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

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The MGTOW movement is a mystery to me. They used to be called confirmed bachelors. Now they club together which is fine. I imagine that lots of them are happy on their own but I can't help thinking that lots of them aren't happier on their own but are just unable to get a partner for one reason or another.

I have dipped in to MGTOW forums once or twice out of curiosity. For one of them, you had to confirm that you had previously been in a long-term relationship or something like that and give a description of it. Most in that forum seem to have been married and are bitter about the experience and particularly the financial penalties they suffered. So to summarise many of them have been in long-term relationships including being married before.

They did come across as a bitter group so I prefer other discussions forums which I find a bit more balanced.

Carlos Orange

No

iptba wrote: »

They did come across as a bitter group so I prefer other discussions forums which I find a bit more balanced.

That is only natural I think. If you are the sort naturally not inclined towards relationships then you wouldn't find yourself in a group about it. You would just be plodding through life not in a relationship.

Wibbs

maybe

I would have called myself a feminist when I was younger. Mostly because I was pretty ignorant of the later movement(one grandmother and a grand aunt had been members of an Irish suffrage group) and just assumed a) it was clear women had been screwed over and b) equality should be a given(which I still hold of course).

It was only later on(late 90's) where I did read more of the history of the movement and what troubled me were some assumptions made concrete fact among modern feminists. Assumptions that are even more concrete to the point of credo now. Plus it is a very strong part of my mindset that when I take a position on anything, I will then run the contrarian circuit in my head to come at it from another angle, to see if it holds up, all or in part. When I did that I really started to question modern feminism(but found myself in agreement with Suffrage).

One of the first points of belief I looked at was women had been historically screwed over. When I did I saw it much more as a class thing. Both men and women had been screwed over if they weren't part of the ruling moneyed classes. Look at the vote. In many jurisdictions the common woman got the vote at about the same time as the common man got the vote, or very soon after.

I also started to read and look at how both genders were considered by societies and found both had positives and negatives(and were positive or negative depending on viewpoint). It was and is consistently noticeable across most cultures certainly in the West that women were more protected culturally than men. Women and children first as it were. This is the case today in the modern world. The homeless, the alcoholics, the suicides are overwhelmingly men. Now even if we may argue about the percentages of men in abusive relationships, they most certainly do exist and the figures even at the lowest estimates are worrying enough, yet how many men's shelters or supports exist? It can descend into farce on that score. EG in Australia they have a couple of shelters for the pets of abused women, but of men's shelters? Nada. If a woman punches or verbally abuses a man in the street the reaction is a walked by tut tut, or even nervous laughter. If a man punches a woman in the street? Our natural human response it seems is to protect women. Not that I disagree with this BTW, but it is what it is.

Men were and are more expected to sacrifice their bodies and lives in service to the culture. That men were and are disposable(deaths on the job are overwhelmingly male). This is even lauded in the cultural stories we tell and has been for a long time. Things like how women are most certainly seen as sexual symbols and often objectified on that score, men are seen as provider symbols and often objectified on that score.

So yeah the more I read into it, the more I saw that people can have it sh1tty and while there are most certainly gender biases in the form of sh1t people get hit with, feminism was only ever taking it from one angle. Of course it does. The clue is in the name. And again I have no real issue with that. I don't expect the ardent socialist to defend the rights of the business world. What I did increasingly take issue with was the lauding of feminism as the only solution for both genders. That if only men embraced the women's movement we'd be grand. A movement that is myopic to many of the issues of men and if they do acknowledge them couch them in terms of the patriarchy and how it's still men's "fault".

The increasing tendency to paint all as victims and laud being a victim also grated with me. Victimhood is not an end state, it should not be celebrated, it should be a state one goes through before overcoming it. That's when you celebrate. The painting of women as perpetual victims(of men) with little or no agency, but demanding of oft nebulous "rights" really didn't sit well with me as I'd grown up around bloody strong and accomplished women, who were nobody's victims, even if they had been sometimes victimised by life, as most of us have to some degree or other.

Tl;DR? I'm neither a feminist, nor a MRA. If the word Humanist wasn't already taken I'd wear that label.

tigger123

Wibbs wrote: »

As a thought experiment Tig apply your post to a thread on feminism in the Ladies Lounge. Would that also not apply point for point? Do a search for it and you'll see exactly the above, however with one crucial difference, regular challengers of the subject might be the minority here, but are not warned or banned for holding that differing view.

No such restrictions are in place here. As I said there were/are good reasons for the above, ones I supported and support still, but again it is illustrative that people can view one as an echo chamber in a bad way, yet the other as an echo chamber in a good way(if they consider it an echo chamber at all).

I honestly don't know how or why TLL comes into this conversation, and I'm being completely honest here. You replied to another one of my posts the other day with something similar, I just didn't have a chance to respond to it. Is bringing TLL into it not the definition of whatabouttery? 'Well, try said that to women and see how you go'? ??

Wibbs wrote: »

Further to this point Tig; given that a contrary view is welcome and certainly won't be censured from on high, including as we've seen even when it's not exactly playing the game, it does beg the question why so few do offer up a contrary view?

It would be my humble that it has been all too easy to label "misogyny" and "echo chamber", including calling the forum and its locals "awful" and "whiners", but it does seem not so easy to actually debate many of the points raised. Hell, even many points that are really bloody stretching credulity aren't questioned too often.

Another way to look at it is the fact that so many of the posts in here move in one direction only, and agree with each other, so ya have to be in a particularly bolschy humour to stick your oar in and get involved.

There's a very particular mindset of Us vs Them prevalent in TGC, and whether it is or isn't the mirror image of TLL really doesn't bother me.

