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.
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.
tritium wrote: » Is the there maybe a but 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.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
tritium wrote: » 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
silverharp wrote: » 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
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!!
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. 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: » 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.
B0jangles wrote: » yet Boards has shown itself well able to produce some of the most obnoxious, the most bigoted and most pathetically misogynist sacks of **** possible and they post here with barely a whisper of complaint from the regulars.
B0jangles wrote: » Do you have anything whatsoever to say about Thinkprogress's appalling posts or are you siding with most of the one-sided bigoted asses as most 'egalitarians'? Edit: Oh ****, the person in your quoted article she spoke abut her experiences of being abused and how such abuse is dismissed and sidelined? You think THAT is a rebuttal of my calling out on the acceptance and normalization of casual misogyny on Boards?
B0jangles wrote: » None of them did. NONE.
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
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?
orubiru wrote: » Um, men have gone to war to be killed and mangled up by the tens of thousands. Who were they doing that for? It has happened before and it'll happen again. Now, and in the past, women have asked men to put their bodies and lives on the line. Men have answered the callr.
melissak wrote: » Must have been tough for you in the trenches. When is the last time an Irish man was drafted and sent off to war?
orubiru wrote: » What's your point? I'm not sure that you've really even bothered to read the posts before responding.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The point is clear in fairness, and it's well made. I'm sick of the whinging that goes on about men's rights and has feminism gone too far and 'equality' bollocks. It's like people use examples to make their points about things that have never affected them personally, but they're handy for a whinge about how hard they have it and why someone else should be doing more to help them!!
FortySeven wrote: » Can't have an opinion on something that hasn't happened to me personally? How very quaint.
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
