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

silverharp wrote:

organisations pick the best they can get, you are just worming it back to how can we make sure less able women become firefighters. As a potential customer I don't care, I want to have confidence that the person best able to hoof me over their shoulders and get me out of a dangerous situation has got the job. if "equality" has diluted that standard then "equality" is wrong.

You defined the 500 applicants as being able to do the job. So we know they can do the job. I bet the fire department don't pick solely on physical traits. Temperament and ability to work as part of a team under life threatening situations are not defined by physical strength. If the successful applicants can do the job, then what's the issue?

silverharp wrote:

and here they are actually lowering the standard

If the standards are relevant and match the attributes needed to do the job, then the standards are fair.

silverharp wrote:

I could think of reasons why it would be higher than the past, deindustrialisation, lowering wages at the low end due to high migration, property prices rising faster than salaries or simply more alternative ways to spending one's time. the question is does it matter ? will it keep trending down?

I won't dwell on the fact that nobody has been asked to produce a single piece of evidence that there are more bachelors today than there were in the past. It's just a given that it's happening and we should do something about it.

We're talking about fellas who can't compete in the jobs market/ having money, because of all those factors. So their solution is to shun dating? Not to get more qualified or educated. They just throw their hands up and stop dating.

Are these all the reasons you can think of for fellas to shun dating? What about the fact that these fellas have to compete with a broader labour market? In the past these fellas could go to a matchmaker and pay for a match. There's a show on C4 called 'married at first sight' where people's marriages are arranged. The fellas who are 'dropping out' are hardly the cream of the crop. Maybe arranged marriages would suit those fellas.

silverharp wrote:

I think its a given that rewards of work have switched in favour of "mental" work and away from "physical" work that automatically means that the playing field for men in the lower quartile has moved against them and they are the group worst placed to do anything about it.

These fellas in the lower quartile are in the same boat as the lower quartile of women.

The lads here are great for pulling up stats. Do we know the gender divide for low pay?

On a related note, the lads here agreed that more boys should encouraged to go into teaching because boys react better to male teachers (again, nobody asked for any evidence of that claim). Another poster said they are uncomfortable with most medical graduate being women (no reason sought or given). Nobody has suggested encouraging girls to become firefighters to ensure they are passionate about the career and are more prepare for the tests. Strange, ain't it?

Surely every time a fella drops out of dating, there's a woman who also won't be matched up. That's why it isn't bloody gender issue which needs to be addressed by fixing all and any problems experienced by men.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lets not get back on the pro noun nonsense again. Who cares how you refer to a gender? Male/Female Men/Women Lads/Girls etc its all the same. nobody should be outraged by this.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You defined the 500 applicants as being able to do the job. So we know they can do the job. I bet the fire department don't pick solely on physical traits. Temperament and ability to work as part of a team under life threatening situations are not defined by physical strength. If the successful applicants can do the job, then what's the issue?



If the standards are relevant and match the attributes needed to do the job, then the standards are fair.



I won't dwell on the fact that nobody has been asked to produce a single piece of evidence that there are more bachelors today than there were in the past. It's just a given that it's happening and we should do something about it.

We're talking about fellas who can't compete in the jobs market/ having money, because of all those factors. So their solution is to shun dating? Not to get more qualified or educated. They just throw their hands up and stop dating.

Are these all the reasons you can think of for fellas to shun dating? What about the fact that these fellas have to compete with a broader labour market? In the past these fellas could go to a matchmaker and pay for a match. There's a show on C4 called 'married at first sight' where people's marriages are arranged. The fellas who are 'dropping out' are hardly the cream of the crop. Maybe arranged marriages would suit those fellas.



These fellas in the lower quartile are in the same boat as the lower quartile of women.

The lads here are great for pulling up stats. Do we know the gender divide for low pay?

On a related note, the lads here agreed that more boys should encouraged to go into teaching because boys react better to male teachers (again, nobody asked for any evidence of that claim). Another poster said they are uncomfortable with most medical graduate being women (no reason sought or given). Nobody has suggested encouraging girls to become firefighters to ensure they are passionate about the career and are more prepare for the tests. Strange, ain't it?

