Equality

[happytorq]

I actually agree with his stance on most things he posts but rather than depress myself with discussing the facts I prefer to post juvenile responses

Really? I don't. A lot of gullscorer's posting strike me as the ramblings of somebody who wears a tinfoil hat and doesn't like to talk on an unsecured line. Maybe it's the language. While there is a minority of feminist groups who won't be satisfied until we're all in a re-run of a classic Two Ronnies sketch (full marks to you if you get that reference, plus you're old) he seems to be seeing sinister threats and conspiracies where there aren't any.

[Southampton Gull]

Yes, really. There is no denying that women are taking more and more power of equality away from men. The tide has turned make no mistake.

And behind every conspiracy theory there's someone trying to keep it quiet

[Gullscorer]

So happytorq thinks a lot of my posts are ramblings; he seems to be in a minority. Perhaps it’s just the way he looks at them. Jeez, has he been indoctrinated by a feminist-controlled educational system..? Perhaps he should have worn a tinfoil hat..!! =D

I’ve always tried to present coherent and logical views and facts with links to all the evidence needed to prove my arguments. That may be too much hard work for some people.

There are, of course, some who ignore or even refuse to acknowledge the existence of the clearest evidence thrust in front of their faces (not that I would be so rude as to do that). Surely you’re not one of those, happytorq..?

[happytorq]

So happytorq thinks a lot of my posts are ramblings; he seems to be in a minority. Perhaps it’s just the way he looks at them. Jeez, has he been indoctrinated by a feminist-controlled educational system..? Perhaps he should have worn a tinfoil hat..!! =D

I’ve always tried to present coherent and logical views and facts with links to all the evidence needed to prove my arguments. That may be too much hard work for some people.

There are, of course, some who ignore or even refuse to acknowledge the existence of the clearest evidence thrust in front of their faces (not that I would be so rude as to do that). Surely you’re not one of those, happytorq..?

I've not seen evidence. Just you going on about this 'conspiracy' and posting a couple of links to websites that (granted) are on the extreme edge of what counts as feminism. And, as much evidence as you think you might be able to thrust into my face, I've seen just as much - if not more - about the inequalities that women face and have faced for centuries.

There is always a danger - as with anything designed to stop discrimination - that the pendulum will swing too far the other way, but I really don't think that has happened.

as a white, straight male, I strangely don't feel like I'm oppressed at all. I get by somehow

[Gullscorer]

Hmm, I get the feeling you've misread my posts, happytorq. I don't recall describing feminism as a conspiracy. A totalitarian man-hating ideology, yes, and I did once quote Erin Pizzey, who described it as a terrorist organisation, but then her life was threatened and her dog killed by feminists. Most people are unaware of the true nature of hardcore feminism.

I believe I've posted more than a couple of links, and I already said I would not be so rude as to thrust evidence in anybody's face (did you actually misread that bit?). I have certainly pointed people in the right directions, where they can carry out their own research. If people are too lazy or too bigoted (I'm not saying you are) to do that, unfortunately I don't have the time to do more.

Yes, women have faced inequalities for centuries. And so have men. And most men and women in the real world get along with each other perfectly well, but more and more (men and women) are taking exception to the world of ideological feminism being imposed upon them. In Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia most people kept their heads down in denial and 'got by' somehow, until eventually they had to face reality: "And then they came for me, but there was no-one left to speak out for me.."

[Gullscorer]

National GCSE and A-level results 2013: Girls continue to out-perform boys at GCSE level. More girls than boys are taking the exam subjects and more are getting better grades than boys even in traditional subjects. Some 127 thousand (4.5%) more subject papers were taken by girls than boys, and girls achieved some 329 thousand (32.9%) more top grades A*, A and B than boys.

Girls also continue to out-perform boys at A-level. More girls are taking the exam subjects than boys and more are getting better grades except for A* in traditional subjects. Some 72 thousand (18.4%) more subject papers were taken by girls than boys, and girls achieved some 56 thousand (28.5%) more top grades A*+A+B than boys.

This substantial under-achievement of boys compared to girls is reflected in the disparity in the numbers of girls and boys going on to higher education. Young women now outnumber young men at university in England and Wales by about 6 to 4. Such startling under-achievement has built up since 1988. Yet there appears to be no obvious government concern about this continuing academic sex inequality.

The likelihood that many males entering the workforce in the immediate future could be generally less academically qualified than females is an equality issue which receives little media attention. This trend is already established, although its effect on socio-economic patterns seems largely ignored. There appears to be no government focused action to redress this trend or the possible consequences.

It seems obvious that efforts over the past thirty or forty years to improve opportunities and equalities for women have been at the cost of discrimination against men. To disadvantage our boys and young men in this way is not equality. If it was happening to women, feminists would be up in arms. Does anybody care?

[Scott Brehaut]

Could it be simply that the boys being raised nowadays are just bone-idle and **** ing lazy?

[Gullscorer]

Britain has the highest proportion of single mothers in the European Union and, surprise, surpise, one of the highest rates of benefits for single mothers. Approximately 22% of families have single mothers. And 85% of primary schoolteachers are women. And when you consider that boys tend to get marked lower than girls in school (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02 ... 81236.html) you begin to see why girls are advantaged and the odds are stacked more and more against boys. Blatant discrimination against boys by female teachers! When you see this sort of thing happening in education and in society, you know something is terribly wrong..

Interestingly, note how the Huffington Post article, by a female reporter, states 'research has claimed' rather than 'research has shown'. Presumably, like all academic research, it is subject to peer review and to testing and confirmation (or not) by further studies. Or will it be quietly suppressed and ignored..??

[chunkygull]

i reckon we ought to show this to the feminists - (warning, bad language at the beginning)

[youtube]MnIJxcqSKgY[/youtube]

shoul we live by this mantra? :~D

[Gullscorer]

=D I don't remember seeing that on my DVD.

How about this one:

[Gullscorer]

I forgot to mention, must read this:

[Gullscorer]

This excerpt is from The “Monstrous Regiment” of Womanhood, chapter in Essays in Socialism New & Old (1907), pp.108-119:

'Nowadays anyone who protests against injustice to men in the interests of women is either abused as an unfeeling brute or sneered at as a crank. Perhaps in that day of a future society, my protest may be unearthed by some enterprising archaeological inquirer, and used as evidence that the question was already burning at the end of the nineteenth century.'

E. B. Bax

[Gullscorer]

Female postgraduate engineering students at Brunel University are now entitled to an additional £15,000 p.a. grant solely on account of their gender: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25300669 From the article:

“Only around a quarter of students on engineering master’s courses are women,” said Brunel engineering lecturer, Petra Gratton. “Bluntly speaking, that has to change if UK engineering is going to continue to compete as successfully as it currently does… While some may see this as positive discrimination the stark reality is that UK plc can no longer afford not to exploit fully this enormous potential talent pool."

A spokesman for Brunel added that the university was trying to dispel the myth that engineers spend most of their time on site, wearing hard hats. “At advanced level, engineering is very much an office-based profession, where the emphasis is working with teams on a collaborative basis. These skills are areas where women have traditionally excelled.”

So obviously we’re not going to see calls for positive discrimination or even mere equality for women in the hard dirty dangerous jobs which men will still be required to do! And a female student from a rich family will get the grant, while a male student from a poor family won’t. No Petra, this is sexual discrimination plain and simple. If you want to increase the pool of UK engineering talent, make sure that it progresses solely on merit, not on the basis of female privilege and entitlement. Better to ask why so many women quit engineering shortly after graduating; it's not because they don't get all the help and encouragement they need..

[Gullscorer]

Warning: you will either be bored within a few seconds and probably will be (if so, feel free to move on, your choice) or you will hang on every word; at least you will have the choice:

[Gullscorer]

Substantive Equality:

What do you call the opposite of justice? Many people would say the answer is injustice. However, what if you subscribed to a particular ideal which had goals that when attained would advantage you but would be sharply destructive to just about everyone else – and to achieve these goals, you needed widespread public adoption of your goals as if they were something positive for everyone.

It wouldn’t be effective to speak about such destructive intentions in plain language. It would make more sense in such a case to use a different word than injustice to describe what was the opposite of justice. In fact, if the social standing of individuals, or their social demographic could be used to selectively suppress their basic freedoms, such as freedom to speak – and for individuals of another social demographic to have their demands elevated above anyone else – you’d need some pretty manipulative rhetoric to accomplish this.

How about altering the term justice, by placing a positive sounding adjective in front of it. Like social justice. It’s a pretty neat trick, and it convinces nearly everyone who hears it that selectively suppressing or elevating people’s fundamental human freedoms based on which demographic they belong to is a good, positive practice, and convincing them it’s not the practice of what not so long ago, we would have called apartheid.

But what about another positive sounding word? We’ll start this time with equality. We’re talking about the legal concept where any two people are equal before and under the law.

by John Hembling. Full article here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/su ... n-the-law/