Equality = Fem-Quality

DubiousDude

Just wondering what the general consensus is with the Irish men on a topic which I have spent much time thinking about over the last few years. Basically the question is - Are us men getting a raw deal from society?

I could sit here and mention dozens of instances where males are constantly targeted and short changed in law and in general everyday life. What I dont want from this is feminists trying to spoil this thread. I am interested on the male perspective on this topic.

Quick examples are:

1. Mens health. Last I checked something like 10x more €€ is spent on female health by the government even though men die on average 6 years ealier. You might be suprised that about 500 females a year die of breast cancer and about 450 males die a year of prostrate cancer -you wouldnt think so if you look at the money spent on awareness campaigns and facilities such as screening on these diseases.
2. Fathers pretty much have no rights in law (but alot of responsibility)
3. Criminal sentancing is vastly more severe for males than females for the same crime commited
4. Domestic violence is pretty much always portrayed as male = perpetrator female = victim. Although research constantly shows that domestic violence is caused about 50% by either sex
5. False rape accusations are desperately under reported even though they are very common. The female is hardly never criminaly prosecuted and jailed even though the falsely accused man/boy is named and shamed in the media all along and his life pretty much ruined by it.
6. Legal age for females to have sex is 17 and for males 16 . So if a 17 year old boy has sex with 16 year old girlfriend its statutory rape but not if its the other way around.
7. Mother cant be accused of raping there son - apparantly its called 'forcing him to have sex with her' and same applies with female teachers.
8. When girls do good at school its reported as look how 'bright these girls are compared to the boys' if it was the other way around there would be a national outcry as to why the schooling system is favouring the boys. Almost all photos in the papers and footage on TV news has girls celebrating their results - no boys to be seen.
9. Females shelters for abused women exist everywhere - show me some male shelters for abused men. Oh yes abussed men dont exist!
10. Divorce settlements - wow not much more need to be said here just ask our monthy python friend.
11. Good male role models and fatehr figures - all I hear about is how women are low in politics and high ranking positions so dicriminatory laws are put in place to favour these women - how come we dont have the same energy in placing males in teaching?
12. Suicide - if as many young females were commiting suicide as males are, the counrty would come to a standstill with a huge government outcry.
13. Car insurance - surely equility means just that? This argument that males crash more so must pay more is silly on many levels - if you want to know why i will be more than happy to explain this to you.
14. Media portays men as bumbling fools - surely if we invented the freakin washing machine we know where to put the tablet in it, noo?
15. Why oh why are females constantly refered to as Ladies and in the same sentence males are refered to as men. Unless I understand my english incorrectly it is boy/girl man/woman lady/gentleman? To me a lady has a specific meaning and a female is a woman untill she is deemed worthy to be called a lady. The same should apply to men.

I could go on and on but halt for now.
For those wondering - I am not a misogamist but I do expect true equality. It seems to me that equility for all intent and purpose's means Fem-Quality. So if its good for women or should I say ladies well then it must be good for all.

Im tired of these double standards.

Share you thoughts on these issues Im really interested to know what the gentlemen out there think.

Tigger

i'd still rather be a man

Mr Benevolent

OP, you're reading too much into the thing. Women are seen as weaker in the eyes of the law, so they get the advantages. That's all.

CDfm

I am a supporter of gender equality and lots of men are and its right and there were all kinds of stupid inequalities.In that way I suppose I was a supporter of feminism but there are versions of feminism out there now that are wacko. So its stopped being equality and become something else.

The best comment on the family courts I read was from Willie O'Dea who said men are treated as if they are a different species.

When did anti-menism become so acceptable because its weird being told that we have it so good as a gender but can be treated like a different race.Dont get me wrong -I like my life but the family court experience left me feeling like I was shat on.Men have negative rights really.

A few years back when there was a spate of husband/partner killing you had defenses based on "battered spouse syndrome" which were not substantiated and used as a legal tactic -Franco Sacco was shotgunned to death and it was like he was on trial. Weird outcome -no convictions.

You dont get the feminist movement campaigning for equality on Death Row in Texas. An extreme example I know but (some sections) of the feminist movement seem to like rights without responsibilities.

One reason I think is that gender equality as a social movement is right. The feminist "movement" (or at least its spokespersons) have morphed into a Political Movement.

norrie rugger

TV is the same, look at any fictional show where it is men Vs women, in some trial/game. The men always lose by either being bumbling/unorganised fools or the women cheat and everyone accepts it.

I am getting really sick of all the negative male images being put forward.


I am also sick of the "Women get paid less" argument. Do you know why they are paid less? because men would walk, if it happened to them. Managers know that women will not do this

Vegeta

norrie rugger wrote: »

I am also sick of the "Women get paid less" argument. Do you know why they are paid less? because men would walk, if it happened to them. Managers know that women will not do this

I am not directing this comment at you norrie rugger but if we are going to have this conversation don't put women down, its not necessary at all to make our point

Stheno

DubiousDude wrote: »

What I dont want from this is feminists trying to spoil this thread. I am interested on the male perspective on this topic.

