrong.

Yeah, to answer question 1, the workforce that I've seen in the past 10 years or so is pretty close to 50/50 men/women.  Ergo, the ratio of bosses should also be close to 50/50.

Anyway, the other reason I chose IT is because it's new enough that it doesn't have a lot of that inherited gender expectation.  And it relies mostly on intelligence/brainwork, so success really depends on how smart you are and how well you solve problems, which is not gendered at all.  And yet, we still see a massive tilt toward men in leadership roles. 

Why do you think that is?

Why do I think that is?  Because even when I was in college 15 years ago, IT work was considered for nerdy types, recluses, social shutins, this type:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/l2SpV1oWc8MrsXkFW/giphy.gif)

So the guys (yeah, guys) who went into it and got good at it are now running it.  It is probably only in the last 10 years that our image of a "computer nerd" has shifted away from the above and become fashionable and sexy, so it's going to take some time for that to filter into management.  Are some IT types hostile to women?  Of course, there's the whole Gamergate thing, I get that, and it's wrong.  But let's not pretend that a large number of women my age (mid 30s) didn't turn their noses up at IT work for a long time as being not cool/sexy/whatever.

Quote
As for the other field, I don't work in them so I don't really have any insight.  But I can say that certain jobs seem to be "traditionally male" and other jobs "traditionally female", so you're dealing with even heavier cultural baggage.  I mean, it just seems weird for a woman to be a crab fisherman, right?  That's historical/cultural bias. 

Does it seem weird?  Is it due to bias?  Or is it because crab fishing is an EXTREMELY dangerous profession that, outside of the captain of the boat and maybe a few exceptions, tends to pay relatively poorly.  So really, women are wise to avoid it.  My point is that women tend to want gender equality when the jobs are perceived as desirable (IT, management, etc) but not when the jobs are perceived as undesirable (often because they are dangerous) (garbagemen, power line workers, crab fishermen).

I used to think like you.  Then I looked around.  The evidence is overwhelming if you are paying attention.  I changed my beliefs based on new information/understanding.  It seems like you're not even open to the idea that women are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting leadership positions. 

BTW, I've worked at 2 of the largest IT corporations in the world (HP and Oracle) and you're ideas that nerdy dudes make up the workforce isn't even close to accurate.  You're basing your opinion on cliches from the 90s.  I've also worked at several smaller companies (and startups) and the parity is even more obvious there.  Women have made a very strong push into the technical fields.  And yet, it's almost always the guys that get the promotions and the leadership positions.

Again, I ask you - why do you think that is?  If you're honest, you'll have to admit that the playing field isn't level.  There's really no other explanation.

I'd also point out (again) that these disparities were much, much worse in the past.  I read a lot of history (and old books), and it's shocking how badly women were treated by society in the past.  More like property than people.  Hell, even in my OWN lifetime, I can remember how shocked I was to find out that women couldn't even apply for a credit card without their husband co-signing.  That's 30 years ago.  So yeah, things have gotten better, and like I said, still a long way to go. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on December 07, 2018, 03:26:42 PM
It seems like there is a push to put women in all these amazing, formerly male dominated careers, but how about the other ones? How about the hard physical labor jobs in the elements 80 hrs a week that are contributing to these 93% male industry death rates.

By all means - if these 50:50 management arguments make sense, then the 50:50 death rates should also be there.

Sounds convenient... ďhey we arenít getting equal opportunity with men for all the great jobs in the work place.. oh wait, but men can also keep all the hard physical labor, dangerous jobs to themselves...Ē

Yes, I do want men and women to be equally represented in jobs that require hard physical labor. And I want men and women to be equally represented in jobs like nursing assistants and daycare providers. And I want men and women to be equally represented in prestigious IT jobs. This is because I want gender stereotypes to go away, because I am a feminist and an anti-sexist.

The implication that feminists want women to have better jobs than men is insulting.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RyanAtTanagra on December 07, 2018, 03:50:55 PM
The implication that feminists want women to have better jobs than men is insulting.

That's because there are "feminists" that do want that.  And I put that in quotes because I know that's not what feminism is, but there are women like that, and they call themselves feminists, and they get a lot of attention, and they become a regretful face of feminism.  I say this as someone to whom 'feminism' is a relatively new term, and I had to actively go figure out what it really was because I saw reasonable people calling themselves themselves feminists and I'd go 'but you don't seem unhinged...'.  So I looked it up and went 'oh, that's what it really is... that's me!'.  But I had to make the effort to learn that.  Most people don't make effort to understand things, which is of course their fault, but that's why some people think feminism = women that want all men to die.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 07, 2018, 04:08:36 PM

The implication that feminists want women to have better jobs than men is insulting.

If you think that was implied then you sure are reaching to feel insulted. I would expect nothing less based on the content of your posts in this thread, however.

MOD EDIT: Personal insults aren't helpful or allowed. Cheers.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 07, 2018, 04:15:08 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 04:25:59 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

In some cases near-equal - really?  Where?  Which industries? 

But even the phrase "in some cases near equal" even if true (it's not), still means the inverse of the phrase is true.  To put it explicitly:

"In some cases near-equal"

also means:

"In most cases NOT near-equal"

So by your own statement we have a huge problem because in most cases things are not even near equal. 


Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on December 07, 2018, 04:26:52 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

And men don't want jobs as nursing assistants or daycare providers. What's your point? Spell it out.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 07, 2018, 04:28:46 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

In some cases near-equal - really?  Where?  Which industries? 

But even the phrase "in some cases near equal" even if true (it's not), still means the inverse of the phrase is true.  To put it explicitly:

"In some cases near-equal"

also means:

"In most cases NOT near-equal"

So by your own statement we have a huge problem because in most cases things are not even near equal.

This chart explains what I previously said. In earlier generations there were more males, now becoming more equal..

https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/healthcare-future-female

WHAT ON EARTH WILL MEN DO WHEN PHYSICIANS ARE PRIMARILY FEMALE? PRANCE AROUND FORUMS CLAIMING ITS NOT FAIR UNTIL ITS BACK TO 50/50?? /sarcasm
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on December 07, 2018, 04:34:32 PM
The implication that feminists want women to have better jobs than men is insulting.

If you think that was implied then you sure are reaching to feel insulted.


For the record, here's what use2betrix said. You be the judge.

Sounds convenient... ďhey we arenít getting equal opportunity with men for all the great jobs in the work place.. oh wait, but men can also keep all the hard physical labor, dangerous jobs to themselves...Ē
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 07, 2018, 04:37:30 PM
The implication that feminists want women to have better jobs than men is insulting.

If you think that was implied then you sure are reaching to feel insulted.


For the record, here's what use2betrix said. You be the judge.

Sounds convenient... ďhey we arenít getting equal opportunity with men for all the great jobs in the work place.. oh wait, but men can also keep all the hard physical labor, dangerous jobs to themselves...Ē

Find me a graph showing that women are entering the manual labor work anywhere near the same rate as positions like medical, law, etc. then you can prove your point that women are really aiming for ď50/50 across the board.Ē
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 04:37:40 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

In some cases near-equal - really?  Where?  Which industries? 

But even the phrase "in some cases near equal" even if true (it's not), still means the inverse of the phrase is true.  To put it explicitly:

"In some cases near-equal"

also means:

"In most cases NOT near-equal"

So by your own statement we have a huge problem because in most cases things are not even near equal.

This chart explains what I previously said. In earlier generations there were more males, now becoming more equal..

https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/healthcare-future-female

WHAT ON EARTH WILL MEN DO WHEN PHYSICIANS ARE PRIMARILY FEMALE? PRANCE AROUND FORUMS CLAIMING ITS NOT FAIR UNTIL ITS BACK TO 50/50?? /sarcasm

That's cool about the young dr's tilting female.  I did not know that, thank you. 

To answer your sarcasm seriously, I do think that some professions will naturally tilt toward being female dominated, once artificial, gender based restraints are removed.  I'm fine with that.  Hell, we're already seeing it at schools - girls are starting to pull away from boys when it comes to education.  Which means the future will probably tilt female.  And that makes me happy.  We've had this huge injustice built into our society for so long and now it's finally being redressed.  Doesn't that make you happy?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on December 07, 2018, 04:38:51 PM
The implication that feminists want women to have better jobs than men is insulting.

That's because there are "feminists" that do want that.  And I put that in quotes because I know that's not what feminism is, but there are women like that, and they call themselves feminists, and they get a lot of attention, and they become a regretful face of feminism.

I recognize that you are expressing yourself reasonably, so I don't want this to come across as confrontational. But I'm curious where you're seeing this kind of rhetoric.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on December 07, 2018, 04:40:19 PM
The implication that feminists want women to have better jobs than men is insulting.

If you think that was implied then you sure are reaching to feel insulted.


For the record, here's what use2betrix said. You be the judge.

Sounds convenient... ďhey we arenít getting equal opportunity with men for all the great jobs in the work place.. oh wait, but men can also keep all the hard physical labor, dangerous jobs to themselves...Ē

Find me a graph showing that women are entering the manual labor work anywhere near the same rate as positions like medical, law, etc. then you can prove your point that women are really aiming for ď50/50 across the board.Ē

(1) I never said that. I said it's what *I* want.

(2) My purpose in responding was to point out that you did, in fact, say that feminists want women to have better jobs than men, despite claiming that you hadn't said that. That's all.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 04:48:12 PM
I will also say this  - a lot of the panic I see from males re: feminism and the workplace is that they somehow feel "there's only so many good jobs out there, and if women take the good jobs, then us guys are getting screwed".

So, fear of economic loss is the underlying drive for their viewpoints. 

But in fact, the more high earners we have, the more the whole economy moves upward.  It's not a zero sum game.  The more people that excel and have great careers, the more it helps everybody. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 07, 2018, 05:08:16 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

And men don't want jobs as nursing assistants or daycare providers. What's your point? Spell it out.

Totally off topic, but what the hell . . . What do you think the odds are of a guy getting a job as a daycare provider or early ECE?  I get that it's not a particularly glamorous job or anything, but that's one of the few jobs I can think of where odds are legitimately stacked against guys.  Our society looks uneasily at any man interested in spending time with young kids.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 07, 2018, 05:23:49 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

And men don't want jobs as nursing assistants or daycare providers. What's your point? Spell it out.

I was a CNA for several years and spent many years working in nursing homes. Have first hand experience there. Very interesting experience being about the only male working in a field thatís vastly dominated by women. I mentioned some of my experience about it earlier in this thread.

Also, while Iím sure you will deny it because it doesnít fit your agenda, I feel fairly comfortable saying that a lot of parents might not prefer a lot of male daycare providers.

Having worked as a CNA, and also a highly dangerous labor position, both for several years, they really arenít comparable in terms of risk to life or health..
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 07, 2018, 05:27:21 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

And men don't want jobs as nursing assistants or daycare providers. What's your point? Spell it out.

Totally off topic, but what the hell . . . What do you think the odds are of a guy getting a job as a daycare provider or early ECE?  I get that it's not a particularly glamorous job or anything, but that's one of the few jobs I can think of where odds are legitimately stacked against guys.  Our society looks uneasily at any man interested in spending time with young kids.

Bingo - during a recent sabbatical we spent a month at my parents house in a very nice family oriented neighborhood. Each morning Iíd get up early and beat the heat and take my dog on a long walk. Iím a young, fit, clean cut male. Kids on the way to school always wanted to stop and pet my dog, which was great for his socialization as a young GSD puppy. Sometimes though, Iíd get that look, that ďfeelingĒ from parents like I was some kind of creep. It was odd and boarderline uncomfortable at times. Sad as well, but honestly, in this day and age I can understand. I donít have kids of my own yet, but can still understand.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 07, 2018, 05:31:56 PM
I will also say this  - a lot of the panic I see from males re: feminism and the workplace is that they somehow feel "there's only so many good jobs out there, and if women take the good jobs, then us guys are getting screwed".

So, fear of economic loss is the underlying drive for their viewpoints. 

But in fact, the more high earners we have, the more the whole economy moves upward.  It's not a zero sum game.  The more people that excel and have great careers, the more it helps everybody.

Sounds like the males youíre around are serious losers, no offense. Thatís an embarrassing, shameful, and insecure attitude to have.

Fortunately the base of my career was built on working through manual labor/trades, and weíve already established that women arenít chomping at the bit to take those kind of jobs...
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on December 07, 2018, 05:54:55 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

And men don't want jobs as nursing assistants or daycare providers. What's your point? Spell it out.

I was a CNA for several years and spent many years working in nursing homes. Have first hand experience there. Very interesting experience being about the only male working in a field thatís vastly dominated by women. I mentioned some of my experience about it earlier in this thread.

Also, while Iím sure you will deny it because it doesnít fit your agenda, I feel fairly comfortable saying that a lot of parents might not prefer a lot of male daycare providers.

Having worked as a CNA, and also a highly dangerous labor position, both for several years, they really arenít comparable in terms of risk to life or health..

Well, you didn't answer my question, and the response you did give is full of red herrings (when did I or anyone ever say that being a nursing assistant is dangerous?), but whatever. OK, what's my "agenda," and why do you disagree with it?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on December 07, 2018, 05:59:38 PM
I will also say this  - a lot of the panic I see from males re: feminism and the workplace is that they somehow feel "there's only so many good jobs out there, and if women take the good jobs, then us guys are getting screwed".

So, fear of economic loss is the underlying drive for their viewpoints. 

But in fact, the more high earners we have, the more the whole economy moves upward.  It's not a zero sum game.  The more people that excel and have great careers, the more it helps everybody.
Lordy Lordy, I'm an engineer, and if I had a nickel for every time I heard I was taking a job from a "good man with a family to support"

- If a man was as good as me at my job, willing to work for what I get paid, they'd have it already

Haven't heard that lately though.  A few years ago an older male coworker was probing gently, trying to figure out if I was at all justified in my general grumpiness about pay.  And his comment was "well, your salary isn't LOW or anything".  Then I pointed out how much more the men made.  Then I think he realized it was a sore subject, because he's 15 years older, nearing retirement, kids are grown, and he makes a lot more money.

More recently, he was concerned that I hadn't had a raise in awhile.  I said "don't worry, I got more $ with this last promotion - because I refused to take the job otherwise - so I'm now making the SAME as X,Y, and Z were in 2011!"  Then he looked like he felt kinda bad.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on December 07, 2018, 06:06:43 PM
Itís interesting when you look at the statistics of all the ďgoodĒ jobs previously male dominated that are now more split. Business, executives, IT, Drís, etc. women wanted those jobs (understandable) and now have a much stronger presence, in some cases near equal.

Again - what about all the manual labor jobs? Women donít want them, period. Itís not like theyíre lining the fences to apply for them. No guesswork about it. Itís not that women canít partake in these dangerous jobs, they donít want them, period.

Speaking from vast first hand experience in the industries.

And men don't want jobs as nursing assistants or daycare providers. What's your point? Spell it out.

Totally off topic, but what the hell . . . What do you think the odds are of a guy getting a job as a daycare provider or early ECE?  I get that it's not a particularly glamorous job or anything, but that's one of the few jobs I can think of where odds are legitimately stacked against guys.  Our society looks uneasily at any man interested in spending time with young kids.
Depends a lot on where you live, I suppose.  I'll make a generalization - it's probably more common and accepted in more liberal areas.  While daycare providers in my area DO overwhelmingly skew female - we do have male daycare providers.

We do have a lot of male child care providers at the after school programs.
There are a lot of male camp counselors, for camps in kids as young as 3.
It seems like almost everyone (kids, parents) really like our male teachers.  Both in the same grade.  Which is interesting - another friend who is a teacher told me it's good that they did that.  At her school, the only male teacher (or maybe two) are in different grades - and kids/ parents overwhelmingly want that teacher (elementary).

We have a lot of teenagers to young men in my 'hood who regularly babysit.  It pays pretty well.

But I'd imagine that wouldn't happen where I grew up - much easier to get a job mowing lawns for extra dough, or shoveling snow.  And where I grew up, childcare doesn't pay NEAR what it does here.

I think I read somewhere once that as women entered various jobs, the average pay went down.  Found it!

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 07:18:08 PM
I really don't understand people like steveo and use2betrix.  Do they really think that women get a fair shake in our society?  I mean, that's the main issue, isn't it?  Is it harder to make it as a woman than it is as a man. 

Who knows, maybe for their next argument they can explain to us all how minorities don't have any social barriers either, and just can't succeed because they are lazy. 

That was sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on December 07, 2018, 07:42:07 PM
I really don't understand people like steveo and use2betrix.  Do they really think that women get a fair shake in our society?  I mean, that's the main issue, isn't it?  Is it harder to make it as a woman than it is as a man. 

Who knows, maybe for their next argument they can explain to us all how minorities don't have any social barriers either, and just can't succeed because they are lazy. 

That was sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.

Yes I do think that the vast majority of women and minorities get a fair go in society. It's not harder to make it as a woman or a minority than as a white male. I am married to an Asian woman and I work with women and minorities as a matter of course.

I don't see any discrimination at all in the work place.

I should add that the other big part of my life is going to the gym. We seem to accept all different minorities and women at the gym. I'm a small middle aged guy and it's harder for me to succeed than big younger men but I don't go and cry about discrimination.

I have heaps and heaps of friends who are women and minorities and they have never complained to me about racism/discrimination in a serious fashion. I went out to a Christmas picnic yesterday and there was a joke that I was the token white male. One guy at work calls me racist really loudly at times but it's a joke. He has the same job as me and is younger than me so he certainly hasn't been discriminated against. He is also paid more than me.

As for minorities not succeeding because they are lazy you clearly don't know the people that I know who come from minority backgrounds. They work harder than me (I'm lazy) and do very very well.

I'd be very careful when it comes to assuming that I am somehow racist at all. My wife is Filipino and my kids are pretty clearly 1/2 Filipino. I have heaps of friends who have emigrated to my country and are minorities.

I'd add the minority label is even getting a little old where I live. I don't live in an area or work in an environment dominated by white males. I'm a white male, my wife is Filipino and the kids are mixed. My next door neighbours are Indian on one side and Korean on the other.

Yes some people get it easier than others but it's really about being bought up in privileged environments. You can't change that easily though. Do you stop allowing rich people to give their kids easy jobs ? Do you stop all forms of inheritance ?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 07:47:07 PM
I really don't understand people like steveo and use2betrix.  Do they really think that women get a fair shake in our society?  I mean, that's the main issue, isn't it?  Is it harder to make it as a woman than it is as a man. 

Who knows, maybe for their next argument they can explain to us all how minorities don't have any social barriers either, and just can't succeed because they are lazy. 

That was sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.

Yes I do think that the vast majority of women and minorities get a fair go in society. It's not harder to make it as a woman or a minority than as a white male. I am married to an Asian woman and I work with women and minorities as a matter of course.

I don't see any discrimination at all in the work place.


I should add that the other big part of my life is going to the gym. We seem to accept all different minorities and women at the gym. I'm a small middle aged guy and it's harder for me to succeed than big younger men but I don't go and cry about discrimination.

I have heaps and heaps of friends who are women and minorities and they have never complained to me about racism/discrimination in a serious fashion. I went out to a Christmas picnic yesterday and there was a joke that I was the token white male. One guy at work calls me racist really loudly at times but it's a joke. He has the same job as me and is younger than me so he certainly hasn't been discriminated against. He is also paid more than me.

As for minorities not succeeding because they are lazy you clearly don't know the people that I know who come from minority backgrounds. They work harder than me (I'm lazy) and do very very well.

I'd be very careful when it comes to assuming that I am somehow racist at all. My wife is Fillipino and my kids are pretty clearly 1/2 Fillipino. I have heaps of friends who have emigrated to my country and are minorities.

I'd add the minority label is even getting a little old where I live. I don't live in an area or work in an environment dominated by white males.

Yes some people get it easier than others but it's really about being bought up in privileged environments. You can't change that easily though. Do you stop allowing rich people to give their kids easy jobs ? Do you stop all forms of inheritance ?

That's just like, your opinion, man.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on December 07, 2018, 07:50:31 PM
I really don't understand people like steveo and use2betrix.  Do they really think that women get a fair shake in our society?  I mean, that's the main issue, isn't it?  Is it harder to make it as a woman than it is as a man. 

Who knows, maybe for their next argument they can explain to us all how minorities don't have any social barriers either, and just can't succeed because they are lazy. 

That was sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.

Yes I do think that the vast majority of women and minorities get a fair go in society. It's not harder to make it as a woman or a minority than as a white male. I am married to an Asian woman and I work with women and minorities as a matter of course.

I don't see any discrimination at all in the work place.


I should add that the other big part of my life is going to the gym. We seem to accept all different minorities and women at the gym. I'm a small middle aged guy and it's harder for me to succeed than big younger men but I don't go and cry about discrimination.

I have heaps and heaps of friends who are women and minorities and they have never complained to me about racism/discrimination in a serious fashion. I went out to a Christmas picnic yesterday and there was a joke that I was the token white male. One guy at work calls me racist really loudly at times but it's a joke. He has the same job as me and is younger than me so he certainly hasn't been discriminated against. He is also paid more than me.

As for minorities not succeeding because they are lazy you clearly don't know the people that I know who come from minority backgrounds. They work harder than me (I'm lazy) and do very very well.

I'd be very careful when it comes to assuming that I am somehow racist at all. My wife is Fillipino and my kids are pretty clearly 1/2 Fillipino. I have heaps of friends who have emigrated to my country and are minorities.

I'd add the minority label is even getting a little old where I live. I don't live in an area or work in an environment dominated by white males.

Yes some people get it easier than others but it's really about being bought up in privileged environments. You can't change that easily though. Do you stop allowing rich people to give their kids easy jobs ? Do you stop all forms of inheritance ?

That's just like, your opinion, man.

That my wife is Filipino ? Do you think she lied to me ?

As for discrimination in the workplace to be fair you are partially correct. I work in a big corporate that actively promotes minorities and women. I assume though that isn't what you are talking about or is that okay ?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on December 07, 2018, 09:56:31 PM
You can't have the Dude as an avatar and then not get a Big Lebowski reference.

Anyway, I work a big corporation too and it's true, there's a big push to make things better.  And things ARE better.  But as I've been saying, there's still a ways to go. 

Until then, I'm glad there's still people sounding the alarm and continuing to push for change. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on December 07, 2018, 11:01:09 PM
Totally off topic, but what the hell . . . What do you think the odds are of a guy getting a job as a daycare provider or early ECE?  I get that it's not a particularly glamorous job or anything, but that's one of the few jobs I can think of where odds are legitimately stacked against guys.  Our society looks uneasily at any man interested in spending time with young kids.

I've seen it happen, but you're right that it's rare.

Fortunately, it so happens that I have a great idea that will allow men to flock to early childhood education jobs: End gendered roles and expectations and stereotypes! There's no reason a man can't make a good daycare provider, other than the fact that he and everyone else has been told that taking care of children is women's work.

Oh, believe me, I get the nervousness. Men commit far more violent crime than women, and no one wants to subject their children to that risk. But the violence is learned; it's not inherent. Our culture socializes men to be aggressive,* a situation that is fair to absolutely no one. We can agree to stop this teaching at any time, and once we do, violence statistics will even out between the sexes.


*I'm not saying all men are aggressive; that's clearly false. I'm saying that's the expectation they're swimming against.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: runbikerun on December 07, 2018, 11:30:18 PM
"It's not harder to make it as a woman or a minority than as a white male."

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Telecaster on December 08, 2018, 12:06:56 AM

Yes I do think that the vast majority of women and minorities get a fair go in society. It's not harder to make it as a woman or a minority than as a white male. I am married to an Asian woman and I work with women and minorities as a matter of course.

I don't see any discrimination at all in the work place.

I'm a white male who has spent his career in white male dominated industries.

I have seen one whole helluva lot of discrimination against women over the years. Most of it unintentional, it must be said but plenty of it definitely was.  Some of it shockingly so.  The situation has vastly, vastly improved over the last 20 years but gender discrimination is absolutely a thing.  Again, much of  it is unintentional.  Afterwork activities are likely to be male dominated where women are boxed out. That leaves women unable to make the personal connections needed to succeed in the workplace.  Most of that is not intentional, but it does leave women at a disadvantage.

I personally never saw racial discrimination.  But I totally get how it happens.  There is definitely good old boys network and if you are part of the club things definitely go easier.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on December 08, 2018, 12:17:32 AM

Yes I do think that the vast majority of women and minorities get a fair go in society. It's not harder to make it as a woman or a minority than as a white male. I am married to an Asian woman and I work with women and minorities as a matter of course.

I don't see any discrimination at all in the work place.

I'm a white male who has spent his career in white male dominated industries.

I have seen one whole helluva lot of discrimination against women over the years. Most of it unintentional, it must be said but plenty of it definitely was.  Some of it shockingly so.  The situation has vastly, vastly improved over the last 20 years but gender discrimination is absolutely a thing.  Again, much of  it is unintentional.  Afterwork activities are likely to be male dominated where women are boxed out. That leaves women unable to make the personal connections needed to succeed in the workplace.  Most of that is not intentional, but it does leave women at a disadvantage.

I personally never saw racial discrimination.  But I totally get how it happens.  There is definitely good old boys network and if you are part of the club things definitely go easier.

I've probably already posted this but my Auntie took over her husbands business when he died of cancer. She was discriminated against. She went to meetings and the men (probably they were only men) wouldn't talk to her. I get that there are times it has been rough in the pass. It's not now though.

I think some people need to get out a lot more. I work in a team of 5. 3 of our team are Indian and have emigrated to Australia. They are doing great. Imagine coming from another country and having to make it like that. It's really tough but they do it. One girl who is in our wider team went back to India and her dad died. She now has to support the whole family. I feel for her - that is a rough ask and women in India really aren't treated well.

Now these are real issues that people have to work hard to overcome but how great is it that they get a chance in this day and age. They can have great careers and earn good money. There is no discrimination stopping them advancing and I'd even argue that they are pushed ahead. You honestly can't ask for anything more.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: runbikerun on December 08, 2018, 01:46:16 AM
Oh, this is too rich. An Australian is arguing that ethnic minorities get a fair shake? Your country has a fucking SORRY DAY to try to apologise to the Aborigine population for everything from their near-extermination to the Stolen Generation. It's been less than fifty years since mixed-race children were taken from their families and placed with white Australians to make them assimilate into white society. You really think Australia, the country of Pauline Hanson and paying other nations to hold asylum seekers in detention camps rather than let them in, is a model of post-racial equality?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 08, 2018, 06:32:02 AM

Yes I do think that the vast majority of women and minorities get a fair go in society. It's not harder to make it as a woman or a minority than as a white male. I am married to an Asian woman and I work with women and minorities as a matter of course.

I don't see any discrimination at all in the work place.

I'm a white male who has spent his career in white male dominated industries.

I have seen one whole helluva lot of discrimination against women over the years. Most of it unintentional, it must be said but plenty of it definitely was.  Some of it shockingly so.  The situation has vastly, vastly improved over the last 20 years but gender discrimination is absolutely a thing.  Again, much of  it is unintentional.  Afterwork activities are likely to be male dominated where women are boxed out. That leaves women unable to make the personal connections needed to succeed in the workplace.  Most of that is not intentional, but it does leave women at a disadvantage.

I personally never saw racial discrimination.  But I totally get how it happens.  There is definitely good old boys network and if you are part of the club things definitely go easier.

As discussed earlier in this thread, thinking that after work activities makes a difference in that regard, assumes that every one of those men would play ďfavoritesĒ and promote a male coworker over a possibly more qualified female. Does it happen? Sure, but I donít think that the afterworlds activities make that huge difference. I see women do the same thing.

In my field, I typically see women treated far better than men. Itís way male dominated because many women arenít interested in the type of work (construction). Men speak entirely more respectfully to women and in general when women are around. My last project a gentleman came up to me after a meeting just livid because of how another man talked in a meeting with a woman present (and the talk was in no way directed at her). In that same sense, when women make mistakes, they are treated much better. When it happens with another man, thereís often very little sugar coating and often some anger and cussing.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 08, 2018, 08:40:46 AM
Totally off topic, but what the hell . . . What do you think the odds are of a guy getting a job as a daycare provider or early ECE?  I get that it's not a particularly glamorous job or anything, but that's one of the few jobs I can think of where odds are legitimately stacked against guys.  Our society looks uneasily at any man interested in spending time with young kids.

I've seen it happen, but you're right that it's rare.

Fortunately, it so happens that I have a great idea that will allow men to flock to early childhood education jobs: End gendered roles and expectations and stereotypes! There's no reason a man can't make a good daycare provider, other than the fact that he and everyone else has been told that taking care of children is women's work.

Oh, believe me, I get the nervousness. Men commit far more violent crime than women, and no one wants to subject their children to that risk. But the violence is learned; it's not inherent. Our culture socializes men to be aggressive,* a situation that is fair to absolutely no one. We can agree to stop this teaching at any time, and once we do, violence statistics will even out between the sexes.


*I'm not saying all men are aggressive; that's clearly false. I'm saying that's the expectation they're swimming against.

To be fair, men have testosterone cycles that happen every 15 - 20 minutes which have been shown to have an impact on mood/aggression.  How can we be expected to stay in control of our emotions???

:P
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: marble_faun on December 08, 2018, 12:47:46 PM


Does it seem weird?  Is it due to bias?  Or is it because crab fishing is an EXTREMELY dangerous profession that, outside of the captain of the boat and maybe a few exceptions, tends to pay relatively poorly.  So really, women are wise to avoid it.  My point is that women tend to want gender equality when the jobs are perceived as desirable (IT, management, etc) but not when the jobs are perceived as undesirable (often because they are dangerous) (garbagemen, power line workers, crab fishermen).

Right now thereís around 4500 workplace fatalities a year, with about 93% of those being male (and that percentage has increased in the last 5ish years.

Like you mentioned above - you donít see women just diving into these dangerous, hard, physical labor jobs that they are so many other jobs that have typically been male dominated for the last 50 years. Are there more now than 50 years ago? Sure, but nowhere near the same rate as these dangerous, physical labor jobs. Of course, feminists will say that itís due to the culture and these being ďmenísĒ jobs, but thatís no different than other positions of the past like IT or doctors.


No, feminists would say that this is an example of how patriarchy hurts everyone.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on December 08, 2018, 01:46:53 PM
Oh, this is too rich. An Australian is arguing that ethnic minorities get a fair shake? Your country has a fucking SORRY DAY to try to apologise to the Aborigine population for everything from their near-extermination to the Stolen Generation. It's been less than fifty years since mixed-race children were taken from their families and placed with white Australians to make them assimilate into white society. You really think Australia, the country of Pauline Hanson and paying other nations to hold asylum seekers in detention camps rather than let them in, is a model of post-racial equality?

This is amazing. The world has gone mad. Yes we have Pauline Hanson and yes there are some ignorant people in Australia. I consider people like yourself ignorant as well.

The stolen generation is a product of the line of thinking that government intervention is required to fix discrimination. That is where you guys are heading.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on December 08, 2018, 01:53:45 PM


Does it seem weird?  Is it due to bias?  Or is it because crab fishing is an EXTREMELY dangerous profession that, outside of the captain of the boat and maybe a few exceptions, tends to pay relatively poorly.  So really, women are wise to avoid it.  My point is that women tend to want gender equality when the jobs are perceived as desirable (IT, management, etc) but not when the jobs are perceived as undesirable (often because they are dangerous) (garbagemen, power line workers, crab fishermen).

Right now thereís around 4500 workplace fatalities a year, with about 93% of those being male (and that percentage has increased in the last 5ish years.

Like you mentioned above - you donít see women just diving into these dangerous, hard, physical labor jobs that they are so many other jobs that have typically been male dominated for the last 50 years. Are there more now than 50 years ago? Sure, but nowhere near the same rate as these dangerous, physical labor jobs. Of course, feminists will say that itís due to the culture and these being ďmenísĒ jobs, but thatís no different than other positions of the past like IT or doctors.


No, feminists would say that this is an example of how patriarchy hurts everyone.

To be fair, Iím sure any prospective female job seekers calculate the amount of chauvinistic shit theyíd have to put up from male co-workers in those fields along with the shit pay. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: runbikerun on December 09, 2018, 09:09:26 AM
Oh, this is too rich. An Australian is arguing that ethnic minorities get a fair shake? Your country has a fucking SORRY DAY to try to apologise to the Aborigine population for everything from their near-extermination to the Stolen Generation. It's been less than fifty years since mixed-race children were taken from their families and placed with white Australians to make them assimilate into white society. You really think Australia, the country of Pauline Hanson and paying other nations to hold asylum seekers in detention camps rather than let them in, is a model of post-racial equality?

This is amazing. The world has gone mad. Yes we have Pauline Hanson and yes there are some ignorant people in Australia. I consider people like yourself ignorant as well.

The stolen generation is a product of the line of thinking that government intervention is required to fix discrimination. That is where you guys are heading.

The stolen generation is a product of the line of thinking that Aborigines were inferior and condemned to extinction. It's utter and total horseshit to paint it as an excess of zeal in preventing discrimination. It was racist as fuck right to the core.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on December 09, 2018, 11:57:25 AM
Oh, this is too rich. An Australian is arguing that ethnic minorities get a fair shake? Your country has a fucking SORRY DAY to try to apologise to the Aborigine population for everything from their near-extermination to the Stolen Generation. It's been less than fifty years since mixed-race children were taken from their families and placed with white Australians to make them assimilate into white society. You really think Australia, the country of Pauline Hanson and paying other nations to hold asylum seekers in detention camps rather than let them in, is a model of post-racial equality?

This is amazing. The world has gone mad. Yes we have Pauline Hanson and yes there are some ignorant people in Australia. I consider people like yourself ignorant as well.

The stolen generation is a product of the line of thinking that government intervention is required to fix discrimination. That is where you guys are heading.

The stolen generation is a product of the line of thinking that Aborigines were inferior and condemned to extinction. It's utter and total horseshit to paint it as an excess of zeal in preventing discrimination. It was racist as fuck right to the core.

Um.  How did this debate about women become a pissing contest about Australian racism?

Edit: Especially with a tone that one or the other side is in some way personally responsible for it? 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: runbikerun on December 10, 2018, 02:12:49 AM
My bad - shouldn't have taken the bait.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on December 10, 2018, 12:25:37 PM
I really don't understand people like steveo and use2betrix.  Do they really think that women get a fair shake in our society?  I mean, that's the main issue, isn't it?  Is it harder to make it as a woman than it is as a man. 

Who knows, maybe for their next argument they can explain to us all how minorities don't have any social barriers either, and just can't succeed because they are lazy. 

That was sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.
I think some of it might be age and level of experience in the world.  I think one of them is 30.  Not sure about the other one.

Many many studies of shown, particularly in engineering (my field), that the discrimination/ sexism/ pay gap kinds of things start pretty early.  But they REALLY start ramping up mid-career, after about the age of 30.  I've certainly seen it happen.  It my experience, it really ramps up after the age of about 35...you just see fewer and fewer women at the higher ranks.  (For many reasons, easy to google.)

A lot of people simply cannot LEARN through reading.  They have no empathy.  They quite literally have to experience it themselves to understand it.  And EVEN IF they see it themselves - if it doesn't fit their narrative, they don't believe it.

I have a large family FULL of middle class, lower middle class, and upper middle class white folk who REALLY don't understand racism or sexism.  They are of the "bootstraps" crew.  "I worked hard for all that I have."  Many many of them live in areas with few to zero minorities (not sure the school I attended from kindergarten through 10th has ever had a black student.)  A couple of my BILs are outright racist (they are 20 years older than I am, so I didn't quite discover that until I attended a family function in my 30s.  Whee!)

Not sure what to do, but if it makes you feel any better, I do know some who have learned as they've gotten older.  Maybe their daughter or wife is treated badly or passed over for a promotion.  Maybe they are out with a minority friend and get harassed or profiled.  Or maybe they are always oblivious.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on December 10, 2018, 01:28:48 PM
This may have run its course.

I'd rather people not "keep the thread going" with off-topic stuff.

I am trying to be intentional about finding women to "fan" over. And before anyone takes this the wrong way, or views it as "pity fandom," I think it's true that we all have our own filters and that it's healthy once in a while (such as after reading this thread) to intentionally challenge your own status quo.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: PoutineLover on December 10, 2018, 01:54:17 PM
Nick, I'd suggest a challenge such as reading only female authors, listening to only female singers or bands, watching movies or shows with a female lead, for a whole year. Throw in a women's game for every men's sport game you watch. You'll probably find a lot of new artists that you like, and you may also realize that it's a lot harder to consume media without thinking about representation after doing it. Actually, all the guys here who don't fanboy over women should try this. Ask women you know for recommendations. I'd be curious to see the result.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on December 10, 2018, 04:30:55 PM
Nick, I'd suggest a challenge such as reading only female authors, listening to only female singers or bands, watching movies or shows with a female lead, for a whole year. Throw in a women's game for every men's sport game you watch. You'll probably find a lot of new artists that you like, and you may also realize that it's a lot harder to consume media without thinking about representation after doing it. Actually, all the guys here who don't fanboy over women should try this. Ask women you know for recommendations. I'd be curious to see the result.

One bit of sexism I noticed in the Army were senior male officers and NCOs who, while they avoided treating young female subordinates as sex objects, often fell into a nearly as bad sexist insidious error of treating them like daughters.  These subordinates unconsciously or consciously played to that, getting preferential treatment or giving a perception of preferential treatment which effected unit morale. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: marble_faun on December 10, 2018, 09:33:28 PM
This may have run its course.

I'd rather people not "keep the thread going" with off-topic stuff.

I am trying to be intentional about finding women to "fan" over. And before anyone takes this the wrong way, or views it as "pity fandom," I think it's true that we all have our own filters and that it's healthy once in a while (such as after reading this thread) to intentionally challenge your own status quo.

I appreciate your trying to learn and stretch yourself, as we all need to do sometimes. 

It's strange how defensive and hostile this thread got, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised.  Not everyone wants to critically reflect on their own worldview.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on December 11, 2018, 07:04:28 AM
Nick, I'd suggest a challenge such as reading only female authors, listening to only female singers or bands, watching movies or shows with a female lead, for a whole year. Throw in a women's game for every men's sport game you watch. You'll probably find a lot of new artists that you like, and you may also realize that it's a lot harder to consume media without thinking about representation after doing it. Actually, all the guys here who don't fanboy over women should try this. Ask women you know for recommendations. I'd be curious to see the result.

Challenge accepted! (yes I know it's a Barney Stinson line, not a Nick Miller line) You added specificity, enhancing my 'goal' to more of a 'plan.' I know this thread will totally die soon, but I'll try to remember this time next year to post an update.

Oh and by the way, I met a very cool (female) author at a convention this year, and I've since read one of her novels, as well as a novel she co-wrote. I dug both, and anticipate getting more of her stuff after the holidays die down. I thought her (male) protagonist was awesome; it makes me more confident about writing female leads.

And one of my best friends is a female writer. We definitely click, with mutual respect for each other's projects. I am already a 'fan' of hers and will definitely cross promote and support as much as possible (even though we are in different genres).
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on December 11, 2018, 07:10:32 AM
This may have run its course.

I'd rather people not "keep the thread going" with off-topic stuff.

I am trying to be intentional about finding women to "fan" over. And before anyone takes this the wrong way, or views it as "pity fandom," I think it's true that we all have our own filters and that it's healthy once in a while (such as after reading this thread) to intentionally challenge your own status quo.

I appreciate your trying to learn and stretch yourself, as we all need to do sometimes. 

It's strange how defensive and hostile this thread got, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised.  Not everyone wants to critically reflect on their own worldview.

Most of us don't. And when confronted with a worldview that conflicts with our own, we double down on our own status quo. I would like to be better than this, especially as I get older. Hopefully many of us took something positive out of this discussion and can apply it to our own situations.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: FrugalToque on December 11, 2018, 07:20:24 AM
"It's not harder to make it as a woman or a minority than as a white male."

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong.

Agreed.

Also, I'm getting a lot of moderation requests for this thread, which is way "Off Topic" often goes.

Speaking for myself, I find it ridiculous to pretend that women and minorities have it as well as white, heterosexual men.  Only a white, heterosexual male, or possibly a woman or minority who has led an incredibly privileged existence, could believe such a thing.

Toque.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on December 11, 2018, 08:00:33 PM
Nick, I'd suggest a challenge such as reading only female authors, listening to only female singers or bands, watching movies or shows with a female lead, for a whole year. Throw in a women's game for every men's sport game you watch. You'll probably find a lot of new artists that you like, and you may also realize that it's a lot harder to consume media without thinking about representation after doing it. Actually, all the guys here who don't fanboy over women should try this. Ask women you know for recommendations. I'd be curious to see the result.

One bit of sexism I noticed in the Army were senior male officers and NCOs who, while they avoided treating young female subordinates as sex objects, often fell into a nearly as bad sexist insidious error of treating them like daughters.  These subordinates unconsciously or consciously played to that, getting preferential treatment or giving a perception of preferential treatment which effected unit morale.
UGH! This kind of behavior from guys was even worse than plain faced sexism. The coddling, mewing, condensating, patronizing "don't worry your pretty little head Dear" tone was massively insulting as a woman fully capable of doing my job. Fortunately I really never worked with officers - and very few did that - but crusty old Senior Chiefs who don't generally act like that would would just as soon kick your ass if you couldn't do your job.
.

Well, at least they weren't super patronizing.  But they did coddle and occasionally fawned a bit in less obvious ways.  Our senior NCOs sometimes did too.  Fortunately there are more female senior NCOs out there that either told them to cut it out and/or demonstrated young female Soldiers could endure harsher treatment when merited just fine.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 11, 2018, 08:21:01 PM
Nick, I'd suggest a challenge such as reading only female authors, listening to only female singers or bands, watching movies or shows with a female lead, for a whole year. Throw in a women's game for every men's sport game you watch. You'll probably find a lot of new artists that you like, and you may also realize that it's a lot harder to consume media without thinking about representation after doing it. Actually, all the guys here who don't fanboy over women should try this. Ask women you know for recommendations. I'd be curious to see the result.

One bit of sexism I noticed in the Army were senior male officers and NCOs who, while they avoided treating young female subordinates as sex objects, often fell into a nearly as bad sexist insidious error of treating them like daughters.  These subordinates unconsciously or consciously played to that, getting preferential treatment or giving a perception of preferential treatment which effected unit morale.
UGH! This kind of behavior from guys was even worse than plain faced sexism. The coddling, mewing, condensating, patronizing "don't worry your pretty little head Dear" tone was massively insulting as a woman fully capable of doing my job. Fortunately I really never worked with officers - and very few did that - but crusty old Senior Chiefs who don't generally act like that would would just as soon kick your ass if you couldn't do your job.
.

Women do this outside of the service all the time. Iíve been patronized by so many women calling me ďsweetieĒ or ďdearĒ when they want to get their way itís pathetic. Just like all the women that will also try and use sex appeal to get their way, be it in sales, the work force, etc.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on December 11, 2018, 08:26:13 PM
On another note - whatís the typical view on transgendered athletes? Thereís currently a former man who now identifies as a woman just dominating womenís handball in Australia named Hannah Mouncey. Sheís like 6í2 and 220.

Iím a bit torn. Ever since this thread Iíve learned that aside from reproductive organs thereís no physical difference from men and women at all. Iíve also learned here than on average, many women are even stronger than men.

Maybe to level our culture all genders should be removed from sports and purely the best athletes compete? That way we would no longer having to deal with one gender getting less publicity than the other, and since thereís no physical differences, Iím sure the sports would be pretty even.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on December 11, 2018, 09:22:37 PM
Ever since this thread Iíve learned that aside from reproductive organs thereís no physical difference from men and women at all. Iíve also learned here than on average, many women are even stronger than men.

The record shows that I never said either of those things.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 04, 2019, 11:22:52 AM
UPDATE:

Well she isn't an entertainer...but she does have some sick dance moves...

https://mashable.com/article/alexandria-ocasion-cortez-dancing-video-new-office/#BYfdkz6s4Oqn

I am fanboying over AOC about as hard as I can fanboy over anyone. Platform. Intelligence. Authenticity. Courage. And yes those dance moves. It is like someone is filming a movie about a regular person going to Washington and how the establishment is all "No no no" but the protagonist, through honesty and pure grit, takes their best shots and even wins over the crustiest opponent at the end of the movie (admittedly unlikely to occur here).

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: SunnyDays on January 04, 2019, 11:43:07 AM
I didn't read all this thread, but just want to comment that it has been noted by educators that middle school-age girls will read books with both boys and girls as lead characters, while boys will generally only read books about boys.  So, the "sexism" starts early.  For what it's worth.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on January 05, 2019, 04:50:53 PM
I didn't read all this thread, but just want to comment that it has been noted by educators that middle school-age girls will read books with both boys and girls as lead characters, while boys will generally only read books about boys.  So, the "sexism" starts early.  For what it's worth.

I guess I'm fucked up.  I used to read Nancy Drew as a child.  I read the Hardy Boys too but didn't like them quite as much.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 05, 2019, 11:29:23 PM
I didn't read all this thread, but just want to comment that it has been noted by educators that middle school-age girls will read books with both boys and girls as lead characters, while boys will generally only read books about boys.  So, the "sexism" starts early.  For what it's worth.

Why is this sexism ?

My opinion is that world has become so weird now that you can't be who you are because you get judged on the basis of your racial background or gender. I think bizarrely the people doing the judging are the ones calling other people of being sexist or racist.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 06, 2019, 01:43:52 AM
I didn't read all this thread, but just want to comment that it has been noted by educators that middle school-age girls will read books with both boys and girls as lead characters, while boys will generally only read books about boys.  So, the "sexism" starts early.  For what it's worth.

Why is this sexism ?

My opinion is that world has become so weird now that you can't be who you are because you get judged on the basis of your racial background or gender. I think bizarrely the people doing the judging are the ones calling other people of being sexist or racist.

Sexism = evaluating people differently based on their sex.

Making a choice to read books based on the sex of the protagonist, by this definition, is sexist.

I hope this answers your question.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 06, 2019, 11:10:56 AM
I didn't read all this thread, but just want to comment that it has been noted by educators that middle school-age girls will read books with both boys and girls as lead characters, while boys will generally only read books about boys.  So, the "sexism" starts early.  For what it's worth.

Why is this sexism ?

My opinion is that world has become so weird now that you can't be who you are because you get judged on the basis of your racial background or gender. I think bizarrely the people doing the judging are the ones calling other people of being sexist or racist.

Sexism = evaluating people differently based on their sex.

Making a choice to read books based on the sex of the protagonist, by this definition, is sexist.

I hope this answers your question.

I think there are some fine lines here. Authors, perhaps more than any other creators of media (games, movies, tv) DO have targeted audiences. Genres are HUGE in publishing. Heck, to get published traditionally you need to be able to fully describe your targeted audience to agents, editors, publishers, etc. and explain why your book will appeal to them.

Many books are specifically targeted to middle-aged women, or middle-aged men, or young women 12-16, etc. So the author is generally writing "to" someone, and if you're not in that "to" group, it might not be a natural fit for you to appreciate and enjoy the book, although it's certainly possible.

Twlight was clearly targeted to young women. That doesn't mean that young men, or older men, etc., can't enjoy it, but they certainly are not the audience being addressed.

I think we can all be more mindful of stretching our interests and reading books in genres we haven't read before, but I don't see my wife reading 'pages of descriptions of military weapons" Tom Clancy books anytime soon, and it doesn't necessarily make her "sexist" to not enjoy extremely masculine-themed books like his.

That being said, I do think books like Harry Potter have broad appeal to folks in lots of different demographics. Some books just have wider appeal than do others. Most romance/erotica books are geared to women. It's just the way it is. It doesn't mean a guy can't pick one up and enjoy it, but again the author is not writing for him. The author is writing to a specific audience and including the tropes and expectations that women expect to find in the story. It's more financially effective than trying to write a romance book that would equally appeal to men and women.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: MonkeyJenga on January 06, 2019, 11:22:19 AM
Nick, I don't think SunnyDays' example about middle schoolers was referring to the girls reading romance and erotica. It's more that all else being equal, in the same genre, the gender of the lead character affects reading habits in this way.

Harry Potter: male lead, written by a woman who chose to mask her gender with initials.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: v8rx7guy on January 06, 2019, 11:31:27 AM
Women do get a heck of a lot more fans & fanboys on Instagram from my observations....
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 06, 2019, 11:34:31 AM
Nick, I don't think SunnyDays' example about middle schoolers was referring to the girls reading romance and erotica. It's more that all else being equal, in the same genre, the gender of the lead character affects reading habits in this way.

Harry Potter: male lead, written by a woman who chose to mask her gender with initials.

I do agree to a large extent. I was just pointing out the specific issues in the publishing industry. You can't tell a publisher "this book is for everyone!"  It will not get published. You have to target an audience, and gender is a huge part of that.

Back to Harry Potter, yes I agree that the gender of protagonist affects readership demographics, at least to my knowledge. But of course, some genres already have expectations as to who the protagonist will be in the first place. Military fiction is usually going to have a male protagonist. It's the readers' expectation. Romance stories generally have a female protagonist for the same reasons. Now some genres like thrillers, mysteries, fantasy and even sci-fi now are more egalitarian (although fantasy and sci-fi were dominated by men for a LONG time).

I whole heartedly agree that we should all be more open-minded about reading stories with protags and authors of a different gender (I've been striving to do this personally), but some genres are just always going to be less targeted to one gender or the other (and hell, women make up like 75% of the fiction-reading market these days).

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 06, 2019, 11:38:43 AM
Women do get a heck of a lot more fans & fanboys on Instagram from my observations....

It's a tough question to answer, but do you have a thought as to how many of the fanboys primarily appreciate and respect the woman's work versus the number who primarily "just think she is hot" and follow purely for the pics?

I mean, Paige Spiranac (golf) and Allison Stokke (pole vaulting) have huge male followings...but is it primarily because the guys respect these ladies' skills or because these women are insanely attractive?

I would argue that it's not really "fan-boying" if you are primarily just interested in a person's appearance as opposed to their skill sets. Others might disagree.

EDITED TO ADD:

I love Bruce Springsteen because of his music. He is old af and that doesn't matter. His appearance doesn't make any difference. Some for dudes like Phil Collins and Bob Dylan. I just like their music; I fanboy for them because of their talent. I dig authors like Neil Gaiman and Dean Koontz and it has NOTHING to do with looks, it has to do with talent. Is there a difference between these examples and men who follow Allison Stokke on IG because of her looks? Is that really "fanboying" or more like "drooling?"
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: MonkeyJenga on January 06, 2019, 11:44:50 AM
Sure, there's sexism in the publishing industry and the marketing industry. I'm not sure we're talking about the same issue. Are you arguing that middle school boys tend to only read books with male protagonists because that's the only thing marketed to boys, while books with both male and female characters are marketed to girls?

I would be interested in seeing a controlled experiment. I'm sure it's been done, I just don't know where it is.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: v8rx7guy on January 06, 2019, 11:52:53 AM
Women do get a heck of a lot more fans & fanboys on Instagram from my observations....

It's a tough question to answer, but do you have a thought as to how many of the fanboys primarily appreciate and respect the woman's work versus the number who primarily "just think she is hot" and follow purely for the pics?

I mean, Paige Spiranac (golf) and Allison Stokke (pole vaulting) have huge male followings...but is it primarily because the guys respect these ladies' skills or because these women are insanely attractive?

I would argue that it's not really "fan-boying" if you are primarily just interested in a person's appearance as opposed to their skill sets. Others might disagree.

EDITED TO ADD:

I love Bruce Springsteen because of his music. He is old af and that doesn't matter. His appearance doesn't make any difference. Some for dudes like Phil Collins and Bob Dylan. I just like their music; I fanboy for them because of their talent. I dig authors like Neil Gaiman and Dean Koontz and it has NOTHING to do with looks, it has to do with talent. Is there a difference between these examples and men who follow Allison Stokke on IG because of her looks? Is that really "fanboying" or more like "drooling?"

Oh, its absolutely because of that.  I don't like your distinction, however, saying this is not the same fanyboy-ing because its appearance related.  My point is that you don't have to look far to find and industry (porn also, sadly) that is ruled by women and fueled by Male fanboys.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 06, 2019, 11:53:30 AM
Sure, there's sexism in the publishing industry and the marketing industry. I'm not sure we're talking about the same issue. Are you arguing that middle school boys tend to only read books with male protagonists because that's the only thing marketed to boys, while books with both male and female characters are marketed to girls?

I would be interested in seeing a controlled experiment. I'm sure it's been done, I just don't know where it is.

@MonkeyJenga ,

I would like to better understand the reasons as well. I was in education when I was younger, and girls just read more, period. It was clear as day. It was really a struggle to get boys to read novels, regardless of the protag or themes.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 06, 2019, 11:58:34 AM
Women do get a heck of a lot more fans & fanboys on Instagram from my observations....

It's a tough question to answer, but do you have a thought as to how many of the fanboys primarily appreciate and respect the woman's work versus the number who primarily "just think she is hot" and follow purely for the pics?

I mean, Paige Spiranac (golf) and Allison Stokke (pole vaulting) have huge male followings...but is it primarily because the guys respect these ladies' skills or because these women are insanely attractive?

I would argue that it's not really "fan-boying" if you are primarily just interested in a person's appearance as opposed to their skill sets. Others might disagree.

EDITED TO ADD:

I love Bruce Springsteen because of his music. He is old af and that doesn't matter. His appearance doesn't make any difference. Some for dudes like Phil Collins and Bob Dylan. I just like their music; I fanboy for them because of their talent. I dig authors like Neil Gaiman and Dean Koontz and it has NOTHING to do with looks, it has to do with talent. Is there a difference between these examples and men who follow Allison Stokke on IG because of her looks? Is that really "fanboying" or more like "drooling?"

Oh, its absolutely because of that.  I don't like your distinction, however, saying this is not the same fanyboy-ing because its appearance related.  My point is that you don't have to look far to find and industry (porn also, sadly) that is ruled by women and fueled by Male fanboys.

I think there is room for disagreement here. I guess my point is that a man following Allison Stokke probably has a very "shallow" attachment to her. He thinks she's hot. End of story. Maybe he gets off to pics of her. Again, it's very shallow. Does he follow her pole vaulting meets and such? Does he listen to her interviews? Does he care about her talent at all? And when the next hot girl comes along, will he lose all interest in her? Is he really a "fan" of her in any meaningful way? Is he going to "fanboy" for her when she's 35?

That seems very different than respecting a person's talents, supporting them economically with going to their concerts or sporting events, buying their books or merch, seeing their movies, i.e. respecting their creative talents, recommending that others follow their careers, etc. Again, plenty of room to disagree.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: v8rx7guy on January 06, 2019, 12:08:00 PM
Women do get a heck of a lot more fans & fanboys on Instagram from my observations....

It's a tough question to answer, but do you have a thought as to how many of the fanboys primarily appreciate and respect the woman's work versus the number who primarily "just think she is hot" and follow purely for the pics?

I mean, Paige Spiranac (golf) and Allison Stokke (pole vaulting) have huge male followings...but is it primarily because the guys respect these ladies' skills or because these women are insanely attractive?

I would argue that it's not really "fan-boying" if you are primarily just interested in a person's appearance as opposed to their skill sets. Others might disagree.

EDITED TO ADD:

I love Bruce Springsteen because of his music. He is old af and that doesn't matter. His appearance doesn't make any difference. Some for dudes like Phil Collins and Bob Dylan. I just like their music; I fanboy for them because of their talent. I dig authors like Neil Gaiman and Dean Koontz and it has NOTHING to do with looks, it has to do with talent. Is there a difference between these examples and men who follow Allison Stokke on IG because of her looks? Is that really "fanboying" or more like "drooling?"

Oh, its absolutely because of that.  I don't like your distinction, however, saying this is not the same fanyboy-ing because its appearance related.  My point is that you don't have to look far to find and industry (porn also, sadly) that is ruled by women and fueled by Male fanboys.

I think there is room for disagreement here. I guess my point is that a man following Allison Stokke probably has a very "shallow" attachment to her. He thinks she's hot. End of story. Maybe he gets off to pics of her. Again, it's very shallow. Does he follow her pole vaulting meets and such? Does he listen to her interviews? Does he care about her talent at all? And when the next hot girl comes along, will he lose all interest in her? Is he really a "fan" of her in any meaningful way? Is he going to "fanboy" for her when she's 35?

That seems very different than respecting a person's talents, supporting them economically with going to their concerts or sporting events, buying their books or merch, seeing their movies, i.e. respecting their creative talents, recommending that others follow their careers, etc. Again, plenty of room to disagree.

Yeah, I think we will have to disagree.  When I see your title, I think that these are perfect examples as to where the reverse is true. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 06, 2019, 02:33:52 PM
I think we can all be more mindful of stretching our interests and reading books in genres we haven't read before, but I don't see my wife reading 'pages of descriptions of military weapons" Tom Clancy books anytime soon, and it doesn't necessarily make her "sexist" to not enjoy extremely masculine-themed books like his.

There's a big jump from what I said to what you're saying. The pattern of school-age girls to read books with any protagonist while school-age boys refuse to read books with a female protagonist is a sexist pattern and is reinforced by social conditioning. Your wife not reading Tom Clancy has a much more attenuated relationship to sexism. It's because she finds descriptions of weapons boring, not because the protagonist is a man. Sure, part of the reason she finds descriptions of weapons boring probably has to do with the fact that she was socialized female and weapons are coded masculine, but that's a lot different from flatly rejecting a book because girls are lame.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on January 06, 2019, 02:47:38 PM
I think we can all be more mindful of stretching our interests and reading books in genres we haven't read before, but I don't see my wife reading 'pages of descriptions of military weapons" Tom Clancy books anytime soon, and it doesn't necessarily make her "sexist" to not enjoy extremely masculine-themed books like his.

There's a big jump from what I said to what you're saying. The pattern of school-age girls to read books with any protagonist while school-age boys refuse to read books with a female protagonist is a sexist pattern and is reinforced by social conditioning. Your wife not reading Tom Clancy has a much more attenuated relationship to sexism. It's because she finds descriptions of weapons boring, not because the protagonist is a man. Sure, part of the reason she finds descriptions of weapons boring probably has to do with the fact that she was socialized female and weapons are coded masculine, but that's a lot different from flatly rejecting a book because girls are lame.

You are right, it's a good observation re: boys and girls reading habits.  Some of it is social conditioning no doubt.  I also think that girls reach emotional maturity before boys, so books that appeal to the more nuanced world view of the girls comes off as "boring" to boys of the same age.  And that early judgement by boys tends to stick with them in later years. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on January 06, 2019, 03:03:42 PM
I have been watching YouTube documentaries on ultramarathon runners during my treadmill sessions recently.

I have no issue watching male or females train, run, etc. I do find it interesting that the women are far more emotional. During a documentary that was focused on women, the women cried, a lot. I donít recall any of the men crying in the documentaries Iíve watched.

Is this more nature or nurture? Is it because women are raised more to believe that crying is ok? Or - is it due to the hormonal difference between genders?

Of course, this is just a general observation and not a scientific study, and Iím sure there will be members here that state that men cry more than women.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 06, 2019, 03:14:09 PM
I didn't read all this thread, but just want to comment that it has been noted by educators that middle school-age girls will read books with both boys and girls as lead characters, while boys will generally only read books about boys.  So, the "sexism" starts early.  For what it's worth.

Why is this sexism ?

My opinion is that world has become so weird now that you can't be who you are because you get judged on the basis of your racial background or gender. I think bizarrely the people doing the judging are the ones calling other people of being sexist or racist.

Sexism = evaluating people differently based on their sex.

Making a choice to read books based on the sex of the protagonist, by this definition, is sexist.

I hope this answers your question.

It definitely doesn't answer my question but it does show the flaws in your line of reasoning. Sexism is not anything at all like what you state. If boys like reading books about boys or men that doesn't make them sexist or the world sexist or anything at all like that. It just means they prefer stories about boys/men which is fine.

The point that you have made shows exactly why modern day feminism is warped. Modern day feminists don't want equal rights for people and people have the right to choose what they do with their lives. Modern day feminism is all about trying to engineer the world to make it so that people don't have individual choices in how they act and what they do.

Sexism is not allowing women to vote and not allowing women into positions of power and not allowing women to read books by women. Sexism is about restricting females opportunities based on their sex. It isn't about restricting peoples desires or forcing men to read books with a female protagonist.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 06, 2019, 03:27:46 PM
I have been watching YouTube documentaries on ultramarathon runners during my treadmill sessions recently.

I have no issue watching male or females train, run, etc. I do find it interesting that the women are far more emotional. During a documentary that was focused on women, the women cried, a lot. I donít recall any of the men crying in the documentaries Iíve watched.

Is this more nature or nurture? Is it because women are raised more to believe that crying is ok? Or - is it due to the hormonal difference between genders?

Of course, this is just a general observation and not a scientific study, and Iím sure there will be members here that state that men cry more than women.

I like watching Amanda Nunes fight even though the level is miles below the men who fight. I really like her. I like the way she gets a little emotional. I like the way she is the underdog but wins.

When it comes to men or women being less or more emotional I think it's a really tough question. I've noticed that in my family the women tend to be the harder ones and the men much more likely to be the ones who bend and are understanding. It's interesting. I suppose women are more likely to cry or get upset but they are also the ones who are tougher. My feeling is that this is probably more individual characteristics rather than gender based issues. I also think focusing on gender issues shows a lack of maturity. Feminists are just one side of this gender based focus. Men actually do this as well. Men focus on pick-up techniques and how to manage women. I view the men that do this as having problems being mature and emotionally balanced just like modern day feminists who complain about the books that people like to read.

A friend who I trained jiu-jitsu with recently took his own life. I looked up the stats. Suicide is the no 1 cause of death in Australia for people between the ages of 15-44. Men are 3 times more likely to commit suicide. Are men really less emotional ? Are women really discriminated against more than men in modern day society ?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 06, 2019, 03:48:50 PM
The point that you have made shows exactly why modern day feminism is warped. Modern day feminists don't want equal rights for people and people have the right to choose what they do with their lives. Modern day feminism is all about trying to engineer the world to make it so that people don't have individual choices in how they act and what they do.

Sexism is not allowing women to vote and not allowing women into positions of power and not allowing women to read books by women. Sexism is about restricting females opportunities based on their sex. It isn't about restricting peoples desires or forcing men to read books with a female protagonist.

You are describing the blatant sexism.  There is lots more subtle sexism, but if it isn't aimed at you it is likely not visible to you.  Of course feminists look at the effects of our present social system on men as well. I am sure there are lots of men who avoid reading certain genres or doing certain activities because they are not manly.  For example - There are very few men in my weaving guild, even though at one point the weaving guilds of Europe and England were all men.  As machinery took over industrial weaving, weaving in the home became women's work (except for the traveling weaver, a man, who had the loom for really big projects).  So gradually weaving changed from being a respected manly occupation to being a womanly activity and most men are not interested, because it is not seen as an acceptable hobby.

When I was a girl (times have changed) reading SF was not terribly well thought of, but it was OK for boys.  It was all aimed at boys, because no one ever thought a girl would read SF, we wouldn't be interested and it was not girly.  I did, and I know I am not the only one, but we were an invisible audience to publishers.  And we hid our interest, because it was not girly and we were girls.  And authors hid too, Andre Norton (Alice Mary, also pen names Andrew North and Allen Weston) was a woman.  C. J. Cherryh (Carolyn Janice) was a woman.

So I can't help but wonder, who are the invisible audiences for various genres now?  I read all of Clancy's books about Jack Ryan, I may have had my eyes glaze over slightly when the weapons stuff got too boring, but otherwise, I enjoyed them.  But I would imagine I am again an invisible audience based on your comments, if publishers are thinking the same way.  And if the Jack Ryan novels are not an accepted series for women, then what are men going to think of a woman who is enjoying them?  That she is odd?  That she is not womanly?  Even if a man doesn't say anything to her, in the back of her mind a woman reading them is going to be wondering if this should be at home reading instead of on the bus reading - or on the bus reading instead of at home reading if her husband is likely to comment.  And that is part of the quiet sexism, a woman may always have the little niggling voice that those around her won't approve of her reading/hobby because it is not appropriate for women.  Because things get categorized.  And men may get that too, because things get categorized.

Anyway, I am a new fan of your new Arizona Senator - good for her, swearing on the constitution.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 06, 2019, 04:13:42 PM
You are describing the blatant sexism.

My take is that post this point you are talking about nature vs nurture and women are tough and smart enough to not have anything else impact them especially as a gender as a whole. I think modern day feminists are in some ways the opposite of feminists in that they think that women need special treatment to get ahead. I don't believe that for an instant. I think women are just as capable as men in most activities. Sure men are physically stronger and men will win most sporting competitions and maybe men are better at certain activities like chess but women on the whole are extremely capable.

So gradually weaving changed from being a respected manly occupation to being a womanly activity and most men are not interested, because it is not seen as an acceptable hobby.

This might change again as well. Here is the point - there is no need to make weaving 50% men and 50% women. This is where modern day feminists fail. They want to engineer the world in the image they state is correct rather than let people live their lives without discrimination and the result is the result.

When I was a girl (times have changed) reading SF was not terribly well thought of, but it was OK for boys.  It was all aimed at boys, because no one ever thought a girl would read SF, we wouldn't be interested and it was not girly.  I did, and I know I am not the only one, but we were an invisible audience to publishers.  And we hid our interest, because it was not girly and we were girls.  And authors hid too, Andre Norton (Alice Mary, also pen names Andrew North and Allen Weston) was a woman.  C. J. Cherryh (Carolyn Janice) was a woman.

I think you are proving my point. Now women are all over science fiction. I read the latest Brandon Sanderson book and I thought it was great. The protagonist was female.

But I would imagine I am again an invisible audience based on your comments, if publishers are thinking the same way.  And if the Jack Ryan novels are not an accepted series for women, then what are men going to think of a woman who is enjoying them?  That she is odd?  That she is not womanly?  Even if a man doesn't say anything to her, in the back of her mind a woman reading them is going to be wondering if this should be at home reading instead of on the bus reading - or on the bus reading instead of at home reading if her husband is likely to comment.  And that is part of the quiet sexism, a woman may always have the little niggling voice that those around her won't approve of her reading/hobby because it is not appropriate for women.  Because things get categorized.  And men may get that too, because things get categorized.

A couple of points here:-

1. Personally I think you can read whatever you want. I'll judge you poorly if you read something that I find offensive such as Hitler's Mein Kampf for instance but that is about it. I think if you read it's fantastic. I don't think that there is an invisible audience much anymore. I mean I'm sure more men watch porn for instance and women aren't catered for as much but I don't see that as being about feminism.
2. People do categorise things but that is life. I remember watching Mark Kerr. He was a massive fighter who was beating the crap out of people. He was also very feminine. You can't stop people categorising things. We shouldn't be too sensitive about this stuff as well.

Anyway, I am a new fan of your new Arizona Senator - good for her, swearing on the constitution.

I don't know her but I think it's fantastic when women (or gay people or minorities in anyway) get into positions of power. I just don't believe that there is a conspiracy stopping women getting roles like this. I think over time this will happen more and more. I like that young dancing senator that is in the news a bit now.

Lastly - thank you for a thoughtful intelligent post.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 06, 2019, 05:21:56 PM
Sexism = evaluating people differently based on their sex.

Making a choice to read books based on the sex of the protagonist, by this definition, is sexist.

I hope this answers your question.

It definitely doesn't answer my question but it does show the flaws in your line of reasoning. Sexism is not anything at all like what you state. If boys like reading books about boys or men that doesn't make them sexist or the world sexist or anything at all like that. It just means they prefer stories about boys/men which is fine.

The point that you have made shows exactly why modern day feminism is warped. Modern day feminists don't want equal rights for people and people have the right to choose what they do with their lives. Modern day feminism is all about trying to engineer the world to make it so that people don't have individual choices in how they act and what they do.

Sexism is not allowing women to vote and not allowing women into positions of power and not allowing women to read books by women. Sexism is about restricting females opportunities based on their sex. It isn't about restricting peoples desires or forcing men to read books with a female protagonist.

I'm not going to waste time defending modern feminism. Most of it is focused on the wrong things, rather than focusing where it should, which is the liberation of women from patriarchy.

As for sexism: as a woman, I request that you not try to tell me what sexism is or isn't. I think this is a reasonable request.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on January 06, 2019, 05:57:49 PM

As for sexism: as a woman, I request that you not try to tell me what sexism is or isn't. I think this is a reasonable request.

Did you really just post this? Are you trying to use the fact that you are a woman to somehow mean that men canít understand sexism? Thatís not a reasonable request and itís petty you would even make that statement.

When I was a freshman in high school I had this female teacher who was blatantly a sexist feminist that hated men. Iím friends with her daughter to this day, and her daughter even tells me she no longer talks to her and how extremist she is.

She had a VERY strict rule of ďno comparing grades.Ē Kind of weird but ok. One time a girl next to me and myself turned in an assignment a day late. By her rules, this meant automatic 50%. When we got our grades back I asked the girl what she received. She got 100%, I got 50%. I asked her if she minded if I confront the teacher and she said to go ahead.

Immediately my hand shot up and I was called on. I asked ďI just received my paper back and I noticed that Cassie and myself both turned in our papers late and she got 100% and I got 50%.Ē She reminded me about her rule about comparing grades. I told her ďI understand your rule but if you arenít going to grade us fairly Iím going to ask why.Ē She told me if I kept it up I had to go to the office. I stood up, went to the office, and got in school suspension from her class indefinitely.

I also spent 4 years working at nursing homes as a CNA where probably 99% of my coworkers were all female. Again, I have several stories where I was treated differently.

Do I understand how it feels to be a woman? No way, but get off your elitist high horse by trying to tell another poster that because youíre a woman it means they are basically unable to discuss sexism.

Edit* - I do kind of understand how it feels to be a woman. Iíve dressed up in full drag as Frank N Furter for Halloween for many years. I have been sexually assaulted by more WOMEN while wearing that costume alone than many women ever would in their whole life. My wife is a beautiful woman who turns heads and gets hit on non stop. I donít think sheís ever had a stranger just grab her ass or crotch. Iíve had random women at bars grab my ass and crotch with no warning, more times than I can remember. So maybe women arenít entirely better, and I guess maybe dressing risquť has something to do with it for both genders... 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 06, 2019, 06:54:14 PM
use2betrix, I'm not going to have this conversation with you. It would not be productive. Please refrain from continuing to engage me on this topic.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OtherJen on January 06, 2019, 06:56:09 PM
I have been watching YouTube documentaries on ultramarathon runners during my treadmill sessions recently.

I have no issue watching male or females train, run, etc. I do find it interesting that the women are far more emotional. During a documentary that was focused on women, the women cried, a lot. I donít recall any of the men crying in the documentaries Iíve watched.

Is this more nature or nurture? Is it because women are raised more to believe that crying is ok? Or - is it due to the hormonal difference between genders?

Of course, this is just a general observation and not a scientific study, and Iím sure there will be members here that state that men cry more than women.

Oh, men are just as emotional as women. The difference is that many men are socialized from an early age to believe that anger is the only acceptable negative emotion for them to express, whereas itís deemed acceptable for women to cry. Honestly, I think that the cultural stifling of emotional expression does men a major disservice.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: use2betrix on January 06, 2019, 07:19:15 PM
use2betrix, I'm not going to have this conversation with you. It would not be productive. Please refrain from continuing to engage me on this topic.

Youíre right, it would not be productive for you to engage. I made the post hoping for a discussion with someone that didnít think sexism was something only women can experience, understand, define, or discuss.

If you continue to make comments as such Iím going to discuss them. Youíre more than welcome to ignore them, however.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 06, 2019, 07:59:01 PM
I'm a retired biologist, so not an academic feminist.  I did go through the 60's and 70's, so I lived through that wave of feminism.

The feminism I am familiar with thinks that since we live in a patriarchy, we are to sexism as a fish is to water.  We basically don't notice it until it hits us in the face.  The feminism I am familiar with theorizes that the patriarchal social system hurts both sexes, just in different ways.  Giving up on nuance, it expects men to be manly and women to be womanly, whatever that means.  And deviation from that is discouraged.  So men showing most emotions (except anger) were so discouraged as little boys that those emotions are hidden.  Women are trained as little girls to show almost any emotion except anger (and maybe pride, there is a lot of modesty and humbleness pushed at little girls).  Little girls have a bit more leeway, they can be tomboys more than boys can be sissies (see how loaded those words sound?), but when puberty hits, toe the line.  So the feminism I am familiar with thinks that most men and most women would be a lot happier and have the potential to be more fulfilled in their lives if those restriction and expectations could be loosened and then lost, so that a person (any person, irregardless of gender identity or sexual preference or presentation) can do what interests them and they do well at, as jobs and as hobbies and as life styles.

What I saw in the 80's was the backswing.  There are social interests that benefit from people knowing their place, and social media were used to distort the public idea of feminism, and turn feminism into a bad word.  I am still seeing it here in some of these postings.  What individuals do under the name of feminism does not have to be representative of actual feminism, it is a shield and something to use as justification.

I could write a few pages on this, but that is the basics.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 06, 2019, 07:59:35 PM
Sexism = evaluating people differently based on their sex.

Making a choice to read books based on the sex of the protagonist, by this definition, is sexist.

I hope this answers your question.

It definitely doesn't answer my question but it does show the flaws in your line of reasoning. Sexism is not anything at all like what you state. If boys like reading books about boys or men that doesn't make them sexist or the world sexist or anything at all like that. It just means they prefer stories about boys/men which is fine.

The point that you have made shows exactly why modern day feminism is warped. Modern day feminists don't want equal rights for people and people have the right to choose what they do with their lives. Modern day feminism is all about trying to engineer the world to make it so that people don't have individual choices in how they act and what they do.

Sexism is not allowing women to vote and not allowing women into positions of power and not allowing women to read books by women. Sexism is about restricting females opportunities based on their sex. It isn't about restricting peoples desires or forcing men to read books with a female protagonist.

I'm not going to waste time defending modern feminism. Most of it is focused on the wrong things, rather than focusing where it should, which is the liberation of women from patriarchy.

As for sexism: as a woman, I request that you not try to tell me what sexism is or isn't. I think this is a reasonable request.

A couple of points:-

1. You (and all feminists) need to stop stating what other people have to do and that includes telling me that my opinion doesn't matter. I'm sorry but my opinion is as relevant as your opinion.
2. You've made up the patriarchy. It doesn't exist. Can you prove it exists ? If not this topic should be dropped from rational logical conversations going forward. This is not like your request never to mention feminism. It is a request based on logic and rationality. The burden of proof for all made up theories should be on the person asserting that theory.
3. I am not (and neither is society) holding you or anyone back. You can go out and live the life that you want and you can achieve anything that you have the ability to achieve, you put the work in to achieve and you receive some support from society to achieve. Society doesn't hold back women. It tries and hold back people from doing things that are unsocial such as murder or displaying racism or sexism towards other people. You live in a great time in that a large number of people can really create great lives for themselves especially in the context of human history.
4. Women now do great in society. Some women choose to lead their country. Some choose to be stay at home mums. Some choose to go into the corporate world and have great careers. I suppose all women should be able to choose what they want to do with their life and than God (I'm an atheist) that society within most first world countries enables this.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 06, 2019, 08:21:12 PM
What individuals do under the name of feminism does not have to be representative of actual feminism, it is a shield and something to use as justification.

It's clear that you need to define what feminism is to try and critique it. You can't just state it's an action against the patriarchy because the patriarchy only exists in people's heads. It's an illogical argument.

So then you have to actually state what is feminism and give details. When you state equal rights and women get to choose how they live their lives I am 100% supportive. When you start seeing the patriarchy in my decision to like watching MMA or football (I like rugby league) or basketball or the books I read then you are getting into an area where it's clearly crazy territory. Who knows why we choose to like certain activities. Maybe it's natural. Maybe it's where you were born ? Maybe that is okay. My niece is Muslim. She has married a young Muslim man. She is 20 and just had a kid. The last time I saw her she had her face covered. I'm pretty confident that she made that decision. Why did she make that decision ? Who knows but it's her choice. I don't like it but it's not my life or my call. Maybe if she grew up in a non-Muslim household this wouldn't have happened but she grew up Muslim.

Then we come up to the next absurd idea and that is that society should be homogenised. So gender doesn't matter at all and women and men should be equally represented everywhere. This disables people to make their own choices and it's the territory of the far right or the far left. It's the domain of the real crazies like Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 06, 2019, 08:31:03 PM
So the feminism I am familiar with thinks that most men and most women would be a lot happier and have the potential to be more fulfilled in their lives if those restriction and expectations could be loosened and then lost, so that a person (any person, irregardless of gender identity or sexual preference or presentation) can do what interests them and they do well at, as jobs and as hobbies and as life styles.

I think that this is true but I think society is moving more and more this way right now. When I was at high school I remember there was a gay guy there. He had it rough. My kids now tend to not even think about gay kids unless they are over the top. At my gym (jiu-jitsu) women come along and train. There is a lovely young couple who are both doctors. I work with a woman who I really like. We are good friends. She was bought up Muslim, married a man, had a kid, got divorced, moved countries, married a woman and her partner is thinking of having a kid via artificial insemination. She does jiu-jitsu just like me and has fought MMA.

Maybe the world isn't perfect but making out that gender is some massive issue that holds women back is absurd.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 06, 2019, 08:42:34 PM
It's clear that you need to define what feminism is to try and critique it. You can't just state it's an action against the patriarchy because the patriarchy only exists in people's heads. It's an illogical argument.

I'm going to save this, so I can link to it whenever I see anyone using the phrase "beg the question" incorrectly.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mjr on January 06, 2019, 08:45:07 PM
As for sexism: as a woman, I request that you not try to tell me what sexism is or isn't. I think this is a reasonable request.

That's a ripper!!  So, as a woman, you own the definition of sexism and request that a man not define sexism for you ?

Said by someone who tags their profile with "Gender is a hierarchy".
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 06, 2019, 08:58:34 PM
mjr, I'm not sure what your objection is. As an analogy: if a person of color says that something is racist, it would be insensitive and bad form for a white person to tell them that they're wrong and it's not racist. I'm saying something similar about sexism.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mjr on January 06, 2019, 09:30:09 PM
mjr, I'm not sure what your objection is. As an analogy: if a person of color says that something is racist, it would be insensitive and bad form for a white person to tell them that they're wrong and it's not racist. I'm saying something similar about sexism.

So sexism "belongs" to women only ?  Or are you saying that one human can't offer the definition of a word from the English language to another human ?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 06, 2019, 09:38:32 PM
mjr, I'm not sure what your objection is. As an analogy: if a person of color says that something is racist, it would be insensitive and bad form for a white person to tell them that they're wrong and it's not racist. I'm saying something similar about sexism.

So sexism "belongs" to women only ?  Or are you saying that one human can't offer the definition of a word from the English language to another human ?

I think I explained myself sufficiently.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mjr on January 06, 2019, 09:44:53 PM
You did.  It's very clear how much of an argument you had.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 07, 2019, 07:13:43 AM
I think we have gotten off track. Please connect all comments to the "fanboy" topic, instead of debating generally about feminism or sexism.

And also, be polite to one another.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 07, 2019, 07:16:11 AM
So the feminism I am familiar with thinks that most men and most women would be a lot happier and have the potential to be more fulfilled in their lives if those restriction and expectations could be loosened and then lost, so that a person (any person, irregardless of gender identity or sexual preference or presentation) can do what interests them and they do well at, as jobs and as hobbies and as life styles.

I think that this is true but I think society is moving more and more this way right now. When I was at high school I remember there was a gay guy there. He had it rough. My kids now tend to not even think about gay kids unless they are over the top. At my gym (jiu-jitsu) women come along and train. There is a lovely young couple who are both doctors. I work with a woman who I really like. We are good friends. She was bought up Muslim, married a man, had a kid, got divorced, moved countries, married a woman and her partner is thinking of having a kid via artificial insemination. She does jiu-jitsu just like me and has fought MMA.

Maybe the world isn't perfect but making out that gender is some massive issue that holds women back is absurd.

Things are a lot better than they were (I am a lot older than you are, so I have seen more changes).  But there is still lots of sexism (and racism, and discrimination for other reasons) out there.  People are just less blunt about it (or were, until the US got Trump and Ontario got the Fords).   Lots still don't like women in politics, they just don't say they don't like so and so because she is a woman, they try to say all sorts of other reasons why they don't like her.  You still find lots of people (mostly men but not all) who are surprised when someone likes their female boss (because women make bad bosses?).

One take I like (it floats around, no idea of origin) is that when a second-rate woman can do as well as a second-rate man, we will be a lot closer to equality.  And when no-one bothers to comment on a political candidate's gender, or race, or sexual orientation because it is just not relevant, we will truly have come a long way.  We are not there yet.  And when a couple seriously discusses who should stay home with the baby (if anyone, since daycare should be a viable option, and is in large parts of Canada, but not the US, which does not say much for the US), based on all factors, we will be a lot closer to equality.  I see too many financial discussions on the forums where the assumption is that the wife will stay home for a few years, they can live without her salary.  Her career development, her chances of going back to a decent job, her loss of seniority and future pension vesting rarely seem to come up.  And it matters, the most valuable part of my pension is from my first 5 years at work, because it had so long to grow.  And then if there is a divorce, her contribution to the family and her loss of that job advancement is not seen to be equal to his financial contribution, and we get the moaning about alimony.

So things have improved, but there is still lots of room for more improvement.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 07, 2019, 07:18:11 AM
I think we have gotten off track. Please connect all comments to the "fanboy" topic, instead of debating generally about feminism or sexism.

And also, be polite to one another.

Sorry, I got into the "someone on the internets is wrong must fix now" mindset.

I guess since I am a woman and tend to have my own areas where I fangirl, but am not in the social sciences, I can't really comment on why this happens.  Have fun everyone.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 07, 2019, 10:58:47 AM
And when no-one bothers to comment on a political candidate's gender, or race, or sexual orientation because it is just not relevant, we will truly have come a long way.

No one commented on Hillary's gender more than Hillary did.  Her campaign slogan was "I'm with Her" for crissakes.   

On one hand, I'm supposed to ignore a candidate's gender, but on the other

Quote
Lots still don't like women in politics, they just don't say they don't like so and so because she is a woman, they try to say all sorts of other reasons why they don't like her.

If I don't like her it's because she's a her.  Nevermind I might actually disagree with her on a lot of issues (I would have happily voted for Condi Rice or Carla Fiorina). 

WTF?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 07, 2019, 11:31:07 AM
Quote
Lots still don't like women in politics, they just don't say they don't like so and so because she is a woman, they try to say all sorts of other reasons why they don't like her.

If I don't like her it's because she's a her.  Nevermind I might actually disagree with her on a lot of issues (I would have happily voted for Condi Rice or Carla Fiorina). 

WTF?

This is a very safe claim to make . . . knowing that a woman would never receive nomination for president in the party that you support.  This is the party that has assembled the most male cabinet since Ronald Reagan (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-very-male-trump-administration/556568/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-very-male-trump-administration/556568/)).  Even for the lesser position of congresswoman, the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 3-1 (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018 (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018)).  In the house of representatives, democratic women make up nearly 40% of the members, where Republican women clock in at around 8% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Percentage_of_women_by_party_and_year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Percentage_of_women_by_party_and_year)).

You might personally not discount women because they're women . . . but that's certainly not the rule for other people in the party you support.  (https://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-major-gaps-views-women-politics-gender-party-affiliation-n911211 (https://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-major-gaps-views-women-politics-gender-party-affiliation-n911211))
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 07, 2019, 12:13:08 PM

No one commented on Hillary's gender more than Hillary did.  Her campaign slogan was "I'm with Her" for crissakes.   


Um, OP asked us to stop discussing feminism, but is this a feminism or fanboy comment?

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.  And when conservatives have the same record of more liberal parties of nominating women/minorities/etc. I will believe they are equal in their appreciation of everyone.  For example (forget the US, this is an international group ) the Ontario Conservatives had some great candidates (Christine Elliott came second, Caroline Mulroney was third) for their last leadership convention and they picked Doug Ford.  Yes the Doug Ford who's brother Rob made news in the US as the druggie mayor of Toronto. (OT, um, not a Doug Ford fanboygirl here, since he just trashed a bunch of Ontario Francophone initiatives that the Conservatives had never mentioned trashing while the election was on).

I would happily have fangirled Christine Elliott, and it's been a while since I liked a Conservative candidate (I got to vote for Flora MacDonald, but that was long ago and far away).
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on January 07, 2019, 12:20:10 PM
I like watching Paige VanZant bust other fighters' faces open at UFC events. Does that count as support? She's badass as Hell.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 07, 2019, 01:24:36 PM
I like watching Paige VanZant bust other fighters' faces open at UFC events. Does that count as support? She's badass as Hell.

Yup
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 07, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on January 07, 2019, 02:05:43 PM
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 07, 2019, 02:08:08 PM

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 07, 2019, 02:11:45 PM

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 07, 2019, 02:13:37 PM
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 07, 2019, 02:14:24 PM

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.

Where the fuck did I say that?  See my post immediately following yours. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: shenlong55 on January 07, 2019, 02:18:37 PM
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Why not?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 07, 2019, 02:20:32 PM
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Why not?

Because those two ideas are opposite of each other.  Am I to ignore gender, or am I to elect more female politicians? 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: shenlong55 on January 07, 2019, 02:24:06 PM
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Why not?

Because those two ideas are opposite of each other.  Am I to ignore gender, or am I to elect more female politicians?

I don't think they are.  I think one is a desired end state and the other is a method of achieving/moving closer to said end state.  Two different things entirely and not at all opposite of one another.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 07, 2019, 02:24:22 PM


No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER. 

And quite honestly, I don't care.  I don't mind at all that Hillary was campaigning to be the first female President.  That's fine. 

BUT, then don't turn around and lecture me to "not comment on a politician's gender" because she made it a selling point. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "we need to look beyond a politician's gender for women to be truly equal" and also say we need to elect female politicians to hold office.

Why not?

Indeed. Without the latter, the former will never happen.

edit: Cross post! What shenlong said.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 07, 2019, 02:30:30 PM

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.

Where the fuck did I say that?  See my post immediately following yours.

I may have misread in all the cross-posting. My apologies. I actually agree with you that Hillary stressed her gender in the election, and I also think it was a good thing. Hell, we really need to have about 45 female presidents in a row before it's even.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 07, 2019, 02:37:15 PM

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.

Where the fuck did I say that?  See my post immediately following yours.

I may have misread in all the cross-posting. My apologies. I actually agree with you that Hillary stressed her gender in the election, and I also think it was a good thing. Hell, we really need to have about 45 female presidents in a row before it's even.

Also 45 non-white presidents.  45 presidents who don't believe in the Christian god.  45 gay/transgender presidents.  :P
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 07, 2019, 02:46:04 PM

To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

Bullshit.  Hillary played up the "elect an historic female President for the first time ever!" as much as she possibly could.  Including the "Her" in her campaign slogan was 100000% intended to reference that.

And the fact that she would have indeed been the first female President means......?

Men who claim things haven't been slanted against women throughout our nation's history are just...I mean, I don't give view them as having any credibility.

Where the fuck did I say that?  See my post immediately following yours.

I may have misread in all the cross-posting. My apologies. I actually agree with you that Hillary stressed her gender in the election, and I also think it was a good thing. Hell, we really need to have about 45 female presidents in a row before it's even.

Also 45 non-white presidents.  45 presidents who don't believe in the Christian god.  45 gay/transgender presidents.  :P

Yes to all! And I am 100% serious about this. I'll settle for about 15 openly atheist presidents, 10 Satanist presidents, 15 gay presidents, 10 bisexual presidents, 5 nonbinary presidents, 10 each of Latino, African American, Asian American, and all of them female. There would obviously be a lot of overlap in these categories, so no one say that I am mathematically challenged. I am 100% serious when I say this would be awesome for the country.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 07, 2019, 02:47:21 PM
And when no-one bothers to comment on a political candidate's gender, or race, or sexual orientation because it is just not relevant, we will truly have come a long way.  We are not there yet. 

We aren't there yet but I think most of this is to do with people who make these issues into issues. I for instance don't care one little bit.

And when a couple seriously discusses who should stay home with the baby (if anyone, since daycare should be a viable option, and is in large parts of Canada, but not the US, which does not say much for the US), based on all factors, we will be a lot closer to equality.  I see too many financial discussions on the forums where the assumption is that the wife will stay home for a few years, they can live without her salary.  Her career development, her chances of going back to a decent job, her loss of seniority and future pension vesting rarely seem to come up.  And it matters, the most valuable part of my pension is from my first 5 years at work, because it had so long to grow.  And then if there is a divorce, her contribution to the family and her loss of that job advancement is not seen to be equal to his financial contribution, and we get the moaning about alimony.

This is a complex issue. Women often want to stay at home or work less. My wife does this. She wants to work even less. It's not a gender based decision. When it comes to divorce and alimony I think that there is becoming more and more preferential treatment for women. I think that needs to change. Men shouldn't be screwed over especially today. We need to get to the stage where financial splits are equitable. I'm definitely not stating that women don't deserve half. I think in the vast majority of cases half will be fair. Guys complaining about this are typically morons. The issue is at the extremes where some women will use men for a payout. These are bad women who use the social/legal system to their advantage.

Alimony is a much more complex issue. Women can now work and they shouldn't expect a life long pay off after a divorce. So maybe alimony deserves some moaning about.

So things have improved, but there is still lots of room for more improvement.

Agreed but I think the days of women being disadvantaged are coming to an end and maybe the rules need to change to make women more accountable. We can't continue to view women as somehow less capable than men. They aren't.

In relation to social changes they will happen naturally. This is where I think people banging on about stuff like this thread have it wrong. There are issues such as this thread that aren't about societal gender differences. They just happen in the social environment that we exist in. They may happen naturally. When I grew up there was one kid in the class who was Chinese. Now my kids are part Fillipino (and from that culture part Chinese) and the local school and area is full of different nationalities. You need to allow some time for changes to occur.

So to sum up maybe there is room for improvement but maybe the system now is pretty good. When we are talking about thread topics like this it makes me think that some people just complain over nothing.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 07, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 07, 2019, 03:00:41 PM
Because those two ideas are opposite of each other.  Am I to ignore gender, or am I to elect more female politicians?

It's complex. To be fair I think it would be better if there were more female leaders in world politics. At the same time Hillary was probably a really bad candidate. Then again Trump is a disaster. This shows how poor the current system really is.

When it comes to pushing gender equality well it's complex because equality of outcome is something that can be considered unnatural and requiring some really bad stuff to occur. Equality or outcome/homogenising society is the domain of really bad people like Pol Pot. I'm inclined to think women are just as capable as men and women don't need positive discrimination to get ahead. I am completely against society forcing me to watch women's netball because for some reason I should watch male and female sporting events equally. People deserve freedom within their personal choices within reason. I shouldn't be able to kill someone or hurt them etc. I should though be able to read whatever I want to read.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 07, 2019, 03:32:37 PM
Hey people, I was into the feminism discussion as much as anyone, but OP asked a while ago that we get back to the original topic.  I fangirled a few female politicians who were massively better than the man who won,  just to fangirl some cool women in politics, as opposed to sports and entertainment, and you've gone all discuss feminism again.

Not cool.

How about that Lynn Margulis (RIP), eh?  Can I fangirl her brain and insightful ideas?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: former player on January 07, 2019, 03:34:00 PM
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 07, 2019, 03:51:11 PM
To me I'm with her differs from I'm with him only with the her/him.

No kidding. That people can think "him" is neutral and "her" is coded speaks volumes about where we are as a society.

No, more like most every other slogan for a campaign is about the COUNTRY ("Hope and Change" "Make America Great Again" "Reform, Prosperity, Peace"); Hillary's was about HER.

Clinton had more than one slogan. One of them was "Stronger Together," which is more in line with what you seem to think is appropriate.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 07, 2019, 03:53:24 PM
Hey people, I was into the feminism discussion as much as anyone, but OP asked a while ago that we get back to the original topic.  I fangirled a few female politicians who were massively better than the man who won,  just to fangirl some cool women in politics, as opposed to sports and entertainment, and you've gone all discuss feminism again.

Not cool.

How about that Lynn Margulis (RIP), eh?  Can I fangirl her brain and insightful ideas?

I think what OP is learning is that it is, literally, impossible to have a conversation related to gender without it devolving into a shitshow.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 07, 2019, 03:57:22 PM
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: shenlong55 on January 07, 2019, 04:04:56 PM
I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.

I don't think you understand what the word patriarchy means.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Dabnasty on January 07, 2019, 04:07:23 PM
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.

I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 07, 2019, 04:20:38 PM
I don't think you understand what the word patriarchy means.

I've found that a surprising number of educated people don't know what patriarchy means. Not speculating on steveo's education.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on January 07, 2019, 05:21:00 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eVeCCfKv8is/R1yjxZAKNAI/AAAAAAAABx0/MA2J9xSi00w/s400/d87++women-haters+club.jpg)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 08, 2019, 12:36:12 AM
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.

I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 08, 2019, 05:34:11 AM
Ah ha ha, all I was doing is just scrolling through the thread and I see "you've made up the patriarchy" and I thought "whaa??? Wait, is that steveo?"  Scroll up.  Yep.  ha ha ha ha.  Keep trying bud.

I think this hilarious. You do realise that the patriarchy can't exist anywhere else than in your head right. You can't prove it therefore it exists only in your head. It's a myth that you've told yourself.

This is not an argument against women or anything like that. It's a logical rational argument. I did notice that you don't bring the evidence that it exists but you make it personal.

I've never seen this patriarchy. It doesn't exist in my world. If it exists in your world it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps you've never seen the patriarchy the way you don't see air and fish don't see water.

I love the way you guys discuss topics. If you don't agree and can't discuss something rationally and logically then just throw out a meaningless comment and hope for the best.

I'd love to see someone come back to me with proof that the patriarchy exists. Just to be clear there is no proof. The patriarchy is a myth that you've told yourself about. I'm not suggesting that there aren't areas in the world where discrimination occurs however stating that a patriarchy exists is a completely different thing. For the patriarchy to exist there needs to be some conglomerate of men controlling the world and there isn't.

Societies develop in complex ways. I gave an example earlier of my niece. She is a Muslim with a young kid and she is 20 yo. She also covers her face completely when she goes out in public. She made that choice herself. Personally I find this pretty close to abhorrent but I have to bite my tongue and accept it's her choice. Did she make this choice because of the patriarchy ? I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist. To my niece it doesn't exist and yet she covers herself apart from her eyes when she goes out in public. Her husband is studying to be an Imam. Now the funny thing is that both of them are highly intelligent. They both scored in the top say 5% of the population in their exams. I think the husband scored in the top 1%.

I can't answer why these two young, highly intelligent, western educated and nice young people have become fundamentalist Muslims but they have. To state that it is the patriarchy that has caused this to occur shows a lack of critical thinking in relation to a complex issue.

Thanks for your comments though because you've helped me state exactly what is wrong with the line of thinking that the world and society has to conform to the world view of what the liberal minded (me included) believe should should occur and if that outcome doesn't happen there must be some simple conspiracy behind it. I don't believe in simple conspiracy theories to describe complex social outcomes.

I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: shenlong55 on January 08, 2019, 06:07:08 AM
I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.

Proof of what though?  What is it that you think the word patriarchy means?  Because it seems to me like your asking for proof of something that nobody is claiming exists...
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 08, 2019, 08:26:34 AM
I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.

Proof of what though?  What is it that you think the word patriarchy means?  Because it seems to me like your asking for proof of something that nobody is claiming exists...

I think Wikipedia's definition of patriarchy is pretty good:

Quote
Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)

Actually, reading the whole (fully referenced) page would clear up most of steveo's confusion and provide the proof he keeps asking for.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OtherJen on January 08, 2019, 08:38:59 AM
I'm very confused here. What is your definition of a patriarchy?

Nearly every society that has existed since humans began living in groups has been a patriarchy. What kind of proof are you looking for? Systems where the first born males inherited their father's land? Religions where women were told to obey their husbands? These are the obvious examples but that seems like a good place to start if you're looking for tangible examples.

All I'm requiring is objective proof which can't be provided. Something mathematical to prove the a patriarchy exists. You can't get that.

The point being that it's a theory that someone has made up in their head and anyone who believes this theory has also created this theory in their head. There are alternate theories. Maybe there is no patriarchy which seems especially true if what you are stating is correct. I mean are you stating that basically every society has been dominated by a patriarchy. This seems really really far fetched unless it's a natural order which I don't personally believe. It's much more likely to be a natural order than some patriarchal conspiracy if all societies have had this format.

Maybe just maybe societies organise themselves based on what they feel is right and what works. It might work best for some people other than other people but it's what society has just evolved too. Maybe gender isn't that big a deal. I don't think it is but maybe I think women are much more capable than what feminists believe.

Proof of what though?  What is it that you think the word patriarchy means?  Because it seems to me like your asking for proof of something that nobody is claiming exists...

I think Wikipedia's definition of patriarchy is pretty good:

Quote
Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)

Actually, reading the whole (fully referenced) page would clear up most of steveo's confusion and provide the proof he keeps asking for.

But does it provide mathematical proof? Apparently thatís the only possible way to prove that something exists.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: tyort1 on January 08, 2019, 09:40:53 AM
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.  IME, patriarchy isn't just about gender roles, it's more about power.  In our society men overwhelmingly have it, and women don't. 

It is changing, but slowly.  And the REASON it's changing is because the feminists have been vocal and active about making the change.  If it weren't for them, most of society wouldn't even be aware of it, let alone recognize that it's a problem.  In that way it's similar to the Civil Rights movement. 

Think of it this way - in a country as deeply racist as ours, we gave the right to vote to black men before we gave it to women.  Think about that for a minute. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 08, 2019, 09:54:30 AM
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.

Is that necessarily true?  Are there an equal number of women with the raw, naked ambition and drive it takes to become a c-suite executive as there are men?  Case study of 1, sure, but in our house where my wife and I have similar education levels and fields of study and professional experience, she tells me all the time she doesn't WANT to go any higher than she is.  Not worth the stress and the time to her.  I have a feeling many (not all, certainly, but many) women agree. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 08, 2019, 10:05:09 AM
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.

Is that necessarily true?  Are there an equal number of women with the raw, naked ambition and drive it takes to become a c-suite executive as there are men?  Case study of 1, sure, but in our house where my wife and I have similar education levels and fields of study and professional experience, she tells me all the time she doesn't WANT to go any higher than she is.  Not worth the stress and the time to her.  I have a feeling many (not all, certainly, but many) women agree.


Again . . . from the posted Wikipedia article:
Quote
Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 08, 2019, 10:13:31 AM
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.

Is that necessarily true?  Are there an equal number of women with the raw, naked ambition and drive it takes to become a c-suite executive as there are men?  Case study of 1, sure, but in our house where my wife and I have similar education levels and fields of study and professional experience, she tells me all the time she doesn't WANT to go any higher than she is.  Not worth the stress and the time to her.  I have a feeling many (not all, certainly, but many) women agree.


Again . . . from the posted Wikipedia article:
Quote
Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

That's nice.  Does it make it so?

In prehistoric times, women stayed home with the kids and men went off to hunt for food.  Was that "the patriarchy"? 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 08, 2019, 10:21:05 AM
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.

Is that necessarily true?  Are there an equal number of women with the raw, naked ambition and drive it takes to become a c-suite executive as there are men?  Case study of 1, sure, but in our house where my wife and I have similar education levels and fields of study and professional experience, she tells me all the time she doesn't WANT to go any higher than she is.  Not worth the stress and the time to her.  I have a feeling many (not all, certainly, but many) women agree.


Again . . . from the posted Wikipedia article:
Quote
Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

That's nice.  Does it make it so?

In prehistoric times, women stayed home with the kids and men went off to hunt for food.  Was that "the patriarchy"?

Not being an expert in or student of the development, structure, and functioning of human society myself, I tend to defer to the opinions of those who are.  But then again, I'm not trying to push a personal agenda regarding the (non)existence of patriarchal societies in this thread.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 08, 2019, 10:30:46 AM
I'm not necessarily trying to "push an agenda" either.  But I've worked in huge companies for 15+ years now, and have seen the ratio of men to women who are willing to work themselves to death to fight to the top.  It's not 100:0, but it sure ain't 50:50, either.

I also know the types of people that sociology as a career attracts (my sister majored in it in undergrad, and having attended a liberal arts school, I took several sociology classes as well), and that there is societal pressure right now to pretend men and women are identical in all respects, and so I approach the conclusions with a healthy amount of skepticism.

When presented with the line "sociologists tend to see" that doesn't prove anything, it just tells me how they frame the issue. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 08, 2019, 10:52:08 AM
Chris22, you're confusing what is with what should be. The existence of a gendered difference in behavior doesn't, of itself, justify that difference.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 08, 2019, 10:59:46 AM
I'm not necessarily trying to "push an agenda" either.  But I've worked in huge companies for 15+ years now, and have seen the ratio of men to women who are willing to work themselves to death to fight to the top.  It's not 100:0, but it sure ain't 50:50, either.

I don't dispute that this is the case.  They question is "Where does this difference come from?".  Most of the research I've seen indicates that it's societal, not biological.  Women are conditioned from a very early age to be caregivers and to act less aggressively.  You yourself have indicated that you would treat a female child quite differently than a male child.

In it's simplest form, that is how a patriarchy tends to show itself.


I also know the types of people that sociology as a career attracts (my sister majored in it in undergrad, and having attended a liberal arts school, I took several sociology classes as well), and that there is societal pressure right now to pretend men and women are identical in all respects, and so I approach the conclusions with a healthy amount of skepticism.

When presented with the line "sociologists tend to see" that doesn't prove anything, it just tells me how they frame the issue.

I don't believe that men and women are identical in all respects (in fact, I've made it very clear that there are quite distinct and easy to measure physical differences earlier on in this thread).  That's an idiotic position to take, and one that is easily disproved.

A sociologist is an expert in or student of the development, structure, and functioning of human society.  Their views are based upon their research (unless you're of the belief that a massive pro-patriarchy conspiracy exists . . . in which case I can provide you with some fine tinfoil hat folding techniques).  It's fine to be skeptical, but to be skeptical based upon intuition rather than contrary data isn't skepticism.  It's just unsupported contrarianism, and tends to be used by people who decide upon a position and then start looking at the facts.

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 08, 2019, 11:21:48 AM
I'm not necessarily trying to "push an agenda" either.  But I've worked in huge companies for 15+ years now, and have seen the ratio of men to women who are willing to work themselves to death to fight to the top.  It's not 100:0, but it sure ain't 50:50, either.

I don't dispute that this is the case.  They question is "Where does this difference come from?".  Most of the research I've seen indicates that it's societal, not biological.  Women are conditioned from a very early age to be caregivers and to act less aggressively.  You yourself have indicated that you would treat a female child quite differently than a male child.

In it's simplest form, that is how a patriarchy tends to show itself.


I also know the types of people that sociology as a career attracts (my sister majored in it in undergrad, and having attended a liberal arts school, I took several sociology classes as well), and that there is societal pressure right now to pretend men and women are identical in all respects, and so I approach the conclusions with a healthy amount of skepticism.

When presented with the line "sociologists tend to see" that doesn't prove anything, it just tells me how they frame the issue.

I don't believe that men and women are identical in all respects (in fact, I've made it very clear that there are quite distinct and easy to measure physical differences earlier on in this thread).  That's an idiotic position to take, and one that is easily disproved.

A sociologist is an expert in or student of the development, structure, and functioning of human society.  Their views are based upon their research (unless you're of the belief that a massive pro-patriarchy conspiracy exists . . . in which case I can provide you with some fine tinfoil hat folding techniques).  It's fine to be skeptical, but to be skeptical based upon intuition rather than contrary data isn't skepticism.  It's just unsupported contrarianism, and tends to be used by people who decide upon a position and then start looking at the facts.

I know I'll probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but:

@Chris22 :

I find that most of the time, people who argue against the patriarchy do so on the basis of assuming that there are "differences" between men and women. And arguing that those "differences" are what explain the disparities between men and women in certain careers, or certain income levels, etc.

But:

Until recently, women in America were considered as not being separate entities from their husbands. They were considered dependents, like children, or slaves. They could not own property in their own name or control their own earnings, except under very specific circumstances. When a husband died, his wife could not be the guardian to their under-age children.

Until as recently as the 1970s, women could not open a bank account without the consent of a husband or a father.

Women were not allowed to vote until 1920 in the US. 1945 for France, and even later in some places (and of course, there are countries in the world where women are still not allowed to vote at all).

It was only in 1981 that a husband no longer had the right to unilaterally take out a second mortgage on property held jointly with his wife. And only even more recently have laws been put in place saying both a husband and a wife's signature are necessary on a variety of legal documents on aspects of marital life affecting both of them.

Even well into the mid-twentieth century, who became teachers were not allowed to marry or date. If they were discovered doing so, they lost their jobs. Not so with men.

How does one explain all these laws restricting women's movements? And how does one explain how hard women had to fight to get them overturned?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: patchyfacialhair on January 08, 2019, 11:45:37 AM
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions. 

I'm going to regret posting to this thread, but I think this assertion has the potential to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

Sure, it's a Wikipedia link, but the supporting sources were pretty intriguing.

I'm all about equality of opportunity. I have a daughter, I want her not to be held back by any social pressure to do one thing over another. I will support and do my best to help her become a well rounded kid. And I think America is built for that. Heck, she can join the Boy Scouts now if she wanted to. I think for the most part, I'd say the same if she were a boy.

We shouldn't look for equality of outcome as a success measure when we're looking at whether the equality of opportunity was there or not in the first place. It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender. I'd say the bigger problem (changing subject, sorry) is the fact that POOR people truly have it rough, and giving them a fair shake from the beginning would be more of a priority to me than trying to make sure there are equal number of women at the top.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 08, 2019, 12:23:55 PM
It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender.

You are of course welcome to your opinion. I'll just point out that that opinion discounts social pressures.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 08, 2019, 12:31:37 PM
It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender.

This is the crux of the disagreement (it's also a primary source of disagreement in many conversations about structural racism).

Removing some legally enforced barriers that prevent equal opportunity is not remotely sufficient.  There are so many ingrained but less obvious barriers that our society still has.

Women are socially conditioned to be less aggressive from birth.  A man who argues a position loudly is assertive, a woman who does so is a bitch, or too 'emotional'.  Then people talk about how women in the work place tend not to earn as much because they're not as tenacious and aggressive.

Women are socially conditioned to do housework, look after kids, and do social planning around the home (parties, weddings, events).  They're told (both directly and indirectly) for their whole lives that they are are more responsible for these tasks than men.  Women tend to take on significantly more of the housework than men and are overwhelmingly the ones responsible for giving care to infants.  Is it surprising then, that so many of them give up part of their working careers

Equality of opportunity is inextricably entwined with how society views and treats women.  You can't just say "Hey, they're legally treated the same way . . . therefore they're equal."
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 08, 2019, 12:33:53 PM
I know I'll probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but:

@Chris22 :

I find that most of the time, people who argue against the patriarchy do so on the basis of assuming that there are "differences" between men and women. And arguing that those "differences" are what explain the disparities between men and women in certain careers, or certain income levels, etc.

But I'm not arguing "against the patriarchy".  I readily admit that things are not equal for women, and they haven't ever been.  Like Patchy below, I have daughters and a working wife and I want the best for them and I want every opportunity open to them.

What I am saying, also like Patchy, is that as long as we define the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything, you're going to fail, and you're going to speak way too simplistically on a complex topic.  50% of women aren't going to be infantry soldiers, 50% of women aren't going to be NFL quarterbacks, 50% of women aren't going to be kindergarten teachers.  It's just not the way things work.  Every qualified woman who wants a shot at one of those jobs should absolutely have ever opportunity to apply for one, but to say we failed if it isn't exactly 50/50 is childish. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: partgypsy on January 08, 2019, 12:55:12 PM
I think there are obviously biological differences between males and females. There most likely different distribution curves between males and females in all sorts of attributes, such as spatial ability, nurturing, linguistic ability, etc. However whatever the trends in difference, you have to understand there is a) a large overlap between males and females on those attributes, and b) those trends don't say anything, don't inform any specific person. I think we all are just looking for equal opportunity. Right now that is measured in equal achievement. It's like MLK saying that someday, we would like everyone not to be judged by the color of their skin. But we aint there yet.  I don't know anyone who is mandating 50/50 male/female representation in every single profession on earth. Or where that is legally, etc being sought. It's a strawman.

All the equality between the sexes is culturally, very recent. At the turn of the century if a man wanted to involuntarily commit his wife, he could do it. One of the reasons for involuntary commission: "book reading". 
 
When I was growing up in the 80's I don't think we even had a name for sexual harrassment. It was simply behavior you put up with. If it was invisible to me, at least not having a name for it, it was certainly going to be invisible to men! Those kind of differences in experiences and access was supported by lack of laws, the religious establishment, and cultural pressure. Patriarchy is just a "fancy term" differences in what a woman, versus a man experiences socially.

Women do have more rights in the US than ever before. And we have seen a huge increase in the number of women becoming doctors, lawyers, scientists (and heck congresswomen) as a result.

There will always be differences in achievement and wealth between males and females, because females are the ones biologically bear the children, nurse, and for whatever reason (biologically, socially) do the largest share in of child care as well as household tasks. The US is horrible regarding their parental leave laws and protections. Only when we have more humane parental leave laws will you see even more equality of opportunity between the sexes, and I believe a happier society as well.

And thank you Steveo for the comment that patriarchy does not exist in Muslim culture. Almost as good as as the one that patriarchy doesn't exists in Evangelical Christian circles. 
"I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist." lolol please see definition of patriarchy
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: former player on January 08, 2019, 12:59:33 PM
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions. 

I'm going to regret posting to this thread, but I think this assertion has the potential to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

Sure, it's a Wikipedia link, but the supporting sources were pretty intriguing.

I'm all about equality of opportunity. I have a daughter, I want her not to be held back by any social pressure to do one thing over another. I will support and do my best to help her become a well rounded kid. And I think America is built for that. Heck, she can join the Boy Scouts now if she wanted to. I think for the most part, I'd say the same if she were a boy.

We shouldn't look for equality of outcome as a success measure when we're looking at whether the equality of opportunity was there or not in the first place. It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender. I'd say the bigger problem (changing subject, sorry) is the fact that POOR people truly have it rough, and giving them a fair shake from the beginning would be more of a priority to me than trying to make sure there are equal number of women at the top.

In 2019, the cohort of women who would be leaders grew up in the 1960s and 1970s who experienced direct discrimination on the grounds of their sex, as well as all the myriad indirect and difficult to quantify discriminations.  So you can't say, even if you think that in 2019 there is no longer any discrimination (and I'd argue otherwise if I needed to) that in 2019 there should also be equal outcomes in positions which take a lifetime to reach.  There's just no logical line between one and the other.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: former player on January 08, 2019, 01:01:41 PM
I know I'll probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but:

@Chris22 :

I find that most of the time, people who argue against the patriarchy do so on the basis of assuming that there are "differences" between men and women. And arguing that those "differences" are what explain the disparities between men and women in certain careers, or certain income levels, etc.

But I'm not arguing "against the patriarchy".  I readily admit that things are not equal for women, and they haven't ever been.  Like Patchy below, I have daughters and a working wife and I want the best for them and I want every opportunity open to them.

What I am saying, also like Patchy, is that as long as we define the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything, you're going to fail, and you're going to speak way too simplistically on a complex topic.  50% of women aren't going to be infantry soldiers, 50% of women aren't going to be NFL quarterbacks, 50% of women aren't going to be kindergarten teachers.  It's just not the way things work.  Every qualified woman who wants a shot at one of those jobs should absolutely have ever opportunity to apply for one, but to say we failed if it isn't exactly 50/50 is childish.


Can I ask who has "defined the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything"?  So I can know whether or not your post is a straw man argument?  Cheers.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 08, 2019, 01:04:05 PM
I know I'll probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but:

@Chris22 :

I find that most of the time, people who argue against the patriarchy do so on the basis of assuming that there are "differences" between men and women. And arguing that those "differences" are what explain the disparities between men and women in certain careers, or certain income levels, etc.

But I'm not arguing "against the patriarchy".  I readily admit that things are not equal for women, and they haven't ever been.  Like Patchy below, I have daughters and a working wife and I want the best for them and I want every opportunity open to them.

What I am saying, also like Patchy, is that as long as we define the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything, you're going to fail, and you're going to speak way too simplistically on a complex topic.  50% of women aren't going to be infantry soldiers, 50% of women aren't going to be NFL quarterbacks, 50% of women aren't going to be kindergarten teachers.  It's just not the way things work.  Every qualified woman who wants a shot at one of those jobs should absolutely have ever opportunity to apply for one, but to say we failed if it isn't exactly 50/50 is childish.


Can I ask who has "defined the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything"?  So I can know whether or not your post is a straw man argument?  Cheers.

Sure.  This is what I responded to.

If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.  IME, patriarchy isn't just about gender roles, it's more about power.  In our society men overwhelmingly have it, and women don't.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Philociraptor on January 08, 2019, 01:16:49 PM
Sure.  This is what I responded to.

If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.  IME, patriarchy isn't just about gender roles, it's more about power.  In our society men overwhelmingly have it, and women don't.

Yanno "leadership positions" does not equal every profession under the sun, right? @tyort1 even elaborated on what was meant: C-level execs, politicians, business people.

Not all rectangles are squares...
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on January 08, 2019, 02:25:23 PM
It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender.

This is the crux of the disagreement (it's also a primary source of disagreement in many conversations about structural racism).

Removing some legally enforced barriers that prevent equal opportunity is not remotely sufficient.  There are so many ingrained but less obvious barriers that our society still has.

Women are socially conditioned to be less aggressive from birth.  A man who argues a position loudly is assertive, a woman who does so is a bitch, or too 'emotional'.  Then people talk about how women in the work place tend not to earn as much because they're not as tenacious and aggressive.

Women are socially conditioned to do housework, look after kids, and do social planning around the home (parties, weddings, events).  They're told (both directly and indirectly) for their whole lives that they are are more responsible for these tasks than men.  Women tend to take on significantly more of the housework than men and are overwhelmingly the ones responsible for giving care to infants.  Is it surprising then, that so many of them give up part of their working careers

Equality of opportunity is inextricably entwined with how society views and treats women.  You can't just say "Hey, they're legally treated the same way . . . therefore they're equal."
This is very well stated.  I think about this a lot these days, and I'm not sure if it gets better or worse as I age.

Just this last month, we got a request from one of our kid's schools to volunteer for an upcoming dance.  I signed up to take cookies (that I am buying from a bakery).  And that's it.  I did not sign up to chaperone, chair it, set up, clean up, or "adopt a table" (provide tablecloth, plates, silverware, glasses, and a centerpiece).  Because there are 120 students, and I assume, close to 200 parents.

Well, as the weeks got on we got desperate requests from the school "we will have to cancel".  So I handed the sign up form to my husband.  He looked at it, and said "well, I can clean up but that's it.  I cannot POSSIBLY leave work early enough on a Friday for setup."

I didn't say anything at first.  But I did this week (because, yes, I signed up for adopting a table.)

WHY THE FUCK NOT??  We have the same fucking kind of job.  I'm leaving early and taking fucking vacation.  YOU CAN DO THE SAME GODDAMNED THING, YOU EARN 1.5X THE VACATION THAT I DO.

But it's very much a societal construct.  Even though *more* of the dads at his work are younger and take advantage of flexible schedules when needed - he has deemed this "not worthy", I suppose.  I mean, it's not like it's a sick kid, right?

It frustrates me, and this is only a tiny little blip. (The kind of crap I've directly heard out of his bosses' mouths, and others at my workplace are much worse.)  So when people talk about patriarchy like it's not a thing, I think "I want to live on that planet!!"
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 08, 2019, 02:40:47 PM
It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender.

This is the crux of the disagreement (it's also a primary source of disagreement in many conversations about structural racism).

Removing some legally enforced barriers that prevent equal opportunity is not remotely sufficient.  There are so many ingrained but less obvious barriers that our society still has.

Women are socially conditioned to be less aggressive from birth.  A man who argues a position loudly is assertive, a woman who does so is a bitch, or too 'emotional'.  Then people talk about how women in the work place tend not to earn as much because they're not as tenacious and aggressive.

Women are socially conditioned to do housework, look after kids, and do social planning around the home (parties, weddings, events).  They're told (both directly and indirectly) for their whole lives that they are are more responsible for these tasks than men.  Women tend to take on significantly more of the housework than men and are overwhelmingly the ones responsible for giving care to infants.  Is it surprising then, that so many of them give up part of their working careers

Equality of opportunity is inextricably entwined with how society views and treats women.  You can't just say "Hey, they're legally treated the same way . . . therefore they're equal."
This is very well stated.  I think about this a lot these days, and I'm not sure if it gets better or worse as I age.

Just this last month, we got a request from one of our kid's schools to volunteer for an upcoming dance.  I signed up to take cookies (that I am buying from a bakery).  And that's it.  I did not sign up to chaperone, chair it, set up, clean up, or "adopt a table" (provide tablecloth, plates, silverware, glasses, and a centerpiece).  Because there are 120 students, and I assume, close to 200 parents.

Well, as the weeks got on we got desperate requests from the school "we will have to cancel".  So I handed the sign up form to my husband.  He looked at it, and said "well, I can clean up but that's it.  I cannot POSSIBLY leave work early enough on a Friday for setup."

I didn't say anything at first.  But I did this week (because, yes, I signed up for adopting a table.)

WHY THE FUCK NOT??  We have the same fucking kind of job.  I'm leaving early and taking fucking vacation.  YOU CAN DO THE SAME GODDAMNED THING, YOU EARN 1.5X THE VACATION THAT I DO.

But it's very much a societal construct.  Even though *more* of the dads at his work are younger and take advantage of flexible schedules when needed - he has deemed this "not worthy", I suppose.  I mean, it's not like it's a sick kid, right?

It frustrates me, and this is only a tiny little blip. (The kind of crap I've directly heard out of his bosses' mouths, and others at my workplace are much worse.)  So when people talk about patriarchy like it's not a thing, I think "I want to live on that planet!!"

To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance? (My wife similarly wants to attend many of the during-school events, but I don't want to spend my vacation time on them. As for my childhood, I don't recall my parents ever missing work to come to my school except if I was ill or in a boatload of trouble.)

To get back on topic, I do fangirl my daughters, even though I don't miss work for a dance or an ice cream social. Instead I schedule several weeks every year to vacation with them, spend time with them every evening, and am probably their number one fan (for the time being).
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 08, 2019, 03:30:05 PM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 08, 2019, 03:34:01 PM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mjr on January 08, 2019, 05:13:04 PM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Why does it need to prompt the question ?  It just is. 

Why anyone would consider using paid vacation to help setup for some school dance is the real mystery here.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: EricL on January 08, 2019, 06:17:14 PM
One thing I don't fan boy about women is women in authority.  In my 27 year military career I witnessed women working at every pay grade from corporal to colonel starting with my first company commander.  I witnessed women who were corrupt, petty, and stupid.  I witnessed other women whose courage, honor, and intellect were such I'd follow them anywhere.  One set did not markedly out number the other; most were somewhere in between; none exhibited unique traits a particularly good or bad male officer didn't have.  There's not a single one I can say that was a better or worse leader specifically because she didn't have a dick. 

I endorse more women in positions of authority for general fairness of opportunity.  I also look forward to some of the pollyanna, rose tinted attitudes about women in authority dying a deservedly hard death when that happens. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 08, 2019, 07:07:10 PM
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: AMMW on January 08, 2019, 08:43:43 PM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Why does it need to prompt the question ?  It just is. 

Why anyone would consider using paid vacation to help setup for some school dance is the real mystery here.
not to any civilized human

“all the other kids’ mommies were at the dance, why weren’t you there?”
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 08, 2019, 10:36:47 PM
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.

I do this within reason. If a woman is achieving to a high level in any activity that I'm interested I think it's great. I don't ensure that I fanboy women and men equally. I don't make gender an issue. I don't fanboy many people either.

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cressida on January 08, 2019, 11:21:15 PM
I don't make gender an issue.

you're not kidding


A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

duuuuuuude

you. cannot. POSSIBLY. think. this comment is some kind of clever gotcha.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 09, 2019, 02:18:20 AM
I don't make gender an issue.

you're not kidding


A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

duuuuuuude

you. cannot. POSSIBLY. think. this comment is some kind of clever gotcha.

Can you answer the question honestly ? I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Why does a man get the MMM role and not a female. Is it the patriarchy or is it just the way the cookie crumbles.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: soccerluvof4 on January 09, 2019, 03:07:30 AM
Just saw this thread but and skimmed quickly so if my thoughts align the same as someone elses so be it.

Other than work I don't and have never thought like that. I was in the Military and in a lot of cases Women did a better job then a lot of the men. As far as sports go I watch Womens basketball because fundamentally its better than mens because its not just all 3 pointers and slam dunks BUT usually the Top 20 Teams. Same with Womens soccer and I also really enjoy Womens Softball. I also really enjoy watching the Womens National Team and love the Women Olympians in both swimming and Gymnastics particularly. My only hang up with Women and sports is more whole locker room thing but I don't think its the Women fault as much as it is finding away for Women to be involved without men hazing or harassing them. Also having a Daughter (And a College Athlete) I think makes one more sensitive to these things.

I think the Me2 movement was a good thing but now is getting out of hand and having 3 boys the fact that all its takes is an accusation and there life could be ruined trying to defend themselves there is something wrong. We need tougher laws that if a person makes an accusation for no other reason "than just because" they need to be punished for it. And I am sure that could be said for men accusing Women falsely.

Actors or Actresses for me its whoever can carry the role. The only argument I hear and understand is in some cases equal pay does need to mean equal ticket sales or spectators.

In the job world its stupid the your sex should determine your rate of pay especially in a world that has changed so much where you need in a lot if not most cases 2 incomes to have anything. When I was working (owned my own business) I will say though that I did run into plenty of Women that were in leadership roles that were sexist just as much in decision making if not more than men. So it goes both ways as far as I am concerned where that is. But again why shouldn't the pay be the same as long as both people can do the task. Its not going as fast as everyone would like it but I do think things are getting better as I know many many people where the Women now are the bread winners.

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 09, 2019, 05:25:55 AM

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

LOLOL.  So silly.  It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: partgypsy on January 09, 2019, 06:54:02 AM

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

LOLOL.  So silly.  It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.

Egads, a WHITE guy. All the minorities should leave this forum too, because they might believe in equal opportunity.

Could it be, that a person, whether they are female, black, trans, might recognize that there are systemic barriers and attitudes that make them less likely to start at the same place, and succeed to the same level as someone not in that category YET at the same time want to learn how to do everything they can, individually to succeed. Holding more than one idea in one's head at a time -I know it's weird- but just bear with me. The two ideas do not cancel each other out. They can both be true and exist at the same time. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: soccerluvof4 on January 09, 2019, 06:58:25 AM

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

LOLOL.  So silly.  It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.

A WHITE guy. All the minorities should leave this forum too, because they might believe in equal opportunity.





Started by a man but supported by his DW who even at the time occasionally wrote articles. Hes divorced now so maybe we should all run as well! -sarcastic-
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 09, 2019, 07:07:20 AM
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.

I do this within reason. If a woman is achieving to a high level in any activity that I'm interested I think it's great. I don't ensure that I fanboy women and men equally. I don't make gender an issue. I don't fanboy many people either.

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

Whether or not you like it, we live in a patriarchy.  Avoiding white male dominated stuff would radically limit the things you can do.  You wouldn't be able to go to court, talk with political representatives, buy lumber (or hire a contractor for anything around the house), have your computer fixed, contact fire or police services in an emergency, buy oil, trade on the stock market, bank, etc.

Do you honestly think that this is a reasonable approach to take?  If so, why?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: PoutineLover on January 09, 2019, 07:08:34 AM
Part of equality is realizing that women are just as flawed as men. All those saying well I had a sexist female boss, or I knew a shitty female manager, yup, that's how it works. The point is, men are shitty bosses regardless of gender, and somehow women are perceived to be bad bosses because of their gender. Same way minorities are used to represent ALL of their race when really it's just one individual. But one white man never represents ALL white men. Case in point: #notallmen
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 07:21:34 AM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I agree that women on average probably perform a larger share of emotional labor than men (certainly in my relationship), and I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that the emotional distribution of labor is socialized along gender lines (though I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to agree either). Regardless, isn't one of the defining ideas of MMM to call bullshit on false social constructs (like non-emotional labor for the sake of it)? Would society (or relationships) crumble if women cut back on emotional labor until they reach the same level as men (as Mustachians believe society will go on just fine without everyone working fulltime until 67 years of age)?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: partgypsy on January 09, 2019, 07:31:34 AM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I agree that women on average probably perform a larger share of emotional labor than men (certainly in my relationship), and I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that the emotional distribution of labor is socialized along gender lines (though I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to agree either). Regardless, isn't one of the defining ideas of MMM to call bullshit on false social constructs (like non-emotional labor for the sake of it)? Would society (or relationships) crumble if women cut back on emotional labor until they reach the same level as men (as Mustachians believe society will go on just fine without everyone working fulltime until 67 years of age)?

It would be interesting. Happened in Iceland, for 1 day. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 09, 2019, 07:55:32 AM
It blows my mind how many of my fellow Straight Middle-Aged White Guys (SMAWGs, so close to the Hobbit dragon!) don't see their own privilege. I think they are just afraid of being replaced, or "losing" to women and PoC. It's like SMAWGs have been the collective king of the hill for so long, and they're scared and furious that the end could come NOW, during their lifetime. I mean, after all, what are the odds of that? It's not fair!!

And I guess it's human nature to desperately guard what you think is yours.

I know what it's like to lose. To feel so desperately that you're right, yet to fail nonetheless. Itís frightening. Turns the legs to jelly. I ask you, to what end? Dread it. Run from it. Destiny arrives all the same. And now, it's here. Or should I say, women and PoC are.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 08:05:54 AM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I agree that women on average probably perform a larger share of emotional labor than men (certainly in my relationship), and I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that the emotional distribution of labor is socialized along gender lines (though I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to agree either). Regardless, isn't one of the defining ideas of MMM to call bullshit on false social constructs (like non-emotional labor for the sake of it)? Would society (or relationships) crumble if women cut back on emotional labor until they reach the same level as men (as Mustachians believe society will go on just fine without everyone working fulltime until 67 years of age)?

It would be interesting. Happened in Iceland, for 1 day. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822

Reading about Iceland, it seems that women cut out all labor for a day (not just emotional). I have no pretensions that women do not contribute at least 50% of societal work, and losing that work would be crippling (even if for a day). My question was more along the lines of the emotional labor, and whether or not societies or relationships would suffer if women chose to stop working, Mustachian-style.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Chris22 on January 09, 2019, 08:21:29 AM
I will 100% agree that women perform vastly more "emotional labor" than men.  Full stop.

That said, I would want to further explore what percentage of "emotional labor" is created or influenced by men, versus women.

For instance:

My wife yesterday remember to get a birthday card for my brother in law (my sister's husband).  She would rightly point out that is her doing "my" emotional labor for "my" family (ignoring that we are one big family by marriage, blah blah). 

That is a fair point.

My counterpoint would be that neither I nor my brother in law give a shit if he gets a birthday card or not.  The only ones who MIGHT give a shit (but probably not) are my sister or maybe my mom if for some reason they thought we were forgetting about each other as siblings, but even then, I don't think they'd care. 

I would wager a huge percentage of emotional labor is imposed on women by women.  Men are too dumb, insensitive, self-focused, whatever, to care about a lot of it.  Is that "patriarchy"?  I don't know.  If it is, how do women propose men try and fix it?  Every time my wife complains about something like that and I say "well just don't do it then" I get the angry look.  So I don't know what to tell you.

From one cave man's perspective on that school dance, there are three possible answers:

1.  People who are stay at home parents (granted, usually women) can volunteer; people who work can donate money or things to support
2.  They can schedule the dance at night, when more parents can volunteer (I happily volunteer to help out with stuff not during work hours)
3.  If 1 and 2 can't happen, no dance.  Sorry, a kid's dance doesn't trump my need to be at work earning a living. 

If 1 through 3 are not palatable, one must ask one's self if the pressure to miss work to do this stuff is really "society" and "the patriarchy" or is it one's own sense of guilt/responsibility, and while valid, not really something you can project onto someone else?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: partgypsy on January 09, 2019, 08:28:36 AM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I agree that women on average probably perform a larger share of emotional labor than men (certainly in my relationship), and I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that the emotional distribution of labor is socialized along gender lines (though I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to agree either). Regardless, isn't one of the defining ideas of MMM to call bullshit on false social constructs (like non-emotional labor for the sake of it)? Would society (or relationships) crumble if women cut back on emotional labor until they reach the same level as men (as Mustachians believe society will go on just fine without everyone working fulltime until 67 years of age)?

It would be interesting. Happened in Iceland, for 1 day. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822

Reading about Iceland, it seems that women cut out all labor for a day (not just emotional). I have no pretensions that women do not contribute at least 50% of societal work, and losing that work would be crippling (even if for a day). My question was more along the lines of the emotional labor, and whether or not societies or relationships would suffer if women chose to stop working, Mustachian-style.

As a woman, and not as a particularly "typical" woman (in my former relationship I was the breadwinner) I would say that kids and society would suffer, if women stopping doing what is called "emotional" labor. It's not just emotional. It is instrumental as well; making sure nutritional meals are made, the forms from school are filled out and returned, appointments are scheduled, kids are tucked in at night, and yes being present for the kids (whether it is pta meetings that help fund shortfalls for teachers and classrooms, parent teacher meetings, karate or art classes, getting the materials for their science fair poster). Women also do the majority of emotional and instrumental support for often older spouses, as well as parents. That work, while saving the healthcare industry a lot of money, is unrenumerative and uncompensated (the VA is now rolling out compensating spouses for caregiving at home, for some sets of veterans, because it does impact their quality and outcomes as well as avoid expensive hospital visits).
The effects may not be immediate or dramatic. It would be akin to what kids of single working moms experience every day.

In my case, my ex was the stay at home Dad. He was good with some things (meals, transportation). But other things that he personally did not care about got neglected. Some things are optional, I could only take so much time off work, and kids are overscheduled anyways so neither of us volunteered. But other things are kind of non-negotiable.  So while he was in charge of parent teacher meetings, many were missed and not rescheduled. School deadlines were missed. And while we did go together to buy bikes for the kids and he said he was going to teach them to ride bikes, keeping them at grandmas house, in reality, he could not be bothered. So, neither of my kids learned how to ride a bike. 
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: J Boogie on January 09, 2019, 08:36:24 AM
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2019, 08:38:46 AM
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

Yeah, I think there's an inherent sexism in the whole "well, yeah, but emotional labor (already coded as feminine) is kind of not all that important, so... it's reasonable that I as a man don't care about it." Unsurprising, though... Because patriarchy
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: partgypsy on January 09, 2019, 08:49:01 AM
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

It's true there are some things that men traditionally do around the house. However study after study show, in sheer number of hours done, women do far more house and child work than men do per week, even if both sexes are working. So unless you are going to argue setting up the surround sound is more valuable than the work females are doing, there is still inequality. Also the kind of labor that women do often means going out of the workforce for months or years; while the kind of work men do is on their time off but not taking time (weeks, months) out of work. That said, men ARE doing much more housework than say 50 years ago. That is something to celebrate!
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-more-unpaid-work-women-do-than-men-2017-03-07
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: J Boogie on January 09, 2019, 08:57:50 AM
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

Yeah, I think there's an inherent sexism in the whole "well, yeah, but emotional labor (already coded as feminine) is kind of not all that important, so... it's reasonable that I as a man don't care about it." Unsurprising, though... Because patriarchy

Well, my argument isn't that womens' emotional labor isn't important. It's that it's analogous to mens' unrequested labor, which also goes unappreciated. It seems you disagree, but I'm confused about what you disagree with in my argument.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: J Boogie on January 09, 2019, 09:15:01 AM
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

It's true there are some things that men traditionally do around the house. However study after study show, in sheer number of hours done, women do far more house and child work than men do per week, even if both sexes are working. So unless you are going to argue setting up the surround sound is more valuable than the work females are doing, there is still inequality. That said, men ARE doing much more housework than say 50 years ago. That is something to celebrate!
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-more-unpaid-work-women-do-than-men-2017-03-07

True, but in these studies they also demonstrate that men are on average working longer paid hours than their spouses. And in roughly 2/3rds of married/cohabitating couples, the men are earning more than their spouses.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/20/americans-see-men-as-the-financial-providers-even-as-womens-contributions-grow/

So there would be demonstrable inequality if housework WAS divided 50/50, as men are on average contributing more financially to their families.

Anecdotally speaking, I've been far more committed to my boring corporate desk job than if I wasn't married with a child. I would prefer to earn less as a timber framing carpenter or furniture maker, but I understand my family is better off with me working a stable and lucrative income and I shouldn't jeopardize that.

Likewise, my wife's understanding (she was laid off from her FT job about a year ago and has stayed home w 2.5 YO ever since) is that our family is better off right now with her holding things down at home. When she was working, she didn't view her job the same way I viewed mine because she wanted to keep the option open to be a SAHM and did not want to be a sole income earner with me as a SAHD.



Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Paul der Krake on January 09, 2019, 09:16:41 AM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Why does it need to prompt the question ?  It just is. 

Why anyone would consider using paid vacation to help setup for some school dance is the real mystery here.
not to any civilized human

ďall the other kidsí mommies were at the dance, why werenít you there?Ē
But that's not what happened here (unless I misread mm1970's post).

The debate was not whether to go to the dance or not, it was whether to leave work early to help set it up, and her husband's reaction at being voluntold he was doing this.

Frankly I'm more baffled by the work environment (pretty sure we're talking highly skilled white collar work here, not hourly retail) that would impose putting down vacation time for leaving a couple of hours early on time to go to a school dance. Anything less than a half day shouldn't even be worth mentioning unless there is some important thing going on that day.

I agree that women put themselves under a lot more pressure to be there for their children and that there are a lot of shitty dads out there. My hunch is that it part societal pressures, part having the bloody thing grow inside you for 9 months, and they both feed off of each other. But what do I know.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 09:21:25 AM
And while we did go together to buy bikes for the kids and he said he was going to teach them to ride bikes, keeping them at grandmas house, in reality, he could not be bothered. So, neither of my kids learned how to ride a bike.

Wow. I think interacting with and teaching your kids is instrumental to parenting, and personally wouldn't term it emotional labor but the joy of parenthood. I feel sorry for your kids that they missed out on riding a bike from an early age.

As a woman, and not as a particularly "typical" woman (in my former relationship I was the breadwinner) I would say that kids and society would suffer, if women stopping doing what is called "emotional" labor. It's not just emotional. It is instrumental as well; making sure nutritional meals are made, the forms from school are filled out and returned, appointments are scheduled, kids are tucked in at night, and yes being present for the kids (whether it is pta meetings that help fund shortfalls for teachers and classrooms, parent teacher meetings, karate or art classes, getting the materials for their science fair poster).

For the sake of this conversation, let's not conflate emotional and non-emotional labor. I think everything quoted here falls under the latter, and absolutely is a form of work on par with any monetarily compensated labor.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Paul der Krake on January 09, 2019, 09:23:33 AM
Until recently, women in America were considered as not being separate entities from their husbands. They were considered dependents, like children, or slaves. They could not own property in their own name or control their own earnings, except under very specific circumstances. When a husband died, his wife could not be the guardian to their under-age children.

Until as recently as the 1970s, women could not open a bank account without the consent of a husband or a father.

Women were not allowed to vote until 1920 in the US. 1945 for France, and even later in some places (and of course, there are countries in the world where women are still not allowed to vote at all).
Switzerland says hold my beer (https://lenews.ch/2017/11/25/swiss-fact-some-swiss-women-had-to-wait-until-1991-to-vote/)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2019, 09:24:40 AM
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

Yeah, I think there's an inherent sexism in the whole "well, yeah, but emotional labor (already coded as feminine) is kind of not all that important, so... it's reasonable that I as a man don't care about it." Unsurprising, though... Because patriarchy

Well, my argument isn't that womens' emotional labor isn't important. It's that it's analogous to mens' unrequested labor, which also goes unappreciated. It seems you disagree, but I'm confused about what you disagree with in my argument.

Well, the thing is, I think that the idea of men going "above and beyond," as you say above, is part of the issue. And the fact that those kinds of things also tend to be one-time, large projects -- often initiated by the man himself -- instead of daily/weekly/monthly tasks designed to keep the house going.

It's not that that stuff isn't great. It's precisely that it's considered "extra." Whereas the work I'm talking about is considered "expected." I think it's great that my husband does stuff like that. But it's stuff that he actually enjoys, and engineers as a project. I am very appreciative. In between cleaning out the litter box and doing the laundry, that is.

Edit: Example of "emotional labor" that I am doing in our household, that probably "should" fall to my husband, all things being equal: Buying Christmas and birthday presents for his two adult children (I have no children of my own), their spouses, and the grandkids. My husband barely remembers his daughters' birthdays, and has no idea when the grandkids' birthdays are.

(N.B.: In my household, the labor is actually very equally distributed as to the regular household chores. I am not complaining about that. But yes, on top of that, I still am the emotional labor person, for sure.)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 09:30:14 AM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Why does it need to prompt the question ?  It just is. 

Why anyone would consider using paid vacation to help setup for some school dance is the real mystery here.
not to any civilized human

ďall the other kidsí mommies were at the dance, why werenít you there?Ē

My retort would have to recall the Joneses: "All the other kids' mommies bought a new Volvo with the latest and greatest safety features to protect their families, do you not care about the lives of your children?" (And of course, the OP was pressured into going to the dance precisely because all of the other kids' mommies (and daddies) weren't at the dance.)

Sometimes it is better to just say no.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: former player on January 09, 2019, 10:22:13 AM
Sometimes it is better to just say no.


Better for whom?  Kids learn from their parents, and what they learn is not always what the parents intend to teach them.  And if they learn the wrong lessons there will come a point, all too soon, when it is too late to start teaching the right ones.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 10:39:16 AM
Sometimes it is better to just say no.


Better for whom?  Kids learn from their parents, and what they learn is not always what the parents intend to teach them.  And if they learn the wrong lessons there will come a point, all too soon, when it is too late to start teaching the right ones.

Better for everyone? Knowing when to say no to unnecessary expectations is critical to living a self-actualizing life. I'm not suggesting saying no to everything. (And to illustrate my point, enough people said "no" to the silly workday dance that they almost had to cancel (apparently they shamed enough people into showing up). In my time (and in my kids' time), dances were (and are) held in the evenings.)
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: FrugalToque on January 09, 2019, 11:13:07 AM
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.

I do this within reason. If a woman is achieving to a high level in any activity that I'm interested I think it's great. I don't ensure that I fanboy women and men equally. I don't make gender an issue. I don't fanboy many people either.

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

Everyone can use this forum as long as they follow the rules.

The forum is a part of the society in which we live and is therefore a part of the patriarchy.  That's unavoidable.  Basically, if you live here, you breathe in all the racism, sexism and every other bias that permeates our air.

We keep it from turning into a tool of the patriarchy by making sure that we acknowledge the existence of sexism and its effects on our society.  We should not pretend that sexism does not exist, nor pretend that men are not advantaged in our society.  We should know that women who reach the same level of achievement that men reach generally had to scale a number of extra barriers to get there.

By acknowledgement of those simple, obvious facts about our society, we make this forum a more open and welcoming place for everyone to learn about and discuss financial independence.  If we pretend sexism doesn't exist, or constantly demand some absurd level of proof regarding something so obvious, we'd make half the population feel like outsiders, and I have no desire to do that.

Toque.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on January 09, 2019, 12:45:30 PM
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/
I am not sure why he does not care.  In all honesty, neither one of us signed up to chaperone because we are quite confident that it would not be "cool" to our son for us to be there.  I love dances and dancing but I would never be there and embarrass him.  It's hard enough to be almost-13 and the height of your average 9 or 10 year old without adding mom to the mix.

It's interesting though to think about who cares about what.  Like: sports.  Neither of us are particularly into sports.  We both played one sport in HS.  We played volleyball together a lot when dating and early married.  Our big kid tried a couple of things, wasn't really into them, and then did 3 years of baseball starting at age 9.  Recently quit.  In any event, we were discussing him and whether to get him into "something else", and also started discussing the 6 year old.  (It's rare for us to have time to actually talk to each other.)  It started with "should we sign 6yo up for a sport?"  I said "no.  He doesn't appear to be interested - big bro wasn't either at this age - and I don't have the bandwidth."  Husband pointed out that it wouldn't be THAT HARD and I just laughed.  He's incredibly stressed out right now.  We are BOTH swamped with work and just juggling drop off and pick up at two schools, plus dentist appts, orthodontist appts, early release days, is a pain!  PLUS he's been traveling a ton and everything falls to me.  No thanks.  I think we agreed for now, no sports. 

But a great deal of it isn't necessarily "lack of interest".  He's an incredibly involved parent - household chores are basically 50/50.  When it comes to school things, he just is far less likely to volunteer - and that is the case for most men at our school.  Our school is not a school with a passel of SAHMs either.  Almost the entire PTA board since I've been there has been made up with FT working parents - about 90% moms but we've had 4-5 dads in there too.  I've been to many of his company events and spoken to many of the VPs and the President.  I know how they think.  They really want mom to be at home and like having men working for them who are unencumbered and can work more hours.  It's the expectation.  The only thing he's volunteered for at the school was something I basically signed him up for.  (It was a good fit - teaching the math club for our son's grade when he was in it.  But it was a fair bit of work.  If he hadn't signed up there would not have been a math team from our school for those 3 years.)

"I can't because I have to work", for most of the dads that I know means "My job is more important than yours".  It's not like I have this great gig at work either.  I take PTO for all of these things.

Not to keep quoting Kris, but I will:

Quote
Well, the thing is, I think that the idea of men going "above and beyond," as you say above, is part of the issue. And the fact that those kinds of things also tend to be one-time, large projects -- often initiated by the man himself -- instead of daily/weekly/monthly tasks designed to keep the house going.

It's not that that stuff isn't great. It's precisely that it's considered "extra." Whereas the work I'm talking about is considered "expected." I think it's great that my husband does stuff like that. But it's stuff that he actually enjoys, and engineers as a project. I am very appreciative. In between cleaning out the litter box and doing the laundry, that is.

Edit: Example of "emotional labor" that I am doing in our household, that probably "should" fall to my husband, all things being equal: Buying Christmas and birthday presents for his two adult children (I have no children of my own), their spouses, and the grandkids. My husband barely remembers his daughters' birthdays, and has no idea when the grandkids' birthdays are.

(N.B.: In my household, the labor is actually very equally distributed as to the regular household chores. I am not complaining about that. But yes, on top of that, I still am the emotional labor person, for sure.)

I've had this exact discussion with my neighbor several times in the last 6 months.  It's a frustration of hers.  Her husband (and mine now) have both been VERY involved in house projects or landscaping projects.  They are both engineers so they decide what to do, design it up, plan it out, work on it all weekend (for many weekends).  Large, fun projects.  My husband and I did that together when we first bought the house.  Painting, building cabinets, staining doors, etc.  What frustrates her IMMENSELY is that she's stuck with mountains of laundry and cooking all weekend long (and during the week).  And he's always asking "what's for dinner?"  The emotional labor involved in constantly making sure there is food, deciding what to make, cooking it (for a full family) - plus the physical labor of that and laundry is...crappy.  She'd love to spend all weekend working on a landscaping project and ask "what's for dinner?" at 5 pm too.

Thing is, someone has to look after the kids and put food on the table.  I get frustrated too (less than she does because my husband does all the laundry).  A couple of nights a week I get home late and I'm really tired of having to plan every frigging meal.  Figure it out!

On the gifts and such - I've slowly just backed off.  His family is more into gifts than mine.  I've just stopped getting gifts for his sister, niece, nephew, parents.  Look, they are your family.  That is your job.  Of course, that means he missed his mom's birthday in Nov and then kept asking me what to do for Christmas.  I really didn't want to think about it, but in the end I said "well, you missed her birthday, just buy her a flipping plane ticket."  So in the end, I didn't get out of it either.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: mm1970 on January 09, 2019, 12:48:31 PM
Sometimes it is better to just say no.


Better for whom?  Kids learn from their parents, and what they learn is not always what the parents intend to teach them.  And if they learn the wrong lessons there will come a point, all too soon, when it is too late to start teaching the right ones.

Better for everyone? Knowing when to say no to unnecessary expectations is critical to living a self-actualizing life. I'm not suggesting saying no to everything. (And to illustrate my point, enough people said "no" to the silly workday dance that they almost had to cancel (apparently they shamed enough people into showing up). In my time (and in my kids' time), dances were (and are) held in the evenings.)

Quote
My retort would have to recall the Joneses: "All the other kids' mommies bought a new Volvo with the latest and greatest safety features to protect their families, do you not care about the lives of your children?" (And of course, the OP was pressured into going to the dance precisely because all of the other kids' mommies (and daddies) weren't at the dance.)

Sometimes it is better to just say no.

The dance starts at 6.

Setup starts at 3:30.

If you are delivering food, it can arrive at 5:45.

It's not a silly "workday" dance.  But setup needs to happen.

I donated $500 to the school for the program materials (books, field trips, ballroom lessons).  2 hours of PTO is far less than that.


Also, I say no plenty.

This is a low income, poor school.

85% of the students are eligible for free lunch.  A lot of poverty.

If we were at the school across town?  Shoot, they raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and moms do dropoff with their Starbucks carrying their Coach bags while driving their BMWs, Teslas, and Escalades.  They'd probably rent out a hotel, not use a church hall.

The reason why they need volunteers is because there is literally no other way to put it on.  As in, they can't rent a space or rent dishes and tables.  We provide the table settings, napkins, tablecloth, then take them home and wash them ourselves.  The cost to attend the dance is $20.  But nobody will be turned away if they cannot pay.  And there is a donation process in place for the kids who do not have, and cannot afford, appropriate attire (slacks, nice clothing, etc.)

It is one of two events in the entire school year.

When everyone says no, nothing happens.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: J Boogie on January 09, 2019, 01:08:13 PM
Here's a bit of the perspective from the other side.

I've remodeled our kitchen about a year ago and now I'm doing our bathroom.

I like woodworking, I don't particularly enjoy this work. It can be stressful, overwhelming, and require tons of research to ensure I'm not fucking things up and doing a job that will need to be redone at considerable cost by a professional down the road. Sure it can be satisfying like anything to hit milestones and finally accomplish it, but I'd rather spend my evenings and weekends relaxing.

Anyways, the reason it isn't all gravy for me jumping into a fun project and asking what's for dinner around 5 is that my wife needs time for self care - socializing, the gym, aka not toddler time like she has 40 hrs a week. I spend plenty of time with the toddler so I fully support this. Plus we have a marriage so we make sure to spend plenty of intentional time together.

But I don't really get me time. When I do get some solo time I will spend it remodeling, because it's our only bathroom or only kitchen so it needs to get done.  Her leisure time ends up being equivalent to my work time. It's not her fault, it's just how our abilities & interests are best utilized at this moment in our lives. But it might give you an idea of why this idea that women contribute more doesn't ring true for me.


Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2019, 01:47:32 PM
Here's a bit of the perspective from the other side.

I've remodeled our kitchen about a year ago and now I'm doing our bathroom.

I like woodworking, I don't particularly enjoy this work. It can be stressful, overwhelming, and require tons of research to ensure I'm not fucking things up and doing a job that will need to be redone at considerable cost by a professional down the road. Sure it can be satisfying like anything to hit milestones and finally accomplish it, but I'd rather spend my evenings and weekends relaxing.

Anyways, the reason it isn't all gravy for me jumping into a fun project and asking what's for dinner around 5 is that my wife needs time for self care - socializing, the gym, aka not toddler time like she has 40 hrs a week. I spend plenty of time with the toddler so I fully support this. Plus we have a marriage so we make sure to spend plenty of intentional time together.

But I don't really get me time. When I do get some solo time I will spend it remodeling, because it's our only bathroom or only kitchen so it needs to get done.  Her leisure time ends up being equivalent to my work time. It's not her fault, it's just how our abilities & interests are best utilized at this moment in our lives. But it might give you an idea of why this idea that women contribute more doesn't ring true for me.

Well, as far as the "more" question, the study that Partgypsy linked to shows the numbers. The fact that your particular situation doesn't correspond to the numbers doesn't make the study false. Nor does the fact that in my case, I'd say my husband and I contribute about equally to the household work. We are outliers, as far as the numbers in the study is concerned.

My discussion was about the emotional labor. And as I said above, I do far more of the emotional labor in my household. It sounds like perhaps your wife might, as well.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 01:55:48 PM
Everyone can use this forum as long as they follow the rules.

The forum is a part of the society in which we live and is therefore a part of the patriarchy.  That's unavoidable.  Basically, if you live here, you breathe in all the racism, sexism and every other bias that permeates our air.

We keep it from turning into a tool of the patriarchy by making sure that we acknowledge the existence of sexism and its effects on our society.  We should not pretend that sexism does not exist, nor pretend that men are not advantaged in our society.  We should know that women who reach the same level of achievement that men reach generally had to scale a number of extra barriers to get there.

By acknowledgement of those simple, obvious facts about our society, we make this forum a more open and welcoming place for everyone to learn about and discuss financial independence.  If we pretend sexism doesn't exist, or constantly demand some absurd level of proof regarding something so obvious, we'd make half the population feel like outsiders, and I have no desire to do that.

Toque.

I think at least some of the disagreement in this thread comes from the use of the word "patriarchy".

To start off, the literal meaning of the word has shifted significantly within the last generation (my 1991 American Heritage dictionary does not indicate the current definition as posited by others on this thread), insomuch that it strains from its etymological origins. Even Merriam-Webster's current definition, though admitting the usage here, highlights our same topic of discussion on their website: "Many feminists have claimed that all Western societies are patriarchalóthat is, that they systematically enable men to dominate women. But there's plenty of disagreement about how this is done, and the word isn't discussed as often as it used to be."

To continue, there are few if any laws in the United States promoting rule by the male sex (this was not always the case, and hence a much better case could be made for historical patriarchy). We currently have a female speaker of the house. We almost had a female president (I think sexism played a role here). At what point does society stop becoming a patriarchy? If over half of our leaders were women, would we then be a matriarchy? Since we are underrepresented by minority groups, are we an apartheid*?

In my mind, there is no question sexism, racism, etc. exist in our society (just look at the current president). But this is very different from saying there is systematic oppression going on (the connotation of patriarchy). Or, if patriarchy is not systematic but socially ingrained, that raises a whole host of new questions: What is the bar by which a society is deemed "patriarchal"? How does one measure this bar? Are there perhaps some innate differences (not intellectual, but biologically associated with raising children) that make some difference in burden of labor between the sexes advantageous to "patriarchal" societies, or even preferential to some large percentage of members within that society (so that by Bayesian inference, 50/50 is no longer a representative sample based on preference to lead)?

So, I have to disagree that this "forum... is part of the patriarchy...", and that this is "a simple, obvious fact".** The struggle for achievement and equality will and always has been a struggle by both sexes to determine the most advantageous setup, both individually and socially (and these have many competing objectives).

*There's got to be a better word for systematic oppression by and/or to a race.

**Unless one is using patriarchy in the other historical sense: a society that uses patrilineal descent.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Cromacster on January 09, 2019, 01:59:41 PM
Here's a bit of the perspective from the other side.

I've remodeled our kitchen about a year ago and now I'm doing our bathroom.

I like woodworking, I don't particularly enjoy this work. It can be stressful, overwhelming, and require tons of research to ensure I'm not fucking things up and doing a job that will need to be redone at considerable cost by a professional down the road. Sure it can be satisfying like anything to hit milestones and finally accomplish it, but I'd rather spend my evenings and weekends relaxing.

Anyways, the reason it isn't all gravy for me jumping into a fun project and asking what's for dinner around 5 is that my wife needs time for self care - socializing, the gym, aka not toddler time like she has 40 hrs a week. I spend plenty of time with the toddler so I fully support this. Plus we have a marriage so we make sure to spend plenty of intentional time together.

But I don't really get me time. When I do get some solo time I will spend it remodeling, because it's our only bathroom or only kitchen so it needs to get done.  Her leisure time ends up being equivalent to my work time. It's not her fault, it's just how our abilities & interests are best utilized at this moment in our lives. But it might give you an idea of why this idea that women contribute more doesn't ring true for me.

Well, as far as the "more" question, the study that Partgypsy linked to shows the numbers. The fact that your particular situation doesn't correspond to the numbers doesn't make the study false. Nor does the fact that in my case, I'd say my husband and I contribute about equally to the household work. We are outliers, as far as the numbers in the study is concerned.

My discussion was about the emotional labor. And as I said above, I do far more of the emotional labor in my household. It sounds like perhaps your wife might, as well.

I still don't know what the patriarchy is or if it is real, but I did learn something from this thread, Emotional Labor.

And my wife is awesome at dealing with the emotional labor parts of our lives.  I guess I knew she did, but having a word for it somehow makes it more clear.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2019, 02:06:36 PM
Everyone can use this forum as long as they follow the rules.

The forum is a part of the society in which we live and is therefore a part of the patriarchy.  That's unavoidable.  Basically, if you live here, you breathe in all the racism, sexism and every other bias that permeates our air.

We keep it from turning into a tool of the patriarchy by making sure that we acknowledge the existence of sexism and its effects on our society.  We should not pretend that sexism does not exist, nor pretend that men are not advantaged in our society.  We should know that women who reach the same level of achievement that men reach generally had to scale a number of extra barriers to get there.

