Pretty self-explanatory: who do you think has it worse off( girls vs. guys) and why.
Of course. And I could continue to point out that these are horror imposed on men by other men, in a man's world in which women (often) are powerless to help themselves or their male counterparts.
But that is not a point want to make and maintain.
Who-has-it-worst isn't a useful argument.
I do not argue "Men have it easy" ...because that would be a silly thing to say of anyone. No group has it "easy." But I cannot ignore that men have better resources to overcome their hardships than women. That is how most societies were set up - the woman must be dependent on the man, the man must be aggressive/successful/respected/etc, and if the man fails, the woman fails with him.
In this way, men and women suffer together, however, I maintain that men are more likely to have the privileges and resources to overcome hardship with or without a woman. In many societies, throughout history, women could do little to nothing for themselves without a man.
This isn't the fault of anyone living today. And I do not suggest anyone is malicious by nature or owes someone any kind of payback. This is not one sex doing war against the other. It is bringing attention to the harm done by gender-roles and their expectations.
These are roles long established and may have, for a while, served society well. But those day are long gone and these outdated roles remain, lagging behind the technological progression of developing nations, creating more dysfunction and strife than they were once needed to alleviate.
But I cannot ignore that men have better resources to overcome their hardships than women.
Given the statisicts persist, are you seriously suggesting men just don't apply their resources correctly, and that's why so many more of them are homeless/commit suicide etc?
Nope. I wasn't suggesting that they do not apply their resources correctly. Only that, between a husband and a wife, it would often be the husband more likely to have more resources than the wife. The husband, in turn, being the wife's resource. Without the husband, the wife is not granted access to the same sources as her husband - supposing her husband had resources at all.
Are you arguing men are so stupid that the stats only presist beause men don't apply their resources propperly?
That would be putting words in my mouth.
I am attempting to point out how the blight of each gender is intertwined and the lack of balance between the genders today is rooted in outdated roles and attitudes. Many of the advantages granted to women has been in response to their need for resources to be independent from men. Many of the disadvantages of men suffer now is exclusion. For example, women-specific social programs or civil laws that are set up in response to another old or still existing gender-inequality such as alimony or child-custody. In the past, if a couple divorced, the husband got all property and children and the wife was excommunicated from the family. The response to that was a little overboard, making women the primary parent while the husband, even after divorce, the family provider.
I refer to the past for perspective.
We have made such strides to fill the gender gap - why is there still so much out of balance?
Why are there so many social programs for women? Because women haven't been able to have the same careers and income as men. Why is there so much support for women to go to school? Because, for quite a while, women weren't allowed to and, when they were, their degrees earned them very little. Those that did move on usually used their education to empower and educate other women, starting social programs that continue to benefit women today - men do not have such programs as there was not an overwhelming need for solidarity. Today men in need of financial assistance are less likely to find it because, until rather recently, they didn't need it as much as women.
I'm trying to illustrate that the dualism of men and women is harmful. That perpetuating gender roles in this fashion is harmful, keeps us at odds, makes one in more need of something than another. If, for instance, the men in puritan - or even Victorian- communities were more readily accepting of women as equals, would we have the same programs gender-specific programs established today? Would we ever had a need for so many women-only programs? Or would we have moved beyond the social restraints of sex and focused on the gap between social classes? If we continue to separate the sexes as we do today, what disadvantages and compensations will burden which gender in the future?
And this is without getting into the cultural attitudes towards either gender.
Nope. I wasn't suggesting that they do not apply their resources correctly. Only that, between a husband and a wife, it would often be the husband more likely to have more resources than the wife.
Yes, but not all of the worlds men are married. In fact, increasingly, its a smaller and smaller percentage. And even of the married men, a smaller and smaller percentage are the primary breadwinners.
I am attempting to point out how the blight of each gender is intertwined and the lack of balance between the genders today is rooted in outdated roles and attitudes.
Please explain then how outdated roles and attitudes are causing more men to be homeless etc.
Actually, she is correct on the part about outdated attitudes causing more men to be homeless, sort of. Men are expected to be able to take care of and provide for themselves. People are less likely to consider them victims and more likely to consider them failures. It's an ingrained and outdated attitude. Likewise, women are more likely to receive help because of the ingrained and outdated attitudes that women ought to have someone to take care of them, either family or their husband, they become the responsibility and burden of the community, and regardless of how they came to be in need, they are the victim of an unjust society and had not way to succeed anyhow.
Neither view is even CLOSE to correct. Men and women are in need for all manner of reasons, some have made mistakes, and some are victims of things beyond their control, and both men and women need help. Women are just more likely to get it in most developed countries.
Who-has-it-worst isn't a useful argument.
Then why bother arguing about it?
I maintain that men are more likely to have the privileges and resources to overcome hardship with or without a woman
Financially yes, but currently males have it worse socially unless you're in the worst countries . Seriously just scroll down the statistics here - http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/
In two out of (I don't feel like counting but its over 50) countries women commit suicide more then men, and for those two countries the difference isn't that big and one of those countries is select areas of China (and in other areas men are more likely to kill themselves). Also in the link that Kenny presented the percentage of unsheltered men in America was 96.
"Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007)."
Women tend to get stuck with the kids so it makes sense that the majority of homeless with families are females, but when you're on your own you're more likely to be male. This can be for a number of reasons but I would expect it has partially to do with less help being available for males.
In the third world or historically, sure men had more resources and women had next to none. Today, and in developed society, however, that is not so.
In my state, as a woman, I have access to housing, job training, medical treatment, financial assistance, and many other resources that men do NOT have access to.
A man over age 21, who is not married to the mother of a child under age 18 that is his dependent, and can not provide written proof of disability from a doctor within at least the past 5 years depending on the disability has no access to medicaid.
A man with no proof of disability goes to the back of the list when he applies for HUD assistance. A woman with a child or someone with proof of a disability goes to the front of the list. Depending on the disability, you need to have at least seen a doctor within the last 5 years, sometimes less. This is next to impossible without insurance.
There are significantly more job training programs aimed at women in my state than at men.
The local state aid agency will provide only foodstamps to an unmarried male or a married male with no dependents. The local state aid agency will provide foodstamps and health insurance to a unmarried or married female with no dependents, and will provide cash assistance to an unmarried female with dependents or married female with dependents if they meet financial qualifications
I can only speak from my own research an experience, but it seems to me, that even with my current limited resources, I have significantly more resources than a male would have in my position.
Oh my god, this is a ridiculous discussion. Men and women waste too much time whining about their gender-related problems and less time trying to help, accept, and understand each-other so it won't keep happening.
Arguing that women are less likely to kill themselves doesn't make them better off, women have been statistically proven to take emotional and physical pain harder, but are able to endure it better (I wish very badly I could grab a source on this one, but i'm not sure where to find one that's reputable)
Women also earn 75 cents in America to the every 1 dollar a male earns. And since women are much more often expected to take care of children, there are policies in place (such as foodstamps) that kind of allow for that.
That being said - I feel extremely sorry for what men have to go through. There's no evidence to suggest that men feel less or have less emotions than women, yet they are expected to squash these emotions and be "strong". They are expected to provide for their entire family, and women are only expected to provide for their children financially if they are single. It's also very sad that there's a belief that men can't be abused or raped. Women are very very emotionally in tune, which means that fucked-up women are emotionally manipulative. I've heard situations in which a man has felt scared of his wife or girlfriend, but unable to stop or change it because rape and abuse cases from men are never taken seriously. The idea that men are likely to be more abusive than women is wrong, because these factors are entirely based on society. Seeing as we live in a generally male-dominant society (or used to), it's easy to say that men are more abusive. Maybe they're more abusive because they're raised to not show their emotions.
In case studies of children, they have found that men are less likely to be picked up by their mothers or fathers when they are crying than girls are. Case studies have also found that as a child, boys are given more choices than girls. (One example: A boy tried to play with dolls at a daycare, but the "doll station" was closed, so the teacher asked him to go find another activity. When a girl tried to play with dolls, the teacher said "why don't you go read a book or color?" giving her specific choices, and not giving her an open ended choice the way they did with the boy. This might seem small, but the impacts of these little implications are extremely large).
That being said, women I feel face MANY hardships. Especially if they're unattractive. Because, while men care little for physical appearance as much as intellectual strength and overall dominance in personality, women are taught that they must be attractive if they're to be valued. Not only that, but women are also often gaslighted, which means their opinions are ignored and they're told they're being crazy when they express some kinds of concern or disagreement with a man. (http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-...) Men are subject to this kind of behavior to, so it's just a question of who's got it worse
Honestly you could make a case either way. We both face hardships according to our gender roles. I just wanted to add in a few more points either way.
i think women have it worse off.
1. i mean if i get sacked in the nuts, it hurts for a bit. giving birth, not to mention almost a full year of carrying around a child in your stomach, is literally a pain in the ass.
2. Women are still treated as second-class. An assertive male? awesome. Assertive Female? Bitch. They still get paid less.
3. Media still portrays them as weaker and sex objects (sure guys are too, but not to the extensive degree women are).
i could go on... but then id get arthritis.
Do women complain about pregnancies hurting their asses? I thought it was more of a stomach and vagina thing.
Assertive males are assholes. Generally they will receive some respect at work and they may have better luck with the ladies but they're generally regarded as assholes and the opposite of awesome.
Weaker emotionally or physically? I don't think most of the media treats women as being weaker emotionally, there are plenty of shows that regard their female cast as being nothing more than the dates for their male cast, but the characters being portrayed tend to not be emotionally weak to a greater extent than the male cast. At least not recently, if anything its the other way around although thats just supposed to be for humor. Physically, well men are of course stronger most of the time. It actually really annoys me when they have a girl who is practically anorexic kicking ass. As if I'm supposed to believe that?
i was talking about giving birth, the not to mention was more of a side note (and by ass i meant vagina... ). And i talk about the media portraying women as weak meaning usually they have to be saved. I mean watch Criminal Minds, most of their victims are women.
Assertive males are still accepted more than assertive females.
In the United States, right now, women have preferential treatment – by law – in any company that gets federal funds (which heaven help us, right now, is most of them.) Women live longer than men. Cancers that affect females get more money and more attention than those that affect only men. Women have the right to be sole deciders on abortion, and if they decide to keep the child and make the man pay, he pays. (This by the way is a complete reversal of the “penalty” of sex which used to fall mostly on women.) And if he doesn’t pay, he goes to jail. Divorce courts award custody to mothers overwhelmingly. Oh, and in college campuses, women outnumber men.