In what ways are men discriminated against?

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

Couldn't even the most valid complaints of discrimination be dismissed as "whining"?

For me whining is not that one makes a complaint, valid or otherwise, but that it is all they do.

...if this thread was held in the ladies lounge, a male input to a similar thread accusing women of "whining" wouldn't be tolerated, yet men aren't afforded the same privileges on Boards. It would appear that it's acceptable for some women to be wilting roses that need to have their opinions protected from the aggressive men, but men don't need the same protection. A prejudice towards both sexes!

You should direct such points to the moderators of tGC, as what you describe would ultimately be their responsibility - they shape and implement policy here, just as all moderators to on their fora.

Given this, the situation has improved; two years ago, this thread would have been locked by now for fomenting a war of the sexes. Perhaps the message is getting through, or perhaps it was the realization that such censorship would leave this forum with little more than metrosexual threads that has done this.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

For me whining is not that one makes a complaint, valid or otherwise, but that it is all they do.

And thats fair enough TC, however, as a point I raised earlier - it all has to start somewhere. For some this start could be complaining on the internet to find validation. However, if that's to be met with mockery, dismissal &/or belittlement it's hardly going to help progress the issue in a positive fashion! <again thats not aimed at you TC, I'm talking in general here>

You should direct such points to the moderators of tGC, ...

No! Again it wasn't my intention to replicate the LL for men, I'm just highlighting that society expects certain things from the sexes. It's "accepted" that women can be brow beat into submission and thus require a non aggressive arena to discuss "womens issues", but this isn't "accepted" for men, at least not "real" men.

Dudess

Balmed Out wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Not untrue but "I wouldn't give her a mickey if I'd a bag of them" etc is always being trotted out against female public figures who have the audacity to not be hot.

Youve never heard a woman make a similarly disparaging remark ???

oh come on, now really, just where... did I say or imply that? You are the one who said men don't do it. I simply said men do (try the troglodyte forum - aka after hours for starters). I never once said women don't.

The Corinthian I'm still bemused at your comparison of not wanting racial integration to not wanting to have sex with someone. Yes, because physical desire and all the changes that come with it are relevant to not wanting racial harmony...

Onanon

Suicide is a very gendered issue for men. I'm assuming the majority of posters here know someone, or have themselves been intimately affected by the suicide of a man.

The CSO figures 8/10 of the completed suicides here in Ireland are men, and men at all age brackets are at a four times higher risk of suicide. The highest risk group are men aged 18 -25. In Ireland, there were 500+ deaths identified as suicides. As with any suicide figures, they are unreported by up to 20%.

In the past 4 years there have been big changes implemented like the 'Please talk' higher education scheme, and the Samaritans SMS service. The LGBTQ mental health services in particular have come a huge amount. However, there hasn't been hasn't been one targeted specifically at men aged 18-25 who aren't GBTQ.

As a result, men, who could otherwise have been helped, are killing themselves because of government omission. I would look at the Scottish efforts in this demographic for a real success story, and would encourage the Irish government to imitate it.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

And thats fair enough TC, however, as a point I raised earlier - it all has to start somewhere.

No disagreement. All I said if it starts somewhere and then sits there indefinitely, then it becomes whining.

Dudess wrote: »

The Corinthian I'm still bemused at your comparison of not wanting racial integration to not wanting to have sex with someone. Yes, because physical desire and all the changes that come with it are relevant to not wanting racial harmony...

Both are things one 'feels' and may retrospectively 'justify' or 'explain', are they not?

Look, perhaps I'm being overly pedantic. If you don't understand, then no problem - it's hardly a pivotal argumentative point.

Balmed Out

Dudess we seem to have our wires crossed. When you made the point of what men say (with regard to the mickeys), I took it to mean you felt this was a gender specific thing.
What I said was that men dont comment on the style of women in the public sphere. Perhaps we do but women do so in a completely different league, look at all the womens mag's commenting on other womens appearance, weight, relationships etc, the vast, vast, vast majority of men dont care (and many women too). The problem of women who dare not to be hot is really due ot other women judging and them caring.

