Equal right - Losing it's balance in favour of women?

Jayop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you use Reddit, you had early warning of the "mandatory consent classes" sh!tstorm here, because the same sh!tstorm happened in America back in 2014.
Same applies to recent campaigns in the UK for universities to deny a platform to speakers with "objectionable" opinions - that sort of mob censorship was a craze which originated in the US and Canada maybe ~6 months before it started happening in the UK.

The no platforming thing is a disgrace and will be a complete embarrassment to the liberal left when looking back on this era in the future.

darkpagandeath

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not too surprising, most of this identity politics crap is being generated in America and then exported to other countries via the internet. Man shaming campaigns in Irish and British universities for instance are extremely predictable, since like clockwork they appear here roughly one academic year after they have taken hold in the US.

Equality and diversity officers ..........................

hatrickpatrick

Jayop wrote: »

The no platforming thing is a disgrace and will be a complete embarrassment to the liberal left when looking back on this era in the future.

100% agreed, and I say that as a liberal lefty myself. It'll be hilarious if Donald Trump gets elected US president and the UK actually puts its "we don't like your politics so we're going to ban you" bullsh!t into practise. As somebody who despises Trump, it really makes me facepalm how some leftists don't understand that such tactics very obviously antagonise Trump's supporters and actually earn him new ones.

Samaris

Icemancometh wrote: »

It's a problem in most research fields. America is producing an abundance of good quality research (that's also in English!); we just don't have the numbers here. Asking for research on Irish figures is asking for something you know doesn't exist.

Yeah, fair enough

Although I'm going to toss in ...I know, horrors, personal anecdotal evidence... by saying that my experience, here, in -this- country was not encouraging for me as a female in getting into science. Not when subjects in single-sex schools down to the equipment available was so heavily gendered.

Girls do biology, boys do physics.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You mis-stated my argument. I was pointing out that if the argument is that women can succeed on their own merits without quotas, then Maggie is a **** example of the same, because she succeed by being a man.

Plenty of women have succeeded as women, that much is obvious. But you can give all the examples you like, and it won't matter a bit because they're hugely outnumbered by men.

While yes, women in politics ARE outnumbered by men, it's pretty damned sexist to toss away some extraordinary achievements by Thatcher in gaining her position BECAUSE she's a woman who acted in a certain way. People is people and more than just their plumbing. You can have a woman who's tough, decisive, hard and abrasive who is -just as much a woman- as a man who is kind, affectionate and caring is still a man, dammit.

To say otherwise is just perpetuating rubbishing stereotypes that help to breed all this.

hatrickpatrick

Samaris wrote: »

While yes, women in politics ARE outnumbered by men, it's pretty damned sexist to toss away some extraordinary achievements by Thatcher in gaining her position BECAUSE she's a woman who acted in a certain way. People is people and more than just their plumbing. You can have a woman who's tough, decisive, hard and abrasive who is -just as much a woman- as a man who is kind, affectionate and caring is still a man, dammit.

To say otherwise is just perpetuating rubbishing stereotypes that help to breed all this.

This, so much. "Thatcher succeeded by being a man" is one of the most bullsh!t statements I've ever seen. She succeeded by being a politician whose policies were popular among a majority of voters (although that doesn't make them any less vile)

IrishTrajan

Jayop wrote: »

Another good point well made. :rolleyes:

The onus is on you to prove such sexism exists - and if it does, you'd surely have no problem finding cases in the European or UN Courts of Human Rights on the grounds of discrimination.

Jayop wrote: »

You see you're starting on the assumption that quotas don't work or are inherently wrong. I disagree with your starting point so of course I'm going to disagree with your end point.

Take the PSNI, there was favourable hiring practices for Catholics to address a complete imbalance of hiring in favour of protestants for generations. Irish policics are attempting to do something similar with party sex quotas (quite unambitious ones) to redress the imbalance of pro male selections by the parties for generations.

Running a country and being a policeman are not really comparable, it takes a bit more ambition and skill to run for office than it would to train as a police officers. Maybe if you were talking about the upper branches of the police force it could be compared.

RDM_83 again

Samaris wrote: »

Girls do biology, boys do physics.

Why is biology often not considered a science when people talk about STEM? Back in the 2000's most of my biology classes had either equal or majority women in them?
Is it just left out of the conversation because more women do it so it ruins the, women are put off from STEM thing or is it because its not considered "real science"?

darkpagandeath

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why is biology often not considered a science when people talk about STEM? Back in the 2000's most of my biology classes had either equal or majority women in them?
Is it just left out of the conversation because more women do it so it ruins the, women are put off from STEM thing or is it because its not considered "real science"?

