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

Wibbs

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but that kind of withdrawal from argument does your argument no favors.

Standard operational type stuff.

TBH I tend to work on the general principle of breaking folks down into broad categories; People(the vast majority, thank God/Fate/Whatever you're having) and "Bros" and "Chicks". Hell, I have checklists for both that I can tick off in order of daftness. Nerd that I am. Patriarchy, rape culture, red pill, hypergamy, all the usual childishly binary simplistic guff. Just as most of these "manosphere" muppets have their head squarely up their tracts, so do most of these new wave "feminists". Not so much you can do with either of these groups really. Meh. Bro's gonna bro, Chick's gonna chick.

dark crystal

Serious bang of deja vu in this thread....


These gender pissing contests never end in a happy concensus. Ever.


I think we should just blame feminism for everything bad that ever happens to men and be done with it, seeing as the evil feminazis make all the laws, run all the countries, own the world media and all that guff.

The 'F' word has become the dirtiest word on Boards at this stage.

hatrickpatrick

Ice Maiden wrote: »

But look at the context. The person who recorded him was his friend, and Hulk Hogan was having sex with the friend's wife. It was not like a guy posting revenge porn pictures of a woman he was pissed off with.

No, it was a guy posting revenge porn pictures of a guy he was pissed off with.

Had the sharing of the video been aimed at shaming his wife rather than shaming Hogan, do you think feminists would still have not been outspoken about it?

Well as a woman, I feel the same about the spite that gets thrown online at women, funnily enough. Maybe we should all work together?

Absolutely. But I still think there's a distinction to be made between mainstream, published media and self published social media / forum chatter. The former holds a double standard with regard to what is acceptable to write about a person or group, depending on the gender of the target. And that's entirely wrong.

It does cut both ways as well, I find it appalling in this day and age that womens' dress sense is still commented upon in political debates etc. But again, that gets widespread scrutiny and condemnation from other parts of the mainstream media. Widespread misandry does not.

Ice Maiden

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah right so he did it for the lulz so it's alright. Strangely enough when the made up story about the UCD lads was doing the rounds it was doing it for the lulz which was the made up issue.

It is not all right at all but I don't know why it would be something to be commented on by feminists?
And the reason I think that is because I do not believe feminists are interested in equality - they are just interested in women's rights. I think a lot of feminism is pure crap too.

hatrickpatrick

dark crystal wrote: »

I think we should just blame feminism for everything bad that ever happens to men and be done with it, seeing as the evil feminazis make all the laws, run all the countries, own the world media and all that guff.

Nobody has ever claimed that, but nice strawman.

I would claim however that feminism does use the media to push a toxic agenda which as a young boy growing up in the 2000s I found almost impossible to avoid exposure to and which I imagine must be a living nightmare for today's media-conscious teenagers.

jimgoose

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody has ever claimed that, but nice strawman.

I would claim however that feminism does use the media to push a toxic agenda which as a young boy growing up in the 2000s I found almost impossible to avoid exposure to and which I imagine must be a living nightmare for today's media-conscious teenagers.

True enough - I'm 44, and the worst effect on me so far is that the word "Feminazi" gives me a stiffy.

hatrickpatrick

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I do not believe feminists are interested in equality - they are just interested in women's rights.

And there's nothing wrong with that! Really, if feminists want to focus on womens' rights and believe that having separate movements for the rights of each gender, personally it's not something I agree with as the best tactic, but there's nothing wrong with it.

What is wrong though is how so many feminists attack the mens' rights movement and say "if you're interested in equality, you're a feminist" - and then shut down any discussion of mens' issues on feminist forums and spaces. What they're actually saying is "there's no room for discussion of men getting discriminated against unless it fits our narrative that it's ultimately mens' fault and women are the real victims", and that's not cool at all.

steddyeddy

Basically my problem is you cannot treat women and men as a homogeneous group like some feminists do and assign them as lacking inequality on the basis of their gender.

It is really unrealistic to assign men who are not homogeneous in all variables to being privileged relative to all women.

For example feminists often mention STEM subjects and the relative lack of women in science. First of all lack of women in science does not automatically point to oppression or discrimination. It could be lack of participation.

Anyway lets go back to the equality. People who talk about equal rights for men and women are seem to be under the assumption that the predominant variable here is gender.

A white middle class woman has far more chance at entering a STEM field than a poor black male in America. Likewise a woman from Foxrock will have far greater opportunities than a young lad from Coolock whose parents are on the dole.

That's why I cannot label myself as supporting one gender. You cannot assume anything at all about what gender is more oppressed without knowing more of the facts.

dark crystal

jimgoose wrote: »

True enough - I'm 44, and the worst effect on me so far is that the word "Feminazi" gives me a stiffy.

That should make up for the fact they went and banned Page 3 on ye :P

jimgoose

dark crystal wrote: »

That should make up for the fact they went and banned Page 3 on ye :P

Page 3 was always crap. Feminazis are great, Ted!

hatrickpatrick

jimgoose wrote: »

True enough - I'm 44, and the worst effect on me so far is that the word "Feminazi" gives me a stiffy.

What do you imagine it's like for a pubescent boy growing up right now and having to see articles in the media and on Facebook every day about how crappy men are?

How do you imagine it affects a young teenage guy in an emotionally abusive relationship, when every stereotype and every advertising campaign for domestic violence portrays the man as the default villain? (I can attest to this one, it's psychologically soul destroying and caused me an unimaginable amount of damage)

ThinkProgress

B0jangles wrote: »

Anything to say about Thinkprogress's vile opinions or are you going to just double-down like hatrickpatrick?

You people just keep on making my point for me...

All I stated were facts, and I'm a misogynist...?

Yet you (and others) make the highly ignorant and disrespectful suggestion that men's position as a gender in this society is solely down to our muscles and physical force...

How by anyone's definition is that anything other than blatant misandry at it finest and most foolish? lol

I'm damn glad I have a strong sense of humor, so I can laugh at this stuff.... Because I'd sure hate to be one of those unfortunate people who take you feminists or the horsesh*t you say seriously!

maudgonner

B0jangles wrote: »

Most headlines are chosen by.the editor.of a paper over the wishes of.a journalist and solely for.the purposes.of increasing page views

To be honest I'd have issues with some of the body of that article as well as the headline.

While I give her some benefit of the doubt due to her circumstances, I'd take issue with lines such as:
"I am angry that I feel I have to cajole my man pals into caring."

As if decent guys, friends of hers, don't care about violence against women, and in particular the violence that was inflicted on her? I'd find that insulting if I was a man. I'd find it incredibly hurtful if I was her friend.

jimgoose

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What do you imagine it's like for a pubescent boy growing up right now and having to see articles in the media and on Facebook every day about how crappy men are?

How do you imagine it affects a young teenage guy in an emotionally abusive relationship, when every stereotype and every advertising campaign for domestic violence portrays the man as the default villain? (I can attest to this one, it's psychologically soul destroying and caused me an unimaginable amount of damage)

I'm truly, deeply sorry. But what we're talking about here is child abuse, is it not? And some men need to strap on a pair and step up. Leave my leather-clad Valkyries alone!

Quazzie

jimgoose wrote: »

I'm truly, deeply sorry. But what we're talking about here is child abuse, is it not? And some men need to strap on a pair and step up. Leave my leather-clad Valkyries alone!

Talk like that kills more young men every year than car crashes.

jimgoose

Quazzie wrote: »

Talk like that kills more young men every year than car crashes.

I do apologise for how that read. I mean to say, the way some men abdicate responsibility is a significant contributor to the next generation of young men growing up without proper example and instruction.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

B0jangles wrote: »

Most headlines are chosen by.the editor.of a paper over the wishes of.a journalist and solely for.the purposes.of increasing page views

Good thing I wasn't attacking the journalist or indeed the paper then, I was attacking the culture of "man shaming" that's going on at the moment wherein it's seen as perfectly acceptable for the media to generalise about men.

hatrickpatrick

jimgoose wrote: »

I'm truly, deeply sorry. But what we're talking about here is child abuse, is it not? And some men need to strap on a pair and step up. Leave my leather-clad Valkyries alone!

You've lost me I'm afraid, what do you mean? I don't think it counts as child abuse when it's another teenager doing it. It's an abusive relationship. But according to the media and even the UK government, it's only a problem when the guy is the abuser, not when he's the victim.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not sure you know what you mean here. Are women dominating knowledge economies? I don't see how men in knowledge economies prevent women from taking up roles.

esforum

seamus wrote: »

Then she wrote a blog post about how she'd decided to let her toddler son watch Peppa Pig one day and the realisation hit her like a tonne of bricks - men are just as heavily subjected to stereotypes, expectations of behaviour, and discriminatory practices as women are.

Having never actually watched that show, I request an explanation

Other than this, just look at jobs typically served by one of the genders. Gardai, Army, fire typically male jobs. Assesment tests have a lower pass requirement for females than males.

Nurses, teachers, any allowance made for men?

Electric Sheep

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not sure you know what you mean here. Are women dominating knowledge economies? I don't see how men in knowledge economies prevent women from taking up roles.

They can't prevent women from taking up roles in the knowledge economies, and that makes some men angry.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I didn't reach any conclusion from what you wrote. You talked about a shift that men need to embrace then you claim it's not happening.

Then you supply a stat about education. If that's true there's nothing stopping women entering STEM subjects hence there's no problem.

steddyeddy

Electric Sheep wrote: »

They can't prevent women from taking up roles in the knowledge economies, and that makes some men angry.

The oft cited example is gender discrimination in finance:

In the finance world, Christine Lagarde heads up the IMF, Janet Yellen has recently become chair of the Federal Reserve, Inga Beale is the first female CEO in Lloyd's of London's 350-year history, while Sherry Coutu and Joanna Shields have ended the male monopoly on the London Stock Exchange's board. We're good at citing examples of women in influential posts, but in reality, women hold only 14% of board seats and 2% of CEO positions (pdf) in the financial services despite making up 60% of its global workforce. In the absence of quotas, can anything really change?


It may be true that women are underrepresented in top finance jobs but is that due to them being held back by angry men?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Doesn't surprise me.

Electric Sheep

steddyeddy wrote: »

The oft cited example is gender discrimination in finance:

In the finance world, Christine Lagarde heads up the IMF, Janet Yellen has recently become chair of the Federal Reserve, Inga Beale is the first female CEO in Lloyd's of London's 350-year history, while Sherry Coutu and Joanna Shields have ended the male monopoly on the London Stock Exchange's board. We're good at citing examples of women in influential posts, but in reality, women hold only 14% of board seats and 2% of CEO positions (pdf) in the financial services despite making up 60% of its global workforce. In the absence of quotas, can anything really change?


It may be true that women are underrepresented in top finance jobs but is that due to them being held back by angry men?

No, the angry men can't hold them back, that is why they are angry. I work in IT in the financial sector, and the male/female split is mostly about 50/50, with women actually taking more management roles than men. This is in the US, I can't speak for the situation in Ireland.

Most people, male or female, are not going to get board seats or CEO jobs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You need to parse that a bit, the knowledge economy is going to be split into the producing side and the service side. Men I think will tend to dominate the producing side

If its anything like the US there seems to be rumblings about studying expensive degrees that dont increase your earning power at the end of it. Also big spending areas like health , education and the government itself might be trimmed in the years ahead which would hit women more. No tenure for you Ms Click to carry on your research into twilight fans :pac:

steddyeddy

Electric Sheep wrote: »

No, the angry men can't hold them back, that is why they are angry. I work in IT in the financial sector, and the male/female split is mostly about 50/50, with women actually taking more management roles than men. This is in the US, I can't speak for the situation in Ireland.

Most people, male or female, are not going to get board seats or CEO jobs.

I work in government research in the US and UK and it's about 70/30 male to female. There's a drive to get more women involved in science but they're just not picking it as a major.

ThinkProgress

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But you do realize that all the things you listed (as well as many of the advancements you failed to mention) required a great deal more than mere brawn to accomplish, right?

True enough there was a lot of grunt work required on the front line. But there were many great minds behind the scenes involved in very detailed planning and organisation of those advancements. (controversially most of them were male - oops I know it's sexist to state things like this!:P)

And yes you are correct, we have now developed a society where it possible to better utilize female abilities. It is certainly the case that women's skills were being under utilized and under valued in past generations. I have never attempted to deny this...

And who might I ask you is driving this paradigm shift? I'll give you a hint... primarily those same people who are creating more female oriented work environments - MEN!

Male advantages haven't necessarily been completely eroded either, as you suggested... Male aggression is still very much alive in certain areas of business. (albeit less mainstream now - as being male is often offensive to some people's delicate natures)

But again none of this is really addressing the point I was making. There has been a rather insulting suggestion that men's position in society (not necessarily just their suitability to carry out manual labour jobs), is solely down to our physical advantages... despite the fact that many of the greatest advancements in human history were not cooked up at the bottom of a coal mine or in on a hay field.

Many feminists would like to portray all us men as muscle-bound bullies that acquired our position in society solely by force and aggression. And they attempt to denigrate any other attributes we might have... or any achievements that didn't require or biceps to accomplish!

It's a rather foolish way of thinking. But when most men don't stand up for themselves, these foolish notions will persist and grow!

silverharp

steddyeddy wrote: »

I work in government research in the US and UK and it's about 70/30 male to female. There's a drive to get more women involved in science but they're just not picking it as a major.

much easier to go into gender studies and bitch about it from there

Letree

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are trades included in those stats because that is where a lot of the men will have gone instead of university. A good trade can lead to a better paying job than some of the degrees out there.

steddyeddy

silverharp wrote: »

much easier to go into gender studies and bitch about it from there

Seems to be the case.

Electric Sheep

steddyeddy wrote: »

I work in government research in the US and UK and it's about 70/30 male to female. There's a drive to get more women involved in science but they're just not picking it as a major.

Probably because the women realise IT is better paid.

steddyeddy

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Probably because the women realise IT is better paid.

American government jobs are pretty well paid dude.

Ice Maiden

I wonder if ThinkProgress will respond to me asking him how he deems men the superior sex throughout history when there was a long time during which women did not have the power to make more of themselves, no allowance to vote and the like.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And there's nothing wrong with that! Really, if feminists want to focus on womens' rights and believe that having separate movements for the rights of each gender, personally it's not something I agree with as the best tactic, but there's nothing wrong with it.

What is wrong though is how so many feminists attack the mens' rights movement and say "if you're interested in equality, you're a feminist" - and then shut down any discussion of mens' issues on feminist forums and spaces. What they're actually saying is "there's no room for discussion of men getting discriminated against unless it fits our narrative that it's ultimately mens' fault and women are the real victims", and that's not cool at all.

Yes it is nonsense.

Ideally gender issues would be a joint concern but there are issues that only affect men and only affect women - so I do not have a problem with separate men's rights groups and women's rights groups. Although I think if both worked together on common gender concerns (because they are not all just affecting the one sex) it would be fantastic. I can dream though...

silverharp

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But you do realize that all the things you listed (as well as many of the advancements you failed to mention) required a great deal more than mere brawn to accomplish, right?

True enough there was a lot of grunt work required on the front line. But there were many great minds behind the scenes involved in very detailed planning and organisation of those advancements. (controversially most of them were male - oops I know it's sexist to state things like this!:P)

And yes you are correct, we have now developed a society where it possible to better utilize female abilities. It is certainly the case that women's skills were being under utilized and under valued in past generations. I have never attempted to deny this...

And who might I ask you is driving this paradigm shift? I'll give you a hint... primarily those same people who are creating more female oriented work environments - MEN!

Male advantages haven't necessarily been completely eroded either, as you suggested... Male aggression is still very much alive in certain areas of business. (albeit less mainstream now - as being male is often offensive to some people's delicate natures)

But again none of this is really addressing the point I was making. There has been a rather insulting suggestion that men's position in society (not necessarily just their suitability to carry out manual labour jobs), is solely down to our physical advantages... despite the fact that many of the greatest advancements in human history were not cooked up at the bottom of a coal mine or in on a hay field.

Many feminists would like to portray all us men as muscle-bound bullies that acquired our position in society solely by force and aggression. And they attempt to denigrate any other attributes we might have... or any achievements that didn't require or biceps to accomplish!

It's a rather foolish way of think. But when most men don't stand up for themselves, these foolish notions will persist and grow!

I believe 95% of patents are developed by men, nothing has really changed, men build sh11t and think up the next sh11t to build. Men that have relied on doing low skilled manual work are not in a good position but then again go to somewhere like Dundrum and its mostly female staff that could all be replaced by teenagers or possibly robots in the years ahead.

Ice Maiden

silverharp wrote: »

I believe 95% of patents are developed by men

You believe it or it is the case?

nothing has really changed, men build sh11t and think up the next sh11t to build. Men that have relied on doing low skilled manual work are not in a good position but then again go to somewhere like Dundrum and its mostly female staff that could all be replaced by teenagers or possibly robots in the years ahead.