Dudess

Balmed Out wrote: »

Dudess we seem to have our wires crossed. When you made the point of what men say (with regard to the mickeys), I took it to mean you felt this was a gender specific thing.
What I said was that men dont comment on the style of women in the public sphere. Perhaps we do but women do so in a completely different league, look at all the womens mag's commenting on other womens appearance, weight, relationships etc, the vast, vast, vast majority of men dont care (and many women too). The problem of women who dare not to be hot is really due ot other women judging and them caring.

No it isn't just that in fairness - try saying that to fat women who get abuse shouted at them by men moreso than by women.

I agree it isn't a competition but I'm just saying it's unfair to put the blame at the feet of women only. There are dicks from either gender.

seamus

My wife has finally come around to my way of thinking that the P&G "Proud sponsor of Mums" ads are in fact deeply offensive and sexist against men, by implying that a mother is the key to raising a child.

While I completely accept that they're running with their key demographic, the inference is that only mums do all of the household work and child raising. The role of the father in raising the child is completely ignored, as if it didn't even exist. I'd probably feel doubly offended if I was a single father raising a child.

iptba

Regarding advertising: I remember a radio discussion (I think on a BBC Radio station) where they were looking at why men can belittled and made to appear stupid in ads. A female marketing executive said that for market X, this was acceptable as women were the main consumers/purchasers. That was seen as a valid reason and not challenged.

However, the next (obvious) step was not done: reverse the genders and see if everyone would be equally as happy with this sort of logic: would it be ok to belittle women and make them appear stupid, if the primary consumers/purchasers were men. This argument would be less acceptable to many/most people.

iptba

Dudess wrote: »

Apart from bitching about feminists for not taking on their causes?

I think it can be useful to bring up feminism now and again. Feminism has sold itself as an egalitarian movement so many people may justifiably think any gender disadvantages men have should be dealt with by feminists/feminism.

iptba

Balmed Out wrote: »

This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination of women by men. This is wholly and completely women being judgemental of each other. Do you really think any man gives a rats arse about what Michelle Obama, Margaret Thatcher or Mary Robinson are wearing?
When it comes to discrimination of women too often its women not men that are the cause (the opposite holds true too but I dont believe to the same extent)
Anyone who has worked in a large company will have witnessed vindictive backstabbing of women by women.

Going slightly off-topic but thought this research was interesting (I first heard it mentioned on the Sean Moncrieff Show on Newstalk:

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/11/22/women-behaving-badly/

A new study out of the University of Ottawa should come as some relief to working women who worry their inner-bitch may be a little too ready to show itself around the office, particularly when it comes to how we treat our sexy female colleagues.

[..]

In the first experiment, women were exposed to either an attractive female peer who was dressed in a sexy outfit or someone who was dressed conservatively.

[..]

Results showed that almost all women were aggressive toward the attractive peer. The women in this situation were more likely to roll their eyes at their peer, stare her up and down and show anger while she was in the room. When she left the room, many of them laughed at her, ridiculed her appearance, and/or suggested that she was sexually available.

By contrast, when the same peer was dressed conservatively, the group of women assigned to this second scenario barely noticed her, and none of them discussed her when she left the room.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

I think it can be useful to bring up feminism now and again. Feminism has sold itself as an egalitarian movement so many people may justifiably think any gender disadvantages men have should be dealt with by feminists/feminism.

Personally I would not 'bitch' about feminism not taking on men's causes.

I will, however criticize feminism for claiming to represent gender equality and then only taking on women's causes, because that is not representing gender equality, only women.

