Mens Rights

Soul Stretcher

The Corinthian : "I think there's a lot of generalization in what you've suggested. For example while there are many men scraping by and women going to India for 5 years, the reverse is also equally true. Reading through your thread, I could not but get the feeling that it was built on resentment that bordered on misogyny." (Sorry - havn't got the hang of that quoting function ! )


I think you've misunderstood my post. I was making the point that the Men's Rights should be re-named Low Status Men's Rights (as in the first line of my previous post).

The going to India for 5 years comment wasn't a dig at women who do that (hey I may even do it myself in the future ) - I was trying to make a distinction between the Low Status Man who is living hand-to-mouth and those who have money or status behind them (both Men and Women). Those people who have a bit of a cushion in life (both Men and Women) experience a different Ireland, in my opinion, to the Minimum wage-worker who didn't make it to college or get a trade.

This "Low Status" (in socio-economic terms - even though we're all the same really) Man is the MOST discriminated against in our society - the most kept under the thumb.

Please re-read my post in that light and go easy on throwing out the accusations of misogny until you know further !! Thank you !!

Soul Stretcher

Just been thinking about how disconcerting to one side it is when the other side throws out labels like Misogyny, Misandry, Feminism, Masculism etc.

I think labels like those, while useful for scoring points/one-up-manship in a debate, do nothing but drive wedges between the two sides.

We're all human beings at the end of the day. I'm sure there's loads of women out there who are sensitive to the plight of unmarried fathers etc just as many men are sensitive to women's issues.

I think "thinking" about these issues in forums where one side is pitched against another is going to do nothing but regurgitate old material over and over again until one side feels it has "won" the argument.

What we need is effective equality on the ground - in the workplace and in the home. That will only be achieved by one man or one woman at a time, saying "no" to unfair treatment or making a stand for their dignity as human beings.

Easy said, hard to do. But such is life I guess.

kayos

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood my post. I was making the point that the Men's Rights should be re-named Low Status Men's Rights (as in the first line of my previous post).

Its Equal rights for everyone is what everyone should be looking for. By everyone I mean Male, Female, Low earner, High earner. By Equal rights we are talking rights that are protected by the law of the lands. If I can afford to go on a two week holiday and you can not that is no difference in rights.

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

Just been thinking about how disconcerting to one side it is when the other side throws out labels like Misogyny, Misandry, Feminism, Masculism etc.

I think labels like those, while useful for scoring points/one-up-manship in a debate, do nothing but drive wedges between the two sides.

But you apply the label "Low Status" to some? I'm sorry but you are making the two sides into 4 High and Low, Male and Female.

Soul Stretcher

In theory yes - Equal rights for everyone - which is the only way generally speaking Laws can be compatible with the Constitution.

In reality High Status people don't need rights enshrined in Law - as they can generally purchase what they need.

Talking about "rights" is so broad as to be almost non-sensical. For example - is a 2 week holiday (as in previous post) a "right" ? No not at the moment - as there are more pressing concerns such as Guardianship. Would an Utopian Irish society of the future send its citizens off to Europe for a week a year to look at the amazing galleries in places like Florence ? Possibly.

I realise that "Low Status" and "High Status" are adding more labels - i.e just making the debate more complicated.

But all this talk of rights MUST pay attention to those LEAST able to vindicate their rights i.e. those on low incomes as opposed to those on high incomes - a generalization I know. But isn't all talk of "rights" generalizing to an extent. Unless we are to make up a Statute book for each and every citizen.

For example the Courts exist in part to vindicate rights of the Citizens. Access to the Courts in cases that are not clear-cut and perhaps NEW (for example establishing equal access to children of separated parents) costs a hell of a lot of money - e.g. if you were appeal to European Court of Human Rights.

To create a perfectly equal society ( if we ever will) we need to talk into account the real-life economic barriers some people face.

Nevyn

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

For example the Courts exist in part to vindicate rights of the Citizens. Access to the Courts in cases that are not clear-cut and perhaps NEW (for example establishing equal access to children of separated parents) costs a hell of a lot of money - e.g. if you were appeal to European Court of Human Rights.

