Mens Rights

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

I don't see why feminism is relevant to the current discussion. Who cares what feminism says, hell, feminism means different things to different women.

Feminism is not the be all and end all for every women. Something a new mens rights group should bear in mind when it comes to genders.

So who should be allowed in our new mens group ?

Well I am voting to allow lesbians and gay men in to because on the current model they are not being catered for so maybe we need both a biological criteria and a gender role criteria.

Lesbian & gay men also have domestic violence issues so how are you going to breakdown the heterosexual dv stereotype without them.

hmmm -now what about the heterosexual female batterers?????????

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

So who should be allowed in our new mens group ?

If a group is charged to represent the rights of men, then those who wish to represent the rights of men are those who should be members.

If a group is charged to represent the those who are victims of female domestic violence, then those who wish to represent the rights of victims of female domestic violence are those who should be members.

The two may overlap in terms of aims in some cases, but you should not kid yourself into believing that they are the same. And the latter, one-issue group, approach has frankly been pretty unsuccessful.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

If a group is charged to represent the those who are victims of female domestic violence, then those who wish to represent the rights of victims of female domestic violence are those who should be members.

The two may overlap in terms of aims in some cases, but you should not kid yourself into believing that they are the same. And the latter, one-issue group, approach has frankly been pretty unsuccessful.

For the life of me -I have never understood what gender has to do with domestic violence. If its wrong its wrong for all and not some.

I dont know why lesbian victims can be left out if their batterer wasa woman or gay male victims left out for being battered by a man.

Like you dont split racism into Anti Afro or Anti Asian.

Maybe I am thick, but I just do not see the logic or the difference. My g/f can pick me up & probably could beat me up if she felt like it - now she wouldnt as she is far too nice for that.As a manager where she works she has helped out 2 male staff members that I know of. She is very logical -so if she doesnt see gender -why should I.


So why differentiate in service delivery and a man should be allowed to be treated equally by garda, medically, courts , housing etc because there is no difference in pain & degradation.All domestic violence is equally wrong.

Single gender issue my foot - 4.2%or theirabouts of the population will experience it irrespective of gender.For every female victim it seems there is a female who batters a man. For every male victim thereis a man who batters a woman.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe I am thick, but I just do not see the logic or the difference. My g/f can pick me up & probably could beat me up if she felt like it - now she wouldnt as she is far too nice for that.As a manager where she works she has helped out 2 male staff members that I know of. She is very logical -so if she doesnt see gender -why should I.

Are we talking about men's rights or some other issue?

No one denies that many men's rights span the genders, but not all of them - and in some cases there are even conflicts of interest.

So it really comes down to what you want, if it is a group to represent men's rights, then people who want to promote men's rights are who you want involved and if those aims overlap with those of other groups, then all well and good and we can work together. Otherwise you're not pursuing men's rights, just an issue that happens to overlap.

Single gender issue my foot - 4.2%or theirabouts of the population will experience it irrespective of gender.

I said single-issue, not single-gender. Big difference.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are we talking about men's rights or some other issue?

No one denies that many men's rights span the genders, but not all of them - and in some cases there are even conflicts of interest.

So let there be exceptions but an issue like domestic violence affects so many people of all genders and orientations that it should not be one of them.If it was drug addiction or an illness like TB that cross gender barriers no one would bat an eyelid.

You havent convinced me why it should be a gender issue and how we cant deliver services to all exploiting synergies and economies of scale.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

I then went on to point out what you were saying (quoting you); that women were better child carers and men should just accept this.

What is it with you and straw manning?

This is my quote:

The Corinthian wrote:

I do believe the first 3 months, maybe 6 months is extremely important for a mother, in away us fathers just will not get. It is one of those differences we have to accept, as part of recognising equality.

Again, I don't see how you are getting "women are better child carers" from that. As I said, I was a primary carer.

The rest of your stuff isn't debate. It is snide, personal attacks as is your want.

I always said it was my belief. I also said the law shouldn't reflect just my belief, it should have paternal leave legislation and inter changeable parental leave. You are arguing with yourself at this stage.

Unless you can actually debate what I actually said and not a straw man that you have set up with a rant, I'm done here. Suppose I'm not black & white enough for you. Your comments about breast feeding kind of show that.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

So who should be allowed in our new mens group ?

Well I am voting to allow lesbians and gay men in to because on the current model they are not being catered for so maybe we need both a biological criteria and a gender role criteria.

Lesbian & gay men also have domestic violence issues so how are you going to breakdown the heterosexual dv stereotype without them.

hmmm -now what about the heterosexual female batterers?????????

I don't know if it is a good idea to include lesbians and gay men. They do have their own groups and there is a danger that the mens rights part of any legislation or lobbying would get forgotten about.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Unless you can actually debate what I actually said and not a straw man that you have set up with a rant, I'm done here.

Grand so. Not waiting any longer for your evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, either.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

You havent convinced me why it should be a gender issue and how we cant deliver services to all exploiting synergies and economies of scale.

Because, as has been repeatedly said by me and others, the single biggest issue with men's rights is that they are simply not taken seriously. This is a gender issue, whether you like it or not, and until these gender-based prejudices that exist are addressed with an approach that underlines them for what they are, they will continue, however much you fool yourself into thinking that you are chipping away at them.

Indeed, I genuinely believe that all of these one-issue campaign groups have been largely failures. How have men benefited from them in law and society in the last ten years? What laws have they seen changed?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grand so. Not waiting any longer for your evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, either.

K-9 wrote:

I do believe the first 3 months, maybe 6 months is extremely important for a mother, in away us fathers just will not get.

You want evidence, anecdotal or otherwise for that. Un****ingbelievable. You want evidence for something that blindingly obvious? Do you actually disagree that the first 3 or 6 months is extremely important for a mother?

What has happened is, you have set up so many strawmen that you seem to want evidence for these strawmen, that you have developed in your own head, not what I actually said.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

You want evidence for something that blindingly obvious? Do you actually disagree that the first 3 or 6 months is extremely important for a mother?

Only for a mother? Are you suggesting nothing more that the first three to six months with the child are principally for the mother's benefit and not the child's?

If so and if there was no implication that the mother is a better or more necessary parent, then I will withdraw my objection and apologize for the misinterpretation, as this was what I believe you inferred and was on the back of more blatant claims of that nature earlier in the thread.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because, as has been repeatedly said by me and others, the single biggest issue with men's rights is that they are simply not taken seriously. This is a gender issue, whether you like it or not, and until these gender-based prejudices that exist are addressed with an approach that underlines them for what they are, they will continue, however much you fool yourself into thinking that you are chipping away at them.

Indeed, I genuinely believe that all of these one-issue campaign groups have been largely failures. How have men benefited from them in law and society in the last ten years? What laws have they seen changed?

I imagine one of the reasons is because people havent gotten this equality/egalitarian thing with the same enthusiasm that they get "gender conflict" based on the Marxist Model.

One way of overcoming this would be single issues.

Say if Childline or the HSE ran adverts saying," child abuse ....and the perp usually a woman"( which happens to be true) then issues would be unavoidable because you would rely on truth rather than spin.

So really, if you want equality you remove barriers -because they are not gender or orientation rights as such -they are human rights.

@k-9 -i cant see why same sex violence is any different to heterosexual DV. Same dog -diferent hair.

While there is a certain convergence -everyone should have equal rights and special interest groups can deal with trhe diversity issues.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

So really, if you want equality you remove barriers -because they are not gender or orientation rights as such -they are human rights.

Meanwhile back on Earth, single-issue groups that happen to tackle issues that may overlap the men's rights agenda have made little or no progress as they rely on the charity of people who have no direct stake, while feminism that specifically targets issues on a gender basis has created an entire mythology of self-empowerment by targeting an entire sector of society, regardless if they have suffered from the issues in question or not.

That is why men really don't bother with most men's rights issues until it happens to them and even then will often only care about those issues that affect them. Meanwhile sisters are doing it for themselves.

The single-issue strategy is a failure and it's probably time you accept this, CDFm. In a perfect World both men and women, those affected and those not would all join together, hold hands, sing kumbaya and we'd all move towards equality.

But we're not. We live in a partisan, self-interested World and this self-interest motivates a lot faster than any idealism. The proof lies in the relative success and strategies of both the women's and men's rights movements.

CDfm

Anyway, I dont think it should be so and i dont see why I should buy into it.

I also do not see why Womens Groups continue to demonise men. Its a con job and they should have their funding cut for doing so.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Anyway, I dont think it should be so and i dont see why I should buy into it.

I also do not see why Womens Groups continue to demonise men. Its a con job and they should have their funding cut for doing so.

Feminism works well because it speaks to women who are not directly affected. Meanwhile single-issue campaigning only really speaks to those who are either affected or have a high risk of being affected. Everyone else doesn't give a crap or will at best only give sporadic and very limited support. The historical lack of success of single (male) issue campaigns to date demonstrates this.

As I said, in a perfect World I'd agree with you, but the reality is that such a combative, partisan approach works and the issue-based, egalitarian approach simply does not.

It's just a question of the bottom line. Sorry.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

.

As I said, in a perfect World I'd agree with you, but the reality is that such a combative, partisan approach works and the issue-based, egalitarian approach simply does not.

It's just a question of the bottom line. Sorry.

Ahem Mr C -on the basis of reality you agree with me but prefer the Marxist selective combative approach rather than treat the causes.So you cant let go of the gender fight club.

We know that DV is an intergenerational thing and learned behavior so it should be an "everybody" right to tackle it without gender bias to benefit everybody.

Dont you also think that this is the "single issue" that creates the nastiness and stands in the way of dialogue.

You know, if I didn't know better anyone would think that some womens groups do not want to erradicate DV at all but cling on to it cos thats where the funding is. Say it ain't so.

Nevyn

or funding for it is based on groups reaching the most effected as reflected by reporting and research numbers.

DV should be covered in secondary schools as part of personal devlopement/ socail studies and education can go along way to tackling such issues but there is not the will do deal with such issues that way unfortuantly.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Only for a mother? Are you suggesting nothing more that the first three to six months with the child are principally for the mother's benefit and not the child's?

If so and if there was no implication that the mother is a better or more necessary parent, then I will withdraw my objection and apologize for the misinterpretation, as this was what I believe you inferred and was on the back of more blatant claims of that nature earlier in the thread.

Not suggesting any of that.

We should have a system that gives decent paternal paid leave (I think the EU are addressing this atm) so that both parents have a realistic option of being at home for the first month or so, at least. The option is there for unpaid parental leave so it leads me to believe that the only reason this isn't in Ireland, is a lack of pressure for it.

The finances were there for increases in Maternity Benefit 3/4 years ago. The Govt. chose to ignore paternity benefit.

Having been a primary carer, there certainly was no implication that mothers are more necessary, just that the first 3/6 months are very important for mothers. Reasons would be breast feeding, post natal depression, stuff like that.

This isn't the place for a breast feeding debate but I think you recognised yourself earlier in this thread, that there is evidence for the benefits of it, though it is contested obviously.

CDfm

@thaed - But you & I both know it is not a gender issue.

All statistical evidence points to the female heterosexual victim model put forward by womens groups as being a deliberate deception and not delivering services where they are needed to victims.

I dont think DV should be owned by any group in this way as it is the most inefficient way of delivering services.

I am not against the work groups like Womens Aid do for female victims but i am very against the way they portray the model. Especially when children are used in the campaigns when children are at greater risk of violence and neglect from women and not men.Public policy should reflect this.

My gut feeling is that this does as much harm as it does good. So not acknowledging it is a bad thing as it tolerates it in the now and brings on a whole new generation of abusers at the same time.

The effort at dealing with this type of thing in schools was the wishy washy pc drivel "Exploring masculinities".

Whats wrong with telling all kids that violence in intimate and family relationships irrespective of gender of victim or perpetrator is a crime and no matter what gender or orientation is wrong and a crime.

Surely it is a rightfor men to be portrayed fairly and it is a fundamental right to all victims not to have their experiences of abuse marginalised.

citytillidie

CDfm wrote: »

@thaed - But you & I both know it is not a gender issue.

All statistical evidence points to the female heterosexual victim model put forward by womens groups as being a deliberate deception and not delivering services where they are needed to victims.

I dont think DV should be owned by any group in this way as it is the most inefficient way of delivering services.

I am not against the work groups like Womens Aid do for female victims but i am very against the way they portray the model. Especially when children are used in the campaigns when children are at greater risk of violence and neglect from women and not men.Public policy should reflect this.

My gut feeling is that this does as much harm as it does good. So not acknowledging it is a bad thing as it tolerates it in the now and brings on a whole new generation of abusers at the same time.

The effort at dealing with this type of thing in schools was the wishy washy pc drivel "Exploring masculinities".

Whats wrong with telling all kids that violence in intimate and family relationships irrespective of gender of victim or perpetrator is a crime and no matter what gender or orientation is wrong and a crime.

Surely it is a rightfor men to be portrayed fairly and it is a fundamental right to all victims not to have their experiences of abuse marginalised.

This is why I said in the other thread that I was glad the man gave his compo money to kidscape and not the NSPCC.

According to all the NSPCC adverts the only people who harm children are men.

CDfm

citytillidie wrote: »

This is why I said in the other thread that I was glad the man gave his compo money to kidscape and not the NSPCC.

According to all the NSPCC adverts the only people who harm children are men.

I want to see male perpatrators reported but I also want to see female victims reported.

My gripe with these type of advertising campaigns is that they discourage victims coming forward or perpatrators being reported. They also profile the perpetrator meaning social services and others do not detect abuse as they are not trained to spot it.

So they hamper victim reporting and perpetrator detection. thats why they are misguided and dangerous.

The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that for each year between 2000 and 2005, "female parents acting alone" were most common perpetrators of child abuse.




One guy, a doctor, who used to post on boards often posted on this issue as it was something he came accross professionally.He stopped posting on some fora as the gender bias was against what he came across professionally.

So how can the NSPCC or Social Workers tackle the issue without acknowledging the problem is something I do not understand.Ahem- its public policy that women dont abuse.

Its like over the centuries a lot of public health issues were improved by improvement in sanitary conditions and our treatment of water and waste.Some of the most important advances in patient care in the 20th century in hospitals were down to soap and water.Getting the simple things right.

I dont want to see either men or women stereotyped in this way but I would like to see Abusers tackled head on irrespective of gender.

Originally Posted by K-9
I don't know if it is a good idea to include lesbians and gay men. They do have their own groups and there is a danger that the mens rights part of any legislation or lobbying would get forgotten about.

They do have their own groups but if we are dealing with a generic issue of abuse and trying to say abuse is wrong and victims need to be able to seek help then we should not marginalise them either.

Its like "elder abuse" will we put other structures in for older people.

Thats why I think its wrong and the logic used that by acknowledging it the womens movement are betraying their own gender does not make sense to me.They are betraying their gender by not doing it.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Ahem Mr C -on the basis of reality you agree with me but prefer the Marxist selective combative approach rather than treat the causes.So you cant let go of the gender fight club.

Not really. On the basis of reality the combative approach works. I'd also agree World peace would be nice too, but such is life. I don't really care if it is Marxist, or Capitalist or whatever - I'm a pragmatist and I will follow results regardless of labels.

Ultimately, whether you like it or not, the nice, non-combative, egalitarian approach has failed to give results. I've mentioned this a few times and you've actually not even addressed it, let alone challenge it, so I can only presume you recognize this failure.

Instead the rest of your post (and subsequent posts) just talked about DV, as if the failure of one-issue campaigning had never been raised. Sorry, but it really is time for us all to pull our heads out of our collective asses on this one.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really. On the basis of reality the combative approach works. I'd also agree World peace would be nice too, but such is life. I don't really care if it is Marxist, or Capitalist or whatever - I'm a pragmatist and I will follow results regardless of labels.

There are many types of feminists and the marxist type of old school feminists are just one and have been domimant.

Many and most women do not even know who these groups are -let alone what their ideology is- most women and men are appalled and rightly so by DV and child abuse and I believe do feel strongly about it too.

So while it needs to be decoupled that does not nesscessarily follow that some advances in womens rights on equality have not been justified or right. I am not with the my gender right or wrong brigade.

Maybe I do have an idealised view of the world but I am happier that way.I leave the politics to other people.

EDIT - here is a link to a Canadian site that deals with child abuse and the whole gender thing for anyone who wants an off topic read. i dont know who runs it but its has lots of newspaper stories and stats and links.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/default.aspx

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe I do have an idealised view of the world but I am happier that way.I leave the politics to other people.

Ahh... but the moment you get involved, even if it is to support a campaign that ultimately diverts finite resources and support into a strategic dead-end, you become as political as everyone else.

Claiming you're an idealist does not exonerate you from the consequences of your actions, no matter how well meaning you may be - road to ruin, 'n all that...

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

They do have their own groups but if we are dealing with a generic issue of abuse and trying to say abuse is wrong and victims need to be able to seek help then we should not marginalise them either.

Its like "elder abuse" will we put other structures in for older people.

Thats why I think its wrong and the logic used that by acknowledging it the womens movement are betraying their own gender does not make sense to me.They are betraying their gender by not doing it.

Good post. With the publicity that sex abuse gets now and rightly so, the statistics get over looked.

I took you up wrong about the Groups. I thought you meant a mens rights group, not solely a DV one.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh... but the moment you get involved, even if it is to support a campaign that ultimately diverts finite resources and support into a strategic dead-end, you become as political as everyone else.

I dont want to divert resourses from anybody - I would like to see the resourses alocated for domestic violence allocated fairly and realistically

I would like to see the bodies who recieve the funds behave honestly and ethically.We cant say that at the moment.

Claiming you're an idealist does not exonerate you from the consequences of your actions, no matter how well meaning you may be - road to ruin, 'n all that...

What consequences.

That men and women might work together jointly against domestic violence and child abuse. Road to ruin. Roight. :rolleyes:

And what would be so wrong if support groups did publicise the real figures to their supporters??

EDIT (well there was the football)

With the convergence of gender roles where will that leave feminism. Of course, we have gone through the radical feminist phase. Now using Hegels Triad and Marxism as are familiar to people into the theory.

You have a thesis, antithesis and synthesis and Marxism demands that the actors ( for employers and Labour exchange Male and Female) you must have conflict.

But surely you only need conflict if you accept that analysis. Just to put it in context -what has the Marxist Analysis done for Domestic Violence nothing.

Many people agreed with equality anyway so it was pushing a slowly open door.So now society has changed things must change with it and that includes saying well men must also get freed from their old roles too. Equality must be a two way street and that is what both sides should aspire too.Thats democracy.

It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature—a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women’s nature to do they will do, and you won’t be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won’t be able to make them do it.

Eventually the convergence of roles means a convergence of responsibilities and thats what it is leading to. My feeling is that thats what Via equal mens rights is -that the financial and income responsibilities are also shared.

EDIT - I mention Hegel (and the Hegelian Dialectic) and Marxism here and thats political theory stuff but if you want to have a quick browse here is a link -its a theory of change based on conflict.It goes a long way in understanding the uncompromising position of some individuals or groups.

http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

Nevyn

Why has this thread about men's rights movement and men finding thier way to become a lobbying group on those issues become about 'women do bad things too"?

K-9

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why has this thread about men's rights movement and men finding thier way to become a lobbying group on those issues become about 'women do bad things too"?

I see your point but posters are just discussing what is the best way of discussing male DV victims. Pointing out that men are big victims of DV and "women do bad things too" isn't the issue. Just how you go about highlighting it.

Treating DV as a single issue, incorporating both sexes, causes problems. Your response highlights the biggest problem with that approach and while, ideally, it should work, practically, it will wont.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why has this thread about men's rights movement and men finding thier way to become a lobbying group on those issues become about 'women do bad things too"?

That was not the point of my post.

The reason I used DV is that it is an issue of interest to me and I saw posts by the Corinthian calling some groups a " Trade Union for Women". So it was not me that raised theory.

So personally, I couldn't buy into a Mens Group based on the idea of women as being the enemy as being central to its ideology.

Such a movement would not be one for me. What sort of personal ideology should I have to join one or support one. So to explain why it isn't I posted the political theory behind it.

In fact, you thanked a post by Corinthian saying why the single issue way was the wrong way for Domestic Violence and I answered saying why I disagreed with him.

So my disagreement is that I dont believe that DV where women are victims should be used as a political football by a mens group. I would not be comfortable with it.

So what I am saying is the political philosophy behind the group is kind of fundamental to the way it would move forward.

There is something very fundamentalist about groups like that and I think it would be a huge step in the wrong direction for the Mens Movement and would be strongly against it.

Thats the reason why.

Have I inadvertedly stumbled across something here. I dont think feminism has anything to fear from a bunch of fundamentalist crackpots.

K-9 wrote: »

I see your point but posters are just discussing what is the best way of discussing male DV victims. Pointing out that men are big victims of DV and "women do bad things too" isn't the issue. Just how you go about highlighting it.



Treating DV as a single issue, incorporating both sexes, causes problems. Your response highlights the biggest problem with that approach and while, ideally, it should work, practically, it will wont.

Why would there be a problem for a concensus to exist on issues like this. So if heterosexual men and women and gay and lesbian men and women formed a group on it -it would be wrong and for whom.



It is fairly nonsensical that they cant be gender neutral or orientation neutral because the unifying factor in all of them is not the gender but the DV.

Anyway, I think the examples I have given are relevant and I wont be adding to them.

The composition of and ideology of any Mens Movement or alternative gender rights would be central to its success or lack of it & a fundamentalist anti-women group IMHO is not the way to go.

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

So personally, I couldn't buy into a Mens Group based on the idea of women as being the enemy as being central to its ideology.

But yet you are constantly dragging feminism and what you see as controlling Marxist feminist into this thread. Why let feminism at all define what a men's rights lobbying group would be or do? really is seems a very daft and reactionary starting point.

CDfm wrote: »

In fact, you thanked a post by Corinthian saying why the single issue way was the wrong way for Domestic Violence and I answered saying why I disagreed with him.

So my disagreement is that I dont believe that DV where women are victims should be used as a political football by a mens group. I would not be comfortable with it.

Well all those posts look like you are more then comfortable with it, and posts you have made previously, it looks like you favourate hobby horse which gets dragged into most discussions as your fall back topic.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

But yet you are constantly dragging feminism and what you see as controlling Marxist feminist into this thread.

It was totally unintentional and I asked a woman friend as my partner did not know what the term " Capitalist Feminism" meant and " Sex Positive Feminism" meant as they came up in various threads.

So I only posted the ideological stuff as it seemed relevant and even she told me she has not been following the debates for around 5 or 10 years.

Everyone should have a lesbian friend :cool:

Why let feminism at all define what a men's rights lobbying group would be or do? really is seems a very daft and reactionary starting point.

It shouldn't it should be a positive thing. To me ideology and philosophy is very important as part of a group.

I didn't understand why some mens groups like the National Mens Council of Ireland made me uncomfortable and now I do. Maybe other guys feel the same. So it is worth discussing.

Well all those posts look like you are more then comfortable with it, and posts you have made previously, it looks like you favourate hobby horse which gets dragged into most discussions as your fall back topic.

I didnt mean to -I was responding to things K-9 & Cititillidie posted and the Corinthian rather than anything else and was being replying to their posts rather than bringing anything up myself.

I actually avoided replying and wasn't going to.

Thats me done on that part of it. I apologise for raising the issue but inevitably it comes up as the high profile feminist campaigns always zone in on it. Cititillidie finds that offensive and raised the NSPCC and Kidscape. You got me there though and I dont know how feminism can deal with that -but thats another topic.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I dont want to divert resourses from anybody - I would like to see the resourses alocated for domestic violence allocated fairly and realistically

But you do want to divert resources - even here, a discussion that (as Thaed pointed out) is about the entire scope of Men's Rights and you're trying to turn it into one about a single-issue discussion.

What consequences.

That men and women might work together jointly against domestic violence and child abuse. Road to ruin. Roight. :rolleyes:

No, that all other men's rights issues will end up becoming ignored, so long as your hobby horse is serviced. Just as you are attempting to do in this thread.

Worse than that, it's an approach that does not even work. It's been a failure. We still see practically no recognition of domestic violence against males. Father's rights groups still have managed to achieve nothing - the few victories out there have been due to fathers going through the courts (without any help from these groups).

So, please, wake up and smell the coffee.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I didn't understand why some mens groups like the National Mens Council of Ireland made me uncomfortable and now I do.

I think you really are not getting what I am saying - I'm not arguing on the basis of ideology, but pragmatism. Regardless of your ideology or beliefs, you need to accept eventually that if a strategy does not work, you have to try another. It's about the bottom line.

So if you want to accuse me of following a political text, it is far less likely to be Das Kapital and far more likely to be Il Principe.

I didnt mean to -I was responding to things K-9 & Cititillidie posted and the Corinthian rather than anything else and was being replying to their posts rather than bringing anything up myself.

One thing that you have failed to respond to though, it the failure of the single-issue strategy to actually achieve anything.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you really are not getting what I am saying - I'm not arguing on the basis of ideology, but pragmatism. Regardless of your ideology or beliefs, you need to accept eventually that if a strategy does not work, you have to try another. It's about the bottom line.
.

I am getting what you are saying and your Trade Union description is inspired. I had a bit of time and yes your analogy got me looking and analysising the what fors.

It is a forum because we can throw out ideas and yes its important to be open to new ideas.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

.

No, that all other men's rights issues will end up becoming ignored, so long as your hobby horse is serviced. Just as you are attempting to do in this thread.

A bit harsh
.

So, please, wake up and smell the coffee.

Great idea - coffee :pac:

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I am getting what you are saying and your Trade Union description is inspired. I had a bit of time and yes your analogy got me looking and analysising the what fors.

Don't get too hung up on the analogy of a trade union - it is only meant to underline a group partisan to the interests of a specific constituency. Professional bodies, guilds, management committees, and even religious charities could all be used equally.

A bit harsh

But that is precisely what happens.

r3nu4l

There is some absolutely brillliant discussion here but once again the thread is degenerating, as all of these 'gender' threads tend to in this forum.

The topic was 'Men's Rights' but instead the thread has become a dumping ground for thoughts on multiple topics with tenuous ties to the topic at hand and we can't have that.

The OP asked:

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...

We seem to be going around the houses once again so if we can't try to bring this back onto the topic at hand then I'm going to close the thread.

Thanks.

BTW, I think these threads are far more suited to the Anthropology, Sociology and Culture forum, especially if we really are looking for a truly egalitarian approach to the subject! Otherwise an egalitarian approach in a Gentlemen's forum is a mockery

The Corinthian

I actually gave my thoughts on the subject on the first page of this thread. Men's rights will simply not get recognition until the very concept of men's rights is recognized and the single-issue approach will never succeed in this.

CDfm

r3nu4l -I just visited by as I am not a huge football fan and herself is. I am trying to keep away from these threads or she may confiscate my netbook.:eek:

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

Great idea - coffee :pac:

Just dont ask your secretary to make it!:)

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Just dont ask your secretary to make it!:)

as if I would -she cant make coffee -I popped out to the shop to get her a Lucozade and Kinder Bueno earlier :pac:

Nevyn

Other then rights for unmarried fathers, equal custody for married fathers, paternity leave, right to marry another man, the redefining of rape and incest so that women can also be charged with it, what else is needed rights and law wise for men?

In some cases men and women are equal under the law but societal and culturally it skews it which is a harder campgain again, but just in terms of the law and missing rights what else is there lacking for men?

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

Other then rights for unmarried fathers, equal custody for married fathers, paternity leave, right to marry another man, the redefining of rape and incest so that women can also be charged with it, what else is needed rights and law wise for men?

To name a few (not all applicable to Ireland) and excluding those you mention:

• The use of positive discrimination quotas that demands a minimum percentage of females in certain roles, but makes no attempt at the reverse.
• Male-only conscription in the military in almost every country that has it. Even in counties where there is no peace-time conscription, like Ireland, war-time conscription is legally male only.
• Unequal reproductive rights - a woman has a right to choose, but a man does not, regardless of whether that is to become or not become a parent.
• Unequal political representation - men are just not represented in equality bodies at all.
• Sentencing disparity - in many cases the laws of sentencing differ between men and women, with the latter having legal access to far more lenient punishments.
• The legal protection and recognition in the Irish constitution that a woman should not be forced to leave homemaking/child care for economic reasons - men are not recognized as such.
• The gynocentric nature of divorce law.
• Lack of legal consequence for female perpetrators of paternity fraud of malicious rape accusations.
• Numerous minor antiquated laws that are anti-male, such as it being illegal for a man to enter a woman's toilets, but not the reverse.
• Equality in adoption rights for unmarried men as there are for unmarried women.

In some cases men and women are equal under the law but societal and culturally it skews it which is a harder campgain again, but just in terms of the law and missing rights what else is there lacking for men?

Numerous prejudices and assumptions that, ironically, also affect perceptions of women, such as:

• Homemaking / child care is a female only job - as an extension of this is that any adult male in the company of children must be a pedophile (male primary schoolteachers will soon become a thing of the past as a result).
• Men cannot be victims and are always physically stronger than women.
• Female on male violence is funny.
• Men cannot be sexually abused or even harassed by women - or if they are they should count themselves lucky.
• Men are discriminated in the work place where it comes to physical labour - often having to do the bulk of heavy work, but legally for the same pay as women in the same jobs who do not do it (and in some countries are even barred legally from doing it).
• The complete lack of concern for male homelessness, suicide and other social ills that affect men, while female related social issues are heavily covered in comparison.
• Male genital mutilation - a.k.a. circumcision - completely ignored, dispite it resulting in deaths in Ireland.

And all that is just off the top of my head.

CDfm

Yo Mr C carry on with the shopping list as Thaed did ask :pac:

EDIT- Thaed -you were a lot better of with my rants -but would you quit when you were ahead - no you had to ask 1 more question

Nevyn

I asked the question because I want to know, and would like for other posters to add to the list, I prefer facts to rants.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I asked the question because I want to know, and would like for other posters to add to the list, I prefer facts to rants.

touche - that was tongue firmly in cheek.

It took me a few days to find out what "sex positive" meant after you posted the term - I had to ask someone

Thats not making light of it. Its just not something I would have thought would have been part of a debate.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

I asked the question because I want to know, and would like for other posters to add to the list, I prefer facts to rants.

The list of legal and social discrimination was discussed in the first two or three pages in this thread. I felt the discussion had gone onto where the men's rights movement was going wrong and how this could be remedied. Listing the issues will only get us so far after all.

I think the only serious rants here have been by one poster who posted a number of conspiracy theories that were rejected by everyone here.

There have been a few flames however.

Nevyn

I think that compiling a list makes it easier for people to consider if working on those issues is something they think is need or not, if they do or will effect them in thier life.

I think a lot more awareness would need to be raised to get people talking before you'd be looking at what action to take and any rethoric which distracts or detract from those points won't help.

I do how ever thing that single issues can be a rallying point, esp something as clear cut an injustice as parental rigts and paternity leave and that starts the grass roots movement growing and the spring board and from there other issues can be tackled.

I know I have learned a few things from this thread, I do have a son as well as a daugther and while I am aware of some of the struggles she still may encounter,
there are things which are different for men.

metrovelvet

Sometimes these things get started with a single issue. In the US feminism started out with the vote and in Britain, the right to own property.

CDfm

I have two kids also a man and a woman (almost) at this stage. I am divorced and for men with children things have gotten worse rather than better. Nowhere is the inequality more prevalent then in the divorce courts and family law system.

Even the criminal law system is affected..

I hear what you are saying that single issues can promote a group but that these are public issues and not products that are being sold. Maybe some pundits are right as describing it as an industry and a market -with budgets and targets.

In areas such as public health and vaccination success is achieved when the disease gets eradicated.

It does not look like it does it. There is a sting in the tail for mothers with sons as their sons will face the system they have created.