B.C. Mens Only Charity Group Draws Criticism

[riffraff]

3 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

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. 

 

Where are you meeting these dudes?

 

id give ago at talking about anything you want anytime.....same goes for anyone else.

 

ive met dozens of adjusted well rounded men since high school....of course I've met complete jackasses too.

 

edit

 

i agree with your first two paragraphs. And sadly you and I only meet in music threads most of the time. Cruel world.

[nucklehead]

People need to start to learn to just ignore trolls and naysayers. Really, don't even give them the time of day. They will go away.

[elvis15]

16 hours ago, Kragar said:

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.

And the counter shouldn't be so quickly dismissed either. Birth rates are continuing to drop, and men are taking a larger share in child rearing. Just because there was inequality in pay while we lived in a male-centric society (he's the bread winner, she's the home maker) doesn't mean we still have to. Why automatically penalize a woman for her potential to give birth regardless of the kind of job she can do? And while part of the argument is she's earning more with longer maternal leave when a baby does occur, the men are also choosing to take more leave themselves - sometimes longer than the mothers.

But here's something to think about: have women continually been relegated to the role of dealing with school issues, caring for sick children, cooking, cleaning, etc. because they've either not had a job in the workforce or had one that was lower paying, and therefore less important? Could that dynamic switch more easily in a relationship where the mother happens to have a higher paying job, to where the father typically deals with more of those issues?

In the case of a single mother as well, is it not even more important that her salary isn't discounted because she's the only caregiver (or again, maybe she isn't a mother at all and her salary's just lower because she has a uterus she might one day use) who would otherwise use that extra pay for extra care for her children so she didn't have to take time away from work? How about a single father, does his salary get similarly discounted or is there an inequality there? How about shared custody?

Here's a last example, my wife and I aren't going to have kids so should we accept a lower salary for her in a job where men could earn more just because of their gender?

[Master 112]

14 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

And the counter shouldn't be so quickly dismissed either. Birth rates are continuing to drop, and men are taking a larger share in child rearing. Just because there was inequality in pay while we lived in a male-centric society (he's the bread winner, she's the home maker) doesn't mean we still have to. Why automatically penalize a woman for her potential to give birth regardless of the kind of job she can do? And while part of the argument is she's earning more with longer maternal leave when a baby does occur, the men are also choosing to take more leave themselves - sometimes longer than the mothers.

But here's something to think about: have women continually been relegated to the role of dealing with school issues, caring for sick children, cooking, cleaning, etc. because they've either not had a job in the workforce or had one that was lower paying, and therefore less important? Could that dynamic switch more easily in a relationship where the mother happens to have a higher paying job, to where the father typically deals with more of those issues?

In the case of a single mother as well, is it not even more important that her salary isn't discounted because she's the only caregiver (or again, maybe she isn't a mother at all and her salary's just lower because she has a uterus she might one day use) who would otherwise use that extra pay for extra care for her children so she didn't have to take time away from work? How about a single father, does his salary get similarly discounted or is there an inequality there? How about shared custody?

Here's a last example, my wife and I aren't going to have kids so should we accept a lower salary for her in a job where men could earn more just because of their gender?

@ 1st bolded: nobody's penalizing anyone for a potentiality; it's when these potentials are realized that women tend to pay less mind to their jobs and career development than men.

@ 2nd bolded: men earn more not because of their gender but because of the reasons Kruger and I presented. re-read his post and re-think what you're saying here. I think you're imagining that women are preemptively given lower wages than men are. they are not.

women, as a group, work less for various reasons, outlined in the posts you've been replying to. when you look at women as a group, they take more time off of work, costing employers time, effort and money; letting their career development stagnate; and in general logging fewer hours (and as such earning less). when you control for these factors - that is, when time off is a non-issue - the wage gap does not exist.

women who are equally competent, productive and qualified, and who work as much as their male coworkers, are not disadvantaged in the way you think they are.

[Kragar]

37 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

And the counter shouldn't be so quickly dismissed either. Birth rates are continuing to drop, and men are taking a larger share in child rearing. Just because there was inequality in pay while we lived in a male-centric society (he's the bread winner, she's the home maker) doesn't mean we still have to. Why automatically penalize a woman for her potential to give birth regardless of the kind of job she can do? And while part of the argument is she's earning more with longer maternal leave when a baby does occur, the men are also choosing to take more leave themselves - sometimes longer than the mothers.

But here's something to think about: have women continually been relegated to the role of dealing with school issues, caring for sick children, cooking, cleaning, etc. because they've either not had a job in the workforce or had one that was lower paying, and therefore less important? Could that dynamic switch more easily in a relationship where the mother happens to have a higher paying job, to where the father typically deals with more of those issues?

In the case of a single mother as well, is it not even more important that her salary isn't discounted because she's the only caregiver (or again, maybe she isn't a mother at all and her salary's just lower because she has a uterus she might one day use) who would otherwise use that extra pay for extra care for her children so she didn't have to take time away from work? How about a single father, does his salary get similarly discounted or is there an inequality there? How about shared custody?

Here's a last example, my wife and I aren't going to have kids so should we accept a lower salary for her in a job where men could earn more just because of their gender?

No, I don't think she should have to accept a lower salary, and I don't think it's legal to offer her one.  Especially now, I don't think it's a matter of the starting point being lower for women, but it's more of a result of the actions individual women take that affect the average.  So, in your wife's case, if she starts off at the same salary as everyone else, and she is not dealing with those added duties having children entails, and takes similar time off from work as her co-workers, and does the same quality of work, I would expect the pay to be in line with that, and no gap would exist for her among those she works with.

But on average (which is what all these charts reflect), a woman can start out the same as a man doing the same job, but the more time away she is from the job (whether because of pregnancy, children, or health matters), the less likely she is to get the same level of  raises, bonuses, and promotions as a man who doesn't miss that time.  If you reverse the typical gender role on a case by case basis, and the father is the one spending more time dealing with the child's needs, his salary would likely suffer.  So, it's not so much a discounting of the salary (isn't that illegal now anyhow), as a result of individual performance over time.

Since on average mothers are performing that role more than fathers, the salary gap will exist.  As women continue to rise higher in the workplace, and more men take over more parenting time, that should lead to the gap narrowing.

[Chalky]

I'm against all forms of chauvinism regardless of the gender that is driving it, but specifically, to pretend there is no wage gap in favour of men is inconceivable.  Globally there is still a huge gap overall in our species in gender roles.  In our society it is getting better.  Each gender has generalized traits that make them better at some "things" than the other gender.  This is reality, each gender's brains function differently.  Men GENERALLY have a advantage with spacial awareness while Women GENERALLY have an advantage with managing multiple tasks.  BOTH genders can excel in both traits, and neither are incapable of training their brains to be better and any given trait.  There is a lot of data on this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences perhaps Wikipedia isn't the most in-depth source but it's a start.

That said, I have no problem with gender specific groups.  "Women are being excluded in an ongoing kind of systemic fashion," seems like ball breaking Feminism to me...aka Chauvinism.  That quote is BS, it is not systemic, our society has come a long way.  Don't take the worst traits of a group and apply it to the entirety. There is nothing wrong with Feminism, when it becomes Chauvinism I have no time for it.  We should strive for equality and reward based on merit.  Our world is very far from that despite Vancouver being a lot closer to it than most places.

This thread not withstanding.

 

 

 

[BradyBoone]

Men giving money to charity?  Seems like a weak thing to be up in arms about. Good for them if they are. It's men getting drunk and donating. I don't like discrimination either. But pick your battles 

[smokes]

On 1/20/2016 at 5:26 AM, Bob.Loblaw said:

Well... because women have gotten the shaft for centuries.  Sort of like a school having various minority student associations but not a white student association (or at least without controversy).

Your disdain for feminism is showing.

While I am sorry for women getting shafted for centuries, it doesn't mean that I should have to pay for it, Women's equality has really gotten out of hand. There are too many double standards. If women can have women's only groups then why can't men? If women can get into men's sports leagues then why can't a man go into a woman's sports league.  Women fighting for their rights is one thing but to take advantage of the movement and creating double standards is too far. 

[D'Angelo Russell]

This is so ridiculous. The Vancouver Canucks is a men's only hockey team, why isn't anyone complaining about that? 

How about Girl's only schools? Boy's only schools? 

 

 

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

6 hours 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

I need to clarify my premise here, as well as yours.  What I think you believe in is equality, but not necessarily egalitarianism.  Egalitarianism believes that all people are of equal worth, period.  Feminism believes that all people are of equal worth, along gender lines.  Period.

You have to understand that with such large movements as these, you are going to have bunches of groups pushing different things.  Most feminists realize that not all women are in the same shoes.  Black women, Asian women, disabled women, poor women, all different, and feminism tries to bring other social inequalities into the movement.

One more time.  NEVER think that the leading feminist thinkers and real feminism in the western world is women supremacy.  It truly, truly isn't.  To continue to do so becomes willful ignorance on your part.  And it's a pure insult to all the feminists who've worked so hard to bring all kinds of women and men into the movement.

[mpt]

So women are allowed their own gyms that are banned from men, but men can't have their own club?  Pretty ridiculous to me.  I'd love to have a guys only gym (less people to wait for) but sadly it's impossible as the women would complain.  You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

5 hours ago, smokes said:

While I am sorry for women getting shafted for centuries, it doesn't mean that I should have to pay for it, Women's equality has really gotten out of hand. There are too many double standards. If women can have women's only groups then why can't men? If women can get into men's sports leagues then why can't a man go into a woman's sports league.  Women fighting for their rights is one thing but to take advantage of the movement and creating double standards is too far. 

Because men fighting women or men competing in sports against women was never what the feminist movement was really about.  Nobody is trying to deny that men and women are different.  They are social constructs to varying degrees (depending on who you ask), but they are different.  It's not about a battle of the sexes.

Look at it this way.  The ultimate feminist standard for women is not men.  That is, women do not want to become like men.  They want to be equal TO men.

[smokes]

8 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Because men fighting women or men competing in sports against women was never what the feminist movement was really about.  Nobody is trying to deny that men and women are different.  They are social constructs to varying degrees (depending on who you ask), but they are different.  It's not about a battle of the sexes.

Look at it this way.  The ultimate feminist standard for women is not men.  That is, women do not want to become like men.  They want to be equal TO men.

Then why the criticism of a men's only group?

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

1 hour ago, smokes said:

Then why the criticism of a men's only group?

The same reason we criticize whites only groups?

[DonLever]

6 hours ago, D'Angelo Russell said:

This is so ridiculous. The Vancouver Canucks is a men's only hockey team, why isn't anyone complaining about that? 

How about Girl's only schools? Boy's only schools? 

 

 

In Vancouver we have York House and Little Flower Academy for girls only and St. George for boys only.

Since they are academic equivalent there is no need to admit kids of the opposite sex.  If this is not case, you could see for example girls wanted to be admitted to St George.  Or vice versa.

As for the Canucks, there is nothing to stop women from trying out for the team.  Whether they make the team is another matter.

 

 

[Dral]

6 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

One more time.  NEVER think that the leading feminist thinkers and real feminism in the western world is women supremacy.  It truly, truly isn't.  To continue to do so becomes willful ignorance on your part.  And it's a pure insult to all the feminists who've worked so hard to bring all kinds of women and men into the movement.

 

I agree this is how it SHOULD be... but it's not... a quick search on youtube will show you that some of the more vocal feminists are not about equality... and if you pop you head into a gender studies class in post secondary, you may or may not find the same thing...

[LuckyLuciano]

It's time for an all female and all transgender NHL team

[TimberWolf]

8 hours ago, mpt said:

So women are allowed their own gyms that are banned from men, but men can't have their own club?  Pretty ridiculous to me.  I'd love to have a guys only gym (less people to wait for) but sadly it's impossible as the women would complain.  You can't have your cake and eat it too

 

 

While I would support men's only gyms one thing missing from this common complaint you are making. The woman's gyms do not exist to discriminate against men but exist because of discrimination against women in coed gyms.

[etsen3]

7 minutes ago, TimberWolf said:

 

 

While I would support men's only gyms one thing missing from this common complaint you are making. The woman's gyms do not exist to discriminate against men but exist because of discrimination against women in coed gyms.

This, many women feel uncomfortable in gyms, which is mostly a testosterone-filled, male-dominated environment.  A lot of them constantly get hit on and even harassed too.  Some people just wanna focus on the workout.  The one thing I don't like are regular gyms that have women's only hours, but identical rates for men and women.  If dudes have restricted access to the gym (which is fine) there should be a slight discount. Women should also be offered the same discount, but they wouldn't get the benefit of going during women's only hours.

 

13 hours ago, D'Angelo Russell said:

This is so ridiculous. The Vancouver Canucks is a men's only hockey team, why isn't anyone complaining about that? 

How about Girl's only schools? Boy's only schools? 

 

 

Women are allowed to play for the Canucks, but no one has reached the level of skill required yet, partly due to lesser opportunity and training for women, and partly due to the fact that women are physically disadvantaged due to more limited size and strength.

[Warhippy]

4 hours ago, LuckyLuciano said:

It's time for an all female and all transgender NHL team

Edmonton and Toronto already have teams though