Kevin Myers Article In the Indo -does he have a point?

Morgase

SWL wrote: »

That’s right don't do anything to her, she was probably under stress or having a bad day, bad luck on the poor sod who was branded a rapist and paedophile while loosing any right to freedom, having to do time with other sex offenders, and the oh so slight problem of emotional turmoil thrown in for good measure, not knowing how or what the future held, as for his family well what about them.

I never said don't punish her; I'm simply putting the question out there for discussion. I did say that it was not right what that man had to go through.

Dudess

I fully agree with Myers that there is less compassion for men in this context, but... why bring feminists into it? Since when is the Rape Crisis Centre a "feminist organisation"? Seems more like Myers is trying to push his anti feminist agenda - and doing so with the utmost of cynicism.

hobochris

Dudess wrote: »

I fully agree with Myers that there is less compassion for men in this context, but... why bring feminists into it? Since when is the Rape Crisis Centre a "feminist organisation"? Seems more like Myers is trying to push his anti feminist agenda - and doing so with the utmost of cynicism.

I don't usually agree with Myers but there are a lot of so called feminists pushing more rights for women as apposed to equal rights(I.e. they are pushing for feminine supremacy in our society, which IMO my opinion makes them not better then the those responsible for the past female oppression in our society), these people get away with hiding behind the feminist banner because they appear to be going in the same direction, but rather then stop when the scales of society are balanced they want to push them all the way until they are completely tipped.

why is the rape crisis center aimed at dealing with female victims of rape? as the article has proven there are male victims to(maybe not as many, but they still need the same help).

balanced and equal society for all: yes.

masculine or feminist dominated society: no!

Wibbs

cuckoo wrote: »

Slightly off topic: came across this today http://unahardestersmotherspeaks.blogspot.com/
claims to be a statement from the mother of the woman who made the allegations as a 10 year old that Myers mentions. From my reading of it, assuming it's legit, i'm left thinking the guards didn't perform too well in that case.

That was what I felt about the whole thing too. The relevant authorities were decidely inadequate in following it up. While I agree with some of what he says, I'm not so sure about dragging feminists into it. It's not really their remit IMHO. What would concern me more is that other groups, men for example, particularly men in the aforementioned authorities not do their jobs, in the case of the false allegation and not cause an outcry with the child molesting mother. Why are we looking to feminists to look out for men? It says more to me about the state of certain men than women tbh.

Dudess

Exactly. Christ, it would be a sad state of affairs if domestic violence and rape against women were feminist-only concerns.

Hobochris, the Rape Crisis Centre IS concerned with both male and female victims of sexual assault. And the Cork Rape Crisis Centre changed its name to reflect this a few years ago.

Wibbs

hobochris wrote: »

I don't usually agree with Myers but there are a lot of so called feminists pushing more rights for women as apposed to equal rights(I.e. they are pushing for feminine supremacy in our society, which IMO my opinion makes them not better then the those responsible for the past female oppression in our society), these people get away with hiding behind the feminist banner because they appear to be going in the same direction, but rather then stop when the scales of society are balanced they want to push them all the way until they are completely tipped.

why is the rape crisis center aimed at dealing with female victims of rape? as the article has proven there are male victims to(maybe not as many, but they still need the same help).

If one group seeks supremacy over another and looks like getting it, then I blame the lack of backbone in the group being targeted. If someone man or woman seeks to push my boundaries I tell them in no uncertain terms to sod off and back it up with action. If I'm being "oppressed" as an adult it's my job to fight it. I'm not looking for anyone else to do it. If men feel like they're getting a raw deal well then fight it and fight it hard. Let's say in the area like divorce, or child maintenance or access etc. If men feel like they're getting a raw deal well then sod this wishy washy guff and fight back.

I have a mate whose ex wife, pulled all sorts of guff with regarding access to his kids. He could have rolled over but he didn't. He fought her tooth and nail. When solicitors were telling him to give up he wouldn't. When he was getting emotional blackmail from all sides he refused to back down. He dragged her through every legal avenue open to him. At one point when she wouldn't comply and was stalling for time he cut off the money. He was threatened with all sorts and still he wouldn't give up. In the end he got what he wanted. If more did that, then things would change. Goes for any area where a group feels hard done. If you dont fight for what you feel is yours by right, you lose and frankly deserve to.

