Mens Rights Thread

Airyfairy12

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Boys are much more likely to receive support in school, theyre more likely to get tested and receive supports for ADHD, Autism and learning difficulties, girls are massively under diagnosed and can go untreated throughout their entire years at school. That in itself is a bias in favor of boys.

You have proof of all these claims?

Some boys are more likely to and choose to dropout of school before their leaving cert or not go to college so they can learn a trade and start working instead, and who could blame them?, it's very common for boys that live on farms or have farming in their family/locality to drop out of school and start working, boys are more likely to take over family businesses or take up apprenticeships in carpentry etc, for which a junior cert or fas course is the highest education level required for most. - Girls could drop out too if they wanted but there's less work opportunities for girls who leave school at a young age and most female gendered jobs require a further level of education beyond leaving certificate.

Very few jobs these days are exclusively based on gender, and legally, a male or a female could appeal on such grounds. A girl not going to university, has the same opportunities for employment as a male. The difference is one of choice. Typically, girls aren't as interested in manual labor positions, such as construction, or landscaping, which many boys will do after school.

Boys can do badly in school for a number of reasons, allot of it can be down to their social groups and peer pressure.

That's the case for both genders.

Girls are massively underrepresented in physics and maths because boys and men have been encouraged to undertake those subjects, literally for centuries while women were deterred from them.

Literally for centuries? Rubbish. Centuries doesn't matter because educational systems, and their focus have changed as has society. You're living in the past... probably because it's easier to justify your persecution/victim complex.

Girls are underrespresented because they're not as interested in such subjects, whereas they are overrepresented in other subjects, because of an interest that boys don't have. This need for equal numbers in every field and discipline is unrealistic, and seeks to ignore that people have the freedom to choose where their future rests.

Jobs in social care, teaching, nursing, childcare ect are over represented by women, theres been in an increase in the last 10 years or so to encourage more boys and men to go into these areas. Plenty of these jobs post advertisements specifically asking for male applicants.

Sure, they do, and typically, they don't receive the interest by males, because males have different needs/desires from employment versus what females want. Typically, males will be drawn to roles which reputably have a higher salary range, with less interest in the actual work, but more interest in the benefits, or influence they perceive it to represent.

Look. You're trying so hard to avoid recognising that Males/females have different interests, and also that they have different appreciation in regards to rewards. Women are overrepresented in nursing or child care, because of an interest in nurture, which most males have little interest in doing as a profession. Choice. That's what equality is all about. That women can choose to do the jobs that men do... however, most don't.

All that said, if you think there is a gender bias in schools and that the school system treats boys badly or doesnt give them equal opportunities, thats a serious accusation to make. Women have been fighting bias and unequal opportunities, we've had to fight very hard to get rights.

Except you haven't. Women haven't needed to fight hard for rights since the 80's and once the movement started within society and government, there was a natural momentum towards equality. Fact is, when it comes to equality with men, on issues that both genders are involved in, women haven't needed to fight very much at all.

There is a tendency to take the struggles of the first/second wave of feminism, and the equal rights movements, and project them into present day. Which is silly. You, and others within the last twenty years haven't needed to fight even remotely as hard as them, as there wasn't the resistance to women's rights.

Now, if you're talking about women's rights beyond equality, then yes, there has been resistance, and rightly so.

If you think that boys are now being treated unequally, you should really take this further, could you bring the education sector to court? write to universities about your thoughts on the gender bias that's happening? Start up a protest?

There's no point crying on the internet about it, imagine if, instead of doing something about the gender discrimination women faced, they didn't bother to try and change anything? If you think this is a real issue then you should absolutely take your argument further.

There is a point to talking about it on the internet, because it raises awareness. In spite of the claims otherwise, men and women are different, and there will be a different approach towards generating the support needed to create momentum towards change.

Although I have to laugh. All these claims of men seeking to shut down women (maninterrupting, mansplaining etc) and here you are, dismissing male concerns about inequality and bias. It just shows that feminists have no interest in equality between the genders. (yes, I consider you a feminist based on your posts)

Airyfairy12

py2006 wrote: »

This is only small portion of men and may be more common up to 20 to 30 years ago. Most boys in order to compete for jobs that will allow them earn enough to purchase a house etc will need to go to third level of some sort.

But the system seems vastly against them right now. Girls consistently outperform boys at higher level in 34 out of 40 (I think) leaving cert subjects. And this is celebrated in the media each year with "you go girls" type articles.

If these figures were reversed and 95% of teachers were men there would be something done about it very quickly.

Also, boys traditionally do better in maths and physics not down to some sort of sexism or lack of encouragement for girls, but its down to how differently we are wired (to put it simply).

Well in that case, girls traditionally do better in school than boys, nothing to do with sexism, we're just wired differently.

py2006

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Well in that case, girls traditionally do better in school than boys, nothing to do with sexism, we're just wired differently.

Yes, especially in languages. But not all the other subjects

Airyfairy12

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Well in that case, girls traditionally do better in school than boys, nothing to do with sexism, we're just wired differently.

We could judge that a little better in 50% of teachers were men. Maybe we need quotas.

Airyfairy12

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Well in that case, girls traditionally do better in school than boys, nothing to do with sexism, we're just wired differently.

Not really. Girls do better with some subjects and under certain circumstances, such as how classrooms are organised, and such. There's heaps of research done showing how boys and girls will perform under different environmental circumstances, including whether their teachers match their gender.

As for sexism, when it was shown that girls were underperforming against boys in school, claims of sexism or bias were made, and so the system was changed. Now that boys are underperforming against girls, such claims of bias or sexism are dismissed.

It simply shows the double standard that exists.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

We could judge that a little better in 50% of teachers were men. Maybe we need quotas.

It will never happen.

Sn@kebite

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Well in that case, girls traditionally do better in school than boys, nothing to do with sexism, we're just wired differently.

This is really showing your laziness. Boys lag in every subject yet suddenly in physics male teachers show up and guess what happens? Now it becomes a problem and a gender-gap.

If we're wired differently and boys do better in physics/engineering they are not allowed to be better or wired in a way that help them. Special supports are set up for girls to compensate while the reverse is sneered at by people like you.

A liberal view would be all children need to be helped while the leftist/feminist nonsense is all about arbitrary box-ticking propaganda which I'm fed up with and I do think most mothers/women are sick of your nonsense also. Most parents want boys to be helped if you look at most surveys.

While engineering schools make efforts to attract more women at about 80% male the even more imbalanced mental health sciences can be up to 95% female-dominated and not a eye batted about how this may impact male mental health. Male lenses are not represented and even psychology has gone female-dominated so all mental health areas a white, middle-class female centric.

It is simply not moaning or complaining it is a recognition of a gender bias. Schools are run by women so the idea they pander to boys is a joke. And if so they are not doing a very good job of favouring boys as boys fall further behind and feminist academics celebrate it.

Being concerned with male issues doesn't for a second mean I'm erasing the oppression of girls in education, or saying girls don't need help in any way. I think rather you are using it as a guilt-trip attitude which feminism uses to block an opening of a dialogue that is not about how women are the eternal victims.

One thing I agree with you on is men need to take it a whole lot further.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

It will never happen.

The thing is that if you go back twenty/thirty years, you would have found close to parity in secondary schools. Not so much in primary schools (although if you counted the religious schools, it increased somewhat). However, the number of male teachers dropped considerably when the salary amounts dropped, and there was less security from the positions. Throw in the danger of accusations about molestation or rape, and many men left teaching to work privately.

And while, numbers of male teachers have increased, there is still a strong hesitancy by males to enter teaching at primary level. There's simply more money to be made in other sectors, and considering the way society judges males/females about sexual conduct, and how disastrous even a baseless claim can be, I doubt those numbers will increase much.

At one stage, i came back to Ireland, in the hopes of working at kindergarten, since I'd been doing that in Asia. haha. I was told (unofficially) not a chance in hell. Parents wouldn't allow it, nor would the hiring panels. Didn't matter that I was experienced, and qualified, it simply wasn't the job for a man in Ireland.

That's the world we live in. Men are potentially sexual predators. Women never are. Yay, for equality and being fair to all. :rolleyes:

Silentcorner

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Well in that case, girls traditionally do better in school than boys, nothing to do with sexism, we're just wired differently.

Well in that case, men perform better in professional environments, nothing to do with sexism, we're just wired differently.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well in that case, men perform better in professional environments, nothing to do with sexism, we're just wired differently.

Except, of course, that men don't. Individuals do, depending on their own personality, and ambitions. The difference is that women generally have less interest in the lifestyle requirements that comes with achieving such higher positions.

Feminists want to make everything about gender because it justifies their eternal existence in fighting the good fight. The truth, though, is that individuals make decisions independent (although often influenced by) of gender, and that's what determines success in a certain field (in addition to natural/learned skills and acquired knowledge).

iptba

Women are bearing the brunt of the Covid-19 recession
Pilita Clark: Things have been unusually bad on many levels, starting with job losses

– Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2020

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/women-are-bearing-the-brunt-of-the-covid-19-recession-1.4342204

Another Irish Times article which takes a one-sided view of the statistics and the like.

