Gender equality debate

[ttaskmaster]

if one particular group of anything (men, women, donkeys or hairy faced rabbits) want to have a little get together and bemoan, bitch, cry or pat each others back let them have at it. why does their little get together have to bother anyone outside of their own little group?

Yeah, that must be what James I & VI said, about Robert Catesby and his whining Catholics, innit.....?

Men’s “issues” do not inherently need to be anti feminist.

I can twist such things to make them anti-fem, so I'm sure the femmies can as well.

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.

^ This 100%

 

[Amp34]

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.

Except you appear to have missed the whole point of the "event". It doesn't appear to be a a small group of "feminists" to chat amongst themselves. It's an event organised by a third party to incite debate amongst a wide group of women across the spectrum, with a hand picked panel and audience.

Having been to these kind of events (i.e. organised debates on controversial subjects) if it just ends up as a load of extreme feminists agreeing with each other then they've really cocked up, so personally I'm going to take the media statement at face value until I actually see the event, rather than make **** up for whatever reason.

Then again this is OcUK, full of grumpy old men that seem to hate strong, opinionated women so...

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.

Nope. There's big difference between competing for funding and trying to sabotage the funding of the other group without actually trying to get any of that funding. The former is what a "male advocacy" group would be aiming to do and is not "anti-feminist", the latter is what so many of the "anti feminist" groups seem to be doing right now.

"This is why we need funding" is very different to "they shouldn't be funded" and is similar to so many of the other equality movements work. Although so many seem to like to ignore the distinction if they don't like the cause.

EDIT: I see I'm a bit late with my replies. We've moved on from this particular debate to just ******* about women and equality in general.

 

[Nitefly]

Why should you care about men's rights? Let's hope you never get prostate cancer.

lol, what?

 

[Amp34]

For me it's as simple as pointing out that feminism isn't anything to do with gender equality. I'm all for fixing women's issues, but I'm also for fixing men's issues. You won't find a feminist who wants to fix men's issues.

Well why not ignore the feminists then. As you say there's no reason for them to care much about mens issues, as there is little reason for men to care about women issues.

Why not start advocating for mens issues, or can't you be bothered/are you not passionate enough about the subject?

 

[Randomface74]

Well why not ignore the feminists then. As you say there's no reason for them to care much about mens issues, as there is little reason for men to care about women issues.

The problem is they actively prevent discussion of men's issues, calling you misogynist etc.

Women should care about the health of their men, and vice versa.

 

[platinum87]

Can someone explain to me what falls under men's issues.

Either i can learn something, or i can explain how to solve the issues.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Can someone explain to me what falls under men's issues.

Either i can learn something, or i can explain how to solve the issues.

There are some good examples earlier in the thread — under funding of prostate and testicular cancer research, lower chance of getting custody of children in divorce cases etc.

 

[Nitefly]

There are some good examples earlier in the thread — under funding of prostate and testicular cancer research, lower chance of getting custody of children in divorce cases etc.

*see below edit first*

As I inferred above, I don’t see what that has to do with men’s rights. Even if funding is spent more elsewhere on things which in directly benefit women, it’s not really a rights issue and IMO completely different to your second example (which is valid). Even if you were to say it’s an ‘equality issue’ which is a slightly different analysis to taking about ‘rights’, it’s slipping into the highly dubious and ‘face value’ territory of ‘things aren’t equal so therefore they must be bad’, which is the sort of thinking that you may see from, for example, ‘hardcore feminists’, that most of us find a little tiring.

Edit - oh, a fail on my behalf. You were talking about men’s issues. Yes, the under funding of that is an issue that may be of concern to men. D’oh.

Edit 2 - as an aside, this demonstrates how defined groups of people can legitimately have issues of concern that cannot be said to be ‘selfish’. I’m reminded of the black lives matter movement. Yes indeed, all lives matter, but there is nothing wrong with campaigning for awareness for an issue that that legitmately affects the group of people. People seem to confuse that with being hypocritical, which is odd. Saying black lives matter is not mutually exclusive to all lives matter and to take an alternative inference is just misplaced overzealously IMO.

 

[stockhausen]

2018 figures show that for the first time, more men are dying from prostate cancer than women from breast cancer; this may be associated in an ageing population. Since the turn of the century, more than twice as much money has been spent on breast cancer research and treatment as on prostate cancer research and treatment.

Describing this as a pressing "Men's issue" seems a little opportunist, I can't recall having heard only "feminists" calling for an increased investment in breast cancer research.

What does appear to be beyond question is that women are rewarded less well than men for doing the same job and have fewer chances of career progression.

Men who bitch about the terrible unfairness of seeking equality for women are just complaining at their loss of privilege.

 

[dowie]

What does appear to be beyond question is that women are rewarded less well than men for doing the same job and have fewer chances of career progression.

That isn't clear at all, certainly not when you control for the same company/employer.

The biggest factor seems to be women's own choices not fewer chances offered to them.

 

[Sliver]

Gender equality exists. I for example don't discriminate against women, I treat people as I find them. Woman, man, black or white, it doesn't matter. Where gender equality is an issue is amongst the bigoted minority of morons who think they are better because they have a penis.

When I was serving in the R.A.F. everyone got treated the same. Women doing the same job as me got paid the same as me. Promotions and rising up through the ranks had nothing to do with gender, it was all about how well you performed in your job. Our current prime minister is female. That's the most powerful position in the country. If gender equality was that big of a deal, she couldn't have got that job. Margret Thatcher is another example. Women can do just as well as men in this country provided they don't get treated differently because of their gender.

 

[D.P.]

That isn't clear at all, certainly not when you control for the same company/employer.

The biggest factor seems to be women's own choices not fewer chances offered to them.

It is very clear when analyzed scientifically. There is both an explained and unexplained gender pay gap. The explained gender gap relates to education, experience, maternity leave, job type etc. The unexplained is all factors that cannot be found through any obvious non-personal attributes beyond gender, of which gender discrimination is a large part. The unexplained gender gap has barely declined.

The analysis gets a lot more complex. For example, women get paid less than men on average because they progress their careers more slowly. Even when considering all the relevant factors, e.g. excluding things like maternity leave, women are not promoted as frequently as men. So even within a large corporation with highly defined pay structures where men and women on an equal pay grade get equal pay, if men are selectively biased in making promotions then gender discrimination is occurring and lowering women's attainable salary. This is a very common problem. There is a very large unexplained lack of women in senior positions

 

[stockhausen]

. . . Our current prime minister is female. That's the most powerful position in the country. If gender equality was that big of a deal, she couldn't have got that job. Margret Thatcher is another example. Women can do just as well as men in this country provided they don't get treated differently because of their gender.

Remind me, how many Prime Ministers have there been since the start of the 20th Century?

How many male and female Prime Ministers between Thatcher and May?

 

[Randomface74]

Edit 2 - as an aside, this demonstrates how defined groups of people can legitimately have issues of concern that cannot be said to be ‘selfish’. I’m reminded of the black lives matter movement. Yes indeed, all lives matter, but there is nothing wrong with campaigning for awareness for an issue that that legitmately affects the group of people. People seem to confuse that with being hypocritical, which is odd. Saying black lives matter is not mutually exclusive to all lives matter and to take an alternative inference is just misplaced overzealously IMO.

The problem is if you try and say all lives matter, or white lives matter too, they'll call you a far-right, alt-right, racist, nazi, etc.

Black lives matter is just like feminism in that it isn't about the rights of black people, it's about taking power and wealth for their supporters.

It is very clear when analyzed scientifically. There is both an explained and unexplained gender pay gap. The explained gender gap relates to education, experience, maternity leave, job type etc. The unexplained is all factors that cannot be found through any obvious non-personal attributes beyond gender, of which gender discrimination is a large part.

Are you really saying that because there's no evidence that it must be true?

 

[FoxEye]

It is very clear when analyzed scientifically. There is both an explained and unexplained gender pay gap. The explained gender gap relates to education, experience, maternity leave, job type etc. The unexplained is all factors that cannot be found through any obvious non-personal attributes beyond gender, of which gender discrimination is a large part. The unexplained gender gap has barely declined.

The analysis gets a lot more complex. For example, women get paid less than men on average because they progress their careers more slowly. Even when considering all the relevant factors, e.g. excluding things like maternity leave, women are not promoted as frequently as men. So even within a large corporation with highly defined pay structures where men and women on an equal pay grade get equal pay, if men are selectively biased in making promotions then gender discrimination is occurring and lowering women's attainable salary. This is a very common problem. There is a very large unexplained lack of women in senior positions

On the one hand you say a large part of the gender pay gap is unexplained, in the next sentence you say it must be "to a large extent" discrimination by men against women.

Surely it's either explained/understood or it isn't. Saying that it isn't understood therefore it must be discrimination by men seems to me anything but scientific.

How about it could be discrimination (and discrimination must play some role), but equally it could be other factors, some of which may be within the women's own control. Like lack of assertiveness, maybe.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

Remind me, how many Prime Ministers have there been since the start of the 20th Century?

How many male and female Prime Ministers between Thatcher and May?

So what are you calling for, female only PM's until there has been a even amount which would take about 290 years given the fixed parliament act. To be fair we should have 58 trans PM's after. So in 580 years time we can then go to a system of taking turns in fielding M/F/T's candidates in a general election.

 

[Sliver]

Remind me, how many Prime Ministers have there been since the start of the 20th Century?

How many male and female Prime Ministers between Thatcher and May?

If you don't know it's not my job to tell you. Try google.

 

[FoxEye]

So what are you calling for, female only PM's until there has been a even amount which would take about 290 years given the fixed parliament act. To be fair we should have 58 trans PM's after. So in 580 years time we can then go to a system of taking turns in fielding M/F/T's candidates in a general election.

I think you're partly correct. Historical data would be used by such advocacy groups to justify a greater selection chance for female candidates.

We're very much in the era of, "You cis white males have had your chance, move over and let someone else have a go."

Even if it wasn't exclusively women for the next 300 years, having 3 female PMs to every one man would be seen as "justice" because of the historical male domination.

In that sense it's not about equality at all, it's about "removing the patriarchy" and suchlike, which is a rallying cry you often hear.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Then again this is OcUK, full of grumpy old men that seem to hate strong, opinionated women so...

Sexism is a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength.

Nope. There's big difference between competing for funding and trying to sabotage the funding of the other group without actually trying to get any of that funding. The former is what a "male advocacy" group would be aiming to do and is not "anti-feminist", the latter is what so many of the "anti feminist" groups seem to be doing right now.

Seem to you, maybe, because that's what you expect. Presumably you're projecting your own way of thinking onto your target group. Or maybe you're just making something up on the fly as a distraction.

Stating "nope" does not magically create more resources. I have no idea why anyone would seriously claim that it does. Do you really think that it does?

Since the resources are finite and for some reason your Magic Word doesn't create more resources, increasing funding for healthcare for men will decrease funding for something else. Since the funding will come from the healthcare budget, that "something else" will be healthcare for women.

Well why not ignore the feminists then. As you say there's no reason for them to care much about mens issues, as there is little reason for men to care about women issues.

Why not start advocating for mens issues, or can't you be bothered/are you not passionate enough about the subject?

Some people don't want sexism. They don't want to define and divide people by sex and advocate everything for the "right" sex only. They don't want to do the very thing that they're objecting to. So the answer to your question is that some people are not sexist hypocrites.

 

[Angilion]

Who said anything about excluding men from equality?!
[..]

We are talking about a debate on sexual equality. Men are excluded from it. So in the specific context of the event that this thread is about men are utterly excluded from "equality" and in the more general context of the whole idea of sexual equality, men are almost completely excluded from "equality", to the extent that people can (and often do) publically use "equality for women" and "sexual equality" as if they were synonyms and have it pass unmentioned rather that getting the ridicule and contempt that such behaviour should attract.