Gender equality and Men's rights discussion megathread - READ FIRST POST

sam34

hi folks

i think we can all agree that this forum has increasingly been swamped with male-female battle threads, often to the detriment of the forum as a whole.

we have lost some good posters because of it.

after discussion, us mods have decided to close all such existing threads and open this mega-one instead.

the idea is that this is the ONLY thread in which mens rights/discrimination against men/childcare/paternity entitlements/custody arrangements/family law/domestic violence etc etc etc* are to be discussed. (*this is not an exhaustive list, but ye get the drift)

usual forum rules of no trolling, no muppetry, no porn etc apply

please do not open a new thread to discuss one of these issues - it will be locked immediately.

similarly, please do not drag other threads off topic down this rabbithole
the aim is to make the place less of a battleground, and not to have four or five threads on the front page discussing variations on a theme.

cheers to everyone for their cooperation :pac:

DarkJager

Well for one, the "He Drives, She Dies" campaign is back on the air again, and despite numerous complaints last year about its blatantly sexist attitude towards male drivers it remains unchanged. This is also despite the fact that the number of female drivers killed in RTA's has risen over the past 12 months. Nice to know our Road Safety Authority seem so uninterested in warning male drivers of this that they are happy to put this grossly sexist **** of an advert back on again.

stupidusername

DarkJager wrote: »

Well for one, the "He Drives, She Dies" campaign is back on the air again, and despite numerous complaints last year about its blatantly sexist attitude towards male drivers it remains unchanged. This is also despite the fact that the number of female drivers killed in RTA's has risen over the past 12 months. Nice to know our Road Safety Authority seem so uninterested in warning male drivers of this that they are happy to put this grossly sexist **** of an advert back on again.

I can't say that I feel that bad for men in this one, as it seems there's just nothing that gets through to the groups of drivers that are most likely to cause accidents. I say do whatever is needed to get the message across. If you know you're a good driver then let it be. I don't know the statistics but obviously there's good reason for these campaigns.I think there's an awful lot more that could be done in terms of trying to cut road deaths besides campaigns like this anyway,but that's a different thread!

DarkJager

stupidusername wrote: »

I can't say that I feel that bad for men in this one, as it seems there's just nothing that gets through to the groups of drivers that are most likely to cause accidents. I say do whatever is needed to get the message across. If you know you're a good driver then let it be. I don't know the statistics but obviously there's good reason for these campaigns.I think there's an awful lot more that could be done in terms of trying to cut road deaths besides campaigns like this anyway,but that's a different thread!

This isn't about cutting down road deaths, its a campaign which deliberatley paints all male drivers as murderers in waiting in an advert that is all female narrated. I wouldn't mind so much if they specifically targetted a section of male drivers for it (e.g boy racers) but this advert is also painting me as a murderer in waiting. I don't drive recklessly, I don't go out pulling stunts to impress anyone and they are referring to me as being a danger to the life of any passenger I take in my car.

I simply won't stand for it. Its disgracefully blatant sexism that they try to back up with horribly flawed and skewed stats. Not to mention that an increasingly large number of females have been killed in RTA's in the past 12 months. I don't hear an advert warning me to stay out of a car with a female driver in case I lose my life. If it was reversed, you'd have every female in Ireland up in arms over the portrayal of them as vehicular maniacs. Just because its men its supposed to be ok? No way, not a ****ing chance. I'll keep complaining to both the BAI and RSA until somebody sees some sense and removes this filth from broadcast.

Listen to it here if you have yet to hear it:

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/He-drives-she-dies/

Galvasean

Yeah that ad campaign is terrible. Surely the RSA must realise that such condescending ads are completely ignored and therefore completely useless?

DarkJager

Galvasean wrote: »

Yeah that ad campaign is terrible. Surely the RSA must realise that such condescending ads are completely ignored and therefore completely useless?

The problem is they don't see the problem with it. They rather send you a "stupid man, look at these stats over a 9 year period to realise the danger you are" response if you even raise the question with them. They are ****ing useless.

stupidusername

I've seen it already, I know which one you're talking about.

