Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mens Rights Thread
Options
Comments
-
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.A Levels 2020: The Year of Utter Nonsense
http://empathygap.uk/?p=3494
Just like in Ireland, there were no exams for the A-levels this year.
Calculated grades from teachers were used instead.
This blog highlights how this increased the gap between girls and boys in favour of girls.0 -
Padraig Mor wrote: »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......
The same three authors were behind this study, reported on the front page of the Irish Times today:Girls’ maths ability underestimated due to stereotypes, study finds
Perception girls not as numerate as boys takes root from as young as nine
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/girls-maths-ability-underestimated-due-to-stereotypes-study-finds-1.4376105
Gender stereotyping is resulting in girls’ performance at maths being significantly underestimated by teachers and parents from primary school onwards, according to new research.
A study of 8,000 pupils in Ireland concludes that the perception that girls are not as good as boys is occurring at all levels of achievement, with the gap widest for high-performing girls.
The study’s authors – Dr Pat O’Connor, Dr Selina McCoy and Dr Delma Byrne – say the findings raise concerns for girls’ subsequent maths performance in a society where it is highly valued as an indicator of intelligence.
If true, it is a worthy enough thing to highlight. Though I wonder do they accept that results such as in the Leaving Cert at the top level do show a gender gap where boys do better in contrast to many other subjects, particularly languages.
I'm not particularly convinced by this.The study says other work needs to be done on the extent to which this over-estimation exists in other subject areas and the “extent to which it is reflected in boys’ wider sense of entitlement: a phenomenon which is related to the international reproduction of privilege inside the home and in the wider society”.
I'm more convinced by objective measures like proper exams rather than what teachers put down when giving estimates which could be influenced by a whole raft of factors.The study also references the 2020 Leaving Cert, which it says provided an opportunity to assess the impact of teachers’ subjective assessments, since they were effectively asked to predict how their students would perform.
It says the picture that emerged was one in which teachers presented highly positive assessments of the girls they taught, “arguably reflecting both their own perceptions of their competence as teachers and the girls’ willingness to co-operate with them”.
“Thus, in this context they appeared to be able to transcend the negative stereotypes surrounding girls’ achievements, even in areas such as mathematics, and even in co-educational settings,” the report states.0 -
The same three authors were behind this study, reported on the front page of the Irish Times today:
If true, it is a worthy enough thing to highlight. Though I wonder do they accept that results such as in the Leaving Cert at the top level do show a gender gap where boys do better in contrast to many other subjects, particularly languages.
I'm not particularly convinced by this.
I'm more convinced by objective measures like proper exams rather than what teachers put down when giving estimates which could be influenced by a whole raft of factors.
They talk about entitlement......the only entitlement I see is the presumption that girls are entitled to do better than boys in every single subject purely by virtue of their gender.
Moaning about the Leaving Cert as well............y'know, the anonymous Leaving Cert. FFS.0 -
The simple fact that when girls do better it's equality and boys do better its sexism shows the arrogance and hypocrisy of these social justice ilk.Padraig Mor wrote: »They talk about entitlement......the only entitlement I see is the presumption that girls are entitled to do better than boys in every single subject purely by virtue of their gender.
Just like when (female) teachers over estimate girls performance it's "finally anti-female bias is being eradicated". The tooting of this nonsense is absolutely abhorrent to say the least.
Schools are rapidly becoming an extension of this sociology nonsense. As is how unchallenged this all is.0 -
The simple fact that when girls do better it's equality and boys do better its sexism shows the arrogance and hypocrisy of these social justice ilk.
Just like when (female) teachers over estimate girls performance it's "finally anti-female bias is being eradicated". The tooting of this nonsense is absolutely abhorrent to say the least.
Schools are rapidly becoming an extension of this sociology nonsense. As is how unchallenged this all is.
Your last point is the scary thing. All of this is unchallenged in mainstream discourse.0 -
Advertisement
-
A very small thing an not strictly "men's rights" related. Yet, I think, a worrying and bothersome indicator of the times we live in.
A youtuber has renamed his channel removing the word "man" from the title - citing "inclusivity", but also acknowledging the fact that there is a chance the word would land him and the channel into potential trouble in the future.
Here:
It's important to mention that this is a RETROGAMING and VINTAGE TECH channel. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "manosphere", "red pill" and so on. Zero - he talks about Commodore, Atari and the likes.
