Men's Rights

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not sure if it the overemphasis on competition and aggression in right wing political and economic thinking, that makes the right hostile towards women

This is sexist. Many females thrive in a competitive environment and a reasonable amount of competition can overall benefit both genders (especially when compared to where education is heading with nonsense like discovery maths). One of the reasons why females appeared to not thrive well in more competitive environments in the past is because of social conditioning and gender roles. If a female is told that they should not act competitive because it is 'butch and ungirly', then that may discourage them from doing so. Some studies have found that females perform better in a competitive environment if all their peers are female than when in a mixed classroom; this could be because the social conditioning from gender roles discourages females to act 'ungirly' in front of males.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think another reason is that nowdays you can make as much in a good trade as you can with most university degrees, and its easier for men to get into trades. I know quite a few men making 6 figures + as plumbers, boiler makers, pipefitters, etc, while people with degrees in engineering or accounting or comsci are often making quite a bit less and some of them owe a years wages in studient loans to boot.

Well weren't women still graduating at higher rates than men from university 10-15 years ago when incomes for trades weren't nearly as high?

[Moonlight Graham]

My cousin is a hairdresser and clears $3K every two weeks. It's not only true of men.

I know one thing, your cousin isn't cutting many men's hair lol.

[Smallc]

I know one thing, your cousin isn't cutting many men's hair lol.

Lots actually. She works for herself and works about 9 hours a day 5 days a week. I own a very lucrative business with my parents and I don't make that much (about 2/3 that after tax).

[Moonlight Graham]

Is that anywhere near the average for hairdressers?

[Smallc]

Is that anywhere near the average for hairdressers?

Most hairdressers work for someone else. They make almost nothing.

[dre]

Well weren't women still graduating at higher rates than men from university 10-15 years ago when incomes for trades weren't nearly as high?

Maybe, and I could be wrong.

But its definately my perception at least, that its pretty easy for a male to leave school early and get a job making a decent wage. Women seem to get pigeon holed into low paying services jobs if they leave school early. Waitressing and such. I quit school in grade 10 and was immediately making 20 bucks an hour swinging a hammer... and that was 25 years ago. It SEEMS to me like its a lot harder for women.

Anyways like I said... I could be wrong like I said that is just my perception and I havent really looked into it much.

[-1=e^ipi]

I quit school in grade 10 and was immediately making 20 bucks an hour swinging a hammer... and that was 25 years ago. It SEEMS to me like its a lot harder for women.

Today != 25 years ago.

[Moonlight Graham]

Most hairdressers work for someone else. They make almost nothing.

Ok, well then as a business owner with steady clientele she's an exception.

[dre]

Today != 25 years ago.

So are you suggesting thats different now? And that women with a highschool education or less can make the same money as easily as men can?

[Guest]

You know fully well that, on average, men have a big physical advantage over women, so use of force or threat of force puts many...the majority of women at risk when they are alone with a man who is a sexual predator. Trying to pretend it's a level playingfield between men and women is as ludicrous as conservative economic arguments of a level playing field between the rich and everyone else!

Did you ever find the post you were actually replying to? Sometimes I reply to the wrong posts with the wrong quotes, and all, too.

Well, actually I don't. I'm just trying to make you feel better.

[Spiderfish]

So are you suggesting thats different now? And that women with a highschool education or less can make the same money as easily as men can?

For sure it's different now. I have been in the trades for 23+ years and can confirm without question things have changed. I know and have worked with many females who decided to pursue a skilled trade. They are making great money on par with their male co-workers.

[Argus]

So are you suggesting thats different now? And that women with a highschool education or less can make the same money as easily as men can?

It seems to me girls have an easier time getting jobs which are not physically demanding. Most store clerks seem to be young girls. Most restaurant servers, reception types and administrative types, too. These jobs might not be high paying but they get something onto your resume and they don't cripple you by the time you're in your forties.

[Smallc]

Ok, well then as a business owner with steady clientele she's an exception.

Most men don't make what's being claimed either. Edited April 8, 2015 by Smallc

[-1=e^ipi]

So are you suggesting thats different now? And that women with a highschool education or less can make the same money as easily as men can?

Low skill jobs + high paying middle class jobs that existed 25 years ago such as working in an auto-plant are dead/dying in the west and this is one of the reasons for the 'hollowing-out' of the middle class and increase in income inequality in many developed countries over the past few decades.

Skilled trades are a different matter though.

[-1=e^ipi]

Too add to this list:

- Male unemployment is much higher than female unemployment.

Anyway, let me see if I have this correct... According to our resident male middle-aged socialists, Dre and WIP, men today should be discriminated against in high-skilled non-physically demanding jobs because 25 years ago males were paid well for low-skilled physically demanding jobs.

[Bryan]

Anyway, let me see if I have this correct... According to our resident male middle-aged socialists, Dre and WIP, men today should be discriminated against in high-skilled non-physically demanding jobs because 25 years ago males were paid well for low-skilled physically demanding jobs.

That's about the full scope of the argument. My dad made a good wage, therefor I should not be allowed to.

[overthere]

That's about the full scope of the argument. My dad made a good wage, therefor I should not be allowed to.

Somebody has to pay for his sins.

[Sofya]

I agree about the prison. But that's right, men are stronger physically, and most women will just die in worse conditions, I think it's just because of that

[cybercoma]

There's a fantastic thread about persecuted Christians, who are a lot like MRAs.

[Bonam]

Anyway, let me see if I have this correct... According to our resident male middle-aged socialists, Dre and WIP, men today should be discriminated against in high-skilled non-physically demanding jobs because 25 years ago males were paid well for low-skilled physically demanding jobs.

Yes. It's similar to how white people today should be discriminated against in job selection because 200 years ago unrelated white people, in a different country, held black people as slaves.

None of it makes any sense until you get into the mindset of the social justice activist... but if you do, then you realize that from this point of view, individuals don't matter at all. The rights and lives of individuals can be trampled and destroyed, because the only thing that matters in their narrative is groups and equalizing group results.

[Michael Hardner]

None of it makes any sense until you get into the mindset of the social justice activist... but if you do, then you realize that from this point of view, individuals don't matter at all.

Well, leaving out the fact that you're criticizing a theoretical policy, can you put forward an alternative ? I've been called left-of-centre, socialite, what have you... but I'm pragmatic above all. Give me your thoughts.

[Black Dog]

Yes. It's similar to how white people today should be discriminated against in job selection because 200 years ago unrelated white people, in a different country, held black people as slaves.

Yes because everyone knows racial discrimination ceased to exist with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

[-1=e^ipi]

Well, leaving out the fact that you're criticizing a theoretical policy, can you put forward an alternative ? I've been called left-of-centre, socialite, what have you... but I'm pragmatic above all. Give me your thoughts.

Treat everyone equally and as individuals? Is that so hard?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think so but others apparently do. Next ?