nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Equal right - Losing it's balance in favour of women?

Irishcrx

Just a conversation that popped up recently when out with friends and I guess something that has been on my mind for a while now as I watch differant friends, situations etc.

Has radical feminism and a push for equal rights gained so much momentum , pressure in the press , the workplace , social media that it has actually now swung the other way and it is men that are looking at oppression?

A couple of scenario's swing to mind , the company I work for have had several pushes to be seen to be an equal opportunity employer , which they are , however this also included women in positions of ppwer (IE Unit leaders and Directors) they have often appointed women to these positions to make up their numbers balance while more qualified men were turned down for the job in favour of the news letter saying we have met the European quota - This isn't right.

Single father rights - Or lack there of, absolute joke of a system - Several friends of mine are single fathers and being dragged through hell to see their children even though they are great fathers. All the power with the ex girlfriend and the bitterness , the law says it protects the children but it really is protecting the mother and many abuse this position to exact revenge on an ex - Good father need rights equal to mothers regardless of marriage - Bad ones don't.

Add to this the rise of feminism , the extreme feminism , the talk of all men being scumbags , the belief of some that's it's ok to say horrible thing's to men , female on male domestic violence being laughed at and generally looked upon as not being as serious as male on female, a man smacks a girls ass in a club it's sexual assault , a woman does it and it's funny, from looking at these boards alone from day to day you can tell most men have become almost afraid to approach a girl or say boo to them even when they are very in the wrong.

So has it never been a worst time to be a man? Are men becoming less of men because of this? And has that balance changed to a position where it's now men in need of equal rights?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ThinkProgress

Equal rights is an illusion.

Women are born with many innate disadvantages when compared with men.... The only true way to create the illusion of an equal playing field, is to weaken men and strengthen women.

Because if you pitted all the men in the world against all the women - the men would almost exclusively win in practically every area. (on average)

Men didn't create or design women to have those disadvantages. That's just how the cards were dealt. But we sure as sh*t have to carry the burden of responsibility for them!

Without the voluntary concession of men, the illusion of equality is impossible. But that's the great irony of the whole thing... because if women were actually born with equal capabilities, they would not require the concession of men!

If you want something in life, you have to take it yourself... unless you're not capable of taking it... Then you are forced to ask for it and hope it's given to you!

PopePalpatine

orubiru wrote: »

Totally agree about denying him publicity but I wouldn't suggest "no-platforming", I'd just suggest either ignoring the guy or refuting his points in a calm and controlled fashion. Give him enough rope, and all that.

The main tactic that guys like Roosh and other PUA types employ is targeting men who feel alienated or depressed or maybe just confused. They are essentially offering the illusion of acceptance, understanding and camaraderie.

Any guy who is interested in following Roosh V or is thinking about "taking the Red Pill" is gonna see these crazy maniacs chasing him around Canada or trying to get him banned from the UK and they are gonna think "f*ck yeah! He's taking on the world, count me in!"

Aggressively, loudly, and publicly no-platforming him just gives him more supporters to be honest.

He's like a creepy, rapey, misogynist Jesus Christ and the mob seems to think that crucifying him is the right thing to do. The mob screams that he wants to legalize rape and runs him out of town with pitchforks. Any fool with Google can verify that he didn't ACTUALLY say that and now he's got another sympathy vote. They don't seem to realize that they are making him even more popular.

I'm feeling like we are seeing the same thing happening with Trump but on a much larger scale.

We are constantly telling large segments of society that they, and their opinions, are not welcome because of "male privilege" or whatever. Then these guys come in and take them under their wing. If this happens often enough, and for long enough, then everybody ends up losing.

Actually, you could argue that it's kind of what has happened to the OP here. He makes a post discussing his worries about being a man in society, talks about concerns he has for his male friends. Then he basically gets told "f*ck off, women arent even treated like humans and the deck is stacked in favour men, look at all these examples of misogynist pigs".

So now who does he turn to?

First off, I shouldn't have conflated ignoring with "no-platforming".

TBH, I see little difference between the recruiting methods of Daesh and ROK/"neo-reactionaries" - the only difference seems to be that the latter group's violent tendencies manifest themselves in rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse and setting up sock-puppet Twitter accounts to tweet rape & death threats at any woman they deem a feminist.

[Deleted User]

No more than certain minority groups calls for equality really meaning a call for special treatment for them, feminist groups fall under the same category. They don't want equality they want special treatment or in other words be able to discriminate against men.

Gender quotas are a perfect example, they are total discrimination against men and should never have been introduced. The job should go to the person who deserves it be it a man or a woman. If that means all women or no women then so be it. What's all this crap with women only insurance and women only gyms too, if someone opened a men only gym there would be a volcanic eruption of outrage.

Maximus Alexander

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Most people say Radical Feminism or 3rd wave nonsense. They don't just say women. I love those ads on the TV with a bloke like me surrounded by cleaning products going “What sorcery is this.”

Those kinds of ads are offensive to both genders though. It invariably ends up with a woman doing all the cleaning like it's 1955 or something. Men are clueless, dirty idiots and women are all good little housewives. God I have such disdain for that sh*te.

hatrickpatrick

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Most people say Radical Feminism or 3rd wave nonsense. They don't just say women. I love those ads on the TV with a bloke like me surrounded by cleaning products going “What sorcery is this.”

Now this is a good example of where feminism pisses me off. Feminists will frequently respond to that by saying "Oh yeah, that's appalling sexism - implying that a man shouldn't know about that stuff because a woman's place is in the kitchen" or some variation thereof.

In other words, taking something which is very clearly and directly an example of men being mocked and ridiculed by the media, and instead of addressing the psychological harm this does to young men and the double standard with regard to how much mockery is acceptable when someone is a guy, they flip it so as it becomes another example of how women are being targeted.

Same with fathers' rights. "Oh yeah, remember that guy who killed himself after being denied access to his children for five years? What an incredible example of sexism against women! How dare the courts insinuate that it's a woman's job to mind the kids" etc.

That, above pretty much anything else, is the "privilege" argument which turned a guy who identified with feminism in his early teens into a guy who actively identifies as anti feminist in his twenties. It's utterly toxic.

The_Conductor

Shenshen wrote: »

I don't think it's losing balance in favour of women by any stretch just yet.

Plenty of organisations have 'equality' units- which focus on measures to bring up participation in the organisational structure at various levels. To this end- they hold recruitment drives aimed at women- and minority groups (such as the disabled)- and hold the likes of interview preparation courses- specifically for women- in a stated attempt to get a more representative ratio of women in all ranks.

Where one gender- or section- of the population is specifically excluded- as *is* the case in the likes of internal promotion competitions in the civil service for example- it simply is discriminatory- even if the stated purpose of the discrimination is positive action (its anything but- if you're part of the discriminated against group).

darkpagandeath

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not a mistake, it's a very deliberate and disingenuous attempt to invalidate an argument without addressing its substance. It's no different to "oh, you support Palestinian statehood? YOU ARE LITERALLY A NAZI SYMPATHISER!"

Most people say Radical Feminism or 3rd wave nonsense. They don't just say women. I love those ads on the TV with a bloke like me surrounded by cleaning products going “What sorcery is this.”

hatrickpatrick

Foxtrol wrote: »

In contrast, there was an outcry (including on boards) about how a dinosaur in Jurassic World attacked a woman in a ‘sexist’ manner. I repeat, a dinosaur attack was apparently sexist...

It was worse than that. The outcry over that scene essentially boiled down to "what was funny when it happened to guys in movies 1 and 2 is just downright nasty when it happens to a woman". :mad:

hatrickpatrick

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure about hostility towards women. Some people mistake criticism of feminism and feminists as an attack on women.

It's not a mistake, it's a very deliberate and disingenuous attempt to invalidate an argument without addressing its substance. It's no different to "oh, you support Palestinian statehood? YOU ARE LITERALLY A NAZI SYMPATHISER!"

orubiru

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, the Roosh Douche is a prime example of a circumstance where "no-platforming" is OK, to deny him the oxygen of publicity.

Totally agree about denying him publicity but I wouldn't suggest "no-platforming", I'd just suggest either ignoring the guy or refuting his points in a calm and controlled fashion. Give him enough rope, and all that.

The main tactic that guys like Roosh and other PUA types employ is targeting men who feel alienated or depressed or maybe just confused. They are essentially offering the illusion of acceptance, understanding and camaraderie.

Any guy who is interested in following Roosh V or is thinking about "taking the Red Pill" is gonna see these crazy maniacs chasing him around Canada or trying to get him banned from the UK and they are gonna think "f*ck yeah! He's taking on the world, count me in!"

Aggressively, loudly, and publicly no-platforming him just gives him more supporters to be honest.

He's like a creepy, rapey, misogynist Jesus Christ and the mob seems to think that crucifying him is the right thing to do. The mob screams that he wants to legalize rape and runs him out of town with pitchforks. Any fool with Google can verify that he didn't ACTUALLY say that and now he's got another sympathy vote. They don't seem to realize that they are making him even more popular.

I'm feeling like we are seeing the same thing happening with Trump but on a much larger scale.

We are constantly telling large segments of society that they, and their opinions, are not welcome because of "male privilege" or whatever. Then these guys come in and take them under their wing. If this happens often enough, and for long enough, then everybody ends up losing.

Actually, you could argue that it's kind of what has happened to the OP here. He makes a post discussing his worries about being a man in society, talks about concerns he has for his male friends. Then he basically gets told "f*ck off, women arent even treated like humans and the deck is stacked in favour men, look at all these examples of misogynist pigs".

So now who does he turn to?

Foxtrol

Thoie wrote: »

I'm sure there's some out there, but I've never heard any women laughing at domestic violence, no matter who's beating who. Who do you hear laughing at it?

There are a number of well publicised, mainstream Hollywood ‘comedies’ that portray women going out to physically and emotionally attack men who they believe were unfaithful to them.

Imagine the outcry if a movie portrayed a group of men forming plots to spike a woman’s drink with testosterone or contained a comedy set piece moment which ends with the woman smashing through a window and the men stand around her laughing.

Emotional and physical domestic violence against men is still seen as something that’s acceptable and even comical because as ‘ah sure he deserved it’.

In contrast, there was an outcry (including on boards) about how a dinosaur in Jurassic World attacked a woman in a ‘sexist’ manner. I repeat, a dinosaur attack was apparently sexist...

steddyeddy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You think Thatcher is evidence that women will succeed on their merit? Thatcher succeeded because she demonstrated traditionally male characteristics. That's what you get when you don't try to level the playing field, an environment that filters out women who display anything less than classical male traits.

And how many pages would we fill with the men? You can name as many women in power as you like, but the numbers are indisputable. Men dominate, and that means our political institutions are not representative of our people.

You're misunderstanding what oppression means. Even if a group is under-represent in an area like politics or STEM fields you cannot take that as proof of discrimination.

Ice Maiden

Debtocracy wrote: »

These are some of the major issues I feel are facing men today. Overall, I don’t think feminism is a major problem for men, albeit a bit annoying at times.

Educational system: Boys have higher levels of hyperactivity and poorer levels of sustained attention. In an educational system that requires sitting in your seat and paying attention for excessive periods of time, boys will underperform relative to girls all other things being equal.

Porn: While I’ve no moral qualms about porn, it does mess with the brain’s reward circuitry leaving addicts (vast majority male) less motivated in general and less aroused by girls in their everyday life. It also creates unrealistic standards for sex, which is especially unhelpful if the guy is experiencing porn-induced erectile dysfunction.

Video games: As with porn, addiction here messes up the reward circuitry and reduces boy’s ability to sustain attention in educational contexts.

Female-biased divorce settlements: In too many situations the husband is left impoverished and banished from his family. The absence of paternal input is a further blow for men as it substantially increases the chances that any male child will engage in antisocial behaviour.

Unrealistic female standards: The average guy is increasingly not meeting the standards for the average gal and I see three reasons for this:
1) Women constantly exposed to rich, attractive men in the media, giving the illusion that there are lots of them about the place.
2) Women are becoming more educated and successful (which is great in itself) but almost always expecting a partner of at least equivalent success or higher.
3) Online dating which gives the illusion that there are multiple men for every woman so women gain an expectancy that the perfect boyfriend is out there.
Because the average guy is finding it increasingly difficult to meets these standards, it is more likely he will regress and seek easier gratification through porn, video-games, drugs/alcohol etc.

Feminists over-criminalising sexual behaviour: Some of the feminist discussion of sexual assault is very beneficial, such as recognising when a girl is too intoxicated to provide legitimate consent. However, more often than not, it presents men and their culture in general as the problem, rather than a selective group of predators and douchebags. These ‘Yes means Yes’ campaigns and surveys about how 80% of women have been assaulted (regretted sex, who hasn’t) are ridiculous, associate sex with criminality and something that a man inflicts upon a woman. Again, the virtual world of porn looks a lot more safer and gratifying than sex in the real world.

Good points there - the hypergamy thing does not chime with my own observations however.

The word "misogyny" is sometimes misused Py, but that doesn't mean there aren't real examples of it. The Return of Kings and Roosh stuff - put yourself in the shoes of a woman reading that. Although I do avoid it but it disturbs me that others are being taken in by it.

As shown here too, an undercurrent of resentment exists too - on the relationships and online dating threads as I said.

py2006

Misogyny is probably the most misused word online today in my opinion. It has slipped into the media and has virtually replaced the word sexism in the eyes of the people who use it. I think Madonna used it last week in response to people who were critical of her concert performance.

Rape Culture is another word that seems to have slipped in too. It is commonly used in relation to colleges in the US and is creeping over here too. I think there was an attempt to justify it recently in UCD with suggestion about 200 male students.

Debtocracy

These are some of the major issues I feel are facing men today. Overall, I don’t think feminism is a major problem for men, albeit a bit annoying at times.

Educational system: Boys have higher levels of hyperactivity and poorer levels of sustained attention. In an educational system that requires sitting in your seat and paying attention for excessive periods of time, boys will underperform relative to girls all other things being equal.

Porn: While I’ve no moral qualms about porn, it does mess with the brain’s reward circuitry leaving addicts (vast majority male) less motivated in general and less aroused by girls in their everyday life. It also creates unrealistic standards for sex, which is especially unhelpful if the guy is experiencing porn-induced erectile dysfunction.

Video games: As with porn, addiction here messes up the reward circuitry and reduces boy’s ability to sustain attention in educational contexts.

Female-biased divorce settlements: In too many situations the husband is left impoverished and banished from his family. The absence of paternal input is a further blow for men as it substantially increases the chances that any male child will engage in antisocial behaviour.

Unrealistic female standards: The average guy is increasingly not meeting the standards for the average gal and I see three reasons for this:
1) Women constantly exposed to rich, attractive men in the media, giving the illusion that there are lots of them about the place.
2) Women are becoming more educated and successful (which is great in itself) but almost always expecting a partner of at least equivalent success or higher.
3) Online dating which gives the illusion that there are multiple men for every woman so women gain an expectancy that the perfect boyfriend is out there.
Because the average guy is finding it increasingly difficult to meets these standards, it is more likely he will regress and seek easier gratification through porn, video-games, drugs/alcohol etc.

Feminists over-criminalising sexual behaviour: Some of the feminist discussion of sexual assault is very beneficial, such as recognising when a girl is too intoxicated to provide legitimate consent. However, more often than not, it presents men and their culture in general as the problem, rather than a selective group of predators and douchebags. These ‘Yes means Yes’ campaigns and surveys about how 80% of women have been assaulted (regretted sex, who hasn’t) are ridiculous, associate sex with criminality and something that a man inflicts upon a woman. Again, the virtual world of porn looks a lot more safer and gratifying than sex in the real world.

py2006

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I've no problem with men speaking out constructively about issues that affect men only, once they do so without hostility towards women.

Not sure about hostility towards women. Some people mistake criticism of feminism and feminists as an attack on women. Not saying you believe that but just something I have noticed online.

py2006

The one thing I have noticed on the net AND out in the real world is that once a man tries to speak of abuse/discrimination etc etc it gets shouted down in kinda of 'how dare you, only women can be victims' mentality. Not always but it happens.

At the lunch table in an old job where at the time I was the only male, the subject of children and the courts after separation/divorce came up. Generally I sit there quietly and listen but I just happened to say "men seem to be unfairly treated when it comes to divorce and kids etc" to which I was shouted down and "HOW DARE YOU" and the next 5 mins was spewing out how bad women have it and men are this and that... The following week I was minding my own business and as I walked by the same group I heard one say, "sure he hates women". I kid you not.

Due to media, campaigns etc we all know only too well how some women have suffered abuse, discrimination and rape etc and as a result all avenues are made available to them and in some cases government funding.

Yet when it comes to men, there is nothing and we get laughed at or even shouted at for talking about it. Take for example domestic violence, ALL campaigns suggest that only women are victims. I truely believe that in reality that figure is A LOT closer as I have witnessed it, experienced it and spoke about it with male friends. Yet it is largely dismissed. Thankfully, with the internet more people are starting to mention it online more.

Ice Maiden

Things are not harder for women in the West - these assertions also add to the "us v them" stuff. I've no problem with men speaking out constructively about issues that affect men only, once they do so without hostility towards women.

PopePalpatine

fatknacker wrote: »

That Roosh guy was just looking for more attention by negging the whole world.
Sadly, it worked

Yep, the Roosh Douche is a prime example of a circumstance where "no-platforming" is OK, to deny him the oxygen of publicity.

fatknacker

That Roosh guy was just looking for more attention by negging the whole world.
Sadly, it worked

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

things are generally harder for women.

How exactly? Serious question. The average western/Irish woman will live longer, have more medical research and therapies available, suffer far less from suicide(by far the biggest killer of men under 40), have more social and material support in spousal abuse(even though the incidences of such abuse are roughly gender equal), more rights over their children, have a higher education, earn more(yes, until she has kids she will on average earn more and afterwards can re-enter the workplace more easily), be less likely to be physically assaulted or killed and far less likely to die in the workplace. The list is long. About the only areas where men are safer are in the realms of sexual assault and eating disorders.

Yes certainly gender can negatively impact one's life, but where this notion that modern women automatically have it harder and men have it peachy comes from I don't know. The stats most certainly don't back it up. Sure among elites in society there are far more men, but the vast majority aren't in that bracket and for the average which is us, the scales seem pretty tilted towards having XX chromosomes.

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

Comical that a guy who thinks rape should be legal (but only on private property; he's not a complete animal!)

Correction; though oft repeated, that eejit did NOT say that rape should be legal. You're just spouting third hand opinion on what he said. He wrote(and I use the term loosely) a thought experiment concerning responsibility and sexual assault. The guy is full of shít and a mysoginist, but he didn't say rape should be legal. It's that kinda silly third hand rhetoric that's nearly as bad as these eejits you oppose. If some on the fence guy actually reads what the muppet wrote, he'll see that you are reporting it incorrectly and then will assume your man is probably speaking more truth than he actually is.

barely got any attention when trying to organise meet-ups in Ireland,

Actually the usual online curtain twitchers of Facebook and twitter had a fit about it. There were threats of violence against any eejits who were to show up and it was reported in a fair few news outlets, online and off. Outside of Ireland it really kicked off with various politicians in different parliaments mentioning it. Giving your man lots of lovely publicity of course. He and their ilk really know how to wind up some.

but a dopey columnist with a poor command of the language gets tails up all over the place.

Indeed, however unlike the vast majority of dopey manosphere eejits those said dopey columnists are in mainstream news outlets and actual policy is more likely to play the same tune. QV quotas and nonsense like that. Never mind the constant repetition of dubious "truths" like the pay gap, the education gap and the "1 in 4 raped" myth taken as gospel. Both sides are loons, but one side is getting much more airtime.

And there are quite a few who think Milo Yan whateverhisnameis a great guy, saying what needs to be said - if you put his trolling (misogyny) aside - which is the equivalent of saying that if you take away the really bad stuff, there's some good stuff left behind. No sh!t.

List what he says that is incorrect and rebuff it. I personally think him a notice box, albeit a very intelligent one, but his opponents all to regularly go full shout down hysteric on him. Watch some of the televised debates when he's involved. He generally stays calm and measured, while the opposing side generally go full on feels when they don't get their way.

Too often, it seems, the conversations about mens rights seems focussed on finding someone or something - usually feminism - to blame, rather than doing something proactive instead of just complaining on the internet to like-minded types.

That is a hilariously ironic statement to make indeed. Feminism, modern day current feminism is the religion of victimhood, where women are never to blame, have no agency and it's all the patriarchy's, sorry men's fault.

darkpagandeath

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never got this hatred of "feminism". Yes, the situation of men before family courts is not good, but other than that things are generally harder for women.

If men looked after their physical and mental health as well as women generally do, more men would live longer and happier lives.

Who hates Feminism ? Criticism of 3rd wave nut jobbery is warranted. Proper feminist laid the ground work for more equality and should be thanked. A so called coloured woman going on about not being able to be racist always needs to be challenged for example. My issue is genuine criticism of some forms of radical feminism is apparently woman hating and an attack on all feminism in all it's forms. It's really not. If your beliefs are so fragile and cannot take criticism that says more about you than me for example.

[Deleted User]

I've never got this hatred of "feminism". Yes, the situation of men before family courts is not good, but other than that things are generally harder for women.

If men looked after their physical and mental health as well as women generally do, more men would live longer and happier lives.

[Deleted User]

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wow. That far out-weighs whatever tripe Una Mullaly and like-minded columnists spew out.

You should read the whole thing. That was a snippet, the rest would give you nightmares.

The Cafe people in Canada who had something disrupted aren't directly associated with AVFM or Elam, but have contributed to the site and taken part in podcasts. Birds of a feather.

These aren't even the more extreme guys, but they make the term egalitarian sound as though it's code for psychopathic woman hater.

For genuine hilarity and nightmares combined, there's a site called Return of Kings, but I wouldn't give them traffic. It makes the Saudis look like tolerant cuddle bunnies.

Comical that a guy who thinks rape should be legal (but only on private property; he's not a complete animal!) barely got any attention when trying to organise meet-ups in Ireland, but a dopey columnist with a poor command of the language gets tails up all over the place.

And there are quite a few who think Milo Yan whateverhisnameis a great guy, saying what needs to be said - if you put his trolling (misogyny) aside - which is the equivalent of saying that if you take away the really bad stuff, there's some good stuff left behind. No sh!t.

Equality isn't a gift given by one gender to another that they should be grateful for, it's every persons right. Both genders have problems.

One thing that weirds me out is how little the loud shouters actually do.
If you know of some terrible situation or injustice, the option is always there to try find a way to make a difference. Too often, it seems, the conversations about mens rights seems focussed on finding someone or something - usually feminism - to blame, rather than doing something proactive instead of just complaining on the internet to like-minded types.

Ice Maiden

whatdoicare wrote: »

What is with all the women hating lately??

Aye, look at the relationships thread and the online dating thread at the moment - the resentment is palpable.

Meanwhile there are all these women like you and I who have zero issues with men (e.g. sons, partners, fathers, brothers, friends) and just view men as people, not people to exploit or treat with a sense of entitlement or to be nasty to (or a whatever number out of 10 :rolleyes:) reading in utter bewilderment at how some men view us.

PopePalpatine

Candie wrote: »

A Voice For Men, run by Paul Elam, that rape apologist? Great source.

From the tellingly titled "I'll Decide If You Were Raped, Not You", a small extract from a vile misogynistic rant about rape victims:

The face of the MRA movement.

Wow. That far out-weighs whatever tripe Una Mullaly and like-minded columnists spew out.

Thoie

The majority of "Men's Groups" that you hear about being objected to seem to have weird aims and appear to come from angles such as "But why can't I rape people if I really really want to?"

However there are hundreds/thousands/millions/lots of men's groups out there that do a huge amount of good for men and the wider community that are never attacked by anyone, and generally supported by everyone. But you rarely hear about those. They don't make big national headlines - you're more likely to see them as a side note in a local paper.

Men's Sheds, for example, are great. On the surface, they usually center around a workshop, where people are working on various projects, but at their heart they're a social network, a place for men to meet and talk with the added distraction of something to focus on. As many people are aware, a lot of men aren't great at sharing their feelings if everyone is just sitting around staring at each other, but can open up a bit more when there's something else to focus on.

Probus is another group that I've seen in action. Generally attended by older men, the official "focus" is around a guest speaker/discussion topic, but from what I've seen I think a lot of men come for the chit chat before and after.

mensgroups.ie list a number of the more "sit in a circle and talk to each other" type groups as well if anyone's interested. So it's not true to say that feminists object to the existence of groups for men. The ones that get objected to are usually pretty objectionable in their aims, even if that's not apparent from the little snippets you see posted on the internet exclaiming that the poor men are being discriminated against.

Shenshen

I don't think it's losing balance in favour of women by any stretch just yet.

What feminism has achieved so far is a relatively balanced treatment of both genders before the law. Having the law on your side and receiving fair treatment, however, are not necessarily the same thing. I believe that socially, there's still a good bit of catching up to do.

I do feel, though, that so far feminism was too much focused on women getting the same rights that men always had. And this is not an approach that will create balance, as it really amounts to women trying to be more like men in order to obtain the same levels of respect and the same favourable treatment. And we've neglected men in all this. While women were striving to expand their social and economic roles and broken into ever more previously men-only fields and thereby gaining respect and influence. Men were left with the same social and economic roles they had before. No expansion for them into the fields that are traditionally regarded as "female".
On the contrary, many men would still expose themselves to ridicule if they tried to change their traditional male role for one traditionally thought of as female.

I think the heart of this phenomenon is that it's almost exclusively in the male roles that both men and women find they're being respected and valued, the female roles are still being treated with at best a condescending smile by both genders.
And that, I feel, is what we'll need to work on.
It needs to be ok for a man to decide he wants to be a stay-at-home dad, just as it is for a woman to decide that she wants to go back to work after having had a child.
It needs to be ok for a boy to play with dolls if he wants to, same as it is for a girl to play with a toy truck.
And it needs to be ok for a man to want to work as a child minder, a librarian, a PA. There won't be any equality worth speaking off otherwise.

orubiru

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Feminism is not an attack on you personally. It's not even an attack on men at all unless you listen to the fringe lunatics to whom the internet gives a voice.

When men were sent out to fight and die at war, who sent them? Was it women? And when women weren't allowed the opportunity to go and stand at their side, even if they had wanted to, who denied them that opportunity? Women?

What do you imagine happens to women anyway, when war sweeps across a nation or continent? Do you imagine them wearing pretty dresses and picking flowers out in the countryside? Or are they just suffering and starving and being raped, bombed and murdered anyway, only with much less agency or control of their fates than even the unfortunate men?

When your grandfather worked himself to the bone to provide for his family, who was it that decided the women couldn't go out and earn, or even get an education in many cases? Was it the women?

Men loved women, and that's supposed to offer them solace? People also love their dogs, or their cars, or their gardens, but that doesn't mean we afford any of those things the rights and responsibilities due to a human being.

The argument that men have also suffered through history takes nothing from the fact that women have invariably held the sh*ttier end of a sh*tty, sh*tty stick. And it's missing the point anyway, because the goal of feminism isn't to take from men and give to women.

Society is an entity all its own - nobody sat down and thought it out, drawing up a list of rules. It evolved over millennia and put limits and restrictions on all of us. It took women getting the sh*ttier end of the stick for a long time for them to finally stand up and hold a mirror to it, and we should be thanking them for that, not denigrating them. Because feminism is ultimately not about Women vs Men, it's about All Of Us vs bollox constructs and gender roles that tell people how to live their lives; take classes of people and tell them what they can and can't do, what's expected of them, and rob them of agency.

The fact that men still face difficulties of their own doesn't make feminism the enemy. The enemy is entrenched attitudes and stigmas that are examples of the very thing feminism has battled against. Our society might be a better place to live now than it has ever been before, but that doesn't mean it is without fault.

And if it helps, feminism means that more and more women are being afforded the right to fight and die on the battlefield should they so desire. So that's good. I guess?

My response to you was a rebuttal to two points that you made.

I'm not even sure that I mentioned Feminism in my response?

You said: "When women are treated like human beings, everybody wins. I find it hard to be annoyed about feminism making the deck less hilarious stacked in my gender's favour. "

All I was pointing out here is that women ARE treated like human beings and that the deck is not necessarily stacked in favor of men.

That's it. That's all.

Your entire post essentially supports my point.

Some men and some women are not treated well by society. Some others are.

The deck is stacked heavily against some men and some women. The deck is stacked in favour of some men and some women.

It's not a simple "Men" vs "Women" divide. It never was and it never will be.

You can perform mental gymnastics all day long to try and make the point that "women have it worse" but anyone who looks at reality can see that both Men and Women are struggling.

Grouping people into two groups, of around 3.5 billion each, and saying "OK, Group A has it much better than Group B" is ridiculous. Especially when you know damn well that there is a high percentage of people in Group A who live really, really, tough lives. Sure, people in Group A are poor, abused, broken but they sure do have it better than Group B, right? No.

The deck is certainly not stacked in favour of unemployed men, homeless men, abused men, suicidal men. That doesn't mean I am dismissing the struggles of women. I just think that "the deck is stacked in my gender's favour" is a faulty, incorrect, worldview.

The whole argument, and the whole thread really, fails as soon as we try to point out that "Men" have it better/worse than "Women".

Some men are oppressed. Some women are oppressed.
Some men have great lives. Some women have great lives.

Some men are not treated like human beings.
Some women are not treated like human beings.

You see where this is going, I'm sure.

If you find yourself stating "yeah, but women have it worse" then you are deliberately putting blinders on and you'll only start making sense when you take them off again. Both genders have their own struggles. It's not a case of one or the other having it worse and I don't really understand why people need to insist that one 3.5 billion person group is better off than another 3.5 billion person group.

Almost every kind of suffering you can imagine is inflicted upon both genders. If your response to that is "yeah, but women have it worse" then you should probably start to question why you think it's an appropriate response.