Mens Rights Thread

LeeHoffmann

Your tone comes across really badly and reflects poorly imo. It's not a question of belief. I don't see it happening. You can also point out some posts (rather than posters) as I previously suggested. Refusing to back up your strong claims with examples or proof undermines your position i think. We can all go around throwing out inflammatory statements and refuse to back them up, but i think you'll agree that adds nothing to debate or the forum.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. It seems clear nobody's going to back up those claims so we'll leave it there.

Piliger

py2006 wrote: »

Yes there is, but there have been some rather questionable thread invasions from certain female members who are clearly angered by the fact that men are discussing issues relating to men (that is the only way I can describe it). It has happened on a couple occasions in tGC and in the After Hours section too.

More than a couple. As in real life, it's open season on men.

Lyaiera

Piliger wrote: »

None whatsoever. I have never seen it claimed.

Indeed so. Except that they have an international, well funded, collection of organisations that tackle this on a daily basis.

feminism has climbed the mountain and is occupying the high ground so comprehensively that they are successfully managing to exclude anyone from claiming that men suffer any prejudice or sexism or any negative experience whatsoever. They deny i - thence it does not exist.

No man can make even the slightest negative comment about a woman in the media. Any slight results in sanctions and firings. Women on the other hand are writing daily sexist, abusive, offensive articles about men and doing it with impunity and alacrity.

But feminism is so obsessed with it's own victimhood that they consider the whole matter to be a zero sum game. Any validity that is acceded to on behalf of men MUST be a reduction of validity on behalf of women. This is how they see it and this is how women's comments in The Gentlemen's Club consistently go.

I think this post is incredibly sexist in its own right. You've declared women and feminism to be a monolithic entity. You're denying the right of people to be individuals and ascribing an entire viewpoint to an entire personhood.

py2006 wrote: »

On another occasion one female colleague passed a remark about liking my jeans. I brought it up, as I thought it odd, in the canteen and one women said it was what was in my jeans she liked which got a roar of laughter from the other ladies around her.

None of this I found offensive, it was harmless banter. But as was pointed out to me aftewards, could you imagine a male saying or doing something similar in the workplace nowadays? All of a sudden it would be sexist, offensive and degrading to all women. All it would take would be for one woman to say the words, 'sexual harassment' and all hell would break loose. He would most likely be disciplined.

It's your right not to be offended, and to not raise the issue with their managers. Just as it is anyone else's right to be offended and raise the issue with the appropriate manager. You've said you didn't mind, but you obviously did because you're using the situation to disparage someone else's reaction to the matter. You're saying your reaction is the appropriate reaction and devaluing another person's reaction.

iptba wrote: »

ETA: Many guys can also play the White Knight role also, as was seen visibly with the video about tearing down the posters, so some troublesome posters could be male also. Even when people say their gender, or it's obvious from a particular post, I may not remember weeks or months later so often don't remember the gender of posters.

I think this is quite a sexist reaction. You're totally devaluing a man's reaction to something by saying he is a "White Knight" and acting in a way purely to get in a woman's pants. Surely the egalitarian response is to credit the man with the ability to form his own convictions and act on them. Without presuming that there's an ulterior motive, of which there is no evidence.

My own opinion is the equality is entirely linked between men and women. For example: for women to break the glass ceiling "employers" need to stop being concerned about women taking time off to care for children. And that means they need to stop presuming that women are the primary carer. And for men to have more father's rights it needs to be understood by "employers" that they're just as much might want to look after their children as women.

To be honest, when I boil down a lot of the problems between male and female rights I see a problem with society: society as dictated by those in control of the media, those in control of the state, and those in control of big business (not that there's much difference between those three, as seen by the Leveson report.)

It's not a case of women fighting for women, or men fighting for men. It's entirely a case of people fighting for respect. A huge amount of working class men are unemployed, entirely because of the manufacturing industries being brought to the developing world. The traditional female working class employment avenues have remained, because the jobs that replaced the industrial jobs (office workers, call centres, etc.) still need cleaners. We shouldn't be concerned with why "men's" jobs are disappearing and why "women's" jobs remain. We should be concerned with how people in their forties and fifties whose jobs have disappeared are going to continue living lives as is appropriate for a first world country. And that's before you even get into the problem of people in their twenties and thirties, educated men and women who went through university on the back of a "knowledge economy" and are now without work. It seems the great equaliser is that both men and women will end up unemployed and without a voice. That's troubling.

py2006

Lyaiera wrote: »

You've said you didn't mind, but you obviously did because you're using the situation to disparage someone else's reaction to the matter. You're saying your reaction is the appropriate reaction and devaluing another person's reaction.

No, I said I didn't mind because...I didn't mind. It was funny and I was mildly embarrassed but that is all. As I said, it wasn't till I was taken aside later that day that the obvious double standard was pointed out and this thread reminded me of that situation.

Lyaiera

py2006 wrote: »

No, I said I didn't mind because...I didn't mind. It was funny and I was mildly embarrassed but that is all. As I said, it wasn't till I was taken aside later that day that the obvious double standard was pointed out and this thread reminded me of that situation.

You're saying the other person's reaction isn't valid. Just because you don't mind doesn't mean that everyone else should be of the same opinion.

py2006

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're saying the other person's reaction isn't valid. Just because you don't mind doesn't mean that everyone else should be of the same opinion.

That is not what I am saying. You are missing the point. If I made a comment about a womans top being nice and tight or low or whatever (in the workplace) and got a roar of laughter from male colleagues in front of her. I would be sh1ting myself over a complaint and rightly so. For the most part, men know to stir well clear of any kind of comments like this because the consequences could be far more severe for them.

