Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? READ POST 1

PucaMama · 11-07-2017 07:34PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The handmaids tale is more dystopian than post apocalyptic.

They changed far too much from the book to include certain groups. The book was way better.

I read the book fairly recently and while I thought the book was great, the series is a more well-rounded experience imo. The creation of Gilead is deftly handled in the show. The latter episodes of the series show how men are just as straitjacketed by the paranoia of the new republic as women.

As for certain groups being included, I presume you're talking about lesbians and black people. In Atwood's book any non-white people were expelled from Gilead iirc but the showrunners altered it slightly because they felt in a desperate post fertile world, any woman that can bear a child would be used as a Handmaiden - which makes sense to me. The society is still disgusted by gender traitors like Ofglen, as shown by Aunt Lydia's treatment of her, but they are so desperate to keep producing babies that they will use these women if they are fertile. Tbf, when Atwood first wrote the book over thirty years ago, lesbians marrying and having children as part of everyday society was not a possibility - I think including this in it helps to show how far the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. The episode with the Mexican Ambassador shows that fertility is a worldwide problem and everyone seems willing to make deals with the devil to try and solve it. Offred's friend, Moira, was a lesbian in the book iirc.

I was skeptical about the series when it was first announced but I think it's been a complete success.

I had a longer reply but it disappeared. The book was far better. They only included other races to appeal to certain audiences. It wouldn't make sense for a society that wants white people in power to raise non white babies in family's with power (only rich people had the handmaids). Lesbians were already in the book so nothing different only they were in the Tv show a lot more. I felt the made this particular Tv show to appeal solely to feminists paranoia of today.

But I'm 10 minutes into the mist episode 1 and it's already ruined. In the same kind of way. Why can't people stick to the actual story without making it obvious about who they want to appeal to.

iptba · 13-07-2017 02:40PM

(UK)

It paves the way for other gay couples to get the same treatment — and could allow thousands of widowers to access retirement savings built up by their wives.

Ex pensions minister Baroness Altmann said: ‘In some schemes, a husband cannot inherit the wife’s pension but a wife will inherit that of her deceased husband. I expect this issue will now be looked at again — and the cost to public sector schemes could be hundreds of millions of pounds.’

https://www.metro.news/gay-pensions-ruling-could-lead-to-multi-million-pounds-in-claims/672971/

anitaca · 13-07-2017 11:12PM

seamus wrote: »

Right. So I was quoting a post which was a single example of women getting a lenient sentence. And I was showing that it probably wasn't because they were women.

Like you say, it's not a case-by-case issue, but one where you need to look at the stats as a whole.

A single case is not a statistic, so throwing out single examples of women getting off lightly like the one I quoted, or the one about Norma Cotter is nothing really to do with sexism against men.

This is also why I despise certain quarters of feminism turning individual cases (like the guy in court at the moment) into gender issues simply because the victim was a woman and the perp is a man. It's only a gender issue when gender is a factor.

I wish someone would. I had copied this youtube comment, i think, by karen straughan, and came across it again recently.

I havent verified any of the claims and they are probably based on american or canadian stats.