Surely every time a fella drops out of dating, there's a woman who also won't be matched up. That's why it isn't bloody gender issue which needs to be addressed by fixing all and any problems experienced by men.

with the fireman the point is they are being put under pressure to allow more women in because of political correctness so they are lowering the fitness standard. take the pressure away and leave them to maintain their standards, you are not far off saying that fitness doesn't matter that much and it will all work out somehow.

These fellas in the lower quartile are in the same boat as the lower quartile of women.

I take P's point you ought to adjust your posting style , "fellas" and "gals" or men and women, its not difficult.



in fairness I have not used the word "shun" dating but I would imagine that they view themselves as being priced out of the market , Im sure they date but it doesn't move on to the "picket fence " and 2.5.

Surely every time a fella drops out of dating, there's a woman who also won't be matched up. That's why it isn't bloody gender issue which needs to be addressed by fixing all and any problems experienced by men.

On a group level this has to be true although I am not sure what you mean by "fixing all and any problems experienced by men" is that dripping with sarcasm? . Probably its not so binary as "dropping out of dating" its that their lives are not organised or financially secure enough for them to consider having a family seriously and maybe simply "shunned" by women as being not up to muster
Its a society issue probably but so far feminists havnt run with it because they are too busy trying to take down the patriarchy 'n stuff.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

...
We started talking about how schools don't suit boys as much as girls...

This is an interesting thing - back in my days, throughout my entire school cycle of mixed classes it was the case that the girls usually lagged behind; To the point that I clearly remember there being discussions in the school very similar to what we hear today, but opposite - how to help girls do better.

I wonder what changed and how, to cause the shift - I also have to point out that, back then, the reason behind girls not doing as well as they could had more to do with them preferring to sped the afternoon strolling with friends or singing along the radio opposite to studying, rather than a real struggle. There actually was an afternoon, 2 hours long TV show back in the early '90s aimed at teenage girls which demonstrably resulted in a drop of school grades for high school girls throughout Italy (and in the very early awakening of sexual awareness in a lot of similarly aged boys, but it's a different issue ).

You also have to wonder if today's boys struggles aren't related more to preferring playing football or videogames when they should be studying, rather than actual discomfort / trouble

silverharp wrote: »

and here they are actually lowering the standard

http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

The one about physical fitness tests for law enforcement, military and emergency personnel is actually a big issue and a slight pet peeve of mine.

It could be argued very effectively that to perform the same job, a woman or a man need to have the same minimum level of ability; A felon won't run slower if a woman officer is chasing him/her, a blaze won't burn less if a lady firefighter is trying to rescue a child and so on.

As a matter of fact, it can be pointed out that in some cases where there are effectively double standards for fitness testing, the goals set for the "women's test" are way more attainable for the averagely fit woman than the "men's" are for a similarly trained guys.

One glaring example are wherever "push ups in a minute" are required: usually the women's test calls for "hands and knees" or "girl" pushups, and often in considerably lower reps than the men's (e.g. 20 as opposed to 30); Just looking around any gym, you'll realize there are plenty of girls next door capable to do military style "men's" push up, who will totally ace the women's fitness test requirement, while only the most well trained guys would do the same with the men's test...

silverharp wrote: »

it undermines women who can make the standard because their hard work is undermined and then they may feel they are roped in with the "tokens"

Absolutely, that's a very important side effect as well.

silverharp wrote: »

it undermines women who can make the standard because their hard work is undermined and then they may feel they are roped in with the "tokens"

The main reason people shouldn't support quotas of either gender. People should be in a job for how good they are at it not whether they are male or female.

jenny smith wrote: »

why have they no business being there?

You may not want to hear this but sometimes, especially in the tech, there are big "drives" to hire women - and the process is not always straightforward nor honest.

Where I work now, until a while ago in the Engineering department we had exactly 0 women out of 24 people, and not due to any conscious choice - it is simply that, whenever there's a job opening, 90% of the CVs we get are from men; There have been a few ladies hired in recent months and they were all chosen because they were genuinely the best applicants for the positions they are covering, not due to any "we must have women in here" initiative.

But it's not always the case: I've personally seen a big, multinational company I worked for before, going out of their way to fill their "pink quota" (as they called it); Amongst other things, the reward for employees who'd reference a successful new hire was doubled in case such person happened to be a woman.

In some cases, especially in big companies, there are "diktats" coming from high above, usually following some criticism in the media about the male:female ratio, and you get a "50% new hires must be women" - and you could imagine how hard that is when 1 CV out of 10 in your inbox is a woman's...

Men dropping out of society is a sore sight to behold. Men were born to be leaders, to conquer, to create and uphold what is good. They cannot simply drop out, it is in a way a dereliction of their duty.

Radical feminism has made things very awkward for men. They no longer know who they are. Many turn to pursuing pleasure as their life's goal, others still are drowning in despair. The good qualities of masculinity such as fortitude, chivalry, logic and being downright energetic are ridiculed and suppressed, while the dark side, the sexual drive, has been given free reign with no conditions attached. Feminism has done something which I doubt even its founders were able to comprehend.

We are living in a time of horrible social decay and moral compromise. Few things which are beautiful, wholesome and pure remain intact. Movements such as MGTOW are the fruits, not the causes. We have women butchering their own children and complaining they have to go overseas to have the carcass of their own child savagely dismembered. Fornication is rife, people do not take their marriage vows seriously, children are moving from one "uncle" to another. People are obsessed with themselves, sometimes burning with self-love. The West is in a putrid moral state.

This will only get worse for the following reason: people have abandoned God. They want to make their own morality, destroying themselves in the process. They lack the ability to think because they have taken authentic Religion out of their schools. Thats right, Religion teaches you how to think! Have you ever seen the clarity with which St Thomas Aquinas presents his arguments?

With their intellects dulled and their pride puffed up, society continues to spiral into decline. Expect more irrational social movements, more destructive social practices, more general unhappiness and more people on anti-depressants.

I'm just wondering is it time to drop the old vagina monologues given Trump has gone to war with the political and neo liberal (millenials - I'm personally offended by that derogatory term) classes? As a man who loves the women beyond what philanthropy describes in novels, I definitely think this whole neo-feminism needs to be put to bed with a man leading the negotiations between the sheets?

hytrogen wrote: »

I'm just wondering is it time to drop the old vagina monologues given Trump has gone to war with the political and neo liberal (millenials - I'm personally offended by that derogatory term) classes? As a man who loves the women beyond what philanthropy describes in novels, I definitely think this whole neo-feminism needs to be put to bed with a man leading the negotiations between the sheets?

Wtf does this even mean?

Lol offended by the word millenials but thinks "neo-feminism" should be put to be bed.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Arguing with a neo feminist is like making love to a beautiful woman. You need to confuse them and then hit them when they're not expecting it…'

Mod:

kunst nugget, there is a standard of posting in this forum and that post falls short of the mark.

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

while the dark side, the sexual drive, has been given free reign with no conditions attached

The church ensured people were clueless about themselves, and the power this gave the church enabled the church to belittle anyone who questioned it. People no longer care about church, and are now pleasing themselves, rather than some blueprint the church once forced upon them.

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

We have women butchering their own children and complaining they have to go overseas to have the carcass of their own child savagely dismembered.

The church had no qualms with using the women as slaves for the rest of their lives in the past, and selling their children off to the highest bidder. The church viewed rape as the womans fault, and now the woman has the power, not the church.

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

Fornication is rife, people do not take their marriage vows seriously, children are moving from one "uncle" to another. People are obsessed with themselves, sometimes burning with self-love. The West is in a putrid moral state.

No, people do not take the church seriously anymore, and don't care about it's stupid values anymore.

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

This will only get worse for the following reason: people have abandoned God.

They have abandoned the church that sought to control them through fear and blackmail.

The god people did a damn good job of ensuring suicide statistics weren't kept, especially in rural areas.

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

They want to make their own morality, destroying themselves in the process. They lack the ability to think because they have taken authentic Religion out of their schools. Thats right, Religion teaches you how to think! Have you ever seen the clarity with which St Thomas Aquinas presents his arguments?

Your church forbid them to thing, forbid them to question, and once they got rid of the church, they had to find the answers themselves.