Can a Man Complain about Gender Imbalance and Inequality at Work?

dimes on 26/01/2024 - 23:04
Last edited 27/01/2024 - 13:41 by 1 other user

For context, I work in a state government agency and I've been told my female boss "likes women", which I take to mean she prefers working with women rather than men. So this made me curious and I wanted to see if there was any statistical proof to this. I looked at the internal and external recruitments for June to December 2023 and found that 16/20 successful candidates were women, and 9/10 managers in my office are women.

We also occasionally outsource work where we have a panel of qualified people to choose from, and I heard this boss tell someone that we have to choose a woman next time.

I know for sure if the genders were reversed, women would be complaining and everyone would be up in arms about gender inequality. But as men, can we complain about the same thing when it happens to us, or will we be cast away as whingers and also commit career suicide at the same time?

Education & Work

Comments

  • El cheepo on 26/01/2024 - 23:06
    +95

    Of course you can complain.

    Whether anyone listens or cares is a different story altogether.

    No idea of the stats, but I’d be quietly confident that discrimination against women by men is definitely more prominent.
    (Not saying that makes this ok, more pointing out it happens everywhere)

    So,If it isn’t directly affecting you, is it a fight you really want to start?

    • reactor-au on 27/01/2024 - 08:57
      +22

      Historically I've heard it's because it's safer bet that most men you hire aren't going to take 6 months maternity leave in the first year.

      The shift could be because who knows who's going to take maternity leave these days.
      Or
      Over corrective social points

      /Not a manager

      • AngoraFish on 27/01/2024 - 09:20
        +12

        You may have heard that, and people may indeed believe that because there's a huge amount of misinformation out there, however it would be incorrect.

        In order to be eligible to take maternity leave one needs to have been working with their current employer for at least 12 months. https://www.australianunions.org.au/factsheet/maternity-leav…

          • freefall101 on 27/01/2024 - 11:58
            +23

            @LFO:

            Women get maternity leave. Men don't.

            The scheme in Australia is the Paid Parental Leave, either parent is allowed to take it (2 weeks is reserved for each parent, the remainder they can take their pick.

            Employers may limit their own schemes, but it's becoming more common that it's either parent (but not both).

            • LFO on 30/01/2024 - 12:18
              +1

              @freefall101: Playing with words you are …

              Women will routinely take 12 (twelve) months of (usually) unpaid maternity leave.
              Men don't.

              Equality my foot.

              • freefall101 on 30/01/2024 - 15:40
                +1

                @LFO:

                Women get maternity leave. Men don't.

                Unless you've got some alternative meaning to the word "get" I've never heard of, forgive me for reading what you wrote instead of reading your mind.

                Women will routinely take 12 (twelve) months of (usually) unpaid maternity leave.
                Men don't.

                Now who's playing with words. You said:

                If you are paying them with your hard earn money which one will you pick?

                If someone is on unpaid mat leave then you're not paying them at all, so they don't owe you any work whatsoever. If someone goes on mat leave, resigns, takes a career break, long service leave, is sick, they don't work at all. You hire a leave cover and that's it. I'm sure with your delightfully modern approach to work you'd have people lining up out the door for a job.

                You want an employee who won't take paternity leave? Pay them more than their spouse and watch who wants to take the paternity leave. It's not a gender issue and there's no laws or societal issue that causes it (beyond the idea that a woman raises the babies and the man brings home the bacon).

              • Belts on 01/02/2024 - 16:49
                +1

                @LFO: Leaving aside the fact you’ve completely glossed over the fact it’s now considered “parental leave”, as both parents are recognised as requiring time to be home with a new born and are entitled to such - I don’t get why you’re invested in being mad at women for taking that time off (usually unpaid, at your own admission)? Why don’t you instead focus on why men don’t take the same amount of time off?

                Just ask a few people in their child rearing years and you’ll find the support for it definitely exists. Dads deserve and need that time off too, of course. But when you start to unravel the thread that is each reason why men don’t or can’t take 12 months off, you may find there’s some uncomfortable realisations underpinning each one.

          • MercSal on 31/01/2024 - 09:27
            +3

            @LFO: Many employers are moving to non gendered parental leave
            -dad about to take 6 months off on full pay.

          • MessyG on 31/01/2024 - 12:43
            +3

            @LFO: Men can take unpaid leave to parent their children, just like women do. My husband took a year off, twice.

            The true inequality comes in how much workplaces are willing to support that for men.

        • sss333 on 27/01/2024 - 12:47
          +5

          Will be able to get paid parental leave without the 12 months in the APS with the new agreement

          We have removed all qualifying periods for paid parental leave. This is a new entitlement for all APS agencies.
          https://www.apsc.gov.au/apsbargaining

        • serpserpserp on 28/01/2024 - 22:02
          +3

          In order to be eligible to take maternity leave one needs to have been working with their current employer for at least 12 months.

          In many large corporates in Australia the working period is much less. It can even be immediately. It is used as a hiring/retention perk.

      • MrTweek on 28/01/2024 - 21:01
        +1

        This is true in countries where maternity leave is paid for by the employer.

        In Australia, it won't cost the employer a cent. It's just unpaid leave to them

        • LFO on 30/01/2024 - 12:23

          In Australia, it won't cost the employer a cent.

          It has a cost. And could be a large one.

          The employer will be forced to find and then hire another person, to train that person and to pay all those unexpected/unnecessary expenses.

          OK for unskilled positions but devastating if she is in a demanding, highly skilled, well paid role.

          • MrTweek on 31/01/2024 - 20:17
            +5

            @LFO: Yeah, but that's a general risk a business have. Any staff can quit or get sick at any time and they need to work around this.

            If one person not being able to work is devastating for your business, you have a really risky business.

            • LFO on 01/02/2024 - 12:34

              @MrTweek:

              that's a general risk a business have

              Yes indeed and hiring a female of reproductive age increases that risk dramatically.
              Yes, it is not politically correct but it is a fact.

              By the way, hiring "hippie" like people in general (any gender and age) presents a high risk of leaving for travel, alternative living, meditation, the lot, as soon as they get some money in.

              It is easy to dismiss the "risk" but, why to have it at all? Large corporations push to have their high performing execs with massive debt/investments so they become a "captive audience".

              The world of real businesses is very unforgiving.

      • RTX9090Ti on 29/01/2024 - 09:12
        -1

        What about men who identifies as women?

        • redfox1200 on 31/01/2024 - 14:48

          what about DINKS who identify as parents

    • Almost Banned on 27/01/2024 - 13:56
      +7

      This is in a state government agency.
      I'd be willing to bet that if anyone was inclined to discriminate in favor of men - questionable in itself - there they'd be very quiet about it.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 27/01/2024 - 14:05
      +8

      No idea of the stats

      Should have stopped there

      but I’d be quietly confident that discrimination against women by men is definitely more prominent.

      I love the use of words like confident and definitely

      • El cheepo on 27/01/2024 - 14:25
        -4

        Should have stopped there

        Why?

        I’m a man, I’ve seen it happen personally to women.
        Plus, 10 seconds on google can confirm it.

        Thanks for the encouragement to fact check.

        • banana365 on 29/01/2024 - 13:16

          10 seconds on google can confirm it.

          10 seconds on google confirms to some people that the earth is flat or vaccines don't work. There's more to fact checking than "google says…"

          • El cheepo on 29/01/2024 - 14:27
            +1

            @banana365:

            10 seconds on google confirms to some people that the earth is flat or vaccines don't work. There's more to fact checking than "google says…"

            10 seconds is a figure of speech, referring to how quickly and easily the statistics are found.

            you could type: “sexual discrimination in the workplace based on gender” into google and find the government statistics as well as antidotal experiences from people in mere moments.

            Might take you 11+ seconds to find though.

            Also, as mentioned above.
            I’m sure many people have seen in their workplace.
            I have at multiple different companies.

            Again, im not saying the op is wrong for wanting to pursue it. But the issue is bigger then his work place and is it worth fighting if it doesn’t affect him?

            • LFO on 30/01/2024 - 12:31
              -3

              @El cheepo: We human see things as we wish things to be.

              Look at current "wars"/conflicts: every side says they are doing the right thing, the honorable thing.

              Statistics are always bias. Remember statistics lie and liars use statistics

    • cfuse on 27/01/2024 - 14:58
      +18

      Whether anyone listens or cares is a different story altogether.

      We all know that any sort of employer that encourages the 'right' sort of discrimination is very much going to care when someone objects to the dogma.

      Even just pragmatic employers cannot ignore special legal privilege. We are at the point where people can invoke self identification and subjective offence, bring a case, and win it in court. Maybe you inherited the mentally ill cockatoo, maybe someone else in the org hired them, maybe they presented as normal and became one after the fact, it doesn't matter. You are not dodging this problem, you'll have to manage it.

      No idea of the stats, but I’d be quietly confident that discrimination against women by men is definitely more prominent.

      I don't even have to cite stats here. The thought experiment is easy: if discrimination against men was worse, and you knew, would you give a damn? No, you wouldn't, because nobody does.

      Now go look up the workplace injury and mortality statistics. Now you know. If we don't care about men being slaughtered then how much do you think we care when it comes to taking their discrimination complaints seriously?

      So,If it isn’t directly affecting you, is it a fight you really want to start?

      Discrimination affects all, whether they realise it or not. All choices are just one point on a trend line, what really matters is where your pattern of choices is logically leading you.

      That being said, if you know you work in a pit of vipers (and spoiler, almost everyone does) then self interest is the name of the game. These people are workmates, they're not your friends or peers. You are there for the income and not to sign up to whatever ideological bollocks they are pushing. So just lie to them. And know when to bail out of that dumpster fire, because anti-meritocratic hiring is always a race to the bottom and you don't want to be there when it hits the fan.

      • El cheepo on 27/01/2024 - 15:13
        +2

        I don't even have to cite stats here. The thought experiment is easy: if discrimination against men was worse, and you knew, would you give a damn? No, you wouldn't, because nobody does.

        Discrimination affects all, whether they realise it or not. All choices are just one point on a trend line, what really matters is where your pattern of choices is logically leading you.

        I fully agree.

      • ozbjunkie on 29/01/2024 - 01:40
        +4

        This is the answer

        Not the shamefully up voted "but discrimination against women is worse"

        That's the kind of response uttered by those that think the only kind of racism is when a white person is prejudiced or discriminates against a non-white person

        The OP is 9/10 managers are women, women are preferred hires, the stats match the stated prejudice of the manager against male hires, the OP is being told to consider gender as a primary hiring characteristic, and the most upvoted response is "cop it sweet and shut up" like the men of the world are somewhere between hardworking children that should be archaically "seen and not heard" and abused spouses of society that "deserved that one, look what you made me do, if you weren't so XYZ (male?) none of this would be happening.

        At least the man hating flavour of feminist that is revealed as having no real interest in gender equality or the more limited freedom from gendered discrimination (the type up voting the whataboutery above) often find their way out of thinking themselves into such a corner by having a male child and realising their views have a negative impact on their own child. That's sometimes enough, the fact it's ones own flesh and blood.

        • El cheepo on 29/01/2024 - 08:36

          That seems like a really long way of saying the point went over your head.

          Perhaps try looking up the difference between worse and prominent before ranting.

    • kaleidoscope on 29/01/2024 - 20:44
      -4

      What do you want to complain about OP?

      Does having more women around you at work affect your daily productivity or the favouritism towards women by your boss negatively affected any bonuses or progression in career? Or you just want to complain because you can 🤔

    • payless69 on 30/01/2024 - 14:13

      I do have a complaint number!
      There is nothing that is not available if your health is in danger.
      As a token for speaking the truth against bitchism you will get a $20 gift card from Bunnings!

      Now how many negs do I get for this advice?

  • Hybroid on 26/01/2024 - 23:09
    +8

    There is most definitely a noticeable skew towards hiring women into senior roles, whether to conciously address the historic imbalance or simply to meet 'quotas'.

    While I understand the reverse-fairness argument (not a female), I'm not sure that's necessarily a negative thing overall. They're very much effective in these roles from my experience so far. Maybe even more so.

    How and when you reach equilibrium to maintain a true equality balance is the interesting question.

    • mskeggs on 27/01/2024 - 10:26
      -3

      I don’t know what leads you believe there is a skew towards hiring women in senior roles. The very comprehensive stats the government keeps do not show this.
      See for yourself:

      https://www.wgea.gov.au/publications/gender-equality-workpla…

      I guess if the senior managers are all men, and have always all been men, hiring a single woman would be a “noticeable skew” but women remain grossly under represented considering they make up more than half the population.

      • Almost Banned on 27/01/2024 - 13:59
        +15

        But we aren't talking about the workforce in general - we are talking about public service.
        And there the evidence does exist for a slight skew towards women - at least at the Federal level.
        Over 50% of government boards.
        https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/womens-leadership/gender…
        and over 50% of the SES
        https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/state-of-service/2022/re…

        • Binchicken22 on 29/01/2024 - 12:59
          +9

          Any more than about 35% women in upper management and board level roles indicate a strong hiring bias towards women (not that anyone with eyes needs stats to show this is the case), as women only make up around 35% of the full time workforce and you can't realistically expect part time Karen in admin to make it to the executive or board level.

          • dtc on 29/01/2024 - 13:42

            @Binchicken22: 'part time Karen' may well be a 4 day a week senior executive. Plus people on government boards are often part time, because its not a full time job. Doesnt say anything about their skill set whatsoever.

            Why is it that there are more women in the APS - when its a lot lower paid than the private sector?

            • Binchicken22 on 29/01/2024 - 14:02
              +1

              @dtc: Yes, maybe once you are at the board level, but you don't get there by being "part time Karen" and as I said, women only make up 35% of the full time workforce.

      • ChatCPT on 28/01/2024 - 21:24

        more than half the population.?

        i thought we were 50/50

    • Nebargains on 28/01/2024 - 14:07
      +31

      About 6 years ago, the company (big well known company) I was working for at the time gave a presentation, in small groups, about the company performance and various other things.

      Included in that was how proud they were to have 49% of senior roles being occupied by women and how they were always putting more emphasis on having equality in the candidates they interviewed across the business.

      I think they thought this sounded amazing and we should all erupt into applause and high five each other but there was just puzzled looks all around the room, everyone was thinking it and then someone said it… 'why don't we just interview the best candidates and hire the best people regardless of their gender'…. It's so true.

      If the best is a woman, great, if it's a man, great, but let's not go out of our way to meet quotas for the sake of it.

      • ozbjunkie on 29/01/2024 - 01:45
        +2

        That "someone", was it a women or a man?

        The unfortunately reality that the response is likely to be different is itself so much of the problem

        A woman snapping back to management on such an issue may be viewed as misguided, perhaps well intentioned, in other words, infantalised and not taken seriously (!)

        A man making such a comment might find themselves scrutinised more heavily for their obvious issues with women and with progressive… blah blah blah. It's sexism it's obvious and if you can't see it, that's willful ignorance.

      • dengziyi on 29/01/2024 - 22:37
        -2

        People have hired based on 'merit' for hundreds of years. That's what resulted in huge gender disparities.

        There are a lot of benefits for having a roughly gender equal/diverse workplace especially in professional services/tech and this applies for women dominated industries as well like beauty services.

        And honestly, the experiences of women/men/non-binary people are so different that these experiences are merits intrinsically.

        Affirmative action and quotas HAS had productive results.

        We can see a huge uptake of tech for women, and this can partially attribute to improvements in corporate culture.

        Also men now are able (and in places, expected) to take parental leave and enjoy time with their children as well.

        So quotas - there are researched benefits to having a near equal workplace.

        In my field of work, there are a lot of women. My team actively hires men to maintain that gender balance. It works both ways.

      • FlyingMiffy on 30/01/2024 - 20:25
        -3

        The reason for affirmative action is because men and women dont have the same starting point in career terms. The odds are stacked against females. Its only been recent where the playing field has been more balanced. Just look to the generation before you and look at the stats on education, work force participation, work distruptions, pay disparity etc.

        • moggott on 31/01/2024 - 22:15
          -1

          Where is the affirmative action for the jobs where 97% of deaths are men? Women have been a protective gender since for ever. Balance that playing field.

          • dengziyi on 01/02/2024 - 01:02
            -1

            @moggott: Men do riskier roles and for a lot of those roles, they tend to perform better than women - due to genetics. For example, military, construction, farming

            Men are also less risk averse than women on average.

            Nature levels the playing field by making slightly more males than females as well.

            But if you're talking about dangerous jobs, this link says road and rail are some of the most dangerous. I see plenty of women and affirmative action in that industry (genetic differences aren't significant for drivers). Even mining is pusblishing their female employment rate.

            Most companies who have dangerous work, still encourage affirmative action. The solution to reducing the male death toll in employment? Hire more women I guess.

    • CalmLemons on 28/01/2024 - 22:35
      +2

      I always thought hiring based on race/gender is illegal, regardless of what diversity/equality thinks.

      So I'm not really sure how DEI (diversity, equality, includsion) can really exist in the first place?

      Same with proportional representation, how can you have it when as a result you automatically commit racism or sexism by descrimating against people of a certain race or gender?

      The ONLY determinant of hiring should be SKILL, EXPERIENCE and MERIT.

      • Hybroid on 28/01/2024 - 22:38
        +5

        Hiring a person is inherently subjective on a select few peoples' take on the candidate's skill-set, aptitude and potential.

        Why you hire someone can be different to what the paperwork says you hired them for. It's not difficult.

        "X has a Masters degree and 15 years total experience across the industry, but, while Y doesn't match those stats, they have done a more similar role to the one we're hiring for over the past 2 years so actually, they're best placed to take the job. "

        Quite literally how my last team boss got the internal promotion over another far more qualified one. There's clearly more at play behind the scenes.

        • CalmLemons on 28/01/2024 - 22:43
          +2

          Do organisations actually declare in writing the metrics on why they hire someone?

          I've never bothered to deal with HR, they're always seen as an obligatory division - often don't resolve much. Motivation comes from leaders, HR is a last resort.

      • Eeples on 29/01/2024 - 00:01

        The E in DEI stands for equity not equality. The former concerns itself with equal pay for equal work, fairness of conditions and opportunity for promotions of all employees. (Seems very possible and fair to me).

        Some people that suggest the E is for equality suggest it means equality of outcomes. It doesn’t.

        • CalmLemons on 29/01/2024 - 13:57
          -2

          I think the contention is, if you work more and work harder than the other person, another person shouldn't get rewarded more than you just because they're of a different gender or should get the promotion over you because the company needs to fulfill a gender or race criteria?

          Just a question and I'm not sure how they achieve that without going too far.

        • trapper on 30/01/2024 - 12:52
          -3

          DEI stands for … Division, Exclusion, and Indoctrination.

      • dengziyi on 29/01/2024 - 22:50
        -1

        You can discriminate if the merit is relevant to the job. For example, some physical labouring jobs or working at company that predominantly serves uniligual Italian people.

        But also, merit… What's merit? Being ethnically diverse can be considered a merit - speaking more than one language often indicates better communication skills.

        Also eing a woman and having experiences that a woman has is valuable when the workplace is primarily men. That's also merit and experience.

        I think the discrimination law is more about unfair bias e.g. not hiring a Chinese person because they hate Chinese people.

        • trapper on 30/01/2024 - 12:55

          I think the discrimination law is more about unfair bias

          Any bias disconnected from the ability to perform the job is unfair bias.

    • OzBarAnon on 29/01/2024 - 15:53
      +1

      To answer to your question is that you don't. As of right now, the metric for equality is based on outcome, not equality as a starting point. What I mean by this is that the cart is put before the horse when it comes to measuring equality. There is a desired outcome in mind, and it is taken for granted that this would naturally be the result of equal treatment, when that is almost certainly not the case.

    • trapper on 30/01/2024 - 11:57

      I'm not sure that's necessarily a negative thing overall.

      Of course it's a negative thing if individuals are preferred in the hiring procedure due to factors that have no bearing on their ability to perform the job.

    • AngoraFish on 27/01/2024 - 00:33
      -8

      Woah, angry men being angry are really on display tonight.

      Use your power boys! Here, have another post to waste your down-votes on. Consider it my public service for the day. :-)

      • LFO on 27/01/2024 - 11:36
        +15

        Women in a defensive mode are too!!

        Remember to cry or claim unfairness when bitching fails.
        And feeling sexually assaulted too. Failsafe!

      • FlyingMiffy on 30/01/2024 - 20:30
        +3

        Ive learnt a few things about the ozBargain community the last week. Lots of charitable individuals that love to have other people pay more tax while they work less and lots of blokes that feel wronged by society' attempts to achieve gender balance.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 27/01/2024 - 14:14
      +19

      Also, men constantly complain and get "up in arms" about gender inequality

      Some facts for you, but please don't let this get in the way of your "feelings" about the subject.

      Men don't have it made like people like you make it out to be.

      The whole gender pay gap is BS. Compare like for like careers and take into account maternity leave and average work hours and you'll see it disappear.

      • Males are 3 times more likely to take their own life than females
      • Men work 38.8 hours average per week vs women at 32.1
      • Men live 4 years less than women
      • Men experience physical violence at 10 percentage points higher than women
        • VictoriousBboy on 28/01/2024 - 19:37
          -8

          Embarrassing how they give no shits about inequality when it benefits them, but the second they aren't in the winning spot they're ready to complain.

          Yet if we complain about inequality, there's always a "reason" we shouldn't and we really have it better. Could cherry pick stats til the cows come home, but these men have a victim complex from the get-go and won't ever change their thinking.

          • Michael15286 on 29/01/2024 - 15:18
            +9

            @VictoriousBboy: Geez both you with the "us" vs. "them" mentality. Super toxic mindset.

            Most people want what's best for themselves, their family and the people around them. Regardless of gender.

          • coffeeinmyveins on 31/01/2024 - 08:59
            +1

            @VictoriousBboy:

            but these men have a victim complex

            I mean, those stats don't lie. but anyway, it's not about men vs women. I'm all for equality, but that does't mean women need to be on double the salary as men when the stats speak for themselves. at least be realistic.

            there's always a "reason" we shouldn't and we really have it better

            I love this rhetoric of putting words in peoples mouths, no-one has said that but you.

          • nobro25 on 31/01/2024 - 19:40
            +1

            @VictoriousBboy: It's a free country you can say whatever want unless it's backed up by facts.
            1st case in point men generally don't winge like women…. That being said there are men winge(ers) however that's the exception and the exception doesn't represent the masses.

            2nd case it's already been debunked that women get paid less than men. it's illegal for any company to pay less than to the opposite for the same job and responsibilities. It's just that women just happen to get into careers that gets paid less because of less physical work and skill.

            3rd case in point sexism benefit's women as there's plenty of ads directing towards women employment (eg. Lollipop Job, women only or looking for women) I have yet to see an ad that specifically signals to hire "men" only. Because as soon as that happens all the women will take photos of it and take it to social and be like "mysgony!!".

        • coffeeinmyveins on 31/01/2024 - 08:55
          +1

          Came for facts

          you might need to look up what a fact is.

          • AngoraFish on 31/01/2024 - 14:22

            @coffeeinmyveins: Dude, it's not even relevant to OP's topic, unless you think that the topic is a bit of cheap whataboutism about how men are really society's big victims.

            Oh, right, that is the topic. Feel free to continue then.

        • Eeples on 02/02/2024 - 19:58

          Aren't the 4 bulleted points facts, though?

          As is the male suicide rate (running at about 75% to 25%) … or is that merely a talking point too?

          • AngoraFish on 02/02/2024 - 21:15

            @Eeples: The sky is blue. See what I did there? I threw in a random, irrelevant, off topic fact too.

            Just like you just did in a thread about whether a man can complain about gender imbalance at work. (The answer, btw, is yes.)

            I get it, you think men are society's real victims and you've googled until you've found a scrap of data that appears to support your gut feeling.

            Except that facts don't work like that. They require one to assess all the available data, not just the random bits that appear to support your preexisting position.

            Also, on the topic of talking points. Talking points aren't necessarily false, as such. They're just the list of bullets featured on today's press release to be repeated ad infinitum, even if the question actually asked is something completely different. Politicians are particularly good at this, but this thread is another example of how this works.

            The half a dozen talking points dropped into this thread are exactly the same ones that have been copy pasted through dozens of men's rights books and pamphlets for more than three decades now.

            There are a couple you guys are still missing though. Shall we continue to play the game of which ones still haven't managed to be touted out yet, for a bit of laugh? I'd be happy to start.

            Here ya go: There are more men than women in prison.

      • Gnostikos on 29/01/2024 - 18:34
        +7

        @coffeeinmyveins

        Actually it's worse than that:

        • On a global scale, men live 10 years less than women on average.
        • Men are the overwhelming majority of victims of violent crime and suicide.
        • Men are the overwhelming majority of homeless people.
        • Men receive far harsher criminal sentences for the same crimes compared to women.
        • Men are the overwhelmingly majority of workers in dangerous/dirty/difficult professions.
        • Men are actively discriminated against in Western family law courts where women are awarded the majority of sole custody settlements, asset settlements, child support, etc.
        • Drakesy on 29/01/2024 - 19:19
          +1

          Prepare for the emotion fuelled rebuttal when they reject facts.

          But you make valid points.

        • mrkorrupt on 31/01/2024 - 14:07
          -3

          What is your solution to this.

          Under an Islamic System
          Women can choose to not work and stay at home etc. (however only the basic necessities need to be provided to her in this case (basic house, basic food, no luxury items)

          100% of the income the women earns is her own with zero obligations to provide for her family.
          If her husband passes / or the couple divorces, the man must pay a fair amount to her based on the amount she would spend on the children, if childless he has no further obligations to her.

          A women inherits 50% as much as a male however same rules apply on the inheritance, she can blow it on whatever she wants with the husband having zero say.

          Under an Islamic System, Suicide is a big no no and a shame to the family, so suicides are less likely to occur and crime is punished more severely.

          Men also commit more crimes and cause more death in every instance.

          Men are the overwhelming majority of homeless people. <—- that is because some Men lack the self control and discipline to stop before spiraling out of control.

          Men are the overwhelmingly majority of workers in dangerous/dirty/difficult professions <—- Do you really want you mum, sister, daughter or wife working in these professions?

          Read this: https://islamqa.org/hanafi/darululoomtt/149088/custody-of-ch…

          Is this a better system then the western system

          • coffeeinmyveins on 31/01/2024 - 14:12

            @mrkorrupt:

            Under an Islamic System

            Yeah, nah

            Is this a better system then the western system

            Yeah, nah

            You're also confusing two things. You say "western" which is a region of countries, states and ideals, mixed up of various people and religion. And then you say "Islam" which is a religion.

            I love how you cherry pick things from Islam as well, totally sidestepping the atrocities committed in its name.

            • mrkorrupt on 31/01/2024 - 15:49
              -1

              @coffeeinmyveins: I was presenting a different system the islamic system is a religion as well as a political, welfare, social and justice system. Similar to how the west generally has a similar system. I was just offering an alternative.

          • Gnostikos on 31/01/2024 - 16:23
            -1

            @mrkorrupt:

            What is your solution to this.

            I never said I had one because the differences between the sexes that lead to the different outcomes in men's and women's lives are fundamentally an existential human problem that has always existed to some degree and may in fact be an entirely natural consequence of our biological and psychological differences, though these differences in outcomes are now artificially exacerbated in the modern world for a variety political and socio-cultural reasons.

            That being said, I definitely wouldn't suggest any variety of Abrahamic bullsh*t whether it's Islam, Christianity or Judaism, as the solution to the Western world's gender woes.

            Fundamentalist Islamic countries have hideous socio-cultural, political and gender issues of their own, they just disguise them, ignore them or outright pretend they don't exist.

            You would basically be trading one of set of insurmountable societal problems for another by suggesting that the Western world's default mode of governance needs to be a fundamentalist religious theocracy of some kind.

            Men in Islamic countries do not inherently have it "better" or lead easier lives than men in the Western world; being a man in country like Saudi Arabia or Iran, you're basically railroaded into a life of wage slavery and servitude to the state and its religious ideals, in order to support a family and serve the state, whether you genuinely desire that lifestyle or not. There is literally no other acceptable mode of existence for adult men in those countries other than marriage, children and wage slavery for life with the added bonuses of forced abstinence from anything that is considered forbidden under Islam under penalty of jail or death (unless you're a member of the ruling class in those societies, of course).

            Trying to escape the boundaries of the extremely narrow range of acceptable lifestyles in those countries is basically social suicide. Men and women in Islamic countries are under intense cultural and familial pressure to conform to a medieval ideal of their gender roles and free-thinkers or anyone trying to break the mould in those societies is basically outcast.

            Moreover, the facade of religious piety in those countries is extremely superficial and most people are extremely hypocritical in their adherence to their faith (and rightfully so, as all Abrahamic theology is a ridiculously unnatural, oppressive and contradictory belief system). Behind closed doors and in secret gatherings, all manner of vice, sin and blasphemy goes on.

            Your claims about Shariah law courts and legal "rights" are nonsense. The majority of Muslim countries have no concept of human rights nor are the laws applied equally for all; nepotism and political/tribal affiliation determine how you're judged in their "courts" along with whether you've bribed the right officials. Their statistics on suicide can similarly be taken with a grain of salt because they would never honestly report any significant suicide rates nor any statistics that would cast their nations in a negative light because those countries are fundamentally authoritarian regimes with atrocious human rights records.

            The only conceivable reason that the suicide rates would be lower in Islamic theocracies like Saudi Arabia or Iran compared to Western countries is that their citizens don't have to kill themselves: the state and its morality police along with their military can arbitrarily murder citizens for any manner of trivial reasons and routinely do, like accessing the wrong websites, going to a protest or not having your hijab on properly.

            Anyone taking any claims of Islamic theocracies or fundamentalist regimes at face value is clueless.

            Men are the overwhelming majority of homeless people. <—- that is because some Men lack the self control and discipline to stop before spiraling out of control.

            Lol.

            How old are you? Ever known anyone who's been through a rough divorce or been out of work for a while?

            Men are the overwhelmingly majority of workers in dangerous/dirty/difficult professions <—- Do you really want you mum, sister, daughter or wife working in these professions?

            If feminists genuinely wanted equal representation in all industries then having women be garbage men, firefighters, mechanics, farmers, etc would be the logical outcome. They don't. They want power, affirmative action and equality of outcome, which is why they're obsessed with increasing female representation in the upper levels of corporate world or the government at the expense of having a meritocracy where the best-suited candidate is selected for a particular job.

            My point was to highlight the massive disparity in the kinds of jobs that feminists claim women are underrepresented in meanwhile they never talk about the lack of female bricklayers, front-line infantry or coal miners.

            It's obviously a massively hypocritical position that has nothing to with a genuine interest in improving female representation and it ignores the basic reality that women do not choose the same jobs that men do for very self-evident biological reasons.

            Is this a better system then the western system

            Why do you sound like you're a 19-year old writing a last-minute uni essay?

            Location: Bankstown, Sydney
            Lol, I think have a pretty good mental image now.

          • Drakesy on 01/02/2024 - 13:28

            @mrkorrupt: Wha?

      • Ughhh on 29/01/2024 - 21:43
        +2

        Men experience physical violence at 10 percentage points higher than women

        That is true. Every time I go to the CBD street with pubs and clubs, there's always a bunch of silly drunk guys fighting.

        • trapper on 30/01/2024 - 12:59
          +1

          It's not 10% higher… men experience far more physical violence than woman.

          • Ughhh on 30/01/2024 - 20:34

            @trapper: Are you saying user coffeinmyveins is incorrect?

            men experience far more physical violence

            By who? Who's the perpetrator?

            • coffeeinmyveins on 31/01/2024 - 08:57
              -2

              @Ughhh:

              @trapper: Are you saying user coffeinmyveins is incorrect?

              I quoted statistics, these aren't my opinions

              • Ughhh on 31/01/2024 - 11:47
                +1

                @coffeeinmyveins: You didn't quote anything, you just made a statement. Quoting would be referencing the source, you didn't.

                Regardless, Trapper seems to doubt you/your source.

                Perhaps you could answer the questions. Who's the main perpetrator of violence against men?

                • trapper on 31/01/2024 - 12:54

                  @Ughhh:

                  Who's the main perpetrator of violence against men?

                  What do you mean by 'who'? There is no single individual going around doing all the violence .

                  Or do you mean which demographic group, sex, race, religion, or another category, that is most commonly associated with perpetrating such acts?

                  • Ughhh on 31/01/2024 - 14:10
                    +1

                    @trapper: Obviously not talking about individuals. The topic is on gender so which gender is doing most of the violence.

                    • trapper on 31/01/2024 - 14:31

                      @Ughhh: You might be focusing on the wrong aspect here.

                      Ethnic groupings, for example, wield a considerably greater influence on criminality than gender.

                      • Ughhh on 31/01/2024 - 19:34
                        +1

                        @trapper: You mean I'm focussing on the thing that doesn't favour your argument?
                        it makes your point redundant too.

                        • trapper on 31/01/2024 - 19:58

                          @Ughhh: What point is made redundant, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

                          Men experience far more physical violence than woman. Do you actually doubt this??

                          • Ughhh on 01/02/2024 - 13:48

                            @trapper: I don't doubt it. But you're zero-ing in one part of something.
                            Why do men experience more physical violence? Why are men or women (whoever has a higher %) more likely to commit violence?

                            • trapper on 01/02/2024 - 14:31
                              -1

                              @Ughhh:

                              I don't doubt it.

                              So you agree with me. Then why did you say my point was redundant?

                              You keep asking these increasingly unrelated questions without adding anything meaningful. If you have a point to make just say it.

                • coffeeinmyveins on 31/01/2024 - 14:08

                  @Ughhh:

                  You didn't quote anything, you just made a statement. Quoting would be referencing the source, you didn't.

                  Just like you aren't? You're just making stuff up and creating strawmen.

                  Regardless, Trapper seems to doubt you/your source.

                  Good for them, they can google those stats or find them for themselves, just like you can.

                  Perhaps you could answer the questions. Who's the main perpetrator of violence against men?

                  Lol, I love this. Classic argument tactic by someone who doesn't care about the facts, you zero in on one part of something and lose sight of the bigger picture.

                  Also nice bit of victim blaming there. 42% of men in Australia have experienced physical violence, compared to 31% of women. But hey let's focus on "who did it" because "men bad". I'm not saying women aren't disadvantaged, but people like you make sweeping statements that men have it easy, are the problem and have it easy, but actual facts beg to differ.

                  • Ughhh on 31/01/2024 - 14:15
                    +1

                    @coffeeinmyveins:

                    Just like you aren't? You're just making stuff up and creating strawmen.

                    I'm not quoting someone else or quoting statistics. You are.

                    someone who doesn't care about the facts, you zero in on one part of something and lose sight of the bigger picture.

                    You only zero in one fact too. Why aren't you interested in the who and why to get a better idea of the bigger picture?

                    But hey let's focus on "who did it" because "men bad

                    I didn't say that. Nice straw man.

      • FlyingMiffy on 30/01/2024 - 20:32
        -2

        32.1 hours… right. Are you counting the hours that they "work" at home? Pay attention the next time someone brings you a beer while you watch the footy!

        • coffeeinmyveins on 31/01/2024 - 08:55

          . Are you counting the hours that they "work" at home

          What about the hours men work at home?

          I love how you are trying to apply 1950's logic to MEN but apply 2024 logic to WOMEN, you can't have your cake and eat it too, hun.

          Nice bit of sexism there.

      • Ughhh on 05/02/2024 - 21:06

        https://caringdads.org/about-caring-dads-1

        This is probably a good example of discriminatation, but in a good way.

        A resource dedicated to help men(fathers) who are violent and abusive.

  • original15 on 26/01/2024 - 23:15

    What field do you work in?

    • Muzeeb on 26/01/2024 - 23:29
      +43

      Corn field - so everyone has enough popcorn to go around.

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 27/01/2024 - 07:40
        +4

        That'll make cents. Cheers.

      • skittlebrau on 27/01/2024 - 11:32
        +4

        I'm adding this dad joke to my collection.

    • dimes on 27/01/2024 - 01:12
      -4

      I don't want to disclose that, sorry

      • SBOB on 27/01/2024 - 08:10
        +6

        In case it was relevant to the stereotype of gender workforce balance?

      • bobbified on 28/01/2024 - 16:51
        +5

        If you're in an industry like nursing (where it's 90% female) or teaching (75% female), then it should be no surprise to see the workplace reflect something that resembles those ratios.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join