You realise that all of what you have written is based on your perception, supposition and your own (mis)interpretation, don't you?

None of it actually corresponds to anything I wrote, nor have you been able to provide anything concrete to back it up.

The more you carry on, the wilder your assumptions are.

What's in store next..? You should bring the sexist flowers back again.

Perhaps this is helpful for the discussion. According to the Economist, Switzerland is the WORST country in Europe for women's rights! Time to wake up and make a change ladies (and guys that care!).

http://www.bilan.ch/economie-plus-de...ravail-feminin

I can only relate to this. Ridiculous childcare cost (and low quality IMO, and undersupply with waiting lists), limited childcare hours (many until 6pm only, which is tough if you have e.g., a 30min commute), until recently lack of school canteens, super expensive helpers (cleaners, babysitters, etc), IVF not covered by insurance, etc.

There is a lot of room for improvement.

Equality come in all shapes and hilarious forms.


I give you, the work-at-home dad:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5A1wg5FA-g




just a quick laugh and smile for this Friday!

I would just see your (ocassional) effort to hold your tongue as old school. Nothing more nothing less. Courteous? I think the fact you think what you think makes probably more difference long term than your self restraint.

But it is about all women - mothers and not mothers alike. For some reasons the discussion on EF has revolved around parenting, a pity.

That is NOT what it says in the article, nor the subject of the article.

Tom

Actually it's based on what you've posted.
That is pretty demonstrably untrue - I quoted what you said, you've failed to address it or my response to it and you even changed your position to claim you have no obligation to do so in the first place - but the reader can decide. I'm not looking to convince you.
You'll have to be a lot funnier to distract the audience from your inconsistencies.

Well clearly, and that's not the issue. Your misinterpretation is the point, but you steadfastly refuse to accept that. Nothing I can do about that, I'm afraid.

Not sure why you're banging on the same point over and over again - it wasn't even your point in the first place. Yesterday you were beating RufusB round the head with her posts and today it seems to be my turn.

By the way you STILL haven't posted any quotes of mine which are relevant to your points.

I steadfastly refuse to accept your denial and that's all you've offered. You refuse to accept otherwise, ironically, and I suspect there's nothing I can do about that.
I did. Repeatedly. My first response was to you trivializing any discrimination faced by men:
I really don't know how you can claim that this is not what you're doing here or that it is not relevant to my point that you are implying that such discrimination does not exist? How is questioning "inequality in what way" not putting into question it's existence? Tell me please.

But please don't p**s on me and tell me it's raining.

OK, last try and now I'm beginning to realise that English isn't your first language...

My question to Scipio above was asking what he/she mean. I was NOT questionning its existence. If I was questioning its existence I would have worded the comment "Bullshit, there is no discrimination amongst men" and not asked a question.

I then volunteered an example to test whether I understood, i.e. asked whether "positive discrimination" was the intended sentiment. As it happens, I thought you would have jumped on that bandwagon but you missed that and it has left.

Do you finally see the difference?

You then took your misunderstanding of my question then battered me with all sorts of examples "off the top of your head", as you said, then got all pissy because I didn't jump around answering you.

So, I think this thread has been derailed enough now so perhaps you could just leave it be.

Nice ad hominem. Maybe logic isn't your forte?
False. You can question or dismiss a point without being overt about it like that and that is what you did.
After which I responded, gave examples and you ignored them. You asked for clarification while questioning the validity of his point. Then you ignored the response you sought.
Yes, if you ignore an inconvenient point there's less chance people will see you were coming out with nonsense.
Because you say so? And TBH, if someone comes out with something as outrageous as that it's not derailment to bring them up on it.

OK, take it. It's all yours.

Happy Friday.

It is hilarious when members start playing the "you don't understand my English" game just because their opponents consistently disagree with some point.

Aeneas writes better than some native Anglophones here. His only "problem" seem to be those who acuse him of povs he doesn't even have.

Oh the irony...

What's that you say about accusing people of points of view they don't even have?

You know, the bit where Aeneas is banging on about me apparently denying that male discrimination exists?

So I guess I agree with you.

That's too funny.

Thanks for clarifying I guess the only recipe is to exchange experiences, to raise awareness and to accept that this change can only happen if we all work together.

Where did this nonsense that I'm not a native English speaker come from? I thought it was pretty obvious that Sandgrounder's accusation was simply one of a number of ad hominems she's employed to make up for lack of any substantive argument.
Well there is where you have me with a technicality, because at some stage I did probably slip up and say that you were outright denying that male discrimination exists. Technically you only implied it, and while it likely that you do believe this, you didn't come out and say it. It is something I have corrected myself on subsequently and repeatedly, but it hasn't stopped you from ignoring this correction and instead beating me to death with your desperate pedantry.

My mistake, then. Given that you were repeatedly misunderstanding my posts, this seemed to be the only logical explanation.

Which brings me onto this:

I never implied it ANYWHERE, and you so far have not shown where this was implied to any degree other than showing that you misunderstood my post.

The fact that my husband was never asked whether he had childcare issues or whether he could estimate the instances of sickness of his own child nor was in danger of losing any unemployment benefit due to childcare issues DOES NOT mean I deny that male discrimination exists in other aspects of society.

Now I am a bit lost on how to make that any simpler without actually drawing pictures for you or resorting to the medium of dance (that is NOT ad hominem, by the way, I am genuinely at a loss for comprehension that you have willfully decided to bang on about it without any attempt of accepting what I say).

Where has anyone said on this thread that there is no discrimination against males?

Sorry, but I don't believe that because it was not the only ad hominem you threw at me in the course of this thread.
I never cited anything to do with you husband. I cited, and quoted now about four times, the following post:
That is clearly dismissive of the entire topic of discrimination against men. You have to date not even acknowledged this quote, let alone the response to the above questions you publicly sought. I put it up and it like it has some sort of spell of invisibility for you.

I don't believe you're stupid or cannot understand, so at this stage given your single minded need to avoid what I have presented, I need to conclude that you're well aware of what you said and simply want to avoid admitting it.

It reminds me of a situation I encountered on a project many years ago, where the senior PM, a middle-aged Essex chap, commented on the mixed ethnic heritage of one of the consultants with the phrase "a ni**er in the woodpile". Needless to say the matter escalated, but he was adamant that he had not said anything racist and that he had simply used a commonly used phrase. And to a great extent I believed him because if you live in an environment where you can openly express racist terms or it's perfectly normal to argue that men deserve what they're getting now, you don't even think about whether what you're coming out with is true or offensive and probably would be surprised if anyone did object.
Did you not read my last post? Where I specifically said no one did so directly, but Sandgrounder implied it? Why are you trying to push a strawman argument I am not actually supporting?

Sorry, I thought I have read it somewhere years ago, not sure why I thought (hoped, lol) you might not be native English

I agree with the rest of the post, too.

People have crass ways here when singling out individual posters, unfortunately.

It has been a good debate, otherwise.