You haven't answered what your post had to do with the OP.
Feel free to champion men's issues. I'll support you. But your post is totally irrelevant to the OP.
As for the 'BBC is feminist' I'm not even sure how to reply to that to be honest.
Gender equality debate
- Thread starter youdsy
- Start date
Feel free to champion men's issues. I'll support you. But your post is totally irrelevant to the OP.
As for the 'BBC is feminist' I'm not even sure how to reply to that to be honest.
I'm guessing he thinks this women's event stops him? I don't know I'm confused.
Well 'feminists' (at least some of them) have been known to disrupt public events scheduled to highlight issues that may effect men disproportionately
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...des-campus-libertarians-from-pro-women-groups
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
At the moment, you. Back off.
Why? Are women one homogenous group that all think the same and have the same experiences/opinions?
(Hint: not in the slightest).
Sounds like Sky News. In fact all news channels sound the same.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,514
- Location
- London
Reading about that incident it doesn't seem to be the fact that the movie points out male issues thats angering some feminists. I've not watched it so I can't say much about the actual movie, but the critics and articles surrounding it make it sound like it doesn't really give a balanced view of the MRA movement and it's got a bit of a anti-woman rhetoric which can easily be latched on to by the toxic side of MRAs.
In the wider argument of feminism, this thread is a perfect example of not being able to discuss womens issues without men wading in and derailing the topic.
A lot of contemporary feminist argument revolves around disparities not in favour of women being an example of systemic oppression of women.
Some men (and women) pointing out that there are some significant issues affecting men.....
Including but not limited to workplace deaths, inequitable treatment by the courts and health care spending...
And that some of the most notable examples of supposed female oppression are full of half truths if not out right lies ('wage' gap I'm looking at you)
As a means of rebuttal for this is not 'derailing the topic'!
You don't get to assert that a particular group of people are being oppressed whilst dismissing any valid criticism of this hypothesis if you are in the business of making valid arguments for your case.
If you want an echo chamber crack on...
That’s a good example of conflating the issue. That appears to have been more of an anti feminist “debate”, organized by a group largely concerned about anti feminism.
Here’s an article about it.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/xd4nd7/we-went-to-a-mens-rights-lecture-in-toronto
Men’s “issues” do not inherently need to be anti feminist. There are plenty of ways we can discuss how to help ourselves without blaming things on women, or claiming things are unfair because women get x, y or z.
I think one of the issues is men just aren’t as proactive in this sort of thing as women. They are less likely to organize and group together for causes. As an example, do you really think a male oriented version of Race for life would be as successful as the women’s oriented version? We as men need to start organizing more, get over our hatred of discussing personal issues, and start trying to help ourselves. There are small groups out there, for example fathers for justice, but they are the exception, rather than the norm for men’s issues.
So rather than blame women, feminists and “SJWs”, why don’t we actually organize things to discuss men’s issues - like circumcision, suicide, and male dominated health issues (testicular cancer etc). Unfortunately too much it seems to be wrapped up in an anti feminist agenda.
It just seems like a race to the bottom really. So many people seem so wrapped up in how women’s “issues” are doing so “well” that they would rather drag them down than work to publicize and push men’s issues.
Perhaps part of it is the momentum women’s groups have got, having been at it for at least the last century. Men just don’t seem to have had that drive to do so and are perhaps being left behind.
If you want more funding for male dominant cancers (for example) go out and raise money, start group events, contact your MP/the media, start a charity. Don’t just complain that feminists are driving the narrative.
Last edited:
Let's face it, some of the issues women have will need cooperation from men in order to find a solution and implement.
Excluding us from the discussion isn't very constructive.
This sort of event harbours an environment of distrust and suspicion, while creating a echo chamber of similar views and ideas. Collectivism in full flow.
Excluding us from the discussion isn't very constructive.
This sort of event harbours an environment of distrust and suspicion, while creating a echo chamber of similar views and ideas. Collectivism in full flow.
Maybe not being 'balanced' just means its not inline with what they think an MRA is. Maybe you should watch the film yourself instead of taking some other peoples words on what the film is or isn't.
In a wider argument of feminism i would say it certainly isn't an example of that. If it was there would be a bunch of men protesting the event with the intent of shutting it down, like what has actually happened to 'male' orientated events. The event hasn't happened yet and there will be no such protest. Theres just a bunch of guys on this forum whinging that if the shoe was on the other foot it would be different and lets be honest.. it probably would be.
The issue is that they are pretending that it's about sexual equality. By which, obviously, they mean the sexism they like. You don't seek sexual equality by treating a person's sex as their identity and excluding the "wrong" sex from debate.
So not only is it completely sexist, it's yet more deliberate destruction of the very idea of sexual equality by treating it as given that sexism is sexual equality. It's like a whitist group (e.g. the KKK) having a whites-only debate about "racial equality", by which of course they mean pro-white racism. Except that they wouldn't have got away with that ridiculous lie even in the past.
As for the idea that defining people by their sex and excluding men from "equality" has no bearing on men...well, that's simply ridiculous. Were you laughing when you typed it, going "trollolol" to yourself?
The women who would attend such a "debate" are far more likely to be. Imagine, for example, a whitist event attended only by whitists that exists for the purpose of getting more of everything for "whites" and as part of an ongoing campaign to corrupt and thus destroy the idea of racial equality. Same thing - biological group advocacy - just currently much less fashionable and powerful. Since it's such a self-selected sample of people chosen specifically for having the same opinions, it will be far more homogenous than the same number of randomly selected people. Sure, different biological group advocates may (and often do) disagree on the details of how to best promote the irrational prejudice and discrimination they believe in so devoutly that they choose it as they way they identify themselves, but they all have the same basic opinion.
It is anti-feminist. Can't do anything about that - many things are a zero sum game. For example, there isn't an infinite amount of money for healthcare. Any healthcare resources spent on men are not spent on women, so it would require conflict with feminists. Indeed, any consideration at all for men on a social and political scale is inherently anti-feminist.
Prostate cancer would be a better example, by the way. Testicular cancer has a pretty good prognosis now thanks to the chance discovery and scientific curiousity that led to cisplatin.
Who cares. Just let them do it. We all gotta get through Life somehow. If they find pleasure in their 'Future is Female, rah rah rah' nonsense, let them do it. They're not bothering anyone sensible. If a bunch of guys want to get together, called themselves MGTOW and spend ZERO time 'going their own way', instead wasting it by complaining about women, let them. It's only the extreme outliers that get attention from those with nothing better to do.
The media continue the drip... Drip of proganda on the supposed 'wage' gape (more accurately a 'earnings' gap) disappointingly its the Telegraph this time....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/16/doctor-earns-740000-year-nhs-gender-gap-revealed/amp/
So let's disengenuously lead with an aggregated figure for 'consultants'.... Does the article seek to break down if there is a difference, gender wise, in the distribution across different disciplines?.... Er not really.... An ENT Dr and a brain surgeon can both be 'consultants' but I would not expect their wages to be similar....
Well colour me surprised so some of the disengenous £14k 'gap' appears to be simply down to men, on average, working longer hours then women.... So on to the bonuses...
So the differences in bonuses being paid appear to be down to women just not applying for them at the same rate as me but there doesn't appear to be any difference, acceptance wise, for those who do apply?
No **** sherlock!
HOW is it weighted in favour of men? HOW.......?
Because it relies on people getting of their backsides and making the application for a bonus payment having ensured that they are in a specialism which pays well if they want the top £££'s......???
Because there doesn' t appear to be much information in the article to support any actual unfairness otherwise ......
Feminism..... for lazy and entitled women who don't want to put in the same effort and self promotion as men but want the same pay handed to them on a plate otherwise its 'unfair'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/16/doctor-earns-740000-year-nhs-gender-gap-revealed/amp/
So let's disengenuously lead with an aggregated figure for 'consultants'.... Does the article seek to break down if there is a difference, gender wise, in the distribution across different disciplines?.... Er not really.... An ENT Dr and a brain surgeon can both be 'consultants' but I would not expect their wages to be similar....
Well colour me surprised so some of the disengenous £14k 'gap' appears to be simply down to men, on average, working longer hours then women.... So on to the bonuses...
So the differences in bonuses being paid appear to be down to women just not applying for them at the same rate as me but there doesn't appear to be any difference, acceptance wise, for those who do apply?
No **** sherlock!
HOW is it weighted in favour of men? HOW.......?
Because it relies on people getting of their backsides and making the application for a bonus payment having ensured that they are in a specialism which pays well if they want the top £££'s......???
Because there doesn' t appear to be much information in the article to support any actual unfairness otherwise ......
Feminism..... for lazy and entitled women who don't want to put in the same effort and self promotion as men but want the same pay handed to them on a plate otherwise its 'unfair'
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,774
- Location
- Under the Hill
I hate the cherry picking of top salaries in the Telegraph article.
In my organisation the best paid female is paid double the best paid male. Their roles aren't directly comparable so nobody really cares.
In my organisation the best paid female is paid double the best paid male. Their roles aren't directly comparable so nobody really cares.
There is a reason why statisticians are careful with the use of outliers!
Newspapers and groups with an agenda however don't show the same regard
Statisticians sound dangerously like experts, we don't take kindly to experts these days