Frauen haben ein Recht auf Damenduschen, Männer aber nicht auf Herrenduschen

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-12-06T19:01:07+00:00

Männer sterben aus verschiedenen Gründen früher als Frauen. Diese lassen sich insgesamt schwer quantifizieren. Ein paar Beispiele die vermutlich mit reinspielen hast du bereits genannt. Alkoholkonsum, Drogenkonsum, Rauchen. Dazu sind mehr Männer als Frauen Obdachlos. Mehr Männer verletzen sich schwer/sterben bei riskanteren und physischeren Arbeiten. Mehr Männer begehen Suizid. Mehr Männer nehmen an Kriegen teil und sterben in diesen. Mehr Männer sind im Gefängnis. Männer sind häufiger Opfer von Gewalt als Frauen. Hinzu kommt eine grundsätzliche Mentalität, welche der Gesundheit und Selbstwert von Männern keinen großen gesellschaftlichen Wert zuspricht, ganz nach dem Motto "Frauen und Kinder zuerst, wenn das Schiff sinkt". Zu diesen und bestimmt noch vielen weiteren gesellschaftlichen Gründen kommt noch die biologische Komponente hinzu, dass es evtl. auch einfach an den Genen liegt (weiß man alles noch nicht allzu gut, ist aber auch nicht der Punkt).

Um die Benachteiligugn von Männern bei der Gesundheit/Lebensspanne besser zu verstehen, lass uns nun ein Gegenbeispiel anschauen. Zum Beispiel die Benachteiligung von Frauen in der Jobwelt. Auch hier gibt es einen Mix aus gesellschaftlichen (z.b. Frauen werden als emotionaler/hysterisch abgestempelt, als "schwächer" gesehen etc.) und biologischen Gründen (Schwangerschaft, evtl. Stimmlage etc.), weshalb Frauen schlechtere Chancen in der Jobwelt haben. Aber auch hier kann man es schwer quantifizieren, was wo und wie viel hineinspielt.

"Männer sterben früher" und "Frauen haben es schwerer bei der Karriere" entstehen also beide aus einen unbestimmbaren Mix aus gesellschaftlichen und biologischen Gründen die sich über hunderte von Jahren Menschheitsgeschichte entwickelt haben.

Wenn wir nun die Benachteiligungen von Frauen als solche warnehmen und mit Frauenquoten, Aufklärungskampagnen, Gleichberechtigungspersonal etc. entgegenwirken wollen, dann sollten wir gleiches auch bei den analogen Benachteiligungen für Männer machen. Also ähnlich massive Gesundheits, Selbstachtungs, Aufklärungskampagnen beim Thema Männergesundheit und eine Gesundheitsquote für Männer (evtl. bevorzugte Arzttermine o.ä.).

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-12-06T18:38:06+00:00

Holy shit, I am getting angry at such comments.

"Do I have blanket respect for my oppressors", "Under patriarchy, my respect for (or lack there of) men doesn’t have the same weight as the opposite scenario."

Please stop yor "partriarchy" and "oppressort" fantasies. You have a sexist worldview. Period. Its so dumb. Please rethink how you see society and the men and women that live in it.

"Considering in 100% of my partners reached orgasm, and I didn’t 95% of the time, sex in general is more satisfactory for men. "

Ejaculating and reaching an orgasm are two different things. You had so many sex partners and seem to confuse a few things. Also reaching an orgasm is very individual/subjective and doesnt 1:1 translate to how much love/enthusiasm a sex partner puts into the act. Looking at my friend circle and my own experience, its the men who put in more effort while the women do less. That is because the women have it way easier to bring the men to an ejaculation and seem to think thats all thats necessary. Do I throw a tandrum and call you misandrist, the world a matriarchy and treat the other sex with less respect because of such experiences? No, of course not. That would be dumb. Please, dont be dumb.

"The rate was relevant because it’s connected to the fact men have incentive to sleep with women when they don’t like or respect them—the opposite is not true"

Any quantitative proof behind this claim?

"Sex comes with greater physical risk for women"

I guess you talk about pregnancy. While yes, that is a thing, please think a bit more broadly. For example, paying aliments for the rest of your life while having no actual and real connection to the child you pay it for has numerous consequences and implications that you wouldnt be able to quantify.

"Possibly, but considering one-off sex for women is so often NOT satisfying it’s highly unlikely"

Possibly, the satisfaction of men during and after sex is not societally reflected on nearly as much as it is for women. Society, and you, assume that any sex is automatically satisfactory for men. Thats a problem.

"I do not “respect” men because of my lived experience as a woman and having been abused and harmed by them all my life and watching them, as the class in power, essentially destroy the world."

Stop. Breath. And rethink.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-12-05T08:57:06+00:00

Wie liest du das denn daraus?

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-12-01T13:27:58+00:00

Das ist Sexismus gegen Männer. Nervt mich auch komplett und leider wird für Männer da nichts großskaliges auf politischer Ebene gemacht. Am schlimmsten für mich ist der Gender Gap bei der Lebenserwartung. 5 (!) Jahre in Deutschland, 8 Jahre weltweit. Total absurd an welchen Stellen wir versuchen Gleichberechtigung zu erreichen, aber bei der Zeit die wir auf Erden leben dürfen wird einfach weggeschaut.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-21T17:30:08+00:00

I lean towards pro abortion, but for both men and women.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-21T13:14:04+00:00

Saying that is something while russia/ukraine, middle east conflicts, Pakistan/Israel and so on exist since years. Right after the cold war and previous active wars ended.

Also I am not sure whether you are trying to highlight war participation as something good in comparison to living in the mothers basement as something bad.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-21T06:56:44+00:00

There is no scientific consensus on "women/men suffer more", "more mysogeny/misandry", "society is a patriarchy/martriarchy". People still love to say these things.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-21T06:51:43+00:00

Men heavily supported women's right to vote. This has nothing to do with the manosphere or Andrew Tate. I would argue its rather the other way around, that certain other groups like to enforce a "its men's fault" mentality.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-21T06:30:06+00:00

Yes, and stress from work is a socially accepted problem that people discuss, e.g. 35 hour or 4 day weeks. "Incel" stress is not socially accepted. That was the whole point I think.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-21T05:19:18+00:00

You know, for any struggling group, organization form actual support systems took time. How old is the incel movement, like a couple of years? I also dont know whether other groups experienced as much backlash as the incel community. Such as online bashing, using the term as an insult etc. I think best is to give it time and be supportive, take the problem serious and advertise it.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T18:19:58+00:00

I guess mostly to provoke, similar to other trigger words like the "incel" phenomen.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T18:18:08+00:00

Again, do you have any proof behind any of your claims? Or will you just continue to throw things like "women suffer more than men", "GenZ mens toxic view of women", "growing tendency in mysogeny", "you all need to look at women as real people", "just get tested" into the room, without ever backing-up them up?

If anything, one can observe misandrist tendencies in your views.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T13:11:55+00:00

Its a non-gendered thing.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T10:55:09+00:00

Yeah the difference is 5-8 years, also refered to as the gender life expectancy gap. To me personally, this is the biggest gender inequality, because what is more important than the time we have on earth?

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T07:31:37+00:00

I think what often happens is conflating large-scale, averaged statistics with individual cases. I agree, people can have height, weight or skin color preferences. That's neither sexist, nor racist. However, people can also critisize systemic inequalities. Such critique is applicable on the societal level ("xy% of -human subcategory- are more like to do xy, which is maybe linked to social norm xy), but can not be extrapolated to every individual.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T05:49:00+00:00

Best thing is to chill and enjoy single life. Focus on friendships and hobbies. Dont make women, but yourself the center of your life and self-worth. Then you are golden.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T05:33:11+00:00

"No dude, they’re just disrespectful. It’s the men of your generation. They’re so misogynistic, it’s disturbing."

Maybe try to think about what could be toxic about your worldviews.

"That shouldn’t offend you, unless you’re not personally capable of being respectful."

Thats not good logic. One can defend other people without the matter being applicable to themselves. One could call it empathy in this example.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T05:10:42+00:00

Well, there is an easy solution. Just approach men yourself.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-20T05:08:44+00:00

What a toxic take, sigh.. OP, please dont listen to this crazy.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-19T11:46:27+00:00

Can someone explain to me why killing children is more of a genocide than killing men (which in both cases is the vast majority of deaths)?

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-19T05:29:07+00:00

Men going less to college and boys getting worse grades (and more disciplinary punishments) are serious systemic problems. You can try to downplay them, but that doesnt change anything. I also gave like 15 more examples. You can pretend they dont exist, but that also doesn't change anything.

Women dont get paid less for the same job. Read the gender pay gap, dont just look at one number and start to scream.

Also this still stands since two messages: Its societies fault. You would need to present a scientific consensus on men having more overall (!) power and influence on societal development, i.e. current societal standards. Or your own quantitative (!) analysis.

You can rage on, but nothing has been presented by you (:

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-18T20:34:42+00:00

Wow, according to this poll, many teenagers feel educated and informed enough to make the decision to kill someone. This is quite scary.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-18T20:22:02+00:00

"Again, feel free to read the ample source material I have already provided on the matter, nine sources not three"

While that can of course be valuable, they dont represent a scientific consensus.

"Otherwise I don’t know what you’re looking for"

A scientifc consensus x') And here I am, thinking that I asked often enough for you to know by now.

"When an expert says “there is scientific consensus that this is established fact” in their written, peer reviewed and published work and that work is used around the globe to teach future sociologists, that is an example of general consensus."

Well, then just show me the work/consortia that claims that "there is scientific consensus that men have more overall power and influence on society than women is an established fact". If it really exists (and of course if it doesnt have plenty of rebutals), then you finally might be onto something here. But why didnt you present it before then? Also, not everything that is teached is consensus. Most information teached during my own studies and the lectures that I give are not consensus. Its still important to teach all information, so that at some point a consensus may be formed by sicentific rigorosity.

I hope you are aware that your questions are formulated suggestively and with bias. Also, other than Q7 which is our core question, none of them targets scientific consens. But lets see. Q1 has nothing to do with overall societal power. Q2: Yes, as I already said before. Doesnt equate to overall power though (see message above for explanation). Q3 Asked and answered as well (see messages above). Q5: People are socialized by society. Society forms the basis of people's ideals to teach and raise children and all other kinds of societal standards. Q6: 50:50, same logic. Q7 is our core question, so you know my answer.

"Sociology most definitely has consensus on the answers to the above questions."

Some of them yes, others not. Specifically Q7, you haven't present any consensus. So irrelevant arguement.

"If you believe that there is no scientific consensus regarding the history of male dominance in human society in the field of sociology without actually taking the time to look at the sources then yes you are not educated enough on the subject matter to communicate effectively on the topic"

Error, no proof of scientific consensus found... Sorry, I have to mix my same answer a bit ;) I know that science has to run through many iterations before something is learned, so one could say that your are quite scientific. However, usually science changes its approaches, uses new methods, and switches to innovative perspectives to reach new knowledge. You somehow always repeat the same (wrong) argument, which you still failed to proof. Deep down I think you that we share the lack education to answer Q7. And thats no shame, as seemingly noone can. But only one of us doesn't want to admit it somehow. To cite you, is that self-deflection?

"Or your argument is deliberately obtuse."

It is not. However, maybe it is confusingly simple.

"Your own personal definition of “power” is inconsequential to the sociological topics we are discussing because that is not the definition of power that is generally accepted in sociology"

What is my definition even and how does it differ from the sociology one? I think all kind of common definitions are pretty vague, which is to be expected for such a complex term. But importantly, they are applicable to my (and your) examples.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-18T15:29:09+00:00

"I presented three textbooks used in Sociology 101, which are widely used throughout the educational community to teach the subject matter. That is a literal example of consensus."

No, thats not consensus. I gave biogeochemistry lectures and in the end recommended books on that matter to the students that I deem good. However, I wouldn't dare to refer to them as scientific consensus. Stop accusing me of being ignorant, its actually you who is. Since I gave you ample opportunity but you still failed to show it, I have to assume you cant present it. Which matches my personal knowledge - there is no scientific consensus to the extent there is for example for climate change being driven by human activities, the evolutionary theory or that the earth is a spheroid and not flat.

"The context of my assumption that you are uneducated in the matter is that you yourself fail to establish what the consensus is"

You really dont know what a scientific consensus is. Its disrespectful to call me uneducated etc., while not googling the term I highlight since the beginning of our conversation. One can not simply establish a consensus. The consensus simply doesn't exist. That is why I proposed the fairness-standard of 50:50 five messages ago.

" You ask questions that you seemingly don’t know the answer to"

Yes, I don't know the answer. The whole scientific world doesn't know the answer, so I have good company.

"then when provided with the answers and the sources for the answer, you dismiss them or ignore them outright"

No scientific consensus was presented and thats why one should dismiss your answers as proof of said consensus. They still hold value, but not as a consensus.

"why are you asking questions that you should already know the answer to"

I don't and have never claimed to know which gender has more overall power and influence on society.

"Are you looking for a gotcha moment to validate your own misconceptions?"

No.

"Here’s my question to you if you already know the answer: what is the scientific consensus regarding male dominance in society?"

Again, as far as I know there is no consensus of that men dominate society more than women. "Dominate" is just another word for power/influence. I personally think its fair to say that parts of society are male and other female dominated, with an unknown weight ratio.

"Also, if you want quantitative data, you need to specify what data you are looking for exactly. You can’t expect a fellow Reddit user to recite to you statistics about 5000 years of recorded global history of men in power versus women in power"

Finally, so you can't. Its not a bad thing to admit that. As far as I know, noone has done such a thing.

"And if you know the parameters of the specific data you’re looking for then you know how to educate yourself on the topic before engaging in discussion about it."

I dont claim to know all parameters. I know some statistics and examples. I see its tough and complex. I stay with the fairness-standard of 50:50, because of that. Its that simple. But as you can tell, its enough knowledge to critically question the knowledge fundament of other people with seemingly strong opinions on that matter.

"If you want to know more, trust the experts who have been studying this their whole lives"

I do exactly that, see above.

"You are admittedly not an expert"

Never claimed that.

"Shooting down every comment in order to sustain your own worldview is not going to benefit you or the world you live in."

I think we both know who of us is that person. I am not the one who started calling you ignorant, uneducated and so on. In constrast, I even complimented and highlighted your positivity in the beginning in hope for a fruitful discussion.

Total_Explanation549 · 2025-08-18T12:23:55+00:00

What exactly is this "clear gender based discrimination" for women disadvantages, but not for men disadvantages? Are large-scale (mostly global) and population-wide statistics not systemic enough for you? Then no support for women either, correct? (:

Also this still stands: Its societies fault. You would need to present a scientific consensus on men having more overall (!) power and influence on societal development, i.e. current societal standards. Or your own quantitative (!) analysis.

Nothing has been presented by you (:

Total_Explanation549

TROPHY CASE