So, either feminism should take on men's causes or stop claiming to be about gender equality. Then I think you'll find the 'bitching' will stop.

iptba

Zulu wrote: »

And thats fair enough TC, however, as a point I raised earlier - it all has to start somewhere. For some this start could be complaining on the internet to find validation. However, if that's to be met with mockery, dismissal &/or belittlement it's hardly going to help progress the issue in a positive fashion! <again thats not aimed at you TC, I'm talking in general here>

Yes. Consciousness raising is useful by itself. Many issues will need popular support. It's not like science where a single individual or team can go off and solve a problem themselves - these are issues where one needs a critical mass of people to also be onside.

Complaining on the internet also has a value in seeing which views are more or less acceptable at a particular point in time. Some ideas may be "too far out there".

Complaining on the internet can be useful to hone arguments on particular points. Also, I've had quite a few letters published in newspapers and have probably borrowed a few points other people made in my time when doing it. My letter writing was also influenced by previous discussions where I saw what was considered the stronger arguments.

Internet discussions have also helped me analyse shaming tactics that can be used to try to get people to stop raising issues.

grames_bond

I think this clears it up!




This is intended to be in good humour!

py2006

Dudess wrote: »

And what are guys gonna do about these grievances? Apart from bitching about feminists for not taking on their causes? For all their evil and the way they make this world so terrible for men with its male president of America at least feminists try to do something about what they consider discrimination.

Unfortunately, not all feminists fully realise what the movement is about. There is a branch of extremist among them that do the movement no favour and irritate the hell out of people with their double standards and deluded comments and behaviour.

Anyway, this thread is about discrimination against men, not about 'heads' coming in and telling us how we blame women.

vicwatson

Women can change their name when they get married and can legally be referred to as their maiden and marriage name if they want, if a man wanted to do it he'd have to do it by deedpoll.

yawha

Zulu wrote: »

The comments I hear with regard to ewan mcgregor, guy pearce, and daniel craig...

This is a thread asking about what ways men are discriminated against. Some posts are hitting the note, and some aren't. That said, belittling posters opinions is hardly a route to the truth. Accusing men of "whining" on this thread - a thread asking about male discrimination is poor form, and disingenuous. Couldn't even the most valid complaints of discrimination be dismissed as "whining"?

...and it raises the point...
[Please note: the following is NOT a pop at either this forum or the LL, but I feel it's valid. Frankly, I'm not complaining about either forum, nor am I suggesting any changes to the same, I just want to highlight a difference as to how the topic is handled as I think this mirror the "real world"]
...if this thread was held in the ladies lounge, a male input to a similar thread accusing women of "whining" wouldn't be tolerated, yet men aren't afforded the same privileges on Boards. It would appear that it's acceptable for some women to be wilting roses that need to have their opinions protected from the aggressive men, but men don't need the same protection. A prejudice towards both sexes!

Well, tbh, if in tLL it is indeed true that women can make ridiculous complaints and call them discrimination, and if other posters are not allowed to criticise them, then that's an issue with tLL, as opposed to there being an issue with tGC because we allow criticism of silly complaints which are called discrimination.

Tbh, personally, not just here but in many male forums, particularly by those calling themselves MRAs, I see so much clutching at straws, trying to make out how bad men have it, when in reality the issues don't affect them personally at all, are entirely trivial or aren't gender issues at all.

Thing is, I firmly believe that there are issues affecting men and that there exists discrimination against men. I oppose "whining" and dubious claims about male discrimination because I care about real issues affecting men, and don't want them to get lost in noise.

Like, male suicide, women being seen as the default caregiver to children, fathers' rights, societal expectation not to show emotion or weakness etc. are all valid issues.

Things like women getting laid more easily, claims that men's body image is a huge problem because women make such harsh comments to men, anecdotes about women being mean to men, feminist conspiracy theories, general claims that men are despised by society etc. I find difficult to take seriously and I think take away from actual serious issues which affect men.

