Prejudice & Injustice against men

[RB]

I think that females are making the lives of men worst with all the new options these females are creating.

Firstly, women are showing some provoking outrage at men for their own socialisation.

Perhaps the harm done is that women not only create false images of men but continue to exacerbate this falseness with their demands. This in turn afflicts men so much that it creates the guilty trip in men.

Look, nowadays men come home from war literally crying, a terrible thing this war is - an oppresion for men - men will die in a war, but also there are no new options available to males comparable to the female options.

One only have to look at the trend and recognise there is a need to examine and renovate our attitudes towards men.

Look, presently girls are encouraged into post secondary education while boys are left to fend for themselves - the homeless stats shows 78% are males that appear on the streets

In the areas of divorce, child custody, domestic prosecution and social issues such as homelessness, and over-representation of men in prison, welfare etc. the truth is men have not drawn much sympathy in any of these areas, even though we see blatant prejudices.

I think our society have indeed betrayed men, have systematically discriminate against men in comparable female services such as victims shelters etc and hence do not provide for nor recognised the male needs

[Achiles]

I agree whole-heartedly with your accusation of male discrimination as apposed to the usual prejudice against women. But as long as we see men and women as needing separate help systems it will never be fair. Somebody will always be discriminated against. You can blow your horn for as long as you like about equality, but it will never be reached until we realize the differences between men and women, not only in the obvious physical nature but also in each sex's emotional and spiritual needs.

However, this is where my concordance with you views end. I do not believe that women are making men's lives worse and worse. They fought very hard for their rights and bloody well earned them. If men wish to do the same then I say, "Go for it!" Nobody's stopping you. And as for your point concerning homelessness, I do believe that for many homeless people it is their choice to sit on the street and beg. There are plenty of welfare programs and non-profit organizations that provide assistance to those in need and that includes those without housing or means to fend for themselves. I can just hear the angry mobs arising from this comment but it is by choice that many people do not have post-secondary education, and again by choice that many people do not have jobs. There is always another option to disparity. I realize that some of the time it cannot be helped but that is when it is also time to seek help; these non-profit organizations are there to HELP.

Men do not need to be helped by anybody but themselves. Women certainly helped themselves to the fruit of equality; surely the male population can follow this trend. And even if there were social programs for male equality and the like, what makes you think that men would attend? The male populace of Canada, and the world in general, are so used to being the dominant sex of mankind, why would they stoop so low to receive help to attain the level of rights women have?

Men and women were created equal in the beginning but since then this image has been skewed and altered to fit the ego of the handful of alpha males that act as leaders of mankind. In order to make men and women equal this image must be put back into place and the only way to do so is to recognise the difference between men and women and address these differences.

[August1991]

Stupid people are discriminated against. They are certainly not treated the same as smart people. Furthermore, stupid people are born that way. While some stupid people may benefit from education, many will not.

I could say much the same about ugly people. Their ugliness is beyond their control (although cosmetic surgery can make a difference). Society treats beautiful people differently from ugly people.

The State is a bad institution for social engineering projects. The State's powers must not be used arbitrarily and that is why we have a Charter of Rights. The Charter does not exist to create social equality.

RB, two wrongs don't make a right.

Look, presently girls are encouraged into post secondary education while boys are left to fend for themselves - the homeless stats shows 78% are males that appear on the streets

The homeless in India are not at all like the homeless in Canada. In Canada, people make choices in life. I can understand why a civilized State would help insure people against the bad things that can happen in life. But I don't see why the State (meaning all of us together) should assume responsibility for one person's bad choices in life.

If I build a house on the edge of a cliff (because the land there is cheap), should the State build me a new house when mine falls into the ocean?

It would make more sense for the State to subsidize people who fail high school. They arguably fail through no choice of their own.

Men and women were created equal in the beginning but since then this image has been skewed and altered to fit the ego of the handful of alpha males that act as leaders of mankind. In order to make men and women equal this image must be put back into place and the only way to do so is to recognise the difference between men and women and address these differences.

Even two men are not equal because they are not identical. Would you want to live in a society where everyone was treated the same? I far prefer a society where individuals are different, and as result, are treated unequally.

[Achiles]

Even two men are not equal because they are not identical.  Would you want to live in a society where everyone was treated the same? I far prefer a society where individuals are different, and as result, are treated unequally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fighting for equality between the sexes and within the sexes does not mean one is fighting for conformism. "Equality" is just a platform for everyone to be eavened out upon. It is from there that one may choose to do this or that. Individuals ARE different, with different needs and wants, but at the same time we are all human. We are all apart of the same community. I would not want to live in a society were everybody was a robot following the same path in life, being treated exactly equal, because you're right, we're not. But equality is just a stepping stone to bring us all to the same level. Unfortunately our society would not be able to survive if it were a subjective one. It's much easier for our government to just give us one blanket acknowledgement in an objective manner than to single out each person's needs.

[Black Dog]

Most of RB's initial post is so poorly crafted, I can't make enough sense of it to adequetely respond.

But this:

I think our society have indeed betrayed men, have systematically discriminate against men in comparable female services such as victims shelters etc and hence do not provide for nor recognised the male needs

caught my eye.

Do you know why we have women's shelters? Because women recognized both the need and the unwillingness of the male-dominated sopcial institutions (government, police) to take action against doemstic violence. SO they took matters into their own hands.

Indeed, every advancement women have made has come from their own toil, sacrifice and hard work. The bleating coming from some maes of the species that these advancements are costing them is the sound of their privilege being eroded.

Even two men are not equal because they are not identical. Would you want to live in a society where everyone was treated the same? I far prefer a society where individuals are different, and as result, are treated unequally.

August, you're confusing equality (as in eveyone is treated the same) with equality of opportunity (wher everyone is given an equal shot at success).

[August1991]

Fighting for equality between the sexes and within the sexes does not mean one is fighting for conformism. "Equality" is just a platform for everyone to be eavened out upon.

Please tell me the difference between "conformism" and "eavened out upon".

August, you're confusing equality (as in eveyone is treated the same) with equality of opportunity (wher everyone is given an equal shot at success).

Thanks, BD, for that distinction. Except. I've got a face for radio and you look like [insert appropriate movie star name here]. Do we have an equal shot at "success"?

Or, my parents were impoverished alcoholics and your Dad was a medical doctor. Do we have an equal shot at "success"?

BTW, what is "success"?

[Guest eureka]

Read Cunningham-Greene's essay titled "Success." One of the great minds of a century ago and with no taste for what is called success.

[RB]

Black Dog May 9 2005, 03:11 AM Post #5

Most of RB's initial post is so poorly crafted, I can't make enough sense of it to adequetely respond.

No problem, I do want you to make sense of what the issues are so here is the direction of that initial post.

Women have been drawing sympathies with whatever tactics they are using. First they win your hearts on their social issues and point the finger and blame men for their discrepancies e.g. women are concentrated in social jobs and junior opportunities, plus they weren't even legally a person until 1929, did not vote until later, did not occupy political seats until later, and still there are discrepancies and so on - they blame men.

Here is the other side of that argument, our society have produced men and willed them to go to work and fend for themselves.

In fact, our families are more likely to release men from their homes and tell them to become independent whilst the females are kept at home even in the worst of circumstances. In my view men are systematically denied family aid available to a comparable female.

Plus, if a man is deem poor he is denied and deprive some role in his child's life.

In fact the welfare system might back me up here - if a man appears into a family who is collecting welfare, they might become disqualify because of the entry of a man. Plus if a man appears to be living in a home with a family (female and child) the tax system makes them a family. Anyway the point is that a man has to take care of himself and carries a burden to take care of others.

The irony of being "less of man" asserts itself as being unworthy of help. Look men are supposed to be well duh "men". Less of a man now means that men forgo the right for help. Women ask for help all the time - and no one questions it plus they are not "less of a woman" but more power to a woman for seeking help.

I wanted to make this point that we are more permissible to allow a man to take care of a woman and become financially dependent on the man. However, how to say this... it is forbidden for men to have a dependence on women - perhaps that less of a man takes it toll.

[Digby]

I know a woman that was lugged off to jail a while back for asaulting her husband .

The Bast--d deserved it too !

cost her 30,000 in legal fees to get rid of the charges too and she was attacked first . Just the better at boxing .

TIMES ARE CHANGEING

[PocketRocket]

BTW, what is "success"?

Simple.

Accomplishing your goals to your own satisfaction.

How the outside world sees me is supremely unimportant.

If I set goals for my life, and achieve those goals, I am successful.

If my goal is to live in the bush in a 1-room hut, living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, most people would not see this as "success".

But it is not their goal.

In this manner, success is subjective.

The only time success becomes the business of others, is if your ambitions involve being in the public eye, ie; politician, entertainer, professional athlete, etc.

Even then, your personal goals cannot be judged by an observer, only your performance can be rated against others in your field.