Same goes for rape allegations. Fight them. Get organised and I don't mean some bunch of eejits hugging each other going boo hoo or setting up committees that do nothing.

WindSock

Oh I hate to use this 'the other way around' mantra of morons argument, but here goes...


Just reading from the bottom of this article today:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/abuse-victims-relief-as-court-lifts-8364750000-bill-for-costs-1731144.html

Hickey was jailed for three years in 1998 after pleading guilty to 21 sample charges of indecent assaults on 21 girls.

This was a case against a male teacher, I reckon if the teacher was a female teacher who carried out assaults and got the same sentance, it would have been included in Myers article. Not that it has anything to do with feminsm or anything.

CDfm

Dudess wrote: »

Exactly. Christ, it would be a sad state of affairs if domestic violence and rape against women were feminist-only concerns.

Hobochris, the Rape Crisis Centre IS concerned with both male and female victims of sexual assault. And the Cork Rape Crisis Centre changed its name to reflect this a few years ago.

It would be really sad if these things were looked at purely on a gender basis but that is the criticism. The gender politics aquired a big "P".

Women are citizens too.

professore

Morgase wrote: »

I would describe myself as a feminist (or an egalitarian), and in the case of the mother raping her son I believe that she should be subject to the same laws as if it was a man committing the crime. That she was a woman makes the crime no less heinous imo.

As to the other case of the girl crying wolf, I'm not so sure what should be done. I don't think it is right that that man had to put up with his name being blackened for so long and that he had to jump through hoops to get his name cleared. However if the woman is punished for telling such terrible lies, will this discourage real victims from stepping forward in the future? The entire thing is saddening; all too often women are not believed and this surely didn't help.

She was 10 years old at the time. Seems bizarre to me that he was convicted solely on the evidence of a 10 year old whose father had some property dispute with the accused.

Morgase

professore wrote: »

She was 10 years old at the time. Seems bizarre to me that he was convicted solely on the evidence of a 10 year old whose father had some property dispute with the accused.

It is indeed bizarre. Have you read this blog by the girl's mother, referenced by one of the posters above? Makes for interesting reading. Seems that the system used by the guards and judiciary at the time needs to shoulder a lot of the blame.

CDfm

WindSock wrote: »

Oh I hate to use this 'the other way around' mantra of morons argument, but here goes...


Just reading from the bottom of this article today:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/abuse-victims-relief-as-court-lifts-8364750000-bill-for-costs-1731144.html





This was a case against a male teacher, I reckon if the teacher was a female teacher who carried out assaults and got the same sentance, it would have been included in Myers article. Not that it has anything to do with feminsm or anything.

It shouldnt be the other way around the law and its application should be gender neutral.

Here is an article that tackles that issue on women as sexual predators

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/women-are-ruthless-sexual-predators-too-131056.html

Another issue is female on male domestic violence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/domestic_violence/menhh_index.shtml

Men and women have the same rights and again DV should be gender neutral.

ilkhanid

Joey the lips wrote: »

Like you sunshine I dont always agree with kevin myers so I to am entitled to insult him was it not you that said this in after hours

"Kevin Myers had a piece about it in todays Indo. I don't always agree with him-to say the least-but this is spot on. He mentioned that other case that I referred to earlier. It happened in Cyprus. Little sympathy for the falsely accused man there either."

I have the right like many to say what I wish especially when it seems I am agreed with. I also dislike sen norris in the times between both of them they have more tabloid space then the sun star and mirror put together

I said I didn't always agree with him, but as an aside to my main point. You have nothing to say on the subject except "I don't like Kevin Myers...and David Norris". I suggest you start your own anti-Myers and Norris thread then.

herya

SWL wrote: »

That’s right don't do anything to her, she was probably under stress or having a bad day, bad luck on the poor sod who was branded a rapist and paedophile while loosing any right to freedom, having to do time with other sex offenders, and the oh so slight problem of emotional turmoil thrown in for good measure, not knowing how or what the future held, as for his family well what about them.

Read about this particular case first.

1. It was not a woman but a 10 yo girl at the time.
2. She did not name the offender, the gardai did based on family feud history.
3. She was not questioned properly and might have been led to agree about the suggested identity of the offender. It looks like the whole procedure was upside down. Her mother described it in detail in some article. Her father may or may have not had something to do with it (family feud again)
4. As a young adult she came back from USA to set it straight. This happened several years ago (three years? I might be wrong) but the victim nor his solicitor were not informed by the authorities at all, they learnt by coincidence when his family member bumped into her in the street or something.

This all looks like a major cockup with the gardai to point the finger at in the first place, the family in close second and the girl in far third.

And the rapist mother should serve exactly the same sentence as a rapist father would, not a day shorter...

Joey the lips

ilkhanid wrote: »

I said I didn't always agree with him, but as an aside to my main point. You have nothing to say on the subject except "I don't like Kevin Myers...and David Norris". I suggest you start your own anti-Myers and Norris thread then.

Well then you did not read my orig thread I said the man is to confusing to understand and I had to read the proper story in the irish examiner but i agree with you I should start an anti Kevin Myers David Norris thread! Where would i post that!

CDfm

Morgase wrote: »

It is indeed bizarre. Have you read this blog by the girl's mother, referenced by one of the posters above? Makes for interesting reading. Seems that the system used by the guards and judiciary at the time needs to shoulder a lot of the blame.

I think you miss the main thrust of Myers argument in that he says the feminist movement has been too silent on this. His argument is that their agenda has been adopted as state policy and this has resulted in unfair laws and an unjust system towards men as a result of these policies.

He accusses the Womens Movement of sitting on a fence when the policies it has promoted have resulted in injustice.So the system they push for is inherently unjust.

Thats his argument.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

I think you miss the main thrust of Myers argument in that he says the feminist movement has been too silent on this. His argument is that their agenda has been adopted as state policy and this has resulted in unfair laws and an unjust system towards men as a result of these policies.

He accusses the Womens Movement of sitting on a fence when the policies it has promoted have resulted in injustice.So the system they push for is inherently unjust.

Thats his argument.

I've written in a fair few posts about feminism on here and the same ideas keep getting thrown around. I'm surprised it took so long for this one to come up.

The idea here is that because women are "positively" discriminated against in family law, somehow the whole feminist agenda (whatever that is) has been adopted by the state and is pervasive throughout. Honestly, if you believe this, you'll believe Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks.

The problems with this idea are numerous but the main issues are that women are still not equal to men in many areas - surely if the "feminist agenda" has been adopted, women would be doing better than men?? No..?

Followers of this concept also conveniently ignore the fact that Ireland's treatment of men and women in family law is entirely based on a discriminatory division of labour between the genders. Women look after babies, therefore women get maternity leave and men don't. Women are caring and nurturing by nature therefore they couldn't ever possibly be violent towards another person. Women are sexually passive and therefore couldn't be a sexual aggressor.

Instead, all of this is ignored and the facts are twisted into some sort of bizarre feminist conspiracy theory.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

I've written in a fair few posts about feminism on here and the same ideas keep getting thrown around. I'm surprised it took so long for this one to come up.

Its the thrust of the argument really made by Myers -maybe not in those exact words but it seems to be what he is saying. Do you agree?

The idea here is that because women are "positively" discriminated against in family law, somehow the whole feminist agenda (whatever that is) has been adopted by the state and is pervasive throughout. Honestly, if you believe this, you'll believe Bush ordered the 9/11 attack

The thread isnt really about family law.

The problems with this idea are numerous but the main issues are that women are still not equal to men in many areas - surely if the "feminist agenda" has been adopted, women would be doing better than men?? No..?

I would like to see your arguments in relation to this one. Why the Womens Movement have remained silent on the issue.

Followers of this concept also conveniently ignore the fact that Ireland's treatment of men and women in family law is entirely based on a discriminatory division of labour between the genders. Women look after babies, therefore women get maternity leave and men don't. Women are caring and nurturing by nature therefore they couldn't ever possibly be violent towards another person. Women are sexually passive and therefore couldn't be a sexual aggressor.

This is sidetracking the issue and its easy to get bogged down in the Family Law issue which is bound to put the thread off track.

What do you think on this particular issue on false accusations,wrongful conviction and the silence of the Womens Movement.

Instead, all of this is ignored and the facts are twisted into some sort of bizarre feminist conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory accusations on boards are like Godwins -ya dont need to use it.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

The thread isnt really about family law.

I didn't say it was. My point was that there are a few areas in Irish law where women experience positive discrimination. Instead of thinking it's all part of the feminist plan, people like Myers should realise that this positive discrimination has its roots in inherently discriminatory attitudes towards women. Family law is one of those areas, the concept of women as sexual aggressors is another.

Need I point out the usual lewd comments that are made when a young male under the age of consent has sex with a young, attractive women who is over the age of consent? Never the other way around.

CDfm wrote: »

I would like to see your arguments in relation to this one. Why the Womens Movement have remained silent on the issue.

I think I've already laid out my arguments quite clearly. I don't feel the need to repeat myself.

CDfm wrote: »

This is sidetracking the issue and its easy to get bogged down in the Family Law issue which is bound to put the thread off track.

And again, I think I've drawn a pretty clear thread between the two above. My aim isn't to take it off course, just to draw a comparison with a similar example.

CDfm wrote: »

What do you think on this particular issue on false accusations,wrongful conviction and the silence of the Womens Movement.

First, please tell me what this WOmens Movement is, who are its members and what their opinions are.

Of course false accusations and wrongful convictions are terrible but there are worse things. We have a tiny fraction of rapists that are brought to justice but what we end up talking about are the few, over-hyped cases of wrongful convictions. This is totally blown out of proportion

CDfm wrote: »

Conspiracy theory accusations on boards are like Godwins -ya dont need to use it.

If it looks like a duck and sound like a duck.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

I think you miss the main thrust of Myers argument in that he says the feminist movement has been too silent on this. His argument is that their agenda has been adopted as state policy and this has resulted in unfair laws and an unjust system towards men as a result of these policies.

He accusses the Womens Movement of sitting on a fence when the policies it has promoted have resulted in injustice.So the system they push for is inherently unjust.

Thats his argument.

And its nothing more than a flimsy strawman. To say that the feminist movement (as a whole? Way to homogenise the thousands of feminist movements in the world CDfm!) generally deal with issues relating to feminism, not legal issues under the very specific heading of miscarriages of justice. Feminism does not promote a system designed to discriminate.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't say it was. My point was that there are a few areas in Irish law where women experience positive discrimination.

So you are saying that what happened is justified. What happened is ugly.

Instead of thinking it's all part of the feminist plan, people like Myers should realise that this positive discrimination has its roots in inherently discriminatory attitudes towards women. Family law is one of those areas, the concept of women as sexual aggressors is another.

I wouldnt know anything about conspiracy theories but some theorists call it gender feminism. How can it be positive to trample on someone elses Human Rights?

Do you accept that women can be aggressors?

I have a mate whose ex wife, pulled all sorts of guff with regarding access to his kids. He could have rolled over but he didn't. He fought her tooth and nail. When solicitors were telling him to give up he wouldn't. When he was getting emotional blackmail from all sides he refused to back down. He dragged her through every legal avenue open to him. At one point when she wouldn't comply and was stalling for time he cut off the money. He was threatened with all sorts and still he wouldn't give up. In the end he got what he wanted. If more did that, then things would change. Goes for any area where a group feels hard done. If you dont fight for what you feel is yours by right, you lose and frankly deserve to.

This is anecdotal and Wibbs is hardly reactionary or She Guevera but without getting dragged into the family law debate if a lot of men have the same generic experience it may seem that there is a certain shared ideology being promoted by these groups.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

So you are saying that what happened is justified. What happened is ugly.

Now you're just looking for things that just aren't there. I never said that and you're really stretching to pull that out of what I wrote.

CDfm wrote: »

I wouldnt know anything about conspiracy theories but some theorists call it gender feminism. How can it be positive to trample on someone elses Human Rights?

Do you accept that women can be aggressors?

I didn't say it was positive. The trend is given the name "positive discrimination". Of course I accept that women can be aggressors. To deny that would be incredibly sexist.

I've heard all about gender feminism in Humanities. For such a small movement, it gets picked up on suspiciously quickly by people trying to attack feminism. :rolleyes: It's very easy to attack a movement when you only look at the most extreme element. Using this logic, I can dismiss all environmentalists are violent criminals because of the actions of one, tiny group called the ELF.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't say it was. My point was that there are a few areas in Irish law where women experience positive discrimination. Instead of thinking it's all part of the feminist plan, people like Myers should realise that this positive discrimination has its roots in inherently discriminatory attitudes towards women.

Feminism does not promote a system designed to discriminate.

IT does seem that you disagree with taconnal who says there is positive discrimination towards women.

If you extend this to what happened to Wibbs' friend his point is that such is that there is injustice and it really shouldnt be so.

So as people should we look at these issues as gender issues or human rights.

brianthebard wrote: »

And its nothing more than a flimsy strawman. To say that the feminist movement (as a whole? Way to homogenise the thousands of feminist movements in the world CDfm!) generally deal with issues relating to feminism, not legal issues under the very specific heading of miscarriages of justice.

But Brian he is not the only one saying this.

I take it from some of your posts that you have more than a passing interest in this and that sopme of your interest is academic.

When you get organisations like the National Council for Women just having the word National in the name and state funding means it is more than a social club. It has to be.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the membership constituent boards etc of the various organisations, NGOs and Quango's to see how close the links are. I wonder if such a comparison has everr been done??

On State Grant Aid you also have funding on DV issues or mens groups granted along gender lines and this is seen by many as unequal.

So I question your definition of a movement.

Wibbs

CDfm wrote: »

I would like to see your arguments in relation to this one. Why the Womens Movement have remained silent on the issue

I would still be of the opinion it's not their job. So then the obvious question is whose job is it? I say mens or society's at large. Now I would say that women getting their rightful dues as equal members of society(and in some areas they have some way to go) has thrown a lot of men. Hell we've a generation of men that either to afraid to say boo to a woman who is taking the píss, or start ranting impotently faced with the same woman. IMHO This has trickled up through the ranks where many men(and women) are afraid to call foul on a woman lest they be seen as sexist. It's not the women's movement per se that has caused this, more a lack of spine or balance to the argument in general.

CDfm wrote:

This is anecdotal and Wibbs is hardly reactionary or She Guevera but without getting dragged into the family law debate if a lot of men have the same generic experience it may seem that there is a certain shared ideology being promoted by these groups.

Again I would say the same thing applies. Most of the men this guy knew going through the same thing did nothing and rolled over, or pushed a bit at the start, but were worn down by emotional blackmail or failures in the system along the way. This guy refused to give up. He would not budge. He would have gone to prison before he would have given her or the "system" an inch. At one point when he refused to pay maintenance, he got a lot of stick for that, both legal threats and emotional blackmail. His take was if he's paying for something he should be getting something in return and as he wasn't he stopped paying. He would not be turned and frankly regardless of the situation or morals behind that, I admire him for it.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

IT does seem that you disagree with taconnal who says there is positive discrimination towards women.

If you extend this to what happened to Wibbs' friend his point is that such is that there is injustice and it really shouldnt be so.

So as people should we look at these issues as gender issues or human rights.

CDfm, I'm not talking about affirmative action, or quotas. Perhaps I used the wrong phrasing but when I said "positive discrimination", I'm talking about quirks in our law that result in a few select "benefits" for women (eg they're not viewed as aggressors/sexual attackers and they get more time off for the birth of a child).

My whole point is that it ISN'T the result of a conscious effort to improve the lot of women but rather is a side-effect of the deeply ingrained sexism in certain areas of Irish law. And, very often these "benefits" actually end up directly hindering rather than helping women, as is the case with maternity leave - never mind how the whole attitude towards women as being meek and passive negatively impacts on women in a myriad of of ways, including negative reactions towards women who are more demanding (they're bitchy, not assertive like men).

Myers picks out these exceptions to the rule, ignores their origins and numerous negative side-effects and then claims to have proven to found the feminist "agenda". It's utter tripe.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

But Brian he is not the only one saying this.

I take it from some of your posts that you have more than a passing interest in this and that sopme of your interest is academic.

When you get organisations like the National Council for Women just having the word National in the name and state funding means it is more than a social club. It has to be.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the membership constituent boards etc of the various organisations, NGOs and Quango's to see how close the links are. I wonder if such a comparison has everr been done??

On State Grant Aid you also have funding on DV issues or mens groups granted along gender lines and this is seen by many as unequal.

So I question your definition of a movement.

Is the organisation you mentioned the National Council for Women, or is it the National Council of Women, responsible for legally challenging possible miscarriages of justice in the Irish judicary system? If its the latter then you are right, by not speaking up they were being hypocrtical. However if its the former, then you're wrong.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Is the organisation you mentioned the National Council for Women, or is it the National Council of Women, responsible for legally challenging possible miscarriages of justice in the Irish judicary system? If its the latter then you are right, by not speaking up they were being hypocrtical. However if its the former, then you're wrong.

Thanks Brian - I wasnt aware that there were 2 similar named organisations- but it does get confusing.

Another -topic raised on DV issues is that women and men abuse each others in equal numbers but and that female violence goes underreported in the same way rape does. This publication of a bibliography of hundreds by California State University is often used to support this

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Critics of feminist organisations say that domestic violence by women on children and men is deliberately hidden by them and that these are not reflected in high profile media and fund-raising activities.

That may be a cynical view but thats what the critics say.

Communicationb

Dudess wrote: »

No, feminists fight for equality - and feminists aren't solely women. You obviously have the usual misinformed view of what a feminist is.

And where exactly do men and women not have equal rights?

The feminist movement seems to be based on perception alone and not fact.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

CDfm, I'm not talking about affirmative action, or quotas. Perhaps I used the wrong phrasing but when I said "positive discrimination", I'm talking about quirks in our law that result in a few select "benefits" for women (eg they're not viewed as aggressors/sexual attackers and they get more time off for the birth of a child).

I started the thread to "air" the article not to preach. I'm a modern guy but being PC is not one of my strong points.

You're phrasing is fine and and there are equality issues that need addressing.

My whole point is that it ISN'T the result of a conscious effort to improve the lot of women but rather is a side-effect of the deeply ingrained sexism in certain areas of Irish law. And, very often these "benefits" actually end up directly hindering rather than helping women, as is the case with maternity leave - never mind how the whole attitude towards women as being meek and passive negatively impacts on women in a myriad of of ways, including negative reactions towards women who are more demanding (they're bitchy, not assertive like men).

A mouthful and I dont know precisely what you mean. Thats not a criticism BTW. Could you elaborate with a few examples.

Myers picks out these exceptions to the rule, ignores their origins and numerous negative side-effects and then claims to have proven to found the feminist "agenda". It's utter tripe.

Kevin Myers is Kevin Myers and he is a media personality and people understand this about him.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks Brian - I wasnt aware that there were 2 similar named organisations- but it does get confusing.

Another -topic raised on DV issues is that women and men abuse each others in equal numbers but and that female violence goes underreported in the same way rape does. This publication of a bibliography of hundreds by California State University is often used to support this

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Critics of feminist organisations say that domestic violence by women on children and men is deliberately hidden by them and that these are not reflected in high profile media and fund-raising activities.

That may be a cynical view but thats what the critics say.

And what does the evidence say? I'll assume from your sarcastic reply at the top that you concede you are wrong?

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

And what does the evidence say? I'll assume from your sarcastic reply at the top that you concede you are wrong?

No sarcasm there- I just said that there are 2 similar named organisations and I find that confusing.

The evidence suggests DV is perpetrated equal amongst genders.Critics of the Irish model say that state funding for DV initiatives discriminate in favour of women as does public policy.

It doesnt matter if you dont want to comment or have a view. I didnt start the thread to get involved in a polarised debate.