The scary part is that his reasoning is sound - all it takes is for some easily-offended folk to get his channel in the Youtube recommendations, see the word "man" and chances are sh1t would hit the fan.
Thinking about it, I'd probably have done the same.0 -
He also mentions companies might be wary of being associated with it, both in the future but also it might already have happened.H3llR4iser wrote: »A very small thing an not strictly "men's rights" related. Yet, I think, a worrying and bothersome indicator of the times we live in.
A youtuber has renamed his channel removing the word "man" from the title - citing "inclusivity", but also acknowledging the fact that there is a chance the word would land him and the channel into potential trouble in the future.
Here:
It's important to mention that this is a RETROGAMING and VINTAGE TECH channel. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "manosphere", "red pill" and so on. Zero - he talks about Commodore, Atari and the likes.
The scary part is that his reasoning is sound - all it takes is for some easily-offended folk to get his channel in the Youtube recommendations, see the word "man" and chances are sh1t would hit the fan.
Thinking about it, I'd probably have done the same.
This could be true and it seems possible to me that some of the same companies wouldn’t have had a problem with women in a title of something.0 -
H3llR4iser wrote: »A very small thing an not strictly "men's rights" related. Yet, I think, a worrying and bothersome indicator of the times we live in.
A youtuber has renamed his channel removing the word "man" from the title - citing "inclusivity", but also acknowledging the fact that there is a chance the word would land him and the channel into potential trouble in the future.
It's important to mention that this is a RETROGAMING and VINTAGE TECH channel. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "manosphere", "red pill" and so on. Zero - he talks about Commodore, Atari and the likes.
The scary part is that his reasoning is sound - all it takes is for some easily-offended folk to get his channel in the Youtube recommendations, see the word "man" and chances are sh1t would hit the fan.
Thinking about it, I'd probably have done the same.
To be fair to the Youtuber, the gaming industry, and more importantly gaming media has been overtaken by woke/feminist sentiment over the last decade, with a feral twitter/social media mob out to get anyone even remotely involved, in trouble... It's an incredibly nasty scene.
I can understand why he would have issues... the US gaming scene has gone completely nuts over the last year, with all the weirdo "journalists" coming out with crap since Cyberpunk started (they were around before, but not quite so visible).
Youtube themselves have gone over to the woke side, implementing censorship, dropping users from search algorithms, and demonetization. So, playing to the crowd might become very important if someone wants to continue using Youtube as a platform.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The gaming industry, and more importantly gaming media has been overtaken by woke/feminist sentiment over the last decade.
You'd have to wonder how the hell that happened when their market is teenagers and young men who wouldn't typically be all that woke.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »You'd have to wonder how the hell that happened when their market is teenagers and young men who wouldn't typically be all that woke.
It doesn't matter. Youtube makes most of it's money from advertising, and women continue (in spite of living in such an unfair/unequal society) to represent, by far, the greatest chunk of consumer spending... both online and offline.
Youtube isn't making it's money from the audience. It's due to the sponsorship they receive... and women have a more effective social media presence, so any negativity is spread far and wide quickly. If men ever, as a group, manage something similar, then youtube will play up to them.. but that's not likely to happen. Social media and the internet communities play to women's strengths.. ie, networking and constant online presence.
Edit: Ahh you mean the gaming industry? Feminists chose it as the next battleground to destroy male dominance, and gender stereotypes. It's about ruining anything that the Male gender takes any particular interest in. Due to diversity quotas, companies in the US hire female journalists... and feminists have a lot of financial influence behind them. There's also a lot of female game programmers, who cry discrimination, and sexism, because they don't want to work the same conditions as the males... So.. feminists got in there hard about a decade ago, starting with the gaming conventions, and swinging into the journalism later. Just look at Wizards of the Coast, and Magic the Gathering... not console/computer gaming, but a majority audience of teenage boys and sweaty middle aged guys... but their actual company policies and sales movements have been extremely woke.. It's spreading into most traditionally male interests. Same with sci-fi/fantasy movies or books. Feminists have managed to mess them up too. Yay! equality!0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »You'd have to wonder how the hell that happened when their market is teenagers and young men who wouldn't typically be all that woke.
Just look at any element of what would be called male culture...
Gaming
Star Wars
Star Trek
Doctor Who
Comics
etc etc
All been destroyed by woke/feminist presence....
These people cannot create, they can only destroy...just look at the viewing figures and financial implications for those cultural institutions that have been around for decades.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »You'd have to wonder how the hell that happened when their market is teenagers and young men who wouldn't typically be all that woke.
