Whinging feminists in the media

EddieN75 · 24-04-2021 4:13pm

Wibbs wrote: »

The basic tenet of modern feminism is; women are always agentless victims and men/the patriarchy are always to blame. So it kicks off on the wrong foot off the bat. Well it would do as it's another identity poiltic mired in the oppressed/oppressor narrative and no matter what they will never ever be happy and by its very nature is divisive. It's also almost exclusively the remit of middle class Western White women and their problems. Women of colour and their problems are mostly exotic tokens.

The majority of it in the mainstream is to be found in the "lifestyle" pages of various media outlets, aimed at the middle class, mostly middle aged or getting there suburban mildly disgruntled woman with talk of "spaces", pointless cushions and unlit candles. Written by hacks, hoovered up by eejits. The rest is either found in the pages of fashion mags in between shots of a celeb's cellulite(and how to get rid of it), or in online blogs or tweets of the permanently irritated and irritating. Just as men are more likely to be the overtly aggressive gender and there are more of same, women are more likely to be the never feckin' happy gender and there are more of same(worldwide men score higher than women among the personality traits in aggression, women score higher than men in neuroticism). This stuff sells big. Always follow the money.

The more dangerous form is to be found in some "progressive" work places, mostly American, though the HR harridans aping 'Mercan culture are getting into a lot of work places. NGO's and government looking for votes the rest. Academia has been hijacked by it, but academia has a loooong history of being hijacked by daft politics and run by those looking to promote it for their own sakes. Students grow out of it, unless they see coin to be made, which is the minority.

Most of it can be avoided really. The vast majority of women aren't "feminist" pains in the arse, though like men many will buy into the Accepted Truth de jour. Mostly on the surface and for show. Avoid working in corporate American culture. Work for yourself if you can. If friends and particularly lovers buy into this wholesale, back quietly away and leave them at it. Goes for extreme daftness of any kind really.

"The majority of it in the mainstream is to be found in the "lifestyle" pages of various media outlets, aimed at the middle class, mostly middle aged or getting there suburban mildly disgruntled woman with talk of "spaces", pointless cushions and unlit candles. Written by hacks, hoovered up by eejits"

Absolute gold.

Wibbs · 24-04-2021 4:15pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

three important words

men are disposable

Yep, but they've always been and in the end moaning about it won't change it. Nothing will really. You can't socially engineer human nature too far. Women are the more "valuable" if perishable gender and they've always been. In extremely simple terms, men are humanity's bullet stoppers, women are essentially humanity's babymakers of more babymakers and bullet stoppers. Society "values" people in descending order; children, women, men. It is what it is. Or at least it is for the vast majority of people outside of a tiny percentage of any society that makes the rules or is powerful enough to ignore most of them, and they can be women and men. The "gender war" is as much if not more a "class war".

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 4:18pm

endacl wrote: »

Write one.

Who is going to publish it? The irishtimes? RTE? TheGuardian (LOL)

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 4:21pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Simple, how many times do louise oneill, una mullally, ebun joseph, hazel chu or emma dabiri appear in the irish media, they cant get through a single article without blaming white men for bad things

Nah shes dead right, we need a misandry in mainstream media megathread.
I'm not even joking, a few of the links from the mens rights thread are now dead because for instance the Examiner was caught rapid in the comment section. Irish times commenters remark that their comments are often stealth deleted after a few days.

shtpEdthePlum · 24-04-2021 4:35pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, but they've always been and in the end moaning about it won't change it. Nothing will really. You can't socially engineer human nature too far. Women are the more "valuable" if perishable gender and they've always been. In extremely simple terms, men are humanity's bullet stoppers, women are essentially humanity's babymakers of more babymakers and bullet stoppers. Society "values" people in descending order; children, women, men. It is what it is. Or at least it is for the vast majority of people outside of a tiny percentage of any society that makes the rules or is powerful enough to ignore most of them, and they can be women and men. The "gender war" is as much if not more a "class war".

I wonder how many men had to leave their homes in the last year because of the threat of physical violence from their partner compared to the women who have been displaced.

Bullet stoppers, sure. How many bullets have you stopped.

Overheal · 24-04-2021 4:42pm

Bobtheman wrote: »

I broadly support feminism in terms of equal pay.
I also support more female politicians though I think the 40% candidate rule too much too soon. Means some decent male candidates getting dumped.
I know sexual harassment and attacks are real events.
I think possibly that they are on the increase due to various factors. I'm not sure what the solution is but please don't pretend it can be sorted out with an education program.
However I'm a bit tired of every single newspaper having at least one moaning feminist per day.
You never see any articles about male issues. Issues on which men come out worse than women

You yourself admitting your support for feminism we can both probably agree that feminist ideals are hugely popular even among men. Are you sure you aren’t just misattributing ire, because, news outlets are reasonably gender diverse, outlets will include several women as personalities/authors and these ideas attract broad appeal?

Further could you provide examples of stories about men you think are being marginalized as you appear to be arguing as well?

Acosta · 24-04-2021 4:48pm

Some girls have clearly done a number on many of the perpetually angry men folk around here. If some female opinion peice writer winds you up so much you could maybe try not reading their articles? Maybe read some of the conversative opinion piece writers instead?

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 4:51pm

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I wonder how many men had to leave their homes in the last year because of the threat of physical violence from their partner compared to the women who have been displaced.

Bullet stoppers, sure. How many bullets have you stopped.

How many men have been thrown out of their homes by the justice system on the word of a woman?

Do you think women don't hit men? And when they do, do you reckon men feel ok reporting it?

Why is only physical violence counted in domestic violence? Is psychological violence & bullying and abuse not a thing because it doesn't leave bruises.

End result, more men homeless, suicidal and their children left fatherless.

Overheal · 24-04-2021 4:52pm

Economics101 wrote: »

Some years ago a court in (I think) Belgium ruled that insurers could not discriminate on the grounds of gender (or sex as it was termed then). This made proper risk-based pricing almost impossible for insurers. The most notable example is for motor insurance. Insurers are able to discriminate on the basis of age so that young risky drivers are charged more than older less risky drivers. But young male and female drivers must be charged in a similar way, otherwise its sex discrimination and therefore illegal.

Consider the implications: big increases in premiums for young relatively safe careful female drivers and big reductions for young male tearaways. This is effectively a subsidy to dangerous driving and more deaths on the road. Any response from the feminists?

I think that’s a very melodramatic stance. The court ruled against discrimination. The result was insurance prices would have to be adjusted to neutral among males and females that was actuarially given to those drivers based on the factor of their sex. Subsequently that’s going to mean a net decrease in male premiums and net increase in female premiums if women have been getting cheaper premiums for no other virtue than their sex.

...That doesn’t stop insurers from charging any “tear away” driver, male or female, a higher premium, for the actuarial reason that the driver has proven to be a risk not in any regard to their sex.

Overheal · 24-04-2021 4:56pm

purifol0 wrote: »

How many men have been thrown out of their homes by the justice system on the word of a woman?

Do you think women don't hit men? And when they do, do you reckon men feel ok reporting it?

Why is only physical violence counted in domestic violence? Is psychological violence & bullying and abuse not a thing because it doesn't leave bruises.

End result, more men homeless, suicidal and their children left fatherless.

... how do you intend to ‘count’ instances of psychological violence? Etc? “She turned off my television show and made us watch Great British Baking I am suffocating!?” I mean that seriously though who defines what psychological violence is and how is it feasible to quantify? For either male or female aggressors?

EddieN75 · 24-04-2021 4:56pm

Acosta wrote: »

Some girls have clearly done a number on many of the perpetually angry men folk around here. If some female opinion peice writer winds you up so much you could maybe try not reading their articles? Maybe read some of the conversative opinion piece writers instead?

That's it in a nutshell. Let the women write articles criticising men and supposed inequalities. If men don't like it then suck it up and read something else.

Men must suck it up and carry on as they always have done.
Women need a leg up.
Equality

Edit* That should be some women need a leg up. Many are capable of competing and winning on their own without the need for a helping hand from feminist females or low status males looking to "get one back" on a society they can't quite seem to succeed in themselves

shtpEdthePlum · 24-04-2021 4:57pm

purifol0 wrote: »

How many men have been thrown out of their homes by the justice system on the word of a woman?

