Whinging feminists in the media

Smee_Again

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I've seen this posted a lot recently. Disagreeing with an opinion is not shouting down. Expessing a minority opinion where the majority disagree doesn't mean others are piling on or shouting you down.

Everyone is free to post their thoughts, whether you like them or not. Counter, challenge and debate them if you wish, but claiming you're being silenced is akin to a tantrum.

Yes, but this thread wasn’t started to counter or challenge any specific point other than there are too many moaning feminists and people piled in.

Where’s the countering, challenging or debating of whatever point those feminists are making.

There’s none. Never is. Nor is there any discussion about how to improve the issues affecting men, those threads never gain traction.

But start a thread to bitch and moan about feminists and boom you’ve the usual posters tripping over themselves to post about how those feminists all hate men.

The J Stands for Jay

EddieN75 wrote: »

The citizens assembly have recommended upping the gender quota in political party member elections to 40%

They have also recommended fining or penalising parties who do not meet the quota.

As long as the minimum applies to both genders equally, I'm all for it. As long as there's no quota on who gets elected.

Bobtheman

The society we live in has largely been shaped by men for good and ill.
We do need more women candidates but parties should never be forced to dump one gender candidate because of a quota. Well an unrealistic quota.
A lot of our major ills affect both men and women.
The media love to portray women as suffering more than anybody else. Ain't true.
Adieu

Bobtheman

BTW I just contributed to men's aid. Will continue to do so.
I take the criticism that a lot of men moan bit no nothing.. But that's life!!!

The J Stands for Jay

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This also happens to men, and most victims of street crime (especially violent street crime) are male.

It reminds me of that statistic I saw which said 1 in 4 journalists killed in war zones are women. Why isn't the statistic 3 out of 4 journalists killed in war zones are men?

I saw an article saying that 14% of homeless (don't remember the exact number, but it was well below 50%), and whatever organisation quoted in the article wanted to reduce that percentage. Ok, let's find loads of men and throw them on the streets.

Leg End Reject

Bobtheman wrote: »

I do. How you can be shouted down is beyond me. It's social media. I often comment on teacher threads and I know I will get hostility.. It's par for the course.
It's up to you when you think it's gone too far to report it.
You are entitled to your views but it's social Media.

I don't think anyone is being shouted down, I replied to a poster who made that claim.

If you read my post you'll see we actually agree.

The J Stands for Jay

Economics101 wrote: »

Some years ago a court in (I think) Belgium ruled that insurers could not discriminate on the grounds of gender (or sex as it was termed then). This made proper risk-based pricing almost impossible for insurers. The most notable example is for motor insurance. Insurers are able to discriminate on the basis of age so that young risky drivers are charged more than older less risky drivers. But young male and female drivers must be charged in a similar way, otherwise its sex discrimination and therefore illegal.

Consider the implications: big increases in premiums for young relatively safe careful female drivers and big reductions for young male tearaways. This is effectively a subsidy to dangerous driving and more deaths on the road. Any response from the feminists?

Don't forget about annuities, women began to benefit from men dying earlier by getting higher annuity rates.

Leg End Reject

Smee_Again wrote: »

Yes, but this thread wasn’t started to counter or challenge any specific point other than there are too many moaning feminists and people piled in.

Where’s the countering, challenging or debating of whatever point those feminists are making.

There’s none. Never is. Nor is there any discussion about how to improve the issues affecting men, those threads never gain traction.

But start a thread to bitch and moan about feminists and boom you’ve the usual posters tripping over themselves to post about how those feminists all hate men.

If you disagree you should counter, challenge and debate.

Accusing others of bitching and moaning isn't going to achieve anything.

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Your assumption that those in power are guided by the identity politics of gender is a false one. For most of the last 1,000 years in Ireland the men AND women in power were focused on the personal. The majority of the population were regarded as sub human to be used and abused. To look at that history through a gender discrimination lens shows a deep (and worrying) misunderstanding of every aspect of history. It is up there with young earth creationism and flat earth theory as an almost wilful ignorance.

+1 This is missed from the debate a big way. Human civilisation itself was built on the foundation of a small group of men and women in power that control the lives of the majority. Hierarchical societies with an elite at the top is how you spot the shift from small tribal hunter gatherer societies to large city based agricultural ones. It's been in play since the days of Uruk springing up on banks of the Euphrates. Men and women, especially at the bottom(which was most) were "enslaved" and seen as "resources" according to their gender.

Again men were the spear throwers expected to die for their city/nation/religion. Come back carrying your shield or be carried back upon it. This is written large in our cultural DNA. Still is, even at a remove in our comfortable Western societies. There's a reason why films like 300, glorifying male sacrifice are still big hits. Women were the bearers of children and protectors of the hearth and culture and tasked with revving up the men to do their duty and enforce that culture(which is also in that aforementioned flic). Fats forward to more recent history: The Suffragettes are noted as the first real political force in equality for women and they were, but what tends to be forgotten, or left out, is during WW1 the same Suffragettes were handing out white feathers to those men they saw as cowards because they wouldn't fight.

I would argue that societies go more towards masculinism or feminism depending on the level of threat to a society. In the stages of empire and society building they're very masculine, as they stabilise they go towards more equality and the longer they're stable and threats are few the more feminine they become in focus and when they fall apart the masculine comes back to the fore. Rinse and repeat. We're living in a long period of social stability with few external threats so it makes sense societies become more matriarchal.

Smee_Again wrote: »

And yet here we are in a thread of men trying to shout down women.

I don't see much shouting down of women. Not everything is or should be framed as an attack. Though again this is a common thread in identity politics and the defence mechanism within them. Frame all critique, even questions around the credo as attack. Another tenet of identity politics is the notion that if you see questions as an attack you're likely coming from a position of "privilege", yet the same identity politics never see themselves in this fashion.

Smee_Again

Bobtheman wrote: »

BTW I just contributed to men's aid. Will continue to do so.
I take the criticism that a lot of men moan bit no nothing.. But that's life!!!

Fair play, I donated last time it came up and was disappointed that so few also donated.

The J Stands for Jay

purifol0 wrote: »

How many men have been thrown out of their homes by the justice system on the word of a woman?


Do you think women don't hit men? And when they do, do you reckon men feel ok reporting it?



Why is only physical violence counted in domestic violence? Is psychological violence & bullying and abuse not a thing because it doesn't leave bruises.

End result, more men homeless, suicidal and their children left fatherless.

If the guards are called to a domestic, it doesn't matter who they were told was being violent, the man gets taken out of the home.

GingerLily

Economics101 wrote: »

Back to Actuarial science, insurance, and discrimination. I thought that the type of discrimination which is (rightly) illegal is when it is due to pure prejudice and without any rational basis: such as not hiring someone because of their skin colour or gender. If there is statistical/actuarial evidence that one belongs to a high risk group then having to pay a higher premium is not caused by prejudice, but by evidence.

It illegal to price customers differently or offer/refuse them different services based on any ground that is protected by discrimination law.

Where's there's evidence they can hold certain customers in a higher risk group for internal uses but only when there is evidence and it cannot affect the customer. Most companies now will not even bother segmenting on these grounds because it's too messy.

The J Stands for Jay

Overheal wrote: »

I think that’s a very melodramatic stance. The court ruled against discrimination. The result was insurance prices would have to be adjusted to neutral among males and females that was actuarially given to those drivers based on the factor of their sex. Subsequently that’s going to mean a net decrease in male premiums and net increase in female premiums if women have been getting cheaper premiums for no other virtue than their sex.

...That doesn’t stop insurers from charging any “tear away” driver, male or female, a higher premium, for the actuarial reason that the driver has proven to be a risk not in any regard to their sex.

It does set a precedent that a case could be taken against discrimination based on age (another protected characteristic). Of that happened, you'd have a 50 year old woman paying the same motor insurance as a 17 year old lad. The gender ratings weren't discrimination, they were based on facts backed up by statistics.

