Mens Rights Thread

Daveysil15

You might find this interesting OP:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/how-funny-is-a-mutilated-vagina/

It was acceptable for women on a chat show to laugh about a man who had his penis chopped off by a woman. The reverse would simply never happen.

Madam_X

Zulu wrote: »

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.

Oh sorry Zulu, I forgot. Here is the post in which Piliger says women here are trying to put down men and deem them lesser than women: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80960786&postcount=307

As for your uncalled-for second comment, unlike you and all the others whinging on the net and blaming all feminists for not setting up a movement for men (rather than doing so yourselves) I have actually worked in the area of men's rights and in increasing awareness of it - fathers' rights, domestic abuse of men, scam marriages, sexual abuse of men. One of the people I worked with is the founder of Amen, a woman.
I stand by what I said - there is thinly veiled hostility towards women, thankfully only from a resentful few, on this thread/forum. What made me despair was the suicide thread where someone actually said "Men are blamed for the problems they have when often these problems are due to the women in their lives" - I mean really? Resorting to men vs women sh1t in a suicide thread? When taken up on it, the misandrous (sic) allegation gets thrown out. Even challenging of these comments designed to make women feel unwelcome here is "misandry". It is possible to discuss the issues men face without the constant "If that was the reverse herpa derp" stuff. Of course that's gonna create a hostile atmosphere. And over and over "feminists are all evil ra ra" - there are countless types of feminist, many of whom ARE in favour of men being on an equal footing when it comes to the things women enjoy more than men. Give it a rest with the blanket hate towards any feminist.

iptba

Madam_X wrote: »

Zulu wrote:

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.

As for your uncalled-for second comment, unlike you and all the others whinging on the net and blaming all feminists for not setting up a movement for men (rather than doing so yourselves) I have actually worked in the area of men's rights and in increasing awareness of it - fathers' rights, domestic abuse of men, scam marriages, sexual abuse of men. One of the people I worked with is the founder of Amen, a woman.
I stand by what I said - there is thinly veiled hostility towards women, thankfully only from a resentful few, on this thread/forum. What made me despair was the suicide thread where someone actually said "Men are blamed for the problems they have when often these problems are due to the women in their lives" - I mean really? Resorting to men vs women sh1t in a suicide thread? When taken up on it, the misandrous (sic) allegation gets thrown out. Even challenging of these comments designed to make women feel unwelcome here is "misandry". It is possible to discuss the issues men face without the constant "If that was the reverse herpa derp" stuff. Of course that's gonna create a hostile atmosphere. And over and over "feminists are all evil ra ra" - there are countless types of feminist, many of whom ARE in favour of men being on an equal footing when it comes to the things women enjoy more than men. Give it a rest with the blanket hate towards any feminist.

He said "some", you said many (are the opposite) - doesn't seem like you have disproved his point.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

He said "some", you said many (are the opposite) - doesn't seem like you have disproved his point.

He hasn't made any convincing points whatsoever. Lots of accusations. That's all.

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

Oh sorry Zulu, I forgot. Here is the post in which Piliger says women here are trying to put down men and deem them lesser than women: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80960786&postcount=307

Oh you mean this comment: "They try to tell us that women are more needed, more important."? It's an opinion & as such It's valid.

As for your uncalled-for second comment

If it was uncalled for, why would yo proceed to say this:

unlike you and all the others whinging on the net and blaming all feminists for not setting up a movement for men (rather than doing so yourselves)

Firstly, I'm not blaming feminists for not setting up a movement for men - where did I do that?
If you were to ask, I'd blame feminists for being hypocritical (where they claim the pursuit of equality) & I'd blame them for being an elitist group that only serves to further sexism. But I wouldn't blame them for not setting up a movement for men.

And we're "whinging" is it? I see. So to point out obvious injustices is whinging now? Nice that you'd choose to dismiss and belittle any legitimate points so readily.
Naturally, I take it, you don't think the suffragettes where "whingers" when they originally felt aggrieved? Or that Nelson Mandella was a whinger?? Or I suppose any other human rights activist that details injustices is a whinger???
No, I suppose this is a label you reserve only for men. The plight of men pales in the face of the plight of women, doesn't it?

You see, your dismissal in a thread about mens rights; you're eagerness to stamp out any legitimate grievance highlighting injustices, actively prevents people from progressing mens rights. Whether or not you mean it, you have taken a position that opposes mens rights on this very thread. So kudos for you, you've just highlighted exactly what TC pointed out earlier.

...and you say the comment was uncalled for? Interesting you think that.

I have actually worked in the area of men's rights and in increasing awareness of it

of course you have!

One of the people I worked with is the founder of Amen, a woman.

Good for you and her.
Although your "credentials" sound very like "but my best friend is black, I can't be racist".

I stand by what I said - there is thinly veiled hostility towards women, thankfully only from a resentful few, on this thread/forum.

So you felt the most important thing to do, on a thread about mens rights, was to come in and dismiss everyone as whingers in order to silence the "thankfully" "resentful few"?
No matter what the cost, eh?

What made me despair was the suicide thread...

Well take it to that other thread, there's no need to drag it in here.

Even challenging of these comments designed to make women feel unwelcome here is "misandry".

You were accused of misandry here?

It is possible to discuss the issues men face without the constant "If that was the reverse herpa derp" stuff.

...and here comes the belittlement & the dismissal, once again (even rounded off with an insult for good measure). What is "herpa derp" about pointing out an obvious injustice? And how con you point out an obvious injustace if you aren't allowed to compare it against similar actions? Answer me that?

How can a woman claim that their pay is 20% less, if they've no one to compare against? How can a black graduate claim they were discriminated against if they've no white graduate to compare against?

Irregardless of whether or not it's possible to discuss men's rights without comparing to women, why should we be forced to?
Frankly it's people like you, coming in belittling genuine injustaces, in the defence of "women" - where there is no actual attack on women (just a comparison maned), that drags these into battle of the sexes threads.

Of course that's gonna create a hostile atmosphere.

Funnily, the hostile environment started with your first unfounded accusation.

Give it a rest with the blanket hate towards any feminist.

Why don't you let us discuss mens rights in peace? Why is it so threatining to you?

Zulu

Piliger wrote: »

He hasn't made any convincing points whatsoever. Lots of accusations. That's all.

"He"'s a "She" Piliger!

(Unless you're saying I've made no convincing points!)

Madam_X

Yes I have worked in the area of men's rights - unlike you. I only said it because you insinuated I am opposed to same. Just because it doesn't suit you that I've done work in the area and tried to create awareness, no need to be dismissive of it.
And are you REALLY comparing men in general to Nelson Mandela like? To pretend men are a persecuted, victimised group across the board is as bad as pretending women in the western world are a persecuted, victimised group across the board.

The Corinthian

Madam_X wrote: »

As for your uncalled-for second comment, unlike you and all the others whinging on the net and blaming all feminists for not setting up a movement for men (rather than doing so yourselves)

If that is what you've concluded, then you're not doing a good job at listening to (or reading) what has been said here.

Feminism is repeatedly criticized, not because because it does not campaign for men's issues, but because it portrays itself as a movement that represents equality then fails to fulfil that aim.

Not only does it fail to represent any interest other than women's, but it will represent policies that will even further disadvantage men, and on occasion react with hostility where it comes to any issue that would advantage men.

And it is not simply the hypocrisy of this that men despise, but that in the name of 'equality' Feminism has repeatedly monopolized representation on equality bodies and organizations using this false identity.

Doing it for ourselves would be much easier, if men's rights groups were not constantly blocked by Feminists who on one side complain that we only whine and on the other side question that we should be doing anything in the first place - either because we're not being discriminated against, apparently, or because we should be supporting Feminism instead.

I stand by what I said - there is thinly veiled hostility towards women, thankfully only from a resentful few, on this thread/forum.

You're always going to have misogynists on the peripheries, just as you are always going to have misandrists. However, you are mistakenly expanding this to include criticism of Feminism rather than women - even above you do this - the two are not synonyms.

And over and over "feminists are all evil ra ra" - there are countless types of feminist, many of whom ARE in favour of men being on an equal footing when it comes to the things women enjoy more than men. Give it a rest with the blanket hate towards any feminist.

We don't believe you. If many Feminists ARE in favour of men being on an equal footing, then they're pretty silent on it - something that they are not where it comes to anything that may further exasperate the widening divide.

If you think I'm wrong, feel free to prove me so. Otherwise stop selling this altruistic fantasy about Feminism.

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

Yes I have worked in the area of men's rights - unlike you.

Another unsupported accusation. :rolleyes:
Do you know me personally? No?? Then you have no idea what I have or have not worked on.

I only said it because you insinuated I am opposed to same.

No, I said you are opposing the same on this thread.

no need to be dismissive of it.

You mean like the way you readily dismiss the legitimate complaints of posters on this thread?

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

"He"'s a "She" Piliger!

(Unless you're saying I've made no convincing points!)

I should have known. This is a problem with tGC being open to women to parachute in, attacking men's legitimate discussion of men's issues, while the Women's forum is closed to men.

And your post above was an excellent and thorough repost to all of the inaccurate and wrong stuff posted by this 'Madam_X' character. Well done.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

I should have known. This is a problem with tGC being open to women to parachute in, attacking men's legitimate discussion of men's issues, while the Women's forum is closed to men.

Well, tLL is in fairness not closed to men. Of course, they do have a policy that threads should be from a 'female point of view', the equivalent of which is not followed here, so that can result in what you're suggesting.

And your post above was an excellent and thorough repost to all of the inaccurate and wrong stuff posted by this 'Madam_X' character.

What I find most disturbing is that she accuses people of attacking women and when pressed on this it turns out she really meant attacking Feminism.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Piliger wrote: »

while the Women's forum is closed to men.

No it's not.

Even if you mean that figuratively. No it's not.

Zulu

Well it's certainly closed to the kind of posting we're seeing from Madam X! Unfounded claims, discrediting opinions, belittling legitimate comparisons, and trying to silence people certainly isn't accepted there (and rightly so).

...but that's off topic!

Piliger

In today's Independent we see a video of a 4yo girl telling her little brother to 'toughen up' ........ it starts young, this kind of nasty misandry.

God help these kids, with parents like this .... Ref: their attempts to 'market' this and other vids of theirs.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, tLL is in fairness not closed to men. Of course, they do have a policy that threads should be from a 'female point of view', the equivalent of which is not followed here, so that can result in what you're suggesting.

I truly don't wish to be off topic, although I believe there is a relevance in the inequality of how men are treated in this issue.

Suffice it to say that the Charter for the Women's Lounge says:
"We do welcome male input, but do bear in mind that this forum is firstly for the women of boards to have their say, from their point of view."

There is no equivalent statement in the tGC Charter.

I won't post on this again as I am pretty sure it is not considered on topic, despite this gender disparity.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

In today's Independent we see a video of a 4yo girl telling her little brother to 'toughen up' ........ it starts young, this kind of nasty misandry.

I'm not sure I'd see this as an example of taught misandry, TBH. Bullying, in general, and pretty poor parenting, sure - but misandry, I think would be a bit of an exaggeration.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

I truly don't wish to be off topic, although I believe there is a relevance in the inequality of how men are treated in this issue.

Suffice it to say that the Charter for the Women's Lounge says:
"We do welcome male input, but do bear in mind that this forum is firstly for the women of boards to have their say, from their point of view."

There is no equivalent statement in the tGC Charter.

I completely accept this and also pointed this out in my response to you - but that's not "not closed to men", which is what you suggested.

As to tGC policy, well I made my views known on the recent feedback thread here. Feel free to conclude whatever to wish from the discussions there, not to mention the reforms that followed.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

In today's Independent we see a video of a 4yo girl telling her little brother to 'toughen up' ........ it starts young, this kind of nasty misandry.

God help these kids, with parents like this .... Ref: their attempts to 'market' this and other vids of theirs.

Personally I'm more insulted by most boots adverts on the TV which seems to portray men as being weak willed and needing to be taken care of. At the same time, I don't see how women don't find the ads sexist too, as the women seem to be housewives doing chores and minding the kids while the husbands are at work.

Madam_X

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd see this as an example of taught misandry, TBH. Bullying, in general, and pretty poor parenting, sure - but misandry, I think would be a bit of an exaggeration.

Yup. Piliger, if it was a boy saying toughen up would you call it misandry? You find/look for misandry in strange places dude. You really think that girl's parents are teaching her to hate men?!! It's just women who tell men to man up, to get over it if a woman assaults/sexually harasses them... right...?
Oh and lol at you assuming "Madam X" and a woman avatar is a man - and then acting as if you hadn't known when it was pointed out to you, with "I should have known". I mean... really? You honestly thought I am a guy? Sure...
As for what I said re here: ok, so the intention is not to be hostile to women, but it feels that way. I am not being altruistic re feminists (I am not one - assume I am all you like, but I'm not, because I am also of the opinion that there should not be a monopoly on one group; I don't feel men should feel compelled to be feminists either). I am just saying not all feminists are the unreasonable individuals you make them out to be. I can think of examples of such women immediately. There are too many types to make the call you make. Corinthian, seeing as any woman who gets defensive (with good cause) on this forum is immediately dismissed as "a feminist" (when she may not be one at all) that would be the reason for me viewing attacks on feminists as hostility towards women. What was said about women here saying that women are more "needed" etc has got to be misinterpretation, because the women who post here are not unreasonable like that.

Zulu, I do not see this thread as a "threat" at all - the opposite actually. I would like to get involved in it because it is an area of interest to me and something I know quite a bit about, but my point is: it's hard to make contributions when there are hostile vibes/looking for misandry when there's none etc emanating from it.

Back on topic: that ad where the woman whimpers "I'd love a coffee" and expects her fella to go out in the pissing rain for it wrecks my head.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Zulu wrote: »

Well it's certainly closed to the kind of posting we're seeing from Madam X! Unfounded claims, discrediting opinions, belittling legitimate comparisons, and trying to silence people certainly isn't accepted there (and rightly so).

Then take that up with tGC mods! It's a valid point so I'm sure they'd at least consider it.

Zulu

No. They won't.

Comparisons to that forum have led to thread closures & warning etc. previously. This thread was doing quite well for a good while, and I'd like to keep it that way/open.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Zulu wrote: »

No. They won't.

Comparisons to that forum have led to thread closures & warning etc. previously. This thread was doing quite well for a good while, and I'd like to keep it that way/open.

I don't mean making it men-only, I mean making it from men's perspective. That's reasonable. Doesn't exclude women, but is primarily for men. That's valid.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Personally I'm more insulted by most boots adverts on the TV which seems to portray men as being weak willed and needing to be taken care of. At the same time, I don't see how women don't find the ads sexist too, as the women seem to be housewives doing chores and minding the kids while the husbands are at work.

Again this is not altogether misandrist and can also be argued to be misogynist as it portrays a message of "a woman's place is in the home". In fact, the matriarchal image of a woman without whom a man would fall apart is hardly a modern invention, but is in reality a throwback of patriarchal role models. So in itself, it's not really misandrist.

Women make up something like 95% of home makers and stay at home parents. It's the primary reason that any pay gap still exists between men and women in the same careers. While this was originally a patriarchal concept, the problem now is that it has become something that discriminates against men also and which has largely been ignored by Feminism.

Why do I suggest this? Because Feminism stopped being about equality and became about choice some time back and so making things equal on who gets to choose to stay at home, or has control over the children would actually affect women's choice to do so. As such, instead of this, Feminism's entire focus has been on retaining this bias in the home, and instead employing positive discrimination in traditional male roles so that choice may be maximized - for women.

Madam_X wrote: »

As for what I said re here: ok, so the intention is not to be hostile to women, but it feels that way.

You mean like Piliger felt that the video was hostile to men?

Just as I, and others, then disagreed and suggested that this was not the case with him, you too should realistically more objective about what you 'feel' too. After all, as has been pointed out, if there has been any hostility its been twoards Feminism, not women and unless you want to equate the two, it pretty much dispels your accusation.

I am just saying not all feminists are the unreasonable individuals you make them out to be.

Absolutely. You're always going to find all colours in any movement or ideology. However, as a movement or ideology, Feminism is an abject failure in terms of seeking equality and has been so for several decades, and at this stage we're probably at a point where it is more than likely that in this regard Feminism does more harm than good to that goal.

Corinthian, seeing as any women who gets defensive on this forum is immediately dismissed as "a feminist" (when she may not be one at all) that would be the reason for me viewing attacks on feminists as hostility towards women.

If so, I stand corrected, however, so far all you've done is cite attacks and criticisms against Feminism, not women.

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

I don't mean making it men-only, I mean making it from men's perspective. That's reasonable. Doesn't exclude women, but is primarily for men. That's valid.

I don't think the powers that be consider that reasonable, unfortunately.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again this is not altogether misandrist and can also be argued to be misogynist as it portrays a message of "a woman's place is in the home". In fact, the matriarchal image of a woman without whom a man would fall apart is hardly a modern invention, but is in reality a throwback of patriarchal role models. So in itself, it's not really misandrist.

Oh I wasn't suggesting it was misandrist. I was just pointing out there there are worse ads out there than someone saying "Man up" to their brother.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd see this as an example of taught misandry, TBH. Bullying, in general, and pretty poor parenting, sure - but misandry, I think would be a bit of an exaggeration.

It's an example of low level early pressure on a little boy that he needs toughen up ..

What would happen if the roles were reversed and the older boy were to tell the little girl to be more compliant and passive, the way a little girls should.

One can only imagine the firestorm.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

Oh I wasn't suggesting it was misandrist. I was just pointing out there there are worse ads out there than someone saying "Man up" to their brother.

I agree - but to say that there are worse out there is, in my view, missing the significance of early, low level, brain washing of this type. It may appear humorous and harmless but it is at this age that these kinds of prejudices start.

I would be equally against the reverse.

Piliger

Madam_X wrote: »

Oh and lol at you assuming "Madam X" and a woman avatar is a man - and then acting as if you hadn't known when it was pointed out to you, with "I should have known". I mean... really? You honestly thought I am a guy? Sure...

Wrong. For the second time in a week I have to bring to people's attention that their attributions to me are incorrect !.

This is the post where I made the original remark. And if you read it correctly you will notice that I was not actually referring to you at all, but "iptba".

The rest of your post is not really worth replying to.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

It's an example of low level early pressure on a little boy that he needs toughen up ..

What would happen if the roles were reversed and the older boy were to tell the little girl to be more compliant and passive, the way a little girls should.

One can only imagine the firestorm.

Would you lobby against parents buying dolls and miniature kitchens for their daughters? Or buying wrestlers for their little boys?

Madam_X

Piliger wrote: »

The rest of your post I am unable to reply to.

FYP.

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

FYP.

Thats a little rich of you Madam_X considering you still continue to ignore most of the questions I put to you. If you're unable to answer questions put to you, don't accuse other of being unable to address your posts.

Ms. Kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot!