"Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

On the true meaning of "reduction ad absurdum"

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#761  Postby Fallible » Nov 12, 2014 7:17 pm

laklak wrote:
Fallible wrote:

What do you think are the reasons for higher male suicide rates?


Women.


Great, splendid.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#762  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 12, 2014 7:53 pm

Fallible wrote:
laklak wrote:
Fallible wrote:

What do you think are the reasons for higher male suicide rates?


Women.


Great, splendid.

He's joking, Fall.

But shall we kill him now, or later?
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#763  Postby Sendraks » Nov 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Well without another gender to have a higher suicide rate in comparison to, you'd just have the male suicide rate.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15251
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#764  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 12, 2014 8:06 pm

Sendraks wrote:Well without another gender to have a higher suicide rate in comparison to, you'd just have the male suicide rate.

Ah. I had to think about that for a while, but I got there in the end!

:cheers:
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#765  Postby tolman » Nov 12, 2014 8:16 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
tolman wrote:One of the issues with some flavours of feminism is that they can be so focussed on 'men vs women' that they pay little attention to other important social factors.

And that's one of the issues with some men too.

Oh, absolutely.

Any crusading single-minded approach risks missing/avoiding all manner of possibly relevant issues in a wider picture.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#766  Postby tolman » Nov 12, 2014 8:24 pm

Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:If the size arguments hold valid then it would seem that men will never be able to live as long as women on average unless the size average is also brought closer together.


Given the age gap in the UK has narrowed from six to four years in last three decades, I'm confident that this can be made smaller still. They may never be 100% equal, but if the gap is brought down to a year's difference, this would be a) a huge achievement and b) certainly reduce any perceived inequalities/advantages/disadvantages.

I don't see why issues which may be meaningfully biological are necessarily best seen as 'inequalities' in any kind of 'discrimination' sense.

Though, of course, were figures the other way round, there would arguably be quite a few people calling themselves feminists who would argue that the figures were proof (or evidence approximating proof) of sexist disadvantage, unless there was undeniable evidence to the contrary.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#767  Postby laklak » Nov 12, 2014 8:26 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
laklak wrote:
Fallible wrote:

What do you think are the reasons for higher male suicide rates?


Women.


I think you got that wrong, Lak. Married men live longer than unmarried men. So it's lack of women, not women themselves, if they have anything to do with it at all.


It just seems longer.

:hide:
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 68
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#768  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 12, 2014 8:35 pm

tolman wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:If the size arguments hold valid then it would seem that men will never be able to live as long as women on average unless the size average is also brought closer together.


Given the age gap in the UK has narrowed from six to four years in last three decades, I'm confident that this can be made smaller still. They may never be 100% equal, but if the gap is brought down to a year's difference, this would be a) a huge achievement and b) certainly reduce any perceived inequalities/advantages/disadvantages.

I don't see why issues which may be meaningfully biological are necessarily best seen as 'inequalities' in any kind of 'discrimination' sense.

Though, of course, were figures the other way round, there would arguably be quite a few people calling themselves feminists who would argue that the figures were proof (or evidence approximating proof) of sexist disadvantage, unless there was undeniable evidence to the contrary.

You mean in the same way that there are currently some men who claim that the figures, as they are at the moment, are proof of some kind of sexist disadvantage?
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#769  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 12, 2014 8:39 pm

laklak wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
laklak wrote:
Fallible wrote:

What do you think are the reasons for higher male suicide rates?


Women.


I think you got that wrong, Lak. Married men live longer than unmarried men. So it's lack of women, not women themselves, if they have anything to do with it at all.


It just seems longer.

:hide:

You're so lovely, Lak. You realise, I suppose, that you're my favourite fake misogynist, ever?
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#770  Postby laklak » Nov 12, 2014 8:46 pm

I love wimmins. Well, except the ex-wife, I wouldn't call that love, more like fear. Fear and loathing, like finding a rabid, Ebola-infected King Cobra in the toilet. Women have been both the bane and grace of my life, wouldn't trade y'all for anything.

OK maybe a perfectly restored '63 Corvette split-window 327 4-speed, but there aren't many of them around and they're really, really expensive.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 68
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#771  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 12, 2014 9:06 pm

laklak wrote:I love wimmins. Well, except the ex-wife, I wouldn't call that love, more like fear. Fear and loathing, like finding a rabid, Ebola-infected King Cobra in the toilet. Women have been both the bane and grace of my life, wouldn't trade y'all for anything.

OK maybe a perfectly restored '63 Corvette split-window 327 4-speed, but there aren't many of them around and they're really, really expensive.

Yeah, I know. But she wasn't bat-shit crazy because she was a woman, she was just a bat-shit crazy human being. That's the mistake that so many make, the trap they fall into, of extrapolating the madness to an entire gender. You haven't, I haven't, but right now, at this moment, I'll take the car, thanks.
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#772  Postby tolman » Nov 12, 2014 10:12 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
tolman wrote:Though, of course, were figures the other way round, there would arguably be quite a few people calling themselves feminists who would argue that the figures were proof (or evidence approximating proof) of sexist disadvantage, unless there was undeniable evidence to the contrary.

You mean in the same way that there are currently some men who claim that the figures, as they are at the moment, are proof of some kind of sexist disadvantage?

Yes, although I'm not sure how many men (let alone women) would take such men seriously, or how easily they could get any kind of cover from an ostensibly egalitarian movement.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#773  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 12, 2014 10:54 pm

tolman wrote:or how easily they could get any kind of cover from an ostensibly egalitarian movement.

Sorry if I'm being thick, Tolman, but I don't understand this part of your response.
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#774  Postby OlivierK » Nov 12, 2014 11:16 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:So then you are arguing against something I haven't said. Has anyone here actually used women living longer in the manor you are arguing against? I haven't read all of TMBs posts so perhaps he has and I missed it.


I wasn't arguing against what you said, I was providing the clarification that you asked for as to what I meant. Given that you began this discussion based on my comment which was a response to something DD said, which was in response to something TMB said.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:What behaviors do you think men should change to live longer lives? Are some of these behaviors related to gender roles?


Diet. Alcohol consumption. Smoking. Exercise.
Given that the data we're looking at is the average, individuals who engage is those behaviours do wonders for dragging the male average down.


As far as I have ever seen diet, alcohol smoking and exercise are problems that cross genders. Can you give me a link to some sources saying that men engage in these habits more on average or that for one reason or another they are more damaging on men?

Darth, here are some Australian stats for you also showing higher rates of smoking, alcohol consumption and overweight amongst men. A higher proportion of women, however, fail to exercise adequately.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... actors~330

There are also a bunch of other gender related stats on other health and economic factors in that ABS release, as well as historical trends, should anyone be interested.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9864
Age: 55
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#775  Postby TMB » Nov 13, 2014 12:03 am

tolman wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:If the size arguments hold valid then it would seem that men will never be able to live as long as women on average unless the size average is also brought closer together.


Given the age gap in the UK has narrowed from six to four years in last three decades, I'm confident that this can be made smaller still. They may never be 100% equal, but if the gap is brought down to a year's difference, this would be a) a huge achievement and b) certainly reduce any perceived inequalities/advantages/disadvantages.

I don't see why issues which may be meaningfully biological are necessarily best seen as 'inequalities' in any kind of 'discrimination' sense.

Though, of course, were figures the other way round, there would arguably be quite a few people calling themselves feminists who would argue that the figures were proof (or evidence approximating proof) of sexist disadvantage, unless there was undeniable evidence to the contrary.


Since there have been arguments advanced that due to women being physiologically weaker than men is the reason why women are protected in sport and athletics, does the argument that men being physiologically more moribund than women not mean they should be given some form of beneficial discrimination?
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#776  Postby TMB » Nov 13, 2014 1:04 am

Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:As far as I have ever seen diet, alcohol smoking and exercise are problems that cross genders. Can you give me a link to some sources saying that men engage in these habits more on average or that for one reason or another they are more damaging on men?


While these issues are cross gender, their prevalence of such behaviours in the sexes is not equal.

Alcohol
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/mens-health.htm
http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Consumption/Factsheets/Drinking-patterns-and-trends.aspx
UK and US data shows men on average consume more alcohol than women.

Smoking
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/smoking-adults-by-gender/
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11454/smok-eng-2013-rep.pdf
UK and US data shows greater prevalence of smoking in men than women.

Overweight and Obesity Rates
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-overweightobesity-rate-by-gender/
http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/trends

The last link on UK obesity rates shows a steady rise in prevalence over time but, until recently, a higher rate of obesity in women than men until 2010. Not sure what the data post 2010 shows. However in the US, men win the race to be the most obese.


All the negative outcomes experienced by men to a gater degree than women hardly reflect the idea that men are the beneficiaries of this socalled patriarchal society. If women are supposed to the ones suffering how come they do better on these metrics?
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#777  Postby scott1328 » Nov 13, 2014 5:01 am

Doubtdispelled wrote:
laklak wrote:
Fallible wrote:

What do you think are the reasons for higher male suicide rates?


Women.


I think you got that wrong, Lak. Married men live longer than unmarried men. So it's lack of women, not women themselves, if they have anything to do with it at all.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newslette ... ens-health

But then we all know you are a man who likes living on the edge..... with a wooden spoon....

Ahem gay men in relationships live longer than single gay men. It's not the sex of the partner that helps, maybe it's the sex with the partner :dunno:
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8844
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#778  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Nov 13, 2014 5:17 am

scott1328 wrote:
Ahem gay men in relationships live longer than single gay men.


Interesting, is this true?

Does it matter the sex of the partner?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#779  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Nov 13, 2014 5:20 am

My gut impression would be people in relationships live longer than people don't, on the premise that human nature requires relationships.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#780  Postby TMB » Nov 13, 2014 5:49 am

Sendraks wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Please tell me you meant something else with "if it were an issue" other than men having shorter lifespans is not a problem and should be ignored. Something like "mens shorter lifespans is not an argument for women having it better than men because...".


Oh definitely the latter.

I work in a field where we're all about improving both the lifespan and quality of life for everyone. We've seen the average lifespan, for both sexes, improve considerably over the past century and yet still the gap in length of life remains, despite all the advances in healthcare.

The end result is that women still live longer than men, but those additional years of life hardly confer any sort of significant advantage to women. It's not as if we're seeing the female octogenarian workforce as a powerhouse of industry in the absence of competition men of a similar age.

Instead what we see is old women. Growing sicker, weaker and poorer. Many of them alone because their loved one died years ago. A curious "advantage" this longer lifespan.


This is not how life expectancy is measured. Men die more often than women at every age. In the womb, as babies and adults of every age. In addition to this, women are also likely to live longer than men.

You suggesting that life somehow allows advantage to be gained, but I se life as an end in itself as long as it has quality. If you are not alive you have no opportunity whatever unless you believe in life after death. I do not see that there is a difference in the latter years of either gender in terms of the degrading quality of life, illness as they approach the end. Since this is the case, we can assume that women will generally get more years where the quality is OK.

You are also arguing that when your loved ones die, it is worse for the one left alive. THis sounds a bit like Hillary Clinton's view that women are the real victims when men get killed in war because they are left alive to suffer. If we assume that dead people do not suffer as do the living, if life was so bad for these'victims ' of war they would end their lives.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest