Fourth wave feminism.

Pac1Man

Glenster wrote: »

I don't understand the logic that, when faced with the fact that women are paid less than men, some people think it sorts out the issue by saying "this is why, therefore it doesn't matter".

Your lack of understanding is shocking. Do you really believe that a man and a woman working the same job with the same experience are paid differently?

I work in a male dominated area, however the women who do work here are paid the same for the same role. There is a structure in place to ensure this. This isn't the 1920s.

The fact that you put your fingers in your ears whenever reasoning is provided means you are not open to debate. Sure why bother trying to discuss then?

Outlaw Pete

People need to be aware of just how sinister these people are.... young boys are in their cross hairs.


https://twitter.com/motherhubblog/status/841683360963543040

optogirl

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

People need to be aware of just how sinister these people are.... young boys are in their cross hairs.


https://twitter.com/motherhubblog/status/841683360963543040

why is this sinister?

BMMachine

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote:

People need to be aware of just how sinister these people are.... young boys are in their cross hairs.

To be fair, I would have thought most people would agree that ridding ourselves of limiting gender stereotypes is a good thing. Especially for children. That's on the very first page of the 'men's rights thread' as one of its main reasons for existing - to get rid of limiting gender roles for men.

If you think they're sinister just for existing, then I'm not sure we're using the same understanding of 'sinister'.

Zulu

BMMachine wrote: »

.

I'm confused; tbh I'm not up with my memes and online insults - I thought the Fedora was a dig at the SJW/White Knight type?
Is this having a pop at pro or anti feminists?

...either way, when your contribution totals to attempting to insult someone, it speaks volumes about what type of person you are. When it fails it's even more tragic.

BMMachine

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

One side of the argument seems less calm, rational and substantive that's for sure.

oh the problem in my eyes is there is no argument.
People on here trying to define something extremely complex like feminism and even the original post giving it an end date. Not really understanding that rights issues, for men and women (people, could you believe that!), is something ever changing and ever evolving in society and the world around us.
People wanting to sound like they have purchase on this issue and think that its wrong because through their narrow perspective they only see certain sides have no weight on the matter, their opinion carries no value. What are the problems with feminism? There are none really, unless of course you are really paranoid and full of spite - then Im sure there are loads thank God those who hate feminism are rational enlightened human beings who are definitely smarter and more intelligent than those who champion it.. who also have great choice in headwear and get nothing but that dankest fluids for their vapes

hungry hypno toad

midlandsmissus wrote: »

As a person said to me once 'why are women nice to men, they are not nice to you'.

Was she a feminist by any chance?

BMMachine

Zulu wrote: »

I'm confused; tbh I'm not up with my memes and online insults - I thought the Fedora was a dig at the SJW/White Knight type?
Is this having a pop at pro or anti feminists?

...either way, when your contribution totals to attempting to insult someone, it speaks volumes about what type of person you are. When it fails it's even more tragic.

damn son, think I hit a nerve. gettin the old 'I'll just pretend not to understand it in a sarcastic, smarter than you type fashion'


here
head down to a rape crisis centre and tell them all about how feminism is wrong. Make sure to wear your best lynx as you might score some hot babes who can't resist your dank style and rebel attitude

Zulu

BMMachine wrote: »

damn son, think I hit a nerve. gettin the old 'I'll just pretend not to understand it in a sarcastic, smarter than you type fashion'


here
head down to a rape crisis centre and tell them all about how feminism is wrong. Make sure to wear your best lynx as you might score some hot babes who can't resist your dank style and rebel attitude

Dank is cool I take it.


What's your point caller? I mean other than attempting to insult people who don't agree with you?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair, I would have thought most people would agree that ridding ourselves of limiting gender stereotypes is a good thing. Especially for children. That's on the very first page of the 'men's rights thread' as one of its main reasons for existing - to get rid of limiting gender roles for men.

If you think they're sinister just for existing, then I'm not sure we're using the same understanding of 'sinister'.

what more needs to be "done" ? how ought parents change how they raise their sons? all that I would see happening is feminists telling boys to not compete as is their nature and telling boys that masculinity is toxic just like religious people talk about original sin.

BMMachine

Zulu wrote: »

Dank is cool I take it.


What's your point caller? I mean other than attempting to insult people who don't agree with you?

That you and others that think like you are paranoid narrow minded little men who are full of sh*t.
And beneath that I'm pointing out how the way you think about important subjects like feminism is a culture and identity issue. It's one I like taking the piss out of because it's so acidic and self important.

Now off down to the rape crisis centre and tell the people there your views on feminism

Zulu

BMMachine wrote: »

That you and others that think like you are paranoid narrow minded little men who are full of sh*t.

Ah I see. So you've no interest in civil discussion, only argivation.

Good luck with that.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

what more needs to be "done" ? how ought parents change how they raise their sons?

Have you read the link? (Obviously not). The speaker says that girls have been raised more like boys, but boys aren't given the same freedom and choices. I seriously thought broadening choice and getting rid of restricting gender roles was part of the men's rights movement.

silverharp wrote:

all that I would see happening is feminists telling boys to not compete as is their nature and telling boys that masculinity is toxic just like religious people talk about original sin.

All off the top of your head without even needing to know anything about it? Actual information might complicated the issue so best steer clear of any of it. You're psychic prediction is version specific given the headline information in the link. Will it be run by one of the blue haired sociologists from your search history?

Pac1Man

BMMachine wrote: »

And beneath that I'm pointing out how the way you think about important subjects like feminism is a culture and identity issue. It's one I like taking the piss out of because it's so acidic and self important.

You have yet to make a point. In fact it seems you enjoy taking the piss out of it more than actually discussing it. Must not be that important to you then?

BMMachine

Zulu wrote: »

Ah I see. So you've no interest in civil discussion, only argivation.

Good luck with that.

Awww snowflake. So precious. All you were trying to do was needle and undermine a cause you don't understand. How dare I be so direct. Proof is in the puddin darling, you and the others are completely full of sh*t and have the exact same attitude problem as the SJW's you decry. Wanna know why? Because it's not about feminism, it's about you and your identity. Don't dwell on that though, label me and my posts and move on. Retreat from the unknown.

silverharp

BMMachine wrote: »

oh the problem in my eyes is there is no argument.
People on here trying to define something extremely complex like feminism and even the original post giving it an end date. Not really understanding that rights issues, for men and women (people, could you believe that!), is something ever changing and ever evolving in society and the world around us.
People wanting to sound like they have purchase on this issue and think that its wrong because through their narrow perspective they only see certain sides have no weight on the matter, their opinion carries no value. What are the problems with feminism? There are none really, unless of course you are really paranoid and full of spite - then Im sure there are loads thank God those who hate feminism are rational enlightened human beings who are definitely smarter and more intelligent than those who champion it.. who also have great choice in headwear and get nothing but that dankest fluids for their vapes

so why is there a whole feminist industry on US campuses turning out Chanty Binx drones? if the feminism that normal people don't like is coming from academia then that is feminism and you cant park it and say that isn't real feminism.
Going by what the well known feminist Camila Paglia said, all the reasonable feminists were driven out of academia decades ago so all you are left with now are a bunch of extremists and closet Marxists or not so closet even.

Glenster

Pac1Man wrote: »

Your lack of understanding is shocking. Do you really believe that a man and a woman working the same job with the same experience are paid differently?

I work in a male dominated area, however the women who do work here are paid the same for the same role. There is a structure in place to ensure this. This isn't the 1920s.

The fact that you put your fingers in your ears whenever reasoning is provided means you are not open to debate. Sure why bother trying to discuss then?

I do believe that men and women in the same role are paid differently, granular information of this kind is not available in Ireland but I would cite the following studies in the US, EU and UK

http://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=The-Simple-Truth

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/gender-equality/infographs/equal-pay-day-2015/equal-pay-day/index_en.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450878/Gender_Pay_Gap_Consultation.pdf


I don't know anything about where you work.
I know where I work 75% of the partners are men, and 100% of the receptionists and cleaners are women. And there are all sorts of reasons you can use to explain that away. And I'm saying just because you can explain it doesn't mean its not an issue.

I don't think I have my fingers in my ears just because I refuse to turn around and say "Issue dropped" just because someone says that one of the main reasons women are paid less is because more men are in managerial roles.

BMMachine

Pac1Man wrote: »

You have yet to make a point. In fact it seems you enjoy taking the piss out of it more than actually discussing it. Must not be that important to you then?

It's a massive topic with complex strands. The information to be gained out of an After Hours thread on it is f and all. It's better to analyse the psychology behind why people talk about it in the way they do rather than the topic itself. Isn't it amazing how the same attitudes mirror themselves in both support and opposition to it? I find the mentality of the opposers the funnier of the two though. It's all these angry men pretending to be educated and informed of the 'real' truth while stroking each other off. Tell them to go to a rape crisis centre and express their views and their brains cantle handle that reality so they retreat. (What I'm gunning for now is for one to go into detail about how my rape crisis centre analogy is a farce because of x y and Z all while not thinking about how stupid they actually sound but shhh! )

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Have you read the link? (Obviously not). The speaker says that girls have been raised more like boys, but boys aren't given the same freedom and choices. I seriously thought broadening choice and getting rid of restricting gender roles was part of the men's rights movement.

In fairness I wouldn't raise boys to be more like girls, I think its clear that not all boys are cut out to be "roaringly masculine" as in to be fighter pilots or firemen while playing rugby at the weekend in between building their own house from scratch. So I think the pressure to conform to the Marlboro man image isn't there so much now, so great job done!
But at the same time they still need to be career oriented for example because frankly put women don't want men they have to support so I don't see any point in telling boys to abandon their roles completely because it will be the quickest way to have them exit the gene pool

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All off the top of your head without even needing to know anything about it? Actual information might complicated the issue so best steer clear of any of it. You're psychic prediction is version specific given the headline information in the link. Will it be run by one of the blue haired sociologists from your search history?

Ill not look for them now but there are examples of feminism in schools having a detrimental affect on boys, the last thing I would want is for that to be policy

hatrickpatrick

Jesus this thread is an absolute train wreck. I'm as opposed to discriminatory feminism as anyone, but throwing in comments suggesting that women are crappy workers is just absolutely moronic. You're the type of people who fuel these muppets fires and give them ammunition for their claim that society is still anti-woman. As a counter point, in music I've always found that women are far more likely to turn up on time for rehearsals and recording sessions, as well as more likely to have actually learned the part beforehand so we don't spend half an hour getting it right before we can actually record anything... Lads, particularly lads who are drummers, are generally a disaster. :pac:

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

I know where I work 75% of the partners are men, and 100% of the receptionists and cleaners are women. And there are all sorts of reasons you can use to explain that away. And I'm saying just because you can explain it doesn't mean its not an issue.

Do you think that the company you work for is deliberately preventing successful women from becoming partners due to their gender?

Having background in professional services, I see mostly male partners - no argument there - but I see those who create the most revenue being made partner. It's fairly cut-throat, and it's simply a money game.

[Can you bring in and maintain approx €1m revenue? If so, can you pay the fee (although as I understand it there's a preferential loan available repayable from the first few years profits)? If so, sign your life away here, here and here. Welcome to the bottom rung on the partner ladder!]

KKkitty

How do you know if someone is a feminist? They never shut up about it. Today's radical feminists are a bit of a joke. If say a man is walking in the same direction as them but gets to the destination first they'd be up in arms or demand that he walk at the same pace. It's almost like they nitpick at everything to the point it becomes farcical.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

In fairness I wouldn't raise boys to be more like girls, I think its clear that not all boys are cut out to be "roaringly masculine" as in to be fighter pilots or firemen while playing rugby at the weekend in between building their own house from scratch. So I think the pressure to conform to the Marlboro man image isn't there so much now, so great job done!

That sounds really like a narrow interpretation of the link posted. You seem to agree with it but you also seem to vehemently opposed it in principle. Are you conflicted because it's feminists doing something you agree with?

silverharp wrote:

But at the same time they still need to be career oriented for example because frankly put women don't want men they have to support so I don't see any point in telling boys to abandon their roles completely because it will be the quickest way to have them exit the gene pool

Sure. Of course all this is in your head. It's nowhere in the link at all. Where do you get this guff about telling boys not to compete? Why do you think the two messages have to be delivered together?

As far as i can see (because I've actually read the link) it's about creating more choices for boys. You agree with that message in principle do you need to inject this narrative about telling boys not to compete. Could see just stick to reality instead?

osarusan

KKkitty wrote: »

How do you know if someone is a feminist? They never shut up about it.

In After Hours it is the other way round.

Boom_Bap

BMMachine wrote: »

Awww snowflake. So precious. All you were trying to do was needle and undermine a cause you don't understand. How dare I be so direct. Proof is in the puddin darling, you and the others are completely full of sh*t and have the exact same attitude problem as the SJW's you decry. Wanna know why? Because it's not about feminism, it's about you and your identity. Don't dwell on that though, label me and my posts and move on. Retreat from the unknown.

BMMachine
You don't seem to be able to post without insulting on this thread.
Please do not post in this thread again.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That sounds really like a narrow interpretation of the link posted. You seem to agree with it but you also seem to vehemently opposed it in principle. Are you conflicted because it's feminists doing something you agree with?

Its obvious that some men have a more feminine nature and there is nothing wrong with that but if I was to suspect a feminist agenda it would be take out men are very masculine in their approach to things when that's their nature too, telling men not to be masculine would be like trying to teach a cat to perform tricks that a dog would normally do, you might achieve it but only with the attachment of electrodes and a lot of pain. :pac:
If feminists were neutral there wouldn't be phrases like "toxic masculinity" . and when it comes to it "toxic masculinity" is what builds roads and cities and is that which rolls out the next technological wonder. the choice is there to be a hipster Barista no shame.

Glenster

Zulu wrote: »

Do you think that the company you work for is deliberately preventing successful women from becoming partners due to their gender?

Having background in professional services, I see mostly male partners - no argument there - but I see those who create the most revenue being made partner. It's fairly cut-throat, and it's simply a money game.

[Can you bring in and maintain approx €1m revenue? If so, can you pay the fee (although as I understand it there's a preferential loan available repayable from the first few years profits)? If so, sign your life away here, here and here. Welcome to the bottom rung on the partner ladder!]

Yes. By virtue of the structure of the partner position.

And they'd want to be maintaining more than €1m in revenue to be made partner.

JupiterKid

Well, this thread confirms my suspicions...

That put the word "feminist" in a given boards.ie thread and all the opinionated loudmouth and downright abusive crazies will be attracted to it like flies to dogsh*te. Never fails!:cool:

That calm, rational posts and posters get drowned out. More heat than light is generated.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

Its obvious that some men have a more feminine nature and there is nothing wrong with that but if I was to suspect a feminist agenda it would be take out men are very masculine in their approach to things when that's their nature too, telling men not to be masculine would be like trying to teach a cat to perform tricks that a dog would normally do, you might achieve it but only with the attachment of electrodes and a lot of pain.

Electrodes pain fantasy notwithstanding, were in agreement about this. FORCING boys to be feminine would be harmful. And nobody's talking about forcing anyone to do anything, except yourself. I'm talking about ensuring boys are free and have choices and you respond by saying 'forcing boys to behave... Electrical trodes and a lot of pain'.

If it's bad when feminists are wrong, it must be worse for some people when they're right. Hence needing to change the topic from giving boys choices to forcing boys to do something and pretending that's the topic under discussion.

silverharp wrote:

If feminists were neutral there wouldn't be phrases like "toxic masculinity" . and when it comes to it "toxic masculinity" is what builds roads and cities and is that which rolls out the next technological wonder. the choice is there to be a hipster Barista no shame.

I've never used that phrase in my life. Never heard it said in real life either. I don't​ have a clue what it means. Again, you're the one talking about it, not me.

Galwayguy35

Glenster wrote: »

I don't particularly want everyone to get medals.

Though I wouldn't be protesting with placards if they did.

I don't have a problem with men being paid more if they're better, just not because they're men.

Would it not occur to you that men often do well paying jobs that would be a bit more dangerous, for example working in a mine or on an oil rig or fishing off the coast of Alaska.

Nobody is stopping women going for these jobs if they want more money.

Glenster

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Would it not occur to you that men often do well paying jobs that would be a bit more dangerous, for example working in a mine or on an oil rig or fishing off the coast of Alaska.

Nobody is stopping women going for these jobs if they want more money.

I don't know about jobs on a rig or in Alaska.

I live in Dublin.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Electrodes pain fantasy notwithstanding, were in agreement about this. FORCING boys to be feminine would be harmful. And nobody's talking about forcing anyone to do anything, except yourself. I'm talking about ensuring boys are free and have choices and you respond by saying 'forcing boys to behave... Electrical trodes and a lot of pain'.

If it's bad when feminists are wrong, it must be worse for some people when they're right. Hence needing to change the topic from giving boys choices to forcing boys to do something and pretending that's the topic under discussion.

but you cant do away with "stereotypical male roles" as you seem to indicate you want to achieve. The choice already exists hence my question of what needs to change now? what will annoy feminists is that male behaviour will tend towards typical types and some of them will revolve around what is considered typical male behaviour.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've never used that phrase in my life. Never heard it said in real life either. I don't​ have a clue what it means. Again, you're the one talking about it, not me.

google seems to think its common enough

feminism toxic masculinity

About 344,000 results (0.68 seconds)

silverharp

Glenster wrote: »

I don't know about jobs on a rig or in Alaska.

I live in Dublin.

take jobs like fixing high tension cables or working on mobile masts, I don't think Ive ever seen a woman up on them. Are they barred from the profession? I assume its much better paid than working in a crèche and doing a childcare "degree". is it the patriarchy and internalised mysoggyknees?

bodice ripper

silverharp wrote:

take jobs like fixing high tension cables or working on mobile masts, I don't think Ive ever seen a woman up on them. Are they barred from the profession? I assume its much better paid than working in a crèche and doing a childcare "degree". is it the patriarchy and internalised mysoggyknees?

I can't imagine what makes you think women would be hired for these jobs. I tried to get work laboring and the was no chance. FAS wouldn't let me do a forklift course. Couldn't get work as a binman either. I would have preferred to work at any of these over minimum wage retail.

ceadaoin.

silverharp wrote: »

Its obvious that some men have a more feminine nature and there is nothing wrong with that but if I was to suspect a feminist agenda it would be take out men are very masculine in their approach to things when that's their nature too, telling men not to be masculine would be like trying to teach a cat to perform tricks that a dog would normally do, you might achieve it but only with the attachment of electrodes and a lot of pain. :pac:
If feminists were neutral there wouldn't be phrases like "toxic masculinity" . and when it comes to it "toxic masculinity" is what builds roads and cities and is that which rolls out the next technological wonder. the choice is there to be a hipster Barista no shame.

From what I can gather, "Toxic masculinity" doesn't mean all male behaviour or any behaviour that isn't "feminine" as you seem to be suggesting. It refers to the attitude that men should be sexually and physically aggressive, dominant and unemotional. That if they aren't those things then they are less manly and have a more "feminine nature" as you say. Those stereotypes are harmful to both men and women. Why do you think a man who doesn't display stereotypical male behaviour must be feminine?

