Decline of Dressing Well & Women's Lib?

[Brian278]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

First, discrimination is discrimination. No "reverse" about it. Second, you are quite incorrect in just about everything else I have quoted. Men are more often assaulted, murdered, and raped (yes raped) than women in the United States. Women now make up a majority of not only undergrads, but also law and medicine. I have not seen stats on b-school, but suspect men still dominate MBAs.
Are we sure that prison is not skewing these statistics? I am mostly serious about this. I am also fairly certain that men still make more on average than women of the same occupations, and that (and this goes with your MBA suspicion) men still dominate corporate America at the executive level. These seem to me to be more important barometers than the gender balance of current law or med students. I am not particularly a fan of feminism (nor am I a fan of the over-promotion of some traditionally male values) but I would have a hard time concluding that women have a truly equal playing field in the majority of job-related issues.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Brian278

Are we sure that prison is not skewing these statistics? I am mostly serious about this. I am also fairly certain that men still make more on average than women of the same occupations, and that (and this goes with your MBA suspicion) men still dominate corporate America at the executive level. I am not particularly a fan of feminism (nor am I a fan of the over-promotion of some traditionally male values) but I would have a hard time concluding that women have a truly equal playing field in the vast majority of job-related issues.
Well yeah, take prison out and women win the **** battle. Still, you get sentenced to do time, not take in in the pucker. I am a huge fan of feminism. I think women and men are equals. I am a huge enemy of the militant gender feminists that maintain men and women are not equals. I think adjusted for the skads of extra time off, both time off from a job and time out for a career break, women earn almost as much as men in most areas. I think, adjusted for the above, women should earn what men do, but things are getting pretty damn close. Yes, men still dominate Board rooms. Do not forget though, this is the pinnacle of a career. Also, only the most driven and dedicated end up in Board rooms (usually). It is hard to take a few years off to enjoy having a baby and be that peerless person that hits the Board room. Not impossible, just hard. My wife, and we have no kids, has surpassed 99% of her peers career wise. I think there is a correlation. I bet women with kept men proceed at the same pace my wife has. Just a guess though.

 

[Roger]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

First, discrimination is discrimination. No "reverse" about it. Second, you are quite incorrect in just about everything else I have quoted. Men are more often assaulted, murdered, and raped (yes raped) than women in the United States. Women now make up a majority of not only undergrads, but also law and medicine. I have not seen stats on b-school, but suspect men still dominate MBAs.
Actually, I wasn't responding to anything you said, as I didn't take your post very seriously--it just seemed like a sarcastic attempt at humor.

However, since you have made a rather dubious and ultimately pointless socio-demographic assertion, let's examine it. Of course, men are more often assaulted and murdered than women--after all, man-on-man crime is by far the most common form of these offenses! And, as noted, your **** statistics (if any actually exist) will be phenomenally skewed by the prison factor. So, it would seem that your points are pretty well irrelevant. Let's consider these crimes when a man and a woman are involved (we are, after all, discussing the genders here, aren't we?). In any domestic-violence context, women are roughly 9 times more likely to be injured or murdered in such a context than are men. (Those are the most recent figures available from Statistics Canada, and I imagine pretty similar to those for the US.) And ****--well, I guess we know who is the more likely to be raped in such a context! So, for the non-criminal citizenry, who is safer--men or women?

As for my choice of terms, "reverse discrimination" is, of course, discrimination (no one was arguing the opposite). It is, however, quite common usage to refer to discrimination that is in the opposite direction to that in the past as "reverse discrimination"--the "reverse" applying to the direction of the discrimination (a reversal from former patterns), not somehow suggesting that it is the "reverse" of discrimination.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Roger

Actually, I wasn't responding to anything you said, as I didn't take your post very seriously--it just seemed like a sarcastic attempt at humor.

However, since you have made a rather dubious and ultimately pointless socio-demographic assertion, let's examine it. Of course, men are more often assaulted and murdered than women--after all, man-on-man crime is by far the most common form of these offenses! And, as noted, your **** statistics (if any actually exist) will be phenomenally skewed by the prison factor. So, it would seem that your points are pretty well irrelevant. Let's consider these crimes when a man and a woman are involved (we are, after all, discussing the genders here, aren't we?). In any domestic-violence context, women are roughly 9 times more likely to be injured or murdered in such a context than are men. (Those are the most recent figures available from Statistics Canada, and I imagine pretty similar to those for the US.) And ****--well, I guess we know who is the more likely to be raped in such a context! So, for the non-criminal citizenry, who is safer--men or women?

As for my choice of terms, "reverse discrimination" is, of course, discrimination (no one was arguing the opposite). It is, however, quite common usage to refer to discrimination that is in the opposite direction to that in the past as "reverse discrimination"--the "reverse" applying to the direction of the discrimination (a reversal from former patterns), not somehow suggesting that it is the "reverse" of discrimination.

I love that suddenly you have to parse man on man crime out of statistics to make your claims valid. Why would you marginalize any victim of crime? Seems both senseless and heartless to me. Also, while it is too late for me tonight to mess around with Stats Can and such, check out Christi Todd-Whitman's book, "Who Stole Feminism". In it she sheds many of these myths and also quotes a Stats Can study showing women initiate domestic violence at about equal rates to men, 49/51 if memory serves.

We should probably move this to the CEsspool. If you are up to sifting through Stats Can tonight, please post what you find, I'm interested.

 

[Roger]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

I love that suddenly you have to parse man on man crime out of statistics to make your claims valid. Why would you marginalize any victim of crime? Seems both senseless and heartless to me..
That's silly. What is really being taken out of your original vague assertion is criminal on criminal violence (something vastly more prevalent among men than women). It is not these instances of violence that have any relevance for the issue at hand. Although the claim that marginalization is taking place is a little goofy, at most it could, perhaps (by stretching things a lot) be said that criminals are being "marginalized."

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Also, while it is too late for me tonight to mess around with Stats Can and such, check out Christi Todd-Whitman's book, "Who Stole Feminism". In it she sheds many of these myths and also quotes a Stats Can study showing women initiate domestic violence at about equal rates to men, 49/51 if memory serves.
I didn't know that Christine Todd Whitman had written a book about feminism or domestic violence; God knows she's hardly qualified to do so. I had thought that she was a somewhat tainted fallen head of the EPA whose political philosophy was somewhat opaque. In any case, she is not a scholar in this area and any "shredding [I assume you meant "shredding," not "shedding"] of myths," as you put it, is little more than preaching to a very small choir. The people who really study these issues know better than to waste their time on the politically-motivated writings of amateurs. There is some science on this issue, and my university colleague, Don Dutton, has written several scholarly books, and numerous academic articles, on domestic violence. Don's view--supported by a little research carried out by one of his graduate students and himself--is that the incidence of initiation of domestic violence by women is higher than previously thought (whether it's 49/51 or not I can't say, but nor are the precise percentages very relevant), but the undeniable, empirical fact is that, despite who starts it, the person who ends up beaten to a pulp or dead is 9 times more likely to be a woman than a man.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

We should probably move this to the CEsspool. If you are up to sifting through Stats Can tonight, please post what you find, I'm interested.
Despite my postings in this thread, I'm not that interested in taking the time to debate further the societal effects of feminism. The original thesis was that feminism has accounted for a decline in men's dress. I disagree with this thesis, and I've given my reasons above. I'm not really interested in further debate about it, but please feel free to respond to this my last post in this thread.

 

[tiecollector]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

I am strongly inclined to agree with Celery. Without citing examples and wishing to belabor the point at length, I think within my lifetime there has been an enormous trend in American culture certainly and probably Western culture generally to downgrade men, maleness and masculinity and exalt women at the expense of men. We're the apes, they're the angels. This has seemed very obvious to me for many years. And if the culture at large tells men they are apes, they will probably start dressing like apes, at least if apes could dress themselves.
The downfall of modern western man is multi-faceted. A book could be written on it, and maybe someone should write one, but I think it comes down to jobs disappearing at an alarming rate (less money to spend) and ridiculously low standards set in society and by public role-models. I don't think womyn's libbers really "reinvented" men as a slob overnight consciously, but it most certainly played an indirect role at least. I think one of the reasons men dressed well to begin with was to impress women and increase your standing in society to make yourself a better catch. With all the sleeping around we see today, you can wear whatever you want to get laid. This is strongly because of libbers and the homosexual agenda. In the 60s, with all the "free love" and drugs, people were too warped to care about how they looked. Once women were publicly encouraged to sleep around and the media complex started promoting it, standards in society took a huge dip. Women also started trying to wear the pants and become men and we get the t-shirt and jeans androgyny that we see today. Women now no longer know how to look feminine and men don't need to grow up past being a boy. My tailors all blame the hippies for the downfall of America. All those self-hating stoners eventually grew up and became the role models that we see today. When the bar is set that low, it doesn't give much hope. Also, people want to be comfortable, and I think largely because they are all getting so fat. Why are people getting fat? Because junk science and profitable processed junk food is the only thing convenient. With the PC Police, we can't tell anyone they look like a slob so more and more people start to join in the slobfest. The PC Police were certainly aided by womyn's lib as well. Declining standards and pure ignorance is all I can say. No home-econ in schools so chicks know how to mix every cocktail but can't make toast. No classes about how to dress or have nice handwriting in school because it's more useful to learn how to put a condom on a cucumber. Attention to detail has been lost.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Women now make up a majority of not only undergrads, but also law and medicine. I have not seen stats on b-school, but suspect men still dominate MBAs.
This is from a combination of affirmative action and schools racing to cram as many people into desks as can possibly fit for bigger profits. My PhD friends all act like PhDs are being handed out these days like toilet paper.

 

[Augusto86]

Originally Posted by tiecollector

The downfall of modern western man is multi-faceted. A book could be written on it, and maybe someone should write one, but I think it comes down to jobs disappearing at an alarming rate (less money to spend) and ridiculously low standards set in society and by public role-models.