Don't most Young Women and Men these days just want to be Famous ?

Jayop

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The onus is on you to prove such sexism exists - and if it does, you'd surely have no problem finding cases in the European or UN Courts of Human Rights on the grounds of discrimination.



Running a country and being a policeman are not really comparable, it takes a bit more ambition and skill to run for office than it would to train as a police officers. Maybe if you were talking about the upper branches of the police force it could be compared.

1 in 73 and you can't see an imbalance? Madness.

So are newly elected first time TD's running the country?

It was for the upper branches of the PSNI as well as for new members.

Jayop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100% agreed, and I say that as a liberal lefty myself. It'll be hilarious if Donald Trump gets elected US president and the UK actually puts its "we don't like your politics so we're going to ban you" bullsh!t into practise. As somebody who despises Trump, it really makes me facepalm how some leftists don't understand that such tactics very obviously antagonise Trump's supporters and actually earn him new ones.

Lefty here too and like you I can see the long game in denying these speakers a platform. What's to then stop right wing organisations stopping liberals from having a platform and pointing to the left's attitudes here as a justification.

Samaris wrote: »

Yeah, fair enough

Although I'm going to toss in ...I know, horrors, personal anecdotal evidence... by saying that my experience, here, in -this- country was not encouraging for me as a female in getting into science. Not when subjects in single-sex schools down to the equipment available was so heavily gendered.

Girls do biology, boys do physics.




While yes, women in politics ARE outnumbered by men, it's pretty damned sexist to toss away some extraordinary achievements by Thatcher in gaining her position BECAUSE she's a woman who acted in a certain way. People is people and more than just their plumbing. You can have a woman who's tough, decisive, hard and abrasive who is -just as much a woman- as a man who is kind, affectionate and caring is still a man, dammit.

To say otherwise is just perpetuating rubbishing stereotypes that help to breed all this.

Thatcher achieved a lot by getting to the top, unfortunately for a lot of woman who had to follow her she screwed over as many people as she could once she got their and for me set the womans rights agenda back a long long way.

I don't think there's been a single female leader of either of the two main UK parties since her such was the traumatising effect she had.

darkpagandeath

Jayop wrote: »

1 in 73 and you can't see an imbalance? Madness.

So are newly elected first time TD's running the country?

It was for the upper branches of the PSNI as well as for new members.

When was the last Asian PM or Black ? Being a woman makes one a good PM or even right for being PM ?

darkpagandeath

Jayop wrote: »

Lefty here too and like you I can see the long game in denying these speakers a platform. What's to then stop right wing organisations stopping liberals from having a platform and pointing to the left's attitudes here as a justification.



Thatcher achieved a lot by getting to the top, unfortunately for a lot of woman who had to follow her she screwed over as many people as she could once she got their and for me set the womans rights agenda back a long long way.

I don't think there's been a single female leader of either of the two main UK parties since her such was the traumatising effect she had.

Or maybe not the right leadership credentials ? Being a woman makes one the best choice for the roll of party leader ?

Samaris

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why is biology often not considered a science when people talk about STEM? Back in the 2000's most of my biology classes had either equal or majority women in them?
Is it just left out of the conversation because more women do it so it ruins the, women are put off from STEM thing or is it because its not considered "real science"?

Oh, I'm not intending to say that it isn't, although I quite see how you'd get that impression from my post. No, I more meant that certainly through my schooling, anything that smacked of classical education or "hard science" tended to be in the boys' school, and the "softer" subjects in the girls'. As I've complained before, it even extended to languages, for heaven's sake.

I'll entirely grant there was a bit of unintended "science snobbery" in my statement, the various core sciences tend to look down on each other :P Biology, particularly in the form of hygiene and nature study, has been an "allowed" girls' school subject for generations, whereas physics and the more mathematical side tended to be in the boys' curriculum as part of the classical education. Some shreds of that still persist.

Jayop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

When was the last Asian PM or Black ? Being a woman makes one a good PM or even right for being PM ?

Asian 6.9% of UK Population
Black 3% of UK population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

While woman make up 51% of the UK population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

Your argument is invalid.

Samaris

Jayop wrote: »

Thatcher achieved a lot by getting to the top, unfortunately for a lot of woman who had to follow her she screwed over as many people as she could once she got their and for me set the womans rights agenda back a long long way.

I don't think there's been a single female leader of either of the two main UK parties since her such was the traumatising effect she had.

Hells bells, if one person can make you freak out at the idea of anyone from an entire gender should have power I think the issue is more with you*! I'd hope that there hasn't been a female leader of either of the two main UK parties since isn't reflective of that attitude or, god help us, we have a lot further to go than I thought!


*Edit: Rereading, it's possible you meant in a general sense, and therefore I'll make it clear that the "you" is also you in a general sense. But it's an awful frame of mind to have if anyone does.

Jayop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Or maybe not the right leadership credentials ? Being a woman makes one the best choice for the roll of party leader ?

Being a man obviously does.

In the 146 UK general elections since the first PM there's only ever been one potential woman PM for the people to vote for. The population to their credit aren't sexist given they've voted for a woman the only chances they've gotten. It's the institutions that are sexist.

darkpagandeath

Jayop wrote: »

Asian 6.9% of UK Population
Black 3% of UK population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

While woman make up 51% of the UK population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

Your argument is invalid.

24% of households in the UK have dogs too.

Jayop

Samaris wrote: »

Hells bells, if one person can make you freak out at the idea of anyone from an entire gender should have power I think the issue is more with you! I'd hope that there hasn't been a female leader of either of the two main UK parties since isn't reflective of that attitude or, god help us, we have a lot further to go than I thought!

Erm.... I'm arguing that there should be greater female representation in politics. Maybe have a wee look though my posts there first.

Jayop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

24% of households in the UK have dogs too.

Really? That's the level of your logic?

darkpagandeath

Jayop wrote: »

Being a man obviously does.

In the 146 UK general elections since the first PM there's only ever been one potential woman PM for the people to vote for. The population to their credit aren't sexist given they've voted for a woman the only chances they've gotten. It's the institutions that are sexist.

You a list of women who put their names forward for party leader and where not chosen ?

Samaris

Jayop wrote: »

Erm.... I'm arguing that there should be greater female representation in politics. Maybe have a wee look though my posts there first.

Yeah, I'd edited my post.

Jayop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You a list of women who put their names forward for party leader and where not chosen ?

Seriously, after your last post I don't think I'll bother trying to have a reasoned discussion with you any more.

twin_beacon

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You know what?

Feminism is class.

See ye later. I'm bored of these conversations already.

then why bother posting?

darkpagandeath

Jayop wrote: »

Really? That's the level of your logic?

67% of adults in the UK are fat we should make a Quota for that for politicians right ?

darkpagandeath

Jayop wrote: »

Seriously, after your last post I don't think I'll bother trying to have a reasoned discussion with you any more.

So you are assuming the institution is sexist with no evidence.

Jayop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

67% of adults in the UK are fat we should make a Quota for that for politicians right ?

You really are making a fool of yourself now.

Anyways, I'd say looking at the current make up of the UK parliament those 67% are well represented.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So you are assuming the institution is sexist with no evidence.

1 in 73.

We were told earlier that 1:2 in one sector was proof of evidence of sexist hiring in STEM roles, but 1:73 is somehow not proof of sexism in another area.

darkpagandeath

Jayop wrote: »

You really are making a fool of yourself now.

Anyways, I'd say looking at the current make up of the UK parliament those 67% are well represented.



1 in 73.

We were told earlier that 1:2 in one sector was proof of evidence of sexist hiring in STEM roles, but 1:73 is somehow not proof of sexism in another area.

Then you will have no problem showing these women that were not chosen over men ?

Thoie

Irishcrx wrote: »

Single father rights - Or lack there of, absolute joke of a system - Several friends of mine are single fathers and being dragged through hell to see their children even though they are great fathers. All the power with the ex girlfriend and the bitterness , the law says it protects the children but it really is protecting the mother and many abuse this position to exact revenge on an ex - Good father need rights equal to mothers regardless of marriage - Bad ones don't.

Fathers' rights absolutely need an overhaul. There are a number of groups that support unmarried parents of both sexes pushing for these reforms, but they get relatively little support until a man finds himself in that situation. If your friends only broke up with the girlfriend some months/years after the child was born, they could have applied for joint guardianship when the child was born - if it's uncontested it's a simple case of the mother and father signing a form in front of a peace commissioner. Trying to do it after things have gone sour is unfortunately difficult.

