International Men's Day is apparently controversial

[Fudbucker]

They have seniority and you make less, what's the problem?

If you make the same as women with the same seniority/experience then obviously it wouldn't apply to you.

equality for men means they should all take a pay cut, among other things

Would you like to retract that? Or do you still think all men should take a pay cut?

 

[Fudbucker]

Here's some random things from memory. Some of these are mentioned earlier in the thread

-suicide rates
-prison sentences (for the same crimes) compared to women
-job satisfaction
-minority position in a variety of jobs (such as nursing) - personally I don't see this as a problem but it's worth bringing up whenever someone says there "aren't enough women in position X" to see if they agree
-the whole circumcision thing
-off the top of my head I bet there are almost zero non-athletic scholarships geared toward solely men for a field in which they are a minority (again I don't see this as a problem on it's own but it's a double standard)

The draft.

 

[Belz...]

I think a portion of it has been found to have something to do with most women not self-advocating for raises like men are more likely to do. I think that difference will fade as employers seem to be switching to standardized employee evaluation/raise determination systems.

You can't take the humans entirely out of the equation, however.

 

[cullennz]

NZ one

Free breast scans for women

Blokes have to pay for prostate testing

 

[Belz...]

I'm all for a men's equality day. Rather than protesting I'd be pointing out that equality for men means they should all take a pay cut, among other things.

Why should they take a pay cut?

If you make the same as women with the same seniority/experience then obviously it wouldn't apply to you.

Do you have any evidence that women are paid less in the same area for the same job, qualification and seniority?

 

[Belz...]

Yep, heaven forbid I didn't use PC language. My bad for being lazy.

It would go a long way to help your credibility if you admitted to making a mistake by phrasing your post that way. You DID say that they all should take a pay cut.

 

[pharphis]

Oh, on the topic of nursing specifically I can anecdotally say that men are treated worse then women because my father was a nurse. Not sure how general that is, however.

 

[Corsair 115]

If you think equality for men day is a bad thing, don't protest the day. Use it to point out that equality for men means they need to come down a notch.

So, is your position that men all have privilege over women? Are you suggesting women do not have some kinds of privilege that are not granted to men?

Are men oppressed? What, they want more women to spring for dinner?

No one (well, no one worth taking seriously) says men are oppressed. What they do say is that men, on the whole, face issues that are often ignored by government and advocacy groups, whereas almost any issue that affects women, even issues that walk the line of nonsense (e.g. 'manspreading') get taken seriously enough that public policy is enacted to address them.

But by all means, erect that straw man so you can tilt at it.

 

[rustypouch]

So, is your position that men all have privilege over women? Are you suggesting women do not have some kinds of privilege that are not granted to men?





No one (well, no one worth taking seriously) says men are oppressed. What they do say is that men, on the whole, face issues that are often ignored by government and advocacy groups, whereas almost any issue that affects women, even issues that walk the line of nonsense (e.g. 'manspreading') get taken seriously enough that public policy is enacted to address them.

But by all means, erect that straw man so you can tilt at it.

That's how I take it. The vast majority of men are not rich and powerful. As was mentioned previously, there are many issues which disproportionately affect men. I can't speak for others, but it's extremely disheartening to be told (paraphrasing here) " suck it up and check your privilege " when reaching out for help.

 

[wobs]

Warren Farrell identified about 25 factors in his book Why Men Earn More that contribute to the gender pay gap. These include:
Maternity
Women work less hours on average
Women are more likely to choose careers that are more "comfortable". In other words, more time spent in comfortable environments.
Women are more likely to go for jobs that have other benefits other than high pay (eg. flexible working better health insurance (for those not in the UK).
Men are more likely to have worked outdoors in all weathers at some point in their career.
Men on average are more willing to commute further.
Men are more likely to be prepared to be away from home overnight (eg. business trips).
Men are more likely to be prepared to do high risk jobs (eg. offshore).
When a couple have a child, men feel more pressured to earn more, while women are more likely to choose to cut back on hours.

This last point is important, as we see it in many sectors where women make up a sizeable portion.
A good example of where equality can work both ways is doctors: It has been proposed that we lower the bar for male doctors entrance, by allowing a lower standard of communication skills. The rational for this is two fold: One - men develop communication skills later than women, so a young man may be denied the entrance as a doctor owing to something he would develop later anyway, and two - women are more likely to cut down on hours after they have kids, go part time or even drop out all together, so by increasing the male doctor population to nearer 50%, you get better value for money for something that is very costly to the NHS.

Its interesting that this proposal is nearly always shouted down by those that advocate support for women, even though there are societal benefits to it.

But of course men and women do not exist in isolation from each other, and just because women earn less on average, does not mean they are less privileged. Women make about 85% of purchases, and a significant portion of this will be from men's earnings.

This brings us onto choices. Women have more choices in life than men on average. When I see articles about the gender pay gap (last one was on BBC recently), they use phrases such as:

"It is shocking the UK still has such a large gender pay differences at the top of the labour market after more than four decades of equal pay and sex discrimination legislation," said Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34764812
But ignore what this is down to, and ignore whether this is actually a problem.

They also ignore that there are many jobs where women earn more. Farrell listed Sales Engineer had the biggest gender pay gap where women earn more, but this was some years ago, so has probably changed since.

They also often neglect to mention that women earn more on average when they are young:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

They also do not detail what entrepeneurs earn in this regard, but we find:

But new research indicates that, even when women are their own bosses, the gender pay gap persists. According to the 2012 Catalyst report on women’s earnings, full-time, year-round women workers earn an average of $36,931 compared to men’s $47,715—or 76 cents to every dollar earned. Unfortunately, even when women write their own paycheck, there’s no escape—female CEOS pay themselves just 76 cents on the dollar to what a male entrepreneur takes home.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanc...men-entreprensurship-gender-pay-gap-persists/
So again, women are making different choices. But they use words like "persists" when describing the gap, as if its a problem that needs to be solved.

If you think we need to get more women working longer hours etc. consider the following: No one lies on their death be wishing they spent more time at the office.

Going back to the OP though, I notice that the feminists in the link are concerned with:

“The Equality and Diversity Committee is clear that the main focus of gender equality work should continue to be on the inequalities faced by women, and in particular the under representation of women in the professoriate and senior management.

But the article in the Independent points out that:

“As I was researching for this debate, I found, shockingly, the male suicide rate in my own city, York, is the fourth highest in England, behind Darlington, County Durham, and Calderdale. That is worrying.

Which they don't seem to think is an issue.

In other words, getting more women in a board rooms is somehow an important issue, but male suicide isn't.

This shows us why men's issues rights exist as a separate category. So feminists cannot bring themselves to tackle men's issues.

I'm not a fan of International awareness days, but you can see why we have a separate one for men and women when we see things like this.

Maybe if we stopped treating women as perpetual victims, then we all might be happier.

 

[marplots]

How does the rate of male suicide contribute to the analysis? I've seen this mentioned more than once, and it mystifies me.

 

[wobs]

How does the rate of male suicide contribute to the analysis? I've seen this mentioned more than once, and it mystifies me.

I'm not aware of anyone claiming it does. Maybe you can help us by showing where such a thing is claimed.

 

[marplots]

I'm not aware of anyone claiming it does. Maybe you can help us by showing where such a thing is claimed.

You mentioned it in the post right before mine. What was the point?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Warren Farrell identified about 25 factors in his book Why Men Earn More that contribute to the gender pay gap. These include:
*Maternity
*Women work less hours on average
Women are more likely to choose careers that are more "comfortable". In other words, more time spent in comfortable environments.
*Women are more likely to go for jobs that have other benefits other than high pay (eg. flexible working better health insurance (for those not in the UK).
Men are more likely to have worked outdoors in all weathers at some point in their career.
*Men on average are more willing to commute further.
*Men are more likely to be prepared to be away from home overnight (eg. business trips).
*Men are more likely to be prepared to do high risk jobs (eg. offshore).
*When a couple have a child, men feel more pressured to earn more, while women are more likely to choose to cut back on hours.

The asterisked items all have the same root cause: that childcare still falls mainly on women and not their husbands. It's easier for a man with a wife and children to work longer hours, commute further, work offshore, etc when it's his wife who's taking the kids to daycare, arranging her hours to be home when school gets out, taking the kids to the doctor, etc.

If there were better options for childcare for working parents (of either sex) it would go a very long way to fixing workplace inequality. In an ideal world, people would earn enough that one parent could actually stay home with the kids until they hit school age but that died out when salaries stagnated decades ago--mine is the likely the last generation where stay-at-home moms was the norm. (Barring a Bernie Sanders democratic socialism revolution, of course.)

 

[wareyin]

In that case, the situation is reversed.

Why, then is it the case that when men have seniority and so earn more, we get something equal to "flagrant discrimination".

Further, experience in a field is quite relevant to pay. We (humans) learn more, and become more able with that experience, and so are more valuable to the organization paying us. If you feel that there are other attributes that should have equal or greater relevance to rate of pay, what are they?

 

[wobs]

You mentioned it in the post right before mine. What was the point?

I did not say it contributed to anything other than as a comparison of what
such feminists think are important. Would it help if I re-posted that bit?


Going back to the OP though, I notice that the feminists in the link are concerned with:

“The Equality and Diversity Committee is clear that the main focus of gender equality work should continue to be on the inequalities faced by women, and in particular the under representation of women in the professoriate and senior management.

But the article in the Independent points out that:

“As I was researching for this debate, I found, shockingly, the male suicide rate in my own city, York, is the fourth highest in England, behind Darlington, County Durham, and Calderdale. That is worrying.

Which they don't seem to think is an issue.

In other words, getting more women in a board rooms is somehow an important issue, but male suicide isn't.

Bolded bit is the key point here. Hope this helps.

They seem to think that helping women who are already successful is more important than helping someone who could commit suicide. The details are in the links. Here they are again:

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2015/11/16/o...-to-mark-international-mens-day-read-it-here/
http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...nkly-looks-rather-silly-says-mp-a6741811.html

Also, from the York Uni website, they admit that:

Men are 20 times more likely than women to go to prison; they are much more likely to be victims of violent crime, are more likely to commit suicide and have a lower life expectancy than women.

https://web.archive.org/web/2015111...nts/news/2015/events/mensday-gender-equality/
Which must have been read by those forming the petition.

Therefore, they felt that getting more women into more senior roles was more important than male suicide.

 

[marplots]

Why, then is it the case that when men have seniority and so earn more, we get something equal to "flagrant discrimination".

Further, experience in a field is quite relevant to pay. We (humans) learn more, and become more able with that experience, and so are more valuable to the organization paying us. If you feel that there are other attributes that should have equal or greater relevance to rate of pay, what are they?

Experience is relevant to pay until you get old enough for age discrimination to kick in. There's also the matter of how long ago you were trained, the opposite of experience. The logic is that someone who has more recently graduated will have the latest "best practices" to draw from - this can come up in fields like medicine and IT.

I say that just to point out that what employers value isn't necessarily set in stone, but subject to judgements - hence the word "value."

Feminists and other SJWs still have to make the case that barriers are erected which negatively affect women, but at least there is an underlying logic to the position.

 

[marplots]

In other words, getting more women in a board rooms is somehow an important issue, but male suicide isn't.

Bolded bit is the key point here. Hope this helps.

They seem to think that helping women who are already successful is more important than helping someone who could commit suicide. The details are in the links. Here they are again:

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2015/11/16/o...-to-mark-international-mens-day-read-it-here/
http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...nkly-looks-rather-silly-says-mp-a6741811.html

Also, from the York Uni website, they admit that:

https://web.archive.org/web/2015111...nts/news/2015/events/mensday-gender-equality/
Which must have been read by those forming the petition.

Therefore, they felt that getting more women into more senior roles was more important than male suicide.

Exactly my point. We've selected out a group which feels that, based on their membership in that group, they are being treated unfairly. To counter this, somehow a perceived callousness about another, unrelated issue, is brought in. I can't think of how it could be more obviously disingenuous.

You said this was the key point:
"In other words, getting more women in a board rooms is somehow an important issue, but male suicide isn't."

Lets see how key it is. If feminists were concerned about the high rate of male suicide, would you then buy into the rest of their argument? Because I don't think you would. It's a "key" that isn't key at all. It's ancillary and only mentioned, and inflated to "key" status, to demonstrate callousness - and it doesn't even accomplish that much.

The group is defined by their concern for women's rights and opportunities. Other issues, and how women feel about them, are beside the point and ad hom.

 

[WildCat]

Don't confuse me with all the feminists you have issues with. I spent half my career in the underpaid under-recognized profession of nursing.

Underpaid by what metric? Is there a shortage of nurses because the pay is not enough to fill vacancies? Or is it because you think you're worth more?

If it's the former you have a point, if the latter then join the club of 90+% of workers who think they're underpaid.

 

[wobs]

Exactly my point. We've selected out a group which feels that, based on their membership in that group, they are being treated unfairly. To counter this, somehow a perceived callousness about another, unrelated issue, is brought in. I can't think of how it could be more obviously disingenuous.

You said this was the key point:
"In other words, getting more women in a board rooms is somehow an important issue, but male suicide isn't."

Lets see how key it is. If feminists were concerned about the high rate of male suicide, would you then buy into the rest of their argument? Because I don't think you would. It's a "key" that isn't key at all. It's ancillary and only mentioned, and inflated to "key" status, to demonstrate callousness - and it doesn't even accomplish that much.

The group is defined by their concern for women's rights and opportunities. Other issues, and how women feel about them, are beside the point and ad hom.

They claim to be about equality, but they show themselves to be otherwise.

If you'll forgive Orwellness....
They think that some people are more equal than others

Their group claims to be about equality, but only for a certain group. Let me re-post part of the quote again for clarity:

The Equality and Diversity Committee is clear that the main focus of gender equality work should continue to be on the inequalities faced by women

There is no mention of "women" in the committee's name, but for equality. Yet they wish to focus just on women. This is re-enforced by my point that they feel that issues like getting women into more senior positions is more important than male suicide, even though York is particularly effected by this.

And of course there is more to equality than just between men and women, but these two issues are both in the links relating to the story, and so are there for comparison.