The J Stands for Jay

Overheal wrote: »

... how do you intend to ‘count’ instances of psychological violence? Etc? “She turned off my television show and made us watch Great British Baking I am suffocating!?” I mean that seriously though who defines what psychological violence is and how is it feasible to quantify? For either male or female aggressors?

There have been recent high profile convictions here and in the UK for coercive control. It's there on the statute books.

jackboy

Wibbs wrote: »

I would argue that societies go more towards masculinism or feminism depending on the level of threat to a society. In the stages of empire and society building they're very masculine, as they stabilise they go towards more equality and the longer they're stable and threats are few the more feminine they become in focus and when they fall apart the masculine comes back to the fore. Rinse and repeat. We're living in a long period of social stability with few external threats so it makes sense societies become more matriarchal.

This is true. For equality to persist in the long term that cycle needs to be broken. This will be hard to do as most people don’t realise there is a cycle. If feminists keep using the extreme strategies as they are it is inevitable that things will snap back like they were 100 years ago. Long term success can only come from breaking the cycle which will be a complex difficult thing to do as it will need to be done worldwide.

As harsh as it may sound, it always has been and always will be down to men to decide the levels of equality in society (due to physical imbalance).

The J Stands for Jay

Morgans wrote: »

If they were issues, the men who have been in power for millenia and currently remain in power would surely have sorted them. It's not for the lack of representation that the issues are still a factor.

Apart from the 'meritocracy' simply reinforcing any inequalities in society - those starting out with greater resources are more likely to be best prepared- the idea that these unmerited promotions can be objectively proven seems a stretch.

It's a long way from the days when government employees could count on any females being barred from any promotion or forced to leave their job because they got married - aaah the good old days.

Anyone who thinks it's all about make versus female is a mug who is thinking exactly how the elite want you to think. It's about them versus us. Us being the 'ordinary' people, and them being the ruling class. The ruling class is different in each country, but they all look out for their own interests. They aren't necessarily all men; gender isn't something that factors into being part of this group. You can blame all your issues (for men and women) on the patriarchy, but you need to realise it's discriminating against everyone who isn't them.

I find it ridiculous that we're told that we need diversity in boards and in senior management, and the solution is more women. There's no diversity of thought between a BlackRock College attitude and a Holy Child Killiney attitude.

Beasty

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I have a friend who did a PhD in gender studies.

She told me she was the only person in the department who:

a) didn't hate men

b) had a relationship with a man

She said the entire department was either man hating lesbians or mentally ill heterosexual women who hate men so much they date women.

My friend is very normal and nice, I don't know how she got through it.

Most feminists I've met are either dumb or mentally ill. I think most of them on TV and in the publishing world are just grifters.

There's a lot of money in victimhood.

Threadbanned

The J Stands for Jay

py2006 wrote: »

Where do men go? Who will believe them?

Men stand to loose more by walking away from abusive relationships, not only the house but the children as well.

And their property, and future earnings.

The J Stands for Jay

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is it though. Women have an activist group who lobby for their issues. They have worked for decades in spite of tremendous opposition and now we have a situation where there are places for women to go if they find themselves in those situations, women are taken seriously when they report abuse and its in the culture to care about women's issues.

But instead of simply supporting men's lobby groups to do the same things on behalf of men, we have weekly threads giving out about how successful women's groups have been at achieving change. They will simultaneously mock them for being ineffectual and also bemoan the progress made for women and hasn't been made for men. All without a hint of irony.

If half the threads whinging about feminists, were actually about positively supporting men's issues, then men would be in a better place. You can tell what people care about by how they approach things. If they cared about men's issues then they'd start threads about those issues. But they care about giving out about feminism so thats what they start threads about. These threads whinging about feminists are fine in so far as they're completely harmless and useless. Get it all up, you'll feel better in the morning.

It usually better to avoid going against the matriarchy in these matters: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Silverman

The J Stands for Jay

Annasopra wrote: »

Exactly. There are a lot of issues affecting men but a lot of those whinging about feminists dont reallly care.

And some of us know that often sticking your head above the parapet for men's issues is social suicide.

Bobtheman

Bobtheman wrote: »

The society we live in has largely been shaped by men for good and ill.

