Mens Rights Thread

professore · 30-01-2017 10:50PM

Sn@kebite wrote: »

It is a hell of a lot more complicated than biology.

Boys lack male role models within our society for example. How many children do you see without a mother compared to without a father?

Which sex runs the schools? If women run the schools this means girls benefit from having a saturation of female rolemodels. Boys do better in schools which are boy only, and also they do better when it is a male teacher. Female teachers running schools create an environment which is more feminine by default (e.g. form groups, partner up, not as competitive or individual, less things have 1st, 2nd or 3rd place) so girls get more out of the school system as it is more defaulting to their qualities.

Boys are also socialized to do badly in order to look 'cool' or like a rebel. Boys may deliberately do bad in order to impress the girls or his male friends Also machismo attitudes like "I'm no teachers pet!" or "Poetry is gay!" homophobia is also a restriction. When boys do badly in school there is far less willingness of the schools or education departments to help them. Feminism also kicks up a stink at the notion of helping boys; "but but, they got male privilege! How can they be lagging behind..." Stereotypes of boys as immature/lazy get used to excuse the gap which only holds it in place. When girls lag behind the government and (female run) schools (naturally) fall over themselves to try and close the "sexist, patriarchal gender gap".

The view that boys are behind due to biology imo is just sexism. Boys are not raised with the same number or role models as girls or the same compassion when they need help so it impossible to know if it is hormones/biology etc... it is a stereotype. We wouldn't say girls are behind in STEM because their brains don't develop as fast in the spacial awareness/object awareness sense

This may look like boys are biologically behind but it is imo the minority of the reasoning. Boys from very disciplined backgrounds who are expected to do well often do well in school. In fact males dominate the more difficult areas of academia.

You make some valid points and I think we are largely in agreement.

My point was that you can't ignore the fact that on average boys ARE behind biologically at the same age. Girls are finished growing at 16, boys not until at least 18. I'm a guy who doesn't believe the gender is a social construct bs. It's not all biology but it plays a bigger role than many are willing to acknowledge nowadays.

professore · 30-01-2017 10:54PM

Sn@kebite wrote: »

Yes they can, but academically? Maybe. In my college and in my high school the boys a much more likey to go around asking other boys what score they got on this or that test. Girls didn't seem to be as interested. Girls are extremely competitive yes, but in my experience not so much with school work.

Not my experience but I do certainly take your point.

My experience was the average studious girl would come out proclaiming how she had failed and later we would find out she got a first. Guys didn't do that generally. Seeming not to be interested and actually not being interested are not the same thing. My eldest daughter is one of the most competitive people I've ever seen, but she comes across all cool and chilled out.

Sn@kebite · 31-01-2017 11:52PM

Robineen wrote: »

Yes, academically. My LC biology class is particularly memorable for me in the competitiveness displayed by the girls in the class. It's why we all did so well! :cool:

There is truth in that. I'm in DIT now and girls really like biology more. They were pretty worried about their grades in biology. They didn't give a **** about the physics though. In fact the guys were quite competitive with the physics.

I think the sexes like different subjects for whatever reasons so it may influence gender grouping and competition within a demographic.

iptba · 01-02-2017 06:35AM

I wonder what will be involved.

'Rainy day fund' and focus on women central planks of strategy to beat Brexit
Niall O'Connor

01/02/2017 | 02:30

A government plan aimed at mitigating the effects of Brexit places a major focus on women as well as the poaching of "globally renowned" workers from the UK.

[..]

It reveals that almost €2m worth of funding will be disbursed through the Department of Justice aimed at getting women back into the workforce.

http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/rainy-day-fund-and-focus-on-women-central-planks-of-strategy-to-beat-brexit-35414260.html

NI24 · 01-02-2017 06:37AM

orubiru wrote: »

Does it really matter? Why can't I decide for myself if it's hate speech or not?

Why have people taken it upon themselves to say to the rest of us "you can't watch this documentary because it contains hate speech and is sympathetic towards people who spread hate speech".

Have the people trying to block the screenings of the documentary actually seen the documentary? If not then what grounds are there for trying to stop others from seeing it? It's just a documentary so what's the big deal?

No. Let me watch the documentary and I'll decide for myself.

Uh why don't you try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to (dumbass) conclusions? Are anti-feminists so stuck up their own asses that they've lost all reading comprehension? I didn't say a.fricking.word. about not watching or watching or whether or not it contains hate speech. I was arguing the completely illogical statement by snake that hate speech contained within a documentary would damage men's movements (or any movements). It's utter garbage and anyone with an IQ above the double digits would understand that.

NI24 · 01-02-2017 06:46AM

Sn@kebite wrote: »

It also depends on who is defining what hate speech is. But I don't agree with you. I think maybe not initially but it does damage things. I think moderate feminists have an awful time defending their movements due to the damage the radical feminists are doing. And on of the reasons (imo) Trump rose and succeeded is because of the anti-male bigotry with in radical feminism and the constant persistant attacks on men from within it. The 'mansplaining' crowd, now men can't even sit correctly or we're manspreading. It is a backlash against their bull****, and there is also a load of bull**** within Trump supporters.

I'd love for you to explain your Trump comparison to a bunch of elderly black southerners. Please explain to them how Jim Crow laws were really their fault as a result of anti-white bigotry and the constant persistent attacks on whites from within black movements prior to civil rights. I guess freedom from slavery is bull**** and Jim Crow laws were backlash huh?

Wibbs · 01-02-2017 09:47AM

NI24 wrote: »

It's utter garbage and anyone with an IQ above the double digits would understand that.

Dial that right back please. Attack the post not the poster.

orubiru · 01-02-2017 12:15PM

NI24 wrote: »

Uh why don't you try reading what I wrote instead of jumping to (dumbass) conclusions? Are anti-feminists so stuck up their own asses that they've lost all reading comprehension? I didn't say a.fricking.word. about not watching or watching or whether or not it contains hate speech. I was arguing the completely illogical statement by snake that hate speech contained within a documentary would damage men's movements (or any movements). It's utter garbage and anyone with an IQ above the double digits would understand that.

OK. My reading of the posts was as follows.

The poster sn@kebite has stated that the people who want to block the documentary are claiming the reason for this is "hate speech". Sn@kebite then suggests that putting the hate speech on display would actually damage the movement.

You then responded that this is a flawed opinion because other groups have employed hate speech and this may have actually helped their cause.

I responded by stating that whether or not sn@kebite's opinion is valid or not I should still be allowed to see the movie and decide for myself if it's hate speech.

I expressed this by asking the question "Does it really matter?".

In Summary.

sn@kebite: If it is hate speech it will damage the movement.
NI24: No it won't.
orubiru: It doesn't matter if it will or it won't, that isn't the issue here. The issue is that they want to ban it at all. Let me decide for myself.

I've never measured my IQ and my reading comprehension is fine, thank you.

Robineen · 01-02-2017 04:22PM

Sn@kebite wrote: »

There is truth in that. I'm in DIT now and girls really like biology more. They were pretty worried about their grades in biology. They didn't give a **** about the physics though. In fact the guys were quite competitive with the physics.

I think the sexes like different subjects for whatever reasons so it may influence gender grouping and competition within a demographic.

Yeah, biology was just an example really.

One thing in favour of underperforming lads is that getting a mediocre LC will still get you into college and once there, men equalise with women, results-wise.

But still, they should aim to get the best course they can, not the one mediocre LC points will get them. And, for all its faults, getting a good LC can instill someone with confidence in their abilities and show them that hard work can get them places. So it's important to figure out what to do to help boys in school.

littlevillage · 03-02-2017 09:37AM

Related thread that affects Men's rights.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057701278/1/#post102500089

silverharp · 03-02-2017 11:08AM

Well known physicist in Australia highlights that the feminisation of science in order to appeal to girls is lowering standards. I think the same has happened here right? that physics had a lot of "maths" taken out of it though I am open to correction?

the link will bring you to a paywall, if you want to read the article google it and click through from there

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/feminised-physics-a-formula-for-failure-says-michelle-simmons/news-story/b26b46725b1d0a97e57585aabea20f37

‘Feminised’ physics a formula for failure, says Michelle Simmons

One of the nation’s leading scientists has attacked attempts to “feminise’’ the high school physics curriculum by replacing maths formulas with essays as a “disaster’’ which has left students unprepared for university.

Renowned quantum physicist Michelle Simmons used an Australia Day address in Sydney yesterday to warn against the dumbing down of high school science and urged authorities to “set the bar high’’ for students to encourage them to excel.

Professor Simmons’s criticism of the science curriculum has been supported by teaching experts who told The Australian yesterday that university physics courses were being altered to compensate for students leaving high school with limited maths skills.

And the NSW Education Standards Authority will introduce a new science curriculum to take effect from next year, which will reintroduce a focus on maths and reverse the introduction of sociology and history into the discipline.

“One of the few things that horrified me when I arrived in Australia (in 1999) was to discover that, several years ago the high school physics curriculum was “feminised”, Professor Simmons told a high-profile audience at Sydney’s Conservatorium of Music.

“In other words, to make it more appealing to girls, our curriculum’s designers substituted formulae with essays! What a disaster,’’ she said.

Professor Simmons obtained a physics PhD in her native Britain but chose to work in Australia in 1999 because it offered “a culture of academic freedom, openness to ideas, and an amazing willingness to pursue goals that are ambitious”. She gained Australian citizenship in 2007 and now heads a team considered the world leader in the “space race of the computing era” — the quest to develop a quantum computer.

Professor Simmons said she was still seeing the long-term impact of the curriculum changes in students arriving at the University of NSW, where she leads the Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology. “From the students coming (to university) I see little evidence that (the changes have) made any difference and indeed I see many students complaining that the physics curriculum has left them ill-equipped for university.”

Professor Simmons used the example of final-year students being asked to write essays about the environmental impact of a nuclear power plant, rather than using maths to describe the physics of how the power was generated. “Physics is about looking at equations, it’s deriving things, it’s understanding things from a mathematical viewpoint as well as a descriptive viewpoint,” she said. “An example I’ve heard of is to describe how a nuclear power plant works and its impact on the environment, and I do really think that within that you need to have some equations which would get them to address the physical structure of how energy is transferred, so you have that critical thinking that physics normally demands.”

Professor Simmons said there was “a big cost” in trying to make learning easier for students because “when we reduce the quality of education that anyone receives, we reduce the expectations we have of them”.

“If we want young people to be the best they can be at anything we must set the bar high and tell them we expect them to jump over it,” she said. “My strong belief is that we need to be teaching all students — both girls and boys — to have high expectations of themselves.”

She warned that characterising Australia as “the lucky country” was “a mistake because it does not acknowledge the hard work that people have done to be successful and it encourages us to shy away from difficult challenges”.

Professor Simmons’s broadside won the support of the NSW Education Standards Authority — the former Board of Studies — which said new science courses to be introduced from next year “address the exact concerns” she had expressed. A spokesman said the new physics and chemistry courses, which would be examined at HSC level from 2019, “have a greater focus on mathematical applications as a way to describe the concepts and a strong emphasis on practical investigations”.

“There has been a reduction in the history/sociology-based content and an emphasis on practical investigations,” the spokesman said. “The philosophy underlying all science courses is to learn through practical engagement.”

He said an extensive consultation process had seen the move “overwhelmingly endorsed by science teachers” and there would also now be a five-year review process “ensuring syllabuses remain relevant and current”.

Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute director Geoff Prince also backed her comments. “The penetration of maths into science has been inadequate for a very long time,” he said. Physics should be “loaded with maths”.

“I don’t think physics has ever in Australia been as mathematical as it needs to be,” Professor Prince said. “We are absolutely creating a problem for maths itself when kids ask why are we studying it (maths) and they think the only outcome will be that they can become a maths teacher.

“The fact is maths has twice as many boys studying it as girls; that’s the problem we’ve got to address. And schools not offering maths with calculus is really closing the doors to studying science.”

Mark Butler, head of science at Gosford High School on the NSW central coast and a principal writer of the National Physics Curriculum, said he had been told by university advisory boards over the past 15 years that students were coming to physics courses underprepared.

“Several universities, including Newcastle University and the University of NSW, have even changed their first year courses to teach what would have previously been high school level physics,” Dr Butler said.

“They’ve had to soften it and slow down production because the kids aren’t ready for the level of mathematics. A lot of kids come through the current HSC physics course doing quite well but not being very good at mathematics, which is quite odd.”

Dr Butler, who has taught at Gosford High for 20 years, said he was excited the NSW HSC syllabus was finally being changed to decrease the reference to sociology and history.

“Our social science courses aren’t forced to study physics so I’m not sure why physics teachers are forced to study sociology,” he said. “When I cross a bridge I’d much rather know the engineer knew the equations rather than the sociology and history of bridge building.”

He also said he’d seen a decrease in the number of girls taking the course in the first five years of the syllabus being introduced.

“The number of females taking physics went downwards after the changes to the new syllabus in 1999-2000. It actually decreased. When I talk to female physics students, they have the same concerns as the boys about all the sociology and history in the course, they’d rather be doing science.”

iptba · 04-02-2017 01:52AM

silverharp wrote: »

Well known physicist in Australia highlights that the feminisation of science in order to appeal to girls is lowering standards. I think the same has happened here right? that physics had a lot of "maths" taken out of it though I am open to correction?

I had heard too that a lot of the maths had been taken out of the physics (and there had been more maths again before I did it).

I have also heard that there is very little maths with economics in the Leaving Cert/any mathematical problems are very basic.

Sn@kebite · 04-02-2017 05:57PM

NI24 wrote: »

I was arguing the completely illogical statement by snake that hate speech contained within a documentary would damage men's movements (or any movements). It's utter garbage and anyone with an IQ above the double digits would understand that.

Why is it illogical? If the documentary contained a large volume of misogyny (as feminists claim) why wouldn't it be in feminism's interest for the video to be shown? It would show that men's groups just want to push women down and implement the 1800s patriarchy. This would damage men's orgs and promote feminism. It would would fuel feminism and give them ammunition. My opinion is that because feminism is trying to censor something that it does not agree with is actually playing into the men's movement's hands. A documentary on (white) women's issues would not face this kind of difficulty at airing.

NI24 wrote: »

I'd love for you to explain your Trump comparison to a bunch of elderly black southerners. Please explain to them how Jim Crow laws were really their fault as a result of anti-white bigotry and the constant persistent attacks on whites from within black movements prior to civil rights. I guess freedom from slavery is bull**** and Jim Crow laws were backlash huh?

This post is a cop out. My view stands. Trump's large mass of supporters was the result of primarily (but not limited to) the sneering, derailing ("poor oppressed menz") attitudes which are displayed openly by feminism with regards to very complex and often worsening male issues. Feminism of the old days did not do this or at least there is no record of it. This imo is why feminism achieved so much in such a short time.

Robineen · 04-02-2017 09:31PM

silverharp wrote: »

Well known physicist in Australia highlights that the feminisation of science in order to appeal to girls is lowering standards. I think the same has happened here right? that physics had a lot of "maths" taken out of it though I am open to correction?

It's possible. Civil service exams, up until a few years ago, would discount the results of the maths component of aptitude tests given to job applicants. (Why did they even bother giving people a maths component? Maybe in a tie-break situation, the result might be used or something?) This was apparently to help female applicants. And that used to really annoy me because maths is my strongest area in aptitude tests. I'm a woman and I felt that measures brought in to help women were discriminatory to anyone with maths aptitude, including women! This highlights why it should be meritocracy that gets you places. Why should someone with maths aptitude be discriminated against? And the measure affected both genders! Luckily, I took a civil service aptitude test a few years ago and they counted the maths portion, thankfully.

Sn@kebite · 06-02-2017 07:02PM

iptba wrote: »

I wonder what will be involved.

http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/rainy-day-fund-and-focus-on-women-central-planks-of-strategy-to-beat-brexit-35414260.html

My understanding is that male unemployment is much higher than female unemployment.

Looks like some sort of pandering to me although the news article seems very lacking in detail.

iptba · 09-02-2017 07:04PM

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-still-failing-women-and-girls-in-health-jobs-and-education-1.2968591

The State continues to fail women and girls in health, employment and education, the United Nations has been told.

A report from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission says austerity has disproportionately affected women

The report also raises concerns about homeless women. “Homelessness in Ireland is becoming increasingly gendered, with growing numbers of women and families presenting as homeless,” the report says.

Domestic violence

Cuts imposed during austerity have had a “debilitating effect . . . on services for victims of domestic violence,” it says.

“The commission is concerned these cuts, coupled with demand for services, have created barriers to accessing emergency accommodation, particularly for rural women, women with addiction, migrant woman and Traveller and Roma women.”

What about the situation for men?

JRant · 09-02-2017 11:10PM

iptba wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-still-failing-women-and-girls-in-health-jobs-and-education-1.2968591

What about the situation for men?

Correct me if I'm wrong but do women not live considerably longer, have better employment prospects and out perform men in education. How exactly is that failing?

Sn@kebite · 10-02-2017 02:14AM

JRant wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but do women not live considerably longer, have better employment prospects and out perform men in education. How exactly is that failing?

Teh Patriarchy™

iptba · 14-02-2017 03:49PM

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
https://twitter.com/_IHREC/status/831510993549262848

Men had to slop out (urinate and defecate in cells shared with others and then sleep in the cells) for decades in Mountjoy men's prison and still do I believe while money was spent making a new women's centre. Plenty of inequality that could be complained about regarding men if they were interested.

py2006 · 14-02-2017 05:33PM

So let me get this straight, who exactly is at fault for overcrowding and the over representation of traveller women???

givyjoe · 14-02-2017 06:11PM

py2006 wrote: »

So let me get this straight, who exactly is at fault for overcrowding and the over representation of traveller women???

Simple solution.. impose artificial quotas and grab innocent, non traveller women off the streets to ensure equal representation from all socio economic backgrounds

iptba · 16-02-2017 05:14PM

Sexual consent classes at UCD cancelled due to lack of interest
Just 20 students attended well-publicised classes run by UCD Students’ Union

Union welfare officer Róisín O’Mara said many students did not feel the need for consent classes.

Those who did think there was a need for the classes, generally didn’t feel they needed to go.

“It’s a hot topic at the moment,” she said, “perhaps that is why people don’t want to be seen as needing to be told what consent is. The people who needed to go to classes wouldn’t have gone.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/sexual-consent-classes-at-ucd-cancelled-due-to-lack-of-interest-1.2978032

py2006 · 16-02-2017 05:20PM

iptba wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/sexual-consent-classes-at-ucd-cancelled-due-to-lack-of-interest-1.2978032

Only 20 out of 30,000 attended...

Calhoun · 16-02-2017 05:36PM

py2006 wrote: »

Only 20 out of 30,000 attended...

How inconsiderate of them to stifle a future politician by not showing up enmasse.

Sn@kebite · 17-02-2017 07:24PM

The problem is that the only men who will go to these classes will be men who care about rape/consent issues. But in that case are most likely not rapists.

The men who are rapists or don't care about rape/consent are not going to go. So the very people who should be there, won't be there. And the people who don't need to be there, will be there.

On top of that men may not want to be patronised by feminists because men are too stupid to understand consent. Or at least it may be a perception.

That said I'm not necessarily against them I just have an image in my head of them being run moderately and then getting hijacked by the Women's Studies depts and turned into the generic "check your male privilege" and "what about teh menz" if the issue of male rape is raised.

JRant · 17-02-2017 08:57PM

Sn@kebite wrote: »

The problem is that the only men who will go to these classes will be men who care about rape/consent issues. But in that case are most likely not rapists.

The men who are rapists or don't care about rape/consent are not going to go. So the very people who should be there, won't be there. And the people who don't need to be there, will be there.

On top of that men may not want to be patronised by feminists because men are too stupid to understand consent. Or at least it may be a perception.

That said I'm not necessarily against them I just have an image in my head of them being run moderately and then getting hijacked by the Women's Studies depts and turned into the generic "check your male privilege" and "what about teh menz" if the issue of male rape is raised.

Nobody likes to be patronised, male or female. They were a bad idea from the very beginning.

Add into the mix that these were being run by the SU and it was a recipe for disaster. The current brand of SU leaders are a crazy bunch with some far leftist ideals and should be given as little power and say as possible.

Calhoun · 18-02-2017 02:29AM

JRant wrote: »

Nobody likes to be patronised, male or female. They were a bad idea from the very beginning.

Add into the mix that these were being run by the SU and it was a recipe for disaster. The current brand of SU leaders are a crazy bunch with some far leftist ideals and should be given as little power and say as possible.

Add further into the mix the whole tie in with the media at the time to perpetuate the rape culture, a friend of a IT journalist got punched on the way home from a night out and it made the paper the next day and was the excuse for why classes like this were needed. Even worse than that was the Uni articles around the time about a supposed incident with one of the departments that in the end never went any further.

iptba · 18-02-2017 04:50AM

(UK)

Divorcees don't need to afford lifestyle they were accustomed to in marriage, Court of Appeal judge says as he rules against ex-wife

telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/13/divorcees-dont-need-afford-lifestyle-accustomed-marriage-court

hytrogen · 18-02-2017 08:08AM

JRant wrote:

Nobody likes to be patronised, male or female. They were a bad idea from the very beginning.
Add into the mix that these were being run by the SU and it was a recipe for disaster. The current brand of SU leaders are a crazy bunch with some far leftist ideals and should be given as little power and say as possible.

If it were held as a public debate like they do in the Hist in Trinners people would attend to hear the outlandish and controversial points made instead of a lecture.

Calhoun · 18-02-2017 01:58PM

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/young-boys-are-taught-that-they-will-grow-up-to-be-violent-and-that-whatever-violence-they-experience-from-women-doesnt-matter-3241436-Feb2017/

Interesting article and quite funny as called out in the article is very Patriarchal in nature as it assumes the men are aggressors.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments