We can’t do that, because then no one would be able to lose this bizarre reverse pissing match. Besides, it makes too much sense.
blindboyard, please stop speaking on behalf of my gender. It’s embarassing.
I like that. “Allowed” to be drafted. Clever use of framing. Well, not really that clever. But definitely a use of framing.
Nobody is “allowed” to be drafted. One has no choice in the matter of drafting. That is why it is drafting and not volunteering.
You could argue semantics, or you could argue issues. You’ve obviously made your choice. Care to comment on the issue?
To clarify: I was talking about one of my own anecdotes, and it was one of the people I was applying to about the job that told me the role was not suitable for a man. It was obviously an off the record comment – it would be illegal to openly say this.
Your own cites included anecdotes of men being refused work or even enrollment in some hygiene schools because of their gender. And there was the survey of dentists where, what was it?, a third of dentists admitted they would be very reluctant or would never hire a male hygienist.
But of course if you survey male dental hygienists of course you are going to find stories of people that beat the odds. That’s by design. It doesn’t mean that anyone else is imagining discrimination or it’s not a serious problem.
Since when does being a man who is speaking mean one is speaking for men? But I’ll go on ploughing my lone furrow of providing verifiable examples for the OP:
In Britain the retirement age for men is 65 and for women is 60, although this is scheduled to change to equality at some point in quite a few years time. Women, of course, have a higher life expectancy.
The are, again in Britain, what are called “women-only shortlists”, whereby political parties set aside certain constituencies to for which they will only allow women to stand on their behalf. Obviously this is meant to remedy the excessive democracy which saw only about a quarter of parliament being female. Apparently getting jobs for female politicians is more important than ensuring that female voters can elect who they want. Women-only shortlists were ruled to be illegal by the European courts, but the law was specifically changed to allow them by the last government.
Also, women are now apparently legally entitled to receive equal pay for substantially different work, as here. That’s an equal pay claim by dinner ladies and other female workers because bin men and others doing unpleasant work were getting bonuses rather than being moved into a higher pay grade. Different jobs, the bonuses being paid on the basis of what job was being done rather than who was doing it so they would be received by female bin men and male dinner ladies, if such things existed, but were deemed illegal anyway, on the grounds that the council thinking people who shovel refuse for a living deserve a bonus is inherently discriminatory because women don’t want to do dirty jobs.
Also, criminals discriminate against men. Hence the vast majority of victims of crimes against the person are male. This applies to both crimes committed by male and female criminals.
Talk about selective use of evidence.
One respondent, in one article, said that "“Some hygiene schools would not accept males.” This guy had, as the article makes very clear, been a dental hygienist for 34 years, meaning that he went to dental hygiene school sometime in the early 1970s.
I guess i was under the impression, for the OP’s use of the term “are,” that we were discussing current levels of discrimination. But if it makes you feel better, i am happy to concede that, 40 years ago, it was probably harder for a man to get into dental hygiene college.
And the other study, in a paragraph devoted explicitly to the issue of getting a job, said:
And i’m not sure why you bring up the fact that a third of dentists would be reluctant or would never hire a male hygienist, as if that were somehow a rebuttal to my argument. In my own goddam post, i wrote:
I have never once in this thread denied that there is any discrimination. I have even, on numerous occasions, said that there is. I’m not sure what argument you think you’re making here that has any relevance.
The comment, off the record or not, was still illegal. You should have reported the person for saying it. If you didn’t, you’ve helped to perpetuate the problem.
Blaming the victim for the win!
The victim isn’t to blame for the discrimination, but if people don’t report illegal activity it is more likely to keep happening. I feel the same about women who don’t report rape, for what it’s worth. I understand, at some level, why they don’t report it, but i still think they should.
By the way, “for the win”? What are you? Five years old?
There’s also the issue of lower car insurance rates for women, which has now been forbidden by the European courts. Women are actually more likely to have accidents per mile driven but tend to drive less miles. To think, if they had just acted quicker I might have saved several pounds on motorbicycle insurance. That’s sexism literally stealing bread from my plate, the bastards.
That’s at least partially because, as a society, we’re becoming more aware of post-partum depression and its darker sibling, post-partum psychosis.
I’ll just let the irony of this statement marinate in itself.
Right. Arguing about the components of sexism and what constitutes gender discrimination is the same as what you did. I’ve been arguing issues. You just seem to want to nitpick about the word “allowed” as if anybody didn’t know that conscription was compulsory.
Old enough to know the stance on insults in IMHO. Also old enough to understand the irony of your question.
Absolutely. You’ve pounced on one thing I said when the big picture of your cites is that male dental hygienists experienced discrimination before and after finding work, and many dentists have been willing to admit to being discriminatory.
But yes, I guess I didn’t read through the 20,000 words or so of the cites carefully enough.
I couldn’t find that specific line, but I think we should be careful not to draw conclusions from it. The studies are surveys of existing hygienists and may not give the whole picture.
There was nowhere near 20,000 words, and the fact that you’re too lazy to read anything except what conforms to your own predispositions is not my problem.
Having conceded that you didn’t even read the fucking things properly, it’s the height of gall and hubris to suggest that you can properly determine what the “big picture” of the articles is. In fact, having read all of them fully, i would say that the big picture is, in fact precisely what i suggested earlier: that male dental hygienists are subject to some gender-based assumptions that might, in some cases, affect their ability to get work, and that might, in some cases, affect their experiences on the job. But the clear emphasis of all the articles is also that such discrimination that does exist constitutes a minority of the profession, and that it is rapidly decreasing.
Which is exactly the point i’ve been making all along, your half-informed, wilfully-incomplete “analysis” notwithstanding.
Firstly, I don’t know what I’ve said that’s warranted such a response.
I actually want to have a discussion here; I’m not one of the people trying to talk about which gender has it worse and I’m not interested in flinging insults.
And anyway; I was basing my summary on a lot of your earlier summary.
If your point is just that gender discrimination against men is probably decreasing in many areas…I think I agree with that.
I don’t think a survey of men who have found employment as dental hygienists is particularly strong support for that though because it could be a misleading sample.
And it would not mean to me that there should not be a men’s rights movement. If, and only if, there is already equality in all areas, then a equal rights movement is pointless.
I think that is most basic point that needs to be made. People like mhendo like to inundate people with semantics, studies and numbers while still conceding the point that there may be a men’s rights or discrimination issue somewhere that applies to males. That is the basic point isn’t it? I don’t care how big it is and I don’t see how anyone could defend that. I already said that I love being a white affluent male in the U.S. but even single cases of someone getting screwed over within my cohort are perfectly valid complaints. It isn’t a pissing contest.
Depends (the diapers).
I want some parti-colored ones that look like Speedos, but noooooo. Best I can do is those little guard thingies.
Q
In the US, having testicles makes you a second choice as parent. It is implied a female is a better parent in the court of law. One has to prove the female incompetent to get physical custody of the child. Children default to the female
Affirmative Action penalizes white males.