The problem is that compared to women, same crime same circumstances, men are: More likely to be stopped. When stopped, more likely to be arrested. When arrested, more likely to be charged. When charged, more likely to be charged with a more severe offence. When charged with that more severe offence, more likely to be prosecuted. When prosecuted, twice as likely to be convicted. When convicted, more likely to receive a custodial sentence. When sentenced to custody, serve ~60% longer sentences. Looking at the first three items, women are much more likely to be able to commit crimes and not end up with any criminal history whatsoever for a judge to consider. Looking at the fourth, even when they are repeat offenders, their records will, on average, include less severe charges for the judge to consider. Looking at the 6th item, even when they are repeat offenders, their records will have fewer convictions in them for the judge to consider. Looking at the 7th, there will be fewer previous incarcerations for the judge to consider (custodial sentences tend to get longer the more of them you have in your prior record, if the judge has discretion, even if the current crime is no more severe than those in your past). All these gaps tend to compound as offenders reoffend. If we take two identical criminals (one female, one male) committing the same number of the same crimes over 10 years: The woman may be a three-time offender who even got caught three times, before she has any official criminal history, whereas a man almost certainly will have one. When she has a history, the offences on her record will be fewer and less severe than the equally criminal man. There will be fewer prior convictions, and they will be for less severe crimes, than the identical man. She will be more likely to have received probation than custody upon first conviction, so her first custodial sentence will be shorter than the identical man who already has three prior convictions for more severe crimes, and three custodial sentences. Etc etc. I believe it was someone called Permutation of Ninjas who found quantifiable data on the gaps for a lot of these factors I listed, assumed women commit just as much crime as men, started out with a 50/50 prison population, and applied the female discounts backward. After accounting for every one he could, his result was startlingly close to our current prison population ratio. Yet time after time, I see the 95:5 male to female prison ratio used to justify the harsher treatment of men in the system. What if the harsher treatment of men is what creates most of that lopsided ratio in the first place? Then we are using the result of our prejudice to justify our prejudice, aren't we?

Sn@kebite · 14-07-2017 12:04AM

Theres a considerable difference between homeless and living on the streets. Many more white males live on the streets in ireland but it does not meant that the ratio of male to female homeless are the same. If you live in a shelter or public housing you can still be homeless. Men juat live on the streets more for various reasons eg Men may not ask for help, chivalry (women and children first) PCness etc... Overall it is up to men to help each other.

seamus · 14-07-2017 08:15AM

iptba wrote: »

(UK)

https://www.metro.news/gay-pensions-ruling-could-lead-to-multi-million-pounds-in-claims/672971/

It's funny that marriage equality has had this unintended effect of shining a spotlight on the all of the areas where heterosexuals are being discriminated against on the basis of gender.

By necessitating the removal of gender from all laws which reference marriage, marriage equality massively levels the playing field for hetero couples.

iptba · 15-07-2017 07:49PM

Feminist geographers encourage colleagues not to cite research of white men

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/13/feminist-geographers-dont-cite-research-white-men/

This showed up in my twitter feed via: https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview which concentrates on highlighting some research papers of questionable validity, often written by feminists.

Calhoun · 15-07-2017 08:15PM

iptba wrote: »

This showed up in my twitter feed via: https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview which concentrates on highlighting some research papers of questionable validity, often written by feminists.

I wonder when the 3rd level education sector will get back to unbiased peer led reviews, if ever.

It's like the liberal left particularly in the states are creating no go universities who are losing allot of credibility fast.

Outlaw Pete · 15-07-2017 08:19PM

seamus wrote: »

IMO, toxic masculinity makes it far less likely that men would register as homeless for fear of being stigmatised.

What you're referring to has fcuk all to do with masculinity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87QP9XSszL0

El_Duderino 09 · 16-07-2017 08:02AM

silverharp wrote: »

I had to laugh at this article, the lack of awareness is awe inspiring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/shortage-eligible-men-has-left-women-taking-desperate-steps/

Shortage of eligible men has left women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say

Laura Donnelly, health editor
4 JULY 2017 • 10:00PM
A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.

The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.

Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.

I don't really get your issue with this article. It plainly says there aren't enough men getting higher educations and something needs to be done to address that.

It also says that women are paying a price for the success of feminism which is the kind of schadenfreude I thought you'd enjoy in an article.

Wher exactly was the lack of self awareness that inspired your awe?

silverharp · 16-07-2017 10:57AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't really get your issue with this article. It plainly says there aren't enough men getting higher educations and something needs to be done to address that.

It also says that women are paying a price for the success of feminism which is the kind of schadenfreude I thought you'd enjoy in an article.

Wher exactly was the lack of self awareness that inspired your awe?