I don't know that I like the idea of pitting one sex against the other, but I'm not really getting how you can say the statistics are flawed. Could you give some links? On the page you linked to there were some facts. Are you saying that they're wrong / made up? If it really is 80% of men that are causing accidents then surely they're right to state it...?

amacachi

stupidusername wrote: »

I can't say that I feel that bad for men in this one, as it seems there's just nothing that gets through to the groups of drivers that are most likely to cause accidents. I say do whatever is needed to get the message across. If you know you're a good driver then let it be. I don't know the statistics but obviously there's good reason for these campaigns.I think there's an awful lot more that could be done in terms of trying to cut road deaths besides campaigns like this anyway,but that's a different thread!

When stats are adjusted for miles driven that ad is shown to be the BS it is.

stupidusername

amacachi wrote: »

When stats are adjusted for miles driven that ad is shown to be the BS it is.

Ok well if that's the case then you need to make a complaint based on incorrect information, rather than sexism. But do make that complaint.

Mrmoe

DarkJager wrote: »

Well for one, the "He Drives, She Dies" campaign is back on the air again, and despite numerous complaints last year about its blatantly sexist attitude towards male drivers it remains unchanged. This is also despite the fact that the number of female drivers killed in RTA's has risen over the past 12 months. Nice to know our Road Safety Authority seem so uninterested in warning male drivers of this that they are happy to put this grossly sexist **** of an advert back on again.

I have lots of problems with these types of ads. Firstly they do not work and secondly it should read more like "He drives, He dies". I think something like 25% of accidents fatigue is involved. It is elements like this that the RSA should be tackling and the reasons behind it. Instead they create a schism between genders.

amacachi

stupidusername wrote: »

Ok well if that's the case then you need to make a complaint based on incorrect information, rather than sexism. But do make that complaint.

That complaint was made if you look through the thread on the motors forum. And I'm sorry, but it is sexism. If incorrect statistics are used to vilify women it's rightly called sexism.

myflipflops

What annoys me about things like that road safety ad aimed at males (and in a simlar way, the higher insurance costs i had to pay because of my being a guy) is the fact that gender is automatically considered the correct common theme in the statistics.

Back in my early twenties, for insurance purposes in particluar, it would have been much more accurate to link me to an early twenties, professional female living in a high populatin density city than to an early twenties male from pretty much any rural part of the country.

For example, as of June this year, Donegal had more road deaths than any other county in Ireland despite it's small population in relation to places like Dubin or Cork.

Why did I get lumped in with young males from Donegal rather young females from Dublin when the latter comparison is much more accurate from a risk perspective??

Herbal Deity

Imagine if statistics showed that black drivers happened to be involved in more accidents than white drivers.

"Black drives. White dies."

It's ok to do this because it's gender?

K-9

It's a shame an issue like this had to become one large mega thread. If issues arise in other threads, will they just be moved here? Thinking of personal issues here.

I do agree there were too many threads but how about a little feedback?

The last open to forum poster feedback thread went well and we have a gentlemanly picture thread.

Maybe a little forum discussion before something like this?

Personally, I hope personal issues aren't siphoned of here.

krudler

I'd love to see an ad campaign called "She parallel parks, he pays the inevitable mechanic bill to fix the damage". It'd never happen because its a silly stereotype that women cant parallel park, just like this idea that every guy between the ages of 18-29 is a raging boy racer who'll mow down everything in sight.

Nevyn

http://www.asai.ie/complain.asp

r3nu4l

On the subject of the He drives, she dies advert the ASAI are not listening to any complaints relevant to this particular advert. I've complained on the basis of gender discrimination AND on the basis of incorrect information and received the same blasé reply that amounted to 'It's a worthwhile campaign to reduce road deaths'.
There was no attempt made to address my complaint that the number of miles driven by men versus women could be a factor in the increased number of accidents involving men.Unfortunately ANY effort to reduce deaths on the roads seem to curry favour no matter how outlandish the statistics that are used.

K-9 wrote: »

It's a shame an issue like this had to become one large mega thread. If issues arise in other threads, will they just be moved here? Thinking of personal issues here.

Personally, I hope personal issues aren't siphoned of here.

Personal issues belong in the...Personal Issues forum, not here.
Relationship issues belong in the Relationship Issues forum.

K-9

r3nu4l wrote: »

Personal issues belong in the...Personal Issues forum, not here.
Relationship issues belong in the Relationship Issues forum.

Fair enough.

If somebody posts a thread looking for advice on family law, will it be moved to this thread or PI?

r3nu4l

K-9 wrote: »

Fair enough.

If somebody posts a thread looking for advice on family law, will it be moved to this thread or PI?

A specific query on family law should NOT be discussed as a gender issue so should have its own thread. However, if people start turning it into a gender issue thread then those posts will be sent here and the users warned. The thread itself would be left where it was.

Consistently trying to turn other threads into gender war threads will result in bans. We've already lost too many good posters and mods from this forum because of this issue.

Of course a thread looking for legal advice on family law would be locked as we don't offer legal advice on boards.ie.

K-9

r3nu4l wrote: »

A specific query on family law should NOT be discussed as a gender issue so should have its own thread. However, if people start turning it into a gender issue thread then those posts will be sent here and the users warned. The thread itself would be left where it was.

Consistently trying to turn other threads into gender war threads will result in bans. We've already lost too many good posters and mods from this forum because of this issue.

Of course a thread looking for legal advice on family law would be locked as we don't offer legal advice on boards.ie.

Indeed, I appreciate the need for a separate thread like this. Just wanted that clarified. Thanks.

donfers

I have some major problems with the very existence of this thread

1. This forum is called tgc, is it so astonishing that there are many threads related to gender issues here? It just doesn't make sense, it's like having a forum for a football team that then has a thread asking to discuss all issues relating to the team there - huh!

2. The implication of the title of the thread "Gender war discussion megathread" is that all these gender-related threads descend into argument and hostility. Do they really? I don't think so, in fact contrary to other forums, what is refreshing about this one is that the views and opinions of those who are not typical tgc posters are welcomed and those posters are not warned or infracted or banned instantly here i.e. debate is actually encouraged rather than having some kind of propoganda groupthink blackout going on.

3. what constitutes a gender issue? Really I think you need to clarify what goes in this thread and what can go outside because the lines are quite blurry.

4. I find it a little insulting that this thread only exists here, it's as if we are being patronised for being naughtly little boys who can't have a civilised argument and to go and play in this thread. It really is yet another not so subtle example of how men and women are treated differently and how your subconscious assumptions of the gender's behaviour influences the controlling structure. It's quite sad really and I request the existence of this thread be re-examined.

r3nu4l

donfers wrote: »

I have some major problems with the very existence of this thread

1. This forum is called tgc, is it so astonishing that there are many threads related to gender issues here? It just doesn't make sense, it's like having a forum for a football team that then has a thread asking to discuss all issues relating to the team there - huh!

2. The implication of the title of the thread "Gender war discussion megathread" is that all these gender-related threads descend into argument and hostility. Do they really? I don't think so, in fact contrary to other forums, what is refreshing about this one is that the views and opinions of those who are not typical tgc posters are welcomed and those posters are not warned or infracted or banned instantly here i.e. debate is actually encouraged rather than having some kind of propoganda groupthink blackout going on.

3. what constitutes a gender issue? Really I think you need to clarify what goes in this thread and what can go outside because the lines are quite blurry.

4. I find it a little insulting that this thread only exists here, it's as if we are being patronised for being naughtly little boys who can't have a civilised argument and to go and play in this thread. It really is yet another not so subtle example of how men and women are treated differently and how your subconscious assumptions of the gender's behaviour influences the controlling structure. It's quite sad really and I request the existence of this thread be re-examined.

Many of these threads are in fact suitable for the Humanities forum and we should have been more vigilant in putting them there to begin with, we weren't and we lost as a result of that. The Gentleman's club was originally founded as a Men's Health forum and we wanted to open up discussion to other issues which we have done. The problem has been that despite all of our attempts to keep other threads on-topic, we have posters doing their utmost to twist words so that these threads end up being about male versus female equality. We can't and won't allow that any more. This thread is the equality megathread. I'm happy to rename the thread to the Gender equality megathread or Men's rights megathread or something similar but the fact is that this is the megathread for all such discussion from now on.

