nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why are men dropping out of society? - mod note in 1st post

maregal

I'd like this thread to discuss the reasons why men are dropping out of society and foregoing women rather than discuss whether it's a good or bad thing. Last time a poster espoused the merits of the MGTOW movement the angry feminists brigaded the forum and forced the thread closure. It's amusing how offended they get as a group when one single man declares he's not interested in them.

To keep the OP brief I'll list off some oft-suggested reasons and hopefully we can expand on them in the discussion.

Marriage is seen as a temporary arrangement these days rather than permanent. Men always lose out in the divorce. Look what the alimony payments did to Robin Williams.

A good job is hard to find. Everything is an internship, short contract or a dead end McJob. Employment quotas favour women and minorities.

Pornography making men docile?

Education system favours the female brain. Universities are packed with more females than males. SJW and politically correct dogma is shoved down your throat at these institutions.

Men being demonized. Grown man holding hands with his child in the public park = pedophile. Have consensual sex with a girl but she changes her mind the next day = rapist. Men are constantly fighting back their natural urge to rape and commit violence apparently.

I've a few more hypotheses but that should be enough to get the ball rolling.

Mod note:

To lessen the impact of troublesome rereg posters, we ask posters with fewer than 10 posts or who have been registered for fewer than 3 days not to post in this thread.

It is likely that newly registered users who post in contravention of the above request will be a troll or a rereg, who will be removed along with their posts and replies to them.

We ask other users to report any issues which may arise in this regard.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Colser

psinno wrote:

Seems pure nuts that kids are not allowed to play football at some schools. I couldn't believe it when a friend told me. Playing football every day in primary school was pretty much the only exercise I got until my 30s.

They're not allowed run full stop.It's madness but I presume a few claims may have ruined it for the rest of us.I'd happily sign a disclaimer if it was an option.

SarahMollie

Colser wrote: »

They're not allowed run full stop.It's madness but I presume a few claims may have ruined it for the rest of us.I'd happily sign a disclaimer if it was an option.

I'm 30 now and this was the rule in my primary school when I was that age in the 90's. Its not a new phenomenon.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

less blunt that ignoring gender.

I'd ignore gender if it isn't the best way to divide children. Learning styles would be a better way to cut the education system to measure.

Lux23 wrote:

Equality has brought about a somewhat leveller playing field for everyone and some of those who were previously in a more privileged position just don't have what it takes to win anymore. Successful humans are adaptable and take responsibility for their own failings, if some men (or privileged women) are dropping it is because they simply don't have the ability to work hard and improve where they have failings.

This is related to a point the politician often talk about. They talk about social mobility being a good thing, If you work hard and are clever you can raise in the ranks and become wealthy etc. They never say that if you're born rich stupid and lazy, you should end up on the dole. The adjustment won't suit men as it increases the supply of labour. A hit like Protestant in the north didn't enjoy having to compete for jobs with Catholics. They probably preferred when certain jobs were kept for other protestants.

Pat Mustard wrote:

If one gender does not make up 50% of the best qualified and experienced applicants, then the quota favours the gender who is in the minority of qualified and experienced applicants.
In modern times, there are relatively few roles which require the particular physical characteristics of one gender or another. Therefore, in general, selection on the basis of gender is discriminatory practice.

So if women aren't getting into certain careers it's because they aren't the best qualified and experienced applicants but if men don't make up 50% of university places, should we accept that as a fact or rearranged the whole education system to make sure men meet the gender quota?

silverharp

midnight city wrote: »

Its really depressing to see this used in an Irish context. Its bulls**t that doesn't apply here.

indeed, argument straight of Tumblr..."you're a white male" .even if a comment about the US, Black males have been decimated. somewhere around 90% of black kids don't have a father around and these single mothers are raising the next generation of thugs and deadbeats.

youre-a-white-male-made-on-imgur-this-has-become-2667119.png

youre-a-white-male-made-on-imgur-this-has-become-2667119.png

Walter H Price

Mr Arrior wrote: »

I get the feeling that Irish women don't really want to be approached in every day life. How do you tackle trying to get the attention of a woman in an every day scenario, if you see a beautiful Lady that is a friend of a mutual friend online, is it OK to try and get in contact out of nothing.
All questions that have me baffled.

yeh obviously go for it , girls are people too you can talk to them whenever it's no biggie. we are more connected then ever before meeting girls or at least encountering them is hardly novelty , they will be in your class in school (maybe) in clubs and soc's , the library , the bar in college , in work , on your regular bus or train , live in your apartment building or housing estate , be mates with your sister or be your mates sister (though tread carefully here) , be on nights out days out at the Ruby , working in the shop wherever.

You don't even have to ask for a number anymore just get their name and find them on face book , snapchat , twitter , tinder wherever it's not hard . Get out of your head lads stressing about finding love relationships a potential wife whatever start with just chatting to girls not chating them up with awful cheesy lines, just chatting if you like make a move sometimes you score sometimes you don't , but you cant win the raffle without a ticket.

Ditch the standards like seriously if i hear one more of my fairly average looking buddy's turn down a chance to get off with a girl because she is to fat , to thin , to smart to dim , to tall to short , to boring basically because she's not an Emma stone lookalike with an active interest in premier league football i'm going to loose it.

I was 22 stone i, 6'1 and half cut the whole way through college and i pulled a rake of girls in the class in society's , on nights out , my physiotherapist , a married mature student , a lecturer , 18 year olds to 45 year olds , black, white asian whatever your having yourself and eventually my future wife. i didn't have a single female friend in college i didn't sleep with at some stage some i really fancied others not so much, some i really like and wanted relationships with some i actively disliked , it's not hard honestly but you have to just get out of your own head , Read the game by Neil Strauss its a gift , just go out have a laugh and make a move without fear the worst she can do is say no but what harm.

Potatoeman

psinno wrote: »

How often do you hear about a gender quota being imposed on areas where women outnumber men?

You also have to add in the fact that more women choose to stay at home and this is especially true for older generations. Quotas for management positions would have more competition from men than women. I doubt we will see the reverse quotas in ten to twenty years.

mzungu

Lux23 wrote: »

This is white, male privilege wrapped up in a bow and delivered straight to the hardcore feminists.

How do we know for certain that the OP is white? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Dyr

psinno wrote: »

Playing football every day in primary school was pretty much the only exercise I got until my 30s.

Jesus, you were kept back a fair few years so

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So if women aren't getting into certain careers it's because they aren't the best qualified and experienced applicants but if men don't make up 50% of university places, should we accept that as a fact or rearranged the whole education system to make sure men meet the gender quota?

Predictable strawman yawnfest.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Predictable strawman yawnfest.

It was a question, not an argument. Don't feel obliged to answer it if you can't

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It was a question, not an argument. Don't feel obliged to answer it if you can't

This dance is familiar.

midnight city

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So if women aren't getting into certain careers it's because they aren't the best qualified and experienced applicants but if men don't make up 50% of university places, should we accept that as a fact or rearranged the whole education system to make sure men meet the gender quota?

Well how about the authorities even looking into why boys aren't doing as well at school. A bit of research, maybe trying to find out why its happening. There has been nothing so far.

You seem perfectly happy for girls to out perform boys. I hope you aren't a teacher with your attitude to boys underachieving at school.

pumpkin4life

midnight city wrote: »

Well how about the authorities even looking into why boys aren't doing as well at school. A bit of research, maybe trying to find out why its happening. There has been nothing so far.

You seem perfectly happy for girls to out perform boys. I hope you aren't a teacher with your attitude to boys underachieving at school.

To be fair, women tend to do more worthless degrees like English, Sociology, Politics etc.

The single biggest difference between men and women tends to be variance.

More extremes at both ends for men than women, so I'm not sure how discriminatory that is.

Also side point on this MGTOW shìte:

WE.ARE.NOT.AMERICA. THIS.IS.IRELAND.

kunst nugget

midnight city wrote: »

Well how about the authorities even looking into why boys aren't doing as well at school. A bit of research, maybe trying to find out why its happening. There has been nothing so far.

You seem perfectly happy for girls to out perform boys. I hope you aren't a teacher with your attitude to boys underachieving at school.

There's been research by the University of Kent…

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/the-gender-gap-why-do-boys-do-worse-than-girls-at-school-1.1591232

The recent study, at the University of Kent, revealed that boys are falling behind girls because they are constantly being told they are not up to scratch. The research, which involved about 600 children aged four to 10, found that boys felt their teachers and parents did not expect them to do as well as girls, and lost their motivation or confidence as a result.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

This dance is familiar.

I know. If you answered it honestly it would run counter to your general opinion in the topic of gender.

midnight city wrote:

Well how about the authorities even looking into why boys aren't doing as well at school. A bit of research, maybe trying to find out why its happening. There has been nothing so far.

Great. I'd support that

midnight city wrote:

You seem perfectly happy for girls to out perform boys.

Not at all. I'm just surprised that when there's an issue that involves a gender inequality that inhibits boys/men, the consensus is to delve into the social and political background and fix the problem. When it's a gender inequality problem for women, on the other hand we can write it off as one gender not being qualified and experienced enough. Strange, ain't it?

Pat Mustard wrote:

If one gender does not make up 50% of the best qualified and experienced applicants, then the quota favours the gender who is in the minority of qualified and experienced applicants.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It was a question, not an argument. Don't feel obliged to answer it if you can't

for starters, if there were some recognition that men need to have their place in society and if they don't women lose too then at a minimum all quotas for women need to go and its wider than college. NYFD for example was under pressure to hire women, why? if I am going to be carried out of a burning building down 10 flights of stairs, I want "him" to be the strongest person they could hire, not someone that has passed a dumbed down physical test. Similar logic for police, police used to be physically intimidating. What is a female beat cop supposed to do if cornered by a criminal or someone who is high or just naturally very violent? or again if i was being attacked by a group of thugs, I'd like the first cops on scene to be the strongest and most able to take down the bad guys. Now you have the same pressure to let women be front line troops or be up for conscription, Im not sure that is positive for women.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know. If you answered it honestly

:pac:

My dance card is all full up tonight.

I'm sure that you'll find someone else for this tango*.

*interaction marked by a lack of straightforwardness

midnight city

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not at all. I'm just surprised that when there's an issue that involves a gender inequality that inhibits boys/men, the consensus is to delve into the social and political background and fix the problem. When it's a gender inequality problem for women, on the other hand we can write it off as one gender not being qualified and experienced enough. Strange, ain't it?

What?

Have you ever heard of the feminist movement, the women's council, there is no shortage of organisations and research going into inequality affecting women. Its been relentless for 40 years.

kunst nugget

midnight city wrote: »

What?

Have you ever heard of the feminist movement, the women's council, there is no shortage of organisations and research going into inequality affecting women. Its been relentless for 40 years.

I think he's talking about what's being said in this thread and tbf I think it's a pretty decent point in relation to this thread.

kunst nugget

Potatoeman wrote: »

I doubt we will see the reverse quotas in ten to twenty years.

Isn't Gender Quota legislation that you have to have a certain percentage of a gender in a management position so it could be used by men if they felt they were being discriminated against.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

for starters, if there were some recognition that men need to have their place in society and if they don't women lose too then at a minimum all quotas for women need to go and its wider than college. NYFD for example was under pressure to hire women, why? if I am going to be carried out of a burning building down 10 flights of stairs, I want "him" to be the strongest person they could hire, not someone that has passed a dumbed down physical test. Similar logic for police, police used to be physically intimidating. What is a female beat cop supposed to do if cornered by a criminal or someone who is high or just naturally very violent? or again if i was being attacked by a group of thugs, I'd like the first cops on scene to be the strongest and most able to take down the bad guys. Now you have the same pressure to let women be front line troops or be up for conscription, Im not sure that is positive for women.

Wouldn't you just want the most qualified, well trained person? If the training and standards are adequate hen I dont care if they rejig them to allow more women. I imagine scuffling with criminals is more to do woth technique and training than brute strength. I know from rugby that technique at rucks/tackles is more important than brute strength.

Pat Mustard wrote:

My dance card is all full up tonight. I'm sure that you'll find someone else for this tango*.

Not to worry someone else was able to answer the question. The answer to the question wouldn't be be consistent with the general flow of your posts. Best to duck out. Enjoy the dance card. Here's a tune for you to dance to 'like a puppet on a string'. ðŸ˜‰

kunst nugget wrote:

I think he's talking about what's being said in this thread and tbf I think it's a pretty decent point in relation to this thread.

That is exactly what I was talking about.

We're all in agreement that we should sort his problem out with no expense spared. No child should be left behind in school. I presume that's the approach the same posters would take to taken to numbers of female firefighters and police?

We need more male teachers because reasons but not more female firefighters also because reasons.

More male friendly education system to make sure men get on = good. but changing the firefighters curriculum is suspect.

Is gender really the best way to divide these professions?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Wouldn't you just want the most qualified, well trained person? If the training and standards are adequate hen I dont care if they rejig them to allow more women. I imagine scuffling with criminals is more to do woth technique and training than brute strength. I know from rugby that technique at rucks/tackles is more important than brute strength.

but let these organsiations have their own entry qualifications, if a woman can pass the same fire fighter test well and dandy but dont dumb down the tests and dont pester them why they dont have "more" female fighters. maybe 2% or whatever is the right number

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Wouldn't you just want the most qualified, well trained person? If the training and standards are adequate hen I dont care if they rejig them to allow more women. I imagine scuffling with criminals is more to do woth technique and training than brute strength. I know from rugby that technique at rucks/tackles is more important than brute strength.

Not to worry someone else was able to answer the question. The answer to the question wouldn't be be consistent with the general flow of your posts. Best to duck out. Enjoy the dance card. Here's a tune for you to dance to 'like a puppet on a string'. ðŸ˜‰

That is exactly what I was talking about.

We're all in agreement that we should sort his problem out with no expense spared. No child should be left behind in school. I presume that's the approach the same posters would take to taken to numbers of female firefighters and police?

We need more male teachers because reasons but not more female firefighters also because reasons.

More male friendly education system to make sure men get on = good. but changing the firefighters curriculum is suspect.

Is gender really the best way to divide these professions?

If they keep the same test for male and female firefighters then I dont see the problem. but if they change the criteria for women then its putting lives at risk. I used to be in the fire auxiliary and quickly realised i was not strong enough to carry a firehose up 20 flights of stairs. ****s heavy.

Just because its harsh on women does not mean its sexist. you need to be strong to be a fireman. technique is not as important as brute strength.

El_Duderino 09

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

The implication inthe education context would be that boys are not as good at becoming educated as girls. Now that boys aren't performing, we need to drill down and find and fix the political and social constructs that hinder boys (I agree with that approach btw). Keep that in mind for the next time here's a gender thread where the issue is holding women back. Maybe the same posters will be along to advocate the same approach

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Here we are discussing it! Shaping opinions on a social media platform. If it's something you feel should be carried to a political level, there's nothing stopping anyone doing that. Going by the responses on this thread, it would he supported by most people.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

but let these organsiations have their own entry qualifications, if a woman can pass the same fire fighter test well and dandy but dont dumb down the tests and dont pester them why they dont have "more" female fighters. maybe 2% or whatever is the right number

As long as the standards mean everyone can actually do the job, then fine. If you have surplus candidates, then it could well be advantageous to make sure he industry isn't nearly single sex.

Dangerous territory there. What if 43%of men is the right number in university? Slap on the wrist for me, naughty. (Just playing devil's advocate)

Rory28 wrote:

If they keep the same test for male and female firefighters then I dont see the problem. but if they change the criteria for women then its putting lives at risk. I used to be in the fire auxiliary and quickly realised i was not strong enough to carry a firehose up 20 flights of stairs. ****s heavy.

If the people who pas the tests can do the job then

Rory28 wrote:

Just because its harsh on women does not mean its sexist. you need to be strong to be a fireman. technique is not as important as brute strength.

I can't imagine that anyone could pass those tests without specific strength and technique training. If you can train women to do the job, then let them do it

Carlos Orange

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If the people who pas the tests can do the job then

If a woman meeting a lower standard can do the job so can a man.

El_Duderino 09

psinno wrote:

If a woman meeting a lower standard can do the job so can a man.

Any man? Men in general?

If they can both do the job then what would you care after they hauled the hose up the stairs or carried you out of the building?

Carlos Orange

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Any man? Men in general?

If they can both do the job then what would you care after they hauled the hose up the stairs or carried you out of the building?

Since you don't seem to be able to cope with brevity I'll write it long hand.

If a woman meeting a lower standard can do the job so can a man meeting the same lower standard.

Applying different requirements on the basis of gender is discriminatory.

midnight city

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We need more male teachers because reasons but not more female firefighters also because reasons.

More male friendly education system to make sure men get on = good. but changing the firefighters curriculum is suspect.

If there are enough physically strong women interested in firefighting then great let them at it. What we don't need is 5 ft 2in 7 stone women becoming firefighters. I wouldn't want a similar sized man doing it either. There is no problem with women being police officers or firefighters if they are physically up to the job.

In my experience boys respond well to male teachers. Considering we have a school system with 50% girls and 50% boys. Why should they be taught by 85% women.