Whinging feminists in the media

Morgans

99nsr125 wrote: »

How about where the continual push to force women into the same occupations traditionally done by men.

The people pushing that agenda seem to hace some underlying inadequacy that they can't resolve through merit and transfer there feelings into an ideology.

How about you let women decide want they want to do and excel at it, like in medicine.

The 'problem' is I clearly do understand the argument but have highlighted the concept of consent is thrown out the window when it doesn't suit the narrative for feminists. They who then advocate the disagreeable women need to be 're-educated' away from roles they excel at and are paid well for.

Here an often quoted example
Why are they not more female electricians rather than nurses. Well guess what nurses earn more than electricians, it's a better job with a significant and rewarding career path with commensurate pay.

Then when it suits the agenda it's sexism and nothing about the actual terms and conditions.

Nurses earn more than electricians - a nice surprise from the thread.

Overheal

Morgans wrote: »

Nurses earn more than electricians - a nice surprise from the thread.

Here I thought they were quite comparable. A nurse is just biology's electrician kinda

dark crystal

Silentcorner wrote: »

What a predictably one dimensional attitude.

"Bodily Autonomy" .... what age are you? Are you capable of an origional thought yourself?

Silentcorner wrote: »

You spend time on reddit so you'd know, I don't go near the place...maybe you should stop frequenting the place because it is clearly an issue for you...not everyone is going to think the way you do...that is life.

You're 45???? You sound like a 19 year old Gender Studies student...how can a 45 year old women be worried about bodily autonomy in this country today and go on to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with her as incapable of origional thought!!!

py2006 wrote: »

Rather than insulting posters, perhaps you should contribute with something with a bit more depth.

Men (and women) are allowed call out ridiculous feminists articles and discuss them here.


EDIT: sorry, moderator just posted before me on this

Yeah, the insults should stop being thrown for sure.

If you read back on my initial posts, hopefully you can understand the point I was making.

And on that note, I'll bow out.

Pawwed Rig

99nsr125 wrote: »

I actually have a study from a feminists group thay says jusy this.

Men work longer hours and get the higher position

Except they tried to frame if as high flying women having to rush home for domestic duties which is ridiculous.

There is no hope in hell highly accomplished women are rushing home to sweep the floor or some other such nonsense.

I know a lot of very successful men and women. The one thing that most of them have in common is a spouse that stays home. Without that level of support getting to the high positions is extremely difficult. It is rare to see 2 over achievers in a relationship with each other ime.

py2006

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, the insults should stop being thrown for sure.

If you read back on my initial posts, hopefully you can understand the point I was making.

And on that note, I'll bow out.

No, hence the warning for your posts.

Wallet Inspector

I think elements of today's feminism can be quite misogynistic - throwing other women under the bus simply for refusing to deny biology, and that "Karen" slur. And calling women prudes if they express concern about aspects of sex work.

I'm feminist in the Gloria Steinem sense (although she's started denying biology too recently, but before then) but I think the take on it today is all over the place. It's more about woke, fashionable bullsh1t for optics than anything of substance.

It's not perfect for women (nor men) in the West but to claim we're oppressed is baffling. I saw someone say recently that attitudes towards women here are third world. Really? It's like Pakistan and the Congo here?

I also notice a hesitancy to speak out against highly patriatchal communities - simply because they're minorities.

py2006

Only today we had a female politician on the radio referring to men that have been in politics over the last 100 years as "mediocre men"

Leg End Reject

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I know a lot of very successful men and women. The one thing that most of them have in common is a spouse that stays home. Without that level of support getting to the high positions is extremely difficult. It is rare to see 2 over achievers in a relationship with each other ime.

Yep, no one can have it all. Either both work long hours and become weekend parents, or one takes on more of the parenting and housework.

There are some stay at home dads, albeit in much lower numbers than mothers. The reality though is that more women prefer to be the primary carer and not to work. As long as both partners are happy it shouldn't be looked upon as negative.

Just because women have the right to work doesn't mean they are obliged too, and being a parent has value that can't be measured in financial terms.

There's also a lot of work shy people of both genders, whether parents or childfree, but that's another discussion entirely.

Leg End Reject

py2006 wrote: »

Only today we had a female politician on the radio referring to men that have been in politics over the last 100 years as "mediocre men"

The irony is the vast majority of us are mediocre, very few are exceptional in any way.

py2006

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The irony is the vast majority of us are mediocre, very few are exceptional in any way.

Now now, I happen to know you are VERY not mediocre.

