Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

floggg

Reku wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I don't know you that well so please keep your words in your own mouth and stop trying to put them in mine, at no point did I say any such thing.:rolleyes:

Though I do find it interesting that in any other context constantly nagging and nit-picking on someone would be classed as bullying, and even were a male to regularly put down his female partner it would be jumped upon as abuse, yet it seems perhaps males are expected to just brush it off and get on with things.

.

In that context the appropriate adult response is to dump a nagging/abusive partner. It's not to hit or abuse him or her back.

Reku

floggg wrote: »

In that context the appropriate adult response is to dump a nagging/abusive partner. It's not to hit or abuse him or her back.

Again I have to ask that people stop quoting me and trying to imply I've said things where I said nothing of the sort.:rolleyes:
If you can't sort your imaginings from reality I'd suggest you see a specialist.

Star Lord

donfers wrote: »

they need to focus their resentment that has built up over a long period of time somewhere and the bummer for them is they can't find a particular individual so they conveniently put it all on the only remaining easy target out there, white men.

Why or how has race now been dragged into this?

Madam_X

Oh you know yourself: white men, most repressed group in the western world. None of them business leaders, senior politicians, etc.

FrogMarch

Madam_X wrote: »

Oh you know yourself: white men, most repressed group in the western world. None of them business leaders, senior politicians, etc.

Yeah. All white men are business leaders and politicians. :rolleyes:

Reku

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Why or how has race now been dragged into this?

Unfortunately it stems from the same idea, it's hard to blame someone for the difficulties in your life who's not readily perceived as being in a more privileged/powerful position than you when they have not overtly acted against you.

Being white, male and living in the first world makes us the obvious scapegoats for all the world's ills.*shrug*

Madam_X

FrogMarch wrote: »

Yeah. All white men are business leaders and politicians. :rolleyes:

Not that I even remotely suggested that as you well know. My point was: just because white men experience discrimination and injustice in some regards, doesn't mean they are a repressed, persecuted group overall, which is what the "White men are blamed for everything" (a sentiment so ridiculous it looks like a piss-take) catchphrase seems to imply. A group that repressed and persecuted would not have so many powerful members.

Same applies to white western women.

I have never heard anyone apart from people on the fanatical fringes say "This is all white men's fault".

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

LeeHoffmann wrote:

anybody who ´snaps´ and lashes out violently at other people isn´t to be pitied imo, male or female. If you´re not happy in your relationship, end the relationship. There´s no excuse for violence, ever, by anybody/either gender etc etc

So yes, that is the attitude taken by me if women are violent. Not all people agree. A lot of people see domestic violence by women upon men as nothing to worry about - it either doesn´t happen or isn´t that bad. I am not one of those people.

You're free to take whatever position you want.

So, not to you in particular, but general observations:

This seems a change from the current approach, taken by the legal system, to other violent acts: I believe the context of what happened would be examined, including whether it was premeditated or not, if there was provocation, etc.

And as I pointed out, I think it would require a different attitude to some times when women are violent to men, like the wife of a well-known golfer who allegedly swung a golf club at him when she found out he was having affairs. Society would need to change if it's going to say there are no excuses.

Currently it seems if a man is violent in a domestic situation, some people don't want him to be allowed refer to any lead up to it; however, it's far from clear they would use the same standard for a woman.

LeeHoffmann

You're free to take whatever position you want.

So, not to you in particular, but general observations:

This seems a change from the current approach, taken by the legal system, to other violent acts: I believe the context of what happened would be examined, including whether it was premeditated or not, if there was provocation, etc.

And as I pointed out, I think it would require a different attitude to some times when women are violent to men, like the wife of a well-known golfer who allegedly swung a golf club at him when she found out he was having affairs. Society would need to change if it's going to say there are no excuses.

Currently it seems if a man is violent in a domestic situation, some people don't want him to be allowed refer to any lead up to it; however, it's far from clear they would use the same standard for a woman.

this seems to be a wordier way of saying what I said in the previous post:

A lot of people see domestic violence by women upon men as nothing to worry about - it either doesn´t happen or isn´t that bad.

I´m not sure whether you agree with me that there is no excuse for either men or women to lash out violently or whether you think that there are excuses for that behaviour. Could you clarify?

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

this seems to be a wordier way of saying what I said in the previous post:

I´m not sure whether you agree with me that there is no excuse for either men or women to lash out violently or whether you think that there are excuses for that behaviour. Could you clarify?

What I would like to see is consistency and equal treatment. I haven't really thought the issues through sufficiently to know what level of mitigation would be appropriate but it seems context should likely have some part to play as it does with other instances of aggression.