Pawwed Rig

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously? This is a fallacy. "Men" as a group didn't control power for so long. In reality, some men and women did.

Sadly this lazy lie, or convenient simplification is sold by certain groups to further their own cause. The simple fact is, for "so long" men were suffering a similar oppression as women. It wasn't as if children were separated at birth; serfs were serfs, peasants peasants, and royalty royalty.

A very relevant point.

Something that is not often thought of is that this ruling sex were forced into armies to go fight against other men in places many had never heard of. They had the right to be butchered and killed or left with permanent injuries. This directly lead to a social consciousness of both men and women which in Europe brought us socilaism and communism that (officially at least) made everyone equal.
In an Irish context Irish Catholic men were discriminated against just as much as women until relatively recently.
There is a relatively short period where Irish Catholic men had more rights than women legally which has mostly been corrected now (legally at least).
The continued acceptance of women as the primary carer, I believe, is more responsible for the lack of women in higher positions than any kind of Institutional sexism. Until men get equal roles and responsibilities (legally) in the care of children then this will most likely continue.

iptba

Lyaiera wrote: »

ETA: Many guys can also play the White Knight role also, as was seen visibly with the video about tearing down the posters, so some troublesome posters could be male also. Even when people say their gender, or it's obvious from a particular post, I may not remember weeks or months later so often don't remember the gender of posters.

I think this is quite a sexist reaction. You're totally devaluing a man's reaction to something by saying he is a "White Knight" and acting in a way purely to get in a woman's pants. Surely the egalitarian response is to credit the man with the ability to form his own convictions and act on them. Without presuming that there's an ulterior motive, of which there is no evidence.

It seems you may be one of these people who rush to use the word "sexist". My point was that if some people are disrupting threads, one can't assume they are female. I was pointing out what are sometimes called "White Knights".

I didn't make any reference to people being motivating by getting in to people's pants. People could be disrupting men's rights discussions for various reasons including genuinely believing they were doing right. Men throughout the ages have been socialised to be chivalrous and protect women in society, even agreeing to men-only conscription and compulsory military service.

iptba

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's not a case of women fighting for women, or men fighting for men. It's entirely a case of people fighting for respect. A huge amount of working class men are unemployed, entirely because of the manufacturing industries being brought to the developing world. The traditional female working class employment avenues have remained, because the jobs that replaced the industrial jobs (office workers, call centres, etc.) still need cleaners. We shouldn't be concerned with why "men's" jobs are disappearing and why "women's" jobs remain. We should be concerned with how people in their forties and fifties whose jobs have disappeared are going to continue living lives as is appropriate for a first world country. And that's before you even get into the problem of people in their twenties and thirties, educated men and women who went through university on the back of a "knowledge economy" and are now without work. It seems the great equaliser is that both men and women will end up unemployed and without a voice. That's troubling.

But you seem to be ignoring the fact that there already is a strong women's movement, acting like a union for women: feminism.

This is a very influential movement: particularly in third level education, many people are almost indoctrinated in it so it has a lot of followers throughout society. It gets lots of funding to research society from its perspective. It pressurises governments, corporations, etc. to act in certain ways e.g. different prison sentences for men and women, discrimination against men with gender quotas, etc. In this scenario, if men don't speak up, they will be walked all over, as has been happening in recent years/decades.

Daveysil15

py2006 wrote: »

Yes there is, but there have been some rather questionable thread invasions from certain female members who are clearly angered by the fact that men are discussing issues relating to men (that is the only way I can describe it). It has happened on a couple occasions in tGC and in the After Hours section too.

It's true, I have seen it happen a few times. There was a thread about gender issues posted a while ago where people were discussing the sexism in AH. Lots of examples of sexism towards women were highlighted and discussed in detail (some of which were very light hearted).

When a couple of male posters tried to show examples of sexism towards men the thread was effectively closed (by a female admin I might add). It's like women are commended for highlighting it when its aimed at them, whereas men are accused of been whingebags, trolls etc. I think a lot of men refuse to speak out about it because they know they will get that sort of reaction.

LeeHoffmann

More than a couple.

then point them out. Otherwise we´re going to keep going round and round in circles, and I´m getting dizzy

As in real life, it's open season on men.

you seem very fond of this hyperbolic saying

Piliger

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

then point them out. Otherwise we´re going to keep going round and round in circles, and I´m getting dizzy

you seem very fond of this hyperbolic saying

Yada yada yada ..... All the men here who want to stand up for mens rights are sexist according to you ... your posts contribute nothing but nonsense camouflaged as argument and poorly written disruptive irrelevances.

Piliger

Daveysil15 wrote: »

It's true, I have seen it happen a few times. There was a thread about gender issues posted a while ago where people were discussing the sexism in AH. Lots of examples of sexism towards women were highlighted and discussed in detail (some of which were very light hearted).

When a couple of male posters tried to show examples of sexism towards men the thread was effectively closed (by a female admin I might add). It's like women are commended for highlighting it when its aimed at them, whereas men are accused of been whingebags, trolls etc. I think a lot of men refuse to speak out about it because they know they will get that sort of reaction.

Every thread here on men's issues is infiltrated by women show come to disrupt and undermine the thread. No one is moderated or removed from it. Every discussion gets derailed from it's intended topic by these women and nothing is ever done about it.

Lyaiera

iptba wrote: »

But you seem to be ignoring the fact that there already is a strong women's movement, acting like a union for women: feminism.