If you want a Men's rights or Gender equality forum you are entitled to ask for one here.

sam34

donfers wrote: »

I find it a little insulting that this thread only exists here, it's as if we are being patronised for being naughtly little boys who can't have a civilised argument and to go and play in this thread. It really is yet another not so subtle example of how men and women are treated differently and how your subconscious assumptions of the gender's behaviour influences the controlling structure. It's quite sad really and I request the existence of this thread be re-examined.

its not patronisisng, not a "run along now" dismissal and nothing to do with how men and women are treated differently.


its a reflection of the levels of dissatisfaction from mods and users that there were many threads all essentially discussing the same topics ad nauseum. people were copying & pasting posts across threads in osme cases, which is clearly a ridiculous scenario.

the forum was getting swamped, and it was not what this forum was ever intended to be.

some good mods got fed up of it and stepped down, some good posters got fed up of it and left the forum, some new posters got scared off and didnt post as much as they would have done otherwise.

donfers

sam34 wrote: »

its not patronisisng, not a "run along now" dismissal and nothing to do with how men and women are treated differently.


its a reflection of the levels of dissatisfaction from mods and users that there were many threads all essentially discussing the same topics ad nauseum. people were copying & pasting posts across threads in osme cases, which is clearly a ridiculous scenario.

the forum was getting swamped, and it was not what this forum was ever intended to be.

some good mods got fed up of it and stepped down, some good posters got fed up of it and left the forum, some new posters got scared off and didnt post as much as they would have done otherwise.

I understand the rationale but I disagree with how it is being applied, that is all.

As far as I can see from the list of threads on this forum now, it has all but turned into the online version of Heat magazine, fair enough if you want to dumb things down a tad or deradicalise the more controversial posters/posts, that's entirely up to you but for me it is those posters/posts which made the forum interesting in the first place....oh well

sam34

donfers wrote: »

I understand the rationale but I disagree with how it is being applied, that is all.

As far as I can see from the list of threads on this forum now, it has all but turned into the online version of Heat magazine, fair enough if you want to dumb things down a tad or deradicalise the more controversial posters/posts, that's entirely up to you but for me it is those posters/posts which made the forum interesting in the first place....oh well

oh ffs

it is neither an attempt to dumb down the forum nor to deradicalise the controversial posters.

anyone who wishes to post can do so in the new thread. what they cannot do is create multiple threads all essentially about the same issue, and derail other threads by soapboxing. nobody is being "deradicalised".

(on a side note, we've been discussing this change in the mods forum for some time. after i started the megathread last night i posted in teh mods forum that i expected such accusations. didnt take long.)

the dumbing down accusation is a cheap shot, tbh. firstly, there's nothing particularly intellectual about the stuff that often goes on in those gender threads. secondly, if posters want to create light-hearted threads, then let them, so be it. as long as they dont create multiple threads on the same issue and dont try and twist other threads to fit their own narrow agenda, then so what?

donfers

sam34 wrote: »

oh ffs

it is neither an attempt to dumb down the forum nor to deradicalise the controversial posters.

anyone who wishes to post can do so in the new thread. what they cannot do is create multiple threads all essentially about the same issue, and derail other threads by soapboxing. nobody is being "deradicalised".

(on a side note, we've been discussing this change in the mods forum for some time. after i started the megathread last night i posted in teh mods forum that i expected such accusations. didnt take long.)

the dumbing down accusation is a cheap shot, tbh. firstly, there's nothing particularly intellectual about the stuff that often goes on in those gender threads. secondly, if posters want to create light-hearted threads, then let them, so be it. as long as they dont create multiple threads on the same issue and dont try and twist other threads to fit their own narrow agenda, then so what?

again I respect your views but please respect my right to disagree with some aspects of your post.

I think they are being deradicalised to an extent, by hiding away all the "gender" issues in one thread. (And we need to clearly define what should go in here and what should not, looking on this forum I see a lot of threads that could potentially be described as gender-based threads, hard to know where the line is).

