You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It's often just because mothers get longer/better paid maternity leave.
It goes way beyond that; it pervades all kinds of societeal attitudes and norms not to mention the legal system which has been utterly flacid in addressing the huge number of wrongs that women (as mothers) have done to the fathers of their children regarding access.
If only men and women were equal in society and we didn't have to pass laws to try and make it happen.
Like I said before, the wrongs are on both sides and if you think women dont have power in society, then you've clearly not got children.
Third wave feminism promotes ownership of reproductive rights, better employment rights, and opposition to physical/ sexual abuse.
All positive and laudible things.
It also promotes the idea of over throwing the capitalist patriarchy and gave us the concept of 'white male privilege', which is as offensive a concept as saying all Muslims are terrorists or all blacks are drug dealers.
Like I said before, the wrongs are on both sides and if you think women dont have power in society, then you've clearly not got children.
If you think that then I expect you have not had a serious conversation with a woman. You need to get out of your bubble and see the real world.
You're going to be needing this before long. The one you're using must be worn out by now...
I thought he was using one of those machines they built the Channel Tunnel with
If only men and women were equal in society and we didn't have to pass laws to try and make it happen.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, I disagree with little in that article other than that line - and perhaps the one where we are also then asked to protect women in all situations (isnt this a bit patriarchal and infantalizing??? ). The whole tone of the article was pleasantly patronising as well, like I said, I don't feel it will do anything to actually bring more men on board.
It also promotes the idea of over throwing the capitalist patriarchy and gave us the concept of 'white male privilege', which is as offensive a concept as saying all Muslims are terrorists or all blacks are drug dealers.
It says that power in society is held mostly by white men. Which is so obviously true that anyone objecting to it must have a very large chip on their shoulder.
[img] 
[/img]
It also promotes the idea of over throwing the capitalist patriarchy and gave us the concept of 'white male privilege', which is as offensive a concept as saying all Muslims are terrorists or all blacks are drug dealers.
You really aren't getting this are you? Please. Get help. You really do need it.
Which article Tom?
Guardian article... first page.
Right, nice and caught up then....
as I said before it's a good step for those who have no idea how to behave in a modern world
phwor, crikey look at the baps on that etc.
It also promotes the idea of over throwing the capitalist patriarchy and gave us the concept of 'white male privilege', which is as offensive a concept as saying all Muslims are terrorists or all blacks are drug dealers.
It just isn't though is it?
I don't think you can convince those men anyway Mike, they already understand the morality of their actions and choose to carry on.
Instead what the Guardian appears to be doing, is winding up their own male readership.
Great idea.
Instead what the Guardian appears to be doing, is winding up their own male readership.
As a male, Guardian reader, I can assure you that the article didn't wind me up at all.
geetee1972 - Member
If i were to step into a room with a bunch of third wave feminists and expect anything other than a hostile response I'd be crazy.
And yet when you get that same response from a forum of wood-burning-coffee-drinking-Skoda-driving men then they are still the ones in the wrong?
Ah yes the give up approach, find the video I posted about racism and see what you think of that approach.
FWIW I will spend November beardless campaigning for Men's Health issues, none are forgotten
.
As a male, Guardian reader, I can assure you that the article didn't wind me up at all.
Maybe that is the case then, the comments section seems more frothing than usual though.
+1 ransos
As we appear to have gone full circle back to page 1, it might be worth revisiting what women feel about the situation: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3059623-to-ask-for-a-diary-of-sexual-harassment?pg=1&order=
It just isn't though is it?
Of course it is and lots of people agree that idea.
You really aren't getting this are you? Please. Get help. You really do need it.
But with what exactly? Help me understand specifically what it is I am saying that is so morally transgressive you think I need psychiatric help?
I asked this two pages back and all I could see that was causing a problem was the suggestion that the proble wasn't asymmetric, which I explained having acknowledged the error of trying to use the term metaphotically and the idea that women score higher on neuroticism (which might lead some of them to experience the otherwise innocent approach to them as harassment) and men score lower on agreeableness (which might make them more likely to be confrontational, rude or even aggressive).
Why does that lead you to think I need help?
And yet when you get that same response from a forum of wood-burning-coffee-drinking-Skoda-driving men then they are still the ones in the wrong?
Oh the irony! I drive a Skoda, have a wood burning stove and I love coffee! 😀 Seriously that did make me smile. Perhaps we're not so different afterall.
Maybe, the comments section seems more frothing than usual though.
In doesn't take very much for BTL to work itself into a froth of self-righteous indignation. Mostly by people who spend their days looking for stuff to be annoyed about.
Quick check
G20 leaders
[img] 
[/img]
UK cabinet
[img] 
[/img]Equality rules
Well Zokes, perhaps the Guardian should post those horrific stories.
Do any of you think that the political polarisation in the US has worsened things and that we need to find a way to bring the extremes on both ends of the political/gender divide back into the fold and create more dialogue?
Equality rules
25% of them are women including the PM. Does it have to be 50/50 and if so why?
Do any of you think that the political polarisation in the US has worsened things and that we need to find a way to bring the extremes on both ends of the political/gender divide back into the fold and create more dialogue?
Advocating the violent overthrow of the patriarchy would be extreme. Wanting men to stop harassing women? Not so much.
Do any of you think that the political polarisation in the US has worsened things and that we need to find a way to bring the extremes on both ends of the political/gender divide back into the fold and create more dialogue?
How have both sides gone extreme there? One holds all the power and the other doesn't.
But with what exactly? Help me understand specifically what it is I am saying that is so morally transgressive you think I need psychiatric help?
The way you dismiss facts, try and move a discussion to what you want to talk about and dismiss facts, plus the massive whataboutery of your latest post.
As I said before, I've checked out my ideas with a lot of other people I know personally and I get a very different response.
That might just be because you personally selected the members of that group. There's another group made up of people who just happened upon your obsessive sense of grievance while browsing the OT forum.
Do any of you think that the political polarisation in the US has worsened things and that we need to find a way to bring the extremes on both ends of the political/gender divide back into the fold and create more dialogue?
We should look at what happens in those countries that are the most progressive in their approach to gender equality. Maybe that would help solve the argument.
Well Zokes, perhaps the Guardian should post those horrific stories.
Perhaps it should. I assume you can use email. Perhaps you could furnish the editor with the link.
25% of them are women including the PM. Does it have to be 50/50 and if so why?
close to 50/50 would show that equal opportunities were a real thing, you have a point when it's 75/25 to women based on history. Until then keep digging
Advocating the violent overthrow of the patriarchy would be extreme. Wanting men to stop harassing women? Not so much.
It's not that, it's the derisory and combatitive language and techniques used by both sides to make their points.
You are't going to convince alt righters to stop harrassing women with articles like that, they are probably going to **** themselves to death in their basements out of amusement and link and laugh about the article on various MGTOW boards.
That might just be because you personally selected the members of that group.
Well of course I have, they're people I know! But being in a minority doesn't make you wrong just like being in the majority doesn't make you right.
Advocating the violent overthrow of the patriarchy would be extreme. Wanting men to stop harassing women? Not so much.
100% agree.
The way you dismiss facts
OK what facts have I dismissed again?
We should look at what happens in those countries that are the most progressive in their approach to gender equality. Maybe that would help solve the argument.
Canada seems like a good starting point.
Well done GeeTee, you have made discussion about equality and harassment about you. It's quite an achievement, I'm off to sleep, perhaps you should log out, find a good female friend who isn't afraid to speak the truth and ask about what she feels.
close to 50/50 would show that equal opportunities were a real thing, you have a point when it's 75/25 to women based on history.
No that would show that equality of OUTCOME was a real thing. The fact that the split is not 50/50 now does not prove it's because women are in some way prevented from accessing these roles.
It might be but it would be very hard to prove that given that if you could, then someone would have broken the law.
It might be that women make different choices.
Even more likely is that it might be a bit of both. And even more likely still, is that an awful lot of men are also barred from accessing these positions because of who they are also.
Men in true power positions run a very narrow spectrum of background and profile that the vast majority of men don't conform to either.
But being in a minority doesn't make you wrong
And in this instance it doesn't make you right, either
And back to "what is it that makes us think you need psychiatric help?": take a look back over your contributions, noting not only their content, but also the manner in which they were posted. That's not normal behaviour.
Well done GeeTee, you have made discussion about equality and harassment about you. It's quite an achievement, I'm off to sleep,
#metoo
It's not that, it's the derisory and combatitive language and techniques used by both sides to make their points.You are't going to convince alt righters to stop harrassing women with articles like that, they are probably going to **** themselves to death in their basements out of amusement and link and laugh about the article on various MGTOW boards.
You aren't going to convince the alt-righters of anything, regardless of how it's presented. But in terms of language and presentation, it's interesting that people are exercised by one or two mildly controversial points in an otherwise reasonable article.
Canada seems like a good starting point.
Gender pay gap of 13%.
All the Nordic's are about the same and Finalnds is 19%.
Gender pay gap of 13%.
Yeah, but that's because women don't want jobs that pay more.
I don't agree at all Ransos, alt righters were convinced to move away from the centre ground... they can be brought back.
I'm also interested in some of Grahams and aracers posts, they kind of touch upon (pun intended) a complaint of a Spanish friend of mine - that English men are cold and frigid, for her - touching friends (not strangers) was normal and psychogically healthy (as we are primates). She was of the opinion that Brits are emotionally unhealthy, one small step below the Japanese in terms of crazy.
That article seems to tie in with that when it questions whether men ahoukd be touching women at all (I assume female friends as well).
I don't agree at all Ransos, alt righters were convinced to move away from the centre ground... they can be brought back.
I don't agree. I think the current political climate has given licence to a particularly nasty undercurrent that was always there. Do you think people suddenly became racist because of the terrorist attacks in London and Manchester? How else do we explain the sharp rise in hate crimes?
I'm also interested in some of Grahams and aracers posts, they kind of touch upon (pun intended) a complaint of a Spanish friend of mine - that English men are cold and frigid, for her - touching friends was normal and psychogically healthy (as we are ptimates). She was of the opinion that Brits are emotionally unhealthy.
I'd be reluctant to draw too many conclusions from a single data point! In any case, aren't we just talking about cultural norms?
aren't we just talking about cultural norms?
I think cultural norms can influence mental health, see Japan.
Most of my female friends are very outgoing, they would get offended if they didn't get a hug when I saw them. Most of them aren't English though 😆 but French, Spanish, Greek, Italian and Irish.
TBH, I find myself in agreement with my Spanish friend - my overall experience of my English friends relationships have been that of dysfunction and mental health issues.
I think cultural norms can influence mental health, see Japan.Most of my female friends are very outgoing, they would get offended if they didn't get a hug when I saw them. Most of them aren't English though :lol:, z but French, Spanish, Greek, Italian and Irish.
They're your friends. I do the same. A hug or a peck on the cheek is a very different thing to a manager getting a bit "touchy feely" with one of his staff.
Again, the article doesn't make that distinction clear... although I already knew that. It questions all touching, and that does tie in with the experience I have with my English female friends... they usually aren't touchy... and 90 oercent of the time they are the ones with mental health issues.
Is it possible that through all of the fear, we are becoming less able to connect with each other?
I consider some of the responses to Geetee on here, to be as ****ed up as some of his posts.
Yeah, but that's because women don't want jobs that pay more.
Bingo!
Bingo
*dives into foxhole*
It questions all touching, and that does tie in with the experience I have with my English female friends... they usually aren't touchy.
So touching your English female friends might make them uncomfortable? Isn't that what the article is asking you to think about?
Is it possible that through all of the fear, we are becoming less able to connect with each other?
No, I think that's an excuse trotted out by men trying to justify their inappropriate behaviour.
I’m going to cut to the chase here and give a view into a blind spot. Greg, you come across as somebody who considers themselves above others, and you’re pompous and verbose with it. You confuse the forefront of your own experience/knowledge as being the forefront of everyone else’s, which is more than a little naive and more than a little offensive and disrespectful. That is why your demand that other people get with the program and join you at the front with your five personality traits rubs people up the wrong way. You disagree, of course, but until you learn some humility you’re going to struggle to engage with people and the numerous positive aspects of your input will be lost like tears in the rain.
Bingo!
When you're being satirized, it's time to stop and have a think.
No, I think that's an excuse trotted out by men trying to justify their inappropriate behaviour.
So you have admitted you're inappropriate with your friends by the Guardians standard?
South Americans, Italians and Spaniards would disgree.
Japan would agree.
Depends if you want to be a non sexist version of Japan or not Ransos. The alcoholism, workaholism, noncing, BDSM, suicide rates and general aloofness kind of puts me off though.
South Americans, Italians and Spaniards would disgree.Japan would agree.
Depends if you want to be a non sexist version of Japan or not Ransos. The noncing and BDSM kind of puts me off though.
You seem to be constructing a strawman.
No, I suspect Japans weirdness is entirely related to their inability to open up to each other on a daily basis.
I suspect Anglo Saxon/Japanese disease is a conributing factor in our binge drinking as well.
When you're being satirized, it's time to stop and have a think.
When you're being Ironic without realising it it's also time to stop and tink.
Greg, you come across as somebody who considers themselves above others, and you’re pompous and verbose with it
So your issue with me is stylistic rather than factual?
OK well I can agree that the comments you're making in that post are something I can agree/identify with. As per this post:
In the context of this thread, they are a predisposition to be beligerant with my arguments, to be very dogmatic, to find it hard to see the other person's point of view. I accept that but for as long as those as the only things I'm being accused of, then every response here (that isn't a personal attack, and there have been a lot of those) has the potential to change my mind.
Yeah, but that's because women don't want jobs that pay more.
Bingo!
Poe's Law rides again...
No, I suspect Japans weirdness is entirely related to their inability to open up to each other on a daily basis.I suspect Anglo Saxon/Japanese disease is a conributing factor in our binge drinking as well.
I guess you have two options:
1. Make women uncomfortable and tell them that it's their fault because they're repressed.
2. Don't do stuff that makes them feel uncomfortable.
When you're being Ironic without realising it it's also time to stop and tink.
You can't even spell it. Now that is irony.
You can't even spell it. Now that is irony.
I'm opinionated, dogmatic, often insensitive and when it comes to debating or arguing, I am apt to pursue my own lines of reasoning headlong with little consideration for the views of others.
But the one thing I am not Ransos, is intellectually challenged.
I guess you have two options:
1. Make women uncomfortable and tell them that it's their fault because they're repressed.
2. Don't do stuff that makes them feel uncomfortable.
So you make your friends uncomfortable then?
What I am getting at, is that Brits seem particularly prone to fear - fear of terrorism, fear of immigrants, fear of touching each other. All of those can be evidenced by Brexit and our drinking culture - the latter of which partly exists so the sexes can actually talk to each other.
Your need to leap to the insinuation that I am victim blaming, when I have clearly only been trying to explore cultural differences, only evidences my accusation that Brits are ****ed in the head - politically and emotionally.
What I am getting at, is that Brits seem particularly prone to fear - fear of terrorism, fear of immigrants, fear of touching each other. All of those can be evidenced by Brexit and our drinking culture - the latter of which partly exists so the sexes can actually talk to each other.Your need to leap to the insinuation that I am victim blaming, when I have clearly only been trying to explore cultural differences, only evidences my accusation that Brits are **** in the head.
You carry on with the crude stereotypes if you wish, and I'll carry on with the here and now. It seems to me that your continued whataboutery speaks volumes.
I'm opinionated, dogmatic, often insensitive and when it comes to debating or arguing, I am apt to pursue my own lines of reasoning headlong with little consideration for the views of others.But the one thing I am not Ransos, is intellectually challenged.
Your second sentence is significantly undermined by your first sentence.
Do you make your friends uncomfortable by touching then, yes or no? It's ****ing simple, stop dodging the question.
And accusing me of crude stereotyoes in this thread is hilarious, crude stereotypes have been used throughout to highlight salient points.
Neither is it whatabouterry, as it relates directly to a point made in a linked article.
But the one thing I am not Ransos, is intellectually challenged.
You’re in the 85 percentile? That’s “above average”, don’t get carried away.
So your issue with me is stylistic rather than factual?
It’s both, you wooden-headed sod, though don’t confuse the facts you think you have with how you reason with them. And don’t be so proud of your refusal, or should I say inability, to suspend your own beliefs.
this thread needs more tj.
this thread needs more tj.
Genuine lol.
South Americans, Italians and Spaniards would disgree.Japan would agree.
But would you say Yemen or Norway if I was to pat you on Djibouti?
I'm really saddened by the gap between what this thread could have been and what it's become
Do you make your friends uncomfortable by touching then, yes or no? It's **** simple, stop dodging the question.
Wow. You've consistently chosen to edit my posts so you ignore some of my questions, and the minute I do the same, you get on your high horse. I find your question offensive, and I've no intention of answering you.
And accusing me of crude stereotyoes in this thread is hilarious, crude stereotypes have been used throughout to highlight salient points.
It's exactly what you're doing. You assume characteristics based on nationality, using a couple of friends as evidence. It's pathetic, really.
Neither is it whatabouterry, as it relates directly to a point made in a linked article.
"but what about the Japanese" is pretty much the definition of whataboutery.
"but what about the Japanese" is pretty much the definition of whataboutery.
It's not if you are questioning a societal aversion to touch. You could have had a good conversations about that, instead you decided to be a **** about it.
In regards to stereotyping, it's entirely possibke to mke general assumptions given a societal trends such as binge drinking, sexual deviancy and suicide.
I find your question offensive, and I've no intention of answering you.
Because you're backed into a corner and too conceited to admit it.
It's not if you are questioning a societal aversion to touch.
Which might make an interesting discussion. It's not this one, though.
Because you're backed into a corner and too conceited to admit it.
Because you're a hectoring bully and I've no intention of playing your childish game. I'm starting to get an insight into why some women might not like your behaviour.
Think what you like, because I don't value your opinion.
I'm not the one insinuating other people are victim blaming, that is you mate - doing the bullying.
'm starting to get an insight into why some women might not like your behaviour
See, again, opinion you don't like? Lets engage in some character assaination and accuse the person of being a bit rapey.
You' re a class act mate.
Do you get off by bullying others on a forum?
I'm not the one insinuating other people are victim blaming, that is you mate - doing the bullying.
I'm not your mate. I had imagined that use of [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i] was so obvious as to not require explanation. Perhaps I was right, but you chose to fake offence for the purposes of argument.
Lets engage in some character assaination and accuse the person of being a bit rapey.
I think your desire to invent things and attribute them to me is pretty sad.
Do you get off by bullying others on a forum?
If you think you've been bullied, feel free to report the relevant posts.
You've outed yourself as a complete cockwomble.
Reducto ad absurdum is par for the course in this place, and it was a response to your insinuation.
This thread is even more mental than a mumsnet feminism thread.
You've outed yourself as a cockwomble.
Yes, keep on with the insults. It makes you look so very reasonable.
Reducto ad absurdum is par for the course in this place, and it was a response to your insinuation.
The whole point about reduction ad absurdum is that it isn't an insinuation, because it is obviously a ridiculous view that you would not hold. You're manufacturing offence because you didn't understand the point I was making, and now you can't admit it.
No, I think that's an excuse trotted out by men trying to justify their inappropriate behaviour
It was a response to this attempt to shut down discussion on touch being important to society, as evidenced... apparently... by that psychologytoday article.
You chose to turn sonewhat of a sidetopic that perhaps you disagreed with, into something that it was not by doing a little bit of character assaination.
I'm sorry, but I have a huge problem with that - you are the type of peraon, who's behaviour and character is open to taking part in lynch mobs.
Does it feel good to be a right on, true believer Ransos?
You’re in the 85 percentile? That’s “above average”, don’t get carried away.
Well I say 85th percentile, it's tricky. I scored in the 97th percentile on the Watson Glazer Critical Reasoning test but only in the 75th percentile for the Raven's Progressive Matricies. I've done a few IQ test that have given me a score of around 120-130 which is classed as 'very superior intelligence', but honestly I'm not sure how accurate that is. I know I'm reasonably smart, but I'm a long way behind people like my best friend who has an IQ of around 160.
It’s both, you wooden-headed sod, though don’t confuse the facts you think you have with how you reason with them. And don’t be so proud of your refusal, or should I say inability, to suspend your own beliefs.
OK well sorry you feel that way, clearly I've made you very angry and while that doesn't surprise me, I'm sincerely sorry that you ended up feeling like that.
I can and do change my views on things based on feedback; it's not easy (for anyone) but for instance I switched my vote from Tory to Labour at the last election based on debates and discussions on here. A few of you might not realise it but your arguments changed my vote.
For all the shit that's been thrown on this thread it's worth keeping in mind that most people, myself included, do change their views on things in response to pressured arguments. I might not admit that here, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I've done a few IQ test that have given me a score of around 120-130 which is classed as 'very superior intelligence',
Can you do an EQ test please?
Another point that I'd like to make, now I'm in the mood for shitting on people.
What the **** did the OP expect? It took a twitter hashtag to make him shocked about male and human behaviour?
Hundreds of thousands of years of wars, rape, genocide,forced marriages, dehumanisation of out groups vs in groups... shock horror.... men are arseholes.
Who knew it guys? I'm as ****ing shocked as you are.