The Corinthian

What feminist conspiracy theories?

iptba

There is too much censoring of men raising points about men's lives in the 3-D world. I'm sure plenty of the people, who directly or indirectly cause this censorship, claim they do it, or believe they do this, for the greater good.

panda100

vicwatson wrote: »

Women can change their name when they get married and can legally be referred to as their maiden and marriage name if they want, if a man wanted to do it he'd have to do it by deedpoll.

Really?? You honestly think that women changing their name to their husbands is discrimination against men? Do you think the title 'Mr' is discriminatory too, as it doesn't allow men to declare their marital status or sexual availability in their title?

PrincessLola

panda100 wrote: »

Really?? You honestly think that women changing their name to their husbands is discrimination against men? Do you think the title 'Mr' is discriminatory too, as it doesn't allow men to declare their marital status or sexual availability in their title?

Yeah, I feel like some of the things listed on here are just differences.

The name change thing is left over from a practise of making women take their husbands names when they got married.

The Corinthian

panda100 wrote: »

Really?? You honestly think that women changing their name to their husbands is discrimination against men?

It is if they want to change their name to the wife's one. Doesn't happen very often, but in fairness it does upon occasion. So while it's hardly a major topic of discrimination, that I personally would not lose too much sleep over, it still is a fair example of where the law discriminates solely on gender.

Do you think the title 'Mr' is discriminatory too, as it doesn't allow men to declare their marital status or sexual availability in their title?

TBH, Mrs and Miss are all but gone from the English language, at least in usage, having been replaced with the more generic Ms. In other languages, while Ms does not exist, the equivalent of Mrs is typically used regardless of marital status. So the analogy is a bit moot.

iptba

PrincessLola wrote: »

Yeah, I feel like some of the things listed on here are just differences.

Yes, it is probably true that some points may only be differences. But it can be useful to throw things out in a brain-storming session and see if people consider them discrimination or not.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, Mrs and Miss are all but gone from the English language, at least in usage, having been replaced with the more generic Ms. In other languages, while Ms does not exist, the equivalent of Mrs is typically used regardless of marital status. So the analogy is a bit moot.

I see quite a lot of few women use Miss. From 30s up. For example, when giving their address when there is no need to have any prefix.

Some also use their Irish name ("ni/nic" form) - I can't be sure, but it seems possible in at least a few cases this is done to highlight their unmarried status given the use of "Miss" by others.

(And of course plenty use Mrs but those can be a bit older)

sharper

PrincessLola wrote: »

Yeah, I feel like some of the things listed on here are just differences.

Why should there be any differences? If a man wants to take his wife's name on marriage why not? Either it should be an option available to everyone or no-one.

sam34

ok folks, as per the charter, there is to be no further discussion of TLL, how it's moderated or what the ethos there is. that includes the "if this comment was made in tll..." rhetoric

no further warnings

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

I see quite a lot of women use Miss. From 30s up. For example, when giving their address when there is no need to have any prefix.

If you say so. I've not heard anyone use the term miss since school.

PrincessLola

sharper wrote: »

Why should there be any differences? If a man wants to take his wife's name on marriage why not? Either it should be an option available to everyone or no-one.

OK fair enough, I just didn't think men would want to voluntarilly give up their name, a social practise that was used to descriminate against women.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you say so. I've not heard anyone use the term miss since school.

Actually, "quite a lot" may be an exaggeration now that I've checked a database*

Approx 900 female names and addresses.

Only 4 Miss.

However, only 21 "Mrs". This is in a context where people really don't need to specify either as it was just looking for name and address. I think a lot more would use Mrs (over Ms.) in situations where prefixes were sought (and hence more might use Miss).

*it was an honest mistake - it has just stood out to me at the time whenever I have seen it and has been slightly frustrating in some situations where I have sorted by first name and then one finds the Mrs/Miss/etc have to be sorted, or even, I've done something thinking everything was sorted and then discover this after

iptba

PrincessLola wrote: »

OK fair enough, I just didn't think men would want to voluntarilly give up their name, a social practise that was used to descriminate against women.

That's what we are conventionally told. However, women these days sometimes do choose to use "Mrs" themselves, even in situations when they don't need to give a prefix so, like with a lot of conventional wisdom, I question whether it is as simple as that.

PrincessLola

iptba wrote: »

That's what we are conventionally told. However, women these days sometimes do choose to use "Mrs" themselves, even in situations when they don't need to give a prefix so, like with a lot of conventional wisdom, I question whether it is as simple as that.

Its their choice, but didn't used to be a choice for women.

You can't entirely erase the past. I mean you could theoretically ban the use of 'mrs' but then you'd get the 'PC gone mad' brigade up in arms.

iptba

PrincessLola wrote: »

Its their choice, but didn't used to be a choice for women.

You can't entirely erase the past. I mean you could theoretically ban the use of 'mrs' but then you'd get the 'PC gone mad' brigade up in arms.

Yes, but my point is to wonder why some women still use it, and then wonder whether the same might have applied in the past. For example, it may signify that providing the woman is now the man's responsibility to a greater or lesser extent?? I don't know why women still use it but it does make me think some women believe there are advantages to it and hence, that there could also have been advantages to it in the past for women.

The Corinthian

PrincessLola wrote: »

OK fair enough, I just didn't think men would want to voluntarilly give up their name, a social practise that was used to descriminate against women.

It's relatively rare; typically when the man does not much like his name or prefers his wife's name (often for social reasons - one of Kubrick's protagonists did this).

iptba wrote: »

Actually, "quite a lot" may be an exaggeration now that I've checked a database*

'Miss' has been going out of fashion for a while, from what I can make out - as over a certain age it gives the impression of an ageing spinster. My guess is that it will go the way of 'Master' for boys, in time.

panda100

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is if they want to change their name to the wife's one. Doesn't happen very often, but in fairness it does upon occasion. So while it's hardly a major topic of discrimination, that I personally would not lose too much sleep over, it still is a fair example of where the law discriminates solely on gender.

I agree there is inequality at play here. Men should be allowed to choose their wives surname, though I highly doubt many would choose to do this. My view is that marriage should be an equal partnership.Its tradition that women take a husbands surname because women were subservient to men in a marriage, and their husbands property rather than their own individual. I agree that the law is discriminatory, but I would be of the persuasion that this practice is far more discriminatory towards women.

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, Mrs and Miss are all but gone from the English language, at least in usage, having been replaced with the more generic Ms. In other languages, while Ms does not exist, the equivalent of Mrs is typically used regardless of marital status. So the analogy is a bit moot.

In my experience this is not really the case. There are a large array of websites and forms that still do not have a 'Ms' option to tick. I am often asked whether I am a 'Miss' or 'Mrs' when asked for my personal details. It can be very annoying.

Dudess

py2006 wrote: »

Unfortunately, not all feminists fully realise what the movement is about. There is a branch of extremist among them that do the movement no favour and irritate the hell out of people with their double standards and deluded comments and behaviour.

Anyway, this thread is about discrimination against men, not about 'heads' coming in and telling us how we blame women.

We all know about those crackpot feminists obviously - as you acknowledge yourself though, not all feminists are like that.

iptba wrote: »

There is too much censoring of men raising points about men's lives in the 3-D world. I'm sure plenty of the people, who directly or indirectly cause this censorship, claim they do it, or believe they do this, for the greater good.

Questioning isn't censorship. As someone said, there are real and serious issues facing men for being male - don't think anyone reasonable would disagree with that. I've worked with male survivors of domestic abuse, sexual abuse by women, who have been prevented from seeing their kids. These appalling problems are getting sidelined though by the laughable complaints about not getting a shag.

iptba

Dudess wrote: »

iptba wrote:

There is too much censoring of men raising points about men's lives in the 3-D world. I'm sure plenty of the people, who directly or indirectly cause this censorship, claim they do it, or believe they do this, for the greater good.

Questioning isn't censorship.

You're right, it's not necessarily.

Dudess wrote: »

As someone said, there are real and serious issues facing men for being male - don't think anyone reasonable would disagree with that. I've worked with male survivors of domestic abuse, sexual abuse by women, who have been prevented from seeing their kids. These appalling problems are getting sidelined though by the laughable complaints about not getting a shag.

I'm not sure why there has to be any prioritisation system. It's not like there is a set amount of money and we're deciding how it is to be allocated.

I don't see why people can't brain-storm and throw things out that occur to them.

vicwatson

panda100 wrote: »

Really?? You honestly think that women changing their name to their husbands is discrimination against men? Do you think the title 'Mr' is discriminatory too, as it doesn't allow men to declare their marital status or sexual availability in their title?

Yes

Dudess

@iptba
Well it's hostile, and shouldn't it be considered whether it's discrimination first?

It must be really horrible for a guy to experience knockback after knockback, and worse again to be ridiculed, and for his confidence to get irreparably damaged, but it's hard to feel sympathy for guys who view this as a conspiracy against them by all women. Taking it personally - hard not to, but not right. Investing energy in making changes (including basic PUA confidence tips if needs be) would be far more beneficial and helpful to the guy.

I very much agree too with the concerns re certain music videos, song lyrics, advertising, TV and film portrayals of/attitudes to men. It's dreadful - and far too accepted. It also puts women in a crap light.

The way it's ok for punters to grope male strippers is grotesque also IMO.

Dudess

vicwatson wrote: »

panda100 wrote: »

Really?? You honestly think that women changing their name to their husbands is discrimination against men? Do you think the title 'Mr' is discriminatory too, as it doesn't allow men to declare their marital status or sexual availability in their title?

Yes

Perhaps consider the roots of it so - it's very much not intended as discrimination against men. I personally wouldn't have a problem with changing my name to married one for some stuff but would keep my maiden name for other stuff.

PrincessLola

iptba wrote: »

Yes, but my point is to wonder why some women still use it, and then wonder whether the same might have applied in the past. For example, it may signify that providing the woman is now the man's responsibility to a greater or lesser extent?? I don't know why women still use it but it does make me think some women believe there are advantages to it and hence, that there could also have been advantages to it in the past for women.

The fact that certain women choose to use the prefix 'Mrs.' instead of 'Ms.' does not denote that women were generally benefitting from their historic status as property of their husbands.

Furthermore, you are trying to twist the situation of women as their husband's property into a position of privilige. It was not.

I am sympathetic to your position, but I do not appreciate what you are doing here, you are appropriating women's historical inequalities to make them out to be male inequalities.
Its like saying that it was men who were discriminated against by the lack of womens' suffrage, because men had all the responsibility and pressure of voting and being in power. Its called appropriation.

Wompa1

Dudess wrote: »

And what are guys gonna do about these grievances? Apart from bitching about feminists for not taking on their causes? For all their evil and the way they make this world so terrible for men with its male president of America at least feminists try to do something about what they consider discrimination.

That's true there was a show on HBO over here the other night with a group of lesbian feminists having a masturbation-athon for a Feminists group charity...it brought a tear to my eye, good thing I had some tissues handy already!!! eh eh? I'm kidding they were all ugly as fook! And that's not me using a stereotype it's a matter of opinion for that select group of ugly, short haired, beady eyed women

PrincessLola

Wompa1 wrote: »

That's true there was a show on HBO over here the other night with a group of lesbian feminists having a masturbation-athon for a Feminists group charity...it brought a tear to my eye, good thing I had some tissues handy already!!! eh eh? I'm kidding they were all ugly as fook! And that's not me using a stereotype it's a matter of opinion for that select group of ugly, short haired, beady eyed women

What does you seeing unattractive lesbians on HBO got to do with her point?

You are in actual fact attempting to diminish feminism by calling the women involved ugly. Its kind of, well, petty.

