If this had been an app for men rating and alerting them about certain women all hell would of broke loose.
It's so easy to look down on someone identifying as male as being discriminant but when the opposite is true, the male point of view is often ignored.
Simply put, we are expected to man up, whereas women are expected to stand up.
Men have been getting the good end of sexual discrimination for centuries. Owning property. Voting. Higher education. Being allowed to practice a profession. Being favored by marriage laws. Being favored by social biases.
Like Peter Parker and Voltaire say, "With great power comes great responsibility." Having received a substantial boost just for being born with a dick, I'm ok with manning up. To me, that's part of using my power to redress the imbalance.
Sure, men have had the upper hand for centuries but we live in an age where the scales have tipped - we need to be careful that instead of having a substantial boost for having a dick, or a vagina, that instead every has the same substantial advantage.
Unemployment of young folk (<30) is more prevalent in men than women.
I don't want to take anything from the women's struggle, but more and more, they are getting the upper hand. (Heck, my boy is 11 months old, and even now, he gets more 'insults' about behavior then his female cousin about same age)
If we look at young people, then women clearly have the uppder hand. In addition to having the upper hand in dating, they out-earn young men and have greater success in education. Interestingly, if women are better than men at something, then the explanation is never discrimination, but if men are better than women, then the reason is discrimination.
I don't think that's a valid inference, honestly. Firstly, "average" is too tied to distribution and biased outliers and asymmetry. Perhaps you intended to compare medians.
"have the upper hand" I think means that when you compare proportions of X to non-X within strata that the proportion of X decreases with increasing status.
Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice, and doesn't seem to be about gender equality at all. Sure you could say "men are more pressured..." but you could also say "women aren't empowered to make decisions about their body and don't see it as viable". Again: how does the stat show an upper hand?
About dating: I don't think you can declare women have the "upper hand". At best they have an "even hand". Sure there are pretty girls that get an absurde level of "power of choice", but there are plenty of men in the same category. Similarly when the traditional "men approach" role is taken, women are stuck with what comes their way. Putting it another way: in my experience the problems women experience in dating are the same as the problems men experience: shitty candidates, lots of fear of rejection, insecurity and incompatability issues. Leading to:
Query: how do women have the upper hand in dating in your mind?
It indicates that men are at a disadvantage. It doesn't matter what causes the disadvantage, it's still a fact. Of course, when men are at a disadvantage the reason is never expected to be gender roles or discrimination.
>Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice
If you think social issue like suicide can be categorized as "personal choice", you don't know much about depression and suicide. There are factors that increase risk to suicide, like poverty and depression, which are quite prevalent in males.
>About dating: I don't think you can declare women have the "upper hand". At best they have an "even hand". Sure there are pretty girls that get an absurde level of "power of choice", but there are plenty of men in the same category.
That description doesn't quite fit the facts, though. It's more like the upper 2/3 of women are in the same position as upper 1/3 of men for various reasons. You can just look at the number of messages on online dating sites, or look at the genetic evidence: 2/3 of all women in history have had children, but only 1/3 men have had genetic offspring.
>Putting it another way: in my experience the problems women experience in dating are the same as the problems men experience: shitty candidates, lots of fear of rejection, insecurity and incompatability issues.
The social etiquette and gender roles and various other reasons mean that men are expected to make the initiation, and women can simply choose the best candidate. That means that men have to face a lot more rejection than women.
This is a good article on the issue: http://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/another-okcupid-st...
>It indicates that men are at a disadvantage. It doesn't matter what causes the disadvantage, it's still a fact. Of course, when men are at a disadvantage the reason is never expected to be gender roles or discrimination.
False. This is not how statistics work. There could be other confounding factors that are relevant. For instance, of the women who would become homeless how many are forced into some sort of prostitution scheme from which they can't escape? How many die early in homelessness because they are at a survival as homeless person disadvantage? You are not providing enough data, just cherry picking context free numbers as if it meant something.
>>Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice
>If you think social issue like suicide can be categorized as "personal choice", you don't know much about depression and suicide. There are factors that increase risk to suicide, like poverty and depression, which are quite prevalent in males.
Maybe. So what advantages to women have. Again, you need to explain a causal relationship of advantage, not just cherry pick numbers as if it were meaningful.
About the dating stuff: your stat makes no sense with regards to genetics. Everyone gets a X chromosome, some get 2 of them. Of course there will be more attributable genetic lineage to women, wheres a guy who only produces daughters will not necessarily be identifiable in a few generations from his sister who passes on the same X chromosome to ~50% of her offspring. Also, why does this genetic number prove evidence for "do nothing"? That is conflating two similar numbers pointlessly. Again, I suggest you learn some simple statistics.
As for the initiation thing: that is not a disadvantage to males. A couple reasons:
First of all, except for people who have 0 social skills initiation is really not hard.
Second, initiation must be invited, putting half the onus in the woman's hands (again, there are cues and signaling for this) - the act of asking or a date or starting a conversation is quite far into the courting process.
Third, simply choosing the best candidate is not - ever been part of a hiring process? Sometimes all the candidates are shitty and you have to choose "no hire", this is a problem.
Fourth do you really think women just sit there and do nothing in dating but wait for a candidate to come along? I doubt that, otherwise why would there be a giant business targeting women with things like "how to make guys notice you", and "improve your dating potential".
Fifth: In the traditional role, women have the following disadvantage: they are the ones with the job of keeping men around far more often than men keeping a woman around. Once the relationship is established, the woman has to keep the man happy. (again - big buisness in magazines with articles like "keep your man happy and around", "how to prevent him from cheating" and the like).
Finally your linked article presupposes the conclusion it reaches, and ignores in its analysis any other factors.
I'm one of those overeducated women with the upper hand or something like that, although due to my great success in education I'm not out-earning all that many people yet. Remember, though, that the mythical ability to get a guy to pay for dinner and that incredible math PhD mean nothing when a guy on the street is looking me up & down & giving me a "compliment." If I talk back to that crazy guy on the bus, even if I'm out-earning and out-educating him, I always remember it can go like this: http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whethe...
To return to the original topic, I don't support Lulu at all. I've had far better success in dating and life treating men like people.
Yeah, I used statistics from my own country.
>Greater male service in the military is one component of this
Funny anecdote, here in Finland men still have conscription (e.g. forced labour for 6-12 months), but almost nobody talks about that as a gender equality issue.
>I'm one of those overeducated women with the upper hand or something like that, although due to my great success in education I'm not out-earning all that many people yet.
Education of course doesn't directly lead to higher earnings, as you need to choose the right industry and career path. Of course, I don't know anything about you in particular, but most well-off people underestimate the earnings of otherpeople. (I don't know the exact statistic, but the top 10% think that they're only slightly better off than the average or something).
Anyway, men earn more than women because they work longer hours (about 20% more in average). The other explanation is that men choose careers that have higher income (e.g. according to research for men income matters a lot more in career choise than for women).
>Remember, though, that the mythical ability to get a guy to pay for dinner and that incredible math PhD mean nothing when a guy on the street is looking me up & down & giving me a "compliment."
Err, men have to deal with crazy people on the bus too. In fact, vast majority of street violence is against men (it's around 80% in my country).
Racial privilege was the one I noticed first. And that was mainly because I lived in places where as a foreigner I was outside the normal framework. That made it much easier to see race and class dynamics at work. It was only after that I could start seeing gender dynamics more clearly. But they're still hard, because you can't try be an outsider to that in the same way.
I agree that we should be working toward parity. I just don't think we're there yet.
And even calling women "sweet" isn't always appreciated. See http://rookiemag.com/2013/04/no-more-nice-girls/
If these expectations remain, what possible social change could occur that would put our "brutish" gender in the crapper? As long as that cultural push exists to be stoic, strong, tough, and to go for what they want, then our male culture is ingrained to be immune to a social upheaval. It's a good way to live if you ask me.
My recommendation is to not care.
I do not care.
I hope the girls have fun on LuLu.
Now if the girls want to change their cultural expectations to make their lives better? Sounds great! I don't care.
I sincerely hope you're joking.
Yes, so let's reverse it, and get a female-biased revenge ...on people that weren't even alive back at those times.
Why not also sell white people as slaves?
Second, you DO know that "Godwin's law" is not an actual law that govern's discussions, and it's not even something that people agree on its validity, right? It's merely a BS internet meme, a funny quote used as a joke. Invoking it is like invoking made up statistics as an argument.
By the way, I didn't say that discrimination was ok, and I wasn't making a historical analogy. I was pointing out that our existing society is just emerging from that long history of sexism.
You know who else wanted to end threads? Hitler.
Done.
Not really. Men have had more freedom but less security. Just because you personally like your gender role (as it seems), that doesn't mean other men agree (or agreed in the past). Sure, men were allowed to be employees and women cared for the children at home (though reality was actually a lot more complex than that, but we can accept this caricature for now), but men had to work or they wouldn't find a women to marry. Women didn't have to work, as they could be supported by their husband. Work was pretty gruesome in the past, even if homework was also harder in the past.
Of course, there's little proper scientific research on this subject, as "women's studies" start from their assumption that women had and have everything worse without really proving it.
The problem with saying that the men's gender role of more freedom but more responsibility doesn't take into consideration that some people prefer to have less freedom and less responsibility, while some women prefer to have more freedom and more responsibility and some less freedom and less responsibility (or at least prefered in the past).
>Having received a substantial boost just for being born with a dick, I'm ok with manning up.
Even if we assume that men had better starting position in the past, that doesn't apply anymore. Young women are outearning and have more success in education.
True equality can only be reached through the abolition of gender roles for both men and women, not assuming that men need to "man up" and therefore saying that gender inequality is somehow positive and should exist.
You also made the claim about "imbalance". There's no imbalance in favor of women in Western countries. Men have just as much gender equality problems as women, but even speculating this is politically incorrect. Here's a study o the subject: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450
I agree that patriarchy is bad for men too. I disagree that it was equally bad for both genders. I disagree that we have reached balance. By "manning up", I don't mean reinforcing gender roles or maintaining gender inequality. I mean that men should, as the relatively privileged parties, not be whiny at either the shift toward balance or the small anti-male inequities that crop up temporarily along the road to equity.
Translated from feminist rhetoric: Men have no right to complain about discrimination against them.
shanelja and nawitus, I think abundance of people with similar views to wpietri highlights how real your points actually are.
But I have the legal right to say that they're whiny idiots when they appear unable to notice or acknowledge the context of their complaint. If you're going to cry, "have sympathy for meeeeeee", you really should make sure you've demonstrated some sympathy for others.
For example, if somebody is tired and cranky and says something mean, I don't have to get upset at it. I can let it go, and treat them compassionately. I think that is precisely the road to getting rid of meanness.
I do think that to a privileged person, any move toward equality feels like inequality, because what they notice is things getting worse for them.
I also think that people emerging from oppression are liable to cross the line of exact equity from time to time. An as long as the swings are small, I'm ok with that. Specifically, as a guy, I'm saying I don't mind brushing off something that might be a bit of anti-guy sexism. Because that one small nettle-sting is nothing in proportion to the benefits I've received, or to the scope of the historical wrong that we are righting.
I don't know enough about Lulu to have an opinion on it. And for the record, I'm opposed to hiring practices that advantage women. I am strongly for, though, active practices to eliminate the disadvantage that women face.
I want people to treat other people as individuals, not representative of their gender. I don't care about my own gender role. I don't want people to say "man up" to men if I face some injustice. And I don't want (the reverse I guess) it happen to women either.
Your path doesn't lead to equality, it just slows down progress.
This isn't true no matter how you slice it. Men had more economic security because they could work, whereas most women could not. Men have bodily security in ways women do not, esp. in regards to sexual assault and domestic violence.
> men had to work or they wouldn't find a women to marry
I think you have this backwards. Men didn't have to marry. However, since women at large could not work and support themselves, many had no choice but to be attached to someone who could work. Due to past stigmas about women were not married, this put women in a position where getting married was a near necessity.
> Women didn't have to work, as they could be supported by their husband.
Not only would women have little recourse but to marry someone, but women by far were expected to should domestic duties. That is a lot of work and is a full time job in and of itself.
> Of course, there's little proper scientific research on this subject, as "women's studies" start from their assumption that women had and have everything worse without really proving it.
This is blatantly not true. There is a ton of written and academic research work on gender, sexism, etc. and women's studies is a real academic discipline.
> The problem with saying that the men's gender role of more freedom but more responsibility doesn't take into consideration that some people prefer to have less freedom and less responsibility, while some women prefer to have more freedom and more responsibility and some less freedom and less responsibility (or at least prefered in the past).
Men are much more able to pursue the less freedom and less responsibility life, as you put it, compared to women because of how they are treated in society at large. Historically most women did not have the option for the less freedom and less responsible life since they would either be pigeonholed into domestic care or they would have been working poor.
> Even if we assume that men had better starting position in the past, that doesn't apply anymore. Young women are outearning and have more success in education.
This is plainly not true. Most women still earn less than their male counterparts. Further, women still suffer far more from domestic and sexual violence and have their bodies policed much more than men.
> True equality can only be reached through the abolition of gender roles for both men and women, not assuming that men need to "man up" and therefore saying that gender inequality is somehow positive and should exist.
Gender inequality exists right now, even without something like Lulu, and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Having an app that deals with one aspect of that reality is totally legit.
> You also made the claim about "imbalance". There's no imbalance in favor of women in Western countries.
Amazingly you say that there is no real research on women's studies, but then go on to conclude there is not problem at all.
> Men have just as much gender equality problems as women, but even speculating this is politically incorrect.
Ah yes, saying men have it as hard as women, which is demonstrably not true at a societal level, will summon the PC police.
> Here's a study o the subject: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450
The summary of that study tries to use misandry and matriarchy seriously to describe the social and political condition of a western country. This is laughable on its face.
In a marriage the women of course benefits from the man's income to provide economic security. They've also had the security of not dying in senseless wars, and the security of men defending women from danger as is the gender norm even today.
>I think you have this backwards. Men didn't have to marry. However, since women at large could not work and support themselves, many had no choice but to be attached to someone who could work. Due to past stigmas about women were not married, this put women in a position where getting married was a near necessity.
I never claimed that men had to marry, though most of them wanted to (to gain access to sex if nothing else). Men didn't have the option to not work and marry, while had to work to marry, and women didn't have the option to work and not marry.
>Not only would women have little recourse but to marry someone, but women by far were expected to should domestic duties. That is a lot of work and is a full time job in and of itself.
I'd say domestic duties were significantly easier than the typical hard work in the past. Workplace safety was non-existent, for starters. That's of course in addition to military duty and dying in wars.
>This is blatantly not true. There is a ton of written and academic research work on gender, sexism, etc. and women's studies is a real academic discipline.
Women's studies is not an empirical science, if they start from an axiom which doesn't require evidence.
>Men are much more able to pursue the less freedom and less responsibility life, as you put it, compared to women because of how they are treated in society at large. Historically most women did not have the option for the less freedom and less responsible life since they would either be pigeonholed into domestic care or they would have been working poor.
That's of course blatantly not true. Men who didn't work were deemed pretty worthless, and no women would marry them. Besides, they would starve on streets or something, while a women could marry someone and not need to work.
>This is plainly not true. Most women still earn less than their male counterparts.
I said young women. Please try reading what I'm actually saying :). As for the whole pay gap, it's explained through men working 20% more hours per year and making career choices that focus on income.
>Further, women still suffer far more from domestic and sexual violence and have their bodies policed much more than men.
No, men are mutilated more than women (since male-only circumcision is legal in most countries). Also, majority of rape victims in USA are male: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-a...
>Gender inequality exists right now, even without something like Lulu, and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Having an app that deals with one aspect of that reality is totally legit.
What? This app doesn't prevent gender equality, it enforces it, along with stereotypical gender roles that discriminate both men and women equally. Only a misandrist can support this kind of app.
>Amazingly you say that there is no real research on women's studies, but then go on to conclude there is not problem at all.
Just because women's studies are based on non-empirical "science" doesn't mean there's no research on the subject. Like this: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450
>Ah yes, saying men have it as hard as women, which is demonstrably not true at a societal level, will summon the PC police.
Good that you agree with me!
>The summary of that study tries to use misandry and matriarchy seriously to describe the social and political condition of a western country. This is laughable on its face.
Not an argument :).
Certainly there is a benefit to having some income through a marriage than none at all, but it is a problem if marriage or association with men is the only option available to have any economic safety at all. Women do not fare well in war because women are very often the target of violence from armies and military conflict even if women do not serve in those conflicts. Men defending women from danger isn't a real phenomenon, as violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Common stories about women and lifeboats, for example, may not reflect reality: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/13/chivalry-at-sea-a-myth...
> Men didn't have the option to not work and marry, while had to work to marry, and women didn't have the option to work and not marry.
My main point about this is that there it was much more likely for women to have no economic security without marriage, whereas men could achieve some economic security without a marriage. Obviously there is a big class element to this w.r.t work access and pay and that women of color have always been working in large numbers outside of personal domestic work.
> I'd say domestic duties were significantly easier than the typical hard work in the past.
It isn't about quantifying the difficulty of some kind of work, but that women still were very like to perform labor in home even if they worked outside of the home in some capacity. Either way, the notion that women didn't do work in a marriage while their husband did contributes to the perspective that domestic work isn't real work and that domestic work performed by husbands/wives at home doesn't have the same value as paid labor.
> Women's studies is not an empirical science, if they start from an axiom which doesn't require evidence.
Women's studies doesn't start from an axiom of "that women had and have everything worse". Women's studies generally explores the condition of genders and provides research, including statistical and empirical research, about the lived conditions and experiences of people.
> Men who didn't work were deemed pretty worthless, and no women would marry them. Besides, they would starve on streets or something, while a women could marry someone and not need to work.
First, work isn't something that most people have for their lifetime in perpetuity. Many folks go through periods of having work and not having work and social factors may exacerbate the availability of paid work. The era leading up to prohibition in the US, for example, made the working situation for the poor worse and damaged existing marriages and families, so to say that there is some kind of binary decision making process in who gets married to whom is silly. Also, the notion that women could marry and not work isn't a common reality for most marriages, in the past and now.
> I said young women. Please try reading what I'm actually saying :). As for the whole pay gap, it's explained through men working 20% more hours per year and making career choices that focus on income.
The pay gap is a complicated thing, and while incomes have improved for younger working women, executive level pay and representation is still belong men in similar positions and companies. Working patterns like the one you mention don't fully account for wage and position gaps for women.
> No, men are mutilated more than women (since male-only circumcision is legal in most countries). Also, majority of rape victims in USA are male: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-a....
Firstly, male circumcision isn't a form of domestic or sexual violence, so while it is an important thing it is not really what I was getting at. Second, yes most rape victims in the US are male due to how many men, mostly of color, are imprisoned and how prevalent sexual assault in the prison system is. That reality and sexual assault for women go hand-in-hand reflect a real reality of male violence made manifest through social institutions and beliefs. Women in prison also suffer from high rates of sexual assault and coercion. The number of men in prison is much, much higher than the number of women in prison, so we would expect that by raw number men are victims of sexual assault more than women in prison. That said, none of these things negate the nature of sexual violence towards women.
> What? This app doesn't prevent gender equality, it enforces it, along with stereotypical gender roles that discriminate both men and women equally. Only a misandrist can support this kind of app.
I might not have been clear, but I meant to say an app that can help women label men as violent or misogynistic is legit even if that kind of app amounts to collecting rumors, because women are much more likely to face domestic or sexual violence from an intimate partner and people have a right to know about someone before they expose themselves to that kind of violence. I don't particularly care for lulu, but rumors are a legitimate defense when social systems do not protect you from violence.
> Good that you agree with me!
I was being sarcastic. Calling something or someone PC is a derailment to avoid thinking critically about what you said and why it might be a shitty thing to say.
> Not an argument :).
As tumblr ppl like to say, misandry don't real: http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/sorry-men-you-are-no...
That said, a single study that attempts to take issues of patriarchy and misogyny and turn them on their head to make them about misandry, a thing that doesn't exist as a social institution in the western world, should be treated with a high amount of skepticism.
Yes, it is. Your views on historic gender roles do not reflect reality. Men were restricted by gender roles too, and their role was largely "go risk death to get a chance to provide for a woman and children".
This is impossible, all men have and do participate in the subjugation of women so as systemic sexism exists.
Perhaps you're a male who's OK with being the subject of discriminatory treatment over centuries of gain you didn't get to live through. I'm not, and I don't think anyone should be. Unless two wrongs make a right, discriminating against people who have not been a party to the kind of discrimination you're talking about helps no one, it just alienates those who see our position clearly.
Let's talk about the gender ratio today in Congress, or among Fortune 500 CEOs. Let's talk about the recent study showing that given identical (fake) resumes for a lab manager position, scientists on average offer lower salary and less mentoring to female candidates. http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/sexists-in-white-coats-... That's just a few examples; there are countless others.
I completely agree that it's unfair to blame men today for the long history of inequality in our society. But 1) that history is not remotely over, and 2) the responsibility that we do have as men alive today is to find whatever ways we can to make progress in improving these issues for everyone.
I honestly don't know the best ways to do that; none of them seem entirely good or entirely effective. But if we know that there is a vast invisible finger of society tipping the scales against women in a given context, it does not strike me as necessarily immoral to put explicit structures in place designed to tip things a little bit back the other way. (I'm sure it could be implemented poorly.) We have to break the self-reinforcing cycle somehow, and maybe an admittedly clumsy counter-push against those social pressures can help.
The few male at the top are supported by an army of women in leading positions, such as project manager and director. Under these women are many, many more men with lesser roles.
Women have it good in the middle to upper regions of corporate and politics. In those roles they are very appreciated and have lots of real power (and get to boss around other men).
It should be interesting to know how many have women as direct superiors vs viceversa.
Sure. But lets also talk about the gender ratio of prisoners, the homeless, suicides, workplace deaths, etc. It is fallacious to look only at the top 0.0001% of men and declare that men as a group have things better as a result. Men have a much greater variance in virtually every measurable aspect. Look at the entire spectrum.
Seriously? A "vast invisible finger?" No, I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. I'm all for social equality. Equality of opportunity. The way to implement equality is not through further inequality in another direction. That means opportunity starting all the way at the bottom, with basic education, moving up towards higher education, government, and business.
That does NOT mean "hey, we're going to fix this RIGHT NOW, and if women/blacks/pygmys/minority x are underrepresented in any way, we're going to 'tip the scales' in your favor until someone arbitrarily decides thing are 'equal' enough!"
It is unfair to blame men for this situation. It's also unfair to everyone to try and solve the problem of discrimination with more discrimination.
Just because I haven't been an active participant in discrimination doesn't mean I haven't been the recipient of unearned privilege.
I agree that two wrongs don't make a right. But I also believe that fixing the endemic sexism that's still with us is inevitably a messy process. And I believe people who have been victims of that have some very reasonable issues to work out along the way. I think everybody should try to be understanding. But as somebody who ended up getting a better deal than average, I think it's especially incumbent on me to be gracious, kind, and patient.
You are referring to rich men, that elusive 1%. Average men have traditionally gotten the worst/riskiest jobs such as soldier and physical labourer. While the top 1% do get these advantages, the bottom 99% are maybe worse off than women.
Also, the "men had it good for centuries, it's women's turn now" doesn't hold. I am not those men. I was not present then and I resent having to pay for it. Should a child have to pay for the sins of 10 generations ago?
What counts for us is here and now. What passed, passed. It was not our doing.
My point in bringing up the history is that the effects of the history aren't past. I have done unfairly well because I'm a guy. That should end.
Are you saying that men should be expected to "pay" for the priveleges of previous generations of men? If not, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, because all the advantages you list are now equally enjoyed by women (in some cases moreso, e.g. favored by marriage laws).
One very interesting thing, is that schools targeted at women are seem as "traditional" and "bastions" or "empowering", specially if they are ancient and do have good education...
Men schools, once regarded in the same way, are now being attacked, one of the best schools in the US for example is being sued for not taking female students, and a common tag attached to them is "Backwards" or "medieval" or "inquisitors"
If this was a US-only phenomenon, at least I would feel less troubled, except even in Brazil we had a crazy problem...
During the government ranking of high schools (that is made with a test that all high schools students in the country must take if they wish to join university), the first place was a boys-only school.
This is a problem, because it drew attention to them, now there are all sorts of discrimination lawsuits from parents of girls, and the media is bellowing how "less worse" they are, because they accept female teachers, and that when they did not accepted them they were evil, and now that they do they are less evil, but that this would be only a truly good school when they start accepting girls and change some of their authoritarian ways and become more tolerating and egalitarian.
Or some issue with bars... Female only bars in Brazil are allowed and seen as a female fun thing. Male only bars get the cops quickly called on them for refusing entry of costumer based on gender. (Female-only are illegal too, but cops ignore it).
Or one even crazier, it is common to employers to want to hire one gender or other (for example they might want a woman to be the maintenance person of the women's bathroom), yet although signs of "hiring female x" don't attract problems, if you put a sign like "hiring male bathroom cleaner" you get quickly sued for hiring discrimination (that is illegal).
I even had a business owner once complain that a woman sued him (and almost won... a judge chance that allowed he win the case) for not hiring her as attendant in a store for male intimate clothing... The first judge saw it purely in the light of law: you cannot discriminate, period. the second judge had more common sense on his head and imaginated that it would bring even more legal problems to have a woman hanging around men that might want to become naked (or almost naked depending on store policy regarding trying intimate clothes) to choose his new clothes...
Which school?
EDIT: I can't comment as to the criticism; I haven't heard any.
Just read the comments related to this subject, and you will see what I mean (lots of attack on them because the wish to remain male only)
The increased outrage is not necessarily something that automatically favours the sex it purports to defend.
One could argue that people care more about women than men, but one could also argue that women need to be defended more than men, which flips the discussion of sexism or gender-favouritism on its head.
But generally, I definitely find there to be a gendered response, depending on the target demographic.
An iPhone app that finds bikini photos of your Facebook friends
Google "Black Book Apps". There should be hundreds of them, I assume.