Is the world actually fair on men.

[Bella3456]

A very interesting one here and I'm intrigued to hear peoples thoughts. This is to do with abuse. A very long time ago I had social services involved (they are long gone now) me and partner had a physical altercation (lots more to it but will leave it at that) because of having a child social services got involved and I explained that it was both of us (hes long gone by the way) and instantly they were telling me how terrible he was.....but not how terrible I was i found it really strange. However I have a 6 year old boy and I must admit if he hit a woman I'd go absolutely ballistic and march him straight to therapy. When I defended my ex partner again saying it too was my fault no one believed me. I honestly could do no wrong and I just found the whole thing really odd. It does turn out that he ended up being incredibly emotionally and physically abusive in the end and social services said I was only 'reacting to my surroundings' which I actually believe to be true. I also believe that men being violent towards women can cause women a lot more damage because biologically they are much stronger. However if a woman was repeatedly attacking my son let's say when he's older for example constantly punching him and he hits her back i would be RAGING. But why is this? I do feel like its because men are naturally stronger so its not a 'fair fight' but also I feel like almost everyone is quick to not blame a woman and blame it all on the man. Interesting one to debate. Also want to stress I believe violence is wrong....no matter man or woman. But personally I believe man on woman violence is worse because the woman is at so much more risk due to how much stronger men are (normally). What's everyone's thoughts?

[Felix125]

I agree - either socio-economic factors or personal factors to an individual.
Its not just down to gender

[Jonny1265]

@Ohsugarhoneyicetea

@Felix125 You have missed the point entirely unsurprisingly. Society is shaped and controlled by those who have the most power, whether that be political or financial. Those people look out for their own, shape policy to suit themselves, shape culture to suit themselves. Almost all those people are men, which is why society is structured to prioritise and suit men and their lives and their concerns. I do appreciate it is difficult for the privileged, entitled and dull of wit to comprehend their advantages.

My observation is that looking after their own is based on socio-economic factors rather than gender.

[Jonny1265]

@Ohsugarhoneyicetea

All men benefit from men holding the majority of positions of power in the world. So yes, all men.

This is one huge leap. I don't see how all men benefit at all.

[BigFatLiar]

@Clymene

@BigFatLiar

No one says life is fair.

I think from my experience work often expects more from men. We had a PM who applied and got a job managing international projects, it did say a key part was travel at short notice. Turned out she expected her male deputy to do the short notice travel as she had family, so had he but that didn't count. When he complained he was basically told to suck it up.
Similar when travel or moving was mentioned it tended to be the men moved as the women had family to sort, no reference to the men having family.
I was fortunate in that OH was happy to look after the kids if I had to do any travel.

Or alternatively very few women are married to men who are prepared to support their careers.

I think the difference is not that the husbands don't support their wife's career as much as businesses assume that womens home life is more important.

[Clymene]

That chopped off the end of my message. It was supposed to say that what your example demonstrates is how very few men are prepared to look after their own children to support their female partner's career.

[Clymene]

@BigFatLiar

No one says life is fair.

I think from my experience work often expects more from men. We had a PM who applied and got a job managing international projects, it did say a key part was travel at short notice. Turned out she expected her male deputy to do the short notice travel as she had family, so had he but that didn't count. When he complained he was basically told to suck it up.
Similar when travel or moving was mentioned it tended to be the men moved as the women had family to sort, no reference to the men having family.
I was fortunate in that OH was happy to look after the kids if I had to do any travel.

Or alternatively very few women are married to men who are prepared to support their careers.

[BigFatLiar]

No one says life is fair.

I think from my experience work often expects more from men. We had a PM who applied and got a job managing international projects, it did say a key part was travel at short notice. Turned out she expected her male deputy to do the short notice travel as she had family, so had he but that didn't count. When he complained he was basically told to suck it up.
Similar when travel or moving was mentioned it tended to be the men moved as the women had family to sort, no reference to the men having family.
I was fortunate in that OH was happy to look after the kids if I had to do any travel.

[Clymene]

@N12

Tech companies are at the forefront of those companies striving for better equality between the sexes in employment at their companies. For example in tech centered jobs at: Google, Facebook, Apple , Microsoft and Amazon, they all have a higher percentage of female employees for tech jobs than the percentage of women doing degrees/majors in Computing.

Yep. Which doesn't actually answer my question. You said that women are likely to be better paid than men for the same positions. I'd like to see some evidence of that please.

[N12]

Tech companies are at the forefront of those companies striving for better equality between the sexes in employment at their companies. For example in tech centered jobs at: Google, Facebook, Apple , Microsoft and Amazon, they all have a higher percentage of female employees for tech jobs than the percentage of women doing degrees/majors in Computing.

[Clymene]

@N12

Many of the top technology firms go out of their way to try to employ women over men for positions, resulting in them statistically being much more likely to be higher paid for the same position as a man would be at these firms.

Got any receipts for this statement?

[N12]

As a UK based secondary teacher, I've seen a steady increase in the number of girls now taking Computing at GCSE level but despite now hitting a 50/50 split at this age, there is still a vanishingly small number who continue to take it at A Level.

The only way to achieve equality of outcome would be to force more girls to take subjects they just aren't as passionate about. Psychology, English etc. are still very female dominated at A Level. Subjects more closely tied to communication appeal to them so much more than the problem solving subjects. Because technology is where much of our money is spent as a society, and where advances are predominantly made that positively impact productivity, those jobs will always be the most lucrative.

I find the idea that these outcomes are due to some conspiracy of a patriarchy as laughable. We know there are biological differences between the two sexes, hopefully this is accepted as fact.
This means for the most part men are more likely to have more testosterone/different bias in brain wiring, which then correlates with how competitive, aggressive, reduced empathy, better front to back brain connections, inferior side to side brain connections etc. There are many women who have these traits to a much higher degree than many men, but as a percentage it is rarer due to biological differences.

Many of the top technology firms go out of their way to try to employ women over men for positions, resulting in them statistically being much more likely to be higher paid for the same position as a man would be at these firms.

Is the world fair on men? No. Is the world fair on women? No.
The world isn't fair.
Both sexes face different challenges and many of the same challenges. The best we can hope to achieve is to try to ensure equality of opportunity for all. If someone wants to make their own business, work 100+hours a week, it shouldn't matter if they are male or female but it should be their choice. And as long as it is there choice, due to differences at a biological level, we will NEVER have equality of outcome. In some situations this could seen to be advantageous to one sex, and in some it is advantageous to the other. Highlighting issues that either sex faces does not inherently diminish those that the other sex faces, and I hope society will strive to care about unfairness faced by both sexes.

[Toomanyradishes]

And it hence shows that society is not patriarchal

Me not believing women are weak doesnt mean society isnt patriarchal. In the same way that if I believed socialism was preferrable to capitalism it would suddenly mean we didnt live in a capitalist society

[Felix125]

@Toomanyradishes

*AdamRyan

I don't think I will be able to agree with any logic that starts from either:
A) women aren't disadvantaged in society and the evidence showing they are is wrong or
B) women are disadvantaged but it's their own fault as not as clever/we measure the wrong things/women talk about things men dont*

Agreed especially when you add in c)men are disadvantaged and its not their fault and nobody cares

I've not said either:

I've said these are advantages and disadvantageous to all people, but to says its driven by a patriarchal society that benefits all men is not correct. Some women are disadvantaged and some men are disadvantaged

[Felix125]

@Toomanyradishes

I don't think the likes of Mary Barra, Theresa May, Margret Thatcher etc would fall into that category of helpless emotional beings who need looking after

I didnt say women were helpless emotional beings who need looking after, and I certainly dont believe that. I said thats the patriarchal attitude towards women.

Exactly.

And it hence shows that society is not patriarchal.

[Toomanyradishes]

AdamRyan

I don't think I will be able to agree with any logic that starts from either:
A) women aren't disadvantaged in society and the evidence showing they are is wrong or
B) women are disadvantaged but it's their own fault as not as clever/we measure the wrong things/women talk about things men dont

Agreed especially when you add in c)men are disadvantaged and its not their fault and nobody cares

[Toomanyradishes]

I don't think the likes of Mary Barra, Theresa May, Margret Thatcher etc would fall into that category of helpless emotional beings who need looking after

I didnt say women were helpless emotional beings who need looking after, and I certainly dont believe that. I said thats the patriarchal attitude towards women.

[AdamRyan]

I don't think I will be able to agree with any logic that starts from either:
A) women aren't disadvantaged in society and the evidence showing they are is wrong or
B) women are disadvantaged but it's their own fault as not as clever/we measure the wrong things/women talk about things men dont

[Felix125]

I disagree. The patriarchy is also about attitudes to men and women.

Women = helpless emotional beings who need looking after
Men = stronger logical beings who should be able to look after themselves

I don't think the likes of Mary Barra, Theresa May, Margret Thatcher etc would fall into that category of helpless emotional beings who need looking after .

And if we take your analogy that society will just write off men who are not successful - and higher male suicide rates is because there is more pressure on men to be successful, and less opportunity to let their emotions out etc.

Is the world actually fair on men?

And if not - then the patriarchal society just isn't there as its failing more men than promoting their success.

[Felix125]

@AdamRyan

A patriarchal society is a system that be benefits men to a greater extent than women. Both men and women can suffer at the hands of that system.
Male violence is tolerated by our patriarchal system.
I'm not at all an expert, but I think people who are homeless are given support through refuges are either 1) responsible for children and as a decent society we don't want children homeless or 2) fleeing violence at home. Those adults are more often women.

Yes, a patriarchal society is a system that be benefits men to a greater extent than women - but i don't think that system exists. I think men and women fundamentally cooperate with each other within society. And yes, you will have people like Jeff Bezos - but that's a tiny, tiny percentage of hyper-successful men which you cant use to be reflective of the rest of society.

That's not to say that there wont be tyrannical elements within that society. Hate, jealousy etc will perpetuate within individuals in that society and hence there will always be violence and hateful acts.

I don't think male violence is tolerated - social experiments have shown otherwise and males occupy the vast majority of spaces in jails.

People who are at the point of being homeless tend to have already had their children taken from them or are being looked after by other family members. People fleeing DV - no problem and should be offered a refuge place. But we don't have any male refuges for that.

But we also have a large number of women who are homeless through their own 'anti-social behaviour pattern'. Use any benefits money for drink/drugs etc. Landlords evict them due to the bad state they keep the house, effects of neighbours etc. They have no children and tend to get places in refuges easily and get supported for their addictions and the upkeep of their rooms are done by staff at the refuges. And again we certainly have none for men. Councils tend to refuse to look at homeless pods and instead spend the money on cleaning up places where they sleep, hose it all down all the time so its always soaked, install spikes.

Not saying it happens everywhere - but its what i come across

[AdamRyan]

Great post toomany

[Toomanyradishes]

If you're saying the patriarchy fully exists and its a patriarchal society, then there shouldn't be homeless men - as the patriarchy will have loads of male refuges/shelters etc. The patriarchy will ensure that boys at school get the best results or have more places in secondary education. The patriarchy will ensure that men have employment. etc etc

I disagree. The patriarchy is also about attitudes to men and women.

Women = helpless emotional beings who need looking after
Men = stronger logical beings who should be able to look after themselves

The patriarchy simultaneously makes it possible for more men to make it to ceo than women and for more men to be homeless. Because if men are supposed to be the stronger, more successful sex, the breadwinners and the protectors, why would there be mechanisms in place if they fail to be that. Where as if women are supposed to be weaker, need protection etc then they are less likely to be promoted but more likely to have mechanisms in place if they fail and need looking after.

Its the same with male suicide. The patriarchal society exoects men to be tough and strong and in control of their emotions, all stiff upper lip, dont go to the doctor because being manly is sufficent to get you through anything etc. Where are women are expected to be emotional, to show our emotions, to ask for help when we need it, to talk about our feelings. This then leads to higher male suicide rates because there is more pressure on men to be successful, and less opportunity to let their emotions out etc.

[AdamRyan]

A patriarchal society is a system that be benefits men to a greater extent than women. Both men and women can suffer at the hands of that system.
Male violence is tolerated by our patriarchal system.
I'm not at all an expert, but I think people who are homeless are given support through refuges are either 1) responsible for children and as a decent society we don't want children homeless or 2) fleeing violence at home. Those adults are more often women.

[Robin233]

@Felix125
Well said
Totally agreed

[Felix125]

If you are a police officer, you know about crime reduction. What would you suggest to reduce offending? I think you might find you are more closely aligned to a feminist position than you want to believe.

My personal view, you need to look at reducing anti-social behaviour, but from an early age. We need to look at how other countries do it which don't suffer the crimes to the same extent we do. Children shouldn't start formal reduction until about 7/8 or so - and prior to this it should be rough & tumble play in a school setting. Other countries do it and by 16 their children speak 3 different languages, better educated and are largely not anti-social.

Einsteins definition of insanity......

You will never get the crime rate down to zero though and you will always have violence and victims of that violence

[Felix125]

You're mixing two things together here.

If you're saying the patriarchy fully exists and its a patriarchal society, then there shouldn't be homeless men - as the patriarchy will have loads of male refuges/shelters etc. The patriarchy will ensure that boys at school get the best results or have more places in secondary education. The patriarchy will ensure that men have employment. etc etc

But this is not happening which is evidence that the patriarchal society is not there.

And yes, women who manage not to become homeless will be down to their merits and determination, educational success etc etc. But mixed into this are the number of refuges and safe havens for women who do become homeless, evicted etc. There are not the refuges there for men and no societal urge to create any. And i'm not trying to sound 'poor us' here - its just an observation that only effects a very tiny number of people.

People who are determined and successful will do well in a society regardless of gender - but this will not mean that every field, business, organisation will be exactly 50/50 male to females. If you have equal opportunity you will never have equal outcomes.