Wompa1

PrincessLola wrote: »

What does you seeing unattractive lesbians on HBO got to do with her point?

You are in actual fact attempting to diminish feminism by calling the women involved ugly. Its kind of, well, petty.

Her point was at least they do something. The show on HBO wouldn't be the first case of a feminist group in my opinion who do things more for attention and to be controversial than to actually help the cause. It's like Hippies who tow the Hippy line on absolutely every social and political issue because they want belong and have that image. I'm not saying that's everybody in that group or in the group of feminists but I do believe there are some.

The Corinthian

Dudess wrote: »

Perhaps consider the roots of it so - it's very much not intended as discrimination against men.

Past discrimination against women was not intended as discrimination against them either, but protection. So intention should not diminish the actual effect of such laws.

PrincessLola

Wompa1 wrote: »

Her point was at least they do something. The show on HBO wouldn't be the first case of a feminist group in my opinion who do things more for attention and to be controversial than to actually help the cause. It's like Hippies who tow the Hippy line on absolutely every social and political issue because they want belong and have that image. I'm not saying that's everybody in that group or in the group of feminists but I do believe there are some.

Must have been terrible for you I guess,
being forced to watch non-conventionally attractive women embrace their sexuality in a manner that does not cater to heterosexual men. I mean it had to be all for attention, right? right?

Otis Driftwood

Ok,this thread has been skirting the lines of off topicness for a couple of days now,I think the masturbating feminists is the final nail in the coffin.

Locked.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zulu

At risk of posting OT: thanks a million Permabear for reopening this.

The Corinthian

I think how this thread found itself on this board is not a bad example of how men are discriminated against nowadays.

It originated on a board allegedly dedicated to men's issues, but where discussion on issues such as men's rights have long been discouraged. That it was ultimately locked there on the pretext of a small number of stupid posts (a policy that, if followed elsewhere, would likely close down 90% of threads on Boards) rather than issuing warnings and/or infractions underlined this policy of discouragement. Meanwhile, women's rights issues appear to suffer no such discouragement on that board's 'sister' board.

It's a problem you see it in other discussions here and in the wider World, where the idea that men could even be discriminated against is often dismissed or even ridiculed.

This attitude of devaluing men or their rights is regrettably utterly ingrained in our society. For example, the media routinely will report death tolls from disasters, yet then highlight a subtotal of "women and children" as if the loss of their lives are greater.

Another example is where atrocities in Africa are reported, the emphasis is almost always on the rape of women. That far more men are killed arbitrary, tortured or worked-to-death barely gets any attention.

It seems to me that as a Society we are far less comfortable talking about men's discrimination than women's. Are we suffering from a post-Patriarchal guilt trip? Or is it a throwback of the biological imperative that argues that women are less easily replaced than men where it comes to reproduction?

Why is it still acceptable to save "women and children" first from a burning building? Are men less flammable than women?

Are men truly so expendable? Do we see ourselves as such through our own, frankly, chauvinistic perpetuation of such values?

Whatever it is, it's devastatingly disheartening that it seeks to routinely silence any dissent, even here.

Zulu

I was debating whether or not to point out what happened to this thread, but I decided to leave it consider I was sending the PM's. I reckon it's probably in the threads best interests to leave it at that, but thanks TC for mentioning it. And thanks again Permabear for taking the thread.

With respect to Africa, and rape. I read an article (I'll see if I can dig up a link later), a very very disheartening article about male rape in the conflicts in Africa. The crux of it was that men we being raped in significantly large numbers, but that due to the culture over there, a raped man could expect to be shunned from his wife, family & life.
It maintained that the act of raping a man - other than the obvious - effectively turned him into a social pariah. A raped man wasn't suitable to be a husband, and wasn't suitable to be a father.
So these poor men had no support at all. To admit being a victim of this crime was to risk loosing their family.

Truly horrendous, nightmare stuff.