Irishcrx wrote: »

female on male domestic violence being laughed at and generally looked upon as not being as serious as male on female, a man smacks a girls ass in a club it's sexual assault , a woman does it and it's funny, from looking at these boards alone from day to day you can tell most men have become almost afraid to approach a girl or say boo to them even when they are very in the wrong.

I'm sure there's some out there, but I've never heard any women laughing at domestic violence, no matter who's beating who. Who do you hear laughing at it? The support systems out there for domestic abuse deal with men as well as women. By its nature, they deal with more women, and you will find that the language frequently refers to women, but they will deal with men as well. There is also amen.ie who provide nearly all the same services as womensaid.ie for male victims of domestic violence. The primary difference at the moment is the lack of a male refuge facility.

Smacking a stranger on the ass is sexual assault, regardless. Again, who are you talking to that think it's funny?

Men may be afraid to approach a woman, but women are equally afraid to be approached. Boys are worried that they'll be picked up wrong, or accused of something untoward if they offer to to walk a girl home, and at the same time girls are afraid to allow a stranger to walk her home in case that's seen as "leading them on".

As someone else mentioned it, feminism/equality is not a zero sum game. Supporting equality for women in the workplace, out socialising, etc doesn't take anything away from men. In the same way, supporting rights for unmarried fathers doesn't mean removing overall support from unmarried mothers. In each case, the important thing is the welfare of the child.

AnonoBoy

twin_beacon wrote: »

then why bother posting?

Because I came back and felt like it.

It's a woman's perogative dude!

Letree

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The fact that men still face difficulties of their own doesn't make feminism the enemy.

Try setting up a mens society in a university and see the reaction of feminists. Feminists don't support the formation of mens societies in fact they actively oppose them. Even though it should be none of their business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/university-of-syndey-mens-society-first-group-to-be-blocked-in-over-ten-years/

Victor

orubiru wrote: »

Um, men have gone to war to be killed and mangled up by the tens of thousands. Who were they doing that for?

They were invariably sent by other men.

It's not about gender. It's about power.

osarusan

Letree wrote: »

Try setting up a mens society in a university and see the reaction of feminists. Feminists don't support the formation of mens societies in fact they actively oppose them. Even though it should be none of their business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/university-of-syndey-mens-society-first-group-to-be-blocked-in-over-ten-years/

From your first link:

“Fem Soc have been great, and have offered to work with me, but I don’t think that’s satisfactory, as they don’t have men’s issues as a pressing goal,” he says. “That’s fair enough – so why can’t I set up a men’s group?

“To be clear, I’m not interested in waging ideological war against feminism and want to distance myself from those MRAs and misogynists who seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time bashing feminism. I want to help men. Instead of just bitching about stuff on the internet I want to get into activism.

That's a terrible example you chose.

Letree

Letree wrote: »

Try setting up a mens society in a university and see the reaction of feminists. Feminists don't support the formation of mens societies in fact they actively oppose them. Even though it should be none of their business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/university-of-syndey-mens-society-first-group-to-be-blocked-in-over-ten-years/

A Voice For Men, run by Paul Elam, that rape apologist? Great source.

From the tellingly titled "I'll Decide If You Were Raped, Not You", a small extract from a vile misogynistic rant about rape victims:

I will be the one to decide if you were raped, or just someone who was temporarily inconvenienced.

I have to tell you, though, that I am not one to just go around calling every claim a rape on behalf of women just because they drum up a few tears, or have a few bruises to show off.
Like that girl at Steubenville; the one who partied a little too hearty and then just happened to be penetrated by some of the guys she was partying with. Opportunistic sex? Yeah. Rape? No, not rape. Not even close.

The face of the MRA movement.

Letree

osarusan wrote: »

From your first link:

That's a terrible example you chose.

Also from the same article, you must have missed this bit.

But, to my mind, Durham’s refusal to allow Adam to start a men’s group follows a similarly depressing call made by Staffordshire University in February, when the Men’s Rights Society was blocked by the university's Woman’s Network, who called it “dangerous”.
Similarly, men’s groups from as far afield as Australia, USA and Canada have been faced with similar Left-leaning, feminist-driven flak, making it feel like modern universities support diversity in all forms – so long as it isn’t male.

Letree

Candie wrote: »

A Voice For Men, run by Paul Elam, that rape apologist? Great source.

From the tellingly titled "I'll Decide If You Were Raped, Not You", a small extract from a vile misogynistic rant about rape victims:





The face of the MRA movement.

Here is a different source then to the same story. I don't know anything about paul elam. The story is the story though. http://www.altmedia.net.au/sydney-university-board-blocks-mens-society/98435

Other news sources seem to have avoided the story.. not on the right side of the agenda i'd imagine.

osarusan

Letree wrote: »

Also from the same article, you must have missed this bit.

You gave an example of Adam Frost and his attempt to start a society and used it as an example of feminisim 'actively opposing' such things - they didn't actively oppose it - they offered to help.

Despite the strong reaction by many, the Fem Soc has got behind Adam because of their “shared values”.
Fem Soc president Catherine Crook told us: “We’ve already begun to liaise with Adam, potentially starting some sort of Fem Soc supported men’s discussion group about the issues he was right to raise.
“Our aims are fundamentally similar and hopefully together we can make progress towards raising awareness of these issues.”
‘People aren’t aware that men make up roughly a third of domestic violence cases’

http://thetab.com/uk/durham/2015/06/09/meet-the-founder-of-the-new-male-human-rights-society-19409


Like I said, bad example.

hatrickpatrick

You're right, that's not a good example. But how's this one?

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2014/04/10/protesters-shut-down-u-of-o-professors-mens-rights-talk.html

Janice Fiamengo, who teaches in the English literature department, tried to give a public lecture on men’s issues, equality and rape culture at the university on March 28. But as shown in an hour-long YouTube video, she was repeatedly interrupted by a group of about 30 students shouting and blasting horns.
Representatives from the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), which organized the talk, tried to quell the crowd, but they eventually called security. The talk was moved to another room, but somebody pulled the fire alarm, which effectively shut it down.

According to the university’s campus paper, The Fulcrum, a school group called the Revolutionary Student Movement started the protest.
“We feel that these ideas have no place on our campus and refuse to legitimize them by allowing them space to organize,” the paper quoted a representative from the group as saying. “As was demonstrated, campus security will not protect our community from events that are harmful to men, women, and trans people in the community, so we decided to stand up for what we feel is right.”

Brindor

Quotas are stupid honestly

osarusan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're right, that's not a good example. But how's this one?

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2014/04/10/protesters-shut-down-u-of-o-professors-mens-rights-talk.html

Bad example (non-example) of a group 'actively oppressing' attempts to set up men's groups.

Good example of self-righteous idiots shouting down (literally) something they disagree with/just don't want to hear/acknowledge.

whatdoicare

What is with all the women hating lately??

I've never come across a feminist outside the usual hippy college sort (and I'm a woman) I don't know where all this Feminism controlling men ****e is coming from. I don't know any women that think like the way they are portrayed here!

Is it like the guys here think we all have some kind of secret meet up every evening and just plan all the ways we can **** up men? Let me tell you, it doesn't happen. Women don't want special treatment, they just want to get on with their lives and do the best they can - same like men.

In daily life, I just try to get on with it and so does my husband - we're not sitting in a room across from each other hating each other and only being there to create children - which I won't try to take from him at any point. Why would I hurt my children by taking them away from their father, that's just crazy. The only time I would do that would be if my husband was violent or abusive! Then it would make absolute sense to me.

I'm sorry some guys here are going through that though and it's very unfortunate that you chose that person to have a child with but it's not a man vs women issue, it's a petty person issue, pure bad judgement and a lot of hurt feelings on both sides that need to be addressed first.

I also agree that the court system is very female biased when it comes to family situations (it was only two generations ago that the opposite was true and it was the man that had all the rights regarding the children, so it obviously can change to be more equal) Hopefully it'll be addressed sooner rather than later.

I assume I have the same chance at any job as a man, I've never tried to use my boobs and vagina to gain the upper hand, my CV did the job and same with my female friends. I work in a very male orientated environment and I wasn't head hunted or handed my job - I actually had to convince my employer that I was worth taking a chance with and I still have to prove it with each project - just like my male colleagues.

It's actually very belittling for people to come on here and insinuate that the only reason that women get the job is because they are female and it doesn't matter what is on their CV. It's a load of nonsense really. Noone is taking on females for the sake of it - that's not cost effective and I assume employers want to make money and have productive staff. I would be disgusted to find the only reason I got a job was because I had ovaries instead of testes. I take great pride in my work and I achieve everything my employer asks of me.

I think this whole us vs them and Ooooh women this and men that is just absolutely childish. Women get a **** deal sometimes and men get a **** deal other times.

Life is not black and white and its impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

Just be excellent to each other.

Also, having periods sucks balls, giving birth is that times a million and the biggest shock I had in my life was being pregnant and realising that if I ran into trouble and it came down to a choice between me and my unborn child - a doctor was going to choose the child, even if it had zero chance of survival because the law tells him/her that as long as the baby has a heart beat, I'm just an incubator.

It's ****ing scary being in a situation where you're not sure if your doctor is telling you all the truth in case you hop on the boat across to the uk and you're there every day hoping against hope that all is fine. It'd be like going in with a broken leg and not being sure the doctor was going to put it in a cast or amputate it or just leave you to bleed to death - all depending on his/her attitude and beliefs.

Sure it was scary for my husband to be watching it all but no matter what happened, he was coming out of it all alive and pain free - my chances weren't so good at the time.

It was the one and only time I ever felt second class and not at all equal - it was my one moment when I wished I wasn't female. Luckily though all came out okay and I wasn't too badly messed up physically and then when we got over all that we went back to being equal partners and arguing about whos turn it was to change the toxic nappy.

So, obviously that too needs to be addressed - hopefully at the same time as the family law situation but that again isn't an us vs them situation - it's a pushing politicians to see the need for change situation. A whole other thing altogether!

Women don't hate men, we're not all hiding away terrified of encountering a man in case he rapes us - I have many male friends, I dont feel the need to get sexy with them or suppress them and visa versa - we just talk to each other, like human beings. That's reality.

hatrickpatrick

osarusan wrote: »

Bad example (non-example) of a group 'actively oppressing' attempts to set up men's groups.

Good example of self-righteous idiots shouting down (literally) something they disagree with/just don't want to hear/acknowledge.

But this is the same kind of thing which drives the attempts to prevent the setting up mens' groups - the very prominent ideology among today's mainstream feminism that men have no right to air their own grievances with society; that women have a monopoly on doing something about discrimination.

somefeen

I've found most right thinking people oppose the man hating, social justice warrior, militant type of feminism.

The regular "lets just not treat women like objects and get on with doing important stuff" people are far more numerous but you'll hear less from them on the internet because there busy getting on with doing important stuff.

Stay away from Tumblr

hatrickpatrick

whatdoicare wrote: »

What is with all the women hating lately??

I've never come across a feminist outside the usual hippy college sort (and I'm a woman) I don't know where all this Feminism controlling men ****e is coming from. I don't know any women that think like the way they are portrayed here!

Is it like the guys here think we all have some kind of secret meet up every evening and just plan all the ways we can **** up men? Let me tell you, it doesn't happen. Women don't want special treatment, they just want to get on with their lives and do the best they can - same like men.

It's not about "women", it's about modern feminism. Big difference.

In daily life, I just try to get on with it and so does my husband - we're not sitting in a room across from each other hating each other and only being there to create children - which I won't try to take from him at any point. Why would I hurt my children by taking them away from their father, that's just crazy. The only time I would do that would be if my husband was violent or abusive! Then it would make absolute sense to me.

Then you're a good person. Many people are not, and unfortunately our society facilitates those people, which is what's being railed against in this thread.

I'm sorry some guys here are going through that though and it's very unfortunate that you chose that person to have a child with but it's not a man vs women issue, it's a petty person issue, pure bad judgement and a lot of hurt feelings on both sides that need to be addressed first.

I also agree that the court system is very female biased when it comes to family situations (it was only two generations ago that the opposite was true and it was the man that had all the rights regarding the children, so it obviously can change to be more equal) Hopefully it'll be addressed sooner rather than later.

Those two paragraphs contradict eachother. It's not a man vs woman issue, but you acknowledge that the courts are biased against men?

osarusan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But this is the same kind of thing which drives the attempts to prevent the setting up mens' groups - the very prominent ideology among today's mainstream feminism that men have no right to air their own grievances with society; that women have a monopoly on doing something about discrimination.

Literally the only point I made was that the poster chose a poor example to support their point. That is literally the only thing I said.

You seem to agree with that. So I don't know what you are doing even posting this in reply to me. It has nothing to do with what I said.

whatdoicare

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about "women", it's about modern feminism. Big difference.




Then you're a good person. Many people are not, and unfortunately our society facilitates those people, which is what's being railed against in this thread.



Those two paragraphs contradict eachother. It's not a man vs woman issue, but you acknowledge that the courts are biased against men?

Who the **** are these "modern feminists" Ive never met them - surely as a woman they would want to recruit me. It's a load of bollix.

I don't contradict myself at all - if you read all the way to the end - which obviously you didn't, you'll see I wrote it's a political issue. Women didn't create this situation - politicians created it and wrote it into law - laws can be changed if the will is there.

hatrickpatrick

somefeen wrote: »

I've found most right thinking people oppose the man hating, social justice warrior, militant type of feminism.

The regular "lets just not treat women like objects and get on with doing important stuff" people are far more numerous but you'll hear less from them on the internet because there busy getting on with doing important stuff.

Stay away from Tumblr

"Stay away from Tumblr" used to be the answer, but now that sh!te is bleeding into mainstream culture and actively hurting men. It's not too surprising that a lot of us are getting fed up of it.

For the record, I never really cared about the mens' rights issue until I found myself in an emotionally abusive relationship which happened to coincide with a UK government ad campaign about teen relationship abuse - every single ad in which focused on a guy being an asshole and a woman being treated like crap. And then I'd turn off the TV and have another MSN message telling me that this girl would kill herself and spread lies about me if I didn't go on another date with her.

Guys my age have spent their entire lives having anti-male propaganda rammed down their throats by the media. Not all guys notice it, some can handle it, some shrug it off, but for those of us who have been directly hurt in some way by these double standards, it's something we're very, very resentful of. And I for one don't find that in any way unreasonable. It's no more unreasonable than a woman with a high sex drive being resentful of the demonisation she would have experienced growing up in the 90s and 00s as a result of the slut/stud double standard.

The issue is when feminists try to pretend that there's no such thing as sexism against men because "privilege" or some such bullsh!t - that's when tempers flare.

Tigger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"Stay away from Tumblr" used to be the answer, but now that sh!te is bleeding into mainstream culture and actively hurting men. It's not too surprising that a lot of us are getting fed up of it.

For the record, I never really cared about the mens' rights issue until I found myself in an emotionally abusive relationship which happened to coincide with a UK government ad campaign about teen relationship abuse - every single ad in which focused on a guy being an asshole and a woman being treated like crap. And then I'd turn off the TV and have another MSN message telling me that this girl would kill herself and spread lies about me if I didn't go on another date with her.

Guys my age have spent their entire lives having anti-male propaganda rammed down their throats by the media. Not all guys notice it, some can handle it, some shrug it off, but for those of us who have been directly hurt in some way by these double standards, it's something we're very, very resentful of. And I for one don't find that in any way unreasonable. It's no more unreasonable than a woman with a high sex drive being resentful of the demonisation she would have experienced growing up in the 90s and 00s as a result of the slut/stud double standard.

The issue is when feminists try to pretend that there's no such thing as sexism against men because "privilege" or some such bullsh!t - that's when tempers flare.

Seems like a decent post spoiled by a wierd sig

old_aussie

A huge leap forward for women's rights in the stone age kingdom of Saudi Arabia.....

A Saudi panel of “scientists” concluded that women aren’t just household items as it was previously thought in the Kingdom, but are mammals and therefore should have same rights as camels and goats, the Islaminsesi news portal said.

What a “historic” social discovery on the behalf of Saudi “scientists” — women are indeed a little better than a sofa or kitchen utensils and should be granted the same rights as other mammal species, except humans of course.

According to Jane Austin, a spokesperson for the Women’s Liberation Action Network, as weird as it might seem the verdict of the Saudi panel of “scientists” is “a great leap forward for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia.”

orubiru

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Feminism is not an attack on you personally. It's not even an attack on men at all unless you listen to the fringe lunatics to whom the internet gives a voice.

When men were sent out to fight and die at war, who sent them? Was it women? And when women weren't allowed the opportunity to go and stand at their side, even if they had wanted to, who denied them that opportunity? Women?

What do you imagine happens to women anyway, when war sweeps across a nation or continent? Do you imagine them wearing pretty dresses and picking flowers out in the countryside? Or are they just suffering and starving and being raped, bombed and murdered anyway, only with much less agency or control of their fates than even the unfortunate men?

When your grandfather worked himself to the bone to provide for his family, who was it that decided the women couldn't go out and earn, or even get an education in many cases? Was it the women?

Men loved women, and that's supposed to offer them solace? People also love their dogs, or their cars, or their gardens, but that doesn't mean we afford any of those things the rights and responsibilities due to a human being.

The argument that men have also suffered through history takes nothing from the fact that women have invariably held the sh*ttier end of a sh*tty, sh*tty stick. And it's missing the point anyway, because the goal of feminism isn't to take from men and give to women.

Society is an entity all its own - nobody sat down and thought it out, drawing up a list of rules. It evolved over millennia and put limits and restrictions on all of us. It took women getting the sh*ttier end of the stick for a long time for them to finally stand up and hold a mirror to it, and we should be thanking them for that, not denigrating them. Because feminism is ultimately not about Women vs Men, it's about All Of Us vs bollox constructs and gender roles that tell people how to live their lives; take classes of people and tell them what they can and can't do, what's expected of them, and rob them of agency.

The fact that men still face difficulties of their own doesn't make feminism the enemy. The enemy is entrenched attitudes and stigmas that are examples of the very thing feminism has battled against. Our society might be a better place to live now than it has ever been before, but that doesn't mean it is without fault.

And if it helps, feminism means that more and more women are being afforded the right to fight and die on the battlefield should they so desire. So that's good. I guess?

My response to you was a rebuttal to two points that you made.

I'm not even sure that I mentioned Feminism in my response?

You said: "When women are treated like human beings, everybody wins. I find it hard to be annoyed about feminism making the deck less hilarious stacked in my gender's favour. "

All I was pointing out here is that women ARE treated like human beings and that the deck is not necessarily stacked in favor of men.

That's it. That's all.

Your entire post essentially supports my point.

Some men and some women are not treated well by society. Some others are.

The deck is stacked heavily against some men and some women. The deck is stacked in favour of some men and some women.

It's not a simple "Men" vs "Women" divide. It never was and it never will be.

You can perform mental gymnastics all day long to try and make the point that "women have it worse" but anyone who looks at reality can see that both Men and Women are struggling.

Grouping people into two groups, of around 3.5 billion each, and saying "OK, Group A has it much better than Group B" is ridiculous. Especially when you know damn well that there is a high percentage of people in Group A who live really, really, tough lives. Sure, people in Group A are poor, abused, broken but they sure do have it better than Group B, right? No.

The deck is certainly not stacked in favour of unemployed men, homeless men, abused men, suicidal men. That doesn't mean I am dismissing the struggles of women. I just think that "the deck is stacked in my gender's favour" is a faulty, incorrect, worldview.

The whole argument, and the whole thread really, fails as soon as we try to point out that "Men" have it better/worse than "Women".

Some men are oppressed. Some women are oppressed.
Some men have great lives. Some women have great lives.

Some men are not treated like human beings.
Some women are not treated like human beings.

You see where this is going, I'm sure.

If you find yourself stating "yeah, but women have it worse" then you are deliberately putting blinders on and you'll only start making sense when you take them off again. Both genders have their own struggles. It's not a case of one or the other having it worse and I don't really understand why people need to insist that one 3.5 billion person group is better off than another 3.5 billion person group.

Almost every kind of suffering you can imagine is inflicted upon both genders. If your response to that is "yeah, but women have it worse" then you should probably start to question why you think it's an appropriate response.

Shenshen

I don't think it's losing balance in favour of women by any stretch just yet.

What feminism has achieved so far is a relatively balanced treatment of both genders before the law. Having the law on your side and receiving fair treatment, however, are not necessarily the same thing. I believe that socially, there's still a good bit of catching up to do.

I do feel, though, that so far feminism was too much focused on women getting the same rights that men always had. And this is not an approach that will create balance, as it really amounts to women trying to be more like men in order to obtain the same levels of respect and the same favourable treatment. And we've neglected men in all this. While women were striving to expand their social and economic roles and broken into ever more previously men-only fields and thereby gaining respect and influence. Men were left with the same social and economic roles they had before. No expansion for them into the fields that are traditionally regarded as "female".
On the contrary, many men would still expose themselves to ridicule if they tried to change their traditional male role for one traditionally thought of as female.

I think the heart of this phenomenon is that it's almost exclusively in the male roles that both men and women find they're being respected and valued, the female roles are still being treated with at best a condescending smile by both genders.
And that, I feel, is what we'll need to work on.
It needs to be ok for a man to decide he wants to be a stay-at-home dad, just as it is for a woman to decide that she wants to go back to work after having had a child.
It needs to be ok for a boy to play with dolls if he wants to, same as it is for a girl to play with a toy truck.
And it needs to be ok for a man to want to work as a child minder, a librarian, a PA. There won't be any equality worth speaking off otherwise.