By acknowledgement of those simple, obvious facts about our society, we make this forum a more open and welcoming place for everyone to learn about and discuss financial independence.  If we pretend sexism doesn't exist, or constantly demand some absurd level of proof regarding something so obvious, we'd make half the population feel like outsiders, and I have no desire to do that.

Toque.

I think at least some of the disagreement in this thread comes from the use of the word "patriarchy".

To start off, the literal meaning of the word has shifted significantly within the last generation (my 1991 American Heritage dictionary does not indicate the current definition as posited by others on this thread), insomuch that it strains from its etymological origins. Even Merriam-Webster's current definition, though admitting the usage here, highlights our same topic of discussion on their website: "Many feminists have claimed that all Western societies are patriarchalóthat is, that they systematically enable men to dominate women. But there's plenty of disagreement about how this is done, and the word isn't discussed as often as it used to be."

To continue, there are few if any laws in the United States promoting rule by the male sex (this was not always the case, and hence a much better case could be made for historical patriarchy). We currently have a female speaker of the house. We almost had a female president (I think sexism played a role here). At what point does society stop becoming a patriarchy? If over half of our leaders were women, would we then be a matriarchy? No, because a matriarchy is a system by which women rule, not in which women are equally represented. Since we are underrepresented by minority groups, are we an apartheid*? No, because apartheid is a system of segregation in which the white minority rules over a (black) majority.


We are living with the systemic effects of a historical patriarchy. Many of those effects are being attenuated by legislation, women's (and men's) struggle to break down those historical barriers, and hopefully increased economic, educational, and legal equality. But that doesn't mean that many of the effects of patriarchy -- i.e., the effects of a system that enabled men to dominate women for centuries -- are not still felt today.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 02:12:20 PM
The dance starts at 6.

Setup starts at 3:30.

If you are delivering food, it can arrive at 5:45.

It's not a silly "workday" dance.  But setup needs to happen.

I donated $500 to the school for the program materials (books, field trips, ballroom lessons).  2 hours of PTO is far less than that.


Also, I say no plenty.

This is a low income, poor school.

85% of the students are eligible for free lunch.  A lot of poverty.

If we were at the school across town?  Shoot, they raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and moms do dropoff with their Starbucks carrying their Coach bags while driving their BMWs, Teslas, and Escalades.  They'd probably rent out a hotel, not use a church hall.

The reason why they need volunteers is because there is literally no other way to put it on.  As in, they can't rent a space or rent dishes and tables.  We provide the table settings, napkins, tablecloth, then take them home and wash them ourselves.  The cost to attend the dance is $20.  But nobody will be turned away if they cannot pay.  And there is a donation process in place for the kids who do not have, and cannot afford, appropriate attire (slacks, nice clothing, etc.)

It is one of two events in the entire school year.

When everyone says no, nothing happens.

I understand better your position now. Seems like a worthy reason to take some time off. Your husband should give a few more fucks about a twice per year event.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: PoutineLover on January 09, 2019, 02:26:55 PM
I know that I definitely do a lot more of the emotional labour in my household. Before I moved in, my partner would occasionally run out of toilet paper, or fail to clean the bathroom for a while, and he still hasn't been to a doctor or dentist in years (I'm working on that, but also he's a grown man and should be able to make an appointment for himself). I think it's pretty likely that he just doesn't see the problem like I do. I notice when there are only a few rolls of tp left, and I make a mental note to get it. He only notices when it's gone. I have a schedule in my head for chores like cleaning, laundry, groceries, etc. so stuff never gets too dirty. He only notices when it's already dirty, then he'll clean it. He doesn't see the point of going to the doctor or dentist if he doesn't have a problem, where I see it as a regular maintenance type thing. When it comes to gifts, remembering birthdays, etc. I think he just forgets because it's not on his radar or important to him, but if I bring it up he will help brainstorm ideas or make arrangements. I would say we are just wired differently, but I think it's far more likely that we are socialized differently. In both of our parent's households, the moms did far more housework and emotional labour than the dads, to the point that I don't think either of our fathers could run a household nearly as efficiently or with the same standard of cleanliness and nutrition. It's not that they don't help out with chores, because they do, and we do share the household labour, but I often have to ask if I want help with something. I don't want that to be what our children learn, and I think it'll take over a generation for kids to grow up with the idea that both parents are equal participants in all parts of the household. Media, lived experiences and general assumptions are still reinforcing this idea that women are better at managing households and men are better at earning money and being leaders.
To continue, there are few if any laws in the United States promoting rule by the male sex (this was not always the case, and hence a much better case could be made for historical patriarchy). We currently have a female speaker of the house. We almost had a female president (I think sexism played a role here). At what point does society stop becoming a patriarchy? If over half of our leaders were women, would we then be a matriarchy? Since we are underrepresented by minority groups, are we an apartheid*?
Literally the fact that there is still a debate over abortion and birth control is evidence of laws that favour men over women. Until women have the full right to control what happens to their own bodies, both in preventing and ending unwanted pregnancies, there is not equality in America (or most other countries in the world). There is no law equivalent that controls what men can do with their bodies, and the fact that viagra is funded by insurance companies without question while the supreme court decides if birth control can be excluded is a vast inequality and glaring symbol of the patriarchy.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: J Boogie on January 09, 2019, 02:28:00 PM
Here's a bit of the perspective from the other side.

I've remodeled our kitchen about a year ago and now I'm doing our bathroom.

I like woodworking, I don't particularly enjoy this work. It can be stressful, overwhelming, and require tons of research to ensure I'm not fucking things up and doing a job that will need to be redone at considerable cost by a professional down the road. Sure it can be satisfying like anything to hit milestones and finally accomplish it, but I'd rather spend my evenings and weekends relaxing.

Anyways, the reason it isn't all gravy for me jumping into a fun project and asking what's for dinner around 5 is that my wife needs time for self care - socializing, the gym, aka not toddler time like she has 40 hrs a week. I spend plenty of time with the toddler so I fully support this. Plus we have a marriage so we make sure to spend plenty of intentional time together.

But I don't really get me time. When I do get some solo time I will spend it remodeling, because it's our only bathroom or only kitchen so it needs to get done.  Her leisure time ends up being equivalent to my work time. It's not her fault, it's just how our abilities & interests are best utilized at this moment in our lives. But it might give you an idea of why this idea that women contribute more doesn't ring true for me.

Well, as far as the "more" question, the study that Partgypsy linked to shows the numbers. The fact that your particular situation doesn't correspond to the numbers doesn't make the study false. Nor does the fact that in my case, I'd say my husband and I contribute about equally to the household work. We are outliers, as far as the numbers in the study is concerned.

My discussion was about the emotional labor. And as I said above, I do far more of the emotional labor in my household. It sounds like perhaps your wife might, as well.

She absolutely does do more emotional labor. But I do more of the other kinds to the point where there is more or less parity overall, or at least no reason to suspect that one of us is doing more. And the numbers in the study bear out this same conclusion.

As I responded to PartyGypsy, the studies also show that men are working more and earning more on average. So a 50/50 split of household work would actually demonstrate that men are contributing more overall. There's nothing to suggest that women are contributing more overall given how much more men contribute financially. I guess you'd have to assign a dollar value to things like emotional labor which is really difficult. Perhaps the invaluable and unmeasurable nature of emotional labor is part of why it gets overlooked.



Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2019, 02:38:09 PM
Here's a bit of the perspective from the other side.

I've remodeled our kitchen about a year ago and now I'm doing our bathroom.

I like woodworking, I don't particularly enjoy this work. It can be stressful, overwhelming, and require tons of research to ensure I'm not fucking things up and doing a job that will need to be redone at considerable cost by a professional down the road. Sure it can be satisfying like anything to hit milestones and finally accomplish it, but I'd rather spend my evenings and weekends relaxing.

Anyways, the reason it isn't all gravy for me jumping into a fun project and asking what's for dinner around 5 is that my wife needs time for self care - socializing, the gym, aka not toddler time like she has 40 hrs a week. I spend plenty of time with the toddler so I fully support this. Plus we have a marriage so we make sure to spend plenty of intentional time together.

But I don't really get me time. When I do get some solo time I will spend it remodeling, because it's our only bathroom or only kitchen so it needs to get done.  Her leisure time ends up being equivalent to my work time. It's not her fault, it's just how our abilities & interests are best utilized at this moment in our lives. But it might give you an idea of why this idea that women contribute more doesn't ring true for me.

Well, as far as the "more" question, the study that Partgypsy linked to shows the numbers. The fact that your particular situation doesn't correspond to the numbers doesn't make the study false. Nor does the fact that in my case, I'd say my husband and I contribute about equally to the household work. We are outliers, as far as the numbers in the study is concerned.

My discussion was about the emotional labor. And as I said above, I do far more of the emotional labor in my household. It sounds like perhaps your wife might, as well.

She absolutely does do more emotional labor. But I do more of the other kinds to the point where there is more or less parity overall, or at least no reason to suspect that one of us is doing more. And the numbers in the study bear out this same conclusion.

As I responded to PartyGypsy, the studies also show that men are working more and earning more on average. So a 50/50 split of household work would actually demonstrate that men are contributing more overall. There's nothing to suggest that women are contributing more overall given how much more men contribute financially. I guess you'd have to assign a dollar value to things like emotional labor which is really difficult. Perhaps the invaluable and unmeasurable nature of emotional labor is part of why it gets overlooked.

Yes, I think so. And frankly, also because it is "inherently" seen as a woman's role -- starting from a time when women weren't actually able to work out of the home. Financial compensation and value tend to be fairly strongly linked in our society where work is concerned.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: OneStep on January 09, 2019, 02:39:34 PM
There is no law equivalent that controls what men can do with their bodies, and the fact that viagra is funded by insurance companies without question while the supreme court decides if birth control can be excluded is a vast inequality and glaring symbol of the patriarchy.

Women are exempt from registering for the Selective Service but men aren't. Those drafted in the past weren't allowed to choose what to do with their bodies.

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: PoutineLover on January 09, 2019, 02:52:45 PM
There is no law equivalent that controls what men can do with their bodies, and the fact that viagra is funded by insurance companies without question while the supreme court decides if birth control can be excluded is a vast inequality and glaring symbol of the patriarchy.

Women are exempt from registering for the Selective Service but men aren't. Those drafted in the past weren't allowed to choose what to do with their bodies.
Well at least one man did choose what happened to his body when he would have been drafted, and he later became president.
But either way, men made those rules, and men could change them. I personally don't think a draft should exist, and if it does, I believe that people should be allowed to choose non-violent service instead. I would say it's still an example of patriarchal thinking, because it assumes men should take on the role of aggressor or protector (however you choose to see it), while assuming that women are too weak or unwilling to aid their country.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 02:56:07 PM
We are living with the systemic effects of a historical patriarchy. Many of those effects are being attenuated by legislation, women's (and men's) struggle to break down those historical barriers, and hopefully increased economic, educational, and legal equality. But that doesn't mean that many of the effects of patriarchy -- i.e., the effects of a system that enabled men to dominate women for centuries -- are not still felt today.

I would say we are living with some lingering effects from patriarchy, no doubt. But these effects will always linger, just as we are living with effects from our slavery society. But I don't think there is any benefit to saying we still live in a slavery society, even though African Americans on average have more economic challenges than European Americans.

I admit the possibility that sometime in the future there could be a much more equitable distribution of "power" as the lingering effects of patriarchy fade away, and society may in turn benefit from these changes. However, I don't feel like I have the power to make such predictions. I also don't feel I have the power to say that should the representative portion of power by sex remain constant as compared to today's, that it is an indication of entrenched patriarchy.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: J Boogie on January 09, 2019, 02:58:46 PM
Here's a bit of the perspective from the other side.

I've remodeled our kitchen about a year ago and now I'm doing our bathroom.

I like woodworking, I don't particularly enjoy this work. It can be stressful, overwhelming, and require tons of research to ensure I'm not fucking things up and doing a job that will need to be redone at considerable cost by a professional down the road. Sure it can be satisfying like anything to hit milestones and finally accomplish it, but I'd rather spend my evenings and weekends relaxing.

Anyways, the reason it isn't all gravy for me jumping into a fun project and asking what's for dinner around 5 is that my wife needs time for self care - socializing, the gym, aka not toddler time like she has 40 hrs a week. I spend plenty of time with the toddler so I fully support this. Plus we have a marriage so we make sure to spend plenty of intentional time together.

But I don't really get me time. When I do get some solo time I will spend it remodeling, because it's our only bathroom or only kitchen so it needs to get done.  Her leisure time ends up being equivalent to my work time. It's not her fault, it's just how our abilities & interests are best utilized at this moment in our lives. But it might give you an idea of why this idea that women contribute more doesn't ring true for me.

Well, as far as the "more" question, the study that Partgypsy linked to shows the numbers. The fact that your particular situation doesn't correspond to the numbers doesn't make the study false. Nor does the fact that in my case, I'd say my husband and I contribute about equally to the household work. We are outliers, as far as the numbers in the study is concerned.

My discussion was about the emotional labor. And as I said above, I do far more of the emotional labor in my household. It sounds like perhaps your wife might, as well.

She absolutely does do more emotional labor. But I do more of the other kinds to the point where there is more or less parity overall, or at least no reason to suspect that one of us is doing more. And the numbers in the study bear out this same conclusion.

As I responded to PartyGypsy, the studies also show that men are working more and earning more on average. So a 50/50 split of household work would actually demonstrate that men are contributing more overall. There's nothing to suggest that women are contributing more overall given how much more men contribute financially. I guess you'd have to assign a dollar value to things like emotional labor which is really difficult. Perhaps the invaluable and unmeasurable nature of emotional labor is part of why it gets overlooked.

Yes, I think so. And frankly, also because it is "inherently" seen as a woman's role -- starting from a time when women weren't actually able to work out of the home. Financial compensation and value tend to be fairly strongly linked in our society where work is concerned.

Agreed. And that kind of brings us back to my initial take on OP's question, which is that men have historically had way more opportunities to do a wider variety of remarkable things that would cause someone to fan out over them. How many of these men that have a fan base are also stay at home parents?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 03:03:59 PM
To continue, there are few if any laws in the United States promoting rule by the male sex (this was not always the case, and hence a much better case could be made for historical patriarchy). We currently have a female speaker of the house. We almost had a female president (I think sexism played a role here). At what point does society stop becoming a patriarchy? If over half of our leaders were women, would we then be a matriarchy? Since we are underrepresented by minority groups, are we an apartheid*?
Literally the fact that there is still a debate over abortion and birth control is evidence of laws that favour men over women. Until women have the full right to control what happens to their own bodies, both in preventing and ending unwanted pregnancies, there is not equality in America (or most other countries in the world). There is no law equivalent that controls what men can do with their bodies, and the fact that viagra is funded by insurance companies without question while the supreme court decides if birth control can be excluded is a vast inequality and glaring symbol of the patriarchy.

Touchť. I couldn't agree more about abortion, and rue the day should the Supreme Court ever makes substantive changes. Tangentially, reminiscently, and perhaps ironically, my mother used to take me to anti-abortion pickets when I was a young kid. She also voted for Trump. Needless to say, we don't often see eye-to-eye.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 09, 2019, 03:05:16 PM

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

LOLOL.  So silly.  It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.

Why is it silly ?
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Boofinator on January 09, 2019, 03:06:39 PM
Agreed. And that kind of brings us back to my initial take on OP's question, which is that men have historically had way more opportunities to do a wider variety of remarkable things that would cause someone to fan out over them. How many of these men that have a fan base are also stay at home parents?

Interesting question, since we are all chatting on the dude's website at the moment.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 09, 2019, 03:10:39 PM
Just saw this thread but and skimmed quickly so if my thoughts align the same as someone elses so be it.

Other than work I don't and have never thought like that. I was in the Military and in a lot of cases Women did a better job then a lot of the men. As far as sports go I watch Womens basketball because fundamentally its better than mens because its not just all 3 pointers and slam dunks BUT usually the Top 20 Teams. Same with Womens soccer and I also really enjoy Womens Softball. I also really enjoy watching the Womens National Team and love the Women Olympians in both swimming and Gymnastics particularly. My only hang up with Women and sports is more whole locker room thing but I don't think its the Women fault as much as it is finding away for Women to be involved without men hazing or harassing them. Also having a Daughter (And a College Athlete) I think makes one more sensitive to these things.

I think the Me2 movement was a good thing but now is getting out of hand and having 3 boys the fact that all its takes is an accusation and there life could be ruined trying to defend themselves there is something wrong. We need tougher laws that if a person makes an accusation for no other reason "than just because" they need to be punished for it. And I am sure that could be said for men accusing Women falsely.

Actors or Actresses for me its whoever can carry the role. The only argument I hear and understand is in some cases equal pay does need to mean equal ticket sales or spectators.

In the job world its stupid the your sex should determine your rate of pay especially in a world that has changed so much where you need in a lot if not most cases 2 incomes to have anything. When I was working (owned my own business) I will say though that I did run into plenty of Women that were in leadership roles that were sexist just as much in decision making if not more than men. So it goes both ways as far as I am concerned where that is. But again why shouldn't the pay be the same as long as both people can do the task. Its not going as fast as everyone would like it but I do think things are getting better as I know many many people where the Women now are the bread winners.

Great post. Things have changed a lot. I think feminists now are really looking for issues that they have to look really hard at to find something wrong and it's not black and white. I think you have to stop at some point and accept that you won't ever have equality of outcome because human beings have and will never role that way. You wouldn't even want that because the only time in history I can think of this occurring was in the Pol Pot regime. It would take a real bunch of crazy psychopaths to actually try and force that on society.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 09, 2019, 03:15:16 PM
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.

I do this within reason. If a woman is achieving to a high level in any activity that I'm interested I think it's great. I don't ensure that I fanboy women and men equally. I don't make gender an issue. I don't fanboy many people either.

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

Whether or not you like it, we live in a patriarchy.  Avoiding white male dominated stuff would radically limit the things you can do.  You wouldn't be able to go to court, talk with political representatives, buy lumber (or hire a contractor for anything around the house), have your computer fixed, contact fire or police services in an emergency, buy oil, trade on the stock market, bank, etc.

Do you honestly think that this is a reasonable approach to take?  If so, why?

I think that if we want to discuss the topic rationally and logically we have to start talking in a more open and honest fashion. So the patriarchy is something that has been made up in someone's head. That is a factual comment. It doesn't exist in a mathematical formula and it can't be proven.

So you can't state whether I like it or not we live in a patriarchy. I completely disagree with this comment. I'd argue that the social system that we have is complex and there are lots of parts that are dominated via extreme leftist feminist (I think I'm more a middle left person) viewpoints.

You can easily avoid white male dominated stuff. That is a cop out.

Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 09, 2019, 03:17:58 PM
It blows my mind how many of my fellow Straight Middle-Aged White Guys (SMAWGs, so close to the Hobbit dragon!) don't see their own privilege. I think they are just afraid of being replaced, or "losing" to women and PoC. It's like SMAWGs have been the collective king of the hill for so long, and they're scared and furious that the end could come NOW, during their lifetime. I mean, after all, what are the odds of that? It's not fair!!

And I guess it's human nature to desperately guard what you think is yours.

I know what it's like to lose. To feel so desperately that you're right, yet to fail nonetheless. Itís frightening. Turns the legs to jelly. I ask you, to what end? Dread it. Run from it. Destiny arrives all the same. And now, it's here. Or should I say, women and PoC are.

Since I seem to be the bad white man I think I'd add some perspective here. My wife is asian, my kids are clearly half white and half asian. I have friends that are gay including females that are gay. I work with minorities and I am friends with them. I am not one little bit scared of losing anything to women. I'm a big fan of women and minorities having the same opportunities as myself and I see this occurring all the time. My gay female friend has the same job as myself and gets paid more than me. I'm good with it.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 09, 2019, 03:21:59 PM
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

Yeah, I think there's an inherent sexism in the whole "well, yeah, but emotional labor (already coded as feminine) is kind of not all that important, so... it's reasonable that I as a man don't care about it." Unsurprising, though... Because patriarchy

The thing is this is your opinion and it's a confrontational opinion that I suggest most people would never even buy into. Same as the vast majority of people think the patriarchy is made up BS. I definitely don't think that the work that my mum or my wife does is emotional labour. I've never heard that term. I definitely don't view women as somehow incapable of doing whatever it is they want to do.

At the same time if women want to do most of the cooking or cleaning or whatever that is their choice and feminists don't have the right to impede on individual choices or cry that those individual choices are somehow wrong or reflective or a male conspiracy.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: J Boogie on January 09, 2019, 03:22:49 PM
Agreed. And that kind of brings us back to my initial take on OP's question, which is that men have historically had way more opportunities to do a wider variety of remarkable things that would cause someone to fan out over them. How many of these men that have a fan base are also stay at home parents?

Interesting question, since we are all chatting on the dude's website at the moment.

Ha! Nice one. But he really doesn't fit. There would be no following if he was a SAHP with a working spouse (who worked out of neccessity).
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: steveo on January 09, 2019, 03:28:07 PM
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.

I do this within reason. If a woman is achieving to a high level in any activity that I'm interested I think it's great. I don't ensure that I fanboy women and men equally. I don't make gender an issue. I don't fanboy many people either.

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

Everyone can use this forum as long as they follow the rules.

The forum is a part of the society in which we live and is therefore a part of the patriarchy.  That's unavoidable.  Basically, if you live here, you breathe in all the racism, sexism and every other bias that permeates our air.

We keep it from turning into a tool of the patriarchy by making sure that we acknowledge the existence of sexism and its effects on our society.  We should not pretend that sexism does not exist, nor pretend that men are not advantaged in our society.  We should know that women who reach the same level of achievement that men reach generally had to scale a number of extra barriers to get there.

By acknowledgement of those simple, obvious facts about our society, we make this forum a more open and welcoming place for everyone to learn about and discuss financial independence.  If we pretend sexism doesn't exist, or constantly demand some absurd level of proof regarding something so obvious, we'd make half the population feel like outsiders, and I have no desire to do that.

Toque.

You haven't stated one fact at all. You've stated your highly left wing opinion and tried to state it as a fact. It's not a fact. Prove anything that you stated.
Title: Re: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2019, 04:06:54 PM
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?