Discrimination against Men

james finn

sam34 wrote: »

maybe he wasnt taught it in school and therefore couldnt possibly be expected to know :rolleyes:

thought that fathers had rights and in what year wer the rights removed,
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 can you tell me. oh i see you cant back up your claims cos the law on this hasnt changed since 1916

sam34

james finn wrote: »

thought that fathers had rights and in what year wer the rights removed,
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 can you tell me. oh i see you cant back up your claims cos the law on this hasnt changed since 1916

eh no, if you look at my post which you quoted, you'll see the post i quoted,and was referring to, from MM, which was about how the magdalene laundries operated, teh circumstances in which most of teh pregnant were and the circumstances of the fathers.

but hey, it's not the first time you've put words into my mouth in this thread, so i guess i shouldnt be surprised.

i have made no statements regarding changes in fathers rights

james finn

sam34 wrote: »

eh no, if you look at my post which you quoted, you'll see the post i quoted,and was referring to, from MM, which was about how the magdalene laundries operated, teh circumstances in which most of teh pregnant were and the circumstances of the fathers.

but hey, it's not the first time you've put words into my mouth in this thread, so i guess i shouldnt be surprised.

i have made no statements regarding changes in fathers rights

your talking about many years ago, the laws have changed for the better, but not so when it comes to fathers

iptba

metrovelvet wrote: »

Historically the men have had it better. Its only recently that they [arguably] don't.

Personally, I don't accept that this has been proven satisfactorily. Men were conscripted (often dying or being injured on the battlefield), women generally weren't conscripted. Men were more likely to die in the workplace.

But what happened in the past isn’t nearly as important as what happens now.

sam34

james finn wrote: »

your talking about many years ago, the laws have changed for the better, but not so when it comes to fathers

i'm not talking about the law in relation to fathers at all

i;m talking about the basic principle of taking responsibility for your own actions

james finn

sam34 wrote: »

i'm not talking about the law in relation to fathers at all

i;m talking about the basic principle of taking responsibility for your own actions

i;m talking about the basic principle of taking responsibility for your own actions,,,,,,, as in kids should take resonsibility and look it up online?

sam34

i'm not going to keep repeating the same stuff for you

you can read my earlier posts

they are quite clear

if you cant comprehend them, that really isnt my problem

james finn

sam34 wrote: »

i'm not going to keep repeating the same stuff for you

you can read my earlier posts

they are quite clear

if you cant comprehend them, that really isnt my problem

This thread is not about 50 years ago can you comprehend that,

we are talking about 2010 and you have no points to make on women only back 50 years ago, when men had rights to kids as you have said yourself????????

Cliona99

OP, Male circumcision has been shown, (by some studies), to reduce the risk of HIV infection. So I disagree with the assertion in the article that it "has as little benefit as removing someones eyelid."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Female genital mutilation on the other hand

* (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
* The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
* Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths.
* An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
* It is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 years.
* In Africa an estimated 92 million girls from 10 years of age and above have undergone FGM.
* FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

(From the World Health Organisation website). There is no comparison to male circumcison.

sam34

james finn wrote: »

This thread is not about 50 years ago can you comprehend that,

we are talking about 2010 and you have no points to make on women only back 50 years ago, when men had rights to kids as you have said yourself????????

god almighty, you are making this up as you go along!

as i said myself??

when did i say anything about the rights men had, or hadnt, 50 years ago??

i have made plenty of comments on people (and i mean people to include men and women) taking responsibility for their actions, particularly when info is so available in this day and age

you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend that point, and so have put words into my mouth and attributed sentiments to me that i have never expressed

The Corinthian

Dudess wrote: »

And I hate how feminism is always brought into these discussions - as if it's the only reason for discrimination experienced by men.

It's not the reason, but it is certainly a reason why such discrimination persists.

Feminism as a movement sought to redress those disadvantages that affected women, originally in a time when they far outweighed the advantages. However, those advantages that women had, such as their control of child care, were left well alone or - worse still - actively argued against greater equality of rights in those areas, equating fathers rights or masculism with misogyny.

Ultimately (and I already said it here) the single biggest reason that this discrimination persists is due to mens' own attitudes to being seen as victims. However, it cannot be denied either than some branches of modern feminism also act against equality.

While I acknowledge feminism has been twisted by many with a warped agenda, thank fuk for feminism - because women would not be able to work wherever they want, study/train in whatever they want, vote or go back to work when married/after having babies, if it were not for feminism.

At this stage women have more choice than men. For example, it is still stigmatized for a man to 'stay at home' to care for the children or even as a home-maker. Where it comes to reproductive rights, men actually have only abstinence or sterilization as choices, while women have numerous other options.

Ironically, the former imbalance of choice has come to bite women on the ass, as it were. Women are still assumed to be the ones who will stay at home and care for the children, because they retain all the power in this area and have made no attempt to change this or the surrounding attitudes, and so it is women's careers that lose out in the end, leading to lower long-term salaries and positions (women are several times more likely to take breaks in or leave their careers early than men). You can't have your cake and eat it.

Commonly this salary gap has been repeatedly been portrayed as discrimination, but it is beginning to dawn on people that it is largely a self-inflicted discrimination, and claims that women get paid less for the same job than men are simply not being believed any more.

metrovelvet

iptba wrote: »

Personally, I don't accept that this has been proven satisfactorily. Men were conscripted (often dying or being injured on the battlefield), women generally weren't conscripted. Men were more likely to die in the workplace.

But what happened in the past isn’t nearly as important as what happens now.

I agree re conscription [although weren't officers afforded a pretty good career through military options?]

I should have been clearer. I meant men have had it better in relation to having children out of wedlock.

iptba

Cliona99 wrote: »

OP, Male circumcision has been shown, (by some studies), to reduce the risk of HIV infection. So I disagree with the assertion in the article that it "has as little benefit as removing someones eyelid."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Female genital mutilation on the other hand

* (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
* The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
* Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths.
* An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
* It is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 years.
* In Africa an estimated 92 million girls from 10 years of age and above have undergone FGM.
* FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

(From the World Health Organisation website). There is no comparison to male circumcison.

I think female circumcison (=FGM) is a bad thing and haven't seen any justification for it.

However there are quite a lot of people who think male circumcison is a bad thing. For example, I read bits of a discussion on the BMJ website where many people including doctors were advocating against it. But I think FGM is worse myself.

Herbal Deity

Cliona99 wrote: »

OP, Male circumcision has been shown, (by some studies), to reduce the risk of HIV infection.

So what? If you cut off someone's ear it eliminates the chance of getting an ear infection. Doesn't make it right.

The way I see it, male circumcision is a medical procedure which is sometimes necessary (and tbh, from what I've heard, I think doctors are far too quick to suggest it), however, I would consider it male genital mutilation when done routinely at birth or for non medical/religious reasons.

The FGM stories are much more horrifying, and the damage inflicted is generally much more varied and severe, but it doesn't mean there's no comparison. I would consider the fact that male circumcision is so accepted in the supposedly developed, civilised, western world without there needing to be any real medical reason for doing so, to be perhaps more horrifying on a different level.

spurious

Back to the point that the reason most men don't complain (for example about offensive ads) is possibly because of a reluctance to seem weak - do the guys here think that's true?

I found the recent CSO figures regarding the gap between the numbers of female and male graduates (for I think it was the 23-30 age group) horrifying. There was something like an almost 20% higher proportion of female graduates in the age cohort.

That is unsustainable in a society that wants to avoid serious trouble in the future. If those figures were the other way round, there would be major protests and calls for action from women. Why is there such apparent silence from men?

Mr. Presentable

Cliona99 wrote: »

OP, Male circumcision has been shown, (by some studies), to reduce the risk of HIV infection. So I disagree with the assertion in the article that it "has as little benefit as removing someones eyelid."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Female genital mutilation on the other hand

* (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
* The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
* Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths.
* An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
* It is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 years.
* In Africa an estimated 92 million girls from 10 years of age and above have undergone FGM.
* FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

(From the World Health Organisation website). There is no comparison to male circumcison.

For the male it is a medical term "circumcision"

For the female it is an evocative title "Female genital mutilation"

I don't agree with either procedure but I draw your attention to the phraseology. This is (small) symptomatic of the overall problem. Feminism has been great for women, but it needs to be moderated.

Mr. Presentable

spurious wrote: »

Back to the point that the reason most men don't complain (for example about offensive ads) is possibly because of a reluctance to seem weak - do the guys here think that's true?

I found the recent CSO figures regarding the gap between the numbers of female and male graduates (for I think it was the 23-30 age group) horrifying. There was something like an almost 20% higher proportion of female graduates in the age cohort.

That is unsustainable in a society that wants to avoid serious trouble in the future. If those figures were the other way round, there would be major protests and calls for action from women. Why is there such apparent silence from men?

Because evidence from the press, the courts, the society in general is that men would be wasting their time due to the extra protection women get, and because the female "poor downtrodden me for generations" card will come out.

Mrmoe

I am not really bothered about adverts that demean men. I think there is an equal balance between adverst that demean both men and women. I would prefer to focus attention on areas that have a direct effect on men where they are routinely discriminated against such as family law and parental rights. I can happily ignore adverts that make men out to be buffoons but I could not do the same if I was denied equal rights towards my offspring. It is important to pick the battles and not lose sight of what is actually important to the majority of men.

spurious

I think you can't really do one without the other. If one group are portrayed as 'less able' foolish creatures, or IMO more offensively as hormone driven sex maniacs (which is another spin that is put on men) I think you can forget anything more serious.

I would be very worried about future educational trends for young men. An almost exclusively women-run society is not one I would like to live in, any more than I would have liked to live in an almost exclusively male-run one.

Macha

spurious wrote: »

I would be very worried about future educational trends for young men. An almost exclusively women-run society is not one I would like to live in, any more than I would have liked to live in an almost exclusively male-run one.

Are we are anywhere near an almost exclusively women-run society? What relationship does that have with the education of young men?

On that topic: why do women generally outperform men in education - and what exact measurement is being used?

Re: male circumcision - I personally agree that it is a form of unnecessary mutilation based on outdated cultural norms. But it should not be confused with FGM, which normally involves a far more serious and physically damaging operation.

amacachi

taconnol wrote: »

Are we are anywhere near an almost exclusively women-run society? What relationship does that have with the education of young men?

On that topic: why do women generally outperform men in education - and what exact measurement is being used?

Not yet, however I thought it was more or less accepted that in the long term higher levels of education lead to better paid and more powerful jobs.

Why do women outperform men? I'd probably have my throat jumped down if I were to say why I think it is so. What measurement is being used? I'd guess the number of degrees, Leaving Cert results, that kind of thing.

Dr Galen

Why do women outperform men? I'd probably have my throat jumped down if I were to say why I think it is so. What measurement is being used? I'd guess the number of degrees, Leaving Cert results, that kind of thing.

once you stay within the rules as laid out in the charter, go ahead and make your point. I think its a very interesting topic for discussion tbh. Maybe even worthy of a new thread

Macha

amacachi wrote: »

Not yet, however I thought it was more or less accepted that in the long term higher levels of education lead to better paid and more powerful jobs.

If that were the case, women would be in the best paid, most powerful jobs. This is not the case.

amacachi wrote: »

Why do women outperform men? I'd probably have my throat jumped down if I were to say why I think it is so. What measurement is being used? I'd guess the number of degrees, Leaving Cert results, that kind of thing.

No, I mean is it that people feel the system is not suited to men? If so, in what way and what should be changed about it? If not, what else is impacting on men's education, outside the education system?

Would we be advocating similar if women were not performing as well as men? For example, look at the recent introduction of an additional test to get into Medicine in university, with the explicit intent of reducing the numbers of women studying medicine - is this an example of the type of positive discrimination that people want to see?

Zulu

A (somewhat) interesting aside for your information, for those who live in Dublin: Meadows & Byrne at Clare Hall have a huge add hanging on their shop front since before christmas. It consists of a number of pictures (of home ware etc.) to the motto: "New home, new life, new man, new woman...". Not a whole lot wrong there, however:

The picture of the model for "new woman" is a full head to toe shot, clothed.
The picture of the model for "new man" is a male naked torso, torso only.

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who pointed out (my issue was the imbalance - both should be naked) that the real concern was that the head of the man was missing. She was of the opinion that this represented the intellegence. To her the add meant that the only use of the man was for the body.

Four months later the add persists (yes I did complain btw). It goes without saying if the sexes were reveresed the add would never had seen the light of day.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

Four months later the add persists (yes I did complain btw). It goes without saying if the sexes were reveresed the add would never had seen the light of day.

Do you mean an ad involving a topless woman or an ad involving a significant amount of nudity on the part of the woman?

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

Do you mean an ad involving a topless woman or an ad involving a significant amount of nudity on the part of the woman?

Which do you feel more accuratly coincides with the point I was making?

Put another way, do you have a problem with the point of my post, or do you simply not understand?

metrovelvet

Were you complaining that she wasnt also topless or wasnt also headless?

citytillidie

taconnol wrote: »

Do you mean an ad involving a topless woman or an ad involving a significant amount of nudity on the part of the woman?

Or they both could have been clothed. There was no reason for the man to be shirtless.

Zulu

My complaint was that their close up of a male torso with the head cut out was sexist and inappropriate.
I suggested that a similar representation of the female form in a bikini focusing only on the chest would be utterly unacceptable.

Zulu

citytillidie wrote: »

Or they both could have been clothed. There was no reason for the man to be shirtless.

...or for the head to be missing.