Anti-Male Bias all around us.

there is a serious bias against the "majority" and the minorities now have many more rights and protections than the majority! its like they are some sort of elite citizen now... look at tv commercials, always have to have one black guy, or one woman, or a woman driving a car, and its okay to make fun of a white male, but the second you target a minority you have a big huge demonstration rally and you are sent to jail for years, there used to be discrimination against minorities, but in an effort to correct this people have gone way too far and instead of equality we have the balance shifted towards their rights

 

Nuh-uh. There may be the odd occasion where there is inequality favouring a minority on one issue or another, but there is not a blanket bias, and minorities do not have more rights than the majority. Women do not have "many more rights and protections" than men, and I'm baffled if this was meant as a serious post.

...and some would argue that the fact they are included tokenistically in a sign that equality has yet to be achieved. If there was one white guy among four black guys, or one man among four women, would you think "OMG HE'S ONLY BEEN INCLUDED TO BE PC", or would you not even really notice?

When has that ever happened?

I agree that there is "positive discrimination", but it's not widespread or extreme by any stretch of the imagination. You don't seem to even be aware that, actually, there is still a massive bias against women in terms of the amount they're paid for doing the same jobs as men. I mean, are you aware of that, or are you just barking at the moon?

You could be forgiven for believing that white heterosexual men's rights are being eroded on every front, since the media tends to insist that this is the case. But it's frankly bollocks. The only reason it occasionally seems like our rights are being eroded is because of the vast inequality that had previously existed - and the tendency for the press to make mountains out of molehills and very selectively report cases where someone has, for example, tried to take someone to court for discrimination; very often the press will report that the case is being taken up, but will lost interest when it is thrown out for being absolute bollocks, because no-one wants to read about it.

 

i have seen in a lot of those commercials where a guy is treated like a moron in commercials geared towards wives...but that's not a new thing, that's a holdover from an older era, where men just sat outside the birthing room and passed out cigars and hadn't the least little clue how things like household cleansers work. it is kind of annoying.

 

in commercials, its NEVER the white guy who is intelligent, its always the dumb white guy with the black guy depicted as the poor minority who is so actually much smarter and it usually ends up with the white guy making an ass of himself and the minorty just laughing at him, but if it were the other way around al sharpton would lead a huge protest march and have to entire broadcast station brought down lol, the white male is always the one that is made fun of, and no one says anything... its okay to discriminate against the majority lol

for example, there is this commercial where there is a black repair guy, some white guy making an ass out of himself so they buy him some sort of thing to keep him quiet , and then it shows a woman as the boss, and then it shows a board room with 95% white males and one minority in there, and then when the entire board room makes an ass out of themselves the much smarter black repair man mentions that the mute button is broken, this isnt just limited to one situation its politically correct to make fun of white males but if you make fun of a woman, a black person, a mexican or whatever you will have advocacy groups so far up your ass they will come out your mouth

 

except in commercials where the black guy is with his wife, in which case he is in fact a complete moron and terrified of his wife. which is exactly the same as the white guy/wife commercials.

 

It's okay to make fun of the majority (which isn't the same as discriminating against them unless you're an idiot) because the majority aren't complete wusses and can take it. What you're talking about is irony aimed at a white audience who wants to feel slightly better than the other dumb white schmucks; if we're dumb liberals, we see situations where the minority wins, and it gives us our fix of self-satisfaction and we get to go on still basically being the dominant demographic, inherent getting better education and wages than minorities, and not feeling obliged to do anything about it.

In summary: WAH WAH WAH.

Without knowing what the advertisement is for, it's difficult for us to agree with you. Despite what you might think, advertising is one of the places where political correctness definitely doesn't reign supreme. Advertising either responds to the subconscious desires of the demographic(s) that it wishes to sell its product to, or it fails and dies on its ass. Most advertising execs aren't going to twat around making sure men don't get their feelings hurt by adverts because - would you believe it? - it's women that do the weekly food shop in 90% of households. You appeal to their ego, and you sell more stuff.

As for your insistences about race, and the white man always being made a fool of, I can't say I've ever seen anything along those lines, and I can't imagine what product would benefit from that (because black people don't have money). But the fact is, advertising has only gone "non-sexist" because non-sexism is what the consumer empathises with. It's not their job to make us better people, just to respond to our drives, good or bad.

 

i can see where it'd be really annoying, though. but still, you really got it that bad?

 

On the other hand, White males still control 90% of the wealth in the USA.

Who wins?

 

This is unfortunately the problem. Equality and equivalency are very different things. It's hard to weigh discrimination against one group against discrimination against another, nor is it something I'd particularly want to see happen.

 

it's a pain in the ass and makes the person overwhelmingly in power look like an ass.

hey, i've been there. i've just had a change of heart.

 

Haha, I've just started reading this thread through from the beginning. Post #10 is beautiful.

 

excuse me this guy has a point about anti male bias there is soooo much sexism against men espicly in schools

 

Sorry mate, but unless you can cite examples, just asserting that it's all around us counts for dick. I mean, don't get me wrong, if there's situations where we're being discriminated against, that's a problem. But if it's just someone who's... I dunno, "jealous" is the best word... someone who's basically jealous that all the minorities get to be annoyed and he, as a straight white guy, can't get in on it - well that's something else.

So no, not "excuse me". If you want to demonstrate an actual discrimination against men, fine. But if you're just defending him for "having a point", you need to be able to back it up, otherwise I don't see why anyone should care.

 

heres an example a kid walks in on time to class with a slushy and the teacher says not to bring slushys anymore it could cause a mess dont let it happen again 10 mineuts later 2 girls walk in late as fuck and the teachers askes them why there late they says "we were getting slushys" not a word they sat down end of it ....actauly happend

 

Dude this thread totally got hijacked by page two.

I totally agree with the OP. When I was in school and a boy got into a fight, he got detention, the teachers met with his parents, and it was put in his "permanent record" which was passed on to each school he went to. But if I girl got into a fight, even if it was a worse fight, she was just given a tap on the wrist. There's some bias right there. Yes, it does exist, and going off-topic won't make it go away either.

 

oh please, you should see my sister's record. she spent half her school career in detention, saturday school and suspension because of her fighting. girls just don't usually cause as much damage or do it as often as guys.

 

Well I have no idea what a slushy is, but I don't know that it matters. I guess I could argue that you're seeing it as a gender issue when the situation is not the same; the boy is being told off for bringing the slushy into the classroom, not for being late, whereas the girls do not bring them into the classroom. Without really knowing the situation, I can't really know either way, but I don't see how you can insist that this is sex discrimination when the differing reactions were not to the same "crime".

On discrimination issues generally though, there is a two tier thing: institutional discrimination and personal discrimination. The effect on the individual can be the same, of course, but there is very little sex-discrimination that is approved by law. Social factors are far more ingrained - the standard "boys shouldn't hit girls" is an example I'd agree with you on here, and is sexist on many levels, since it also assumes that women are less capable of self-defense purely based on their sex. Some of these are truncated forms of practical ideas - ideally, no-one should be hitting anyone, and no-one should hit someone weaker or less able to defend themselves if possible.

But legal equality is an important first step in establishing socially-accepted equality. It takes time to over-ride generations-old prejudices. I just see a real danger in initiating a major backlash, or blaming feminism of all things, for the fact that some people's attitudes, far from having been pushed too far against men, never actually changed at all (the convention about boys being naughty, girls being nice and so on is in nurseru rhymes older than the hills, for example.)

Ultimately, it is hard to force someone to accept gender equality if they don't want to, if they don't see that there is an inequality or if they don't see that there is anything wrong with that inequality. You can persuade them that it's wrong to express their prejudices, and in time, the fact that they are not aired will mean that, if they are unevidenced and unjustified, less and less people will take them up.

I think that's the most important thing here. There are sex inequities on both sides of the equation, and we should be working to get rid of them. We agree there. What I do not agree with is the anti-feminist sentiment in the thread, that seems to be blaming the Women's Rights movement for something for which it could never be responsible. I'm concerned that that is coming from a very bad place, and I think that those who wish to discuss inequalities would do well to distance themselves from it, since it serves to frame legitimate debate as little more than a series of misogynistic tracts.

 

I don't see how it's "going off topic" to point out that these inequities go both ways. They do, and if it's going to wind up as a contest for which gender's being the most discriminated, I think you'd have to do a little better than a few anecdotal complaints about playground fights to counterbalance, for example, the fact that male university staff employed at the same initial salary as female staff typically receive a raise six months into their employment while their female coworkers will not. I mean, yeah, ideally we wouldn't have either, but if it comes down to priority...? Is it hijacking a thread to discuss an issue, rather than having a massive circle jerk over it?

 

Okay you're wrong. Sorry.

Here's how it breaks down:

I click the thread that says "anti-male bias all around us" and I'm thinking "Well, there's a right interesting subject that I'd like to know more about." and 3 posts into it it's all "Waaa, women this, women that, but women are, woman bla, bla bla bla" and you can't really deny that. Anti-male bias hasn't even really been discussed. It's been mostly a pissing contest to see which gender has had it harder. Well who really gives a flying fuck which gender has had it harder, that's not what the topic is. The topic is anti-male bias. Why would anyone talk about anti-female bias in a thread that's meant to discuss anti-male bias? Sounds right backasswards to me. If you wanna talk about anti-female bias, go to the Women's Issues forum and talk about it there.

And now that I meantion that, I've been skimming through these threads and I've noticed a lot more women than men talking about it. Every time some thing pops up about father's rights, or what have you, some chicks come in and yell at the OP or take the topic and completely turn it into a pitty party for women.

Like I really don't understand it. I got a little excited when I saw the title of the thread, and the first post or two was alright, but then that soaringeagle dude came in and with the help of a couple of women completely transformed it from "anti-male bias: let's discuss it" (IT meaning: anti-male bias) to "no ur stupid men rule th eworld womyn are oppressed stfu no go die"

If you can't see it then I'm sorry man, something's wrong.

 

i didnt mention the girls had slushy in there hands