Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
poptart

Are men being disenfranchised?

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

The system is" if you want something, earn it , demand it, take it " 

And how Christian is this? Is this the Christian society we want? Is this Zion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And how Christian is this? Is this the Christian society we want? Is this Zion?

I said NOTHING about religion. I said this is the SYSTEM. This is the playing field. If Meryl Streep were the star of the movie, 3 guesses as to who would be the higher paid actor. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I said NOTHING about religion. I said this is the SYSTEM. This is the playing field. If Meryl Streep were the star of the movie, 3 guesses as to who would be the higher paid actor. 

Apparently it took till last year for Scarlett Johansson, the highest paid actress in the world, to receive as much as her male co-stars, Evans and Hemsworth in the Marvel films.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's a pretty strong counter argument, don't ya think? ;)

There is the great pay inequity irony of the Netflix series The Crown, where Claire Foy, who played the main character Queen Elizabeth II (a woman navigating a man's realm) was payed less than Matt Smith, who played the Queen's husband Prince Phillip. Maybe the producers decided that it would add a dash of historical realism or something...

I think it is a good counter-argument if you think all men are white and over 50 - the ones that are CEOs, upper management, and reside on the two coasts. However, if you are not over 50 then the argument begins to crumble and the younger you are then it just falls completely apart. I also think you will find that white men in blue collar jobs also are not feeling like they have been handed an entitled life. 

I enjoy talking about the pay disparity for hollywood stars - because I really care about these people that make millions to entertain the masses because they, far more often than not, have a pretty face (both male and female). They are so often prime examples of a willingness to work for less and then after the fact that accuse you, the producer/director (whoever the woman in charge is), for not paying her more; as if it is a charity. I have run a few businesses in my life and for all jobs, except one that I can remember, did I begin a payscale at the top rather than at the bottom. I was tighter on salaries, but big on bonuses based on performance. My companies were in investment management and no one, from the receptionist to the investment manager, felt underpaid. I don't think my experience fits with the vast majority of businesses in the USA. 

Share this post


Link to post

Did Scarlett get that salary by default? Is she now the BEST actress in the world? She and her agent convinced the studio that she could draw superior numbers of viewers. She demanded the same pay. If the studios could have given a lesser amount and achieved the same results , they would have. That goes for Evans and Hemsworth also. 

Note: there are 3 Hemsworth brothers. If they were all in a movie together , I wonder if their salaries would be the same ? Would they expect the salaries to be the same? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Did Scarlett get that salary by default?...

I was debating the assumption that Meryl Streep would be the highest paid actor if the star.  I don't think it is a given.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

And how Christian is this? Is this the Christian society we want? Is this Zion?

I think you are conflating the secular world with the path of discipleship. It is a given that the secular world is almost devoid of spiritual objectives. Conversely, the spiritual path necessarily demands that we shepard the poor. Yet, even on this path Christians must deal with the concupiscence of the eyes - the desire to obtain exterior goods, becoming enslaved to obtain an abundance these goods. Once surrounded by useless luxury, to the utter detriment of the poor - this is what each disciple fights against. To find that balance between gaining enough to care for one's family, but not so much that our eye - that is supposed to be single to God's glory and to love him first and foremost - is not overcome with this form of concupiscence. 

I do not think the secular world will ever heed the call of the interior life, the spiritual life. Regardless of how wealthy a country becomes, there remains the poor and hungry. Once a majority, a strong majority, of the people become committed to following Jesus Christ - becoming a Zion society - will the poor be cared for in the same manner that we care for ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post

I was just reading an article on MSN.com about STEM topics. It stated the following:

"Even with inspirational females in STEM making the news-take Mayim Bialik, who is both a neuroscientist and an actress, and Dr. Jedidah Isler, who was the first African-American woman to earn a PhD in astrophysics from Yale, for example-underrepresentation is still a serious concern. It’s important that girls don't view STEM subjects as "men's fields" where they don’t belong, and mentorship plays a powerful role in changing that narrative."

What is odd is that there is a certain group of boys - NOT ALL BOYS - just some boys, that are drawn to the field. It is their passion. What does it matter that girls are underrepresented? The girls that are represented just happen to be like the same boys that are passionate about the topic. 

