Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

Reply 40

..

Original post by harrietharmman

You talk about "many countries" but this discussion isn't about the third world or Islamic states. Anyway, here's the answer to your question.

•

Pretty much any state that has family courts. (ours are particularly bad but many other countries use the same kind of system). Eh? You don't think there should be family courts? What system would you propose?

•

Any that has conscription (i.e. die for your country or not vote for you) (e.g. US, South Korea). Naturally you assume that conscription doesn't include women!

•

Any that has domestic violence shelters only for women (most western countries). Sutton's law: Women are far more likely to be the victims of repeated, serious domestic violence, at least in the UK.

•

any where heathcare spending on women dwarfs that spent on men (even once adjusting for childbirth). Where does this happen?

•

Any where a male has his genitals mutilated (sometimes by the state), and where that same state actively protects females from such abuses. (e.g. UK, USA) In what developed country does the state mutilate male genitals, exactly? Would legalisation of female circumcision make you happier?

•

Any state which has female sentencing discount and get out of jail free cards for women. Such as ?

•

Any state that gives jobs to women simply on the basis of their gender rather than ability. (e.g. Norway, UK). Do you imagine this is widespread? Evidence?

In other words pretty much every western country.

You've got to be ****ting me. You really think men are at a substantial disadvantage in pretty much every Western country? I must say that we do amazingly well for ourselves considering all the shocking discrimination you cite (e.g. the very existence of family courts). Men's mean earnings still exceed women's in almost every developed country; men occupy a disproportionate number of senior managerial roles in almost every developed country; and the overwhelming majority of senior politicians in almost all developed countries are male. Men still dominate Western societies, as they have always done. In the grand scheme of things, the pulling down of male rights posters in one Canadian city by over-zealous feminists is a non-event of no importance whatsoever.

Reply 42

liamb109

13

The reason men's mean earnings exceed those of women is because women as a whole don't do dangerous jobs with higher pay because if they weren't paid higher, no-one would do those jobs. It's a lot to do with where women are attracted to for work. It's illegal to pay a woman less for doing the same job as a man.

And it doesn't matter if the minority of feminists are radical, as long as the moderates do nothing and the radicals are loud enough, they gain the image of feminists only being man haters. And image is just as important as fact, in some cases. Particularly if you want to be taken seriously.

Reply 43

Chaoshi

6

Original post by liamb109

So white people and men shouldn't have rights or be able to campaign for those rights because they've done so well as a group off their own hard work?

If women insist on having women's rights, men can insist on having men's rights.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree that historical issues such as enslaving blacks and discriminating against them to this day, and denying women the vote in their own country are related to white males "doing so well as a group off their own hard work." You're effectively saying: oppressed groups were only oppressed because they weren't as hard working as the white man. Seriously? Seriously? I have trouble accepting that this is someone's actual opinion.

I can't.

Reply 44

Chaoshi

6

Original post by harrietharmman

You talk about "many countries" but this discussion isn't about the third world or Islamic states. Anyway, here's the answer to your question.

•

Pretty much any state that has family courts. (ours are particularly bad but many other countries use the same kind of system)

•

Any that has conscription (i.e. die for your country or not vote for you) (e.g. US, South Korea)

•

Any that has domestic violence shelters only for women (most western countries)

•

any where heathcare spending on women dwarfs that spent on men (even once adjusting for childbirth).

•

Any where a male has his genitals mutilated (sometimes by the state), and where that same state actively protects females from such abuses. (e.g. UK, USA)

•

Any state which has female sentencing discount and get out of jail free cards for women.

•

Any state that gives jobs to women simply on the basis of their gender rather than ability. (e.g. Norway, UK).

In other words pretty much every western country.

Approximately 1 in 5 Members of Parliament are female.
Fewer than 1 in 4 judicial staff are female.

Please, continue to tell me about how women are in a position of power to oppress men.

Reply 45

donutaud15

22

These women give feminism a bad name. They give it such bad publicity and redefine the true meaning of feminism that now when people here the dreaded word feminist, they run a mile or start screaming abuse. Sad but true

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Sensation Z710e

Reply 46

liamb109

13

Original post by Chaoshi

I'm afraid that I have to disagree that historical issues such as enslaving blacks and discriminating against them to this day, and denying women the vote in their own country are related to white males "doing so well as a group off their own hard work." You're effectively saying: oppressed groups were only oppressed because they weren't as hard working as the white man. Seriously? Seriously? I have trouble accepting that this is someone's actual opinion.

I can't.

All races have been enslaved. It's all about competition and races and people that did better were evidently more advanced and more civilised than others, competition is after all a part of nature.

Reply 47

jimbo139

15

Original post by liamb109

All races have been enslaved. It's all about competition and races and people that did better were evidently more advanced and more civilised than others, competition is after all a part of nature.

That sounds familiar. Did you just step out of a time machine from the 1930's??

Reply 48

liamb109

13

Original post by jimbo139

That sounds familiar. Did you just step out of a time machine from the 1930's??

Nope, just refusing to buy into hating myself because I'm a white male. Also, if you're calling the Africans in the 15-18th century anything other than less advanced and civilised than the European powers, you're an idiot. If you think Africans are the only enslaved race, you're an idiot. If you think Whites were the worst enslavers of Africans, you're an idiot.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 49

kunoichi

20

posters addressing violence against men is fine, but having a go at people for worrying about violence to women is wrong.

if it had said violence happens to men too in a calm manner giving the facts and making people aware than it would have been better than having an aggressive stroppy tone towards those who help female victims of domestic abuse.

And if men dont come out and admit that they are being abused (which is so often the case) then how can people help them? So to the people saying 'its so unfair towards men because less people help them,' then maybe consider telling people if there is a problem? People who want to help arent psychic and if there arent many men admitting to being abused of course there is going to be less help available because you are all hiding the problem making it look as if helplines and so on (which cost to run btw) arent needed, so therefore they arent there for you.

Reply 50

tommyjazzhands

5

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

I'm going to interrupt this little anti-feminism circle-jerking. Feminism is a political philosophy. It's an extremely popular one akin to liberalism. The actions of a few feminism doesn't represent the beliefs of the philosophy, only the belief of their subset which I'd hasten to guess is a small fraction. There are many legitimate feminist issues today although I'd say they've moved from legal rights to social rights (i.e. tackling gender roles). This doesn't have to contradict men's right movement and I'm sure the vast majority of feminist have no problem with men's right movement.

Anyway, despite agreeing with the underlining message, I don't like the poster. It's being intentionally misleading. This is akin to the way some Muslims try to use FBI's analysis of terrorism to show how Islamic terrorism is being intentionally highlighted by the mainstream media. The problem with that analysis is the FBI's definition of terrorism includes stuff like vandalism and doesn't account for the difference in scale. That's the same problem here. What physical damage is done to women who are suffers of domestic violence vs men who are suffers of domestic violence? How many men escape vs women? I have no problem with helping male domestic violence suffers. I just hate seeing manipulation by both sides be it feminist or MRA's.

I would agree with you that one could interpret feminism in a myriad of ways, no less in terms of liberalism, individualism and marxism. There is no doubt that it is a legitimate movement to address the imbalance of power at the highest level of state institutions which permeates throughout all stratum of society. And I agree that the majority of Feminists have no qualms regarding the rights of men. However, I could not ignore the comparison you made between certain Muslim's contention with the FBI's definition of terrorism. Firstly, I would say that it is widely known as shown through the work of Perkins and Chomsky that historically the CIA and FBI are two of the biggest state led terrorist agencies on the planet and have been for decades. Drug trafficking, assassinations, instigation of military coups, political bribery, blackmail.. you name it. It is a bad example. It is clear that the definition of terrorism by Nato-led nations are purposely ambiguous and self-absolving. Islamic fundamentalism is a very small problem in comparison to the state led terror funded to further US led geo-political goals. It would appear that the mainstream media has manipulated your perception of Muslims.

Reply 51

sarahthegemini

10

Oh for heaven's sake, what utter *******s. Why can't everyone just accept that we all - male, female, black, white, English, Jamaican, fat, skinny etc - deserve basic and equal human rights.

Reply 52

jimbo139

15

Original post by liamb109

The reason men's mean earnings exceed those of women is because women as a whole don't do dangerous jobs with higher pay because if they weren't paid higher, no-one would do those jobs. It's a lot to do with where women are attracted to for work. It's illegal to pay a woman less for doing the same job as a man.

In general, jobs entailing significant physical danger tend to be badly paid. The most obvious example is members of the armed forces, but also consider firefighters, police, mountain rescue (often unpaid volunteers), etc. It is true to say that a disproportionate number of workers in these dangerous jobs are men - but completely false to suggest that this is the reason for the discrepancy in pay between genders. The key reasons for the pay gap are (1) that caring for children or other relatives is much more likely to be done by women, and women are therefore much more likely to work less than full time or to take time out from their careers, and (2) that many female-predominant professions are relatively poorly paid, for reasons unrelated to physical danger.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 53

liamb109

13

Original post by jimbo139

In general, jobs entailing significant physical danger tend to be badly paid. The most obvious example is members of the armed forces, but also consider firefighters, police, mountain rescue (often unpaid volunteers), etc. It is true to say that a disproportionate number of workers in these dangerous jobs are men - but completely false to suggest that this is the reason for the discrepancy in pay between genders. The key reasons for the pay gap are (1) that caring for children or other relatives is much more likely to be done by women, and women are therefore much more likely to work less than full time or to take time out from their careers, and (2) that many female-predominant professions are relatively poorly paid, for reasons unrelated to physical danger.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

This article should explain my viewpoint. Women being paid less has nothing to do with sexism. If women want regular but less hours, less dangerous but more stable and poorer paid jobs and gravitate towards the industries that provide them, not even the most man hating feminist should be able to blame men for that.

Reply 54

Alexandra's Box

17

I'm so sick of this. Why don't people just treat everybody equally?
Same crime, same jail sentence.
Same job, same salary.
Same divorce, same consideration in front of the custody officials.

Why can't people just do this? Why are there nutty women who hate every man on the planet and calling themselves 'feminists', and chauvinistic men who see women as 'simple'?

:angry:

Reply 55

Alexandra's Box

17

Original post by jimbo139

That sounds familiar. Did you just step out of a time machine from the 1930's??

Oh I do love Brian :love:

Reply 56

harrietharmman

OP

Original post by Chaoshi

Approximately 1 in 5 Members of Parliament are female.
Fewer than 1 in 4 judicial staff are female.

Please, continue to tell me about how women are in a position of power to oppress men.

Who said it was women doing it? Chivalrous white-knight males are almost as barrier to equality and cause of female privilege as man hating feminists. We see politicians pandering to women all the time, something they almost never do with men.

Reply 57

arvi2012

It is a relative issue in deed so we can't be sure of any conclusion.....every idealism has some positives and some flaws too....

Reply 58

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by Bobo1234

No idiot, the problem is that men already HAVE those rights, so there's no point in calling for them as they already have them! Women are still (on average) paid worse than men and are much less likely to reach the upper echelons of just about every profession than men. Likewise, white people already have rights, so there's no point in calling for them either, as it's a waste of time and energy.

To the people saying feminism has "gone off the deep end", no, SOME feminists have "gone off the deep end", many are very reasonable people who just want women to have the same chances as men when it comes to education, pay, rights to control what happens to their bodies (the whole contraception/abortion debate) and so forth. To use the PETA example somebody used above me, comparing "feminism" to "PETA" is like comparing "Anyone who cares even remotely about animals" to the most extreme beliefs of Elfriede Jelinek (sorry it's nearly 3:30am here and I can't think of a better example right now). Would you say that an animal rights advocate who doesn't like seeing dogs being kicked in the face has "gone off the deep end"? No. Likewise it's equally daft to say that a feminist who would like to see equal pay for members of both sexes IN THE SAME PROFESSIONAL POSITION has "gone off the deep end". Oh noes! Equal pay for both sexes, whatever will we have next, househusbands?? Seriously people, think a little.

This is such an incredibly stupid post. As someone above you said, there are areas in life where females are disadvantaged, and areas where males are disadvantaged. Therefore it is worthwhile to highlight both men's rights issues and female's rights issues, since there are causes for concern for both genders.

Unless you are honestly arguing that there are no areas in life when men are disadvantaged? Offering the example of female salaries doesn't prove that men "have rights" and women "don't have rights". If my logic were as poor as yours, I could simply state that the woman almost always getting custody the children in divorce cases proves that women "already have rights" and that men "don't have rights, therefore men have the right to campaign for rights and women don't".

Or perhaps I'm simply not "thinking a little"... :rolleyes: