Mens Rights Thread

Letree

Maguined wrote: »

We are on to them but we are also to blame. The journalists do this because it sells better than the truth and ethical reporting. The average person is more interested with click-bait trash then they are with decent articles.

I agree but it is still within the confines of the accepted narrative or as they would say in Sweden the opinion corridor. The articles we get to click bait on are generally ones where the progressive message is being strengthened in some way. Take Sweden for example their journalists could get major clicks on articles about the behaviour of some of their newcomers. But that doesn't fit. They don't want to highlight any of that.

speedboatchase

Letree wrote: »

This last few years has seen journalism debased like no other profession. Nobody i speak to trusts them anymore. Narrative over fact, omission of major news stories because they don't fit, overblowing less newsworthy ones because they do. Clickbaiting has superseded real reporting. Its all about money as we know but the public are on to them now.

The public are the ones who ruined journalism. You get what you pay for and if you don't pay, you get what you deserve. Opinions on modern journalism from people who don't buy newspapers and use ad-blockers are completely invalid.

Sleepy

It would make you wonder whether there's an argument to be made for publicly funding actual journalism via a mechanism such as the TV Licence. Of course, that option has some serious problems with regard to the government of the day using it for propaganda purposes etc.

AFAIK, Channel 4 is owned by the British public yet independently run, could a similar structure work for a broadsheet press?

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

It would make you wonder whether there's an argument to be made for publicly funding actual journalism via a mechanism such as the TV Licence. Of course, that option has some serious problems with regard to the government of the day using it for propaganda purposes etc.

AFAIK, Channel 4 is owned by the British public yet independently run, could a similar structure work for a broadsheet press?

God no, look how biased the BBC is. Personally I like the bottom up media that is developing which is based on the credibility of the individual journalists instead of ones having to follow the party line.
I look forward to media like the Irish times going belly up.

ancapailldorcha

Sleepy wrote: »

It would make you wonder whether there's an argument to be made for publicly funding actual journalism via a mechanism such as the TV Licence. Of course, that option has some serious problems with regard to the government of the day using it for propaganda purposes etc.

AFAIK, Channel 4 is owned by the British public yet independently run, could a similar structure work for a broadsheet press?

It depends. I quite like the BBC and think its quite well run. Their political coverage is very good and certainly leagues above much of the UK private sector equivalent. There's an obvious left wing slant to their comedy though.

Pawwed Rig

speedboatchase wrote: »

Opinions on modern journalism from people who don't buy newspapers and use ad-blockers are completely invalid.

No they are not

Sleepy

silverharp wrote: »

God no, look how biased the BBC is. Personally I like the bottom up media that is developing which is based on the credibility of the individual journalists instead of ones having to follow the party line.
I look forward to media like the Irish times going belly up.

I'm not sure I'd agreed your assertion that the BBC is massively biased, I'd notice a left leaning in it's comedy programs but whether that says more about the top comedians in Britain, or the institution itself, I'm unclear.

That said, I know the BBC is vulnerable to government interference due to it's reliance on licence fee. I'm under the impression that Channel 4 operates on a somewhat different funding model and this was why I referenced their setup rather than that of the BBC.

What bottom up media are you referencing? I'm not aware of anything of that type which has any credibility? Not having a go, genuinely interested.

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd agreed your assertion that the BBC is massively biased, I'd notice a left leaning in it's comedy programs but whether that says more about the top comedians in Britain, or the institution itself, I'm unclear.

That said, I know the BBC is vulnerable to government interference due to it's reliance on licence fee. I'm under the impression that Channel 4 operates on a somewhat different funding model and this was why I referenced their setup rather than that of the BBC.

What bottom up media are you referencing? I'm not aware of anything of that type which has any credibility? Not having a go, genuinely interested.

with the BBC , its very pro feminist and it comes out in programmes like Newsnight, the female only carriages sticks in my mind where 2 feminists were interviewed by a feminist leading interviewer. Or that sunday morning one always seems to have a stacked audience and tends to be a crucible for anyone not towing an uber progressive line.

its early days for the "bottom up media" and most is opinionating on the news generators but my guess is that as the networks get hollowed out there will be a more decentralised media, say like online news shows like The Rubin Report or Secular Talk, where hopefully they have more editorial control and you trust the journalist concerned that they wither arent biased or have the bias you want :pac: , for instance being critical of religion

ancapailldorcha

silverharp wrote: »

with the BBC , its very pro feminist and it comes out in programmes like Newsnight, the female only carriages sticks in my mind where 2 feminists were interviewed by a feminist leading interviewer. Or that sunday morning one always seems to have a stacked audience and tends to be a crucible for anyone not towing an uber progressive line.

In fairness they did invite Milo Yiannopoulos on for balance and they've had Kate Andrews from the libertarian Adam Smith Institute, a think tank on now and again as well (she's brilliant). Moderation on that was incredibly poor though and the premise was phrased in a very clickbaity way as well; "Does social media reveal men's hatred for women?"

silverharp wrote: »

its early days for the "bottom up media" and most is opinionating on the news generators but my guess is that as the networks get hollowed out there will be a more decentralised media, say like online news shows like The Rubin Report or Secular Talk, where hopefully they have more editorial control and you trust the journalist concerned that they wither arent biased or have the bias you want :pac: , for instance being critical of religion

Indeed. The internet has been a revolution in this regard and not a moment too soon either. I game for example. Most gaming magazines earn from advertising revenue so there is a strong disincentive to give harsh reviews to certain games when the publisher has bought a fair bit of advertising space. One individual and a PC can often do a much better and more thorough job.

Borisgem8

In my experience, men are getting crapped on by this whole "feminist" movement and I actually know quite a few fellas who have sworn off relationships all together. They once longed to be married with kids and want nothing to do with women on a long term stand point. That is quite sad. They don't understand how bad they make men look and how many men are sick of feeling like they are wrong with everything. They say they aren't against men yet everything they use makes men look like animals who only care about sex, money, and food.

RDM_83 again

Borisgem8 wrote: »

In my experience, men are getting crapped on by this whole "feminist" movement and I actually know quite a few fellas who have sworn off relationships all together. They once longed to be married with kids and want nothing to do with women on a long term stand point. That is quite sad. They don't understand how bad they make men look and how many men are sick of feeling like they are wrong with everything. They say they aren't against men yet everything they use makes men look like animals who only care about sex, money, and food.

I'm not a fan of modern feminism but thats just silly. There is plenty of woman who have a dislike for the current feminist movement and there is plenty of feminists who are decent people.
I would be wary of somebody who's identity is very strongly tied to Feminism but I'd be wary of anybody who ties their identity strongly too any "ism" particularly if there is social capital or a group identity involved.

Also screwing over men in divorce/access to kids isn't exactly something that fits well with the vast majority of feminist thinking, I could imagine there is those who would find the idea repugnant not even from a moral standpoint but because it plays to the idea that women are natural care givers (custody) and require the financial support of men (alimony)

Lemming

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Also screwing over men in divorce/access to kids isn't exactly something that fits well with the vast majority of feminist thinking, I could imagine there is those who would find the idea repugnant not even from a moral standpoint but because it plays to the idea that women are natural care givers (custody) and require the financial support of men (alimony)

It would apper that, generally speaking, the wherewithall of feminism seems to vanish out the window when it comes to divorce outcomes as any notions of independence and responsibility/agency play second fiddle to greed and "getting one over". The abundance of outspoken feminist literature on this subject is overwhelming ...... in its absence.

iptba

For what it is worth:

The paper comes a day after unemployment statistics from the Central Statistics Office show that men are twice as likely to be out of work than women. Although falling, the number of men without a job last month was 124,900, compared with 66,100 women.

The overall unemployment rate for men was 10.5pc, compared with a national average of 8.8pc and a jobless rate for women of 6.8pc.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/migrants-could-make-up-shortfall-as-labour-force-shrinks-34505794.html

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Lemming wrote: »

It would apper that, generally speaking, the wherewithall of feminism seems to vanish out the window when it comes to divorce outcomes as any notions of independence and responsibility/agency play second fiddle to greed and "getting one over". The abundance of outspoken feminist literature on this subject is overwhelming ...... in its absence.

Hell hath no fury...

Pat Mustard

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Hell hath no fury...

Mod:

If you want to provide a reasoned criticism of feminism here, that's okay but this is not the forum to post smartarse sexist comments or implications of same.

Please be more careful when posting, in future.

Pepe LeFrits

http://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/

ffs.

Letree

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/

ffs.

That is bad law. How did that get through.

py2006

Letree wrote: »

That is bad law. How did that get through.

To protect the innocent little darlings we have here in Ireland.

Aren't 16 year old girls supposed to be 2 years more mature, on average, than their male counterparts?

ancapailldorcha

A bit long but possibly worth a watch given that it features 2 of the most prominent trolls of the feminist debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLc7Iab0vtk

py2006

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A bit long but possibly worth a watch given that it features 2 of the most prominent trolls of the feminist debate:

I watched the first 38 mins of it so far. Milo has impressed me which I actually wasn't expecting. I saw a brief clip of him on something else before and he did come across as condescending etc.

ancapailldorcha

py2006 wrote: »

I watched the first 38 mins of it so far. Milo has impressed me which I actually wasn't expecting. I saw a brief clip of him on something else before and he did come across as condescending etc.

He can be impressive when he isn't trolling. Problem is he persists with the latter.

py2006

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He can be impressive when he isn't trolling. Problem is he persists with the latter.

Julie Bindel seems to generalise a lot and perhaps stuck in the past.

"when a male baby is born, it is instantly more privileged"

ancapailldorcha

py2006 wrote: »

Julie Bindel seems to generalise a lot and perhaps stuck in the past.

"when a male baby is born, it is instantly more privileged"

Well, given that Bindel believes that men belong in camps I would disregard much of what she says. It's a shame as it's important to hear about the ordeal that women like Ched Evans' rape victim had to go through because they dared to come forward. Instead, career feminists like Bindel insist on using them like pawns.

py2006

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, given that Bindel believes that men belong in camps I would disregard much of what she says. It's a shame as it's important to hear about the ordeal that women like Ched Evans' rape victim had to go through because they dared to come forward. Instead, career feminists like Bindel insist on using them like pawns.

She addresses that at 1:15:35

ancapailldorcha

py2006 wrote: »

She addresses that at 1:15:35

Seems odd that Tim Hunt loses his job as a result of joking about women crying in labs while Bindel gets applauded for joking about keeping men in camps.

Lemming

I'm impressed that there wasn't a concerted attempt at interrupting the debate given the content. Other than that one audience member who took umbrage at Milo during the Q&A session and tried to get onto the stage it was both civilised and informative as an expression of differing view points.

py2006

Milo won hands down. Her anecdotes and generalisations fell flat.

mzungu

That was a great watch.

I'm impressed that there wasn't a concerted attempt at interrupting the debate given the content.

I was expecting it to be a shout fest along the lines of the Question Time debate posted a while back. Thankfully it was a civil affair where both viewpoints were offered up. Shame that the same level of civility is lacking from a lot of TV debates on similar topics.

Maguined

mzungu wrote: »

I was expecting it to be a shout fest along the lines of the Question Time debate posted a while back. Thankfully it was a civil affair where both viewpoints were offered up. Shame that the same level of civility is lacking from a lot of TV debates on similar topics.

I think that is mostly down to the fact the Julie Bindel herself has been no platformed by the SJW's. They hate her because she is a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) as well as her not being sex-positive because she is against prostitution.

Any attempt to protest or silence one of them might look like support for the other. The only safe option is to protest neighter and avoid it altogether.

The Black Oil

TERF?

Christ. Another abbreviation to learn.

ancapailldorcha

The Black Oil wrote: »

TERF?

Christ. Another abbreviation to learn.

Back away, BO. Back away.

Seriously though, we're going to need a separate dictionary for these at any rate.

The Black Oil

I'm about 48 minutes into the video. It's pretty good. I skipped some of the intro after they got to the third Michigan Review speaker as it felt self-indulgent, before had even introduced the actual speakers...

Bindel distanced herself from the keyboard warriors, which is more than what I expected her to do. I know little of the pay gap, so I'm on the fence there. Milo just said he's not an MRA. Bindel just called out privilege and male babies.

The Black Oil

Pretty decent debate overall.

Bindel fairly brushed aside domestic violence against men, in general, and by saying there was no uptake for male shelters that were set up. I think she did that a little too easily, including re stigma. Many men don't even go to their GPs, so I can see why some wouldn't go to something like a male domestic violence support service. I think the Irish service Amen would take her up on some aspects of her beliefs. I've searched her name on Google Scholar, so perhaps she's more prolific outside of her column.

Milo defaulted to his more troll ish style more than once. Not sure about his take on homosexuality and the Catholic church, felt like too much he was giving it a free pass, not that I'm into Catholic bashing.

A few too many near blanket statements based on ideology from both, but you're going to get that at these sort of events.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Holy f**k, had to google TERF, here's what I got :eek:

TERF is an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Sometimes, "exclusionary" is expanded as "eliminationist" or "exterminationist" instead to more accurately convey the degree to which TERFs advocate for harm towards trans people, specifically trans people who were coercively assigned male at birth.

link

Talk about trying to overly complicate things.

silverharp

Bindel said something about being not a biological determinist or something. This is where feminism fall down for me before it even gets out the gate. I don't know exactly what her view is but most feminists seem to go with gender is a social construct which is obvious bull**** that anyone trained in biology who has an interest in human behaviour would disagree with. Anyone that argues that everything is environmental shouldn't be taken seriously.

LostinBlanch

silverharp wrote: »

Bindel said something about being not a biological determinist or something. This is where feminism fall down for me before it even gets out the gate. I don't know exactly what her view is but most feminists seem to go with gender is a social construct which is obvious bull**** that anyone trained in biology who has an interest in human behaviour would disagree with. Anyone that argues that everything is environmental shouldn't be taken seriously.

At the risk of veering off topic a bit, this is a direct follow on from postmodern theory, which influenced a lot of feminist thought, and its attacks on science as a whole. Basically science as we know it, is formulated by men so obviously it is sexist, and needs to be "fixed". Postmodern thought has the answer, so all that is required is that it is "correctly" applied to science and all these wrongs will be righted.

Except that post modern thought can't be easily applied to scientific method. There has been a backlash against such applications to scientific theory, mainly from the right, but also from the likes of Noam Chomsky who sums up this thinking nicely.

Chomsky characterizes leftist postmodern academics as “a category of intellectuals who are undoubtedly perfectly sincere” . . . Nonetheless, in his critique, such thinkers use “polysyllabic words and complicated constructions” to make claims that are “all very inflated” .

It’s considered very left wing, very advanced. Some of what appears in it sort of actually makes sense, but when you reproduce it in monosyllables, it turns out to be truisms. It’s perfectly true that when you look at scientists in the West, they’re mostly men, it’s perfectly true that women have had a hard time breaking into the scientific fields, and it’s perfectly true that there are institutional factors determining how science proceeds that reflect power structures. All of this can be described literally in monosyllables, and it turns out to be truisms. On the other hand, you don’t get to be a respected intellectual by presenting truisms in monosyllables.

Can any of this apply to previous posts? Polysyllabic words and complicated constructions?

The ultimate p*sstake on this kind of thinking was in 1996 when Alan Sokal from the Department of Physics in New York University wrote a spoof paper arguing that quantum gravity was basically a social and linguistic construct. This was published in Social Text, a postmodern cultural studies without any changes or peer review. On the day it was published he revealed that the whole thing was a hoax and a parody.

The funniest quote for me was

In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that ``physical `reality' [note the scare quotes] ... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.'' Not our theoriesof physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)

TL;DR Ignore all the polysyllabic long words and complicated constructions more long words. They're just academic emperors empresses clothes to make themselves feel better and fool others into believing such theories have more intellectual worth than they actually do. Also, gravity is not a social/linguistic construct.

iptba

A lot of the theory seems to select which premises it will accept at any given time.
So if there are fewer women than men in an area, that is evidence of discrimination as men are the same as women.
However then it is often said that having more women will be good in some way as women are different to men.
So women are both the same and different to men.
A lot of the jargon often hides such contradictions.

silverharp

LostinBlanch wrote: »

At the risk of veering off topic a bit, this is a direct follow on from postmodern theory, which influenced a lot of feminist thought, and its attacks on science as a whole. Basically science as we know it, is formulated by men so obviously it is sexist, and needs to be "fixed". Postmodern thought has the answer, so all that is required is that it is "correctly" applied to science and all these wrongs will be righted.

Except that post modern thought can't be easily applied to scientific method. There has been a backlash against such applications to scientific theory, mainly from the right, but also from the likes of Noam Chomsky who sums up this thinking nicely....

its still alive,I posted this in the vegan cookie thread in the Atheist forum, there is no using logic with these freaks :pac:

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.long

Glaciers, gender, and science
A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research


Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

iptba

Why does everyone find it funny when men almost lose their genitals?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/why-does-everyone-find-it-funny-when-men-almost-lose-their-genit/

Also covers circumcision
plus

Prof Damien Ridge, an expert in masculinity and men’s health at the University of Westminster, thinks this gap is very deep indeed. He says: “Society has long decided men do not have certain rights over their bodies, like privacy and full bodily integrity. This is partly a legacy of socialising men in a militaristic society, the need to raise boys as potential war fodder… where it is not useful to care too much, to have too much empathy for men.”

iptba

I was talking to a woman recently who told me about a women's network meeting within her company (a multinational based in Ireland) she was at that day during work hours. Later in the year, the company will be paying for her to go to a meeting for women in the same company in different countries in London again during work hours/the working week. Supposedly it's all about career progression for women.

I very much doubt there is a men's network or if there is that the company facilitates employees to attend it during work hours, pays for trips, etc.

It would be one thing if this was about networking with business people in other companies to get more business for the company but this is all within the company.

py2006

iptba wrote: »

I was talking to a woman recently who told me about a women's network meeting within her company (a multinational based in Ireland) she was at that day during work hours. Later in the year, the company will be paying for her to go to a meeting for women in the same company in different countries in London again during work hours/the working week. Supposedly it's all about career progression for women.

I very much doubt there is a men's network or if there is that the company facilitates employees to attend it during work hours, pays for trips, etc.

It would be one thing if this was about networking with business people in other companies to get more business for the company but this is all within the company.

Sure there is no need, don't us men have it easy after all in the patriarch.

iptba

Mandatory gender quotas proposed for NUI Galway
Move comes after Dr Micheline Sheehy Skeffington won key Equality Tribunal case

[..]

The quota to be promoted would be based on the number of women eligible for promotion at the grade below – a so-called cascade approach that would lead to approximately 50/50 selection over time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/mandatory-gender-quotas-proposed-for-nui-galway-1.2609757

So not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome.

jackofalltrades

iptba wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/mandatory-gender-quotas-proposed-for-nui-galway-1.2609757

So not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome.

Yeah I found it strange that they were recommending a solution that was contrary to the Employment Equality Act.

KomradeBishop

To be honest, I used to reflexively reject the concept of equality of outcome - but when you consider that we don't, and won't ever, live in a real meritocracy, where equality of opportunity is unhindered, then equality of outcome can be considered a valid goal.

It depends on the strength of the overall case on how bad/proven the damages from inequality are mind - and it's a principle I'd apply on a case by case basis, rather than universally apply.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To be honest, I used to reflexively reject the concept of equality of outcome - but when you consider that we don't, and won't ever, live in a real meritocracy, where equality of opportunity is unhindered, then equality of outcome can be considered a valid goal.

It depends on the strength of the overall case on how bad/proven the damages from inequality are mind - and it's a principle I'd apply on a case by case basis, rather than universally apply.

So give up totally on this concept? Resign ourselves to never being able to get there? No point in trying to continue to achieve that?

Seems terribly defeatist and regressive.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

So give up totally on this concept? Resign ourselves to never being able to get there? No point in trying to continue to achieve that?

Seems terribly defeatist and regressive.

ultimately its better to understand how a competitive society works. The more entitled someone is the lazier they are going to be. It take the edge off and reduces the genuine satisfaction of achieving goals.
Where would you have wanted to eat a meal in a 1980's hotel, Moscow or New York?

Wibbs

silverharp wrote: »

Where would you have wanted to eat a meal in a 1980's hotel, Moscow or New York?

But that's the usual extreme example trotted out and it's never quite that simplistic. Trying to improve wider society =/= communism. Put it another way; where would you rather eat a meal, New York or Paris? The French with their pesky welfare state, free education, free healthcare and entitlements… Never mind a higher oversight on food production that means your steak doesn't come with growth hormones, antibiotics and ractopamine and your bread isn't laced with bromides. As I say it's never quite that simplistic.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

But that's the usual extreme example trotted out and it's never quite that simplistic. Trying to improve wider society =/= communism. Put it another way; where would you rather eat a meal, New York or Paris? The French with their pesky welfare state, free education, free healthcare and entitlements… Never mind a higher oversight on food production that means your steak doesn't come with growth hormones, antibiotics and ractopamine and your bread isn't laced with bromides. As I say it's never quite that simplistic.

but French society is still a meritocracy by and large. the question isn't how big the government is. At the end of the day you don't want 5 ft nothing Fire fighters, ghetto kids pushed into medicine or traffic controllers that don't like stress. And you cant pay a surgeon the same salary as someone who works in a supermarket.
Equality of outcome is inherently flawed as concept to just fix by quotas. If it generates a discussion over how kids are raised, parents education etc that is all good.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

So give up totally on this concept? Resign ourselves to never being able to get there? No point in trying to continue to achieve that?

Seems terribly defeatist and regressive.

I think a perfect meritocracy is about as achievable as true/perfect 'free markets' (which itself inherently depend upon a perfect economy-wide meritocracy) - i.e. I think a perfect meritocracy is impossible, because there are so many easy ways to undetectably corrupt a supposedly meritocratic system.

Just take employment law: If you have a law against discriminating based on gender, there is nothing to stop an employer discriminating based on gender and then saying it's because the other candidate was a 'better fit' (or some other relatively subjective/unquantifiable statement like that), even if they aren't.

It's practically impossible to perfectly enforce (even if you can stop the most greivous examples of it) - and no discriminating employer is going to be thick enough to just come out and state their discrimination.


I think that one example alone, blows a hole in the whole idea of a true meritocracy being achievable/possible.

So instead of attempting to get as close as we possibly can be to being a meritocratic society, we should give up and begin regressing on that idea because there are significant hurdles that mean we'll never truly attain that perfection?

(We shall never achieve true equality of opportunity, so lets give up and get onto equality of outcome, though of course we've not discussed the probability of that either)