A general criticism with these kind of articles is that they never actually interview any men or get a male perspective. they might as well have titled the article "Im wonderful and men are intiminated by my wonderfulness"

its a self selected sample of women, why not get some background on these women? chances are they just sabotaged their own chances of having a family. by late 30's of course men dont want them they are too old, freezing their eggs is just a delusion but the market will happily take their money. They give off the vibe off " I only date billionaires with a 6 pack who have climbed Everest "where are all the good billionaires supermodel geniuses gone", what do these woman have to offer men of equal value?

why not discuss feminist culture lying to women?

Also its all very one sided , why should men care what women want? especially when its not reciprocal, after all men dont really go after educated women, a woman having a phd compared to a degree doesnt make her anymore attractive to men.

the article seemed to suggest there is a duality with how women think, celebrating more women in college and seeing it as an inequality against women at the same time, maybe if they had taken more stem subjects they would have hit on the concept of equilibirium

from a male perspective there is an over supply of unappealing women perhaps, again no men asked so we will never know.

the anthropologist suggests that women compromise but no, must get more potential husband objects into college for the women to pick...mkay , what if the men dont want to go to college and would prefer to go to trade school, get an apprenticeship? look at it the other way, maybe there are the right number of men in college and the rest have rationally chosen other areas.

The article mentioned commitment, nobody asked men why they are not committing, they are just supposed to?

iptba · 16-07-2017 12:35PM

Irish Film Board turns spotlight on talented women
Eithne Shortall
July 16 2017, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times

No men need apply: the Irish Film Board (IFB) has created funding schemes that will be available only to women, as the state body calls “cut” on the high number of male screenwriters and directors receiving grants.

The board also plans to limit one of its most popular funding initiatives to female applicants for three months each year.

At least three schemes will be aimed only at women, including a programme under which female writers and directors can apply for financial support to produce feature films with budgets up to €400,000.

The board also plans to limit one round of Screenplay Development support to female applicants each year.

Continues:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/irish-film-board-turns-spotlight-on-talented-women-k205tlhmc

um7y1h83ge06nx · 16-07-2017 01:22PM

Waiting for them to have whites only and blacks only periods too. Sure why not, it's just as sensible an idea.

Edit - sarcasm for anyone whose meter is broken. But to be serious it is a case of discriminating against people for how they were born. Whether it's the colour of your skin or your gender, you can't change those things without complicated surgery.

Society likes to think it's all cool and "liberal" these days when it still embraces obvious discrimination.

Calhoun · 16-07-2017 01:37PM

Ok

iptba wrote: »

Continues:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/irish-film-board-turns-spotlight-on-talented-women-k205tlhmc

It's support should be cut immediately but it won't be. Shame to see tax payers money wasted on such policies .

I would say boycott but it's normally crap I wouldn't watch anyway.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-07-2017 03:23PM

silverharp wrote:

A general criticism with these kind of articles is that they never actually interview any men or get a male perspective. they might as well have titled the article "Im wonderful and men are intiminated by my wonderfulness"

Ah so it's not this article as such, it just reminded you of how offended you get by similar arguments?

They didn't ask for anyone's perspective. It reported on a study of the motivation of a very specific group -women who were actively freezing eggs.

silverharp wrote:

its a self selected sample of women, why not get some background on these women? chances are they just sabotaged their own chances of having a family. [...] what do these woman have to offer men of equal value?

They sabotaged their own chances by getting an education?

I don't know what they have to offer men of 'equal value' as you put it. I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you think?

silverharp wrote:

why not discuss feminist culture lying to women?

The article specifically says that this is the result of the success of feminism. I presume e this is what you mean by 'feminist culture lying to women'.

silverharp wrote:

the article seemed to suggest there is a duality with how women think, celebrating more women in college and seeing it as an inequality against women at the same time, maybe if they had taken more stem subjects they would have hit on the concept of equilibirium

The article didn't celebrate women in college or lament an inequality against women. I think you're straining to be offended.

silverharp wrote:

from a male perspective there is an over supply of unappealing women perhaps, again no men asked so we will never know.

