Feminism and the emasculation of men

Bannasidhe

clairefontaine wrote: »

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

The purpose of this Statute is to:
(a) Promote tolerance within society without weakening the
common bonds tying together a single society.
(b)Foster tolerance between different societies.
(c) Eliminate hate crimes as defined in Section 1(c).
(d)Condemn all manifestations of intolerance based on bias,
bigotry and prejudice.
(e) Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a
view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination,
religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, antiSemitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.

Hmmmm...not quite the 'This upcoming EU legislation which puts feminist groups among a protected species which cannot be criticised without threat of criminal prosecution' spin you put on it m'thinks.

Anti-feminism will be combated is not quite the same as your protecting feminism with threats of criminal prosecution hyperbole now is it.

It is a catch all piece of anti-hate group legislation which will be utterly meaningless on the ground unless the authorities of each State decide to enforce it.

Now here is a question - how many men voted for it?

Do you consider those men a) Hen pecked pussies, b) misguided, c) traitors, d) genuinely concerned there is a problem with hate groups - some of whom target feminists (which is a political and philosophical ideology after all) - in Europe ?

karlitob

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's PC liberal correctness gone mad!!! Soon they'll be castrating little boys!!!

Naturally, if boys and girls are to be equal then castration is the obvious things to do for 'equality'.

Bannasidhe

karlitob wrote: »

'equality'.

I don't think that word means what you think that word means.

May I suggest the word you are looking for is closer to 'identical' which is not at all the same thing...nor is it biologically possible unless we have a human race consisting of clones of just the one person...

I vote for Panti Bliss to be that individual.

:pac:

Bannasidhe

B0jangles wrote: »

Well, obviously, but surely the free breast implants will make up for the loss?

Saline based not silicone based as all Feminists are also tree-huggers. I read that in a blog so it must be true.

B0jangles

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Saline based not silicone based as all Feminists are also tree-huggers. I read that in a blog so it must be true.

Heh, you got me before I deleted the post for being a non sequitur :P

(If the willies get cut off, then 'logically' the breasts have to go too - no external sex markers allowed in the fearsome fempire!)

Foxtrol

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do all those headlines which say 'soccer fans riot' mean people perceive all soccer fans as hooligans or that there exists an extreme minority?

Newspaper headlines are designed to sell newspapers and in order to so so they will sensationalise/spin - they are certainly no basis for forming an opinion on anything.

All soccer fans are treated in a specific way (segregation, no alcohol etc) due to the actions of this extreme minority. Similarly, feminists get tarred by many with the same brush as the extremes under their banner and it is only made worse by the mainstream rarely making little, if any, effort to distance themselves such comments/campaigns.

biko

clairefontaine wrote: »

So to the people defending feminism....

This upcoming EU legislation which puts feminist groups among a protected species which cannot be criticised without threat of criminal prosecution...

Does this qualify as the nutso ones to you? If yes then you must admit their profound influence.

If not, and you admit it is the moderates extending their legislative influence, how do you defend such a radical imposition on free speech?

I am for feminism (as promoting respect end equality between sexes) but would not defend such legislation. The document in question is called “The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance.” and it doesn't ban critisim, it's supposed to ban hate speech - but it also offers "special protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups" including "special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment."

Bannasidhe

Foxtrol wrote: »

All soccer fans are treated in a specific way (segregation, no alcohol etc) due to the actions of this extreme minority. Similarly, feminists get tarred by many with the same brush as the extremes under their banner and it is only made worse by the mainstream rarely making little, if any, effort to distance themselves such comments/campaigns.

Well not even in the wildest imaginings of the Anti Feminism Brigade (:p) have bands of drunken women violently rioted in stadiums and city streets demanding equality...

My point was that the vast majority of feminists are not extremists just as the vast majority of those who support rights for unmarried father's are not like John Waters nor are all those who go to soccer matches hooligans - I know people who do all three...not me. Can't stand soccer...

Foxtrol

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well not even in the wildest imaginings of the Anti Feminism Brigade (:p) have bands of drunken women violently rioted in stadiums and city streets demanding equality...

My point was that the vast majority of feminists are not extremists just as the vast majority of those who support rights for unmarried father's are not like John Waters nor are all those who go to soccer matches hooligans - I know people who do all three...not me. Can't stand soccer...

You’re totally ignoring my point though, that like the soccer fan example you chose, feminists will be viewed on by the ‘worst’ of their group and treated differently as a result. At least the majority of soccer fans usually come out in large numbers to object to the actions of their high profile minority, I don’t think this regularly happens with feminists and it would actually help their cause if they did.

rubadub

the_syco wrote: »

Does it go well with a packet of Hunky Dory crisps?

hunky dorys got in trouble for and their models were not even topless like the coke one -many people would fight for equal topless rights. In many countries there is also a double standard a ban on showing female genitals at all in film, it can be labelled as hardcore pornography
http://www.adworld.ie/news/read/?id=94b9d427-fdb2-4796-8d38-e4e7d038fe26

The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI) has upheld a number of complaints against crisp manufacturer Largo Foods following the company's recent controversial ad campaign for its Hunky Dory range of crisps.

FTA69 wrote: »

This is complete fabrication. You'll find rampant male sexuality is actually celebrated while the opposite is actively derided. Hence why some men get termed "legends" for riding all around them while women are written off as "sluts" and "whores" for promiscuity.

I have actually never heard any guy called a legend for this, the usual term supposedly used is "stud", a term I have only ever heard used sarcastically. I have heard lots of men being called sluts, including myself (by a female), it seems more acceptable to do so. I have heard women calling each other sluts more often than men do too, often behind their backs.

Many people feign ignorance about why there is this supposed "double standard", a primatologist might explain it to you, e.g. why if a female primate has as many partners as a male in a year she may be described as promiscuous while the male might not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity

A scientific study published in 2005 found that promiscuous men and women are judged equally harshly[2] and a recent poll showed that both genders tend to express strong preference for sexually conservative partners.

FTA69 wrote: »

Why do women on average earn less than men for similar work? Why are women under-represented for promotion in the professions? Why is maternity constantly seen as a barrier for a woman's career?

If men could have children I would expect a similar drop in wages, there was some call for men to be given the option for paternity leave, i.e. instead of the woman automatically getting the bulk of the leave time she could go back and the husband could legally take the time off instead. If this happened and most men took up the role then I would certainly expect a drop in wages for men and an increase for women.

One manager in my workplace openly told me of her opinions on the dangers of employing female staff and the risk of maternity leave. The ability/risk to have children and consequent disruption is quite obviously one part of the answer for the first 2 questions.

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Say what? When have women as a whole refused to work as hard as men?

Sometimes it can be legally enforced, such as different maximum manual lifting capacities, men allowed, and therefore often expected to lift more. There may be other blatantly sexist requirements, e.g. fire service and military services may have different fitness requirements, or tasks rules out completely. I have never heard a reversal of this, e.g. women are supposedly better at multi-tasking, so I wonder if any company has legally/formally put down lower acceptable standards/workloads for the "weaker" men in jobs with lots of mulit-tasking.

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Yup, the porn industry and sex slaves are all poor men been exploited.

Male porn stars are paid far less than females.

SYT2000

B0jangles wrote: »

Quick note on this part of your post:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/05/21/a-new-obstacle-for-professional-women-the-glass-escalator/

"“Men that enter female-dominated professions tend to be promoted at faster rates than women in those professions,” explains Caren Goldberg, Ph.D., an assistant professor of management at American University’s Kogod School of Business who has researched the phenomenon. “When you look at senior management, you tend to see men disproportionately represented. So while there may be less than 5% of all nurses who are male, you see a much larger percentage than 5% in senior-level positions like hospital administrators.”"

Seems like the opposite is true.

Just because more men or women are promoted in a particular sector doesn't mean that discrimiation is taking place. That's atrocious logic to think it does prove discrimination.

Foxtrol

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Agree on this.

Any man whose identity as a man is defined by how he views himself relative to a particular woman, or women in general, needs to have a word with himself.

What is your opinion on 'slu t shaming'? Why should women care about how they are viewed relative to a man or men in general?

This seems typical double standards, it's ok for women to feel one way but a man isn't really a man if he feels similar.

Obliq

Obliq wrote: »

Nope.

Now see below for another example of the kind of ****e people get fed up with:



And this thanked by the OP. :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would you prefer if jokes of that nature were deleted by moderators? I have seen many self styled feminists on many different websites who call for same.

This is quite funny - you not only took my slightly-taking-the-p!ss comment on the class of joke that women just roll their eyes at, but you've properly thrown the baby out with the vitriol, haven't you?! Don't be bitter - I haven't given you any reason unless you're counting my actual GENDER :eek:

DazMarz wrote: »

I was just trying to lighten things up a little...

Not meant to be taken seriously...

I know hon. Don't take it so seriously. I've quoted myself above to show you again that it was a very slight criticism.....no worse than having to stomach the joke, like

crockholm

biko wrote: »

I am for feminism (as promoting respect end equality between sexes) but would not defend such legislation. The document in question is called “The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance.” and it doesn't ban critisim, it's supposed to ban hate speech - but it also offers "special protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups" including "special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment."

Dare we muddy the water with asking what specifically differenciates critisism of feminism and hate speech against feminists?

The thing that worried me was the phrase "to take Concrete action against intolerance" section 2 (e).


Hopefully that windy document will be flushed down the toilet to join other such fecal matter.

(P.S.- Thanks Clairefontaine for unearthing this turd,it surely passed most of us european inhabitants by without much of a whimper)

clairefontaine

biko wrote: »

I am for feminism (as promoting respect end equality between sexes) but would not defend such legislation. The document in question is called “The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance.” and it doesn't ban critisim, it's supposed to ban hate speech - but it also offers "special protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups" including "special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment."

So what is it? Is it the crazy nut jobs that no one listens to or the moderates who have influenced EU legislation?

I'm delighted you feel the way you do but you haven't answered the question.

karlitob

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't think that word means what you think that word means.

May I suggest the word you are looking for is closer to 'identical' which is not at all the same thing...nor is it biologically possible unless we have a human race consisting of clones of just the one person...

I vote for Panti Bliss to be that individual.

:pac:

Thanks for that - would never have known. Perhaps I need to add an addendum to all my sarcastic comments that they are in fact, sarcastic.

I did have quite a long post re my thoughts on equality versus fairness but got bored half way through and posted the above instead. So, there you go.

I don't vote for panti bliss to be that individual - maybe Brian O Driscoll, Paul O Connell, Enya or JFK.

mariaalice

B0jangles wrote: »

Quick note on this part of your post:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/05/21/a-new-obstacle-for-professional-women-the-glass-escalator/

"“Men that enter female-dominated professions tend to be promoted at faster rates than women in those professions,” explains Caren Goldberg, Ph.D., an assistant professor of management at American University’s Kogod School of Business who has researched the phenomenon. “When you look at senior management, you tend to see men disproportionately represented. So while there may be less than 5% of all nurses who are male, you see a much larger percentage than 5% in senior-level positions like hospital administrators.”"

Seems like the opposite is true.

This is at the heart of the matter in a lot of ways, the reason men who enter female dominated professions are promoted is because they are still men! and are thus less likely to take time off for child rearing and are less likely to be working part time, more likely to go for promotion because they don't have the child rearing responsibilities as there female cohorts, now is that actual discrimination against women? or is it something more deep routed to do with how the world of paid work operated in our society.

SYT2000

Tall people are more likely to get promoted, should we run campaigns for short people to get promotions?

karlitob

B0jangles wrote: »

Quick note on this part of your post:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/05/21/a-new-obstacle-for-professional-women-the-glass-escalator/

"“Men that enter female-dominated professions tend to be promoted at faster rates than women in those professions,” explains Caren Goldberg, Ph.D., an assistant professor of management at American University’s Kogod School of Business who has researched the phenomenon. “When you look at senior management, you tend to see men disproportionately represented. So while there may be less than 5% of all nurses who are male, you see a much larger percentage than 5% in senior-level positions like hospital administrators.”"

Seems like the opposite is true.

Thanks for the post
- no it doesn't as the devil is in the details
- " 'tend' to be promoted"
- like in all research, use of word tend in a positive trend is observed but not sufficient to be a significant difference. i.e. all bias stripped away therefore its true. So the Associate Professor Caren Goldberg (who is a WOMAN and naturally (like us all, has a bias) has not proven anything.

If the 5% of male nurses who are in the 5% of senior-level admin, again, there is confusion between correlation and causation. Are you trying to say that better qualified woman were refused a post and given unfairly to a man. If only 5% of men are disproportionately represented at higher level, does this mean that there is a worldwide conspiracy to promote men at the detriment of women or are there other reasons why men aspire to and achieve promotion?

karlitob

mariaalice wrote: »

This is at the heart of the matter in a lot of ways, the reason men who enter female dominated professions are promoted are promoted is because they are still men! and are thus less likely to take time off for child rearing and are less likely to be working part time, more likely to go for promotion because they don't have the same the same child rearing responsibilities as there female cohorts, now is that actual discrimination against women? or is it something more deep routed to do with how the world of paid work operated in our society.

Or is that discrimination against children - you seem to be blaming the fact the child is born rather than men being the problem. Or maybe just the male children. Also, are the people offering the promotions all men? Or are you discriminating against men - you're saying that the reason why men are being promoted is that they're men. Is there no instance where a man is better for the job? Is there no man entitled to parental leave - why don't mothers of the world make their husbands taken parental leave so they may focus on careers - or maybe men are making women stay at home. Awful b**tards the lot of us.

ppars

Learn to grow a pair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77t3vbidB0w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNcFwXh5XI

Femme_Fatale

Clairefontaine, you're a real renegade the way you're always moaning about even moderate feminism yet are a woman yourself. So edgy.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is it misdirected?

Stuff like... all women being blamed, all with feminist views being lumped in with the crazies.

karlitob wrote: »

Now you're not allowed play with toy swords or guns because its not gender neutral and promotes violence. You just can't win.

You're... "not allowed"?

It always gets funny when lies are resorted to.

mariaalice

karlitob wrote: »

Or is that discrimination against children - you seem to be blaming the fact the child is born rather than men being the problem. Or maybe just the male children. Also, are the people offering the promotions all men? Or are you discriminating against men - you're saying that the reason why men are being promoted is that they're men. Is there no instance where a man is better for the job? Is there no man entitled to parental leave - why don't mothers of the world make their husbands taken parental leave so they may focus on careers - or maybe men are making women stay at home. Awful b**tards the lot of us.

I am not blaming anyone thats the point it is more to do with social, cultural issues and how the world works in real life and not how we would like it to be.
I have a boss( female) who says straight our I use to be ambitious before I has children now I don't give a s***. and we work in a very supportive environment, not all women are like that of course but a lot more of them want a better work life balance and that interferes with going for promotion and it does not seem to be the same for men. That's not blaming anyone.

Bannasidhe

Foxtrol wrote: »

You’re totally ignoring my point though, that like the soccer fan example you chose, feminists will be viewed on by the ‘worst’ of their group and treated differently as a result. At least the majority of soccer fans usually come out in large numbers to object to the actions of their high profile minority, I don’t think this regularly happens with feminists and it would actually help their cause if they did.

How do you know the extremism is not being challenged?

You seem so certain.

I know it is because I am one of the people who challenges it and I suspect that I am far more plugged into the Global Feminist network than you.

If you mean it doesn't get reported in the general media or make headlines - that brings us back to what newspapers choose to report and how they choose to report it.

If you think often contentious dialogues don't take place within the broad spectrum of feminism you are very much mistaken. And we don't even need the threat of financial penalties like the Soccer clubs did...

lufties

crockholm wrote: »

Dare we muddy the water with asking what specifically differenciates critisism of feminism and hate speech against feminists?

The thing that worried me was the phrase "to take Concrete action against intolerance" section 2 (e).


Hopefully that windy document will be flushed down the toilet to join other such fecal matter.

(P.S.- Thanks Clairefontaine for unearthing this turd,it surely passed most of us european inhabitants by without much of a whimper)

What's your opinion on gender neutrality in Sweden? I read an article at chrimbo about an advertisement for toys showing a young boy drying his hair with a pink hair dryer, while the young girl was holding a toy drill or spanner play set. Thought it was a bit odd tbh, why are they trying to neutralise genders when our physical make up is different.
Then I also saw some looney swede politician is endorsing a special sort of toilet where a male can sit down and pee, claiming its good for the prostate. Perhaps it is, but it's still a bit bizaare IMO.

lufties

ppars wrote: »

Learn to grow a pair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77t3vbidB0w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNcFwXh5XI

James Bond wouldn't like that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0d1zTAFKA

ppars

lufties wrote: »

James Bond wouldn't like that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0d1zTAFKA

I thought he was dead, or as good as, years ago

lufties

ppars wrote: »

I thought he was dead, or as good as, years ago

That video is probably from over 20 years ago...but no, Sean Connery is still alive, shur wasn't he crowned sexiest man alive not a while back.

crockholm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Clairefontaine, you're a real renegade the way you're always moaning about even moderate feminism yet are a woman yourself. So edgy.

Stuff like... all women being blamed, all with feminist views being lumped in with the crazies.

You're... "not allowed"?

It always gets funny when lies are resorted to.

Doubtless you would sneer if one were to mention a "feminist hivemind" and yet you're having a cut off her for not following the plan "yet you are a woman yourself",because she may be critical of aspects of feminism,does it make her some kind of uncle tom/aunt jemima?

I'm just glad that she linked to the pdf about the kooky shennannigans in Brussels

Bannasidhe

lufties wrote: »

What's your opinion on gender neutrality in Sweden? I read an article at chrimbo about an advertisement for toys showing a young boy drying his hair with a pink hair dryer, while the young girl was holding a toy drill or spanner play set. Thought it was a bit odd tbh, why are they trying to neutralise genders when our physical make up is different.
Then I also saw some looney swede politician is endorsing a special sort of toilet where a male can sit down and pee, claiming its good for the prostate. Perhaps it is, but it's still a bit bizaare IMO.

Have you ever tried to buy gender neutral toys?
It is becoming more and more difficult.

I have a 7 year old granddaughter who as well as her dolls loves lego and science projects. Apparently science is for boys at least according to all the shops where it is generally labelled as 'Toys For Boys'. She also likes dress up - but her choice of costumes appears to be nurse/princess/Doctor - she likes those but would also like to dress up as a firefighter/police officer/super hero but we have to go to the boys section to find those.

Ever tried to find clothes for girls that are suitable for climbing trees/jumping in puddles/wrestling/ kicking a ball around? Or even bloody winter clothes that are warm like good jumpers? Need to go to the boys sections for those as well as the girls is all sleeveless dresses and teeny pink cardies.

She is seven years old and already she is being told what roles are suitable to her gender and she knows the meaning of sexist.

Gender neutral means they are just toys - not 'girl' toys or 'boy' toys - just toys that come in colours other than pink/blue and can be played with without reference to what genitalia a child has...

I fail to see how this is a bad thing tbh.