In what ways are men discriminated against?

PrincessLola

iptba wrote: »

That's what we are conventionally told. However, women these days sometimes do choose to use "Mrs" themselves, even in situations when they don't need to give a prefix so, like with a lot of conventional wisdom, I question whether it is as simple as that.

Its their choice, but didn't used to be a choice for women.

You can't entirely erase the past. I mean you could theoretically ban the use of 'mrs' but then you'd get the 'PC gone mad' brigade up in arms.

iptba

PrincessLola wrote: »

Its their choice, but didn't used to be a choice for women.

You can't entirely erase the past. I mean you could theoretically ban the use of 'mrs' but then you'd get the 'PC gone mad' brigade up in arms.

Yes, but my point is to wonder why some women still use it, and then wonder whether the same might have applied in the past. For example, it may signify that providing the woman is now the man's responsibility to a greater or lesser extent?? I don't know why women still use it but it does make me think some women believe there are advantages to it and hence, that there could also have been advantages to it in the past for women.

The Corinthian

PrincessLola wrote: »

OK fair enough, I just didn't think men would want to voluntarilly give up their name, a social practise that was used to descriminate against women.

It's relatively rare; typically when the man does not much like his name or prefers his wife's name (often for social reasons - one of Kubrick's protagonists did this).

iptba wrote: »

Actually, "quite a lot" may be an exaggeration now that I've checked a database*

'Miss' has been going out of fashion for a while, from what I can make out - as over a certain age it gives the impression of an ageing spinster. My guess is that it will go the way of 'Master' for boys, in time.

panda100

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is if they want to change their name to the wife's one. Doesn't happen very often, but in fairness it does upon occasion. So while it's hardly a major topic of discrimination, that I personally would not lose too much sleep over, it still is a fair example of where the law discriminates solely on gender.

I agree there is inequality at play here. Men should be allowed to choose their wives surname, though I highly doubt many would choose to do this. My view is that marriage should be an equal partnership.Its tradition that women take a husbands surname because women were subservient to men in a marriage, and their husbands property rather than their own individual. I agree that the law is discriminatory, but I would be of the persuasion that this practice is far more discriminatory towards women.

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, Mrs and Miss are all but gone from the English language, at least in usage, having been replaced with the more generic Ms. In other languages, while Ms does not exist, the equivalent of Mrs is typically used regardless of marital status. So the analogy is a bit moot.

In my experience this is not really the case. There are a large array of websites and forms that still do not have a 'Ms' option to tick. I am often asked whether I am a 'Miss' or 'Mrs' when asked for my personal details. It can be very annoying.

Dudess

py2006 wrote: »

Unfortunately, not all feminists fully realise what the movement is about. There is a branch of extremist among them that do the movement no favour and irritate the hell out of people with their double standards and deluded comments and behaviour.

Anyway, this thread is about discrimination against men, not about 'heads' coming in and telling us how we blame women.

We all know about those crackpot feminists obviously - as you acknowledge yourself though, not all feminists are like that.

iptba wrote: »

There is too much censoring of men raising points about men's lives in the 3-D world. I'm sure plenty of the people, who directly or indirectly cause this censorship, claim they do it, or believe they do this, for the greater good.

Questioning isn't censorship. As someone said, there are real and serious issues facing men for being male - don't think anyone reasonable would disagree with that. I've worked with male survivors of domestic abuse, sexual abuse by women, who have been prevented from seeing their kids. These appalling problems are getting sidelined though by the laughable complaints about not getting a shag.

iptba

Dudess wrote: »

iptba wrote:

There is too much censoring of men raising points about men's lives in the 3-D world. I'm sure plenty of the people, who directly or indirectly cause this censorship, claim they do it, or believe they do this, for the greater good.

Questioning isn't censorship.

You're right, it's not necessarily.

Dudess wrote: »

As someone said, there are real and serious issues facing men for being male - don't think anyone reasonable would disagree with that. I've worked with male survivors of domestic abuse, sexual abuse by women, who have been prevented from seeing their kids. These appalling problems are getting sidelined though by the laughable complaints about not getting a shag.

I'm not sure why there has to be any prioritisation system. It's not like there is a set amount of money and we're deciding how it is to be allocated.

I don't see why people can't brain-storm and throw things out that occur to them.

vicwatson

panda100 wrote: »

Really?? You honestly think that women changing their name to their husbands is discrimination against men? Do you think the title 'Mr' is discriminatory too, as it doesn't allow men to declare their marital status or sexual availability in their title?

Yes

Dudess

@iptba
Well it's hostile, and shouldn't it be considered whether it's discrimination first?

It must be really horrible for a guy to experience knockback after knockback, and worse again to be ridiculed, and for his confidence to get irreparably damaged, but it's hard to feel sympathy for guys who view this as a conspiracy against them by all women. Taking it personally - hard not to, but not right. Investing energy in making changes (including basic PUA confidence tips if needs be) would be far more beneficial and helpful to the guy.

I very much agree too with the concerns re certain music videos, song lyrics, advertising, TV and film portrayals of/attitudes to men. It's dreadful - and far too accepted. It also puts women in a crap light.

The way it's ok for punters to grope male strippers is grotesque also IMO.

Dudess

vicwatson wrote: »

panda100 wrote: »

Really?? You honestly think that women changing their name to their husbands is discrimination against men? Do you think the title 'Mr' is discriminatory too, as it doesn't allow men to declare their marital status or sexual availability in their title?

Yes

Perhaps consider the roots of it so - it's very much not intended as discrimination against men. I personally wouldn't have a problem with changing my name to married one for some stuff but would keep my maiden name for other stuff.

PrincessLola

iptba wrote: »

Yes, but my point is to wonder why some women still use it, and then wonder whether the same might have applied in the past. For example, it may signify that providing the woman is now the man's responsibility to a greater or lesser extent?? I don't know why women still use it but it does make me think some women believe there are advantages to it and hence, that there could also have been advantages to it in the past for women.

The fact that certain women choose to use the prefix 'Mrs.' instead of 'Ms.' does not denote that women were generally benefitting from their historic status as property of their husbands.

Furthermore, you are trying to twist the situation of women as their husband's property into a position of privilige. It was not.

I am sympathetic to your position, but I do not appreciate what you are doing here, you are appropriating women's historical inequalities to make them out to be male inequalities.
Its like saying that it was men who were discriminated against by the lack of womens' suffrage, because men had all the responsibility and pressure of voting and being in power. Its called appropriation.

Wompa1

Dudess wrote: »

And what are guys gonna do about these grievances? Apart from bitching about feminists for not taking on their causes? For all their evil and the way they make this world so terrible for men with its male president of America at least feminists try to do something about what they consider discrimination.

That's true there was a show on HBO over here the other night with a group of lesbian feminists having a masturbation-athon for a Feminists group charity...it brought a tear to my eye, good thing I had some tissues handy already!!! eh eh? I'm kidding they were all ugly as fook! And that's not me using a stereotype it's a matter of opinion for that select group of ugly, short haired, beady eyed women

PrincessLola

Wompa1 wrote: »

That's true there was a show on HBO over here the other night with a group of lesbian feminists having a masturbation-athon for a Feminists group charity...it brought a tear to my eye, good thing I had some tissues handy already!!! eh eh? I'm kidding they were all ugly as fook! And that's not me using a stereotype it's a matter of opinion for that select group of ugly, short haired, beady eyed women

What does you seeing unattractive lesbians on HBO got to do with her point?

You are in actual fact attempting to diminish feminism by calling the women involved ugly. Its kind of, well, petty.

Wompa1

PrincessLola wrote: »

What does you seeing unattractive lesbians on HBO got to do with her point?

You are in actual fact attempting to diminish feminism by calling the women involved ugly. Its kind of, well, petty.

Her point was at least they do something. The show on HBO wouldn't be the first case of a feminist group in my opinion who do things more for attention and to be controversial than to actually help the cause. It's like Hippies who tow the Hippy line on absolutely every social and political issue because they want belong and have that image. I'm not saying that's everybody in that group or in the group of feminists but I do believe there are some.

The Corinthian

Dudess wrote: »

Perhaps consider the roots of it so - it's very much not intended as discrimination against men.

Past discrimination against women was not intended as discrimination against them either, but protection. So intention should not diminish the actual effect of such laws.

PrincessLola

Wompa1 wrote: »

Her point was at least they do something. The show on HBO wouldn't be the first case of a feminist group in my opinion who do things more for attention and to be controversial than to actually help the cause. It's like Hippies who tow the Hippy line on absolutely every social and political issue because they want belong and have that image. I'm not saying that's everybody in that group or in the group of feminists but I do believe there are some.

Must have been terrible for you I guess,
being forced to watch non-conventionally attractive women embrace their sexuality in a manner that does not cater to heterosexual men. I mean it had to be all for attention, right? right?

Otis Driftwood

Ok,this thread has been skirting the lines of off topicness for a couple of days now,I think the masturbating feminists is the final nail in the coffin.

Locked.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zulu

At risk of posting OT: thanks a million Permabear for reopening this.

The Corinthian

I think how this thread found itself on this board is not a bad example of how men are discriminated against nowadays.

It originated on a board allegedly dedicated to men's issues, but where discussion on issues such as men's rights have long been discouraged. That it was ultimately locked there on the pretext of a small number of stupid posts (a policy that, if followed elsewhere, would likely close down 90% of threads on Boards) rather than issuing warnings and/or infractions underlined this policy of discouragement. Meanwhile, women's rights issues appear to suffer no such discouragement on that board's 'sister' board.

It's a problem you see it in other discussions here and in the wider World, where the idea that men could even be discriminated against is often dismissed or even ridiculed.

This attitude of devaluing men or their rights is regrettably utterly ingrained in our society. For example, the media routinely will report death tolls from disasters, yet then highlight a subtotal of "women and children" as if the loss of their lives are greater.

Another example is where atrocities in Africa are reported, the emphasis is almost always on the rape of women. That far more men are killed arbitrary, tortured or worked-to-death barely gets any attention.

It seems to me that as a Society we are far less comfortable talking about men's discrimination than women's. Are we suffering from a post-Patriarchal guilt trip? Or is it a throwback of the biological imperative that argues that women are less easily replaced than men where it comes to reproduction?

Why is it still acceptable to save "women and children" first from a burning building? Are men less flammable than women?

Are men truly so expendable? Do we see ourselves as such through our own, frankly, chauvinistic perpetuation of such values?

Whatever it is, it's devastatingly disheartening that it seeks to routinely silence any dissent, even here.

Zulu

I was debating whether or not to point out what happened to this thread, but I decided to leave it consider I was sending the PM's. I reckon it's probably in the threads best interests to leave it at that, but thanks TC for mentioning it. And thanks again Permabear for taking the thread.

With respect to Africa, and rape. I read an article (I'll see if I can dig up a link later), a very very disheartening article about male rape in the conflicts in Africa. The crux of it was that men we being raped in significantly large numbers, but that due to the culture over there, a raped man could expect to be shunned from his wife, family & life.
It maintained that the act of raping a man - other than the obvious - effectively turned him into a social pariah. A raped man wasn't suitable to be a husband, and wasn't suitable to be a father.
So these poor men had no support at all. To admit being a victim of this crime was to risk loosing their family.

Truly horrendous, nightmare stuff.

Pawwed Rig

I don't know if you have seen the article this week about the Polish dentist who removed all of the teeth from her ex boyfriend. The reporting was nearly comical in how it desribed the situation with many of the comments egging her on or blaming him for 'not knowing better'. Thought of this thread when I read it.
Obviously the woman is a psychotic nut job but seems to be getting most of the sympathy or LOLs

seamus

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't know if you have seen the article this week about the Polish dentist who removed all of the teeth from her ex boyfriend. The reporting was nearly comical in how it desribed the situation with many of the comments egging her on or blaming him for 'not knowing better'. Thought of this thread when I read it.
Obviously the woman is a psychotic nut job but seems to be getting most of the sympathy or LOLs

I thought the same when reading the article. It was almost presented in a "And now on the lighter side" piece.

If the roles were reversed and it had transpired that a jilted man had removed his ex-girlfriend's teeth, it would be pitchforks time with people calling on him to be done for rape, torture and attempted murder and all sorts.

We seem (as a society) to have normalised the "woman's scorn" phrase such that it's almost treated as a joke when a woman goes over the edge and does something like this. That should really be offensive to women too because it's writing off their issues as "just a few aul hormones sending her mad, sure isn't it funny".

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't know if you have seen the article this week about the Polish dentist who removed all of the teeth from her ex boyfriend. The reporting was nearly comical in how it desribed the situation with many of the comments egging her on or blaming him for 'not knowing better'. Thought of this thread when I read it.
Obviously the woman is a psychotic nut job but seems to be getting most of the sympathy or LOLs

Echo's of the Lorena Bobbitt or of many of the child sexual abuse cases that involved "lucky" boys in their early teen years and their 'attractive' older female teachers.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that such gender prejudices often cut both ways. Women, for example, who sleep around are sluts, men who do the same are studs. Nonetheless, these attitudes appear to be changing a lot faster for women than men, largely because they are better known, understood and society has begun to reject them.

Morag

vicwatson wrote: »

Women can change their name when they get married and can legally be referred to as their maiden and marriage name if they want, if a man wanted to do it he'd have to do it by deedpoll.

Legally men can change their name to their spouses name when the get married.
There is no difference there under the law what so ever.

The Corinthian

Sharrow wrote: »

Legally men can change their name to their spouses name when the get married.
There is no difference there under the law what so ever.

Actually, from what I can make out, both require a deed poll to do this, but that this is somehow only included as part of the marriage registration for women.

I suspect someone from a legal background would probably have to clarify what the real story is - naturally with sources.

Ellis Dee

The fact that the most vociferous complaints about men being discriminated against come from the likes of John Waters, who seems to have more axes to grind than he has had hot meals, makes me suspect that the discrimination men suffer is largely in their minds and just a way of expressing frustration that times have changed, women are no longer confined to the kitchen or, while they are still comely maidens, dancing at crossroads ---:rolleyes:

Maybe men who complain so much about the equality legislation we now have on our statute books should understand that it protects them as well. Here is a link to an article about a legal precedent - the first time an Irish court ruled that a man had been the victim of gender discrimination (it was in 2008 and the judgement was not appealed and acquired the force of law). Perhaps men should be more proactive about seeking legal remedies when they feel they have been discriminated against rather than just bitching on Internet forums.:)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bridegroom-barred-from-no-men-shop-wins-1500-1324193.html

fasttalkerchat

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't know if you have seen the article this week about the Polish dentist who removed all of the teeth from her ex boyfriend. The reporting was nearly comical in how it desribed the situation with many of the comments egging her on or blaming him for 'not knowing better'. Thought of this thread when I read it.
Obviously the woman is a psychotic nut job but seems to be getting most of the sympathy or LOLs

That wasn't a real story. It was wrongly picked up my lazy journalists... a bit like the Donegal story.

Zulu

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Maybe men who complain so much about the equality legislation we now have on our statute books should understand that it protects them as well.

Certainly an interesting insight Ellis.

You acknowledge that this topic is broader than current equality legislation, right? For example, I fail to see how the current legislation protects the 15 year boy who has consensual intercourse with a 15 year old girl.

seamus

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Here is a link to an article about a legal precedent - the first time an Irish court ruled that a man had been the victim of gender discrimination (it was in 2008 and the judgement was not appealed and acquired the force of law). Perhaps men should be more proactive about seeking legal remedies when they feel they have been discriminated against rather than just bitching on Internet forums.:)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bridegroom-barred-from-no-men-shop-wins-1500-1324193.html

That wasn't actually the first one, there was a quite older case where a man disputed a "Ladies night" promotion in a nightclub which allowed free entry to women but required men to pay at the door. I think this was around 2001 or 2002, not long after the equal status act came in. He of course won, but had only taken the case on principle and didn't want a big settlement.

While I'm not sure who's complaining about the equal status act, I've certainly never heard a man complain about it, I do agree that to a large extent men are much less likely to assert their rights when they're being discriminated against, and are much slower to make a complaint for discrimination.

This may be because the incidents are so minor (like being refused access to a dress shop), that men don't feel it's worth pursuing.

On the other hand with women, the entire women's rights movement was founded on fighting for tiny victories, not on tackling the big things up front. So it may be the case that women feel either more confident complaining about small cases, or even feel that it's necessary in order to keep society in line.

It could also be the case that men are afraid to takes cases because they would be seen to be rocking the boat, or trying to force a male agenda, whereas a woman is seen as being assertive and fighting for her rights.

For example, imagine if a man took a case demanding the right to become a member of a Curves gym. Would he be hailed for trying to assert his rights, or would he be criticised for trying to muscle in and "take over" a women's club?

The Corinthian

seamus wrote: »

For example, imagine if a man took a case demanding the right to become a member of a Curves gym. Would he be hailed for trying to assert his rights, or would he be criticised for trying to muscle in and "take over" a women's club?

I suspect his actions would be dismissed as...

Ellis Dee wrote: »

just a way of expressing frustration that times have changed, women are no longer confined to the kitchen or, while they are still comely maidens, dancing at crossroads

Is it just me, or did anyone else see the irony of accusing John Waters of wanting to "see comely maidens, dancing at crossroads", given his bibliography and what he wrote on this very topic therein?