Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

PucaMama

I've always felt MGTOW was deliberate tho, They certainly sound like they don't want a relationship

El_Duderino 09

PucaMama wrote:

I've always felt MGTOW was deliberate tho, They certainly sound like they don't want a relationship

People who don't want a relationship just go about their business. The MGTOW people seem fairly sure it's women or culture's fault that they are forced to opt out of relationships. I'm sure it's a broad church so it probably includes people who genuinely aren't interested in relationships.

Sleepy

TBH, I think most of us know a few of the women that would make up the market for these egg freezing companies: highly educated, driven, a little bit dull, financially successful, expensively dressed and totally unprepared to even consider any man that couldn't afford to keep her in that lifestyle should she want to be a stay-at-home mammy for the first few years of the kids lives. Of course, they expect such a man to be more physically attractive than they themselves would be objectively viewed as too.

The "having it all" myth perpetuated by 70's feminism did women a major disservice. Perhaps if the focus had remained on equality rather than dominance such women may be living far happier lives with their less financially successful husbands being happy to be the primary care-giver while they pursue their careers. I honestly believe a move that "allowed" women to see such men as being sexually attractive would be of massive benefit to society.

El_Duderino 09

Sleepy wrote:

TBH, I think most of us know a few of the women that would make up the market for these egg freezing companies: highly educated, driven, a little bit dull, financially successful, expensively dressed and totally unprepared to even consider any man that couldn't afford to keep her in that lifestyle should she want to be a stay-at-home mammy for the first few years of the kids lives. Of course, they expect such a man to be more physically attractive than they themselves would be objectively viewed as too.

'A little bit dull'. Classic!

Maybe you hang out with lots of these women but I certainly don't know anyone who fits that description. Your acquaintances sound dreadful.

I can think of one friend who's approaching 40 and is mad for children. She's a bit of a hippie and works as an occupational therapist in a stroke recovery unit and she doesn't fit any of the criteria you constructed for your worst-case-scenario woman.

Sleepy

Perhaps you're right and it's just my social circles but I know 3 such women in their mid thirties and all seemingly oblivious to the fact that it's their own unrealistic expectations that have lead to them remaining single and their unhappiness at that.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Perhaps you're right and it's just my social circles but I know 3 such women in their mid thirties and all seemingly oblivious to the fact that it's their own unrealistic expectations that have lead to them remaining single and their unhappiness at that.

Again we come back to the whole thing of men who can't find someone; their own fault. Woman can't find someone; men's fault.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. If a feminist agrees with your point that men should be helped in education, then you feel the need to oppose them. Is your primary focus on helping men or spiting feminism even to the detriment of men?

You're one of the ones who champions male education as a cause worth pursuing. I'd agree that boys need support in education. But it seems your motivation is a bit more complicated than simply wanting men to do well in education.

feminism has shown they dont have male interests at heart so yeah I would point out that 1 feminist's suggestion to "help" men now 50 year later just be ignored/derided unless it comes with a heavy dose of mea culpa and an admission that their attitudes helped exacerbate the problem in the first place. Also just maybe its the wrong question, not all courses have equal value, for instance no sane male student should do a gender studies degree or a degree in lesbian underwater dance. As an example if my son only had a university choice of comparative Lit but he was also interested in a good electrical engineering apprenticeship , in a heartbeat he should pick the second. I'd prefer that he had an opportunity of a high paying career in the future in preference to a minority of women deeming him to be not "educated" enough for their liking, others would appreciate that he would be financially independent.
the school system for sure should be looked at in terms of gender issues and male engagement. Every working class boy that drops through the cracks has the potential to end up in criminal activities or life long welfare so an unengaged male will tend to cost society more.

I was just disappointed that you would be so inclined to enjoy the fact that some advances such as women excelling in education, would have negative knock on effects in relationships and reproduction.

A Women who didn't find a partner also means a man didn't find a partner. It's a pity that you're prioritising point scoring against feminism over the human side of this story.

its not about enjoyment, its about pointing out where things are going wrong or that actions have consequences. Feminism for one isnt really a pro family movement after all the nuclear family is "patriarchal oppression" something something. Also the majority of women are aware of the "musical chairs" aspect to dating and make sensible choices. There is no reason that excelling in education has to have a negative effect on relationships for women if they understand how to navigate it.

does it mean a man doesnt find one? not like for like. the dating market switches around 30 where there are more women chasing less men so as long as the guy has a decent job he is likely to find someone.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

Again we come back to the whole thing of men who can't find someone; their own fault. Woman can't find someone; men's fault.

Not on this thread. If you read the comments here you'll see it seems very much women own fault via feminism and women getting educated and refusing to settle for whatever men are available.

The underlying message is that everything was in balance when men were the educated bread winner and women married up and became housewives. Now the women are educated so the men at the 'bottom' and women at the top have no matches.

Lots of people are unhappy and plenty of people are willing to blame the others. I saw the article as highlighting a sad phenomenon. The notion of blaming men is mostly imagined. It didn't come from the article.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

feminism has shown they dont have male interests at heart so yeah I would point out that 1 feminist's suggestion to "help" men now 50 year later just be ignored/derided unless it comes with a heavy dose of mea culpa and an admission that their attitudes helped exacerbate the problem in the first place. [...] the school system for sure should be looked at in terms of gender issues and male engagement.

Classic bate and switch. When discussing the point on education it is '1 feminist's suggestion' so it can be ignored/derided . Below feminism is treated as a hivemind which isn't really pro family.

How far off your own course of improving education for men are you willing to go to score points against the feminists?

silverharp wrote:

its not about enjoyment, its about pointing out where things are going wrong or that actions have consequences. Feminism for one isnt really a pro family movement after all the nuclear family is "patriarchal oppression" something something. Also the majority of women are aware of the "musical chairs" aspect to dating and make sensible choices. There is no reason that excelling in education has to have a negative effect on relationships for women if they understand how to navigate it.

The article points out that actions have consequences. It states that the success of getting women into education has created an imbalance which is having negative consequences.

How you'd you address the problems?

kunst nugget

maybe

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I think most of us know a few of the women that would make up the market for these egg freezing companies: highly educated, driven, a little bit dull, financially successful, expensively dressed and totally unprepared to even consider any man that couldn't afford to keep her in that lifestyle should she want to be a stay-at-home mammy for the first few years of the kids lives. Of course, they expect such a man to be more physically attractive than they themselves would be objectively viewed as too.

I'll be honest, I don't know anyone like this.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What you're referring to has fcuk all to do with masculinity.

Toxic masculinity.

The pressure for men to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're men, even if those behaviours are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual. Such as refusing to go to a doctor for fear of being called weak, or refusing to register yourself as homeless lest people think you're a failure.

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

kunst nugget

maybe

seamus wrote: »

Toxic masculinity.

The pressure for men to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're men, even if those behaviours are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual. Such as refusing to go to a doctor for fear of being called weak, or refusing to register yourself as homeless lest people think you're a failure.

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

I'll be honest, I think 'toxic masculinity' is an awful term… especially when there is no equivalence in femininity. What you're describing is society's expectations, from both men and women, of how men such conform rather a problem with masculinity in and of itself.

ligerdub

Going off topic folks.

Anyone experienced any sexism then? :-)

Carlos Orange

No

seamus wrote: »

The pressure for men to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're men, even if those behaviours are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual. Such as refusing to go to a doctor for fear of being called weak, or refusing to register yourself as homeless lest people think you're a failure.

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

When you use gendered terms to refer to concepts that aren't inherently gendered people will read a stance into it. A lot of the boundaries of maleness are policed by women but that isn't called toxic femininity. Almost uniformly whenever I hear men getting made fun of for taking care of themselves when they are sick it is women shaming them by calling it man flu.

seamus

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'll be honest, I think 'toxic masculinity' is an awful term… especially when there is no equivalence in femininity. What you're describing is society's expectations, from both men and women, of how men such conform rather a problem with masculinity in and of itself.

