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

silverharp · 23-03-2016 01:28PM

seamus wrote: »

The key thing to remember is that this is not new.

Feminism hasn't caused female-on-male violence to become more acceptable or less serious.

Go back 100 years and a man who'd been beaten up by a woman would be laughed out of the police station, never mind the pub.

Does it seem unfair that on one hand you have people going ape**** about male-on-female violence, and not really caring that much about the opposite?

Yes. But does it mean that men are more oppressed than they were previously? No. It's just one area where the attitudes haven't caught up yet.

In my experience female-on-male violence is becoming less acceptable, it is being talked about more, and it is increasingly being taken more seriously.

It is coming out in the open more but there are still some legal double standards , if a woman went at her partner with a knife , the guy would still have to think twice about how he defends himself. A small minority of women take full advantage of the fact that they appear to have social immunity to be violent to men because the man can't hit back. Where do you want new equality lines drawn here?

py2006 · 23-03-2016 01:39PM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

You can find various isolated incidents of radfems putting down men if you wish, but this is not representative of most women, and does not acknowledge the role men can play in belittling other men.

Well there you go. It gets dismissed.

It does not represent all women and men, no.

PopePalpatine · 23-03-2016 01:40PM

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!

By your logic, anyone not born into an aristocracy in a democratic country has been GIVEN the right to have involvement in their country's running, and should therefore be grateful towards their "alpha" aristocrats. After all, the aristocracy made CONCESSIONS to us mere commoners, and thus serves to keep the common person as the weaker part of society. After all, for a large part of history commoners were generally denied an education too.

Let's take this further - whites made CONCESSIONS to non-whites across the west by allowing them to vote and attend the same schools. Do you see how IGNORANT your reasoning is?

Thoie · 23-03-2016 02:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Men's rights movements have a severe PR problem, all of which was caused by their own members. I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that there are a number of areas affecting men that need urgent attention - mental health, fathers' rights, domestic violence. "A Voice For Men", which considers itself to be one of the primary Men's Rights Activism resources, instead concentrates on things like proving rape culture isn't real, researching women who annoy them and acting like they're the victims when people stand up and say sexual harassment is a bad thing.

This is the very first article I found when going to their site. I admit I haven't read it all, but it seems they've done an extraordinary amount of research into a particular woman who is working against sexual harassment on the streets.

“Hey baby, nice legs” became men being entitled to oppress women in broad daylight. Sorry, did I say broad? I’ll need to work on that because in her mind this sort if behavior leads to rape, or worse, dating. Middlecamp took this threat seriously, so she started a website straight from the hellish backchannels of Tumblr. It contains a series of cards designed to belittle men for expressing themselves in public

The author appears to believe that catcalling and commenting on a stranger's appearance on the street is just "expressing yourself", and if people are told that it's unacceptable, they're being belittled. So when Men's Rights Activists are fighting for their right to catcall, and doing so by blatantly releasing a woman's details when she's explicitly said she doesn't want that, I don't think it's any wonder that normal people "shut down" their discussions, or even attack them.

In case you think I'm cherry picking, I checked the second article and stopped at

Last week has brought us the grotesque spectacle of International Women’s Day marches which have brought, for the most part, a glorification of communism and severe displays of totalitarian entitlement.

I will gladly support a group working for men with actual problems facing them (mental health, fathers' rights etc). The people who term themselves MRAs don't seem to have any interest in those difficult topics.

So when you, hatrickpatrick, claim that people say there's no room for discussion of men being discriminated against, have you found many cases of discussions of actual issues being shut down, or do you find that people are unwilling to bother listening to men whining about the fact that they can't catcall, or have sex with anyone they want, or other topics regularly trotted out by MRAs?

Note:
For those who are in any doubt here "hey baby, nice legs" is not a good way to introduce yourself to a stranger. Where exactly do you expect the conversation to go from there? At the opposite end of the scale "You're too ugly to f***" as an opening line is also unacceptable - no-one asked you for your opinion on a stranger's f***ableness. A woman "going to work" or "doing some shopping" is not doing these things in the hopes of attracting random men on the street.

py2006 · 23-03-2016 02:31PM

Thoie wrote: »

Men's rights movements have a severe PR problem, all of which was caused by their own members.

Kinda sounds like modern feminism.

I am not familiar with MRA etc but if it is simply the male version of feminism than I would distance myself.

thattequilagirl · 23-03-2016 02:37PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Yes.

I'm aware that various factors are at play. Women's rights is one of them.

thattequilagirl · 23-03-2016 02:38PM

py2006 wrote: »

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?

I've seen campaigns by the rape crisis center aimed at male victims. Maybe you're just seeing why you want to see.

thattequilagirl · 23-03-2016 02:40PM

silverharp wrote: »

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.

I'd like to see paternity leave expanded and made mandatory.

thattequilagirl · 23-03-2016 02:42PM

py2006 wrote: »

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

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

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

I competed against both - I was responding to a point made that women compete with men while men only compete with each other. Please don't act like I'm the one who framed the discussion this way.

silverharp · 23-03-2016 02:49PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I'd like to see paternity leave expanded and made mandatory.

sounds expensive, it might be reasonable in some cases to be able pass the "maternity" leave from mother to father

py2006 · 23-03-2016 02:57PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I've seen campaigns by the rape crisis center aimed at male victims. Maybe you're just seeing why you want to see.

I was talking about domestic violence. Although, I think one or two are cropping up now.

Foxtrol · 23-03-2016 03:50PM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

You can find various isolated incidents of radfems putting down men if you wish, but this is not representative of most women, and does not acknowledge the role men can play in belittling other men.

The problem again is that it simply isn’t isolated incidents of radfems, it is the mainstream acceptability, and at times celebration, of belittling or assaulting men in the media.

From reading most of this thread the only examples of these attitudes towards women have been from online crackpots whereas against men I could easily give recent extreme examples from highly rated tv shows, online news sources, and highly grossing Hollywood movies.

If the shoe was on the other foot in any of those situations there would be a massive outcry as is clear from the outrage seen when much more minor incidents are directed towards women.

Thoie · 23-03-2016 04:51PM

silverharp wrote: »

sounds expensive, it might be reasonable in some cases to be able pass the "maternity" leave from mother to father

Friends in the UK did this - the mother took the first half of the leave and the father took the second half. I got the impression that was the law over there (allowing that arrangement, not forcing it), and that there wasn't anything unusual from an employment perspective in doing that.

ceadaoin. · 23-03-2016 05:18PM

Thoie wrote: »

Friends in the UK did this - the mother took the first half of the leave and the father took the second half. I got the impression that was the law over there (allowing that arrangement, not forcing it), and that there wasn't anything unusual from an employment perspective in doing that.

Yes, in the UK, the mother has 12 weeks of maternity leave. Once that is done there is 40 weeks of parental leave that can be shared with her partner, or can be taken as maternity leave. It's a good idea, Id be interested to see how many men avail of it and how long they take on average

https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay/overview

Billy86 · 23-03-2016 05:24PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I'd like to see paternity leave expanded and made mandatory.

Personally I think parental leave would be better - more time than maternity leave, but to be used by both parents. One than Theale it all, they can split it 50/50, etc... whatever feels best for them.

Edit: I should rad to the end of threads before replying in future.

bodice ripper · 23-03-2016 05:31PM

I just wanted to take a minute to thank ThinkProgress for all the things he has given me over the years. It certainly felt like I was earning my trade, my degree, my skills etc, but I now see that I had these things given to me in account of my vagina. I am indeed fortunate.

Billy86 · 23-03-2016 05:43PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

I just wanted to take a minute to thank ThinkProgress for all the things he has given me over the years. It certainly felt like I was earning my trade, my degree, my skills etc, but I now see that I had these things given to me in account of my vagina. I am indeed fortunate.

Im not saying all workplaces are biased (and indeed they are biased and reversed) but I my time working in and for recruitment companies, I can tell you that there is no greater advantage to entry (even ibtermediate) level type positions than being an attractive woman. Most companies I've seen wouldn't even consider looking at a male CV for admin positions and the likes. Because my job involves keeping tabs in who has positions available, I'll often tip off people I know... almost without fail if it is an admin or reception type role, all the women I tell are ran through what the position is, asked to send in their cv etc, and some have got the job from that.

The men are told they were 'ghost postings' - eg that the positions don't actually exist,at least 90% of the time.

Like I said it cuts both ways (and I'm not an MRA type), but that's an example of one type of job that is extremely prejudicial against men.

Samaris · 23-03-2016 05:52PM

Scanned the last few pages, but didn't go back further, so, did anyone manage to link anything convincing as regards studies "consistently showing" males having a higher IQ? Even try? No? Mysterious (but "amazing") rereg that's been PMing me over it all day, you disappoint me, sir, you disappoint me greatly.

Permabear · 23-03-2016 05:53PM

This post has been deleted.

NoCrackHaving · 23-03-2016 06:02PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Also, generally speaking, receptionist type roles are quite poorly paid, they're not that desirable a gig for a lot of people, male or female.

Electric Sheep · 23-03-2016 06:06PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So true. Many years ago I overheard a recruiter describe me over the phone to a potential employer as "very front office". In my innocence at the time, I did not know what she meant.

Billy86 · 23-03-2016 06:20PM

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You'd be surprised - I'm in Toronto and a good few receptionists here are on among the best money, outside of highly skilled trades, medical profession and the like. Corporate reception, but the majority of them had no reception experience whatsoever before starting in those role.

And for an entry level role, it can be very useful - gives you the chance to get in contact and have face time with decision makers very frequently. It's an excellent foot in the door, compared to something like mail clerk.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While that is true for front desk type reception positions, it is not the case for admin, payroll, etc. I have almost a decade of experience in these roles and it took me the guts of a year to even get an interview in a low paying job (that I worked my way up from very quickly... because I was extremely overqualified). I only found out after as well that the guys making the decision individually went to every member of staff and made sure they were ok with a guy working on admin.

Also I should mention in Canada you cannot put a photo of yourself, an info on your race or whatnot, or your date of birth on your CV - if you do, legally companies cannot respond. Despite this, for 'front desk' reception roles, EA/PA role, and also back office/unseen roles, men are basically not even entertained. You'll frequently have older or heavier women in those (non EA/PA/front desk) roles, but rarely men.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While that is true for front desk type reception positions, it is not the case for admin, payroll, etc. I have almost a decade of experience in these roles and it took me the guts of a year to even get an interview in a low paying job (that I worked my way up from very quickly... because I was extremely overqualified). That wasn't a huge bother, I had savings and took temp/sales type jobs to make ends meet - also low responsibility while I went and enjoyed the summer. I only found out after as well that the guys making the decision individually went to every member of staff and made sure they were ok with a guy working on admin.

Also I should mention in Canada you cannot put a photo of yourself, an info on your race or whatnot, or your date of birth on your CV - if you do, legally companies cannot respond. Despite this, for 'front desk' reception roles, EA/PA role, and also back office/unseen roles, men are basically not even entertained.

silverharp · 23-03-2016 06:23PM

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Also, generally speaking, receptionist type roles are quite poorly paid, they're not that desirable a gig for a lot of people, male or female.

so its ok to discriminate against men if its not high paying? surely guys might need the job for equal reasons

tritium · 23-03-2016 06:24PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wait a minute, let me just move a few bits and pieces around here.....

Recruitment for boardroom roles may be biased against women, but its also biased against males who lack strong influential business networks by conventional standards, or who are considered too young. Rightly or wrongly such roles tend to emphasise business networking skills and good connections,, and anyone who doesn't "look the part," whether male or female, doesn't stand much of a chance

How does that look to you now?.......

bodice ripper · 23-03-2016 06:32PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Im not saying all workplaces are biased (and indeed they are biased and reversed) but I my time working in and for recruitment companies, I can tell you that there is no greater advantage to entry (even ibtermediate) level type positions than being an attractive woman. Most companies I've seen wouldn't even consider looking at a male CV for admin positions and the likes. Because my job involves keeping tabs in who has positions available, I'll often tip off people I know... almost without fail if it is an admin or reception type role, all the women I tell are ran through what the position is, asked to send in their cv etc, and some have got the job from that.

The men are told they were 'ghost postings' - eg that the positions don't actually exist,at least 90% of the time.

Like I said it cuts both ways (and I'm not an MRA type), but that's an example of one type of job that is extremely prejudicial against men.

I am not an attractive woman, and tattooing is definitely male dominated.

Billy86 · 23-03-2016 06:34PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am not an attractive woman, and tattooing is definitely male dominated.

It would be, true (like I said the bias can go both ways). Would it be usual for a tattoo parlor to refuse to so much as look at your CV because you don't have a willy?

Permabear · 23-03-2016 06:35PM

This post has been deleted.

bodice ripper · 23-03-2016 06:36PM

Billy86 wrote: »

It would be, true (like I said the bias can go both ways). Would it be usual for a tattoo parlor to refuse to so much as look at your CV because you don't have a willy?

What cv? You definitely have a harder time proving your worth. I am ok with it by the way, but it is definitely a thing.

tritium · 23-03-2016 06:41PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of the equivalence you made in your original statement.....

Billy86 · 23-03-2016 06:41PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

What cv? You definitely have a harder time proving your worth. I am ok with it by the way, but it is definitely a thing.

Well by CV, I mean would most tattoo parlors not even consisder possibly considering you for a job on the basis on not having a penis?

Don't mean that to sound accusatory by the way, because it definitely does strike me as the type of industry where there would be a gender bias.

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

Comments