How is unemployment determined? In the U.S., for example, we don’t include people who have been out of work for a specific amount of time, or people like HOMEMAKERS who list that as their “employment” when filing taxes (even if they would rather/need to be working but can’t find work) because there’s already one income listed for the household. As you can imagine, this makes the unemployment rate of adult women artificially lower.
The gender pay gap in your first chart is quite substantial except in the early adult years. How does this factor over a lifetime of income, in total? Considering the fact that most people earn their highest levels of income at 40+, the slight advantage in young adulthood is probably not enough to compensate.
Oh, and a thought just occurred to me: we don’t need to get into any specific details to break apart Adams’ claim. Despite what TV shows suggest, rapists and murderers are just as likely to have sexual partners as non-violent criminals. Lack of sex is not a factor in violent crime, based on real world statistics.
Not sure if this has been mentioned already, haven’t read the whole thread, but surely it’s often the opposite when it comes to sex and ISIS? A lot of these guys are being given access to sex slaves once they arrive in Syria and Iraq, and a most of the young girls/women who leave the west for there end up being married off to fighters as soon as they arrive.
I’m not sure if was mentioned here, but you are correct.
I truly do not understand his argument. If women being able to say no to sex lead to terrorism wouldn’t we see more of it in western societies? Not the other way around? It makes no sense!!
I’m not sure how this would work. Sex strikes traditionally work where women have little institutional power and men have a direct ability to affect change. While there are instances where a third-party can directly intervene to stop sexual violence, most of the time it happens in private behind closed doors. I’m seriously beginning to doubt that there is much that can be done by any particular measure to end campus sexual violence. I think we’re waiting for a bit of a cultural shift in attitudes, while institutional efforts are somewhat hamstrung.
Cultural shift is also limited: There is evidence that points to a decrease in the number of discussion partners people have. I think this makes it harder to create new norms and social expectations. To be clear, I’m not saying nothing can be done, but I think that the current methods and means of change have exhausted their usefulness somewhat, and I think that Spike Lee’s suggestion speaks to a certain frustration with that fact.
I’m no sociologist and a lot of this is navel-gazing on my part, but while I may not be able to pinpoint the exact problems, I do get a very strong gut sense that people are spinning their wheels in their efforts to combat this problem.
No, I agreed with you on this thread that it shouldn’t be a competition. My comment is not trying to score points, just to point out an important issue.
I’m not saying that men have things worse than women or that it’s just a male problem, I’m talking about specific effects that tend to affect different groups in specific ways. Where employment tends to make up a larger part of men’s identity, job insecurity will have a significant effect on them.
I’ve been arguing throughout this thread that social isolation is a greater problem than sex and there are a number of factors that lead to this. Sex is important, but not that important.
The chart I showed was for jobseeker’s allowance claimants. It is very different from the spreadsheet, so obviously there are other factors and it would be good to look at why such a large difference exists. Unemployed or underemployed women might call themselves homemakers, which masks real problems. Unemployed men are more likely to suffer more complete isolation, as there is still an expectation that they must have a good income to have social value.
As for the gender pay gap, I highly doubt that men get a huge promotion and pay rise at 40, while women remain at the same level. If women have not lost ground by the time their children are more independent, we’re talking about a rolling change to society. This is not a bad thing in itself, but changes have good and bad effects and society is often based on the assumption that the old order is still in place (particularly if people see mostly older men in positions of authority over them).
Rather than asking whether men will become terrorists or not, it’s important to ensure that the needs of society are looked after and everyone has a chance to participate. Ensuring that women are financially independent is a hugely important goal. Ensuring that men find their position in this new society is also vital.
Your first statement contradicts your second, and is sexist to boot. And you can “highly doubt” all you like, but the stats that you brought into this contradict your “beliefs”.
I still don’t understand why you brought this up in a thread about a man being overtly misogynistic and sexist. Its just… weird. Maybe you should have started a new thread? Because bringing up men’s issues in a thread about misogyny is just going to come across badly.
I honestly find it difficult to understand where you’re coming from. There are specific cultural expectations that are different for men and women. This may be sexist, but it’s also reality and it will mean that people tend to approach things like unemployment in different ways.
In any case, is this thread about misogyny? There were ignorant comments about men, sex and violence that Scott made, but I think he was talking more about himself and other “normal boys” than women. I’d have thought discussion about depression, isolation, unemployment and other things that are linked to male violence is on topic.
I disagree. Firstly, men and women are only stereotypes. We might as well be talking about the differences between Lemon People and Lime People (YES - you must be one or the other, because I expect it). Expectations can easily be delusional. In topics where people bash religion, they cherry-pick the other side of the metaphysical line by acknowledging that the institution itself can be “real” while referring to concepts that are beliefs that one need not share. This is the exact same thing. Sure, it is a reality that people often have expectations, but it seems hardly controversial that those expectations themselves have no objective reality, they are social constructs which people use for political reasons - that is, to push for consensus. Since consensus requires our participation and input, I think it’s perfectly legitimate and good critical thinking to consider and state one’s disagreement with social realities which are demonstrably based upon delusion or mere personal ideology presented as fact.
I’m talking about pressure on people to act in certain ways. It’s arbitrary and sexist, but it does tend to affect people. Women are often still expected to have certain attitudes toward sex, to want children, to behave in certain ways. Men also have expectations placed on them, such as the idea that our value is tied to our earning potential and that we have to provide for a family financially. Some men are told that sex is essential. These expectations are being challenged, but they still exist. The fact that people act in very different ways in different cultures suggests that we are not as free as we think and often act in culturally defined ways. It also suggests that we don’t have to resign ourselves to physical and sexual violence, and positive changes are possible.
I have no idea. If your partner doesn’t oppose campus rape or harassment (or worse, participates in it), I don’t see why you should stop at a sex strike. Dump him and/or report him already. If he does oppose it, what other demands do you have and who are you trying to teach a lesson to? This just makes it oppositional when it doesn’t need to be. How about a sex fast where the man shows that he isn’t just ruled by his penis and can wait for positive consent? Without access to sex, men can continue to be normal, respectful people.
When I was working on a Christian ship, we had just over 300 crew members who were mainly college aged, single people (about equal genders) who stayed for about 2 years each. They came from about 40 different countries, including some where there was a higher rate of violence. A few had been rebel soldiers in Papua New Guinea, and our rugby team could hold its own against professionals - it’s not like nobody had any aggression in them. During my three years onboard, I probably got to know about 1000 people, and I know of two times where unmarried people slept together (both times consensually), and one affair (which happened after I left, and was very unusual). People were pretty normal together, and the men weren’t sex-crazed at all. I don’t believe in the power of Jesus, so I have to conclude that young men are able to keep themselves together while in close proximity to women. How to achieve that on campuses is another question…
Spike Lee is highly intelligent and well-read. He used Lysistrata as the classical basis for his new movie. He didn’t just make something up on the spot out of frustration.
