This is a chapter-by-chapter summary of Discrimination Against Men: Appearance and Causes in the Context of a Modern Welfare State, a 2009 doctoral dissertation by Pasi Malmi (University of Lapland) that provides an impressively detailed and balanced investigation of discrimination against men in Finland (the theory and results actually give almost as much detail on discrimination against women, although men will be the focus here).
Chapters 5 to 8 are the most critical. Chapter 5 explains six biases that cause gender discrimination, chapter 6 delineates the patriarchal and matriarchal subsystems of Finnish society, chapter 7 examines the various discourses that justify discrimination against men, and chapter 8 analyzes a database of gender discrimination complaints made to the Finnish gender equality ombudsman, a third of which were made by men.
Continue reading “Comprehensive Research on Discrimination Against Men in Finland”
The average man lives significantly fewer years in retirement than the average woman. This happens because men have a lower life expectancy than women in practically every country in the world, and because the age of retirement is higher for men than women in some countries (counter-intuitively, given the life expectancy gap).
Continue reading “Men Live 79% as Many Years in Retirement as Women”
There are disturbing trends of male underachievement in employment and education that, if left to continue, will leave men in a very bad place. Economist Larry Summers estimates that by 2050, more than 1 in 3 men aged 25-54 will be out of work in America (compared to 1 in 10 in the 1970s). The BBC reports that current trends in Britain suggest that a girl born in 2016 will be 75% more likely to go to university than a boy. Hillary Clinton might just be right when she said that “the future is female”.
Continue reading ““The Future is Female”: The Bleak Outlook for Male Employment and Education”
The typical method of dismissing sexism against men is to say it isn’t “institutional”. This usually means claiming that prejudice and discrimination against men occur as isolated events by individuals, without backing of institutional power, and with limited ability to do harm. A clear counterexample is that the criminal justice system is more severe on men than on women in numerous ways, including likelihood of arrest, chance of pretrial detention, bail amount, and chance and length of jail-time. And many are calling for even more special concern and treatment for women in the justice system.
Continue reading “Justice System Discrimination and the Myth That Sexism Against Men Isn’t “Institutional””
News organizations and human rights groups reporting on tragic events commonly single out the victimization of certain groups (based on gender, nationality, religion, age, etc.) as especially noteworthy. Sometimes this is based on the circumstances of the incident, like if a group is disproportionately targeted or affected (“Gunmen shot dead 11 people, mostly Christians, in central Syria on Saturday”). Other times it is based on properties of the group, such as if they’re more relatable to the audience (“At least 2 Americans among the dead in Nice, France attack” in an American outlet).
Singling out “women and children” is especially common in this reporting. Sometimes it happens when they’re disproportionately affected (“Dozens killed in Aleppo; mostly women and children among the dead”), but even when men are disproportionately affected—which is very often—it’s still generally “women and children” whose victimization is singled out. I consider this an example of male disposability and finding the suffering/death of men less distressing than that of women (and children).
Continue reading “Men’s Lives Matter Less? “Among the Dead Were Women and Children””
Men’s and women’s reproductive systems are different, and so a full discussion of reproductive rights needs to take into account each gender’s unique concerns. Being the ones to carry the child gives women unique concerns involving the physical/medical consequences of pregnancy, but not being the ones to carry the child gives men unique concerns as well, namely paternal uncertainty—men are at a natural disadvantage when it comes to knowing if the child is theirs. This page looks into how big of a problem this is, and what we can do to address this unique reproductive concern for men.
Continue reading “Paternity Fraud as a Violation of Men’s Reproductive Rights?”
Title IX (of the Education Amendments of 1972) prohibits discrimination based on sex at federally-funded educational institutions in the United States. Historically most known for ensuring equality between male and female athletics programs, in August of 2011 it was invoked to apply a new policy for sexual assault to all federally-funded universities and colleges. The “dear colleague” letter (pdf) from the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education under the Obama administration defines acts of sexual violence (rape, sexual assault, etc.) as “discrimination based on sex”. Among other policies, this letter mandates that universities and colleges (if they want to keep federal funding) investigate claims of sexual assault made by students and apply the “preponderance of evidence” standard when determining guilt.
Continue reading “Title IX and Low Standards of Evidence for Campus Sexual Assault”
Male disposability is our society’s tendency to have less concern for the safety and well-being of men than of women. The concept is central to many men’s advocates’ critiques of society similarly to how women’s traditional lack of access to power (and their current lower levels of participation in it) is central to most feminist critiques of society. This page is a primer on male disposability: what it means (and doesn’t mean), the evidence for its existence, whether it should exist, etc.
(Cet article est également disponible en français.)
Continue reading “Defining, Demonstrating, and Understanding Male Disposability”
One of the ugliest elements of the social justice left (which has influenced our broader culture, including media norms and even government policies) is a belief in different standards of treatment for different demographic groups. Men, white people, straight people, and other “privileged” groups are seen as acceptable targets for a range of treatment (from insulting jokes to actual discrimination) that would not be considered acceptable for sympathy-worthy groups like women, racial minorities, and LGBT people. Conversely, those sympathy-worthy groups are treated as protected classes, and treatment of them is scrutinized for any small “microaggression”.
Being expected to deal with different standards of treatment is, I believe, a major reason for people in “privileged” groups becoming disillusioned with the social justice left. It also has implications for our perception of the prevalence of bigotry or mistreatment. If the same treatment targeted at women is sexism, targeted at black people is racism, but targeted at men is not sexism, then claims that sexism against men “obviously” isn’t common are (at least partially) artifacts of labeling decisions rather than reality.
Continue reading “Social Justice’s Punching Bags and Protected Classes”
The courts have properly determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one, should she so choose. Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support.
That’s according to Karen DeCrow, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) from 1974 to 1979. “Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.”
Continue reading “The Legal Paternal Surrender FAQ”