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

Maguined

nedtheshed wrote: »

Conversely I wouldnt want to visit the hunting forum to read threads running down anti hunting sections of society,I would not visit the cycling forum and expect to see threads running down the evils of owning a car,I would not visit the vegan forum and read threads saying that meat eaters are wrong.

See where Im going with this?

To be honest i would expect those things in those forums, part of cycling is having to deal with motorists and i would think it would be perfectly on topic to have a thread talking about how motorists behaviour might infringe upon a cyclists, just as i think it would be perfectly acceptable on the motorists forum to have threads bemoaning the actions of bad cyclists and i think both forums have had both such threads at some point or another.

I would also think it highly likely that on the vegan forum people might post interesting articles indicating whether a vegan diet is healthier or worse than a meat eating diet, also i would expect people to post threads discussing their own moral reasons for choosing such a diet.

nedtheshed wrote: »

The problem as I see it has been that of alot of the topics that centred around mens issues/paternal rights or whatever have turned into slanging matchs arguing that men have it tougher than women,dont have enough protection when it comes to their rights as a parent or what ever the case may be.It is very very tiresome to read things very similar in approach trotted out constantly.

Is that not part of the discussion though? Could you have a proper discussion of black south africans rights during apartheid without comparing them to whites south africans rights? would there be any point? when discussing rights you are always going to compare them to someone else's rights when that is directly applicable which is the case for a lot of these topics. And even if such discussion was limited to not comparing to womens rights would that really make the discussion better as there is no chance it turns into a slagging match? would that really enrich TGC? personally i do not think it would.

CDfm

@TC a lot of what you say is factual but the way it gets presented is in a very negative way as a gender war.

Some friends of my OH were around the other night and when I came home we talked for a little while about co-parenting and one of the women explained her attitude to co-parenting with her ex is a million miles away from my ex. It wasn't an academic discussion but about the problems i was having with my daughter and they had met her earlier in the evening.

So I think what people are saying is that these are normal day to day things that people deal with -co-parenting or not.Just a normal teenage girl.

Except if I was to post the same question here rather then talk about it I would get diatribes. As it was I came way positive and a bit motivated about it.

I don't want to change the world -but at times I want to be better Dad and more supportive partner and still swap dirty jokes with the lads.

So if I am posting about being a Dad I dont want a gender debate and thats what people are saying. Off with the gender debate goggles.There is more to life than that.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

@TC a lot of what you say is factual but the way it gets presented is in a very negative way as a gender war.

I think in a small percentage of times it is. Certainly, I have seen unbelievable misogamy born out of resentment in some places and denying fora for discussion where others may pull them out of this is only going to make the problem worse.

However, much of what has been referred to as gender war here is not. It is, as you say, factual and worse than that facts that we are apparently not allowed to present. While I get your point on the attitude of some, it does not excuse blanket censorship or the attitude that even raising the specter of gender comparisons is unacceptable.

I don't want to change the world -but at times I want to be better Dad and more supportive partner and still swap dirty jokes with the lads.

So if I am posting about being a Dad I dont want a gender debate and thats what people are saying. Off with the gender debate goggles.

With respects, that form of navel gazing attitude towards men's rights is just as bad as those who have turned bitter and misogynistic. If you want to do that, then that's your business, but don't act as an apologist for those who would censor the rest of us.

As far as I'm concerned, any change is unlikely to do me much good given the speed at which these thing happen, but I'd like to think that it might save my son from growing up a second class citizen in the future, something that does not apply to you.

Via

What I have to say today is directed at no-one in particular;

This thread is a joke.

A quarter of it is a mod mistaking the thread topic, and the rest is people talking about posting threads. Its like a meeting of the socialist workers party.

Instead, how about this, we agree a posting protocol: Everyone who posts, has to post an example of misandry. Then they may post their reactions, interspersed with a linebreak.

Starting..........now!

Maguined

Via wrote: »

What I have to say today is directed at no-one in particular;

This thread is a joke.

A quarter of it is a mod mistaking the thread topic, and the rest is people talking about posting threads. Its like a meeting of the socialist workers party.

Instead, how about this, we agree a posting protocol: Everyone who posts, has to post an example of misandry. Then they may post their reactions, interspersed with a linebreak.

Starting..........now!

No thanks i would prefer to have a rationale interesting debate rather than RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE as i do not go looking for misandry under every rock and shadow.

r3nu4l

Via wrote: »

What I have to say today is directed at no-one in particular;

This thread is a joke.

A quarter of it is a mod mistaking the thread topic, and the rest is people talking about posting threads. Its like a meeting of the socialist workers party.

Instead, how about this, we agree a posting protocol: Everyone who posts, has to post an example of misandry. Then they may post their reactions, interspersed with a linebreak.

Starting..........now!

Jeepers, now I'm agreeing with Maguined!! :eek:
No thanks Via, let's not. That's a mod direction by the way.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think in a small percentage of times it is. Certainly, I have seen unbelievable misogamy born out of resentment in some places and denying fora for discussion where others may pull them out of this is only going to make the problem worse.... even raising the specter of gender comparisons is unacceptable.

There is a Russian saying that every man likes the smell of his own

farts

.

So I am not the best judge of my own work or my own best editor.

So people on the same wavelenght wont always see it.

I am the first to admit that I am myopic on these issues. Its not any real secret that myself an Dr G have had the odd tif. We also pm'd cos I found some topics difficult,same with r3, and not as Mods & Rockers but just guys.

So the thing ain't censorship but how the arguments get presented and how best to do it in this format in the here and now.

With respects, that form of navel gazing attitude towards men's rights is just as bad as those who have turned bitter and misogynistic. If you want to do that, then that's your business, but don't act as an apologist for those who would censor the rest of us..... but I'd like to think that it might save my son from growing up a second class citizen in the future, something that does not apply to you.

Haha TC - I dont do navel gazing and walk the walk.

I do agree with a lot of the points you make just that its easy to get stuck in a rut with it , which I did a bit, and sacrifice quality and simplicity for quantity.

I will bet that you are a far nicer,positive and rounded guy than comes across in your posts here.

Kooli

Maguined wrote: »

To be honest i would expect those things in those forums, part of cycling is having to deal with motorists and i would think it would be perfectly on topic to have a thread talking about how motorists behaviour might infringe upon a cyclists, just as i think it would be perfectly acceptable on the motorists forum to have threads bemoaning the actions of bad cyclists and i think both forums have had both such threads at some point or another.

I would also think it highly likely that on the vegan forum people might post interesting articles indicating whether a vegan diet is healthier or worse than a meat eating diet, also i would expect people to post threads discussing their own moral reasons for choosing such a diet.

Yes I agree those would definitely have a place, but imagine if every thread in the cycling forum became a motorist bashing thread, even if the OP had nothing to do with cars, it would get fairly tiresome. And every thread about how cyclists have a hard time on the roads would bring on comments about how motorists may THINK they have a hard time, but they really don't, not compared to cyclists, when no one actually mentioned motorists or motorists' issues at all.

tbh

Ok guys, we've kicked this around a bit, and here's the addition to the charter:


We are aware of the desire to discuss issues around gender rights, and the disparity - perceived or otherwise - of rights between men and women.

We are also aware that a lot of posters have no interest in this issue, and no wish to discuss them when they start, or contribute to, a thread.

In the interest of ensuring that all sides are catered to, we will be implementing a very strict policy of moderation around these issues.

What this means:

Gender rights, in the main, should only be discussed in threads where it is clear that the intention of the OP is to discuss these issues.

For example, an OP of "Can anyone tell me why so much money is spent on womens health issues as opposed to mens health issues" is fine.

However, if the OP posts about an experience with a mens health issues, we do not want these threads evolving into a discussion about mens health vs womens health.
If a moderator sees that this is happening, we will state clearly on thread that we consider any such posting "off-topic" and will ban posters who ignore these instructions.

This is important:

The moderators decision as to what constitutes off-topic posting is final. Be VERY clear about that from the offset. It doesn't matter if you think the mod is wrong, or afraid to discuss the topic, or a bra-burning feminist. Off-topic posting WILL result in a ban.

If the mod says it's off-toic, it's off-topic.

mods will not be drawn into a back-and-forth, it-is-it-isn't argument.

Any questioning of a mods decision on thread will result in a three month ban - there will be no exceptions to this rule.

On the other hand, moderation of gender discussion threads will be light - mods will only intervene when there is a clear case of personal abuse - we will not be referees as to valid /invalid arguments, soapboxing, refusal to back up claims etc.
This does not affect your statutory rights.


Finally, to reiterate what we said before.
There are no grudges or scores to settle as a result of anything said on this thread. We respect everyones point of view, we admire your passion for the forum and the topics, and we are taking this step with, we believe, the best interests of the forum and its users at heart.

r3nu4l

Thanks tbh

Just to make one more point. Given the history of this topic in the forum we won't be opening the closed threads as they are full of off-topic posting. Please feel free to start new threads and please, keep them on-topic Thanks all.