I'm sorry for the confusion, I thought you were talking about Switzerland. And unfortunately here, all these laws discriminate men.

So because nobody complains, it's not an issue? What if these men don't complain because they know what kind of response they are facing if they raise their voice? You have seen the replies in this thread when one does so, "baby-men", "it's your own fault" "world full of bigots" etc.

Nobody is reducing anything in the way you are trying to infer. It's just one issue in a million which is being discussed for now.

I'm curious why you are so anxious to trivialise and stifle the issues discussed up to now.

Last time I heard "chicks" used to describe women, I was watching Grease.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Why are you?

Where am I stifling the discussion?

Where am I trivialising other people's ideas and comments in that same snippy, passive aggressive style?




EDIT - was it the "scrote hat" post?

You trivialised it when you denied that men suffer any discrimination and then when challenged it you further trivialised it by ignoring the point and instead turning it into your scrote joke. And no, you're using an arrogant, condescending style.

This, then?

Or this?

Because I don't see any other comment of mine which actually mentions discrimination against men, never mind trivialising it or denying it.

Seriously, is that it?

You said... ...so I did.
It's a turn of phrase but, seeing as it's one of the 8 languages that my grandfather took the time and trouble to learn, I was most certainly not mocking an ethnic group.
Your English is absolutely fine and dandy until you begin writing about political matters. This is purely because you choose to use terms that aren't common usage in the UK. From what I can tell, they're used only in a specific political subculture, so I find myself constantly having to cross reference these terms. If anyone queries this, we're accused of attacking the message, which would be all well and good if we actually knew what the message was in the first place!

Why can't we just communicate in crystal clear English so that the post is understood by all who read it, instead of littering posts with buzz words and phrases that many have no frame of reference for. I could talk about EPON all day, but without clarification and a scene setting framework from me, as the message giver and the person wanting to be understood, there's absolutely no point.

This is comparing apples and oranges. The post initially made was refering to educational opportunities for minority groups, but you're diverging into indentity politics which is a different matter entirely, dependent on who you define to be the minority groups refered to in the initial post.
I'm not singling you out nor have I made any attempt to analyse you. Not once have I attacked you. I've only queried the message and how that message is conveyed.

When someone sticks their hand up and says "I don't understand", does it do any harm to rephrase and reiterate so that you reach a wider audience?

How about this?
To which I responded giving a list of examples, which you then ignored, choosing to respond with your 'humorous' scrote comment.

Surprised you didn't see that, it's pretty obvious.

Eh?

It was in response to Scipio's post, not yours. I didn't understand what he/she meant so I asked the question. He/she responded, I understood. No further action.

If you want to speak for Scipio, that's fine, anyone can write whatever they like on here but if you are expecting answers, sorry, you're going to be disappointed.

That sounds remarkably like my mother-outlaw.

If there was a feminist in my house growing up, it was definitely my dad, though I doubt he was conscious of it. If I had an ambition, my dad would do everything he could to help me achieve it, even taking on my school headmaster when he disagreed with a decision.

My OH and I have spoken about the similarities in our upbringing many times, because both of us had parents who were 50/50 partners, and in my parents' case, they were also business partners.

And I gave a response. So you can only respond in a discussion if you made the original point? New rule it seems. Or bollocks. The latter TBH.
I'm disappointed that you have such a limited grasp on what you believe in that you duck from the first challenge to it.

So what?

This is the English Forum not the UK English Forum. If she chooses to use American English terms and you don't understand them then it's your problem, not hers.

No. It's not a new rule but I wasn't aware that I was obliged to answer you for any of your posts.

Which has then lead you to the next predictable comment...


"I didn't receive a reply, therefore the person doesn't know what they're talking about" Yay.

So, to indulge you...

Yes, there is discrimination everywhere. No it hasn't really been discussed here because there are only about 2 or 3 issues twanging people's chord which some can't let go of and are determined to be right.

If you want to discuss male discrimination, start a thread which isn't about "International Women's day".

But to be honest, to quote a couple of your examples - I don't have experience of divorce or criminality or custodial sentences and I can't be arsed to google it so if you say that men get the shit end of the stick in all of those things maybe a bit of protesting and awareness wouldn't go amiss. Good luck.

You're not, but as in any discussion, if you don't you lose credibility.
You did. You were even quoted in it to underline that what was written was specifically addressed to you. Stop trying to duck out.

Then why didn't you say that and instead imply that that men don't suffer any discrimination or that if we do it is trivial? Now you've changed your response to argue that it's off topic, which we must accept because you're the sole authority on this here. Ahem, no.
So you don't know anything on the subject are too lazy to find out, so you're happy to stick with you prejudicial and unsubstantiated view. Kind of makes any conclusion predictable that you have a limited grasp on the subject if you freely admit to ignorance on.

Oh and it serves men right. Congrats, that's lost you some more support here. People tend to take a dim view of those who try to exploit higher causes when they discover they have no higher objectives.

Whatevs...

I was putting in a subtext to what you wrote but never mind...

You still haven't put up the quote where I directly say men don't suffer discrimination. I'm suspecting you are now mixing me up with someone else and I suspect I know which comment that person made which you are talking about but I'll let you go and find that quote I made that's bothering you.

You are the one with a bee in his bonnet about it all and are building an entire argument on it based on your own misinterpretation of my comments and probably mixing my comments up with someone else.

Why should I start looking into material you are interested in? You bandied about information concerning divorce and custodial sentences - you look it up! I've never denied that men aren't discriminated against ANYWHERE ON THIS THREAD and yet you are somehow forcing me to back up a point I never made.

Well, that escalated fast, didn't it?

Not at all. If the messenger wishes to be understood, then it's their job to clarify. If they choose not to do that, then they will remain misunderstood and will have failed to get their message across. That doesn't benefit anyone. I understand that it's frustrating to have to repeat yourself, but you will do that if you truly believe the information you have is important enough. And just for the record, I wasn't the only person to highlight this, which only adds weight to the possibility that there was a breakdown in communication.

No, not at all - I didn't mean we shouldn't discuss this. We discuss everything on EF!!
I should have made myself more clear: there are some issues but limiting ourselves only to discussion won't push for any progress. I wasn't that aware of the discrimination men face in court after a divorce tbh, now I know there is an organisation which took things a few steps further, and with good results.
I don't have any recipe, neither for the discrimination that women are confronted with.

Indeed, but if you're trying to convince those reading this thread of your views, then losing credibility isn't going to help you and neither is dismissing it with a "whatevs..."
It just coincidentally looked like ignoring the point and attempting instead to trivialize it. Sure.
I've repeatedly said you implied it and what you wrote and I quoted pretty much questioned it's existence. And I've quoted it, so I'm not mixing you up with anyone else.
I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I've made my argument and it's pretty clear that you said something indefensible, refuse to back it up and now you've got a bee in her bonnet that you got challenged on it.
You could or you could have challenged me on it if you really think it's untrue, after all I made the claim, so it's up to be to do so. But you didn't even bother doing that.
You're the one who decided to introduce the "they're asking for it" argument.

As a woman, I find is quite difficult to be lumped together with the fighters and so much frustration. This manipulative push to be grateful to women in the West in the past (as if other parts did not matter, they do and more to me since I can relate), and use this to coerce: "you are a woman, aren't you grateful to our historical figures" to justify any aggressive attempt to make people cognitively identical. If it was good level cognition, I wouldn't care. But it is an opressive reasoning system depriving people of their own thinking. The historical figures earned change (respect) by hard work and not by simple virtue signalling or thought policing...or running around virtual space demanding misperceived insults to stop, immediately. The historical figures are probably turning in their graves. I would, if my life and mission was abused to justify other people's unethical aggressivity and unpleasantly delivered, righteous demands.

If anyone goes out of the Western feminist war zone and asks around if women feel represented by them, at least chicks have the courage to laugh. We don't indeed. We don't need to, either. We see loads of complexes and a lot of frustration, entitlement and coercing, lot's of "as a woman you owe us (or them historical figures), since we assure you get at least a bit od respect". We don't owe.

I also think the level of reductionism delivered by wom-lib using parenting as singular issue, mothering, is tiring. We parents parent as well as we can. Chick day should not be about parenting I think. Mother's day offers plenty of opportunity. Chick day is for chicks. Non parents as well. Democratically. Let people come out with as many concerns as possible, I would not be happy to reduce it to parenting. Seperate issue.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Aha... so it's not just me and my hopelessly outdated insensitive and overbearing macho world view...

When I see or read a guy mansplaining something I am free to think or reply "Wow, what a dickhead!" When I see a "feminist" Woemanizing her own bent spin on how the world is against her I am (sometimes) inclined to hold my tongue.