It is the constant social engineering to push girls to the top in every subject, every field of study, and every job. No boys are ever, ever, encouraged in the same manner. It just doesn't exist in Western society. Boys have to fend for themselves. If an INDIVIDUAL - regardless of gender - is passionate about a topic they rise to the top. Not because they are a boy or a girl, but because they are passionate about the topic. 

They used to say that cream rises to the top. The common sense of the saying took for granted that not 100% of milk is cream. Only a portion of it is and the majority of milk is not. There are some individual that are passionate about music; others writing; still others, astrophysics. In those respective fields, not everyone will be on top, but the cream will rise to the top. 

What destroys the whole process is this social engineering that brings those that are not as passionate, not as willing to sacrifice everything simply for the love of the field, and put them in top positions. This goes for those rich that pay to get their kids in top universities to positions in every field. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, poptart said:

Thought i'd toss this out there, who thinks men are getting the short end of the stick?  At least in a lot of the West.  There are far more women graduating nowadays, they dominate white collar and are very much outpacing men as far as success goes.  Biggest indicators for me so far are that not only is the CDC citing a rise in female suicides, but also a mens rights group help give the selective service system a huge blow, they cited female achievements as their justification.  One has to wonder if we may well end up with the selective service system going away over all this.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db328.htm

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/01/23/commission-eyes-adding-women-to-the-military-draft-or-dumping-the-system-altogether/

Even Captain Marvel makes me wonder.  If I had a daughter i'd not be too opposed, yet I'd have to be leary just because I have the sense to know it's a bad idea to put one gender on the pedistal while just leaving the other to starve, that almost always ends with unintended and bad consequences.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/hollywoods-captain-marvel-blockbuster-is-blatant-us-military-propaganda/256196/

Not trying to start a he said/she said argument, just me curious as to what you all might think.  I'm all for equality but when you start stepping on one gender that bad, there are societal consequences.  As an affect of #metoo, more and more men are opting out of talking to women at work without a witness, to my understanding even the LDS church has had to change ways they work with minors.  I can't help but wonder just what long term consequences will come from all this.

 

I am all for equality of opportunity for all individuals.  Equal outcome is another thing entirely.  We are children of God with our own unique  strengths and weaknesses.  It’s dangerous to assume inequality of outcome is automatically the result of a collective group being oppressed.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

I can see why some still feel it is worthwhile to focus in women's achievements outside of community achievements given lists like this that have two women in the top 25 (Jane Austen at 12 and Agatha Christie at 25):

https://m.ranker.com/list/best-writers-of-all-time/ranker-books

Given the heavy European slant, if I were of Asian heritage and in the states and I saw a list like this, I would wish to see a list celebrating Asian authors.

just an FYI:  https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/susancheng/asians-with-emmys

It doesn't automatically mean that the rest are being ignored.  Some will, but generally there are other opportunities to provide more than enough venues for voices that in the past have been hugely dominant, even if it feels that in comparison their voice has become less heard simply because others have become louder and more common.

But remember also that women weren't expected to be writers and so did not even try. So though I don't believe in objective truth and such matters still it could be objectively true that there were more men writers than women, but it still doesn't say anything about women's actually ability to write. They simply were not given the chance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

What destroys the whole process is this social engineering that brings those that are not as passionate, not as willing to sacrifice everything simply for the love of the field, and put them in top positions. This goes for those rich that pay to get their kids in top universities to positions in every field. 

Women are the majority of low-wage workers. But that isn't for a lack of willingness to work hard and sacrifice much.
https://nwlc.org/blog/low-wage-workers-are-women-three-truths-and-a-few-misconceptions/

At present, women in the non-low wage sector do earn more than their male counterparts in the 20's. But, women are also more willing to take off time for childcare or refuse demanding promotions and generally sacrifice more for family.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

At the same time, places that have very strict in enforcing gender equitable pay scales sometimes do see a gap that favors men for some of the reasons you suggest.
https://www.recode.net/2018/2/6/16979370/female-uber-drivers-get-paid-less

Suffice it to say, it's not at all clear cut.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If an INDIVIDUAL - regardless of gender - is passionate about a topic they rise to the top.

