Mens Rights Thread

Piliger · 15-12-2014 07:47PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Eton is a private school for the elite. Uncapped fees mean that Oxbridge can charge what they please thus excluding all but the wealthiest applicants generally speaking. The term "boys club" refers to the network that wealthy young men build attending these places. David Cameron is a prime example.

Something that equally applies to exclusive girls schools and their behaviour thereafter in life.

marienbad · 15-12-2014 07:51PM

Piliger wrote: »

Beautifully put.

But not quite true though .

ancapailldorcha · 15-12-2014 08:54PM

Piliger wrote: »

Something that equally applies to exclusive girls schools and their behaviour thereafter in life.

Not that I'm aware.

It's well known that, in the UK at the very least, most prime ministers, CEOs, journalists and the like attend private schools and universities such as Oxbridge, Imperial College London, etc... This enables them to make the connections they need to gain traction in their respective fields.

marienbad wrote: »

But not quite true though .

Care to elaborate?

marienbad · 15-12-2014 09:04PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not that I'm aware.

It's well known that, in the UK at the very least, most prime ministers, CEOs, journalists and the like attend private schools and universities such as Oxbridge, Imperial College London, etc... This enables them to make the connections they need to gain traction in their respective fields.

Care to elaborate?

If you need me to elaborate that 'the west' for want of a better expression was a massive patriarchy for thousands of years then I really can't help you.

Lemming · 15-12-2014 09:47PM

marienbad wrote: »

If you need me to elaborate that 'the west' for want of a better expression was a massive patriarchy for thousands of years then I really can't help you.

Oooo, another vapid canard. What is "the West". Please do tell. Where is the west, Who is the west and where do I contact its leader?

Piliger · 15-12-2014 10:12PM

marienbad wrote: »

But not quite true though .

Exquisitely true actually.

Piliger · 15-12-2014 10:18PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not that I'm aware.

Well we are hardly responsible for that.

It's well known that, in the UK at the very least, most prime ministers, CEOs, journalists and the like attend private schools and universities such as Oxbridge, Imperial College London, etc... This enables them to make the connections they need to gain traction in their respective fields.

The fact is that women do not seek high office, either in public life or commercial life in the same way and in the same numbers as men. They make different life decisions, have different priorities, different dreams and different self images.

This is the insult to how real women want to live their lives that extreme feminism peddles to society nowadays.

Where women do chose to work and socialise, they network and give advantages to those from their own schools and clubs and backgrounds just as much as men and it is a joke to think that they do not. Anyone who has worked in business sees it on a regular basis and I myself have encountered it being discussed by women in prominent middle management positions in marketing, in publishing and in financial services.

ancapailldorcha · 15-12-2014 10:34PM

Piliger wrote: »

Well we are hardly responsible for that.

You would think.

Piliger wrote: »

The fact is that women do not seek high office, either in public life or commercial life in the same way and in the same numbers as men. They make different life decisions, have different priorities, different dreams and different self images.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that women don't aim to be successful?

Piliger wrote: »

Where women do chose to work and socialise, they network and give advantages to those from their own schools and clubs and backgrounds just as much as men and it is a joke to think that they do not. Anyone who has worked in business sees it on a regular basis and I myself have encountered it being discussed by women in prominent middle management positions in marketing, in publishing and in financial services.

I was specifically talking about the upper echelons of the financial sector, the media and politics. My point is that the vast majority of those who have succeeded in those areas have had a leg up thanks to people they met due to their background.
I've seen a whole nursing department staffed entirely by nepotism and cronyism so I know fpr a fact that it does happen in other sectors.

Pawwed Rig · 15-12-2014 10:36PM

Mod note - marienbad, if you're not prepared to back up your statements they will be treated as trolling.

marienbad · 15-12-2014 11:15PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Mod note - marienbad, if you're not prepared to back up your statements they will be treated as trolling.

Bit surprised that I need to - but here goes .

Patriarchy - here is one definition .

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Female suffrage 1918- 1924 approx.
First woman US president - never
First woman Taoiseach - never
First Woman Prime minister in the World 1960
First Woman CEO IBM 2011
First Women Secretary General United Nations -Never.

This despite women being the majority of the population most if not all of the time .

And this is before we even go into inheritance rights marriage rights property rights etc. This is just basic history 101 and I am surprised we are even going into it .

Look I agree that aspects of feminist movement have lost their way in recent decades and there is a massive problem in this country with fathers rights ,male suicide etc but to pretend that their wasn't an imbalance heretofore is as perverse as the US Supreme Court saying racism is no longer a problem in the USA.

I will leave it at that as I had no intention of derailing the thread

ancapailldorcha · 15-12-2014 11:20PM

marienbad wrote: »

Bit surprised that I need to - but here goes .

Patriarchy - here is one definition .

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Female suffrage 1918- 1924 approx.

The average man didn't have the vote long before that if my info is correct.

marienbad wrote: »

This despite women being the majority of the population most if not all of the time.

Source? I doubt many would argue that women haven't suffered more than men throughout history but most men, ie the lower classes didn't fare all that much better.

marienbad wrote: »

And this is before we even go into inheritance rights marriage rights property rights etc. This is just basic history 101 and I am surprised we are even going into it .

Source? I'd hardly call it basic history 101.

marienbad · 15-12-2014 11:26PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The average man didn't have the vote long before that if my info is correct.

Source? I doubt many would argue that women haven't suffered more than men throughout history but most men, ie the lower classes didn't fare all that much better.

Source? I'd hardly call it basic history 101.

Your info is correct - the average man (or catholic until 1829) didn't have the vote either- but the point is he could achieve that 'honour' women never could until the 20th century .

GalwayGuitar · 15-12-2014 11:49PM

marienbad wrote: »

Your info is correct - the average man (or catholic until 1829) didn't have the vote either- but the point is he could achieve that 'honour' women never could until the 20th century .

Well hey now you've got equal rights AND crazy rape laws, completely unfair divorce and custody laws, gender quotas, and an army of rabid men-hating femanazsi. So you can really stick it to the evil patriarchy thats oppressed you for so long.

Zulu · 15-12-2014 11:52PM

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

... femanazsi.

Oh oh.
You uttered the unmentionable. This doesn't bode well.

GalwayGuitar · 15-12-2014 11:56PM

Zulu wrote: »

Oh oh.
You uttered the unmentionable. This doesn't bode well.

Made a balls of the spelling too...

Piliger · 16-12-2014 12:11AM

This issue of history is only raised when feminists find themselves void of any real justification of the female privileges that modern feminism has established and is fighting to increase.

The only justifiable relevance of history is to talk about how things 'used' to be.

The only possible other reason is that feminism is making the case that because men treated women unfairly in the past, then that justifies men being badly treated now.

And if that is their argument then it would be nice if they showed a bit of honesty and truthfulness and admitted it instead of lying about the real motives.

Wibbs · 16-12-2014 12:22AM

Zulu wrote: »

Oh oh.
You uttered the unmentionable. This doesn't bode well.

Yep, because it's incredibly lazy a tag and not up to the standard we aim for in this forum, so GalwayGuitar, no more of "feminazi" stuff, thanks. Make the better argument.

marienbad · 16-12-2014 12:46AM

Piliger wrote: »

This issue of history is only raised when feminists find themselves void of any real justification of the female privileges that modern feminism has established and is fighting to increase.

The only justifiable relevance of history is to talk about how things 'used' to be.

The only possible other reason is that feminism is making the case that because men treated women unfairly in the past, then that justifies men being badly treated now.

And if that is their argument then it would be nice if they showed a bit of honesty and truthfulness and admitted it instead of lying about the real motives.

You might think it is all just 'used to be'' , but here is an interesting article listing 10 things women could not do in the 1970's-

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe

You might think that is a long time ago but there is a good 25% of the population still alive that lived through those years . And not one single change was given without immense struggle .

So lose the chip and lets talk about equality for all without denying the past.

Lemming · 16-12-2014 12:57AM

marienbad wrote: »

You might think it is all just 'used to be'' , but here is an interesting article listing 10 things women could not do in the 1970's-

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe

You might think that is a long time ago but there is a good 25% of the population still alive that lived through those years . And not one single change was given without immense struggle .

So lose the chip and lets talk about equality for all without denying the past.

Eight things that women couldn't do in the 1970s, one that neither sex could do (contraception), and one which is of dubious note as being a thing against "women" (pubs refusing right to admission). Some 40 years ago.

So the next question is; and how is any of what has long since been overcome relevant to today's narrative? Would you like to continue navel gazing with your talk of the 70s, the ever-mythical boggyman "patriarchy" of one thousand years (apparently), and that rallying cry of socialists everywhere when you've got no credible argument to make; "the west". Ah, sure while we're at it we'll throw in mention of the illuminati for giggles.

Or instead of navel gazing, would you like to talk about equality of opportunity and equality of responsibilities between men & women?

Piliger · 16-12-2014 01:15AM

marienbad wrote: »

You might think it is all just 'used to be'' , but here is an interesting article listing 10 things women could not do in the 1970's-

So let's see ... 1970's is not the past .... right. So up is down and left is right and right it wrong. That sounds exactly like the kind of feminist nonsense that us men are having to fight nowadays.

Playboy · 16-12-2014 01:27AM

Loath as I am to post something from the Daily Mail I have to make an exception for this story. Truly frightening the situations men can find themselves at the whim of a woman.

Father is banned from seeing his children and entering his own home or street for ten years after wife launched 'Kafkaesque' legal proceedings against him in secret

Father banned from seeing his children and entering home for ten years
Order issued after wife complained she was a victim of domestic assault
Man, named only as Mr R, had no prior notice of the non-molestation order
Slapped with order arriving home from work after wife requested it secretly
Judge said Mr R, who cannot be identified, could have been forgiven for feeling like Josef K - the protagonist in Franz Kafka's 1925 novel The Trial

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874882/Father-banned-seeing-children-entering-home-street-ten-years-wife-launched-Kafkaesque-legal-proceedings-against-secret.html

Piliger · 16-12-2014 01:36AM

The Daily Mail is the only media that is giving any coverage to the appalling injustice being meted out to men.

iptba · 16-12-2014 03:09AM

Letter in the Irish Times, Tuesday, Dec 16

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/gender-bias-and-science-1.2038586

Sir, – Prof Nancy Hopkins (December 10th) writes about “unconscious gender bias” at the top in science. I would argue that by far the most notorious example of gender bias in Irish universities is the existence of a number of women’s and gender studies centres, several of which have existed for more than 20 years and which are overwhelmingly staffed by women. According to the US writer Daphne Patai, they are more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge. They share a common ideology, central to which is the notion that gender is socially constructed and that biology has little or nothing to do with gender; openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum. This is all the more extraordinary since science has refuted its central tenet and has shown biology plays an undoubted and perhaps a major role in gender construction.

An example of how the pretensions of gender studies can be exposed occurred in 2012 when the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute was closed. The decision was made after Norwegian state television had broadcast a documentary in which the unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed. The whole enterprise was based on ideology with no basis in evidence.

LostinBlanch · 16-12-2014 01:00PM

Playboy wrote: »

Loath as I am to post something from the Daily Mail I have to make an exception for this story. Truly frightening the situations men can find themselves at the whim of a woman.

Father is banned from seeing his children and entering his own home or street for ten years after wife launched 'Kafkaesque' legal proceedings against him in secret

Father banned from seeing his children and entering home for ten years

Order issued after wife complained she was a victim of domestic assault

Man, named only as Mr R, had no prior notice of the non-molestation order

Slapped with order arriving home from work after wife requested it secretly

Judge said Mr R, who cannot be identified, could have been forgiven for feeling like Josef K - the protagonist in Franz Kafka's 1925 novel The Trial

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874882/Father-banned-seeing-children-entering-home-street-ten-years-wife-launched-Kafkaesque-legal-proceedings-against-secret.html

I know, I read that, Kafkaesque is right. At least the court of appeal threw it out, but what about the lawyers and courts that brought this about? Is there any sanction for them?

Of course not.

KomradeBishop · 16-12-2014 02:48PM

iptba wrote: »

Letter in the Irish Times, Tuesday, Dec 16

Sir, – Prof Nancy Hopkins (December 10th) writes about “unconscious gender bias” at the top in science. I would argue that by far the most notorious example of gender bias in Irish universities is the existence of a number of women’s and gender studies centres, several of which have existed for more than 20 years and which are overwhelmingly staffed by women. According to the US writer Daphne Patai, they are more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge. They share a common ideology, central to which is the notion that gender is socially constructed and that biology has little or nothing to do with gender; openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum. This is all the more extraordinary since science has refuted its central tenet and has shown biology plays an undoubted and perhaps a major role in gender construction.

An example of how the pretensions of gender studies can be exposed occurred in 2012 when the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute was closed. The decision was made after Norwegian state television had broadcast a documentary in which the unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed. The whole enterprise was based on ideology with no basis in evidence.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/gender-bias-and-science-1.2038586

That's a bit of a random thing to post - it's also heavily inaccurate; there is no indication that the institute was closed due to the documentary (there's also a lot of criticism around, of the accuracy of the documentary - with many people having the opinion that it had a predefined political slant to it).

Daphne Patai is also a member of the right-wing think-tank 'Foundation for Individual Rights in Education', which is (yet another) right-wing think tank, promoting anti-feminist views (including opposing policies aimed at tackling sexual harassment in US colleges) - a think-tank also staffed by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is associated with other right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who promote things such as global warming denial (among many other things).

It's ironic that Daphne is accusing them, of being "more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge" or that "openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum", when she associates with these politically-motivated, ideological propaganda institutes.

The debate on 'nature vs nurture', where it comes to gender, is also far from settled - and there's not any evidence that gender studies courses in general, deny the part that biology plays (there may be debate about how much it has to play, but there isn't any obvious indication, that all these courses deny its role altogether).

Apart from that, it just comes across as whataboutery as well "lets ignore gender bias at the top of many fields of science, because one non-science course (that has been spawned from the feminist movement), has a lot of women participating in it".

marienbad · 16-12-2014 02:56PM

Piliger wrote: »

So let's see ... 1970's is not the past .... right. So up is down and left is right and right it wrong. That sounds exactly like the kind of feminist nonsense that us men are having to fight nowadays.

By that definition everything is the past , including what happened last week . If you think events of the 70's are irrelevant to today then there is little point having a discussion with you.

ancapailldorcha · 16-12-2014 03:13PM

marienbad wrote: »

By that definition everything is the past , including what happened last week . If you think events of the 70's are irrelevant to today then there is little point having a discussion with you.

I don't understand your point. Last week is as remote as the 1970s?

There have been huge advances in women's rights since the 1970s. In any case, why has this come up in the Men's Rights thread?

Lemming · 16-12-2014 03:17PM

marienbad wrote: »

By that definition everything is the past , including what happened last week . If you think events of the 70's are irrelevant to today then there is little point having a discussion with you.

So in short, you've got nothing to say and don't want to admit to it instead trying to pawn your lack of argument off on others.

Zulu · 16-12-2014 03:17PM

marienbad wrote: »

By that definition everything is the past , including what happened last week . If you think events of the 70's are irrelevant to today then there is little point having a discussion with you.

Well that's a little disingenuous. To be fair, the 70's are 40 years ago. How many generations is that?

(I never know how the calculate generations, what with the human lifespan ever increasing)

Salient point: There is a massive leap between "last week" and 40 years, and you know it.

ancapailldorcha · 16-12-2014 03:18PM

Lemming wrote: »

So in short, you've got nothing to say and no answer to the question of why you think what was the status quo in the 1970s is relevant to the status quo as it exists in teh second decade of the 21st century.

Not being able to back points up tends to go hand-in-hand with the propensity to use the misnomer "patriarchy" in my experience.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments