Men. Men. Men.

[Darth Richard II]

Reminds me a bit of what "rapper" B.O.B. said recently, about how he doesn't believe slavery existed because he's never seen a slave ship.

[mankytoes]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, but you get that this isn't remotely the common viewpoint, right? And that your overall experience doesn't quite compare as a data point to 'most women surveyed'?

Alternately, women vote Republican because they know that sexism and harassment aren't particularly partisan. 

Not on here, I'm talking about in real life.

In a choice between Hilary and Trump? Seriously? How could a woman who has this view of society, that predators are everywhere, vote for a man like that? Democrats are certainly guilty of harrassment issues, but you must be able to see that they are, at least relatively, the pro women's rights party?

57 minutes ago, Elder Sister said:

I'm totally not surprised.  I do appreciate though, that you and mankytoes have sort of proved out what I was saying about the denial aspect of what's happening.  I saw the same thing with the '#metoo' movement.  You have thousands of women who are all saying the same thing, and one guy mentions the 2 or 3 women he's heard of, talked to, or seen interviewed on Fox News, so none of it is true, or it's highly fabricated.

But I don't think that. You seem to have completely failed to understand my point. I was arguing against this girl, as were other guys (and girls). I'm not saying I think the claims are highly fabricated. I know people on here think I'm a sceptic, but in most debates I've been on the side calling for greater prosecution. That isn't what I'm talking about here, I'm talking about the idea that men are on one side of the debate, and women are on the other. It's a nice, neat, tidy idea, but it's not true.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Not on here, I'm talking about in real life.

In a choice between Hilary and Trump? Seriously? How could a woman who has this view of society, that predators are everywhere, vote for a man like that? Democrats are certainly guilty of harrassment issues, but you must be able to see that they are, at least relatively, the pro women's rights party?

Because it isn't their biggest issue, and they don't think Clinton would solve it.

For a lot of women out there Trump was 'just another man'. He didn't do anything that countless other men hadn't already done to them. The only difference is that he got caught. They cared more about other issues - and those issues overwhelmingly happened to be 'am I white'. 

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

But I don't think that. You seem to have completely failed to understand my point. I was arguing against this girl, as were other guys (and girls). I'm not saying I think the claims are highly fabricated. I know people on here think I'm a sceptic, but in most debates I've been on the side calling for greater prosecution. That isn't what I'm talking about here, I'm talking about the idea that men are on one side of the debate, and women are on the other. It's a nice, neat, tidy idea, but it's not true.

Ah, I see. No, you're right. Women are not all on one side of the debate. Not by a long shot. Not when Pelosi argues in good faith that Conyers shouldn't leave his post because he's a good man. 

[mankytoes]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because it isn't their biggest issue, and they don't think Clinton would solve it.

For a lot of women out there Trump was 'just another man'. He didn't do anything that countless other men hadn't already done to them. The only difference is that he got caught. They cared more about other issues - and those issues overwhelmingly happened to be 'am I white'. 

Ah, I see. No, you're right. Women are not all on one side of the debate. Not by a long shot. Not when Pelosi argues in good faith that Conyers shouldn't leave his post because he's a good man. 

Maybe Clinton wouldn't, but surely anyone who feels like this has really been a huge negative on their life would have a serious problem with a man like Trump having the honour of being President? Just for the role model factor. There were other candidates, or you could abstain.

Exactly, good example, there's Pelosi, Lena Dunham came up on the other thread, Edwina Currie was the prominent British politician I mentioned (on the bbc, not Fox News!), I've seen loads of columnists, in broadsheet as well as tabloid media... and these are just the tiny minority of women in the public eye, and they have to be more careful about what they say. To say all of these women are just an exception we can basically discard seems close to putting your fingers in your ears to me.

I think this is an important factor in gender issues. People don't tend to segregate by gender like they do by other factors. In cities, you tend to have white areas, black areas, rich areas, poor areas, but not male and female areas. Most people have people they are very close to of the opposite gender, so these issues are more complex in this way.

[Eggegg]

11 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I think this is an important factor in gender issues. People don't tend to segregate by gender like they do by other factors. In cities, you tend to have white areas, black areas, rich areas, poor areas, but not male and female areas. Most people have people they are very close to of the opposite gender, so these issues are more complex in this way.

That anyone would suggest someone should think in a certain way due to their gender or race or sexuality  is pretty offensive as it is anyway. 

 

[HexMachina]

Maybe I’m being dense but that doesn’t seem to be what anyone in this thread is saying at all so.. 

[mankytoes]

Here's another example of what I'm talking about- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/28/angela-lansbury-attractive-women-must-sometimes-take-blame-sexual/

[Toth]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Here's another example of what I'm talking about- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/28/angela-lansbury-attractive-women-must-sometimes-take-blame-sexual/

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,

I thought this is supposed to be the "Let's talk about Men's issues the way MRA's don't" thread, not the victim blaming thread.

What Dame Lansbury there sprouts comes from an antiquated view that men are impulsive and sexually violent creatures by default, who can't possibly be bothered to restrain themselves when women dare to enter the public sphere to flaunt their alluring female bodies. That's why women to this day are pushed out of that sphere, to stay at home or to wrap themselves in a bedsheet when leaving it, so that they don't tempt those poor beastlike men who can't possibly do anything about their idiotic behavior.

Seriously, dude. As a man you should feel offended at this kind of reasoning, not support it because it rids us of all responsibility for crappy behavior.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Every time I see the title of this thread the Monty Python song "Spam" jumps into my head.

[Eggegg]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Every time I see the title of this thread the Monty Python song "Spam" jumps into my head.

I was thinking Two and a half men but oh well.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, Eggegg said:

I was thinking Two and a half men but oh well.

I think that and "Men in Tights" from Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

[Alarich II]

To talk about another man-related issue: I have noticed the total absence of any male staff in our kids nursery/kindergarten and very few male teachers in our (two) prospective elementary schools (something like 1 out of 10).

I find that rather troublesome, because it means an absence of (hopefully positive) male role-models outside the (classical) family in an age group where very important foundations are laid for later personality-traits. I have a few theories as to why that might be the case, don't know if they are right:

1. Caretaking/Nursing/teaching for small kids are seen as traditional female occupations so when looking for a job, men and women consciously or subconsciously select their occupations accordingly.

2. This is Germany-specific: Many of these occupations are in the public sector (as employees of municipal/federal entities), where part-time is more widely accepted and combined with a higher job security, so these conditions make it especially attractive for those wanting to work only part-time or take a long maternity leave: these are mainly women, so women select these jos because they will fit their career/work-life-balance preferences better.

3. Although these jobs are very stressful (psychological, but also physiological), they don't pay as well: There is a high degree of responsibility but in relation very little income and social recognition. Because men are conditioned to go for high-income, high-prestige jobs, they are avoiding these kind of jobs.

4. Men are not trusted with small kids. AFAIK (and please correct me, if I'm wrong here), the majority of sexual (and physical) violence against children and women is carried out by men. So men have a somewhat tainted reputation and that means that parents are less likely to entrust their children in the care of male nannies, nursery or elementary teachers.

[Ormond]

5 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

To talk about another man-related issue: I have noticed the total absence of any male staff in our kids nursery/kindergarten and very few male teachers in our (two) prospective elementary schools (something like 1 out of 10).

I find that rather troublesome, because it means an absence of (hopefully positive) male role-models outside the (classical) family in an age group where very important foundations are laid for later personality-traits. I have a few theories as to why that might be the case, don't know if they are right:

1. Caretaking/Nursing/teaching for small kids are seen as traditional female occupations so when looking for a job, men and women consciously or subconsciously select their occupations accordingly.

2. This is Germany-specific: Many of these occupations are in the public sector (as employees of municipal/federal entities), where part-time is more widely accepted and combined with a higher job security, so these conditions make it especially attractive for those wanting to work only part-time or take a long maternity leave: these are mainly women, so women select these jos because they will fit their career/work-life-balance preferences better.

3. Although these jobs are very stressful (psychological, but also physiological), they don't pay as well: There is a high degree of responsibility but in relation very little income and social recognition. Because men are conditioned to go for high-income, high-prestige jobs, they are avoiding these kind of jobs.

4. Men are not trusted with small kids. AFAIK (and please correct me, if I'm wrong here), the majority of sexual (and physical) violence against children and women is carried out by men. So men have a somewhat tainted reputation and that means that parents are less likely to entrust their children in the care of male nannies, nursery or elementary teachers.

This is 1, 3, and 4. It is NOT #2. In the linked to list of 225 countries and regions, Germany is 52nd in terms of the percentage of its primary school teachers who are female. All of the countries where less than 50% of primary school teachers are female are very poor and/or Islamic:

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/WorldStats/Gender-primary-education-teachers.html

[Dr. Pepper]

12 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

 

4. Men are not trusted with small kids. AFAIK (and please correct me, if I'm wrong here), the majority of sexual (and physical) violence against children and women is carried out by men. So men have a somewhat tainted reputation and that means that parents are less likely to entrust their children in the care of male nannies, nursery or elementary teachers.

Just some anecdotal commentary on this....

I have a gay male friend who worked at a daycare/preschool.  He was really good at his job, kids loved him.  When he was hired, the director told him to never ever speak about his husband, recommended he remove his ring entirely so he didn't slip up.  He needed a job, so agreed to this discrimination.  Well, he slipped up (I think a parent actually saw him with his family out in town and told others).  It all went downhill from there with parents beginning to make accusations or pulling their kids out of the daycare until he finally agreed to quit.  I've not done any research on this, but my friend said he was part of online groups where other men reported similar stories.

As a foster parent, I recall single men who signed up to foster being really scrutinized and looked on with suspicion.  People commonly wonder why a single man would want to do something like foster children, as though their reasons couldn't be the same as everyone else's.  In foster parent groups, it's probably the most common question I see from single men interested in doing this.  Some even question outright if it's disgusting that they want to foster, even after it's pointed out that single women do it all the time.  

Much of society do not trust men with their children and that's a problem.  

[Eggegg]

16 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

To talk about another man-related issue: I have noticed the total absence of any male staff in our kids nursery/kindergarten and very few male teachers in our (two) prospective elementary schools (something like 1 out of 10).

I find that rather troublesome, because it means an absence of (hopefully positive) male role-models outside the (classical) family in an age group where very important foundations are laid for later personality-traits. I have a few theories as to why that might be the case, don't know if they are right:

1. Caretaking/Nursing/teaching for small kids are seen as traditional female occupations so when looking for a job, men and women consciously or subconsciously select their occupations accordingly.

2. This is Germany-specific: Many of these occupations are in the public sector (as employees of municipal/federal entities), where part-time is more widely accepted and combined with a higher job security, so these conditions make it especially attractive for those wanting to work only part-time or take a long maternity leave: these are mainly women, so women select these jos because they will fit their career/work-life-balance preferences better.

3. Although these jobs are very stressful (psychological, but also physiological), they don't pay as well: There is a high degree of responsibility but in relation very little income and social recognition. Because men are conditioned to go for high-income, high-prestige jobs, they are avoiding these kind of jobs.

4. Men are not trusted with small kids. AFAIK (and please correct me, if I'm wrong here), the majority of sexual (and physical) violence against children and women is carried out by men. So men have a somewhat tainted reputation and that means that parents are less likely to entrust their children in the care of male nannies, nursery or elementary teachers.

Yeah there is an unfortunate stigma around education, especially primary school education that probably puts off a lot of men. Not only the association with pedophilia, bit also the stigma of it being a less than manly thing for guys to do. Its a difficult hurdle to get over. 
I'd say the money issue is also a problem, its never going to be a career that makes a lot of money, and there seems to be little reward in terms of social currency for men so its hard to see the appeal.

And also to take a bit more of a Damore approach to it, in that I think that men are naturally less interested in looking after children, it doesn't come as naturally, so its always going to be a bit more difficult to recruit men. Definitely not impossible, if you removed the stigma and changed the pay scale then that might change. I do feel however that those things are a long way off of happening and there are a number of factors stopping it right now.

[Alarich II]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

This is 1, 3, and 4. It is NOT #2. In the linked to list of 225 countries and regions, Germany is 52nd in terms of the percentage of its primary school teachers who are female. All of the countries where less than 50% of primary school teachers are female are very poor and/or Islamic:

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/WorldStats/Gender-primary-education-teachers.html

Thanks for the stats: although I don't really know how it is linked to my theory? My point is not about how rich a Country is (in general) but rather about the specific German situation, where this is a job that has a) a high degree of job security and b ) is very part-time-friendly which means that it sought out by women more because (and this ties into #3) women are not conditioned in the same way as men are, i.e. they can and do chose jobs that offer better work-life-balance and Job security and they sacrifice income opportunities for that. Which is a smart choice and probably explains - at least to some extend - why women live longer than men.

That said, I think that a ratio of 85% female primary school teachers is pretty high (and would I bet it is even higher with nursery teachers). The other thing I noticed from the stats is that the former Soviet States all have a pretty high rate of female primary school teachers, so I wonder if there's some kind of cultural or economic connection there that might explain this.

[Eggegg]

33 minutes ago, Ormond said:

This is 1, 3, and 4. It is NOT #2. In the linked to list of 225 countries and regions, Germany is 52nd in terms of the percentage of its primary school teachers who are female. All of the countries where less than 50% of primary school teachers are female are very poor and/or Islamic:

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/WorldStats/Gender-primary-education-teachers.html

Yeah I wonder if those countries which are under 50% of women in primary teaching are that low because women aren't allowed / discouraged from working altogether. 

[Week]

45 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

1. Caretaking/Nursing/teaching for small kids are seen as traditional female occupations so when looking for a job, men and women consciously or subconsciously select their occupations accordingly.

3. Although these jobs are very stressful (psychological, but also physiological), they don't pay as well: There is a high degree of responsibility but in relation very little income and social recognition. Because men are conditioned to go for high-income, high-prestige jobs, they are avoiding these kind of jobs.

1) Viewed as a female occupation and, ergo, does not pay well. I'd guess that is about 80% of the issue.

[Alarich II]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Much of society do not trust men with their children and that's a problem.  

I agree and I wonder when (or what) this started? I will hazard some theories, some are probably not really true, but just a guess:

1. Education used to be very closely tied to the church in many western countries and so the teachers were mainly male. As trust in the churches as moral institutions eroded, so did trust in the male teacher (for small children).

2. With the uncovering of systematic and widespread sexual and other abuse in church institutions, not only the image of the church but also of the men associated with caring and nursing was destroyed and replaced with the predator who infiltrates these institutions (school, church etc) on purpose to prey on his innocent victims.

2. (Male) Education used to be closely tied to corporal punishment and brutality, so the idea of the male teacher had this aspect of physical brutality to it and as violence became less acceptable in education, this image of the brutal male teacher persisted so that people trust men less.

3. Men have the reputation of not being able to keep their violent tendencies in check, so they are too dangerous around kids (like pit bull and other breeds).

 

[Eggegg]

11 minutes ago, Week said:

1) Viewed as a female occupation and, ergo, does not pay well. I'd guess that is about 80% of the issue.

I don't think thats the cause and effect.