Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dgul

Institutional misandry

Recommended Posts

I don't know.  Some things make me a bit cross.

I've just read the BBC article on women in jobs at UK sporting bodies.  From next month these sporting bodies have to have 30% women on their board or they lose funding.  I don't mind this, although IMO hard targets are dangerous things -- the danger is that rather than go out and find the top women to lead in these positions, it is easier to just fill the 30% with whoever you can get.  But I'll not dwell on that point as sometimes you just have to force the issue.

Anyway, in the article it goes on to cite 'The Good'

Quote
  • England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female

Surely this is dreadful.  It is nearly as bad as the England Football's 7% female, or the RFU's 13% female board members.   Just because the gender ratios are inverted doesn't make it good.

(What about boys that want to play netball?  I don't know if there are any, but perhaps it is because such a strong female bias right at the top discourages any from even thinking about it.)

(Just to make it plain, there are 'good' bodies by my reckoning  - Archery is only just under 50%, for example.)

I want to see institutional misogyny stopped -- but how come such institutional misandry is allowed?  Not just under-the-carpet misandry, like a 'oh, we'd employ men if they were interested, but we just can't interest them', but actually celebrated, as in this article.

I'd say that for every 'anti-misogyny' rule there should be a balancing 'anti-misandry' rule.  Sure, I'd accept that it wouldn't be invoked so often, but it would act as a kind of balancing force. 

The article is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461

[An interesting point, perhaps.  I don't think that there really is such a thing as misandry -- men tend to get by okay, and undoubtedly have some advantages in some careers.  But I think there is such a thing as institutional misandry -- this isn't people with a bias, but the system has been designed with a bias due to a poorly thought-through overzealous anti-misogyny.  But two wrongs don't make a right.]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

> I don't think that there really is such a thing as misandry

You lost me there.

My sister is highly educated, she has a doctorate and she's a feminist/SJW. When I used the word 'misandry' in conservation she had to ask me what it meant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quotas are ridiculous. Give everyone an equal opportunity to do something, that's all you need to do. An example of this is to have both girls and boys playing the same sports when they're young (2 to 7 years old range) at the same time (e.g. boys and girls play football together).  Then provide specific lessons for male netball / female football at older ages - self-selection will take place - people go to what they're interested in.  I agree with the notion that if you don't allow girls to properly try out football, then you create gender biases. There's nothing inherently male about football, nothing inherently female about netball.  Give everyone an equal opportunity to try out all sports, but don't set a quota for it.  Don't lower the bar, don't coax anyone to join if they don't want to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In such a competing environment, then make yourself a niche, by becoming "the niche", as there is a positive natural selection in the environment.

If you were a three leafed clover.....For example, in a field of three lead clovers, and there is a demand for a four leaf clover, then you must as a three leaf clover, turn yourself into a four leaf clover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they understand equality. They should interview for the jobs. If all the best candidates are men, then so be it. If they are women then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate of mine is ex Royal Navy. Before anyone can go out on a ship they must undergo a training and assessment course. It's all sensible stuff like firefighting, coping with flooding compartments etc. It includes carrying a person up a ladder. Everyone has to do it from the lowliest sailor to the captain. If you don't pass, you don't sail. Unless you're a woman......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John The Pessimist said:

A mate of mine is ex Royal Navy. Before anyone can go out on a ship they must undergo a training and assessment course. It's all sensible stuff like firefighting, coping with flooding compartments etc. It includes carrying a person up a ladder. Everyone has to do it from the lowliest sailor to the captain. If you don't pass, you don't sail. Unless you're a woman......

Which is outrageous. Fitness and strength standards should be set the same for everyone across the board. If you pass you can join. If you don't, you can't.

If a woman soldier can't lift a 15st infantryman off of the battlefield while under fire what use is she? I wouldn't want to serve on the front line anywhere near her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Male doing female centric things - poof, sissy, queer, less than a man, etc, etc.

Female doing male centric things - challenging, empowered, driven, bold, etc, etc.

This is how the misandry works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

Quotas are ridiculous. Give everyone an equal opportunity to do something, that's all you need to do. An example of this is to have both girls and boys playing the same sports when they're young (2 to 7 years old range) at the same time (e.g. boys and girls play football together).  Then provide specific lessons for male netball / female football at older ages - self-selection will take place - people go to what they're interested in.  I agree with the notion that if you don't allow girls to properly try out football, then you create gender biases. There's nothing inherently male about football, nothing inherently female about netball.  Give everyone an equal opportunity to try out all sports, but don't set a quota for it.  Don't lower the bar, don't coax anyone to join if they don't want to. 

I'd probably agree with this.  And it is doubly relevant in sport -- who cares if more boys want to play darts and more women want to play netball.  It really doesn't make the slightest difference -- a fight for equality where there isn't any problem with there being a gender difference.  The one area where it does make a difference isn't what it looks like -- in football, the reason why male footballers make all the money and women's football is minuscule in comparison isn't a gender bias -- football isn't a sport, it is a kind of weird tribal identity thing.  The only way (IMO) to make football gender neutral would be to force football to become a sport -- then male footballers would make similar money to any other sportsperson.  ie, the best would make a reasonable living, but that is all.

Anyway, I wonder about whether it is a gender inequality, or whether it is actually a system inequality most of the time.  That is, a given <job, role, profession> might be male, but that doesn't mean that most males could get themselves that <role,job,profession>.  I'd find it difficult to become a FTSE100 board member, irrespective of my gender.  Perhaps the problem is that most people are denied access to most (highly paid) roles, and being male doesn't actually help.  Perhaps background, schooling, clubs, etc are more important?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Errol said:

Which is outrageous. Fitness and strength standards should be set the same for everyone across the board. If you pass you can join. If you don't, you can't.

If a woman soldier can't lift a 15st infantryman off of the battlefield while under fire what use is she? I wouldn't want to serve on the front line anywhere near her.

 

To be honest with you I would have trouble lifting a 15 stone man at any time let alone on the battlefield. But I am not in my 20's and not doing serious physical exercise any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

To be honest with you I would have trouble lifting a 15 stone man at any time let alone on the battlefield. But I am not in my 20's and not doing serious physical exercise any more.

But most men can be brought up to a level of fitness where they can do this, whereas most women can't. They simply have far less muscle/power/bone density etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Errol said:

Which is outrageous. Fitness and strength standards should be set the same for everyone across the board. If you pass you can join. If you don't, you can't.

If a woman soldier can't lift a 15st infantryman off of the battlefield while under fire what use is she? I wouldn't want to serve on the front line anywhere near her.

My son is hoping to attend Welbeck College (MoD 6th form training for enginners)

Fitness requirements - Press ups in 2 minutes - Men 44, Women 21

Run 1.5 miles - Men 10.30 minutes , Women 13.00 minutes.

Not exactly a tough test for a fit teenager - but why such a massive difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Masked Tulip said:

Male doing female centric things - poof, sissy, queer, less than a man, etc, etc.

Female doing male centric things - challenging, empowered, driven, bold, etc, etc.

This is how the misandry works.

Well, there might be a misogynistic element to this equal-opportunity agenda -- something like 'males can just look after themselves, but really we need to help the weaker sex'.  Come on girls, line up to be helped.

What is the psychological consequence of picking out girls at school, say, and saying 'oh, you'd really like to be an engineer.  But you're a girl so we need to give you special attention'. Sure, I'd agree that some girls might say 'hmm, engineering... I really hadn't thought of it, but now I've been shown the possibility I'm excited by it', but presumably the result of this activity might also include mindsets like 'girls in STEM are special, bow down to me because I'm best' and 'I've noticed that us girls need to be hand-held when it comes to engineering -- I'd probably be best doing something else'.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

My son is hoping to attend Welbeck College (MoD 6th form training for enginners)

Fitness requirements - Press ups in 2 minutes - Men 44, Women 21

Run 1.5 miles - Men 10.30 minutes , Women 13.00 minutes.

Not exactly a tough test for a fit teenager - but why such a massive difference?

Well, it is a bit more complex than just 'requirements of the job'

For this they need each individual to be at the 10%ile fitness (or whatever it is).  Males with different stature can just stuff it (sorry), but there is a recognition of a gender difference, so females have a different target.  But it is just saying 'you've tried' vs 'you've not tried'.

Now there are occupational requirements, and these are a bit more complicated.  I'd be a bit worried about the 'lift a man up a ladder' requirement for RN -- it seems reasonable, yet now not everyone has to do it.  I'd guess that it was driven by two considerations -- if women had to be able to do it, there wouldn't be many women in RN; and there aren't many women in RN, so it doesn't matter anyway.  But if a ship's complement was 50:50 M:F, then presumably in a fire the males are more likely to die given RN ship design.  Hardly gender neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dgul said:

I don't know.  Some things make me a bit cross.

I've just read the BBC article on women in jobs at UK sporting bodies.  From next month these sporting bodies have to have 30% women on their board or they lose funding.  I don't mind this, although IMO hard targets are dangerous things -- the danger is that rather than go out and find the top women to lead in these positions, it is easier to just fill the 30% with whoever you can get.  But I'll not dwell on that point as sometimes you just have to force the issue.

Anyway, in the article it goes on to cite 'The Good'

Surely this is dreadful.  It is nearly as bad as the England Football's 7% female, or the RFU's 13% female board members.   Just because the gender ratios are inverted doesn't make it good.

(What about boys that want to play netball?  I don't know if there are any, but perhaps it is because such a strong female bias right at the top discourages any from even thinking about it.)

(Just to make it plain, there are 'good' bodies by my reckoning  - Archery is only just under 50%, for example.)

I want to see institutional misogyny stopped -- but how come such institutional misandry is allowed?  Not just under-the-carpet misandry, like a 'oh, we'd employ men if they were interested, but we just can't interest them', but actually celebrated, as in this article.

I'd say that for every 'anti-misogyny' rule there should be a balancing 'anti-misandry' rule.  Sure, I'd accept that it wouldn't be invoked so often, but it would act as a kind of balancing force. 

The article is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461

[An interesting point, perhaps.  I don't think that there really is such a thing as misandry -- men tend to get by okay, and undoubtedly have some advantages in some careers.  But I think there is such a thing as institutional misandry -- this isn't people with a bias, but the system has been designed with a bias due to a poorly thought-through overzealous anti-misogyny.  But two wrongs don't make a right.]

We keep hearing promises of a bonfire of the quangos, yet here they are still hoovering up public money and being used to politicise areas that just have no business being politicised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this comes back to a central point, why do we have to specifically have to have women engineers, scientists, soldiers etc etc 

What's the big problem with the fact there are no female engineers? Honest genuine question. 

I don't think I should need to say this, but I'll say it anyway. Got no problem with women doing any job whatsoever and there should be (and there are) no barriers at all to them doing any job the want to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

My son is hoping to attend Welbeck College (MoD 6th form training for enginners)

Fitness requirements - Press ups in 2 minutes - Men 44, Women 21

Run 1.5 miles - Men 10.30 minutes , Women 13.00 minutes.

Not exactly a tough test for a fit teenager - but why such a massive difference?

Just possibly a woman who could do that much could be brought up to a sufficient same standard although it'll take more training to get there. I have my doubts though, and it still doesn't really change the point.

Don't think I've ever been able to manage one press up myself :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gilf said:

All of this comes back to a central point, why do we have to specifically have to have women engineers, scientists, soldiers etc etc 

What's the big problem with the fact there are no female engineers? Honest genuine question. 

I don't think I should need to say this, but I'll say it anyway. Got no problem with women doing any job whatsoever and there should be (and there are) no barriers at all to them doing any job the want to. 

Women engineers in the oil and gas industry do exist, I know several. It is a PC nightmare for the company because on the one hand they are not allowed to discriminate for work on the Arabian peninsular, but local laws (and cultural considerations) must be complied with. Fortunately female engineers tend to be rather more pragmatic than their gender studies sisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, gilf said:

All of this comes back to a central point, why do we have to specifically have to have women engineers, scientists, soldiers etc etc 

What's the big problem with the fact there are no female engineers? Honest genuine question. 

I don't think I should need to say this, but I'll say it anyway. Got no problem with women doing any job whatsoever and there should be (and there are) no barriers at all to them doing any job the want to. 

We need to get real equality and transplant wombs into men and make them bleed every month.

I sometimes hate this vile feminism that demands 'equality' here but ignores the mutilation of young women's genitals and the other crap like not being allowed out on your own or to drive etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feminism is by definition sexist. If the argument was for equality, they would expand their potential supporter base by 100%.

Sadly feminists only see what they perceive disadvantages women. Anything to their advantage is simply ignored.

Ergo our 'Minister for Women and Equalities'. That is a magnificent oxymoron. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Just possibly a woman who could do that much could be brought up to a sufficient same standard although it'll take more training to get there. I have my doubts though, and it still doesn't really change the point.

Women are also massively more prone to injury (lighter frame, less bone density etc etc). Research carried out in the Armed forces shows this. So in a proper war, a unit made up of women would suffer massive attrition rates if forced to march long distances, fight for sustained periods of time etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SarahBell said:

I sometimes hate this vile feminism that demands 'equality' here but ignores the mutilation of young women's genitals 

They also ignore the blatant and continued mutilation of male genitalia (circumcision) - in babies that are unable to give their consent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody should be free to do whatever they want to do, statistical targets would then be irrelevant and would reflect what people actually want to do and are actually good at / comfortable with. End of issue, end of cause, end of ideology.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   93 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.