Pawwed Rig

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Just because women have the right to work doesn't mean they are obliged too, and being a parent has value that can't be measured in financial terms.

That is the crux of the issue. Is equality getting to do what you want to do in life or making sure every job has a 50% even split? Logic (to me at least) would say that giving everyone the opportunity to be what they want to be in life is better than forcing a ratio. There are loud sections that argue for the latter and it really doesn't make sense to me.

Tell me how

py2006 wrote: »

Only today we had a female politician on the radio referring to men that have been in politics over the last 100 years as "mediocre men"

Oh my, she didn't say that did she? Oh the outrage. Before the watershed?

Have you seen what has been said about Eoghan Murphy today? Or every other politician that is in the news.

When the head of the EU Commission met with her colleague the head of the EU Council and the PM of Turkey recently, there were only 2 chairs available for them in front of the EU and Turkish flags and she had to move to the side and sit on a sofa.
When the Scottish first Minister Nicola Sturgeon met with UK PM, Theresa May at a time when Brexit was pretty intensely in the news, the Daily Mail went with this heading to accompany the photo from their photo op.



FFS, is that where we are at? Someone referred non-specifically to mediocre men over a period of 100 years.

py2006

Daily Mail

mohawk

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I know a lot of very successful men and women. The one thing that most of them have in common is a spouse that stays home. Without that level of support getting to the high positions is extremely difficult. It is rare to see 2 over achievers in a relationship with each other ime.

That would definitely be my observation over the years one partner has to take a backseat to the others ambitions. I would add that successful women seem to be less likely to have children then successful men.

I know I am never going to be in senior management in my industry one reason is because I don’t want to put in long hours. To me extra hours at work are time missed from watching my son grow up. My Ex on other hand has always prioritised long hours at work in order to get ahead in his career. Back when we were together he couldn’t of done that unless there was someone collecting our son from Childcare, getting the dinner, putting him to bed, doing chores to keep us in clean clothes and a clean house etc. Now that we are separated he often blames me for their poor relationship.

anewme

Tell me how wrote: »

When the head of the EU Commission met with her colleague the head of the EU Council and the PM of Turkey recently, there were only 2 chairs available for them in front of the EU and Turkish flags and she had to move to the side and sit on a sofa.

That was just inexcusable.

meeeeh

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is the crux of the issue. Is equality getting to do what you want to do in life or making sure every job has a 50% even split? Logic (to me at least) would say that giving everyone the opportunity to be what they want to be in life is better than forcing a ratio. There are loud sections that argue for the latter and it really doesn't make sense to me.

A lot of this is cultural. 30 years ago I was one of three kids in my primary school class whose mother's didn't work outside home. She worked from home in family business and the other two worked on family farms. None of my school mates in high school or university, male or female, would consider being stay at home parents. I know less than five women in total where I grew up who decided to be solely home makers and they are all deeply religious.

I'm all for giving everyone the opportunity to be what they want but offer them shorter commute, better and cheaper childcare and a bit more flexible working hours and then see how quickly women will be prepared to sacrifice their professional career.

dark crystal

dark crystal wrote: »

Would most men describe themselves as masculinists? Very few people away from internet boards like this one tend to define themselves in such ways.

Except there's never (yet) been a movement for men, that has garnered the sheer amount of attention that feminism has. Between the historical first and second waves of feminism which marched alongside the Anti-war or Civil rights movements of the 60s/70s, right through to the associations between the movement of feminism, and most of the improvements in women's lives in the 20th century.

Feminism is established in academia, and psychology in a major way, and again, is represented extremely well in the media. Which means that feminism is a term and has associative meanings for most women.. whereas most men would go "huh"if someone asked them about men's rights groups.

The problem with numerous threads like this, often employing ironic titles such as "Whinging feminists" whilst continuing on the do the exact same thing in the ensuing post, is that instead of dwelling on what it means to be a man nowadays, they tend to be entirely oppositional and it’s hard to escape the feeling that most of them are simply out to trigger the ubiquitous feminists, rather than develop a genuinely original body of thought.

Alas you're failing to account for the decades of feminism that has made itself known in education, the media, in business, in government, in changes of the law, etc... and then, there's a natural reaction to the host of negative opinions that has come from feminists themselves, and those who advocate along similar lines to feminists, which are often extremely unflattering of men.

The simple fact is that feminism is the most successful movement of the 20th century. Any further movements, whether they be organised, or simply the expressions of people on the topic, will mirror many of the techniques that were used to move women's rights forward. And that does include the whining, or pushing of buttons.

It was brought up earlier in the thread that most of these threads prefer to engage in gender war nonsense and demonise 'da feminists', rather than actually shine a spotlight on men's issues in their own right.

Gets the usual likes, I guess. Lazy and predictable as fu*k though.

Well... TBH. When it comes to men's issues, most of the non-male responses I see tend to follow along the lines of "man up". Few people really care that much about men's issues, and Male Rights groups haven't gained any real degree of momentum to encourage people to see things from alterative angles. It's simply easier for people to focus on women's issues because there is an attitude that by paying attention to men's issues, then you're taking the focus away from women's issues.

As for a gender war.. not really. There is a conflict since we're moving fast away from gender equality, with an obscene amount of people falling over backwards to justify reverse discrimination in the name of "equality". I would say there's an identity war, as opposed to a gender war.. but that's a broader issue...

Most people (male and female) have very little interest in any of this until it affects them directly. The problem is that recent decades have shown that small groups can generate enough support to effect change, that does affect the majority, even though the majority generally don't care.. until they do.. at which stage they're left wondering, how can we change things?

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except there's never (yet) been a movement for men, that has garnered the sheer amount of attention that feminism has.

Except religion and politics through the history but who would count those.

Overheal

meeeeh wrote: »

Except religion and politics through the history but who would count those.

thousands of years of recorded history covering a predominantly male governed human civilization, but then feminism shows up in the 1970s and we're left in 2021 thinking "when is it going to be our turn?"

(Spoiler alert the chauvinists they are looking for went to the US Capitol)

sgsdfsdfsd

Dunno if anyone posted this drivel in the Indo today from a "whinger": whinges and special nonsense highlighted:

Von der Leyen has done a favour for women everywhere by speaking out about her shameful treatment in Turkey

Nicola Anderson

WAS it one of those all-too-familiar situations where you end up stewing over the long list of things you could have said, if only you’d thought of them in time? Or was it her friends and colleagues who urged her not to let this one lie?

We may wonder about what led Ursula von der Leyen to speak out about her shameful treatment in Turkey at the start of the month, but the fact is, she has done a favour for women everywhere.

If one of the most powerful women in Europe was able to be rendered invisible, what hope for the rest of us?

In the female lexicon, there is no direct translation of “every man for himself”. As a philosophy, it doesn’t really exist. Or, at least, not on the surface.

If the summit meeting photo opportunity in Turkey had been of three women, Ms Von der Leyen would never have been left without a seat. Why? Because no woman would have sat down until everyone had one. That’s just generally how we do things. And as a system, it works very well.

In the world of international diplomacy, it is vital to be in possession of one key attribute – the sparkling veneer of exquisite manners. Unfortunately, it is only that – a veneer.

What if the meeting in Turkey had comprised solely of three men? Again, it’s fairly safe to say that two of them would not have bullishly charged for the best seats in the house. Such an act would have been deemed a protocol faux pas of toe-curling proportions.

But two men and one woman? Ah, that’s a different kettle of fish. You wanted equality, didn’t you? Then you can bid adieu to chivalry. Manners and diplomacy be damned. It’s every man for himself.

This was a snowball of spectacular crassness. It involved a failure of both basic manners and international diplomacy, compounded by a clash of basic gender values that on the face of it, saw the humiliation of the President of the European Commission, Ms von der Leyen.

However, it actually exposed European Council President Charles Michel and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a pair of buffoons.

Like overheated children grappling frantically for the last spots in a game of musical chairs, they didn’t give a fig about how out of breath they got, or how ridiculous they looked in the process.

And so we saw President von der Leyen standing awkwardly when the only two chairs set up for a photo opportunity in Ankara were snapped up by the (presumably triumphant) President Erdogan and President Michel.
In a video, it is clear that Ms von der Leyen feels awkward, gesturing with her right hand as she says “ehm” when Erdogan and Michel take their seats at the top of the room beside the respective Turkish and EU flags. She eventually was offered a seat on a sofa at the side of the room, opposite Turkish foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who has a lower rank in diplomatic protocol.

Ms von der Leyen, like a ‘good girl’ at the party, was expected to take her snubbing quietly and keep her mouth shut. Because, of course, anything else would be against diplomatic protocol.

But she didn’t do that.

It might have taken her two weeks but she bravely denounced their rudeness in a statement to the European Parliament – even going so far as to hint that it had been a deliberate snub.

"I am the first woman to be President of the European Commission,” she said. “I am the President of the European Commission. This is how I expected to be treated when visiting Turkey two weeks ago, like a Commission President. But I was not.

“I cannot find any justification for how I was treated in any European treaties, so I have to conclude that it happened because I am a woman. Would this have happened if I had worn a suit and a tie?

"In pictures of previous meetings, I did not see any shortage of chairs, but then again I did not see any pictures of women either," she told the chamber.

In this, she was astute. She had been left standing without a chair, not because of the rudeness of Mr Erdogan and Mr Michel but in reality, because not enough chairs had been laid out by the Turkish hosts in the first place.

This petty snub had been calculated and premeditated. In previous similar meetings, the three presidents have all sat together.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I know a lot of very successful men and women. The one thing that most of them have in common is a spouse that stays home. Without that level of support getting to the high positions is extremely difficult. It is rare to see 2 over achievers in a relationship with each other ime.

Pretty much. There's a compromise involved. One chooses to focus on their career, and the other focuses on the children. They can still have a career but won't be able to dedicate themselves enough to reach the top.

The "problem" though, is that women don't just want to have children, they want to teach them to speak, to see them walk their first steps, to be there when they cry... and that's a problem because it takes time away from work. It also takes attention away because most successful entrepreneurs or directors will end up working at home after their normal work day. If your attention is split with your children taking up most of your attention, then you professional career will suffer. Most women who have children, want to be mothers rather than simply having a child.

Which is why compromises happen. Most men are fine with missing many of the little things when a child is very young... whereas most mothers I've known, treasure those moments as being priceless.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Except religion and politics through the history but who would count those.

In both cases, with religion and politics, they weren't movements directed at the male gender as a whole. Both religion and politics were led by societys' aristocrats who certainly didn't represent the interests of the majority. They were elitist systems.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pretty much. There's a compromise involved. One chooses to focus on their career, and the other focuses on the children. They can still have a career but won't be able to dedicate themselves enough to reach the top.

I will tell my friend who is mother of two kids, married to a surgeon and adviser to prime minister (after being law researher for supreme court) that she could be really successful if she only focused on her career.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

thousands of years of recorded history covering a predominantly male governed human civilization, but then feminism shows up in the 1970s and we're left in 2021 thinking "when is it going to be our turn?"

(Spoiler alert the chauvinists they are looking for went to the US Capitol)

Suddenly feminism shows up, and even more suddenly women have had a voice in social development. As opposed to those thousands of years, as mothers/wives/etc. All that time raising children, and none of them were capable of influencing the development of society. Better yet, let's dismiss all the women who held back social/cultural change. Nah. They didn't exist. "Men" controlled everything.

It is simply amazing how far people will go to excuse women for the state of society throughout history, and pass the buck entirely over to men.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In both cases, with religion and politics, they weren't movements directed at the male gender as a whole. Both religion and politics were led by societys' aristocrats who certainly didn't represent the interests of the majority. They were elitist systems.

Run by men and in the way that favoured men.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

I will tell my friend who is mother of two kids, married to a surgeon and adviser to prime minister (after being law researher for supreme court) that she could be really successful if she only focused on her career.

Tell her whatever you like... (if she even exists outside of your own head) :rolleyes:

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Suddenly feminism shows up, and even more suddenly women have had a voice in social development. As opposed to those thousands of years, as mothers/wives/etc. All that time raising children, and none of them were capable of influencing the development of society. Better yet, let's dismiss all the women who held back social/cultural change. Nah. They didn't exist. "Men" controlled everything.

It is simply amazing how far people will go to excuse women for the state of society throughout history, and pass the buck entirely over to men.

"Yes! Where was Hitler's mother in all this!"

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Run by men and in the way that favoured men.

"Run by "men" and in the way that favoured some men.

Alas politics had a habit of sending men to work in coal mines, or to fight in wars. And religion kept the lower classes in place, ensuring that those men stayed in the coal mines or the wars as the lowest of the low.

But nah. That was all for the benefit of "men".

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

"Run by "men" and in the way that favoured some men.

Alas politics had a habit of sending men to work in coal mines, or to fight in wars. And religion kept the lower classes in place, ensuring that those men stayed in the coal mines or the wars as the lowest of the low.

But nah. That was all for the benefit of "men".

Whom tended to favor some women, or sometimes many women. :P

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tell her whatever you like... (if she even exists outside of your own head) :rolleyes:

I can give you the name and you can google her. It won't be in English though. We were school mates in high school. My sister in law does majority of parenting and as a contractor runs medical trials for pharmaceuticals. There are more examples among my friends. It's not my problem you only know women whose only desire is to watch their kids grow (according to you).