Mens Rights Thread

silverharp wrote: »

if you are comparing like with like men choose to do "dirty" lower paid jobs whereas the equivalent women choose to do "clean" lower paid jobs. so for every woman working a till in a supermarket or involved in childcare there is a man in a warehouse or on a fishing boat. The rest is demand and supply, men dont want to work in childcare and women dont want to be on a fishing boat or driving a truck for a week or 2 at a time.

Yep, that explains it better. Like what's the point in advocating for rights for other people that they don't want? By that I mean, what's the point in feminists saying men should want to be stay at home fathers, or men's rights advocates saying more women should want to do shìtty jobs? It just makes absolutely no sense - it doesn't do either respective gender any favours, and it just looks like each of the rights advocacy movements are just more interested in firing shìt at each other rather than advocating for the welfare and rights of their own gender.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My facts are straight - people who work in dirty, low paid jobs are not being forced to work in dirty low paid jobs, and since your original point was that more women should work in dirty, low paid jobs if they want equality, that just points to the fact that more men choose to work in the dirty, low paid jobs you mentioned, than women do. This means women are choosing not to work in the dirty low paid jobs, but they want the high paying, high skilled positions, without apparently having to put in the work to gain the experience and qualifications necessary to be competent in that role.

if you are comparing like with like men choose to do "dirty" lower paid jobs whereas the equivalent women choose to do "clean" lower paid jobs. so for every woman working a till in a supermarket or involved in childcare there is a man in a warehouse or on a fishing boat. The rest is demand and supply, men dont want to work in childcare and women dont want to be on a fishing boat or driving a truck for a week or 2 at a time.

......... wrote: »

You didn't express an opinion, you made a false claim that people who worked in dirty low paid jobs did so by choice. Get your facts straight for a change.

My facts are straight - people who work in dirty, low paid jobs are not being forced to work in dirty low paid jobs, and since your original point was that more women should work in dirty, low paid jobs if they want equality, that just points to the fact that more men choose to work in the dirty, low paid jobs you mentioned, than women do. This means women are choosing not to work in the dirty low paid jobs, but they want the high paying, high skilled positions, without apparently having to put in the work to gain the experience and qualifications necessary to be competent in that role.

That's why your point about what women should and shouldn't do about gender equality rings hollow, because not only do you not care enough about men doing the shìtty jobs, but you want women to do the shìtty jobs too! How is that supposed to achieve gender equality for men? Men will still choose to do the shìtty jobs, and women will just tell you to naff off with silly ideas like that.

.........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I just didn't feel like going to the bother of writing out your whole post again to make my point.

Actually resorted to editing and pretending what other people wrote highlights your lack of any decent point.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some do, some don't

Yet a minute ago you claimed people worked in dirty low paid dangerous jobs by choice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why is it when anyone expresses a difference of opinion around here, they must be on a different planet?

You didn't express an opinion, you made a false claim that people who worked in dirty low paid jobs did so by choice. Get your facts straight for a change.

......... wrote: »

Resorting to altering and pretending what other people write ? Really are you that desperate now ?

No I just didn't feel like going to the bother of writing out your whole post again to make my point.

Do you think people choose to work in ****ty jobs instead of having a six figure salary in a clean safe job ?

Some do, some don't, some people are content to work in minimum wage menial jobs with no real career prospects, and some people want more, different people wanting different things because they set different standards for themselves. Not really a whole lot to do with equality, and more to do with freedom of choice, regardless of gender.

what planet are you on exactly?

Why is it when anyone expresses a difference of opinion around here, they must be on a different planet? The planet, let alone Irish society, just isn't that small that everyone shares a common mindset. It's as silly as saying "men think this way", "women think that way"... and everyone else is on a different planet. We might all be on different planets by that standard.

so tell us where all these wonderful better safer paying jobs are for the unemployed in the real world ?

They're all around you. There's plenty of opportunities every day, for everyone. That's why the nonsense about "gender equality" just doesn't wash for most people, because most people aren't concerned with "getting more women into stem" or "more women in the c-suites", just like most people have no concern for "getting more men into teaching" or "getting more men to be stay at home fathers".

That's exactly why "gender equality" doesn't, and will never work, any kind of "equality" will never work, because the people who advocate for that kind of crap, don't actually want equality, they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.

.........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There, fixed that. Because there's no point in saying that equality means equal numbers of men and women should do this, that or anything, because that's their choice to do that. Nobody forces them into these shìtty jobs

Resorting to altering and pretending what other people write ? Really are you that desperate now ?

