You spent that whole time validating an equality standard and acknowledging that much of the violence against men isn't reported. However, in the end you dismissed the men's issues as undeserving of attention because "they're not the same" and "violence affects women on a far greater scale".

So in essence... you're sexist.

And here the discussion gets quite slippery.

It's not like all the boys are going to jump into high paying IT/Business/engineering jobs.
Plumbing and construction? Really? The boys got the real secret handshake there, didn't they? Imagine if 50% of girls were informed about those fabulous careers and only 30% of boys, there would be much handwringing. There would. Forcing girls down a path of manual labor while boys are being groomed to play blocks in a daycare.

I recall having a 'career day' in middle school (age ~13). We could choose 3 careers and on the day were able to meet up in groups with a pro from that field to discuss.

Please don't tl;dr- here's where it gets funny (and telling):
-One of the options was modelling. I couldn't believe it. I spent hours and hours every day building models from kits or from scratch- and it could be a job!

Of course when I went to the meeting there was one slightly chubby boy (me) sitting there with 25 preening girls.

Why? Yeah, I made a mistake, dumb boy. But ask 100 mid-teen girls and boys what they want to do and see what they say. Bet a lot of those girls want to be models, and not many boys. Bet a lot of boys like to play with tools and fire and not many girls. Some buck the trend, but this stuff is fundamental.

I say screw society and it's a cop-out to lay any blame on it for 'pushing' girls or boys into stereotyped roles. You could lay some blame on parents who don't encourage and bolster their kids, but ultimately it all comes down to the individual. I just know too many people who shouldn't be a success according to what numbers on papers show, but they are, because they tied their shoes in the morning and got on with what they wanted to do. If someone doesn't have that internal drive, then, sorry to sound harsh, but tough sh!t. We can't all be brilliant surgeons or Wall Street aces, and there's no shame in pushing a broom.

Please quote me where I dismissed men's issues as undeserving of attention. I said nothing of the sort. After citing examples that supported what was written about violence against men, I said "it is indeed resource specific and must be tailored to the audience we're trying to reach." i.e. We must tailor a campaign specifically toward men.

It's my recognition of the key differences in how society approaches men and women when it comes to violence that proves I don't dismiss men's issues. Instead, I call for targeted advertising on both sides if we want to be successful.

I also said "It makes more sense to have numerous targeted campaigns for violence against women and a smaller number of targeted campaigns for violence against men." i.e. Since the problem of violence against women is a larger one, there should be more campaigns targeted to this group. But I recognize and agree with what was said about men (both from a media perspective and my own experiences where I've seen violence against men firsthand) and therefore believe in campaigns to encourage men to seek help. I also go on to criticize the police for exacerbating the problem and explain it's critical for attitudes here to change if we want men to come forward and receive the treatment they deserve.

So yeah..I dismissed the issues where? I suggest you take back your "sexist" comment.

this pretty much sums it up for me - and I think it's true regardless of gender.

http://www.englishforum.ch/attachmen...1&d=1329158577

Attached Images

 

Agree with first point but not so much with second - women live longer than men in general with sufficient medical care to get them through childbirth - without which average life expectancy would be more or less equal. That's been a feature of population studies over a very very long period.

I have not found a person yet who has managed to get through life without being influenced the slightest by anybody. Parents and teachers especially were not really doing their job, if this is indeed the case.

I am not saying that it's someone else's fault and people have no choice to do anything but what someone else told them what to do. I'm saying it's easier if everybody is supporting your particular choice and harder if not. Pretty basic. And we should not be so surprised that the group who is not encouraged is also less likely to make the particular choice.

I agree with your point, but it still holds as a metric.

Historically, both sexes were disposable with respect to survival: women risked death in childbirth; men risked death in war and work. Reductions in maternal death were chiefly brought on by the working class---essentially men (irrelevant of gender, just reality of the period). These same changes have not been made in respect to the causes leading to lower male life expectancy. That being said, the situations of maternal death are biological in nature, where as the causes of male death are results of society. Not as easy to solve.

__________________
"You have reached the end of you free trial membership at BenjaminFranklinQuotes.com" -Benjamin Franklin

Well sure, we're all influenced by everything around us. Sometimes the influence is to help us decide what not to do.

What's killing me in this thread, and on this subject, is the thought that all males belong to this secret club that grants them joy in their careers and life.

Some men have high flying careers and make lots of money. But a whole hell of a lot are plumbers and construction workers, *asphalt layers*, garbage collectors, machinists and mechanics and miners and all sorts of other dirty, dangerous, and relatively (in many cases) low paying jobs. I bet those guys get a laugh when they hear about women being for all intents and purposes 'forced' into teaching and nursing and taking a pay cut to boot. But that don't matter, 'cause those are just uneducated brutes who probably beat their wives and girlfriends. Dirty laborers. Of course the college boys aren't much better since they are the architects of this misogynistic world.

------screeeech, halt, why then do they make their bros do all that dirty dangerous work? Hold on, I hear a helicopter outside...



OK- This is the modern world. I won't accept that girls are unaware that they have the possibility to pursue whatever path in life they want. This stuff was drilled into us as kids 30 years ago. Men can be nurses and women can run hedge funds.

I understand that there is a discrepancy in pay rates. That's a shame. I'm sure that if a woman joins a team that is comprised of men it's going to be a bumpy ride. But I will bet my last dollar that the same is true if a man wants to join a team comprised of women. Unless he's gay. Then it's all cool.

*from above
Friend had the perimeter of his building repaved with asphalt. The company was all Portuguese (maligned here too, but also, I bet hard to get hired on with that company if you're not Portuguese... ah the circle never ends). The boss was a chick. She called the shots, directed everything, was walking around checking the work in asbestos shoes. They did the best paving job I've seen- first rain, not one single puddle to be found. The dudes clearly respected her, and oh- when she took her hard hat off she was pretty hot too.

I don't remember anybody claiming here that all men are hedge fund managers. This topic started with the OP claiming that women just don't want to be hedge fund managers, it's not in their nature, and that's the reason there is the gender pay gap.

If we take the "well yeah, but it's up to you really" then we can apply this to every claim made here showing how men are disadvantaged. No prostate cancer awareness? So what, surely you are aware nowadays anyway and can just go to the doctor, so what's the problem? OP?

It saddens me to hear men complaining that the world is sexist against men. When it's true I will feel sad for the world as I think genuine gender equality is best. But right now that's just not anywhere near the case, at least not in any country I'm aware of. The reason womens rights are more topical is because men already have most rights.

The only part of life where women appear to have more right is child custody, but even that is the legacy is male sexism where it's the womens job to be housewife and look after the kids.

I Switzerland it's sexist in men's favour. Not anywhere near as oppressive so as many african, middle eastern and Asian countries but definaty not equal.

On other equality fronts Switzerland, or at least Zurich, is very progressive. Particularly gay acceptance and I think handicap inclusiveness. Very impressed on the last one actually, quite a wake up call.

What I used tell my kids is ! A Dr. deserves his respect , but never forget , I onley see my Dr. every 2-5 years ,But the carbage collector comes to my house once a week

wrong thread

When only one party is recognized as being worthy of campaign then that is de facto discrimination -you seem to be arguing in favour of such. I would argue that we already have many examples and evidence of violence perpetrated against men but ignored - even in legal cases - and yet I do not hear of the much vaunted "equality" arguments thrown around with abandon where the shoe was on the other foot.

I never said it was tit for tat - my point is that violence on anyone should be treated as such - justice must be blind or else it's sexist - you seem to be arguing for such through the medium of specificity.

You write a lot about targetted campaigns for women on male violence but this won't happen in a big bang moment - it needs to happen by small steps - as with women's suffrage - merely acknowledging that all violence is wrong would be a start - and in particular that sexual violence perpetrated by women against men is a very long way short of that.

No, I'm not. Read again. I argued in favor of targeted campaigns to *both*, which is necessary as the two groups do not experience violence in the same ways nor is the "stigma" the same, nor..I could go on. If you want to effectively reach men and women, it has to be more specific and isn't a one size fits all.

Agreed. So minus advertising/media then, how do you suggest this is acknowledged? I'm talking about a pragmatic, tangible action here. My initial suggestion sits primarily with police reform as I believe this can break any success in other areas, but I'd like to know what you think.

To also add - we still have a long way to go in how female victims of violence are handled, particularly when it's sexual violence. Women have often told me they feel they have been victimized yet again and regret even going to the police. As a whole, I think that police take violence against men even less seriously. I continue to be very concerned when we encourage anyone to come forward and then don't deliver the standard of care they deserve.

Hi. I'm new in the forum. But from my reading Switzerland didn't give the vote to women until the 70s.

And either gender may end their life in this country as there is a right to die. But correct me if I have that wrong. Gently.

So what you're saying is, that you wanted to be a model?

Yes I did. But they wanted to change me, man, and I just wasn't into that.

I think they were just jealous and felt threatened by your incredible good looks.

Umm so if you only have campaigns targetted at one then that is defacto sexist ? This was my point.

The police are an organ of the state - which follows the people - first you have to engender a societal shift before the other elements will flow - this
is exactly the case with the origin of feminism and indeed workers rights. Originally reviled and laughed at they gradually became accepted as being relevant. Therefore you initially have to educate the public.


OK so which do you , champion of all things targetted, deal with first - female victims of sexual violence or male victims - treated in an even worse way by your own admission ?
My point is when the reaction of many educated middle class people , on this very forum to cases of sexual violence against men - is quite flippant - that you've got to see things for what they are - plain ol' sexism.

It's not so linear when talking about a societal shift ---> police reform. It's more <---> and so we are looking at a flow that works both ways. What you say is correct but not absolute and herein we see around the world mass protests against the police/state - often with no positive resolution.

I agree that attitudes toward men need to change. But my point is only that in taking action, we can't nor should we place equal weighting on each battle for change. Doing so in the name of equality does the exact opposite and reduces the effectiveness on all causes. This is the crux of my argument.

There is no dealing with one "first" or last. There are organizations and people simultaneously dealing with one or both (as was my case working with victims of crime as well as working a crisis line). The larger a problem, the more we tend to see NGOs and others working toward a solution, and this is not a bad thing. It's like this in medicine. There is still research going on for orphan drugs, for example, but not to the extent of treatments for diabetes. It doesn't mean society is dismissing rare diseases.

I think you need to move away from this mentality that every problem deserves equal weighting no matter how many it impacts or to what subjective extent. And furthermore, I think you need to recognize that social problems deserve the targeted "treatment" that we see in medicine and should not, in the name of equality, be lumped together in efforts to combat them both.