No! In my time, there was very little misandry on campus. Also, opposing points of view were tolerated. Direct misogyny would have been penalized even then.
oh, when you said you had no examples, I thought you meant that was what you were referring to in your post, examples of this from 2002 - my mistake I agree was less back then, but I have not been to school since many years before 2002
Maybe you just weren't offended by the hate you heard in your day because it wasn't directed at you or didn't touch home. I am a southerner and I certainly have heard anti-southern anti-rural hate directed at us as a group for as long as I have been alive, especially by urban liberals. If you are not sensitive to it, you might not notice. I am, so I have felt it, so to speak. A lot of people just need to act superior for their own ego's sake. The details vary but the dynamic is ever-present.
I bet it's just as rare today as back then. Maybe even more rare. But we don't have anything to go on per the OP. So all is just a guess.
I guess almost no one here has first hand knowledge of modern university culture. And I am IP banned on Reddit.
Upon what are you basing this statement? I don't think that anyone would be expelled, for the mere exercise of free speech, saying that one "hates women." Maybe if he said that about Jews, or Muslims (adherents of Islam)-- but that would be due to associating the statement with ethnic violence, and particular White Power groups, espousing philosophies based on hate, which are seen as a threat to the safety of particular minority groups. But to say "I hate women," makes you sound almost comical, like an "Our Gang," character, joining the "He-man, Woman Hater's Club." Or perhaps, like a Sad Sack, who's just been dumped, yet again. Likewise, I would disagree that "hating," anyone, is truly "fashionable," in society-- except in those hateful pockets of society, such as the White Power Movement, for example or, to some degree, among the more extreme MAGA crowd, among whom, some have boasted of such things as intending to kill Democratic Congressmen, and who live in an environment, rife with internet commentators, telling them that those on the Left are evil, and want to destroy the country, and want to have sex with their children, and so forth.
Just to add this idea, which has been lacking, so far: the basic concept, I think, has been taken to be, have Women's movements become more aggressively anti-male. I would doubt that this is true, among the general population. I once got free tickets from a college radio station, to go to an anti-fur concert, or some such thing, in New York City. Among that group, the anti-male rhetoric was so blatant, from the speaker at the microphone, that I joked to my companions, that I was so ashamed of being a male, I wanted to cut off my penis (is that OK to say?). But, as I say, the views of everyone there were a bit extreme, all militant vegetarians. This is not a broad swathe of society, regardless of what Right Wing Media, would have us believe. But the other way to look at the question, that has been, to this point, ignored is, have males on campus been acting significantly more asinine, than in the recent past, to warrant women being that much more turned off, by their behavior? I still think that the answer is "no," but I just wanted to introduce that possible dynamic.
Sadly, in Modern Western World, extreme anti-male rhetoric is accepted and tolerated. That is a very bad sign. For some time after WWII it was accepted that vilification of any birth group is evil. Sadly, now Society is more then ever accepting of such vilification.
You've still yet to show any evidence of this. While I know it might seem that this is the case, with both whites in general, and also with males, but specifically white males, this is only true in a relative sense. That is to say, there is still far and away more hateful language directed at minorities, but that even a little is directed at white males, compared to their past history, of having none directed at them, makes some of them feel like the world is going to hell in a hand basket, and that they are the most greatly suffering, discriminated against group, in the world. It is a reaction, unbecoming of men.
1) African American and Hispanic men suffer even more discrimination. They get 20% more prison time for the same crime as white men. All men suffer discrimination. 2) Men are the only birth group against which Hate Speech is accepted. Acceptance of Hate Speech against any birth group is very alarming. Men's virtue is not being docile but protesting injustice. When I was a student I spoke up about male victims of abuse.
Still waiting for the example of the "hate speech," I should want to protest. I never said that men should be "docile;" but there is a long stretch, between ignoring some minor annoyance, and being up in arms, over intolerable injustice. As you pointed out, blacks suffer greater discrimination (by far) than white men. You did not mention them, but the same is true for Middle Easterners, Far East Asians, and other groups. So, I think the "injustice," of having some speak ill of our gender, should be seen in a relative context, to those others, who are treated far worse, and usually by other men. What I am suggesting, is that if you were to join a BLM march, and try to make it about discrimination against men, I don't think the black men there, are going to rally to join the side of their fellow male, white "victims," over black female ones. Also, I recommend you take into account, the way that societies, in general, have treated women, historically, for thousands of years, as second class citizens, at best, if not essentially as property. Even here in the U.S., women have only been allowed to vote, for scarcely more than a century. Given this, maybe we are tough enough to withstand some ultimately meaningless, female letting off of steam. At least sometimes, they may even be entitled to it. Obviously, this would not cover physical violence-- but is that really a problem? Finally, I am not so sure why you stress "birth" groups-- would that exclude religions? IOW, is hate-speech against Jews, in your opinion, not as objectionable, since it is not a birth group? Or does a culture, also count, in your birth group terminology?
Sadly, men do experience severe discrimination based on their gender. 1) Men get 63% longer sentences for the same offense. Here. 2) Male victims of Domestic Violence are more likely to be arrested then helped. 3) Men accused of Sexual Misconduct lose their careers without any reasonable investigation. 4) Men are discriminated in Divorce. Not as bad as 20 years ago, but it does take place.
I had interactions with west coast colleges from about 1998-2015 (starting in high school, then in college, then as part of outreach). It was extremely rare to hear the opinion that men were hated. Probably a misunderstanding of the concept of male privilege. Saying somebody has privilege isn't the same as hating them. A tiny minority of women didn't like men in general, but I don't think that's new. A minority of women, some of whom I was friends with, didn't like other women. "Too much drama, guys are way cooler."
You could not possibly be basing such a sweeping generalization, on any facts, but only your own suspicions. Here is where you fail to consider relativity, as well. First, though, I am not saying that divorce settlements are, or were, fair to both sexes-- how could anyone possibly make such a categorical statement, without compiling a mountain of data? The same goes for your generalizing, regarding the opposite: about them not being fair. Any would first need to develop some statistical measurement tools; as well as to determine, what is "fair," in any given instance. For you even to make the speculation, you should define what you would consider to be "fair." If that were to be an equal division of assets, and no spousal support (when there are no children, in the equation), then obviously you are going to believe that the settlements, "discriminate" against men. But my counter argument would not just be that the settlements are fair, since by your personal standard, they would not be. Instead, I would argue that your expectation of "fairness," is the thing that is off: that is because men and women do not, overall, play the same roles, in relationships. While, of course, there are always exceptions, in relationships-- and of course, we see all different sorts of settlements, in different cases-- because the biological reality is that women, not men, bear children, they are the ones who bear not only this burden, but typically more of the child care responsibilities, as well. This work, in the home, of course limits how much they earn outside of the home, & so contribute to the family assets. If you were to expect women to only get a share of assets, based on what income they'd brought in, then, this would obviously be your discriminating against women, by not attributing any value to their childcare, or housekeeping work. But I do not know if that is true, since you never laid out your case, as to why you think the settlements are unfair; you simply said that (in your opinion) they were. That's not really making an argument. Just to finish up what I'd started: not only does time raising a family, detract from billable hours, at work, but the cumulative effect of this, limits career potential. After 10 years of doing some work that fits into your child's schedule, instead of in your field of specialty, you have fallen far behind, in your career track. This is part of the rationale, behind alimony payments. Without any specific circumstances, and specific settlement details, I cannot offer any opinions, as to whether or not any settlement is fair, much less whether or not all divorce settlements, unfairly treat one side, or the other. I can, however, reason that, because these traditional gender roles, in the "nuclear family," have changed, since the 1950s/60s, so has the apportioning of marriage assets changed. Yet that is not necessarily, their becoming "fairer," but rather may simply reflect the changing realities of relationships. Does that make sense to you?
If you really want to know you may want to post that question somewhere else where more college age people are likely to read it and reply. Like yourself I have been out of school for over 20 years. Although I do get so feedback from new graduates because I do some mentoring at work I get the impression most people here are well beyond college age.
Thank you -- very well argued response. I do not have first hand experience of marriage or divorce. It is my fault I have not studied divorce cases in greater detail. One of most important missed opportunities in my life is that I have not become a lawyer. I would have helped real people. All my arguments on forums really accomplish nothing.
Given how much interest I have in gender issues, I should have been a lawyer. Maybe a defense attorney or a divorce lawyer. I would have been able to formulate arguments much better, and most importantly, I would have helped real people. Sadly my potential has been wasted. My fault 100%.
It probably not too late. You mentioned going to school to the 2000s so if you already have degree you have a good start. There are many mature students returning to school. When I first graduated I consider both law or an MBA before deciding on my final profession. I remember visiting the UW law school to look around.
Thank you. Unfortunately I am 54 yo, unemployed. I have been in therapy for Autism and Depression since 1992.
We all have a need to communicate our thoughts. If nothing else, your doing so, here, serves the purpose of helping to maintain your sanity (and I'm sure that others, likewise, do gain a benefit from their own conversing, with you).
Definitely. Unfortunately, many of us including myself view online talk as real life. Sadly my life mostly consists of failures.