LeeHoffmann

What I would like to see is consistency and equal treatment

No argument there

I haven't really thought the issues through sufficiently to know what level of mitigation would be appropriate but it seems context should likely have some part to play as it does with other instances of aggression.

can you give an example of an instance of aggression in which context plays a part? It sounds like you´re saying that in some cases, the context partly excuses the violence or at least makes it understandable. Apart from self-defence or defending others, I can´t think of a valid excuse

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

can you give an example of an instance of aggression in which context plays a part? It sounds like you´re saying that in some cases, the context partly excuses the violence or at least makes it understandable. Apart from self-defence or defending others, I can´t think of a valid excuse

Well, in this case, a woman stabbed her brother through the heart and killed him: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sister-receives-suspended-sentence-for-brothers-death-446580.html . I could see how his previous behaviour might mitigate the offence somewhat.

jaffacakesyum

iptba wrote: »

Well, in this case, a woman stabbed her brother through the heart and killed him: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sister-receives-suspended-sentence-for-brothers-death-446580.html . I could see how his previous behaviour might mitigate the offence somewhat.

Seriously?

Nothing excuses stabbing your own brother in the heart, killing him!! She took away a life. Absolutely no excuse for that unless it was self defence, which it doesn't seem to be.

I'm not saying the guy wasn't a pr1ck. Maybe he was. Maybe he was a very difficult person, maybe he did a lot of sh1tty stuff. But unless he was attacking her at the time, I don't see any reason why she should arm herself with a knife and stab him

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I'm not saying the guy wasn't a pr1ck. Maybe he was. Maybe he was a very difficult person, maybe he did a lot of sh1tty stuff. But unless he was attacking her at the time, I don't see any reason why she should arm herself with a knife and stab him

I don't think she should have got a suspended sentence either (and I don't think if the defendant was male he would have got a suspended sentence).

However, I think it might be reasonable to knock a bit off the sentence.

But certainly in the trial, there was a lot of talk of his past behaviour and the background to what happened - it was considered relevant.

smash

iptba wrote: »

But certainly in the trial, there was a lot of talk of his past behaviour and the background to what happened - it was considered relevant.

Your past is always considered relevant in any case from petty drug posession crimes to first degree murder.

In this case it would be normal to consider the victim's past behaviour to determine if it was aggravated.

LeeHoffmann

I could see how his previous behaviour might mitigate the offence somewhat.

His previous drug use is an excuse to stab him in the heart?! o.O

I don't think she should have got a suspended sentence either

neither do I

(and I don't think if the defendant was male he would have got a suspended sentence).

speculation on your part, and faulty: Justice Carney hands out suspended and lenient sentences regularly enough for me to know his name from reading about it in the newspapers. He gave a suspended sentence to the man who broke into Mary Shannon´s home and raped her - one of his reasons was that he had never been found guilty of rape before.

But certainly in the trial, there was a lot of talk of his past behaviour and the background to what happened - it was considered relevant.

but the question is - should there be? In court things are discussed that really don´t have any relevance upon the crime because those kind of things sway feeble minds on the jury - e.g. a rape victim´s sexual history. I think it´s better for us to figure out what´s right and then try to change laws to reflect that, rather to deduce what´s right and wrong from laws and legal proceedings

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I could see how his previous behaviour might mitigate the offence somewhat.

His previous drug use is an excuse to stab him in the heart?! o.O

I should have been more specific: his bullying, etc behaviour towards her.

(and I don't think if the defendant was male he would have got a suspended sentence).

speculation on your part, and faulty: Justice Carney hands out suspended and lenient sentences regularly enough for me to know his name from reading about it in the newspapers. He gave a suspended sentence to the man who broke into Mary Shannon´s home and raped her - one of his reasons was that he had never been found guilty of rape before.

I think being killed is the worst thing that can happen to somebody, so I don't see them as comparable: you could well be right that sentence was too low (it's a case I'm not familiar with), but best to concentrate on violence within families, rather than try to bring in comparisons between different types of crime.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I think it´s better for us to figure out what´s right and then try to change laws to reflect that, rather to deduce what´s right and wrong from laws and legal proceedings

Ok, so if a woman kills her partner, when he wasn't an immediate threat to her i.e. not self-defense, there are no mitigating factors?

LeeHoffmann

I think being killed is the worst thing that can happen to somebody, so I don't see them as comparable: you could well be right that sentence was too low (it's a case I'm not familiar with), but best to concentrate on violence within families, rather than try to bring in comparisons between different types of crime.

The sentence was he was found guilty of rape and served no time in prison. I think we can all agree that´s too lenient, whether we know the case or not. I was trying to show you that that judge gives out suspended sentences for horrific crimes to both men and women, so that case is not a good example.

Ok, so if a woman kills her partner, when he wasn't an immediate threat to her i.e. not self-defense, there are no mitigating factors?

that´s a separate point to what you quoted, but we´ll ignore that and move along...can you think of any good reasons/excuses for that? I can´t

iptba

I was just searching for information on other times when women killed their husbands and didn't get a custodial sentence. I couldn't find anything on the Comerford case, where she went downstairs, got a knife, came back upstairs and stabbed him (I think in the back when he was asleep, after they had earlier fought).

Anyway, I was looking up for info on the Anne Burke case, when I found this, which I think gets across the initial point I was trying to make: there seems to be a difference in how relevant or otherwise the background of cases are seen as, depending on whether the defendant is female or male. Of course, this is to do with murder but I think the same thought process seems to happen with other domestic situations when men and women are violent.

http://bocktherobber.com/2009/12/murder-trial-anne-burke-admits-to-killing-husband-with-hammer/

Posted by Bock on December 8, 2009 Dec 08 2009

I don’t know what sort of man Pat Burke was.

For all I know, he was the violent, abusive, bullying thug his wife says he was.

For all I know, he deserved to be killed. Maybe so. Maybe he deserved to have his brains beaten out with a hammer by his wife.

I know this, though. It’s one thing to talk about a woman’s motivation in killing a man. You can do that, and you can speculate on what sort of monster the dead man might have been, or not, since he isn’t around to defend his good name. But on no account may you speculate on the process by which a man came to be the killer of a woman.

Such thoughts are verboten.

Why is this?

It was explained to the court how Anne Burke arrived at the point where she killed her husband. That mental process was explored in detail, but you know, I didn’t hear any of the right-on liberal feel-good brigade complaining, even though the intention of that argument was to justify the killing.

Of course I’m referring to the posse of self-righteous hypocrites who lost their reason when I asked the same question about David Bourke who murdered his wife: What was the mental process that brought him to the point where he murdered his partner?

I asked this question in an entirely dispassionate way, out of curiosity. What stages did David Bourke pass through on his way to becoming a murderer?, and I discovered that you don’t have to scratch very deep before a troop of kindergarten bullies emerge to shout you down.

I realised then that there is little or no difference between these people’s mindset and that of the despicable clergy who have kept our country in ignorance for so long.

You see, freedom of inquiry is fine, as long as it’s the approved version.

B0jangles

Reku wrote: »

Unfortunately it stems from the same idea, it's hard to blame someone for the difficulties in your life who's not readily perceived as being in a more privileged/powerful position than you when they have not overtly acted against you.

Being white, male and living in the first world makes us the obvious scapegoats for all the world's ills.*shrug*

I was thinking about this attitude recently - the idea that white men are somehow the scapegoats for all society's ills, and came up with this thought experiement:

Imagine you wake up today to a normal world, You switch on the t.v and a picture of the Dáil comes on - the room is filled wiith 126 women and 25 men, This is normal, this just the way it is, The Taoiseach is a woman as is the majority of the cabinet, There are 2-3 men in there, but this is a fairly recent development for which you should feel grateful. You have in the past brought up that fact that this is extremely unbalanced but your query is rejected as irrelevant; why should an overwhelmingly and historically female government not be able to understand, empathise with and legislate for issues which are specific to men? That's totally sexist of you.

Anyway, you get up to go to work, you work for an ordinary international company. The CEO, CFO etc of this company are women, the board of the company is 90% women, with maybe 1-2 men included. The people you encounter in your day to day work are a fairly even mix of men and women, but you start to notice that the higher-ups in you company do still tend to be women all the time, they even seem to have women-focussed group sessions where men at that same level feel excluded or awkward about intruding - in order to fit it you have to laugh at jokes that basically assume that men are brutish and stupid, but hey, that's the business world. When the senior staff at your company go out for a fun afternoon, they usually go to a day spa. You already feel awkward about trying to come along and join in when you discover that some of the spas your company goes to don't actually allow men to be members at all.

Somewhat discouraged, you move from looking at the political and business fields and move to looking at the police force - surely it will be more equitable?

No, by the most recent figures (1995) , there are no male commissioners, dept commissioners, assistant commissioners or Chief Superintendants. There is one male superintendant, compared to 160 female ones, 5 male inspectors, compared to to 244 female ones, a whole 49 male sergeants but again the women are ahead with 1,812 female sergeants. And among ordinary gardai there are 709 male gardai compared to 7.756 females.

Damn.

OK lets look at the judiciary:

- Supreme court - 6 women, 2 men,
- High court, - 32 women, 5 men
- Circuit court - 27 women, 11 men
- District court - 47 women, 16 men


Hang on, this is ridiculous, are you telling me that both the goverment, the police force AND the judiciary of this country are almost totally controlled by women??? How are men ever supposed to get a foothold in power? It's a kind of folk-truth that men make better carers for children because they are physically bigger and stronger so they can protect them better whereas women are good at multi-tasking so they are better in the wider political/business worlds because they are more flexible. Historically the law has reflected these outdated ideas about what people are good at, but, un****ing-believably, some women have started to claim that the historic tendency to assume men will care for the children and thus to give custody to them is evidence that men have taken control of society and that women are now the underclass. Despite the demonstrable fact that women still overwhelmingly control the government, the police force and the judiciary.

On the individual level of couse some white men are worse off than some white women, but overall it is an astonishing advantage to be born a man instead of a woman and to argue otherwise is to lie.

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

I was thinking about this attitude recently - the idea that white men are somehow the scapegoats for all society's ills, and came up with this thought experiement:

Imagine you wake up today to a normal world, You switch on the t.v and a picture of the Dáil comes on - the room is filled wiith 126 women and 25 men, This is normal, this just the way it is, The Taoiseach is a woman as is the majority of the cabinet, There are 2-3 men in there, but this is a fairly recent development for which you should feel grateful. You have in the past brought up that fact that this is extremely unbalanced but your query is rejected as irrelevant; why should an overwhelmingly and historically female government not be able to understand, empathise with and legislate for issues which are specific to men? That's totally sexist of you.

Anyway, you get up to go to work, you work for an ordinary international company. The CEO, CFO etc of this company are women, the board of the company is 90% women, with maybe 1-2 men included. The people you encounter in your day to day work are a fairly even mix of men and women, but you start to notice that the higher-ups in you company do still tend to be women all the time, they even seem to have women-focussed group sessions where men at that same level feel excluded or awkward about intruding - in order to fit it you have to laugh at jokes that basically assume that men are brutish and stupid, but hey, that's the business world. When the senior staff at your company go out for a fun afternoon, they usually go to a day spa. You already feel awkward about trying to come along and join in when you discover that some of the spas your company goes to don't actually allow men to be members at all.

Somewhat discouraged, you move from looking at the political and business fields and move to looking at the police force - surely it will be more equitable?

No, by the most recent figures (1995) , there are no male commissioners, dept commissioners, assistant commissioners or Chief Superintendants. There is one male superintendant, compared to 160 female ones, 5 male inspectors, compared to to 244 female ones, a whole 49 male sergeants but again the women are ahead with 1,812 female sergeants. And among ordinary gardai there are 709 male gardai compared to 7.756 females.

Damn.

OK lets look at the judiciary:

- Supreme court - 6 women, 2 men,
- High court, - 32 women, 5 men
- Circuit court - 27 women, 11 men
- District court - 47 women, 16 men


Hang on, this is ridiculous, are you telling me that both the goverment, the police force AND the judiciary of this country are almost totally controlled by women??? How are men ever supposed to get a foothold in power? It's a kind of folk-truth that men make better carers for children because they are physically bigger and stronger so they can protect them better whereas women are good at multi-tasking so they are better in the wider political/business worlds because they are more flexible. Historically the law has reflected these outdated ideas about what people are good at, but, un****ing-believably, some women have started to claim that the historic tendency to assume men will care for the children and thus to give custody to them is evidence that men have taken control of society and that women are now the underclass. Despite the demonstrable fact that women still overwhelmingly control the government, the police force and the judiciary.

On the individual level of couse some white men are worse off than some white women, but overall it is an astonishing advantage to be born a man instead of a woman and to argue otherwise is to lie.

Are you suggesting that women vie for the above positions as much as men and just don't get them? Are you also suggesting that men make offensive generalisations about women more than the other way around?

Your post may point out (the reverse) of a general truth but do you believe that there is a conspiracy against women achieving corporate power?

B0jangles

FrogMarch wrote: »

Are you suggesting that women vie for the above positions as much as men and just don't get them? Are you also suggesting that men make offensive generalisations about women more than the other way around?

Your post may point out (the reverse) of a general truth but do you believe that there is a conspiracy against women achieving corporate power?

Do you not recognise that if a situation is a historically established one that is is very difficult for someone who does not fit into that framework to get a foothold?

And no, offensive gereralizations exist among both men and women, but when the political/corporate/judicial environment is hugely dominated by one gender, then their nasty jokes are going to be the dominant ones wouldn't you agree?

I don't think there is a conspiracy, just that the status quo is that it's nearly all men who hold real power in the corporate environment and thus it requires extraordinary effort for a woman to intrude into that group.

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

Do you not recognise that if a situation is a historically established one that is is very difficult for someone who does not fit into that framework to get a foothold?

And no, offensive gereralizations exist among both men and women, but when the political/corporate/judicial environment is hugely dominated by one gender, then their nasty jokes are going to be the dominant ones wouldn't you agree?

I don't think there is a conspiracy, just that the status quo is that it's nearly all men who hold real power in the corporate environment and thus it requires extraordinary effort for a woman to intrude into that group.

Could you back this up with any statistics or research? Let's say that I was to counter-claim that women don't want to work in those positions or that there aren't enough women competent enough to redress the balance - would you be able to prove me wrong? Not that I'm saying that you understand. I genuinely don't know. I just find it hard to believe that you'd be able to prove that it's the old boys club keeping women out.

B0jangles

FrogMarch wrote: »

Could you back this up with any statistics or research? Let's say that I was to counter-claim that women don't want to work in those positions or that there aren't enough women competent enough to redress the balance - would you be able to prove me wrong? Not that I'm saying that you understand. I genuinely don't know. I just find it hard to believe that you'd be able to prove that it's the old boys club keeping women out.

My original post derived its figures from easily googlable statistics about the gender breakdown of the Dail, Police force and judiciary of this country. I tried to find the most recent numbers available for each of these.

If the numbers were in reality flipped as I gave them, would YOU feel encouraged to aim to be a member of the government, a business leader or a senior police officer or Judge?

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

My original post derived its figures from easily googlable statistics about the gender breakdown of the Dail, Police force and judiciary of this country. I tried to find the most recent numbers available for each of these.

I wasn't questioning your figures/the ratio. I was asking if you could prove why that ratio existed. How do we know that women just don't want these positions in such great numbers as men? Many professions have a gender bias. Female primary school teachers outweigh men. Professions with the highest fatality rates are almost exclusively staffed by men, etc.

You're saying that women are being discriminated against and allll I'm asking you to do is prove it. Unless you're suggesting that anything other than a 50/50 gender balance in every single profession is discriminatory.

B0jangles

FrogMarch wrote: »

I wasn't questioning your figures/the ratio. I was asking if you could prove why that ratio existed. How do we know that women just don't want these positions in such great numbers as men? Many professions have a gender bias. Female primary school teachers outweigh men. Professions with the highest fatality rates are almost exclusively staffed by men, etc.

You're saying that women are being discriminated against and allll I'm asking you to do is prove it. Unless you're suggesting that anything other than a 50/50 gender balance in every single profession is discriminatory.

Up until the '60 or so, school teachers WERE mostly men - once women started getting involved the societal status of teachers (and incidentally the salaries) dropped and the men started to leave. Similarly dangerous jobs like being a soldier were originally legally only allowed for men, it's only recently that women have been permitted to take up these types of roles.

I could ask you a similar question; if Ireland has become too skewed in favour of women rights (as many here seem to feel) why is it that the three most powerful institutions of the state - the government, the police force and the judiciary are still overwhelmingly male-dominated?

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

I could ask you a similar question

Yeah but I asked you a question. Which you've failed to answer.

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

why is it that the three most powerful institutions of the state - the government, the police force and the judiciary are still overwhelmingly male-dominated?

To answer your question - I don't know. Do you?

Edit - plus I would have thought that most middle to senior positions in private industry would be more powerful than most positions in all 3 that you've mentioned above.

B0jangles

FrogMarch wrote: »

Yeah but I asked you a question. Which you've failed to answer.

Provide some actual data to support your supposition stronger than "it's the way it is because NATURE" and I'll answer it.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to spend an hour collating data to refute your 5 second knee-jerk reaction question.

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

Provide some actual data to support your supposition stronger than "it's the way it is because NATURE" and I'll answer it.

I don't know why you've used quotation marks. I never said that. Plus I never made such statements. You provided figures to suggest that men outnumber women in certain professions. I'm not disputing them. I'm simply asking you to prove to me that the reason for this is discrimination against women.

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm not going to spend an hour collating data to refute your 5 second knee-jerk reaction question.

How convenient.