Omackeral

Glenster wrote: »

I don't know anything about where you work.
I know where I work 75% of the partners are men, and 100% of the receptionists and cleaners are women. And there are all sorts of reasons you can use to explain that away. And I'm saying just because you can explain it doesn't mean its not an issue.

I don't think I have my fingers in my ears just because I refuse to turn around and say "Issue dropped" just because someone says that one of the main reasons women are paid less is because more men are in managerial roles.

How about we look at statistics away from the office. Would you care to hazard a guess percentage or ratio wise of men to women that are sleeping rough on the streets? Or maybe a stat on young men vs young women when it comes to suicide? Or what about violent assaults?

Outlaw Pete

BMMachine wrote: »

What are the problems with feminism? There are none really, unless of course you are really paranoid and full of spite - then Im sure there are loads

There are ton of problems with feminism and most of them have been discussed on the thread.... which I suspect you haven't read very much of. It is highly destructive to western society and has been for some time. It not only negatively impacts on men, but women and children also. All you have to do is look at what happens whenever a radical feminist gets themselves into positions of power, as without fail they will show their true colours and try and implement sexist and discriminatory legislation, like Harriet Harman tried to do here.

Then you have the victimhood feminists who see almost everything a guy does as being evidence of patriarchal oppression. Like for example when Steve Martin dared tweet a tribute about Carrie Fisher.'s passing. In the end he had delete the tweet such was the level of madness accusing him of sexism.

So there's two ends of the scale for you and in between is just a slew of similar self serving bile that has been served up to western society over the past forty odd years or more... and people are sick of it.

BMMachine wrote: »

Now off down to the rape crisis centre and tell the people there your views on feminism

And what makes you think that any woman that would unfortunately find herself relying on such services would be on your side here? You think a woman that has just been raped would be on the side of those that would have the audacity to say that songs such as Baby It's Cold Outside are evidence of rape culture?

optogirl wrote: »

why is this sinister?

It's sinister because I have read the kind of crap those people have had to say elsewhere online and children's minds shouldn't be poisoned with misandric propaganda, and that's precisely what it is. These people march and protest when anyone that is against feminism plans to give a speech (such as Warren Farrell) and while they have been successful on many occasions, the tide is turning and people are beginning to stand up to them. They are now turning their attention to children so that they can control how they think in this regard. Feminists do not have the monopoly on egalitarian thinking or the belief that gender stereotypes have negative consequences. We can educate our children just fine on these matters without adding misandric poison and feminist dogma to the primary curriculum thanks very much.

We must stop indoctrinating boys in feminist ideology

A school in Oxford has become the first to introduce “Good Lad” workshops, in which boys are singled out for sessions that teach them about “the scale of sexual harassment and violence aimed at female students” and how they must stand up for women's rights.

The workshops are the latest in a mushrooming series of initiatives in which ideologically-driven activists are being invited into schools, driven by the belief that boys need to be re-educated to prevent them from becoming a threat to women.

In November last year, The Times reported on a programme in London Schools in which two American women, one a former sex crime prosecutor, “re-programme teenage boys’ sexual manners so they are fit for a feminist world”.

According to the report, they start the class by asserting that “misogyny is on the rise”, before going on to “describe real-life sex crimes that have happened to teenagers in this area with brutal accuracy”. The article concludes – approvingly -- that by the end of the session, the boys are “scarred for life”.

In context of the chasm between boys’ and girls’ educational attainment and a rising male suicide rate that is now nearly four times that of women’s, why are schools deciding that when it comes to talking about gender, what boys need most is an extra dose of guilt and shame?

Since when was it acceptable to impose ideology on school children?

You’d never know it from the rhetoric, but a man – and particularly a young man -- is around twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime as a woman.

And it’s not just drunken street violence either. A 2009 NSPCC report into domestic violence in teenage relationships, showed teenage boys suffer comparable rates of violence from their girlfriends as do teenage girls from their boyfriends.

In the same year another report, this time by Childline, found that of the children who called to report sexual abuse, a total of 8,457 were girls (64pc) and 4,780 were boys (36pc). The charity also found boys were more likely to say they had been sexually abused by a woman (1,722 cases) than by a man (1,651).

In March, the Government announced the introduction of new consent classes for children aged as young as 11. The plans were launched on International Women’s Day and the PSHE guidelines repeatedly state they are primarily part of the Government’s A Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls strategy.

In 2001, novelist and feminist icon Doris Lessing made a shocking assessment of what she had seen while visiting a school classroom.

She told the Edinburgh Book Festival, "I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.

"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."

Lessing expressed deep concern that what she had witnessed was just a glimpse of an increasingly pervasive culture of toxic feminism in schools that was weighing down boys with a collective sense of guilt and shame.

She had every right to be worried. It seems there is now a drive to make shame and guilt a formal part of boys’ education.

Glenster

Jesus,

The real question raised by this thread is why so many men seem to hate women.

VinLieger

Glenster wrote: »

Jesus,

The real question raised by this thread is why so many men seem to hate women.

Incredibly poor straw man attempt, yet surprisingly A-typical for today's uninformed entitled millennial "feminists"

Omackeral

Glenster wrote: »

Jesus,

The real question raised by this thread is why so many men seem to hate women.

So many men hate women, do they? Where is the evidence of that? You're lying for the sake of it now because you've nothing else. Another example of deluded modern day ''feminist'' thinking. Pathetic.

Wibbs

VinLieger wrote: »

Incredibly poor straw man attempt, yet surprisingly A-typical for today's uninformed entitled millennial "feminists"

It's an all too common go for the emotive accusations tactic to throw people off and attempt to shut down discussion points the [insert politic here] doesn't like. It's transparent and transparently daft with it.

Neptune Latte wrote:

Criticising lunatic feminists does not equal hatred of women.

Of course it doesn't NL. Never mind that a fair few "lunatic feminists" are men. Maybe they "hate" men going by that logic? Not.

optogirl

Omackeral wrote: »

So many men hate women, do they? Where is the evidence of that? You're lying for the sake of it now because you've nothing else. Another example of deluded modern day ''feminist'' thinking. Pathetic.

wow - you're like someone with sunburn getting a pat on the back. What are you so angry about?

Omackeral

optogirl wrote: »

wow - you're like someone with sunburn getting a pat on the back. What are you so angry about?

How do you get anger out of any of that? I argue using logic and deal in facts, not emotion, unlike these 4th wave folks. I actually wouldn't dignify modern day fems with anger at all, it's more disbelief and pity than anything else.

Ps I wish it was hot enough out to get sunburn!

kunst nugget

bodice ripper wrote: »

I can't imagine what makes you think women would be hired for these jobs. I tried to get work laboring and the was no chance. FAS wouldn't let me do a forklift course. Couldn't get work as a binman either. I would have preferred to work at any of these over minimum wage retail.

That's really interesting. What was their reason for refusing to let you do the forklift course?

Also, a lot of people come on here to say that women aren't interested in doing the dirty jobs. What are your opinions on a woman trying to get employment in these areas but not being given the chance?

Zulu

Glenster wrote: »

Jesus,

The real question raised by this thread is why so many men seem to hate women.

Lazy. Very very lazy.

red ears

Glenster wrote: »

Jesus,

The real question raised by this thread is why so many men seem to hate women.

People have an innate sense of fairness, when they see the constant focus on feminist issues and the subtle and sometime not so subtle attacks on men and boys it raises their hackles. Its ridiculous to see criticism as hatred. Unless you believe feminism should just be allowed run riot and have all their proposals and grievances left unchallenged by anyone? Because the media and politicians are not questioning feminism at all. Social media seems to be the only place you will see any fight back at all. This adds to the frustration men and boys feel too.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

but you cant do away with "stereotypical male roles" as you seem to indicate you want to achieve. The choice already exists hence my question of what needs to change now? what will annoy feminists is that male behaviour will tend towards typical types and some of them will revolve around what is considered typical male behaviour.

I'm not encouraging anyone to force children to do anything. You keep coming back to that as if it was part of my argument. Let children tell you about their interests and forget your male and female stereotypes. Boys will tend towards some interests and girls tend towards some interests. In the main children are interested in all kinds of things and parents can impose all kinds of limiting beliefs on children.

I thought opposing limiting beliefs was

silverharp wrote:

In fairness I wouldn't raise boys to be more like girls, I think its clear that not all boys are cut out to be "roaringly masculine" as in to be fighter pilots or firemen while playing rugby at the weekend in between building their own house from scratch. So I think the pressure to conform to the Marlboro man image isn't there so much now, so great job done! But at the same time they still need to be career oriented for example because frankly put women don't want men they have to support so I don't see any point in telling boys to abandon their roles completely because it will be the quickest way to have them exit the gene pool

I thought opposing limiting gender stereotypes was one of the raison d'être of the men's rights movement.

See how many limiting gender stereotypes you can spot in the post above. Hint : Masculine Jobs and sport. Feminine need for a provider, threatening male child with being unable to find a partner unless they conform to your gender roles.

And this poster thinks gender stereotypes are in the past

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not encouraging anyone to force children to do anything. You keep coming back to that as if it was part of my argument. Let children tell you about their interests and forget your male and female stereotypes. Boys will tend towards some interests and girls tend towards some interests. In the main children are interested in all kinds of things and parents can impose all kinds of limiting beliefs on children.

I thought opposing limiting beliefs was

what kind of limiting beliefs? parents have to pass on values and ethics, would you expect a parent to not steer a kid into working hard in school and leave it to the kid? it would be a bad parent that wouldn't direct the child. A parent that insists that their kids become a particular profession might be said to have crossed a line and it may backfire.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I thought opposing limiting gender stereotypes was one of the raison d'être of the men's rights movement.

I would have assumed in terms of court related matters, ive not observed that its as broad brush as feminism. it would want to challenge that mothers are the default guardian when in a number of cases the father is probably the better parent. or court sentencing where female sentences are shorter than male sentencing or painting domestic abuse as a female only issue. they are objectively damaging stereotypes which have harsh legal consequences

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

See how many limiting gender stereotypes you can spot in the post above. Hint : Masculine Jobs and sport. Feminine need for a provider, threatening male child with being unable to find a partner unless they conform to your gender roles.

And this poster thinks gender stereotypes are in the past

they aren't all constructs pulled out of thin air, they are constructs or observations based on biology and bell curve behaviour. I think most kids would see through being raised completely gender neutral because it wouldn't reflect reality

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

what kind of limiting beliefs? parents have to pass on values and ethics, would you expect a parent to not steer a kid into working hard in school and leave it to the kid? it would be a bad parent that wouldn't direct the child. A parent that insists that their kids become a particular profession might be said to have crossed a line and it may backfire.

There's nothing gender specific or limiting about encouraging education. Limiting beliefs would be telling children that boys should play x and girls play y. Boys role is to provide further the family, girls role is to expect to be taken care of to borrow a few examples from your earlier post

silverharp wrote:

I would have assumed in terms of court related matters, ive not observed that its as broad brush as feminism. it would want to challenge that mothers are the default guardian when in a number of cases the father is probably the better parent. or court sentencing where female sentences are shorter than male sentencing or painting domestic abuse as a female only issue. they are objectively damaging stereotypes which have harsh legal consequences

Those are grand issues to campaign on as far as I'm concerned.

silverharp wrote:

they aren't all constructs pulled out of thin air, they are constructs or observations based on biology and bell curve behaviour. I think most kids would see through being raised completely gender neutral because it wouldn't reflect reality

They're descriptions of tendancies among children, not prescriptive templates for behaviour.

Seeing them as desirable masculine or feminine traits is limiting to the boy who has an interest in things that fall outside of traditional masculinity. We're all about freeing boys from gender stereotypes in principle - unless someone actually tried to do anything about it, then they're just interfering feminists​ who (insert pajorative here).