Women’s rights have gone ‘too far’, say majority of Gen Z and millennials, study shows

Point #1: Let us recognize that answering "yes" to the question, "have Women's Rights have gone too far," is not going as far, as saying that "men are being discriminated against." So your thread is based on a mis-equating, of two different statements, and is therefore a straw man argument.

One more piece of evidence, that women have better language skills, generally, than men.


Point #2: Even aside from #1, just quoting the numbers that you had snipped:

Generation/ %-- womens' rights have gone too far.

Gen Z: 52​

Millennials: 53

Gen X: 46​

Boomers: 40


That means, that these are the numbers who think that they haven't gone too far:

Gen Z: 48​

Millennials: 47

Gen X: 54 ​

Boomers: 60

This would indicate to me that, first, overall, more people said that Womens' Rights have not gone too far. And secondly, the age groups, whose bare majorities you are using as an endorsement of your own view, are the youngest, least experienced, and certainly those, least familiar with the issue, that is, the expanded history of the Womens' Rights movement. Not the sort of viewpoints, I would guess, that you typically regard most highly.


And men are supposed to be better at math, than women-- LOL!

 

Lets start out with your derogatory remark...I never claimed to be an expert at math. Far from it actually. Now, I know, you didn't direct it at me specifically since you said "men". But that actually proves my point even further. You have no problem being derogatory towards men. Would you have made such a snarky remark if the situation was reversed?

Now tell me, what do YOU know of the discrimination men are going through right now? Did you bother to look up any information on it or are you just reacting to a perceived <insert whatever> against Feminism. For a small instance: Did you know that as of 2017 the second shelter for abused men was opened up? IE: there are only two shelters dedicated for abused men in the entire country. There are around 1500 dedicated for women. Do you think that is because men don't need it? At an abuse rate smaller, but similar to that of women. 1 in 4 men experience physical abuse by a partner in the US. So no, its not because men don't need it. The reason is actually because of Feminism. A point which you are sure to argue against. But fact of the matter is its true. You should watch Red Pill by Cassie Jaye, a Feminist herself until she made that documentary.

 

Glad you agree that cons don't do innovation.

 

This was intended as ironic humor. To my mind, even calling it "snarky," is an over- reaction.

You'd quoted figures, as if they portrayed your viewpoint as clearly the more common perception. Not only were the figures closer to even, but they overall, painted exactly the opposite picture. The only group opinions, which were slightly in favor of the view that Womens' Rights had gone too far, were of those 22 year olds, and younger-- millennials and Gen Zers. And even that dubious claim to crow over, you were distorting, to act as if this were the same as their concurring with you, that men suffer from discrimination, which would be a higher threshold, and so would have received fewer "yes" answers.

My source, is being a man. And having some awareness of the different treatments within various aspects of society, towards women. If you are telling me that men get physically abused at the same rate, and to the same degree, as women, I am going to call bullshit. Also, shelters don't exist merely because someone has been abused. It is for women (or men) who want to get away from their abuser, but are afraid the he (or she) will track them down, & do something violent. Again, I can't believe that anywhere near the same number of men are in that position, as are women. Lastly, women often take children with them, to these shelters. Not that this might not happen in men's cases, but I doubt it is anywhere near as common.

Certainly a given woman could physically dominate a given man. But because, generally, male bodies are bigger and more muscular than female bodies, and because our much higher testosterone level, makes us generally the more aggressive sex, it is just common sense, that the likelihood of a woman being vulnerable and needing protection from an abusive male, is going to be a good bit higher, than the reverse dynamic.* If you have stats to prove those various points incorrect, I welcome the education.

Lastly, you offer no proof, even, that the discrepency in shelter numbers, is due to "discrimination," or else are using that word loosely. What I mean is, I think it is more likely related to traditional social expectations, of men, that is, that they are the stronger sex. Also, that they are the more self-reliant one. Now, you can argue that this stereotyping isn't "fair" to men, but I don't think this is the same as a standard example of discrimination, such as not promoting women, beyond a glass ceiling, or paying them a lower wage, for the same work. It is something, in fact, which men help to make a reality: women didn't ask to be paid a lower wage, or to be held back from promotion; but men are more inclined to put up a stoical front, to not speak up about being abused by their wife, due to their own feelings that it would not be, or would not be seen as, a "manly" way to act.



*P.S.-- The same genetics of sex, predict that men, generally, should perform better in a marathon race; and, while there are women who finish ahead of some men, the best men, without fail, are always markedly better than the best women (ditto for mediocre men & women).

 

When the internet for my comp returns I'm definitely going to give you some education. But not all. I expect people to learn on thier own also as the best learning experiences are done through self learning. In the meantime I'd suggest you start with watching the documentary Red Pill by Cassie Jaye.

 

Post 83 ? Whatsa matter?

 

First, no, I did not portray my viewpoint as "clearly the more common perception". All my OP did was point out that there were far more people recognizing that the women's movement is going to far than many would have us believe. I never said the majority. I never said the minority either. I let the data speak for itself. In fact the most I even talked about "degree" was when I said "It appears that far more think this than these people are willing to admit." (in reference to people that scoff at the idea) And that is true. Your posts so far even show that. Like for example, the below.

I never once implied or said that men get physically abused at the same rate, or to the same degree as women. In fact I specifically said "At an abuse rate smaller, but similar to that of women. 1 in 4 men experience physical abuse by a partner in the US." Women btw are abused at a rate of 1 in 3 women. IE: Men are abused at a smaller, but similar rate to women. Smaller as in men get abused at a smaller rate than women. But similar as in the rates are so often as to be almost, not quite, 50/50. Now, I can't recall the percentages if that is what you want. But here is where I got the 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 respectively: LINK: Statistics (ncadv.org)

Note: That is the over all general statistic. The link does break it down further such as:

Note the difference there..."severe". But no matter how you cut it, men are abused at a much higher rate than many in the feminist movement want to admit, or want known. And much more than you obviously thought as well.

Now, as for men's shelters vs women's shelters... LINK: These shelters help male victims of domestic violence (nypost.com)

Oh, and the article happens to have percentages to if you'd like to view that:

Only a 6% difference. And I would bet the numbers are actually closer to even than that as men often won't speak up for themselves. "awww you got beat up by a wittle giiirlll!!" <--- happens far more than you think.

As for women's shelters: LINK: Battered Women Shelters: What Are They? How to Find One? | HealthyPlace

Note: That says "battered women shelters where women can feel safe". Makes no mention of men on that page about shelters. However, that site, if you look further does talk about violence against men. Here's what it has to say: LINK: Domestic Violence Against Men: Male Victims of Domestic Abuse | HealthyPlace To further the case of showing discrimination against men I'd like to point out the following...though everything in that link should be read...

Only recently has the DoJ allowed funds to be directed towards studies of violence against men...and only if the study also grants equal time to investigating violence against women. Even though there are literally thousands, if not millions of studies already done for women. (note: that article was last updated December 31, 2021)

Also note that there wasn't one single mention of men's shelters being offered in that link.

Now that I've educated you some, you get to educate yourself the rest of the way. Men ARE discriminated against far more than our society wants to admit. And I do hope that you actually study the issue rather than relying on you being a man and having some awareness of women's issues. (btw, having awareness of women's issues =/= having awareness of men's issues...as this post should have been able to show at least a little bit of)

 

LOL. SO what the bloody ... !!

if men or women are stronger, smarter, less smart , more abused, less abused ...

IT DOESN'T MATTER....EQUAL RIGHTS ARE A GOOD THING AND SHOULDN'T DEPEND ON BRAINS OR BRAWN OR EVERYONE WOULD LOOSE THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY GOT OLD.

RIGHTS CANNOT GO "TOO FAR", THEY ARE RIGHTS
IF you feel discriminated on some issue FIGHT to have it fixed just like women and minorities have done....in other words....LEARN FROM THE EXPERTS

 

Everybody wants "rights" but nobody wants responsibility. Not only do rights go too far, who the hell is going to grant you these "rights" and at whose expense?

Rights are simply political strong-arm tactics. You have the right to take care of yourself. Stop complaining.

 

I'll take this opportunity to add something that I'd left out: shelters are an important tool, for escaping an abusive relationship, especially for women, because far more women than men, are homemakers, without enough of their own revenue stream, to pay for a hotel. If you are completely dependent upon your abuser, for funds, you are kinda screwed. Are you going to be able to "educate me," that there are an equal proportion of female "bread winners," as male ones, in relationships?

 

As a millennial, I feel as though I've both aged(well, obviously) and yet, I feel as though the world has not progressed in a direction that's favorable to either sex. One particularly discouraging development, is the politicization of relationships. Where men and women both(though women moreso) are judging each other based off their social-political views. And frankly, for my part if I thought a woman was hot even though she was a liberal I'd be more than willing to put politics to the side. That's not the case for females, to females, a conservative is some nazi in sheep's clothing and so therefore they want nothing to do with them.

(Which BTW, cuts the portion of dateable men by more than 1/3rd at least, since that many men are conservative.).

And speaking of dating, sexuality, etc. OH boy, that's a gaping wound in American society lately. As has been referenced in other posts, social movements(*cough, me too, cough*) have made sexual dynamics, risky and fraught with peril with very little upside for men. If you watched some romantic flick in the 70's or 80's, the loving couple would have liquor in a hotel or in their own bedroom as they passionately make out. Legally, that can't be done today(or well, it can be done just so long as you don't tell anybody) in what can only be described as retroactive consent LMAO.

And one doesn't have to be under the influence for this retroactive consent trap. Oh no, one just has to be a lousy slouch in bed and the woman is going to call 'rape' before you know it.(So if a guy wants to have sex, he better be damn good at it and maybe not even that can save him.). He said/she said, you say? I say #believeallwomen. Men aren't going to get a fair trial on a sexual case, and we all know it.

Because of the private nature of sexuality, to make sex between adults a crime is ripe for just a host of troubles. Unlike robbing a bank, which is obvious to the naked eye, or a murder where there's blood. Cases of rape, incest, etc make up anywhere from 2-4% and at that violent rapes even less. Good luck trying to sort out the 97% of relationship disputes, masqueraded as a rape(when in fact, the vast majority again are merely disputes/disagreements.)

Then there's the affirmative action thing, the so-called 'gender pay gap' that is within a margin of error when you factor for experience, etc. And the social dynamic in America and most of the west is nuts. And for a lot of guys, we're like 'not worth the headache'. And i didn't even get into 'six figures, six pack abs, 6'0 tall(the last one, I can somewhat understand even though the average male size is 5'9 and guys like me who are 5'10-to-5'11 are even rarer).

 

I wouldn't know how many women are homemakers vs not. Do you have the statistics for that?

Regardless, what's your point? That's its OK to have abused men pay for motel/hotel rooms because they're the ones that are normally the breadwinners? Meanwhile women who also make money, but are abused still have the use of shelters all over the country? And what about the men who can't pay for a motel/hotel room? (like it or not, there is such a thing as "stay at home dads") What happens with them? Are they going to be required to travel hundreds of miles to get to one of the 2 shelters available in the entire country? What about men with children?

 

You have a twisted view, if you think of getting to stay, for free, in a shelter for battered women, as some kind of "perk," which men are as entitled to, as are women. FYI, Mr. educated, I am sure that those abused women who can afford to pay their own way, by & large, do not choose to stay in shelters.

LoL-- yeah, those "battered" women, have it pretty cushy, don't they? Ever wonder how many of them are just gaming the system? I mean, they don't even need to provide proof of their abuse, do they? I bet the shelters just take their word for it! What a ripoff, for men!

Those are the ones, for whom there should be shelters-- I never said otherwise. I only said, and continue to maintain, that there is need for far fewer of these, than for women's shelters, because there are far more women in the situation in which that is the only recourse available to them, than are there men, in that same situation.

My other point, just to keep things from straying, was that the reason that men's shelters have not gotten consideration previously, has nothing to do with the "Womens' Rights movement," but with society's stereotypical images of men, which had existed for millennia, prior to Womens' Rights.

 

Just quit with the strawman fallacy arguments. Nothing that you said here is anything that I have suggested, implied, condoned or anything else.

Interesting that you've responded to this post, but can't seem to respond to the post where I show you the facts that you so desperately tried to pretend didn't exist.

And as my links show, there are over 10 million abused women and men in this country. Even IF we took what you said here to be true (you've yet to provide any statistics) surely even you can agree that 2 men's shelters is not near enough to help men that are abused, even if you make the majority of them pay for a motel/hotel. Hell, you could make 98% of them pay for a motel/hotel room and there still wouldn't be enough mens shelters.