As a man I don't see it as Us vs Them when I view or think about feminism. It isn't taking anything from me, and I don't see it as a threat.

Calhoun

Well spell it out for us what you view is, are you a male feminist? Just to expand on it what i mean is rather than finding fault what could we be doing better?

Wibbs

maybe

tigger123 wrote: »

I honestly don't know how or why TLL comes into this conversation, and I'm being completely honest here. You replied to another one of my posts the other day with something similar, I just didn't have a chance to respond to it. Is bringing TLL into it not the definition of whatabouttery? 'Well, try said that to women and see how you go'? ??

It's a clearly illustrative comparison of the position and protection that feminism holds as the politic de jour. You listed your issues with tGC and I responded by showing the exact same list could be applied elsewhere, except with regard to feminism and asked would you consider that an "echo chamber" too? A valid question IMHO. Because if two things show identical traits and you only accuse one thing of having an issue that really only transmits to the world that you agree with one position and not the other.

There's a very particular mindset of Us vs Them prevalent in TGC, and whether it is or isn't the mirror image of TLL really doesn't bother me.

because and just a thought that maybe if it was shown to be a mirror image you'd have really no place to go with that? "Doesn't bother me" is hardly a debate point, that's more like sticking one's fingers in one's ears.

As a man I don't see it as Us vs Them when I view or think about feminism. It isn't taking anything from me, and I don't see it as a threat.

If you believe that then I would suggest that you've done little delving beyond the surface rhetoric of "it's just about equality".

This shift in how we view gender is can be both subtle and overt but it is extremely prevalent. Case in point. Cast our minds back a few years now and you will recall the Boko Haram group in Nigeria who kidnapped a couple of hundred young girls from a school and the world went ape over it. "Bring back our girls" was all over the place repeated by every talking head, including heads of state, you could point a microphone at. Very laudable on the surface. However what was more telling below the surface was the entire story. On a previous raid by BH they wrecked the school and actually sent the girls home. Told them to be good girls and get married and have kids. The boys? They rounded them up and burnt them to death. Over a 100 of them. Do your remember hearing about that? I doubt it. Did you see any talking heads asking to Bring our boys home? You did not. BH had been killing hundreds upon hundreds of people, men and boys and rarely killing women and girls. But how do you get the western world's attention? Kidnap girls. They're quite simply seen as more valuable(In Indian culture it would likely go the other way). Consider Hillary Clinton when she said on a few occasions that the biggest victims in war are women and children. Men, the vast majority of casualties in any war, didn't even figure in her worldview. Neither did they figure in a proposed military draft legislation she was asked about, which would have included able bodied women. Nope, not the women, just the men.

Do you believe in the pay gap? In Ireland that is provably debatable indeed, where on average women are more educated and earn more than men(17%) and that gap is widening. How is feminism helping there? I don't expect it to BTW.

Do you believe in the patriarchy? A supposed boogyman that actually sets the field up so men die younger, are less educated, kill themselves more and have fewer social services and support. You'd think it would be better slanted towards the gender it's supposed to represent.

Now I grant you and I have said this many times, thank christ we live in Ireland. We don't have nearly the level of extremist but in the mainstream daftness around feminism that they do in North America and this is a good thing. Snd we really don't want to import that. The most extreme views are mostly in the media here, where feminism is seen as a politic that can never be questioned.

Wibbs

maybe

Just to expand a little on the Us Versus Them you note. Yeah I would agree at times that does come up Tig and I'd prefer it didn't. Though the "them" is, or damn well should be aimed at the feminist politic. Another aspect of the creep of new feminism and one that really grinds my gears, is where if anyone questions any of the core beliefs, clearly it must mean you hate women. Whereas prominent Irish feminists get airtime and column inches to berate the patriarchy and how men act or don't stop rapists and even joke about male tears and get a free pass to more column inches. Does not compute. And this stuff does have an effect.

In another forum hereabouts on an entirely different subject actually, a few were pointing out themes in popular culture that would be seen as clearly misogynistic if women were the object, yet something to be laughed at and lauded when men are. When this was pointed out a couple responded with the argument that "well women were so downtrodden in the past, we're trying to balance that out and so what if the balance goes too far. It'll sort itself out in the end". Ignore the stupidity of history and two wrongs apparently make a right.

On the wider value of groups of people is an interesting topic in of itself and interesting from a human nature standpoint. We see how groups familiar to us are seen as more valuable. So say a bomb kills five people in Paris, cue Facebook French flag overlays and outpourings of grief. Another bomb kills 60 in Kabul and you have to dig down the newsfeed to find it and you certainly don't get Tears for Kabul on Facebook. Quite simply because the quaint little brown people aren't as valuable to us. Though I had a few issues with Black Lives Matter, the fact that their slogan had to spell that out shows that in much of US culture Black lives don't so much.

On the subject at hand the hierarchy of which group matters in the West(outside of class, where it's the poor, the very rich, the middle class) in order of importance is children, gender not important, then women and then men. In other cultures that are actually patriarchal swap the last two around. Consider male only diseases like testicular and prostate cancer. Consider women only diseases like breast* and ovarian cancer. Which gets more publicity, charity money, industry investment and research? I'll give a hint, it ain't the nut and walnut ones. And when tragedies are reported those where women and children are victims get the most coverage. Who gets shorter prison sentences for the exact same crimes? Who gets more attention for being homeless, who gets more attention for addiction, who gets more social and practical support in partner abuse, who gets more educational resources? It's a long list Tig and spoiler alert it ain't the group with the external gonads. In mental health at least there is more of a growing parity and men's mental health is being more promoted and targeted. Though even here quite the number of those promoting awareness are parroting the feminist politic as the solution. Bad bad men, only feminism can help.

Now I'm not saying this is a) that this is some kind of wacky conspiracy,(and it's a more complex thing), nor b) it's all feminism's "fault", but we all should be aware of it at least. Especially when we're constantly being told how women are the unsupported victims of the patriarchy.



*I realise that can occur in men too, but they're a tiny minority of cases.

Wibbs

maybe

tigger123 wrote: »

Another way to look at it is the fact that so many of the posts in here move in one direction only, and agree with each other, so ya have to be in a particularly bolschy humour to stick your oar in and get involved.

To be fair I see your point Tig, I would be a bolshie bastard at the best of times and relish a challenge, but I could see how others who aren't, wouldn't.

Even so, I would still contend an opinion or philosophy or politic held dear and apparently logically unassailable should be easy to defend. Especially one that is widely seen and mutually agreed upon as a positive.

My mindset has always been along the lines of Pretty much everything I know and believe is likely wrong. And certainly out of date©. So I find beliefs nebulous and always in need of examination and contrarian critique. No matter how heartfelt. For me it's the only way forward. It's why my sig is "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" from a Magritte painting entitled the Treachery of images. He was exploring how images and objects and language interact and the contradictions within. I add a personal aspect, that is how beliefs interact and the contradictions, within and without and that all beliefs should be questioned. The more sure, the more questioned.

backspin.

Wibbs you write well and make valid points about modern feminism very clearly. But not enough people get to hear them. I'd love to see you write a few articles in the Irish times or the Indo. Of course editors would run a mile. But this stuff needs to get out there calmly and rationally as you have put in in the last few posts. I never knew the full story about Boko Harem. I remember well the focus on the kidnapped girls though.

Wibbs

maybe

backspin. wrote: »

I never knew the full story about Boko Harem. I remember well the focus on the kidnapped girls though.

The full story is almost never present in such matters B, in the context of the thread it's about how we have unconscious biases in what groups/people we value more and of course the corollary of that, what groups/people we value less(or differently). So when people(IE men) get killed that's one thing, but when women get kidnapped(extra value added because they were young girls) we take notice and notice is applied to the incident. And the perpetrators know this. They know that the west will lose it and give them attention if women are targeted, but will largely ignore it when men are(the numbers of victims have to be much higher to have an impact). When they saw the west's reaction and their increased publicity they went on to capture more women, while killing hundreds if not thousands of "people". Outside of Nigerians who had even heard of Boko Harem before the kidnapping? Even though the western media's beady eye is focussed on Islamic banner terrorism. Well another value factor was in play there too. They were African, so lower on the value totem pole.

In old style hijackings or kidnappings of groups, who do negotiators and the public clamour to be released first? Certainly not the men. Men are less valuable and disposable. Men are seen as sacrificial, best case seen as heroes when they sacrifice themselves for societies(bonus points if they sacrifice themselves for women and kids) and our collective stories reflect that. Posthumous medals on coffins and stories of heroism are the "reward".

This is not the fault of feminism. It has a long history and throughout history armies killed all the men of fighting age and took the women as a valuable resource. Where feminism does need to be examined is how they perpetuate and encourage this disparity of value to it's own end and because feminist thought has become the politic of gender in the west, men are seen as valued even less, to the point in the example of the Boko Harem case completely invisible.

I would say that this is one of the major factors that drives male dissatisfaction all the way up to rising rates of male suicide. This would explain why the rates have gone up when compared to the "old days" when male roles were significantly more restrictive, where the "patriarchy" was stronger. One might reasonably expect that the widening of the definitions of what it is to be a man would reduce anxiety, but it hasn't. Why? Because although they were seen as disposable back then, they were also lauded by society for the sacrifices they made. Sacrifices like being the "breadwinner", being the hero in their own household as it were. That's pretty much gone these days(though still quite selected for in the dating/mating game).

Wibbs

maybe

backspin. wrote: »

I'd love to see you write a few articles in the Irish times or the Indo. Of course editors would run a mile.

Indeed they would. Which proves that at least in the mainstream Irish media feminism is the gender politic and all discussions start from the point of feminism being the correct philosophy and has to be viewed through that lens. If a philosophy isn't up for scrutiny, or worse any scrutiny is seen as an attack or will receive accusations of prejudice, that's less a philosophy and more a religion.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Case in point. Cast our minds back a few years now and you will recall the Boko Haram group in Nigeria who kidnapped a couple of hundred young girls from a school and the world went ape over it. "Bring back our girls" was all over the place repeated by every talking head, including heads of state, you could point a microphone at. Very laudable on the surface. However what was more telling below the surface was the entire story. On a previous raid by BH they wrecked the school and actually sent the girls home. Told them to be good girls and get married and have kids. The boys? They rounded them up and burnt them to death. Over a 100 of them. Do your remember hearing about that? I doubt it. Did you see any talking heads asking to Bring our boys home? You did not.

I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points Wibbs, but I picked up on this because its not really that simply explained in this particular instance. It might be part of the picture but it's not all of it, imo.

The murder of those boys was an atrocity that shouldn't ever be minimised or forgotten and it certainly should be better reported and known. I knew about it myself but I know I'm in the minority. I think the number was 59 btw, not 100, but that hardly matters. At that point, BH had murdered more than 1,000 people and razed entire villages to the ground, and none of those events merited more than a two-line footnote on the international pages of any news website. The West generally doesn't pay too much attention to people killing each other in Africa.

The boys were murdered in an unspeakably horrific manner and understandably the parents grieved their death, and that's what partly explains the difference in how the two events are played out in this case. The parents of the boys are bereaved, no amount of social media awareness can bring back those boys. The parents can only grieve, and nobody can imagine their pain. When the girls were kidnapped, they were alive. There was hope of getting them back and where there's life, there's hope. It was an ongoing situation that the world knew nothing and cared nothing about. Until their parents took to social media.

Nobody cared about those girls until the viral nature of the parents campaign meant they couldn't be ignored, and I'm convinced they would have been otherwise. I imagine a major reason they were able to organize themselves is because they weren't grieving like the boys parents were. Nigerian culture doesn't particularly value girls over boys and it's a rare place in Africa that does, and that campaign and the awareness it fostered was solely because of the parents, because the worldwide media cares very little for what happens in places like Nigeria to either boys or girls, and they weren't interested in this until it gained legs.

I'm not saying that young girls being kidnapped for what amounts to sex slavery (or sale) didn't get more attention but the reasons they did is a combination of the lurid nature of their likely fate - that kind of thing translates to clicks on sites or viewer numbers, and the actions of parents who still had live children and were able to galvanize themselves into action, something the parents of the murdered boys wouldn't have any reason to do, nor, I imagine, the strength. The press didn't give a damn until it quickly became a viral 'thing'. I'd like to believe the press cares about any victim of any gender in developing countries, but I don't think they do. Not until it becomes a bandwagon, then they're all over it.

What is far more concerning to me at the moment is the complete lack of outrage or awareness that upwards of 11,000 boys have been kidnapped by BH and forced to fight for their cause, kids as young as seven. There are a lot of questions that should be asked about why the world doesn't care about that, and what part ethnic bias plays in that lack of concern. While desperately poor countries like Cameroon are giving refuge to children forced to become jihadis by their kidnappers, the West is mesmerized by the Kardashians.

The world knew about the children of Sandy Hook, rightly, but the awareness of much greater atrocities that don't involve westerners is something I find strangely at odds with our shrinking world and constantly available news media. For some reason, unless something goes viral and becomes a bandwagon, there are some peoples who simply don't seem to matter, regardless of gender.

Wibbs

maybe

Candie wrote: »

It might be part of the picture but it's not all of it, imo.

I still would contend it is a huge part of it C and it's pretty evident.

Nigerian culture doesn't particularly value girls over boys and it's a rare place in Africa that does,

I would agree. Nigeria wouldn't be high on the list of countries with feminist leanings(though better than many in Africa). My point being that the West does though.

I'm not saying that young girls being kidnapped for what amounts to sex slavery (or sale) didn't get more attention but the reasons they did is a combination of the lurid nature of their likely fate - that kind of thing translates to clicks on sites or viewer numbers, and the actions of parents who still had live children and were able to galvanize themselves into action, something the parents of the murdered boys wouldn't have any reason to do, nor, I imagine, the strength.

Sure, but as you note yourself C:

What is far more concerning to me at the moment is the complete lack of outrage or awareness that upwards of 11,000 boys have been kidnapped by BH and forced to fight for their cause, kids as young as seven. There are a lot of questions that should be asked about why the world doesn't care about that, and what part ethnic bias plays in that lack of concern.

Ethnic bias and sheer exhaustion overload about Africa for many in the west would have some part C, but the plain fact is 300 girls got worldwide attention, yet 11,000 boys do not. Yet they are all Africans. A better example of the value we ascribe to groups would be hard to find.

While desperately poor countries like Cameroon are giving refuge to children forced to become jihadis by their kidnappers, the West is mesmerized by the Kardashians.

Well that's a debate for another day. I'd say much of the cult of celebrity is not far off what Warhol mused on, that in the future we'd all be famous for fifteen minutes. The rise of social media has sort provided that and massively increased the fame need in people, along with their natural narcissism so narcissists will tend to watch and identify with other better narcissists.

The world knew about the children of Sandy Hook, rightly, but the awareness of much greater atrocities that don't involve westerners is something I find strangely at odds with our shrinking world and constantly available news media. For some reason, unless something goes viral and becomes a bandwagon, there are some peoples who simply don't seem to matter, regardless of gender.

Sure and it is puzzling, though there is most definitely a hierarchy of value at play. White skin is more valuable than brown, Western is more valuable than non western, women(and children) more valuable than men. Whoes more likely to get clicks and attention? The plight of a blonde white girl or a curly headed black boy?

newport2

Candie wrote: »

The boys were murdered in an unspeakably horrific manner and understandably the parents grieved their death, and that's what partly explains the difference in how the two events are played out in this case. The parents of the boys are bereaved, no amount of social media awareness can bring back those boys. The parents can only grieve, and nobody can imagine their pain. When the girls were kidnapped, they were alive. There was hope of getting them back and where there's life, there's hope. It was an ongoing situation that the world knew nothing and cared nothing about. Until their parents took to social media.

It's definitely a valid point that the girls were still alive, but had it been the boys who were kidnapped and the girls who were all murdered, I think the latter would still have been the main headline in the west. If anybody pointed this out, I expect the point would be made that the girls were killed, whereas the boys were only kidnapped and still alive. Either way, the girls make bigger news.

Wibbs

maybe

newport2 wrote: »

Either way, the girls make bigger news.

And again I'd stress it's not some feminist conspiracy either. It has long been thus. Throughout history men's value was mostly down to either how many resources they could accumulate or how many spears they'd take to the guts for the cause, whereas women's value was as essentially breeding stock and pawns for ransom(this is even reflected in our DNA, far more women reproduced in the past than men).

What has changed and feminist thought played and plays a part is that while it elevated women beyond the breeding stock level, a good thing, men's value has largely been ignored, or previous values have been derided and it is far more nebulous nowadays. Masculinity itself is often described as "toxic" and in the mainstream too. The term "toxic femininity" isn't even on any lexicon. Outside of Red Pill types people would scratch their heads at even the notion of such a term. Rightfully BTW as it would be too lazy and polarising a term, but it's OK to label and polarise men. The rising tide didn't rise all boats. And I wouldn't expect it to when feminist philosophy was driving the tide. It just leaves me scratching my head how so many seem to think the same philosophy is the only game in town for both genders.

Most of all what I'm trying to get at is how our common current beliefs(that change over time) inform how we view, or don't view the reality around us. And that should always be questioned.

kunst nugget

maybe

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure and it is puzzling, though there is most definitely a hierarchy of value at play. White skin is more valuable than brown, Western is more valuable than non western, women(and children) more valuable than men. Whoes more likely to get clicks and attention? The plight of a blonde white girl or a curly headed black boy?

We're familiar with white, western culture so it's surely going to have more impact when a tragedy occurs in the west and we're able to feel more connected to it. I remember reading a psychologist's explanation about it though I can't remember where but I think it should be intuitively obvious to us all.

What boils my piss is the people that use tragedies in far away countries to try and appear more 'woke' and more compassionate than others. 'Oh, three people died in Paris? 78 died in Lagos but obviously you don't care about them because they're not white!' Those sh1tehawks didn't care about them either until they became a handy statistic to brow beat others with.

sharper

Candie wrote: »

I'm not saying that young girls being kidnapped for what amounts to sex slavery (or sale) didn't get more attention but the reasons they did is a combination of the lurid nature of their likely fate - that kind of thing translates to clicks on sites or viewer numbers, and the actions of parents who still had live children and were able to galvanize themselves into action, something the parents of the murdered boys wouldn't have any reason to do, nor, I imagine, the strength. The press didn't give a damn until it quickly became a viral 'thing'. I'd like to believe the press cares about any victim of any gender in developing countries, but I don't think they do. Not until it becomes a bandwagon, then they're all over it.

The other angle is though that Boko Harem was presented in the media as an organisation especially against girls/women and as a threat primarily to girls/women. Even articles giving the wider context of what the group was about failed to mention their atrocities involving men and boys.

e.g.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/24/world/africa/nigeria-kidnapping-answers/index.html

Rights groups have said Boko Haram has kidnapped girls as young as 12.

And the abductions are only getting worse.
In the first two months of this year alone, it kidnapped at least 25 girls and women, according to Human Rights Watch.

Those abducted are both Christian and Muslim students enrolled in secular schools. Not all cases involve kidnappings, however. Gun and bombing attacks on schools have killed hundreds of children in recent years.

Notice how "women" and "girls" are abducted but "children" are killed.

This is very common both in media reporting and even official UN reports. On issues that almost entirely affect men/boys then the issue relates to "people/children".

Or the defininition of a problem itself changes. A recent UN report on child soldiers presented it as an issue affecting boys and girls but changed the definition of what a child soldier is in order to include girls, whom are generally not going to be required to be an actual soldier.

Feminism acknowledges "men as the default" as a problem but only where doing so negatively effects women (i.e. assuming CEO or leader is male and so on). It's utterly blind to the issue when it comes to acknowledging negatives faced by men.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

And again I'd stress it's not some feminist conspiracy either. It has long been thus. Throughout history men's value was mostly down to either how many resources they could accumulate or how many spears they'd take to the guts for the cause, whereas women's value was as essentially breeding stock and pawns for ransom(this is even reflected in our DNA, far more women reproduced in the past than men).

What has changed and feminist thought played and plays a part is that while it elevated women beyond the breeding stock level, a good thing, men's value has largely been ignored, or previous values have been derided and it is far more nebulous nowadays. Masculinity itself is often described as "toxic" and in the mainstream too. The term "toxic femininity" isn't even on any lexicon. Outside of Red Pill types people would scratch their heads at even the notion of such a term. Rightfully BTW as it would be too lazy and polarising a term, but it's OK to label and polarise men. The rising tide didn't rise all boats.

Most of all what I'm trying to get at is how our common current beliefs(that change over time) inform how we view, or don't view the reality around us. And that should always be questioned.

Its in men's genes to want to help women and then society reinforces it, so it will probably never get back to equity treatment. It does have its downside in the modern age, there are any number of stabbings and similar where mr white knight tries to intervene and save the damsel in distress and loses his life and where the damsel wasn't in any real danger.

Wibbs

maybe

kunst nugget wrote: »

We're familiar with white, western culture so it's surely going to have more impact when a tragedy occurs in the west and we're able to feel more connected to it. I remember reading a psychologist's explanation about it though I can't remember where but I think it should be intuitively obvious to us all.

Sure. I dunno what the scientific reasons are but I suppose the obvious answer is that when we see people and cultures that resemble ourselves caught up in a tragedy, we can imagine the same thing happening to us. A few years back I was having a discussion about the conflicts in Afghanistan with a couple of Afghani guys and they were clued to news sources showing tragedies happening to people and a culture like theirs.

Wibbs

maybe

sharper wrote: »

Notice how "women" and "girls" are abducted but "children" are killed.

This is very common both in media reporting and even official UN reports. On issues that almost entirely affect men/boys then the issue relates to "people/children".

This is all too common and again illustrates how one gender politic influences us on down to even the level of tragedy. For me the worst part is that it isn't even being discussed and where the worldview is strongest even the slightest hint of discussion is likely to come under attack. QV US college campuses and most of the western mainstream media. What discussion is had is almost exclusively in enclaves of the other extreme and that is not a good thing.

newport2

Wibbs wrote: »

And again I'd stress it's not some feminist conspiracy either. It has long been thus. Throughout history men's value was mostly down to either how many resources they could accumulate or how many spears they'd take to the guts for the cause, whereas women's value was as essentially breeding stock and pawns for ransom(this is even reflected in our DNA, far more women reproduced in the past than men).

What has changed and feminist thought played and plays a part is that while it elevated women beyond the breeding stock level, a good thing, men's value has largely been ignored, or previous values have been derided and it is far more nebulous nowadays. Masculinity itself is often described as "toxic" and in the mainstream too. The term "toxic femininity" isn't even on any lexicon. Outside of Red Pill types people would scratch their heads at even the notion of such a term. Rightfully BTW as it would be too lazy and polarising a term, but it's OK to label and polarise men. The rising tide didn't rise all boats. And I wouldn't expect it to when feminist philosophy was driving the tide. It just leaves me scratching my head how so many seem to think the same philosophy is the only game in town for both genders.

Most of all what I'm trying to get at is how our common current beliefs(that change over time) inform how we view, or don't view the reality around us. And that should always be questioned.

Fully agree, I don't think it really has much to do with feminism at all. I think people in the media with an agenda take advantage of it though. Not in everyday life really, just the media and mainly the media on the internet at that.

silverharp

they must have this is their diary to pop up every few months, do article on no good menz left anymore, kind of cringy , no particular new insights popped out and they must do some fierce selecting to come up with the women they interview they come across as insufferable

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4919208/The-women-clever-boyfriend.html

We're just too clever to find a boyfriend! It may sound insufferably smug, but these women say their high intellect means they struggle to meet someone
Natasha Hooper, 22, says men do not know how to deal with educated women
She is worried about not finding love because of a shortage of educated men
Becca Porter, 23, says a man factory worker turned her down for being too clever
She says the sense of achievement derived from learning is alien to most men
Andrea Gould, 41, believes her intellect has prevented her from finding love
‘I get the impression they’d rather date a girl without a degree, said Andrea

this made me chuckle

Andrea said: ‘One date found the fact I studied from a feminist perspective offputting. Most mistakenly assume I hate men

Sleepy

While reading that article, all I could hear was Nelson Muntz screaming "Ha Ha!"

newport2

silverharp wrote: »

they must have this is their diary to pop up every few months, do article on no good menz left anymore, kind of cringy , no particular new insights popped out and they must do some fierce selecting to come up with the women they interview they come across as insufferable

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4919208/The-women-clever-boyfriend.html




this made me chuckle

I suspect that any men who think they "are too clever" to meet a woman would encounter similar issues finding a partner.

They love that one. I wonder if what I've noticed in some situations is what actually applies and these "intelligent" women are actually just really boring. I remember a couple in college who could talk about nothing but college stuff. Same happens with some women even now, whether they're minimum wage retail workers or working 15 hours a day. Probably applies to guys as well but I'm less likely to notice because there's always the football fallback. :P

silverharp

newport2 wrote: »

I suspect that any men who think they "are too clever" to meet a woman would encounter similar issues finding a partner.

its not like any of them was studying nuclear physics, one of them was media and comms which I would refuse to pay to support my kids doing another was bla bla sociology, no offense to anyone but this doesn't propel you into the intellectual elite.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

They love that one. I wonder if what I've noticed in some situations is what actually applies and these "intelligent" women are actually just really boring. I remember a couple in college who could talk about nothing but college stuff. Same happens with some women even now, whether they're minimum wage retail workers or working 15 hours a day. Probably applies to guys as well but I'm less likely to notice because there's always the football fallback. :P

one of them was 21 I think and had J Corbyn as one of her topics of conversation. Its been a while but I never remember having Haughty or Bruton lined up for a topic with a blind date :pac:

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

one of them was 21 I think and had J Corbyn as one of her topics of conversation. Its been a while but I never remember having Haughty or Bruton lined up for a topic with a blind date :pac:

Ah yes, I'm really interested in discussing politics with a 21 year old who's fully sure they're right. :pac:

EDIT: Here's the thing; I love discussing anything with anyone in a couple of ways. If they know more than me then great, I get to ask questions and learn. If they're curious and I know more I get to see their curiosity. I find curiosity much more attractive and endearing (depending on the circumstances) than cocksure people who've read an article or book and have had their views solidified for the next couple of years. :pac: People's perceptions of their intelligence can often be funny and I've half-fallen out with a few people over the last few years because they go on about how bloody smart they are when all it really is is steadfastness of opinion.

kunst nugget

maybe

I'd imagine it's less to do with their intellects and a great deal more with the pretty horrible personalities they seem to project. Christ almighty, the snobbishness dripping off what they're saying is unbelievable and like silverharp said, none of them were study Astrophysics…

Yer one looking for a topic to debate on her first date. Why would you want to debate anyone on your first date?!?!

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Yer one looking for a topic to debate on her first date. Why would you want to debate anyone on your first date?!?!

Because they're oh so smart.

It's not just a woman thing, there are guys that are arseholes like that. Personally I'd use a first date to judge whether I could ever find what they find interesting on a first date interesting in the long term. :P The kind of everyday things that will be the bedrock of a relationship. There's a know-it-allness or maybe desire to prove oneself that just comes across as arrogant, not intelligent. I have a couple of Level 8s, hopefully will start another one down the line. People don't want to hear about them but if they bring it up I can chat about the interesting aspects (to my mind) of them and my interests. I'm pretty sure when I was younger I came across as a know-it-all, though it probably didn't help that my friend would pre-introduce me as really smart, perception is everything. :P I've dialled it back a lot over the years and coppped that learning (and teaching for want of a better word) is way more fun than showing what one has already learned.

Calhoun

Crap lads i must be doing it wrong, i married a woman with two degrees and i only have a diploma.

The article is click bait plain and simple but i do believe that there is a certain Neanderthals (male and female) that exists that thinks that further education is not something you should worry about. I think however this way of thinking is limited to poorer areas of society, especially one of our new ethnic groups i know they would hold that thought when it comes to females of their group.

However for the most part i would think people would be actively looking for educated people to settle down with. Its 2017 and if you want a comfortable existence you both have to work.

So if its not education, then it has to be the large ego that certain folk carry around with them. Maybe the ladies in the article aren't really egotistical but the article doesn't paint them very well. You combine this with doctrine like feminism and generally it means you have someone who is uncompromising, not something that really goes well in relationships.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Crap lads i must be doing it wrong, i married a woman with two degrees and i only have a diploma.

The article is click bait plain and simple but i do believe that there is a certain Neanderthals (male and female) that exists that thinks that further education is not something you should worry about. I think however this way of thinking is limited to poorer areas of society, especially one of our new ethnic groups i know they would hold that thought when it comes to females of their group.

However for the most part i would think people would be actively looking for educated people to settle down with. Its 2017 and if you want a comfortable existence you both have to work.

So if its not education, then is has to be the large ego that certain folk carry around with them. Maybe the ladies in the article aren't really egotistical but the article doesn't paint them very well. You combine this with doctrine like feminism and generally it means you have someone who is uncompromising, not something that really goes well in relationships.

This is it really. I know some people I went to college with are great, some are pains. I know people with excellent science and economics degrees who are dead on and some with art degrees who know everything. :pac: If the ones in the article come across anything like in real life as they do in the article then it's fairly obvious what their problem is.

Carlos Orange

No

silverharp wrote: »

they must have this is their diary to pop up every few months, do article on no good menz left anymore, kind of cringy , no particular new insights popped out and they must do some fierce selecting to come up with the women they interview they come across as insufferable

It is very important society address the way being better educated and paid than men holds back young women it order to stop the patriarchy or something.

JRant

psinno wrote: »

It is very important society address the way being better educated and paid than men holds back young women it order to stop the patriarchy or something.

It's clearly the patriarchy making these highly educated women successful in their careers just to keep them down. Textbook patriarchy in action.

fly_agaric

Daily "Heil" Online Femail section: It may sound insufferably smug

No, not at all

edit: read whole thing, and parts of it (including above headline) are very funny + too ridiculous to be serious. I think tongue must have been quite firmly in the cheek of the writer.

Pawwed Rig

Life was much simpler when I was 21 because I was always right and knew everything about everything.

newport2

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Life was much simpler when I was 21 because I was always right and knew everything about everything.

Ye, and by the time I was 25 I couldn't believe how much my parents had learnt in 4 years, they had overtaken me and knew more than I did by then!

Wibbs

maybe

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they're oh so smart.

I have found it near axiomatic B that anyone who self describes as "smart" is almost certainly not.

As for these three stooges:

Like many arts degrees, her media and communications course is dominated by female students,[No sh1t Sherlock. And she's getting her first crack at publicity to try and grab a job in the area] and Natasha claims the few male undergraduates ‘lack the intellectual maturity to handle conversations’[won't further her career].

‘One cancelled our date four times because he was too busy getting drunk. In class, their conversations centre around going to gigs and smoking weed at weekends, which is not what I’m looking for in a date.’

She prefers instead to date older[AKA richer/connected to further her career] men she meets through her part-time job as a nightclub promoter.

Yet even more mature men fail to show the requisite enthusiasm for her university projects — which include a radio documentary she recently produced on ‘the pressure that black women are under to adhere to white beauty stereotypes’.[I'm sure there were laughs aplenty when that subject aired. Again. For the umpteenth time].

The next woman I'd have more sympathy for. Well up to the point when she comes out with this:

Our conversations were mundane. When I tried to start an informed discussion — about religion or terrorism, for example — he had no idea how to react.

Hell, I could discuss that back and forth until her brain melted out her ears, but what sort of eejit would bring that up on a date? Does she not realise that's like dropping a death metal axe solo into Moonlight Sonata?

The next one?

Her longest relationship, for two years, was in her mid-30s with a musician. It ended because she disapproved of his use of cannabis.

Two years eh? I'd bet the farm he was puffin weed from the start, but she liked the bad boy muso vibe, which kept her juices flowing for the usual honeymoon period of two-three years at which point she was looking for tweedy suburbia and seriousness. So she was on the lookout for that guy. Oh she'll get equally bored of him too(if not more quickly), but either kids, Facebook friends, or leaving Tweedy in her forties to Eat, Pray, Love will sort that. Cue her. In her fifties. Musing on the same pages why she never found love. With added cats. This script writes itself and the number of players I've know to strut that particular stage are many.

Men think I’m too serious. I want to talk about psychology and literature — they’re obsessed with UFOs and Harry Potter.

I can quite comfortably claim I've yet to meet a man or woman who was obsessed with either subject. And I've met a fair number of people. I dunno maybe if she stops going out with 13 year olds?

Odd article on a few levels. Never mind that journos will pretty much always throw a slant on things and pick out the clickbait bits and leave out the sensible. At least they acknowledge the growing education gender divide. I do find it somewhat interesting - though is likely a generational thing on my part - that a degree regardless of subject equals intelligent. I certainly realise it's a near given these days if someone wants a career rather than a job, but as a sign of brains, or even of being well read and a scintillating conversationalist? Those three illustrated seem to put that idea to bed, as does personal experience.

Wibbs

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Life was much simpler when I was 21 because I was always right and knew everything about everything.

Oddly enough, I was always painfully aware of my own ignorance.

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote: »

If they know more than me then great, I get to ask questions and learn. If they're curious and I know more I get to see their curiosity. I find curiosity much more attractive and endearing (depending on the circumstances) than cocksure people who've read an article or book and have had their views solidified for the next couple of years. :pac:

This. So much this.

One of the most instant (platonic) likings I've ever taken to someone was a Californian guy I met while back-packing in Europe about a decade ago. Within a few minutes of us starting to chat he apologised for his ignorance about Ireland (despite having displaye none until that point), lamented the insular nature of his American high-school education and plied me with a load of (what I might otherwise have thought of as "stupid") questions about whether Ireland was independent from the UK, the IRA and Republican history, our currency, our involvement with Europe etc. His sheer curiosity for the world was really, really likeable and made me wish more of the people I was meeting on that trip shared his interest.

razorblunt

I think I posted this already in the TV Adverts you hate thread, but its infuriating:

The Direct Line "Winston Wolf" ad, a couple in their 50s arrive back from holidays and have crashed the car in the airport parking lot. WW talking directly to the woman says "you crashed your car yadayada" then at the end says "aren't you forgetting something, your donkey". She looks back at the husband who's carrying ALL the bags from holidays in the 'look, its so funny she thinks he's a donkey' way.
Forgetting that a) she seemed to crash their car in a near empty, quiet car park and b) he was carrying all the bags to the taxi for them.

That ad wouldn't last two minutes if it were reversed.


I just realised I may have posted that on this thread before, but I saw the ad again last night and it set me off.

Wibbs

maybe

razorblunt wrote: »

That ad wouldn't last two minutes if it were reversed.

TBH and for me, there's a point where I think I'm not going to get worked up over feck all. I'm not a college feminist. I mean one of those could look at the same ad and get her knickers in a bunch at the clear sexism involved in a woman damaging her car in an empty car park and that a man had to come along to mansplain the situation and save her. Patriarchy etc.

razorblunt

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH and for me, there's a point where I think I'm not going to get worked up over feck all. I'm not a college feminist. I mean one of those could look at the same ad and get her knickers in a bunch at the clear sexism involved in a woman damaging her car in an empty car park and that a man had to come along to mansplain the situation and save her. Patriarchy etc.

I'll see your argument and raise you the new Admiral on their tv adverts.
I, for one, look forward to Billy Connolly as the new face of Scottish Widows.:pac:

The J Stands for Jay

Wibbs wrote: »

The pay gap one such example. Of course it exists! followed by statistics referenced by reputable links inc the Woman's Council of Ireland(who have since removed one link) showing that it's not that simplistic and that in fact the average Irish woman is more educated than the average Irish man and gets paid 17% more than the average Irish man before kids come along.

Do you have a source for the 17% figure? I brought it up in the office, and I'm not being believed.

iptba

McGaggs wrote: »

Do you have a source for the 17% figure? I brought it up in the office, and I'm not being believed.

http://www.nwci.ie/?/news/article/being_a_mother_doesnt_pay
http://www.siptu.ie/media/newsarchive2013/fullstory_17012_en.html

The J Stands for Jay

iptba wrote: »

http://www.nwci.ie/?/news/article/being_a_mother_doesnt_pay
http://www.siptu.ie/media/newsarchive2013/fullstory_17012_en.html

Nice one, thanks.

El_Duderino 09

McGaggs wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

The pay gap one such example. Of course it exists! followed by statistics referenced by reputable links inc the Woman's Council of Ireland(who have since removed one link) showing that it's not that simplistic and that in fact the average Irish woman is more educated than the average Irish man and gets paid 17% more than the average Irish man before kids come along.

Do you have a source for the 17% figure? I brought it up in the office, and I'm not being believed.

That's the figure is for a woman without children vs the AVERAGE man. Does anyone have a figure for women without children vs men without children? In the interest of comparing like with like.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's the figure is for a woman without children vs the AVERAGE man. Does anyone have a figure for women without children vs men without children? In the interest of comparing like with like.

Can i get a clarification.... what is an AVERAGE man?

In the articles, I see only the reference to "men", rather than "average men".. nothing to say whether the men are single, unmarried, have children, paying child support etc.

And maybe I'm seeing things but aren't the articles written to highlight the paygap for women with children, and seek to almost minimise that women without children get paid more? -17%? very odd way to describe things.

johnnyskeleton

iptba wrote: »

http://www.nwci.ie/?/news/article/being_a_mother_doesnt_pay
http://www.siptu.ie/media/newsarchive2013/fullstory_17012_en.html

If the overall gender pay gap is 13.9%, the childless pay gap is -17% and the women with children pay gap is 14%, does that mean that the number of childless women is statistically insigificant, if their entire contribution only reduces the average by 0.1%?

Ann Irwin, Policy Officer with the National Women’s Council of Ireland said, “Women still continue to earn significantly less than men. The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men.”

Ann Irwin continued, “What is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points.”

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's the figure is for a woman without children vs the AVERAGE man. Does anyone have a figure for women without children vs men without children? In the interest of comparing like with like.

Can i get a clarification.... what is an AVERAGE man?

In the articles, I see only the reference to "men", rather than "average men".. nothing to say whether the men are single, unmarried, have children, paying child support etc.

And maybe I'm seeing things but aren't the articles written to highlight the paygap for women with children, and seek to almost minimise that women without children get paid more? -17%? very odd way to describe things.

No I'm pretty sure McGags is looking for a figure to demonstrate that women earn more than men- until they have children.

An average man is an average of men -presumably in the same age bracket. A childless woman should be compared with a childless man, right?