Why are we hating all the men?

Vela wrote: »

Edit: just to clarify one thing in your quote, whilst I agree with most of it - I'm not sure about your remark re: 'some guys should have backed off if a woman was drunk of whatever'. To me, if that's a situation where the woman is too intoxicated to consent or isn't actively engaging (i.e. showing she's unaware of what she's doing) that's assault. There's no maybe about it.

Agreed, but tbf I didn't say a guy should only maybe back off from having sex with a woman that was "too intoxicated" What I said was that a guy should only maybe back off from a woman that was 'drunk'. If a woman could be accurately described as being 'too intoxicated' then for sure I'd agree that guys should back off from them, but like I said: "that goes for a lot of women too" (when it's the guy that's 'too intoxicated').

The reason I say that men/women should only maybe back off from a woman or a man that is drunk is because people have sex with drunk people all the time and I don't really see anything inherently wrong with that (depends on the situation and how long both have known one another I suppose) although I do appreciate that these days there is far more chance of drunken sex being problematic (for guys especially) and so I certainly wouldn't say it's bad advice to advice people to avoid having sex with people who are drunk, but that would only really be because of how ludicrously little evidence it appears to take these days for a guy to end up in court after having a sexual encounter with a woman who had consumed almost any amount of alcohol... rather than there being anything morally improper or objectionable about it.

bodice ripper wrote: »

Yeah, we have terrible trouble with the HR department here at the tattoo parlour...

Careful now, I've heard some stories about Tattoo parlours...well, that is to say, douchiness that takes place in a tattoo parlour by someone who should not be tattooing. (I say tattoo parlour, but it was literally one guy who definitely should have his license revoked).

As for HR-you'll often find that a HR manager will be loathe to have one area made up of one gender-well that is to say, she will be loathe to have 50 women alone on one section... this leads into advice I got from a former HR manager one time. (I was looking for a job, and she had insight into what they want on a CV).

Okay, so this person, she had been the HR manager for a company that dealt with checking components for devices (a micrometer off, and the whole thing could go wrong)-don't want to really go into too much detail , as I don't want to identify the company.
Anyways, one division of the company was made up of 50-60 women, like, all women-no men, at all. We're talking late 20s, to late 30s and beyond. And for anyone who's worked in those kinds of places, you can't wear jewellery, no makeup, no earrings-it's a combination of preventing contamination, and static electricity). And for a lot of women, that can be weird, to say the least-as they can feel naked without anything from a wedding ring to a necklace, to basic foundation.

Well, during this HR managers time there, every single day, she was getting complaints from that division-everyday. The morning would be one employee walks in, says Lady A is bullying her, the Lady A walks in later that day, and complains about the other employee. And this went on and on, every day, month after month, with every single one complaining about the other-'Shes bullying me'' no she was bullying me' etc. Well, she knew what was missing, as in why the many, many complaints- nothing to distract em, aka no men. If she could have pumped testosterone into the place, she would have.

A position opened up in the company-two or 3 positions. tbh So when she looked through the CV's-she deliberately went for men. Not even the most qualified, but the guys who were good looking, broad, strong, with experience in the field, even a few years of it-and as soon as they were hired, all complaints stopped. The ladies were, distracted, to say the least. She could not have hired a girl in her late teens, early 20s, to walk in there, and just go through sheer misery. It would all kick off again.
(Her advice to me, since I Was looking for work, was 'sometimes you don't have the right bits for the job' aka 'sometimes it literally comes down to your gender', so keep applying.) There may be more women in the company so they want men to balance it out, and there may be more men so they want women to balance it out.

The important thing is they want balance. Bullying and douchebaggery come from both genders.
And women can perpetrate it just as often as men.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/on-top-of-the-worldjohn-burke-on-his-plan-to-climb-everest-449445.html

I see d'Examiner have finally changed their headline on this piece. Up until last night it read "Aoibh?n Garrihy's husband becomes first Clareman to climb Everest" because that's what everyone knows him as sure.

Murrisk wrote: »

This isn't a gender thing. Happens all the time to both men and women, being defined by their better known half.

Yep-the famous half always gets precedent. Tho the usual columnists went apespit when one US olympian improved her stats due to her husband, a swim coach, trainer, former swimming olympian in his own right, giving her advice training and so on.

They claimed it was taking her win away from her and giving it to him--her name's on the medal, for crying out loud.
I don't think she cares-most athletes don't give a toss unless articles like 'did they use PED's' come into play.

I think in a lot of cases it's just easier for women to hate on men than take responsibility for their own mistakes ie crying rape after a one night stand you regret.

In other cases it's about allowing one bad experience with a man cloud your view of them as a whole i.e if you experience abuse at a partner's hands it might make you feel better and safer to assume all men are cruel and stay away from them instead of being brave and taking a chance on the genuine guy showing you interest.

Men are not the epitome of all evil any more than women are all goodness and light and to deny that is at best ignorance and naivety.

Masterofballs wrote: »

Wonders if boards folk actually understand feminism and what it is actually trying to achieve. Many facets my friends, many, many, many facets.

I think we do understand perfectly what it's trying to achieve and that's why there is so much disdain for it.

It's no longer about equal rights, it's about putting men down in as many ways as possible and attempting to put women above them in terms of rights and allowances.

Wibbs wrote: »

Well unless my Tardis has malfunctioned. Again. We're living in the modern world of today and that's the "feminism" we're dealing with. The extreme has become ever more mainstream.

contradiction in terms.

To those born in the 30's the 70's was a modern world, a world where up until the late 70's a woman who married had to give up her public job for a specific reason. Perhaps in 40 years time when hopefully FGM becomes extinct people will be glad of the ''Modern world we live in''.

if there is a sliver of hope at least online is that some of the feminism publications are in trouble, Everyday Feminism is E- begging or they go out of business this month and some of the Anti feminist youtube channels are worried that they will run out of material for response videos as Buzzfeed and their ilk seemed to have pulled back on their more outrageous content. :pac:

Masterofballs wrote: »

But feminism is equality and justice for all, whats to criticize? In fact a fair society. A choice.

It's not though, that's the problem. It was about those things at the start but today it just seems to be about one upping men as much as possible.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's not though, that's the problem. It was about those things at the start but today it just seems to be about one upping men as much as possible.

What you talk about is not feminism, what you talk about is something else.

What you talk about is not feminism, what you talk about is something else.

Bit of a No True Scotsman situation there though.