And I see you still have not watched Red Pill by Cassie Jaye. Seems like you are intentionally staying ignorant of a subject that you are trying to pretend is only an incel perception thing.

 

Interesting that it is you, who is making insinuations, based on false assumptions. I began the day in the afternoon, with 10 quotes to reply to (not "likes"), including 2 from you: one at 1:38 AM, and one at 5:51AM. As I worked my way up the list, I began to get real time replies to my posts, to which, it is my habit to jump directly, over any old posts, I have yet to cover. So that is what happened: you began replying to my posts, and I have not had time to get back to your second, old post. I am a slow typist, and I try to do other things in my day, beside just post online. So, if you paused with your replies, I would be able to catch up, to present.

 

All true. Accounting is a good business job for women and efforts to promote their job prospects in business focused on HR, accounting and retail.

Also true. Little consideration was given to the impact on the existing accounting labor market for men.

She should be adequately trained before taking the position.

Men do most of the hiring...

That and abortion, childcare support, etc.

Watch what happens over abortion. A huge chunk of women will never accept government telling them they have to be pregnant. Democrats will go full bore over abortion rights. It's an issue that will plague Republicans until they restore a woman's right to an abortion.

I taught high school for a lot of years. I very rarely ran across a female teacher who wasn't 110% behind abortion rights. Republicans are like the dog who caught the car and don't know what to do with it.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
RIGHTS CANNOT GO "TOO FAR"

I see you have no idea of what rights are....do you think giving women the right to vote was "going too far" ?

 

It never should have been a gender issue, so this was corrected.

Who exactly is it that gives these rights?

 

We do.

 

I don't remember anybody asking me my opinion.

 

While I don't dispute that you did not say the word "majority"-- your above quote, does not exactly show that your implication had clearly not been, to suggest that your own, was the more popularly held view; and I would disagree with the accuracy of your representation, that the above statement had been "the most," you had said, from which one might get that impression. There is a cumulative effect, to such language, and you had, in the same post, said:

"Now, does this prove that there IS discrimination happening against men? Some will say no. This is just a perception thing. I might agree with that....if there weren't so many people saying the same thing."

I will accept your clarification, that you had not meant to imply any boast, about being proven "right," by this poll, if you will likewise take my word, that I had not been trying to make any false allegations, or present any straw man arguments, but that this is what I had read your comments, as implying.

My point still stands however, that this is a minority view, except for, barely, among those under 22 years of age. Funny coincidence, BTW, is I just came here from a thread about American IQs declining, for the first time. The group, in which the decline had been most pronounced, had been among the 18 to 22 year olds. For whatever that's worth.

That is far more explanation than necessary, and it in no way changes the meaning of either your, or my own, comments. I'd not been picking at a niggling technicality, when I had said that "I can't believe that anywhere near the same number of men are in that position, as are women." Do you not understand the implication of the expression "anywhere near the same (number, amount, etc.)?" It means: nothing close to that, to which it is being compared. So, once more, it is you, who is making a false claim about me, through your purported defense of your own words: *it is the second time you have implied that I'd said something, which I never had. Do you not understand that when your reply states, "I never said the majority," followed by, "I never once implied or said that men get physically abused at the same rate, or to the same degree as women," not to mention, your wondering if I might want the exact, statistical percentages, from you, the impression given, by your repetition of this idea, is that I had been arguing, as if you'd made those claims?

So, your entire paragraph, only makes your case that you had never said certain words, which I had never suggested that you had said. IOW, there is no point, whatsoever, to that paragraph of yours. I had correctly interpreted your meaning, from your use of the words "similar rate." Other signs, btw, that I had not been arguing that the rate for men was just a little bit lower, than for women, would be my saying that I would call "bullshit," on your claim, which is not something that is typically done, over small differences in opinions, or in numbers. To try to turn what should have been an unnecessary explanation, into at least a learning experience, for you, below is my full quote, with my underlining the cues that I had not been stressing exact equalness, as you apparently had read the words to be saying.

DEFinning said: ↑
My source, is being a man. And having some awareness of the different treatments within various aspects of society, towards women. If you are telling me that men get physically abused at the same rate, and to the same degree, as women, I am going to call bullshit. Also, shelters don't exist merely because someone has been abused. It is for women (or men) who want to get away from their abuser, but are afraid the he (or she) will track them down, & do something violent. Again, I can't believe that anywhere near the same number of men are in that position, as are women. Lastly, women often take children with them, to these shelters. Not that this might not happen in men's cases, but I doubt it is anywhere near as common.
<End quote>

As a reminder, I have since added to the list of conditions, precipitating the use of a battered persons' shelter, IMO, to include not just the abused, feeling the need to escape her (or his) abuser, at least temporarily, while fearing this abuser might not allow them that space, but might drag them back home, if he (or she) knew of the abused person's whereabouts; and the abused person, possibly having children with them; but also that the abused had no place else to go, because of limited funds, since the abuser was likely the household's main earner, who saw that any money allowed to the abuse victim, was strictly limited.


Since this post is now getting long, and we have yet to reach any counterargument, in this reply of yours-- which you had earlier boasted, provides the stats, against which I would be unable to argue (and so was supposedly avoiding)-- I am going to cut off this part, here. But try to remember my list of criteria, I believe would typically apply to any of those who avail themselves of a battered person's shelter. It may likely be of use, if and when the rest of your reply, addresses any of my points.

 

I will point out that you are now, making a different argument, than that of your OP, which had been about DISCRIMINATION against men (not about abuse). Being a victim of abuse, I don't think you are claiming, is discrimination. So this fact, in and of itself, does not make your argument. Just to keep us from getting lost, your discrimination charge is based on there being an obvious need for-- and I will try to use your specific words-- a similar number (smaller but almost, not quite 50/50 parity) of battered men's shelters. This is what I am contesting: not that men are not "battered" by women; but that there is ANYWHERE NEAR (remember our going over that expression, in the last post) as great a recognized need for mens' shelters. Part of this, is because of the other conditions, which I also reiterated, in that last post: being battered, is only one of the criteria, which I feel, leads a person to a shelter. Don't misread me to be saying that I don't think men should be allowed in a shelter (or women either), if they do not meet my list of conditions. I am saying that, unless the other things I'd enumerated we're also true, I do not believe most would choose to go to a shelter. I do believe, for example, if money were not an issue, nearly all would prefer the privacy of their own motel room, to the group living situation of a shelter. You are welcome to debate me over that point.

So it is the having no other options, which is central to the demand for a battered person shelter, in any given area. And it would be in your demonstrating that this need is recognized, yet not acted upon, that you would have evidence of discrimination against men (which, as a reminder, is what you are supposedly arguing). I have already put forth the argument that, because of societal expectations, I believe that men are less likely to admit being abused. So that would be the other proof, that it was reasons besides discrimination against men, which explain why there are so fewer battered mens' shelters, despite this problem of physical abuse, being fairly prevalent, among men.

Actually, this is what I had already predicted, several posts ago: about the influence of societal stereotypes (don't you recall?) Since your original proposition, laid culpability for this discrimination, on Women's Rights, I might as well reiterate, that this Movement cannot be blamed for stereotypes that have existed from time immemorial. And if men don't ask for help, then society cannot be expected to be opening up shelters, for people who will not come to them. IOW, you have actually just disproven your assertion, of anti-male discrimination.



That seems a good place to leave off, in my reply, for now.

 

Imagine! Judging a person based upon what they think rather than how they look! The horror!

 

Wait till we do a poll 10-20 years from now when we see a degrade in success with straight white men and then we say "damn I guess we went too far again!" It's almost as if ****ing with demographics to achieve the impossible goal of equality is an impossibility of which we can never achieve and shouldn't even try.

 

Not upon what they think(because let's be real, you're not looking into the man's ethos), but based on how the female 'feels' about what he thinks. Women by and large aren't majoring in philosophy classes, it's not something that's actually important to them. But if their girlfriends like or dislike a certain social trend, they'll follow along said social trend. it's the whole 'we like humorous guys, but we don't actually date circus clowns'.

And hey, I'm not even hating on it. It's just feminine subjectivity, which makes it difficult in the dating market. Whereas men look for more material things from women, then subjective flimsy things that could change on a moment's notice. Men don't care about how much a woman makes, men don't generally care what a woman's positions are. As long as the woman doesn't invalidate his position, it really doesn't matter. If a woman is agreeable and malleable that's the most important criteria in a relationship.

But unfortunately, women have given up on being agreeable and malleable so current western society as it is, is not worth pursuing.