I don't think womyn's libbers really "reinvented" men as a slob overnight consciously, but it most certainly played an indirect role at least. I think one of the reasons men dressed well to begin with was to impress women and increase your standing in society to make yourself a better catch. With all the sleeping around we see today, you can wear whatever you want to get laid. This is strongly because of libbers and the homosexual agenda.

In the 60s, with all the "free love" and drugs, people were too warped to care about how they looked. Once women were publicly encouraged to sleep around and the media complex started promoting it, standards in society took a huge dip. Women also started trying to wear the pants and become men and we get the t-shirt and jeans androgyny that we see today. Women now no longer know how to look feminine and men don't need to grow up past being a boy.

My tailors all blame the hippies for the downfall of America. All those self-hating stoners eventually grew up and became the role models that we see today. When the bar is set that low, it doesn't give much hope.

Also, people want to be comfortable, and I think largely because they are all getting so fat. Why are people getting fat? Because junk science and profitable processed junk food is the only thing convenient. With the PC Police, we can't tell anyone they look like a slob so more and more people start to join in the slobfest. The PC Police were certainly aided by womyn's lib as well.

Declining standards and pure ignorance is all I can say. No home-econ in schools so chicks know how to mix every cocktail but can't make toast. No classes about how to dress or have nice handwriting in school because it's more useful to learn how to put a condom on a cucumber. Attention to detail has been lost.




This is from a combination of affirmative action and schools racing to cram as many people into desks as can possibly fit for bigger profits. My PhD friends all act like PhDs are being handed out these days like toilet paper.

And get off his lawn!!!

Sorry, I agree with some of your points but I think you take others too far. The sexual revolution, in particular, I have no problem with - I'd rather know how to use a condom than make toast!!

 

[tiecollector]

Originally Posted by Augusto86

And get off his lawn!!!

Sorry, I agree with some of your points but I think you take others too far. The sexual revolution, in particular, I have no problem with - I'd rather know how to use a condom than make toast!!


Some of the revolution stuff probably started out alright but it got out of hand. The environmental revolution in moderation is a good thing but this global warming (soon to be just 'climate change') religion is a bit much, etc


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[mr.loverman]

Originally Posted by Wrenkin

I see, so you lump all these "feminists" together when it suits your purpose (they don't like sports, and they question your (because you dress well) masculinity), but you're more than happy to differentiate when it suits your purpose (you find some of them attractive, specifically those that agree with you).

Seriously, this is so good you have to be making this up.

Anyway, I think it's best when clothes forums stick to clothes. It's like whenever the Republican party comes up in the Trad forum at AA. I would have really liked to believe that their clothing choices were by and large not motivated by their hatred of "hippies".

wrenkin, you are a smelly hippy aren't you?

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by Roger

In any domestic-violence context, women are roughly 9 times more likely to be injured or murdered in such a context than are men. (Those are the most recent figures available from Statistics Canada, and I imagine pretty similar to those for the US.)

Actually, when I was looking into these matters some years ago, when it came to actual spousal homicides in the USA, the two sexes were surprisingly close to parity: I think the figure was somewhere around 60-40. White men killed their wives with somewhat greater frequency, but the "sistahs" even up the score, killing black men with almost the same frequency as black men killed them.

I have long thought in these cases of domestic violence in which women are injured or killed that in the vast majority of them they had probably provoked their men beyond endurance. Women rely heavily on the strong cultural prohibitions against men initiating violence against women to engage in endless nastiness and provocations that we would never endure from another man. I believe that it is a strong testimonial to the inherent good naturedness of most men that there is so little violence against women.

 

[SoSoCal]

There is much credence to the original argument that the feminist movement's role in defining 'maleness' has been significant.

One interesting example I can give to add weight to this argument is that of my trips to South Asia. In northern Pakistan especially, a totally hypermasculine culture, the standard of grooming and dressing for men is on par with, if not higher than, women.

For example, it's common practice to make sure one's 'kheri' (leather sandal) is polished, the clothing [an interesting mix of English influence due to colonization and local dress] MUST be pressed and facial hair must be in line before one leaves the house in the morning. There is much more that I can go on about... for example, the existence of Men's salons every 5 miles that offer things like traditional single blade shaves, grooming, facials.. the things one would expect at an expensive GQ featured Men's salon in Soho.

Furthermore, men's dress in Southern Pakistani cities such as Karachi [heavily westernized culturally] tends to be a near emulation of the things we are discussing in this thread.

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by Roger

JLibourel, I don't mean this personally (i.e., that it applies in your case), but it has been my observation that very often men who have this view have had a lack of success with women or have experienced rejection by them. I wouldn't elevate this to an hypothesis, but this has been my observation.

Well, since I didn't marry my high school sweetheart and live happily ever after (just as well, given the fact I went to an all-male school), nor was I ever so sexually charismatic that I could nail every woman I wanted and always be the one who terminated the relationship, it follows that I have experienced "rejection" from women on occasion--been turned down for dates, stood up, or had women break off the relationship. I suspect at least 95% of the heterosexual male population has been similarly "rejected" at some point in their careers. So what does your "observation" prove?

 

[RatherAnOddball]

Bad form on Roger's part to have a go at a fellow's past rather than focusing on the logic of the argument he's faced with.