One comment underneath:

So none of this is based on actual data. Women take part time jobs with less security because it suits them. Get over it.

iptba

Gender gap slightly wider than previous years

Every year females outperform males in the Leaving Certificate exams.

While the calculated grades process did not contain any specific mechanism to maintain this differential, the final outcome shows female students once again receiving results that are higher as a whole than those awarded to males.

This year's gender gap is slightly wider than in previous years.

https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/0907/1163563-leaving-cert/

As many here suspected if it was going to be based on teachers’ assessments, though some feminists posited the opposite would happen.

I imagine if the reverse were the case, there would be commentators criticising the outcome in the media. I wonder what will happen here.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/0907/1163563-leaving-cert/

As many here suspected if it was going to be based on teachers’ assessments, though some feminists posited the opposite would happen.

I imagine if the reverse were the case, there would be commentators criticising the outcome in the media. I wonder what will happen here.

I think you know as well as I do what will happen. Nothing. We are still going through the 'Purgatory' phase for males. Women were 'held down' for such a long time, so it's now time for males to feel something of what they did.

Such reports are going to be dismissed as a fluke or just outright ignored, because equality is not the goal here...

Since some females will lose to others in an equal society , and nobody wants to acknowledge that. (as would some males but that's of lesser importance). It's like the push for women in top managerial positions. The fact that the largest percentage of males fail to achieve that same success as other males, but when women fail to achieve it, then it's discriminatory.

Nobody will want to shake the boat now that females are "succeeding". It doesn't matter that it's success is based on bias, or by developing a system that benefits females the most.

iptba

When people have mentioned (elsewhere), the gender imbalance in primary and secondary education, often it has been countered by people pointing out the disproportionate number of principals who are male.

I haven’t been convinced that the latter is necessarily down to discrimination: I suspect a bigger factor is there is more pressure in people’s relationships on male teachers than female teachers to earn more. I was talking to a female friend who is a teacher a while back about the profession. She said lots of female teachers don’t want the hassle and long hours of being a principal. She mentioned some women even try it for a while and give it up. Anyway, I was thinking of this recently hearings the stories of principals working long hours getting schools ready with Covid-19 while the rest of teachers were on holidays.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

When people have mentioned (elsewhere), the gender imbalance in primary and secondary education, often it has been countered by people pointing out the disproportionate number of principals who are male.

I haven’t been convinced that the latter is necessarily down to discrimination: I suspect a bigger factor is there is more pressure in people’s relationships on male teachers than female teachers to earn more. I was talking to a female friend who is a teacher a while back about the profession. She said lots of female teachers don’t want the hassle and long hours of being a principal. She mentioned some women even try it for a while and give it up. Anyway, I was thinking of this recently hearings the stories of principals working long hours getting schools ready with Covid-19 while the rest of teachers were on holidays.

My mother was a principal of a Marist Brothers primary school for over thirty years, as the RCC sought to remove it's presence in the administration of the school (funding by the state vs Church funding). She has spoken often of the resistance and problems she faced, and the majority of problems she had was not with the males but the females.

Primary level is pretty different from secondary, in that parents, especially the mothers have far more involvement in their children, and the interactions with the school itself. The parents organisations have real influence to cause problems for teachers, and... principals. My mother has spoken of the wave of support she received from the Marist Brothers, while at the same time, spoken about the stresses she was put under by the women within the various organisations. They didn't care about equality... they wanted a male principal, even though my mother had been a teacher in the school for decades before, and they all knew her well. Whereas it was the Marist Brothers, who suggested giving her a chance, and protected her until she got her feet firmly planted.

As for being a principal, I know most teachers would prefer to remain teachers because it lessens the contact they have with parents, and as teachers they have more... control over what happens within the classroom, with the principal acting as a shield. Whereas to be a principal, and have to deal with parents criticism all the time? That takes a special sort of person.

I've been a manager in busy Finance companies, and I've also been a teacher. I wouldn't ever want to be a principal.. it's just a horrible job.

