Mens Rights

Macha · 09-06-2010 09:07PM

The main reason for the greater number of male redundancies in the last 3 years is that more men work in the construction sector - simple. No conspiracy.

This is an interesting post from the most excellent blog of the economist Ronan Lyons:

While good news for women at the moment, this gender gap has potentially huge implications for Ireland, Inc. The graph below shows the ratio of women to men at work for three key demographics between the ages of 20 and 44. As you can see, the general trend is upwards – itself not a concern if it represents a long-term normalisation of the labour market, with more women in paid employment for more of their careers. However, what is a concern is the fact that, among Ireland’s 20-somethings, men can no longer find a job. There are now 25% more women at work in the 20-24 age group than men.

An Ireland where young men can’t get a job is likely to become before too long an Ireland with significant emigration of young men. Already there are 70,000 fewer men under 35 in Ireland than two years ago. The result is that there are now more women in Ireland between the ages of 20 and 34 than there are men – the key household-forming age. And an Ireland where men are leaving is likely to see some women follow them too.

It’s not raining men – Ireland at risk of becoming the opposite of China

CDfm · 09-06-2010 10:33PM

Interesting article.

I heard Dr Jim McDaid on Newstalk at lunchtime on the scan crisis or whatever it is dubbed. As a GP he spoke calmly & factually on the issue and in around 5 mins covered the medical aspects and in fact put it squarely down to doctor error and of his own surgical training quoted his professor saying a good doctor is the one that makes the fewest errors.

He alluded to, but, was not drawn into the composition/demographics of the medical profession and this included foreign doctors and women doctors affecting the continuity of medical treatment etc.He also metioned that the points system favoured women as doctors.

So while I disagree with Via that there is a conspiracy, I cant help thinking that structural inequalities have become inherent in the system.

Some of the texts that were nasty and not on the matters that he discussed but on the scope of issues of gender composition and work practices in the medical profession, number of places available for indiginous Irish students and paying foreign students who have not made the academic grade in Ireland and the quality of the qualifications of foreign doctors.He just gave factual information.

It was very obvious from the interview that it is not posible to have a straight forward discussion on these issues without being called a misogynist or a racist. So are men accorded free speech.

Via · 16-06-2010 12:52PM

There is an overwhelming flood of evidence suggesting that there is every reason to believe theres a "conspiracy". Or rather, many. But that is a word that most people seem to have enormous, inexplicable difficulty with.

A "conspiracy" means nothing more than this: An initiative that the public or target is not informed about. The fact that the media has tried to attach a stereotype and stigma to it doesnt affect the subject.

We already know that Feminists instigate "conspiracies" because their manifestations are openly visible. The Screenwriting of the British TV series Spooks is one example. Not openly admitted as misandrist, it none the less encourages one to treat men like second class citizens.

Examples are omnipotent. Pirates of the Caribbean is another vivid example, especially Kiera Knightly's scenes, and indeed you will notice a recurring theme in all of her films.

In fact...

Dr Galen · 16-06-2010 01:00PM

Any chance of some examples? Like proper examples, not just wooly rhetoric Via.

Via · 16-06-2010 01:26PM

Although the British media is saturated with misandry, so is Hollywood. A large portion of the misandrist films made by Hollywoods production studios are written in the form of "screwball comedies", rom coms and horror movies. Ideally where discrimination, exaggeration and caricature can go under the radar, and where social comedy provides the platform to portray gender roles.

Among the worst Misandrists in Hollywood are the following, and while their movies may seem light or innocuous, it is for these that we are most off our guard. And the actual effect is very, very sinister.

Judd Apatow
Marc Cherry
Michael Patrick King
Darren Star
Ryan KavanaughGregor "Gore" Verbinski + Terry Rossio

So here are just a few names, and if youre interested, watch their movies. Im not going to tell you not to watch them -watch them, with awareness of the misandric references all over them.

The Corinthian · 16-06-2010 01:57PM

Still woolly rhetoric old chap.

I'm not suggesting that you are wrong, but you are not really proving your point. For example, the romcom Knocked Up shares many of the same misindrist qualities as the works of those you cited, however it also has misogynist undertones in that it portrays women - pregnant ones in particular - as really needing a man to make their lives whole.

For much of this to be an conspiracy you need to demonstrate the motivation - one that primarily seeks to degrade or diminish men - and you've not. Instead, Occham's razor would likely point to a simpler solution, that the female market seeks this kind of tripe and these guys are guilty of little more than greed.

Certainly the political climate favours the empowerment of women at the expense of men, but that is much less a conspiracy and more a fashion. A conspiracy would be a conscious attempt to maintain this climate, and while I think this may well be found in certain feminist organizations, I would not confuse them with those who in turn are really just following said climate when they make such objectionable works as Sex & the City 2.

So I suggest you test your suspicions better so that you don't confuse the conspirators with those who are unwitting pawns.

BumbleB · 16-06-2010 03:50PM

Dr Galen wrote: »

Any chance of some examples? Like proper examples, not just wooly rhetoric Via.

Faster Pussycat .

Dr Galen · 16-06-2010 06:08PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Still woolly rhetoric old chap.

I'm not suggesting that you are wrong, but you are not really proving your point. For example, the romcom Knocked Up shares many of the same misindrist qualities as the works of those you cited, however it also has misogynist undertones in that it portrays women - pregnant ones in particular - as really needing a man to make their lives whole.

For much of this to be an conspiracy you need to demonstrate the motivation - one that primarily seeks to degrade or diminish men - and you've not. Instead, Occham's razor would likely point to a simpler solution, that the female market seeks this kind of tripe and these guys are guilty of little more than greed.

Certainly the political climate favours the empowerment of women at the expense of men, but that is much less a conspiracy and more a fashion. A conspiracy would be a conscious attempt to maintain this climate, and while I think this may well be found in certain feminist organizations, I would not confuse them with those who in turn are really just following said climate when they make such objectionable works as Sex & the City 2.

So I suggest you test your suspicions better so that you don't confuse the conspirators with those who are unwitting pawns.

excellent post and sums up my thoughts exactly

CDfm · 16-06-2010 06:53PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

For much of this to be an conspiracy you need to demonstrate the motivation - one that primarily seeks to degrade or diminish men - and you've not. Instead, Occham's razor would likely point to a simpler solution, that the female market seeks this kind of tripe and these guys are guilty of little more than greed

I happen to agree with your razor like logic.

Remove conspiracy and replace it with spin, PR & censorship.

The late actress Farrah Fawcett is remembered for her role as a victim of domestic violence in the movie "Burning Bed" and was quite active in promoting her image as an activist. In real life, she was a perpetrator and was arrested as a perpetrator.

Its a business, and we buy into the good gal/bad guy or smart/stupid portrayal and thats what sells.

Media follows fashion and stereotype.

Real life isnt like that

The female wrestler Tia Williams AKA the Awesome Kong is a former Social Worker as well as being involved in a vending machine business. In addition to her wrestling career she is involved in a natural skin care business & she is pictured here

Who would play her in a movie probably someone like this

Now the real woman is probably a lot more interesting than any portrayal of her in a movie would ever be.

Klingon Hamlet · 16-06-2010 10:00PM

CDfm wrote: »

I happen to agree with your razor like logic.

Remove conspiracy and replace it with spin, PR & censorship.

The late actress Farrah Fawcett is remembered for her role as a victim of domestic violence in the movie "Burning Bed" and was quite active in promoting her image as an activist. In real life, she was a perpetrator and was arrested as a perpetrator.

Its a business, and we buy into the good gal/bad guy or smart/stupid portrayal and thats what sells.

Media follows fashion and stereotype.

Real life isnt like that

The female wrestler Tia Williams AKA the Awesome Kong is a former Social Worker as well as being involved in a vending machine business. In addition to her wrestling career she is involved in a natural skin care business & she is pictured here

Who would play her in a movie probably someone like this

Now the real woman is probably a lot more interesting than any portrayal of her in a movie would ever be.

That's cos films reduce people to archetyes and caricatures, to simplify their position in life, e.g. underdog, alpha-male, slut, heroine, etc etc... Life doesn't imitate art when it comes to big-screen representations...but dumbasses sometimes fall back on these 1 dimensional money-making lampoons when criticising modern-day representations of genders, orientations and cultures.

The fact is that many people seek their reality in the scripts for low-IQ-required television and film.They almost live out the bull**** spoonfed them; and they preach it to others, expecting it to be gobbled up and swalowed whole.

Men and women are complex creatures. Society is changing rapidly. Men's rights fail to reflect these changes. Excuses are made and prejudices/assumptions thrown up like shields on a starship---though they're even less based on reality. Time to see real change, on both sides of the gender divide. Let the equality campaign fight for all genders and backgrounds. Til the cause is shared, the fight will go on endlessly for men and for women.

CDfm · 16-06-2010 10:11PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Til the cause is shared, the fight will go on endlessly for men and for women.

Egalitarianism ftw :cool:

Via · 21-06-2010 04:51PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-314026/The-university-sex-ratio-table.html

Here is a list of students in British universities, by sex ratio.

12 surveyed had an equal sex ratio.

86 surveyed have more women than men.

23 surveyed have more men than women.

Despite this, at the bottom it says the following:

UK average 51 (male) :49 (female)

Another brilliant example of how statistics are manipulated to portray women as the victims.

Devastating evidence, once again, that there certainly is need for gender equality.

CDfm · 21-06-2010 05:46PM

Via - but it doesnt.

Are the figures just a mean of the percentages which itself would be fairly lame as it should have totalled the actual students attending by gender.

So surely you should look for the correct figure.

The Corinthian · 22-06-2010 03:50PM

Via wrote: »

Another brilliant example of how statistics are manipulated to portray women as the victims.

Devastating evidence, once again, that there certainly is need for gender equality.

Again you are jumping to conclusions. As CDfm pointed out, the overall figure can easily represent a breakdown based on an aggregate of all students - this means that smaller colleges may have more female than male students, however the larger universities could more than make up for this.

Now one could make a case based on gender breakdown in a subset of universities - after all, just because something is officially a university (especially in the UK) does not make it a prestigious one and if, for example, the majority of those going to prestigious Oxbridge colleges (as opposed to glorified polytechnics) are female, then you will have made a case that could be cited.

I understand and sympathize with what you are attempting to achieve, but you're actually not doing yourself (or other men) any favours. Is there a reason you appear to be ignoring the advice being given to you here?

amacachi · 23-06-2010 07:24AM

taconnol wrote: »

The main reason for the greater number of male redundancies in the last 3 years is that more men work in the construction sector - simple. No conspiracy.

Yup, a free market and people paying for the short-term decisions they made earlier, absolutely fine, it should apply everywhere, not just when it's men getting the brunt.

Macha · 23-06-2010 08:18AM

amacachi wrote: »

Yup, a free market and people paying for the short-term decisions they made earlier, absolutely fine, it should apply everywhere, not just when it's men getting the brunt.

I wouldn't agree at all. The article I linked to suggested we're storing up some serious economic and social issues by ignoring the imbalance in employment.

I don't understand the logic of just "leaving it to the market" when we can do something about it. The market is there to serve us, not the other way around.

CDfm · 23-06-2010 08:52AM

taconnol wrote: »

I wouldn't agree at all. The article I linked to suggested we're storing up some serious economic and social issues by ignoring the imbalance in employment.

I don't understand the logic of just "leaving it to the market" when we can do something about it. The market is there to serve us, not the other way around.

And you are indeed correct. Not only are we storing it up but it is the" serious economic and social issues by ignoring the imbalance in employment" that dare not speak its name.

I listened to a radio interview on Newstalk given by Dr Jim McDaid TD and the Scanning issue and Hospital Doctors was brought up.

Now the purpose of the interview was to reassure people with factual information and that part of the interview went very well. It went through scanning and embryo development and how 6-8 weeks was very early for a scan,miscarriages, when they are normally 16-18 weeks. He finished that part with who should be concerned and how to deal with the GP issue etc -all good stuff.

The interviewer pressed him on staffing issues in hospitals and he said quite clearly that he did not want to be drawn into it. Finally, having been cajoled to scope the issue but not engage in debate the mere mentioning of issues such as imbalence, foreign doctors and simply alluding to it caused a flurry of listener replies along the lines of racist,sexist,misogynist and they were the nice ones.

Dont forget this was a discussion about best practice and service delivery to pregnant women and scoping the discussion planning that delivery for the future.So if you cannot even scope the discussion where can you go.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 11:19AM

amacachi wrote: »

Yup, a free market and people paying for the short-term decisions they made earlier, absolutely fine, it should apply everywhere, not just when it's men getting the brunt.

Yes, however if you return to the idea that Feminism essentially acts almost as a 'trade union' for women, you will find that when the market threatens women, they will kick up about it. Masculism, on the other hand, is not even properly defined, let alone organized and thus no one will kick up when the market threatens men. A few cranks like us will post on the Interweb, but that's about it.

That is not the fault of women or even Feminism, but of men ourselves.

taconnol wrote: »

The market is there to serve us, not the other way around.

Well, actually you'll find it is the other way around - it's called the law of supply and demand (coincidentally the only 'law' in economics). There have been many attempts - of differing competence and effectiveness - at manipulating the market, through the use of fiscal and monetary instruments, but none is perfect.

Ultimately, as every failed planned state and free-market recession has demonstrated, we serve the market and if we do not, we fail.

Macha · 23-06-2010 11:41AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, actually you'll find it is the other way around - it's called the law of supply and demand (coincidentally the only 'law' in economics). There have been many attempts - of differing competence and effectiveness - at manipulating the market, through the use of fiscal and monetary instruments, but none is perfect.

Oh sure but the basic market mechanism is only as good as the framework within which it operates. Attempts to alter that framework should be made to address flaws as we see them (although flaws will always remain because we are all human).

But let's face it - we as a society are happy enough to tweak things in favour
of perceived disadvantages for women and other sections of society and I see no reason why we should not do the same for men.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 11:50AM

taconnol wrote: »

But let's face it - we as a society are happy enough to tweak things in favour
of perceived disadvantages for women and other sections of society and I see no reason why we should not do the same for men.

Completely agree; one example of this is legislation that is meant to protect women in the labour force who are or may become pregnant (such protection flies in the face of market forces) - I was just being pedantic where it came to the nature of the market...

However, as I inferred to amacachi, such tweaking will no occur without pressure and that pressure does not really exist. The 'mens rights movement' is a fractured and ineffectual collection of one-issue groups who have little in common and often even oppose each other. Even if theoretically they could be brought together, they hold little support amongst a disaffected but ultimately indifferent male population.

CDfm · 23-06-2010 12:18PM

taconnol wrote: »

Oh sure but the basic market mechanism is only as good as the framework within which it operates. Attempts to alter that framework should be made to address flaws as we see them (although flaws will always remain because we are all human).

Markets are imperfect but its the system we have got. A perfect market is unachievable ie matching buyers to sellers etc

If you take the Doctor training issue - academically women qualify as students but on service delivery -may leave the market or not participate fully in it as a result of family circumstances.

So the question that poses for me is how do you correct that. Its a high status job & maybe we should just train lots more of them.

But let's face it - we as a society are happy enough to tweak things in favour
of perceived disadvantages for women and other sections of society and I see no reason why we should not do the same for men.

For teaching there is no doubt in my mind that that should be so. Maybe medicine as well.

There has been a trade off ,as womens increased role in the workplace has seen a reduction in service and supply of labour.

Just for argument sake, it takes seven years to train a doctor and so they qualify at 25 and retire 65. If they take ten years off for whatever you are only getting them for 75% of their time.

Now how do you deal with that and who is to bear the cost of training 1 extra doctor for every 3 to fill that gap or else deal with a reduced service.

This is the kind of stuff that does not get discussed in lines of service delivery but you get a numbers game based on what gender has more rather than the benefit to society.

How would you tackle that, Taconnal, without getting lynched.

Zulu · 23-06-2010 12:27PM

When people say "tweak in favor" are they saying "positive discrimination"?

Macha · 23-06-2010 12:32PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, as I inferred to amacachi, such tweaking will no occur without pressure and that pressure does not really exist. The 'mens rights movement' is a fractured and ineffectual collection of one-issue groups who have little in common and often even oppose each other. Even if theoretically they could be brought together, they hold little support amongst a disaffected but ultimately indifferent male population.

Yes, this is where the politics of it becomes key. And to be engaged in the political system you have to understand that system and understand what you're trying to achieve. And that in turn involves education and organisation.

CDfm wrote: »

If you take the Doctor training issue - academically women qualify as students but on service delivery -may leave the market or not participate fully in it as a result of family circumstances.

So the question that poses for me is how do you correct that.

Well I would ask the question why do so many women leave? As The Corinthian referred to above, many of the "rights" that women gained can inadvertently limit them in other ways.

And key to this is also getting men to understand that women don't have a monopoly on deciding who stays at home with the kids. It's also about challenging stigma and negative cultural stereotypes of men who do choose to be more than just a wallet to their kids.

CDfm wrote: »

Just for argument sake, it takes seven years to train a doctor and so they qualify at 25 and retire 65. If they take ten years off for whatever you are only getting them for 75% of their time.

How would you tackle that, Taconnal, without getting lynched.

Well, in that case, you should discuss it in terms of families with children vs families with no children. Families with no children don't have to take time off like families with children. But then you can't plan for these things sometimes - people change careers, people get sick, it's part of life.

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 12:44PM

You dont need mens movements and you dont need womens movements. You need to create employment. You need to change the leaving cert system and make it a cummulative evaluation in which people can choose their careers when they are adults [after 18 when they are in university] and not when they are still wearing [schoolboy/schoolgirl uniforms.]

Zulu · 23-06-2010 12:49PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

You dont need mens movements and you dont need womens movements.

With this I agree.
The problem we have is elitist groups attempting to create "equality" for their elite membership.
What we need is a unified, egalitarian approach to social ailments.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 12:55PM

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, this is where the politics of it becomes key. And to be engaged in the political system you have to understand that system and understand what you're trying to achieve. And that in turn involves education and organisation.

It's like trying to herd cats, TBH.

And key to this is also getting men to understand that women don't have a monopoly on deciding who stays at home with the kids.

They do though - or pretty close to it - and this monopoly is guarded jealously by Feminist groups.

Certainly such groups will concede that men should gain certain rights such as paternity leave, but you will find that all they ever advocate are rights that would result women being better assisted - never rights that may diminish or dilute the rights of women. Or will support guardianship rights - but only as long as those rights are redefined so that they do not interfere with the custodial (female) parent.

Without those rights, men at home with the kids will remain the exception to the rule and social pressure for women to sacrifice their careers for the good of family will continue. After all, if a woman's place is not in the home, why does she have such a monopoly?

I actually think that Feminist groups are in a bit of a bind on this. They're still pushing statistics that show that women are earning less than men, but increasingly it is being recognized that this has nothing to do with wage discrimination, but it comes down to women not being free to pursue their careers with as free a hand as men.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 01:08PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

You dont need mens movements and you dont need womens movements. You need to create employment. You need to change the leaving cert system and make it a cummulative evaluation in which people can choose their careers when they are adults [after 18 when they are in university] and not when they are still wearing [schoolboy/schoolgirl uniforms.]

I don't think the LC is the problem. What one does in the LC is largely immaterial, so long as you have the necessary points. There are some exceptions, naturally; some subjects are weighted and others are required for certain courses, however no one cares if your points came from Physics or Home Economics in most cases.

The problem is in the increasingly vocational nature of universities. Outside of humanities, you are essentially pigeonholed into a vocation or profession at 18; be it law, engineering, agricultural science, IT or whatever. It is thus not surprising that one will often find Lawyers who later became journalists, economists who became programmers and engineers who became management consultants. Not to mention the number of doctors, lawyers, engineers and architects out there who hate their jobs because it was something they fell into when they were young.

One simple solution may be not to push school graduates into university for a few years. Let them go out, work for two or three years, mature and find themselves. God forbid, they may even be able to fund their own education rather than relying on their parents.

I remember such mature students as being far more copped onto what they wanted in life, even though they were only a few years older than me, while I was more interested in parties and chasing girls.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 01:25PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

You dont need mens movements and you dont need womens movements. You need to create employment. You need to change the leaving cert system and make it a cummulative evaluation in which people can choose their careers when they are adults [after 18 when they are in university] and not when they are still wearing [schoolboy/schoolgirl uniforms.]

Actually, thinking more on it, the problem really has very little to do with the LC or perhaps even universities. The number of people who choose at 18 a career based on peer pressure is incredible - that's why the points for IT shot up between 1998 and 2000 or for construction and property related courses between 2002 and 2007.

Then there are those who decide to go into the 'family business' simply because they have a parent who is already established there. My sister did this and studied in university for a number of years before realizing that her vocation lay elsewhere.

However, as interesting as this tangent is, it really is a tangent to the topic. In a perfect World you would not need mens' or womens' rights movements, but where you have inequality that extends either in or beyond the educational system, you actually do need one or the other - or both.

CDfm · 23-06-2010 01:43PM

taconnol wrote: »

Well I would ask the question why do so many women leave? As The Corinthian referred to above, many of the "rights" that women gained can inadvertently limit them in other ways.

Lynching avoioded deftly

And key to this is also getting men to understand that women don't have a monopoly on deciding who stays at home with the kids. It's also about challenging stigma and negative cultural stereotypes of men who do choose to be more than just a wallet to their kids.

Its not really -its about the supply of highly skilled doctors and their availability.Docterin is a high status job and if you are to regulate it how would you do it.

Well, in that case, you should discuss it in terms of families with children vs families with no children. Families with no children don't have to take time off like families with children. But then you can't plan for these things sometimes - people change careers, people get sick, it's part of life.

surely if you are proposing regultation or changes we do the area that would benefit the most people.

I know its a difficult area.

EDIT -We have lots of areas where we have different rules for men and women, the army and guards fitness tests being one.

So we have a precedent.

So why cant we introduce these into teaching, medicine and even nursing on the basis that there is a benefit and its for the common good.

If not -why not?

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 03:42PM

Hold on. Im confused as to what this is all about. Are people here proposing positive discrimination for those who choose to have families because the employer, like most people living in the real world, know you cant commit to both a child and a career?

Now we are really getting into cuckoo land.

EDIT -We have lots of areas where we have different rules for men and women, the army and guards fitness tests being one.

Doesn't make it right. There should be one standard. What's next? A different fire department test for those with disabilities?

How about a different leaving cert for the immigrant kids? A different Irish exam for kids NOT living int he Gaeltacht.

Mens Rights

Comments