Do you think people choose to work in ****ty jobs instead of having a six figure salary in a clean safe job ? what planet are you on exactly ? so tell us where all these wonderful better safer paying jobs are for the unemployed in the real world ?

......... wrote: »

Maybe those allegedly interested in equality would put the same effort into encouraging women doing an equal number of the dirty and dangerous low paid jobs men have choose to do, from waste collection to sewerage works ? Then I might believe them.

There, fixed that. Because there's no point in saying that equality means equal numbers of men and women should do this, that or anything, because that's their choice to do that. Nobody forces them into these shìtty jobs, same as nobody forces women to become housewives or prostitutes. Equality is supposed to bring people up, not keep them down in the ****, so that whole - "women should do the shìt jobs too" stuff, women do plenty of shìt jobs, you just don't notice it.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If people were purely rational actors then they would weigh up the options free from interference. In realityâ€‹, culture and history play their part too. I don't see a problem with encouraging men into teaching or women into engineering. You seem happy to find reasons for men to be encouraged into teaching but find difficulty in articulating reasons to encourage women into male dominated professions. Maybe I just haven't asked the right questions.

they are different propositions. arguably "getting"men into teaching is perceived as desirable for boys ie the customer whereas in stem fields its by in large neutral in this regard.
then when it comes to difficulty STEM fields have a bias to requiring students to be in the top quartile of ability whereas teaching may fall more into the 2nd quartile. the rest is down to economic rewards or status/perception of a field. if there are girls out there that reckon there is more money and a more whatever in Lawyering or medicine than a physics lab or building oil rigs then leave them at it? simply ensure there is a good subject choice in school

.........

Maybe those allegedly interested in equality would put the same effort into encouraging women doing an equal number of the dirty and dangerous low paid jobs men have to do, from waste collection to sewerage works ? Then I might believe them.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If people were purely rational actors then they would weigh up the options free from interference. In realityâ€‹, culture and history play their part too. I don't see a problem with encouraging men into teaching or women into engineering. You seem happy to find reasons for men to be encouraged into teaching but find difficulty in articulating reasons to encourage women into male dominated professions. Maybe I just haven't asked the right questions.

But you said there was good reason to encourage men into teaching. Is that part of the hypocrisy you're taking about?

I have absolutely no issue with more women being encouraged to do engineering or whatever else they want, not sure where you're getting that from.

What we have though is a number of professions being target because the are male dominated while at the same time female dominated professions get a pass because... reasons.

The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven IMO.

JRant wrote:

personally I would be of the opinion that people should be encouraged to do whatever it is they choose. I have a huge problem though when one or two areas are singled out and a fuss is made out of getting more women into that area.

If people were purely rational actors then they would weigh up the options free from interference. In realityâ€‹, culture and history play their part too. I don't see a problem with encouraging men into teaching or women into engineering. You seem happy to find reasons for men to be encouraged into teaching but find difficulty in articulating reasons to encourage women into male dominated professions. Maybe I just haven't asked the right questions.

JRant wrote:

the hypocrisy coming out of some government bodies banging on about a lack of women here or there when the public sector is the exact opposite. Maybe they would be best to focus on equality (as they see it) closer to home.

But you said there was good reason to encourage men into teaching. Is that part of the hypocrisy you're taking about?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not much about male victims of domestic violence in that link. If men are as often victims of domestic violence it deserves an equal mention. It's a topic ripe for activism.

So in the public sector, you'd be equally in favour of supporting men getting into female dominated professions like teaching as women getting into male dominated professions like engineering?

Whike it's not something I feel passionate about, I think sometimes time limited and goal orientated positive discrimination can be effective. It needs to be realistic and only accepting candidates who meet the minimum standards. Even if they're not the best candidate they're still well able to do the job and you get the benefit of changing traditional jobs/gender precedent. Once the time limit has expired or goals have been met, let people sink or swim as normal.

Let's not get drawn into that particular argument though. It's been done enough before so free to give your side and we'll leave positive discrimination alone.

personally I would be of the opinion that people should be encouraged to do whatever it is they choose. I have a huge problem though when one or two areas are singled out and a fuss is made out of getting more women into that area.

the hypocrisy coming out of some government bodies banging on about a lack of women here or there when the public sector is the exact opposite. Maybe they would be best to focus on equality (as they see it) closer to home.

I won't go too much further on "positive" discrimination only to say it is patently a nonsense. It's discrimination and needs to called out for exactly what it is.

JRant wrote:

No, it's an Irish campaign calling on men to stop domestic violence.

Not much about male victims of domestic violence in that link. If men are as often victims of domestic violence it deserves an equal mention. It's a topic ripe for activism.

JRant wrote:

You've actually hit on a very salient point regarding STEM being private and teaching being public. If anything we should have a greater emphasis on more male participation in teaching exactly because it is publicly funded...

So in the public sector, you'd be equally in favour of supporting men getting into female dominated professions like teaching as women getting into male dominated professions like engineering?

JRant wrote:

The active discrimination is women only fast track and training programs many companies in STEM are now actively pursuing.

Whike it's not something I feel passionate about, I think sometimes time limited and goal orientated positive discrimination can be effective. It needs to be realistic and only accepting candidates who meet the minimum standards. Even if they're not the best candidate they're still well able to do the job and you get the benefit of changing traditional jobs/gender precedent. Once the time limit has expired or goals have been met, let people sink or swim as normal.

Let's not get drawn into that particular argument though. It's been done enough before so free to give your side and we'll leave positive discrimination alone.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The Australian mental health campaign? Presumably they chose 'man up' as a juxtaposition with traditional pidgeon-holing of manliness with the idea that it requires bravery and manliness for a man to address mental health as opposed to the opposite. I don't think it would offend me but if it was an ill chosen title, then fair enough. It was however a mental health campaign targeted at addressing men's mental health which, as the ad mentions, is a problem.

Of course STEM isn't a hive mind the same way feminism or men's rights aren't hive mines. I think you missed the point i was coming at. It takes action on a number of fronts to acheive something like encouraging people into industries. Whether those groups are lobbying government, education and industry and raising awareness among the public, as part of a coordinated hive mind, a loose confederation of groups playing to their strengths, or by complete coincidence, is beside the point. I'd say you need at least all those elements to acheive real change.

Granted, there's a difference between STEM and teaching as one is mostly private and the other is mostly public.

If they spend conferences going on adnausium about women in science, that would give anyone a pain in the hoop.

What's the active discrimination against men and why doesn't someone address it?

No, it's an Irish campaign calling on men to stop domestic violence.

http://www.safeireland.ie/2015/man-up-and-stand-against-domestic-violence-says-ufc-fighter-cathal-pendred/

You've actually hit on a very salient point regarding STEM being private and teaching being public. If anything we should have a greater emphasis on more male participation in teaching exactly because it is publicly funded. I believe the public sector is heavy skewed in female employee numbers but I'l need to double check the statistics to be sure.

The active discrimination is women only fast track and training programs many companies in STEM are now actively pursuing.

JRant wrote:

The man up campaign is easily found online.

The Australian mental health campaign? Presumably they chose 'man up' as a juxtaposition with traditional pidgeon-holing of manliness with the idea that it requires bravery and manliness for a man to address mental health as opposed to the opposite. I don't think it would offend me but if it was an ill chosen title, then fair enough. It was however a mental health campaign targeted at addressing men's mental health which, as the ad mentions, is a problem.

JRant wrote:

STEM is not some hive mind enity that decided to do something. It is a systematic approach taken by feminist think-tanks who have a hand in directing public policy. They decided STEM was sexist, just because. Now we have the media, HR departments and government policy all telling us how we need more women in STEM, despite the fact there were no barriers in place preventing anyone from entering.

Of course STEM isn't a hive mind the same way feminism or men's rights aren't hive mines. I think you missed the point i was coming at. It takes action on a number of fronts to acheive something like encouraging people into industries. Whether those groups are lobbying government, education and industry and raising awareness among the public, as part of a coordinated hive mind, a loose confederation of groups playing to their strengths, or by complete coincidence, is beside the point. I'd say you need at least all those elements to acheive real change.

Granted, there's a difference between STEM and teaching as one is mostly private and the other is mostly public.

JRant wrote:

I work in the STEM area and I've a massive pain in my hoop being told at nearly every conference how great women are and how brilliant it is to have them working in the STEM environment. How about focusing on getting the best candidate for the job and stop worrying about what bits they have between there legs.

If they spend conferences going on adnausium about women in science, that would give anyone a pain in the hoop.

JRant wrote:

It is the height of double standards to on the one hand claim sexism is the reason for the lack of fdmale participation and on the other actively discriminate against men just so you're seen to be "right on".

What's the active discrimination against men and why doesn't someone address it?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What are you on about?

This is a familiar tactic

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What was the 'man up' campaign about?

On the rape point i think there are incongruous cultural norms around the nature of consent but that's not for here.

The STEM side has actually done something about encouraging women to take an interest in studying those areas. Those achievements owe zero credit to windups like LON. It'sâ€‹ down to having a serious, coordinated ground game in the form of lobbying government, education and industry.

Pointing out that nobody has solved a different (male teachers) problem is fine but it will remain unsolved unless people actually do something about it. Why begrudge the other side for their success?

Before someone says 'but feminist movement doesn't address men's issues', I'll ask the posters this; if you put aside some of your limited free time to lobby to find solutions to inequalities, which ones would you spend your time on? List your top 5 (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm asking to see how far down the list of priorities would women's issues be)

I see encouraging women into STEM as a success. I'd see encouraging men into teaching as a success. They're don't cancel each other out in my mind.

The man up campaign is easily found online.

STEM is not some hive mind enity that decided to do something. It is a systematic approach taken by feminist think-tanks who have a hand in directing public policy. They decided STEM was sexist, just because. Now we have the media, HR departments and government policy all telling us how we need more women in STEM, despite the fact there were no barriers in place preventing anyone from entering.

I work in the STEM area and I've a massive pain in my hoop being told at nearly every conference how great women are and how brilliant it is to have them working in the STEM environment. How about focusing on getting the best candidate for the job and stop worrying about what bits they have between there legs. It is the height of double standards to on the one hand claim sexism is the reason for the lack of fdmale participation and on the other actively discriminate against men just so you're seen to be "right on".

Pat Mustard wrote:

I'm suggesting that people shouldn't waste time attempting to engage you in discussion any meaningful way, on account of your dishonest methods of argument and your refusal to back up what you say, all the while insisting that you are attempting to reply honestly.

What are you on about? You want reference to media or academic article to back up that I support addressing inequalities?

Don't engage with any poster you don't want to but don't be so cowardly as to tell others who they should and shouldn't engage with. Surely everyone else can make up their own mind about what they want to post about.

Calhoun

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I'm suggesting that people shouldn't waste time attempting to engage you in discussion any meaningful way, on account of your dishonest methods of argument and your refusal to back up what you say, all the while insisting that you are attempting to reply honestly.

Echoes of the late Liam Lawlor TD "bending over backwards" to cooperate with the Flood Tribunal.

Sometimes it's better to engage in debate with folk like this early on because you bring to the surface these flaws so folk know not to take them seriously .

Pat Mustard

I'm suggesting that people shouldn't waste time attempting to engage you in discussion any meaningful way, on account of your dishonest methods of argument and your refusal to back up what you say, all the while insisting that you are attempting to reply honestly.

Echoes of the late Liam Lawlor TD "bending over backwards" to cooperate with the Flood Tribunal.

Pat Mustard wrote:

He absolutely refuses to nail his colours to the mast. He adopts no firm positions and does not back up his statements with evidence of any sort, or even links.

My moral philosophy isn't based in either men's rights or women's rights. Why would you need to know my broad philosophy to deal with the narrow topicar hand anyway? I'm not asking for yours because I'm happy to deal with you based on how you present yourself.

I'm not sure why that has upset yourself and the saintly patient Silverharp.

Pat Mustard

silverharp wrote: »

well tell me who your favourite academic feminist is and Ill check it out?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If I told you the sky is blue you'd see it and an affront to reason. I have no intention to give a considered treatise on my moral philosophy, because I don't think you have any honest interest in it.

silverharp wrote: »

its a fair question, I dont know what persecution complex you have that I would disagree with you just because. but if you identify as a feminist you must have some influences. for instance as feminists go someone like Camila Paglia is quite interesting but she would be critical of the 3rd wave stuff.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does anyone in this forum have time to sit around reading men's rights V women's rights philosophy and watch YouTube videos of gender wars all day?

Just make it up yourself. I'm probablyâ€‹ into anything as long as it's by an angry, blue haired mad-yolk. Or you could take my beliefs from what I advocate.

silverharp wrote: »

you are getting a bit defensive now and only because I was trying to get an idea what "coat hanger" your views hang on. if this was about other religions it would be fair to ask what religion are you, are you catholic or a young earth creationist evangelical.
and sure if you are not prepared to answer then Ill assume that at a minimum you don't disagree with tearing down the Patriarchy and hetronormativity and capitalism with its systems of oppressions oh and white privilege (feminist bingo lol)

You have the patience of a saint, silverharp but it is a wasted effort because there is no such thing as giving a straight answer to a question here.

It is almost as though some ancient Chinese manual on military strategy gave up advice to "be like the fog".

He absolutely refuses to nail his colours to the mast. He adopts no firm positions and does not back up his statements with evidence of any sort, or even links.

It is like arguing with fog.

"just make it up yourself" is one of the replies above. Meaningless, really.

Pointless.

JRant wrote:

Well it could be argued that the "Man Up" campaign marginalises men. Then there are the articles printed in the likes of the Irish Times telling men not to rape.

What was the 'man up' campaign about?

On the rape point i think there are incongruous cultural norms around the nature of consent but that's not for here.

JRant wrote:

I'm all for encouraging people to do whatever they want, be that STEM or teaching. What is happening though is we have a huge push to encourage one while nothing is being done to address the other.

The STEM side has actually done something about encouraging women to take an interest in studying those areas. Those achievements owe zero credit to windups like LON. It'sâ€‹ down to having a serious, coordinated ground game in the form of lobbying government, education and industry.

Pointing out that nobody has solved a different (male teachers) problem is fine but it will remain unsolved unless people actually do something about it. Why begrudge the other side for their success?

Before someone says 'but feminist movement doesn't address men's issues', I'll ask the posters this; if you put aside some of your limited free time to lobby to find solutions to inequalities, which ones would you spend your time on? List your top 5 (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm asking to see how far down the list of priorities would women's issues be)

I see encouraging women into STEM as a success. I'd see encouraging men into teaching as a success. They're don't cancel each other out in my mind.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I do see that as over dramatic. Maybe some men are marginalised but I've never felt marginalised in any way by feminism. Have you? Nobody has ever made me out to be a boogeyman because of my gender

A few posts back compared encouraging women into STEM and men into teaching. I predicted some people would see those things as an attacking the other. Someone surely obliged by saying encouraging women into STEM is an attacking on men. I don't see that as an attack on men, nor do i see encouraging men into teaching as an attack on women. Some people see everything as an attack.

I wonder is the same sensitive souls who feel they're being demonised.

Well it could be argued that the "Man Up" campaign marginalises men. Then there are the articles printed in the likes of the Irish Times telling men not to rape.

I'm all for encouraging people to do whatever they want, be that STEM or teaching. What is happening though is we have a huge push to encourage one while nothing is being done to address the other.

iptba wrote:

I don't see that as an accurate description of what happened:

Actually you're right. I missed that you were talking about positive discrimination rather than encouraging people into professions

Calhoun

iptba wrote: »

I don't see that as an accurate description of what happened:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102935440&postcount=3030

I explicitly said that encouraging women into STEM was not attacking men.

Encouraging females into STEM does not have to take the form of "positive discrimination".

Don't question his narrative you sensitive soul

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A few posts back compared encouraging women into STEM and men into teaching. I predicted some people would see those things as an attacking the other. Someone surely obliged by saying encouraging women into STEM is an attacking on men. I don't see that as an attack on men, nor do i see encouraging men into teaching as an attack on women. Some people see everything as an attack.

I wonder is the same sensitive souls who feel they're being demonised.

I don't see that as an accurate description of what happened:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102935440&postcount=3030

Originally Posted by El_Duderino 09
Take for example how these things are perceived in the reverse. Encouraging women into STEM will inevitably mean women gaining qualifications and taking up positions in STEM jobs. Is that an attack on men?

iptba wrote:

It's not. But official or unofficial so-called "positive discrimination" in favour of women is something men can rightly complain about.

I explicitly said that encouraging women into STEM was not attacking men.

Encouraging females into STEM does not have to take the form of "positive discrimination".

JRant wrote:

Well in an ideal world you may well be correct. There is however a very real discourse in the public sphere that is undermining men on an almost daily basis. To you that may seem overly dramatic but if you take a look at what is actually happening then it is very hard to see it as anything other.

I do see that as over dramatic. Maybe some men are marginalised but I've never felt marginalised in any way by feminism. Have you? Nobody has ever made me out to be a boogeyman because of my gender

A few posts back compared encouraging women into STEM and men into teaching. I predicted some people would see those things as an attacking the other. Someone surely obliged by saying encouraging women into STEM is an attacking on men. I don't see that as an attack on men, nor do i see encouraging men into teaching as an attack on women. Some people see everything as an attack.

I wonder is the same sensitive souls who feel they're being demonised.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But those are issues of substance. Why would you want to counter someone who is mostly a windup, with actually issues of substance? Why not cut her out of the discussion and just discuss the points you want to discuss? Unless you think LON's ideas are also substantive (which i doubt you do). Or do you think she's effective?

If so many posters think LON is talking rubbish and some even think she does her side a disservice, then why are so many interested in emulating her? Why not just talk about the issues that matter instead of wasting time talking about things that don't matter?

Well in an ideal world you may well be correct. There is however a very real discourse in the public sphere that is undermining men on an almost daily basis. To you that may seem overly dramatic but if you take a look at what is actually happening then it is very hard to see it as anything other.