Why are we hating all the men?

AudreyHepburn

B0jangles wrote: »

Thats a really weird position to take on this; I think most people when they come out of a bad relationship feel like they need to take some time to recover rather than jump straight back in, and they certainly don't need to be 'brave' by putting their own feelings aside to gratify someone else's.

Also the whole notion that 'crying rape after a one night stand you regret.' is a real thing that happens regularly is basically b*llocks.

I don't think it's weird at all....I simply can't imagine any other reason why women nowadays seem to be so hell bent on putting men down with their so called feminism and determined to blame for every little thing that goes wrong in their lives.

And I have heard of many cases of 'crying rape' before....I nearly did it myself once but luckily I sobered up enough to realize that I had absolutely consented and that I was feeling regret and nothing more.

NinjaKirby

silverharp wrote: »

here is the thing though, you don't hear feminists call out other feminists which clearly they ought to be doing, if not take it as read that they broadly agree with anything any other feminist says or they might go to some excuse like they are only joking.

That's because they are too busy calling out The Patriarchy.

Seriously, I think they do call out other Feminists. I see them ranting about White Feminism and TERFs. Though the basis for that tends to be that they are not being Feminist enough.

On the other side I think MRAs do focus an awful lot on what Feminism is doing wrong or the worst of the worst Feminist stuff.

I'd rather just see a bit more honesty and a bit more accountability for terrible ideas in mainstream media.

B0jangles

silverharp wrote: »

here is the thing though, you don't hear feminists call out other feminists which clearly they ought to be doing, if not take it as read that they broadly agree with anything any other feminist says or they might go to some excuse like they are only joking.
The only Feminist I can think of that is interesting to listen to is camille paglia who actually does criticise other feminists.

What would be the purpose of such a thing, beyond creating a situation of endless infighting and factionism? 'Feminism' is not a political party or a club where someone can be thrown out for not adhering to the rules. By your argument, posters here who regularly argue from a men's rights perspective should be calling out and disavowing the many extremists in that movement, and I've yet to see that happen.

NinjaKirby

B0jangles wrote: »

What would be the purpose of such a thing, beyond creating a situation of endless infighting and factionism? 'Feminism' is not a political party or a club where someone can be thrown out for not adhering to the rules. By your argument, posters here who regularly argue from a men's rights perspective should be calling out and disavowing the many extremists in that movement, and I've yet to see that happen.

What's your take there?

Should MRAs call out and disavow extremists in their movement?

Should mainstream media call out and draw negative attention to controversial MRAs?

B0jangles

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don't think it's weird at all....I simply can't imagine any other reason why women nowadays seem to be so hell bent on putting men down with their so called feminism and determined to blame for every little thing that goes wrong in their lives.

And I have heard of many cases of 'crying rape' before....I nearly did it myself once but luckily I sobered up enough to realize that I had absolutely consented and that I was feeling regret and nothing more.

Hang on, you specifically mentioned women who've just come out of bad relationships not wanting to give a 'genuine guy a chance'. I think that's really weird - I don't care how genuine someone is, no-one should feel obliged to start a relationship with them just to make them happy. On the wider point, I don't know where you're getting your information, but feminism is not 'about putting men down' and blaming them for everything, its about making a fairer society - one in which both women and men are freer to choose to live as they want, not how they are expected to.

Glenster

Name the 5 worst people in history,

Men or women?

I rest my case.

B0jangles

NinjaKirby wrote: »

What's your take there?

Should MRAs call out and disavow extremists in their movement?

Should mainstream media call out and draw negative attention to controversial MRAs?

If said extremists are acting in a way which endangers other people either by direct threats or by encouraging others to attack them, via doxxing for example, then those around them have a responsibility to report them to the relevant authorities. If they are merely expressing their own opinions as individuals then they should be free to do so, and those opinions are then open to being challenged, disagreed with and/or disproven.

No-one is under an obligation to disavow them, but if they feel that association with such persons is damaging to their own reputation, then they'd probably be wise to do so.

Outlaw Pete

B0jangles wrote: »

The chances of a man being charged, never mind convicted after having apparently consensual sex with someone who later says they were too drunk to know what happened are vanishingly small, and the simplest way to avoid even that possibility is to not have sex with very drunk people. No, I'm not saying 'any drink = drunk' as someone is bound to pop up and say; I'm taking about stumbling, slurring, drunk people.

Tell that to Ched Evans who spent two and half years in prison for having sex with a women who was deemed to drunk to have consented to sex but yet could walk unaided in and out of a hotel 15 minutes prior (as evidenced by CCTV footage) and consumed no more alcohol when there, her last drink be almost an hour beforehand.







Not that CCTV footage of innocence seems to enough for the feminized UK justice system as they can will even prosecute men on the back of scurrilous accusations regardless of such evidence.

Commuter who walked past actress at Waterloo station cleared of 'bizarre' sex assault claim

A commuter has been cleared of sexually assaulting a well-known actress after a jury rejected claims the crime could have taken place in a brief half-second contact in a busy railway station.

Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist and picture framer, was accused of brushing against the actress, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in a mass of train passengers at London’s Waterloo station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIG7nXR4LZQ

CCTV footage showed Mr Pearson, who was a complete stranger to the alleged victim, did not break his stride as he walked past the woman, who was heading to a rehearsal.

The defendant, who said he had endured a year-long “Kafkaesque nightmare” as a result of the complaint, blamed the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for forcing him to endure “mental torture” as a result of the charge.

A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”, the Mail on Sunday newspaper said.

The CCTV did not conclusively prove there was any form of physical contact between the two strangers, but it still led to the CPS presenting a case that the man was able to penetrate the actress, who is in her 60s.

In a three-day trial Mark Bagshaw, defending, said the allegation could not have taken place in the half-second time frame shown on CCTV, especially as Mr Pearson was carrying a newspaper in his left hand – the one he was alleged to have used in the assault – and holding his bag in his right.

There were no witnesses, no forensic evidence and the actress failed to pick out Mr Pearson in an identity parade of video images following the alleged incident in December 2014.

The actress was wearing a coat and jacket and a thin dress over “training pants” following a yoga class, the jury heard.

Mr Pearson, who was traced by police from his Oyster travel card records, told the newspaper: “‘One of the many frightening aspects is that this could have happened to anyone.

“For me, half a second turned into a year of hell. I feel I have undergone a form of mental torture sanctioned by the state.
"It is just bizarre.”

His partner Carol Ho, 41, said: “None of us believed for a second that he was capable of doing what this woman said.”

The case raises further questions about the CPS’s decision-making in sexual assault cases, which has been under intense scrutiny following a series of failures.

A CPS spokesman said: “There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial. We respect the decision of the jury.”

py2006

I've been waiting a while now for this epidemic of 'modern' entitled, deluded, irrational, vile misandry feminism to implode. Yet it hasn't happened.

Its oh so silly and tiresome.

silverharp

B0jangles wrote: »

What would be the purpose of such a thing, beyond creating a situation of endless infighting and factionism? 'Feminism' is not a political party or a club where someone can be thrown out for not adhering to the rules. By your argument, posters here who regularly argue from a men's rights perspective should be calling out and disavowing the many extremists in that movement, and I've yet to see that happen.

leaving aside the fog, what extremist positions are mra's looking for? feminists seem to want everything from kangaroo courts when it comes to sexual assault type cases, to more preference for women in colleges when they already outnumber men, they keep running with very silly and unreasonable positions when it comes to the alleged "pay gap" and seem to have an unlimited appetite for quotas and special treatment. generally they can get on TV or radio , say their piece with nodding agreement from the talking heads.

As I don't hear any feminist narrative that really argues against any of the feminist wants I can conclude that it simply sets out to be a women's union and will take whatever it can

koumi

red ears wrote: »

That's marriage for a lot of men too. A critical wife who blames the husband for everything, treats them like a slightly more mature version of a child, very controlling, constant fault finding. I think what we are seeing with feminism now is an attempt to control men much like those men in a bad marriage. Equality has been achieved now its a power takeover and control is the aim.

men who are with women who treat them like children are usually men who have chosen a wife who they wanted to mother them.

py2006

koumi wrote: »

men who are with women who treat them like children are usually men who have chosen a wife who they wanted to mother them.

And its the same for women in abusive or controlling relationships too?

super_furry

Glenster wrote: »

Name the 5 worst people in history,

Men or women?

I rest my case.

Masterofballs

Egalitarianism - the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

If you want to debate Egalitarianism, well then i suggest you start a thread about it and depending on my level of interest i may even post in it. This thread is about what i suppose feminism means to people.

I suppose i should clarify my stance on it. Its quite simple i would love to see a world where every human being has the same rights, same freedom, same opportunities, same respect, same right to exist, same right to choose, to make decisions for themselves, to have the same educational and working opportunities regardless of gender, creed or race. I would like no human being to be controlled or forced into a life that gives them no choice over their mental or physical beings.

Seems straight forward enough and in line with feminism ideals. I am not hugely into being a feminist but i do agree with the core principles of what they strive for. I disagree with any hateful or disrespectful behavior and of course i have seen the same hateful and inflammable rhetoric from some extreme people and groups that urge and try to empower one gender over another. That to be me is not feminism. That to me weakens and divides the world we live in and stops the world becoming a better place to reside and live in.

But you have to see beyond noise made from twitter, Facebook etc and online commentators who angle their own agenda at the expense of the bigger picture and that is helping women in parts of the world who have no choice, no freedom, no control over their life and yes of course their bodies and are kept uneducated, sold, abused and often raped and often mutilated. The world is not equal as we live and breathe right now and just because we enjoy certain perks and freedoms and choices, there are those en-mass in this world we share in horrible, disgusting and shameful situations that we CHOOSE to ignore.

koumi

py2006 wrote: »

And its the same for women in abusive or controlling relationships too?

yes. I believe it is time for men and women to take responsibility for their own crap, it's easy to lay blame on the door of one sex for the failings in the other but when it comes down to it both are equally responsible.

red ears

Glenster wrote: »

Name the 5 worst people in history,

Men or women?

I rest my case.

Women didn't have much access to power in the past. We have no idea how they would have behaved in those circumstances.

B0jangles

silverharp wrote: »

leaving aside the fog, what extremist positions are mra's looking for? feminists seem to want everything from kangaroo courts when it comes to sexual assault type cases, to more preference for women in colleges when they already outnumber men, they keep running with very silly and unreasonable positions when it comes to the alleged "pay gap" and seem to have an unlimited appetite for quotas and special treatment. generally they can get on TV or radio , say their piece with nodding agreement from the talking heads.

As I don't hear any feminist narrative that really argues against any of the feminist wants I can conclude that it simply sets out to be a women's union and will take whatever it can

Pop on over to AVoiceForMen (For those who've never heard of it it's one of the biggest MRA sites and is run by a guy who youtube name was TheHappyMisogynist) or TheRedPill on reddit and you'll soon get a feeling for what kind of things MRA want and how they like to talk. I'm not putting that stuff here because it is mostly vile.

I note you appear to be blaming social changes you don't like on 'feminists' and then you blame this non-group for not producing a narrative that you personally find convincing. As I said before, feminism is not a political party or club, there is no manifesto beyond pushing for changes where there are inequalities - the majority of the effort is naturally going to be in areas which negatively affect women, but many of the changes feminism seeks also benefit men - specifically with the breaking down of gender roles and gender expectations.

(I should point out that I am not a spokesperson for International Feminism (tm), I'm only expressing my opinion, so if my mask slips and I start roaring KILL ALL MEN, it cannot be taken as evidence of a vast feminist conspiracy to kill all men.)

Masterofballs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Tell that to Ched Evans who spent two and half years in prison for having sex with a women who was deemed to drunk to have consented to sex but yet could walk unaided in and out of a hotel 15 minutes prior (as evidenced by CCTV footage) and consumed no more alcohol when there, her last drink be almost an hour beforehand.







Not that CCTV footage of innocence seems to enough for the feminized UK justice system as they can will even prosecute men on the back of scurrilous accusations regardless of such evidence.

You could also tell it maybe to the many who have been raped or sexually assaulted and who have been dissuaded, coaxed and guilt ridden into not making a complaint or criminal prosecution. Or to the many women who have been raped and based on some laws been murdered because they had sex outside of wedlock.

py2006

koumi wrote: »

yes. I believe it is time for men and women to take responsibility for their own crap, it's easy to lay blame on the door of one sex for the failings in the other but when it comes down to it both are equally responsible.

In some cases perhaps! Slightly unfair to assume that in all cases. Especially the more extreme ones.

koumi

py2006 wrote: »

In some cases perhaps! Slightly unfair to assume that in all cases. Especially the more extreme ones.

I've been in an abusive relationship, it was many years ago but I take full responsibility for being stupid enough (naive maybe, I was very young) for entering into it. It doesn't absolve him of his actions but it does give me back power to be able to take control of my own life and that was an important step for me. I don't do relationships at all now and have been solidly single for most of my adult life. I think that may be a conscious decision on my part because I think it is the more sensible approach to take to make sure it doesn't happen again, and I can be guaranteed 100% that it won't if I never enter into another relationship!

I do believe however that men do have a responsibility to other men, to make sure these kinds of actions are not considered appropriate and I think you will find that many men do.

AudreyHepburn

B0jangles wrote: »

Hang on, you specifically mentioned women who've just come out of bad relationships not wanting to give a 'genuine guy a chance'. I think that's really weird - I don't care how genuine someone is, no-one should feel obliged to start a relationship with them just to make them happy. On the wider point, I don't know where you're getting your information, but feminism is not 'about putting men down' and blaming them for everything, its about making a fairer society - one in which both women and men are freer to choose to live as they want, not how they are expected to.

I didn't say anyone should feel obligated to do anything, please don't put words in my mouth.

I simply mean that a lot of women seem to think it's ok to use one bad experience as a stick to beat all men with.

And it's this new wave of so called feminism that allows such attitudes to fester.

py2006

koumi wrote: »

I do believe however that men do have a responsibility to other men, to make sure these kinds of actions are not considered appropriate and I think you will find that many men do.

Sorry for what you went through.

However, I am not sure how your comment relates to what I said.

koumi

py2006 wrote: »

Sorry for what you went through.

However, I am not sure how your comment relates to what I said.

in what way, I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

Masterofballs

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I didn't say anyone should feel obligated to do anything, please don't put words in my mouth.

I simply mean that a lot of women seem to think it's ok to use one bad experience as a stick to beat all men with.

And it's this new wave of so called feminism that allows such attitudes to fester.

''All men are bastards''

Its an old joke. Its nothing new.

B0jangles

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I didn't say anyone should feel obligated to do anything, please don't put words in my mouth.

I simply mean that a lot of women seem to think it's ok to use one bad experience as a stick to beat all men with.

And it's this new wave of so called feminism that allows such attitudes to fester.

You said:

in other cases it's about allowing one bad experience with a man cloud your view of them as a whole i.e if you experience abuse at a partner's hands it might make you feel better and safer to assume all men are cruel and stay away from them instead of being brave and taking a chance on the genuine guy showing you interest.

You directly equate 'being brave' with 'taking a chance on the genuine guy showing you interest'. I did not put any words in your mouth, that is what you said.

No-one coming out of an abusive situation needs to be told that they are lacking in courage if they are not willing or ready to take a chance on someone just because that person likes them.

And I'm pretty sure both men and women who've been in bad relationships have been saying 'all men are bastards'/'all women are bitches' for as long humanity has had the language to say so, it's nothing to do with modern feminism, its just human nature.

Widdershins

koumi wrote: »

I've been in an abusive relationship, it was many years ago but I take full responsibility for being stupid enough (naive maybe, I was very young) for entering into it. It doesn't absolve him of his actions but it does give me back power to be able to take control of my own life and that was an important step for me. I don't do relationships at all now and have been solidly single for most of my adult life. I think that may be a conscious decision on my part because I think it is the more sensible approach to take to make sure it doesn't happen again, and I can be guaranteed 100% that it won't if I never enter into another relationship!

I do believe however that men do have a responsibility to other men, to make sure these kinds of actions are not considered appropriate and I think you will find that many men do.

Why do you feel you have to take responsibility for entering into a relationship with the person?

You can't have known in the beginning that they'd become abusive.

I don't know how many men would agree that abusiveness is appropriate, but I've overheard an ex's friend 'jokingly' tell my ex to give me a few slaps, take a big stick to me and things like that, to keep me in line. How he thought I was out of line or where the line was is a mystery, but that's besides the point.

AudreyHepburn

B0jangles wrote: »

Hang on, you said:



You directly equate 'being brave' with 'taking a chance on the genuine guy showing you interest'. I did not put any words in your mouth, that is what you said.

No-one coming out of an abusive situation needs to be told that they are lacking in courage if they are not willing or ready to take a chance on someone just because that person likes them.

And I'm pretty sure both men and women who've been in bad relationships have been saying 'all men are bastards'/'all women are bitches' for as long humanity has had the language to say so, it's nothing to do with modern feminism, its just human nature.

Well bravery might be the wrong word but a lot of women coming out of bad relationships do seem to think it's OK to demonize all men because of it and I just don't think that's a fair attitude to take even though I can absolutely sympathize with the women involved.

And your so called modern feminism seems to me to allow women to believe hating on all men because of the deeds of a few is ok.

py2006

koumi wrote: »

in what way, I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

No probs. I just don't think everyone who is or has been in an abusive relationship has to take full responsibility for it. The words and actions of others is the responsibility of the individual.

B0jangles

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well bravery might be the wrong word but a lot of women coming out of bad relationships do seem to think it's OK to demonize all men because of it and I just don't think that's a fair attitude to take even though I can absolutely sympathize with the women involved.

And your so called modern feminism seems to me to allow women to believe hating on all men because of the deeds of a few is ok.

People are allowed to feel whatever way they want as long as they don't act on those feelings in a legally discriminatory way - a woman coming out of a bad relationship is perfectly entitled to not want to go on dates with guys but she can't for example, cite a bad relationship as a reason for not wanting to hire men to work in her company.

Men are entitled to behave in exactly the same way - see the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) as an example of this.

koumi

Widdershins wrote: »

Why do you feel you have to take responsibility for entering into a relationship with the person?

You can't have known in the beginning that they'd become abusive.

I don't know how many men would agree that abusiveness is appropriate, but I've overheard an ex's friend 'jokingly' tell my ex to give me a few slaps, take a big stick to me and things like that, to keep me in line. How he thought I was out of line or where the line was is a mystery, but that's besides the point.

Because I willing entered into it. I didn't know that he would be but had I better judgment I might have made a better decision back then but like I said I was young and didn't have the benefit of hindsight or previous experience to guide me. My daughter says, "well, if you hadn't opened your legs.." and while I know it takes two to tango, the truth is she's got a point.

My father died a few years after these events and my mother will tell you that it killed him, so I do believe that men feel inherently protective of not just their daughters but women in general and most don't want to inflict abuse on them and may also have a hard time watching or knowing of other men who do. I meant in that way I believed that men do have some responsibility toward each other to make sure that behavior isn't the norm.

silverharp

B0jangles wrote: »

Pop on over to AVoiceForMen (For those who've never heard of it it's one of the biggest MRA sites and is run by a guy who youtube name was TheHappyMisogynist) or TheRedPill on reddit and you'll soon get a feeling for what kind of things MRA want and how they like to talk. I'm not putting that stuff here because it is mostly vile.

I note you appear to be blaming social changes you don't like on 'feminists' and then you blame this non-group for not producing a narrative that you personally find convincing. As I said before, feminism is not a political party or club, there is no manifesto beyond pushing for changes where there are inequalities - the majority of the effort is naturally going to be in areas which negatively affect women, but many of the changes feminism seeks also benefit men - specifically with the breaking down of gender roles and gender expectations.

(I should point out that I am not a spokesperson for International Feminism (tm), I'm only expressing my opinion, so if my mask slips and I start roaring KILL ALL MEN, it cannot be taken as evidence of a vast feminist conspiracy to kill all men.)

save me the time? tell me what laws the MRA's want changed and Ill see if I agree with them or not? As for your comments I don't see a convincing case in many cases what these negative effects are for women, take the "pay gap" its like arguing with fog.
I'd describe myself as my kids rights activists which made me have to consider what this beast of a thing called feminism is all about. I don't see anything in it for them especially my son except that potentially groups out there want to tip the education and legal system against him and possibly make him subject to an uncompetitive work environment . Likewise I don't want my daughter advanced at my son's expense. it just appears to be a very unbalanced movement which wants to take down men instead of lifting up women so I have to be aginn it

Wibbs

B0jangles wrote: »

By your argument, posters here who regularly argue from a men's rights perspective should be calling out and disavowing the many extremists in that movement, and I've yet to see that happen.

Well you missed have missed my posts on the matter. I regularly call out the "red pill" and MRA extremists as the utter muppets they are. I think the whole "PUA" trend that kicked off much of it beyond risible and downright nasty as it targets a particular subset of vulnerable young men to claw cash from them. The MGTOW yahoos IMH are for the most part running avoidance behaviour and usually have little choice but to "Go Their Own Way" so they band together to make themselves feel better about it. I see the extremists of the MRA the way I see the modern "feminists", mostly deluded, echo chambered, angry sheep following nonsense and nonsense spouters to make themselves feel better. AKA Muppets.

The only real difference I see between them is that the "feminists" get far more media support and exposure and more government ears too.

Glenster wrote: »

Name the 5 worst people in history,

Men or women?

I rest my case.

You are actually joking here, right? Good god. Yeah, that's a valid argument. In some other universe.

mzungu

koumi wrote: »

Because I willing entered into it. I didn't know that he would be but had I better judgment I might have made a better decision back then but like I said I was young and didn't have the benefit of hindsight or previous experience to guide me. My daughter says, "well, if you hadn't opened your legs.." and while I know it takes two to tango, the truth is she's got a point.

My father died a few years after these events and my mother will tell you that it killed him, so I do believe that men feel inherently protective of not just their daughters but women in general and most don't want to inflict abuse on them and may also have a hard time watching or knowing of other men who do. I meant in that way I believed that men do have some responsibility toward each other to make sure that behavior isn't the norm.

I don't agree there. I think we should all take responsibility for ourselves only, and nobody else. Obviously, if somebody sees something bad going down then report it to the police or relevant authorities etc. But, I am not sure exactly how men could be expected to police things like domestic violence carried out by other men, considering it usually happens behind closed doors?

B0jangles

Wibbs wrote: »

Well you missed have missed my posts on the matter. I regularly call out the "red pill" and MRA extremists as the utter muppets they are. I think the whole "PUA" trend that kicked off much of it beyond risible and downright nasty as it targets a particular subset of vulnerable young men to claw cash from them. The MGTOW yahoos IMH are for the most part running avoidance behaviour and usually have little choice but to "Go Their Own Way" so they band together to make themselves feel better about it. I see the extremists of the MRA the way I see the modern "feminists", mostly deluded, echo chambered, angry sheep following nonsense and nonsense spouters to make themselves feel better. AKA Muppets.

The only real difference I see between them is that the "feminists" get far more media support and exposure and more government ears too.
.

I've seen your many, many posts on the topic W, and the thing that always jumps out at me is that you equate 'the extremists of the MRA' with 'the modern "feminists"' - suggesting that you think every modern feminist is as extreme, as deluded and as irrational as the worst of the Red Pillers and the MRAs. That's quite a chunk of bias right there.

B0jangles

silverharp wrote: »

save me the time? tell me what laws the MRA's want changed and Ill see if I agree with them or not? As for your comments I don't see a convincing case in many cases what these negative effects are for women, take the "pay gap" its like arguing with fog.
I'd describe myself as my kids rights activists which made me have to consider what this beast of a thing called feminism is all about. I don't see anything in it for them especially my son except that potentially groups out there want to tip the education and legal system against him and possibly make him subject to an uncompetitive work environment . Likewise I don't want my daughter advanced at my son's expense. it just appears to be a very unbalanced movement which wants to take down men instead of lifting up women so I have to be aginn it

As far as I have seen MRAs tend to be keener on preventing change than actually advocating for it. Most of the issues tend to be US-centric ones- One issue I think no-one could disagree with them on is male circumcision - its barbaric to carry out on infants and should only be done if medically necessary or if requested for whatever reason either medical or religious by a grown adult.
Another is child custody - this is a dodgier one; they tend to run with the narrative that the courts are biased against men and always give custody to the mother when apparently the split is closer to 50/50 as long as the father actually seeks custody. To be honest, I have rarely heard of MRA groups actually doing much in a practical sense to actively push for the changes they want - a lot of the time it just seems to end up in a lot of complaining about women and feminism.

I presume you want the very best for both of your children so I'd ask you to consider if it is fair that your daughter may be discriminated against in job interviews once she's in her mid-twenties to mid-thirties because of the perception that she might get pregnant. (This is not an imaginary scenario - I've seen multiple threads in Work and Jobs here where posters have openly said they do not hire women in this age group because they might go on maternity leave)

If she does have children, her career may well have to go on hold because of the assumption that primary responsibility for them will fall on her. Even if she does return to fulltime work, she might have the same experience reported by many other women; that once they became parents, they were given fewer opportunities and less important projects because they were perceived as being less focussed on and committed to the job they had once they had a child.

Hence the apparent reason those arguing against the existence of a pay gap tend to focus on women without children as evidence it doesn't exist; I'm not sure why they think this is a surefire argument since doing so effectively acknowledges that since men's earnings are largely unchanged whether or not they have children, women are clearly being penalized for having a family.

mzungu

B0jangles wrote: »

If she does have children, her career may well have to go on hold because of the assumption that primary responsibility for them will fall on her. Even if she does return to fulltime work, she might have the same experience reported by many other women; that once they became parents, they were given fewer opportunities and less important projects because they were perceived as being less focussed on and committed to the job they had once they had a child.

Hence the apparent reason those arguing against the existence of a pay gap tend to focus on women without children as evidence it doesn't exist; I'm not sure why they think this is a surefire argument since doing so effectively acknowledges that since men's earnings are largely unchanged whether or not they have children, women are clearly being penalized for having a family.

That is completely misrepresenting the argument. The line that is trotted out is that it is a job for job comparison, when it is not. That is the part that is contentious. I don't think anybody would doubt that whomever decides to take the parental leave will end up making less money. That is why reform of industry is needed to make it more accommodating so the choices are there.

It is worth noting that in Sweden (often cited as being the most working mother friendly country in the world), mums there choose to work less hours (and make less money) to stay at home and look after their children. They have the option of returning to work, but when the choice is there, they make that decision to look after their children instead. The family friendly policy in Sweden has made it easier for women to drop out of the work force, so they have. However, if they wanted to go back in they are free to do so, but they make the decision not to. No amount of social engineering has skewed the figures for gender differences in parental leave.

So, going by the above, some form of differences in wages will always exist. But it is down to choice as opposed to anything else.

B0jangles

mzungu wrote: »

That is completely misrepresenting the argument. The line that is trotted out is that it is a job for job comparison, when it is not. That is the part that is contentious. I don't think anybody would doubt that whomever decides to take the parental leave will end up making less money. That is why reform of industry is needed to make it more accommodating so the choices are there.

It is worth noting that in Sweden (often cited as being the most working mother friendly country in the world), mums there choose to work less hours (and make less money) to stay at home and look after their children. They have the option of returning to work, but when the choice is there, they make that decision to look after their children instead. The family friendly policy in Sweden has made it easier for women to drop out of the work force, so they have. However, if they wanted to go back in they are free to do so, but they make the decision not to. No amount of social engineering has skewed the figures for gender differences in parental leave.

So, going by the above, some form of differences in wages will always exist. But it is down to choice as opposed to anything else.

The need to reform industry is almost never mentioned when people are declaring that there is no pay gap - the vaguer term 'choices' is employed to gloss over the fact that both parents choose to have a child but the negative career effect of doing so is almost invariably experienced by the female parent.

koumi

mzungu wrote: »

I don't agree there. I think we should all take responsibility for ourselves only, and nobody else. Obviously, if somebody sees something bad going down then report it to the police or relevant authorities etc. But, I am not sure exactly how men could be expected to police things like domestic violence carried out by other men, considering it usually happens behind closed doors?

I wasn't suggesting that they do, I was making the point that they take responsibility for their own actions, to police themselves if you will and if they have sons or brothers or work colleagues they should make it clear it's not fair game, not encourage it.

Will I Am Not

Glenster wrote: »

Name the 5 worst people in history,

Men or women?

I rest my case.

What's your case again???

Widdershins

Kuomi, I think there is room for improvement in how domestic violence is handled. I've known too many people to dismiss it as ''a domestic'' as if the existence of a prior relationship negates the seriousness of it.

Perhaps there were reasons why you chose to stay. I know it's often the case that leaving an abusive partner can result in financial hardship, for example.

Sometimes the person being abused still cares quite strongly for the abusive partner.

It seems like a difficult choice and rarely as simple as just walking away except for those with no real ties to the abuser and plenty of support and money to fall back on.

As for you having ''opened your legs'', that's natural, we all do it. It's a human need, not something to feel guilty about.

koumi

Widdershins wrote: »

Kuomi, I think there is room for improvement in how domestic violence is handled. I've known too many people to dismiss it as ''a domestic'' as if the existence of a prior relationship negates the seriousness of it.

Perhaps there were reasons why you chose to stay. I know it's often the case that leaving an abusive partner can result in financial hardship, for example.

Sometimes the person being abused still cares quite strongly for the abusive partner.

It seems like a difficult choice and rarely as simple as just walking away except for those with no real ties to the abuser and plenty of support and money to fall back on.

As for you having ''opened your legs'', that's natural, we all do it. It's a human need, not something to feel guilty about.

well I had his child, and accordingly could not deny him access. I did try to get away, but it wasn't until I was brought to hospital that I decided the only way to do that would be to skip the country, which I did. I know a lot of people will consider that bad form, but thats the way things were. The gaurds did ask if I wanted to press charges but I honestly just wanted to go away and never come back.

Glenster

red ears wrote: »

Women didn't have much access to power in the past. We have no idea how they would have behaved in those circumstances.

name the three most prolific paedophiles in history.

do women "not have access" to children?

the prosecution rests.

Glenster

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

What's your case again???

no further questions

Will I Am Not

Glenster wrote: »

no further questions

Just put it in your own words... this thing you're trying to say.

mzungu

B0jangles wrote: »

The need to reform industry is almost never mentioned when people are declaring that there is no pay gap

Long before the discussion on wages became a headline, there were numerous calls for us to adopt the Swedish model for childcare from many different quarters.

B0jangles wrote: »

the vaguer term 'choices' is employed to gloss over the fact that both parents choose to have a child

Aye, it is a choice. Both parents choose to have the child. Just like they both come to a decision regarding childminding. I doubt anybody has been coerced into it. Two grown adults big enough and bold enough to make their own free choices.

B0jangles wrote: »

but the negative career effect of doing so is almost invariably experienced by the female parent.

If they are making the choice to remain looking after their child (e.g. Sweden), then what would you suggest? You can't force somebody not to take parental leave. The options are there, but a high number don't wish to avail of it. The best possible scenario is one where all parties are given the choice.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

The need to reform industry is almost never mentioned when people are declaring that there is no pay gap - the vaguer term 'choices' is employed to gloss over the fact that both parents choose to have a child but the negative career effect of doing so is almost invariably experienced by the female parent.

No offence but i find it hard to be overly sympathetic to your point when it presents only one side of the equation. Given the hours i currently put in to enable a position where only one of us have to work for the next few years, given the evenings i miss with my kids due to work, and the cost in time and effort and lack of sleep to make up the workload when i take some time out for special occasions i frankly dont have a lot of interest in worrying about how terrible it is that, shock horror, society isnt prepared to let someone have their cake and eat it.

I'll be damned if I'll make those sacrifices and then be penalised a second time because someone decided its ok to basically lie with statistics to help create their view of a perfect society.

And while this is a choice made by us, make no mistake about it, even if we were both working (as we did for some time) there is far greater tolerance expected in most workplaces for mothers than for fathers. And that position isnt down to men or patriarchy, its how we as a society, men and women, have crafted our social norms.

RabbleRouser2k

koumi wrote: »

men who are with women who treat them like children are usually men who have chosen a wife who they wanted to mother them.

I think that's slightly too harsh, tbh. Our biology, for men at least, is to seek out a mate who would make a good mother to our children.
So oft times we want a motherly figure.

That said, if a woman treats a man like a child, and the man treats her like a mother-that's not a healthy relationship, probably won't last.

Outlaw Pete

Glenster wrote: »

name the three most prolific paedophiles in history.

do women "not have access" to children?

the prosecution rests.

You can be serious.. but just in case you are:

Female Sex Offenders Are Often Overlooked

--- Article written by Julia Hislop, a licensed clinical psychologist and the author of "Female Sex Offenders: What Therapists, Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services Need to Know" and a co-author of "Female Sexual Abusers: Three Views ---

While no one who has researched sex crimes believes that females comprise more than a very small percentage of all sex criminals, a number of factors conspire to keep these women from being detected and prosecuted.

Studies consistently find that a vast majority of both male and female victims of female sex offenders tell no one. Girls face the task of convincing others that females can be abusive and that touch between females can be sexualized. Males are not socialized to report victimization. Their physiological responses can also confuse the issue of consent, leaving them puzzling to explain how, if an erection was present, there was still abuse, or how, if there was not, that sexual acts still occurred.

Female sex offenders are not easily identified. They do not tend to fit the stereotypes of male sex criminals. It is rare that they offend against strangers or stalk serial victims, for example. An exclusive sexual preference for children is also rarely seen among women.

A witch hunt for female sex offenders is unlikely to benefit society. However, it is important to recognize that they can and do commit serious crimes.
They also do not tend to conform to the titillating stereotypes portrayed in the media of attractive young teachers who’ve had sexual relations with teenagers. Females have committed sex offenses against infants, children, teenagers and adults, using varying degrees of coercion and violence. Grandmothers have committed sex offenses, as have prepubescent girls.

Laws protecting individuals from sex crimes have not historically considered female offenders. Rape, for example, often carrying more severe penalties than other forms of sexual abuse, has traditionally been defined in terms of forced vaginal intercourse. While some legal definitions have broadened, females have often been legally incapable of committing rape. Similarly, while victims of sexual violence occurring in the context of violent relationships may be protected by laws against domestic abuse, these laws have generally not pertained to lesbian couples; moreover, victims in these circumstances have historically risked their own prosecution in coming forward.

As states develop laws for determining which sex offenders are dangerous and need longer prison sentences, and which may be helped by treatment, they are limited by the lack of research concerning female sex offenders. The few studies that exist on the topic have found that overall rates of sexual offense recidivism for females are quite low. However, research to determine whether subtypes have different rates of re-offending is only in its infancy. Studies of subtypes of female sex offenders in general have produced very inconsistent findings.

Females convicted of sex offenses have little by way of research-based treatment available to them, and given the limited demand, may have none at all. Their treatment needs may be different from those of men. For example, across studies, the percentage of female sex offenders who have a history of having been sexually abused tends be about 75 percent. It tends to be severe – starting early, and/or involving multiple or closely related offenders, and/or multiple or intrusive acts. While sexual victimization does not by itself cause offending (if it did, more women than men would be offenders), it is likely to have played a role for most female sex offenders.

Given their comparatively small numbers, a witch hunt for female sex offenders is unlikely to benefit society. However, it is important that investigators recognize that females can and do commit serious sex crimes. Their victims can be seriously harmed. Continued research concerning female sex offenders is needed, and as states certify sex offender treatment providers, education related to female sex offenders should be required.

ceadaoin.

mzungu wrote: »

Long before the discussion on wages became a headline, there were numerous calls for us to adopt the Swedish model for childcare from many different quarters.

Aye, it is a choice. Both parents choose to have the child. Just like they both come to a decision regarding childminding. I doubt anybody has been coerced into it. Two grown adults big enough and bold enough to make their own free choices.

If they are making the choice to remain looking after their child (e.g. Sweden), then what would you suggest? You can't force somebody not to take parental leave. The options are there, but a high number don't wish to avail of it. The best possible scenario is one where all parties are given the choice.

In Sweden it's pretty rare to be a stay at home parent, it seems to almost be looked down upon by society because you are not contributing. From what I've read mothers and fathers work less hours after they have a child but few make the choice to give up work completely. in other countries without highly subsidised childcare, lots of people don't really have a choice because working would not be financially worth it for them.

Murrisk

Zulu wrote: »

In before the next cop-out: "Feminism isn't a hive mind".

TBH, it's usually fair when it's said, from what I can see. Usually in response to some moronic generalisation or non-sequitur. Not a cop out at all most of the time, from my own observations. It's as much of a cop out as blaming everything under the sun on 'de feminazis!'.