Do you think women don't hit men? And when they do, do you reckon men feel ok reporting it?

Why is only physical violence counted in domestic violence? Is psychological violence & bullying and abuse not a thing because it doesn't leave bruises.

End result, more men homeless, suicidal and their children left fatherless.

I don't contest what you're saying for a moment. Men have it very tough. I'm just saying to the above poster that the "bullet stopper v baby maker" analogy is absolute pish.

karlitob · 24-04-2021 4:58pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

How far do you take that? If you are into such things, a person's "identity" can be infinitely divisible like a matryoshka doll. Do we expect parliaments or boardrooms to be a perfect reflection of the pizza pie breakdown of society?

I don’t know the answer. I’m not sure there is one. And I’m also no fan of identify politics - or the risible phrase - ‘intersectionality’; which I understand to mean normal people with multiple layers.

I understand what you’re saying - I do.

I guess - like lots of things - we should be guided by the evidence. There’s a lot of assertion going on. “If only women were on this board, if only this identify was on this panel - then we’d get to utopia!!!”

But that’s the evidence. I’m out of my depth on the following - but there was a lot of positive discrimination in South Africa since 1994. Is it working? I don’t expect multi-generational worthies to be fixed within a generation but is it on the right track.
Which begs the question what is the end point of this track that people want to be on? What is the equality that’s required, what is it exactly that we are talking about. Lots of things are conflated - equal pay (no such thing but there you go), equality in politics - and when you challenge it you’re given out to. But when you mention the only law in the country that actually discriminates based on gender (parental rights for unmarried men) then you’re told that men are useless and only themselves to blame. You can’t win cos the goalpost aren’t clear and when you think you know what pitch you’re playing on, the ball changes and you’re playing water polo before you even know what a chukka is (I think that’s a funny joke).

So for me - I don’t know.

karlitob · 24-04-2021 5:03pm

EddieN75 wrote: »

"The majority of it in the mainstream is to be found in the "lifestyle" pages of various media outlets, aimed at the middle class, mostly middle aged or getting there suburban mildly disgruntled woman with talk of "spaces", pointless cushions and unlit candles. Written by hacks, hoovered up by eejits"

Absolute gold.

Gold because there is truth to it.

I never remember Vicky phelan marching ij the streets of limerick for the women of moyross and south hill. Undereducated, single mothers, difficult backgrounds, literacy and numeracy issues. Real challenges, very difficult circumstances, no way out.

Nope - nothing. Just marching for free money and change the constitution and common law that this country has had for a century and borrowed from the uk for centuries before. No need to prove negligence - just state it. Sue a company for millions and not allow them to dwfend themselves. Have the state pay for everything because they can articulate their circumstances. Who does that for a mother from finglas.

The Irish times magazine knows nothing of these problems.

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 5:05pm

Overheal wrote: »

... how do you intend to ‘count’ instances of psychological violence? Etc? “She turned off my television show and made us watch Great British Baking I am suffocating!?” I mean that seriously though who defines what psychological violence is and how is it feasible to quantify? For either male or female aggressors?

That's a frankly disgusting & dismissive attitude to take towards something so serious.

How about men get to report every time a woman decides to use the "I'll take the kids off you" in an argument.

How about we start naming and shaming false rape accusers in the media so future other halves know what they are getting into.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sil-fox-plans-to-sue-state-after-sexual-assault-claim-dismissed-1.4287498

Acosta · 24-04-2021 5:08pm

EddieN75 wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell. Let the women write articles criticising men and supposed inequalities. If men don't like it then suck it up and read something else.

Men must suck it up and carry on as they always have done.
Women need a leg up.
Equality

Edit* That should be some women need a leg up. Many are capable of competing and winning on their own without the need for a helping hand from feminist females or low status males looking to "get one back" on a society they can't quite seem to succeed in themselves

Why let yourself be so wound up them? There just opinion peices. Members of Youth Defence have articles in national newspapers. Unless someone had a gun to my head I wouldn't read their articles but they have a right to an opinion and plenty would agree with them.

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 5:11pm

Acosta wrote: »

Some girls have clearly done a number on many of the perpetually angry men folk around here. If some female opinion piece writer winds you up so much you could maybe try not reading their articles? Maybe read some of the conversative opinion piece writers instead?

Why shouldn't the public be angry about publicly tax-funded interest groups sowing seeds of division in the press? National Women's Council have their tendrils deep in Irish media.

Why shouldn't I be angry when I see tax funded University professors bragging openly about discriminating on gender when it comes to leaving cert results or professorships?

Would you have the same blasé attitude towards the open discrimination of any other group??? If so who?

Wibbs · 24-04-2021 5:13pm

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I wonder how many men had to leave their homes in the last year because of the threat of physical violence from their partner compared to the women who have been displaced.

Bullet stoppers, sure. How many bullets have you stopped.

Which gender is more likely to be murdered, homeless, an addict, die younger, be injured or killed on the job, kill themselves, get fewer social supports? I hate to break it to you, it's not women. Like I said it is what it is. Though some societal pressure should be brought to bear on these issues of course and has done in some. Workplace safety is significantly better than it was for example. That said because "feminism" is the mainstream and accepted identity politic de jour too often if such matters come up they get framed within that identity politic, "toxic masculinity" and all that stuff. It's still men's fault. If only they were more like women. Oh wait, no, that wouldn't work as a host of industries alone would have to shut down because of lack of applicants.

Acosta wrote: »

Some girls have clearly done a number on many of the perpetually angry men folk around here. If some female opinion peice writer winds you up so much you could maybe try not reading their articles? Maybe read some of the conversative opinion piece writers instead?

I read neither. Bullshít is Bullshít, the source doesn't really matter. I do love how there's always the point when the call of "angry men" going on in lieu of argument happens. Though small mickeys/basement dwellers/fat virgins are also acceptable lines to trot out.

The joke is in the past when chauvinism was in play, women who rightfully suggested something was askew were regularly called uppity, angry, hormonal or hysterical. Irony and self awareness bypasses seem solidly embedded in the human psyche. And the wheel keeps turning.

B.A._Baracus · 24-04-2021 5:13pm

On paper feminism is a good thing. Equal rights and everyone treated the same.

In reality, feminism gets diluted, distorted and refactored to suit an individual's self interest.
So Susie Q, feminist and checkout girl in Tesco can blame men as to why she doesn't have a 75 grand a year job even tho she never went to college.

Sarah Jane, feminist and office worker, can blame men why she doesn't get a promotion rather than accepting it's who you know and not skill or gender.

Then there's just those who want everything handed to them cause they are being 'held back' by being a woman.

feminism ... A grain of salt required.

Economics101 · 24-04-2021 5:28pm

Originally posted by overheal: I think that’s a very melodramatic stance. The court ruled against discrimination. The result was insurance prices would have to be adjusted to neutral among males and females that was actuarially given to those drivers based on the factor of their sex. Subsequently that’s going to mean a net decrease in male premiums and net increase in female premiums if women have been getting cheaper premiums for no other virtue than their sex.

...That doesn’t stop insurers from charging any “tear away” driver, male or female, a higher premium, for the actuarial reason that the driver has proven to be a risk not in any regard to their sex.

Suppose an insurance company has 2 potential customers, both male and one aged 20, the other aged 35, and both have just passed their test. Are they allowed to quote different prices? I think the answer is "yes" because age is a good predictor of risk (especially for young males). Yet one cannot use the same principle when it comes to young males v young females: the former have a statistically well-established record which makes them a more risky proposition, yet you cannot charge them appropriately (discrimination!). Your point that they can load a premium when a driver "has proven to be a risk" misses the point. Under these rules the male driver has to go out and have an accident before anything can be done about loading his premium.

suicide_circus · 24-04-2021 5:40pm

Wibbs wrote: »

HR harridans

There's an archetype we can all recognise

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 24-04-2021 5:44pm

Gatling wrote: »

All which effect men and women ...

Jesus that's the most retarded thing I've read in a fair while.

Overheal · 24-04-2021 5:45pm

purifol0 wrote: »

That's a frankly disgusting & dismissive attitude to take towards something so serious.

How about men get to report every time a woman decides to use the "I'll take the kids off you" in an argument.

How about we start naming and shaming false rape accusers in the media so future other halves know what they are getting into.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sil-fox-plans-to-sue-state-after-sexual-assault-claim-dismissed-1.4287498

Sorry that caused offense. I was only trying to illustrate the larger problem of how you even codify stuff like that. Your example could easily become dog whistles and how do you count up dog whistles on the average person who isn’t a politician etc. of “I’m taking the kids to my mothers because we don’t feel safe here” - it would be very hard to argue that is psychological violence.

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 5:49pm

Economics101 wrote: »

Suppose an insurance company has 2 potential customers, both male and one aged 20, the other aged 35, and both have just passed their test. Are they allowed to quote different prices? I think the answer is "yes" because age is a good predictor of risk (especially for young males). Yet one cannot use the same principle when it comes to young males v young females: the former have a statistically well-established record which makes them a more risky proposition, yet you cannot charge them appropriately (discrimination!). Your point that they can load a premium when a driver "has proven to be a risk" misses the point. Under these rules the male driver has to go out and have an accident before anything can be done about loading his premium.

Insurance is discrimination in its purest form, the courts decided sex was a bridge too far for god knows what reason.
Ageism, where you live, what you work at - discriminating on those factors is just fine.

The wigs are an embarrassment, but unlike politicians you can't criticism them in the media.

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 5:54pm

Overheal wrote: »

Sorry that caused offense. I was only trying to illustrate the larger problem of how you even codify stuff like that. Your example could easily become dog whistles and how do you count up dog whistles on the average person who isn’t a politician etc. of “I’m taking the kids to my mothers because we don’t feel safe here” - it would be very hard to argue that is psychological violence.

I wasn't offended, I was appalled that you would belittle common outcomes that ends in suicide.

But to flip your argument - how many sexual assault cases are there in Ireland if (as the Rape Crisis Centre always tell us) the majority go unreported?

It would seem some stats can be proved despite the difficulty in doing so.

Overheal · 24-04-2021 5:58pm

purifol0 wrote: »

Insurance is discrimination in its purest form, the courts decided sex was a bridge too far for god knows what reason.
Ageism, where you live, what you work at - discriminating on those factors is just fine.

The wigs are an embarrassment, but unlike politicians you can't criticism them in the media.

Actuarial science is, arguably, scientifically-backed bigotry. Yet it's also just that bigotry in the sense of saying things like folks who work in coal mines have shorter lifespans that accountants etc.

Overheal · 24-04-2021 6:01pm

purifol0 wrote: »

I wasn't offended, I was appalled that you would belittle common outcomes that ends in suicide.

But to flip your argument - how many sexual assault cases are there in Ireland if (as the Rape Crisis Centre always tell us) the majority go unreported?

It would seem some stats can be proved despite the difficulty in doing so.

To flip that flip, given how hard it is to prosecute sexual assaults it would be far more nebulous to try to go after acts of psychological violence

(Crime conviction stats support this argument. The more violent a crime is the easier it is to solve, by tendency - USA eg. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/)

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 6:11pm

Overheal wrote: »

To flip that flip, given how hard it is to prosecute sexual assaults it would be far more nebulous to try to go after acts of psychological violence

(Crime conviction stats support this argument. The more violent a crime is the easier it is to solve, by tendency - USA eg. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/)

How is it hard to prosecute sexual assaults in this country???

Is it just that a guilty verdict isn't guaranteed that's annoying you?

I've already.posted about Sil Fox taking the state to court about the fact that he was prosecuted named and thereby shamed despite being completely innocent. His false accuser enjoys complete anonymity

Overheal · 24-04-2021 6:21pm

purifol0 wrote: »

How is it hard to prosecute sexual assaults in this country?

That's a good question. I don't have that data in front of me and it's not as available seemingly as US figures. Do you?

purifol0 · 24-04-2021 6:27pm

Overheal wrote: »

That's a good question. I don't have that data in front of me and it's not as available seemingly as US figures. Do you?

Data? I provided evidence. All that was needed for syl fox to get prosecuted was the word of a woman. No other evidence needed.

Seems pretty easy to me. No?

Whinging feminists in the media

Comments