Men Bashing and Women Saluting

Deebles McBeebles

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's not nice for anyone to be told that their experiences are imagined. It's incredibly frustrating

I think you imagined that....

meeeeh

IK09 wrote: »

Classy response

Well you did ask.

Triceratops Ballet

Kole Alive Fingertip wrote: »

We do have a whole lexicon to talk about that though, whereas men don't. Nor are they encouraged to. I'd also say the male experience has changed far more dramatically over the past decade than women's has. And having such experience of having men explain our opinions actions and motivations to us, surely the right response would be "ok let's not do that" and not "ha serves ye right".

Actually had an experience with it recently, quite a few men in my life were telling me that someone had an awful, hostile attitude to men and I thought they'd picked up on things wrong or were being oversensitive. Took me a while to check myself.

I would actually say the opposite tbh EB I feel like the world has changed a lot in the last 50 years, and the role of women has changed a lot in that time too but the roles or expectations put on men by society have largely not and are a little at odds with the new world we find ourselves in, and I actually think men have been a little left out of the loop on these changes and that's where a lot of frustration comes from. Maybe that's me projecting but I can imagine that's a frustration. If you're raised to believe that you have to work all the hours and do xyz be a provider etc and then people start saying "oh no that's not what we want you to do you have to do abc instead" it probably feels like you've been sold a pup

Church on Tuesday

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'm not a victim, of anything thank you. I just appreciate irony. It's not nice for anyone to be told that their experiences are imagined. It's incredibly frustrating

No man in this day and age is imagining a woman's experiences.

This isn't the 70's anymore and rightly so.

Look if the two lads in the articles are happy out with being ridiculed by their wives for the sake of a few clicks in public good for them. I guess.

But if the roles were reversed here, the articles would be seen as mysoginstic and again rightly so.

No man here is foaming at the mouth with rage, it's just that men here are looking at this drivel and there is a collective attitude of WTF?

And it's heartening to see some women here with a bit of cop on calling out this bollox for what it is; a pot shot at men because that's what is 'in' these days.

nullzero

Kole Alive Fingertip wrote: »

Well I take it that's a no to any actual content or argument in your responses so yeah, a good day to you you funny angry little rapscallion you!

Funny angry rapscallion?

This is precisely why I'm not entertaining your "arguments".

It is said you should never argue with an *****, so I won't.

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

Funny angry rapscallion?

This is precisely why I'm not entertaining your "arguments".

It is said you should never argue with an *****, so I won't.

Were you complaining earlier about attacking the person. So you can dish it but can't take it.

meeeeh

Dish, plate... my lasts posts prove how influenced I am by doing the dishes...

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I would actually say the opposite tbh EB I feel like the world has changed a lot in the last 50 years, and the role of women has changed a lot in that time too but the roles or expectations put on men by society have largely not and are a little at odds with the new world we find ourselves in, and I actually think men have been a little left out of the loop on these changes and that's where a lot of frustration comes from. Maybe that's me projecting but I can imagine that's a frustration. If you're raised to believe that you have to work all the hours and do xyz be a provider etc and then people start saying "oh no that's not what we want you to do you have to do abc instead" it probably feels like you've been sold a pup

Oh in the last 50 years then yeah women's lives have changed more but I'd say post 2010 it's men who've been thrown in at a new and very deep end. Even in terms of physical appearance, there are expectations that are considered very standard now that would have gotten the sh1t kicked out of you when I was in school. I know things have ramped up for women too but it's not as new.

They have a lot if new expectations while still having a lot of the old pressures.


Not that that means there's not plenty still to be talked about for women.

IK09

meeeeh wrote: »

Sorry I didn't realise you are not capable of copying the name of study into Google and pressing search. Here it is on the plate:

https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-equality-index-2017-measuring-gender-equality-european-union-2005-2015-report

You do realise that in the study there was a baseline requirement for a minimum of 1 hours "housework" to be completed within a 24hr period?

The study you have provided is pretty useless, because by their standards no housework has ever taken place in my home, however I still manage to put a dinner on the table and provide a clean and safe living space.

All the research you have provided shows is that men and women may perform housework duties differently, not unequally.

Personally, I tend to leave particular housework duties build up and do a full day of them at the same time. The study frames that if do 7 hours of house work on a Saturday, and a comparable female does an hour a day for 7 days, that she has done more than I have, which is foolish.

I suggest in future, before you grab an article that aligns with your bias, that you actually look into the statistics that you try to use to support your clearly incorrect point. Its not only a poor reflection on the level of detail that you give to a task, but on your also a reflection on how easily lead you can be.

The study also uses housework as a means to support a gender pay gap issue by categorising household duties as "working hours", thereby bulking up the amount of hours women spend in the actual workforce, which is just nonsense.

I suggest you come back with a more appropriate study, and this time, read it first.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

nullzero wrote: »

Funny angry rapscallion?

This is precisely why I'm not entertaining your "arguments".

It is said you should never argue with an *****, so I won't.

You forgot little!

Triceratops Ballet

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

No man in this day and age is imagining a woman's experiences.

This isn't the 70's anymore and rightly so.

Look if the two lads in the articles are happy out with being ridiculed by their wives for the sake of a few clicks in public good for them. I guess.

But if the roles were reversed here, the articles would be seen as mysoginstic and again rightly so.

No man here is foaming at the mouth with rage, it's just that men here are looking at this drivel and there is a collective attitude of WTF?

And it's heartening to see some women here with a bit of cop on calling out this bollox for what it is; a pot shot at men because that's what is 'in' these days.

Look all of that is grand, but there are studies that have been quoted in the thread that support the idea that women do more housework than men. It's not just a pot shot for the sake of a pot shot.

The articles don't say all men are useless, they talk about the specific experiences of two individual families, on an issue that has data to back it up. Men do other things, when kids come along they tend to be the ones earning a higher wage and working more. If two men were too write articles about the pressure of carrying the financial load for a family that wouldn't be sexist. It's just fact with plenty of data to support it. It would be a good and interesting article to read as counterpoint to the two linked in the op. If anything the two published side by side could open some really interesting conversations in homes around the country about splitting those two loads or alleviating the pressure for both partners.

nullzero

meeeeh wrote: »

Were you complaining earlier about attacking the person. So you can dish it but can't take it.

I give it back when it's handed out as I said earlier. I'm not surprised you can't keep up.

Church on Tuesday

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Look all of that is grand, but there are studies that have been quoted in the thread that support the idea that women do more housework than men. It's not just a pot shot for the sake of a pot shot.

The articles don't say all men are useless, they talk about the specific experiences of two individual families, on an issue that has data to back it up. Men do other things, when kids come along they tend to be the ones earning a higher wage and working more. If two men were too write articles about the pressure of carrying the financial load for a family that wouldn't be sexist. It's just fact with plenty of data to support it. It would be a good and interesting article to read as counterpoint to the two linked in the op. If anything the two published side by side could open some really interesting conversations in homes around the country about splitting those two loads or alleviating the pressure for both partners.

Except you're not going to get that. For the reasons I've outlined already.

That's the flaw with these 'articles'. There's a clear agenda, and it's quite insidious actually.

If the genders were reversed here, this would not fly at all. You can appreciate the hypocrisy of that right?

nullzero

Kole Alive Fingertip wrote: »

You forgot little!

My apologies, the diminutive aspect is the most important part of the insult, how dare I forget to mention it.

IK09

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

No man in this day and age is imagining a woman's experiences.

This isn't the 70's anymore and rightly so.

Look if the two lads in the articles are happy out with being ridiculed by their wives for the sake of a few clicks in public good for them. I guess.

But if the roles were reversed here, the articles would be seen as mysoginstic and again rightly so.

No man here is foaming at the mouth with rage, it's just that men here are looking at this drivel and there is a collective attitude of WTF?

And it's heartening to see some women here with a bit of cop on calling out this bollox for what it is; a pot shot at men because that's what is 'in' these days.

Look all of that is grand, but there are studies that have been quoted in the thread that support the idea that women do more housework than men. It's not just a pot shot for the sake of a pot shot.

Did you read the study? Honestly.

meeeeh

IK09 wrote: »

You do realise that in the study there was a baseline requirement for a minimum of 1 hours "housework" to be completed within a 24hr period?

The study you have provided is pretty useless, because by their standards no housework has ever taken place in my home, however I still manage to put a dinner on the table and provide a clean and safe living space.

All the research you have provided shows is that men and women may perform housework duties differently, not unequally.

Personally, I tend to leave particular housework duties build up and do a full day of them at the same time. The study frames that if do 7 hours of house work on a Saturday, and a comparable female does an hour a day for 7 days, that she has done more than I have, which is foolish.

I suggest in future, before you grab an article that aligns with your bias, that you actually look into the statistics that you try to use to support your clearly incorrect point. Its not only a poor reflection on the level of detail that you give to a task, but on your also a reflection on how easily lead you can be.

The study also uses housework as a means to support a gender pay gap issue by categorising household duties as "working hours", thereby bulking up the amount of hours women spend in the actual workforce, which is just nonsense.

I suggest you come back with a more appropriate study, and this time, read it first.

I certainly salute you if you are able to feed kids and yourself well, make their lunches, clean the dishes, wash the clothes and so on in one hour. I can't do it.

The rest of your post is just nonsense.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

[/B]

Except you're not going to get that. For the reasons I've outlined already.

That's the flaw with these 'articles'. There's a clear agenda, and it's quite insidious actually.

If the genders were reversed here, this would not fly at all. You can appreciate the hypocrisy of that right?

I agree it's a double standard but what's the clear and insidious agenda behind "he's crap at doing housework"?

Triceratops Ballet

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

[/B]

Except you're not going to get that. For the reasons I've outlined already.

That's the flaw with these 'articles'. There's a clear agenda, and it's quite insidious actually.

If the genders were reversed here, this would not fly at all. You can appreciate the hypocrisy of that right?

I can't appreciate the hypocrisy of something that hasn't happened. If it were to happen it would be hypocritical. I don't believe it would.

Why not write to the paper and ask them to counter it for balance? why not write a counter yourself in the letters to the editor section? (not you specifically anyone who's outraged could)

IK09

meeeeh wrote: »

IK09 wrote: »

You do realise that in the study there was a baseline requirement for a minimum of 1 hours "housework" to be completed within a 24hr period?

The study you have provided is pretty useless, because by their standards no housework has ever taken place in my home, however I still manage to put a dinner on the table and provide a clean and safe living space.

All the research you have provided shows is that men and women may perform housework duties differently, not unequally.

Personally, I tend to leave particular housework duties build up and do a full day of them at the same time. The study frames that if do 7 hours of house work on a Saturday, and a comparable female does an hour a day for 7 days, that she has done more than I have, which is foolish.

I suggest in future, before you grab an article that aligns with your bias, that you actually look into the statistics that you try to use to support your clearly incorrect point. Its not only a poor reflection on the level of detail that you give to a task, but on your also a reflection on how easily lead you can be.

The study also uses housework as a means to support a gender pay gap issue by categorising household duties as "working hours", thereby bulking up the amount of hours women spend in the actual workforce, which is just nonsense.

I suggest you come back with a more appropriate study, and this time, read it first.

I certainly salute you if you are able to feed kids and yourself well, make their lunches, clean the dishes, wash the clothes and so on in one hour. I can't do it.

The rest of your post is just nonsense.

Read the study then come back to me

raze_them_all_

Kole Alive Fingertip wrote: »

I agree it's a double standard but what's the clear and insidious agenda behind "he's crap at doing housework"?

Where is his side of it? One side of an argument is a great basis

Outlaw Pete

Ardent wrote: »

If vibrators could mow the lawn, there'd be no need for men.

What are we, in Wimbledon? It's cut the fecking grass.

Men, great bunch of lads.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Where is his side of it? One side of an argument is a great basis

It's not presented and if it were (at least if it were presented on its own like this one is, it'd have a shot as a companion piece) it'd be heavily criticised. It's a double standard. No argument from me about that.

I'm asking the other poster what's the clear and insidious agenda referred to.

Tacklebox

Men have a choice and so do women.
I was on the dating scene for a while, meeting up with different women from all walks of life.

Any who were seperated the common denominator was either he was a useless mofukka or they were never attracted to him in the first place.
Their biological clock was haunting their judgement.
So basically they hooked up with a lazy femminine closeted guy, or an absolute Narcissist who had not love or regards for anyone but themselves.

I live alone for reasons I outlined earlier, and my partner totally gets it.
I'm independent so is she, we like our space and she has a 2 year old son who needs his mum, she's no baggage really as she got the artificial insemination done and it's up to the father to make contact with him when he's 18.
Zero drama with exes, my son's 18 in April.
She's buying her own house this summer luckily she's getting a 6 figure sum as inheritance.

We were honest with each other from the get go, both financially stable for the foreseeable future.

Anyone who leads their partners up the aisle or over the threshold with false pretences I think they're absolute Shi TS.

Sometimes men and women work better being apart, cut's out the frustration.

Men and women are both guilty of playing out a script until one pulls the rug out from under the other....

Be careful what you wish for

Hoboo

When a few scumbags come through the back window at 4am, lets see how the unfair distribution of labour argument works out.

My job is security and cooking. She's alive n well, thats all Ill say.

Church on Tuesday

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I can't appreciate the hypocrisy of something that hasn't happened. If it were to happen it would be hypocritical. I don't believe it would.

Why not write to the paper and ask them to counter it for balance? why not write a counter yourself in the letters to the editor section? (not you specifically anyone who's outraged could)

It won't happen because it won't sell, editors are not dumb.

Because I can't be bothered to be honest and I'm not in the slightest outraged enough by it. I highly doubt one would get much of a response in any event.

I just find it amusing and very interesting and kinda pathetic.

meeeeh

IK09 wrote: »

Read the study then come back to me

Neither of us read the whole study. It's 136 psges. The section on time is about 10 densly typed pages. Plus all the other explanations and conclusions. You managed to process all that and write a reply in about 20 minutes. All that for someone who earlier wasn't able to find a title if the study in a short newspaper article. How stupid do you think I am.

Btw you can provide a study that claims men do equal amount of house work.

IK09

Hoboo wrote: »

When a few scumbags come through the back window at 4am, lets see how the unfair distribution of labour argument works out.

My job is security and cooking. She's alive n well, thats all Ill say.

Hahahaha

IK09

meeeeh wrote: »

IK09 wrote: »

Read the study then come back to me

Neither of us read the whole study. It's 136 psges. The section on time is about 10 densly typed pages. Plus all the other explanations and conclusions. You managed to process all that and write a reply in about 20 minutes. All that for someone who earlier wasn't able to find a title if the study in a short newspaper article. How stupid do you think I am.

Btw you can provide a study that claims men do equal amount of house work.

You don't have to read the whole study. It's categorised into different sections. The one were talking about pertains to Housework. Read that section.

You're well able to throw "studies" around. Not so good when it comes to reading them.

So either you're going to remain ignorant to what we are talking about or you are not. The choice is yours.

Either read your own references or I rest my case. I'm sure that you have little regard for educating yourself so I'll assume I'm done here.

Muir

It'd be nice if a thread about men bashing didn't descend into women bashing, but this is AH. Most reasonable minded people want equality for both men and women. Sadly a lot of these reasonable people spend far too much time being outraged by the few at the extremes and end up bickering about nonsense. That doesn't just apply with gender, but with class, age, political opinions etc.

On the earlier discussion with jobs like binmen and underwater welding - I think there's an important missed point. One of the main areas that women are encouraged into is Engineering and Computing. The reason that is far more important than encouraging them into other male dominated industries is that those jobs will be replaced in the not so distant future by technology. So will many reception jobs which is a more female dominated industry. So encouraging more men to be receptionists or more women to be articulated lorry drivers is rather pointless.

There are issues. Some affect women more than men, some affect men more than women. I think sometimes women are worse for belittling and holding back other women, and the same for men with other men. Change is needed, by both men and women and for both men and women. People need to sit down and listen to each other more instead of getting defensive that any issue addressed is a personal attack on them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nullzero wrote: »

Funny angry rapscallion?

This is precisely why I'm not entertaining your "arguments".

It is said you should never argue with an *****, so I won't.

nullzero, you’ve undermined the responses of a number of people on this thread who have responded to you in good faith. Making lofty statements about adult conversations and whatnot. That is playing the man, not the ball - which you accuse others of doing.

I’m sure you can rebut the points made without resorting to that so why not do so?