In reality that view of the average "gamer" is not entirely accurate anymore, although the often quoted "official stats" are also misleading as they basically pack everyone who has come in contact with a videogame once in their life as "gaming audience" (e.g. they make no distinction between someone playing regularly on PC/Playstation/Xbox/Switch and someone who, one day in 1987, played Duck Hunt on their classmate's NES).
The reality stands in the middle - with male teenagers and young men still making the bulk of the customer base, but with other social groups also entering the picture - and it is to these "newcomers" that they're trying to pander, as they consider the existing audience pretty much a captive one.
What the pushers of this kind of "SJW" (for lack of a better term) agenda in gaming and certain areas of fiction didn't consider, is that people use these entertainment media to escape the daily rut and reality in general, hence most don't react well to politics being pushed into say Mortal Kombat. The audience they considered "captive" is fleeing, and a sizeable chunk of the one they wanted to attract is also reacting negatively.
On top of that, in a spectacular case of "cutting your own b@lls off", the blame is usually pushed ON the audience itself, with accusations of various forms of "-isms".0 -
An interesting if controversial viewpoint I have just read:There's only one reason for the pay gap- men are expected to pay women to have any sort of relationship with them.
The most expensive relationship is marriage. If you are married, in most states, 50% of everything you earn and save belongs to your partner, even if you later get divorced.
In order to make payments to women within marriage/divorce, men must earn more money than women in all other avenues.
This is a mathematical/accounting certainty. It doesn't matter how money is earned, men will have to do whatever they need to do in order to earn more of it.
And this also explains why only married men earn more.
--
If true, it does suggest that there could well be a gender pay gap long into the future.0 -
An interesting if controversial viewpoint I have just read:
--
If true, it does suggest that there could well be a gender pay gap long into the future.
I thought the whole "gender pay gap" thing had been long debunked with the simple fact that "men work longer, do more dangerous jobs, die more often on the job and let their lives be screwed up much more by work" as the reasons behind it?
To the subject at hand, there is merit to that - people of a certain inclination can deny it all they want, make the silly "but you can't generalize" remarks, but the wide expectation is still for the man to be more of a "provider" than the woman is in a relationship. Hence, more money needed. And for it being a reason for a "gender pay gap", it could be argued it is a motivator for men to pursue higher paying jobs and positions, resulting in the above.
Then you find this stuff around, I mean, I couldn't have made this up myself:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-husband-earned-less-than-me-for-a-decade-so-i-paid-more-towards-our-expenses-now-i-want-him-to-repay-me-2020-10-15
(long story short: wife earned much more than her husband for years, they split bills based on income, and now that he is earning a bit more, she wants to be reimbursed for all the previous years when she paid more...)0 -
An interesting if controversial viewpoint I have just read:
--
If true, it does suggest that there could well be a gender pay gap long into the future.
Well, there is a gender benefit gap, considering the range of benefits made available to women simply due to their gender, such as lower health insurance, which over the course of a life time can add up to a hefty amount. There's all manner of benefits to being a woman, from grants to get them into business (aimed solely at women, all other grants are open to both genders rather than solely males), to protections/biases in divorce.0 -
https://www.wheel.ie/training/2020/11/gender-pay-gap-report-launch-community-voluntary-charity-sectorNovember 3 webinar
GENDER PAY GAP REPORT LAUNCH FOR THE COMMUNITY, VOLUNTARY & CHARITY SECTOR
With the ongoing support of the Community Foundation for Ireland, The Wheel is delighted to launch the 2nd Gender Pay Gap Report for Ireland’s Community, Voluntary and Charitable Sector. Both this report and the first one from 2017 uses the National Pay & Benefits survey data, the most recent one from November 2019.
I imagine there's a good chance it will involve quite a lot of comparing apples with oranges0 -
When it suits to get more women in, gender balance is said to be important. However, a gender imbalance, if it's all women, can also be good ...
https://twitter.com/LatedebateRTE/status/1318586296458162179
This is not the first time this RTE programme has celebrated an all-female panel; I don't recall any similar panel that was celebrated as all-male and where a male perspective was specifically encouraged.0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »Just look at any element of what would be called male culture...
Gaming
Star Wars
Star Trek
Doctor Who
Comics
etc etc
All been destroyed by woke/feminist presence....
These people cannot create, they can only destroy...just look at the viewing figures and financial implications for those cultural institutions that have been around for decades.
Anyone else find it irritating whenever someone mindless complains about something being "woke" or "feminism", like it's the war cry of the pathetically insecure?
And calling any of these "destroyed", at all, is stupid given that they have all gone through periods of collapse, sometimes repeatedly. The things that ultimately lead to almost all of entertainments mini crashes, is bad story telling and characters, driven by idiot greed.
-People screamed for more Star Wars and Star Trek and they got pushed out and where worse the dumber and/or more boring their stories became.
-In comics, the 90s being edgy ultra grim dark and characters started getting killed and resurrected, because this all seemed to sell comics for a little while, until it didn't because it got contrived and boring (greed driving market speculation, and greed driving corporations willing to feed that speculation didn't help either).
-TV started pumping out high concept mystery shows because everyone likes a good mystery, until Lost sh*t the bed and people realised that the writers of most clearly had no idea where they were going beyond the mysterious setup (same problem, ultimately, that the new Star Wars trilogy had, no shock that Abrahms was responsible for a large chunk of both) and so stopped watching them, the bottom fell out of the market and a bunch of shows were cancelled.
"Woke" can of course be a form of the above. Lazily written stories and characters are not a white male problem. But it's not unique, nor new nor worse for "woke" concepts and it is not destroying anything. Video games and comics still exist and are being made with massive profits. Similarly, popular Star Wars and Star Trek still exist and are being made.
Yes, there may be gaming/movie/comic etc companies hurting for badly following "woke" trends with lazily written/made products. But there are also gaming/movie/comic etc companies hurting for pumping out lazily written/made products while badly following trends like revenge action movies or open world gameplay.
Also, "male culture"? You really don't feel silly writing something like that?
I have been a fan of almost all of what you listed (never got into Dr. Who) and I have never thought that I should like them because I was a boy and that girls should like something else. If other people did think that, and that is being challenged or changed, then that is only a good thing, as it is only going to result in more choice for us who aren't horrifically insecure.0 -
When it suits to get more women in, gender balance is said to be important. However, a gender imbalance, if it's all women, can also be good ...
https://twitter.com/LatedebateRTE/status/1318586296458162179
This is not the first time this RTE programme has celebrated an all-female panel; I don't recall any similar panel that was celebrated as all-male and where a male perspective was specifically encouraged.
RTE has obviously decided to go all in to push women. Claire Byrnes radio show is majority women in every way now. Researchers, guests, experts. You will hear womens voices the majority of the time.0 -
Middle-class , white women's opinions that is. It's true and I've noticed it over last 15 years moreso.Deleted User wrote: »RTE has obviously decided to go all in to push women. Claire Byrnes radio show is majority women in every way now. Researchers, guests, experts. You will hear womens voices the majority of the time.
Even in schools it's girls' performance being used to decide if a school is good or not. If boys do better in any subject it's a gender gap that must be tackled. But if girls do better it's a promising outlook and finally male privilege is being eroded.
It's clearly not about being equal, never has been. Similar to how privileged feminists don't want women at the bottom to be equal with them, as we see over and over in feminism.0 -
Advertisement
-
Middle-class , white women's opinions that is. It's true and I've noticed it over last 15 years moreso.
I haven't. TBH I've seen this claim repeated many times, but never seen any evidence to support it. The vast majority of support for feminism, and women's issues, comes over social media, which isn't restricted by income or class.
Also the distinction between working class and middle class has blurred considerably over the last three decades, due to the benefits available to everyone. I find that many people who call themselves working class, would be considered middle class due to traditional measures such as education or income, but people hold to the working class category as if it makes them better, more honest, somehow. And vice versa. I'm middle class, but in terms of income, I'd be consider working class now...
IMHO I don't think this is really about middle class women anymore. But just women in general who have an interest in such things.
The push to "give" women voices has been ongoing for well over a decade now. It's not anything new, and as with most feminist movements, it's been gaining momentum, expanding to other 'concerns' over time. And it'll continue until it's stopped... which I don't see happening any time soon.It's clearly not about being equal, never has been. Similar to how privileged feminists don't want women at the bottom to be equal with them, as we see over and over in feminism.
All women have privilege due to their gender in a western nation. It's variable depending on the nation, but it's there anyway. Again, I'm not sure about this 'privileged' feminists not wanting those below them from being equal. The only example of this I've seen is feminists who criticise those who want a more traditional lifestyle of being a stay-at-home wife, or be supported by a man. Possibly the other example would be the difference in expectations of equality between white feminists in the US and that of AA feminists.
All the same, could you show me where you're getting this impression from? I do stay relatively informed on what feminists are pushing and haven't seen this classism within them.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »All the same, could you show me where you're getting this impression from? I do stay relatively informed on what feminists are pushing and haven't seen this classism within them.
Not sure if its related to what you are talking about but a lot of feminists, particularly western ones, have gone from seeking the female vote to coining terms like manspreading, mansplaining (which is used to silence men) rather than focusing on the women in less privileged countries who really are oppressed and treated poorly.0 -
-
AA feminist?[Deleted User] wrote: »All women have privilege due to their gender in a western nation. It's variable depending on the nation, but it's there anyway. Again, I'm not sure about this 'privileged' feminists not wanting those below them from being equal. The only example of this I've seen is feminists who criticise those who want a more traditional lifestyle of being a stay-at-home wife, or be supported by a man. Possibly the other example would be the difference in expectations of equality between white feminists in the US and that of AA feminists. .0 -
I want to see women building houses and whistling at me when i walk pass.0
-
First comment:Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »Nonsense. Women should eliminate men from their lives if they want. It's not like she's talking about getting out a sub machine gun. Reading/watching male media pollutes us with their skanky thinking.
I can say anything I like here because I know no men read your article, since it's obviously about women.
I think this woman is fabulously frank and honest and thought provoking and she has a point.0 -
Not sure if its related to what you are talking about but a lot of feminists, particularly western ones, have gone from seeking the female vote to coining terms like manspreading, mansplaining (which is used to silence men) rather than focusing on the women in less privileged countries who really are oppressed and treated poorly.
It's not really related, sorry.
It's more to do with first world problems and the focus of those who live in prosperous societies. They live in mostly equal societies (or have superior rights) so they need to find a reason to stay relevant, and keep their victim status.
As for focusing on women in less developed countries, they're not going to do so, because there's no realistic way for them to affect the situation.0 -
-
A couple of men who have been influenced by the misandry:Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »Well i guess when you look at the statistics the biggest threat in the world for womens safety is men. I think the author is being gracious in proffering a differing viewpoint on my species.
When you bore down even further - the biggest threat to men is men... good God. I think we should all avoid men at all cost. On reflection the author above is being TOO gracious. We must protect ourselves.Alice Coffin is perfectly right to erase men from her person sphere. I too would do the same if I were a woman. It astonishes me that women tolerate arrogant, insensitive, misogynists and vote for them. I am thinking of Johnson and Trump in particular. We need WGTOW to complement MGTOW, then men might begin to realise the hurt they inflict.
Thankfully, there were some other comments for balance:How is this rhetoric any different from Donald Trump's rubbish? Sowing seeds of division does no good for anyone, why not seek the good in a person and learn to accept the differences that make us all individuals?She can erase men from her immediate social circle if she wants, but I think she would find it difficult to completely remove the influence of men from her life unless she is willing to forgo cars, roads, broadband, running water, electricity, and all the other basic infrastructure that allows her the time and freedom to sit around considering such nonsense.
The title of the article is:Should women erase men from their lives? This writer thinks so0 -
Advertisement
-
What is a Man?
http://empathygap.uk/?p=3117On International Men’s Day 2019 (19th November), the Oxford IMD Committee hosted an event at Oxford Town Hall. There were four speakers of which I was one. I confess to having been rather upstaged by the other speakers. Given that two of them were Belinda Brown and Darren Deojee you might be unsurprised. However, I think we were all upstaged by Chaka Artwell. All the talks will appear as online videos soon. For now, the text of my talk is below, and you can hear me read it on my YT channel here. (And now also on video).
I found this blog post interesting, though a bit depressing as a man.But let us change the interrogative into an imperative. Let us replace the question “what is a man?” with the command “be a man!”. Now we cannot deny that there is real content to that command, as any man subject to it will know. It is a reminder to a man that he has fallen short of expectations in some way. So, there must be some expectations against which he is being judged.
In contrast, say to a woman “be a woman!” and she is likely to merely look bemused and perhaps to reply, puzzled, “I am a woman”, and wonder what you were getting at. Of course, you never would say “be a woman” because, unlike “be a man”, it conveys nothing. Why is “being a man” dependent upon some performance measures, whereas being a woman is not?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement