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

darkpagandeath

Feel I have to mention this again. When will our friendly neighbourhood activists be demanding Equal application of the law to either sex/gender ?

silverharp

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Since this is at risk of becoming another abortion thread.

I think something that hasn't really been talked about on this thread the double bind of conflicting messages men find themselves in.
We are told its ok to be sensitive, be true to ourselves and not guard our emotions on one hand, yet often if a man is open about their feelings, things that bother them and so on they are slapped back with the implication that they are whining or need to "man up".

Many people (and more so guys I think) are stoic by nature and thats fine but it seems that this "traditionally" manly characteristic isn't a valued characteristic in the prevalent narrative you encounter in new media, that in and off itself is fine, if a man feels like being sensitive they should be able to be so, the problem is when they come forward with their feelings the reaction is very different to what they expect.

Take this thread here (which I have used before as an example)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057247232

Basically guy who thinks he is his partners 3rd partner finds out she has been with 500 guys and she smashes up the place and finds out later he has got an STD. He calls her a "B-tch" in the OP.

The most thanked post says (by a woman and AFAIK mainly thanked by woman posters, I'm pointing this out because when this problems men face are brought up its often framed that its only other men that hold guys back)

There is also a number of other posts "shaming" him

His feelings are completely invalidated because they go counter to the progressive narrative and because he insults his ex with a fairly mind gendered insult.

Is it any wonder that some younger guys who may spend a lot of time online and on "new media" and probably aren't that socially clued in end up in the more toxic end of the manosphere or PUA, they will actually listen and tell them that the problem isn't them and its ok to feel that way, basically bizarrely the toxic environment actually supports and cares for these guys more while the "nice" people shun them.
Read the some progressive media and you will very regularly see masculinity and/or young men referred to as dangerous, toxic, needing to be policed etc while everything a woman does is basically empowering.

Despite my love of gender wars threads I don't think we should be pushing a message thats harmful to both genders.

that looks like some thread :pac: you are always going to get some hate if you are critical of someone else's lifestyle. At the end of the day you only have one life to live and you have to calculate risk/reward. Its worth having data on your side that your reasoning is sound. promiscuity and divorce are correlated so while objectively criticisng someone is wrong , if you plan on having a serious relationship with them, then its absolutely a factor.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Since this is at risk of becoming another abortion thread.

I think something that hasn't really been talked about on this thread the double bind of conflicting messages men find themselves in.
We are told its ok to be sensitive, be true to ourselves and not guard our emotions on one hand, yet often if a man is open about their feelings, things that bother them and so on they are slapped back with the implication that they are whining or need to "man up".

Many people (and more so guys I think) are stoic by nature and thats fine but it seems that this "traditionally" manly characteristic isn't a valued characteristic in the prevalent narrative you encounter in new media, that in and off itself is fine, if a man feels like being sensitive they should be able to be so, the problem is when they come forward with their feelings the reaction is very different to what they expect.

Take this thread here (which I have used before as an example)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057247232

Basically guy who thinks he is his partners 3rd partner finds out she has been with 500 guys and she smashes up the place and finds out later he has got an STD. He calls her a "B-tch" in the OP.

The most thanked post says (by a woman and AFAIK mainly thanked by woman posters, I'm pointing this out because when this problems men face are brought up its often framed that its only other men that hold guys back)

What attitude? That some women enjoy sex and have different moral standards to you?

That a woman who enjoys multiple partner sex is a right bitch? You don't see anything wrong with THAT attitude?

There is also a number of other posts "shaming" him

His feelings are completely invalidated because they go counter to the progressive narrative and because he insults his ex with a fairly mind gendered insult.

Is it any wonder that some younger guys who may spend a lot of time online and on "new media" and probably aren't that socially clued in end up in the more toxic end of the manosphere or PUA, they will actually listen and tell them that the problem isn't them and its ok to feel that way, basically bizarrely the toxic environment actually supports and cares for these guys more while the "nice" people shun them.
Read the some progressive media and you will very regularly see masculinity and/or young men referred to as dangerous, toxic, needing to be policed etc while everything a woman does is basically empowering.

Despite my love of gender wars threads I don't think we should be pushing a message thats harmful to both genders.

One eyed Jack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We're in agreement insofar as I agree that an abortion itself is a private matter for a woman, but the issue of abortion, and legislating for it, even in terms of the time limits and so on, would be a public matter. Personally I think if we are going to legislate for abortion, it should be completely a woman's choice at every stage. It's a view that isn't as extreme as it sounds - IDX make up less than 1% of all abortions in the US.

melissak

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The curious thing about it too is that according to a recent Red C poll regarding legislating for abortion in Ireland - more men were pro-choice than women, so, if it were only women voting on a change to the Irish Constitution, a referendum that would allow for abortion would likely fail!y

dav it's not that you have a choice in what women do with their own bodies. It's that as a citizen of Ireland, you would have the right to vote in a referendum anyway.

Also the referendum would be about whether the unborn have a right to life not whether women have a right to abort. By this logic only the unborn could vote? You can not change the constitution without a referendum and only letting one gender vote would be ridiculous and totally unconstitutional.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not a false belief though, it's a fact. It'd be the very same thing if we were to vote on any social issue that would have an effect on society. The issue of abortion isn't just a personal moral issue for women, and legislating for it is a matter of public interest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness though, you surely must be aware why society can't be kept out of it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

I'm almost tempted to agree with you. On the surface, it does seem a little ridiculous that Men could be given a vote to decide that.

However, many women disagree with my belief that a woman should be able to make the choice to have an abortion. If their vote gets counted and mine doesn't then those women have a better chance to deny other women full control of their bodies.

It's like you are almost saying that only pro-choice people should be allowed to vote on whether or not a woman should be given a choice but you are getting confused and saying only women should have that vote.

Not all women are feminists and not all women are pro-choice.

What if the pro-lifers won a vote that was only open to women and polling suggested that a vote open to men and women would give the victory to the pro-choice side? Would you rather everyone be allowed to vote in those circumstances?

What about women who can't have kids? Would they be allowed to vote on abortion? After all, it's never an issue they'll have to deal with, right?

The curious thing about it too is that according to a recent Red C poll regarding legislating for abortion in Ireland - more men were pro-choice than women, so, if it were only women voting on a change to the Irish Constitution, a referendum that would allow for abortion would likely fail!

dav it's not that you have a choice in what women do with their own bodies. It's that as a citizen of Ireland, you would have the right to vote in a referendum anyway.

Wibbs

dav3 wrote: »

Yes, this old saw, again.

I was referencing the EU commission report. All the figures and facts are laid out here.

Then try reading them. If you remove the oul feminist blinkers for a second, you may have noticed that the figures I quoted came from those sources in a report readied up by the National Women's council of Ireland, who define themselves as a "feminist organisation". They stated that women without kids receive 17% extra pay than men(that's across all ages BTW). Well they didn't. In an attempt to avoid showing their "pay gap" to be BS, or far more complex than the usual feminist rhetoric, they made it a negative figure, hoping it would be missed. No doubt some read it as an actual negative against women. On another thread hereabouts on the subject someone did. Because women are victims y'know.

There you have it ladies. Wibbs has worked it out. Keep your legs closed if you know what's good for you.

In my time I've read some pretty stupid statements in an effort to deflect, but that's a new one.

thattequilagirl wrote:

If you have to remain childless and defy time by remaining under 30, this doesn't really make a difference...

That figure where women get paid more on average isn't age related. It also doesn't break down when women have kids and how that affects things. A woman in her mid 30's with a solid career under her is going to take far less of a hit, if any of having a kid than a woman who has a kid at 18. I'd be very interested to see how the stats stack up if young single women with kids were taken out of the equation. I'll bet now that for the average worker the gap between men and women is nil and I'd even bet that women have the advantage.

Women are certainly showing better academic performances and that gap is widening and nary a thing does one hear about it in mainstream media.

orubiru

dav3 wrote: »

As for the other question I was asked above. I find it preposterous that in this day and age as a man, I could be given a vote to dictate on what a woman should do with her own body.

I'm almost tempted to agree with you. On the surface, it does seem a little ridiculous that Men could be given a vote to decide that.

However, many women disagree with my belief that a woman should be able to make the choice to have an abortion. If their vote gets counted and mine doesn't then those women have a better chance to deny other women full control of their bodies.

It's like you are almost saying that only pro-choice people should be allowed to vote on whether or not a woman should be given a choice but you are getting confused and saying only women should have that vote.

Not all women are feminists and not all women are pro-choice.

What if the pro-lifers won a vote that was only open to women and polling suggested that a vote open to men and women would give the victory to the pro-choice side? Would you rather everyone be allowed to vote in those circumstances?

What about women who can't have kids? Would they be allowed to vote on abortion? After all, it's never an issue they'll have to deal with, right?

Nollog

dav3 wrote: »

I find it preposterous that in this day and age as a man, I could be given a vote to dictate on what a woman should do with her own body.

Well, if you're in a relationship with her, I'd imagine you should have a say.

orubiru

dav3 wrote: »

When the gender pay gap sits at 14% and we live in a country where women are still not allowed full control over their own bodies, we still have some way to go.

I also think that abortion should be legal.

This does highlight the pointless nature of the "Men vs Women" argument though.

There are plenty of women who are pro-life. So should men listen to those pro-life women or should men listen to the pro-choice women?

I am sure that most Feminists would want to see more women in politics but I am pretty sure they wouldn't want to see more pro-life women in politics, right?

Would you rather have a 50-50 split in government where the majority think the wage gap isn't an issue and the majority are also pro life?

Or would you rather have an 80-20 split in favor of men where the majority want to shrink the wage gap and also legalize abortion?

Foxtrol

tritium wrote: »

Yeah, all of us blokes are thrilled that benefitting from this one comes at the cost of having less time with our children then the mothers do....

Fortunately the state considers fathers disposable fashion accessories largely so we really don't get a say in it. Paternity leave? No thanks, equal right to a relationship with your child? No thanks, just suck it up sonny and earn the money

Funny how many folks leave that bit out of any discussion about wage gaps

‘But… but… its men that make the laws…’

MRnotlob606

too man communists around

tritium

dav3 wrote: »

Yes, this old saw, again.

I was referencing the EU commission report. All the figures and facts are laid out here.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm#h2-7

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap/index_en.htm

There you have it ladies. Wibbs has worked it out. Keep your legs closed if you know what's good for you.
.

Yeah, all of us blokes are thrilled that benefitting from this one comes at the cost of having less time with our children then the mothers do....

Fortunately the state considers fathers disposable fashion accessories largely so we really don't get a say in it. Paternity leave? No thanks, equal right to a relationship with your child? No thanks, just suck it up sonny and earn the money

Funny how many folks leave that bit out of any discussion about wage gaps

silverharp

DeVore wrote: »

Then western women should also be told to "call you" when they are treated as badly as women of colour in Middle East, cos we are dealing with rights on a "most serious first" priority basis?

I dont understand? I live in a western culture so I am interested in how rights are distributed in cultures similar to where I live. I am also interested in how rights are distributed in cultures that are behind western culture because its better for everyone if they catch up. they are parallel conversations.
In terms of this conversation though I want men's issues to be looked in parallel to women's issues. not completely sidelined until some magical nirvana is reached in the future. There isnt a need for Feminism in the west, it should be called Egalitarianism , that way men and women could change things together.

Billy86

thattequilagirl wrote: »

If you have to remain childless and defy time by remaining under 30, this doesn't really make a difference...

See my post above this one - it's not the children that are the 'problem' in my opinion, it's the division of time given to each parent to raise them and the view society places on the mother as the 'natural care giver' (also playing a huge role in custody cases), which ultimately can be detrimental to both men and women.

As for under 30, that is because I have simply not seen any data for other age ranges. If someone has the data to show what the pay gap for 30-39 year olds and so on looks like for those without children, I would be very interested. And indeed, the older you go odds are it would go stronger in favour of men and workplace inequality in favour of males is something that used to be far more prevalent than it is today.

Billy86

dav3 wrote: »

There you have it ladies. Wibbs has worked it out. Keep your legs closed if you know what's good for you.

I don't think that is what he was getting at, to be honest. I think an easy remedy for this (to some extent anyway) would be to get rid of maternity leave in favour of 'parental leave'. If two 27 year olds have a kid while she earns €35,000 and he earns €22,500 it makes more sense for the father to spend more time off work than the mother (or for them to split it), but right now that isn't really an option so the mother has to stall her career that was progressing much faster than the fathers, even if she is extremely career-focused with specific goals and a plan, while he is just 'in a job'.

thattequilagirl

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually, a very good point was brought up to me when I mentioned that a few months back in a different thread. In Ireland, the wage gap for under 30s without children is actually apparently not 14%, but around 17%.

And that's women earning on average 17% more.

EDIT: I think it was Wibbs who brought it to my attention, having scrolled up a few posts.

If you have to remain childless and defy time by remaining under 30, this doesn't really make a difference...

Billy86

dav3 wrote: »

When the gender pay gap sits at 14% and we live in a country where women are still not allowed full control over their own bodies, we still have some way to go.

Actually, a very good point was brought up to me when I mentioned that a few months back in a different thread. In Ireland, the wage gap for under 30s without children is actually apparently not 14%, but around 17%.

And that's women earning on average 17% more.

EDIT: I think it was Wibbs who brought it to my attention, having scrolled up a few posts.

DeVore

silverharp wrote: »

the OP header is referencing feminism in western culture. When men are being arrested or fined on trains for manspreading in Saudi, let me know

Then western women should also be told to "call you" when they are treated as badly as women of colour in Middle East, cos we are dealing with rights on a "most serious first" priority basis?

dav3

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh this old saw.

Yes, this old saw, again.

I was referencing the EU commission report. All the figures and facts are laid out here.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm#h2-7

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap/index_en.htm

Women have as good or better qualifications than men, but often their skills are not valued the same as men's and their career progression is slower. This results in an average gender pay gap of 16 % in the EU.

Family responsibilities are not equally shared. As a result, women have more frequent career breaks and often do not go back to a full time job. As a result, women earn on average 16 % less per hour than men; and even 31% less per year, given the higher proportion of female part-timers.

The combined effect of lower hourly wages for women with women working fewer hours than men over their lifetime, results in lower pensions. This leads to more women than men experiencing poverty in old age.

Wibbs wrote: »

Women with no kids get paid nearly 20% more than equivalent men.

There you have it ladies. Wibbs has worked it out. Keep your legs closed if you know what's good for you.

As for the other question I was asked above. I find it preposterous that in this day and age as a man, I could be given a vote to dictate on what a woman should do with her own body.

I am now off out on this sunny day to enjoy a glass or two of whatever I can get my hands on. You can PM if you really need to carry it on further.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh come on

That's literally the problem - people will point to whatever society suits their argument, completely ignoring social context, and when they can't point to another country, they'll point to another time in history, making it literally impossible to limit the scope of the discussion to Irish society in the present.

the OP header is referencing feminism in western culture. When men are being arrested or fined on trains for manspreading in Saudi, let me know

silverharp

thattequilagirl wrote: »

What risks do you feel your son faces?

legally, family and divorce law mainly , if he was ever to get married in the future. Its biased in favour of women financially, custody etc, so given the law in places like the UK or the US he would need to be absolutely confident or that I'd stand behind his choice to not bother getting married and having kids if he judged the whole institution to be too risky.
In the workplace it seems like its more likely that a man will be the victim of hiring and promotion quotas especially in certain sectors where there are less women than men even if there are perfectly reasonable explanations for those differences.
one could bring in justice and sentencing but Ill assume that wont be a problem he faces :pac:

thattequilagirl wrote: »

How is ensuring women have equal rights contributing to those risks?

none if they are equal rights, I would like society to be absolutely blind to whether they are dealing with a man or a woman. neither sex should have any legal privilege and any benefits accrued should be earned not given by reason of what genitalia is between ones legs.
One problem I see is focusing on equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity within the group one might be talking about.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Do you genuinely feel your son would have been better off and given more advantages had he been born a girl? If so, why?

In my case no because we have the resources to raise him and he has the ability to be at least in the "top 10%" . statistically working class males are the worst performing group today so based on any statistical measure its probably one demographic you don't want to be, anything else is better.

Wibbs

dav3 wrote: »

When the gender pay gap sits at 14%

Ahh this old saw. You do know it's just a little inaccurate don't you? Not surprising you may not as it's regurgitated everywhere in the media and elsewhere as a fact, but let;s look a little more closely shall we?

Let's go to a source one would assume is pro feminism? Here's the National Women's council of Ireland's report about said pay gap. The usual stats are trotted out, however if we look more deeply...

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men.
In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.
For the bottom 10% of earners, the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 4% but this rises to 24.6% for the top 10% of income earners, suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling and indirect discrimination.

Emphasis mine.

Women with no kids get paid nearly 20% more than equivalent men. Funny how they don't directly mention that, and specifically hide it as a minus. No, not bullshít at all. I wonder why? Makes sense too. More women than men graduate second and third level and that gap is increasing. More women than men have third level education and that generally means more pay.

Of course the addition of children complicates things. Women who chose to have a child earlier in adulthood are more likely to forgo third level so job opportunities are going to be less. They're still seen and act as the primary carers so time constraints will impact a career at any stage, but especially at the start of a career. However a woman taking time away from a career will find it significantly easier to renter the workplace. Sure she will take a drop compared to if she'd never left, but have a man take off work to become a househusband and child rearer and see how easily he can get a job afterwards.

What I would like to see are the stats for say 30 to 35 year old women without children compared to men of of the same age range. I'll bet the farm the so called "paygap" and "glass ceiling" doesn't exist and indeed it seems in many cases goes the other way.

As for the "paygap" at the top? Similar things going on. More women are going to dial back when they start a family, many in my experience all too willingly, so that will impact their final earning potential. Secondly men, or more men than women are risk takers, rasher and adrenaline junkies(scientifically provable) and that mindset is more likely to be entrepreneurial, more likely to start their own business, or drive harder within a career for longer. They're also more likely to be obsessive and singular(some have even suggested that the Autistic spectrum is the male brain in extremis). A better stat to look at would be to compare like with like, IE compare men entrepreneurs with women entrepreneurs. Again I'll bet the farm their earnings are about equal.

So pay gap you say? I hear no calls for equal pay for 30 year old men who are likely to be paid less, nor do I hear calls to address the widening educational gap along gender lines in favour of women. Indeed we do still have some way to go.

steddyeddy

I agree abortion should be legal here. Without a doubt.