Feminists

[diegomarahenry]

Men feel attacked?

This has more to do with their insecurity than anything else.

The bank note recognition isn't a non issue for me. It's a very minor issue that represents a bigger issue (the lack of official recognition if women throughout history).

The fact that the comedian gets sexist abuse after every show is pretty scandalous. You seem to suggest that it's just something that should be tolerated because there are lunatics on the Internet.

You seem to deliberately misinterpret that I said people should accept online abuse to make it look like you haven't made a poor argument

[dorlomin]

So that's pandarilla, Sloop John B, dorlomin and NotThePars identified as manginas.

Defining masculinity by how much of a hard arse you can be against feminism on an internet forum... 'sake. Just one step above being an AWRA type, kid-on casual, online.

[Newbornbairn]

Your original post was a bit vague in terms of this 40% claim. So this only refers to domestic abuses cases? And that stat is also the analysis of figures by Parity - a group campaigning for men's rights in this area. I'm a little dubious of their analysis (but am certainly not denying that domestic abuse against men is an often forgotten issue).

There is also the separate issue of the gender relating to the perpetrators of all these crimes - especially the Catholic Church stuff you refer to.

Essentially I'm always weary of folk who counter women's arguments with 'men are victims too' lines. Its all a bit too defensive for me.

Well they take their figures directly from the Home Office and the British Crime Survey. They can spin intentions and motivations but not the cold hard facts. The gender of the perpetrator is irrelevant - sexual abuse is sexual abuse (even though female perpetrators are treated more leniently than men, but that's a whole other issue)

To be clear, I've nothing against female victims being supported in every way possible. I do have a problem with support groups taking public money and then sexually discriminating. I'm not being defensive at all - I'm pointing out that there's a narrative saying only women are victims which is demonstrably wrong and to see seemingly intelligent young men here perpetuating this myth and shooting the messenger is bizarre. Opposing sexual discrimination has led to me being accused of being a homophobic misogynist. Go figure.

[Guest]

These misoginyst troglodyte threads are always good for a laugh.

I reckon a lot of these sad, confidence-challenged, inferiori men could do with a cuddle from, ironically, their mums.

What if these people are actually "sad", "confidence-challenged" and "inferiori", is that a reason to mock them? Would you ridicule a woman for her lack of confidence?

Btw, I'm aware that between this and my first post I might seem like some angsty whiner. I'm actually quite content with things, but I know it's not a walk in the park for all males.

Most of the criticism against feminism seems proper putting words in other people's mouths stuff, tbh. "They don't care about men's issues", "they're elitists who don't care about low income women", "they hate men".

Complete unfounded generalisations seemingly based on nothing but prejudice. As long as there are pretty obvious disadvantages faced by a group in society, I don't begrudge people campaigning specifically in the name of that group.

That may be the case for many people (I know one group who'll probably never take feminists seriously are raging misogynists), but I wouldn't say that's fair for all critics of modern day feminists in Britain.

Everyone regardless of gender should agree that differences in pay/opportunities/expectations in employment between genders need to change, in that sense I agree totally with feminism. My beef is with the idea that society generally favours men. Yes men are treated differently, but I wouldn't say it's to one genders benefit over the other. If I'm wrong I'd love some examples.

Surely the suicide stat is the most significant of the lot. What could be a bigger sign of not feeling comfortable in the society around you than wanting to kill yourself?

Willing to bet that any opponents of feminism over the last few pages have chosen to ignore the vast amount of injustices suffered by women, highlighted the relatively fewer areas where men suffer and made out as if both deserve completely equal recognition?

"Suffered" yes. Historically women have suffered because of their gender in a way that men haven't. Now I'm not sure, again I'd like to hear some examples.

Precisely. I'm not sure why feminists get slagged off for dealing with the issues that they exist to campaign on, in a way that nobody else does.

"Grr I hate c***s like Barnardos. If they care so much, how come I don't see them trying to help old people".

That analogy only stands up with instances referring to quantitative differences like pay gaps etc. When we're talking about society generally favouring men over women, it doesn't stand up as children/old people aren't competing with each other like some (and I stress some) feminists claim men/women are.

In short, I think there's a difference between feminism fighting for better pay etc as opposed to those who talk about rape cultures and all that pash.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Again though, the idea that feminism all comes down to women saying men have everything perfect is kind of putting words in people's mouths (I know I'm sort of putting words in your mouth there, but I'm trying to paraphrase). Some twatty Guardian clickbait merhcants maybe go down this route but I don't think that represents feminism well.

It's pretty hard to identify what it is exactly that seems to cause young men so many problems. It's probably crass to even speculate about why people are offing themselves in such number but I would guess it is possibly the hangover of outdated gender expectations. Men are supposed to be breadwinners, workers, ambitious etc - whilst the reality is a lot of 18-25s (30 even?) rely heavily on their folks, have poor prospects, have post-industrial economy work that they feel challenges their dignity etc. And on top of that feel emasculated by the prospect of seeking help for mental health issues that are probably the natural symptoms of feeling purposeless and low in self-confidence.

That's why these people should have their own equivalent of feminists really. People to conduct good quality research into the problems facing a clearly vulnerable group and to then lobby on related public policy. Some nutty attention seekers aside I don't think feminists would disagree with that though, having compassion for other demographics doesn't mean they shouldn't campaigning against immediate and obvious problems women face.

[Guest]

Again though, the idea that feminism all comes down to women saying men have everything perfect is kind of putting words in people's mouths (I know I'm sort of putting words in your mouth there, but I'm trying to paraphrase). Some twatty Guardian clickbait merhcants maybe go down this route but I don't think that represents feminism well.

It's pretty hard to identify what it is exactly that seems to cause young men so many problems. It's probably crass to even speculate about why people are offing themselves in such number but I would guess it is possibly the hangover of outdated gender expectations. Men are supposed to be breadwinners, workers, ambitious etc - whilst the reality is a lot of 18-25s (30 even?) rely heavily on their folks, have poor prospects, have post-industrial economy work that they feel challenges their dignity etc. And on top of that feel emasculated by the prospect of seeking help for mental health issues that are probably the natural symptoms of feeling purposeless and low in self-confidence.

That's why these people should have their own equivalent of feminists really. People to conduct good quality research into the problems facing a clearly vulnerable group and to then lobby on related public policy. Some nutty attention seekers aside I don't think feminists would disagree with that though, having compassion for other demographics doesn't mean they shouldn't campaigning against immediate and obvious problems women face.

I would've thought you're right on why so many men kill themselves compared to woman. I definitely think the same gender expectations that make some women feel restricted/disadvantaged are the same things that make some men feel pressured/helpless. Men definitely face more pressure with the heightened expectations on them to be strong, confident, successful etc. Men who feel vulnerable and have low self esteem face the prospect of mockery from other males (just look at the poster here calling other posters "sad, unconfident inferiori") as well as women being turned off by their self consciousness. Bizarrely, women who have every reason to be confident (looks, personality etc) but really aren't are probably seen as more attractive by men. For men it's easier to pretend you aren't vulnerable if you are, where as society allows women to be themselves more. Perhaps if anything women being overly confident is seen as being crass, so they can't express themselves in a different way that men can't.

I don't think feminists necessarily think everything is perfect for men or that they disagree with helping vulnerable men, but by even using terms like feminist to discuss these issues there's a definite implication that it's a woman's problem. Old fashioned gender roles can affect people badly regardless of their gender, so why do we need a feminist position on it? Why can't we all agree that these roles need to be binned for everyone's sake instead of putting it under a term that implies one has some kind of cause and the other doesn't?

[banana]

Whoever quoted the figure of 40% of rapes and domestic abuse cases being against men is so far off the mark - and yet no one picked up on it. What a load of utter bollocks.

Noone picked up on it because it doesn't match the evidence. Sources rather than hearsay would help.

In addition to what NewBornBairn has already covered, men suffer huge stigmitisation regarding being on the receiving end of domestic abuse. He probably deserves it, it's a sign of weakness, it's funny, etc etc. Yet at the same time, you shouldn't ever hit a woman.

Article from wikipedia (US stats, which I'll refer to mostly throughout as that's where most studies have been done), with sources:

Furthermore, some studies have shown that women who assault their male partners are more likely to avoid arrest than men who attack their female partners,^[21] and that female perpetrators of IPV are often viewed by law enforcement agencies and the courts as victims rather than offenders.^[22]As such, men fear that if they do report to the police, they will be assumed to be the aggressor, and placed under arrest.^[23][24]

The 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Survey, carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of 6,002 couples, found that when a woman called the police to report IPV, the man was ordered out of the house in 41.4% of cases. However, when a man called, the woman was ordered out of the house in 0% of cases. When a woman called, the man was threatened with immediate arrest in 28.2% of cases; when a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest in 0% of cases. When a woman called, the man was threatened with arrest at a later date in 10.7% of cases; when a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest at a later date in 0% of cases. Whan a woman called, the man was arrested in 15.2% of cases; when a man called, the woman was arrested in 0% of cases. In fact, in 12.1% of cases when the man called, the man himself was arrested.^[25]

I've also seen stats (I'll link when I can find them) that the women who are most likely by far to experience domestic abuse are in lesbian relationships, not heterosexual relationships. Where's the ongoing media outrage? The ongoing demonisation of lesbian women as dangerous and needing trained how to behave? [EDIT: it's actually regarding sexual assault - http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/25/us-usa-gays-violence-idUSBRE90O11W20130125.]

Brush up on Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first woman's refuge (now the Refuge organisation) in the western world back in the early 70s. She's very clear that almost all of the women who came into her refuges were as domestically violent as the men they claimed abuse from. Pizzey eventually tried to open refuges for men but was blocked at every turn by the feminist movement and on an institutional level, and was repeatedly given death threats and bomb threats. She eventually left the UK in fear for her life. Yet still today, it's far easier for abused women to get the support they need compared to abused men, and the media almost exclusively talk about domestic abuse as something men do to women.

In addition, if we're going to broaden domestic abuse to cover the whole family, children are more likely to be abused and murdered by their mother than their father and that boys are the victim more than girls. Where's the ongoing media outrage? The support for boys? The demonisation of mothers?

The bank note recognition isn't a non issue for me. It's a very minor issue that represents a bigger issue (the lack of official recognition if women throughout history).

Like it or not, it's abundantly evident that societies have largely been safeguarded, progressed and modernised due to the ingenuity, sweat and blood of men, with women largely in ancillary and caregiving roles. Almost all of the significant leaps, men. The great sacrifices, men. Is it surprising that most of the recognition has gone to men or that figures renowned enough to be considered for placement on something like a bank note are usually men? Of course, that's not to say women have no place on the back of banknotes - frankly, I couldn't give a fcuk whose mug is on there, but it would be nice to think that they're there on great merit rather than their gender.

Men feel attacked?

This has more to do with their insecurity than anything else.

Feminist Playbook #6 - When challenged, throw in some sweeping, casual demeaning of men, trivialising their issues.

[banana]

You could argue that it does though. Seeing prominent businesswomen and female politicians given more access to the historically male dominated spheres of power will arguably inspire more women to move into these fields. Positive discrimination's always going to attract lots of flak from it's supporters and it's opponents and both have very valid reasons to attack it but IMO it's ultimately going to benefit wider society than it's going to harm it.

We're still waiting on your list of vast amount of injustices suffered by women and relatively fewer areas where men suffer.

[banana]

Everyone regardless of gender should agree that differences in pay/opportunities/expectations in employment between genders need to change.

That analogy only stands up with instances referring to quantitative differences like pay gaps etc.

Sources?

The gender pay gap in the range usually blindly propagandaed by the media (~25%) has largely (it is still not 100% clear what's going on) been refuted when you control for things like hours worked, experience, full-time/part-time, position, career/home choices, motherhood, work/life balance choices, etc. such that any gap that remains is statistically insignificant. The single figure is the difference between the average earnings (not pay level) of all men and women in work. If women really were being paid far less for doing the same job as a man with a comparable CV, approach and ethic, workplaces throughout the land would be saving massive amounts of cash by predominantly hiring women. Moreover, it's complete speculation that any small gap that remains is due to sexism rather than some other factor(s) (for example, men negotiate their pay and conditions more than women).

"Suffered" yes. Historically women have suffered because of their gender in a way that men haven't. Now I'm not sure, again I'd like to hear some examples..

Certainly in ways that men haven't. However, men have been largely disposable from the beginning of time. Go on dangerous hunts. Fight over resources. Fight over potential mates. Be available for military service. Give your life in war. Provide for the family, society, protect them at all costs. Have worse access to healthcare and support. Stiff upper lip, man up, son.

What greater sacrifice is there than to be either expected to or forced to give your life while attempting to slaughter others?

In modern times, as well as the ongoing military expectation, including conscription, this disposability transfers to child custody, (no) right to choose fatherhood, rampant blocking and shhhh-ing of requested paternity testing (1.1% approval rate, even though an estimated 10% (disputed, ranges from ~1% to ~20%) of all fathers are cuckolding), child support payment, post-divorce wealth/possession split expectations, post-divorce access to children, homelessness, work paternity benefits, institutionalized greater punishment for men (compared to women) convicted of a crime, severe lack of support services, etc etc etc etc etc...

[Granny Danger]

These misoginyst troglodyte threads are always good for a laugh.

I reckon a lot of these sad, confidence-challenged, inferior men could do with a cuddle from, ironically, their mums.

Looks like you were right Granny.

Spare a thought today for all these poor, downtrodden, misunderstood men. Life can be so harsh.

[banana]

Looks like you were right Granny.

Spare a thought today for all these poor, downtrodden, misunderstood men. Life can be so harsh.

^ poor, downtrodden man

#prayformanginas

[Dr Koop]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-depressing-reality-of-white-male-supremacy-in-the-uk-has-just-been-mapped-out-9880133.html

This stuff is really starting to wind me up. Does the author of this article realise that people aren't voting for male candidates simply because they're white and male? It just so happens that, in the majority of constituencies, the voters have deemed a white male to be the most suitable person to represent them. In their fantasy "representative" parliament you have the opportunity for "better" candidates to be overlooked in order to put token representatives in there to make up the numbers.

Ugh, rant over. Kick them all in the pie?

Possibly the seethe is because the white male candidate isn't the best and if there has to be a numpty in each seat why not make sure that numpty is representative of broader society?

Anyway, Kez Dugdale will save the world with the help of the Evening News.

[Dee Man]

I already wrote on the meninism thread that 99% of soldiers on the frontline are men, 80% of violent crimes are against men, more money in the UK goes into female cancer research despite more men having cancer and loads of other examples like that, but you don't see us whinging about it.

The day that these fat, short haired, bespectacled rug munchers start putting themselves forward to fight on the frontline and stop being shite goalkeepers, then they can be taken seriously.

[banana]

I already wrote on the meninism thread that 99% of soldiers on the frontline are men, 80% of violent crimes are against men, more money in the UK goes into female cancer research despite more men having cancer and loads of other examples like that, but you don't see us whinging about it.

Men not sticking up for themselves is a major part of the problem. Push back, talk about it, raise awareness, look after yourself properly.

[milton75]

tt;dr

wa;mns

(wrong acronym; makes no sense)

[Clarkston5]

^ poor, downtrodden man

#prayformanginas

Danger's taken to answering his own posts

"influential"

[Clarkston5]

wa;mns

(wrong acronym; makes no sense)

yasc

[yoda]

It can work the other way round tho, imagine the same qualified scenario for a job ie a nurse or a primary teacher

And yet we're seeing more men getting involved in nursing. Indeed, due to the demand for male nurses, men going into nursing have an extremely high recruitment rate. However, nursing more of a "cultural" barrier as opposed to obvious sexism. Many men simply don't want to become nurses because it's seen as "unmanly".

Men are underrepresented in primary school teaching but they're (interestingly) overrepresented at headteacher level in primary schools. I'm all for more male primary teachers.

Both issues need to be addressed but this "it happens both ways" isn't as straightforward as it seems. Females are more likely to suffer discrimination in the recruitment process than men are.

I'd imagine the reason for that is employers would rather pick somebody that isn't going to go on maternity leave.

Yes, and that's quite frankly a ridiculous stance to take.

[Granny Danger]

I reckon Granny is actually a granny.

No; but neither am I a whinging, self-pitying man-child like most of the posters on this thread appear to be.

Here's the litmus test, how many of the posters on here would rather be female than male? I'm glad I'm a man; being a woman in this society (and I'd imagine most/all societies) is a damned sight more difficult.

Of course, on the basis of the posts so far, I don't expect serious responses to that question. Sarky comments to avoid the issue are far more likely.

[banana]

No; but neither am I a whinging, self-pitying man-child like most of the posters on this thread appear to be.

Here's the litmus test, how many of the posters on here would rather be female than male? I'm glad I'm a man; being a woman in this society (and I'd imagine most/all societies) is a damned sight more difficult.

Of course, on the basis of the posts so far, I don't expect serious responses to that question. Sarky comments to avoid the issue are far more likely.

^ whinging, downtrodden man-child

Going to need some expansion and sources (not even one so far!) for the bit in bold rather than conjecture or from what you've been passively spoonfed from the media, women and fellow manginas. Some considered refutation of what has been posted earlier, which included sources, rather than sarky comments would also be a start. Open your mind, you can do it, Danger!