Mens Rights

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately, as I already pointed out, this approach has not worked with men, because we tend to consider these issues, like our health care - retrospectively.

As such we don't care about divorce, until we lose our home and are paying a big chunk of our salary to our ex. We don't care about father's rights until we suddenly find that the girlfriend is leaving us for another guy and wants to cut us out of our child's life so as to avoid 'confusion'. We don't care about sexual discrimination until we find ourselves the target of it in work by an older woman in a position of authority and anyone we mention it to treats it as a joke.

I think the evidence is that we need a reason to support causes that do not affect us directly and when issues are treated too separately this reason becomes too vague for most of us.

Historically, abortion is a good example of this in that it actually had only limited social support up until second-wave Feminism, when it became part of a greater women's rights agenda. Had abortion been tackled as a single issue separate to the Feminist / women's rights campaign, it would still be illegal in the majority of Western countries.

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.

Except that they're not. Guys in batman costumes have been around for decades at this stage, and the single issue of father's rights has not acted as a rallying point for men's rights.

Indeed, I think you will find it difficult to find any successes where it comes to these single issue campaigns. As CDfm has said, for men the situation is getting worse, not better - so it really is time to reconsider how this is being done.

metrovelvet wrote: »

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.

I think there was more to it than that. To begin with you cannot look at a strategy that was empolyed a century ago and assume that it will work in the 21st century context. More importantly, the early feminism came about in a very different World that was undergoing massive social change, especially in the wake of the first World War - women, for example, were not the only one's without a vote.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Certainly there's no harm in it, but while this may have been a sucessful strategy for Feminism, I don't believe it'll have much effect for men.

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander in this case. (...for reasons TC has pointed out)

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except that they're not. Guys in batman costumes have been around for decades at this stage, and the single issue of father's rights has not acted as a rallying point for men's rights.

Indeed, I think you will find it difficult to find any successes where it comes to these single issue campaigns. As CDfm has said, for men the situation is getting worse, not better - so it really is time to reconsider how this is being done.

The system didnt listen to John Harnedy who commited suicide in his wifes solicitors office by setting himself on fire. An act that had no influence on family law.

"

This office cost me my wife and children", were the dying words of John Harnedy , referring to Wolfe & Co., Solicitors Skibbereen and Ms Colette McCarthy in particular. "They are trying to take my children away from me - that's why I did it", he said, as he lay dying on the floor "This office cost me my wife and children", were the dying words of John Harnedy , referring to Wolfe & Co., Solicitors Skibbereen and Ms Colette McCarthy in particular. "They are trying to take my children away from me - that's why I did it", he said, as he lay dying on the floor

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/67195

Open verdict in case of Cork man
Wednesday, 20th October 2004

An inquest in Cork has recorded an open verdict in the case of a man who doused himself in petrol and set himself alight in a solicitors' office in west Cork last May.



44-yaer-old John Harnedy from Skibbereen died at Cork University Hospital from the combined effects of third-degree burns, smoke inhalation and bronchial complications.



The fatal incident happened in the offices of Wolfe & Co Solicitors in Skibbereen on May 24.



The firm of solicitors had been acting in a family law matter involving Mr Harnedy.



Cork County Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane described the case as "extremely tragic" and extended her sympathies to Mr Harnedy`s relatives and friends.



Source: UTV
http://www.meathlive.com/_news/article.asp?NID=84342&NCID=13

I think there was more to it than that. To begin with you cannot look at a strategy that was empolyed a century ago and assume that it will work in the 21st century context. More importantly, the early feminism came about in a very different World that was undergoing massive social change, especially in the wake of the first World War - women, for example, were not the only one's without a vote.

Whenever I hear the vote issue raised as a historical fact -it does make me wince.

There were Zero true democracies in existence as at 1900 and that includes all nation states. Even New Zealand who introduced votes for women on an equal basis in 1873 had limits on the aboriginal population voting so was not a true democracy.

The Vote in the UK & Ireland was as much class based as anything else and the catalyst for change was WWI from which many millions of men died. Prior to that until 1918 only 32% of men had the vote and it was property based. So men and women generally had a common purpose seeking the vote.

Democracy only really took off after the World Wars and the disestablishment of the empires.

Property laws were routinely avoided by the creation of Marriage Settlements & Trusts and this was a normal middle class legal way to avoid transfering assets on marriage. Sort of like a Victorian Pre Nup agreement. The same is done today arranging assets in families for ,say,the mentally ill or handicapped.

It would be nice to see the historical facts fairly repesented and in fact facts clearly represented. So yes, feminism is very deceptive in its treatment of the facts on lots of issues.

When a woman watches porn for pleasure she is "sex positve" and "empowered" but when a man does so he is a "perve".

So it would be good to list out the attributes, qualities and responsibilities and how they are presented with gender stereotyping as the feminism we all know is quite uncompromising and perjorative in its treatment towards men.

r3nu4l

CIRCUMCISION POSTS MOVED TO NEW THREAD

Stay on-topic. Last warning. If people can't stay on topic it makes a lot of work for the mods.

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunately, as I already pointed out, this approach has not worked with men, because we tend to consider these issues, like our health care - retrospectively.

As such we don't care about divorce, until we lose our home and are paying a big chunk of our salary to our ex. We don't care about father's rights until we suddenly find that the girlfriend is leaving us for another guy and wants to cut us out of our child's life so as to avoid 'confusion'. We don't care about sexual discrimination until we find ourselves the target of it in work by an older woman in a position of authority and anyone we mention it to treats it as a joke.

I think that is the biggest stumbling block, the I'm alright Jack and assumption that as a man in society they have all the rights the need until they are mired in a situation.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think that is the biggest stumbling block, the I'm alright Jack and assumption that as a man in society they have all the rights the need until they are mired in a situation.

I don't think do.I think that women have a substantial constitutional law advantage over men in Ireland.

The other issue is that because more women do not work than men either as lone parents or housewives they have the opportunity to devote time to a movement then the traditional wageslave man has had.

Even during the boom years we imported foreign workers and continued with our welfare system when it would have been more beneficial to change to assisted childcare. The OECD recommended it years ago to reduce our welfare budget.

So there is a resistance to change too amongst women & the womens movement as to the welfare budget.

Lots of men see very little of their paypackets anyway and see very little by way of welfare and support.How many John Harnedy's are out there. Does anyone think of him other than his mother father and kids.

I know a guy a former SIPTU activist who used to recruit women for the Union and was active on the Womens Rights Circuit who was barred from his home under laws he campaigned for.

I know a teacher who had refused to send out school reports to fathers have to go to his daughters school to obtain them for himself.

Dr Galen

CDfm wrote: »

I don't think do.I think that women have a substantial constitutional law advantage over men in Ireland.

The other issue is that because more women do not work than men either as lone parents or housewives they have the opportunity to devote time to a movement then the traditional wageslave man has had.

Even during the boom years we imported foreign workers and continued with our welfare system when it would have been more beneficial to change to assisted childcare. The OECD recommended it years ago to reduce our welfare budget.

So there is a resistance to change too amongst women & the womens movement as to the welfare budget.

Lots of men see very little of their paypackets anyway and see very little by way of welfare and support.How many John Harnedy's are out there. Does anyone think of him other than his mother father and kids.

I know a guy a former SIPTU activist who used to recruit women for the Union and was active on the Womens Rights Circuit who was barred from his home under laws he campaigned for.

I know a teacher who had refused to send out school reports to fathers have to go to his daughters school to obtain them for himself.

so are you agreeing with Thaed and The Corinthian or not?

CDfm

Dr Galen wrote: »

so are you agreeing with Thaed and The Corinthian or not?

I look at things differently to how they see it & would be more inclined to deal with things by way of concensus.It could be the manflu I have ATM and maybe that clouds my thinking.

Realistically,we need to redefine how we do things. Women cant have it all their own way & neither can men.

Certainly, I feel that socially we need to change and that a major plank of that change is to move from welfare redistribution to childcare provision. I imagine lots of people would agree with me on that & that if you license childcare provision it should be sufficient to allow people to work and commute etc. You cant provide that and a welfare budget as it is not possible to stretch the resourses to fit that. The Belgians who are a wealthier country to Ireland could not do it without adopting that system.

We also need recognition of certain rights for men as a social contract and rewrite the constitution. We did it for divorce.

So the wage earner whoever that may be can earn and have enough for housing etc to live adequetly.

You can't run a socialist state for women with all the benefits and a capitalist one for men with none. Its fine to use lofty concepts but usually, a guy will need a place to live and for his kids to stay overnight etc on divorce too plus healthcare.

So I will probably agree with Thaed on some issues & Cor on others. The current laissez faire approach does not work where by and large the system transfers all the financial responsibility to the man.

So we need joined up thinking & big letters.

EDIT : I dont think I make it clear here but in a relationship breakdown I believe shared custody should be the norm and not the exception. The courts and authorities should actively enforce custody & access breaches with jail if nesscessary.

Via

"There is a sting in the tail for mothers with sons as their sons will face the system they have created."

Well said. Thats a very interesting situation, and may even hint at a way to try to solve the problem. Perhaps the effects of recent generations growing up in the matriarchy will unfold visibly in a couple decades. And visible to some of its protagonists.

That reminds me of another trend too -that of a reduction in male births, which may feature in a future Example of the Day.

CDfm

Via wrote: »

Well said. Thats a very interesting situation, and may even hint at a way to try to solve the problem. Perhaps the effects of recent generations growing up in the matriarchy will unfold visibly in a couple decades. And visible to some of its protagonists.

I have two kids -a man(19) and a woman(17).

I want the the best for both & they are a different gender not a different species to each other but with basically the same hopes and aspirations.

My OH works in an environment thats 90% male.

Do you think I want an environment thats unfair to any of them. ? Nah. Its not what I'm about.

donfers

Via wrote: »

"There is a sting in the tail for mothers with sons as their sons will face the system they have created."

that is absolutely key but the "me, now, girlpower" generation don't seem to realise we're all in this together

CDfm

donfers wrote: »

that is absolutely key but the "me, now, girlpower" generation don't seem to realise we're all in this together

ah but donfers - it is a two way street

the childcare cost debate never involves guys and its about time it did

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055957283

Via

You might like to try finding this thread, searching the forums for "Mens Rights". If that fails, try finding my posts, and link to it that way.

You cant do it.

I certainly cant. My own thread doesnt show up on my past posts page!

Already the topic of Mens Rights is being undermined, even on this forum itself.

Dr Galen maybe?

r3nu4l

Via wrote: »

You might like to try finding this thread, searching the forums for "Mens Rights". If that fails, try finding my posts, and link to it that way.

You cant do it.

I certainly cant. My own thread doesnt show up on my past posts page!

Already the topic of Mens Rights is being undermined, even on this forum itself.

Dr Galen maybe?

Uh, wut?

The thread title is 'Mens Rights', not 'Men's Rights', that's why you're having an issue. Nothing to do with Dr. Galen so please retract that.
Don't go into the punctuation correction thing, I won't be correcting the thread title, just like I don't correct typos in people's thread titles or posts (unless I'm asked to by the original poster and there's good reason to).

CDfm

Via wrote: »

You might like to try finding this thread, searching the forums for "Mens Rights". If that fails, try finding my posts, and link to it that way.

You cant do it.

I certainly cant. My own thread doesnt show up on my past posts page!

Already the topic of Mens Rights is being undermined, even on this forum itself.

Sometimes its server stuff and and how you "tag" a thread when you set up the OP. There is also stuff to do with your own display filters which is on your own user set up.

It sometimes might look like that but it really is'nt.

And besides Dr G wouldn't do that.

And I am hardly flavour of the month at times

Dr Galen

Its actually fairly simple. As we have anon posting on this forum its unsearchable so thus you can't find it like normal. Very little to do with me Via, appears i have burst another conspiracy bubble on ya buddy.

Cheers cdfm. Your right, while i was modding this forum we didnt alwys see eye to eye, but i never let anything in the past affect decisions in the here and. Fairness has to be the order of the day.

CDfm

Dr Galen wrote: »

Cheers cdfm. Your right, while i was modding this forum we didnt alwys see eye to eye, but i never let anything in the past affect decisions in the here and. Fairness has to be the order of the day.

TY Dr G. Yup and we both learned to tolerate the others point of view & even learned a bit.:)

Ya will be sorely missed Dr G for your tireless efforts to get this forum going - "gardening leave" is that what you call it.