Men Feel "Handcuffed by Political Correctness"
According to this article in the Telegraph, modern men feel emasculated:
Surely the men in the survey did not state they were "afraid" of bossy women--for if the resulting emotion men have to being silenced and oppressed by women is fear, we are lost.
Many men believe the world is now dominated by women and that they have lost their role in society, fuelling feelings of depression and being undervalued....
Men said they "felt handcuffed" by political correctness - only 33 per cent felt they could speak freely and say what they thought, whereas two thirds found it safer and to conceal their opinions.
Harvey Mansfield, a Harvard professor and America's best known political philosopher, who tackles the topic in his book Manliness,says the issue is ignored.
...According to the survey, men hold other men who speak their mind in high regard - the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Jeremy Paxman, Bob Geldof and Gordon Ramsay. Their biggest hero is Churchill.
But four out of 10 are frightened of heights and spiders while a third are frightened of bossy women.
Surely the men in the survey did not state they were "afraid" of bossy women--for if the resulting emotion men have to being silenced and oppressed by women is fear, we are lost.
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen at 8:00 AM
80 Comments:
i was just going to send you this link.. but It is a womans world (with no disrespect to women like you dr H). I mean it in a more NAGative way.
as can be seen on this blog, there is a sense that men cant speak out, damned if we do and damned if we dont. I speak my mind. i dont give a toss who disagrees with me. Its not so much frightened of bossy women, its that they have the power over men, and a lot patently cant feel for men.
Its mostly the lack of empathy towards men, from a lot of women.
Of course your an exception dr H, and there are others. but you are in a minority, women who actually care for men, and what happens to them.
I don't know anyone that isn't feeling a little "handcuffed" by political correctness. Perhaps some men are a little insulted to find that it may not be prudent to say whatever they wish to anyone in any situation.
"... for if the resulting emotion men have to being silenced and oppressed by women is fear, we are lost."
---
The fear is more likely that the silencing and oppressing on the part of women is being ENFORCED by men today.
If other men weren't enforcing all of this, women's attempts at "silencing" and "oppression" would simply become a huge, ineffective laugh-number.
This is not a gender war. This is a one-sided action with the other side being restrained by itself. The true enemy is the men enabling these cows.
This comment has been removed by the author.
As I've said before, the undercurrent of anger is palpable because basic respect for men has disappeared.
Roe vs Wade legally emasculates men for 9 months, then if she chooses to have the child, then he's a father. In other words his reproductive rights and responsibility comes at her option - even if they are married, and she initially agreed to have his child!
How misandrystic can you get?
If masculine identity is fully realized through procreation (and I can persuasively make that case) then legally rejecting the man on the issue of his reproductive rights is nothing less than a governmental Lorena Bobbitt to all men.
The sad part is, many men are confused and don't know whether to pursue the promiscuity that abortion offers, or the maturing responsibility that reproductive power demands.
I agee with jg - it would stop in an instant if men were united about this issue.
This is news? To an unobservant section of the populace, perhaps, but I'm pretty sure to most here the news is that someone in major media noticed.
I'm going to venture that those sad... not "men", but what do we call them? - anyway, they are, yes, actually afraid of bossy women. They've no idea what to do about it, no social or legal recourse that they know of, and, as others have already said, any self-defense will be (at least) frowned on by others of their own gender.
Lost we are, indeed. But waking up at last, and looking for a way out of the woods. (Speaking corporately. Some of us have had enough long since.)
"I'm going to venture that those sad... not "men", but what do we call them? - anyway, they are, yes, actually afraid of bossy women."
----
Actually, Tough-Guy Peregrine John (if that's your real title, LOL): I call those men "men".
You are part of the problem. You are most likely so concerned about your own masculinity that you have to try to sissify men any chance you get. Don't even look into what's going on, any chance to call another man a sissy is going to score you points with the wimmen.
Give men the same chance you give women.
Yeah -- you should be afraid of those bossy women -- that's why they are afraid. Breach of political correctness comes at a great social cost that largely determines the more tangible material outcomes in modern society. It would be one thing if we all ran out to battle after a few unPC jokes and the weanies all got killed off or something. But, in peaceful times things like social disapproval is what determines whether you get a 4.25% raise at the end of the year or just a 3.75% raise. It's no joke, here, and if you don't understand this, then you will end up "losing" in life. (All that said, though, I am probably far too politically incorrect for my own good. For instance, I cuss all the time -- I've even cussed on job interviews!)
In fact, this kind of stuff reminds me a lot of a completely different thing I saw in my many travels on the internet. Some lady was (rather amusingly) going on about how to treat a woman like crap in order to get her to sleep with you (and why it all works out that way). And, she ended it with something like "And when you finally get that super hot chick to sleep with you, don't thank me or anything because there is nothing I love more than to watch stupid women get abused by losers." So, it is really funny and all, but just for the record, that guy isn't the loser. He's the one getting laid. In the very same way, it is true that weanies are "losers" -- or at least they ought to be. But, in fact, they are the one getting promoted up into and through middle management. They are the ones with the big salaries while more capable, less politically correct people, keep getting passed over, and so on.
Yes -- you need to take bossy women seriously because they are a dangerous predator in modern society. It is true that in another more manly world they would be laughed off and ineffective. But, you really do so at your own peril in our current social context.
Well, I'm certainly not afraid of bossy women. I am bored to death by them though.
So she's got a bad attitude. That hardly emasculates me, any more than it masculates her. All it really does is make her predictably and terminally boring.
She can buy her own house, where she can sit at home alone and complain about men. How that affects me in any way is beyond my ability to comprehend, since I won't be around to listen to it.
I don't know anyone that isn't feeling a little "handcuffed" by political correctness. Perhaps some men are a little insulted to find that it may not be prudent to say whatever they wish to anyone in any situation.
Mmmm... just like they always say "everybody's a winner". But, more accurately and relevantly there really are winners and losers in life and political correctness really does tend to affect men more than it does women. Half of political correctness comes from things like sexual harassment policies at corporations or women's lib and stuff like that. Don't act like this was all just as much for young single white males as it was for anybody else. Political correctness is not some neutral thing -- it has always been an outgrowth of things like civil rights movements that are all about protecting the interests of women and minorities.
She can buy her own house, where she can sit at home alone and complain about men. How that affects me in any way is beyond my ability to comprehend, since I won't be around to listen to it.
HA HA HA! That crazy b*tch! Buying her own house with all that money she is making at that job she has that she got because she complains about men to your female boss. Boy, I bet she's just hatin' life now havin' to work so hard complainin' 'bout men and all! You're so right -- this doesn't affect you one bit....
There are no females in our office. I don't know how we get away with it, but we do.
The females I run into are in the grocery store , gas station, bank, a few parties I attend from time to time. Nothing further than small talk and good-bye. I have a lady barber, lady doctor.
Without going into it, there's a lady here and there that I think the world of, one of them I've never met. And there's my daughters.
That's it for me. That's how it will remain for me. Life's too short.
adrian --
Actually, she is hatin' life. Read their articles and you'll see the subtext about their lonely and miserable existence because they tend to drive off anyone who isn't pablum oriented.
Sittin' in yer big and expensive house alone only appeals to a very small percentage.
"This is news? To an unobservant section of the populace, perhaps"
While I tend to err on the side of cynical I think it's actually fair to say that the 'unobservant section of the populace' is the majority, certainly in this regard.
If you bring this issue up "on the street" I fully expect you'd be surprised by the results.
/runs off to do some ad-hoc social experiments
...says the issue is ignored.
Not ignored, actively suppressed. A lot of men probably don't speak out because they don't want to jeopardize their job/career.
I'm more vocal than most but I'd speak out more if it weren't for the job/career worries. If a man speak out too much he's a troublemaker, a woman is simply standing up for her rights.
dadvocate --
"If a man speak out too much he's a troublemaker..."
Ah, the glories of it.
A. Female Media Writers--
1. You know this survey is ridiculous when 40 % of the men claim they are afraid of heigths and-- spiders. Phobias are vastly more frequent in females -- and animal phobias are about 90+ % female. Spider phobias in men is virtually unkown. With such a bizarre sample, no conclusions can be drawn.
but---
2. our female correspondent-- why did she feel the need to throw in that "modern men" fear heigths , spiders and bossy women ? She is ridiculing men and exposing them to contemptuous laughter.
She is your typical female media person-- a purveyor of anti-male attitudes. Women in the media virtually always bias any article about men, women, men and women towards the feminist agenda.
Always look at the gender of the writer before you read anything in the popular media, newspapers etc -- if its a woman, you can almost be certain that a biased presentation of the facts and issues, selective quotes and sources, and feminist posturing will occur. Women in the media-- are incapable of providing neutral accounts. Thats why they are in the media-- to shape public opinion.
3. The feminist assumptions in this article are classic--
men " have had to change"
and " adapting to new rules" and
"different expectations "
and
"meet the demands made of them"---
Men don't need to change for women. These new rules, expectations and demands -- are from self-serving women-- and can be ignored, unless one personally chooses to look at women's self-interest and invest in serving it. That is suicide for any healthy person.
B.
-- Using Violent Anti-Male Imagery
How frequently such statements as "emasculated" and "castrated"-- both referring to male genital mutiliation- are used, especially by women.
The use of these vile images is inappropriate-- but women make references to male genital mutiliation symbolically -- and literally--all the time.
Its unacceptable.. remind them by the
" Well, I don't want you to feel like I've cut out your ovaries
or chopped off your breasts
or like you have been gang-raped or like I have spayed you
or
given you a Type 3 female circumcision ".
Can you imagine an article with the headline
" Women feel Spayed Shows Study "or
" Women Feel Like Ovaries Cut Out Shows Study"--
ANd --
The inimitable CHAM-- the contrarian lite-- always rushes in to explain it all away-- and de-legitimize any claim of anti-male bias. Always.
I have never let political correctness bother me. I always thought PC was silly, ridiculous, and an exercise in futility for its creators who had nothing better to do iwth their time.
I beleive in speaking my mind and do so. Of course, I am polite and a gentelman, unless making a humourous statemnt. If offense is taken, I apologise. It was how I was raised. I do not beleive the ettiquette, manners, and politeness should be codified. It is just plain common sense.
Damn, I forgot. We are talking about Liberals here.
flint, I'm willing to bet that your poll reveals your initial thought to be correct: most really haven't noticed at all.
I was originally being merely flip, but after a few minutes the thought came back and tapped me in the back of the head, stood there arms crossed, and tapped it's feet.
So I got up from my desk walked over to a couple people's (in turn) and started with "apropos of almost nothing, do you think masculinity is socially acceptable?" yes, I really just came out of left field to a few guys with the question. I intentionally kept it vague.
Two instances of *shrug* "whaddya mean?"
One "oh TELL me about it!"
(fyi: The sampling thusfar is from financial industry I.T. in midtown Manhattan.)
/goes back to digging.
Cowardice, pure and simple. If a man is valuable, brings real skills to the workplace, he's not going to lose his position by speaking his mind. Same is true of his life with women. If he is genuinely affectionate, saying the "wrong" thing is not going to end the relationship, be it with girlfriend or wife. Only marginal men have anything to fear from being unPC.
ricpic:
Quite a few valuable men have lost their positions by saying the wrong thing. Larry Summers of Harvard was a recent casualty.
I'm not going to bother compiling a list for you, though, because your focus (like Peregrine John's) seems to be more on confirming that you're not a "marginal man".
Step outside of yourself for once and take a look at the bright light of reality.
This is similar to the men who explain, in great detail, how they are never going to get divorced because they understand women and have a great relationship with their best friend.
My cousin was one of those guys saying that. Ten years ago.
Sorry to be blunt, but people like Peregrine John and Ricpic are causing a whole lot of misery in the world for men. Chivalrous male dolts are the enemy.
And PC handcuffs aren't even the fun kind!
:o)
I told this on another thread, but i'll repeat. Me and a coworker were in the break room as a group of four women were loudly talking about (i.e. criticizing harshly) men in general.
Immediately after, we bumped into each other in the men's room and he said "could you imagine what would happen to us if we talked about women that way?" I replied "especially since they are talking loudly in the open and we are whispering in the men's room."
It isn't fear. I have no fear of telling a woman what I think. My reservation is two fold. First, such talk is disrspectful, and the fact that they were doing it was no license for me to. Second, there are much harsher penalties for men engaged in that behavior than women--both colleague repercussions and work place reprimand. Anyone who denies this is kidding themselves or blind.
Best,
Trust
Trust, did you go to HR, file a complaint, voice your concern? If not, how do you know what would have happened? If you find this type of behavior distasteful then it is up to somebody to take action. Doing nothing just encourages the bad behavior.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Why is it called HR? I remember the days when it was Personnel.
The HR movement began right around the time of the ERA.
HR was created as a holding tank---a place to dump hapless women who had no other prospects.
Sort of like "Casting Agent" in show biz. And, that's also dominated by women who have no potential and no hopes of ever moving up . Anything 'Casting' = dumpy, incompetent Women !
O' Reilly stand-in Laura Ingraham just ambushed MRA guy Marc Rudov on FOX.
The subject was men feeling "emasculated".
Ingraham was obnoxius and rude and clearly had an agenda of attacking Rudov.
And Ingraham is a "conservative" woman--
LESSON--- almost all women pursue female self-interest virtually exclusively.
"Conservative" women-- and the oxymoron "equity feminist"--- who attack feminism do not do it because it is anti-male--
but becasue they think feminism has "gone too far"
AND IS HURTING women's self-interest.
Never trust a woman until she shows by action she is not totally absorbed in and devoted to, female self- interest. Thats about 5 % of women, being charitable.
Excerpt----MS Ingraham on the topic of breast implants responding to Rudov-- " Who do you think they are getting them for ."
Incredibly, its men's fault that women want to put water balloons in their breasts.
Scratch a woman and 95 % of the time you get someone who pursues her self-interest and that of women's-- as-she-sees-it-- almost all the time.
HR Department
The legal climate is such that businesses fear litigation and bad press from female plantiffs claiming some kind of sexual discrimination /harrassment.
So any complaint from a woman is quickly addressed and the man disciplined, put in another department or fired. They don't worry about his "rights"-- becasue he effectively has none, while there is a whole body of law behind women.
If a man complains-- there is no urgency or seriousness. There is nothing to worry about. They are more afraid of confronting the woman and her complaing about that !
Also-- the cost of error-- if the woman was harrassed and you ignore it-- big damages. So its more efficient to just believe every woman....
If a man was harrassed ( defintion ? ) and you ignore it-- so what ?
