Anti-male Sexism

Slow Motion · 09-03-2007 12:05PM

Wibbs wrote:

I've seen this up close and personal with a friend of mine. He was by far the better parent(and not cause he was a mate either). His ex even thought so, but she got the house and the kids on the back of the divorce. Even with obvious signs of lack of care from her, it took years before he had the kind of access he wanted. She still has primary custody too. It's only my suspicion, but if the genders were reversed he would have been in far more trouble for doing half of what she did or didn't do.

Ditto, In the case of two good friends of mine, one had to bring his ex to court just to get the right to see his kid on Christmas day, even though it was HIS access day as previously aggreed in court, the judge said "ah sure but a child should be with his mammy on Christmas morning, you can see him for an hour in the afternoon". WTF ? This is the attitude of our leagal system towards fathers, he had spent 4 years and thousands in legal fees to get the right to see his son on a regular basis and not just when she felt like it and then had the agreed upon rules arbitrarily changed. :mad:

daveirl · 09-03-2007 12:24PM

This post has been deleted.

r3nu4l · 09-03-2007 12:30PM

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Agreed.
Television adverts where men are portrayed as stupid or sex objects are as wrong as those portraying women as the same. If you can't have one, you shouldn't have the other. Just because for many eyars women were portrayed as ditzy, unintelligent beings does not mean it is now right (or funny) to portray men as such.

Again, this is gender discrimination, not clever at all.

Plissken1 · 09-03-2007 12:30PM

All adverts are geared towards women, but you can't really have a go at the advertising firms, because women are more likely to buy crap they see advertised on TV, so it makes good business sense. They are more gullible when it comes to the unrealistic dreams of advertising. Although I always think its interesting how its ok for a woman to be violent and not a man, even in adverts.

NutJob · 09-03-2007 12:39PM

r3nu4l wrote:

Agreed.
Television adverts where men are portrayed as stupid or sex objects are as wrong as those portraying women as the same. If you can't have one, you shouldn't have the other. Just because for many eyars women were portrayed as ditzy, unintelligent beings does not mean it is now right (or funny) to portray men as such.

Again, this is gender discrimination, not clever at all.

maybe we should protest more about being portrayed this way

Wibbs · 09-03-2007 02:32PM

TBH I reckon protesting because you feel oppressed by some dumb ads portrayal of men would be a bit silly. It would make us look like poor little dears. Water of a ducks back myself.

brianthebard · 09-03-2007 02:36PM

That's why there will never be a men's movement-half the men will want to do it, half will tell them to suck it up, and it all end down the pub.

nesf · 09-03-2007 02:41PM

brianthebard wrote:

That's why there will never be a men's movement-half the men will want to do it, half will tell them to suck it up, and it all end down the pub.

That pretty much exactly sums it up imho.

tba · 09-03-2007 02:49PM

pint?

BrianD3 · 09-03-2007 03:01PM

About 2 weeks ago in the Sunday Times main section there was a ridiculously sexist article. It was bascially about how much better women are at.....everything...than men are. Eg women are so much better academically than us stupid men yet in the workplace the poor women get paid less by their penis wielding oppressors. It went on to say that men have 5 times more car crashes than women (from what I've read before women actually have more crashes but men have more expensive crashes) Then at the end of the article it was stated that women are apparently "genetically superior" to men.

Imagine the outcry if a similar article was written but instead of pointing out the "limitations" of men it pointed out "limitations" of women, blacks, Jews, gays, the disabled, Muslims, travellers etc.

Wibbs · 09-03-2007 04:36PM

BrianD3 wrote:

About 2 weeks ago in the Sunday Times main section there was a ridiculously sexist article. It was bascially about how much better women are at.....everything...than men are.

Yeah well if you look around you, the vast majority of the technology you use, your car, your PC, your phone, the music you listen to, the literature that you read, the science the arts, the religions people belong to, the clothes you wear, etc. has been invented/designed/built by men.* So don't sweat the small stuff.

Seriously, though I would be worried about myself if the opinion of some "journalist" with an axe to grind got me going. Storm in a herbal teacup really.

* there's always the bombs and stuff too, but hey nobody's perfect.

Talliesin · 09-03-2007 04:58PM

Wibbs wrote:

Yeah well if you look around you, the vast majority of the technology you use, your car, your PC, your phone, the music you listen to, the literature that you read, the science the arts, the religions people belong to, the clothes you wear, etc. has been invented/designed/built by men.

Most of the music I listen to was made by women.
I'd say they wrote about 40% of the literature I read.
They make most clothing in the world (how did you even get that one if you, with a few exceptions [haute couture, bespoke tailors] clothing-manufacture has traditionally been "women's work").
Women had a lot of influence in the development of the PC (programming was "women's work" for a while too).
Doreen Valiente, Dafo and Maxine Sanders might well have had even more input into the religion I belong to as Gerard Gardner and Alex Sanders. It's hard to say, and the balance was probably with Gerard and Alex, but they certainly had a lot of input.

You need better examples than those.

Talliesin · 09-03-2007 05:21PM

dr.bollocko wrote:

the fathers rights movement has been thoroughly demonised by the media. Fathers 4 Justice are seen as nothing more than a terrorist organisation, not worthy of a voice or to be listened to.

I think that's deeply unfair to terrorists. Some terrorists have been in a situation where they genuinely had no option but to take up arms. I'm not saying violence and vandalism should be anything but last resort, but it has happened that that last resort has done some good (you are comparing the father's rights movement to the women's and gay liberation movements, and I do think acts of vandalsim like Pankhurst's helped the women's movement at the time and the violence of the Stonewall Riots helped the gay movement probably more than any single event in modern history).

Fathers 4 Justice are just a bunch of self-serving whiney attention-seekers whose high-ranking members includes a man who engages in publicity stunts to fight for access to a child of his and yet never visits another child he has access to.

As a single father, every time I see some Fathers 4 Justice gobsheen scaling a building I hope he falls off.

Wibbs · 09-03-2007 05:43PM

Talliesin wrote:

Most of the music I listen to was made by women.

It's not just you though. I said most of the music the world listens to has been and is composed, played and produced by men.

I'd say they wrote about 40% of the literature I read.

Again that's you and fair enough, but if you look around today and back through history the vast bulk of what passes for literature has been authored by men.

They make most clothing in the world (how did you even get that one if you, with a few exceptions [haute couture, bespoke tailors] clothing-manufacture has traditionally been "women's work").

They do make it, but who designs it in most cases? Just because some poor lassie who works herself to the bone, it doesn't make her part of the fashion industry. Who heads up most of the companies and design houses?

Women had a lot of influence in the development of the PC (programming was "women's work" for a while too).

They did, especially during the very early stages and indeed there have been and are notable women in that field. The list is long, but compared to the men involved?

Doreen Valiente, Dafo and Maxine Sanders might well have had even more input into the religion I belong to as Gerard Gardner and Alex Sanders. It's hard to say, and the balance was probably with Gerard and Alex, but they certainly had a lot of input.

As a religion Wicca would have far more female involvement than most. I'd be surprised if it wasn't the majority involvement. Maybe that's me though, I've met many Women Wiccan, but only two men. Again though the fact remains that men are in the majority in all the other faiths in positions of power, etc. Don't personally think that's right, but there you go.

You need better examples than those.

Only if you take one sample, your good self. In any event it was a flippant jokey remark.

Laslo · 09-03-2007 05:52PM

Eh... aren't human beings generally wildly different, regardless of gender?

nesf · 09-03-2007 05:54PM

Laslo wrote:

Eh... aren't human beings generally wildly different, regardless of gender?

Yes, but also the species has a nasty preference of simplification through drawing broad and general lines in order to define groups and the properties thereof.

Plissken1 · 09-03-2007 05:55PM

BrianD3 wrote:

About 2 weeks ago in the Sunday Times main section there was a ridiculously sexist article. It was bascially about how much better women are at.....everything...than men are. Eg women are so much better academically than us stupid men yet in the workplace the poor women get paid less by their penis wielding oppressors. It went on to say that men have 5 times more car crashes than women (from what I've read before women actually have more crashes but men have more expensive crashes) Then at the end of the article it was stated that women are apparently "genetically superior" to men.

Imagine the outcry if a similar article was written but instead of pointing out the "limitations" of men it pointed out "limitations" of women, blacks, Jews, gays, the disabled, Muslims, travellers etc.

"genetically superior" ??

How come the women I work with are always out sick ? and when they are in they are always complaining that they maybe "coming down with something" ?

its a funny old world

Mushy · 09-03-2007 05:59PM

Must agree with the OP here, it just one of those annoying, small little things. I should go into the All-Ladies gym near my school and ask can I use it. If they say no, tell them its sexist. Plus for the fact that theres a big banner outside the place, advertising it as a Female-only gym, surely that shouldnt be allowed?

Imagine the outcry if a similar article was written but instead of pointing out the "limitations" of men it pointed out "limitations" of women, blacks, Jews, gays, the disabled, Muslims, travellers etc.

Exactly!

Villaricos · 09-03-2007 06:08PM

This whole thing is quite interesting but I think what people forget when they get caught up in this argument is the basic fact that women and men are different. Shocker I know but think about that for a second...

We are in now in a position in society that women are coming out the other side of being the discriminated gender but I dont like the whole equality thing in some senses because women and men arent exactly equal. I know thats a tad controversial but thats because I think society hasnt evolved to a point where we know where women stand and what their role is just yet. Ok its no longer tied to the kitchen sink but where is it? women are only just finding their way in a lot of senses and the whole thing has to play out over time.

Unfortunately this puts men in an awkward spot as there is now a certain double standard in society such as fathers being discrimenated against in access to children. I really think this is a serious issue but its a result of it no longer being ok to do anything that could be viewed as discriminatory at against women.

but society is ever evolving, these are the issues we are dealing with at the moment, hopefully we will evolve into some real equal standing for both genders some day

dublinario · 09-03-2007 07:07PM

Villaricos wrote:

Unfortunately this puts men in an awkward spot as there is now a certain double standard in society such as fathers being discrimenated against in access to children. I really think this is a serious issue but its a result of it no longer being ok to do anything that could be viewed as discriminatory at against women.

Agreed. In its fervour to redress the inequalities suffered by women, society has overshot the mark (thanks in no small part to the brainlessness prevalent in much of feminist dogma) and created a whole new set of inequalities toward men. The louder these hairy dykes (just kidding!) scream, the more intolerantly PC the climate becomes for men, and this is evidenced in a number of areas e.g.,

- as mentioned numerous times in this thread, parenting rights and family law is hugely biased toward mothers
- one poster briefly touched upon gender-based academic disparity. For a long time now, women have consistently outperformed men in the educational arena. If the opposite was true, there would be outcry, studies and programs to correct the issue. Because men are the sufferers of this imbalance, nobody gives a sh*t, and the differential is lazily ascribed to a pathetically anecdotal stagger between the relative ages of maturity in the sexes.
- men are overwhelmingly the committers of suicide in Ireland and the UK. The problem still gains little attention, in comparison to problems of similar mortality rates, such as road carnage. If the stats showed women to be the majority suicide victims, this issue would have be at the vanguard of political discourse.

In general, loud feminists annoy me. They aren't true egalitarians: they concern themselves with the furtherance of only one half the world's population's rights, often causing direct erosion to the other half's, which doesn't concern them at all.

Catsmokinpot · 09-03-2007 08:38PM

Talliesin wrote:

Thank you Feminists, for reducing the amount of stereotyped and artifically-roled behaviour influencing how men are expected to live our lives.

Thank you Feminists, for enabling us to meet with friends of either sex throughout our youths without a chaperone.

Thank you Feminists, for enabling us to have sexual relationships with any other adult with only that person having the legal right to say prevent it.

Thank you Feminists, for a world were sex as play, rather than as duty or as exploit or as hidden vice, is allowed to us.

Thank you Feminists, for touch. For our society allowing us to be more tender with our loved ones.

Thank you Feminists, for enabling us to legally purchase barrier contraception and for our female lovers to legally obtain oral contraception (a right that will soon apply direct to us men too).

Thank you Feminists, for enabling us to have a life-partnership with any other adult, no matter what sex they are.

Thank you Feminists, for enabling us to interview the best candidates for a job we can get, rather than just the best men.

Thank you Feminists, for creating the resources; legal, psyciatric and medical, that we men can make use of if we're victims of sexual assault.

Thank you Feminists, for probably at least 10 years onto our life-expectancy. Probably more.

And that's before all the things that Feminists have thought for alongside their brothers outside of Feminist causes per se. In the joking about suffrage we're forgetting that not only do women now have the vote, but men in the North have the vote even if they don't own property, as just one example of something that Feminists helped fight for.

After all. It's not as if the whiney maggots who complain because once in a blue moon something isn't stacked in their favour would have done it.

That's a lovely speech on feminism, but..... i haven't done anything to you nor any woman, so why must we (who haven't done anything) be constantly branded with this feminist iron?

mike65 · 09-03-2007 08:46PM

Remember this without mens 'maleness' we'd all still be living in caves and chewing on nuts and grass.

Mike.

Lemming · 09-03-2007 09:03PM

Talliesin wrote:

I think that's deeply unfair to terrorists. Some terrorists have been in a situation where they genuinely had no option but to take up arms. I'm not saying violence and vandalism should be anything but last resort, but it has happened that that last resort has done some good (you are comparing the father's rights movement to the women's and gay liberation movements, and I do think acts of vandalsim like Pankhurst's helped the women's movement at the time and the violence of the Stonewall Riots helped the gay movement probably more than any single event in modern history).

Fathers 4 Justice are just a bunch of self-serving whiney attention-seekers whose high-ranking members includes a man who engages in publicity stunts to fight for access to a child of his and yet never visits another child he has access to.

As a single father, every time I see some Fathers 4 Justice gobsheen scaling a building I hope he falls off.

So ... it was alright for the suffragette movement to engage in acts of public disorder, but not fathers 4 justice? And where would you consider the defining line for "last resort"? A father who has spent a fortune, both physically and emotionally, over years trying to get basic access to their children through the courts and had it all spat back in his face, and a system that stands behind the estranged spouse, allowing them use the children as a weapon unchecked?

You wouldn't consider those fathers to be desperate at this point? As desperate as say ... oh I don't know .. the suffragettes after years of trying to gain more equal rights? This situation has been going on for years, it's just more hidden since not every family will split up, and not every mother and father will be forced to fight over their children in such a disgusting and selfish manner.

Well aren't you lucky then that you're not in such a position Tallesin.

*Note: I'm aware that not all fathers should be given blanket access to their kids, much the same way as I'm fairly certain that not all mothers should either, so I've oversimplified my point. Don't bother picking me up on it.

WindSock · 09-03-2007 10:54PM

Mushy wrote:

Must agree with the OP here, it just one of those annoying, small little things. I should go into the All-Ladies gym near my school and ask can I use it. If they say no, tell them its sexist. Plus for the fact that theres a big banner outside the place, advertising it as a Female-only gym, surely that shouldnt be allowed?

Exactly!

If there were no available unisex gym around for miles, then I'd understand your frustration.
I and I'm sure many women like me would not give a hoot if there were male only gyms.
In fact I think male only institutions and sewing circles wouldn't bother me much at all, I don't blame you for wanting to get away from women, I wish I could myself sometimes

I think the best way for thigs to be levelled are to have men only, women only and unisex. and no dogs, no irish

Anti-male Sexism

Comments