Discrimination against Men

[akuchi]

I agree with your points, but i think it has to do with the fact the women are more emotionally affected by things and have a harder time defending for themselves.

To put it in other words women look for me to take care of them and protect them. its been like this for hundreds of years in society.
this mindset brings us to believe men have more responsiblities out in the real world.

(i.e men in familes have jobs, majority run pf governments are run by men, etc)

Women also are more emotionally affected by little things whereas it seems men are more stolid in affairs when needed be.


because of this things like split custody is unfair for men simply, because it has been the commen thing for the man of a family to take on the real world while women take care of the children and the home. Many courts believe that women will provide children with a better home enviorment compared to men because of things like this. which can be a mistake.

Women in the working world receive more attention, becaue they have va.... they are less common. Women have different ways of getting things done and can be more persuasive and effective in certain areas.

Ah, I forgot that the reason women are expected to take care for the children, be the warm and caring sex, and are under-represented in the workplace and government simply because they are too emotional and just basically unable to take care of themselves!
I am now going to have a little cry over your blatant sexism and then maybe I'll bake a cake or have a kid or something. God knows it's not like I'm going to work now or anything.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Ah, I forgot that the reason women are expected to take care for the children, be the warm and caring sex, and are under-represented in the workplace and government simply because they are too emotional and just basically unable to take care of themselves!
I am now going to have a little cry over your blatant sexism and then maybe I'll bake a cake or have a kid or something. God knows it's not like I'm going to work now or anything.

Great, now that she's gone, we men can all be macho, talk about football, and rate women 1-10. Maybe, Akuchi will bring us some cookies. :naughty:

Seriously, I believe that there is no real way to cause changes in people opinions. With the possible exception of legislating things to be a certain way, and forcing people who disagree to pretend to agree, and teach their children to agree. Once they've died off, we have a society were everyone will agree. Sure, it's hypocritical, but it might work.

 

[Objection]

Ah, I forgot that the reason women are expected to take care for the children, be the warm and caring sex, and are under-represented in the workplace and government simply because they are too emotional and just basically unable to take care of themselves!

Um ...

I am now going to have a little cry over your blatant sexism and then maybe I'll bake a cake or have a kid or something. God knows it's not like I'm going to work now or anything.

Is this bit all sarcasm or can I go QED?

I don't know about you, but I would not feel safe if those in positions of authority put emotional thinking over logical thinking, which (read: supposedly) is what women generally do.

 

[GOTO2435]

Ah, I forgot that the reason women are expected to take care for the children, be the warm and caring sex, and are under-represented in the workplace and government simply because they are too emotional and just basically unable to take care of themselves!
I am now going to have a little cry over your blatant sexism and then maybe I'll bake a cake or have a kid or something. God knows it's not like I'm going to work now or anything.

Ok, Yondie´s comment was a bit sexist but i wouldn´t be complaining about being granted custody of my children just becouse of my sex. Or Being picked for a job simply becouse they are forced to have a woman in that position. Or being able to pick whether to keep a pregnancy or to abort the child and to make the father pay or not in case i want to have him. I know that women are discriminated in a lot of ways but this thread was started with the intention of discussing how men are discriminated too and i think that we have proven that they are, if you think that the things men are discriminated in are fair or not (EG:your views in that men should be forced to pay even thought they told the pregnant woman that they didn´t want the child) don´t really matter here since men are still being discriminated in that aspect since they don´t have the chance to choose, same thing at the woman being pickd just becouse they need one at work scenario. Women are discriminated but men are also discriminated, probably in different ways most of the time but it still is discrimination.

 

[cim]

Is this bit all sarcasm or can I go QED?

Are you fucking kidding me?

I don't know about you, but I would not feel safe if those in positions of authority put emotional thinking over logical thinking, which (read: supposedly) is what women generally do.

It's like you guys learned about gender in the 1800s and then decided to travel through time to make your posts or something.

 

[Objection]

Are you fucking kidding me?



It's like you guys learned about gender in the 1800s and then decided to travel through time to make your posts or something.

You mean to say that, when akuchi was saying that last bit, she wasn't being an example to support the idea that women "are too emotional and just basically unable to take care of themselves"? I mean, "I am now going to have a little cry over your blatant sexism" basically screams emotional, which in turn suggests no will to act logically, which in turn is going to make life a lot more difficult to say the least.

Also, my main point was that I would not feel safe if those in positions of authority put emotional thinking over logical thinking, because as I said before, if an action cannot be justified with logic, then how can it be the right thing to do? If you recommend an action that cannot be logically justified, then for all I know, you're just talking shit.

Then again, maybe logical thinking and emotional thinking are not mutually exclusive.

 

[cantab]

Protip (to everyone): Sarcasm does not work on the internet.

 

[akuchi]

Great, now that she's gone, we men can all be macho, talk about football, and rate women 1-10. Maybe, Akuchi will bring us some cookies. :naughty:

Cookies coming right up, darling. Would you like a cold beer with them too? I shall serve you, of course, in high heels, hotpants and uhh some tight small top affair. Vive macho culture!

You mean to say that, when akuchi was saying that last bit, she wasn't being an example to support the idea that women "are too emotional and just basically unable to take care of themselves"? I mean, "I am now going to have a little cry over your blatant sexism" basically screams emotional, which in turn suggests no will to act logically, which in turn is going to make life a lot more difficult to say the least.

First you say noone should ever report (or indeed tell anyone!) of any crime unless it's 100% provable and convicted in a court of law (which, LOGICALLY(!) raises the problem that you can't tell anyone, including a police officer, unless you know it has already been convicted but it won't be because you never reported it and OH MY GOD MY TINY WOMAN BRAIN IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE MAYBE I SHALL ALSO CRY NOW.*

Seriously, dude. Don't try and act like an academic when you're patently so fucking dense. The fact I've actually got to explain to you, slowly, that yes! that was quite blatant and overstated sarcasm, indeed is quite frankly embarassing. If I were to judge men by your posts you're all thick as two extremely short planks and I wouldn't trust you with my cat, let alone my government.

*That was also sarcasm.

 

[Altmer]

I don't even like hotpants on women in general. Slutty looks aren't a turn-on. I hate people that look like they're begging to get laid. If you want a lay you got to fucking earn it, and you don't do it by bringing me cookies.

 

[akuchi]

I don't even like hotpants on women in general. Slutty looks aren't a turn-on. I hate people that look like they're begging to get laid. If you want a lay you got to fucking earn it, and you don't do it by bringing me cookies.

Trust me. Once you've tried my cookies, I've earned the god-damn lay.
If I didn't have SUPER-GIANT EMO SCARS to hide, I should add hotpants would be very practical in the summer. It is not good when people write off whole swathes of women's clothing as slutty!

 

[Altmer]

Trust me. Once you've tried my cookies, I've earned the god-damn lay.

Yeah, but it's not because you serve them on a silver platter like an obedient housewife. You know that's something else. For everyone else: if you take the time and effort to make cookies for someone, it should be appreciated, and not taken for granted. That's the whole point of how cookies can earn a lay.

If I didn't have SUPER-GIANT EMO SCARS to hide, I should add hotpants would be very practical in the summer. It is not good when people write off whole swathes of women's clothing as slutty!

It isn't slutty, it just looks it to me, which makes me not like it! I generally don't like too much open skin on women anyway. I don't like vulnerable or overly sexy looks, it's just... meh. Put it this way: I find it more impressive for a woman to be herself with me than to dress like she wants me. Maybe she just likes dressing that way and i won't hold that against her but don't dress to impress. So I'm more impressed by a woman that doesn't care what exactly she's wearing because it means she doesn't try too hard.

Maybe I just don't like women that try too hard. I don't know. Or what comes off as it which is ofc very different maybe from the intention with which the woman wears it

 

[Technologikall]

Offcourse males are supposed to protect females. It works better when the strong protect the weak then the other way around. There's a good reason behind that.

 

[MrIndigo]

Offcourse males are supposed to protect females. It works better when the strong protect the weak then the other way around. There's a good reason behind that.

The assumption here is that you are strong and women are weak. Yep, I can see someone has been raised by the good ol' American Christian-inspired traditions.

 

[Playa]

Offcourse males are supposed to protect females. It works better when the strong protect the weak then the other way around. There's a good reason behind that.

Sounds like some sexist talk to me :naughty: All points are invalid because money is the most important thing in the world and it is men who get higher wages and have much greater opportunity to get jobs. The only real big problem is the way that the mother almost always gets custody of the children in divorce cases, it is as if there is some unwritten law which says that all women are better at parenting than men.

 

[MrIndigo]

Sounds like some sexist talk to me :naughty: All points are invalid because money is the most important thing in the world and it is men who get higher wages and have much greater opportunity to get jobs. The only real big problem is the way that the mother almost always gets custody of the children in divorce cases, it is as if there is some unwritten law which says that all women are better at parenting than men.

As I explained earlier; a given woman doesn't get paid less for the same role in the same organisation, it's just that women aren't appointed to the upper echelons of big corporations as often; this is a combination of many factors, and not just the result of inherent predjudice (although in some places, there is this factor).

And also as I explained earlier, the custody imbalance is the result of a legal system lagging behind psychology, as there was a prevailing belief in the mid-20th Century that father figures were not important for developing children.

 

[Objection]

First you say noone should ever report (or indeed tell anyone!) of any crime unless it's 100% provable and convicted in a court of law (which, LOGICALLY(!) raises the problem that you can't tell anyone, including a police officer, unless you know it has already been convicted but it won't be because you never reported it and OH MY GOD MY TINY WOMAN BRAIN IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE MAYBE I SHALL ALSO CRY NOW.*

Tell me then, how can a statement that is impossible to prove in any realistic circumstances possibly be true? Also, when did I say it had to be convicted before it could be reported?

Seriously, dude. Don't try and act like an academic when you're patently so fucking dense. The fact I've actually got to explain to you, slowly, that yes! that was quite blatant and overstated sarcasm, indeed is quite frankly embarassing.

[sarcasm]Coming soon: akuchi's guide to detecting sarcasm on internet forums.[/sarcasm]

Sarcasm is denoted in conversation by tone of voice. You don't get tone of voice on forum posts. To compensate for this, one way of denoting sarcasm is by using [sarcasm] tags, of which there were none in your post. Therefore, unless there is another way of denoting sarcasm in forum posts (and if so, what the hell is it?), there was no logical reason to believe that you were being sarcastic.

Furthermore, understanding what sarcasm is is not a requirement for being intelligent. It is only a requirement for communicating well.

If I were to judge men by your posts you're all thick as two extremely short planks and I wouldn't trust you with my cat, let alone my government.

So you won't trust people who appear to be stupid but you will trust people who appear to love you, whether they genuinely do or not. Nothing wrong with the first part of that statement, but the second part confuses me.

 

[-Mind-]

in the usa, if a woman is naked and stands in front of the window, and a man looks inside the man can get arrested. if a man is naked and a woman looks inside the man gets arrested too lol

 

[cantab]

As I explained earlier; a given woman doesn't get paid less for the same role in the same organisation,

As was also mentioned earlier, there are studies that show that it is indeed the case that there are women being paid less for the same role. Not to mention enough equal pay lawsuits.

Personally I think the pay issue would reduce if men were granted equal parental leave. From the employers point of view, a woman is a risk to them - if she gets pregnant, they still have to pay her, AND have to find a temporary staff member to cover.

And also as I explained earlier, the custody imbalance is the result of a legal system lagging behind psychology, as there was a prevailing belief in the mid-20th Century that father figures were not important for developing children.

Well it will continue to lag if people don't campaign. The changes won't happen by themselves. Of course there ARE people campaigning.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

akuchi: Dear lord, do you have a low opinion of men. Beer and cookies! Come on, beer does not go well with cookies, milk is for cookies. Beer is for everything else. Women, no wonder we men dominate you so.

Personally I think the pay issue would reduce if men were granted equal parental leave. From the employers point of view, a woman is a risk to them - if she gets pregnant, they still have to pay her, AND have to find a temporary staff member to cover.

I agree that you are correct for middle to lower level positions. However, I doubt that it would make a difference for the higher positions in companies. If we look at upper level bank executives in Iceland, the lack of women is staggering. IIRC, there was something like a woman who ended up leveling because she didn't enjoy being the only woman. Interestingly, it's believed that women tend to make better (or at least more conservative) investments then men. And that a married man makes more conservative investments then a single man. Although that last one could be explained by not wanting to risk as much for the family.

 

[tup]

Offcourse males are supposed to protect females. It works better when the strong protect the weak then the other way around. There's a good reason behind that.

Damn I'm not going to protect anyone except myself.

Deal with it, world.

 

[cim]

So when is this thread going to stop turning into "sweepingly general statement about gender that's not actually true" / "no that's not true" / rinse and repeat? It's starting to get old.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

So when is this thread going to stop turning into "sweepingly general statement about gender that's not actually true" / "no that's not true" / rinse and repeat? It's starting to get old.

What did you expect?

Logical debate on TEH INTERNETZ?

The thing is people see most things in terms of sweeping generalities, and we all know that all generalities aren't true. :naughty:

 

[cantab]

If we look at upper level bank executives in Iceland, the lack of women is staggering.

Yeah, but then Iceland's banking system went belly-up. Not that I'm saying that's because of the lack of women...but Iceland is probably a poor country to cite here.

Interestingly, it's believed that women tend to make better (or at least more conservative) investments then men.

This fits with that long essay linked to previously.
It also makes sense when you think about the way a banker is going to advance. By being successful. Now in order to be successful, you have to take risks - higher risks tend to have higher rewards. The people whose risks pay off get trusted with larger investments. The people whose risks fail don't advance, or leave banking altogether. The people who don't take risks are similarly not going to advance.

 

[akuchi]

Tell me then, how can a statement that is impossible to prove in any realistic circumstances possibly be true? Also, when did I say it had to be convicted before it could be reported?

uh. I think we said that already - man and woman alone together, man rapes woman, woman says 'I was raped', man says 'it was consensual' - how is that provable in a court of law generally?

[sarcasm]Coming soon: akuchi's guide to detecting sarcasm on internet forums.[/sarcasm]
you could use it.
Sarcasm is denoted in conversation by tone of voice. You don't get tone of voice on forum posts. To compensate for this, one way of denoting sarcasm is by using [sarcasm] tags, of which there were none in your post. Therefore, unless there is another way of denoting sarcasm in forum posts (and if so, what the hell is it?), there was no logical reason to believe that you were being sarcastic.
blah blah logic you actually don't understand it at all
Furthermore, understanding what sarcasm is is not a requirement for being intelligent. It is only a requirement for communicating well.



So you won't trust people who appear to be stupid but you will trust people who appear to love you, whether they genuinely do or not. Nothing wrong with the first part of that statement, but the second part confuses me.
LOGICALLY la la la did I say that? no. I quite like some stupid people. Sometimes they are my friends, and that means I trust them to a degree - to be alone with a man, I have to trust him implicitly for reasons like the above scenario! this does not mean he is a member of MENSA. I said I wouldn't trust a stupid person to make decisions that affect every aspect of my life. Thanks.

 

[ivar]

akuchi:
Interestingly, it's believed that women tend to make better (or at least more conservative) investments then men.

Interestingly, it's believed that men are smarter and more assertive than women, hence why there is a majority of men in CEO positions.

Yet the former statement is okay but the latter is offensive.

Objection you throw around logic but fail to understand the full breadth of its meaning. What you are suggesting is not being logical, rather rational/reasonable.

rationality and reasonableness involve logic, yes, but do not necessitate logic. for example, it is reasonable to think women should have equal rights, but there is no logical basis for women having equal rights. logic, though it doesn't have to deductive, has to be used strictly according to precise formal (propositional logic) or informal (ad hominem knda things) systems of logic; being logical is not just "being smart".