Whinging feminists in the media

Morgans

Leg End Reject wrote: »

That is possible, but it doesn't contradict my point.

If a woman attends multiple times, but doesn't report any or all of the incidents to the guards, the 2 sets of data will vary.

I'm agreeing with you

py2006

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I wonder how many men had to leave their homes in the last year because of the threat of physical violence from their partner compared to the women who have been displaced.

Where do men go? Who will believe them?

Men stand to loose more by walking away from abusive relationships, not only the house but the children as well.

Smee_Again

NIMAN wrote: »

This one always baffled me.

The likes of the RCC say most cases go unreported. But surely if they aren't reported how do they know they exist?

Or are they only guessing to try to make themselves more needed?

Reported to AGS, many will go to RCC for support.

py2006

I often get swept up in these threads and infuriated by the obnoxious double standards allowed in print by those that label themselves feminists.

However, in real life and away from the computer screen I really don't see it as much and find female acquaintances, colleagues and friends equally as dismissive of a lot of the nonsense of today.

I just sometimes forget that...

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

Where do men go? Who will believe them?

Men stand to loose more by walking away from abusive relationships, not only the house but the children as well.

This is it though. Women have an activist group who lobby for their issues. They have worked for decades in spite of tremendous opposition and now we have a situation where there are places for women to go if they find themselves in those situations, women are taken seriously when they report abuse and its in the culture to care about women's issues.

But instead of simply supporting men's lobby groups to do the same things on behalf of men, we have weekly threads giving out about how successful women's groups have been at achieving change. They will simultaneously mock them for being ineffectual and also bemoan the progress made for women and hasn't been made for men. All without a hint of irony.

If half the threads whinging about feminists, were actually about positively supporting men's issues, then men would be in a better place. You can tell what people care about by how they approach things. If they cared about men's issues then they'd start threads about those issues. But they care about giving out about feminism so thats what they start threads about. These threads whinging about feminists are fine in so far as they're completely harmless and useless. Get it all up, you'll feel better in the morning.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If half the threads whinging about feminists, were actually about positively supporting men's issues, then men would be in a better place. You can tell what people care about by how they approach things. If they cared about men's issues then they'd start threads about those issues. But they care about giving out about feminism so thats what they start threads about. These threads whinging about feminists are fine in so far as they're completely harmless and useless. Get it all up, you'll feel better in the morning.

If the feminism of today was simply about womans issues then I would agree with you. However, it isn't.

Mad_maxx

Cal Croydon wrote: »

Feminists view the world through the prism of Marxist inspired group think along gender, racial and class lines. The Enlightenment values which underpin Western civilization were founded on the idea of respect for the individual. The individual is the sovereign entity, not the group.

Equality of outcome as a concept is right up there as one of the most evil and destructive ideologies ever to befall the human race. At the very least it encourages petty emotions like jealousy, envy etc. At its worst, you have Soviet collectivism, starvations and gulags. Ultimately, the most evil aspect of this ideology is that the ONLY way to have equality of outcome is to hold a certain section of the population down, forcefully if necessary. And reward the lazy, talentless and spiteful.

The major problem we have now is that this evil garbage is precisely what's being taught to our kids.

the marxists lost the economic war but they have certainly won the cultural battles

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

If the feminism of today was simply about womans issues then I would agree with you. However, it isn't.

Sure, feminism is big now. Bug enough to have people who go too far. That comes long after beginning the activism. It would be too ironic to brush over all the progress which has been made, just because you don't agree with the extreme edges of the broader movement. No point complaining that feminism is all about the fringed ignoring the bulk of the work they have achieved. If your not sure about all the things they have achieved, just look at the topics in this thread where someone points out that there is now a service for women and then complain "where's the men's equivalent?".

E.g. where are the shelters for men who experience domestic violence? The answer is that they haven't had a movement similar to feminism to lobby for them.

Faugheen

Nice to see this thread is going exactly as I suspected.

NoLuckLarry

Feminism is cancer just like every other cause that treats its antagonists like they are a hive mind and not individuals (e.g BLM).

El_Duderino 09

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

Feminism is cancer just like every other cause that treats its antagonists like they are a hive mind and not individuals (e.g BLM).

A cancer that has achieved things like shelters for women who experience domestic violence? That's a pretty useful cancer, wouldn't you agree?

magicbastarder

Faugheen wrote: »

Nice to see this thread is going exactly as I suspected.

it's even worse than i expected, poor old naive me.

Sharpyshoot

They should be put out to the bog cutting turf for a few days without their smartphones and that would take the taspy off them.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A cancer that has achieved things like shelters for women who experience domestic violence? That's a pretty useful cancer, wouldn't you agree?

Isn't the woman who founded the first women's shelter barred from these shelters and or ostracised by the feminists community now because she dared suggest men are victims too and need shelters.

That is a memory that just popped into my head, she was interviewed on Irish radio about it a couple years ago. I could be wrong.

magicbastarder

maybe if you think you're wrong, the onus is on you to prove you're right; rather than posting something you admit yourself could be nonsense, for someone else to disprove?

py2006

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe if you think you're wrong, the onus is on you to prove you're right; rather than posting something you admit yourself could be nonsense, for someone else to disprove?

It was a question and not a statement.

Going by the wikipedia article, Erin Pizzey, through her experience with women in shelters made the point in a book some of these women are equally as violent if not more so than their male partners. This didn't go down well and she was subjected to a lot of abuse and threats as a result.

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

Isn't the woman who founded the first women's shelter barred from these shelters and or ostracised by the feminists community now because she dared suggest men are victims too and need shelters.

That is a memory that just popped into my head, she was interviewed on Irish radio about it a couple years ago. I could be wrong.

Erin Pizzey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (/ˈpɪtsi/;[2] born 19 February 1939) is an English ex-feminist and men's rights advocate, domestic abuse advocate, and novelist.[3][4][5][6][7] She is known for having started the first and currently the largest domestic violence shelter in the modern world, Refuge, then known as Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971. [8][1][9]

Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because her experience and research into the issue led her to conclude that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men are. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists.[10][11][12] She has also said that she is banned from the refuge she started.[13][14]

MisterAnarchy

Overheal wrote: »

Actuarial science is, arguably, scientifically-backed bigotry.

Next you will be telling us that Maths is racist...

py2006

iptba wrote: »

Erin Pizzey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Thanks for that. It may have been your good self that brought this up before in another thread that I was thinking of.

purifol0

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A cancer that has achieved things like shelters for women who experience domestic violence? That's a pretty useful cancer, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah about that, you should hear what Erin Pizzey has to say about feminism. If you dont know who she is well she founded the worlds first and largest womens shelter. And feminists kicked her out, because (long story short) they wanted money and control.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey


12min video - recommending viewing for ALL on this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctdYHoMmJqs

B2021M

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

Feminism is cancer just like every other cause that treats its antagonists like they are a hive mind and not individuals (e.g BLM).

Yes and there is an irony in that we live in such a liberal time where people are told they can be whoever they want to be and are individuals.....but then it includes campaigns entirely based on groups with just one thing in common eg feminism, BLM...

mohawk

Smee_Again wrote: »

Reported to AGS, many will go to RCC for support.

Back when I was college age. I had a couple friends friends and knew of acquaintances that were sexually assaulted/raped. None of them went to the Guards to report it. They felt they wouldn’t be believed as it happened on nights out so they were drinking. It leaves a scar that many women need services of RCC to help them deal with the fallout afterwards.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

Isn't the woman who founded the first women's shelter barred from these shelters and or ostracised by the feminists community now because she dared suggest men are victims too and need shelters.

That is a memory that just popped into my head, she was interviewed on Irish radio about it a couple years ago. I could be wrong.

So I've heard. What's your point? There are shelters for women which only happened due to activism and persistein the face of opposition, over decades. You call it cancer.

The only way there will be shelters for men is if a similar cancer activates to lobby for men's shelters in the face of opposition and over decades.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So I've heard. What's your point? There are shelters for women which only happened due to activism and persistein the face of opposition, over decades. You call it cancer.

The only way there will be shelters for men is if a similar cancer activates to lobby for men's shelters in the face of opposition and over decades.

You are mixing me up with somebody else with that cancer stuff.

Economics101

Back to Actuarial science, insurance, and discrimination. I thought that the type of discrimination which is (rightly) illegal is when it is due to pure prejudice and without any rational basis: such as not hiring someone because of their skin colour or gender. If there is statistical/actuarial evidence that one belongs to a high risk group then having to pay a higher premium is not caused by prejudice, but by evidence.

OMM 0000

Overheal wrote:

Actuarial science is, arguably, scientifically-backed bigotry.

Let's say the CIA discover an e-mail from the Taliban saying on May 7 they will send 10 male martyrs on flights to the US.

When May 7 comes around, do you think the police at US airports should be watching everyone equally (all races and sexes) or should there be an extra focus on middle-eastern looking males?

Pawwed Rig

Morgans wrote: »

If they were issues, the men who have been in power for millenia and currently remain in power would surely have sorted them. It's not for the lack of representation that the issues are still a factor.

Your assumption that those in power are guided by the identity politics of gender is a false one. For most of the last 1,000 years in Ireland the men AND women in power were focused on the personal. The majority of the population were regarded as sub human to be used and abused. To look at that history through a gender discrimination lens shows a deep (and worrying) misunderstanding of every aspect of history. It is up there with young earth creationism and flat earth theory as an almost wilful ignorance.

99nsr125

Tell me how wrote: »

FFS. Here we go again.

Its a new broadcasting authority rule. For every 10 threads on Boards complaining about anything with feminism in the title, they are entitled to have an article published in a paper.

If you really care about the lack of coverage of male issues, go write an opinion piece for a newspaper, ring in to Joe Duffy, start a facebook group or do any of the things that advocates for other causes have done to draw attention to their plight.

Do you think the solution to male problems are to stop women talking about theirs?

It's about balance and one side not shouting down the other into oblivion which is what happens now. Men are almost voiceless.

99nsr125

Gatling wrote: »

All which effect men and women ...

Apart from the overwhelming negative effects are suffered by men

Smee_Again

99nsr125 wrote: »

It's about balance and one side not shouting down the other into oblivion which is what happens now. Men are almost voiceless.

And yet here we are in a thread of men trying to shout down women.

Annasopra

Smee_Again wrote: »

There was a thread recently discussing that Men’s Aid didn’t have money to keep their phone lines open, it was a busy thread with a lot of talk about how women’s support lines weren’t closed or that feminists weren’t helping Men’s Aid.

Someone suggested donating directly to Men’s Aid to support them and a new thread was created but only 3 or 4 people donated.

People are more interested in ranting about women and feminists than actually doing anything to help men or men’s rights.

Exactly. There are a lot of issues affecting men but a lot of those whinging about feminists dont reallly care.

magicbastarder

Smee_Again wrote: »

And yet here we are in a thread of men trying to shout down women.

when i hear a lot of the sort of arguments in threads like these i wonder if you gave a lot of people the choice of being a man or a woman, which would they choose for an easier life?

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

Gender quotas are the opposite of a meritocracy, therefore I am steadfastly against them. Having the most qualified candidates stepped over because they are the wrong gender makes zero sense to me. That's all.

Except that's not how it works in political parties. Quotas do not stop people from running for election. Whose turn it is to be selected is a more likely reason and those who get the hump often feel like they are victims of that. The use of political quotas has a further purpose, to make it a more attractive option for women. That is a good thing no matter how crude it may seem.

Bobtheman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is it though. Women have an activist group who lobby for their issues. They have worked for decades in spite of tremendous opposition and now we have a situation where there are places for women to go if they find themselves in those situations, women are taken seriously when they report abuse and its in the culture to care about women's issues.

But instead of simply supporting men's lobby groups to do the same things on behalf of men, we have weekly threads giving out about how successful women's groups have been at achieving change. They will simultaneously mock them for being ineffectual and also bemoan the progress made for women and hasn't been made for men. All without a hint of irony.

If half the threads whinging about feminists, were actually about positively supporting men's issues, then men would be in a better place. You can tell what people care about by how they approach things. If they cared about men's issues then they'd start threads about those issues. But they care about giving out about feminism so thats what they start threads about. These threads whinging about feminists are fine in so far as they're completely harmless and useless. Get it all up, you'll feel better in the morning.

I disagree. I learned a lot from various posters. A new perspective. But you have a point. You are either part of the solution or problem. So I will make contribution to men's aid. I teach in a boys school and I highlight male issues.
I think the media hypes it all. The vast vast majority of men will never assault a woman.
Most men and women want to get on with their lives.
The one area I do have sympathy for women is that they are often left holding the baby in terms of men leaving.
However men get a raw deal in the courts and with the housing situation often end up in a bedsit - if they are lucky.

99nsr125

Smee_Again wrote: »

Did I claim otherwise?

I said people were more interested in whinging about that than doing anything to counteract it.

Those threads were proof of that. This thread is more evidence of it.

No, men are defending themselves from egregious sexism. Writing articles pillaring one section of society because of your own inadequacies fųcks all of society

is_that_so

99nsr125 wrote: »

Apart from the overwhelming negative effects are suffered by men

Only if you believe that and feel that are being targeted.

99nsr125

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Women feel uncomfortable as it is traditionally a man's game, and the patriarchy prevent women from feeling welcome or equal. Also it was designed by a man and the game only has one female piece due to hatred of women. Men want to erase women.

Something along those lines.

Jesus, hate men much ?

The Queen is the most powerful piece if it escaped your bias

spurious

Women faced with inequality, organised, protested over many years.
Why does it seem men just 'whinge' about issues while doing nothing themselves?

Please give an example of today's daily feminist article.

Bobtheman

It has to be said that the lack of female politicians probably was a factor in the poor provision of childcare in Ireland.
But our poor mental health services affect both men and women. As obviously does our housing crisis.
The media just like a good row.
We saw it with the public vs private sector debates.
Valid as that debate was - it took away from other debates such as what sort of society we wanted post crash.

Pawwed Rig

is_that_so wrote: »

Except that's not how it works in political parties. Quotas do not stop people from running for election. Whose turn it is to be selected is a more likely reason and those who get the hump often feel like they are victims of that. The use of political quotas has a further purpose, to make it a more attractive option for women. That is a good thing no matter how crude it may seem.

So why not quotas for other under represented groups? Poles, Chinese, traveller, working class people?

Leg End Reject

Smee_Again wrote: »

And yet here we are in a thread of men trying to shout down women.

I've seen this posted a lot recently. Disagreeing with an opinion is not shouting down. Expessing a minority opinion where the majority disagree doesn't mean others are piling on or shouting you down.

Everyone is free to post their thoughts, whether you like them or not. Counter, challenge and debate them if you wish, but claiming you're being silenced is akin to a tantrum.

Bobtheman

spurious wrote: »

Women faced with inequality, organised, protested over many years.
Why does it seem men just 'whinge' about issues while doing nothing themselves?

Please give an example of today's daily feminist article.

I'd have to go through the Sunday ind. I'm sure there is one. You have a point about protests. But I think it's better to focus on joint interests. The media love a good feminist rant. Fills the pages. But in the end probably achieves SFA except to wind up people who read that stuff. Not saying it's all irrelevant.. It ain't but just achieves SFA.
I'm no longer reading the Irish times or ind because I'm sick of the sermons..

is_that_so

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So why not quotas for other under represented groups? Poles, Chinese, traveller, working class people?

Gender in society splits about 50/50 is why and it includes all of these secondary groups here. If a race/minority group approach can get a party more seats they'll embrace it.

Bobtheman

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I've seen this posted a lot recently. Disagreeing with an opinion is not shouting down. Expessing a minority opinion where the majority disagree doesn't mean others are piling on or shouting you down.

Everyone is free to post their thoughts, whether you like them or not. Counter, challenge and debate them if you wish, but claiming you're being silenced is akin to a tantrum.

Jesus wept. I suppose we need gender quotas on threads now!

lawred2

Bobtheman wrote: »

I broadly support feminism in terms of equal pay.
I also support more female politicians though I think the 40% candidate rule too much too soon. Means some decent male candidates getting dumped.
I know sexual harassment and attacks are real events.
I think possibly that they are on the increase due to various factors. I'm not sure what the solution is but please don't pretend it can be sorted out with an education program.
However I'm a bit tired of every single newspaper having at least one moaning feminist per day.
You never see any articles about male issues. Issues on which men come out worse than women

Which decent male candidates?

Leg End Reject

Bobtheman wrote: »

Jesus wept. I suppose we need gender quotas on threads now!

Do we? I'm a woman and that reply was to a woman who thinks women are shouted down on boards.

Do you not agree that everyone has a right to post their opinions?

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So why not quotas for other under represented groups? Poles, Chinese, traveller, working class people?

Women are polish, Chinese, traveller etc also

is_that_so

Bobtheman wrote: »

I'd have to go through the Sunday ind. I'm sure there is one. You have a point about protests. But I think it's better to focus on joint interests. The media love a good feminist rant. Fills the pages. But in the end probably achieves SFA except to wind up people who read that stuff. Not saying it's all irrelevant.. It ain't but just achieves SFA.
I'm no longer reading the Irish times or ind because I'm sick of the sermons..

One develops or should develop an ability to seek out the message in all the noise of these articles. Even in what we dislike there is often a nugget or two to consider.

The J Stands for Jay

Gatling wrote: »

All which effect men and women ...

Life Expectancy - women have higher life expectancy
Suicide - more men kill themselves
Homelessness - a message majority of men make up the homeless numbers
Child Custody - children go to women unless there's an exceptional issue with the mother
Sentencing - men go to prison more often, women get a shorter sentence, if they get one, and Docas is better conditions than regular proson
War - no women have been drafted
Workplace Deaths - mennmicj more likely to die at work

Bobtheman

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Do we? I'm a woman and that reply was to a woman who thinks women are shouted down on boards.

Do you not agree that everyone has a right to post their opinions?

I do. How you can be shouted down is beyond me. It's social media. I often comment on teacher threads and I know I will get hostility.. It's par for the course.
It's up to you when you think it's gone too far to report it.
You are entitled to your views but it's social Media.