"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

T runner

Wibbs wrote: »

........Though I have found no amount of evidence will convince such otherwise............
Ok then it got interesting. Even with the caveats attached by Harvard the article was quietly pulled from their website. Here's a backup of it. Why does this not surprise me. US college gets the jitters over article that doesn't back up the "it's always men's fault and women are always victims" mantra.

Yes. He makes clear that he is describing any type of violence which he insists shouldn't be confused with severe male violence against women.

I.e don't confuse common couple violence with patriarcal domestic violence/abuse.

An elite. Mostly men, but there are women among their numbers.

Out of 1645 worldwide billionaires, only 172 are women.

This power elite are a vanishingly tiny percentage of men and always have been. The vast majority of men throughout history were outside this loop.

And all women.

As far as spending power goes, women.

...... over the next decade and [will] be the beneficiaries......

So men hold the wealth but women might hold more...maybe..at some point in the future. Men hold the wealth, moving on.

developed world women's income is rising, growing at 8.1% by comparison to 5.8% for men.

28 out of the top 500 CEOs are women If that grows at the rates you suggest we should have parity by the next millennia.

Again you're discussing elites, not your average man or woman for that matter..

Men own the land. Farmers are youre average man literally and well over 90% of farm landowners are men.

In any event there are enough women CEO's coming along

No there areent. 28 out of 500 and 56 out of 1000.

Who votes more, men or women? I'll give you a hint, it ain't men. So women are voting for their own political representation.

Men and women show no prejudice in gender voting.
It is acknowledged on an EU level that there are many barriers to equal female candidacy and participation in politics. We have never exceeded 14% of female dail seats in Ireland.

Yep, but just as often by women themselves. Who buys celeb magazines? Who buys fashion magazines? Who drives the fashion for photoshopping and stick thin models? Men? Nope.

The sexual objectification of women is driven by men who value women more for their sexuality. The porn industry is for men, the prostitution industry is for men. Minors are wearing sexually suggestive clothes in this horror show.
The fact that all society must participate in this perversion does not mean that you get to blame women as "foot soldiers".

However let's look at our own history of Magdalene laundries and orphanages and the like. Who ran them on a daily basis? Who were the footsoldiers?

Women were imprisoned in these hellholes because they're behavior was in breach of the heavily patriarchal male ruled Catholic church. The fact that nuns were the foot soldiers chosen for this task does not negate the fact that a heavily patriarchal culture was to blame.

The media industry has one of the higher female percentages of any industry. The aforementioned magazines aimed at women with pics of celebs and cellulite are almost entirely run by women.

I was referring the to type of media with power to have an influence on policy in society. Almost exclusiviley male dominated.

Both are concerns for men and women. Given that men are extremely unlikely to ever get custody in a divorce, it's hardly surprising more women are primary carers and child care facilities affect both, unless you're being patriarchal in your own way.

Women tend to get custody because they are the primary carers and its usually in the child's interest to keep the primary relationship intact. Women don't become primary carers in order to get custody. In a patriarchal society the vast amount of primary child carer's will be women because the society believe that women's place is still in the home.

If society wanted to change this it would provide decent affordable child care facilities that would allow more people to child rear and work. It doesn't. This affects females and males because a patriarchal society respects males who want to child rear about as little as females who want to child rear.

I could go on about how if anything Ireland and the Irish are and have been a deeply matriarchal society with a thin veneer of patriarchy(that's a lot thinner today), but I fear it would be a waste of time

Yes. Yu'd have even less success than you did "proving" your points above, I fear.

*they used to add unequal educational access too, but that has become so obviously women biased at third level that it had to be dropped. I can see the health one going the same way.

Patriarchy is anti-intellectual. Go figure

T runner

Maguined wrote: »

How do you reconcile your view that women fill thousands of shelters while men need none when Erin Pizzey the woman that practically invented womens shelters in the UK and America states that from all her experience she found domestic violence was most commonly reciprocal (not a woman defending herself from a aggressive man but two people who took turns initiating violence against each other) and even when it wasn't reciprocal it occured relatively evenly amongst both genders?

The fact that the only male shelter in Ireland had to close because of lack of use, informs me.

So this woman is clearly mistaken despite being the first person to organise dedicated services for domestic violence, and despite being on the front lines to expierience the people involved in domestic violence she is clearly wrong?[/QUOTE]

SaturnV

T runner wrote: »

In that case yes. And you may never get that knowledge because he might choose to lie.

Now, if you were female and married to your attacker and he repeated told you what he wanted you to do and used different methods including violence to achieve it, then a picture gets built. All the things you are supposed to do put you in the position of the patriarchal wife's role.

You've assumed I'm a man, haven't you? I suspect your notions of how men and women think are not as sophisticated as you would hope.

T runner wrote: »

If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and acts like a duck, its a duck.

Indeed...

T runner

SaturnV wrote: »

You've assumed I'm a man, haven't you? I suspect your notions of how men and women think are not as sophisticated as you would hope.

You cant say that. I don't know your gender, thus the conditional "if". I could have asked you directly of course, but I chose not to.

Indeed...

If the perpetrator states and reveals his motives as patriarcal, and uses control over the woman to achieve patriarchal ends....and does so to achieve similar motives repeatedly over a pattern of many years...then we know his motives. These are learned thought patterns.

That's why I believe that the "man-up" campaign is flawed. Those men who have behaved like that over years ain't going to change by a slogan like that however well intended. Its best that male culture changes. That means men of good will cutting sexism and mysoginy out of male culture. Thse men wont get affirmation from other men then, and other men wont learn to view women as subordinates.

I'm posting here in case that strikes a chord with any lurkers. That will do!

Maguined

T runner wrote: »

The fact that the only male shelter in Ireland had to close because of lack of use, informs me.

So this woman is clearly mistaken despite being the first person to organise dedicated services for domestic violence, and despite being on the front lines to expierience the people involved in domestic violence she is clearly wrong?

The people running the shelter claimed it was closed due to lack of funding not through lack of use.

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15112.htm

This shelter is completely separate to the experiences of Erin Prizzy so your point is irrelevant. So you do believe the founder of domestic abuse shelters is wrong about her experiences and views towards domestic violence?

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

If the perpetrator states and reveals his motives as patriarcal, and uses control over the woman to achieve patriarchal ends....and does so to achieve similar motives repeatedly over a pattern of many years...then we know his motives. These are learned thought patterns.

That's why I believe that the "man-up" campaign is flawed. Those men who have behaved like that over years ain't going to change by a slogan like that however well intended. Its best that male culture changes. That means men of good will cutting sexism and mysoginy out of male culture. Thse men wont get affirmation from other men then, and other men wont learn to view women as subordinates.

I'm posting here in case that strikes a chord with any lurkers. That will do!

Why would anyone who beats their spouse get affirmation from all but the smallest minority of the population.

Can you explain what patriarchal ends are please? It sounds like insipid, vacuous nonsense but just on the off-chance...

Wibbs

Look "lads"*pats collective heads* you must always bear in mind that when dealing with third wave feminists it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims. And said women have little or no agency. Note how in these last few pages the blinkers come on the second any stat shows any men to have been victims. Men are never victims of spousal abuse, hence they don't need support. Hell even if they get killed in a domestic it's "self defence". As I said you couldn't make this nonsense up if you tried.

T runner wrote: »

Yes. He makes clear that he is describing any type of violence which he insists shouldn't be confused with severe male violence against women.

So you agree with the study that in situations where severe violence isn't in play women are more likely to be the attackers and in such situations men are more likely to be injured? Hmmmm so now you're saying men can be victims of assault?

I.e don't confuse common couple violence with patriarcal domestic violence/abuse.

Ahhh now I see. Kelly Brook has joined Boards, or one of the editorial staff of Jezebel... Good to know.

OK then, what about ipta's link that shows "about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales." Let me guess those two guys are killed in self defence?

Like I said folks it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims. This is height of the level of debate you're ever going to get.

Out of 1645 worldwide billionaires, only 172 are women.

Out of a world population of 7 billion. Like I pointed out, elites.

And all women.

1) among the elites quite a number of women held direct and great power throughout history and many others held the power behind the power. 2) Many more men died in war and industry throughout history. That continues today. You don't see too many "Women's studies" types carrying banners asking about the glass ceiling in coal mining.

So men hold the wealth but women might hold more...maybe..at some point in the future. Men hold the wealth, moving on.

Blinkers to down position.

28 out of the top 500 CEOs are women If that grows at the rates you suggest we should have parity by the next millennia.

Again with the elite.

No they arent. Men and women show no prejudice in gender voting.

You do know just because you hold an opinion this doesn't make it a fact? I know this is a common fallacy these days, but I feel it useful to point it out every so often.Example. And there are plenty more where that came from.

The sexual objectification of women is driven by men who value women more for their sexuality.

Yep that would be all men. We'll ignore the hordes sqeeeing over Justin Beiber while we're at it. As for the fashion industry and its attendant issues, it's got more women and gay men than straight men running it.

The porn industry is for men,

More and more women are watching porn and are just as likely to get hooked on it.

the prostitution industry is for men.

I'd agree on that one. Though the percentage of men using such services is very low, but let's go with "all men" just to keep things rattling along.

Minors are wearing sexually suggestive clothes in this horror show.

Who is designing and buying said clothes? Just as likely if not more likely women. Hell look at the "beauty" pageants parading little kids in make up and heels in the US and elsewhere. Near zero male involvement there.

The fact that all society must participate in this perversion does not mean that you get to blame women as "foot soldiers".

Why not? Do women not have agency of their own? Apparently not according to third wave feminist "thinking". Which I always found sidesplitting in it's irony.

Women were imprisoned in these hellholes because they're behavior was in breach of the heavily patriarchal male ruled Catholic church. The fact that nuns were the foot soldiers chosen for this task does not negate the fact that a heavily patriarchal culture was to blame.

Ah yes the patriarchy. The cause of and solution to all feminist rhetoric. Again where is the agency of women?

Sorry, what was I thinking. Yes of course you're right it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims.

I was referring the to type of media with power to have an influence on policy in society. Almost exclusiviley male dominated.

*blinkers down. Ignore the other point*

Women tend to get custody because they are the primary carers and its usually in the child's interest to keep the primary relationship intact.

This gets more and more hilarious in irony. Actually on that score and as an aside I've oft found it interesting how society views partners leaving the family unit. If men leave they're almost always seen as the bastard, yet women are overwhelmingly the ones who call for separation and divorce, so in effect they're "leaving the family unit" too, but get all the support and usually all the legal protection and primary assets like the domicile. Funny how that works in a patriarchal society.

Women don't become primary carers in order to get custody. In a patriarchal society the vast amount of primary child carer's will be women because the society believe that women's place is still in the home.

The gift keeps on giving.

This affects females and males because a patriarchal society respects males who want to child rear about as little as females who want to child rear.

Try reading that back to yourself a couple of times.

Patriarchy is anti-intellectual. Go figure

Wut? This is entertaining anyway.

But just so I'm right on and non patriarchal and all that it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims.

T runner

Wibbs wrote: »

You really have zero clue as to why this may be the case? How many shelters for men exist? How many lifelines?

There was a male shelter but it was closed because it was not used. The answer is therefore zero. NO shelters because of lack of need. Does that not tell you anything?

In common parlance the "battered woman" is a meme, but one doesn't even exist for the battered man.

If you re-read the thread youll note that Steinmetz coined "battered husband" as far back as the 70s.

As for the morgue, male completed suicide rates are far higher for men than women.

Not as a direct result of domestic violence. Were talking about domestic violence aren't we?

Maguined

T runner wrote: »

There was a male shelter but it was closed because it was not used. NO shelters because of lack of need. Does that not tell you anything?

You are incorrect as I have already posted above the shelter was closed from lack of funding not from lack of use. The shelter was actively in use when it was shut.

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

There was one but it was closed because it was not used. NO shelters because no need for lifelines. Bring it up with the mens group who closed it I guess.

Did you willfully ignore the link which Maguined posted that explained that it was shut because of lack of funding, not lack of use>

If you re-read the thread youll note that Steinmetz coined "battered husband" as far back as the 70s.

As far back as the 70's :pac::pac: oh man. And you still can't see it?

As you say after divorce.

I said that was but one example of the higher suicide rate among men.

What are you displaying?

I'm "displaying"?

Men are more likely to take female, male, children's lives...and their own.

Do you still believe all is well in male culture? How do you explain this phenomenum of killing amongst men?

Jesus Christ. It's "reasoning" like this that made me slough off any support for modern feminism a long time ago. Like I said almost their entire position is that it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims, without agency or responsibilities of their own. It reduces women to childish victimhood allowed to be "free"(in a very precise "feminist" way of course) to do what they will with no thoughts of agency or accountability just because of their gender. The joke is in a real patriarchal society they would agree with this position to an uncomfortable degree.

T runner

Wibbs wrote: »

Did you willfully ignore the link which Maguined posted that explained that it was shut because of lack of funding, not lack of use

From Amen : " IRELAND'S only shelter for abused men has been shut because of a lack of funding, Amen, an organisation that supports male victims of domestic violence, said the closure was the result of sexism........The council claimed it was forced to stop some of the funding because it believed there were less than five men staying at the shelter.

So Meath county council couldn't justify it based on the low numbers.

Meath County council reasons were lack of use. Amen attributing the closure to the word "sexism" highlights exactly why organisations like Amen are not taken as seriously as they think they should be and why they continually let the people they represent down.

As far back as the 70's :pac::pac: oh man. And you still can't see it?

I see that your argument that a phrase did not exist has been refuted.

I said that was but one example of the higher suicide rate among men.

You said suicide rates were 3 times higher post divorce. Which has exactly no relevance to the massive disparagy between the amount of female victims of domestic abuse in shelters, hospitals and morgues in this country.....and the number of equivalent male counterparts....so low they couldn't keep the only shelter in Ireland open.

Jesus Christ. It's "reasoning" like this that made me slough off any support for modern feminism a long time ago. Like I said almost their entire position is that it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims, without agency or responsibilities of their own. .

Answer the question. How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of murders in domestic violence are carried out by men? Isnt there an issue with male culture? Or do you believe these men were born to kill which doesn't explain the disparagy with females?

Straight questions. Please don't avoid this time.

PS*** Please try to answer without reference to "third wave feminism" or without the use of the word "hilarious". Continually installing such props in your argument draws attention too, (rather than disguises) their weakness.

Kav0777

John, a victim of domestic violence, has stayed at the Amen shelter for the last three years. Since the closure, he has been staying in the Portakabin

Clearly no need for a shelter at all.

jackofalltrades

T runner wrote: »

I've referenced it at least 5 times now. Prove it? whos the judge.... you? all I have to do here is make my argument stronger than yours.....I think I'm winning hands down there in fairness.

No you haven't proven it. Stop making things up.

You claimed that:

EVERY researcher into domestic violence acknowledges that a patriarcal outlook rooted a patriarcal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women.

I'm asking you to prove that EVERY researcher into domestic violence acknowledges that a patriarcal outlook rooted a patriarcal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women.

If your going to make wild/improbable claims you need to be able to back them up.

constance tench

Maguined wrote: »

The people running the shelter claimed it was closed due to lack of funding not through lack of use.

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15112.htm

This shelter is completely separate to the experiences of Erin Prizzy so your point is irrelevant. So you do believe the founder of domestic abuse shelters is wrong about her experiences and views towards domestic violence?

Yes, just one refuge in Navan town which was shut down for lack of funding in 2004.

Can you imagine having (or even trying) to bring your children in car (if you have one)to Navan after being violently attacked!...imagine that scenario played out on the street!...not the safest for your Family, whereas there are at least 6 women's refuges in Dublin city alone (who out-and-out refuse entry to boys over 12).

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

I see that your argument that a phrase did not exist has been refuted.

You do realise that the 70's wasn't that long ago? Never mind that my original point was that as a societal meme "battered wife" is the one with real weight and usage behind it.

You said suicide rates were 3 times higher post divorce. Which has exactly no relevance to the massive disparagy between the amount of female victims of domestic abuse in shelters, hospitals and morgues in this country.....and the number of equivalent male counterparts....so low they couldn't keep the only shelter in Ireland open.

I know I know it's always men's fault and women are always the victims. That has been your entire pitch from post one. You ignore/avoid/deflect when it's shown to you that women are worse in the case of non "severe" violence(as you would have it). They abuse more often and instigate it more often. I'd bet the farm that they're higher in the stats in emotional abuse too.

Answer the question. How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of murders in domestic violence are carried out by men?

Again did you read the link to the figures of the UK home office? Figures which show on average about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales. Yep a majority on the male side, but not a vast one, especially considering that men are generally more physically powerful than women and more likely to cause serious injury should they have a mind to.

Isnt there an issue with male culture?

Given there is more chance of being struck by a woman in "non serious" violence, that in equally violent couples they're usually the first to resort to hitting and they're 2/3rds more likely to strike in non reciprocal violence, where the usually more physically powerful man doesn't retaliate, is there not just as much an issue with "female culture"?

Put it another way, going by such results if women were more physically powerful than men you'd expect a lot more injured and dead blokes about the place.

And one of the reasons such women feel freer to strike a man is that the simple fact is they can because they can get away with it. And do so in your "patriarchal" society. Like I noted the recent Kelly Brook incident where she happily admitted she thumped exes because of jealousy or just momentary daftness illustrates this(the Jezebel editorial team even laughed about their examples). Sure eyebrows were raised, but imagine the reverse if one her exes admitted to hitting her in exactly the same manner. There would be hell to pay. Funny enough the vast majority of men wouldn't respond to a punch by a woman precisely because of "Chivalry" and all that. As another experiment showed when people on the street saw a woman being hit, even verbally abused by a man passersby, mostly men dove in to help her. Whereas with the reverse people walked on by or even laughed at the whole thing.

As for men holding other men to account for "sexism" and all that stuff. If a woman is being attacked/assaulted in public by a man, you can damn near guarantee it'll be another man who will attempt to come to her aid and stop him. Even among the worst criminals in prisons they have to separate the wife beaters, the rapists and the child abusers or the other men will injure even kill them.

Or do you believe these men were born to kill which doesn't explain the disparagy with females?

What disparity? Oh wait, sorry, I forgot, it's always men's fault and women are always the victims with no agency. Maybe I should do a Bart Simpson and write it out 100 times on a blackboard.

Straight questions. Please don't avoid this time.

The irony keeps on giving.

PS*** Please try to answer without reference to "third wave feminism" or without the use of the word "hilarious". Continually installing such props in your argument draws attention too, (rather than disguises) their weakness.

Maybe this jumping around debate stylee works in an environment with like minded individuals who agree with you(very common with your third wave types. Common in the "manosphere" too), but it's not so useful outside such arenas.

Wibbs

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm asking you to prove that EVERY researcher into domestic violence acknowledges that a patriarcal outlook rooted a patriarcal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women.

If your going to make wild/improbable claims you need to be able to back them up.

Indeed so. Actually one area that seems to throw her/his argument for a loop is abuse in same sex couples. Given that gay relationships have about the same, if not slightly higher rate of partner abuse that kinda makes a laugh of it being the "patriarchy" at fault. If it's two men in a relationship and one is being abused is that the "patriarchy"? Better again if two women are in a relationship and one is being abused is that the "patriarchy"? Hmmm. Riiight. Let's look at lesbian folks a little closer shall we?