This is the ideal, but the system is not ideal. The playing field is not level. The opportunities are not equal and that cuts across a wide swatch of territory, from gender to race to economic status. Take the college entrance cheating scandal, for instance. Or even better, legacy admissions, where the children of alumni get preferential treatment for admission (especially if the parents are rich and pay for a building), thus insuring a cycle of elite families at elite institutions.

Child A could be 5 times more passionate about a topic than child B, but if child B is white, male, and rich, then child B has a much greater chance of success. We like to point to examples of success like Ben Carson, but we use them as examples precisely because they are exceptions.

A black kid born in the housing projects in Chicago with no father and a heroin addicted mother has a much harder time realizing his dream than a white kid born to a fully college educated family living in Boston making $500k a year. And when the kid in Boston tells the kid in Chicago if he would just be more passionate or work harder, it shows a SERIOUS lack of understanding of the social system and how much the context in our lives matter to the success we have. It also shows a serious lack of compassion. The Boston kid might as well have asked, "Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Taking credit for the situation (be it gender, race, economic status, country, whatever) we were born into is arrogant because that is something we have no control over.

I think the discomfort some men are feeling in this time (and I am male) is that the context of our success is being pointed out -- it historically has been and probably still is easier to have success when you are male because of the system -- and that seems like perhaps people are simultaneously questioning our personal role in our success. Once I acknowledge that I had some sort of advantage by being born into a white, college educated (both parents and all children have graduate degrees), upper middle-class family, does that diminish my own personal success? That's an uncomfortable feeling to sit with, for sure. One response to lash out against it and say that context doesn't matter and where I am at now is because of my own personal attributes, not because of the context. Or, as you put it, individuals rise to the top, regardless of who they are. The problem is, looking at it closely, is that statement is just not true. The Chicago kid is at a distinct disadvantage and it is not his fault.

Once we acknowledge that the context of lives matters, then to try to have a more just society, we need to take that context into consideration. A couple of people pointed out that I was bringing religion into a discussion of a secular issue. But that's exactly what we as Christians are supposed to do. We are supposed to try to make our society more just, more equitable, especially for those who are at a disadvantage.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

...probably still is easier to have success when you are male because of the system ...

The whole system of the Gadianton Robbers was one that was designed to favor the elect few. Some colleges are now having to actively recruit white males. Link is about UK, but some US colleges are starting to do the same.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/05/british-universities-reach-out-to-the-new-minority-poor-white-males/480642/

Unfortunately, the historical system of patriarchal favoritism isn't being repaired, but simply replaced with another injustice .
https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a9366/white-men-in-their-20s-the-most-hated-group-in-britain/

The Gospel is the solution, but it is not one that is being used by the world.

 

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If an INDIVIDUAL - regardless of gender - is passionate about a topic they rise to the top. Not because they are a boy or a girl, but because they are passionate about the topic.

This message has the stamp of approval of Korihor. :)

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is the ideal, but the system is not ideal. The playing field is not level. The opportunities are not equal and that cuts across a wide swatch of territory, from gender to race to economic status. Take the college entrance cheating scandal, for instance. Or even better, legacy admissions, where the children of alumni get preferential treatment for admission (especially if the parents are rich and pay for a building), thus insuring a cycle of elite families at elite institutions.

Child A could be 5 times more passionate about a topic than child B, but if child B is white, male, and rich, then child B has a much greater chance of success. We like to point to examples of success like Ben Carson, but we use them as examples precisely because they are exceptions.

A black kid born in the housing projects in Chicago with no father and a heroin addicted mother has a much harder time realizing his dream than a white kid born to a fully college educated family living in Boston making $500k a year. And when the kid in Boston tells the kid in Chicago if he would just be more passionate or work harder, it shows a SERIOUS lack of understanding of the social system and how much the context in our lives matter to the success we have. It also shows a serious lack of compassion. The Boston kid might as well have asked, "Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Taking credit for the situation (be it gender, race, economic status, country, whatever) we were born into is arrogant because that is something we have no control over.