Again it didn't ask men or women what they think, it reported on a piece of research on a new phenomenon of women freezing eggs. It didn't ask any members of the public for their views, just a few experts.

silverharp wrote:

the anthropologist suggests that women compromise but no, must get more potential husband objects into college for the women to pick...mkay , what if the men dont want to go to college and would prefer to go to trade school, get an apprenticeship? look at it the other way, maybe there are the right number of men in college and the rest have rationally chosen other areas.

This is a bit self pithing.

The article specifically easy that more men should be helped to go to college -something most people in these threads usually agree is a good thing. But this time a feminist suggested it so you feel the need to oppose it.

Reproduction isn't necessarily for everyone. Some people don't want to reproduce and some people do want to and lose out. That was the conclusion I came to after hearing about the MGTOW crowd. There are bound to be winners and losers in reproduction. But I think it's fairly mean spirited to take such enjoyment in seeing 'The other side' losing out. I'd be happier if fellas who who want a woman and women who want a man were to find each other and being happy together. The bitter point scoring is a bit sad tbh.

Pat Mustard · 16-07-2017 05:50PM

I read that Telegraph article and it leaves me wondering. If there is a significant group of women who find themselves single through circumstances in which they find themselves unable to meet a partner of similar education, position and social standing, does that not necessarily mean that there is likely to be a corresponding group of men (regardless of education or social standing) who are also single as a result?

Surely, not a good outcome for all concerned.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-07-2017 06:05PM

Pat Mustard wrote:

I read that Telegraph article and it leaves me wondering. If there is a significant group of women who find themselves single through circumstances in which they find themselves unable to meet a partner of similar education, position and social standing, does that not necessarily mean that there is likely to be a corresponding group of men (regardless of education or social standing) who are also single as a result?

Surely, not a good outcome for all concerned.

Well this is what I'm saying. There was a thread about MGTOW a while ago and I found it a bit sad. There are always going to be people who want to couple up and don't succeed. It's bound to be a sad situation for all the lonely singles who want a relationship and don't find one.

It's a bit nasty to see someone taking such pleasure in either men or women in that situation. I think it's very odd to see it in a thread about experiences of sexism.

silverharp · 16-07-2017 08:52PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah so it's not this article as such, it just reminded you of how offended you get by similar arguments?

1)They didn't ask for anyone's perspective. It reported on a study of the motivation of a very specific group -women who were actively freezing eggs.

2)They sabotaged their own chances by getting an education?
I don't know what they have to offer men of 'equal value' as you put it. I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you think?

3)The article specifically says that this is the result of the success of feminism. I presume e this is what you mean by 'feminist culture lying to women'.

4)The article didn't celebrate women in college or lament an inequality against women. I think you're straining to be offended.

5)Again it didn't ask men or women what they think, it reported on a piece of research on a new phenomenon of women freezing eggs. It didn't ask any members of the public for their views, just a few experts.

6)The article specifically easy that more men should be helped to go to college -something most people in these threads usually agree is a good thing. But this time a feminist suggested it so you feel the need to oppose it.

Reproduction isn't necessarily for everyone. Some people don't want to reproduce and some people do want to and lose out. That was the conclusion I came to after hearing about the MGTOW crowd. There are bound to be winners and losers in reproduction. But I think it's fairly mean spirited to take such enjoyment in seeing 'The other side' losing out. I'd be happier if fellas who who want a woman and women who want a man were to find each other and being happy together. The bitter point scoring is a bit sad tbh.

I was going to add dont multi quote me but anyhooo...

