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

py2006

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I've seen campaigns by the rape crisis center aimed at male victims. Maybe you're just seeing why you want to see.

I was talking about domestic violence. Although, I think one or two are cropping up now.

Foxtrol

Ice Maiden wrote: »

You can find various isolated incidents of radfems putting down men if you wish, but this is not representative of most women, and does not acknowledge the role men can play in belittling other men.

The problem again is that it simply isn’t isolated incidents of radfems, it is the mainstream acceptability, and at times celebration, of belittling or assaulting men in the media.

From reading most of this thread the only examples of these attitudes towards women have been from online crackpots whereas against men I could easily give recent extreme examples from highly rated tv shows, online news sources, and highly grossing Hollywood movies.

If the shoe was on the other foot in any of those situations there would be a massive outcry as is clear from the outrage seen when much more minor incidents are directed towards women.

Thoie

silverharp wrote: »

sounds expensive, it might be reasonable in some cases to be able pass the "maternity" leave from mother to father

Friends in the UK did this - the mother took the first half of the leave and the father took the second half. I got the impression that was the law over there (allowing that arrangement, not forcing it), and that there wasn't anything unusual from an employment perspective in doing that.

ceadaoin.

Thoie wrote: »

Friends in the UK did this - the mother took the first half of the leave and the father took the second half. I got the impression that was the law over there (allowing that arrangement, not forcing it), and that there wasn't anything unusual from an employment perspective in doing that.

Yes, in the UK, the mother has 12 weeks of maternity leave. Once that is done there is 40 weeks of parental leave that can be shared with her partner, or can be taken as maternity leave. It's a good idea, Id be interested to see how many men avail of it and how long they take on average

https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay/overview

Billy86

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I'd like to see paternity leave expanded and made mandatory.

Personally I think parental leave would be better - more time than maternity leave, but to be used by both parents. One than Theale it all, they can split it 50/50, etc... whatever feels best for them.

Edit: I should rad to the end of threads before replying in future.

bodice ripper

I just wanted to take a minute to thank ThinkProgress for all the things he has given me over the years. It certainly felt like I was earning my trade, my degree, my skills etc, but I now see that I had these things given to me in account of my vagina. I am indeed fortunate.

Billy86

bodice ripper wrote: »

I just wanted to take a minute to thank ThinkProgress for all the things he has given me over the years. It certainly felt like I was earning my trade, my degree, my skills etc, but I now see that I had these things given to me in account of my vagina. I am indeed fortunate.

Im not saying all workplaces are biased (and indeed they are biased and reversed) but I my time working in and for recruitment companies, I can tell you that there is no greater advantage to entry (even ibtermediate) level type positions than being an attractive woman. Most companies I've seen wouldn't even consider looking at a male CV for admin positions and the likes. Because my job involves keeping tabs in who has positions available, I'll often tip off people I know... almost without fail if it is an admin or reception type role, all the women I tell are ran through what the position is, asked to send in their cv etc, and some have got the job from that.

The men are told they were 'ghost postings' - eg that the positions don't actually exist,at least 90% of the time.

Like I said it cuts both ways (and I'm not an MRA type), but that's an example of one type of job that is extremely prejudicial against men.

Samaris

Scanned the last few pages, but didn't go back further, so, did anyone manage to link anything convincing as regards studies "consistently showing" males having a higher IQ? Even try? No? Mysterious (but "amazing") rereg that's been PMing me over it all day, you disappoint me, sir, you disappoint me greatly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NoCrackHaving

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Also, generally speaking, receptionist type roles are quite poorly paid, they're not that desirable a gig for a lot of people, male or female.

Electric Sheep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So true. Many years ago I overheard a recruiter describe me over the phone to a potential employer as "very front office". In my innocence at the time, I did not know what she meant.

Billy86

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You'd be surprised - I'm in Toronto and a good few receptionists here are on among the best money, outside of highly skilled trades, medical profession and the like. Corporate reception, but the majority of them had no reception experience whatsoever before starting in those role.

And for an entry level role, it can be very useful - gives you the chance to get in contact and have face time with decision makers very frequently. It's an excellent foot in the door, compared to something like mail clerk.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While that is true for front desk type reception positions, it is not the case for admin, payroll, etc. I have almost a decade of experience in these roles and it took me the guts of a year to even get an interview in a low paying job (that I worked my way up from very quickly... because I was extremely overqualified). I only found out after as well that the guys making the decision individually went to every member of staff and made sure they were ok with a guy working on admin.