Absolutely.
And I agree that the term is probably unnecessarily inflammatory. It implies that masculinity itself is toxic, when it doesn't mean that at all.

It's also often abused by referring to natural masculine traits in a negative way, when it's supposed to refer to expectations of men that unduly put them under pressure.

I personally feel that it's a really apt term, it's something that men should recognise in their daily lives and do their best to rail against it.

But what should be something that men as a collective fight against, has been twisted into a stick that the extreme feminists use to beat men with.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Classic bate and switch. When discussing the point on education it is '1 feminist's suggestion' so it can be ignored/derided . Below feminism is treated as a hivemind which isn't really pro family.

How far off your own course of improving education for men are you willing to go to score points against the feminists?

wha?? in this case it is one so was just stating a fact, if the hive mind agreed to this I would have the same attitude for the reasons I mentioned

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The article points out that actions have consequences. It states that the success of getting women into education has created an imbalance which is having negative consequences.

How you'd you address the problems?

but then we are back to choices and valuing whats important.

As for addressing the problems it depends, at the lower socio end (which this article clearly wasnt interested in) society has to recognise that working class men need to have a reasonable prospect of steady work or they wont be able to cross the threshold into "marriage material" so taxes, open door migration, education/training need to be looked at.

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!
As for the other issues with this grouping its mostly down to attitude of the individual women. If a girl is smart enough to be embarking on €150K per year medical career then she should be smart enough to figure out that she needs to find someone earlier rather than later and build a life together otherwise it probably wont happen, its no worse than the pressure men have to have on track careers so they are seen as desirable by the opposite sex.

Carlos Orange

No

silverharp wrote: »

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!

The HSE is only 83% female so obviously we need more female surgeons for 'gender equality' reasons.

I don't agree with quotas but if we are going to have them they shouldn't be employed only for certain types of people.

PucaMama

psinno wrote: »

silverharp wrote: »

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!

The HSE is only 83% female so obviously we need more female surgeons for 'gender equality' reasons.

I don't agree with quotas but if we are going to have them they shouldn't be employed only for certain types of people.

How is the hse 83percent female?

Carlos Orange

No

PucaMama wrote: »

How is the hse 83percent female?

This isn't where I read it but it says the staff in the public health service were 79% female at the end of 2016.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/Our-Workforce/Public-Health-Service-Workforce-Profile-at-December-2016.pdf


Strangely I don't see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/diversity/dei_strategicplan.pdf

PucaMama

psinno wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

How is the hse 83percent female?

This isn't where I read it but it says the staff in the public health service were 79% female at the end of 2016.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/Our-Workforce/Public-Health-Service-Workforce-Profile-at-December-2016.pdf


Strangely I don't see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/diversity/dei_strategicplan.pdf

I see a lot of male doctors and specialists etc on my job but not many male nurses/care assistants etc generally any job that involves looking after is usually more "female". If you want incentives for men to look for these jobs does that mean you agree with the quotas for women in other jobs? Because I believe there shouldn't be quotas for any job. Or for any reason. Pick the best candidate not the person to up your "diversity" score.

Carlos Orange

No

PucaMama wrote: »

I see a lot of male doctors and specialists etc on my job but not many male nurses/care assistants etc generally any job that involves looking after is usually more "female". If you want incentives for men to look for these jobs does that mean you agree with the quotas for women in other jobs? Because I believe there shouldn't be quotas for any job. Or for any reason. Pick the best candidate not the person to up your "diversity" score.

I'm generally against quotas but if they are going to exist they should exist in a gender/race/whatever neutral manner. Magically they don't exist when men are under represented. Nor do more soft approaches to massaging the make up of work places. If they are explicitly tasking themselves with improving the number of women in leadership (already women are 58% of management),travellers and the disabled ignoring 50% of the population seems a small oversight. That 92% of nurses are female and 96% of nursing students are indicates they are going in the wrong direction.

PucaMama

psinno wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

I see a lot of male doctors and specialists etc on my job but not many male nurses/care assistants etc generally any job that involves looking after is usually more "female". If you want incentives for men to look for these jobs does that mean you agree with the quotas for women in other jobs? Because I believe there shouldn't be quotas for any job. Or for any reason. Pick the best candidate not the person to up your "diversity" score.

I'm generally against quotas but if they are going to exist they should exist in a gender/race/whatever neutral manner. Magically they don't exist when men are under represented. Nor do more soft approaches to massaging the make up of work places. If they are explicitly tasking themselves with improving the number of women in leadership (already women are 58% of management),travellers and the disabled ignoring 50% of the population seems a small oversight. That 92% of nurses are female and 96% of nursing students are indicates they are going in the wrong direction.

Quotas for disabled people I don't have a problem with but for everything else I'm not so sure. I think there are some jobs that either men or women just don't want to do. Serious lack of men in nursing and care work. I'm in that type of work. We need more men there but I've never heard of any quota for nursing so we can't really blame it on that.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

If I felt you were saying that masculinity (in and of itself) was bad or toxic, then I wouldn't have said the following:

What you're referring to has fcuk all to do with masculinity.

Here is what you referred to:

seamus wrote: »

IMO, toxic masculinity makes it far less likely that men would register as homeless for fear of being stigmatised.

newport2

seamus wrote: »

Toxic masculinity.

The pressure for men to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're men, even if those behaviours are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual. Such as refusing to go to a doctor for fear of being called weak, or refusing to register yourself as homeless lest people think you're a failure.

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

If that's the case, why aren't the pressures for women to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're women, even if those pressures are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual, referred to as Toxic Femininity?? Such as half starving yourself on a crash diet lest people don't think you look good.

Both pressures come from society, but only in women's case is this acknowledged and deemed to be society's fault. In men's case it's deemed to be a fault with men, ie toxic masculinity.

El_Duderino 09

psinno wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

How is the hse 83percent female?

This isn't where I read it but it says the staff in the public health service were 79% female at the end of 2016.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/Our-Workforce/Public-Health-Service-Workforce-Profile-at-December-2016.pdf


Strangely I don't see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/diversity/dei_strategicplan.pdf

2 questions spring to mind. 
1. Is there any movement to increase male representation in their diversity goals? These things don't just happen so it would take dedicated people and time to achieve. 
2. Would you be happy to see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals? Strikes me that you'd be as unhappy about that as you are about seeing an effort to increase the number of female consultants.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Classic bate and switch. When discussing the point on education it is '1 feminist's suggestion' so it can be ignored/derided . Below feminism is treated as a hivemind  which isn't really pro family.

How far off your own course of improving education for men are you willing to go to score points against the feminists?

wha?? in this case it is one so was just stating a fact, if the hive mind agreed to this I would have the same attitude for the reasons I mentioned

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The article points out that actions have consequences. It states that the success of getting women into education has created an imbalance which is having negative consequences.

How you'd you address the problems?

but then we are back to choices and valuing whats important.

As for addressing the problems it depends, at the lower socio end (which this article clearly wasnt interested in) society has to recognise that working class  men need to have a reasonable prospect of steady work or they wont be able to cross the threshold into "marriage material" so taxes, open door migration, education/training need to be looked at.

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!
As for the other issues with this grouping its mostly down to attitude of the individual women. If a girl is smart enough to be embarking on €150K per year medical career then she should be smart enough to figure out that she needs to find someone earlier rather than later and build a life together otherwise it probably wont happen, its no worse than the pressure men have to have on track careers so they are seen as desirable by the opposite sex.

Just for clarity, Do you actually think there is some kind of hive mind or an official feminist position on education? It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between your serious positions about victimisation and hyperbole.  
That's a fairly wide ranging list of issues you're proposing tackling. Immigration, taxes, education, all aimed at making men's career prospects align to your ideal. But any effort to encourage women into STEM or medical consultant positions, is completely out of bounds for you. Why the massive difference in approach?

daithi7

The universal irony is visible here again. Basically it goes like this, where women are under represented , blatant sexist, discriminatory policies should be adopted to 'rectify' the under representation, as obviously 50:50 is the fairest and best, despite the fact that many women proactively opt to be the main home maker and care giver to offspring, etc.

Where men are under represented (e.g 3rd level education now), it's because of the 'obvious' limitations of maleness, masculinity, etc, etc and therefore should just be accepted as the way it is.

I'm a great believer in equality of opportunity and meritocracy. Essentially any movement or policy that promotes ideas contrary to those principles sticks in my gut.

E.g. the last election , FG dictated that over 30% of their candidates should be women. Yet only a tiny percentage of females were councillors or any other stepping position to TD to show they had the experience, skill& potential to be decent tds. This was blatant sexist discrimination against more able candidates who would lose out to preferred females simply because their gender.

This was compounded after the election, when I heard a stupid, sexist woman from the national woman's council (ehhh is there a men's one!?!) being interviewed by pat Kenny on the composition of the new government. She stated straight up that she thought all 6 women fg tds who were elected should be ministers. Yet when it was pointed out to her, that surely it should be the best candidates for the jobs who should become ministers, she seemed to struggle with that concept I.e. meritocracy.

I derive absolutely no pleasure from seeing any woman feeling she must resort to freezing her ovaries, or even eggs for that matter. It is nice to see people meeting a compatible partner and making a life with them. However, I do understand some people laughing at that small cohort of silly women who may have 'priced themselves out of the market' due to an over developed sense of self worth, and now have found themselves without a mate. I know a good few of these kind of women, they drank the feminist Koolaid, they thought themselves too good for too many of their male 'peers', and now they're transforming to aging, embittered, lonely egos, trying to stay relevant in a world that sneers at their self inflicted smug misery.


Thankfully, I know far, far more wholesome, happy women leading productive, flourishing, happy lives, which thankfully is the norm in my experience, but the other cohort exists and tbh they are and always have been their own worst enemy. Tough on them, boo hoo

ancuncha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

2 questions spring to mind. 
1. Is there any movement to increase male representation in their diversity goals? These things don't just happen so it would take dedicated people and time to achieve. 
2. Would you be happy to see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals? Strikes me that you'd be as unhappy about that as you are about seeing an effort to increase the number of female consultants.

I think you would be interested to watch The Red Pill film by Cassie Jaye on the mens right movements

Very informative on why there aren't more mens groups

El_Duderino 09

daithi7 wrote:

Where men are under represented (e.g 3rd level education now), it's because of the 'obvious' limitations of maleness, masculinity, etc, etc and therefore should just be accepted as the way it is.

Do people say things like that? If you read this thread then you'll see none of that. Maybe you'll see some extremists with that opinion. Likewise you'll see the opposite opinion expressed by extremists on this thread - women can't excel in STEM because of the 'obvious' limitations of femaleness, lack of aptitude etc. etc.

You will see people oppose quotas for women but propose similar quotas for men. You'll see people insist the status quo is appropriate when a gender imbalance favours men, such as engineering, and lament a gender imbalance when it favours women, such as nursing or teaching.

Encouraging men into teaching = good
Encouraging women into STEM =bad

I'm always left wondering what the standard is.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Encouraging men into teaching = good
Encouraging women into STEM =bad

I'm always left wondering what the standard is.

Where do you get this from???

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Encouraging men into teaching = good
Encouraging women into STEM =bad

I'm always left wondering what the standard is.

Where do you get this from???

This thread and the men's rights thread.

Any effort to encourage women into STEM is roundly opposed. You'll find lots of support for encouraging men into teaching.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This thread and the men's rights thread.

Any effort to encourage women into STEM is roundly opposed. You'll find lots of support for encouraging men into teaching.

Absolute nonsense

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This thread and the men's rights thread.

Any effort to encourage women into STEM is roundly opposed. You'll find lots of support for encouraging men into teaching.

Absolute nonsense

It isn't.

I've had pages of conversations on these threads about the need for more male teachers. Nobody opposed the idea though some will admit they don't know how to do it effectively without quotas -and they don't support any quotas.

Whether you're aware of those chats or not, isn't really the issue.

daithi7

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do people say things like that? ....../quote]

I challenge you to look up the record of the dail to see how often issues relating to sexism against women were brought up ,versus how often issues relating to sexism against men. I'd be guessing about 5 to 1, but it could well be even higher.

Equality studies curricula are also indicative of this same malaise.

Essentially there is a feminism industry and agenda that has been allowed to dictate practically all discourse in Ireland on equality issues for close to 50 years, now. Ironically this agenda is not based on equality at all, but selective, sexist, positive discrimination against men. It's pathetic,imho, and the lack of critical analysis of this agenda when it is so obvious at times is really pathetic. E.g. fine Gael positive discrimination at last general election for instance.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It isn't.

I've had pages of conversations on these threads about the need for more male teachers. Nobody opposed the idea though some will admit they don't know how to do it effectively without quotas -and they don't support any quotas.

Whether you're aware of those chats or not, isn't really the issue.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Your ascertain that people discussing men's rights are 'roundly opposed' to women in stem.

El_Duderino 09

daithi7 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do people say things like that? ....../quote]

I challenge you to look up the record of the dail to see how often issues relating to sexism against women were brought up ,versus how often issues relating to sexism against men. I'd be guessing about 5 to 1, but it could well be even higher.

And are those fail records going to say the things from the poster above? ' where men are under represented it's because of 'obvious' issues of maleness, masculinity etc etc.' I doubt that's been said in the sail so I think we're at crossed purpose.

I've no intention to look it up. Assuming you're right and the ratio is 5:1 so what? TDs can raise men's rights too. If they choose not to do so then it's a bad show from them.

People will oppose them but that's doesn't mean they can't do it. Posters on this thread will oppose feminism but that doesn't mean feminism collapses.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote:

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Your ascertain that people discussing men's rights are 'roundly opposed' to women in stem.

Now, what you did there was naughty. I didn't say anyone is 'opposed to women in STEM'. I said they are opposed to measures to ENCOURAGE MORE women into STEM. See below. Naughty naughty.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Any effort to encourage women into STEM is roundly opposed. You'll find lots of support for encouraging men into teaching.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now, what you did there was naughty. I didn't say anyone is 'opposed to women in STEM'. I said they are opposed to measures to ENCOURAGE MORE women into STEM. See below. Naughty naughty.

My mistake but I still disagree. Encouraging is fine. However people may disagree with positive discrimination etc

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

My mistake but I still disagree. Encouraging is fine. However people may disagree with positive discrimination etc

No worries

The conversations usually break down there because the proponents aren't usually sure what encouragement would be effective - without resorting to quotas.

iptba

daithi7 wrote: »

The universal irony is visible here again. Basically it goes like this, where women are under represented , blatant sexist, discriminatory policies should be adopted to 'rectify' the under representation, as obviously 50:50 is the fairest and best, despite the fact that many women proactively opt to be the main home maker and care giver to offspring, etc.

Where men are under represented (e.g 3rd level education now), it's because of the 'obvious' limitations of maleness, masculinity, etc, etc and therefore should just be accepted as the way it is.

I'm a great believer in equality of opportunity and meritocracy. Essentially any movement or policy that promotes ideas contrary to those principles sticks in my gut.

E.g. the last election , FG dictated that over 30% of their candidates should be women. Yet only a tiny percentage of females were councillors or any other stepping position to TD to show they had the experience, skill& potential to be decent tds. This was blatant sexist discrimination against more able candidates who would lose out to preferred females simply because their gender.

This was compounded after the election, when I heard a stupid, sexist woman from the national woman's council (ehhh is there a men's one!?!) being interviewed by pat Kenny on the composition of the new government. She stated straight up that she thought all 6 women fg tds who were elected should be ministers. Yet when it was pointed out to her, that surely it should be the best candidates for the jobs who should become ministers, she seemed to struggle with that concept I.e. meritocracy.

Also just to add that all parties have to do this for elections (to get half the money from the State). And the quota will be 40% (increased from 30%) indefinitely from 7 years after the law was passed.

daithi7

iptba wrote: »

Also just to add that all parties have to do this for elections (to get half the money from the State). And the quota will be 40% (increased from 30%) indefinitely from 7 years after the law was passed.

Yeah, fuppin bats. So effectively we're gonna get a bunch of less competent, less able, less experienced female candidates forced on the electorate with quotas ahead of more able, more experienced , male candidates all because of some stupid feminist agenda that is supposed to promote positive discrimination to encourage more females into public life (more like forcing more experienced, able males out of public life actually). Also the lack of critical analysis of this legally enforced sexist discrimination by the mainstream media in Ireland just shows how endemic and pervasive this feminization of the media and public debate has now become. It's mad Ted!!

red ears

daithi7 wrote: »

Yeah, fuppin bats. So effectively we're gonna get a bunch of less competent, less able, less experienced female candidates forced on the electorate with quotas ahead of more able, more experienced , male candidates all because of some stupid feminist agenda that is supposed to promote positive discrimination to encourage more females into public life (more like forcing more experienced, able males out of public life actually). Also the lack of critical analysis of this legally enforced sexist discrimination by the mainstream media in Ireland just shows how endemic and pervasive this feminization of the media and public debate has now become. It's mad Ted!!

Today's journalists are simply cowards none of them want to go against the current liberal narrative.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Classic bate and switch. When discussing the point on education it is '1 feminist's suggestion' so it can be ignored/derided . Below feminism is treated as a hivemind  which isn't really pro family.

How far off your own course of improving education for men are you willing to go to score points against the feminists?

wha?? in this case it is one so was just stating a fact, if the hive mind agreed to this I would have the same attitude for the reasons I mentioned

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The article points out that actions have consequences. It states that the success of getting women into education has created an imbalance which is having negative consequences.

How you'd you address the problems?

but then we are back to choices and valuing whats important.

As for addressing the problems it depends, at the lower socio end (which this article clearly wasnt interested in) society has to recognise that working class  men need to have a reasonable prospect of steady work or they wont be able to cross the threshold into "marriage material" so taxes, open door migration, education/training need to be looked at.

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!
As for the other issues with this grouping its mostly down to attitude of the individual women. If a girl is smart enough to be embarking on €150K per year medical career then she should be smart enough to figure out that she needs to find someone earlier rather than later and build a life together otherwise it probably wont happen, its no worse than the pressure men have to have on track careers so they are seen as desirable by the opposite sex.

Just for clarity, Do you actually think there is some kind of hive mind or an official feminist position on education? It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between your serious positions about victimisation and hyperbole.  
That's a fairly wide ranging list of issues you're proposing tackling. Immigration, taxes, education, all aimed at making men's career prospects align to your ideal. But any effort to encourage women into STEM or medical consultant positions, is completely out of bounds for you. Why the massive difference in approach?

Hive mind is your term if I remember correctly , but do I think academic or lesbian feminists will become inclusive I doubt it. I could see trendy feminists who happen to be parents joining the dots If there was a cultural shift away from men not mattering. At some stage there has to be consequences that everyone notices.
My point is about engagement in society, push men (working class) away from the "social contract" and they will disengage or become criminals. Nothing to do with the career prospects of the top 10%.
Probably overlaps with the left abandoning the working class for multiculturalism.

Zulu

No

Sleepy wrote: »

The "having it all" myth perpetuated by 70's feminism did women a major disservice.

It did society a major disservice moving us all to a family unit requiring two earners to sustain a basic modern lifestyle, instead of a unit needing only one earner.

Thankfully the 1% were able to ring more shillings from us as a consequence. [/sarcasm]

silverharp

Dutch tv advert 'do you let your boy be boy enough?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BVh9Sr_aQs

http://www.laatjijjouwjongengenoegjongenzijn.nl/#het-statement

Boys and girls are equivalent, but not the same. We, educators of the Netherlands, sometimes lose sight of boys developing and learning in a different way than girls. In general, educators expect children to behave calmly, listen well and sit still. While boys learn more by discovering, experimenting, taking risks. Educators seem less appreciated in recent years' boys behavior. Boys slow down, inhibits their development.
From science there are divergent views whether the differences between girls and boys are born or born in the upbringing. However, they agree that attention should be paid to this subject.
SIRE would like to ask all Dutch educators about their behavior towards boys. So boys get the space to develop in the way that suits them.

Outlaw Pete

More of this so called "toxic masculinity" bullshit.

https://twitter.com/TIME/status/892882796066340864

Calhoun

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

More of this so called "toxic masculinity" bullshit.

https://twitter.com/TIME/status/892882796066340864

The more they continue it, the bigger a problem they make for themselves.

Carlos Orange

No

Obviously royal succession isn't the most pressing issue but I imagine the associate professor who specialises in gender issues would see things differently if it was a woman impacted. If marrying into royalty givens a woman a title and salary shouldn't it give equivalent rank and salary to a man?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/world/europe/denmark-prince-henrik-burial-wishes.html
http://politiken.dk/indland/art6054966/%C2%BBProblemet-er-at-han-vil-v%C3%A6re-fru-bankdirekt%C3%B8r-Varn%C3%A6s%C2%AB

Buffman

This 'author' also writes in the Irishtimes and has a specific 'target market' for her work, but this article has so many generalisations it's almost funny. Plenty of alternative views in the comments section though!:D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4754914/Where-good-men-gone.html

Where have all the good men gone? These sassy, sophisticated, solvent women say they are struggling to find other halves that can measure up

• Five single women share why they've struggled to find men worth dating
• They ask if it is possible to find independent, attractive mid-life daters
• One dating coach says there are seven women for every man aged 40-55

By Alana Kirk For The Daily Mail
Published: 22:15, 2 August 2017 | Updated: 16:04, 3 August 2017

Men’s relationships frequently overlap; they won’t leave one partner until they find another, so they are never really single.
By contrast, women take longer to recover from a break-up. They often step out of the dating ring completely, sometimes for many years, to rebuild their lives or to focus on bringing up children.

When Jo coaches women on dating, she tells them to accept the reality. ‘It’s just a fact that there is a lack of available decent men,’ she says.

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. Men, indoctrinated over generations to pursue younger women, are instinctively reluctant to consider those of a similar age to their own, even ones who look youthful and attractive.

With the statistics against them, women are motivated to want to look after themselves and make the best of what they have, while there is no incentive for the men to do the same.

As Jane will attest, middle-aged and 50-plus men tend to be set in their ways, less adventurous and less youthful in outlook.

‘Men my age are all up for a pipe and slippers life, and I’m not,’ she says. ‘When I got married my husband was six years older than me, but I wouldn’t take that age gap now because men aged 52 to 60 are boring. They just don’t have any oomph in them.

‘Younger men are drawn to older women as much as older men are drawn to younger women. And this is not a new phenomenon,’ says Suzie Parkus. ‘They are drawn to the confidence and life experience of older women, especially those who don’t look their age.

‘I think women have been raised to believe they are winning an amazing prize to get a man, who then has a sense of entitlement — so he puts in no effort whatsoever and always thinks he can get better.’

Unless men change their attitude to dating women of a similar age to them, and make more effort with their personal care (and most women accept this is unlikely), it is hard to see how the situation can change for these gorgeous women.

Wibbs

maybe

Men’s relationships frequently overlap; they won’t leave one partner until they find another, so they are never really single.
By contrast, women take longer to recover from a break-up.

She must live in reverso land to my experience as in my experience that works far more with the genders reversed. I struggle to think of one man of my acquaintance that worked like that, but about half of the women of my acquaintance did/do. On the second claim research shows pretty much the complete opposite, again borne out by my personal experiences.

‘Younger men are drawn to older women as much as older men are drawn to younger women.

Maybe in Journalist cat lady land, but again research shows that to be a nonsense.