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

eviltwin wrote: »

Is anyone else sick to death of all the gender stuff on Boards lately? Can we not just have a break from it please.

It seems to go in cycles. A couple of weeks ago it was all politics threads. Lately it's been gender. But I see Lucretia has just started a religion thread, so I suspect that's where we might be going next

Ice Maiden

The_Conductor wrote: »

Women are seen as more at risk of being sexually assaulted than men are- though of course men are sexually assaulted too (though in far lower numbers). Men (between the ages of 18 and 30) are over 9 times more likely to be physically assaulted than any female demographic group. Physical assaults- and sexual assaults are two completely different things of course.

Personally as long as the portrayal isn't degrading to the party concerned- I couldn't give a hoot- all the hoo-haw about sexualisation is overblown out of proportion- while a small amount of the shrill objections are very obviously justified, in my opinion- a large amount of it is not.

Its not just genders though- have a look at some of the forums here- unfortunately us Irish excel at being hyper competitive in often extreme portrayals of things that are just so wrong. In general- Irish men don't tend to open up- because we're so used to getting shut down- its acknowledged as one of the big reasons for the psychiatric issues in the Irish male population.

Many companies celebrate International Women's Day- often tweeting about their endeavours, often under an equality hashtag. With a few notable exceptions (Dell in Limerick, Intel in Leixlip and 2FM for example)- there is not a reciprochal recognition given to International Mens Day- or issues that predominantly affect men (such as the aforementioned psychiatric epidemic- including suicide- in this country).

I'd hate it too. In my book- the best person for the job, should get the job. You're only going to foster resentment and longterm unhappiness, otherwise.

I am not sure much of that disputes me.

But with regard to International Men's Day, the fact so many men just decide it doesn't exist shows how little research they put into it - maybe they should make more out of it.

eviltwin

Is anyone else sick to death of all the gender stuff on Boards lately? Can we not just have a break from it please.

B0jangles wrote: »

Is this really the standard of discourse Boards is happy with these days?

A sad sack of a dude who claims that the only reason woman have any freedom at all is because men have chosen not to brutalize them into silent submission?

There is a loud and obnoxious subset of boards users who seem to spend 99% of the time looking into the darkest depths of the internet to find some isolated weird feminist blogger with extremist views and then claim this is they are the base standard of modern feminism, yet Boards has shown itself well able to produce some of the most obnoxious, the most bigoted and most pathetically misogynist sacks of **** possible and they post here with barely a whisper of complaint from the regulars.

They're a small subset of the men who post on here though? Most of the guys (and women) on here are perfectly reasonable and capable of carrying on a good debate, in my experience.

And quite a few of the regulars (male and female) will call out ridiculous comments, from either gender. Sometimes though, you're just banging your head against a brick wall and it does tend to derail any chance of sensible debate. I probably shouldn't have bothered reacting to the comment this evening, tbh. I normally wouldn't bother, but sometimes I'll take the bait in spite of myself

Wibbs

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And that being the case, we would also have to conclude that you believe those physical advantages are the sole reason that men rose up to become the dominant gender of our species for all of recorded human history?

There is another angle, namely it could depend on how you frame the idea of the "dominant" gender itself. From a genetic point of view a different story may be in play. For example if we look at the genetic lines of women and the genetic lines of men, there are more of the former. Basically more women had more surviving children than men did. More male lines died out. Quite a few more. It seems that men are more the disposable gender. For obvious reasons. If a group of people faces a catastrophe that decimates the population along gender lines, the loss of child bearing age women is far more of a disaster(if childbearing. While men may be more disposable, women are more on a timer on that score). In a 50/50 split of say 100 people, if all but one or two of the men die, that group is still viable, if all but one or two of the women die then that group is on the short fuse to extinction. "Women and children first" makes a lot of sense on a purely survival of the gene front.

It could also be argued that progress and society building was done on the behalf of and behest of women, by men. The men who built societies or invented new stuff had more access to women and were more likely to have children to carry on their line. There can be an element of behind the scenes proxy to things too. The idea that "behind every great man is a great woman" effect. And in general if things went south, the woman was more likely to survive the southerly fall. Sure she may end up enslaved to another, but she was more likely to not be dead and might have more kids. Again, good for her genes.

It's an interesting area to muse on. For me anyway.

B0jangles

Is this really the standard of discourse Boards is happy with these days?

A sad sack of a dude who claims that the only reason woman have any freedom at all is because men have chosen not to brutalize them into silent submission?

There is a loud and obnoxious subset of boards users who seem to spend 99% of the time looking into the darkest depths of the internet to find some isolated weird feminist blogger with extremist views and then claim this is they are the base standard of modern feminism, yet Boards has shown itself well able to produce some of the most obnoxious, the most bigoted and most pathetically misogynist sacks of **** possible and they post here with barely a whisper of complaint from the regulars.

Ice Maiden

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And that being the case, we would also have to conclude that you believe those physical advantages are the sole reason that men rose up to become the dominant gender of our species for all of recorded human history?

True. There was that whole subjugation of women thing that the Suffragettes fought hard to end not terribly long ago.

ThinkProgress

maudgonner wrote: »

Aside from the obvious physical advantages men have over women (which is a given), I'm interested to hear of the many ways in which my gender is inherently inferior to his/yours. What inbred intellectual superiority do you have? (From birth - not due to education mind) What emotional superiority?

Because that post does not sound like it's talking about societal disadvantages - it's inherent inferiority that's being referred to. That women are a like a lesser species and should be grateful what we are allowed to have.

So can we deduce from your above remarks, then, that you consider physical differences to be the ONLY innate advantages that men have over women...?

And that being the case, we would also have to conclude that you believe those physical advantages are the sole reason that men rose up to become the dominant gender of our species for all of recorded human history?

Do really believe that's possible? That our propensity for larger musculature is the sole reason for our position of dominance for so long? :rolleyes:

Or do you just wish that was the reality?

(I'm not even going touch on the broader issue of how degrading and disrespectful that suggestion is to the all-round and hugely varied capabilities of men)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NnmkeyraRc

Wibbs wrote: »

Of racing drivers there have been a couple of competitive women. Some very competitive. The French Michelle Mouton was one helluva pilot behind the wheel.

Michelle Mouton is amazing. Our own Rosemary Smith wasn't half bad either, for a dress designer

Wibbs

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that the wealthy families who can fund their children's attempt to get up the ladder with F1 as the ultimate aim aren't going to encourage a 3-6 year old daughter to take up go-karting.

Funny enough I know of a couple who did. Both good drivers when older too. I've known appalling drivers of both genders. I've also known good. Generally speaking though young women are safer than young men behind the wheel. That's pretty easy to observe and is backed up by the stats. Now the stats show they have more shunts, but they're generally smaller shunts at low speeds. Fender benders as it were. When young men have shunts they are much more likely to have big offs that change the local terrain.

Of racing drivers there have been a couple of competitive women. Some very competitive. The French Michelle Mouton was one helluva pilot behind the wheel. And not in some effete polite low powered end either, world class rallying driving truly insane and now illegal Group B rally cars at mad speeds in forests and the like(very basically F1 levels of power in 4 wheel drive lightweight works prototypes). She narrowly missed out on winning the world championship against guys like Walter Rohl who was a giant of driving. Here's herself breaking the record at the Pike's Peak hill climb back in the 1980's.

By the end of that she apparently buggered the tendons in her right foot from holding down the throttle so hard on one of the deadly bends as she knew if she lifted she'd have lost the car and likely her life. Staggeringly talented driver with brilliant tactical skills and like anyone who drove Group B in anger gonads the size of melons.

You would think F1 would be ideal in many ways to level the gender playing field. Most of the drivers are teeny tiny guys and brains and stamina are big pluses. I suspect the muscular strength isn't there or likely to be there in a woman of equal size?

The_Conductor

Ice Maiden wrote: »

God yeah, any time there is a discussion online about sexual assault of a woman, immediately with the "Men get sexually assaulted too" - when nobody said men don't.

Women are seen as more at risk of being sexually assaulted than men are- though of course men are sexually assaulted too (though in far lower numbers). Men (between the ages of 18 and 30) are over 9 times more likely to be physically assaulted than any female demographic group. Physical assaults- and sexual assaults are two completely different things of course.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Or if there is something about sexualisation of women (this is not something I have a problem with unless it is really extreme): "But the Diet Coke ad".

Personally as long as the portrayal isn't degrading to the party concerned- I couldn't give a hoot- all the hoo-haw about sexualisation is overblown out of proportion- while a small amount of the shrill objections are very obviously justified, in my opinion- a large amount of it is not.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Why can't people discuss the issues that face men without turning it into a competition with women? And it is just as bad when men talk about issues that affect men and women come along and say "But what about women?"

Its not just genders though- have a look at some of the forums here- unfortunately us Irish excel at being hyper competitive in often extreme portrayals of things that are just so wrong. In general- Irish men don't tend to open up- because we're so used to getting shut down- its acknowledged as one of the big reasons for the psychiatric issues in the Irish male population.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

There were non stop "What about International Men's Day - oh I suppose it would be sexist if there was one" tweets (the answer is 19th of November).

Many companies celebrate International Women's Day- often tweeting about their endeavours, often under an equality hashtag. With a few notable exceptions (Dell in Limerick, Intel in Leixlip and 2FM for example)- there is not a reciprochal recognition given to International Mens Day- or issues that predominantly affect men (such as the aforementioned psychiatric epidemic- including suicide- in this country).

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I do not agree with gender quotas by the way and would not like to get a job based on meeting a quota.

I'd hate it too. In my book- the best person for the job, should get the job. You're only going to foster resentment and longterm unhappiness, otherwise.

PopePalpatine

Let me just step into the discussion about women drivers - pretty much the entire F1 grid and its feeder series' grids (the same could be said for MotoGP) are made up of people who have been driving (usually go-karts) since they were 3-5 years old. I'd hazard a guess that the wealthy families who can fund their children's attempt to get up the ladder with F1 as the ultimate aim aren't going to encourage a 3-6 year old daughter to take up go-karting.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I do not agree with gender quotas by the way and would not like to get a job based on meeting a quota.

The female TDs all voted against it when it got brought in here afaik

Ice Maiden

bluewolf wrote: »

Fair enough

Generally when anything facing women is brought up, my experience is that men are straight in with "but what about men". Or "not all men" when it was never implied. Not even as a genuine attempt to resolve issues, just to shout down.
International women's day? Half the response must have been "but what about MENS DAY HUH????" highest google results.

It would be less exhausting if we could all just work together to face the issues for everyone, like how to advance on this year's fatherhood guardianship legislation changes, etc.

God yeah, any time there is a discussion online about sexual assault of a woman, immediately with the "Men get sexually assaulted too" - when nobody said men don't.

Or if there is something about sexualisation of women (this is not something I have a problem with unless it is really extreme): "But the Diet Coke ad".

Why can't people discuss the issues that face men without turning it into a competition with women? And it is just as bad when men talk about issues that affect men and women come along and say "But what about women?"

There were non stop "What about International Men's Day - oh I suppose it would be sexist if there was one" tweets (the answer is 19th of November).

I do not agree with gender quotas by the way and would not like to get a job based on meeting a quota.

The_Conductor

Shenshen wrote: »

While I really object to quotas as a measure to equalise numbers, I'm not really sure I would object to companies offering additional assistance to minorities in an effort to gain a more mixed workforce. I'm not really sure I would call interview preparation courses for disabled employees discriminatory, either?

Interview prep courses are for pre-existing staff at promotional competitions- and are for women- men are not eligible for places on the courses. There are no reciprochal courses for men. This is common in most government departments, and also in some notable US multinationals in the country......

Sorry if I confused matters.

gctest50 wrote: »

I don't get all this we stuff

Some women are good drivers, some men are good drivers

Better to be in a yoke with a dented wing instead of wrapped around a tree though

We were talking competetive advantage. Spatial perception is widely recognized as a higher developed trait in males. It is why the majority of us are better drivers. There are exceptions on both sides of course and you can continue to try to pretend it isn't so but everyone reading this knows it is true.

gctest50

FortySeven wrote: »

I didn't say safer. I said better. Parking and racing show this to be true. Women are safer because they have to be careful. Wecrash becausewe are careless.

I don't get all this we stuff

Some women are good drivers, some men are good drivers

Better to be in a yoke with a dented wing instead of wrapped around a tree though

Shenshen

The_Conductor wrote: »

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).

While I really object to quotas as a measure to equalise numbers, I'm not really sure I would object to companies offering additional assistance to minorities in an effort to gain a more mixed workforce. I'm not really sure I would call interview preparation courses for disabled employees discriminatory, either?

py2006

bluewolf wrote: »

Fair enough

Generally when anything facing women is brought up, my experience is that men are straight in with "but what about men". Or "not all men" when it was never implied. Not even as a genuine attempt to resolve issues, just to shout down.
International women's day? Half the response must have been "but what about MENS DAY HUH????" highest google results.

It would be less exhausting if we could all just work together to face the issues for everyone, like how to advance on this year's fatherhood guardianship legislation changes, etc.

I hear ya, but I think sometimes 'whataboutery' (a word I learned on here) is warranted by men as they are largely ignored when issues which should be discussed as social issues are discussed as gender issues i.e only affecting women. Domestic abuse in all its forms being the obvious one.

gctest50 wrote: »

Insurance companies used to offer cheaper rates to women drivers

& insurance companies are rarely known for doing that for a bit of fun

I didn't say safer. I said better. Parking and racing show this to be true. Women are safer because they have to be careful. We crash because we are careless.

gctest50

FortySeven wrote: »

Spatial perception for one. Makes us better drivers.

Insurance companies used to offer cheaper rates to women drivers

& insurance companies are rarely known for doing that for a bit of fun

py2006 wrote: »

I was giving an example of the type of response that is met when the discussion of discrimination or abuse of men is brought up. It was not a suggestion of all women but I think you knew that.

Fair enough

Generally when anything facing women is brought up, my experience is that men are straight in with "but what about men". Or "not all men" when it was never implied. Not even as a genuine attempt to resolve issues, just to shout down.
International women's day? Half the response must have been "but what about MENS DAY HUH????" highest google results.

It would be less exhausting if we could all just work together to face the issues for everyone, like how to advance on this year's fatherhood guardianship legislation changes, etc.

py2006

bluewolf wrote: »

This one time I met a rude man. Men are all so rude.

I was giving an example of the type of response that is met when the discussion of discrimination or abuse of men is brought up. It was not a suggestion of all women but I think you knew that.

I wouldn't know

I really doubt anyone would care. I'd say you've more of a marketing issue than anything else. Loads of weights areas are mostly men anyway

py2006

bluewolf wrote: »

There've been men only clubs for yonks and I'd say you'd find them now and nobody would give a sh!te. Cuts Fitness for men was around for a while.
If you want one that badly go set it up.

This one time I met a rude man. Men are all so rude.

I think men only clubs are long gone? Wasn't there a golf club that was men only for years but they had to change it?

maudgonner wrote: »

I'll just select one point then:

Many innate disadvantages. Born with many innate disadvantages.

Aside from the obvious physical advantages men have over women (which is a given), I'm interested to hear of the many ways in which my gender is inherently inferior to his/yours. What inbred intellectual superiority do you have? (From birth - not due to education mind) What emotional superiority?

Because that post does not sound like it's talking about societal disadvantages - it's inherent inferiority that's being referred to. That women are a like a lesser species and should be grateful what we are allowed to have.

Spatial perception for one. Makes us better drivers.

Jairo Fit Tenor wrote: »

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.

There've been men only clubs for yonks and I'd say you'd find them now and nobody would give a sh!te. Cuts Fitness for men was around for a while.
If you want one that badly go set it up.

py2006 wrote: »

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.
.

This one time I met a rude man. Men are all so rude.

FortySeven wrote: »

I take it you disagree? I'd be interested to hear you elaborate.

I'll just select one point then:

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Women are born with many innate disadvantages when compared with men....

Many innate disadvantages. Born with many innate disadvantages.

Aside from the obvious physical advantages men have over women (which is a given), I'm interested to hear of the many ways in which my gender is inherently inferior to his/yours. What inbred intellectual superiority do you have? (From birth - not due to education mind) What emotional superiority?

Because that post does not sound like it's talking about societal disadvantages - it's inherent inferiority that's being referred to. That women are a like a lesser species and should be grateful what we are allowed to have.

maudgonner wrote: »

OohhhhKaaayyyy......

I take it you disagree? I'd be interested to hear you elaborate.