1) the study might have been fine and the anthropologist quoted made some reasonable points, its the reporting of it I found wonton. If I had a problem with the study well its a small sample size and not really a proper international survey. also it didnt remind me of anything so Ill ignore that comment

2) no they might well have sabotaged their chances by ignoring men they dated along the way, need more data hence my comments

3) no that wasnt my point

4) yes it did

5) the journalist or the study people cant remember which made enough comments about men not committing. If that is going to be asserted maybe they should investigate why

6) if a feminist suggests that more men go to college its not to help the men, its to provide women with men. The feminist push has just been to get more women into college and cry oppression where ever there was a little corner of academia where there were more men than women. Feminists never had a holistic approach to society, it was just a fight for domination so excuse me for taking a position to be skeptical of a feminist suggesting anything to help men as the only interest is in solving an alleged problem that affects women

sure its good that not everyone out there reproduces , some people would make awful parents. I dont understand your point scoring point? Im exacerbated by the lack of ability of these mostly feminists to stand back and see the big picture. Ultimately they have let women down as it appears that feminists attitudes are creating more miserable women.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-07-2017 09:48PM

silverharp wrote:

1) the study might have been fine and the anthropologist quoted made some reasonable points, its the reporting of it I found wonton. If I had a problem with the study well its a small sample size and not really a proper international survey. also it didnt remind me of anything so Ill ignore that comment

So the substance of the article wasn't what actually left you awe inspired?

silverharp wrote:

2) no they might well have sabotaged their chances by ignoring men they dated along the way, need more data hence my comments

So just speculation based on your own desire to frame the daft bints rather than anything from the article?

silverharp wrote:

3) no that wasn't my point

Then I don't get the point of complaining about this article not discussing 'feminism lying to women'. I don't even know what you meant.

silverharp wrote:

4) yes it did

It didn't really. It said that there is an imbalance of men and women in uni and it should be addressed - which is a point you would agree with under any other circumstances. Alas a feminist said it so you feel the need to take the contrary position.

silverharp wrote:

5) the journalist or the study people cant remember which made enough comments about men not committing. If that is going to be asserted maybe they should investigate why

They made 1 comment and it was a quote from professor Adam Balen, president of the British fertility society. He said they ' are seeing some big societal issues, in particular in some social economic groups, with young men not committing'. It would be interesting to know if that's true and if so, why. It was one of many points so it would be an interesting topic for another article- they you could get vexed about that article too.

silverharp wrote:

6) if a feminist suggests that more men go to college its not to help the men, its to provide women with men. The feminist push has just been to get more women into college and cry oppression where ever there was a little corner of academia where there were more men than women. Feminists never had a holistic approach to society, it was just a fight for domination so excuse me for taking a position to be skeptical of a feminist suggesting anything to help men as the only interest is in solving an alleged problem that affects women

Lol. If a feminist agrees with your point that men should be helped in education, then you feel the need to oppose them. Is your primary focus on helping men or spiting feminism even to the detriment of men?

You're one of the ones who champions male education as a cause worth pursuing. I'd agree that boys need support in education. But it seems your motivation is a bit more complicated than simply wanting men to do well in education.

silverharp wrote:

sure its good that not everyone out there reproduces , some people would make awful parents. I dont understand your point scoring point? Im exacerbated by the lack of ability of these mostly feminists to stand back and see the big picture. Ultimately they have let women down as it appears that feminists attitudes are creating more miserable women.

I was just disappointed that you would be so inclined to enjoy the fact that some advances such as women excelling in education, would have negative knock on effects in relationships and reproduction.

A Women who didn't find a partner also means a man didn't find a partner. It's a pity that you're prioritising point scoring against feminism over the human side of this story.

Pat Mustard · 17-07-2017 02:19AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well this is what I'm saying. There was a thread about MGTOW a while ago and I found it a bit sad. There are always going to be people who want to couple up and don't succeed. It's bound to be a sad situation for all the lonely singles who want a relationship and don't find one.

I agree that it's sad that people can end up in an unhappy situation through no fault of their own.

I'm not sure why you mention MGTOW though. I doubt that those guys have the numbers to have a significant impact on professional/educated women meeting male partners.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2017 07:10AM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well this is what I'm saying. There was a thread about MGTOW a while ago and I found it a bit sad. There are always going to be people who want to couple up and don't succeed. It's bound to be a sad situation for all the lonely singles who want a relationship and don't find one.

I agree that it's sad that people can end up in an unhappy situation through no fault of their own.

I'm not sure why you mention MGTOW though. I doubt that those guys have the numbers to have a significant impact on professional/educated women meeting male partners.

I don't know anything about the number of MGTOW or women freezing eggs. They're both examples of people who aren't finding partners.

I'd class them both on the same category of people who are interested in relationships/having children but aren't succeeding in finding them. As I said above, there will always be winners and losers in reproduction. It's just sad to see

PucaMama · 17-07-2017 08:09AM

I've always felt MGTOW was deliberate tho, They certainly sound like they don't want a relationship

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2017 08:27AM

PucaMama wrote:

I've always felt MGTOW was deliberate tho, They certainly sound like they don't want a relationship

People who don't want a relationship just go about their business. The MGTOW people seem fairly sure it's women or culture's fault that they are forced to opt out of relationships. I'm sure it's a broad church so it probably includes people who genuinely aren't interested in relationships.

Sleepy · 17-07-2017 09:23AM

TBH, I think most of us know a few of the women that would make up the market for these egg freezing companies: highly educated, driven, a little bit dull, financially successful, expensively dressed and totally unprepared to even consider any man that couldn't afford to keep her in that lifestyle should she want to be a stay-at-home mammy for the first few years of the kids lives. Of course, they expect such a man to be more physically attractive than they themselves would be objectively viewed as too.

The "having it all" myth perpetuated by 70's feminism did women a major disservice. Perhaps if the focus had remained on equality rather than dominance such women may be living far happier lives with their less financially successful husbands being happy to be the primary care-giver while they pursue their careers. I honestly believe a move that "allowed" women to see such men as being sexually attractive would be of massive benefit to society.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2017 09:36AM

Sleepy wrote:

TBH, I think most of us know a few of the women that would make up the market for these egg freezing companies: highly educated, driven, a little bit dull, financially successful, expensively dressed and totally unprepared to even consider any man that couldn't afford to keep her in that lifestyle should she want to be a stay-at-home mammy for the first few years of the kids lives. Of course, they expect such a man to be more physically attractive than they themselves would be objectively viewed as too.

'A little bit dull'. Classic!

Maybe you hang out with lots of these women but I certainly don't know anyone who fits that description. Your acquaintances sound dreadful.

I can think of one friend who's approaching 40 and is mad for children. She's a bit of a hippie and works as an occupational therapist in a stroke recovery unit and she doesn't fit any of the criteria you constructed for your worst-case-scenario woman.

Sleepy · 17-07-2017 09:53AM

Perhaps you're right and it's just my social circles but I know 3 such women in their mid thirties and all seemingly oblivious to the fact that it's their own unrealistic expectations that have lead to them remaining single and their unhappiness at that.

17-07-2017 09:57AM

Sleepy wrote: »

Perhaps you're right and it's just my social circles but I know 3 such women in their mid thirties and all seemingly oblivious to the fact that it's their own unrealistic expectations that have lead to them remaining single and their unhappiness at that.

Again we come back to the whole thing of men who can't find someone; their own fault. Woman can't find someone; men's fault.

silverharp · 17-07-2017 10:11AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. If a feminist agrees with your point that men should be helped in education, then you feel the need to oppose them. Is your primary focus on helping men or spiting feminism even to the detriment of men?

You're one of the ones who champions male education as a cause worth pursuing. I'd agree that boys need support in education. But it seems your motivation is a bit more complicated than simply wanting men to do well in education.

feminism has shown they dont have male interests at heart so yeah I would point out that 1 feminist's suggestion to "help" men now 50 year later just be ignored/derided unless it comes with a heavy dose of mea culpa and an admission that their attitudes helped exacerbate the problem in the first place. Also just maybe its the wrong question, not all courses have equal value, for instance no sane male student should do a gender studies degree or a degree in lesbian underwater dance. As an example if my son only had a university choice of comparative Lit but he was also interested in a good electrical engineering apprenticeship , in a heartbeat he should pick the second. I'd prefer that he had an opportunity of a high paying career in the future in preference to a minority of women deeming him to be not "educated" enough for their liking, others would appreciate that he would be financially independent.
the school system for sure should be looked at in terms of gender issues and male engagement. Every working class boy that drops through the cracks has the potential to end up in criminal activities or life long welfare so an unengaged male will tend to cost society more.

I was just disappointed that you would be so inclined to enjoy the fact that some advances such as women excelling in education, would have negative knock on effects in relationships and reproduction.

A Women who didn't find a partner also means a man didn't find a partner. It's a pity that you're prioritising point scoring against feminism over the human side of this story.

its not about enjoyment, its about pointing out where things are going wrong or that actions have consequences. Feminism for one isnt really a pro family movement after all the nuclear family is "patriarchal oppression" something something. Also the majority of women are aware of the "musical chairs" aspect to dating and make sensible choices. There is no reason that excelling in education has to have a negative effect on relationships for women if they understand how to navigate it.

does it mean a man doesnt find one? not like for like. the dating market switches around 30 where there are more women chasing less men so as long as the guy has a decent job he is likely to find someone.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2017 10:18AM

Deleted User wrote:

Again we come back to the whole thing of men who can't find someone; their own fault. Woman can't find someone; men's fault.

Not on this thread. If you read the comments here you'll see it seems very much women own fault via feminism and women getting educated and refusing to settle for whatever men are available.

The underlying message is that everything was in balance when men were the educated bread winner and women married up and became housewives. Now the women are educated so the men at the 'bottom' and women at the top have no matches.

Lots of people are unhappy and plenty of people are willing to blame the others. I saw the article as highlighting a sad phenomenon. The notion of blaming men is mostly imagined. It didn't come from the article.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2017 10:29AM

silverharp wrote:

feminism has shown they dont have male interests at heart so yeah I would point out that 1 feminist's suggestion to "help" men now 50 year later just be ignored/derided unless it comes with a heavy dose of mea culpa and an admission that their attitudes helped exacerbate the problem in the first place. [...] the school system for sure should be looked at in terms of gender issues and male engagement.

Classic bate and switch. When discussing the point on education it is '1 feminist's suggestion' so it can be ignored/derided . Below feminism is treated as a hivemind which isn't really pro family.

How far off your own course of improving education for men are you willing to go to score points against the feminists?

silverharp wrote:

its not about enjoyment, its about pointing out where things are going wrong or that actions have consequences. Feminism for one isnt really a pro family movement after all the nuclear family is "patriarchal oppression" something something. Also the majority of women are aware of the "musical chairs" aspect to dating and make sensible choices. There is no reason that excelling in education has to have a negative effect on relationships for women if they understand how to navigate it.

The article points out that actions have consequences. It states that the success of getting women into education has created an imbalance which is having negative consequences.

How you'd you address the problems?

kunst nugget · 17-07-2017 10:30AM

maybe

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I think most of us know a few of the women that would make up the market for these egg freezing companies: highly educated, driven, a little bit dull, financially successful, expensively dressed and totally unprepared to even consider any man that couldn't afford to keep her in that lifestyle should she want to be a stay-at-home mammy for the first few years of the kids lives. Of course, they expect such a man to be more physically attractive than they themselves would be objectively viewed as too.

I'll be honest, I don't know anyone like this.

Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

Comments

Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? READ POST 1