Mens Rights Thread

Icemancometh

jaja321 wrote: »

I can't answer about the hostility, as that was an issue for another poster.

In relation to it being more acceptable for a woman to slap a man across the face, maybe years ago, but in all honesty, if I saw a woman slap a man across the face now I'd be horrified.

I think TC has answered this more capably than I can, but I have one point to make with regard to the "maybe years ago" bit. As recently as this summer, there was an ad on the radio for McGowan's pub which very casually mentioned a woman slapping a man. It was mentioned on tGC (and possibly this thread), but there was no large outcry about it. IMO, there's no way an ad with a man hitting a woman would stand.

(Just for clarification purposes, the ad roughly went as follows: Two women talking about men only being interested in one thing. Woman A says her boyfriend said he was interested in four things. Three attractions at McGowan's are then mentioned. The fourth thing is implied to be sex. Then Woman A says, "so I slapped him.")

Madam_X

Hate that ad, but I don't see the necessity of the way Piliger especially blames women in general. This issue could surely be discussed without turning it into men v women. If women's issues were being discussed it would be terribly wrong to make statements like men posting are trying to put down women and make our they're lesser than men etc.

Icemancometh

Madam_X wrote: »

Hate that ad, but I don't see the necessity of the way Piliger especially blames women in general. This issue could surely be discussed without turning it into men v women. If women's issues were being discussed it would be terribly wrong to make statements like men posting are trying to put down women and make our they're lesser than men etc.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggesting that women are lesser than men, although I have been following it inconsistently. But unfortunately, men v women will crop up, and it's unavoidable. The feminist movement enjoyed the support of many men, but it often strayed into men v women territory (not an expert, but 2nd wave feminism in particular, and the less said about Valerie Solanis, the better). If the putative Men's Rights movement ever became properly organised, it would of course draw itself into conflict with women. There are many situations where increasing the rights of men, would reduce the privilege women experience. And as the history of feminism shows, this would led to conflict, although, of course, on a far smaller scale.

Madam_X

It was said that women on this thread are suggesting men are lesser than women - they're not saying that.

iptba

From the Irish Examiner:

It’s no longer a man’s world. We don’t need the National Women’s Council
By Victoria White
Thursday, October 11, 2012

THE simple answer to the question posed by the National Women’s Council of Ireland as to whether women are "bearing the brunt" of the recession is "No".

Men are "bearing the brunt" of the recession. Bearing the Brunt? Women and the Recession, a TASC document by Pauline Conroy and Ursula Barry, launched with the NWCI and the Equality Authority this week, includes employment statistics for men and women across different age groups. Women’s employment has dropped five points, from 60.8% of the workforce to 55%, since 2007, while men’s employment has dropped 14 points, from 77.1% to 63.3%.

It’s not a competition. Women’s and men’s lives are so interconnected that it’s hard to know where the "brunt" begins and ends. If he loses his job, does he bear the brunt or does she? Anyway, the young are the big losers in this recession. But if one gender is of particular concern in this recession it is men: men, whose unemployment rate has soared; men, whose mental health is more likely to be intertwined with employment status.

article continues at:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/guest-columnist/its-no-longer-a-mans-world-we-dont-need-the-national-womens-council-brby-victoria-white-210473.html

iptba

I decided to Google news search "National Women’s Council" to see what media coverage their recent report got.

This popped up:

Eilis O'Hanlon: Women only ones with balls in Cabinet

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/eilis-ohanlon-women-only-ones-with-balls-in-cabinet-3244186.html
It's actually from the Sunday before last. Anyway, in it she goes through female politicians in cabinet. She then also praises some that aren't in cabinet.

She then says:

For all their different ideological bents, these women are showing the sort of steely resolve which complacent male ministers would do well to
emulate.

I'm not convinced if the genders were reversed, the article were published i.e. a journalist went through various male politicians and said what a good job they were doing and then said that female politicians should pull up their socks. If it was published, I think there be a negative reaction from some.

----

I just searched to see whether there were any letters in reply in Sunday's paper.
No, but instead Eilis O'Hanlon had this:

Really, Reilly, don't try to blame a woman
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/really-reilly-dont-try-to-blame-a-woman-3251507.html

Personally, I'm think the Minister would have mentioned the last incumbent to his post, whether they were male or female; but following the logic of Eilis O'Hanlon, women politicians shouldn't be brought into controversies (i.e. should get special treatment).

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

Hate that ad, but I don't see the necessity of the way Piliger especially blames women in general. This issue could surely be discussed without turning it into men v women.

What was wrong with the why Piliger posted? You still haven't answered that.

I'd agree that the issue should be discussed without turning it into men v women, but if people are going to cry that for each valid example where men are persecuted more, we won't be able to do that Madam_X.

The Corinthian

Madam_X wrote: »

Hate that ad, but I don't see the necessity of the way Piliger especially blames women in general. This issue could surely be discussed without turning it into men v women. If women's issues were being discussed it would be terribly wrong to make statements like men posting are trying to put down women and make our they're lesser than men etc.

Madam_X wrote: »

It was said that women on this thread are suggesting men are lesser than women - they're not saying that.

So far you've accused Piliger of:

• Blaming women in general (presumably for discrimination against men).
• Putting down women, with respects to men.
• Accusing women of putting down men, with respects to women.

All you've quoted by him however was a generalization that he made. I'd actually disagree with what he said, that face-slapping is "a typical feminine action", but it is pretty easy to demonstrate that it is still considered far more acceptable than a man doing so, in our society.

Nonetheless, he hardly blamed women for discrimination against men, let alone the other two accusations, so you'll have to expand - preferably with some relevant evidence - as to where he does these things.

Indeed, where it comes to women of putting down men, we were told two pages ago how "the evidence is simply the greater rate of males abandoning their offspring than females", so it's not as if this is something we're making up. That we're repeatedly told how men are more violent and this somehow justifies the abolition of custodial sentences for women is another example.

I'll have to agree with Zulu here; you've not really demonstrated your point at all, so far at least. As things stand, it comes across more as if you take offence at any valid criticism of (some) womens' behaviour and are trying to dress it up as misogyny.

Have we misunderstood you?

Piliger

Madam_X wrote: »

Hate that ad, but I don't see the necessity of the way Piliger especially blames women in general. This issue could surely be discussed without turning it into men v women.

Your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth are not working. You should stick to the discussion and not trying to personalise it.

This is a thread devoted to Men's Rights. It is a discussion devoted to the the fact that men feel that Men's Rights have become subservient to Women's Rights for many decades now and it has gone way too far.

Your efforts to turn it into a women vs men thing is just an effort to throw a red herring into the discussion and no more imho. The discussion has never descended to that level but has been focussed on the view many of us men have that it is indeed a case of the women's rights movements vs men's right - which is a completely different framework.

If women's issues were being discussed it would be terribly wrong to make statements like men posting are trying to put down women and make our they're lesser than men etc.

Except this has never been claimed despite you saying it has.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

So far you've accused Piliger of:

• Blaming women in general (presumably for discrimination against men).
• Putting down women, with respects to men.
• Accusing women of putting down men, with respects to women.

All you've quoted by him however was a generalization that he made. I'd actually disagree with what he said, that face-slapping is "a typical feminine action", but it is pretty easy to demonstrate that it is still considered far more acceptable than a man doing so, in our society.

As an aside .....and I may be wrong here, and I have searched this thread ... but it was not me who made this statement at all. It was "Woodward" who made this statement.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

I'm not convinced if the genders were reversed, the article were published i.e. a journalist went through various male politicians and said what a good job they were doing and then said that female politicians should pull up their socks. If it was published, I think there be a negative reaction from some.

It would never get past the editors, who would be way too scared of the backlash from the feminist lobby. But, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, it is open season on men.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

As an aside .....and I may be wrong here, and I have searched this thread ... but it was not me who made this statement at all. It was "Woodward" who made this statement.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Actually, you're correct, I simply assumed that she was quoting you because you were the focus of her criticism. My bad.

She's actually not backed up her accusations against you at all. Neither will she, is my guess.

Emeraldy Pebbles

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is but it doesn't change how reactions would differ depending upon who is slapping whom:

Woman slaps man. Bystanders would be shocked, some even disgusted by such behaviour, while others again would snicker at the thought that the man obviously had done something wrong to deserve it. However, that would be the total reaction and no one would intervene.

Man slaps woman. Bystanders would be shocked, horrified and upset. At least one person would intervene, potentially physically. Any security staff would likely ask the man to leave. The woman would be consoled and asked if she wishes to press charges. The police may be called, although unlikely.

So while a woman slapping a man might horrify you, how would a man slapping a women affect you? The same? Perhaps, but unlikely.

IME, very few strangers intervene when a man is hitting a woman, having seen this happen a few times in public. If the incident happens in a group that all know each other, maybe.

The scenarios you present above do have truth to them though. Why is this? I'd put it down to social conditioning mostly, both men and women are raised to believe it's wrong for a man to hit a woman, and a big deal is made about this. The reverse never really comes up as a topic for some reason, so it's not drummed into kids that it's wrong. I suppose also for many of us, the issue would also be that men in general are much stronger than women, so it's seen as unfair to use this against someone who will find it more difficult to fight back. Don't forget, many men really don't realise their strength!

But of course woman on man violence is totally wrong, but I don't know when the general ambivalence towards it will change or how. Start with kids maybe?

iptba

With regard to partners being violent to one another/scolding them if they became aware of them doing something wrong, I found it interesting when a well-known golfer appeared to have been chased by his wife who was wielding a golf club after she became aware of affairs he had. Although we don't know what happened, the story was told that he had to reverse quickly out of his driveway which included crashing and injuring himself from the crash. His wife was thought to have crashed the golf club against the car once or more. This was generally seen as understandable behaviour; at the same time, if the genders had been reversed, it wouldn't have been seen as acceptable behaviour (i.e. if a man had been swinging a golf club). Why is that?

[Disclaimer: we don't know what happened in this case. But we do know what was presented in the media which is what people reacted to.]

The Corinthian

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

The scenarios you present above do have truth to them though. Why is this? I'd put it down to social conditioning mostly, both men and women are raised to believe it's wrong for a man to hit a woman, and a big deal is made about this. The reverse never really comes up as a topic for some reason, so it's not drummed into kids that it's wrong.

Certainly it's down to social conditioning - I don't think anyone denies this.

That the reverse is not true is probably down to the prejudice that women are inferior both physically and intellectually. The former argues that women are incapable of causing any real harm to a man and the latter that they are ultimately emotional, irrational creatures, incapable of controlling themselves - like children. As a result, such behaviour is tolerated because it is not seen as a threat and conditioning of girls in the same way as boys would be pointless.

I suppose also for many of us, the issue would also be that men in general are much stronger than women, so it's seen as unfair to use this against someone who will find it more difficult to fight back. Don't forget, many men really don't realise their strength!

True, but as you point out, this is in general. Men will also be taller than women in general, but this does not mean that if we were to pick a random man and a random woman that the man would be guaranteed to be taller. The same goes for physical strength - I'm met a few Brünnhildes in my time who could probably pummel most men into the ground.

Another factor is that physical strength is often not a deciding factor. An unarmed man may be stronger than a woman, but if caught unaware or asleep by a woman, or if she is armed, the outcome is not going to go in his favour. After all, Lorena Bobbitt didn't have to be stronger than her husband to cause horrific injury - after which she successfully avoided incarceration using a plea of temporary insanity (exploiting the aforementioned 'emotional and irrational' defence).

What's worse is that if, in a domestic situation, a woman attacks a man, we're increasingly terrified to even defend ourselves. After all, if she ends up with bruises and then claims you attacked her - who do you think is going to get believed? Safer to take the beating and hope she doesn't cause serious injury.

But of course woman on man violence is totally wrong, but I don't know when the general ambivalence towards it will change or how. Start with kids maybe?

This is something that would need to be done principally with girls, TBH.

And unfortunately there's a price to this. A lot of this conditioning of boys is about suppressing emotion, such as anger. It's also why 'boys don't cry'. Women would, in this regard, have to start being conditioned in a similar fashion and becoming more like men and I can't see the Feminist movement embracing this notion.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Certainly it's down to social conditioning - I don't think anyone denies this.

That the reverse is not true is probably down to the prejudice that women are inferior both physically and intellectually. The former argues that women are incapable of causing any real harm to a man and the latter that they are ultimately emotional, irrational creatures, incapable of controlling themselves - like children. As a result, such behaviour is tolerated because it is not seen as a threat and conditioning of girls in the same way as boys would be pointless.

While I agree with much of what you say in this post - I don't believe you are correct in this point.

I don't believe it has anything whatsoever to do with any perception of a woman's strength or intelligence. It has solely to do with there being an assumption, across the board, that if a woman slaps a man he must deserve it and absorb any pain or injury - because no woman would slap a man unless he deserved it ! ...... with the exact opposite applying with the additional outrage of outrageous brutish violence.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

I don't believe it has anything whatsoever to do with any perception of a woman's strength or intelligence. It has solely to do with there being an assumption, across the board, that if a woman slaps a man he must deserve it and absorb any pain or injury - because no woman would slap a man unless he deserved it ! ...... with the exact opposite applying with the additional outrage of outrageous brutish violence.

Were that true we would not be more likely to tolerate belligerent or even violent behaviour by women when it is clearly unjustified - but we do and typically explain it away with clichés such as "it's her time of the month".

Ultimately, it's a residual patriarchal prejudice that no one bothered to de-condition, in the same way as we have our attitudes twoards women adopting male roles in society.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Were that true we would not be more likely to tolerate belligerent or even violent behaviour by women when it is clearly unjustified - but we do and typically explain it away with clichés such as "it's her time of the month".

Ultimately, it's a residual patriarchal prejudice that no one bothered to de-condition, in the same way as we have our attitudes twoards women adopting male roles in society.

Who knows what the underlying attitude of it was. But I don't think people who "understood" the golfer's wife swinging the golf club* and crashing it into the car, thought it was anything to do with her time of the month.

It seems to me Piliger's view more closely fits what happened in that case in terms of many of the public's perspectives on it: he did something wrong, he should expect punishment (but you can be both right as it's hard to say an attitude isn't to do with how society was in the past/falsify such a claim).

*or at least that was the story

Emeraldy Pebbles

The Corinthian wrote: »

True, but as you point out, this is in general. Men will also be taller than women in general, but this does not mean that if we were to pick a random man and a random woman that the man would be guaranteed to be taller.

True, but in every case of strength, I'd be happy to put money on the man over the woman.

Re: women causing horrific damage to men's gentalia, I am, and always have been, totally horrified by that, it's unimagineably barbaric! For some reason, lots of people giggle at stuff like that. Just imagine a man coming at a woman with a knife and inflicting corresponding injuries?

And agree 100% on female on male domestic violence. It's a problem, and men could feel more trapped in a situation like that then a woman as it's more difficult to prove.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

She's actually not backed up her accusations against you at all. Neither will she, is my guess.

The silence at this point is telling!

...and it serves as a great example reinforcing your previous point TC, with respect to some women only paying lip service to mens rights or indeed actively opposing it.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

It seems to me Piliger's view more closely fits what happened in that case in terms of many of the public's perspectives on it: he did something wrong, he should expect punishment (but you can be both right as it's hard to say an attitude isn't to do with how society was in the past/falsify such a claim).

In that particular case perhaps, but the same applies for men.

The taboo against men causing violence against women has also had a similar historical exception - when it was seen as justified. Examples of this can be found not only in literature (Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew), but also in law - notably in countries that recognised crimes of passion, which incidentally generally applied to both genders equally and was best satirized in the Italian film Divorzio all'italiana.

Yet it would be false to suggest that female on male violence is always seen as justified. Were that the case, as I already pointed out, we would not still persist in chauvinistic prejudices that relegate such actions as a result of "her time of the month". Neither would we see women plead temporary insanity as a defence in court so often, as has historically been the case.

So 'justification' alone cannot explain it, as it clearly does not apply in many cases, yet our relative tolerance of female on male violence does. Instead, the most relevant influence is chauvinistic in origin, a remnant of a time where women were considered somewhere between children and men intellectually. This perceived lack of responsibility for their actions is something that has persisted to this day - as Jack Nicholson's Character (Melvin Udall) highlighted in the movie As Good as it Gets (1997):

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

Melvin Udall: Easy. I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

As a society, we've just not tackled this prejudice.

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

True, but in every case of strength, I'd be happy to put money on the man over the woman.

I wouldn't. Would you put your money on Woody Allen in a straight fight against Lindsay Hayward? Hell, if I was in the ring with her, I'd bet on her over me!

This is the problem with applying averages in absolute terms. They may apply 90% of the time, but that does not mean "in every case", as you suggest.

Re: women causing horrific damage to men's gentalia, I am, and always have been, totally horrified by that, it's unimagineably barbaric! For some reason, lots of people giggle at stuff like that. Just imagine a man coming at a woman with a knife and inflicting corresponding injuries?

Well unfortunately that's essentially what happened with the Lorena Bobbit case - she became a celebrity; appearing on countless chat shows (such as Oprah), and received endless sympathy that justified her actions on the basis of 'temporary insanity' triggered by her husbands abuse and, in particular, repeated infidelities.

Meanwhile when some husband throws acid in his wife's face in response to her infidelity in somewhere like Pakistan, it becomes a human rights issue, for these same people - Oprah being a case in point. Lorena Bobbit, on the other hand, has never shown any remorse or felt responsibility for her actions. Has never apologies to her ex-husband (although he publicly did so to her) and has only ever regretted having married him in the first place, not her violence against him.

And agree 100% on female on male domestic violence. It's a problem, and men could feel more trapped in a situation like that then a woman as it's more difficult to prove.

That's a different, if related, topic - but I agree with you.

Emeraldy Pebbles

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wouldn't. Would you put your money on Woody Allen in a straight fight against Lindsay Hayward? Hell, if I was in the ring with her, I'd bet on her over me!

I still would bet on the man, I'd lose a minority of time, but I'd happily take my chances. I meant I'd bet on the man in every case, I know I'd lose a few.

The Corinthian

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

I still would bet on the man, I'd lose a minority of time, but I'd happily take my chances. I meant I'd bet on the man in every case, I know I'd lose a few.

That's fair enough, but what I was highlighting is where 'betting on the man' based on an average becomes dangerous, not as a betting strategy.

For example, you can 'bet on the man' being the more likely to commit violent crimes too, but that does not mean that a man will do so or a woman won't - and that 'betting on the man' approach appears to be the basis of the move to abolish custodial sentences for women.

There too you could 'lose a minority of time' and unfairly punish non-violent men and not punish violent women, but in doing so you are accepting miscarriages of justice based upon a blind generalization.

citytillidie

Remember the up roar about the Hunky Dory rugby and GAA adverts from certian woman saying they were over sexual?

I dont see those woman complaining when clothing store in Dublin erected a 3 story high advert of a naked male torso pulling his jeans down

Ash.J.Williams

citytillidie wrote: »

Remember the up roar about the Hunky Dory rugby and GAA adverts from certian woman saying they were over sexual?

I dont see those woman complaining when clothing store in Dublin erected a 3 story high advert of a naked male torso pulling his jeans down

It was ordered down, and Abercrombie were almost prosecuted

citytillidie

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It was ordered down, and Abercrombie were almost prosecuted

Ordered down as they did not have planning permission for it

kiffer

citytillidie wrote: »

Remember the up roar about the Hunky Dory rugby and GAA adverts from certian woman saying they were over sexual?

I dont see those woman complaining when clothing store in Dublin erected a 3 story high advert of a naked male torso pulling his jeans down

I did hear a number of female friends complain about it... More than one said that they nearly crashed their car when they first saw it.

Regarding "betting on the man" in a violent situation that only really applies in a straight up fight...
There are any number of ways a physically weeker attacker can do serious harm to an individual.

I've found myself remembering laletly an incident/encounter with my former house mate.
She had heard me moving around but thought I wasn't in the apartment at the time so became concerned that I might be an intruder... I stepped out of the bathroom to find her standing in the door between her room and the hall with a large kitchen in hand...
She had felt threatened by the noise and so armed herself. Had she felt sufficiently threatened to get the drop on me it really wouldn't have mattered that I am 6 inches and several stone heavier than her, a surprise knife in your side as you step out of the bathroom is going to ruin your day.

I was give the distinct impression that I was in the wrong to be alarmed to see her with the knife... because she had a right to defend herself...

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

In that particular case perhaps, but the same applies for men.

The taboo against men causing violence against women has also had a similar historical exception - when it was seen as justified. Examples of this can be found not only in literature (Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew), but also in law - notably in countries that recognised crimes of passion, which incidentally generally applied to both genders equally and was best satirized in the Italian film Divorzio all'italiana.

Yet it would be false to suggest that female on male violence is always seen as justified. Were that the case, as I already pointed out, we would not still persist in chauvinistic prejudices that relegate such actions as a result of "her time of the month". Neither would we see women plead temporary insanity as a defence in court so often, as has historically been the case.

So 'justification' alone cannot explain it, as it clearly does not apply in many cases, yet our relative tolerance of female on male violence does. Instead, the most relevant influence is chauvinistic in origin, a remnant of a time where women were considered somewhere between children and men intellectually. This perceived lack of responsibility for their actions is something that has persisted to this day - as Jack Nicholson's Character (Melvin Udall) highlighted in the movie As Good as it Gets (1997):

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

Melvin Udall: Easy. I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

As a society, we've just not tackled this prejudice.

I'm afraid I am not convinced that being held more accountable for your behaviour, as you are saying men are, is a great "perk".

Also, it is feminists who are calling for lower sentences for crimes for women (as they claim they are less responsible for crimes on average, etc).

iptba

citytillidie wrote: »

Remember the up roar about the Hunky Dory rugby and GAA adverts from certian woman saying they were over sexual?

I dont see those woman complaining when clothing store in Dublin erected a 3 story high advert of a naked male torso pulling his jeans down

Yes, I'm afraid many so-called equality campaigners talk about principles they are attached to but these sometimes seem to be principles of convenience e.g. all the calls for the need for gender balance and gender quotas from Ivana Bacik yet she organises an all-women Oireachtas meeting, is a member of an all-women committee in TCD's women and gender studies department, etc.

It's one of the reasons I think we need a men's rights movement - because we can't depend on others to make the case for men with the same vigour them make the case for women.

iptba

kiffer wrote: »

I did hear a number of female friends complain about it... More than one said that they nearly crashed their car when they first saw it.

Of course, that's not complaining about it because of sexualisation per se.