You might think there was nothing intellectual going on in the threads that you guys want to dump in here but I certainly learned a lot from them.

I agree that sometimes threads can be hijacked here for political pointscoring but I'd argue that goes on in every forum.

Lastly I'd have to question the "all those threads are the same" argument when it comes to threads relating to mens rights or lack thereof, they are not, they may relate to that theme of course but touch on topics ranging from advertising to tv to sociology to evolution to psychology to politics to linguistics. I don't understand why this theme (mens rights or lack thereof) and this theme alone is being targetted in this way and consigned to a standalone thread like this.

I appreciate all mod feedback thus far though and thank you for allowing me to express my views on this

Nevyn

r3nu4l wrote: »

On the subject of the He drives, she dies advert the ASAI are not listening to any complaints relevant to this particular advert. I've complained on the basis of gender discrimination AND on the basis of incorrect information and received the same blasé reply that amounted to 'It's a worthwhile campaign to reduce road deaths'.
There was no attempt made to address my complaint that the number of miles driven by men versus women could be a factor in the increased number of accidents involving men.Unfortunately ANY effort to reduce deaths on the roads seem to curry favour no matter how outlandish the statistics that are used.

Sorry to hear cos frankly I think that sucks donkey balls.
I do know that the number of complaints can make a difference as to if and when they examine the ad there seems to be some sort of tipping point.

panda100

donfers wrote: »

2. The implication of the title of the thread "Gender war discussion megathread" is that all these gender-related threads descend into argument and hostility. Do they really? I don't think so, in fact contrary to other forums, what is refreshing about this one is that the views and opinions of those who are not typical tgc posters are welcomed and those posters are not warned or infracted or banned instantly here i.e. debate is actually encouraged rather than having some kind of propoganda groupthink blackout going on.
.

I don't write on here very often as I respect that its a place for the gentleman to hang loose and have their say.
However, I have to agree with donfers above.

Many issues already raised on this thread I would be in complete agreement with regards the abhorent road saftey ads and adoptive leave. The thread title is extremely hostile and suggests that men and women are at war, both fighting fruitlessly for differnent things in life,which of course is ludicrous.

Surely gender equality megathread would be better than gender war?

I'll retreat back to the Ladies Lounge now

K-9

sam34 wrote: »

(on a side note, we've been discussing this change in the mods forum for some time. after i started the megathread last night i posted in teh mods forum that i expected such accusations. didnt take long.)

Well I was just asking a few questions seeing as the users didn't get a chance to give any feedback on it.

I can see the need for the thread as some other threads meandered and probably could well have been locked by stricter mods. I know you guys didn't take the decision lightly.

Could have pm'd you guys but didn't want to be wasting your time and my time waiting for a response. Thought it was better posting it here.

I remember thinking there was a danger of this happening when this board was suggested, so it's good to see action being taken.

sam34

K-9 wrote: »

Well I was just asking a few questions seeing as the users didn't get a chance to give any feedback on it.

I can see the need for the thread as some other threads meandered and probably could well have been locked by stricter mods. I know you guys didn't take the decision lightly.

Could have pm'd you guys but didn't want to be wasting your time and my time waiting for a response. Thought it was better posting it here.

I remember thinking there was a danger of this happening when this board was suggested, so it's good to see action being taken.

sorry K9, think there are crossed wires

my statement was in response to donfers comment about this move being an attempt to "deradicalise the more controversial posters".

we have not made any topic off-limits, we are simply trying to streamline things, so nobody is being "deradicalised".

while i didnt use the word deradicalise, i speculated in the mods forum that we would be accused of trying to suppress some posters or their opinions and, sure enough, that happened :pac:. thats all i was pointing out.

tbh

The situation with the forum is that it's not a male-centric version of humanities, or a "mens lib" forum. It was never intended to be that. It wasn't moved to Soc to get a bigger audience, or anything like that.

the forum is, first and foremost, and discussion forum for men to discusses issues to do with mens health and wellbeing.

things like -

what it's like when your missus is pregnant NOT NECESSARILY what it's like when someone is suing you for child support

what it's like becoming a father, and raising kids NOT NECESSARILY how to get access to your kids through the courts when you split up

What it's like dealing with male health conditions like prostate or rectal cancer NOT NECESSARILY discussing why womens conditions get more funding and attention

What makes a responsible man - safe sex, mature attitudes to relationships etc NOT NECESSARILY anything else.

It's supposed to be a friendly, supportive locker room type environment where men can ask the questions that we all ask but sometimes feel like we're already supposed to know the answer to. And if we can post up the odd pic of a gorgeous girl, or talk about things like action movies or football the odd time as well, well everyones a winner.

For those interested, we now have less posters than we did when we initially made the move to soc. Personally, I believe thats because pretty much every thread on the board has become a men vs women thread. I'm not saying there's no place for those threads on boards, I am saying that place is not necessarily here.

I -we - appreciate that's not going to suit everyone and I - we - appreciate that we may struggle to get the balance right. However, we stand and fall on our decisions, we've made the decision to try to "correct" the tone, and that's pretty much it. Hopefully it'll work, if it doesn't, it won't be for the lack of trying.

There's plenty of space on boards for new forums, even new private forums, so if people feel that we are closing off a gap that needs filling, I would humbly suggest that you make the forum suggestion in the forums forum, and you'll have my support.

Please understand, I'm not ranting or bitching at anyone, donfers I respect your opinion and you've expressed it eloquently and with class. However, I want it to be clear what we're trying to achieve with this forum so everyone knows where they stand.

DarkJager

Thaedydal wrote: »

Sorry to hear cos frankly I think that sucks donkey balls.
I do know that the number of complaints can make a difference as to if and when they examine the ad there seems to be some sort of tipping point.

In an ideal world that would be case, in Ireland its simply not. Hunky Dorys release an advert with female models, a few women get in a twist about it and complain and its pulled and they are told not to put it out again. The Road Safety Authority release a "public safety advert", ingnoring the very real dangerous habits of female drivers, paint all male drivers as murderers in waiting and its simply dismissed as being in the "public interest" despite uproar about it.

There are horrific double standards in this country when it comes to the media, and alienating an entire gender of the country against your "safety campaigns" is not only disgustingly short sighted, its also incredibly dangerous. Personally, I couldn't ever take the RSA or any of their messages seriously again since they see fit to demean me as some vehicular maniac in an ad campaign.

r3nu4l

Good point on the thread name, we'll look at this tomorrow. I think we chose the name because it reflected what was happening in these threads to begin with. Very often it was less to do with equality and more to do with bashing feminism or simple point scoring against women/women's groups etc...all the things we give about with respect to many feminist groups and their reactions to men...pot meet kettle

Regarding maternity leave, I have a big bee in my bonnet regarding paternity leave and failing that level of equality even flexible hours/working at home rights for new fathers would be good but are often not granted.

So I can see how Adoptive fathers are getting a raw deal here too. Not good but are adoption support groups doing anything about this? I don't know but would be interested to hear.

donfers

r3nu4l wrote: »

Good point on the thread name, we'll look at this tomorrow. I think we chose the name because it reflected what was happening in these threads to begin with. Very often it was less to do with equality and more to do with bashing feminism or simple point scoring against women/women's groups etc...all the things we give about with respect to many feminist groups and their reactions to men...pot meet kettle

Regarding maternity leave, I have a big bee in my bonnet regarding paternity leave and failing that level of equality even flexible hours/working at home rights for new fathers would be good but are often not granted.

So I can see how Adoptive fathers are getting a raw deal here too. Not good but are adoption support groups doing anything about this? I don't know but would be interested to hear.

I think the part in bold is a little unfair

For a "gender war" to take place requires two opposing views, this forum actually let that argument take place...whereas in other forums perhaps one side of the argument would be infracted/banned etc.

Just speaking personally I thought it was great that both sides argued things out on various issues...I never perceived it as a gender war, just a debate...what is far more worrying, in my view, is the one-sided nature of "debate" in certain forums.

2. I don't think it was about bashing feminism at all and the fact that you have perceived it as such is very revealing to me, you see if men dare to stand up for themselves or fight for their rights there are usually one of two reactions

a) ridicule, confusion, laughter........why would men need any rights?


b) they're just being aggressive, angry, we are always "bashing" something.

I don't agree with either of the typical interpretations, the first one is more out of ignorance, the second one is more insidious and designed to label/ostracise/defame men before they even have a chance to speak out.

I understand that women face a lot of discrimination issues and fully empathise with their many support groups and political movements, they are necessary and important.

Can we not view the mens rights movement with the same level of respect?

but I am perhaps flogging a dead horse here as it has been pointed out this is not what the forum was intended for and I would also agree that at times resentment was evident in certain threads directed towards the worthy ideals of the feminist movement (although I'd argue that that resentment targetted only the extreme elements, there is of course a danger it might be interpreted as misogynistic or sexist).

So I guess as tbh alluded to, a more clearly-defined explanation of what the forum is for would be good, I'm not sure going down the "lad" route is a good idea as AH already caters for that demographic.

Via

Over 90% of people forced to live their lives in prison are Male.

No two ways about it. Thats how it is.

Womens prisons are absurdly softer than mens ones. Their "prison" sentenses are also outrageously shorter than mens for the same offense.

And this is the page of our discussion, which has been locked for no good reason.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055926072

Via

I am from a country where men are forced to do military slavery. They are conscripted from the age of 18, and are paid, last time I was there, 12 cents per week. This is just so theyre legally on the payroll and so the Geneva Conventions arent broken. All poor male teenagers have to do it, and if they avoid it, only at the age of 50 is the order dropped. They are either exiled or thrown in prison for a mandatory Three years. The consequences of avoiding conscription affect young mens entire futures, and being drafted is usually also traumatic.

In contrast, all women are exempt.

Via

In the Irish news today, as many of you will know, is a potentially fantastic advance in the curing of cancer. It has worked in mice, and it is hoped, including by myself, that it will work in humans too.

However, the type of cancer that they have been researching is limited exclusively to Breast cancer. In other words, it is a cancer cure that, should it work, would only save female lives. That even this may be possible is of course wonderful, but surprisingly, in no article I have yet seen has the possibility of the technique to cure other forms of cancer been mentioned. Even once.

This isnt the first time the subject of breast cancer aid has raised an eyebrow. You may remember a while ago people wearing pink ribbons to acknowledge breast cancer.

There were charity collectors, and very prominent publicity for the campaign. But what worried me was this:

The campaigning was limited exclusively to female cancer prevention. Instead of what we re used to, (charities collecting on behalf of all victims of cancer - skin, lung, testicular, breast, pancreatic and other forms), this campaign was engineered to help only women.

Do you see any testicular cancer campaigns?

Do you f***.

Kooli

Via wrote: »

Do you see any testicular cancer campaigns?

Do you f***.

Why not start one? Or is that someone else's job?

tbh

Via wrote: »

In the Irish news today, as many of you will know, is a potentially fantastic advance in the curing of cancer. It has worked in mice, and it is hoped, including by myself, that it will work in humans too.

However, the type of cancer that they have been researching is limited exclusively to Breast cancer. In other words, it is a cancer cure that, should it work, would only save female lives. That even this may be possible is of course wonderful, but surprisingly, in no article I have yet seen has the possibility of the technique to cure other forms of cancer been mentioned. Even once.

This isnt the first time the subject of breast cancer aid has raised an eyebrow. You may remember a while ago people wearing pink ribbons to acknowledge breast cancer.

There were charity collectors, and very prominent publicity for the campaign. But what worried me was this:

The campaigning was limited exclusively to female cancer prevention. Instead of what we re used to, (charities collecting on behalf of all victims of cancer - skin, lung, testicular, breast, pancreatic and other forms), this campaign was engineered to help only women.

Do you see any testicular cancer campaigns?

Do you f***.

this is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do we need to complain about research into breast cancer? Why should we make people who are affected by breast cancer feel guilty?

If you want to talk about prostate cancer, then do it.

If you want to talk about the way the state funds breast cancer reasearch vs the way the state funds prostate cancer research, then do it somewhere else.

Via

"I make 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).

I 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. "

- Soul Stretcher, the original Mens Rights thread. And very relevant his point is too.

tbh

Via wrote: »

"I make 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).

I 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. "

- Soul Stretcher, the original Mens Rights thread. And very relevant his point is too.

it's relevant to an argument that is not happening here. It's an interesting post, but it has nothing to do with this forum, imo. This isn't a "Mens Rights" forum, it never claimed to be and it has no ambition to be. Again, that's not to say that such a forum doesn't have a place on boards, but this forum isn't it.

Via

In Ireland, 4,493 men were made redundant in February this year and 1,844 women.

And though, so typical of the spasticated delinquancy that people call "computers", I cant find the article now, it was even admitted in the Metro (another feminist tabloid) that, in the recession:

36, 000 women had lost their jobs in Ireland over several months up to December or this January. Compared to:

138, 000 Men.

Again, a statistic people dont seem to find relevant in Gender Equality.

r3nu4l

Thread title changed.

Via

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tio-table.html

Here is a list of students in British universities, by sex ratio.

12 surveyed had an equal sex ratio.

86 surveyed have more women than men.

23 surveyed have more men than women.

Despite this, at the bottom it says the following:

UK average 51 (male) :49 (female)

Another brilliant example of how statistics are manipulated to portray women as the victims.

Devastating evidence, once again, that there certainly is need for gender equality.

tbh

Via wrote: »

In Ireland, 4,493 men were made redundant in February this year and 1,844 women.

And though, so typical of the spasticated delinquancy that people call "computers", I cant find the article now, it was even admitted in the Metro (another feminist tabloid) that, in the recession:

36, 000 women had lost their jobs in Ireland over several months up to December or this January. Compared to:

138, 000 Men.

Again, a statistic people dont seem to find relevant in Gender Equality.

Via, you're just proving my point over and over again. This *is not* a gender equality forum. Anyone who wants to start a thread about how they are dealing with redundancy, fine. Anyone who wants to start a thread dealing with how unfair it is that more men than women lose their jobs will have to find somewhere else to do it.

tbh

r3nu4l wrote: »

Thread title changed.

actually - thank you - via I'm sorry, this is the right place to discuss these issues - I was using it as a thread to discuss the change in focus of the forum, and I thought you were arguing against it - major apologies, I'm mortified! but my point still stands for other threads

r3nu4l

Yeah sorry about that folks, thread title changed.

So this thread is the place to discuss these issues but I would suggest that instead of posting about 7 'examples of the day', you post one, allow people to discuss that example and then tomorrow post another or let someone else do it.
Just firing out examples does not give people time to discuss.

donfers

r3nu4l wrote: »

Yeah sorry about that folks, thread title changed.

So this thread is the place to discuss these issues but I would suggest that instead of posting about 7 'examples of the day', you post one, allow people to discuss that example and then tomorrow post another or let someone else do it.
Just firing out examples does not give people time to discuss.

well you see...that's precisely the problem, when you confine such a huge and diverse issue to one thread you are going to get confusion and lots of different people talking about different aspects of it which serves to all but neuter the topic

r3nu4l

donfers wrote: »

well you see...that's precisely the problem, when you confine such a huge and diverse issue to one thread you are going to get confusion and lots of different people talking about different aspects of it which serves to all but neuter the topic

So request a new forum. I will gladly support it.

folan

Im glad other people were annoyed about the "He Drives, She Dies" campaign! So if your a bloke getting into a car with a girl, your fine! or a guy getting into a car with a guy. the message is right for all genders, and for some reason the ruined it by exclusively aiming it at women!
Anyway, 1 more complaint in.

Maguined

r3nu4l wrote: »

So request a new forum. I will gladly support it.

Wouldn't that be a little redundant? to have a men's issues forum and then a sub-forum for men's issues regarding gender equality?

I always viewed these sorts of threads as being suitable to this forum as they fell under the "the role of men in modern society, the pressures on men to succeed and anything else related to being a man." category so i really can't understand why these threads are viewed in such a negative light.