Over the last couple of years I've had several interactions with Tom and he has been both decent in decorum and helpful in regards to me furthering my studies how to better reach men.

I post many good videos on here, but this one is a cut above. I highly recommend the watch for anyone who has time.

 

Articles like this make me feel a great sense of despair.

Happy international men's day, everyone.

Male Clinicians Miss Microaggressions Their Female Peers Notice

Troy Brown, RN

November 19, 2019

Men underestimate how often women experience microaggressions in clinic and hospital settings, according to a study published online in Academic Medicine.

Study participants viewed videos depicting situations in which microaggressions — "subtle verbal or nonverbal everyday behaviors that arise from unconscious bias, covert prejudice, or hostility" — did and did not occur.

"[W]hen watching videos of microaggressions, men think they happen less frequently than do women," Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, a scholar in residence at Stanford University School of Medicine, California, told Medscape Medical News.

"In other words, men may not notice all the ways in which women's work and authority are undermined in everyday interactions," continued Salles, who was not involved in this study but has published on implicit bias among healthcare professionals.

For the current study, Vyjeyanthi S. Periyakoil, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Stanford Aging and Ethnogeriatrics Center at Stanford University School of Medicine, California, and colleagues collected "real-life anecdotes" about microaggressions from women faculty in medicine. They identified 34 unique experiences from the anecdotes, scripted them, and had professional actors reenact those experiences in 68 videos — 34 that depicted the microaggressions and 34 corresponding fictional videos of the same situations without the microaggressions (control videos).

They then recruited 124 faculty members (79 women, 45 men) from four academic medical centers to view the videos in random order and say how commonly think similar events are at their own institution. Participants were racially and ethnically diverse, and of various age groups and academic ranks. Both women and men had been employed in medicine for a median of 15 years.

For 33 of the 34 videos that depicted microaggressions, women reported "much higher frequencies of the microaggressions depicted" compared with men, the authors explain.

"In stark contrast, men reported these microaggressions to be uncommon," write Rao and colleagues. The researchers found no such differences between women and men when participants watched the control videos.

Key demographic factors — including age, race/ethnicity, academic rank, and number of years in medicine — had no significant effects on the study findings.

The researchers grouped the most common microaggressions into six themes; of the 21 microaggressions identified by women, the most common was encountering sexism, which occurred in six videos. The next most common microaggression was encountering pregnancy and childcare-related bias (five videos), followed by having abilities underestimated (four videos), encountering sexually inappropriate comments (three videos), being relegated to mundane tasks (two videos), and feeling excluded/marginalized (one video).

Salles said she wonders why the researchers asked participants how often these microaggressions happen in general and not specifically to women, when women were their target population. "This could be part of why men perceived these events to occur less frequently than did women," Salles explained, adding that it is possible that men's responses may have been different if they had been asked how frequently such microaggressions happen to women specifically.

When Microaggressions Do Occur

Salles said that when these incidents occur, safety is the first concern. The individual may or may not be safe where they are, and it may or may not be safe for the individual to say something at that time.

Power dynamics between the individual and the perpetrator, whether the relationship is "a one-time interaction or a long-term relationship," and the nature of the microaggression are all important factors to consider. If the individual does decide to say something, he or she needs to decide when to speak up. "Sometimes it's best to take the person aside and address it at a different time," Salles explained.

Bystanders have a great deal of power and may be "in a stronger position to respond," she added. They may wish to support the individual at the time of the incident or later, or they may decide to confront the perpetrator when the incident happens or after the fact.

If an individual does decide to speak up, Salles recommends "trying to understand where the person is coming from and framing the problem with 'I' statements such as, 'I feel x when you say y.' But having this conversation requires trust, and that isn't always present."

People are sometimes reluctant to get involved in a situation in which they are not the target, Salles pointed out. "This attitude, while commonplace, contributes to negative work environments. If, for example, I am the target of a microaggression and no one around me says anything about it, that indicates that they are ok with it. In the long run, that is damaging and leads the target to feel like they don't belong."

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Academic Medicine. Published online ahead of print October 29, 2019. Abstract

Follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube

 

International men's day? How gay is that? Go chop some firewood, Buttercup. You'll feel better.

   This is stupidity on a level that is hard to even quantify.      

As a pre-condition for studying something you must believe it exists - whether or not any credible evidence of it is present.   Believing something exists is the classic qualifier for confirmation bias.  Microaggression?  What, exactly, is that and how is it distinguishable from being focused on the job at hand instead and expecting adults to function as adults instead of playing stupid games?

 In this case the study didn't even use actual evidence from actual instances of what they claim to be studying.  Oh no, that would be too difficult to verify and produce actual evidence of.  What we need to do is arrange a series of skits ( based on unconfirmed anecdotes ) written for and performed by "professional actors" who were presumably directed and filmed by a "professional" director and film crew in the production of the 34 video skits. We're just going to have these folks show us what "implicit bias" and "microaggression" looks like in a work place scenario - to the best of their ability. No chance of any interpretive bias or exaggeration happening in that process.  Right.   

I think the question that we, as a society, should be asking the people in academia is, " Yes, but can you do anything useful? ".     

If I were to try to see things from their perspective I'm sure they feel they are doing a great good for the world culture at large. They feel they are socially engineering society for the better.

If their rules sometimes come across as a radical religious dogma that must be followed at all times, or else there will be severe and unpleasant consequences, I'm sure they can wave it away by saying "to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs"  .

Turd  . It's no different than the two weeks (as broadcasted on cable television) we're obligated to sit through for women's day.

Sure it is.  They actually take that kind of sh*t seriously.   

Celebrities are behind a great many of the social movements we have seen. It's nice to see someone break away from that.

Jordan Peterson has regularly been on this thread. He's been having a rough go of things.

Here is his daughter with the update:

I think Janice Fiamengo was correct when she had previously said that feminists quest for ultimate liberation would in an odd sense bring us back to puritan times with gender segregation and chaperones. Which, by the way, this article was shared by Janice Fiamengo.

The right of the business owner is clear cut. He can admit whomever he wishes.

The gender politics are bizarre though, as both genders continue to mistrust one another and malice continues to build. Who knows how it will end?

https://6abc.com/amp/5934346/

MEN-ONLY BARBERSHOP DEFENDS DECISION TO KICK WOMAN OUT: 'THIS IS PEOPLE GETTING OFFENDED BECAUSE THEY CAN'

PONCA CITY, Okla. -- A woman said she tried to go to an Oklahoma barbershop with her husband but was asked to leave because she's female.

The owner of King's Kuts in Ponca City, about 100 miles north of Oklahoma City, said his barbershop has a strict no girlfriends or wives policy.

Yet Maliki Skowronski said this is just chauvinism. She said her husband needed a haircut and beard trim, so they went to King's Kuts. Before he could even sit in the chair, she was getting kicked out.

"The man kind of ignores my husband, directly approaches me and says, 'I'm sorry, but we have a strict no women policy. You can't be here,'" she told KFOR-TV.

Owner Daxton Nichols said he can see how some may misunderstand King Kut's no-women rule but said he thinks it's no different than the way other salons operate.

"In New York City, there's over 17 women's only clubs where women can go and do the salon thing," he said. "They can go get their nails done, hair done, talk business amongst each other, and do that whole women's power hear me roar stuff."

ABC Owned Stations reporting found no specific examples of women-only hair salons in New York City beside Le'Jemalik, a Brooklyn salon that caters to Muslim women.

Nichols said those salons, like his, are considered private clubs.

"So men actually pay memberships to get their hair cut here?" KFOR's reporter asked.

"Yeah, when they pay a $20 fee," Nichols said.

"OK, so you're counting the fee for the hair as a membership fee?" the reporter said.

"Why not?" he said.

Scott Seagraves, the barber who asked Skowronski to leave, said his decision was not made because of discrimination but to preserve the shop's "man cave" environment.

"We want guys to be able to come in here and be guys and not have to worry what they say or what they talk about because there's a lady present," Seagraves said.

Nichols maintained that people are getting offended by his shop's rule "because they can," but Skowronski said this is an unfair way to treat people.

"It's not cute, no matter how you describe it," she said. "It's not cute, you can't treat people that way." 

https://regardingmen.com/does-sports-talk-in-the-office-victimize-women/


Does Sports Talk in the Office Victimize Women?

January 29, 2020    Posted by   Janice Fiamengo

This is what feminist leaders are concerned about these days—and the narrative is a predictable as feminist pie, involving child-like women and predatory “lads.”

Various news agencies recently reported that Chartered Management Institute head Ann Francke has claimed that “sports banter can exclude women” in office environments—and that office managers should be on the lookout for it.

The Chartered Management Institute is a professional organization in Britain with over 80,000 members. It publishes magazines about business practices and advises government and other organizations on business-related policies. Like nearly every other organization in the western world, it seems to have gone full-on feminist: not only in advocating for equality of outcome in business, but in suggesting that men’s behaviors need to be strictly controlled in the office even to the extent of punishing men for talking about subjects that some women may not find interesting.

According to Ms. Francke in an interview on British public television, office managers and bosses should limit employees’ discussion of sport because such talk creates an unsafe or unwelcoming environment for women. The problem is that not all women “follow sports” and many “don’t like either being forced to talk about [sports] or not being included.”

The suggestion has been widely ridiculed for its nanny-like dictatorialism. Forcing people to limit their conversations on the basis that some *might* feel excluded will surely stifle whatever natural camaraderie could be found in many workspaces.

What has been less discussed in the general outcry is the overt anti-male bias evident in this woman’s comments. Though she did not advocate outright “banning” sports talk (merely “controlling” or “moderating” it—well, that’s better, isn’t it?), her decision to focus only on men’s presumed exclusion of women, and particularly on the presumed association between sports talk and so-called misogyny, reveals her kneejerk suspicion and dislike of men and masculinity.

We’ve already seen multiple feminist attacks over the past few years on normal male behaviors at work, from jokes, friendly touching, and requests for dates (now all potentially classed as “sexual harassment” and liable to be severely punished) to the way men sit or stand (“manspreading”) to the way they converse (“mansplaining”). Now male sports enthusiasm has come under the punitive gaze of the feminist censor. According to Francke, “discussing football and, for example, the merits of video assistant refereeing (VAR) can disproportionately exclude women and divide offices.”

It’s easy enough to imagine a scenario where an obsessive focus on sport might indeed exclude some women. But it’s just as easy to imagine a scenario in which high-spirited sports chat could well contribute to general goodwill and office unity. Are women not mature agents capable of interacting with their male peers on a mutually respectful basis? Is Francke herself not guilty of reductive gender stereotyping in assuming that all men are crazy for football while no woman is? Furthermore, are not women equally—if not more—capable of focusing on subjects (feminism, for example) likely to bore or alienate their male peers? How far does Francke think managers should go in monitoring the subjects their employees discuss?

Of course, we know how far she thinks they should go: only men are to be monitored, only female feelings of distress are to be taken into account, and the entire basis for office surveillance is the insulting and groundless assumption that all men are just one sports-related anecdote or observation away from verbal “violence.” According to Francke, football discussion is dangerous because “It’s very easy for it to escalate from VAR talk and chat to slapping each other on the back and talking about their conquests at the weekend.”

“Conquests.” It’s a rather antiquated word for 2020, 50 years into a revolution led by women like Gloria Steinem who claimed to oppose “slut-shaming” and declared women perfectly capable of making their own sexual decisions. They were not “conquests,” a sexist term that saw women as passive objects of male desire; they were sexual beings who preferred freedom to protection, and who declared their right to talk about sex or engage in sexual activity in any way they wanted.

The feminism of an Ann Francke, and of many other feminist leaders today, has become the very caricature it was (rightly) suspected of being from the beginning: a censorious and prudish initiative opposed to male being-in-the-world and obsessed with female vulnerability, incapacity, and purity.

A woman with attitudes so at variance with reality has no business advising government, setting policy, or outlining good managerial practice. She should be laughed out of her role as quickly as possible. But she likely won’t be. 

I don't keep up with sports at all. Does that exclude me from office chat?

I demand they talk about stuff in which I have interest, guns, knives, and swords.

I don't keep up with sports at all. Does that exclude me from office chat?

I demand they talk about stuff in which I have interest, guns, knives, and swords.

Not enough sword talk in the office = Patriarchy  .