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.
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.
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!
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.
“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
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.
Thoie wrote: » Men's rights movements have a severe PR problem, all of which was caused by their own members.
steddyeddy wrote: » Do you not think socioeconomic status play determines your fortune to a far greater extent?
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?
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.
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.
thattequilagirl wrote: » I'd like to see paternity leave expanded and made mandatory.
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.
silverharp wrote: » sounds expensive, it might be reasonable in some cases to be able pass the "maternity" leave from mother to father
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.
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.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
NoCrackHaving wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Permabear wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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.
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
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.
bodice ripper wrote: » I am not an attractive woman, and tattooing is definitely male dominated.
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?
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.
