''The war on men''

[willman]

Can you fix the quotes? It's gone all funny.

 

Well, neither you nor I are the maitre'd, so I'd say let them get on with their own behaviour and worry about our own.

If you stop worrying about gender for a second, it's rude to stare at people in public, so don't do it. It's okay to look at people.

If you found men attractive, do you think that the rules would somehow be different?

People are all individual, so some may be offended by your ogling more quickly than others. If you wish to check out my butt, go for your life, it won't upset me.

 

I may be doing without realising it - but it should be you being offended not someone on your behalf.

[Cyclone]

Now you're being specific to avoid the question.

What a strange assertion. Being specific to avoid a question.

I agree totally equal pay for equal work, no one should be abused or harassed in any society so we're on the same page,their should be no work discrimination.

Okay, good. So what is this "war on men", what is being done, what affects are there?

 

BUT the objective issue is that the woman your with may want different to the woman sat across from you in a business or social meeting of which you may have no idea. So any choices you make based on your personal structure could be seen as the exact opposite of what you think you're displaying.

 

So long as you're treating everyone equally, irrespective of gender, there's no complaint though is there. A particular female might want me to pull her chair out, she'll be disappointed because I won't. I also won't pull out the chair of any males. Equality.

I will however hold the door open for someone following me through it. Irrespective of gender, race, colour, religion or what football team they support. Equality.

 

So, anyway, what is this "war on men", what are the effects, what does it entail, how have you suffered?

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2018 at 12:06 ----------

 

I think there's a war on equality and the erosion of what were traditional matters of etiquette.

 

This was your first comment on the thread.

[ENG601PM]

And yet there are still many cases of it happening, in the news, you know it, I know it, we all know it. So stop yanking my chain.

Then let's have a few examples to discuss instead of some vague handwaving towards the 9 o clock news.

[Cyclone]

 

Why can only women participate in Race for Life? That isn't equality. Where's the men only events organised by the same charity?

Why isn't it an issue that men can't attend WI ? Is there a male equivalent.

We gave you an example immediately, but you somehow contrived to dismiss it.

I used to hold the door for people,now if its a woman i don't. Wouldn't want to be accused of sexism. I don't give up my chair anymore to anyone except the elderly.

I used to smile or nod acknowledgement to people if you happened to catch their eye inadvertently,now if its a female i look away instantly, who wants to be accused of objectification.

And then you segued into personal behavioural changes, some of which appear to be describing you stopping discriminating in favour of women.

And a bit of fear of being called a perv for staring at women.

 

I don't see what the "war on men" is doing here. You previously discriminated against men with regards to door opening, now you don't.

And you have some overblown fear when glancing in the direction of a woman...

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2018 at 12:10 ----------

 

Then let's have a few examples to discuss instead of some vague handwaving towards the 9 o clock news.

 

No, that's not the topic.

The war on men, let's have some specific examples of what that means.

 

Willman has engaged in a good discussion, you're trying to shift the burden from proving the assertion that this war on men exists, to somehow be a need to prove that women are discriminated against. I'm not playing your game.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2018 at 12:11 ----------

 

There is a war on hard won ideas of equality which some people think should be preference for women.

 

Is there, where's your evidence?

[willman]

I don't think there's a war on men, just on equality as i said and tbh no one knows what it is.

 

As for the examples such as WI - is society clamouring for it to be open to men. NO so we are suffering from inequality. Is Cancer Research Race for Life being opened to men -NO so we're suffering from inequality. It isn't the fact that we don't have events, its that society accepts this positive discrimination.

 

I did segue into behavioural changes as this is where i see the next generation "suffering". A young lady served me today in a cafe and called me "love" - she meant nothing by it and i accepted it as it was meant(not a term of endearment). Now some of the news equality issues have shown complaints where the women had been referred to as love etc in an office environment and have complained.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2008/dec/02/work-and-careers

as an example.

 

So should i bring it to the cafe chains head office attention?

 

I understand in society there have been monumental inequalities that needed addressing but some of the stuff is really undermining the whole thing.

[Cyclone]

So who is it that is prosecuting a war on equality?

Are you suffering from inequality because you can't access the WI? Are you sure? There are private groups that accept only men, so no, I don't think you are.

There are runs open only to men. So no, you didn't suffer inequality by being denied the opportunity to run.

If women weren't already disadvantaged, if they hadn't recently had to fight for the right to equality in the first place, then there wouldn't be a need for these affirmative actions, but they have had to fight, and they are still fighting, so there is still a need.

 

Look love, you don't know what you're talking about...

 

Ouch, that's patronising isn't it, good job I was just making a point. So depending on how words are used and by who and to who, it can be offensive, or not. You're not offended when a bus driver in Sheffield or a waitress indeed calls you love.

In most of the rest of the country, in a professional environment, it would be highly inappropriate wouldn't it.

[tinfoilhat]

I dont think theres a war on men, but it gives us pause to think more - which is a good thing but its not always helpful.

 

I only complement women I know really really really well now. When I worked in a shop I recall alot of the small talk and Im not sure I would feel I wasnt overstepping now. In most cases I probably wouldnt Eg: Woman - "oh Ive just had me hair done" Me then "it looks really nice". Now "Ok" and move swiftly on to something else. Someobody who I knew fairly well noticed Id lost weight and commented on it. If the roles we reversed would I comment on it? If it was a bloke, yes, woman, no.

[ENG601PM]

We gave you an example immediately, but you somehow contrived to dismiss it.

And then you segued into personal behavioural changes, some of which appear to be describing you stopping discriminating in favour of women.

And a bit of fear of being called a perv for staring at women.

 

I don't see what the "war on men" is doing here. You previously discriminated against men with regards to door opening, now you don't.

And you have some overblown fear when glancing in the direction of a woman...

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2018 at 12:10 ----------

 

 

No, that's not the topic.

The war on men, let's have some specific examples of what that means.

 

Willman has engaged in a good discussion, you're trying to shift the burden from proving the assertion that this war on men exists, to somehow be a need to prove that women are discriminated against. I'm not playing your game.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2018 at 12:11 ----------

 

 

Is there, where's your evidence?

 

It's your argument old chap. I've laid down what I think and and beyond a wry smile at your utter capitulation I only need to log for future reference that you can't substantiate your thought process. Again.

 

To reiterate post #2, there is no war on men.

[Jonny5]

It's your argument old chap. I've laid down what I think and and beyond a wry smile at your utter capitulation I only need to log for future reference that you can't substantiate your thought process. Again.

 

To reiterate post #2, there is no war on men.

You aren't playing the game properly.

 

Only Cyclone can demand proof and then claim when his opponent doesn't or, far more likely, can't be bothered/loses the will to live.

 

He doesn't have to provide any proof and his own personal experiences and opinions are inquestionable.

 

Get with the program.

[willman]

So who is it that is prosecuting a war on equality?

Are you suffering from inequality because you can't access the WI? Are you sure? There are private groups that accept only men, so no, I don't think you are.

There are runs open only to men. So no, you didn't suffer inequality by being denied the opportunity to run.

If women weren't already disadvantaged, if they hadn't recently had to fight for the right to equality in the first place, then there wouldn't be a need for these affirmative actions, but they have had to fight, and they are still fighting, so there is still a need.

 

Look love, you don't know what you're talking about...

 

Ouch, that's patronising isn't it, good job I was just making a point. So depending on how words are used and by who and to who, it can be offensive, or not. You're not offended when a bus driver in Sheffield or a waitress indeed calls you love.

In most of the rest of the country, in a professional environment, it would be highly inappropriate wouldn't it.

 

We're suffering because it isn't an issue being unequal. I hope you and H aren't deliberateley missing the point.

If as i agree men only clubs are discriminatory why isn't society clamouring to disband the WI as well - i've been to WI as guest speaker nothing much happens really.

Cancer Research don't promote a men only Race for life - thats not equality - yes other places may run men only events but that isn't my point.

Why would it be appropriate for a large professional environment where terms of endearment aren't allowed in (usually directed at men) allow the face of their business to use them ?