In what ways are men discriminated against?

iptba

David Benatar, author of "The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys"*, was interviewed by Sean Moncrieff today.

It can be heard at: http://www.newstalk.ie/programmes/all/moncrieff/listen-back/ ** (or http://www.newstalk.ie/programmes/all/moncrieff/ )
Friday, May 4, Part 2.
Around 8:10-16:30.
I'm not sure one can fast forward but I just put it on mute for a while.

* I have no financial interest in this or connection with the author

** There may be other links?

Pawwed Rig

iptba wrote: »

David Benatar, author of "The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys"*, was interviewed by Sean Moncrieff today.

It is unfortunate the Moncrieff did this interview as he is often guilty of promoting the man as the moron in a relationship and in society as a whole.

James Jones

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. 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.

Check out the cases taken by men on the grounds of Marital Status HERE and complaints against various agencies HERE.

The Corinthian

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, is it still the man's fault?

The existence of this rather philosophical gag betrays a bizarre phenomenon in modern society, whereby invariably in any dispute between men and women, men are presumed culpable.

You don't have to go far to see this is reflected in popular media. To cite two recent US romcoms (spoiler alert):

• This Means War has a woman date two men at the same time who turn out to be friends and when she discovers that they know each other, they apologise to her despite her duplicity behaviour.
• Crazy, Stupid, Love on the other hand begins with a wife kicking her husband out of the house and separating, after she has an affair. He put's his newly single life together and ends up dating multiple women, while she also starts dating a man. When she discovers that he's slept around, she becomes angry and he apologises for his behaviour.

Now, one may dismiss this as a silly American piece of trite, but ultimately it reflects modern mores and also reinforces them in those who watch them.

Where we see this in practice, the most extreme case I can think of this was in the Bobbitt case, where an unfaithful and abusive husband woke up one morning to find his wife had cut off his penis.

The two were reunited years later, on live television, at which time John Wayne Bobbitt apologised to his wife for his past neglect - she magnanimously forgave him, but warned also that she would "not forget". Yet bizarrely, his wife has never apologised in return, despite her actions that constitute an extreme form of spousal abuse, regardless of whether one considers them provoked or not.

Now consider the same thing occurring on a Pakistani chat show, where a wife, subjected to an acid attack due to her infidelity, publicly apologises to her husband. What do you think Western reaction would be?

And unfortunately this prejudice is all too evident in both family law (particularly divorce) and even criminal law.

BarackPyjama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where we see this in practice, the most extreme case I can think of this was in the Bobbitt case, where an unfaithful and abusive husband woke up one morning to find his wife had cut off his penis.

The two were reunited years later, on live television, at which time John Wayne Bobbitt apologised to his wife for his past neglect - she magnanimously forgave him, but warned also that she would "not forget". Yet bizarrely, his wife has never apologised in return, despite her actions that constitute an extreme form of spousal abuse, regardless of whether one considers them provoked or not.

Now consider the same thing occurring on a Pakistani chat show, where a wife, subjected to an acid attack due to her infidelity, publicly apologises to her husband. What do you think Western reaction would be?

And unfortunately this prejudice is all too evident in both family law (particularly divorce) and even criminal law.

Contextually, Western society is a lot quicker to assume that women are victims than men. We even try to ingrain it into the psyche of men in Western societies, in media and in general social thinking and politics. It's an exceptionally dangerous trend.

gizmo555

iptba wrote: »

David Benatar, author of "The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys"*, was interviewed by Sean Moncrieff today.

Interesting piece on this book in the Guardian today (May 13th).

Benatar believes . . . that our ignorance of the "second sexism" stems from what he terms "partisan feminists", who are interested only in the advancement of women's rights, rather than true equality and co-operation between the sexes. "It is true that women occupy fewer of the highest and most powerful positions," he writes, "but this also does not show that women are in general worse off. To make the claim that women are worse off, one must compare all women with all men, rather than only the most successful women with the most successful men. Otherwise, one could as easily compare the least successful men with the least successful women and one would then find that men are worse off."

The Guardian helpfully wheel out a "partisan feminist" to make Benatar's point

"It's an idea that's made more comebacks than Madonna," says Julie Bindel, the feminist writer and political activist. "It's total and utter bull****. There are areas where men are paying the price that male supremacy gives them – there's absolutely no doubt about that.

"My dad, a working-class man from the north-east, had an absolutely horrendous job in a steel mill and he came home bad-tempered, knackered and underpaid. What he could do was come home and dominate – not in a physical way – but he could be the boss over his wife and children, he could go and sink 10 pints in the pub.

"The reality is that the public domain belongs entirely to men and the disadvantages they face are just the price they pay. It's tough cheese. Masculinity is just learned behaviour in the same way that femininity is. Ultimately, if we dismantle the patriarchy, that would end up being better for men, too."

Huh? The exhausting and dangerous job her father did to support his wife and children (including this insulting ingrate) was the price he paid for owning "the public domain"? Words fail me . . .

BarackPyjama

gizmo555 wrote: »

Huh? The exhausting and dangerous job her father did to support his wife and children (including this insulting ingrate) was the price he paid for owning "the public domain"? Words fail me . . .

Incredible. That's not feminism, it's misandry. Misandry being a word we need to start using a lot more when we recognise it. It seems the word misogyny is bandied about on a daily basis and yet the word misandry isn't even recognised by my PC's spell-checker!

Unless feminists are, in fact, egalitarians then they're just as divisive as the male chauvinists/patriarchs that they claim to hate.

Sometimes I really do fear for our society.

seamus

I think her point is that if men are to be at the top of chain ("dominating at home"), then there are inescapable consequences of that position (working yourself to the bone).

This may have been a valid point when she was a child, but to say that the "public domain belongs entirely to men" is just so painfully outdated it's funny.

The Corinthian

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Contextually, Western society is a lot quicker to assume that women are victims than men. We even try to ingrain it into the psyche of men in Western societies, in media and in general social thinking and politics. It's an exceptionally dangerous trend.

The irony is this is actually a throwback to chivalry/chauvinism. This would argue that not only are women 'the weaker sex' and thus victims, but also handicapped where it comes to rational thought, subject to their emotions that they are unable to control, thus not fully responsible.

gizmo555 wrote: »

"Ultimately, if we dismantle the patriarchy, that would end up being better for men, too."

Problem with such sentiments is that the dismantling of the patriarchy has been rather selective. Little effort has been made to dismantle the idea that a woman is the primary child carer or homemaker. And the same groups that were highlighting female spousal abuse in the Bobbitt case, remained silent when her court defence effectively turned out to be a spin on female hysteria.

Worse still is how these remaining patriarchal advantages are now being employed to promote ideas such as the abolition of custodial sentences for women.

Sleepy

"The reality is that the public domain belongs entirely to men and the disadvantages they face are just the price they pay.

Says the misandrist being interviewed for an article in a national newspaper... :rolleyes:

James Jones

These current ads on television HERE and HERE are good examples in how men are discriminated against. The first is an attempt at so-called "humor" but just imagine such "humor" being directed at someone of a different race or religion. Indeed, would it be acceptable to portray a homosexual in this fashion?
The 2nd ad is more subtle and simply ignores that fact that all children have TWO parents, not just mothers.
Both ads were screened yesterday on RTE1 after the lunchtime news.

Pawwed Rig

We were just having a chat there at lunch and one of the girls was saying that she hates when she is approached by married men and she thinks it is disgusting. There was a few minutes conversation on men cheating before I told of a married woman I am acquainted with who is having an affair. The first response was ‘Her husband is probably doing the same thing.’

It reminded me of some of the posts on this thread

James Jones

In the same vein, about 50% of women who start work single end up getting married to a colleague, so if a man makes an advance on a female work colleague he find attractive, he is either

1. Her possible husband-to-be
   or
2. A sex pest who could get the sack

The Corinthian

While it's important to highlight such double standards, I do think it important to point out that it's not simply a case of discrimination against men. Women, for example, still suffer from the double standard whereby they're sluts if they sleep around while men are not.

Indeed, this prejudice is probably the basis (or at least related) of the prejudices in two previous posts, as both presume passive sexuality on the part of a 'normal' woman and aggressive sexuality on the part of a 'normal' man.

So while I'd agree that the last two posts do highlight a fair bit of gender-based bigotry, it's important to remember that as with many of the gender imbalances, it cuts both ways, or at least is based upon opposite prejudices.

James Jones

Read the recent article Equality for all -- unless you're a dad and it will give some idea of how men are officially discriminated against in Ireland today.

The Corinthian

James Jones wrote: »

Read the recent article Equality for all -- unless you're a dad and it will give some idea of how men are officially discriminated against in Ireland today.

The "Equality Minister's" rather bigoted views on this subject are pretty well documented at this stage. The irony is that the more you disenfranchise fathers, the more that the minister's prediction that many fathers will not "take responsibility for their children" will come to pass; faced with insurmountable legal and social barriers to their children many will simply give up fighting (or not even fight what they know to be a hopeless cause).

This is what has happened in countries like Japan, where the laws are such that upon divorce many fathers simply resign themselves to never seeing their children again.

James Jones

The Corinthian wrote: »

While it's important to highlight such double standards, I do think it important to point out that it's not simply a case of discrimination against men.

Why not?
After all, the thread is called "In what ways are men discriminated against?"

The Corinthian

James Jones wrote: »

Why not?
After all, the thread is called "In what ways are men discriminated against?"

I never said that one should not be highlighting ways in which men are discriminated against. I said that where applicable it's important to examine why, especially when it is as a result of discrimination against women.

For example, a common example that is used of discrimination against women is that they both end up earning less than men and are under represented in the highest positions in business and politics. Yet, there it is important to highlight that this demonstratively because women are still seen, and expected, to be the primary child carers - a prejudice that is largely perpetuated by the discrimination that takes place against fathers (thus blocking any hope for that role to be shared equally). And so this discrimination against women will continue as long as this opposite discrimination against men continues.

There are many such cases of 'symbiotic discrimination' and highlighting them does not take away, but adds to the discussion.

James Jones

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said that one should not be highlighting ways in which men are discriminated against. I said that where applicable it's important to examine why, especially when it is as a result of discrimination against women.

For example, a common example that is used of discrimination against women is that they both end up earning less than men and are under represented in the highest positions in business and politics. Yet, there it is important to highlight that this demonstratively because women are still seen, and expected, to be the primary child carers - a prejudice that is largely perpetuated by the discrimination that takes place against fathers (thus blocking any hope for that role to be shared equally). And so this discrimination against women will continue as long as this opposite discrimination against men continues.

There are many such cases of 'symbiotic discrimination' and highlighting them does not take away, but adds to the discussion.

Sorry mate but there are so many grammatical errors in your post that I can't comment as I might be taking you up wrong. Can you edit it or re-post so that I can answer?
Thanks.

Giselle

James Jones wrote: »

Sorry mate but there are so many grammatical errors in your post that I can't comment as I might be taking you up wrong. Can you edit it or re-post so that I can answer?
Thanks.

I can't find any.

The Corinthian

Giselle wrote: »

I can't find any.

Indeed; perhaps it is a little convoluted, but it is grammatically correct. Perhaps if I put it in simpler English?

Zulu

James Jones wrote: »

Sorry mate but there are so many grammatical errors in your post that I can't comment

what are you spoofing about; no there aren't.

gizmo555

Interesting one I'd never heard of before has arisen in the case of the ex-wife of Chris Huhne, the former UK Cabinet Minister.

She and Huhne are charged with perverting the course of justice, because she is alleged to have accepted speeding points which were actually his.

She is pleading not guilty by reason of "marital coercion", a defence which is only available to the wife in a legal marriage under UK law (including Northern Ireland) - a husband cannot claim to have been coerced by his wife into committing an offence.

According to Wikipedia, the UK Law Reform Commission recommended the defence be abolished as far back as 1977.

Interestingly, the equivalent defence here in Ireland has apparently already been found to be repugnant to the constitution, on grounds of discrimination.

James Jones

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said that one should not be highlighting ways in which men are discriminated against.

No one said you were.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I said that where applicable it's important to examine why, especially when it is as a result of discrimination against women.
For example, a common example that is used of (?) discrimination against women is that they both end up earning less than men

This is not true. If women earned less than men for doing the same work for the same hours then the majority of the workforce would be women because it would be less expensive for employers to hire them. Women generally earn less because they generally choose less arduous work as well as employment that is more family friendly.

The Corinthian wrote: »

and are under represented in the highest positions in business and politics.

This is not true but another fallacy perpetuated by feminists. Business is not run like a democracy and so when a man or women is promoted to a certain position, it is because he or she is suitable for the job. He or she does not represent 50% of the human race. In politics, women can put themselves up for election in the exact same manner as men but less women do so less women get elected.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet, there (?)it is important to highlight that this demonstratively(?) because women are still seen, and expected, to be the primary child carers

This is the main grammatically incorrect part, as far as I can make out.

The Corinthian wrote: »

- a prejudice that is largely perpetuated by the discrimination that takes place against fathers (thus blocking any hope for that role to be shared equally). And so this discrimination against women will continue as long as this opposite discrimination against men continues.

There are many such cases of 'symbiotic discrimination' and highlighting them does not take away, but adds to the discussion.

Sorry but I don't agree with you. The thread title "In what ways are men discriminated against?" is not added to by reminding us about the claims that women are discriminated against. By doing so is going down the road of the "Them and Us" mentality.

paddyandy

snafuk35 wrote: »

If a guy is drunk and walking home alone from a nightclub and a gang of women leap out of the bushes, strip him naked and force him to have sex with them, if he went to the cops they would laugh at him for making a complaint. This happens to me all the time and I am sick of being ignored!

Lucky man .It never happens to me and it's not for not trying .I'm fed up walking around lonely places at night .I trip over things and fall and end up in a local pub .The women come along in two's and threes but nothing ever happens and even trying to look very vulnerable does'nt work either .....Still nothing ever happens .I'm giving it up .

gizmo555

This:

James Jones wrote: »

Sorry mate but there are so many grammatical errors in your post that I can't comment as I might be taking you up wrong.

hardly tallies with this:

James Jones wrote: »

This is the main grammatically incorrect part, as far as I can make out.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet, there it is important to highlight that this demonstratively because women are still seen, and expected, to be the primary child carers

Anyway, it is perfectly obvious that what was intended was this:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet, there it is important to highlight that this demonstratively is demonstrably because women are still seen, and expected, to be the primary child carers

James Jones

Sorry gizmo555,
I didn't know you spoke for the Corinthian.

The Corinthian

James Jones wrote: »

This is not true. If women earned less than men for doing the same work for the same hours then the majority of the workforce would be women because it would be less expensive for employers to hire them. Women generally earn less because they generally choose less arduous work as well as employment that is more family friendly.

I never said women earned less than men for doing the same work for the same hours, I just said women earned less than men which is technically true.

And the reason I phrased it that way was because it was for a long time taken at face value, with statistics being published that regularly lumped part time workers with full time ones. It is only when you examine why they are part time workers that you get a fuller picture of what is going on.

And the same goes for the point about business and politics.

This is the main grammatically incorrect part, as far as I can make out.

You mean the only, as opposed to your earlier claim that "there are so many grammatical errors" that you couldn't understand anything.

Are there any other grammatical mistakes that would obfuscate my post or would you like to accept that you were exaggerating in a flippant manner?

Sorry but I don't agree with you. The thread title "In what ways are men discriminated against?" is not added to by reminding us about the claims that women are discriminated against. By doing so is going down the road of the "Them and Us" mentality.

Actually it is doing the opposite; I am pointing out that much of the discrimination one gender suffers is often as a result of discrimination that the other gender suffers. It is not a simple case of us versus them, but of an interwoven web of privileges and responsibilities that has become out of whack with modern society and that ultimately, if we want to achieve equality, there is going to have to be give and take on both sides.

gizmo555

James Jones wrote: »

Sorry gizmo555,
I didn't know you spoke for the Corinthian.

I don't. I speak for myself.

James Jones

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said women earned less than men for doing the same work for the same hours, I just said women earned less than men which is technically true.

No, it's not true, technically or otherwise. It is a fallacy that has been perpetuated by feminists and is never challenged. I, as a man, get paid less than Joan Burton, who is a women. If I worked four or five times more hours than I do, then maybe I would be paid similar to her. However, if she did my job and I did hers, I would get paid more then her and she less than me.
Read the article HERE where you will see that "According to researchers Professor Colm Harmon, Dr Liam Delaney and Cathy Redmond, women's preference for studying humanities/arts counts against them because, typically, it leads to careers that pay less than engineering and computing, where men are to the fore".

SO, the gender pay gap is caused by choice rather than discrimination!

The Corinthian wrote: »

You mean the only, as opposed to your earlier claim that "there are so many grammatical errors" that you couldn't understand anything.

Are there any other grammatical mistakes that would obfuscate my post or would you like to accept that you were exaggerating in a flippant manner?

I put highlighted question marks in your post that I quoted HERE.
I didn't say that I could't understand anything in your post. What I actually said was

Sorry mate but there are so many grammatical errors in your post that I can't comment as I might be taking you up wrong. Can you edit it or re-post so that I can answer?