This is a very influential movement: particularly in third level education, many people are almostindoctrinated in it so it has a lot of followers throughout society. It gets lots of funding to research society from its perspective. It pressurises governments, corporations, etc. to act in certain ways e.g. different prison sentences for men and women, discrimination against men with gender quotas, etc. In this scenario, if men don't speak up, they will be walked all over, as has been happening in recent years/decades.

You addressed one component of my post and didn't look at its totality at all. You are completely disingenuous in trying to say that my approach to men's rights isn't valid.

iptba

Lyaiera wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Lyaiera wrote:

It's not a case of women fighting for women, or men fighting for men. It's entirely a case of people fighting for respect. A huge amount of working class men are unemployed, entirely because of the manufacturing industries being brought to the developing world. The traditional female working class employment avenues have remained, because the jobs that replaced the industrial jobs (office workers, call centres, etc.) still need cleaners. We shouldn't be concerned with why "men's" jobs are disappearing and why "women's" jobs remain. We should be concerned with how people in their forties and fifties whose jobs have disappeared are going to continue living lives as is appropriate for a first world country. And that's before you even get into the problem of people in their twenties and thirties, educated men and women who went through university on the back of a "knowledge economy" and are now without work. It seems the great equaliser is that both men and women will end up unemployed and without a voice. That's troubling.

But you seem to be ignoring the fact that there already is a strong women's movement, acting like a union for women: feminism.

This is a very influential movement: particularly in third level education, many people are almost indoctrinated in it so it has a lot of followers throughout society. It gets lots of funding to research society from its perspective. It pressurises governments, corporations, etc. to act in certain ways e.g. different prison sentences for men and women, discrimination against men with gender quotas, etc. In this scenario, if men don't speak up, they will be walked all over, as has been happening in recent years/decades.

You addressed one component of my post and didn't look at its totality at all. You are completely disingenuous in trying to say that my approach to men's rights isn't valid.

How am I being "disingenuous"? I explained why I disagreed with you. I explained why I believe the approach you mention is problematic at the moment when there already exists a strong women's rights (in a general sense)/feminist movement.

It's like a court room where there's already a team full of lawyers speaking for one side. And the jury is already inclined to believe that side. It that scenario, you also need to people who will put forth the case for the other side.

Piliger

Lyaiera wrote: »

You addressed one component of my post and didn't look at its totality at all. You are completely disingenuous in trying to say that my approach to men's rights isn't valid.

On the contrary he addressed exactly what you were saying. The rest of which was nothing more than a misguided interpretation of a silly Orwellian-like future of mass unemployment. As iptba says, Women have a voice, a voice that is loud and widespread and is dominant in the Media and Power centres. Men have no such voice and need to organise and form a voice of our own.

LeeHoffmann

All the men here who want to stand up for mens rights are sexist according to you

no that´s how you want to paint things. That is at best a baseless accusation and at worst an outright lie. It´s time for you to stop putting words in peoples´ mouths

your posts contribute nothing but nonsense camouflaged as argument and poorly written disruptive irrelevances.

wow the irony. Pot, kettle, black.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

It's like a court room where there's already a team full of lawyers speaking for one side. And the jury is already inclined to believe that side. It that scenario, you also need to people who will put forth the case for the other side.

This is exactly the way it is. Government/Cabinet/Ministers/Committees/NGOs are making decisions every day on a thousand issues affecting our lives. But they are being lobbied at each and every stage by feminist interest groups on each and every matter. There is a constant flow of pressure and demands and disingenuous and inaccurate statistics flowing on to their desks that present one side of every case and one side only.
Decision makers may well be, numerically, mostly men but they cannot avoid listening and being influenced strongly by the incredibly one sided nature of this flow. And this has being going on for decades. So there is also a sense of false reality that has grown up in these power circles, a false reality generated by the constant stream of false data and false reports.
There is NO VOICE representing a counter balanced view. NO VOICE pointing out the lopsided demands, the lopsided reports, the lopsided 'statistics' and claims. All there is is the odd media article or blog, in the margins of the debate, a month after the decisions are made, pointing out the total nonsense of these 'reports' and 'statistics'.
We desperately need a voice for men, a voice at the top table and in the Media, that counterbalances the totally unbalanced and prejudiced views that dominate the whole discussion in the Media and in Power circles.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

The National Women's Council also replied to Eilis O'Hanlon's letter. It is interesting they are thinking about the Constitution - are they looking for quotas/language that would encourage quotas, to be put into it?
I'm afraid that with people like Ivana Bacik involved, I'm not sure what weird and wonderful changes could be proposed.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/women-are-not-even-in-the-room-3281786.html

Madam -- Eilis O'Hanlon uses a World Economic Forum (WEF) report to show Ireland is the fifth best place in the world to be a woman. But the report is skewed. A similar UN report shows Ireland in 33rd place in equality between women and men. Ireland leaps to the top of the WEF table because it counts Presidents Robinson and McAleese instead of Taoisigh Ahern, Cowen and Kenny. Consequently, Ireland is deemed a great place to be a woman, particularly if you're in politics.

But our all-powerful 16-member cabinet has two women and 14 men. Ballot papers are lists of men: eight out of 10 candidates at the last election. Boardrooms are almost women-free zones: nine out of 10 ISEQ board members are men. Eight out of 10 senior judges are men. At best, only three out of 10 voices in current affairs radio belongs to a woman.

Women are not in the room to make decisions about their lives. Even the WEF report shows the impact: Ireland comes 30th in economic equality and educational attainment. On health equality, we come in 69th.

The Constitutional Convention is one opportunity to change this. Through the Convention we can maximise the participation of women in politics and public life. We should also protect our most vulnerable citizens -- women and men. Today, no Irish citizen has a constitutional right to food, work or health. Putting these rights into our Constitution makes them enforceable by the courts. This is already the case with the right to free primary education or the right to vote.

Due to hard struggle, often by members of the National Women's Council of Ireland, great gains have been made by women. But a fair Constitution will ensure that Ireland earns a place at the top of the table instead of gaining it through statistical error.

Women are not even in the room

The National Women's Council of Ireland seem very focused on getting what they want into, or out of, the Constitution.
From Nov 30 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1130/1224327302538.html :

Constitution had a 'huge negative impact' on women's lives

[..]

Barrister Alan Brady, adjunct lecturer in Trinity College Dublin’s school of law, said he had been commissioned by the Women’s Council to carry out a “gender audit” of the Constitution.

ETA: Looks like I was right and quotas could be enshrined in our constitution.
https://www.constitution.ie/AboutUs.aspx

The task that the Constitutional Convention has been given is set out in the Resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas of July, 2012 and includes consideration of the following:

[..]

Amendment to the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life;

Increasing the participation of women in politics;

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think this is quite a sexist reaction. You're totally devaluing a man's reaction to something by saying he is a "White Knight" and acting in a way purely to get in a woman's pants.

I don't think he suggested that, although there is some truth in it.

Men behaving as "White Knights" is more as a result of social conditioning that perpetuates a residual code of chivalry. Men, as children, are taught that hitting girls is always wrong (while hitting boys can be justified) or that opening doors for women, and the like, is 'good manners'. None of that is really to do with getting into a woman's pants.

Nonetheless, there is also truth in the accusation that it can be as a means to get in a woman's pants, and unfortunately this is largely encouraged by women themselves. Survay after survay still show that women will prefer men with 'chivalrous' qualities and like it or not the ability for a man to 'provide' for his future family is still remains a major factor when women choose a man.

As such, rejecting 'chivalry' or being a poor provider is going to decrease a man's chances to get into a woman's pants. Like it or not, few women will want to settle down with a man who wants to be a homemaker.

My own opinion is the equality is entirely linked between men and women. For example: for women to break the glass ceiling "employers" need to stop being concerned about women taking time off to care for children. And that means they need to stop presuming that women are the primary carer. And for men to have more father's rights it needs to be understood by "employers" that they're just as much might want to look after their children as women.

I completely agree, but employers are pretty down on the list of those who need to understand this - the courts would be a better place to start. Otherwise, all you're doing is making it easier for men to care for children they have no rights to and that's not going to see much take up, TBH.

After all, why stay at home and look after the kids, when chances are that, even as primary child carer, a judge will award primary custody to the mother? Better off concentrating on your career as, if you do split with the mother, you're going to need the money.

It's not a case of women fighting for women, or men fighting for men.

It shouldn't be, but it unfortunately has become this. If you look at iptba's most recent post, he links to a Constitutional Convention that is considering the following topics:

• Reduction of the Presidential term of office to five years and the alignment with local and European elections;
• Reduction of the voting age to 17;
• Review of the Dáil electoral system;
• Irish citizens’ right to vote at Irish Embassies in Presidential elections;
• Provisions for same-sex marriage;
• Amendment to the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life;
• Increasing the participation of women in politics; and
• Removal of the offence of Blasphemy from the Constitution.

You'll note that while women's issues are cited twice, men's are not cited even once as being worthy for inclusion, and this is essentially par for the course as men's issues and rights are either ignored or further sacrificed to the alter of women's rights.

It was partisan before masculinists started appearing on the scene.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

I'm not an expert on "equality budgeting" but my guess, given this is being written care of a feminist network, is it often involves groups complaining if a measure is seen as disadvantaging women, but not if it is seen as disadvantaging men.

Also, suggestions they make presumably involve disadvantaging women less and in this scenario, I imagine it is often a zero sum game, so the suggestions then disadvantage men.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/1008/1224325013744.html

A chara, – Successive governments have, since the onset of the economic crisis, overseen economic policies that disproportionately affect certain sections of Irish society. This is captured by studies undertaken by independent think-tanks, economists, and policy analysts, which clearly highlight the disadvantaging of women, people with disabilities and low income households, among others.

Given that Budget 2013 is now being devised, we wish to object to this continued targeting of those already experiencing inequality, and call upon the Government to follow international best practice by introducing equality budgeting.

Equality budgeting entails the completion of impact assessments and equality audits, which would provide Government with the necessary information to make critical decisions concerning people’s well-being and the just distribution of economic resources. If the Labour-Fine Gael administration really believes in the Programme for Government’s proclamation of “forging a new Ireland that is built on fairness and equal citizenship”, it will now adopt equality budgeting as the obvious and necessary means to ensuring fairness and equality in the next budget.

Continued disproportionate hardship for the same, disadvantaged members of this society is not, and should not, be an option. – Is muidne,

CLARA FISCHER, Irish Feminist Network; LOUISE RIORDAN, 50:50 Group; ORLA O’CONNOR, National Women’s Council of Ireland; MICHAEL TAFT, Unite the Union; URSULA BARRY, UCD School of Social Justice; LOUISE BAYLISS, Spark; ETHEL BUCKLEY, Siptu; FIONA BUCKLEY, UCC Department of Government; MARY MURPHY, NUIM Department of Sociology; ANDY STOREY, UCD School of Politics; SARAH BENSON, Ruhama; SANDRA McAVOY, UCC Women’s Studies; PAULINE CONROY, researcher and author; MARY RYAN, Immigrant Parents Guardians Support Organisation; JOHN O’BRENNAN, NUIM Centre for the Study of Wider Europe; DOLORES GIBBONS, Dublin Women’s Manifesto Group; IAIN ATACK, TCD Irish School of Ecumenics; CATHLEEN O’NEILL, Kilbarrack Community Development Project; CATHERINE LYNCH, Irish Network Against Racism; RACHEL MULLEN, Equality Rights Alliance; JIMMY KELLY, Unite the Union; SUZY BYRNE, disability rights activist; SIOBHAN O’DONOGHUE, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland; LUCY KEAVENEY, Countess Markievicz Summer School; MARTINE CUYPERS, Transgender Equality Network Ireland; RICHIE KEANE, UCD Equality Society; MARGARET MARTIN, Women’s Aid; GAVAN TITLEY (NUIM Centre for Media Studies; ANN IRWIN, community activist and social policy analyst; MICHAEL CRONIN, DCU Centre for Translation and Textual Studies; DENISE CHARLTON, Immigrant Council of Ireland; ANNA MacCARTHY, LGBT Noise Dr Clara Fischer, Co-ordinator,

Irish Feminist Network, C/o Poolbeg Street, Dublin 2.

See more info at: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81719624 (too awkward to copy and paste)

Another letter in Wednesday's Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/1205/1224327508233.html

Preparing for a fair budget

A chara, – Political editor Stephen Collins (Opinion, December 1st) stated “the Irish State has managed better than any other in the EU to protect the most vulnerable sectors in society from the worst hardships” endured during the course of fiscal correction.

Given that successive governments have refused to undertake impact analyses, which would provide information on how “vulnerable sectors” have fared since the beginning of the economic crisis, it is difficult to accept Collins’s statement, nevermind the certainty it seeks to convey.

The truth is that the State does not know how different sections of Irish society are impacted by governments’ economic policies, as the relevant disaggregated data haven’t been collected, and impact assessments have not been conducted.

Moreover, the limited research that is being done (eg by independent think tank Tasc), clearly highlights the disproportionate and repeated disadvantaging of certain groups, such as lone parents, and captures drastic increases in inequality over recent years. Unlike other countries, which include equality or gender-proofing as a logical and necessary part of economic policy-making, planning, and review, Ireland remains – perhaps wilfully – ignorant of the equality outcomes of policies introduced by government.

Unless the Irish State adopts equality-proofing as a standard practice applicable to all economic policies, it will continue to lack the relevant information to establish how vulnerable groups are affected. One would be wise to refrain from proclaiming the first-rate protection of “vulnerable sectors” until such time. – Is mise,

Dr CLARA FISCHER,
On behalf of Equality
Budgeting Campaign,
C/o Poolbeg Street, Dublin 2.

Don't think I'd have much confidence in their "gender-proofing".

lechiennoir

If the quotas in Irish political parties, and the fines behind them, are to be enforced then I will never, ever give so much as a preference vote to a female candidate in the future.

It almost makes me gag to think that such a measure has been proposed.

iptba

I just happened to be looking at a new ESRI report tonight and thought this was interesting:

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/2012-12-10_WebWorkAndPovertyReportFINAL_pub.pdf

Between 2007 and 2010 there was a substantial drop in male full-time working (from 80 to 64 per cent) and a commensurate increase in male joblessness (from 16 to 28 per cent). Among females in working-age couple households, there was little change in full-time working (from 34 to 35 per cent) but a more sizeable fall in part-time working (from 28 to 22 per cent). As a result, the increase in female joblessness was not as marked as for males (from 37 to 43 per cent). Couple households where neither partner works increased (from 9 to 15 per cent). The decline in the percentage of couple households where both partners worked fulltime was more modest (from 29 to 26 per cent).

I think it is interesting for a few reasons:

---

- At 80% of men working full-time working, versus 34% of women working full-time, it reminds me of something Warren Farrell had in his book, "The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex"

Options available to women:
Work full-time
Work part-time
Don't work (outside the home)

Options available to men:
Work full-time
Work full-time
Work full-time
(remember that a percentage of the population can't work due to ill-health and disability of various sorts)

---

(ii) The effects of the recession on men and women. National Women's Council were claiming that women were the hardest hit.

---

(iii) The issue of gender quotas e.g. in politics, company boards, etc. Pre-recession, 80% of men but only 34% of women were working full-time. Hardly suggests 40% gender quotas (which are almost 50/50 quotas - one can't have them for practical reasons) are justified.

lechiennoir

Does anyone here read/participate in Mens Rights on www.reddit.com/r/mensrights ?

iptba

lechiennoir wrote: »

Does anyone here read/participate in Mens Rights on www.reddit.com/r/mensrights ?

I have done a little bit in the last six months or so. A couple of people earlier in the thread also mentioned it.

lechiennoir

iptba wrote: »

I have done a little bit in the last six months or so. A couple of people earlier in the thread also mentioned it.

It's quite good and very active.

Although it's constantly being targeted by feminist groups on Reddit.

Madam_X

Watching a rom com (sue me!) and Cameron Diaz is playing this jealous crazywoman who has her fella terrorised. When he finally admits he's seeing someone else, she punches the crap out of him - and shur 'tis just a big laugh. :rolleyes:

LeeHoffmann

Theres a lot of that in films. There was one movie, starring Ashton Kutcher, about a guy who tries to go 100 days - or something like that - without sex. There´s a scene in the film in which a woman basically rapes him (he´s tied to a bed, asleep, and a woman starts having sex with him...he wakes up, doesn´t want to continue but comes shortly after) and it´s all treated very light-heartedly - the character´s love interest even gets angry with him over it. :eek: I was pretty shocked watching it but the men I watched it with didn´t see anything shocking about it. I don´t think they saw it as rape. Clearly the film producers, director, script-writers didn´t either. Mad

iptba

Dec 10 piece:

It's taboo to admit it, but I wish my unborn baby wasn't a beastly boy!
at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2245681/Its-taboo-admit-I-wish-unborn-baby-wasnt-beastly-boy.html

---

'A bigot in a bra!': A male writer responds to Esther Walker's 'toxic and chauvinistic' admission that she doesn’t want to give birth to a little boy

By Peter Lloyd

PUBLISHED:09:28 GMT, 12 December 2012|

This week, Esther Walker - wife of celebrity food critic Giles Coren - wrote a lacerating opinion piece about her casual sexism towards men and boys.

The article, which no doubt delighted the likes of Harriet Harman and Suzanne Moore, garnered more than 1,400 reader comments and sparked global offence (from both genders) after it poured vitriol on her unborn child for possibly being male.

'I can only deal with one man in my life... and sometimes that’s one too many,' she spewed, probably over some middle class macaroons or an elderflower torte.

'I know very little about boys, but what I have seen I really haven’t liked. Boys are gross; they attack their siblings with sticks, are obsessed with toilets, casually murder local wildlife and turn into disgusting teenage boys and then boring, selfish men.

continues at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2246471/A-bigot-bra--Male-writer-responds-Esther-Walkers-admission-doesnt-want-baby-boy.html

Daveysil15

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Theres a lot of that in films. There was one movie, starring Ashton Kutcher, about a guy who tries to go 100 days - or something like that - without sex. There´s a scene in the film in which a woman basically rapes him (he´s tied to a bed, asleep, and a woman starts having sex with him...he wakes up, doesn´t want to continue but comes shortly after) and it´s all treated very light-heartedly - the character´s love interest even gets angry with him over it. :eek: I was pretty shocked watching it but the men I watched it with didn´t see anything shocking about it. I don´t think they saw it as rape. Clearly the film producers, director, script-writers didn´t either. Mad

You mean this film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmeaAGe4uMo

jackofalltrades

From yesterdays Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1217/1224327923001.html

Inequality of healthcare for women must be eradicated

Opinion: Today, Anand Grover, the UN special rapporteur on the right to health, is visiting Ireland to give the keynote address at a conference of the Women’s Human Rights Alliance. As a renowned advocate for women’s right to health, he is aware that there are many barriers when it comes to the realisation of this right for women in Ireland.

He will have heard already that we have a highly inequitable two-tier health system which offers privileges to those who can afford private health. The 48 per cent without private health insurance have to wait longer to access hospital and specialist services.

Women are particularly affected by this inequality. They are more likely to be poor, to parent alone, to be the main provider of unpaid care work, to earn low wages, and to be in poorly protected employment. Indeed women have identified lack of income as the main barrier to improving their health.

There are also significant health inequalities between different groups of women such as those with disabilities and those belonging to an ethnic minority.

Women with disabilities are likely to be trapped in a violent relationship longer than non-disabled women and, for some, such violence is the cause of the disability itself. Traveller women live 12 years less on average than settled women.

Furthermore, women are largely absent in the rooms of power when it comes to deciding on health policy. The lack of women’s representation in key decision-making bodies within the health system has serious implications for the quality of healthcare received.

Women and men have different health needs and health experiences. For example, women and men present different symptoms in relation to cardiovascular disease.

In the area of mental health, women are more likely to suffer from anxiety or depression, whereas men are more likely than women to die by suicide and less likely to seek help when experiencing mental distress.

Sexual abuse and violence against women has an appalling impact on women’s health – both physical and mentally. Some 42 per cent of women in Ireland experience some form of sexual abuse or violence over their lifetime.

Gender-sensitive healthcare

More recently there have been positive developments towards a more gender-sensitive healthcare system. The National Women’s Council together with men’s groups and the Health Service Executive have worked together on an important report called Equal but Different which considers the differences between women and men’s health needs and how they can be integrated into the ongoing reforms of the health system. This framework will now be translated into a policy of the HSE and become part of its service plans. Pilots will be rolled out next year in the area of mental health and primary care.

No discussion on women’s right to health in Ireland in 2012 can take place without emphasising the critical right of women to reproductive health and abortion. The National Women’s Council of Ireland has long campaigned for reproductive rights in Ireland, with motions being passed by the membership over the last 20 years. The council has been to the forefront in our online campaign Legislate for X which has led to over 72,000 emails to TDs from over 16,000 people in every constituency in Ireland.

The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar has woken the country up to the risk to life for women in Ireland. The analyses and the range of opinions expressed by doctors and the testimonies of women in response to Ms Halappanavar’s death highlight the lack of clarity that confronts doctors and pregnant women.

Grover highlights in his ground-breaking report on abortion in 2011 that the right to sexual and reproductive health is a fundamental part of the right to health: “Criminal laws penalising and restricting induced abortion are the paradigmatic examples of impermissible barriers to the realisation of women’s right to health and must be eliminated.”

Today is the second anniversary of the A, B and C vs Ireland judgment. Women in Ireland cannot wait any longer. The Government must finally act and legislate for the X case. This must include as a minimum and first step the repeal of the completely outdated Offences against the Person Act 1861 which criminalises abortion in literally all circumstances.

The programme for government lays out radical plans for the reform of our health services including the introduction of universal health insurance and a new governance and organisational structure. This is to be welcomed.

Draconian cuts

However, the draconian funding cuts to the health budget over the past few years have resulted in wider health inequalities and poorer access to essential services. This is particularly affecting women living in poverty and disadvantaged communities, lone parents, older women, women with disabilities and people living in rural and isolated communities. Continuous cuts to our health services have had a detrimental impact on essential frontline services and seriously undermine the possibility of the reform programme being implemented in the foreseeable future.

While acknowledging that the current economic crisis is a challenge, the National Women’s Council also sees it as an opportunity. The council and many women’s groups argue that this is a unique time to gender-proof all reform proposals, ensuring that they are effective and make the best use of existing resources.

Today on the occasion of the UN special rapporteur on the right to health’s visit, we call on the Government both legislate for the X case and ringfence funding to deliver on promised health reforms.

In times of austerity, the health of women and indeed the entire population should not be compromised.

* Orla O’Connor is director of the National Women’s Council of Ireland, which convenes the Women’s Human Rights Alliance

The title alone seems to suggest that men are in a better position when it comes to healthcare. The author seems to conveniently skip over the fact that women out live men, have better cancer diagnosis services, access health services in higher numbers and have access to cancer vaccines that are not offered to men.

Gender proofing is again brought out, as it was in the recent budget to ensure that this imbalance towards women is maintained. Gender proofing is surprisingly not sought when it comes to the allocation of existing funds.

iptba

jackofalltrades wrote: »

From yesterdays Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1217/1224327923001.html



The title alone seems to suggest that men are in a better position when it comes to healthcare. The author seems to conveniently skip over the fact that women out live men, have better cancer diagnosis services, access health services in higher numbers and have access to cancer vaccines that are not offered to men.

Gender proofing is again brought out, as it was in the recent budget to ensure that this imbalance towards women is maintained. Gender proofing is surprisingly not sought when it comes to the allocation of existing funds.

Thanks, wasn't aware of that article.
Just to point out that people can comment under that article if they want.

py2006

It's taboo to admit it, but I wish my unborn baby wasn't a beastly boy!
at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...astly-boy.html

That woman should not be allowed to have children. If the poor baby does turn out to be a boy I hope social services and the community around her will keep a watchful eye.

py2006

I do not believe the men posting here would value a mother's life, first. I believe they are suffering from foetophilia. I stand by my words; many of the men posting here would happily allow women to die in childbirth, if it preserves their reactionary beliefs. As a teenager, I was sent to one of the main proponents and practioners of symphisiostomy. ( a minor gynae thing) Believe me, he was a horrible condescending man. I believe the most extreme views are fueled by a fear and loathing of women, not concern for the foetus.

One of the comments under the IrishTimes article.

um7y1h83ge06nx

py2006 wrote: »

One of the comments under the IrishTimes article.

Christ, that's a pretty f**king extreme view, and quite offensive.

Thing is, it seems okay to say these kind of things without repercussion. You would have to think that having such an extreme view would point to an issue with that specific woman and not men as a collective.

Zulu

Roland Salty Rifle wrote: »

Thing is, it seems okay to say these kind of things without repercussion.

Or when challenged, people are met with open hostility, and accusations of bullying etc.. It's all very (passive)aggressive, and caustic.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Zulu wrote: »

Or when challenged, people are met with open hostility, and accusations of bullying etc.. It's all very (passive)aggressive, and caustic.

Absolutely spot on.

py2006

It's actually something that genuinely annoys me. Men simply cannot question, query, criticise or argue topics related to or about women. It is often met with censorship, vitriol or accusations of misogyny.

Daveysil15

py2006 wrote: »

It actually something that genuinely annoys me. Men simply cannot question, query, criticise or argue topics related to or about women. It is often met with censorship, vitriol or accusations of misogyny.

+1 You're absolutely right. It happens all too often. Men are much more harshly criticised for discussing this sort of thing. And then when you try and hightlight any injustices made against men, you're a whinger and your voice is quickly silenced.

py2006

Daveysil15 wrote: »

+1 You're absolutely right. It happens all too often. Men are much more harshly criticised for discussing this sort of thing. And then when you try and hightlight any injustices made against men, you're a whinger and your voice is quickly silenced.

It's important to add that it is not just women that enforce this untold law.

iptba

I find it interesting now that there's a gender pay gap where, in a section of society, women are significantly out earning men, this isn't portrayed as an injustice, or discussed much, the way the pay gap has been around the world when women earn less than men. It seems women are simply "worth it", and men should just accept it.

The drop in income after having children is interesting too, and worthy of discussion, but to some extent at least, is a separate issue i.e. it shouldn't mean that the first pay gap shouldn't also be reflected on.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/front/2012/1218/1224327961490.html

Younger Irish women workers outearn their male counterparts, and by a far greater margin than anywhere else in the OECD. But the pay gap is quickly reversed in favour of men once children are involved.

From earning 17 per cent more than men when they have no children, Irish women aged 25-44 go to taking home 14 per cent less in their pay packet when they have children, the report finds.

Researchers say Irish women start their careers earning well because they are generally better qualified than men. But once they give birth, they are far more likely than women in other countries to withdraw from the workforce .

“For many years now, Irish women have had a higher level of educational attainment than men,” says Willem Adema, a senior economist in the OECD’s social policy unit in Paris. “As a result, they are far more likely to work in well-paying sectors such as law and accountancy. Because Ireland’s public sector is smaller than, say, Sweden’s, they are more likely to work in the private sector where wages are higher.”

donfers

iptba wrote: »

I find it interesting now that there's a gender pay gap where, in a section of society, women are significantly out earning men, this isn't portrayed as an injustice, or discussed much, the way the pay gap has been around the world when women earn less than men. It seems women are simply "worth it", and men should just accept it.

The drop in income after having children is interesting too, and worthy of discussion, but to some extent at least, is a separate issue i.e. it shouldn't mean that the first pay gap shouldn't also be reflected on.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/front/2012/1218/1224327961490.html

this is astonishing and perfectly illustrates the imbalance in how gender issues are covered

women earn significantly more than men (17%) and there's not a word uttered from the equality fascists who usually will cling on to any statistic yet there's a huge clamour when a lower figure (14%) than that is weighed in favour of men when there is an apparent reason (i.e. the woman takes a few years off)

mindboggling stuff and it tells you everything about the propoganda machine that is the "woe is women, the patriarchy takes care of all men" message that is peddled by the one-eyed gender police (media, universities, sheepish populists, pandering gutless politicians) is not just fundamentally flawed but is plain old currupt and malicious - that is what you are up against

Pawwed Rig

I came across a thread in After Hours with these 2 links highlighting a huge double standard in Irish law.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/student-starts-jail-for-glass-attack-458492.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/suspended-sentence-for-actress-who-left-barman-permanently-scarred-after-glassing-incident-3331414.html

Full thread here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056835259&page=4

um7y1h83ge06nx

Just looking at the Independent article about the woman, mad stuff.

Gda Grey told Fiona Murphy BL, prosecuting, that Tanya Wilson then slapped the barman across the face and chased him with a glass in her hand when he tried to get away.

He said that she was acting “really crazy” and he put up his hand up to try and block her. He then followed her out a fire escape and put his hand on her arm to calm her down.

Wilson then said “You can't touch me, I'm a girl,” and smashed the Bulmers glass into the barman's face.

He grabbed her arm and brought her to the bar while she was screaming: “Let me go, let me go; he attacked me.”

The court heard the barman was bleeding very badly from his face when he went to get security.

The bit in bold is something I think is creeping more and more into society. She felt that he couldn't physically restrain her as she was female yet in the next moment felt it was fine to smash a glass into his face.

We've said it before here - violence is wrong, whether it's male on female, female on male or any other combination.

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I came across a thread in After Hours with these 2 links highlighting a huge double standard in Irish law?

This is not unusual. There was a UK report on gender and crime (can't find the link at present) that has been cited here a few times, typically to support the notion that men are violent criminals when compared to women.

However, when one actually reads the report, one begins to find that women are typically more often cautioned, rather than charged and where convicted far less likely to receive custodial sentences than men for the same crime.

The social causes of this difference in treatment are numerous and historical. To begin with, women were more likely to be considered irrational creatures, unable to control their passions, than men (temporary insanity remains a more common and successful defence by female defendants than males). Additionally mothers would tend to receive more lenient sentences, for the sake of the child(ren), which is why practically no court order breaches by mothers end in jail time (unlike court order breaches by fathers).

Legally this has also been reflected in law; the option to plead the belly was available to avoid capital punishment temporarily. Male homosexuality tended to be illegal, but lesbianism ignored. And of course many criminal acts still carry different sentences based upon gender - as was highlighted in the now infamous Roscommon incest case a few years ago.

Unfortunately, thanks to such attitudes and archaic laws than we end up with inaccurate statistics on the criminality of both men and women that are often used to justify a policy of abolishing custodial sentences for the latter.

Piliger

Question:

How do we break out of what is a very limited group of men here on Boards, who realise the need for a broader voice on behalf of Men's Rights, and ensure that that voice is heard ? How do we engage a wider audience of Men and take a step toward that goal ?

awec

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

Piliger wrote: »

Question:

How do we break out of what is a very limited group of men here on Boards, who realise the need for a broader voice on behalf of Men's Rights, and ensure that that voice is heard ? How do we engage a wider audience of Men and take a step toward that goal ?

Its a very good question, i do try to talk to bring it up with friends but its difficult to get them interested as has been discussed on here unless they feel it is directly relevant to them, which it actually is, but they dont understand or seem to care which is again the fault of the overcorrect that aggressive feminisim and misandry has caused

iptba

awec wrote: »

Most men won't care until it is something they can relate to after having a personal experience IMO.

Maybe. But are women any different? Yet they have a strong movement.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

How do we break out of what is a very limited group of men here on Boards, who realise the need for a broader voice on behalf of Men's Rights, and ensure that that voice is heard ? How do we engage a wider audience of Men and take a step toward that goal ?

Tried it a while back. Invited a few of the more regular posters to an off-boards private mailing list, to casually discuss actual things that could be done. The result was that no one even bothered posting, let alone suggest ideas or volunteer for anything, with the exception of a sole female subscriber. The men who were so vocal here, and who were happy enough to sign on, either stayed silent or muttered excuses about not having time (despite being able to post here 30 times a day).

Ever since that fiasco, I've chosen to largely limit even my posting here on the subject, because as far as I'm concerned we deserve what we get, if this is our attitude.

iptba wrote: »

Maybe. But are women any different? Yet they have a strong movement.

The Women's right movement de-constructed women's role in society. This allowed Feminism to objectively question whether it makes sense for women to behave in a certain way and if not, the natural conclusion is to change.

Men have never done so. Correction; Warren Farrell did, in his book The Myth of Male Power, but few men have heard of this and so we continue to follow what is expected of us blindly, without asking whether it makes sense for us to do so or not - indeed, some even passionately defending our 'role' as being the definition of 'manliness'.