Traditional society was. However, throughout my lifetime, that hasn't been the case.

We live in a market driven society, where consumerism has massive power over social change... and women have consistently represented the major part of consumer spending, both as individuals and also as the controller of funds in marriage.

During my lifetime, I've seen a wide variety of laws, and social rules brought in to bring about "equality" for women, protecting them in the workplace, and providing them with security in society, while retaining most of the protections that were available to them under the previous traditional society.

Women have been involved in the development of society during the last forty years.. and feminism has had a huge impact over the policies that governments implement throughout that period. The results are obvious..

We need to move away from this perception that women have had little involvement in the development of society, because it's simply not true. Western society has drastically changed from the days when women were discriminated against.. and it's changed extremely quickly.

We do need more women candidates but parties should never be forced to dump one gender candidate because of a quota. Well an unrealistic quota.
A lot of our major ills affect both men and women.
The media love to portray women as suffering more than anybody else. Ain't true.
Adieu

Pretty much... but we must respect people's choices. Women have preferences, just as men do. It doesn't have to be about barriers preventing them from entering/succeeding in said role, but simply, that women are less interested in such positions for a variety of reasons.

99nsr125

bubblypop wrote: »

Women are polish, Chinese, traveller etc also

What about quotas for people who don't identify as a traditional gender.

Having one group prioritised for places is discriminatory to all others

Gender quotas legalise sexism and discrimination

99nsr125

99nsr125 wrote: »

What about quotas for people who don't identify as a traditional gender.

Having one group prioritised for places is discriminatory to all others

Gender quotas legalise sexism and discrimination

It makes a mockery of competition and equality.

Rather than people getting positions based on their qualifications/skills, they're getting it based on their gender. So.. if you, as a male, is passed over for a position, it's not something you can compete against. You can't get better education, skills, knowledge, etc to compensate.. against the decision to choose someone else because they fit a desired factor such as gender or race. It's completely unfair.. and it pushes us away from having an equal society, where people are rewarded for the investment they put into their personal development.

Mike Murdock

McGaggs wrote: »

And their property, and future earnings.

You can see why movements like MGTOW have sprung up.

Mike Murdock

Mike Murdock wrote: »

You can see why movements like MGTOW have sprung up.

Because deeply inadequate men want to sulk and spend their lives beating themselves off to gonzo porn while hating women?

joseywhales

Deleted User wrote: »

Because deeply inadequate men want to sulk and spend their lives beating themselves off to gonzo porn while hating women?

tut tut, judging people based on their sexual proclivities.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Because deeply inadequate men want to sulk and spend their lives beating themselves off to gonzo porn while hating women?

Perhaps, although then again, there are many men who have real reasons for seeking to limit their interactions with women, due to being hurt. Hurt emotionally, financially, and legally. Many western countries have laws which give women far too much "protection" and cause serious problems for men.

There is the extreme end of MTGOW, but then there's a large group of men who have valid reasons for their opinions. It's no different from a wide range of feminist groups who complain/hate men because of their own negative experiences...

I've no interest in MTGOW myself... it's not how I react to life, but I do have a variety of American friends who would advocate for it, due to their own really bad experiences with women and society.

Morgans

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Your assumption that those in power are guided by the identity politics of gender is a false one. For most of the last 1,000 years in Ireland the men AND women in power were focused on the personal. The majority of the population were regarded as sub human to be used and abused. To look at that history through a gender discrimination lens shows a deep (and worrying) misunderstanding of every aspect of history. It is up there with young earth creationism and flat earth theory as an almost wilful ignorance.

I didn't assume that those in power were guided by identity politics. The point was that the list of 'mens issues' weren't issues. Strawman word salad afterwards.

Bobtheman

Brenda power whinging this morning.
Blaming male cruelty on women makes me snap.

Pawwed Rig

Morgans wrote: »

I didn't assume that those in power were guided by identity politics. The point was that the list of 'mens issues' weren't issues.

You did

Morgans wrote: »

If they were issues, the men who have been in power for millenia and currently remain in power would surely have sorted them