Sexism Against Men

[Starfe]

I did watch the video, despite it being from the Amazing Atheist. Being trained as a historian I like to look at the documents I am given before making judgement calls on the topics they address. This is a case where I already had an opinion, so I didn't really do that. For that I apologize. Now I will look at the information we received which actually created this discussion.

Like most things from The Amazing Atheist, there is a significant use of rhetorical devices and the story, the actual happenings, are only a footnote compared to the inferences and assumptions that TAA makes in his video. After watching the video I looked around on the internet a bit to get some more information about the situation. In finding articles from various news sources, like this one from the source TAA himself is citing (http://www.fox4now.com/news/local/South ... 76931.html). Now, in looking at TAA's actual source for his ire, we get a hell of a lot more information about the situation than he lets on, because sharing that information might damage his argument. This is something I teach in my class when I am teaching students about rhetoric. Only use counter-claims that you are sure you can refute. TAA knows this.

From this source I confirmed that the man doesn't have insurance, which is the reason he is seeking out a free examination. Not only that, but the man in question was eventually able to get an appointment for an exam through funding from the Susan G. Komen organization, which, for all its flaws, is dedicated to improving women's health. So the situation basically plays out like this.

1. Man lives in America, has no insurance.
2. Man has lump in breast.
3. Man goes to various health organizations seeking a free/discounted breast exam during breast cancer awareness month.
4. Man is declined a few times.
5. Man gets appointment for free/discounted breast exam funded by women's health non-profit.
6. ???
7. Sexism!

Okay okay, that last bit is a little shitty for me to throw in. But the essential issue I'm getting at here is that the story that brought on this conversation, the source you are citing, is a pretty weak one. Not only did the figure in the event receive exactly what he was looking for, he received it from a Women's Health Non-Profit. So citing this as an example of sexism against men just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In addition, this whole situation only occurred because the United States lacks an equitable, or even functional, health care system, which requires non-profit organizations to fill in the gaps wherever possible. This would not have happened in any other modern, industrialized, nation. So this piece of evidence shows us only that getting health care in the United States is hard, because if this situation was moved to another country with a similar culture of sexism, like say Canada or England, this man would have had other systems to fall back on before trying to get health assistance through organizations that are set up almost entirely to assist women. The issue here is not that women's health initiatives turned him down because he is a man, the issue is that he had to go to them at all. And even then, he was able to get help that way. The Amazing Atheist video that is the only source you have cited to prove your point is a bad source. It misuses its own sources, and misleads people who don't look further. If you look further than that cynical prat's videos you will see that this wasn't about sexism. Its a few mistakes followed by the desired outcome.

So, we know that this isn't a particularly good example, because the problem isn't an issue of sex so much as it is an issue of poverty and failed social welfare systems causing non-profit or private organizations to have to fill in the gaps. So imagine you are running a non-profit for breast cancer assistance. Every October you pay doctors to give breast exams that they wouldn't ordinarily be able to give because the patients can't pay, and don't have insurance. This means that you have limited resources with which to procure these examinations, for which you fund-raised throughout the rest of the year. You know, because the CDC told you, that in 2009, the most recent year we have data for, in the United States there were 213,732 people diagnosed with breast cancer. Of those people, 2001 of them were men. If we're a little nice with our numbers, this means about 1% of diagnoses were men. Furthermore, 41076 people died of breast cancer in 2009, of which 400 were men. Meaning that a similarly small percentage, a little under 1% again, of deaths from breast cancer were men. There are further uses for these statistics, but for our purposes this is how we will use them. 1% of breast cancer diagnoses are men. The other 99% are women. If you run what amounts to a charity and give out free/discounted breast exams it would behoove you to be very careful about giving examinations to men. Its not at all surprising that this man was rejected so many times before he was eventually given an exam, because the time it takes just to give a simple mammogram would have been statistically wasted on a man. I hate to use such a utilitarian argument, and say that this man didn't deserve a free exam because the likelihood that he had breast cancer was so low, but because that is the only source you have provided, albeit through hearsay, I have to address this issue for what it is. This is an issue of statistics, an issue of health care, not an issue of sexism. I would like to live in a world where this doesn't happen. And thats not necessarily a world without sexism, because the only thing that went wrong in this situation was a failed health care system, and some pro-bono programs being perhaps overly cautious with their resources. Sure, the guy should of received an exam, and he eventually did, but I cant argue with the statistics that say it would be a better use of limited resources to give that exam to a woman.

[Reynard-Miri]

[noodles]

that's someone not being able to express their identity because people want them to wear something else. that's terrible, but a separate issue. girls wear what people WANT them to and STILL get assaulted. I know girls who basically bundle up in the summer so dudebros in public don't be like AWOOO AYO GIRL, YOU GOT A BOYFRIEN?? LEMME KNOW WEN YOU WANT A MANFRIEN

Kino had to deal with that kind of shit regularly whenever she would bike to work, and I can only imagine what she'd be saying in here lol

[Reynard-Miri]

So to be clear, you are in fact admitting that there is oppression of the male populace and that it is a terrible thing, right?

On the subject of catcalling: This strikes me as a form of bullying. Let's be clear, bullying is fucking terrible. Anyway, I figure that the two may share a similar root. Does this sound reasonable? I'd like to follow that train of thought, but I don't really feel sure enough in it to argue its validity.

[Archaic Sage]

So how's catcalling any different from women lusting after firemen and policemen? They call out to them and in groups go amd ask for their phone numbers. It's the same, but it's socially acceptable... apparently.

[noodles]

[Reynard-Miri]

Um, you can't take off your uniform while you're on the job, Noodles. That's why they are uniforms. Also, I'm pretty sure Archaic is saying it's inappropriate, so I don't know where you're going with the "it's an ego boost at first, but".

[noodles]

it sounded more like he was justifying it by saying it was socially acceptable

[Archaic Sage]

Women lust after men in uniform. It's a known thing. In fact, there's even a datinf website in the UK called uniformdating.com especially for this.

The diet coke advert I posted preciously is women lusting after men.

Maybe Christian America is a little slow with the change but in the UK women are jusy as lustful and as likely to call you out on it. Even women going on about how nice a guys arse is to their face or to their girlfriends is the same thing.

It's just fine for women to do that. Not OK for men. The double standard is unacceptable. Personally I have no issue with men lusting after women and vice versa so long as they back off when told where to go.

I've personally been woolf whistled by women in the street, and men for that matter. Whilst is annoying, it's by no means the ens of the world. However, I do not accept the double standard that the media have poisoned us all with - sexism isn't one sided and it's certainly no loner inherently aimed at women. In fact I'd argue the 9-12 months women get off legally in the UK after pregnancy should either be split in two with the man, or the man should get the same opportunity to bond with their child.

[Reynard-Miri]

[noodles]

[Reynard-Miri]

I agree completely, Noodles.

Is anyone else bothered that no women have posted in this thread?

[noodles]

there was a point when the majority of active users were female

[Starfe]

[Reynard-Miri]

Honestly, at the time I had not realized that Archaic's first post on the subject was Archaic and not Maxine. Somehow. And since that post wasn't in this thread at the time, your statement would have technically been correct even if I hadn't been mistaken.

But also, that was still in the first 12 hours of the discussion. (Technically right outside.)