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

steddyeddy

Electric Sheep wrote: »

No, the angry men can't hold them back, that is why they are angry. I work in IT in the financial sector, and the male/female split is mostly about 50/50, with women actually taking more management roles than men. This is in the US, I can't speak for the situation in Ireland.

Most people, male or female, are not going to get board seats or CEO jobs.

I work in government research in the US and UK and it's about 70/30 male to female. There's a drive to get more women involved in science but they're just not picking it as a major.

ThinkProgress

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But you do realize that all the things you listed (as well as many of the advancements you failed to mention) required a great deal more than mere brawn to accomplish, right?

True enough there was a lot of grunt work required on the front line. But there were many great minds behind the scenes involved in very detailed planning and organisation of those advancements. (controversially most of them were male - oops I know it's sexist to state things like this!:P)

And yes you are correct, we have now developed a society where it possible to better utilize female abilities. It is certainly the case that women's skills were being under utilized and under valued in past generations. I have never attempted to deny this...

And who might I ask you is driving this paradigm shift? I'll give you a hint... primarily those same people who are creating more female oriented work environments - MEN!

Male advantages haven't necessarily been completely eroded either, as you suggested... Male aggression is still very much alive in certain areas of business. (albeit less mainstream now - as being male is often offensive to some people's delicate natures)

But again none of this is really addressing the point I was making. There has been a rather insulting suggestion that men's position in society (not necessarily just their suitability to carry out manual labour jobs), is solely down to our physical advantages... despite the fact that many of the greatest advancements in human history were not cooked up at the bottom of a coal mine or in on a hay field.

Many feminists would like to portray all us men as muscle-bound bullies that acquired our position in society solely by force and aggression. And they attempt to denigrate any other attributes we might have... or any achievements that didn't require or biceps to accomplish!

It's a rather foolish way of thinking. But when most men don't stand up for themselves, these foolish notions will persist and grow!

silverharp

steddyeddy wrote: »

I work in government research in the US and UK and it's about 70/30 male to female. There's a drive to get more women involved in science but they're just not picking it as a major.

much easier to go into gender studies and bitch about it from there

Letree

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are trades included in those stats because that is where a lot of the men will have gone instead of university. A good trade can lead to a better paying job than some of the degrees out there.

steddyeddy

silverharp wrote: »

much easier to go into gender studies and bitch about it from there

Seems to be the case.

Electric Sheep

steddyeddy wrote: »

I work in government research in the US and UK and it's about 70/30 male to female. There's a drive to get more women involved in science but they're just not picking it as a major.

Probably because the women realise IT is better paid.

steddyeddy

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Probably because the women realise IT is better paid.

American government jobs are pretty well paid dude.

Ice Maiden

I wonder if ThinkProgress will respond to me asking him how he deems men the superior sex throughout history when there was a long time during which women did not have the power to make more of themselves, no allowance to vote and the like.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And there's nothing wrong with that! Really, if feminists want to focus on womens' rights and believe that having separate movements for the rights of each gender, personally it's not something I agree with as the best tactic, but there's nothing wrong with it.

What is wrong though is how so many feminists attack the mens' rights movement and say "if you're interested in equality, you're a feminist" - and then shut down any discussion of mens' issues on feminist forums and spaces. What they're actually saying is "there's no room for discussion of men getting discriminated against unless it fits our narrative that it's ultimately mens' fault and women are the real victims", and that's not cool at all.

Yes it is nonsense.

Ideally gender issues would be a joint concern but there are issues that only affect men and only affect women - so I do not have a problem with separate men's rights groups and women's rights groups. Although I think if both worked together on common gender concerns (because they are not all just affecting the one sex) it would be fantastic. I can dream though...

silverharp

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But you do realize that all the things you listed (as well as many of the advancements you failed to mention) required a great deal more than mere brawn to accomplish, right?

True enough there was a lot of grunt work required on the front line. But there were many great minds behind the scenes involved in very detailed planning and organisation of those advancements. (controversially most of them were male - oops I know it's sexist to state things like this!:P)

And yes you are correct, we have now developed a society where it possible to better utilize female abilities. It is certainly the case that women's skills were being under utilized and under valued in past generations. I have never attempted to deny this...

And who might I ask you is driving this paradigm shift? I'll give you a hint... primarily those same people who are creating more female oriented work environments - MEN!

Male advantages haven't necessarily been completely eroded either, as you suggested... Male aggression is still very much alive in certain areas of business. (albeit less mainstream now - as being male is often offensive to some people's delicate natures)

But again none of this is really addressing the point I was making. There has been a rather insulting suggestion that men's position in society (not necessarily just their suitability to carry out manual labour jobs), is solely down to our physical advantages... despite the fact that many of the greatest advancements in human history were not cooked up at the bottom of a coal mine or in on a hay field.

Many feminists would like to portray all us men as muscle-bound bullies that acquired our position in society solely by force and aggression. And they attempt to denigrate any other attributes we might have... or any achievements that didn't require or biceps to accomplish!

It's a rather foolish way of think. But when most men don't stand up for themselves, these foolish notions will persist and grow!

I believe 95% of patents are developed by men, nothing has really changed, men build sh11t and think up the next sh11t to build. Men that have relied on doing low skilled manual work are not in a good position but then again go to somewhere like Dundrum and its mostly female staff that could all be replaced by teenagers or possibly robots in the years ahead.

Ice Maiden

silverharp wrote: »

I believe 95% of patents are developed by men

You believe it or it is the case?

nothing has really changed, men build sh11t and think up the next sh11t to build. Men that have relied on doing low skilled manual work are not in a good position but then again go to somewhere like Dundrum and its mostly female staff that could all be replaced by teenagers or possibly robots in the years ahead.

Nope, no misogyny on Boards.

silverharp

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Probably because the women realise IT is better paid.

Silicon valley is male dominated , high achieving women seem to be focused on sectors like medicine and law

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ice Maiden

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He will not acknowledge it - I asked him about it twice and got no response.

silverharp

Ice Maiden wrote: »

You believe it or it is the case?

Nope, no misogyny on Boards.

can facts be misogynistic? surely men are allowed to have some collective pride? I admit personally I am not one of these men :pac:

http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/07/why-arent-there-more-female-patent-holders/

We’ve blogged before about gender inequality and the persistent male/female wage gap. A new working paper by Jennifer Hunt, Jean-Philippe Garant, Hannah Herman, and David J. Munroe highlights another arena where women are lagging: commercialized patents. Only 7.5 percent of regular patent and 5.5 percent of commercial patent holders are female. The authors explored various explanations for the gap:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ice Maiden

silverharp wrote: »

surely men are allowed to have some collective pride?

Cannot see where I indicated they could not?

You will have to convince me more that "go to somewhere like Dundrum and its mostly female staff that could all be replaced by teenagers or possibly robots in the years ahead" is not putting down women.

TacT

I blame men for becoming more like women!

ThinkProgress

Ice Maiden wrote: »

He will not acknowledge it - I asked him about it twice and got no response.

When are some of you going to address my point?

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

And I feel I've already stated my position on the issues you're referring to.

Don't you think the fact women had no vote, no education etc is a fairly big sign that they were not born with exactly the same capabilities as men?

If men and women had the same innate capabilities from birth, why did women need to be given everything that they've gotten in recent history? Why can't they take anything for themselves...?

Even now, many years after those early struggles, women are still being GIVEN things. Being GIVEN favorable/preferential treatment... affirmative action, quotas etc...

If men and women are the same. If we are born with the same innate capabilities... why the constant need for help?

If we're all the same, why was there even any deep inequalities to begin with?

Women are not takers... they are receivers. In order for most women to get ahead in life, they require men to concede ground, make special allowances for them and MOST IMPORTANTLY give them things!

If life was a truly fair playing field, where men and women competed against each other... without any concessions or allowances made by men... women would not stand a chance of competing.

Equality is an illusion. Women compete against men, but men usually only compete against each other...

But the longer we keep giving women preferential treatment in society, the worse it will be for them when the day comes that we remove that support. It's a crutch that actually only serves to keep women as the weaker sex... the power they wield is mostly just an illusion too!

Mod: Banned.

Electric Sheep

ThinkProgress wrote: »

When are some of you going to address my point?

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

No, most people are aware that men's position in society has mostly to do with the Old Boys Network.

Ice Maiden

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

No of course not.

You did not really "lol" because you know you have just accused people of something they did not say.

Don't you think the fact women had no vote, no education etc is a fairly big sign that they were not born with exactly the same capabilities as men?

I don't know.

If men and women had the same innate capabilities from birth, why did women need to be given everything that they've gotten in recent history? Why can't they take anything for themselves...?

Huh? The Suffragettes and those who descended from that movement *fought* their asses off.

Even now, many years after those early struggles, women are still being GIVEN things. Being GIVEN favorable/preferential treatment... affirmative action, quotas etc...

I agree with you that there is too much victimisation of women by a lot of feminists today.
The rest of your post is just borderline misogyny. And you can pretend to "lol" all you like rather than explaining how it is not putting down women, but it is pretty clear in and of itself what it is doing.

If men and women are the same. If we are born with the same innate capabilities... why the constant need for help?

If we're all the same, why was there even any deep inequalities to begin with?

Women are not takers... they are receivers. In order for most women to get ahead in life, they require men to concede ground, make special allowances for them and MOST IMPORTANTLY give them things!

If life was a truly fair playing field, where men and women competed against each other... without any concessions or allowances made by men... women would not stand a chance of competing.

Equality is an illusion. Women compete against men, but men usually only compete against each other...

But the longer we keep giving women preferential treatment in society, the worse it will be for them when the day comes that we remove that support. It's a crutch that actually only serves to keep women as the weaker sex... the power they wield is mostly just an illusion too!

Wibbs

Electric Sheep wrote: »

No, most people are aware that men's position in society has mostly to do with the Old Boys Network.

Really? That's the best explanation you can muster? Women could have formed their own old girls network. And consider the vast majority of men who are on the outside of any old boys network, yet still manage to do OK.

thattequilagirl

ThinkProgress wrote: »

When are some of you going to address my point?

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

And I feel I've already stated my position on the issues you're referring to.

Don't you think the fact women had no vote, no education etc is a fairly big sign that they were not born with exactly the same capabilities as men?

If men and women had the same innate capabilities from birth, why did women need to be given everything that they've gotten in recent history? Why can't they take anything for themselves...?

Even now, many years after those early struggles, women are still being GIVEN things. Being GIVEN favorable/preferential treatment... affirmative action, quotas etc...

If men and women are the same. If we are born with the same innate capabilities... why the constant need for help?

If we're all the same, why was there even any deep inequalities to begin with?

Women are not takers... they are receivers. In order for most women to get ahead in life, they require men to concede ground, make special allowances for them and MOST IMPORTANTLY give them things!

If life was a truly fair playing field, where men and women competed against each other... without any concessions or allowances made by men... women would not stand a chance of competing.

Equality is an illusion. Women compete against men, but men usually only compete against each other...

But the longer we keep giving women preferential treatment in society, the worse it will be for them when the day comes that we remove that support. It's a crutch that actually only serves to keep women as the weaker sex... the power they wield is mostly just an illusion too!

Why did women need to be given things? If I was to answer in terms as simplistic as yours, because men took them. In the past, men used their biological advantages - being taller, faster and stronger, to control women. You're right in that there is no specific reason why women should have been GIVEN the vote, it should never have been men's to give us. But they took it, so we had no choice.

I've been GIVEN none of my success in life by men and I resent the implication. I competed against men in college and stood my ground, I beat men at interview for the job I have and for others.

And here's the kicker, for daring to say this, I'll be labeled a feminazi who just needs to get laid.

silverharp

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Cannot see where I indicated they could not?

You will have to convince me more that "go to somewhere like Dundrum and its mostly female staff that could all be replaced by teenagers or possibly robots in the years ahead" is not putting down women.

no,its saying that a lot of women are in low skilled jobs that are vunerable to innovation in the same way men lost factory jobs in the past

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the more the better

Samaris

ThinkProgress wrote: »

When are some of you going to address my point?

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

And I feel I've already stated my position on the issues you're referring to.

Blah blah, I'm not giving the moronic tripe written any more space.

Probably the main reason that people didn't bother addressing your point is that it's inane, incorrect, pretty damn misogynistic and quite frankly, dumb as a freshly laid turd (an old one might have more bacteria in it).

Brain for brain, yeah, women are just as smart as men, although that same turd I referred to manages to be smarter than some of both genders. I have to head off to work, or I suppose I might go into it point by point. Mind you, when answering something like this, sometimes there's really not much point.

Edit: Let me make clear, by the way, that I quite realise such troglodytic nonsense is not representative of the vast majority of normal people, male or otherwise.

lawlolawl

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Why did women need to be given things? If I was to answer in terms as simplistic as yours, because men took them. In the past, men used their biological advantages - being taller, faster and stronger, to control women. You're right in that there is no specific reason why women should have been GIVEN the vote, it should never have been men's to give us. But they took it, so we had no choice.

I've been GIVEN none of my success in life by men and I resent the implication. I competed against men in college and stood my ground, I beat men at interview for the job I have and for others.

And here's the kicker, for daring to say this, I'll be labeled a feminazi who just needs to get laid.

So you don't need feminism or any adjustments to the current state of equality then.

You are doing fine already.

tritium

Electric Sheep wrote: »

No, most people are aware that men's position in society has mostly to do with the Old Boys Network.

Wait, what's this men's position in society I keep hearing about? I don't have access to an old boys network, so how does it work for me? How does it work for the disporportionate numbers of male homeless and suicides? Old boy network too? Is it possible that the little success I've had in life might just be down to working my ass off, and that, much like thattequilagirl, no one actually *gave* me anything because I was a man or any other reason- you know, maybe when I, a man, beat out male and female candidates at interview it was actually on merit and not another patriarchal conspiracy

Tbh lots of this male privelige stuff reads like the whining of a spoilt child. Some man has more than me and I want it waah! It doesn't matter that many men have, and always had less, that's conveniently ignored.

BTW at the point where women first got the vote nearly half of the male population also wasn't eligible to vote, including many who had put their lives on the line in the war. Seriously, is anyone going to tell me that that men who came back from the first world war to low paid jobs and no vote were priveliged next to the middle class suffragettes? Is your average middle class college educated female graduate really oppressed next to the average working class inner city male, even before I factor in the biases in the educational system against male students?

The more I see if some if this stuff the more I have to conclude its completely detached itself from the real world most of us inhabit to trip out on a pity party of victimhood. You know, the real world where we all get the bad end of the deal at times but rarely because 'the other' is either actively or passively oppressing us.

orubiru

ThinkProgress wrote: »

When are some of you going to address my point?

Do you think men's position in society as the dominant gender was/is solely down to our physical advantages? Are you guys really that deluded to think that men have no other advantages or capabilities... we're all just bullies with bigger biceps? lol

And I feel I've already stated my position on the issues you're referring to.

Don't you think the fact women had no vote, no education etc is a fairly big sign that they were not born with exactly the same capabilities as men?

If men and women had the same innate capabilities from birth, why did women need to be given everything that they've gotten in recent history? Why can't they take anything for themselves...?

Even now, many years after those early struggles, women are still being GIVEN things. Being GIVEN favorable/preferential treatment... affirmative action, quotas etc...

If men and women are the same. If we are born with the same innate capabilities... why the constant need for help?

If we're all the same, why was there even any deep inequalities to begin with?

Women are not takers... they are receivers. In order for most women to get ahead in life, they require men to concede ground, make special allowances for them and MOST IMPORTANTLY give them things!

If life was a truly fair playing field, where men and women competed against each other... without any concessions or allowances made by men... women would not stand a chance of competing.

Equality is an illusion. Women compete against men, but men usually only compete against each other...

But the longer we keep giving women preferential treatment in society, the worse it will be for them when the day comes that we remove that support. It's a crutch that actually only serves to keep women as the weaker sex... the power they wield is mostly just an illusion too!

This whole idea hinges on how we consider weakness, advantage, dominance etc.

I'd say it's largely irrelevant to compare one gender to the other in terms of success because, traditionally, both employ different strategies to achieve success and both achieve success in abundance.

As a species, Homo Sapiens are successful. If you take away the males then the species fails and faces extinction. If you take away the females then the same thing happens.

It was always a team effort and it always will be a team effort.

I see a response to you saying that men used their biological advantages to control women and to take more than their fair share. This is absolute nonsense.

The way I see it, men and women have generally cooperated and this cooperation has driven the development and advancement of the human species.

Yeah, I have to concede the point that we are not "equal". We are a sexually dimorphic species so it is self evident that males and females will never ever be equal because they are not the same.

There is no such thing as the "dominant" gender however because the success of any gender is entirely dependent on the other. If we stopped cooperating then things would start to break apart.

silverharp

orubiru wrote: »

There is no such thing as the "dominant" gender however because the success of any gender is entirely dependent on the other. If we stopped cooperating then things would start to break apart.

If you look at countries like Germany or Japan they are breaking down as they have stopped having babies, which may or may not be a bad thing.

seamus

esforum wrote: »

Having never actually watched that show, I request an explanation

The show is jam-packed with stereotypes. Daddy is a 30s/40s man who continually talks about how fit he is and how he's "an expert" at everything, while then continually failing in simple tasks like hanging a picture. And then Mummy comes along and says, "silly Daddy" and hangs the picture with two gentle taps of a hammer.

Grandad is a child-again old man who spends his time tending to his garden and sailing boats while living under the whip of his matriarchal wife who continually denigrates him and steamrolls his decisions when she doesn't like them, all the while smiling at him like he's a ten year old.

That's what it is if you look a little too deeply into it. To the largest extent it plays on the stereotypes for the benefit of the adults watching rather than the kids*. It still has "modern" stuff where Daddy makes dinner and looks after the kids and Mummy works. The woman I was talking about had a particular bee in her bonnet about kids' programmes in general, assuming them to be chock full of female stereotypes where Mummy looks after the kids while Daddy goes to work. She got a shock when she realised male stereotyping is just as prevalent - i.e. Daddy goes to work and is constantly demeaned as a fool by a condescending wife.

*One scene that actually makes me chuckle, is when Mummy is off to her part-time job as a volunteer firefighter and Daddy says, "Pfft, that's just an excuse for a cup of tea and a chat", which irks Mummy. As soon as they arrive at the fire station, one of the other "Mummies" immediately says, "Who wants a nice cup of tea and a chat?"