The two are not mutually exclusive

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feminist

1. Mens health. Last I checked something like 10x more €€ is spent on female health by the government even though men die on average 6 years ealier. You might be suprised that about 500 females a year die of breast cancer and about 450 males die a year of prostrate cancer -you wouldnt think so if you look at the money spent on awareness campaigns and facilities such as screening on these diseases.

Wow that's a huge difference have you govt/HSE figures to show that?

CDfm

norrie rugger wrote: »

I am getting really sick of all the negative male images being put forward.

On aspects of the portrayal of domestic violence I agree even though there is enough evidence to show that both men and women abuse in equal numbers. Female/child abuse is not reported.

I am also sick of the "Women get paid less" argument. Do you know why they are paid less? because men would walk, if it happened to them. Managers know that women will not do this

Stats my good man. I dont agree with gender based pay.If a woman does an equal job she should be paid equally like for like.

Lots of studies have sloppy methodology and dont compare properly so real inequality cant get tackled.

Also - I suspect many women dont want to put in overtime etc. I was on holiday with my girlfriend who checked her emails etc every morning. So to get ahead both genders need to make sacrifices.She should get paid for that.

L31mr0d

When I hear "true equality" what I actually here is "homogenization".

Men and Women will never be truly equal because we are inherently NOT equal. You can give each sex equal rights, but sentiments and perceptions towards each sex will be different.

What Men are experiencing now is the whiplash of centuries of sexism against women. When discrimination rebounds it seldom chooses to rest at the median, rather it whiplashes past the point of equality to oppression and discrimination of those that used to oppress and discriminate.

You can see it in everything from Race, Religion or Creed.

That being said, like Tigger, I'd still rather be a man. Being a white male in the western world is still, sadly, the best position to be in. The pros do heavily outweight the cons, and if you think that's racist, then you are already feeling the cultural whiplash from other PC initiatives that live to spread their inherited western guilt.

Terodil

Anecdotal evidence: Went through a management training yesterday on ethical business conduct. Topic at hand: 'Diversity and respect in the workplace.'

While the presenters were of all colours and genders imaginable, the offenders in the little example clips were exclusively male (and white).

/golfclap

I think you made a very good point, DubiousDude. Especially with a view to the education system that I think is going to disadvantage boys for a very long time to come.

L31mr0d also made a very good point about the whiplash effect, I agree. That doesn't mean I appreciate it though or am in any way in favour of the radical feminism that sometimes rears its ugly head. (I was seriously boggling at a very recent thread in tLL that advocated (even physical) aggressiveness towards males as the only sure-fire way to stay safe from our inherent predatory nature... :rolleyes:)

I would consider myself a feminist in that I absolutely support women in their fight for equal rights and recognition, starting with equal pay for equal jobs, getting men to care for kids (and removing the social stigma attached to it) and recognition of house[men|wives] for their massive efforts and achievement. I still find it unacceptable that there's no proper concept of salary for housework, esp. with regards to old age support.

I'm applauding the progress our society is slowly but surely making here. But I seriously deplore that we're AGAIN making the same mistakes as before. Treating men as stereotypes without realising that gender only determines a minority of behavioral/perceptional/emotional patterns as opposed to the remainder of the genome and the socialisation.

Society as a whole is getting very hostile towards men or behaviour normally perceived as manly. Examples: see above. I hate the double standards that even we males enforce upon ourselves (from the topic of crying and showing weakness to the taboo of hitting a woman, even in (self-)defence).

For goodness sake, can we just start looking at the people themselves, their specific capabilities and behaviour, instead of condemning them because they have that annex (or don't)?

maherro

L31mr0d while I agree with your main points I do not feel that we should sit idly by and just accept things the way they are. True equality might well be unattainable but that should not deter us from trying achieve it.

With regard to the OPs point the comments about sex abuse, divorce courts and in particular the false rape claims stand out for me. The fact that women who cry wolf about rape do not get proseceuted is something that really makes my blood boil.

Not only do such women ruin their victims (and the man is a victim if he is subjected to a such a lie) life they also cheapen the claims of genuine rape victims.

CDfm

L31mr0d wrote: »

What Men are experiencing now is the whiplash of centuries of sexism against women. When discrimination rebounds it seldom chooses to rest at the median, rather it whiplashes past the point of equality to oppression and discrimination of those that used to oppress and discriminate.

You can see it in everything from Race, Religion or Creed.

Every so often you get myths creeping in.

For example in Ireland you didnt have universal male suffrage until 1918 (and women over 30) equal suffrage in 1921. 3 years difference.

So in some places the facts are misrepresented and may have applied to the upper echelons of society. An example of this misrepresentation would be a potato farmer during the famine who was just as oppressed as his wife and kids.

"Feminism" in an affluent modern western industrial society assumes we were all kings and knights and stuff and thats far from the truth.

In the same way how many female bin men and drain cleaners do we have?

L31mr0d

maherro wrote: »

I do not feel that we should sit idly by and just accept things the way they are. True equality might well be unattainable but that should not deter us from trying achieve it.

I never said that, yes we should always be striving for equal rights, for everyone. I just feel that their is a certain futility in trying (again not that we shouldn't try, there is no better option). In our attempts to garner a "true equality", women will inevitably be oppressed again in some fashion. The vicious circle of discrimination has a tendency of endlessly rebounding and repeating itself.

CDfm wrote: »

"Feminism" in an affluent modern western industrial society assumes we were all kings and knights and stuff and thats far from the truth.

In the same way how many female bin men and drain cleaners do we have?

I know the scenario is not black and white. Other factors come into it like race, religion, status, nationality, age... etc. We discriminate on any number of issues, and they are never universal without exceptions. I do not think for 1 second that a female aristocrat was viewed as lower than the male gardener that tended her grounds.

CDfm

L31mr0d wrote: »

I know the scenario is not black and white. Other factors come into it like race, religion, status, nationality, age... etc. We discriminate on any number of issues, and they are never universal without exceptions. I do not think for 1 second that a female aristocrat was viewed as lower than the male gardener that tended her grounds.

But if you are going to say there is inequality it should be backed with facts and you should allow those facts to be challenged.

There were a lot more gardeners than duchesses.Coal miners than mine owners. A lot more foot soldiers than officers -so what I am saying is there are a lot of myths.

L31mr0d

CDfm wrote: »

so what I am saying is there are a lot of myths.

Among people of equal standing and class where women viewed as equal to men? Lets say 150 years ago.

I will accept that there was inequality amongst men, but these are not myths, these come under class distinctions, race... or some other form of discrimination. But within classes of people, who share the same religion and race, women where not given the same rights or respect as men.

If you are saying this has been false for the majority I would appreciate some sources as I had thought it was accepted fact that, until recently, in Christian Europe, women had lower rights to men.

norrie rugger

Vegeta wrote: »

I am not directing this comment at you norrie rugger but if we are going to have this conversation don't put women down, its not necessary at all to make our point

I am not using this to put women down at all. Sorry for misunderstanding.

I meant to convey that the moment a person mentions inequality, against men, someong (be they women or men) counter with "But there is still plenty of inequalities against women"
I do not care (as in that is not my point). I am against inequality be it against men or women. There is no rule that says that all discrimination against women must be stamped out, before we can tackle male discrimination.

CDfm

L31mr0d wrote: »

Among people of equal standing and class where women viewed as equal to men? Lets say 150 years ago.

Ok -so do you accept that the voting thing in ireland is really not an issue then?

In Ireland the right to live in a tenement or work as a tenant farmer or join the army like 000s did in WW1 out of economic nesscessity were not really rights.

Ordinary people had shared miserable existences and the talk of male economic power is just talk if the money goes on rent and food.

I will accept that there was inequality amongst men, but these are not myths, these come under class distinctions, race... or some other form of discrimination. But within classes of people, who share the same religion and race, women where not given the same rights or respect as men.

If you are saying this has been false for the majority I would appreciate some sources as I had thought it was accepted fact that, until recently, in Christian Europe, women had lower rights to men.

OK - lets look at Ireland as thats what the OP started the thread on.

Its about the here and now and reality.

L31mr0d

CDfm wrote: »

OK - lets look at Ireland as thats what the OP started the thread on.

Its about the here and now and reality.

Right let me get the timeline of this straight

1. I say the current discrimination against males is a product of the male discrimination of women in recent history
2. You claim that there a lot of myths about supposed female discrimination
3. I say that I accept the problem is not black and white and that males have been discriminated against for other factors
4. You again say there a lot of myths
5. I ask you to back up this claim about myths regarding discrimination against women
6. You ask me to get back to reality.

I was in the here and now, and was commenting on the present situation by inferring it was as an effect of previous causes. You then decided to take it into the past by arguing that the supposed female oppression in recent centuries is littered with myths.

If you are claiming that, actually men and women have been given equal amounts of oppression and discrimination throughout the centuries in Ireland then, please, I would like to read about this, so I can adjust my opinion.

CDfm

L31mr0d wrote: »

I was in the here and now, and was commenting on the present situation by inferring it was as an effect of previous causes. You then decided to take it into the past by arguing that the supposed female oppression in recent centuries is littered with myths.

If you are claiming that, actually men and women have been given equal amounts of oppression and discrimination throughout the centuries in Ireland then, please, I would like to read about this, so I can adjust my opinion.

Sorry - I edited my post above.

Anyway - subsistence which is how the majority existed was a great equaliser in Ireland.

Its like conscription in the Lisbon debate -thats not a privelage.

So pick an ordinary guy for comparison - a deep sea fisherman or a soldier.

Then compare with an ordinary guy today paying a mortgage etc and its a more accurate test.

EDIT : I hope you don't think I am having a go but saying that in their ordinary lives men and women get on with things. I worked in Sales and covered the country and the majority of people in sales jobs are men because of the unsocial hours etc. In the same way guys do dangerous and dirty occupations. When will we see women drain cleaners -just who is the Dyna-Rod lady?

CDfm

L31mr0d wrote: »

If you are claiming that, actually men and women have been given equal amounts of oppression and discrimination throughout the centuries in Ireland then, please, I would like to read about this, so I can adjust my opinion.

I dont know if such a book has been written about Ireland but I went hunting and came up with this link.

http://www.menweb.org/farreliv.htm

So if you are saying that we always have had an adversorial battle of the sexes over limited resourses I dont really go along with that.

My granny was boss in her house.

DubiousDude

As a male you are far more likely to be assualted walking down a street but media wants us to think females are constantly in danger and are almost always the victim - this is false. Women are the most protected species on this planet both by law and by the males around them.

Lets talk about feminist policies - when female only shortlists are put forward how could I or any one take these women seriously? I respect people who have achieved what they have achieved only through merit and hard work and NOT because they happen to have ovaries as apposed to testes.
I also often hear men saying well I agree with equility so I must be a feminist as an earlier post stated here. Well feminism is NOT about equality, as if that comes as any suprise. If feminism was about equility you would see loads of feminists picketing outside the family courts demanding men start getting custody of their kids. You would get even more feminists picketing outside the family courts demanding men start getting larger divorce settlements from their ex wives. What about prison conditions? Where are the feminists demanding men have private prison cells with showers and tvs? So feminism is not about equility - its about progressing womens rights and if that means to the detriment of men and boys well too bad for them. Hence my title of this post Equility = Femquility.

I am known at work to be 'the contraversial one' and the reason for this is I decided a long time again to speak my mind and leave no stone unturned. What is quite apparant these days is critising women is simply off limits and causes many shocks in the work canteen - although the opposite is quite accepted. Whats also clear is even the men in the canteen agree to this type of ' political corectness'. So when I hear about the ability of women to multi task and how men dont have this ' superior' ability my reply is that multi tasking is TOTALY overated and here is why. It takes total singular focus to study the centtral nervous system of a frog for 20 years to develop and push the boundries of our understanding in science and biology further. That doesnt sound like an inferior ability to me? Also please tell me why females cant play lead guitar - well heres why....because to learn to play lead guitar takes hours and hours of repetitive practicing of scales, and this needs singular focus, not multitasking.You do not need to practice your scales with your left hand and make a cup of coffee with your right hand to become a great lead guitarist.And now heres the rub. Why is it toatally accepted saying men cant multitask but saying females cant focus on one thing with complete concentration is looked apon as sexist?
OR is it that women can do both better than men? Like some sort of superior beings?

My belief on this is - women can multitask better because thats how they are hard wired and men are better at singular focus because thats how we are hard wired - but please oh please dont promote multi tasking to a higher level than singular focus. I happily shout out at work that multitasking is for girls and please give me some real in depth project I can get my teeth into. Amazingly no one ever questions the merits of multitasking! Alot of tasks done half bad is my experience of it.



So being the responsible citizen which I am, I have taken it apon myself to enlighten people I meet and see and work with every day by bringing these topics to their attention and if that causes shock and horror well at least it also gives them something to think about too.
I also insist on nuetral speech too - so if fireperson is the accepted title as apposed to a fireman, well the following should also apply:
Manhunt - man/womenhunt
mother earth - mother/father earth
the devil he... - the devil he/she (surely god cant be a female without the devil also being one?)

Its amazing the reaction you get using such politically correct speech.

DubiousDude

For some reason the above message got truncated- this was meant to be the beggining of it.

CDfm the book that you linked to is extremely enlightening, it is one of the many books I own on this subject.
What strikes me is society's attitude towards females and how over protected females are compared to the quite blatant disregard of males especially when it comes to the emotional and physical health of males.
Its interesting that recent research in Ireland showed that men knew more about breast cancer than they did about prostrate cancer. I find this staggering but totally believable considering the amount of money the government spends on media and awareness campaigns on these issues. As I already mentioned about 400 males die of prostrate cancer a year compared to 450 females of breast cancer. My point is that funding should be proportionate to the issue at hand. Everytime I see a charity fund collection for breast cancer I ask them where the box is for the prostrate cancer and after I get some strange looks and informed this is 'Breast Cancer' collection I pretend to be so suprised even though I never expected any prostrate cancer collection box. I guess its my little way of creating some awareness to the charity people working there.
Something like 99% of all work related deaths are male why is this not front page newspaper headlines?

Herbal Deity

Err... the multitasking thing is a myth.

"Feminism" means a lot of things. I think it is redundant as a word, but many disagree. Anyway, bottom line is you can't generalise like that about every person who calls themself a "feminist". You also shouldn't begrudge groups furthering women's rights just because there are less masculist groups, that's the fault of men for not being active enough.

I do believe that there exists different, but equally limiting social discrimination against males and females and that there is more focus on female issues in this regard, but when speaking on the matter, it's important not to generalise or come across as misogynistic.

Bottle_of_Smoke

You have to remember prostate cancer is almost exclusive to men over 50, breast cancer often occurs in women in their 20s. Therefore its worth spending more money on

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You have to remember prostate cancer is almost exclusive to men over 50, breast cancer often occurs in women in their 20s. Therefore its worth spending more money on

Weird logic -both these conditions are gender specific

1 in 12 men can develop prostate cancer and its particularily debilitating and painful and a very painful death.

They pay their taxes why dont they get treatment?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Also should have mentioned breast cancer(like testicular cancer) is much easier detected by the patient. Usually men with prostate cancer have it pretty bad before they know about it. So we can save more people overall by pumping funds into awareness campaigns.

There's always pamphlets about getting checked for prostate cancer if you're over 50 in doctor's clinics so I think enough is being done.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Also should have mentioned breast cancer(like testicular cancer) is much easier detected by the patient. Usually men with prostate cancer have it pretty bad before they know about it. So we can save more people overall by pumping funds into awareness campaigns.

There's always pamphlets about getting checked for prostate cancer if you're over 50 in doctor's clinics so I think enough is being done.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.

There is a huge gap on life expectancy - 5 years -on the average women are living longer than men – 81.6 years compared with 76.8 years, latest Central Statistics Office (CSO) figures show.

So its obviously not working for men and it is working for women.

Surely to reach men you would put the pamphlets in the workplace etc where they will reach them or advertise during football matches or on the sports pages.

How about the Testicular Cancer Irish Grand National or free Prostate Check for every man in the Audience on the Late Late.That would give awareness.

So no they dont reach the audience.

dogbert27

On a seperate but applicable note: If a man was to work in early childcare and Education he would be labelled a pervert and it's mainly seen as a female only sector.

But then there doesn't seem to be an issue with male teachers in primary and secondary schools, how come?

bluefinger

Interesting Debate
Was on the Community Workers against cuts march a couple of weeks back. At the rally the director of the National Women's Council ranted about how the "men" in government have landed us all in this mess. Whilst i agree that the bigger jobs are populated by men usually, i always find this type of thinking alienating and discriminatory, am i as a man guilty by association? Aren't the women in government or who voted them in equally to blame? What would be different if the gender balance was corrected?

What made this persons points more frustrating was the fact that,
1 the hse is the funder for a huge number of projects that will be affected by the cuts, is run by a woman and has been for many years.

2 the minister for social welfare is a woman, again another department that is a channel of funding for many of these projects in the shape of CE schemes etc.

3 the tanaiste is also the minister for enterprise and employment at a time when there are approximately 450000 people unemployed.

Was struck by what i thought was a completely inappropriate use of a political platform to further an ideological stance. What purpose was served by discriminating between male and female incompetence in this instance?

CDfm

bluefinger wrote: »

Interesting Debate
Was on the Community Workers against cuts march a couple of weeks back. At the rally the director of the National Women's Council ranted about how the "men" in government have landed us all in this mess. Whilst i agree that the bigger jobs are populated by men usually, i always find this type of thinking alienating and discriminatory, am i as a man guilty by association? Aren't the women in government or who voted them in equally to blame? What would be different if the gender balance was corrected?

The jury is still out on whether men are a different race or different species.

I don't know who elected the National Womens Council and I saw something about it being self appointed by a women journo.

If they represent women then I am the King of Siam.

A simple thank you in homage will suffice.

CDfm

dogbert27 wrote: »

On a seperate but applicable note: If a man was to work in early childcare and Education he would be labelled a pervert and it's mainly seen as a female only sector.

But then there doesn't seem to be an issue with male teachers in primary and secondary schools, how come?

From this link the ratio of male to female teachers is 16:84

16% of primary teachers are male and 84% female

http://www.careersportal.ie/careers/detail.php?job_id=348

so there is no issue as the occupation as with nursing is female dominated.

and teaching is a very good and well paid occupation as is nursing

Teachers Common Basic Scale Yearly Increments over 25 years

1
€32,599
€33,754
€34,907
€36,068
€37,865
€39,028
€40,194
€43,123
€44,586
€46,336
€48,077
€49,830
€51,297

€53,238
€53,238
€53,238
€55,916
€55,916
€54,916
€55,916
€59,454
€59,454
€59,454
€59,454
€63,360

CathyMoran

DubiousDude wrote: »

Just wondering what the general consensus is with the Irish men on a topic which I have spent much time thinking about over the last few years. Basically the question is - Are us men getting a raw deal from society?

I could sit here and mention dozens of instances where males are constantly targeted and short changed in law and in general everyday life. What I dont want from this is feminists trying to spoil this thread. I am interested on the male perspective on this topic.

Quick examples are:

1. Mens health. Last I checked something like 10x more €€ is spent on female health by the government even though men die on average 6 years ealier. You might be suprised that about 500 females a year die of breast cancer and about 450 males die a year of prostrate cancer -you wouldnt think so if you look at the money spent on awareness campaigns and facilities such as screening on these diseases.
2. Fathers pretty much have no rights in law (but alot of responsibility)
3. Criminal sentancing is vastly more severe for males than females for the same crime commited
4. Domestic violence is pretty much always portrayed as male = perpetrator female = victim. Although research constantly shows that domestic violence is caused about 50% by either sex
5. False rape accusations are desperately under reported even though they are very common. The female is hardly never criminaly prosecuted and jailed even though the falsely accused man/boy is named and shamed in the media all along and his life pretty much ruined by it.
6. Legal age for females to have sex is 17 and for males 16 . So if a 17 year old boy has sex with 16 year old girlfriend its statutory rape but not if its the other way around.
7. Mother cant be accused of raping there son - apparantly its called 'forcing him to have sex with her' and same applies with female teachers.
8. When girls do good at school its reported as look how 'bright these girls are compared to the boys' if it was the other way around there would be a national outcry as to why the schooling system is favouring the boys. Almost all photos in the papers and footage on TV news has girls celebrating their results - no boys to be seen.
9. Females shelters for abused women exist everywhere - show me some male shelters for abused men. Oh yes abussed men dont exist!
10. Divorce settlements - wow not much more need to be said here just ask our monthy python friend.
11. Good male role models and fatehr figures - all I hear about is how women are low in politics and high ranking positions so dicriminatory laws are put in place to favour these women - how come we dont have the same energy in placing males in teaching?
12. Suicide - if as many young females were commiting suicide as males are, the counrty would come to a standstill with a huge government outcry.
13. Car insurance - surely equility means just that? This argument that males crash more so must pay more is silly on many levels - if you want to know why i will be more than happy to explain this to you.
14. Media portays men as bumbling fools - surely if we invented the freakin washing machine we know where to put the tablet in it, noo?
15. Why oh why are females constantly refered to as Ladies and in the same sentence males are refered to as men. Unless I understand my english incorrectly it is boy/girl man/woman lady/gentleman? To me a lady has a specific meaning and a female is a woman untill she is deemed worthy to be called a lady. The same should apply to men.

I could go on and on but halt for now.
For those wondering - I am not a misogamist but I do expect true equality. It seems to me that equility for all intent and purpose's means Fem-Quality. So if its good for women or should I say ladies well then it must be good for all.

Im tired of these double standards.

Share you thoughts on these issues Im really interested to know what the gentlemen out there think.

Hope that you do not mind a woman posting on this topic. 3 years ago I was diagnosed with a cancer that occurs in both sexes but predominantly in older males and has a very high mortality rate - it was October (breast cancer awareness month) and both myself and my husband were constantly berraged by people promoting breast cancer awareness and one even went after and harrased my husband when he did not give money (she only stopped when my husband got visibly upset and explained). Cancer is a terrible illness but surely awareness of all types of cancer should be promoted. And dont get me started on eating disorders which are considered "female" but that is not always the case.

I have also seen female domestic violence at close hand and I would even consider it worse as there is also an extreme psychological element and it is considered something shameful - there is little if any support.

It is a disgrace that women can use their children as pawns in relationship break-down. I am pregnant at the moment and while I love the child that my husband and I are having, I know that he will be a better parent - having said that, divorce is not an issue for us as we have a rock solid marriage.

I have only addressed a few of these issues but I believe in equality - not bias against men.

Warfi

dogbert27 wrote: »

On a seperate but applicable note: If a man was to work in early childcare and Education he would be labelled a pervert and it's mainly seen as a female only sector.

Luckily I've never heard a man (who worked in education) being labelled a pervert.

However, on a similar note, while I was training to be a teacher the following point was made at one of our group training sessions. We had a male instructor talking about leaving the classroom door open if you happen to find yourself alone with a child. What struck me was that he kept repeating 'This is more so for the lads...... you really have to be careful' which I found sad to say the least. I've also heard that some men feel uncomfortable waiting for their child/children at the school gate.
It's disgraceful that we now have a society where men can and will be viewed with suspicion where children are involved.
This unfounded suspicion of men where children are concerned is unbelievably damaging, in my opinion. It only serves to create a climate of fear, a fear of a whole gender. Why would you trust a woman with your child more than a man? It makes no sense, especially when you see cases like the one that's happening in Britain at the moment.

There are more female teachers than male, but the recent trend is to employ male teachers to redress the balance which I think is a good thing. After all, I think it's in the best interests of the child to view the world through the eyes of both men and women

CDfm

I have a confession to make.

When I see the rants of Joanna McMinn of the National Womens Council or the Annual Domestic Violence Campaigns by Amnesty International something flips inside me. It screams feminazi to me.( No offence meant to anyone here.)

I don't get it. Naturally I am pro-equality but when I see this kind of stuff my blood boils.

Now my son a couple of years back (he is 19 now) was well clued up on the Biting Beaver Controversy and Encyclopedia Dramatica and all that.

So how come I dont understand this when did the lines get blurred along neo-gender lines. How come I cant believe what Im being told. The thing is that this misinformation causes changes in public policy.

I dont really like ready the kind of material that comes out with these campaigns as no matter how well intentioned,it is,extremely offensive.

dogbert27

CDFM: I don't think you got what I was saying. It's not so much men getting jobs in the sector, it's how they are perceived. It's generally accepted that there will be male teachers working with kids in primary and secondary school but that if a man wanted to work in a pre-school he would be viewed with suspicion.
When it was put to staff in a pre-school about a man working in their sector they thought it was a sick idea that a man would want to work with babies and toddlers!

CDfm

I did. It was my own little rant.

I was thru the Family Courts a few years back on custody and access.

Bitter much? Yup!!!!:mad:

On your point - it is sad that this idea is thrown out that men are the abuser and women are the victims. Cos it aint always so

CathyMoran:I have also seen female domestic violence at close hand and I would even consider it worse as there is also an extreme psychological element and it is considered something shameful - there is little if any support.

I have only addressed a few of these issues but I believe in equality - not bias against men.

If only everyone was as balanced as this post.

So it is bad that guys feel discouraged from becoming teachers or nurses as a career option.

How much the "Equality" campaigns have to do with it is anyones guess.

Reading up on some of the Feminist Advocacy Groups they see their roles as being political for a "female constituency" and that is sad when it affects real people.

Thats not to say that sexual harrassment etc in the workplace or glass celings on promotion etc should be tolerated but feminism in its an extreme form is not right.

Bottle_of_Smoke

CDfm wrote: »

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.

There is a huge gap on life expectancy - 5 years -on the average women are living longer than men – 81.6 years compared with 76.8 years, latest Central Statistics Office (CSO) figures show.

So its obviously not working for men and it is working for women.

Surely to reach men you would put the pamphlets in the workplace etc where they will reach them or advertise during football matches or on the sports pages.

How about the Testicular Cancer Irish Grand National or free Prostate Check for every man in the Audience on the Late Late.That would give awareness.

So no they dont reach the audience.

Those figures have nothing to do with prostate/breast cancer. They aren't the main causes of mortality.
I was only saying enough is being done regarding prostate cancer.

I would be more inclined to see testicular cancer as being a candidate for free checks. Or STD tests, or diabetes tests, things that are more likely to lead to death or more likely to severely impact on quality of life for wider age group.

With prostate cancer its unlikely the vast majority of the workforce are going to have it, given who is likely to develop it. Therefore workplace pamphlets are unlikely to be relevant and the funds required could be better spent in other areas. There's much more "deserving" illnesses where those funds could be used

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Those figures have nothing to do with prostate/breast cancer. They aren't the main causes of mortality.
I was only saying enough is being done regarding prostate cancer.

My g/f knows more about mens health than I do. Im learning from her. So obviously the way health issues are communicated to men dont work.

If you can do sex ed at school why cant you do this. If guys dont get pamplets at the doctors then put them at bookies, workplaces etc.

Bottle_of_Smoke

CDfm wrote: »

My g/f knows more about mens health than I do. Im learning from her. So obviously the way health issues are communicated to men doont work.

Its also possible your girlfriend is more interested in health than you. I don't think the government can be blamed for all of mens problems.

If you can do sex ed at school why cant you do this. If guys dont get pamplets at the doctors then put them at bookies, workplaces etc.

Sex ed is done when you're 12-16. Prostate cancer is unlikely to happen until you're 50+ - no one's going to remember that. However, they do mention testicular cancer in sex ed. Unfortunately health is often about prioritising.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its also possible your girlfriend is more interested in health than you. I don't think the government can be blamed for all of mens problems.

Im not saying they are to blame -Im just saying the Health Education Programmes dont reach the audience and the models that work for women dont nesscessarily work for men.

THe government should be blamed if they dont allocate similar resourses to men as they do to others.

Stheno

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its also possible your girlfriend is more interested in health than you. I don't think the government can be blamed for all of mens problems.

There has been recent research in Sweden suggesting a link between the level of education in women, and a correlating positive impact on the life span of their partner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8291667.stm

r3nu4l

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There's always pamphlets about getting checked for prostate cancer if you're over 50 in doctor's clinics so I think enough is being done.

Yes but aren't men much less likely to go to a doctor in the first place? So how many men, particularly in that age category actually go to the doctor in the first place? A few pamphlets in a surgery is nowhere near enough! Most men in the doctors surgery can be found reading golf or car magazines, not health pamphlets! Handing them out at football games, gyms, putting them into clubhouses, pubs etc is the way to go imo.

ALL cancer is bad and deserves early diagnosis and treatment. The sad thing is that prostate cancer is easily detectable so why not have a national screening programme? They have it for breast cancer, why not prostate cancer? Just because women (and some men) can get breast cancer in their 20s is not a valid reason for saying men who are 50+ don't deserve as much information and an education campaign.

DubiousDude

Next time someone says 'manhandled' I m going to correct them and say man/womenhandled. I will also do the same with

man/womenhunt. Surely politically correct english doesn't only accommodate for cushy terms, positions and titles?

It's interesting reading your posts and one thing quite apparant though not so much a suprise is how apologetic or perhaps how tip toe men are in fear of offending women or womenkind. Even though the topic concerns male health and longevity.
I believe this is a sympton and a product of social conditioning. Men are conditioned to protect women and women are conditioned to be protected by men.
This conditioning at a very core level filters down to every day lifestyle/habits. I can't think of one occassion having conversations or reading articles were women have even sounded apologetic when demanding more from government. Whether it be for health or quite simply just a 'womens issue'. It's almost as if they feel intitled to whatever the topic may be that day.
On the other hand just using this thread as an example - men seem to tread very gently on these topics. Just incase their needs might infringe on womens resources.

Men will rather suffer themselves than to see a women suffer. Nature or social conditioning? Perhaps a bit of both?

Now I am a man of science and I find research very interesting. So to back up what I just said here is a factual example.
The Israeli army once included females on the front line in infantry. They dont anymore. The reason being that they discovered after many male fatalities that the men were far less effective in fighting because they were constantly distracated by the need to protect the female infantry. By taking away the females they had a far more effective force, and it stands this way today.
Now you could apply this logic to many things in every day life and if you actually look out for these things you will start noticing. These could be simple things such as 'hey don't speak to my girlfriend that way' were as if it
was your best guy friend the comment may well just turn out to be a joke.
This may seem irrelavent but when you up it a notch and lets say its late in the evening after a few pints and some guy comments to your girlfriend a pretty serious fight can start where police and hospitals get involved. The
original cause for this might have been quite benign but the need to protect the female and also the female expecting she is going to be protected, can result in a violent fight.

This helps put males in a bad light, you know the usuall ' violent testosterone filled blah blah blah...' and the women of course is the innocent victim/bystander.
I was in a fight once were the girlfriend of my attacker was shouting ' kick him in the head kick him in the head' who do you think got arrested? Well certailny not her it was him of course.

So the reason why governments seem to value females lives more than male lives judging by financial resources spent, is the 'need' to protect females.
Also since males are the predominant gender in politics it then turns out that it is men themselves who are choosing to discriminate against men by passing and allowing female friendly policies whether it be in health funding, criminal law, social welfare, schooling, family law, car insurance etc etc.... Well how valiant of them you might say, except that this does not help me or perhaps the other 99% of males one single bit.

r3nu4l

DubiousDude wrote: »

Now I am a man of science and I find research very interesting. So to back up what I just said here is a factual example.
The Israeli army once included females on the front line in infantry. They dont anymore. The reason being that they discovered after many male fatalities that the men were far less effective in fighting because they were constantly distracated by the need to protect the female infantry. By taking away the females they had a far more effective force, and it stands this way today.

Well as a man of science you will know that this anecdote means nothing without published results in a recognised research journal so please quote a source.

I too am a 'man of science'

CDfm

r3nu4l wrote: »

I too am a 'man of science'

I am a 'man of mystery':)

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

feminism in its an extreme form is not right.

I don't think anything in it's extreme form is right.

norrie rugger

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think anything in it's extreme form is right.

what about turning right?

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think anything in it's extreme form is right.

just out of interest - would you consider the speech made by the National Womens Council Director quoted here by Bluefinger to be extreme

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62504102&postcount=29


Interesting Debate
Was on the Community Workers against cuts march a couple of weeks back. At the rally the director of the National Women's Council ranted about how the "men" in government have landed us all in this mess. Whilst i agree that the bigger jobs are populated by men usually, i always find this type of thinking alienating and discriminatory, am i as a man guilty by association? Aren't the women in government or who voted them in equally to blame? What would be different if the gender balance was corrected?

What made this persons points more frustrating was the fact that,
1 the hse is the funder for a huge number of projects that will be affected by the cuts, is run by a woman and has been for many years.

2 the minister for social welfare is a woman, again another department that is a channel of funding for many of these projects in the shape of CE schemes etc.

3 the tanaiste is also the minister for enterprise and employment at a time when there are approximately 450000 people unemployed.

Was struck by what i thought was a completely inappropriate use of a political platform to further an ideological stance. What purpose was served by discriminating between male and female incompetence in this instance?

Macha

norrie rugger wrote: »

what about turning right?

I tried it once; it didn't work out - not to be recommended at all.

CDfm wrote: »

just out of interest - would you consider the speech made by the National Womens Council Director quoted here by Bluefinger to be extreme

Um..hang on, didn't read it. Ah jeez yeah it's awful. Hate that kind of crap.

I especially like the latest one, which is that the economic crisis wouldn't have happened if women were in power..!!

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

I especially like the latest one, which is that the economic crisis wouldn't have happened if women were in power..!!

Behind every sucessful man is a powerful woman.

Has anyone seen Mrs O'Donaghue lately:D

Pherekydes

taconnol wrote: »

I especially like the latest one, which is that the economic crisis wouldn't have happened if women were in power..!!

Women can whinge about men shagging the economy up all they like. Why don't they go and vote for women? There are plenty more Maggie Thatchers and Mary Harneys out there to represent the thoughtful, caring feminine side.