I think the discomfort some men are feeling in this time (and I am male) is that the context of our success is being pointed out -- it historically has been and probably still is easier to have success when you are male because of the system -- and that seems like perhaps people are simultaneously questioning our personal role in our success. Once I acknowledge that I had some sort of advantage by being born into a white, college educated (both parents and all children have graduate degrees), upper middle-class family, does that diminish my own personal success? That's an uncomfortable feeling to sit with, for sure. One response to lash out against it and say that context doesn't matter and where I am at now is because of my own personal attributes, not because of the context. Or, as you put it, individuals rise to the top, regardless of who they are. The problem is, looking at it closely, is that statement is just not true. The Chicago kid is at a distinct disadvantage and it is not his fault.

Once we acknowledge that the context of lives matters, then to try to have a more just society, we need to take that context into consideration. A couple of people pointed out that I was bringing religion into a discussion of a secular issue. But that's exactly what we as Christians are supposed to do. We are supposed to try to make our society more just, more equitable, especially for those who are at a disadvantage.

This is where the analysis falls off the rails for me. I am a white male. My dad had an 8th grade education and grew up in rural NW Florida. He had to quit school to work as a day laborer working in the fields to help support his family. His father was an alcoholic that eventually was sent to prison for running/making moonshine in the early 1940s. His parents divorced in the mid-1940s. Grandma lived her entire life in a wood shack where anyone could look out and see the grass on the lawn. My father joined the Navy for WWII and afterward switched to the Air Force.

He met my mother in Bremerton, Washington while working in the shipyards prior to joining the US Air Force. She was born to a Swedish father, an immigrant, and my grandmother was from Missouri. He met her while she was in a home for unwed mothers in Seattle, WA. She was divorced and had three children. Mom graduated from high school and then became and served as an RN during the war at Tacoma General hospital. She never worked again as a nurses while raising seven children until my parents divorced in 1975.

Dad got his GED in 1964 while we were living in Omaha, Nebraska. He was transferred about every three years around the USA and Newfoundland in Canada. In the Air Force, he worked in the Department of Transportation - a bus driver. He retired after serving 22 years in the military at the rank of a Tech Sergeant. After retiring we living in NW Florida where his family was from. 

I attended a school with a graduating class of 83 seniors. It as the largest high school in the county. The three other high schools had graduating classes of between 13 and 42 students. Everyone in the that county was poor; some were more comfortable than others, but the majority of each class qualified for free lunches at school - my siblings and I all got free lunches. 

I worked hard in school and went to junior college on a Pell Grant prior to going on a mission to France. At this time my mother was divorced and had returned to working as an RN at the local hospital. I had worked in the summers since the 7th grade (when we arrived in Florida) bailing hay, tossing watermelons and cantaloupes, and anything else I could do. I tried to get other jobs, but we were Mormon where Mormons were few - our church building was the old five story cat house by the railroad tracks that we rented - and Mormons were looked at as the scum of the world thanks to the constant efforts of the First Baptist church's preacher to constantly warn his flock about the perversions of the Mormon people. 

When I was a senior, I did get a job working at the IGA as a stock boy - I was actually hired to tutor the owner's son, but that fizzled out after three months, but my work was sufficient to keep the job at the store. He was not a member of the First Baptist Church; may God bless him.

Briefly, after my mission I got married, then entered BYU on scholarship, our first child died of SIDS, dropped out of BYU, worked for a year to get over losing our son, returned to school at the U and graduated with a degree in Finance. My wife and I worked our tails off to survive. The first year of our marriage we lived in a one bedroom house (it was very cheap) in Mapleton, Utah - our bed was purchased from DI, a card table was our dining table and we had one chair in the living room. We both worked a variety of jobs and we were happy. Poor does not equate to unhappiness and never has.

I never got an MBA. I never got a job because I was white. My family did not make $500 K a year. I represent the vast majority of white men in America. There is a difference between the classes - it exists and will always exist. The world is NOT divided strictly by gender, race, or religion. I reject any notion that I or the majority of other individuals got their jobs because of their race. We got our jobs and made careers by taking risks, moving to where jobs could be obtained, and working extremely hard. My story is the same for almost my entire graduating class for both blacks and whites. A few never left the county, but the majority had to leave to get an education and to find a job. Life is hard for everyone regardless of race. I don't accept the strictly racist picture you often draw because my life does not fit within your picture. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ah yes, the poor disenfranchised white man. The true victim these days.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

And how Christian is this? Is this the Christian society we want? Is this Zion?

 I think some people honestly imagine that the exalted in heaven are competing against each other for limited resources for all eternity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

Apparently it took till last year for Scarlett Johansson, the highest paid actress in the world, to receive as much as her male co-stars, Evans and Hemsworth in the Marvel films.

... because Hollywood is ideal to which we should all aspire.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So.... Jim Crow laws never existed? It's the fault of all those blacks in the south and elsewhere that they didn't have upward social mobility? They should have just worked harder?

I can't believe that you are denying institutionalized racism.

I'm not going to speak to your individual experience. I'm speaking about society in general. And American society has a tremendous history of racist and sexist injustice that makes it very difficult for people from minority backgrounds to overcome. Life is hard, as you say. That doesn't mean it is equally hard for everyone.

Again, tell me how a black man living in Birmingham Alabama in 1962 has equal opportunity and access as a white man there. If you admit that he did not, then you are admitting that context has a role to play in someone's success in life, regardless of how passionate they are and how hard they work.

I think the critical word in the sentence you quoted is "majority."

That's probably true.  Or true enough, wouldn't you say, over 300M people?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I think the critical word in the sentence you quoted is "majority."

That's probably true.  Or true enough, wouldn't you say, over 300M people?

Yes, technically the statement would be true if only 49% of people got their jobs because of their race, since the majority, 51%, did not. But that would be a silly argument to make: there is no racism because only 49% of people got jobs based on race...

Share this post


Link to post

The playing field isn't level.  If a resume discloses the race or gender of the applicant they are treated differently, even if the content is exactly the same.  John Smith's resume is going to be viewed as superior to Joan Smith's resume and especially Juanita Perez's resume, even if the content is exactly the same.   In musical tryouts men are "better" musicians, until we put up a screen and carpet the floor so you can't tell the gender of the person playing the instrument.  Then magically, it turns 50-50. 

Claire Foy didn't negotiate for a higher salary because she had been taught all her life that women that cause a ruckus are b*tches and "difficult" and her duty, above all else, is to make sure other people, particularly men, like her.   Girls are taught to be agreeable and to get along.  Boys are taught to fight for what they want. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So.... Jim Crow laws never existed? It's the fault of all those blacks in the south and elsewhere that they didn't have upward social mobility? They should have just worked harder?

I can't believe that you are denying institutionalized racism.

 

Jim Crow laws and slavery are certainly examples of institutionalized racism.  But this kind of institutionalized racism no longer exists in the United States.  We’ve thankfully moved beyond it.  Are there still racist people? Of course there are. But we should all be grateful for in the free society we live at this time.  We all must take advantage of that freedom and make the best of whatever circumstances we are born into.

And as John Adams once said, a free society works best when there is a moral and religious people (I’ll need to find the exact quote later).

 

Edited by Rivers

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Buffy said:

The playing field isn't level.  If a resume discloses the race or gender of the applicant they are treated differently, even if the content is exactly the same.  John Smith's resume is going to be viewed as superior to Joan Smith's resume and especially Juanita Perez's resume, even if the content is exactly the same.   In musical tryouts men are "better" musicians, until we put up a screen and carpet the floor so you can't tell the gender of the person playing the instrument.  Then magically, it turns 50-50. 

Claire Foy didn't negotiate for a higher salary because she had been taught all her life that women that cause a ruckus are b*tches and "difficult" and her duty, above all else, is to make sure other people, particularly men, like her.   Girls are taught to be agreeable and to get along.  Boys are taught to fight for what they want. 

 

As someone who regularly reviews resumes, I can tell your first  premise is false, at least in the legal field, where female applicants are favored over their male counterparts and have been for at least the last 20 years.

As to your second point, I don’t know Claire Foy, and I suspect you don’t either, so if we’re going to speculate on why she didn’t think she needed to negotiate, I’d suggest that her life experience has been that people take care of her and she’s received preferences because of her talents, so she hasn’t been accustomed to having to negotiate.   The same is true for many young athletes.  That’s why they both hire agents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

There is a difference between people who have human tribalistic foibles in their nature and those who have racist ideologies. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...