WOmen have implemented their agenda in this area-- only women count. You "abuse" us and we sue and get you fired-- we abuse you and so what ?
Women can be expected to do this in anything they get involved with.
cham,
Not really my point. I have no interest in policing women's comments or stopping a few ladies who work together (and who are clearly friends outside of work) from gabbing about their lives and those in it, even if it is things that they probably shouldn't say.
When I talk of the double standard in play, I prefer to lessening the verbal and thought police, not increase it.
That's not to say I condone men and women talking negatively about their spouses or the opposite sex. But I'm not in the business of enforcing that which I don't condone, to an extent (it's a difficult line to draw).
Look at the article on Drudge this morning concerning marriage drop off in the U.K.
as it says in the main article. men feel they dont have a voice.
even if they went to the HR department, chances are it will have a detrimental effect on the man.
If you speak up, theres always a worry that you will lose your job. No one likes a snitch, and anyway the cult of the woman, it then turns that man into the target, because he dared speak out.
at work i dont say anything, its only here where i can. too dangerous to speak out at work. if i did speak out and win, then i would be branded a trouble maker, and they would find a reason to get rid. Its happened to a friend of mine.
We are not lost...but we are being Balkanized according to sex. And race. And creed. And ethicity. And so on.
Virtually nothing is as important to the future of this country as the ongoing processes of division that seek to separate us from one another. Racial lines, political lines, gender lines, religious lines, even regional lines are being drawn in a fashion that commands those within them to stay within them, on pain of...what?
On pain of being excoriated, denounced, labeled an "XXXX traitor."
Apparently that's enough to cause a substantial percentage of Americans to respect those evil lines, and to allow anyone outside their particular subset to be regarded as unworthy, suspect, or outright evil.
Our main deficit in these times is courage: courage enough to defy the tyrants of political correctness, anyway. It's a terrible thing to say of America, once the world's principal depository of courage, but it is true nonetheless.
Were I independently wealthy, I would not care one iota. I work because I have to, like almost all others. So, one has to get along.
Should a lottery win come my way, anyone who cares about me (except my kids, I'll tell them) is going to wonder where I went, because Joe and Mary's baby boy is going back to the woods, pronto.
The Democrats are already saying that a vote for McCain in November means you are racist !
To Cham:
You are acting as if going to HR in matters like this is a cost-free/risk-free activity. I know that to be absolutely untrue. However, since you are not the one taking the risk and/or absorbing the cost, it really doesn't matter to you, does it?
To br549:
I'm curious why would head into the woods if you won the lottery. One possible reason is that you've always wanted to escape, but never had the resources. Another possibility, which I think accurately reflects reality, is that your former "friends" would demand more from you to remain your friends and be rather vocal about their demands. Furthermore, new "friends" would probably begin appearing from nowhere, with their hands outstretched.
I've asked myself how I would act if I won the lottery. I've pretty much concluded that I would almost certainly move, but I wouldn't hide and I certainly wouldn't live a rich-man's lifestyle. If I did, I would very rapidly develop the same problem with "friends" that caused me to move in the first place.
i would move away, from people get a house built miles from anywhere, get food delivered (the ones i didnt grow myself), i dont like people. i would rather have peace and quiet away from all this.
I just want enough to be comfortable, to not be a bother to not bother anyone.
yes i want to run away. And who can blame any man for doing so.
I heard some comments from my brother and sister related to this topic that actually surprised me, because neither of them are into politics. My brother mentioned that the typical guy on TV is an idiot while the woman is smart. Afterwards we were watching "Til Death" and it was showing the young couple. The wife really wanted sex, but the man wanted to talk about some gift for his birthday that a neighbor gave him. I said there's your typical dumb guy on TV. Now my sister is a massage therapist and she mentioned this couple that came in to get a massage. The wife wanted the husband to have a male therapist and there weren't any working that shift, so she told him he couldn't have a massage and he just sat and waited for his wife. My sister said the guy was dumb to stick around and the woman was rude. Actually I don't know if they were married, hopefully they were just dating and the guy starts to see the clues. Another thing that I already mentioned in a previous post was my dad's sister saying Paul McCartney's wife doesn't deserve all of this money. I'm glad I have several family members aware of these issues. I also remember a time a few years ago I was talking to my sister and I told her I didn't want to marry a feminist and she said you don't have to.
As far as PC language goes, I try to make an effort not to use the phrase "African-American" unless it is a current generation or one generation removed from Africa. I think it is okay for Scarlett Johansson or Barack Obama. Indian is a word I struggle with, since obviously there is a country called that. Sometimes I use amerind.
br549: Were I independently wealthy, I would not care one iota.
I was thinking along the same lines. If you get in trouble at work for saying the wrong thing, I guess you would have free reign if you didn't have to.
HR is useless. The whole HR movement was created by feminists to give women a place to go. It's backfired, because putting HR on your resume, --and your career is in the toilet. Women that are funneled into "HR" and 'Recruitment' are the ones that they don't know what to do with.
My advice is to work with ALL men. There are still some firms that are all men. Or all men, with only a few (good-looking) women for eye-candy.
Stay away from the HR estrogen cauldron and get yourself some male friends who'll be supportive and can toss the better jobs (in a more supportive environment) your way.....
Women will undermine you and undercut you every time. These firms that are staffed with nothing but a bunch of women running around.....incompetency rules the day at those places !
Shouldn't we call Obama an Indonesian - American?
Were any of his ancestors, you know, slaves in America? Just asking.....
JG said...
Sorry to be blunt, but people like Peregrine John and Ricpic are causing a whole lot of misery in the world for men. Chivalrous male dolts are the enemy.
You are absolutley right about that. It's the old fart baby-boomers who went along with all this to appear "hip" and to get approval and avoid getting yelled at that have made it so much worse.
br549: Why? Because he lived in Indonesia as a child? His parents met in Hawaii. I don't believe any of his ancestors were slaves (well at least not American slaves), however it is possible they could have owned slaves. I've heard (from my mother) that Africa wasn't a very peaceful place even before Europeans arrived. I think Cheney and Obama have a common ancestor. I believe at least one of my own ancestors owned a slave. Although I think most of my relatives were in the West before the Civil War as they were Mormons.
a lot of the africans, sold their trouble makers abroad. to slavers..
so did some of the arabs, and it wasnt all the myth of white people enslaving.
But have you noticed its always african american, america is secondary part of them.
But thousands of men are vanishing each year, they just get up and go. i would want to as well its not an easy world anymore
maxine, I must agree with you in general. I do however, prefer a team with a woman manager and all men workers. Been on several and they worked extremely well.
But, a group with nothing but women on the upper levels? Yeeowsah!
I contracted into SBC (subsequently bought out) to help upgrade their legacy billing system and they had exclusively women managers.
Could not for the life of me get a straight answer as to what their goals were. As only one example, an important report app was overdue. They called a meeting. I sat there for two hours listening to them go on and on about what might be wrong.
By the end of the meeting they changed the specs of the app.
Unbelievable.
Yes, yes, anecdotal.
On the topic of men acting as enforcers for women against other men:
Years ago I read about a state senator, in Colorado I think, who introduced a bill that was particularly onerous to men in divorce. The bill gave an unfair advantage to the divorcing women.
Now I think his reasoning was the usual: Real men stay married, so any men who divorce are sub-human losers. Helping the ex-wives only makes sense, because they are still human. The divorcing men should additionally have a boot put on his neck, just because he's scum.
Or something like that. The state senator knew, as a real man, that the bill would never apply to him, only to losers.
So far there's not much here that would keep this in my mind as a memory.
Here's what makes me think about this, even today: Years after the bill was introduced, the senator's wife filed for divorce. The senator became subject to his own bill. He realized how unfair it was, AND WAS THEN TRYING TO RESCIND THE BILL.
I guess it's like a Nazi working on the final solution and then finding out that he's Jewish.
Anyway, I don't want to wait until these men experience truth by having their own chivalrous crap boomerang back on them. Chivalrous male dolts should be opposed in life and society. They should be renounced at every turn. Their reasons - whatever they are, whether to gain respect as a self-asserted "real man", get more wimmen, training since boyhood by mommmy - should be exposed. These are not thinking people.
I wonder if this explains anything ... http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=404245
Chivalrous, among other things, means helping women (and others) when they geniunely need help. It implies a recognition of ones own strength and a willingness to use it in the service of the weak. A lot of the kissing-up-to-women behavior we see today is due to men being ashamed of their strength. Not chivalrous at all.
This goes beyond dealing with women. The PC movement is destroying business. Being candid and honest in a company now brands you as a rebel. I worked at a company where simply disagreeing in a meeting could get you a reprimand. And heaven forbid you criticize all the wasted time on birthday party celebrations.
I do think this is partly due to the feminization of the workplace (and yes, I've worked with several women who are quite outspoken about that problem), but also the lack of competent managers. Going PC makes it easier to pretend you're actually in control.
(For example, it's easier to deny someone a promotion or raise by saying they aren't a "team player" or some other BS than in making any actual criticism, which will often bounce back to management or, to be fair, result in a -ism lawsuit. [I once had a very nice, but hopelessly incompetent coworker; problem was that he was 55 and so management had to jump through hoops to get rid of the guy without getting sued. Fortunately, he quit on his own.)
Women in most cases have become cowards. They can't even deal with contrary opinions without threatening to call HR.
I had some stupid email going around and I made a joke about "you train dogs the same way you train your kids and women: you beat them."
Some stupid... hag didn't like my reply and threatened to forward it to HR if she ever got something like that again. My natural inclination was to approach her with a middle finger for being a cowardly and oversensitive retard.
Instead I told her "don't worry, you won't get any more emails from me".
But the sad truth is that she could make trouble for me at work. Her (literal) stupidity and sheer ineptness at her job relative to me makes no difference.
This is reality at far too many places these days.
I've often said women have little to no real power in life. They have men (via society) legally backing up their fears of getting the vapours.
If men collectively told women to get a grip and ignored their mewling, it would be a much better world.
serket:
That was a brain fart. Stinkin' thinkin'. It happens from time to time.
Sometimes I should read what I wrote before pushing the go button.
Sorry.
I must live in an alternate reality because I don't have any fear whatsoever of women.
I don't worry about them at the office or out on the street. I just act as I do and things work out just fine.
If you go looking for trouble you will usually find that it is looking for you.
Surely the men in the survey did not state they were "afraid" of bossy women--for if the resulting emotion men have to being silenced and oppressed by women is fear, we are lost (Helen).
Helen, I've written here many times that I think men are afraid. Most women really do hate us men, and the law really is on their side. Men really do just let this crap happen. We really are lost.
Of course I must add the proviso, IMHO.
"I don't worry about them at the office or out on the street. I just act as I do and things work out just fine."
----
The "ostrich" strategy. That works sometimes.
Michael Maier:
Email isn't like a TV show, where you can just change the channel. It is much more personal and intrusive. What you might think is funny may not be so funny to somebody else. For best results, stick to work on work email.
Yet cham these women can send even worse emails out and nothing is said. Even worse sexual comments in emails, worse jokes. all mostly aimed at men BTW.
When the bobbit case occurred i was in work in a all female but me environment, and the jokes about castration, about he deserved it, plus the messages. It disturbed me that such an attitude is accepted. Yet if i was to say what michael said i would have been out of that job faster than you could say "argh".
Yet they could say it was great she assaulted him, great that they cut it off. If i had mentioned how i felt, i would have been told to forget it its not meant seriously.
So is it a case of 2 rules for different sexes?
Mercurior:
This stuff doesn't belong on the job. If one wants to tell emails jokes or make sexual comments, go right ahead. But don't do it in the workplace. I'd suggest doing it during poker night with one's friends in a basement, or in a quiet spot where one won't be offending anyone else. Workplaces are for work, not to terrorize other people with one's baggage and dysfunction.
So apply it to women, too, Cham.
You can be in charge of fixing that - it sounds like you've got HR on speed dial, so you can motivate them more.
Another example I've seen: Women can dress as provocatively as they want, and no one dares talk to them about it. In most places anyway.
She wants to draw attention to herself and then have very tight control over everyone who might pay attention to her, via HR and the threat of a sexual harassment complaint.
I'm going to come into work dressed as a clown, and I'm going to honk a loud horn every 10 minutes. Because I want attention.
Plus, the other clowns and I are going to push through legislation saying that anyone who looks at us more than the usual amount - and we determine what that is - is harassing us and liable to pay us lots of money.
Huh.
jg --
So, Jack says he acts all normal like and doesn't experience any problems and you accuse him of being an ostrich?
I take it, since I pretty much behave as I am and don't cop to PC, crack very PI jokes with women and yet experience no negative consequences, it's gotta be that I just don't see 'em?
Got a feeling the attitude of your posts is your actual problem in the workplace.
The "ostrich" strategy. That works sometimes.
Not at all. It is the I don't let paranoia prevent me from happiness and or success.
I am not P.C. in my conversations. I say what I am thinking and generally speak my mind. I don't go out of my way to be offensive.
I just treat people like adults and in general they reciprocate.
yes cham. but its accepted for women to do it. not a glimmer of it being wrong. But if a man dares, its HR, its sexist its.. and so on. so why is it ok for women to do that, but not men. when it should be BOTH are wrong, how come men feel constrained to not say anything to the HR departments who are mostly run by women.
work is supposed to be for work. But its not really like that. Look at the so called cooler situations.
Mercurior:
If you take no action you get no action. Here, let me give you a piece of advice. Find a mirror and practice your dirty looks. Figure out a way to contort your face in the meanest nastiest configuration possible. Next time somebody says something you don't like throw them your well-practiced look.
People can complain about words, emails, comments, notes, verbal attacks, but nobody can run to HR or a manager saying that somebody gave them a nasty look. The mean dirty look gets your point across without jeopardizing your employment status.
Give it a try.
Ah but they can. The world doesnt work like that. You must live in a different world to the rest of us.
If you take action, you can be named a trouble maker, but only when it comes to being a man.
Perhaps you need to look at the attitude of women in the offices.
Why should i let them get away with it, with a dirty look. wouldnt that just make them glad they affected a man. SO i cant complain about sexist comments, but a woman can. isnt that the 2 rules. Why are these women so upset that men dare speak out.
So i will repeat it. WOMEN CAN COMPLAIN, BUT MEN CAN ONLY GIVE DIRTY LOOKS. Why cant women give dirty looks then?
2 different rules isnt it?
Your logic is completely twisted, Mercurior. Everyone can give someone a dirty look. You can go to management or HR too regarding an infraction, but a dirty look often does gets the point across without retribution. Again, try it out.
But Why is it ok for a woman to complain to HR and get a pay out, and yet if a man does it. He is looked down upon as being a trouble maker.
No there will be retribution from the women involved. How many times have you heard of unfair dismissal cases involving women, and how many involving men.
Cham have you ever spoken up for men when you hear anti male jokes and comments?
So a LOOK is supposed to make a statement, yet women can run to HR to complain. Have you ever told a woman to just give a look at a man in an office for sexist comments.
I couldn't help but chuckle over one of the banner ads on the side of the blog. "Look up your ex".
I'd rather eat worms.
Mercurior, every situation is different. Sometimes you can get your point across with a look, and sometimes it is time to march into management and take a stand. This insituation that women don't take a stand for anyone but themselves is a load of bunk. You are making it up as you go along.
Yes on fear of heights, no on spiders, and I avoid bossy women like the plague. Been through divorce court. I don't like 'em.
I have noted with interest the remarks especially those from Chan. What world do they live in?
The females of our species decided in the 1960's to form a group to get equal pay for equal work, that meant the same hours, the same holidays etc pro rata for any work done by them. That was fine. but it did not stop there and as a result today we have an aggressive, bullying attitude amongst some of us women towards men.
The consider men are dispensable, we see this in the Press regularly, they have no qualms about this. In the workplace, they are on the whole obnoxious, demanding not only equal rights, but better than anyone else.
The expect paid time off at the expense of the rest of the staff, for School plays, functions, sports days and the mugs that are left behind are expected to do their work for them, and then comes all the School holiday periods, as a result together with all the maternity leaves, being off becaus the kids are sick, they work minimal hours and still get paid for it.
As for their behaviour towards male colleagues it beggers belief.
The use them as a whipping boy.
As someone who comes acroos this in the workplace, it is no use whatsoever of males as Chan suggested "standing in front of a mirror and learn to use dirty looks" For goodness sake what is she talking about. I and senior colleagues have stamped this sort of behaviour out in our offices and so should Management in the others, they have a duty of care towards all employees not just a specific group of females.
It is most unusual for the males to go to Human Resources to complain regarding sexism, because it is obvious to everyone that they would be the one who would come off worse and penalised for it.
Why should it be that women can complain about inappropriate calenders, sexist looks, comments etc, when they dress inappropiately which causes some of the comments. To put the onus for not reporting the actions of the women on the men where are the complaints from the women to Human Resourses?
The descend instead to their bullying tactics knowing that the males are reluctant to take matters further.
Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong no matter which gender.
http://www.menweb.org/malebash.htm
check this site out cham.
Remember, women today are often consider a "protected minority" in many work places. A woman might be able to get away with calling you a "prick" or a "dickhead," but you might well be fired for replying with a similar anatomical reference. That happened in a recent case at the Miller Brewing Co., where one woman worker used gutter language to describe the male anatomy. However, when a male coworker made an oblique reference to the word "clitoris," she complained about him and he was fired. (The good news is that the man sued the company and the woman, and won. Still, losing your job is a tough way to prove a point, and most men don't have the liberty of doing this.)
There will be times when nothing you say or do will be able to stem the tide of anti-male hatred in the work place. Many bureaucracies will side with a feminist no matter how abusive or disruptive she becomes -- they will protect her no matter what she does. You have to pick your battles. If you think you can set a tone in which anti-male attitudes are discouraged, then go for it. But if the feminists are already free to practice anti-male hatred with impunity, then the situation has probably already gone too far.
And finally, never, ever, underestimate an extremist feminist's capacity and desire for revenge. There are feminists who believe that you have committed an offense simply by disagreeing with them. They are right, and if you disagree with them, you are an oppressor determined to keep women down. It does not matter if you are merely saying that you do not want to be discriminated against. In their minds, this translates to "He wants to keep women down and preserve all the male privileges of the patriarchy." (Anyone who has objected to anti-male discrimination during a Usenet discussion is familiar with this reaction.) Well, feminists who react like that are not merely on the Usenet. They are out there in the real world. They are coworkers and supervisors, they are politicians and bureaucrats and reporters. When they've decided that you are the oppressor-scum, any low blow they can aim at you will seem justified in their minds.
I think Cham's answer is similar to "let them eat cake".
She thinks the same rules apply to the peasants (men in this case) as to royalty like her.
They don't Cham.
bobh:
Sorry, I just now read where you asked why I would head for the woods if I won the lottery. Mainly because I've lived there before for a time, loved the peace and quiet, wind in the trees, furry animals and chirping birds. Rejuvenating is a good word to explain it. I've spent a lot of time in airports and on planes, in many cities, in noisy plants and factories and on Interstate highways. It's old. Plus, I'd be able to do most of the outside chores in the nude. I hate doing laundry. If anyone was opposed to what I was doing, well they'd have to be trespassing to even know.
How about that.. A news story about this topic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=550808&in_page_id=1770
They mean that a pub landlord could be sued if a bar worker complains about being called "love", or over customers telling each other off-colour jokes
The rules allow tribunals to award unlimited damages for injury to feelings if a case is proved.
The commission said the regulations are aimed at dealing with the "particular problem" of harassment in the hotel and restaurant trade, which employs 670,000 women. (the amount of men who work there are not mentioned)
AND THESE ARE GUESTS, OR PEOPLE IN A BAR NOT WORKERS.
Yeah -- you should be afraid of those bossy women
With good reason. Bossy female bosses are much worse than bossy male bosses. Bossy male bosses are just assholes - they're not trying to prove anything. Female bosses of the feminist variety can't tolerate ever being perceived as losing a struggle.
I worked for a big corporation and not only had both male and female supervisors during my career there, I also spent some time doing IT support so I had close contact with executives as well.
I'm not the world's best employee - I figure if they hired me because I was smart, I couldn't be stupid only when the boss was wrong, so I had my share of conflicts with supervisors. While I worked for at least three male jerks, the difference between jerk male bosses and jerk female bosses is that you could negotiate or use leverage with a male boss whereas female supervisors would simply dig in their heels. Nothing is worse in a business setting than a woman who has to prove she's got bigger balls than a man.
I once got called onto the carpet after fixing a female executive's computer. The fix required multiple boots so I was in her office for a while. She was going on in a "don't know nuthin' 'bout birthin' babies" manner about computers and I finally got tired of it and told her, "You know, this isn't rocket science, you make a lot more money than I do, and you're not stupid. If I can learn how to do this, so can you."
I was called into a meeting with my group supervisor where I was told that she had complained that I was disrespectful and called her stupid, the exact opposite of what I had said. I didn't get reprimanded but was ordered to never work on her computer again.
It was delicious when she had another problem, I was the only one available at the time and she had to wait for service. And, yeah, she bitched about that too.
People can complain about words, emails, comments, notes, verbal attacks, but nobody can run to HR or a manager saying that somebody gave them a nasty look. The mean dirty look gets your point across without jeopardizing your employment status.
Bullshit. If a man routinely gave women "dirty looks" on the job, he'd be hauled into HR with a complaint for "creating a hostile work environment", particularly if they claim he doesn't give men the same stinkeye. If a guy can be brought up on harassment charges for "leering" at a female co-worker, the same could be applied to a dirty look. And yes, the feminist activists who run most HR departments believe that "leering" is a form of "physical" harassment.
A woman might be able to get away with calling you a "prick" or a "dickhead," but you might well be fired for replying with a similar anatomical reference.
The most politically incorrect word is c*nt. As you pointed out, women can use male anatomical references as epithets or talk about "testosterone poisoning" without fear of recrimination. Yet if a male dares let the C word pass his lips, he's an incorrigible beast (note how the assertive feminists retreat to Victorian attitudes when it's useful for bashing men).
A woman can say to a man "don't be a pussy", but if a man uses "pussy" as a synonym for weak, he'll be called out on it. My son used the word that way to refer to Ehud Olmert, and my daughter started telling him about how rigorous childbirth was.
That happened in a recent case at the Miller Brewing Co., where one woman worker used gutter language to describe the male anatomy. However, when a male coworker made an oblique reference to the word "clitoris," she complained about him and he was fired.
What made that case most absurd was that the man never said the word "clitoris". He only alluded to the "rhymes with a part of the female anatomy" episode of Seinfeld.
I was once deposed in a sexual harassment case. I never saw the accused supervisor act inappropriately, but he was a hands on kind of guy. He'd put his arm around your shoulder when talking to you.. that kind of stuff, to men as well as women. In the deposition I related that while I'd never heard or seen the supervisor do anything sexually inappropriate on the job, I had often heard the accuser discuss sexual matters on the job, including the size of her breasts.
Another female coworker was an amazon. About 6' tall, built like a brick shithouse, with a big bust and womanly hips. She was very sweet, very friendly, very down to earth, and very attractive. Her job involved a lot of computer use and since I did support I was often in her booth or she'd frequently come to my desk to ask for a favor.
She's the kind of woman who routinely calls people "sweetie" or "honey".
Like that supervisor I mentioned, she's touchy feely. I'd be sitting in my office chair (a Recaro racing seat on an office chair pedestal - boy I miss that chair) and she'd walk up behind me and start giving me a neck massage.
I had another female coworker, who had the habit of touching your forearm when she spoke to you.
Now how many men would initiate any physical contact with women on the job today?
Women know there is a double standard and they are fine with it.
If you don't believe me, ask a woman if it's appropriate for a man to read Playboy at his desk or on his break. Then ask her about a woman reading Cosmopolitan or a romance novel, aka the kind of porn that women like.
"Women know there is a double standard and they are fine with it.
If you don't believe me, ask a woman if it's appropriate for a man to read Playboy at his desk or on his break. Then ask her about a woman reading Cosmopolitan or a romance novel, aka the kind of porn that women like."
Truer words...
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home