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

Ice Maiden

Eh... why are you assuming I'm not familiar with that video?

I am very aware of that vile harpy Sharon Osbourne's misandry, summed up by that disgusting video.

It doesn't mean women are always laughing at female on male violence - it doesn't change the fact that female on male violence is often downplayed by men themselves.

I can understand the anger at attitudes like hers not being met with deserved action though.

orubiru

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Female on male violence being laughed at and considered less serious than the reverse? Who is doing this laughing? Hint: not usually women.

OK. This is what annoys me.

There was talk earlier on the thread about guys like Roosh V, these "Red Pill" types, websites like Return of Kings etc who are, in my opinion, sometimes actually misogynistic.

What causes young men to turn to these guys for support or understanding or whatever?

What even inspires posts like the OP in this thread?

This is what you've said... Female on male violence being laughed at and considered less serious than the reverse? Who is doing this laughing? Hint: not usually women.

After a very quick look online, this is my reply to you...

Yup. A panel of women cackling away because some guy got his penis cut off.

Hilarious right? "I do think it's quite fabulous".

Seriously. Watch the video. It'll only take you 5 minutes. Then consider your own post.

I can't imagine why guys "taking the Red Pill" is becoming more and more popular...

Ice Maiden

Yes I know domestic abuse campaigns ignore violence against men, which is crap for sure.

In my experience the vast majority of downplaying domestic abuse of men is by other men. The lack of awareness of it is not just due to feminism I'm afraid.

py2006

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Female on male violence being laughed at and considered less serious than the reverse? Who is doing this laughing? Hint: not usually women.

Hint: Not always but sometimes yes. If not met with laughter its, "yea right" or "sure you are stronger than her", "grow a pair" etc. Admittedly it isn't rampant but it sure happens.

Why do ALL campaigns ignore male victims?

py2006

thattequilagirl wrote: »

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.

You do realise that the VAST majority of men did not have a vote in this country back then too?

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.

Did you not have to compete and beat women too? or did you feel your battles were merely against men?

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

Nope, feminazi's (to me anyway) are the more extreme, sexist, deluded, hypocritical members of that club.

Ice Maiden

Irishcrx wrote: »

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?

Just read the opening post properly now. Crikey, asking if men have become "oppressed"? :pac:

Crap fathers' rights being due to feminism?!

Female on male violence being laughed at and considered less serious than the reverse? Who is doing this laughing? Hint: not usually women.

I agree with you on the other stuff (it also gets used as a stick to beat all women with; regarding what you see here in relation to clubs, it just seems to be "Waaaaaa, women get lots of interest from men but men it's like shopping in corner of Lidl" or some other dubious comparison with humans, and "something something five out of ten") but the "I've been thinking about this recently" as if it's such a brand new idea that hasn't been gone over and over and over non stop for years is kinda funny.

silverharp

thattequilagirl wrote: »

No, on a personal level I don't need any support on account of being a woman. I'm still a feminist on account of the fact that many/most women aren't as fortunate. I'd like to see more balance in government, corporate life, and parenting. Just because things are going fine for me does not mean the movement no longer needs to exist.

How do you expect more balancing in parenting , a lot of women seek out men that have better jobs and higher incomes than they do so its natural for the lower earner to take time off. And any mothers that I know that are well paid like doctors have full time nannies so essentially have outsourced child minding.
I don't see any one size fits all solution here.

steddyeddy

thattequilagirl wrote: »

No, on a personal level I don't need any support on account of being a woman. I'm still a feminist on account of the fact that many/most women aren't as fortunate. I'd like to see more balance in government, corporate life, and parenting. Just because things are going fine for me does not mean the movement no longer needs to exist.

Do you not think socioeconomic status play determines your fortune to a far greater extent?

thattequilagirl

lawlolawl wrote: »

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

You are doing fine already.

No, on a personal level I don't need any support on account of being a woman. I'm still a feminist on account of the fact that many/most women aren't as fortunate. I'd like to see more balance in government, corporate life, and parenting. Just because things are going fine for me does not mean the movement no longer needs to exist.

seamus

Jairo Fit Tenor wrote: »

As at the end of the day the mother needs the time off to recover, breast feeding will be happening for the first one or two anyway etc.

Maternity leave is "time off", bless :pac:

I'm only half-joking there really. I think your belief that use of paternity leave will only be down to financial considerations is pretty naive. The first 3 months of a new child are tough. Going into work is actually "time off" from a newborn, not the other way around. But as the father it's actually storing up problems because you get home, you're knackered because you've been up half the night, your wife is knackered, the house is a mess and the dinner needs making. You'd have been better off at home all day.

With the next one(s) if I had the opportunity to take 3 months paternity leave, I would be all over that sh1t. Financial and career concerns come a very distant second to family.

This is the same for a lot of people I know. Would happily take a 6-12 month drop in salary for the opportunity to spend more time at home in those early months.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

Potentially yes, but not really. Maternity leave is a legal construct. And in fact it's mandatory for a certain amount of time.

If there was no maternity leave, this inequality would be less obvious because women who wanted children and a career would take very short leave before returning to work. That would be the "natural cycle" of things.

But that too would be madness, because it would be detrimental to society in the long term. So you need maternity leave, but you'd need to level the playing field?

In comes paternity leave. A notion that not only benefits men (new fathers want to be able to stay home as much as new mothers do), but also does as much as possible to "level" the playing field. Now the only people with the "advantage" are those who never take any parental leave - but this applies for both men & women, and not just men.

Just to say I fully agree with maternity leave it's very needed and very important for the mother and the child.

Without it though I think things would go the other way and more women would quit work altogether rather than go back quicker and thus back to the days of giving up your career once children come along (which in itself is not wrong if it's what people want to do by choice).

As for paternity leave, I think it's only fair the playing field was levelled however I can't see much of an uptake on it unless it's significantly more financially beneficial for the woman to get back to work sooner or other reasons like that, the women being a teacher and giving birth at the start of the summer so being off anyway so the man taking paternity leave would be another very nice use of it. As at the end of the day the mother needs the time off to recover, breast feeding will be happening for the first one or two anyway etc.

RDM_83 again

thattequilagirl wrote: »

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

I don't think the vast majority of men would say that about what you describe, if you demanded preferential treatment or complained that that the patriarchy is holding you back would.

I am sure most of the people being critical of feminism in UK/USA recognise the need for it in somewhere like Pakistan.

Disliking 4th wave feminism doesn't tell you anything about how someone feels about women or women's rights, I mean the current wave of activists despises some of the prominent figures from the previous generation, does that mean that those that disliked that wave of feminism at the time were actually "better" than those that were part of the movement.

seamus

Jairo Fit Tenor wrote: »

These things are nothing to do with rights or unequal opportunities its just the natural cycle of things when women become mothers.

Potentially yes, but not really. Maternity leave is a legal construct. And in fact it's mandatory for a certain amount of time.

If there was no maternity leave, this inequality would be less obvious because women who wanted children and a career would take very short leave before returning to work. That would be the "natural cycle" of things.

But that too would be madness, because it would be detrimental to society in the long term. So you need maternity leave, but you'd need to level the playing field?

In comes paternity leave. A notion that not only benefits men (new fathers want to be able to stay home as much as new mothers do), but also does as much as possible to "level" the playing field. Now the only people with the "advantage" are those who never take any parental leave - but this applies for both men & women, and not just men.

newport2

tritium wrote: »

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.

I think the way things have gone is not in women's favour. It provides a get-out clause which if used damages things long term.

My wife did not get a promotion she went for a couple of years ago. Naturally she was disappointed. We had a few of her friends over for dinner that night and one of them continually fed her "It's not your fault", " Jobs for the boys", "Everything is so much more difficult for women" for a lot of the evening. Eventually her other friend had enough and took my wife by the scruff of the neck (not literally of course) and told her not to listen to that BS, that life was full of setbacks for men and women, that 3 of the others who didn't get the job either were men - this was life, not sexism - and that she was more than good enough and if she pressed on her time would come. Thankfully my wife listened to the latter and has been promoted several times since. I remember thinking that if she'd listened to her first friend or if the second friend had a similar world view, how easy it would have been for her to take a "woe is me" stance and sit back and blame the old boys network or some other excuse. BTW, the first friend has being doing the same job for years forever moaning she hasn't progressed, her second friend is a director of a household name company.

[Deleted User]

One aspect not being mentioned is the fact women are the one who have the babies and a majority have more than one. The years of starting families and careers taking off around around the same time so naturally with women taking significant amounts of time off in maternity leave etc they are not going to progress as fast as men or they might have a bit of a disadvantage going for a job because lets face it when some people go to the effort to hire someone they don't want risking them taking a nearly a year off so you have to go and hire someone else and train them etc (not saying it's right but you can see why people do it). Women are also far more likely to quit work to childmind so again while they may have promising careers they leave them aside to stay at home far more often than men.

These things are nothing to do with rights or unequal opportunities its just the natural cycle of things when women become mothers.

Wibbs

tritium wrote: »

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?

Exactly. It is almost inevitable when this subject comes up that "feminist" thinking points out the men within the elites of society(past and present) and compares them to the lot of the average woman in society. Ignoring the average man of course. As things stand now in the West and in Ireland it is easily argued that women not men are the "privileged" gender.

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.

That's the major problem I have with modern feminism, it is the Church of the Blessed Victim and its devil is the patriarchy/men. It makes out that women are weak of emotion, easily "triggered" and must be protected from the big bad world of men. Oh why can't we all be fluffy.

How things used to be… For example the Suffragettes lobbied for the right to be hanged in capital crimes, just as men were. Yep. They were looking for actual equality with the responsibilities as well as rights. These days too many of their great granddaughters actually question whether women should even be in prison at all, because patriarchy. Our own Ivana Bacik has come out and suggested gender profiling in sentencing and guess where it's heavily skewed? Even in sexual encounters you see this. Man and woman are drunk. They have sex. He is responsible for his agency, but he is also responsible for her agency too. All the rights, as few of the responsibilities as possible. Cake and eat it time. I'd be proud to call myself a Suffragette, but call me a feminist at your peril.

Ice Maiden

lawlolawl wrote: »

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

You are doing fine already.

I would agree. The only concern for us imo in the western world is hatred of/sexual denigration of women (and abortion here but I think abortion is more than just a women's issue) which can be seen by posts/thanks on this thread. A minority for sure, but we should not be expected just to get over it and it is not feminazi to object to it. Otherwise I cannot relate to most feminism.
Very same for men when misandry occurs.

steddyeddy

Electric Sheep wrote: »

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

Wibbs beat me to it but do you not think this affects men too?

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the more the better

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

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.

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.

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!

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.