Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #reversesexism more → 
"Men In Power": A Student Group Combats "Reverse Sexism"
New York, 2:40 PM
Tue Dec 22
61 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan Morrissey
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
| posts about #reversesexism more → |
"Men In Power": A Student Group Combats "Reverse Sexism" |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/28/09
Even with talk of "reverse discrimination" and "access to women" it's hard for me to get offended because I keep imagining their meetings as a group of guys sitting around, complaining about the cancellation of Psycho Dad.
05/28/09
It's a theory.
05/28/09
05/28/09
It's true, it hurts us all, and those who can't see it (like these dudes) are the ones it hurts the most.
05/28/09
And yet, for whatever reason: For most of recorded history, the Purples owned all the land, controlled all the resources, and made all the decisions. The Blues were expected to quietly align themselves with the Purples and live under their rules. After some time had passed, the Blues (and some blueminist Purples) decided that this really wasn't fair.
Blues were just as smart, just as determined, and just as capable as the Purples, after all; they deserved just as much of a chance as the Purples, didn't they? And so Blues gradually began to make headway in the quest for equality. New rules were made to make it easier for Blues to succeed in areas that had been previously dominated by Purples.
But some Purples were very dissatisfied. "This isn't fair! Why should we make it easier for Blues?" they shouted. "You don't understand how hard it is to be Purple! This is awful! We Purples are so disadvantaged now!"
"Are you kidding?" said the Blues. "You guys ran everything since the dawn of time, and now finally we're getting a crack at it and it's not fair to YOU?"
And so the whiny Purples stayed on the island and got all shrivelled-up and bitter, and the progressive Purples and the newly-liberated Blues found their own island and lived happily and respected each other. The end.
05/28/09
05/28/09
1. people that didn't understand why they needed a group and
2. white men who are under the impression that "women arrived 20 years ago" in business and would make more money if men got to be "at home playing DAD" or if they stopped "only getting jobs in low-paying fields"...
I think I blew a secret aneurism in my brain and now will die quietly in my sleep from the stupid.
05/28/09
05/28/09
I think the comment he made about wanting to see more men in student leadership positions touches on that disparity.
05/28/09
Further, undergrad enrollment isn't, at the moment, a predictor of how well women will do in postgraduate work or, for that matter, professional life. If you look at academia, for example, women are vastly in the minority when it comes to holding tenured positions; the disparity becomes greater when it comes to the sciences. People of color, and women of color particularly, are eve more dramatically underrepresented. I imagine the same holds true for the upper echelons of law and business.
So I'd say the mens are safe, for the time being.
05/28/09
05/28/09
When boys are now lagging behind, it's because they 'can't get their act together?'
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
[www.chicagomaroon.com]
it's a joke.
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
The interesting bit in the story is about how this got started. It almost sounds like his original idea (in a column in the campus paper) was satirical, but then he got emails from guys on campus saying they thought it was a great idea. Does that mean these men want to have more purpose? Or just that they're pissed that women appear to have more purpose (and dudes therefore perceive there is less purpose left over for them)? I suppose the crap economy and looming joblessness don't make life fun for college upperclassmen these days, but still, IMO the wider ability to make something of your life is not a zero-sum game.
05/28/09
05/28/09
Also, please talk to men who have lost their wives to breast cancer before you lump Breast Cancer Awareness groups into women's groups, thankyouverymuch.
05/28/09
05/28/09
He said the group would host pre-professional groups in law, medicine and business, foster ties with alumni, bring in speakers to discuss masculinity and mentor local middle school students as part of its "Little Men in Power" program.
OK, great. By "local middle school students," does he mean students from the U of C Lab School or students from the rest of the community? Because if it's the latter, then that's actually one extremely positive thing they can be doing.
The rest of it? Bullshit.
05/28/09
And I forgot to mention that they might want to rename the "Little Men in Power" program if they want to market it to middle schoolers...
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
Are you a mad scientist, Sadie?
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
While it is true that women face a lot more in-your-face discrimination than men, why is it okay to ignore the fact that more girls than boys do better in school and get into good colleges? Why is it okay that the law helps single moms, but ignores and often harms single dads? (for example, in Mexico it is illegal for a single dad to take his kids to a government-sponsored daycare, because it is a service for single mothers only) Why is it okay to fire a man because he is a single dad (and is therefore "not commited to the job"), but it is a felony to do the exact same thing to a woman? I'm not saying single moms should be fired too, but that we all need to realize that gender-based inequality affects EVERYONE. Maybe, just maybe, this organization wants to show the other point of view, which, believe it or not, WILL speak up at some point. The "lol men are just sore because women are taking over" argument is about as lame as "the deer don't complain when they're hunted, so they must enjoy it".
05/28/09
05/28/09
Women choose more flexible jobs (which tend to come with lower pay) because the burden for juggling work and family has traditionally fallen on woman, not men. As Gloria Steinem said, "I have yet to hear a man ask how to balance career and family." That is changing slowly, but is largely still true.
By the way, when women take time off to raise children, they lose a LOT of money - if you have several children, that adds up over a lifetime. That, along with the already existing pay gap, keeps women behind men in almost every field.
I don't know about that Mexico reference - I'll take your word for it, but no daycare would turn down a single dad in the US. They sure see fewer dads than moms dropping off their kids, though.
I completely agree that dads should be given leave, and that we should have state sponsored daycare that assists all parents. More and more dads want to be primary or equal caregivers, which I think is wonderful. The problem that women have always faced, though, is that this juggling act was considered to be women's work since, oh, the beginning of time. That's a problem, and not one that men have had to handle.
05/28/09
I'd also encourage you to read the comments before making sweeping generalizations about what other people are saying.
05/28/09
Another reference I could think of was in the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness", where Will Smith wants to go into a homeless shelter with his son, and the woman there is like "sorry, but this is just for MOTHERS and their children". I understand that maybe there aren't enough single fathers to need a shelter for themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that an unnecessary burden ("You are a single dad, and therefore you SHOULD be able to take care of yourself and your kid") is being placed on them.
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09