Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

B0jangles

FrogMarch wrote: »

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.



How convenient.

I'm sorry, this is not a game of tennis where I do all the work providing data and you get to bat the ball back with zero effort. Do a little work on your own account and I'll argue with you. Show me some statistical data demonstrating that irish women do not want to become more involved in the government, police force, or juduciary and I'll get back to you.

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm sorry, this is not a game of tennis where I do all the work providing data and you get to bat the ball back with zero effort. Do a little work on your own account and I'll argue with you. Show me some statistical data demonstrating that irish women do not want to become more involved in the government, police force, or juduciary and I'll get back to you.

Excuse me. I never made that assumption. If you read my post, you'll clearly see that I never stated that as fact - I simply asked you to prove that your assertions were factual. Which you refuse to do. We're done here. Best of luck.

Zulu

So your point is that the public sector in Ireland is actively persuing a secret policy of gender discrimination so?

Clearly you've spent zero time working in/with the Irish public sector.

B0jangles

Zulu wrote: »

So your point is that the public sector in Ireland is actively persuing a secret policy of gender discrimination so?

Clearly you've spent zero time working in/with the Irish public sector.

Did I say that?

I simply flipped the publically issued numbers broken down by gender, which show a staggeringly high number of men compared to women, particularly in senior positions. To complain that the Irish political and legal systems do not represent the men of Ireland sufficiently is patently ridiculous. If the law was changed back to make it only possible for men to run for government, police officers or judges, it would not be a huge change from the current situation.

What I was really aiming to show was that if the statistics were switched, no-one could believably argue that men would be wrong in fighting for a greater stake in the running the country or that they were underrepresented in major state institutions. Yet many members of this forum loudly state the feminism has gone too far and that men are now an oppressed minority.

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

Did I say that?

I simply flipped the publically issued numbers broken down by gender, which show a staggeringly high number of men compared to women, particularly in senior positions. To complain that the Irish political and legal systems do not represent the men of Ireland sufficiently is patently ridiculous. If the law was changed back to make it only possible for men to run for government, police officers or judges, it would not be a huge change from the current situation.

What I was really aiming to show was that if the statistics were switched, no-one could believably argue that men would be wrong in fighting for a greater stake in the running the country or that they were underrepresented in major state institutions. Yet many members of this forum loudly state the feminism has gone too far and that men are now an oppressed minority.

Can you prove that half the women vying for these positions, and not getting them, are women? Can you prove that there is any actual active discrimination?

Just because men represent a majority at senior level in certain institutions doesn't mean that men in general aren't oppressed. Do the fact that men 'run the country' mean that there are no men who suffer from poverty and that it's only women and (female) children? No, it doesn't.

You argument (do you have one?) is pointless and weak. I'd happily admit that women are discriminated against in some ways. But if you're saying that men aren't discriminated against similarly in others then... well, you're just wrong.

B0jangles

FrogMarch wrote: »

But if you're saying that men aren't discriminated against similarly in others then... well, you're just wrong.

Prove it.

(I can play that stupid game too!)

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

Prove it.

(I can play that stupid game too!)

Family law for one. Need I go on?

See, not so hard is it. Well, for you maybe

B0jangles

FrogMarch wrote: »

Family law for one. Need I go on?

See, not so hard is it. Well, for you maybe

Family law? Given that I have fully demonstrated that the government, police force AND judiciary are massively male-dominated, how can you argue that men as a group are victims of systemic prejudice in the courts, unless it is men discriminating against men?

FrogMarch

B0jangles wrote: »

Family law? Given that I have fully demonstrated that the government, police force AND judiciary are massively male-dominated, how can you argue that men as a group are victims of systemic prejudice in the courts, unless it is men discriminating against men?

It's established law discriminating against men. Established law discriminates against women too, depending on your views - see laws pertaining to abortion.

You've still failed to prove any assertions you've made. As I said, we are now done and dusted here.

py2006

B0jangles wrote: »

Show me some statistical data demonstrating that irish women do not want to become more involved in the government, police force, or juduciary and I'll get back to you.

The only thing stopping women from entering these fields is women themselves.

B0jangles

FrogMarch wrote: »

It's established law discriminating against men. Established law discriminates against women too, depending on your views - see laws pertaining to abortion.

You've still failed to prove any assertions you've made. As I said, we are now done and dusted here.

Sorry, you don't get to draw a line under the argument.

Given the status quo, the laws which discriminate against men were drafted by and voted upon by men, BUT the laws which discriminate against women were drafted by and voted upon by mostly men.

py2006

B0jangles wrote: »

Sorry, you don't get to draw a line under the argument.

Given the status quo, the laws which discriminate against men were drafted by and voted upon by men, BUT the laws which discriminate against women were drafted by and voted upon by mostly men.

Forgive my ignorance, but what current laws discriminate against women?

B0jangles

py2006 wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but what current laws discriminate against women?

Abortion law for one.

py2006

B0jangles wrote: »

Abortion law for one.

Is that discriminatory though? Can men go for abortions?

dated maybe but not discriminatory.

B0jangles

py2006 wrote: »

Is that discriminatory though? Can men go for abortions?

dated maybe but not discriminatory.

If the Dáil was mostly women and they drafted a law which denied men the right to have, say a vasectomy, largely on moral grounds, I think Irish men would have a strong reason for complaint - a decision about their own bodies would have been taken from them and made by a collective body which would mostly never have to decide whether or not to undergo the procedure in question. It would be even more insulting the expert advice taken by the female government on vasectomy was provided by primarily female medics.

py2006

B0jangles wrote: »

If the Dáil was mostly women and they drafted a law which denied men the right to have, say a vasectomy, largely on moral grounds, I think Irish men would have a strong reason for complaint - a decision about their own bodies would have been taken from them and made by a collective body which would mostly never have to decide whether or not to undergo the procedure in question. It would be even more insulting the expert advice taken by the female government on vasectomy was provided by primarily female medics.

In fairness, it was a law made with strong religious grounds back in the day. I am sure if they had the balls to put it to the public the law would be changed. Its an issue parties are afraid to address over the years because people have such strong feelings about it (both sexes).

You might be surprised how some of us awful men would vote.

jackofalltrades

B0jangles wrote: »

Abortion law for one.

And if you woke up in the morning ,and men have uteri instead of women do you think abortion would be legislated for straight away? No it wouldn't. The exact same situation would exist.

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

Is that discriminatory though? Can men go for abortions?

dated maybe but not discriminatory.

Yes, agree. Discrimination suggests some different treatment based on gender. This is not an area where men are gaining some sort of better treatment.

I also recall many of the very pro-life people I've come across being female.
I did a search and came across this poll across various European countries:

http://www.thebrusselsconnection.be/tbc/upload/attachments/European%20Values%20Overall%20EN.pdf

– If a woman doesn't want children, she should be able to have an abortion –

Yes: Male 66% Female 59%
No: Male: 30% Female 37%

So I don't think one can say anything about how having more women in the cabinet, etc would necessarily mean there would be a change/similar.

Piliger

B0jangles wrote: »

Family law? Given that I have fully demonstrated that the government, police force AND judiciary are massively male-dominated, how can you argue that men as a group are victims of systemic prejudice in the courts, unless it is men discriminating against men?

The premise of your argument is flawed. You are basically asserting that men cannot be discriminated against by law solely because the laws are made by men. This is a non sequiter.

Piliger

B0jangles wrote: »

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.

A very self serving and convenient explanation.

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?

Why not offer your own explanation.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

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.

The problem is that except for cases that involve simply violent men, a lot of which do occur, most other cases result from the combined chemistry between two people.

Anyone who knows anything about life and marriage or passionate relationships knows well how common it is in volatile relationships for one party to use emotional and verbal behaviour to provoke and goad their partner, often over a prolonged period. The Law does not recognise or deal with this kind of emotional or verbal behaviour. Yet it is extraordinarily powerful and potent.

Blame in a relationship is not a zero sum game.

It is self evident that violence is wrong and an unacceptable behaviour. But nasty and horrible verbal and emotional goading and provocation is also unacceptable and odious. The difference is that the Law, as it is constructed, cannot deal with or punish such behaviour.

The result is that too often men get shafted by the Law and women get off scot free.

I am not saying there is a solution. It is the way it is, and women benefit from it. But it achieves nothing either to try to justify violence or to pretend that men are the evil perpetrators and women the innocents. Some times it is one, and sometimes it is the other.

B0jangles

Piliger wrote: »

A very self serving and convenient explanation.

Why not offer your own explanation.

Edit: I actually had a draft of a serious response to what you have to say but then I realised it was Piliger I was arguing with so I didn't bother.

<insert strawman feminist argument for Piliger to fight against here>

B0jangles

py2006 wrote: »

You might be surprised how some of us awful men would vote.

I have never said or thought that most men are awful; most of the men I know are decent, kind, thoughtful and caring people. There is, however a subset of Irish men who appear to believe that because the world no longer pretty much exclusively caters to them and their needs that this is evidence of a takeover by women.

Basically they are men who cannot comprehend the idea of sharing. So toddlers basically.

py2006

B0jangles wrote: »

I have never said or thought that most men are awful; most of the men I know are decent, kind, thoughtful and caring people. There is, however a subset of Irish men who appear to believe that because the world no longer pretty much exclusively caters to them and their needs that this is evidence of a takeover by women.

Basically they are men who cannot comprehend the idea of sharing. So toddlers basically.

I think at this stage you need to take your views to the a certain other forum where you may find like minded individuals to entertain and engage with you.

B0jangles

py2006 wrote: »

I think at this stage you need to take your views to the a certain other forum where you may find like minded individuals to entertain and engage with you.

Is this forum a sounding board where only opinions previously vetted and approved are premitted? What on earth is the point of a conversation in which all the key points are established at the start and coherent dissent is eliminated?

jackofalltrades

B0jangles wrote:

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?

You seem to be working from the flawed position that each gender works solely to better their gender, and that neither gender discriminates against their own. This is untrue. Look at the video posted at the start of the thread, it clearly shows men removing mens rights posters. The main driver for changes in legislation are think tanks and lobby groups. And the largest gender based lobby group is the National Womens Council or Ireland, which seems to be able to set the agenda for gender equality virtually unopposed.

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.

Do you have any proof of this? This argument was raised in the gender equality thread in After Hours, without any proof being offered.

jackofalltrades

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.

There's nothing stopping a woman from setting up their own business. Most businesses are small businesses. Forcing large companies to adopt gender quota's for their board members reeks of job grabbing by the feminist movement. Their efforts would be better spent encouraging more women to setup businesses.

There's also nothing stopping a woman for running for political office. They have a similar success rate to men. Again encouraging women to run for office should be the goal rather than trying to impose a result.

sam34

py2006 wrote: »

I think at this stage you need to take your views to the a certain other forum where you may find like minded individuals to entertain and engage with you.

iirc, you've been warned about this sort of crap before. it's a clear charter breach. infracted.

Annasopra

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And if you woke up in the morning ,and men have uteri instead of women do you think abortion would be legislated for straight away? No it wouldn't. The exact same situation would exist.

Yes. I do actually believe that.

Zulu

B0jangles wrote: »

Did I say that?

In not so many words, yes. Unless there's a system preventing women from applying for these roles, or preventing women from being promoted into these roles, then your point is utterly rubbish. You have no way of determining if women are applying for these roles.

You are using data incorrectly to support your incorrect assertion that women are discriminated against in the public sector in Irish society.

Since anyone who has worked in/with the public sector knows this to be an utter lie; anyone familiar with Irish employment law knows women are protected from discrimination, you're point is, in a word, wrong.

no-one could believably argue that men would be wrong in fighting for a greater stake in the running the country or that they were underrepresented in major state institutions. Yet many members of this forum loudly state the feminism has gone too far and that men are now an oppressed minority.

Firstly, you assume, incorrectly, that male public representatives are either unable or unwilling to represent women. Which is pathetically sexist. So kudos on that. :rolleyes:
Secondly feminism is an elitist group designed to defend, protect, and promote issues based on certain peoples genitallia. It's backward thinking.

B0jangles wrote: »

Family law? Given that I have fully demonstrated that the government, police force AND judiciary are massively male-dominated, how can you argue that men as a group are victims of systemic prejudice in the courts, unless it is men discriminating against men?

Why can't men discriminate against men? Do you think there are meetings in Portmarnock golf club where we ensure men don't?

Family law blatantly discriminates against men in Ireland. Most sensible people see & acknowledge that. If you can't, clearly you've no interest in open discourse, but rather propaganda from the extremes.

B0jangles wrote: »

If the Dáil was mostly women and they drafted a law which denied men the right to have, say a vasectomy, largely on moral grounds, I think Irish men would have a strong reason for complaint

Well, not really. Not unless the men were refused the vote for some reason, or alternatively, if the Dail members representing them weren't actually the democratically chosen candidates - like for example if they were selected to fulfill a gender quota.
Assuming that wasn't the case, then the Dail representatives would have been elected, democratically to represent those men. Society would have spoken. Democracy in action.

- a decision about their own bodies would have been taken from them and made by a collective body which would mostly never have to decide whether or not to undergo the procedure in question.

Of course I see where you are going with this: men shouldn't have a say over abortion - it has nothing to do with them, right?

Straight question: If an abortion referendum could be held, but where only women could vote, would you support/prefer that? (ie: would you like to see a vote on abortion where men were excluded)

B0jangles wrote: »

There is, however a subset of Irish men who appear to believe that because the world no longer pretty much exclusively caters to them and their needs that this is evidence of a takeover by women.

...and there's a subset of women who are convinced that the world, society and men are out to oppress them. Everywhere they look, they are being attacked. Of course this is validated & supported by extremist feminist groups & "gender" studies at third level education.