B.C. Mens Only Charity Group Draws Criticism

[Warhippy]

12 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Geez, that's terrible. Women might have 1 or 2 kids on average but are in their career for most of their adult lives. Some choose not to have kids at all. Maternity leave is such a small portion of that yet they're still paid less - by that token, should a man who chooses to take paternity leave and even continue it for longer than the mother does be paid less because he's working less? Is he less dedicated to his career because of that?

Obviously for someone paid by the hour, this all works itself out. But for someone salaried at a specific job, unless they chose to take unpaid time there shouldn't be any reason for that up front salary to be any different.

 

But glad we're sticking with the article on this one and not derailing into feminism...

I can chime in here.

 

I know one of the attendees.  It's really just a club of guys who get together.  Pick 3 local charities and donate their money to the one that needs it the most or is least likely to obtain help from other sources.

 

Then they complain over a beer.  Usually about business and business costs mostly about various local municipal governments.

 

As per the quote in the story.  Hardly anything to be concerned about especially as there IS a local women's chapter as well.

 

Reminds of that golf course on the coast that had men's and women's only clubhouses and a coed one until a woman sued to be included in the men's only one because they may have been talking business in there, only to turn around and demand that the women's only clubhouse stay women's only 

[inane]

1 minute ago, Dral said:

 

Men also work longer work weeks on average then women... do you think it's fair that a 2 individuals, regardless of sex, should be paid the same amount of money, when 1 of those individuals routinely works 45 hours a week, while the other works 40 hours, takes time off for personal reasons, etc?

Heres another great video

shes got a REALLY awesome closing statement

ummm, fact on that?

implying what for the second bold?

[Dral]

1 minute ago, inane said:

ummm, fact on that?

you're a big boy now... I'm sure you know how to use google

[Cerridwen]

1 minute ago, Dral said:

you're a big boy now... I'm sure you know how to use google

Your assertion, your responsibility to provide the proof or it's worth nothing in the discussion. You've been here long enough to know that, Dral.

[inane]

1 minute ago, Dral said:

you're a big boy now... I'm sure you know how to use google

sorry, you made the claim, you have to prove. 

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

23 minutes ago, Dral said:

I do, and if I wasn't so drunk I'd find it... the rape stat is mostly because of the prison stat

 

 

 

 

Let me be perfectly clear - 60 years ago, we needed feminism... 30 years ago we needed feminism... even maybe 15 years ago we needed it... now however, it has in a very real sense turned into a man-hating club that is completely out to lunch...  but yeah, check out some Christina Hoff Sommers videos on youtube, she backs up everything she says with links to studies and stats

 

 

And yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder about this for personal reasons

Again, you're probably confusing feminism with radical feminism.

People see the word 'feminist' and automatically assume that they're totally against men when that isn't the case. And as long as there is inequality (which there clearly still is) there will be feminists.

[Dral]

http://well-being.esdc.gc.ca/misme-iowb/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=19

 

 

"On average, men spent six hours more per week (39.6) at work than women (33.2) in 2012."

[Cerridwen]

6 minutes ago, Dral said:

http://well-being.esdc.gc.ca/misme-iowb/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=19

This ^^^^^^

Does not answer this:

Quote

takes time off for personal reasons, etc?

in regard to women in the workforce. If this is supposedly the reason women work less hours then exactly what are those reasons? I'm curious as to what you 'think' they are. Or at least cite some sources that list them.

Is it to get their hair done? Go shopping? Buy Midol?

How many men do you know in the workforce who actually take time off to attend to a sick child, attend parent/teacher conferences etc?

[Down by the River]

27 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Ok, I chuckled at that.

But feminism, much like many other things, has been misappropriated and given a bad rap as a result. Anyone who supports equal rights regardless of gender can be a feminist. You can be in support of men's rights as well, but so long as you recognize that women don't have equal rights (e.g. lesser pay for the same job) yet feel they should then you align with what feminism is supposed to be about.

Don't call it feminism if you think the term is now synonymous with a negative and aggressive aspect of the women's movement. Call it whatever makes you happy.

 

Completely agree. I am a feminist according to my definition of the term, which is the support of equal rights and opportunities. 

 

[Dral]

2 minutes ago, Cerridwen said:

This ^^^^^^

Does not answer this:

in regard to women in the workforce. If this is supposedly the reason women work less hours then exactly what are those reasons?

Irrelevant - it doesn't matter what the reasons are... do you think two people, regardless of age, sex, race, religion should be paid the exact same amount when one of those people works 6 hours more per week then the other?

 

And if you were actually paying attention to the thread, instead of I don't know what, picking a fight with me, you'd know One One Two already addressed what those reasons are

[GLASSJAW]

the club sounds like a fantastic idea to me, because i think 'male bonding' is a pretty important thing for dudes. i think bonding is important for everyone, actually.

i don't think there's much of a debate about whether or not men experience a 'learning curve' when it comes to expressing themselves, or being emotional, being honest, being vulnerable, etc. i'm not suggesting that these guys are all crying on each others shoulders, but even people meeting up and talking about concerns--even in the form of charity, even in the form of business, work, etc.--sounds to me like a good thing.

people make weird eyes at me when i admit i prefer female friends. it has nothing to do with anatomy. i wish i had intelligent, emotionally well-adjusted dudes to hang out with. almost every man i know, and have known since high school, has been committed to playing the role of the ignorant caveman who frequently interprets conversations about work, emotions, relationships, etc. as some attack on his pride. like he's gotta maintain some impression or appearance of strength or knowledge and disagreements are met with hostility, etc. 

 

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

48 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

You actually just pointed out my exact closing statement

 

we don't NEED feminism here in the west anymore.

We need equality.  

 

Deal with it

 

As well, I suggest you look around.  There are more, so many more than a few well known feminists that don't only look down on men, but also women based o the way they display themselves and live their lives.

 

There is a vast difference between what Feminism was and what is has evolved in to which is why you see so many more intelligent women moving towards women's and equal or human rights vs feminism.

 

I need feminism in this day and age like I need another person demanding I respect Bruce Jenner for the change he went through, more than they demand I respect my average every day person.

Again, the problem with feminism is that it encompasses a much wider social movement with various sects.  If you believe in equal rights and equal worth, you are for all intents and purposes a feminist.  Estelle Freedman defines feminism as the belief "that women and men are inherently of equal worth".  Not completely the same, per se, but of equal worth.  Jessica Valenti defines it as "belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes".  They don't define feminism as some sort of misandry or female supremacy.  It's equality in varying definitions.

At some point, somewhere, you along with a significant population have been completely misled and basically lied to.  You somehow believe that equality and feminism are antagonizing social movements.  Feminism has evolved as much as it's diversified.  The average feminist thinker (if there is such thing as average) isn't some sort of man-shaming, bra-burning radical.  These are just stereotypes that people have perpetuated over the years.  Again, most leading feminist thinkers are not... Amazons.  So please, don't make baseless statements like "Equality, not feminism".  You insult the vast majority of feminists and feminist thinkers.

[jannik freaking hansen]

32 minutes ago, TimberWolf said:

 

When you make bold statements you need to back it up with more than "because I say so"

 

try adding a chart like this one:

I don't think we should have to tell you that an earnings gap is not the same as a wage gap. Men tend to earn more because they work more hours, are more likely to take overtime, etc. due to women tending to be required to do more in the home, ie. looking after the kids.

 

31 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

 

Do you honestly think that's fair to the feminists who have worked hard to integrate men into the movement since the end of the second wave?  Did you really think the feminist movement was going to be one unified struggle when there are 3.5 billion women in the world?

There is still gender equality everywhere.  Women are still making less than what men are despite the same job and qualifications.  I think it's gone from .60/1 to .70/1, but it's still there.  There are men and women out there who are fighting for EQUAL WORTH.  Some feminists want women to take the same path as men, and some think differently.  But the feminist movement as a whole isn't trying to usurp power from the men.  Power isn't some finite resource where we play a game of tug-of-war.

Feminists do NOT look down at men who defend them.  It's these blanket statements and an overall fear and hatred of feminism which fuels its own cause.

Again, a wage gap differs from an earning gap. The numbers you are quoting comes from the average EARNINGS of the sexes. In the States this represents women earning 77% what men earn. There are many reasons for why this occurs, a lot of it has to do with CHOICES. The myth that women are getting paid less for the same work is ludicrous. Women earn less because they CHOOSE lower paying careers, men go into STEM, women go into the social sciences; although, if the demographics of my classes are any indicator, this is changing and the gap will likely continue to decrease. Plus efforts to get young women into the sciences have been taken through "girl-only science days" sponsored by local schools and libraries in the summer. Again, men to work longer hours and overtime and are traditionally expected to do less in the homestead (as these traditions continue to crumble so likely would the wage gap). Another is seen in women's general unwillingness to negotiate hard, men tend to negotiate better wages for themselves than do women. A real issue for women in the workplace likely comes from the "glass ceiling" and their perceived competence in the workplace, but again, as attitudes change this should disappear.

Getting back to the topic at hand this charity is not "very worrying" as there is a women-only counterpart to this organization, 100womenwhogiveadamn.ca, which as the lack of an article written indicates, receives no grief for their efforts of charity. It's more "worrying" that this professor seems to think that this organization is insidiously forcing their values upon the community. To quote her  "It sends an important message about the vision they have of the future of this community." Excuse me, but what the &^@# is that supposed to mean, does she think they dream of a male-only paradise of sorts? And conversely, does the women-only counterpart not have the same issue than in her eyes? 

[Kragar]

6 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Geez, that's terrible. Women might have 1 or 2 kids on average but are in their career for most of their adult lives. Some choose not to have kids at all. Maternity leave is such a small portion of that yet they're still paid less - by that token, should a man who chooses to take paternity leave and even continue it for longer than the mother does be paid less because he's working less? Is he less dedicated to his career because of that?

Obviously for someone paid by the hour, this all works itself out. But for someone salaried at a specific job, unless they chose to take unpaid time there shouldn't be any reason for that up front salary to be any different.

 

But glad we're sticking with the article on this one and not derailing into feminism...

I don't think you should be so quick to gloss over this point.  One one two is not far off.  Leave costs companies money.  Whether or not they pay for leave directly, there are costs involved in backfilling the position.  The more important the role the worker fills, the more expensive it can be to try to get a replacement.

Since we are talking averages here, on average women take more time off than men for family reasons. Women are more likely to take maternity leave than men are to take paternity leave.  Women on average take more sick days than men do.  I believe that women are more likely to take time off to care for sick children than men, or to deal with their child's school issues.  All of these cost employers money, either in replacement labor or lost opportunities with the worker being absent.

Things get even worse when you consider single-parent homes.  By a large margin, single parents who care for the children directly are women.  So all those times the kid is sick, having school issues, or have appointments or other needs pulling mom away from work, there is often only the mother to deal with them.

And, when there is more time being taken off, for whatever reason, there is less opportunity for that employee to get better raises/promotions, as they are less dependable.

Even hourly work doesn't quite work this all out, from the employer's view.  The boss may be able to get someone to fill the job role, but not likely with someone as qualified as the person who does the job and is absent.  

So, even if the employer is ensuring that women are being paid equally for work actually being done at the outset, there can still be significant gaps in total income, since on average, men are working more on average than women.

[elvis15]

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I can chime in here.

I know one of the attendees.  It's really just a club of guys who get together.  Pick 3 local charities and donate their money to the one that needs it the most or is least likely to obtain help from other sources.

Then they complain over a beer.  Usually about business and business costs mostly about various local municipal governments.

As per the quote in the story.  Hardly anything to be concerned about especially as there IS a local women's chapter as well.

Reminds of that golf course on the coast that had men's and women's only clubhouses and a coed one until a woman sued to be included in the men's only one because they may have been talking business in there, only to turn around and demand that the women's only clubhouse stay women's only 

Not sure you got the right post of mine but I know what you were replying to. And for sure, what's good for the gander is good for the goose in the example you mention at the end as well.

Then again, if you try and stick a label on things then people might wonder what it's about. Hell, if I went and made a room/building/event somewhere that was all about things guys stereotypically like (sports, poker, cigars, fast cars, etc.) so that it was frequented by men because of that, but a woman came along and said she liked all those things too, I'd think it was pretty badass of her. But then, you're likely to even be excluding men as not all of them like those things.

I'd still suggest the two groups are linked somehow, with the men and women meeting at some point. Maybe they invite a portion of the women's group to each meeting, and vice versa. However they do it, they can still have their guys night to hang out, but when there's two groups so closely linked in their purpose it just makes sense there's some intertwining.

For an example, I've been heavily involved in rugby over the past 20 years. It's pretty male dominated, more players are male, more coaches, more referees. I stopped playing not that long ago but the guys still meet every Thursday for a beer at the club. The women in general just don't drink as much, so they don't come and join us for the most part. But some do occasionally, and they join in and grab a beer while we talk shop and watch rugby games. Hell, I'm more excluded than some of the women who come down because the group is largely comprised of teachers and I'm not one.

And I totally agree on your use of the word equality vs feminism. Whatever you call it, you're agreeing with the same principles as I have on equal rights as a basic argument.

[Cerridwen]

1 minute ago, jannik freaking hansen said:

Getting back to the topic at hand this charity is not "very worrying" as there is a women-only counterpart to this organization, 100womenwhogiveadamn.ca, which as the lack of an article written indicates, receives no grief for their efforts of charity. It's more "worrying" that this professor seems to think that this organization is insidiously forcing their values upon the community. To quote her  "It sends an important message about the vision they have of the future of this community." Excuse me, but what the &^@# is that supposed to mean, does she think they dream of a male-only paradise of sorts? And conversely, does the women-only counterpart not have the same issue than in her eyes? 

 

[Warhippy]

7 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Again, the problem with feminism is that it encompasses a much wider social movement with various sects.  If you believe in equal rights and equal worth, you are for all intents and purposes a feminist.  Estelle Freedman defines feminism as the belief "that women and men are inherently of equal worth".  Not completely the same, per se, but of equal worth.  Jessica Valenti defines it as "belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes".  They don't define feminism as some sort of misandry or female supremacy.  It's equality in varying definitions.

At some point, somewhere, you along with a significant population have been completely misled and basically lied to.  You somehow believe that equality and feminism are antagonizing social movements.  Feminism has evolved as much as it's diversified.  The average feminist thinker (if there is such thing as average) isn't some sort of man-shaming, bra-burning radical.  These are just stereotypes that people have perpetuated over the years.  Again, most leading feminist thinkers are not... Amazons.  So please, don't make baseless statements like "Equality, not feminism".  You insult the vast majority of feminists and feminist thinkers.

While I agree with your, I disagree with your premise.

 

I am one of those people that believes the original feminist movement has been waylaid and is now something far more self serving than it is beneficial to humanity.

 

Equal rights, womens rights, mens rights...human rights.  They are FAR more important than leading the charge of something that for all intents and purposes lost any significant meaning back in the early 2000's

 

We HAVE almost everything feminism was created for for women.  Now we need to make it equal across the board.

 

Where as modern day feminists seem to desire to achieve far more of a less than equal share for everyone, including women depending on their appearance and manner of dress

[Dral]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

While I agree with your, I disagree with your premise.

 

I am one of those people that believes the original feminist movement has been waylaid and is now something far more self serving than it is beneficial to humanity.

 

Equal rights, womens rights, mens rights...human rights.  They are FAR more important than leading the charge of something that for all intents and purposes lost any significant meaning back in the early 2000's

 

We HAVE almost everything feminism was created for for women.  Now we need to make it equal across the board.

 

Where as modern day feminists seem to desire to achieve far more of a less than equal share for everyone, including women depending on their appearance and manner of dress

Christina Hoff Sommers talks about this briefly in the first video I posted...

 

She basically says that feminism has been highjacked by loud, zealous, man-hating radicals who "uninvited" her and other moderate feminists like her, from the party... They now have a monopoly in professorships at universities and are teaching these things to young people that are simply not true.

[Kragar]

And, more to the point of the OP... who cares if some men want to get together for this.  Bars have Ladies' nights.  Some gyms are for women only, if not all the time, then at certain days or times.  I know my mother belongs to an investment club, where all the ladies gather around and talk about stocks, how they want to invest, and then spend the rest of their time chatting, snacking, etc.  And there's nothing wrong with any of that.  I can understand women wanting some time to have fun, socialize, work out, whatever, without having to worry about getting hit on by guys.  They get to be themselves.

What's the big deal with this 100 Men organization?  Absolutely nothing.  Even if their events are 99% socializing/sitting around getting drunk bitching about life and 1% dealing with their charity work, it's up to them.  The group in itself doesn't hurt anybody that is excluded.

[RUPERTKBD]

22 minutes ago, Cerridwen said:

This ^^^^^^

Does not answer this:

in regard to women in the workforce. If this is supposedly the reason women work less hours then exactly what are those reasons? I'm curious as to what you 'think' they are. Or at least cite some sources that list them.

Is it to get their hair done? Go shopping? Buy Midol?

How many men do you know in the workforce who actually take time off to attend to a sick child, attend parent/teacher conferences etc?

I think this is an important point. When my children were younger and the school called because one of them was sick, it was invariably my wife who dropped what she was doing to go pick them up.

It's just one example, but a pertinent one, IMHO.