Mens Rights Thread

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't get it. Did she choose to do it? She can do what she likes as far as I'm concerned.

Oh you're pointing to another instance of women disagreeing with a feminist. It really seems to delight some of the posters on this forum to see that happening. Naturally, I don't care what she chooses to do in her free time. I imagine you'd agree with that.

That would be my point.

I am not pointing at another instance of just women she is under fire from feminists and I was commenting on how she is taking some heat at the moment as there are a good few articles about it.

Calhoun wrote:

On the one below I personally don't see the problem she did a near nude shoot for a fashion designer, apparently she is a hypocrite.

I don't get it. Did she choose to do it? She can do what she likes as far as I'm concerned.

Oh you're pointing to another instance of women disagreeing with a feminist. It really seems to delight some of the posters on this forum to see that happening. Naturally, I don't care what she chooses to do in her free time. I imagine you'd agree with that.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd send those as two fairly unrelated things though wouldn't you? One is a child telling you about their interests, the other is a parent deciding how to dress the child. Why conflate them?

I've no idea what that is. Celebrity gossip bores me tbh. What was the significance of the photoshoot?

Agreed on top point.

On the one below I personally don't see the problem she did a near nude shoot for a fashion designer, apparently she is a hypocrite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awot-d8U9Cc

Calhoun wrote:

At the same time i disagree with making everything gender neutral or dressing boys in dresses. If a boy or girl want toys that would have been marketted at opposite sex fair enough but i have no interest in dressing my kids as two little men and giving them boys names just for the craic of it.

I'd send those as two fairly unrelated things though wouldn't you? One is a child telling you about their interests, the other is a parent deciding how to dress the child. Why conflate them?

Calhoun wrote:

Watson at the moment is all over the place, the shine has come off her for some feminists because of that photoshoot.

I've no idea what that is. Celebrity gossip bores me tbh. What was the significance of the photoshoot?

silverharp

Zulu wrote: »

Oh right so the person who creates the most money for the firm shouldn't make partner is it?

you will like this

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends on which parts of Watson's campaign you're talking about. For example the part about releasing children from gender stereotypes isnt advantageous to one gender or the other. I imagibe most people now a family where a boy asked Santa for a Barbie or something similar. I remember it being talked about for ages when one of my classmate's brothers asked for a doll for Christmas. It was genuine village gossip.

It's incredible to think children can be given limiting beliefsâ€‹ from such a young age. Getting rid of those kinds of limiting beliefs is it's own reward for the next generation who don't experience those gender stereotypes. Though they'll probably never appreciate it so they'll never thank you for it.

At the same time i disagree with making everything gender neutral or dressing boys in dresses. If a boy or girl want toys that would have been marketted at opposite sex fair enough but i have no interest in dressing my kids as two little men and giving them boys names just for the craic of it.

Watson at the moment is all over the place, the shine has come off her for some feminists because of that photoshoot.

please helpThank YOU

Men Rights that is Joke of word you have no Mens Rights in Ireland you will be walked on .

Calhoun wrote:

The clear message for men i took from it was expect no thanks nor gains for advancing womans rights.

It depends on which parts of Watson's campaign you're talking about. For example the part about releasing children from gender stereotypes isnt advantageous to one gender or the other. I imagibe most people now a family where a boy asked Santa for a Barbie or something similar. I remember it being talked about for ages when one of my classmate's brothers asked for a doll for Christmas. It was genuine village gossip.

It's incredible to think children can be given limiting beliefsâ€‹ from such a young age. Getting rid of those kinds of limiting beliefs is it's own reward for the next generation who don't experience those gender stereotypes. Though they'll probably never appreciate it so they'll never thank you for it.

Yah its quite subtle, i didnt like the format of the article. All the headings in an article so small was a bit OTT.

The clear message for men i took from it was expect no thanks nor gains for advancing womans rights.

JRant wrote:

We have lobby groups/quangos funded by the taxpayer that help set national policy on certain issues. These groups completely ignore half the population. Take the Equality Authority, they would be best served changing tgeir name as far as I'm concerned. So yes,as far as I'm concerned there is a lot of hypocrisy going on under the guise of "equality".

I can't say i know much about the taxpayer funded lobbiesâ€‹ who don't advocate for men's interests. What has the equality authority done wrong?

Calhoun wrote:

. I feel its hinting at some of what has been said on this thread about men start focusing on their own rights and the dangers of feminism to them.

If it hints at those things, it does so subtly. It took ages to get beyond the fact that done women thought Emma Watson is too privileged to campaign for the under privileged then... Nothing. It didn't say what's wrong with her campaign, how it harms or disadvantages men. I doesn't even hint at what men should do to advance their own agenda - unless a cornerstone of their own agenda is to complain the effectiveness of feminist lobbying and activism, because it does that. I think you're either giving the journalist too much credit or you're setting men's rights goals very low indeed.

I'm always surprised by the enjoyment some posters take when they see a woman criticising a feminist. It's almost as good as actually acheive the goals of equality for men. The first goal of men's rights seems to be to bemoan any success women's rights acheive rather than trying to achieve any success themselves.

Quite an interesting article in the journal at the moment by a female MRA, http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/heforshe-emma-watsons-empty-promise-that-when-womens-problems-are-solved-men-will-be-free-to-be-human-too-3288855-Mar2017/?utm_source=shortlink . I feel its hinting at some of what has been said on this thread about men start focusing on their own rights and the dangers of feminism to them.

[Deleted User]

Zulu wrote: »

Oh right so the person who creates the most money for the firm shouldn't make partner is it? That's because of gender discrimination is it?

I went for partner in an International consulting firm. I was a mid-level manager at the time, and I was being 'groomed'/'coached' by my immediate superior. There were four other men being put forward and two women (one my team leader). And so began two years of grovelling, backstabbing, sleepless nights, an extremely bad breakup, increase regular income, close bad debts successfully and loads of pressure to 'steal' competitors clients. Two awful years, and I didn't get the position. I also burned out a few months later, quitting and changing industries completely. Another guy got the partner position, and he did it decisively. Some people just have what it takes to do all of that, and come out smiling. I certainly don't. The others (male & female) going for the position didn't either.

At these levels of employment, the concerns of discrimination fall away. It comes down quite simply to, "what you can do to improve the partners fortunes?" At corporate levels, that would be shareholder value.

This issue with women not having high numbers in these kinds of positions is an attempt to get a free ride. Bypass the commitment, time invested, and associated stresses.... I spent three years in that company with the sole aim of becoming partner. It was a serious investment of time with a high risk.. but incredible potential payoffs.... Those that complain about the ratios are simply trying to skip that, and go straight for the prize.

It's a continuance of the feeling of 'entitlement' that modern western society is plagued with.

Zulu

silverharp wrote: »

^^^

the legal profession is another one where this all applies. There is at least an equal number of men and women going into law but the patriarchy is keeping women from getting to the top. The trouble is that the people who bill out the most hours will be the ones that make partner and guess what more men than women want to work 60 and 70 hour weeks. I guess facts are sexist these days

Oh right so the person who creates the most money for the firm shouldn't make partner is it? That's because of gender discrimination is it?

You appear to be confusing good business sense with gender politics.

.... Apologies I think I miss read your post.

iptba

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed, although I wouldn't limit that to just the dangerous jobs.

I wouldn't either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell#Why_Men_Earn_More

Warren Farrell

[..]

Why Men Earn More[edit]
By the start of the 21st century, Farrell felt he had re-examined every substantial adult male-female issue except the pay gap (i.e., that men as a group tend to earn more money than women as a group).[41] In Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can Do About It,[42] he documents 25 differences in men and women's work-life choices which, he argues, account for most or all of the pay gap more accurately than did claims of widespread discrimination against women. Common to each of men's choices was earning more money, while each of women's choices prioritized having a more-balanced life.[43] These 25 differences allowed Farrell to offer women 25 ways to higher pay—and accompany each with their possible trade-offs.[44] The trade-offs include working more hours and for more years; taking technical or more-hazardous jobs; relocating overseas or traveling overnight.[45] This led to considerable praise for Why Men Earn More as a career book for women.[46]

Some of Farrell's findings in Why Men Earn More include his analysis of census bureau data that never-married women without children earn 13% more than their male counterparts, and that the gender pay gap is largely about married men with children who earn more due to their assuming more workplace obligations. Themes woven throughout Why Men Earn More are the importance of assessing trade-offs; that "the road to high pay is a toll road;" the "Pay Paradox" (that "pay is about the power we forfeit to get the power of pay"); and, since men earn more, and women have more balanced lives, that men have more to learn from women than women do from men.[47]

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That addresses that point.

We have activism in some areas and little or no activism in other areas. That's the 'because... reasons' why nothing gets done in those areas.

It's not some big conspiracy. It's simple cause and effect. If you were to dedicate some of your valuable free time to lobby government, what topics would you choose to lobby for? You have limited free time so you can't lobby for ending world hungr, world peace, nuclear non proliferation, gender equality, save the whales and save the trees. You'd pick your battles.

There has been lots of work put into addressing gendering equalities for women and comparatively little work at addressing the same issue for men.

If the hypocrisy you're referring to is that one side has put in loads of work and the other side is expected thing things to change without having to do any work themselves, then maybe I'd agree.

We have lobby groups/quangos funded by the taxpayer that help set national policy on certain issues. These groups completely ignore half the population. Take the Equality Authority, they would be best served changing tgeir name as far as I'm concerned.
So yes,as far as I'm concerned there is a lot of hypocrisy going on under the guise of "equality".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here -

yet again if you had bothered to read what I wrote, and convey it honestly, you would see that I'm calling for no such thing, what I said was I might believe those that do, are interested in equality (even if their idea is right or wrong), if they meant equality of the sexes in the dirty, dangerous and low paid jobs, as well as the well paid more powerful jobs, but they only want equality of numbers in the cherry picked jobs.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now why would it be in anyone's interest to have more people doing the jobs that nobody wants to do? What kind of equality would that be?

Explain how over time, would equal numbers of female and males in any job, mean more people doing that job ? The number of people doing a job is related to the number of vancancies in the job, not the numbers of male and female doing the job. Let's say a law came out tommorrow that when recruiting new national school teachers have to be 50/50 male female, that doesn't mean there is going to be a massive increase in national school teachers to allow all the males in, it means the imbalance would be addressed, but only slowly over the years. Oh and in case you try to twist it again, explaining such basics to you does not mean I'm calling for them or not.

As an example of their hypocrisy, you won't see feminists calling for gender equality in national school teaching, because of the now complete gender imbalance in that profession in their favour.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Quite frankly, I don't think anyone would care whether you believe them or not because your bias is transparent. This is a thread on men's rights, and you're still arguing for what women should be doing, rather than focusing your energies on encouraging men to challenge themselves.

back to making up what people write yet again ? you really have a reading comprehension problem. What I was pointing out was what men can say to highlight out the flaws of feminists calling for equality of numbers of women and men in certain jobs only. Also you need to wake up if you think only women can be feminists.

JRant wrote:

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.

That addresses that point.

JRant wrote:

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.

We have activism in some areas and little or no activism in other areas. That's the 'because... reasons' why nothing gets done in those areas.

It's not some big conspiracy. It's simple cause and effect. If you were to dedicate some of your valuable free time to lobby government, what topics would you choose to lobby for? You have limited free time so you can't lobby for ending world hungr, world peace, nuclear non proliferation, gender equality, save the whales and save the trees. You'd pick your battles.

JRant wrote:

The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven IMO.

There has been lots of work put into addressing gendering equalities for women and comparatively little work at addressing the same issue for men.

If the hypocrisy you're referring to is that one side has put in loads of work and the other side is expected thing things to change without having to do any work themselves, then maybe I'd agree.

Wibbs

......... wrote: »

They don't you idiot

Rule 1 of the forum; "don't be a dick", rule 2; "attack the post, not the poster". No more name calling please.

silverharp

^^^

the legal profession is another one where this all applies. There is at least an equal number of men and women going into law but the patriarchy is keeping women from getting to the top. The trouble is that the people who bill out the most hours will be the ones that make partner and guess what more men than women want to work 60 and 70 hour weeks. I guess facts are sexist these days

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

I see the statistics as being related. If 2 jobs, job a and job b, have the same pay but one is more dangerous than the other, most sensible people would do the less dangerous one. So you have to offer more money on average for dangerous work. Men are more willing than women on average to take on dangerous work in return for extra pay. Hence you get men earning more but in more dangerous positions.

Agreed, although I wouldn't limit that to just the dangerous jobs. It's also the stressful jobs. Sure, women often go into stressful professions, but the area of management is more than simply the stress... it's the long hours, and more importantly, the constant competition with your peers. Most women I've met don't want to deal with the reality that to get ahead you need to work harder than your peers. Instead, they tend to prefer a more friendly atmosphere where promotions are given out due to talent.

Which is lovely, except it's not how the world is. Business development has occured due to excessive competition between companies and management. It's a very hard world out there in the specialised & professional management areas especially in corporate entities.... and that's why there are such high salaries. The downside being the health problems, extremely high divorce rates, etc.

Which is the reason most women I know from work have given for not going for mgt positions. The downsides far outweigh the monetary benefits. Some women do go for these positions, but there's a minority in every group. I stopped at Mid-Mgt level for the same reasons... just as many women do. It's not sexist to suggest this... or rather it shouldn't be.

Alas, these won't be accepted as valid reasons. Theres more men than women in mgt roles, so therefore, statistically, it's sexist. :rolleyes:

silverharp

......... wrote: »

tell us how exactly, how does working in a nice clean supermarket or creche compare to working in a dangerous dirty environment ? how do the workplace accidents and fatalities compare ? yet no one seems to be calling for 'gender equality' in refuse collection or sewerage works.

I agree, men build and maintain things which objectively speaking in terms of paid work is why we have nice cities to live in and roads to drive on. modern feminism tries to undermine men's roll in society and talk down their achievements while at the same time expecting women to have the right to be helicoptered into top positions. its a slightly delusional movement.

iptba

One relevance of the fact that more men than women do dangerous and/or dirty jobs is as a metric to measure gender differences in the employment market.

We are often told that if men earn more than women on average that is due to discrimination.

However that is only one way to measure the employer market.

One could equally argue that if more men than women are put in dangerous positions that that is due to discrimination.

I see the statistics as being related. If 2 jobs, job a and job b, have the same pay but one is more dangerous than the other, most sensible people would do the less dangerous one. So you have to offer more money on average for dangerous work. Men are more willing than women on average to take on dangerous work in return for extra pay. Hence you get men earning more but in more dangerous positions.

One eyed Jack

......... wrote: »

Where did I argue that ? Quote it in full please, no making up what I said this time or editing the quote dishonestly.

Here -

......... 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 to do, from waste collection to sewerage works ? Then I might believe them.

Now why would it be in anyone's interest to have more people doing the jobs that nobody wants to do? What kind of equality would that be? Where's the challenge in qualifying for unskilled low paid labour? I've worked in unskilled labour jobs and many of them required physical strength that most women weren't capable of for starters, and there are many more reasons why I wouldn't encourage either men nor women into jobs that have left me with long term health issues that I wish I could have foreseen at the time.

Quite frankly, I don't think anyone would care whether you believe them or not because your bias is transparent. This is a thread on men's rights, and you're still arguing for what women should be doing, rather than focusing your energies on encouraging men to challenge themselves.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, it means advocating for what they believe is beneficial to both sexes. What you're arguing is that both sexes should be equally disadvantaged, which nobody, neither man nor woman with an ounce of common sense wants.

Where did I argue that ? Quote it in full please, no making up what I said this time or editing the quote dishonestly.

One eyed Jack

......... wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you again, because their whole argument hinges on equality in the workplace - but if they were truly interested in equality of the sexes, that would also means taking their fair share of the more difficult jobs in society as well as cheery picking the good ones.

Nope, it means advocating for what they believe is beneficial to both sexes. What you're arguing is that both sexes should be equally disadvantaged, which nobody, neither man nor woman with an ounce of common sense wants.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're not highlighting any hypocrisy if by your very own admission - men apparently have no choice but to do the shìtty jobs. If men don't want to do them, then why the hell should feminists campaign that women should do the shìtty jobs that men don't want to do?

I'll spell it out for you again, because their whole argument hinges on equality in the workplace - but if they were truly interested in equality of the sexes, that would also means taking their fair share of the more difficult jobs in society as well as cheery picking the good ones.

One eyed Jack

......... wrote: »

They don't you idiot, they are highlighting the idiocy and hypocrisy of feminists who claim they want equality with men in the workplace, but actually don't unless it suits them.

They're not highlighting any hypocrisy if by your very own admission - men apparently have no choice but to do the shìtty jobs. If men don't want to do them, then why the hell should feminists campaign that women should do the shìtty jobs that men don't want to do?

That's not equality, and it's certainly not in either men's or women's best interests. It's why we automate mental, tedious and dangerous tasks. You're making a silly point here that has no benefit for men. What benefit is there for men in what you're suggesting?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

or men's rights advocates saying more women should want to do shìtty jobs?

They don't you idiot, they are highlighting the idiocy and hypocrisy of feminists who claim they want equality with men in the workplace, but actually don't unless it suits them.