Also I should mention in Canada you cannot put a photo of yourself, an info on your race or whatnot, or your date of birth on your CV - if you do, legally companies cannot respond. Despite this, for 'front desk' reception roles, EA/PA role, and also back office/unseen roles, men are basically not even entertained. You'll frequently have older or heavier women in those (non EA/PA/front desk) roles, but rarely men.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While that is true for front desk type reception positions, it is not the case for admin, payroll, etc. I have almost a decade of experience in these roles and it took me the guts of a year to even get an interview in a low paying job (that I worked my way up from very quickly... because I was extremely overqualified). That wasn't a huge bother, I had savings and took temp/sales type jobs to make ends meet - also low responsibility while I went and enjoyed the summer. I only found out after as well that the guys making the decision individually went to every member of staff and made sure they were ok with a guy working on admin.

Also I should mention in Canada you cannot put a photo of yourself, an info on your race or whatnot, or your date of birth on your CV - if you do, legally companies cannot respond. Despite this, for 'front desk' reception roles, EA/PA role, and also back office/unseen roles, men are basically not even entertained.

silverharp

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Also, generally speaking, receptionist type roles are quite poorly paid, they're not that desirable a gig for a lot of people, male or female.

so its ok to discriminate against men if its not high paying? surely guys might need the job for equal reasons

tritium

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wait a minute, let me just move a few bits and pieces around here.....

Recruitment for boardroom roles may be biased against women, but its also biased against males who lack strong influential business networks by conventional standards, or who are considered too young. Rightly or wrongly such roles tend to emphasise business networking skills and good connections,, and anyone who doesn't "look the part," whether male or female, doesn't stand much of a chance

How does that look to you now?.......

bodice ripper

Billy86 wrote: »

Im not saying all workplaces are biased (and indeed they are biased and reversed) but I my time working in and for recruitment companies, I can tell you that there is no greater advantage to entry (even ibtermediate) level type positions than being an attractive woman. Most companies I've seen wouldn't even consider looking at a male CV for admin positions and the likes. Because my job involves keeping tabs in who has positions available, I'll often tip off people I know... almost without fail if it is an admin or reception type role, all the women I tell are ran through what the position is, asked to send in their cv etc, and some have got the job from that.

The men are told they were 'ghost postings' - eg that the positions don't actually exist,at least 90% of the time.

Like I said it cuts both ways (and I'm not an MRA type), but that's an example of one type of job that is extremely prejudicial against men.

I am not an attractive woman, and tattooing is definitely male dominated.

Billy86

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am not an attractive woman, and tattooing is definitely male dominated.

It would be, true (like I said the bias can go both ways). Would it be usual for a tattoo parlor to refuse to so much as look at your CV because you don't have a willy?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bodice ripper

Billy86 wrote: »

It would be, true (like I said the bias can go both ways). Would it be usual for a tattoo parlor to refuse to so much as look at your CV because you don't have a willy?

What cv? You definitely have a harder time proving your worth. I am ok with it by the way, but it is definitely a thing.

tritium

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of the equivalence you made in your original statement.....

Billy86

bodice ripper wrote: »

What cv? You definitely have a harder time proving your worth. I am ok with it by the way, but it is definitely a thing.

Well by CV, I mean would most tattoo parlors not even consisder possibly considering you for a job on the basis on not having a penis?

Don't mean that to sound accusatory by the way, because it definitely does strike me as the type of industry where there would be a gender bias.

bodice ripper

Billy86 wrote: »

Well by CV, I mean would most tattoo parlors not even consisder possibly considering you for a job on the basis on not having a penis?

Don't mean that to sound accusatory by the way, because it definitely does strike me as the type of industry where there would be a gender bias.

No, lots of places are happy to have a female tattoo artist, if only to make the place seem less threatening. But you end up expected to do desk work that none of the male tattoo artists are even asked to do. And you get shafted with smaller, less desirable work because you are perceived to be less likely to kick up about it.

tritium

bodice ripper wrote: »

No, lots of places are happy to have a female tattoo artist, if only to make the place seem less threatening. But you end up expected to do desk work that none of the male tattoo artists are even asked to do. And you get shafted with smaller, less desirable work because you are perceived to be less likely to kick up about it.

Is the there maybe a bit of this for one gender or other in pretty much any job though. I remember working in a few bars when I was younger where female staff got to feck off at the end of the night while male staff did all the cleanup. Male waiting staff also tended to be pulled from the floor if anything needed to be done and ended up losing out badly on tips etc. Colleagues seemed to think it was pretty much just the way everywhere.

bodice ripper

tritium wrote: »

Is the there maybe a but of this for one gender or other in pretty much any job though. I remember working in a few bars when I was younger where female staff got to feck off at the end of the night while male staff did all the cleanup. Male waiting staff also tended to be pulled from the floor if anything needed to be done and ended up losing out badly on tips etc. Colleagues seemed to think it was pretty much just the way everywhere.

Oh no, I think men are getting shafted. I just don't think men are getting shafted because women are doing so well. Sexism is bad, for everyone.

silverharp

Billy86 wrote: »

Well by CV, I mean would most tattoo parlors not even consisder possibly considering you for a job on the basis on not having a penis?

Don't mean that to sound accusatory by the way, because it definitely does strike me as the type of industry where there would be a gender bias.

A bias one way or the other isnt a problem if there is a perceived commercial advantage. If a hairdresser wanted all or mostly women and a barber wanted men then each could be perceiving that the customer might prefer the vibe and spend more money or come back more

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tritium

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

AND...again with missing the point!

Saying that men are discriminated for some roles is counterbalanced somehow by a completely different selection criteria applied to picking "suitable" female candidates is the ridiculous aspect here. Your counter bias bears absolutely no bearing on the initial discrimination unless all male applicants are also overweight and unpresentable.

The equivalent position in my modified statement would be the spurious argument that virtually no women get appointed always on the same basis that some men get rejected

Clearer now?

silverharp

tritium wrote: »

AND...again with missing the point!

Saying that men are discriminated for some roles is counterbalanced somehow by a completely different selection criteria applied to picking "suitable" female candidates is the ridiculous aspect here. Your counter bias bears absolutely no bearing on the initial discrimination unless all male applicants are also overweight and unpresentable.

The equivalent position in my modified statement would be the spurious argument that virtually no women get appointed always on the same basis that some men get rejected

Clearer now?

an easier way to think about it is if a situation is brought up which discriminates against men the best way to discuss it is to turn it around and talk about how it affects women or to suggest that men dont really want the thing that they are being discriminated against. :pac:
Reminds me of Hillary saying that the primary victims of war are women

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tritium

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm arguing that the point you make is ridiculous

Silverharp above gave a simple and eloquent summary of the whataboutery of your position

Jesus even most MRA's wouldn't try to make such tenuous connections to justify a sexist position.

py2006

silverharp wrote: »

Reminds me of Hillary saying that the primary victims of war are women

Oh I remember this. The victims of war were not those who witnessed friends maimed and killed, were not those who got maimed or killed themselves, were not the fathers, grandfathers, sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends of the men......it was women!!

Billy86

silverharp wrote: »

A bias one way or the other isnt a problem if there is a perceived commercial advantage. If a hairdresser wanted all or mostly women and a barber wanted men then each could be perceiving that the customer might prefer the vibe and spend more money or come back more

I get what you're saying, but this isn't at all applicable for back office staff.

PopePalpatine

py2006 wrote: »

Oh I remember this. The victims of war were not those who witnessed friends maimed and killed, were not those who got maimed or killed themselves, were not the fathers, grandfathers, sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends of the men......it was women!!

Women are witnessing friends and family being maimed and killed too, they're getting maimed, killed and also raped, and are the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends of those going to war. Of course, men make up the majority of casualties on the battlefield, but the civilian population left behind would have a majority of women. The first time I saw that extract of Clinton's speech in this thread, I thought of the infamous campaign of rape carried out by the Soviets as they made their way to Berlin, along with the brutality Da'esh have inflicted upon Yazidi, Christian, Shia and moderate Sunni women.

Maybe this Snopes article would help you see the context in which Clinton made her comment. For starters, she made that comment at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador in 1998, at a time that country was still reeling from a vicious civil war.

silverharp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Women are witnessing friends and family being maimed and killed too, they're getting maimed, killed and also raped, and are the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends of those going to war. Of course, men make up the majority of casualties on the battlefield, but the civilian population left behind would have a majority of women. The first time I saw that extract of Clinton's speech in this thread, I thought of the infamous campaign of rape carried out by the Soviets as they made their way to Berlin, along with the brutality Da'esh have inflicted upon Yazidi, Christian, Shia and moderate Sunni women.

Maybe this Snopes article would help you see the context in which Clinton made her comment. For starters, she made that comment at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador in 1998, at a time that country was still reeling from a vicious civil war.

full speech in the link, everyone suffers in war but she has pulled a self proclaimed universal principal out of her ass to use in a specific situation, saying that "Women have always been the primary victims of war" by definition suggests that men are utilities or count to a lesser extent. I read around the quote, the quote retains its meaning as far as I can see

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Foxtrol

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Maybe this Snopes article would help you see the context in which Clinton made her comment. For starters, she made that comment at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador in 1998, at a time that country was still reeling from a vicious civil war.

