Women in Ireland working for free from today until 31 December

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Well in vast majority of cases men started wars and men sent other men to wars. That's the fun of power, it comes with responsibility. Or are you saying that men ruling the world through the centuries did a very bad job? .

I always find this attitude interesting. That women were silent statues in society without any voice either in public, or more importantly in private. Many wives had tremendous influence over their husbands, and there are loads of references of women throughout history being agitators within crowds to whip up public opinion for war. But no, women had no responsibility for anything that happened until they got the vote, and even then, their responsibility is cherry picked. (especially in some cases, women got the vote before mainstream men).

In the vast majority of cases, "men" controlled countries, but they were a very exclusive group, with, again, the vast majority of men having no power to influence their nations interests. It's more of this collective responsibility BS. If some men in the past behaved a certain way, then all men... past, present, and future are responsible for their choices. Alas, it doesn't work the same way for women.

The truth is that it doesn't matter whether men did a bad or good job in the past. They're not us.

There is no point resenting young women of today for it

But there's a point to resenting men of today for it? That's essentially what your post advocates. A dual system of innocence for women and guilt for males.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I always find this attitude interesting. That women were silent statues in society without any voice either in public, or more importantly in private. Many wives had tremendous influence over their husbands, and there are loads of references of women throughout history being agitators within crowds to whip up public opinion for war. But no, women had no responsibility for anything that happened until they got the vote, and even then, their responsibility is cherry picked. (especially in some cases, women got the vote before mainstream men).

In the vast majority of cases, "men" controlled countries, but they were a very exclusive group, with, again, the vast majority of men having no power to influence their nations interests. It's more of this collective responsibility BS. If some men in the past behaved a certain way, then all men... past, present, and future are responsible for their choices. Alas, it doesn't work the same way for women.

The truth is that it doesn't matter whether men did a bad or good job in the past. They're not us.



But there's a point to resenting men of today for it? That's essentially what your post advocates. A dual system of innocence for women and guilt for males.

There is no resenting men of today for anything just stop whinging about dying in wars and how unfair it is women didn't.

Everything is everyone else's fault. It's women, feminists, men in power, every one else is blamed. And then some genius decides young women of today have it easy because women never went to war.

nkl12xtw5goz70

meeeeh wrote: »

Everything is everyone else's fault.

Fair enough.

When it comes to the alleged gender pay gap, maybe women could also stop blaming others? If women took responsibility for their own choices — everything from their fields of study in university, to their preference for working family-friendly hours in non-hazardous occupations, to their extended career breaks to stay home with children — they might see that their lower earnings are not due to some patriarchal conspiracy, but a natural outcome of their own life decisions.

meeeeh

Or you can just campaign to be paid more and for men to be 'encouraged' or forced to take more parental leave. It would be monumentally stupid to just start working more in hope for it to be recognised. In general it's those who network better who do better not those who sit quietly in the corner and work hard.

There is whinging and there is efficient whining...

tylercheribini

As a man in his 30's, "the patriarchy" has done f**k all for me so far.

meeeeh

tylercheribini wrote: »

As a man in his 30's, "the patriarchy" has done f**k all for me so far.

Should it do something?

Eric Cartman

tylercheribini wrote: »

As a man in his 30's, "the patriarchy" has done f**k all for me so far.

Yeah , all around me I see women living off their fathers and partners, getting promoted out of tokenism, having every state body rally for their every concern and heres me and the lads having to work every day since we were 18 and nobody else to support us, whens my ‘patriarchy gravy train’ getting here

tylercheribini

meeeeh wrote: »

Should it do something?

According to a lot of media coverage, apparently so.

tylercheribini

tylercheribini wrote: »

As a man in his 30's, "the patriarchy" has done f**k all for me so far.

meeeeh wrote: »

Should it do something?

No, because it doesn't exist. It's a convenient scapegoat for all of womens problems.

meeeeh

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yeah , all around me I see women living off their fathers and partners, getting promoted out of tokenism, having every state body rally for their every concern and heres me and the lads having to work every day since we were 18 and nobody else to support us, whens my ‘patriarchy gravy train’ getting here

So you are working since 18 every day without improving your situation. That really is hard... and stupid.

tylercheribini

The vast majority of employees in the western world, both male and female, are getting screwed, its called capitalism.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, because it doesn't exist. It's a convenient scapegoat for all of womens problems.

Patriarchy doesn't exist now?! Are we rewriting history now?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy

tylercheribini

tylercheribini wrote: »

The vast majority of employees in the western world, both male and female, are getting screwed, its called capitalism.

No, it's called Economics. Capitalism is something else entirely, and when applied in moderation, can be a force of good in peoples lives.

People get screwed because they're unlucky, foolish, naive, plan badly, have unreasonable expectations, etc. It's just convenient to blame someone or something else.

meeeeh

tylercheribini wrote: »

The vast majority of employees in the western world, both male and female, are getting screwed, its called capitalism.

Well then they should become employers because that's so easy...

tylercheribini

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's called Economics. Capitalism is something else entirely, and when applied in moderation, can be a force of good in peoples lives.

People get screwed because they're unlucky, foolish, naive, plan badly, have unreasonable expectations, etc. It's just convenient to blame someone or something else.

That you Thatcher? I thought you were dead....:D:D

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Patriarchy doesn't exist now?! Are we rewriting history now?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy

Rewriting history? Exaggerating much? It doesn't take much to be added to a dictionary these days.

Care to prove the existence of a patriarchy that rules over all women, and seeks to disallow them of rights? Any people who have been linked with evidence to an organisation called the patriarchy? Since feminists often refer to it as "the patriarchy" which is quite a few steps beyond a theoretical structure.

Mad_maxx

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I always find this attitude interesting. That women were silent statues in society without any voice either in public, or more importantly in private. Many wives had tremendous influence over their husbands, and there are loads of references of women throughout history being agitators within crowds to whip up public opinion for war. But no, women had no responsibility for anything that happened until they got the vote, and even then, their responsibility is cherry picked. (especially in some cases, women got the vote before mainstream men).

In the vast majority of cases, "men" controlled countries, but they were a very exclusive group, with, again, the vast majority of men having no power to influence their nations interests. It's more of this collective responsibility BS. If some men in the past behaved a certain way, then all men... past, present, and future are responsible for their choices. Alas, it doesn't work the same way for women.

The truth is that it doesn't matter whether men did a bad or good job in the past. They're not us.



But there's a point to resenting men of today for it? That's essentially what your post advocates. A dual system of innocence for women and guilt for males.

My granny was a domineering ( she was great) and extremely ambitious woman, her husband was a mild mannered man who liked to read, she was absolutely the boss

tylercheribini

tylercheribini wrote: »

That you Thatcher? I thought you were dead....:D:D

I worked in credit control and later, liquidations. You wouldn't believe the amount of people who will buy/rent something without reading the contract first. They simply assume that the conditions will be favorable to them, and don't think what happen when they can't make their payments. It's the same with employment contracts when I was later, a manager. People would read the sections on salary, benefits and holidays, but skip over the remainder of the contract.

The point is that many people are stupid. They expect others to bail them out, and when they don't, they want to escape responsibility for their own choices.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Rewriting history? Exaggerating much? It doesn't take much to be added to a dictionary these days.

Care to prove the existence of a patriarchy that rules over all women, and seeks to disallow them of rights? Any people who have been linked with evidence to an organisation called the patriarchy? Since feminists often refer to it as "the patriarchy" which is quite a few steps beyond a theoretical structure.

Ah come one, it's clear there was patriarchy through the history, it's defining inheritance laws, power and so on. A few matriarchal societies did exist in history but they were an exemption. You can argue it's gone today in modern western democracy but seriously to deny it's existence is beyond any sane argument.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Ah come one, it's clear there was patriarchy through the history, it's defining inheritance laws, power and so on. A few matriarchal societies did exist in history but they were an exemption. You can argue it's gone today in modern western democracy but seriously to deny it's existence is beyond any sane argument.

I'm not denying the use of the term in anthropology or sociology. I'm denying its existence as used by feminists. If you want to suggest that they're correct, then you should be able to point to evidence of its existence as I posted earlier. Feminist aren't using it as a theoretical construct. They're using it as the "boogieman" which has real effects on womens lives now. Today. Every day.

meeeeh

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not denying the use of the term in anthropology or sociology. I'm denying its existence as used by feminists.

You want me to rebuff your imaginary definition. I haven't got a clue what you or 'the feminists' define patriarchy as.

tylercheribini

meeeeh wrote: »

You want me to rebuff your imaginary definition. I haven't got a clue what you or 'the feminists' define patriarchy as.

Prob needs to be redefined as "the global patriarchal conspiracy."

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

just stop whinging.

this is so rich you could balance the gender pay gap with it

there are industries built around feminist whinging

(the women involved pay themselves pretty well, id say)

meeeeh

Deleted User wrote: »

this is so rich you could balance the gender pay gap with it

there are industries built around feminist whinging

(the women involved pay themselves pretty well, id say)

You'd hope so. Otherwise what's the point of doing it?

nkl12xtw5goz70

meeeeh wrote: »

Ah come one, it's clear there was patriarchy through the history, it's defining inheritance laws, power and so on. A few matriarchal societies did exist in history but they were an exemption. You can argue it's gone today in modern western democracy but seriously to deny it's existence is beyond any sane argument.

That's the point, surely?

Few would deny that societies have been patriarchal in the past, and that many societies in the world today (e.g., Saudi Arabia) remain highly patriarchal.

But for a young woman born in 1990s Ireland to blame any of her woes on "the patriarchy" — at a point when women have much higher levels of educational achievement, lower suicide rates, longer life expectancy, the legal upper hand in any divorce or custody proceedings, and almost all "3D" jobs (dirty, difficult, and dangerous) done for them by men — is faintly ridiculous.

At present, enrollment at Trinity College is 60 percent female. If three out of every five students at the country's top university were men, we'd have task forces urgently investigating an unacceptable systematic bias and angry feminists blaming "the patriarchy" for keeping women down. But when women hold the upper hand in university admissions, there doesn't seem to be a problem. Why?

Reviews and Books Galore

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well they weren't allowed to serve in the army , or even vote in most places at the time. I'm sure some would have gladly gone if given the chance, although no doubt the governments wouldn't have been happy for the people who birth the next generation of people in a society to go off and die in large numbers. Instead they stayed behind and took on roles traditionally filled by men such as harvesting the crops, working on the railways, working in factories to produce things such as ammunition which were vital to the war effort etc. Some of them died doing this due to toxic chemicals. Or did you think they just stayed at home completely unaffected by the war?

But what does that have to do with this thread other than allowing you to vent your spleen about women?

Do you know any feminists campaigning to be let in the lottery during Vietnam war?

Reviews and Books Galore

meeeeh wrote: »

Ah come one, it's clear there was patriarchy through the history, it's defining inheritance laws, power and so on. A few matriarchal societies did exist in history but they were an exemption. You can argue it's gone today in modern western democracy but seriously to deny it's existence is beyond any sane argument.

I'm denying its existence. No society has ever been the evil men over the helpless women. Each gender just had its own area to work in rather than the while father issue inspired men run amok narrative.

meeeeh

Brittany Sweet Seacoast wrote: »

That's the point, surely?

Few would deny that societies have been patriarchal in the past, and that many societies in the world today (e.g., Saudi Arabia) remain highly patriarchal.

But for a young woman born in 1990s Ireland to blame any of her woes on "the patriarchy" — at a point when women have much higher levels of educational achievement, lower suicide rates, longer life expectancy, the legal upper hand in any divorce or custody proceedings, and almost all "3D" jobs (dirty, difficult, and dangerous) done for them by men — is faintly ridiculous.

At present, enrollment at Trinity College is 60 percent female. If three out of every five students at the country's top university were men, we'd have task forces urgently investigating an unacceptable systematic bias and angry feminists blaming "the patriarchy" for keeping women down. But when women hold the upper hand in university admissions, there doesn't seem to be a problem. Why?

Or you can argue not all of it is gone yet. I have no interest doing it one way or the other.

I think it's well documented girl's development means they do better in tests. I argued before for quotas for boys in certain programmes. It's usually shot down by anti quota crowd. I don't know what else could be done. But you can't just claim girls have it easier and then not at least suggesting of how to approach the problem. Then we are back to pointless whinging again.

kildare lad

Brittany Sweet Seacoast wrote: »

That's the point, surely?

Few would deny that societies have been patriarchal in the past, and that many societies in the world today (e.g., Saudi Arabia) remain highly patriarchal.

But for a young woman born in 1990s Ireland to blame any of her woes on "the patriarchy" — at a point when women have much higher levels of educational achievement, lower suicide rates, longer life expectancy, the legal upper hand in any divorce or custody proceedings, and almost all "3D" jobs (dirty, difficult, and dangerous) done for them by men — is faintly ridiculous.

At present, enrollment at Trinity College is 60 percent female. If three out of every five students at the country's top university were men, we'd have task forces urgently investigating an unacceptable systematic bias and angry feminists blaming "the patriarchy" for keeping women down. But when women hold the upper hand in university admissions, there doesn't seem to be a problem. Why?

Stop talking sense, can't you see some people like being oppressed

nkl12xtw5goz70

meeeeh wrote: »

I think it's well documented girl's development means they do better in tests. I argued before for quotas for boys in certain programmes. It's usually shot down by anti quota crowd. I don't know what else could be done. But you can't just claim girls have it easier and then not at least suggesting of how to approach the problem. Then we are back to pointless whinging again.

There's plenty of research showing that female teachers are biased against boys, tending to label them as disruptive and boisterous while describing girls as obedient and mature. Further research from MIT shows that female teachers systematically gave girls higher grades and more praise for the same caliber of work.

Close to 90 percent of Irish primary teachers are now women, meaning that boys spend the first eight years of school in an environment where they have few male role models and a teaching staff biased against them. Boys at an early age learn to identify girls as the better students and boys as the troublemakers.

The typical classroom setup, where students are expected to sit quietly at desks, also favors girls. Disproportionate numbers of boys are kinesthetic learners — but instead of working with boys' learning styles, teachers again label them. Boys are almost three times as likely as girls to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

No surprise that so many boys become underachievers.