Shadow1980 said:
There are some instances of gender disparities negatively affecting men more so than women, and they do deserve attention regardless of the fact that males utterly dominated Western society until very recently. Men do tend to get longer/harsher sentences than women for the same crime, and that's not right. But is that part of a systemic and proactive anti-male bias in the justice system, or is there something else more prosaic at work? A commenter on an article about this subject had this to say:
Perhaps he makes a valid point that, ironically, it's traditional attitudes regarding gender roles that could be a factor in males getting hit harder by the justice system. Another possible factor is that there are also clear racial biases in sentencing, with minorities, esp. African-Americans, getting far harsher sentencing than whites. If black and Hispanic males got sentences more in line with what white males get, would we see the gender disparity close? I'd like to see another study on the gender gap in criminal punishment that controls for all factors, including race, income, family structure, and so forth, and also tracks these differences over time (if there's still a gender gap in the 1950s when paternalism was still alive and well, then we can probably rule out anti-male bias). There are a ton of variables, and I honestly doubt that there's some anti-male bias in our criminal justice system. Other supposed inequalities, such as only men getting subject to Selective Service or women tending to get child custody more often than their husbands, could also be traced back to traditional societal attitudes on what "appropriate" gender roles were. Until very recently, females were prohibited from front-line duty in the U.S. military, not because we were a matriarchal society that elevated females on a pedestal above men, but because women were not seen as fit to be soldiers. For countless centuries, male-dominated societies considered it an honor and a duty for men to fight for their country. Meanwhile, women were considered too weak both physically and emotionally to be fit for duty, lacking the aggression and killer instinct of a man, and therefore the woman's primary role was, to quote George Carlin, "to serve as a broodmare for the state." Now that women are allowed in front-line combat roles, we could very well see the Selective Service (which is largely pointless anyway since there hasn't been a draft since Vietnam) be altered to where both men and women have to sign up. As for child custody, traditional gender roles dictated that the man was to be the primary breadwinner and the woman was nominally supposed to be a homemaker who raised the kids. Because it was the woman's role to raise the kids, society likely saw it more sensible to give custody to the mother, not because women had a priveleged position in society but because their role as caretaker was dictated to them. Also, the court system doesn't really seem to be playing a significant role in the custody disparity and the disparity may be illusory. I believe in equality under the law, including equality of consequences. What I don't believe is that there is some sort of societal pendulum that shifted the balance of power to where men are where women were in the 50s and vice versa. I also do believe that MRAs are not concerned by notions like equality at all, but rather are simply angry over a perceived loss of men's priveleged position in society and have created a reactionary movement in response. While I am no fan of the more overtly PC forms of feminism (the kind that spend more time and energy complaining about pointless things like fanservice in video games), I do not believe the appropriate response is to engage in overtly hostile misogynism. You don't fight one "extreme" with something even more extreme. Moderation is the true opposite of extremism. MRAs (and associated groups) are anti-woman, plain and simple. Their rhetoric drips with a seething unquenchable loathing for women and anything that has even the slightest whiff of feminism about it. They equate feminism in all its forms with "misandry." They rail against the imaginary bogeyman of "cultural Marxism." They label anyone who disagrees with them as "white-knighting beta cuck bluepill manginas" or whatever other string of slurs from their own glossary they can think of. On the rare occasion they bring up a legitimate issue, they frame in a way that to an outside observer it would seem like more anti-woman propaganda. It's a movement that lacks credibility and does not deserve to be taken seriously. Whether it's the various "manosphere" bloggers and message board dwellers or more prominent people like RooshV, Vox Day, and the hack "journalists" at Breitbart, there's little to nothing coming out of that side that possesses any merit. This is why I hate both sides in the Gamergate "debate." On one side you have so-called "SJWs" like Anita Sarkeesian (GG's public enemy #1) who spend most of their time complaining about fanservice in video games, while the loudest and most numerous voices on the other side are the gaggle of MRAs that infest the internet. They're opposite sides of the same insufferable coin. That's not to say I prescribe any sort of moral equivalence between the two, and I will say I tend to despise MRAs more than "SJWs." If one were to rank the list of things that hurt women, jiggle physics and skimpy swimwear in a niche Japanese volleyball game wouldn't even qualify, and the fact that some feminist gamers & game critics make a big deal over such things is simply mind-numbing in how asinine it is. I think there's just as much room for pointless fanservice as there is for strong female protagonists. But I have seen little to nothing to suggest any actively malicious behaviors or attitudes. They're just obnoxious. When I first heard of Anita Sarkeesian, I decided to see what the big deal was and watched her so-called "review" of Bayonetta. I just rolled my eyes, clicked away from the video after it was over, and went on with my day. It's hardly worth getting riled up over if some random vlogger who thought a niche video game was supposedly sexist. Meanwhile, I've seen mostly a bunch of MRA-style ranting and seedy and even sometimes malicious behavior (threats, harassment, vaguely anti-Semitic propaganda) from the GG side. Considering that these same people were railing against feminists like Sarkeesian long before the hashtag was a thing, I have my doubts that lofty notions like "ethics in game journalism" was ever really a priority for the vast majority of GG's base. The (as-yet unproven) allegations against Zoe Quinn by her ex just provided them more ammo to continue their crusade against feminism and an opportunity to give themselves a name. Their actions have succeeded in little else but reinforcing the stereotype of gamers being mostly a bunch of misogynistic frat boys. Had they just kept their damn mouths shut, then people like Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu wouldn't have the prominent public platform they have, and the backlash against fanservice in video games might not be a thing. They turned a no-name vlogger and a couple of no-name indie devs into household names amongst gamers. They created their own Frankenstein's monster, they opened Pandora's box, and now we're starting to see the (presently mild but still incredibly annoying) consequences. It's like they never heard of the Streisand effect. If the movement ever had noble intentions, it took the certain segments of the internet all of five minutes to hijack it and turn it into a haven for MRAs. Excessive political correctness sucks. MRAs and other manosphere denizens suck. Moral guardians of any political stripe suck. If large bouncing bosoms in a video game offends you, keep it to yourself. If feminism offends you, keep it to yourself. You do not have the right to go through life without being exposed to images, concepts, and ideas that offend you. You may have a legal right to complain about things that annoy you, but you do not have a moral right to be an insufferable asshole about it. |
Great post.
*liked*