"How common is lesbian partner violence?

About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13). Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:
Disrupting other's eating or sleeping habits
Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting (11).
Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians (12).
Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians (1,5,6,11,14)".


Not a man involved. Patriarchy? Though even here with this report the BS is strong. They still try to blame men. :pac:

"Lesbians who abuse another women may do so for reasons similar to those that motivate heterosexual male batterers."

They even blame their fathers and stepfathers. Mothers being women are never at fault of course. Ever the victims. Check, still men's fault by proxy, even with lesbian folks.

"In lesbian relationships, the "butch" (physically stronger, more masculine or wage-earning) member of the couple may be as likely to be the victim as the batterer, whereas in heterosexual relationships, the male partner (usually the stronger, more masculine, and wage-earning member)is most often the batterer

The latter we can see is a nonsense. What this actually shows is that people can be dicks. Men and women. regardless of gonad position. When we look at all female relationships even these researchers fall for the BS. They expect the "butch' woman to be the instigator because she's "more like a man", but because she is a woman and they're more a protected species in such studies they acknowledge she's just as likely to be the abused as the abuser. The male female hetro figures show pretty much the same breakdown, but because of the perception of Men = abuser/women = victim it's glossed over or completely ignored.

ancapailldorcha

Crikey, the last 8 pages of this thread make for a pretty impressive display of ignorance. If I ever doubt some feminists' capacity for making daft assertions I'll come back here.

jackofalltrades

Wibbs wrote: »

Not a man involved. Patriarchy? Though even here with this report the BS is strong. They still try to blame men. :pac:

"Lesbians who abuse another women may do so for reasons similar to those that motivate heterosexual male batterers."

They even blame their fathers and stepfathers. Mothers being women are never at fault of course. Ever the victims. Check, still men's fault by proxy, even with lesbian folks.

And why not blame men, it's unlikely they'll be called on it.

And if someone dares criticise their opinion they'll be labelled a misogynist and thrown to the awaiting twitter/media mob.

In another thread on this website, when I asked for proof that the patriarchy exists in this country, I was equated to being a holocaust denier.

I think we've a long way to go before people can have a reasonable discussion on gender issues.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Crikey, the last 8 pages of this thread make for a pretty impressive display of ignorance.

Ah man and I was really trying my best. *slinks off*..

Wibbs

Chamber511 wrote: »

Maybe just maybe there are more male CEOs because men have a lot more testosterone coursing though their bodies, has anyone ever considered that, that there might not actually be systematic discrimination taking place.

Could be a factor. Women with higher testosterone levels take more risks and since starting up a company on your own is risky that kind of personality, in a man or woman, is more likely to try, so an individuals hormonal profile might play some part. Men having more of that profile in general are more likely to fire out CEO type personalities. Even then it's a minority. The vast majority of men aren't like that. Rebelliousness is another trait may play a part and again that tends to have more men(especially younger men) showing that behaviour where women tend more towards consensus in a group. Again rebelliousness is a rare enough trait, especially of the constructive kind. The vast majority of people just go with the flow and "fit in".

Seriously?

It will be interesting to see how the following rather harrowing occurrence can be pitched as exclusively male aggression.
Two females orchestrate the rape of a girl by their younger brother.

Link: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/sister-encouraged-uk-teen-to-rape-girl-642550.html

This is the problem with feminist fantasies like the ‘patriarchy’; they fall down when faced with the harsh light of reality. Though facts and evidence rarely are seen as a problem for the true believers.

Lemming

Seriously? wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how the following rather harrowing occurrence can be pitched as exclusively male aggression.
Two females orchestrate the rape of a girl by their younger brother.

Link: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/sister-encouraged-uk-teen-to-rape-girl-642550.html

This is the problem with feminist fantasies like the ‘patriarchy’; they fall down when faced with the harsh light of reality. Though facts and evidence rarely are seen as a problem for the true believers.

That is an appalling incident. What concerns me the most is the snapshot into the mindset of some younger generation folk that sexual violence is a blaise thing. Equally telling in that despite their youth, the attackers understood the psychological implications of the attack - not for sexual jollies, but to control and humiliate; to objectify the victim; classic rapist territory stuff.

It's all just warped.

Henry9

T runner, you are Jessica Valenti and I claim my £5.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/19/men-women-rape-prevention-its-on-us

The notion that it is just the extremists who think like this is absurd. You only have to read boards to see that.

Henry9

Wibbs wrote: »

Could be a factor. Women with higher testosterone levels take more risks and since starting up a company on your own is risky that kind of personality, in a man or woman, is more likely to try, so an individuals hormonal profile might play some part. Men having more of that profile in general are more likely to fire out CEO type personalities. Even then it's a minority. The vast majority of men aren't like that. Rebelliousness is another trait may play a part and again that tends to have more men(especially younger men) showing that behaviour where women tend more towards consensus in a group. Again rebelliousness is a rare enough trait, especially of the constructive kind. The vast majority of people just go with the flow and "fit in".

The idea that men are more risk taking is allowed in the context of them doing something dangerous, like speeding.
The idea that women are less risk taking and are more likely to take a reasoned, long term view is allowed, in the context of demanding more female TDs or company directors.

Of course the corollary of this, that more men will take the risks to propel them to CEO, or to drop out of college to start their own company, is not allowed, is irrelevant, and you are a misogynist. Shame on you.

Henry9

Wibbs wrote: »

And one of the reasons such women feel freer to strike a man is that the simple fact is they can because they can get away with it. And do so in your "patriarchal" society. Like I noted the recent Kelly Brook incident where she happily admitted she thumped exes because of jealousy or just momentary daftness illustrates this(the Jezebel editorial team even laughed about their examples).

It's only a few weeks ago that some feminist drones were posting about the use of the word 'crazy' in relation to women, how it was demeaning and oppressive blah blah blah.

Of course this doesn't apply when a woman is defending her actions, it's allowed to commit assault if you're a bit crazy, sure isn't she a woman after all.

Funnily enough the feminist language police and the Twitter sexism mob will have nothing to say on the matter.

py2006

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Crikey, the last 8 pages of this thread make for a pretty impressive display of ignorance. If I ever doubt some feminists' capacity for making daft assertions I'll come back here.

At times I thought it was a wind up. There is a lot of quotable stuff there. I don't think I've seen the word, 'patriarch', as much in my life!

Every time I try to convince myself that I may have got it wrong when it comes to feminists they themselves put a halt to that.

Wibbs

Some feminists. Though I have noted more of the nuttier end being taken seriously, ignored, or not questioned as much as it should be in the mainstream and wider world. As we've seen it's a deeply held conviction, impervious to logic and insulting to both sexes on a fair few levels. It's why I wouldn't self identify as "feminist" anymore, or not nearly as much as I would have in the past.

py2006

Wibbs wrote: »

Some feminists. Though I have noted more of the nuttier end being taken seriously, ignored, or not questioned as much as it should be in the mainstream and wider world. As we've seen it's a deeply held conviction, impervious to logic and insulting to both sexes on a fair few levels. It's why I wouldn't self identify as "feminist" anymore, or not nearly as much as I would have in the past.

Agreed. Its odd the nuttier ones only seem to frustrate men. Or at least we only voice or frustration. Does that make sense? Its early and I had a late night!

Btw, much respect for your posts on here.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

...I'm posting here in case that strikes a chord...

http://www.lougogan.com/worst-chord/01-TheEarWaxDisintegrator.mp3


Take your pick!
http://www.lougogan.com/worst-chord/worst-chord.php

iptba

(Sept 19 UK article)

Compulsory relationship lessons should be included in curriculum to prevent violence against women, says Shadow Home Secretary

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2761674/Labour-s-school-lessons-beat-abuse-Shadow-Home-Secretary-says-children-receive-compulsory-relationship-education-prevent-violence-against-women.html