Context that the comment was pandering to a group that would appreciate her telling them what they wanted to hear doesn’t make it any better nor make it rational.

py2006

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Women are witnessing friends and family being maimed and killed too, they're getting maimed, killed and also raped, and are the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends of those going to war. Of course, men make up the majority of casualties on the battlefield, but the civilian population left behind would have a majority of women.

Ehhhhh that was what Hillary was saying but completely disregarding those I mentioned in my post.

Edit: women are not on the front line either. Hillary was referring (I think) to the women at home.

roosterman71

The company I'm contracting in, are gone wild on the equality thing. Which is fair enough. The industry (Telecommunications) hires people from all walks of life, all religions, all nationality. The number of men to women in the place is about 5:1. However, the ratio to men to women in management/team lead is more 3:2 at a guess. So are women getting promoted to these positions to fill quotas? We can't answer, but it seems that way.
Now, in the last week, there's a new scheme going. They always had a referral scheme to get good people in, and you got a few bob if the referral was successful. Now, if you refer a woman, you get double the money. Is that discrimination?

tritium

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh so you do get it!

You just wanted the last word

Yeah whatever, honestly I couldn't be arsed playing that sort of ****ehawkery game with you.

Peregrine

B0jangles wrote: »

yet Boards has shown itself well able to produce some of the most obnoxious, the most bigoted and most pathetically misogynist sacks of **** possible and they post here with barely a whisper of complaint from the regulars.

B0jangles wrote: »

Do you have anything whatsoever to say about Thinkprogress's appalling posts or are you siding with most of the one-sided bigoted asses as most 'egalitarians'?

Edit: Oh ****, the person in your quoted article she spoke abut her experiences of being abused and how such abuse is dismissed and sidelined?
You think THAT is a rebuttal of my calling out on the acceptance and normalization of casual misogyny on Boards?

B0jangles wrote: »

None of them did.

NONE.

Maybe, just maybe, you could report posts for mods to deal with rather than complaining on the thread, hurling abuse at them and giving out about about a lack of condemnation by other posters. You've earned an infraction for the abuse. You need to higher the standard of your posts.

ThinkProgress banned for a month. Please don't drag up their posts since they can't reply.

Mod

hatrickpatrick

Thoie wrote: »

Men's rights movements have a severe PR problem, all of which was caused by their own members. I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that there are a number of areas affecting men that need urgent attention - mental health, fathers' rights, domestic violence. "A Voice For Men", which considers itself to be one of the primary Men's Rights Activism resources, instead concentrates on things like proving rape culture isn't real, researching women who annoy them and acting like they're the victims when people stand up and say sexual harassment is a bad thing.

This is the very first article I found when going to their site. I admit I haven't read it all, but it seems they've done an extraordinary amount of research into a particular woman who is working against sexual harassment on the streets.



The author appears to believe that catcalling and commenting on a stranger's appearance on the street is just "expressing yourself", and if people are told that it's unacceptable, they're being belittled. So when Men's Rights Activists are fighting for their right to catcall, and doing so by blatantly releasing a woman's details when she's explicitly said she doesn't want that, I don't think it's any wonder that normal people "shut down" their discussions, or even attack them.

In case you think I'm cherry picking, I checked the second article and stopped at

AVFM is not representative, and is regularly the subject of extreme controversy on Mens' Rights discussion forums - the majority view I've seen is that there's an occasional good article there, but it's laced with so much toxicity as to not only be useless, but downright nasty.

This is in stark contrast to what I've personally seen from feminist groups when discussing extremists - "oh, we're not all like that" rather than "yeah, she's vile and should be condemned". Many, many MRAs will tell you that Paul Elam is a vile POS.

I will gladly support a group working for men with actual problems facing them (mental health, fathers' rights etc). The people who term themselves MRAs don't seem to have any interest in those difficult topics.

So when you, hatrickpatrick, claim that people say there's no room for discussion of men being discriminated against, have you found many cases of discussions of actual issues being shut down, or do you find that people are unwilling to bother listening to men whining about the fact that they can't catcall, or have sex with anyone they want, or other topics regularly trotted out by MRAs?

I have already linked to several articles outlining what has happened when people have tried to organise mens' rights awareness discussions on college campuses. Now it must be said that "no platforming" as I call it - attempts to bully and silence people in various venues and fora - is not unique to feminism but has become a feature of the left in general, which as a left myself I find repugnant and am thoroughly ashamed to see groups and movements I formerly supported engaging in. But that's the answer to your question - Fire alarms are pulled and horns are blared to disrupt meetings of mens' rights groups.

Do you know what immediately comes to mind when I read of such incidents? An attempted meeting of an anti drug dealing movement in Dolphin's Barn a few years ago, which was disrupted by a fire alarm and a bomb threat. That's what these extremists are on a par with. Don't engage, don't debate, don't argue, just try at all costs to make sure the people they disagree with are never given an opportunity to voice their opinions.

F*ck that.

melissak

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? It has happened before and it'll happen again.


Now, and in the past, women have asked men to put their bodies and lives on the line. Men have answered the callr.

Must have been tough for you in the trenches. When is the last time an Irish man was drafted and sent off to war?

orubiru

melissak wrote: »

Must have been tough for you in the trenches. When is the last time an Irish man was drafted and sent off to war?

What's your point?

I'm not sure that you've really even bothered to read the posts before responding.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

What's your point?

I'm not sure that you've really even bothered to read the posts before responding.

The point is clear in fairness, and it's well made. I'm sick of the whinging that goes on about men's rights and has feminism gone too far and 'equality' bollocks. It's like people use examples to make their points about things that have never affected them personally, but they're handy for a whinge about how hard they have it and why someone else should be doing more to help them!!

FortySeven

This is what unchallenged feminism creates. Absolutely ridiculous. This is the generation of fatherless children of America.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-24/emory-students-scared-pain-after-safe-space-violated-word-trump-written-chalk

FortySeven

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point is clear in fairness, and it's well made. I'm sick of the whinging that goes on about men's rights and has feminism gone too far and 'equality' bollocks. It's like people use examples to make their points about things that have never affected them personally, but they're handy for a whinge about how hard they have it and why someone else should be doing more to help them!!

Can't have an opinion on something that hasn't happened to me personally? How very quaint.

One eyed Jack

FortySeven wrote: »

Can't have an opinion on something that hasn't happened to me personally? How very quaint.

That story you linked to above had nothing to do with unchallenged feminism (an oxymoronic term) in America, nor a generation of fatherless children, and that's exactly what I mean when I say I'm sick of people using examples like the one you linked to, to have a whinge about feminism and men's rights.

Please by all means point out to me where I said you couldn't have an opinion on something that has happened to you personally? I said I was sick of hearing people using examples of things that have never happened to them. Very different thing.

orubiru

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point is clear in fairness, and it's well made. I'm sick of the whinging that goes on about men's rights and has feminism gone too far and 'equality' bollocks. It's like people use examples to make their points about things that have never affected them personally, but they're handy for a whinge about how hard they have it and why someone else should be doing more to help them!!

My point was that some men have it bad and some women have it bad.

It's not a case of "Group A has it worse than Group B".

I was responding to: "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. I used war as an example to illustrate that.

That's it. That's all.

I wasn't saying that one side has it worse than the other and if you had bothered to read my posts, instead of one snippet with no context, then you would know that.

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.

It seems odd to me that when someone says "women have it worse than men" and someone else tries to point out that the world isn't exactly all sunshine and happiness for a lot of men then there is pretty strong opposition to that.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

My point was that some men have it bad and some women have it bad.

It's not a case of "Group A has it worse than Group B".

I was responding to: "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. I used war as an example to illustrate that.

That's it. That's all.

I wasn't saying that one side has it worse than the other and if you had bothered to read my posts, instead of one snippet with no context, then you would know that.

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.

It seems odd to me that when someone says "women have it worse than men" and someone else tries to point out that the world isn't exactly all sunshine and happiness for a lot of men then there is pretty strong opposition to that.

I've read through the whole thread in fairness. I just don't get what the point is of anyone arguing about how hard they have it based solely on their gender and how the other gender has it better because at some point in time, somewhere in the world, someone was... oppressed.

orubiru

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've read through the whole thread in fairness. I just don't get what the point is of anyone arguing about how hard they have it based solely on their gender and how the other gender has it better because at some point in time, somewhere in the world, someone was... oppressed.

I agree with you there.

However, I think that when someone says that women are not treated like human beings or that the deck is stacked heavily in favor of men then it's fair, maybe necessary, to make the counter point that this is not necessarily true.

An interesting thing about "MRAs" and "Feminists" is that if they were really all about pushing fundamental ideas of equality or fair treatment then they'd be best buddies, working together to make the world a better place for everyone. Instead the most prominent voices in these two groups act like sworn enemies, squabbling over who has more/less "privilege" and looking to damage each others reputations.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.