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

bodice ripper wrote: »

No, lots of places are happy to have a female tattoo artist, if only to make the place seem less threatening. But you end up expected to do desk work that none of the male tattoo artists are even asked to do. And you get shafted with smaller, less desirable work because you are perceived to be less likely to kick up about it.

Is the there maybe a bit of this for one gender or other in pretty much any job though. I remember working in a few bars when I was younger where female staff got to feck off at the end of the night while male staff did all the cleanup. Male waiting staff also tended to be pulled from the floor if anything needed to be done and ended up losing out badly on tips etc. Colleagues seemed to think it was pretty much just the way everywhere.

Billy86 wrote: »

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.

A bias one way or the other isnt a problem if there is a perceived commercial advantage. If a hairdresser wanted all or mostly women and a barber wanted men then each could be perceiving that the customer might prefer the vibe and spend more money or come back more

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

AND...again with missing the point!

Saying that men are discriminated for some roles is counterbalanced somehow by a completely different selection criteria applied to picking "suitable" female candidates is the ridiculous aspect here. Your counter bias bears absolutely no bearing on the initial discrimination unless all male applicants are also overweight and unpresentable.

The equivalent position in my modified statement would be the spurious argument that virtually no women get appointed always on the same basis that some men get rejected

Clearer now?

silverharp wrote: »

Reminds me of Hillary saying that the primary victims of war are women

Oh I remember this. The victims of war were not those who witnessed friends maimed and killed, were not those who got maimed or killed themselves, were not the fathers, grandfathers, sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends of the men......it was women!!

py2006 wrote: »

Oh I remember this. The victims of war were not those who witnessed friends maimed and killed, were not those who got maimed or killed themselves, were not the fathers, grandfathers, sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends of the men......it was women!!

Women are witnessing friends and family being maimed and killed too, they're getting maimed, killed and also raped, and are the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends of those going to war. Of course, men make up the majority of casualties on the battlefield, but the civilian population left behind would have a majority of women. The first time I saw that extract of Clinton's speech in this thread, I thought of the infamous campaign of rape carried out by the Soviets as they made their way to Berlin, along with the brutality Da'esh have inflicted upon Yazidi, Christian, Shia and moderate Sunni women.

Maybe this Snopes article would help you see the context in which Clinton made her comment. For starters, she made that comment at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador in 1998, at a time that country was still reeling from a vicious civil war.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Women are witnessing friends and family being maimed and killed too, they're getting maimed, killed and also raped, and are the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends of those going to war. Of course, men make up the majority of casualties on the battlefield, but the civilian population left behind would have a majority of women.

Ehhhhh that was what Hillary was saying but completely disregarding those I mentioned in my post.

Edit: women are not on the front line either. Hillary was referring (I think) to the women at home.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh so you do get it!

You just wanted the last word

Yeah whatever, honestly I couldn't be arsed playing that sort of ****ehawkery game with you.

Thoie wrote: »

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.



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

AVFM is not representative, and is regularly the subject of extreme controversy on Mens' Rights discussion forums - the majority view I've seen is that there's an occasional good article there, but it's laced with so much toxicity as to not only be useless, but downright nasty.

This is in stark contrast to what I've personally seen from feminist groups when discussing extremists - "oh, we're not all like that" rather than "yeah, she's vile and should be condemned". Many, many MRAs will tell you that Paul Elam is a vile POS.

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?

I have already linked to several articles outlining what has happened when people have tried to organise mens' rights awareness discussions on college campuses. Now it must be said that "no platforming" as I call it - attempts to bully and silence people in various venues and fora - is not unique to feminism but has become a feature of the left in general, which as a left myself I find repugnant and am thoroughly ashamed to see groups and movements I formerly supported engaging in. But that's the answer to your question - Fire alarms are pulled and horns are blared to disrupt meetings of mens' rights groups.

Do you know what immediately comes to mind when I read of such incidents? An attempted meeting of an anti drug dealing movement in Dolphin's Barn a few years ago, which was disrupted by a fire alarm and a bomb threat. That's what these extremists are on a par with. Don't engage, don't debate, don't argue, just try at all costs to make sure the people they disagree with are never given an opportunity to voice their opinions.

F*ck that.

FortySeven wrote: »

Can't have an opinion on something that hasn't happened to me personally? How very quaint.

That story you linked to above had nothing to do with unchallenged feminism (an oxymoronic term) in America, nor a generation of fatherless children, and that's exactly what I mean when I say I'm sick of people using examples like the one you linked to, to have a whinge about feminism and men's rights.

Please by all means point out to me where I said you couldn't have an opinion on something that has happened to you personally? I said I was sick of hearing people using examples of things that have never happened to them. Very different thing.

orubiru wrote: »

My point was that some men have it bad and some women have it bad.

It's not a case of "Group A has it worse than Group B".

I was responding to: "When women are treated like human beings, everybody wins. I find it hard to be annoyed about feminism making the deck less hilarious stacked in my gender's favour. "

All I was pointing out here is that women ARE treated like human beings and that the deck is not necessarily stacked in favor of men. I used war as an example to illustrate that.

That's it. That's all.

I wasn't saying that one side has it worse than the other and if you had bothered to read my posts, instead of one snippet with no context, then you would know that.

Some men are oppressed. Some women are oppressed.
Some men have great lives. Some women have great lives.

Some men are not treated like human beings.
Some women are not treated like human beings.

It seems odd to me that when someone says "women have it worse than men" and someone else tries to point out that the world isn't exactly all sunshine and happiness for a lot of men then there is pretty strong opposition to that.

I've read through the whole thread in fairness. I just don't get what the point is of anyone arguing about how hard they have it based solely on their gender and how the other gender has it better because at some point in time, somewhere in the world, someone was... oppressed.