To create a perfectly equal society ( if we ever will) we need to talk into account the real-life economic barriers some people face.

Esp in this country you have what rights you can afford to push for,
if cases on the decriminalisation of homosexuality for example had not gone to the EU high courts then it would still be illegal.

kayos

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

In reality High Status people don't need rights enshrined in Law - as they can generally purchase what they need.

Talking about "rights" is so broad as to be almost non-sensical. For example - is a 2 week holiday (as in previous post) a "right" ? No not at the moment - as there are more pressing concerns such as Guardianship.

If I was an unmarried father with billions in the bank I would still not have the right of guardianship of my child. No matter how much money I had. I can not buy what the law does not allow or protect. This is what I am saying rights are rights, purchasing power is a totally different thing and tbh is outside this debate imho.

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

But all this talk of rights MUST pay attention to those LEAST able to vindicate their rights i.e. those on low incomes as opposed to those on high incomes - a generalization I know. But isn't all talk of "rights" generalizing to an extent. Unless we are to make up a Statute book for each and every citizen.

No if we are talking about equal right between genders then money should not come into it. It should be the same for the begger on the street to the billionares. They are Human they have rights and those rights should be equal to other Humans period.

However I have to admit you do have a point the enforcement of any rights should not be dependant on money. But again thats not the same as having the rights in the first place.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Esp in this country you have what rights you can afford to push for,
if cases on the decriminalisation of homosexuality for example had not gone to the EU high courts then it would still be illegal.

You shouldnt have to push for rights they should be guaranteed,protected by and enforced by the state. Rights should be inalienable and for the common weal etc etc etc. My problem with the genderist movements is that they have a "might is right agenda".

Nevyn

Should be but they aren't.
Like lack of the ratification of the un charter of the rights of the child.
It's been over 20 years but due to the sorry state of education and the family law situation they don't want to ratify it.

CDfm

I imagine my views are different to yours. More regulation for an area where the current regulations arent working and adminstered by the same ineffectual bunch.

Will

Can we not have a discussion without name calling or trying to belittle others? It would be awesome, super awesome.

Also just on an earlier post, if someone decides to have a whine OR well structured post (people seem to be confused) in here grand as long as it's in keeping with the forum.

otherwise awesome thread ^_^

The Corinthian

@Soul Stretcher: Fair enough, I missread your post.

@Klingon Hamlet: Also fair enough, although my question was more general and not specifically aimed at you. The reality is active campaigning by men on such issues is a tiny fraction of what it is with women's issues.

Thaedydal wrote: »

if cases on the decriminalisation of homosexuality for example had not gone to the EU high courts then it would still be illegal.

This is an interesting point as it is related to one of the two areas that I cited in my first post in this thread.

Social discrimination, such as the attitude held by many regarding both men and women, are a complex area that will require a lot of work before they are changed.

However, the legal discrimination is in many cases pretty clear cut and easily demonstrable as contrary to any principle of gender equality in European law; all that it needs is to be challenged. For me, it seems odd that no one has attempted to set up campaigns to raise the money to make these challenges, especially as many are legal 'sure things' - instead leaving it to individuals to do so over time.

If challenges were brought to many of these laws, one by one forcing the government to reform them, it would quickly become viable for the government to proactively reform them rather than continually defend outdated laws in expensive court cases that they know they will lose.

Personally I know several solicitors and barristers who would jump at the chance to peruse such cases and I suspect that one would have little difficulty raising money for such a cause.

Just a thought.

Zombrex

Via wrote: »

The seventh result, presumably in the World...

IS THE VERY F***ING PAGE YOURE READING RIGHT NOW.

Umm, perhaps you should learn how Google works.

CDfm

Isnt it such a shame that DV support is dealt with along gender lines , and when I see an article like this, I always feel sorry for the female victims but also get a bad feeling that the resourses available are only available based on gender.

I know I have said it before -but if DV was dealt with as an issue it would have a knock on affect in future generations as it is largely learned and socialised behaviour.

This is one reason why I disagree with the gender politic of the Womens Rights and even Mens Rights movements -they rarely want to see the others point of view and wont let facts get in the way of an agenda.

So while I am saddened at the figures -they would be twice as high if men were being catered for by the same groups.

irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 09:44 More seek domestic violence services






The number of women accessing domestic violence services increased by 43 per cent in the period 2007-2009, a report published this morning states.
More than 7,400 women received support from such services last year, compared to 6,111 in 2008 and 5,195 in 2007, according to a census by Safe Ireland, which represents 40 domestic violence services throughout the State.

Safe Ireland said the increase came as essential supports and shelters to help women and children who fall a victim to domestic violence were being cut down because of funding shortages brought about by the recession.

“Women experiencing domestic violence in Ireland right now are running a high risk of being caught in the trap of recession, poverty, lack of options and homelessness,” the organisations director Sharon O’Halloran said.

“We are seeing an unprecedented increase in the number of women coming to us at a time when vital funding and support provision is being cut down. We are seriously gambling with women and children’s safety.”

Safe Ireland said that on a single day last year, November 4th, 182 women and 247 children were in refuge or transitional housing and a further six women could not be accommodated because there was not enough space.

“This is an astounding number of people needing space in which to live. And this is only one day’s fall out from the horrific crime that is domestic violence,” Ms O’Halloran said

.

BumbleB

Via wrote: »

Why do you think it is that no one seems to be fighting for, campaigning for, or even just talking about, Mens Rights or Equality?

Is there a movement? A platform? An organization? A group of any sort???

Or is this thread the only place where you are very welcome to discuss your concerns...

thats cause were too busy watching man U down at the local,

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, the legal discrimination is in many cases pretty clear cut and easily demonstrable as contrary to any principle of gender equality in European law; all that it needs is to be challenged. For me, it seems odd that no one has attempted to set up campaigns to raise the money to make these challenges, especially as many are legal 'sure things' - instead leaving it to individuals to do so over time.

If challenges were brought to many of these laws, one by one forcing the government to reform them, it would quickly become viable for the government to proactively reform them rather than continually defend outdated laws in expensive court cases that they know they will lose.

Personally I know several solicitors and barristers who would jump at the chance to peruse such cases and I suspect that one would have little difficulty raising money for such a cause.

Just a thought.

There has to be the want and will to make it happen and to get organised,
a lot of men aren't aware of the situation in family law and their lack of rights and entitlements until they are about to have a child and then discover the lack of paternity leave ect. So they are in a stressful time in their life and don't have the time/energy to try and fight for it.

There has to be the Want and the Will to make it happen which is why lobby/pressure groups need to be formed, but until this happens and then awareness is raised it won't gain enough momentum, that's the grassroots way.

The other is for someone with who has the interest and money to take in on and make it happen, this doesn't tend to happen in social issues.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

There has to be the Want and the Will to make it happen which is why lobby/pressure groups need to be formed, but until this happens and then awareness is raised it won't gain enough momentum, that's the grassroots way.

Judging by the lack of response to my idea, let alone enthusiasm, I unfortunately suspect there is precious little Want or Will out there.

amiable

The Corinthian wrote: »

Judging by the lack of response to my idea, let alone enthusiasm, I unfortunately suspect there is precious little Want or Will out there.

Just an opinion i have but i don't think everything about fathers rights is black and white.
I know of several cases where its taken a few years for men to step up to the plate and accept their resposibilities but when they do they want equal rights as the mother who's been a good mother from day one.
Only an observation. Obviously there's a hell of alot of men out there who are good from day one too and they deserve credit and better rights too.

CDfm

There seems to be a lot of denial out there that rights should be equal in terms of gender, orientation etc.

If you subscribe to the belief that rights are gender based -well the arguments make some sense -otherwise the arguments are pretty ridiculous.

The Corinthian

amiable wrote: »

I know of several cases where its taken a few years for men to step up to the plate and accept their resposibilities but when they do they want equal rights as the mother who's been a good mother from day one.

It doesn't work that way though - you are making the assumption that the mother has been a good mother from day one, in reality her rights are automatic regardless of whether this is the case. Women get their rights on the basis of gender, not on the basis of being a good parent.

There are plenty of cases where mothers are either not so or simply walk out after birth, sometimes leaving the child in the care a father who technically has no legal rights to the child - yet the mother bizarrely cannot lose their guardianship rights, excluding adoption, no matter what they do.

All of which also makes the assumption too that father's rights are interchangeable with men's rights, when they are actually only a very visible subset of them.

gooch2k9

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

What can women do that men cannot

1. Have underage sex without risk of conviction. And the male challenge to this failed.

CDfm

amiable wrote: »

Just an opinion i have but i don't think everything about fathers rights is black and white.
I know of several cases where its taken a few years for men to step up to the plate and accept their resposibilities but when they do they want equal rights as the mother who's been a good mother from day one.
Only an observation. Obviously there's a hell of alot of men out there who are good from day one too and they deserve credit and better rights too.

And constitutionally women are given priority in Irish constitutional law so our fundamental law is unequal.

Article 41
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

If you want to read up on the legal position on marriage in Ireland take a peak here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055694680

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote: »

Judging by the lack of response to my idea, let alone enthusiasm, I unfortunately suspect there is precious little Want or Will out there.

Saw the same thing when a lobby group was trying to be set up for paternity leave, and it's not as if raising awareness with online media is that had these days.

CDfm

Take paternity leave as 1 issue.

The concept is great absolutely no problem with it. But Mr Dad is not Mr Mum and needs to earn a living & bills need to be paid.

The other item is that when you have marriage, cohabitation or children Men don't know their "rights" or the law.

In the face of marriage, otherwise intelligient guys, sign up to a contract with less knowledge or thought or help available then they would to a lease or tenancy agreement.

So if you want to foster interest in it you do so by informing people what the law is before they marry (or whatever) and not after by way of marriage breakdown.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

The concept is great absolutely no problem with it. But Mr Dad is not Mr Mum and needs to earn a living & bills need to be paid.

Hold on - why does Mr Dad and not Mr Mum have to earn the living?

Post-pregnancy recuperation period aside, there is no reason for Mr Mum to earn the living if that makes more sense. Indeed, it is arguable that either need to stop working and many continue to do so.

The other item is that when you have marriage, cohabitation or children Men don't know their "rights" or the law.

I don't know how true that is anymore. While fuzzy on many of the details, I would find it hard to believe that any man does not at least have a pretty good notion of the present situation - as Thaed pointed out raising awareness with online media is that hard these days and even in the traditional media there is no shortage of information.

In the face of marriage, otherwise intelligient guys, sign up to a contract with less knowledge or thought or help available then they would to a lease or tenancy agreement.

With the new cohabitation bill you don't even need to sign up anymore.

So if you want to foster interest in it you do so by informing people what the law is before they marry (or whatever) and not after by way of marriage breakdown.

Information while important is not the problem, in my view. For example here, where we are all presumably well informed, there appears to be very little interest in actually doing much beyond 'whining'.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hold on - why does Mr Dad and not Mr Mum have to earn the living?

Its written in the constitution

John Lennon (1940-1980)

With the new cohabitation bill you don't even need to sign up anymore.

Information while important is not the problem, in my view. For example here, where we are all presumably well informed, there appears to be very little interest in actually doing much beyond 'whining'.

Actually it is - if it was so great it would be taught in the schools or why are there not handbooks given to people explaining the law on marriage when they marry ?

The only way you see it in action is on divorce and thats how the principles and rights are laid down. Maybe FAS could run a course in applied marriage or maybe they should make you don a marriage licence test with a little "The Rules of Marriage Booklet" with a CDrom.

So why arent the government taking out big newspaper adverts saying to people this is how the law is changing and giving people the option to opt out now.

Is the new legislation retrospective and are existing relationships exempt??

Is there a "cooling off period" ??

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Its written in the constitution

Ahhh, yes indeed. Forgot that.

Actually it is - if it was so great it would be taught in the schools or why are there not handbooks given to people explaining the law on marriage when they marry ?

Thorny question. To dispassionately and objectively inform schoolchildren (or anywhere else) of the consequences of marriage could well be considered unconstitutional as it would result in some choosing against it.

Is the new legislation retrospective and are existing relationships exempt??

I suspect not. Best break up now.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahhh, yes indeed. Forgot that.

Thorny question. To dispassionately and objectively inform schoolchildren (or anywhere else) of the consequences of marriage could well be considered unconstitutional as it would result in some choosing against it.

I suspect not. Best break up now.

So if the primary social unit of the state is so great (hope you like the in line alliteration )

Why the secrecy ????????

Maybe they should have night classes

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Why the secrecy ????????

National security?

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

National security?

M'lud my client didn't know what he was signing as he was under her influence at the time.:cool:

amiable

The Corinthian wrote: »

It doesn't work that way though - you are making the assumption that the mother has been a good mother from day one, in reality her rights are automatic regardless of whether this is the case. Women get their rights on the basis of gender, not on the basis of being a good parent.

.

I'm not making any assumption i was referring to specific cases i've seen. I quite clearly state that. No assuming. Just what I've seen.

The Corinthian

amiable wrote: »

I'm not making any assumption i was referring to specific cases i've seen. I quite clearly state that. No assuming. Just what I've seen.

Fair enough, but as I pointed out parental rights are not assigned on the basis of good parenthood, but gender - a good father must still 'win' his rights and a bad mother cannot 'lose' hers. Anecdotal examples are dangerous as they can overlook the opposite case.

Now if both parents were assigned equal rights, with the caveat that they could both lose them should they fail to live up to their responsibilities, then we would have a level playing field that would address the examples you gave along with the opposite case.

In the field of men's rights, this area is more complex than simply father's rights as it also touches on a gender imbalance in reproductive rights too.

amiable

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but as I pointed out parental rights are not assigned on the basis of good parenthood, but gender - a good father must still 'win' his rights and a bad mother cannot 'lose' hers. Anecdotal examples are dangerous as they can overlook the opposite case.

Now if both parents were assigned equal rights, with the caveat that they could both lose them should they fail to live up to their responsibilities, then we would have a level playing field that would address the examples you gave along with the opposite case.

In the field of men's rights, this area is more complex than simply father's rights as it also touches on a gender imbalance in reproductive rights too.

You obviously didn't read what i wrote and just have you're own agenda so goodbye

The Corinthian

amiable wrote: »

You obviously didn't read what i wrote and just have you're own agenda so goodbye

I may have misinterpreted what you wrote in your first post, which I accepted, but I really don't see where my second post suddenly qualifies for an ulterior agenda.

You gave anecdotal evidence, I pointed out the dangers of such and also proffered a potential approach that deals with both good and bad parents of both genders.

If this is enough for you to throw the toys out of the pram, then perhaps you're better off not engaging in discussion on the subject. Ciao.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now if both parents were assigned equal rights, with the caveat that they could both lose them should they fail to live up to their responsibilities, then we would have a level playing field that would address the examples you gave along with the opposite case.

simple isnt it

In the field of men's rights, this area is more complex than simply father's rights as it also touches on a gender imbalance in reproductive rights too.

now if you have equal rights all around there is no need for a mens rights group

CDfm

amiable wrote: »

You obviously didn't read what i wrote and just have you're own agenda so goodbye

I dont think the Corinthian intentionally discounted your experiences and I have no doubt they are true but what he is advocating is an egalitarian view here.

This is different to the Marxist based ideologies which are part of the current model.

Authors like Rene Denfield calls old school feminists the New Victorians and there are a group of writers who describe themselves as capitalist feminists

New Victorians' examines excesses of feminism



Sentinel staff writer

Since the late 1960s, millions of women have slowly discarded the personal and social girdles squeezing life options to a cramped few.
Yet the National Organization for Women, in the forefront of most advances, has never achieved mainstream status.
Without meaning to, Rene Denfeld tells why in her book, "The New Victorians: A Young Woman's Challenge to the Old Feminist Order."
"The feminist voice is no longer vibrant and invigorating. Instead, it has become extreme, distracted, fragmented and overwhelmingly passive," contends the Oregon-based freelance writer.




Denfeld's catalog of the excesses of the last 25 years of feminism: An unfair emphasis on male failings; typecasting women as hapless victims; condemnation of erotica as pornography; unsettling emphasis on lesbianism and female-based religion and a shrill, accusatory tone.
The author might be surprised to learn that these are the very misgivings women have cited since the 1960s in declining the label "feminist." How many women, high-profile and low-, have sputtered: "I'm no women's libber, but" and then proceeded to express support for gender equality?
To the older generation's skittishness over feminism, Denfeld adds the ungratefulness of youth.
"Women of my generation have not failed feminism. Feminism has failed us," she asserts, ignoring the profound changes feminism has sparked in the workplace, home, community and politics.
As evidence, the author sprinkles every chapter with quotes from young women ignorant of and repulsed by feminism. Her sources are a languid lot, reflecting more the shallowness of Generation X than its elders, who for all their failings, at least pursued some principles

.`

EDIT this was a criticism of the book in the Milwaukee Sentinel, Mar 25, 1995 by MICHELE DERUS

So its not just guys having a go at feminism but women claim it doesnt represent them too.

Via

Hi guys,

Isnt it great to finally talk about these issues and realize that us men actually agree on a lot of things specific to us.

At the same time, Id like to keep this discussion balanced, and not too centered on Marraige law. The hardest hit victims of Feminism are the poor. So Id like to invite people to absolutely BLITZ this thread with the thousands of issues of sexist discrimination there.

Thanks.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

what he is advocating is an egalitarian view here.

I get the impression that this is what (s)he was objecting to.

Via wrote: »

At the same time, Id like to keep this discussion balanced, and not too centered on Marraige law.

I don't think it should be centered on any specific area and is already getting bogged down in the Father's rights debate, let alone marriage.

The Wiki article on the subject gives a pretty good list of many of the issues involved. Some are more valid than others (IMHO) and some are not really relevant to Ireland, but all of these issues are born out of gender based prejudices that men do little at present to dispel.

amiable

The Corinthian wrote: »

I may have misinterpreted what you wrote in your first post, which I accepted, but I really don't see where my second post suddenly qualifies for an ulterior agenda.

You gave anecdotal evidence, I pointed out the dangers of such and also proffered a potential approach that deals with both good and bad parents of both genders.

If this is enough for you to throw the toys out of the pram, then perhaps you're better off not engaging in discussion on the subject. Ciao.

No i just wanted to leave the conversation which i thought i was entitled to do but you accusing me of throwing my toys out is obviously going off thread which is not right as you'd know being a moderator.

The Corinthian

amiable wrote: »

No i just wanted to leave the conversation which i thought i was entitled to do but you accusing me of throwing my toys out is obviously going off thread which is not right as you'd know being a moderator.

It's 'not right' by what rule exactly?

As I said, you made a point, I admitted to misinterpreting it originally, but nonetheless gave a reasonable answer to it in my second post to which you accused me of having ulterior motives (that I can only assume to be motives you oppose) and made a point of stating that you were leaving the discussion rather than rationally rejecting my views - toys out of the pram by any standards frankly.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not to get upset when it is questioned.

Nevyn

Via wrote: »

The hardest hit victims of Feminism are the poor.

How so?

the_syco

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

How come there's a National Women's Council of Ireland, but no National Men's Council of Ireland?

Is it because there is the belief that women are the only gender being treated unfairly?

Women are weak. Men are strong. Thus, women should have more rights, receive less prison time, etc.

CDfm

Via wrote: »

Hi guys,

Isnt it great to finally talk about these issues and realize that us men actually agree on a lot of things specific to us.

At the same time, Id like to keep this discussion balanced, and not too centered on Marraige law. The hardest hit victims of Feminism are the poor. So Id like to invite people to absolutely BLITZ this thread with the thousands of issues of sexist discrimination there.

Thanks.

Anyone who is interested in DV would could do worse than read Erin Pizzey book Prone to Violence free on line here

http://www.bennett.com/ptv/

She founded the first Womens refuge in Chiswick in 1971 and what was to become Womens Aid. A feisty granny now she is very outspoken and often critical of her successors in the Womens Movement.

Anyone who wants a balanced media view could do a lot worse than check out the US womens ezine www.jezebel.com

A snippet from their are women as violent as men article is here and it also gives links to it sources in academic research.

I blogged on it innocently once asking a question and got some really nice replies.

http://jezebel.com/5509717/domestic-violence-are-women-as-abusive-as-men

They cite research by psychologist John Archer and sociologist Murray Straus, writing,

[T]heir analyses demonstrate that men and women exhibit roughly equal rates of violence within relationships; some studies hint that women's rates of physical aggression are slightly higher. This apparent equality is not solely a result of women fighting back, because it holds even for altercations that women start.

Straus's work, at least, has been around for a while, and has its share of detractors. In November, Double X's Kathryn Joyce noted that men's rights groups sometimes use Straus's research to support their arguments "that false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women's shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give

The other thing I would point out is that its not just men that suffer due to certain types of womens organisation. Kids do to and women and girls.It does not take a rocket scientist that in Lesbian relationships it happens too and lesbians get excluded from mainstream support in the same way men do

Domestic Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Statistics, Myths & Facts
The typical image of a battered woman is a heterosexual woman attempting to hide a black eye in the grocery store. But domestic violence does not just happen to straight couples. Domestic violence statistics show that violence is just as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual couples. In fact, 30% of couples struggle with domestic violence of some sort.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/DVFactsMyths.htm

Jeez - thats my invite as guest Lecturer in Gender Studies at the University of Limerick down the tubes. I hope its worth it

EDIT -I forgot the Canadian Childrens Rights Library

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/BBC_Child_sexual_abuse_by_women_06OCT97.aspx

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

How so?

I presume, if he is speaking of men, that those with little income are less able to challenge a legal system stacked against them, or often financially crippled by spousal payments or more likely to become homeless in a welfare system that largely ignores male poverty.

Other than that I've no idea what he might have meant.

amiable

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's 'not right' by what rule exactly?

As I said, you made a point, I admitted to misinterpreting it originally, but nonetheless gave a reasonable answer to it in my second post to which you accused me of having ulterior motives (that I can only assume to be motives you oppose) and made a point of stating that you were leaving the discussion rather than rationally rejecting my views - toys out of the pram by any standards frankly.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not to get upset when it is questioned.

I didn't realise you were next to me to see me get 'upset'?
Stick to the thread mr mod

Otis Driftwood

Amiable,please keep your replies on topic or if you cant then use the private messaging system,thanks.

amiable

nedtheshed wrote: »

Amiable,please keep your replies on topic or if you cant then use the private messaging system,thanks.

Excuse me i was trying and asking to keep it on the topic but yet again you moderators stick together

CDfm

This thread has made me think about some of the stuff I read. I originally came accross www.jezebel.com when i googled something about airbrushing i think. They ran an anti-airbrushing campaign.

Anyway, the thing I like about it and publications like it is its balance and how it presents the facts.

It does not edit out articles or links in a way that makes things more palatable for a female audience.

"New feminists" look at editing out things that make women look bad as a form of censorship and not judicious editing. They also think that people or publications are not "protecting" women by practicing this as "editorial policy". They say why censor out the bad bits.

I can almost here my friend Fiona witter on about "penny dropping finally" but my friend Anne in the states will say its personal growth.

The problem I have with some mens rights groups is that they can be "misogynist" in the same way some womens rights groups are "misandrist". So a mens rights group for me would need to be able to give a balanced perspective and have integrity on issues as presenting the facts is not anti-men and for balance should present both sides.

A few years ago I was on the sidelines of a project and I thought "animal Farm" (Orwell book) where at the end the pigs become indistinguishable from the men, in a power corrupts kind of way. So a "masulinist" movement as the polar opposite to the "feminist" movement would no more interest me than campaigning against frozen vegatables as it wouldn't have integrity and for me lots of the issues are either side of the same coin.



Rant over.

amiable

CDfm wrote: »

This thread has made me think about some of the stuff I read. I originally came accross www.jezebel.com when i googled something about airbrushing i think. They ran an anti-airbrushing campaign.

Anyway, the thing I like about it and publications like it is its balance and how it presents the facts.

It does not edit out articles or links in a way that makes things more palatable for a female audience.

"New feminists" look at editing out things that make women look bad as a form of censorship and not judicious editing. They also think that people or publications are not "protecting" women by practicing this as "editorial policy". They say why censor out the bad bits.

I can almost here my friend Fiona witter on about "penny dropping finally" but my friend Anne in the states will say its personal growth.

The problem I have with some mens rights groups is that they can be "misogynist" in the same way some womens rights groups are "misandrist". So a mens rights group for me would need to be able to give a balanced perspective and have integrity on issues as presenting the facts is not anti-men..

A few years ago I was on the sidelines of a project and I thought "animal Farm" (Orwell book) where at the end the pigs become indistinguishable from the men, in a power corrupts kind of way. So a "masulinist" movement as the polar opposite to the "feminist" movement would no more interest me than campaigning against frozen vegatables as it wouldn't have integrity and for me lots of the issues are either side of the same coin.



Rant over.

Good point, would i be right in saying you think things could steamroll and these movements lose the point they set out for?

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

The problem I have with some mens rights groups is that they can be "misogynist" in the same way some womens rights groups are "misandrist".

I've seen it happen, but from what I can see, most of these are single issue groups (divorce and single father typically) populated by men who have been at the rough end of the issue in question and thus are embittered against it.

So a mens rights group for me would need to be able to give a balanced perspective and have integrity on issues as presenting the facts is not anti-men and for balance should present both sides.

In theory, that is what feminism also claims to do; seeking a balance, as proposed from a female perspective.

So a "masulinist" movement as the polar opposite to the "feminist" movement would no more interest me than campaigning against frozen vegatables as it wouldn't have integrity and for me lots of the issues are either side of the same coin.

I don't know if I would agree with you there. I believe much of the success of Feminism was due to a very clear agenda of representing a specific group. As things stand there is a lot more to redress in terms of men's rights than women's, in the West, and so immediately there would be a bias unless you artificially chose to put equal time into both sides. A fuzzy, let's try to be all things to all persons, agenda is likely to be less efficient in getting results and results are ultimately what it is about.

As with feminism, I believe that a masulinist movement will become redundant, if not negative, once the present gap in rights has been largely addressed, but until then it is probably the best way to deal with this gap. Only then would I see a scenario whereby both movements would either merge or be superseded by something like what you're proposing. Until then I think there is too much of a gap for it to work.

CDfm

amiable wrote: »

Good point, would i be right in saying you think things could steamroll and these movements lose the point they set out for?

Absolutely, and that is the point lots of the New Feminits make and new doesnt mean young women some of these people have been activists for years.

Esther Rantzen of UKs Childline would probably fit the category but wouldnt call herself a new feminist but coined the phrase "gender goggles" in dealing with child abuse. Her take on it is to say "Men Abuse but Women also abuse" and that it is a single issue -same dog different hair.

Its very similar to a lesbian saying on domestic violence campaigns that DV occurs in lesbian relationships and not just heterosexual relationships and feeling rightfully marginalised by that.

So a movement that does not have integrity on issues ends up as a "political party" just paying lip service to its original ideals.

If you are pro equality or anti domestic violence you should be pro or anti for everybody.

@corinthian - if you look at the feminist movement today you can say it is redundant in cerain areas but has a lot of power. so its raison d'etre is itself and not the issues it started with. WomensAid UK is a long way away from the gender free domestic violence beliefs of its founder Erin Pizzey and has airbrushed her from its history.

Once that happens an organisation can exist for its own "survival" ends -just like politicians holding on to power. *Its like Fianna Fail and Fine Gael -is there a difference but they exist.