Nope, no misogyny on Boards.

silverharp

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Probably because the women realise IT is better paid.

Silicon valley is male dominated , high achieving women seem to be focused on sectors like medicine and law

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ice Maiden

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He will not acknowledge it - I asked him about it twice and got no response.

silverharp

Ice Maiden wrote: »

You believe it or it is the case?

Nope, no misogyny on Boards.

can facts be misogynistic? surely men are allowed to have some collective pride? I admit personally I am not one of these men :pac:


http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/07/why-arent-there-more-female-patent-holders/

We’ve blogged before about gender inequality and the persistent male/female wage gap. A new working paper by Jennifer Hunt, Jean-Philippe Garant, Hannah Herman, and David J. Munroe highlights another arena where women are lagging: commercialized patents. Only 7.5 percent of regular patent and 5.5 percent of commercial patent holders are female. The authors explored various explanations for the gap:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ice Maiden

silverharp wrote: »

surely men are allowed to have some collective pride?

Cannot see where I indicated they could not?

You will have to convince me more that "go to somewhere like Dundrum and its mostly female staff that could all be replaced by teenagers or possibly robots in the years ahead" is not putting down women.

TacT

I blame men for becoming more like women!

ThinkProgress

Ice Maiden wrote: »

He will not acknowledge it - I asked him about it twice and got no response.

When are some of you going to address my point?

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

And I feel I've already stated my position on the issues you're referring to.

Don't you think the fact women had no vote, no education etc is a fairly big sign that they were not born with exactly the same capabilities as men?

If men and women had the same innate capabilities from birth, why did women need to be given everything that they've gotten in recent history? Why can't they take anything for themselves...?

Even now, many years after those early struggles, women are still being GIVEN things. Being GIVEN favorable/preferential treatment... affirmative action, quotas etc...

If men and women are the same. If we are born with the same innate capabilities... why the constant need for help?

If we're all the same, why was there even any deep inequalities to begin with?

Women are not takers... they are receivers. In order for most women to get ahead in life, they require men to concede ground, make special allowances for them and MOST IMPORTANTLY give them things!

If life was a truly fair playing field, where men and women competed against each other... without any concessions or allowances made by men... women would not stand a chance of competing.

Equality is an illusion. Women compete against men, but men usually only compete against each other...

But the longer we keep giving women preferential treatment in society, the worse it will be for them when the day comes that we remove that support. It's a crutch that actually only serves to keep women as the weaker sex... the power they wield is mostly just an illusion too!

Mod: Banned.

Electric Sheep

ThinkProgress wrote: »

When are some of you going to address my point?

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

No, most people are aware that men's position in society has mostly to do with the Old Boys Network.

Ice Maiden

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

No of course not. You did not really "lol" because you know you have just accused people of something they did not say.

Don't you think the fact women had no vote, no education etc is a fairly big sign that they were not born with exactly the same capabilities as men?

I don't know.

If men and women had the same innate capabilities from birth, why did women need to be given everything that they've gotten in recent history? Why can't they take anything for themselves...?

Huh? The Suffragettes and those who descended from that movement *fought* their asses off.

Even now, many years after those early struggles, women are still being GIVEN things. Being GIVEN favorable/preferential treatment... affirmative action, quotas etc...

I agree with you that there is too much victimisation of women by a lot of feminists today.
The rest of your post is just borderline misogyny. And you can pretend to "lol" all you like rather than explaining how it is not putting down women, but it is pretty clear in and of itself what it is doing.

If men and women are the same. If we are born with the same innate capabilities... why the constant need for help?

If we're all the same, why was there even any deep inequalities to begin with?

Women are not takers... they are receivers. In order for most women to get ahead in life, they require men to concede ground, make special allowances for them and MOST IMPORTANTLY give them things!

If life was a truly fair playing field, where men and women competed against each other... without any concessions or allowances made by men... women would not stand a chance of competing.

Equality is an illusion. Women compete against men, but men usually only compete against each other...

But the longer we keep giving women preferential treatment in society, the worse it will be for them when the day comes that we remove that support. It's a crutch that actually only serves to keep women as the weaker sex... the power they wield is mostly just an illusion too!