Sn@kebite

I think its

a) up to men to mobilise and make a change by advocating for change in education. (It's well known there's a problem)
b) most parents want both their sons and daughters to do well in education as it's important so the vast majority isn't going to resist. It's a minority of vocal (and very influential) leftist/feminists running academic social science depts and the fact most teachers are female they may not want to share their jobs out with men. Also teachers should be paid more and this would attract men if pay was better.

titan18

iptba wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/0907/1163563-leaving-cert/

As many here suspected if it was going to be based on teachers’ assessments, though some feminists posited the opposite would happen.

I imagine if the reverse were the case, there would be commentators criticising the outcome in the media. I wonder what will happen here.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40045100.html

They're unhappy that the gap wasn't bigger.

Padraig Mor

As sure as night follows day, here come the misandrist moaners complaining that girls weren't given enough extra marks compared to boys in this year's Leaving Cert.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40045100.html

A very confused article - starts out detailing how girls do better than boys, and how this has been made even more so this year. I actually thought the piece was going to highlight discrimination against boys but, no, they then start saying that girls should have been given even more marks.

The Leaving Certificate was cancelled on May 8 to be replaced by the teachers’ subjective judgments on what percentage mark they thought each of their students might have received in the Leaving Certificate.

They also gave their ranking of each student relative to their peers, with oversight by their school principal.

These scores were adjusted by National Standardisation Group in the Department of Education and Skills through a standardisation process.

Nevertheless, the final grades are 4.4% on average higher this year than in previous years.

So how has this process affected boys’ and girls’ results in particular subjects and in single-sex and coeducational schools?

Teachers were asked to take into account records of their students’ performance including continuous assignments, projects, mock exams (‘with caveats’), previous results and any other relevant information. It was a subjective assessment of their own named students as compared with the usual anonymous Leaving Certificate examination.

It appears that these teacher-based assessments valued steady continuous work.

Since boys tend to do less well at this form of assessment and rely more on cramming for exams, boys tended to be scored lower than girls in the teachers’ assessments.

Girls typically do better than boys overall in the Leaving Certificate and this difference has been increasing over time for a variety of reasons. Girls on average outperformed boys by 5.7 points in 2017; 5.9 in 2018 and 6.5 in 2019.


Based on the teachers’ assessments, girls scored on average 7.9 points higher in 2020 compared to the previous three-year Leaving Certificate average.

The teacher’s assessments were then modified by the National Standardisation Group in a standardisation process.

Through this process, the gap between girls and boys was reduced to an average of 7.6 points. This process appeared to value Junior Certificate exam results more, and so it reduced the teachers’ overall assessment of girls relative to boys on average.


With the exception of Maths, the teacher’s assessments of high achieving girls on higher level papers were marked down particularly severely in this standardisation process. There was no rationale given for this.
For the past three years, boys have tended to perform better than girls in Honours Maths. Over this time, boys have had a 4.5 percentage point advantage over girls at H1 level on the Honours Maths paper. This year the school assessment reduced that gap to 2.5 percentage points, and standardisation reduced it to one percentage point. In addition, at H2 and H3 on honours level Maths, the gender pattern was reversed as assessed by both the teachers’ assessment and the standardisation process, so that girls outperformed boys at H2 and H3 in Honours Maths.

Data by gender has only been published for English, Irish and Maths. The lack of analysis by other subject areas means that the teachers’ assessments and standardisation by gender and type of school (single-sex boys, girls and co-educational) are not revealed across the other subject areas.


This is a crucial omission. It is particularly important since the proportion of H1s on Honours papers has increased dramatically in male-dominated subjects this year relative to last year e.g. from 10.9% to 15.6% in Honours Physics; from 13.5% to 17.1% in Honours Chemistry; from 16.5% to 29.6% in Honours Applied Maths. This contrasted with smaller increases in female-dominated areas such as Honours Biology (from 8.2% to 10.8%) and Honours French (from 6.6% to 7.7%).

Even in Honours Maths, where girls performed well, the proportion of H1s only increased from 6.4% last year to 8.4% this year.

In previous years, girls in single-sex schools had the best overall Leaving Certificate grades, followed by boys in single-sex schools, girls in co-ed schools and boys in co-ed schools. This year, both the teachers’ assessment and the standardised process maintained this pattern, although with higher scores.

The standardisation process resulted in boys in single-sex schools increasing their average grades by 8.1 percentage points based on the previous three-year average, followed by girls in single-sex (6.5%), girls in co-ed (6.2%) and boys in co-ed schools (5.6%).

The adjustment downwards for girls in the standardisation process was greatest in co-educational settings. This raises questions about the apparent difficulty the National Standardisation Group had with girls being seen to do better than boys in co-educational settings.


Over the past three years, girls in single-sex schools have secured higher Leaving Certificate results than boys in single-sex schools. With teacher’s assessments and standardisation, the gap between high achieving girls in single-sex schools and their male counterparts has been reduced. This may affect these girls’ access to high points courses.

Furthermore, this reduction to the disadvantage of girls is a worrying indicator of the perpetuation of stereotypical attitudes by the National Standardisation Group as reflected in the model. It has potential implications for undermining gender parity in the profile of professional areas in the future.

The differential increases in the proportion of H1s in male-dominated as compared to female-dominated disciplines also militates against the promotion of such gender equality.

Teachers’ assessments, with their focus on effort and performance appeared to increase recognition of girls’ work, countering gender-stereotyping which international evidence shows typically does not favour girls. However, the standardisation process, ultimately emanating from the Department of Education and Skills, appears to have emphasised Junior Cert results more.

Given the growing focus on promoting a more creative and learner-centred experience where students engage more critically and individually with their learning, the grading standardisation appear to be at odds with broader policy goals at second level.

Note the lack of comment re the 'gender gap' widening this year - while this was portrayed yesterday as tiny, it's actually almost 17% bigger this year on average (7.6 points versus 6.5 in 2019) - this is by far the largest increase in the gap since 2017, yet the (female) authors are whinging that this was reduced by standardisation!

They make the claim that "high achieving girls on higher level papers were marked down particularly severely in this standardisation process. There was no rationale given for this" - yet then not alone fail to produce any evidence of this, but bizarrely cite Honours Maths where girls 'mysteriously' got much better scores than previous years - scores which were increased compared to boys by standardisation?! Eh?

Their central thesis (such as it is) seems to be that a few hand picked traditionally "male dominated" subjects* saw a "dramatic" increase in number of H1s awarded. This is used as a stick to beat boys and the Department with because traditionally 'female' subjects did not see as great an increase - this is "worrying" and "has potential implications for undermining gender parity". Yet they themselves prefix the relevant section by saying that gender data was not published for these subjects (it was only published for English, Irish, and Maths). So they have no idea if these big increases were due to 'male dominated' subjects being marked easier in order to give boys higher marks (their apparent claim) or - and I'm going out on a limb here - maybe, just maybe, girls' marks in these subjects shot up compared to previous years resulting in the overall increase......we literally don't know!
*their use of "male dominated"is interesting and possibly misleading. Does this mean boys generally get higher marks on average, or that more boys do these subjects usually (but girls may still get higher marks)?

They then finish off with a section even I can't make head nor tail of wailing about girls in co-ed schools having their marks downgraded.....even though they were actually increased....and the overall pattern of girls doing better than boys in either single sex or mixed schools remained the same. This section features this howler: "the gap between high achieving girls in single-sex schools and their male counterparts has been reduced. This may affect these girls’ access to high points courses". It's there in black and white - even though girls did better overall, and by a greater proportion compared to boys of any other year, the fact that the gender gap was reduced in some settings is a serious problem for our authors - should we not be celebrating (one tiny step towards) equality?

The web page also features a bizarre tweet from one of the authors linking this "potential gender bias" (!!!) with the Phil Hogan situation (wut?!) and "sexual harassment" (presumably referring to the UCD case).

Little surprise that all three of our authors are professors of Sociology and not proper science (certainly not maths or statistics anyway...) and are of course representing equality by all being white middle class females......

Sn@kebite

^^ Proving one thing really, that middle-class feminists are never ****ing happy !!

So their side doing well is all they are interested in. Not equality.

iptba

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So their side doing well is all they are interested in. Not equality.

And they are academics doing all the things academics do (research, education (lecturing and grading), peer review, maybe giving specialist advice, etc).

iptba

Why you should be suspicious of men with deep voices

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/0307/945693-why-you-should-be-suspicious-of-men-with-deep-voices/

Actually an interesting enough (to me anyway) piece on studies on mating preferences and who might cheat, but I wonder how likely would RTÉ be to publish an article “Why you should be suspicious of women with X” especially one that didn’t mention any negative behaviours of men?

Sn@kebite

iptba wrote: »

Why you should be suspicious of men with deep voices

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2018/0307/945693-why-you-should-be-suspicious-of-men-with-deep-voices/

Is this the future of psychology as a "STEM" field? As a field becomes more female-dominated we see the focus on facts and quantitative results is less pronounced. What a shame that psychology which is an important field should surrender itself to this pseudo-intellectual dribble.

Sn@kebite

Sn@kebite wrote: »

Is this the future of psychology as a "STEM" field? As a field becomes more female-dominated we see the focus on facts and quantitative results is less pronounced. What a shame that psychology which is an important field should surrender itself to this pseudo-intellectual dribble.

Psychology was inundated with a wave of female graduates in the late 90s/early 2000s, many of whom graduated from the more feminist dominated courses in US academia. You can see it easily enough from the host of 'research' papers released over the same period, most of which related to gender, roles, sexuality etc. Psychology went from an industry with slightly more males, to being predominately female, especially with regards to peer reviewed research papers. They're well established these days.

Now we're seeing a wave of those graduates who went through university with the SJW/Woke movements, as opposed to just feminism.. Psychology, and STEM (along with HRM, sociology, etc) will remain prime areas for these kind of women to aim for... because they're guaranteed jobs (otherwise it's discriminatory)

Basically, we're well fcuked.

iptba

This is in some ways, complaining about men; one doesn't tend to see articles in the mainstream media where the genders are reversed

Why women are suffering from burnout and what we can do about it

The pandemic has exposed a lot of truths, one being that unseen, unpaid work is disproportionately done by women. Can we change this?

https://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/why-women-are-suffering-from-burnout-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-39523636.html
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-independent/20200914/281573768112323

iptba

Tommy Martin: It might be up to Ireland's men to ensure women get equal slice of the pie
Currently, the men get around €2,000 for a competitive game and about €1,000 for a friendly. The women’s team get €250 per game.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-40050065.html

Yes, but I presume the men's team contributes much more financially to the Association. Indeed, the men's team may already subsidise the female team. Certainly if they were paid the same, that would happen.

If the money is to be taken for professional men's team, there are lots of other ways within the FAI that the money could be used.

But the trouble with male privilege is that it often doesn’t feel like privilege. Privilege isn’t riding around in a golden chariot, drinking champagne from a diamond-encrusted goblet. Privilege feels more like sitting on a comfy couch with a ready supply of beer and snacks. The man on the couch doesn’t feel like he’s especially privileged, but God help you if try to get him to leave it.

Why couldn’t Ireland follow suit? Currently, the men get around €2,000 for a competitive game and about €1,000 for a friendly. The women’s team get €250 per game. Ah, says the man from the couch, sure it’s the men’s team that brings in all the money, that’s why they get paid more.

Wouldn’t it be great if they got up from the comfy couch of privilege (I know lads, it’s hard) and offered to pool their appearance fees with the women’s team and have them divided equally?

My guess is most men sitting on couches in houses shared by their female partners are contributing significantly financially through their salary, which requires hours and hours of work.

Again, one doesn't tend to see articles in the mainstream media where the genders are reversed

99nsr125

iptba wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-40050065.html

Yes, but I presume the men's team contributes much more financially to the Association. Indeed, the men's team may already subsidise the female team. Certainly if they were paid the same, that would happen.

If the money is to be taken for professional men's team, there are lots of other ways within the FAI that the money could be used.







My guess is most men sitting on couches in houses shared by their female partners are contributing significantly financially through their salary, which requires hours and hours of work.

Again, one doesn't tend to see articles in the mainstream media where the genders are reversed

It's a glaring double standard

The female game is already subsidised by its separation.
If there was no separation there would be no female participation and hence no fees at all.

Looking for equal outcome without the equal standard is doomed to failure and we know this already from the failure of communism.

Everybody is different and better at some things than others and how this is not obvious I don't understand

99nsr125

99nsr125 wrote: »

Everybody is different and better at some things than others and how this is not obvious I don't understand

It is obvious. They know that men and women are different. Depending on the circumstances, women will be held up to be different, in order to promote that women are superior in some way. This isn't about what they know or don't know.

This is about manipulating reality. It's a strong tenant behind feminist ideology. Gender is just a construct, after all. Although....

CageWager

Take tennis for example. Lets agree to implement “equality” by merging the mens and womens games and pool all the prize money - let the best 100 “players” get all the cash. Surely all the #fierce #girlboss women should do just as well as the men? Do that and see how quickly they rail against the system.

Men and women are the same when it suits them (payday) and different when it suits them (easier conditions, less competition etc.)

The women's football team don’t want equality - they want all the cash that they bring in and half the cash men bring in. This stuff is just printed in the news with no critical analysis or rebuttle - just this ra ra “you go girl” bs from the usual suspects.

Equality is not on the menu. Look at every aspect of society, and you'll find the push to place women as being more 'deserving' than men.