Friday, February 8, 2013

Sex-selective abortion, drunk dads and CEOs

Twitter has once again proved to be the genius hangout for modern philosophers today.

A trending tag was  #INeedMasculismBecause, presumably in response to #INeedFeminismBecause.

The funny thing is that both tags are populated by 'feminists' with horrible arguments.

Here's one from our friend Adam Lee:
#INeedMasculismBecause China and India have 75 million more men than women, and that's not nearly enough.
Oh, sex-selective abortion. We can blame that on the men's rights activists, right?

Natalie Reed adds:
#INeedMasculismBecause My custody rights got taken away! Because of my drinki--- I mean, because I'M A MAN!
Adam Lee continues:
#INeedMasculismBecause I'm oppressed by the overwhelming 17% of congresspeople and 4% of Fortune 500 CEOs who are women.

Lots to parse in here.

As an aside - what is masculism? I don't remember anybody actually referring to themselves using that word.

Sex-selective abortion

Adam Lee has really gone off his rocker to blame MRAs (men's rights activists, an initialism for evildoers in some circles) for sex-selective abortion in China.

One thing that is most ironic about this claim is that feminists, rightly enough, claim abortion rights without exceptions.
"My body, my choice, unless a licensed medical profession has identified the fetus as female."
Said no one ever.

The second (or five hundredth) thing that makes Adam Lee's arguments look especially stupid is that if you do any reading about sex-selective abortion the causes are clear.

Excerpt from this page:

Some research has also noted that in the mid-1990s a reverse began in the observed trends in the regions of Asia where originally the male/female ratios were high. In line with the studies of Das Gupta described above, as income increases the bias in the sex ratio towards boys decreases.
With high per capita income growth in many parts of India and China during the late 1990s and the 2000s, male/female ratios have began shifting towards "normal" levels. However, for India and China, this appears to be due to a fall in adult female mortality rates, relative to male adults, rather than a change in the sex ratio among children and newborns.

So people doing studies of gender ratios discover two things:
  1. Women generally live longer than men
  2. Poor people may be more inclined to abort simply because the child is female
Of course, Adam won't see a discrepancy in life expectancy as something that is wrong - males are victims of violence and have terrible occupations, but they can just deal with it.

What will Adam focus on? Poor people are misogynists!

Women winning custody battles

Natalie's tweet points out that women are more likely to win custody battles, and hints that the men that lost and complain online about it are hiding an character fault. Gambling, drug addiction, alcoholism, whatever.

This is another example of how victim blaming is wrong, unless it's a man that is a questionable character.

It could be a narrative where a man was victimized by the state and his former lover if you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But in this instance, the "social justice" crowd thinks the existing justice system is impeccable - the court can't be wrong! The man was probably a drunk!

One question for the people that think the existing system was fine -

If your parents split tomorrow, and you had to spend a majority of the time with one of your parents, which would you pick?

Further, would your selection actually be based on your desires, or the apparent needs of the particular parent?

Women as CEOs and Presidents

Adam's line is that women encompass only "4% of Fortune 500 CEOs".

This is the only argument that is spot-on.

Women should make up a larger part of the business and political world. Women should leave the man at home to tidy up as they head to work in their Porsche.

Martha Stewart is a fantastic, not because she is a wonderful home-maker, but because she stepped up and made criminal amounts of money.

Equal representation of women in finance and politics can only end in good things. Either there is never another screw-up again, or the next war/financial meltdown happens and women get to share more equitably in that history.

What could be more fun than having a modern version of Thatcher faced with a modern version of the Falklands?

As everybody likes to state as fact:
"This wouldn't happen if women were in charge"
Everybody - really everybody - wants to keep testing this hypothesis.

Unfortunately for some Twitter 'feminist' slacktivists, the battle is between them and some imaginary army of people who refuse to lose custody battles, want to abort all females and ban the ones that do manage to be born from holding public office or managing a business.

How detached from reality can you get?

No comments:

Post a Comment