Mens Rights Thread

Piliger

smash wrote: »

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

I would not lobby to have them prevented. But I do think that parents who do not provide a balance in their child's play is doing them a disservice.

And I suggest there is a difference between a genetic predisposition and a learnt and taught bias.

Also this is a case of promoting a video which promotes a sexist stereotype that damages men as they grow.

Piliger

Madam_X wrote: »

FYP.

I find it deeply objectionable that you place a quote of mine in your post - but edit it to suit your ends ??

This is despicable behaviour.

Madam_X

Zulu wrote: »

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!

I have addressed your points sufficiently Zulu in my last response.

Piliger wrote: »

I find it deeply objectionable that you place a quote of mine in your post - but edit it to suit your ends ??

This is despicable behaviour.

FYP is a light-hearted thing people use on social media, it's hardly serious. You were of course referring to me, not Iptba earlier: when someone said I'm a she (like you needed to be told) you said "Should have guessed, keep the women out!" Noice.

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

I have addressed your points sufficiently Zulu in my last response.

No you haven't.

While you acknowledged that you were incorrect in presuming an attack on women & thinly veiled anti-woman sentiment on this thread, you've done nothing to address your dismissal of mens concerns, or most of your flippant unfounded comments!

• You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your incorrect assertion that I blame feminism for not setting up a mens movement.
• You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your "whinging" attack on posters yet.
• You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your "reverse herpa derp" belittlement of comments.
• You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your false accusations of being labeled a misandrist.
• You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your assertion that I have not worked in the area of mens rights.

...but who's counting?

You claim you are here because you have an interest in mens rights? If you want to be a constructive part of this conversation, I suggest you correct your false accusations and assertions, and then refrain from making any more.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

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".

You were referring to me or replying to me? It didn't seem like you were referring to me in that post.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

And I suggest there is a difference between a genetic predisposition and a learnt and taught bias.

So where's the line? Historically, since history began, men have been hunters, warriors etc. so is telling someone to toughen up really a taught bias that damages men?

I don't think it is. It's not like she's saying "get a job and buy me diamonds"

Piliger

Madam_X wrote: »

FYP is a light-hearted thing people use on social media, it's hardly serious.

Why did you edit my quote ?

You were of course referring to me, not Iptba earlier: when someone said I'm a she (like you needed to be told) you said "Should have guessed, keep the women out!" Noice.

So you just refuse to read the original post. Great. We are unfortunately discovering a lot about you now.

kiffer

smash wrote: »

So where's the line? Historically, since history began, men have been hunters, warriors etc. so is telling someone to toughen up really a taught bias that damages men?

I don't think it is. It's not like she's saying "get a job and buy me diamonds"

The harm comes later when you've internalized "big boys don't cry" so heavily that you feel shame for crying and you find yourself with one one "allowed" emotional outlet for when you feel sad... anger.

Toughen up also tends to be "toughen up, shut up and take it", rather than "toughen up and do somethings about it".

The Corinthian

Madam_X wrote: »

I have addressed your points sufficiently Zulu in my last response.

In fairness, you've not. You interjected originally with an accusation that there was an 'anti-women' undertone in this thread. When pressed, you were only able to show 'anti-Feminism' examples, which is certainly not the same thing. Further pressed, it turns out that this undertone is in reality a 'feeling' and not actually based on rational argument or evidence.

Now another accusation has come in the form of Piliger seeking to "keep the women out" - except he hasn't. Did you guys exchange PM's and so we missed out on this, or has the line between what you 'feel' is being said and what is actually said become so blurred for you, that you are now 'Fixing Everyone's Posts'?

All before we get into your general tone of dismissal at the 'whining' carried out here, and of the men's rights movement in general.

I certainly do not agree with every example of 'anti-male discrimination' that is raised here, but at least I try to argue rationally and constructively why, and not dismiss it all simply as 'whining'. And you have been challenged on a number of your points and accusations here and, let's be honest, rather than engage in discussion, you are actually ignoring them at this stage and instead using "light-hearted" tactics to this end.

The Corinthian

kiffer wrote: »

The harm comes later when you've internalized "big boys don't cry" so heavily that you feel shame for crying and you find yourself with one one "allowed" emotional outlet for when you feel sad... anger.

Not true. Boys are generally also encouraged to suppress anger. In reality, the one "allowed" emotional outlet for emotion in general, for males, is... sport.

kiffer

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not true. Boys are generally also encouraged to suppress anger. In reality, the one "allowed" emotional outlet for emotion in general, for males, is... sport.

That's why allowed was in quotation marks. I guess what I'm going for is the idea that "Crying emasculates you, anger and aggression do not"

Edit: that's nor right either but I don't have time in work to write a longer better writen post. Long story short how about "suppressing emotions eventually leaves you frustrated and angry"?

The Corinthian

kiffer wrote: »

Edit: that's nor right either but I don't have time in work to write a longer better writen post. Long story short how about "suppressing emotions eventually leaves you frustrated and angry"?

And committing suicide too, it seems.

I do think a serious deconstruction of what it means to be a man, and whether it even makes sense, is long overdue.

VinLieger

Really very curious why Madam X felt the need to edit the Piligers quote to suit her own needs from

Piliger wrote: »

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

Which implies he doesnt think your post has any relevence to the discussion and then changed it to

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

Which implies you have somehow outwitted him with a well reasoned argument that lets be honest was not there

Its kind of sad you need to adjust something like this especially when its readily available for everyone who reads the thread to see what youve done, also like the corinthian said stop trying to lightheartedly brush everything off and answer some of the questions posed to you

DamoKen

Hi guys, first post on a thread I've been following with interest since it's opening post. Read a lot of informative posts that have lead me to educate myself further on areas I was until recently totally ignorant of, sometimes blissfully so !

Not to say I would agree with all points made but I would think that's the whole point of a discussion, to look at something from all angles.

However I've noticed over the last few pages this thread which until now I've followed each day is in serious risk of derailment so I'd like to ask as politely as possible without naming anyone in particular if they could stop the sniping, if they've got anything constructive to add great, but please less of the off topic posting. Seen too many good threads of it's type lose their way and go off on a serious tangent.

btw not attempting to moderate this by any means, and I know the report button is there. Haven't used it as I would not like anyone to feel I am attempting to censor them, just a heads up that there are more than the frequent posters contributing on this thread to consider so please leave the personal feelings at the door

Thanks

The Corinthian

DamoKen wrote: »

However I've noticed over the last few pages this thread which until now I've followed each day is in serious risk of derailment so I'd like to ask as politely as possible without naming anyone in particular if they could stop the sniping, if they've got anything constructive to add great, but please less of the off topic posting. Seen too many good threads of it's type lose their way and go off on a serious tangent.

It's a bit difficult to let stand someone belittling this topic as nothing more than 'whining' or 'woman hating' though.

btw not attempting to moderate this by any means, and I know the report button is there. Haven't used it as I would not like anyone to feel I am attempting to censor them, just a heads up that there are more than the frequent posters contributing on this thread to consider so please leave the personal feelings at the door

In my experience, unfortunately, reporting such posts won't engender any action from the moderators here. Were someone to suggest that women's rights is 'man hating' or 'whining' on tLL, they'd be shot down by the mods rather quickly. I've given up reporting posts as a result.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a bit difficult to let stand someone belittling this topic as nothing more than 'whining' or 'woman hating' though.

I hope we can get back on topic soon because this kind of destructive sniping from drop ins who contribute nothing to the topic makes it very difficult to share thoughts and ideas on the topic and puts many men off contributing. The problem is that it is hard not to feel that this is their intention from the start.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

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

Letter in Irish Examiner (17th October) claims feminism can solve men's problems - might be worth a letter in reply if anyone was up to it:

Your columnist Victoria White ‘stands by her Irish men’ and queries the existence of the National Women’s Council (October 11 p12).

In her opinion, NWCI and feminism in general have successfully reached ‘nearly every goal of the 1970s’ so can therefore just close the shop.

Instead she suggests a National Men’s Council to support men who have lost their jobs and are bearing the brunt of the recession.

Paradoxically, all the issues that White raises on behalf of Irish men are issues constantly raised by feminists in Ireland: paid paternity leave, recognition of the fathers’ role in raising their children, lessening of the "breadwinning" pressure for men etc.

continues at:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/women-should-work-together-for-society-211029.html

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Letter in Irish Examiner (17th October) claims feminism can solve men's problems - might be worth a letter in reply if anyone was up to it:
continues at:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/women-should-work-together-for-society-211029.html

Disturbingly that letter does little more than accuse Victoria White being some form of 'gender traitor'.

She claims that "paradoxically, all the issues that White raises on behalf of Irish men are issues constantly raised by feminists in Ireland: paid paternity leave, recognition of the fathers’ role in raising their children, lessening of the "breadwinning" pressure for men etc." - yet these issues, when raised, are at best only done so in passing, and even then fastidiously avoid the mention of actually endorsing a betterment of men's rights in these areas.

For example, paid paternity leave and recognition of the fathers’ role in raising their children are all very well, but seemingly only as long as those same fathers do not have any rights to their children they care for. Strengthening the rights of non-custodial parents, or attempting to redress the gross gender imbalance in how custody is awarded, is not "constantly raised by feminists in Ireland" - it's at best avoided or even opposed. Automatic guardianship for unmarried men is supported, but only as long as guardianship is 'reformed' to a purely consultative role, without any actual power.

All the letter talks about is women's rights and concerns, dismisses men's rights or concerns, then bizarrely concludes that White should be "focusing on the needs of both men and women in Irish society", after having completely ignored the needs of men throughout her diatribe.

Women, apparently, should work together for society. Men are seemingly not welcome to partake.

With such views it's hardly surprising that men have little trust in Feminism's role in addressing "the needs of both men and women in Irish society".

iptba

In case anyone is interested, Wednesday's Irish Times (articles are available online) has a couple of dozen (!) articles on female suffrage. At least a few of the articles are about the present day. Haven't looked through them closely.
Couple of quotes from Susan McKay’s piece:

“[without feminists]We would not know of the horrific extent of male violence against women and children.”

“There are horrific levels of domestic and sexual violence here and around the world.”

(no mention or suggestion of any domestic violence being initiated by women).

Comment boxes are available underneath some or all of them. Doubt we'll see any sort of equivalent blast of articles on men's difficulties, past and present, any time soon.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

In case anyone is interested, Wednesday's Irish Times (articles are available online) has a couple of dozen (!) articles on female suffrage. At least a few of the articles are about the present day. Haven't looked through them closely.
Couple of quotes from Susan McKay’s piece:

“[without feminists]We would not know of the horrific extent of male violence against women and children.”

“There are horrific levels of domestic and sexual violence here and around the world.”

(no mention or suggestion of any domestic violence being initiated by women).

Comment boxes are available underneath some or all of them. Doubt we'll see any sort of equivalent blast of articles on men's difficulties, past and present, any time soon.

Letter in Friday's paper

Conan Kennedy (October 18th) is brave, but naive, in his comments on “How Irish Women Won The Vote” (October 17th). Sure we all know that, for decades, The Irish Times has been the organ of institutionalised woolly feminism masquerading as informed discussion. It is a virtual world where privileged women pontificate, fulminate, are profoundly appalled and deeply, deeply shocked, disquieted, indignant at the plight of women and children, at all times and in all places, less cosseted than themselves.

I look on it as my daily oestrogen supplement. – Yours, etc,

Piliger

We never hear about when ordinary working Men got the vote do we ? It is as if we always had it and the poor women only got it yesterday !

The truth is that in the UK and Ireland, in the 1918 Representation of the People Act, all MALES over the age of 21 were given the vote for FIRST time! Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote. And then came the 1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.

So only 10 years difference, if that.

Yet the Media somehow conveniently 'forget' this when they pontificate about ,and celebrate, the battle for the vote for women.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

We never hear about when ordinary working Men got the vote do we ? It is as if we always had it and the poor women only got it yesterday !

The truth is that in the UK and Ireland, in the 1918 Representation of the People Act, all MALES over the age of 21 were given the vote for FIRST time! Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote. And then came the 1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.

So only 10 years difference, if that.

Yet the Media somehow conveniently 'forget' this when they pontificate about ,and celebrate, the battle for the vote for women.

I've heard the point made that the right to vote came with the obligation that you could be conscripted to fight for your country as your leaders saw fit: women got the right to vote but not that obligation.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

Yet the Media somehow conveniently 'forget' this when they pontificate about ,and celebrate, the battle for the vote for women.

Not strictly speaking a male's rights issue, but it does highlight the effective rewriting of a lot of gender history to frame the past in a way that serves a gynocentric agenda.

This chap attempted, unsuccessfully (probably because he represented himself in court), to sue the LSE for this kind of bias. The video has him challenging a number of LSE students on many of these Feminist myths, including the question of emancipation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y9_oklmHvU

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not strictly speaking a male's rights issue,

I agree - if you want to restrict this thread to the pure rights topic please make that assertion? and perhaps a separate thread might be opened for men's experiences of sexist prejudice?
Just saying

iptba

I think the Tom Martin case is very interesting. For men's rights to progress, ideally it would become more academic, with research studies, the way feminism has. Also, students would get exposed to problems that some people believe there are for men in society, the way they are given examples about women. It's very difficult to happen with the bias in gender studies departments.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

I think the Tom Martin case is very interesting. For men's rights to progress, ideally it would become more academic, with research studies, the way feminism has. Also, students would get exposed to problems that some people believe there are for men in society, the way they are given examples about women. It's very difficult to happen with the bias in gender studies departments.

Women's studies, that eventually got re-branded gender studies, has long been a joke. I remember twenty years ago seeing satirical adverts in the UCD Arts building detailing the curriculum for a fictional M.Stud. course, which took the piss out of the women's studies curriculum.

For me, what is disturbing is that what was women's studies became gender studies, without changing the gynocentric and often misandrist bias at all. As with claims that Feminism represents equality, I find this at best an intentionally misleading attempt to monopolize gender politics, with a biased agenda.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not strictly speaking a male's rights issue, but it does highlight the effective rewriting of a lot of gender history to frame the past in a way that serves a gynocentric agenda.

This chap attempted, unsuccessfully (probably because he represented himself in court), to sue the LSE for this kind of bias. The video has him challenging a number of LSE students on many of these Feminist myths, including the question of emancipation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y9_oklmHvU

Thanks.
The list at 5:00 after the woman said there are no men's issues, or something to that effect, can be found at:
http://sexismbusters.org/ref1.html

Some points are more interesting than others of course.

iptba

Letter in Irish Examiner

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/woman-should-be-jailed-rather-than-fined-for-false-allegation-of-rape-211844.html

Woman should be jailed rather than fined for false allegation of rape

Thursday, October 25, 2012

For the second time in the past few months we have seen a guilty party in a rape/sexual assault case having a jail sentence suspended on condition that they pay a sum of money in compensation.

This has prompted calls for the DPP to appeal against the leniency of the sentence and the introduction of statutory guidelines on sentencing in such cases.

The people making such calls may have a valid case but they would have more credibility if they weren’t so selective and so sexist. Some months ago in a case involving alleged rape, a fine of €1,000 was imposed on the self-confessed guilty party with no mention of a prison sentence, suspended or otherwise. There was no outcry from the media or anyone else about this ridiculously lenient penalty which trivialises rape even more than the other two cases. The reason being the guilty party was not the man who was accused, but the woman, who admitted making a false allegation. According to reports she claimed that her friends encouraged her to do so.

When imposing the fine the judge remarked that if she had succeeded with her false accusation, the innocent man would probably have been given a six year jail sentence. In these circumstances the only appropriate penalty for this woman should have been a six year jail term and not the meagre €1,000 fine imposed on her.

If ever there was a case that should have been appealed by the DPP this is it. There is merit in calls for statutory guidelines in rape and sexual assault cases. Such guidelines should include penalties for false accusations which should be at least as severe as the sentences for the crime itself.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

For men's rights to progress, ideally it would become more academic, with research studies, the way feminism has.

I disagree. For Mens Rights to reach the same level of respect and comprehensive level in society, yes you are right.

But for it to 'progress' (yes I know you said ideally) what we need is simply an organisation to focus on the issues and to act as a focal point for the dissemination of information and education - especially for the media and the educational system. One that does it calmly, rationally, without hysterics, capable of standing up to the feminist lobby without giving them an excuse to slap the usual misogyny label on it.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

But for it to 'progress' (yes I know you said ideally) what we need is simply an organisation to focus on the issues and to act as a focal point for the dissemination of information and education - especially for the media and the educational system. One that does it calmly, rationally, without hysterics, capable of standing up to the feminist lobby without giving them an excuse to slap the usual misogyny label on it.

I agree, but the weight of the 'academic' label is important to this end. Many of the most ridiculous Feminist demands are often 'backed up' by academic research - that this research is questionable at best, if not blatantly flawed is often overshadowed by the respectability and authority that a few degrees attached to the author's name will often engender.

So while I agree with your assessment, I do also feel that a pursuit of this 'academic' status would be strategically important.