Mens Rights Thread

Morag

http://www.thejournal.ie/in-camera-law-courts-659439-Nov2012/

NEW LEGISLATION IS to be introduced that will allow press access to family law and child care proceedings in court.

The Department of Justice said today that Minister for Justice Alan Shatter “intends to progress the preparation and enactment of legislation which amongst other matters will make court proceedings in family law and child care cases more transparent”.

The legislation will amend the in camera rule to allow press access to the courts in family law and child care proceedings. They will be subject to a strict prohibition on the publication of any material which would lead to the identification of the people involved, and care will be taken to ensure that the best interests of children are protected.

The purpose of the in camera rule is to protect the privacy of the parties concerned and to ensure that their anonymity and that of their children is fully preserved.

However, the department said that it has meant that such cases “are not generally reported and the public, and even practitioners may not be aware of how the law, particularly in relation to children, is being operated and applied in the different courts, before which such issues are heard”.

There is a public perception that undue secrecy is attached to the administration of this area of the law and that there is a lack of uniformity and consistency in the manner in which it is administered.

It is part of the Programme for Government that there be reform in the area of family law and this is one of a number of reforms under preparation.

In July of 2012, the Minister announced that the Government approved in principle a future referendum on Article 34 of the Constitution, which envisages, amongst other reforms the establishment of a unified structure of family courts to hear and determine family law disputes and child care cases.

Hopefully this will benefit Dads and kids and there will be some real oversight and data collation.

The Corinthian

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Depressingly enough I could see men disrupting any potential movement as well, if the "Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men" thread is anything to go by. That and there are women as it is campaigning and writing articles in favour of increased men's rights, it would seem counter productive to exclude them.

I think it is important to differentiate between women and Feminism.

Because so many of the issues revolving men's rights ironically come from female privileges carried over from traditional Patriarchy, that were never reformed, it means that redressing them now would inevitably mean a loss of these privileges for women.

Feminism is a partisan movement; it represents women, it does not represent men and hence cannot be seen as in any way balanced or equal. As such it will always at best be less than enthusiastic about any campaign that will diminish the interests of it's partisan constituency, if not outright hostile.

But feminism isn't stupid and does nominally support men's issues in some cases - issues, not rights, because if you look at Feminism's support it will never actually support any reform that would harm women's rights or interests. For example, two areas presently enjoying support from Feminism:

1. Automatic Guardianship for Unmarried Fathers. An incredible concession on the surface, until you read the full text of what is proposed; that guardianship itself be reformed so as to remove any actual rights from the role (such as over the child's education or religion), relegating it to a 'consultative' one, with power officially concentrated in the hands of the custodial parent (i.e. the mother).
2. Paternity Leave. Again a positive step forward, but TBH it's a no-brainer for Feminists as it gives mothers the option to share the burden of child care with the father, without actually sacrificing any control or rights - the father, if unmarried, may have the right to paternity leave, but will legally be on a par with a babysitter.

I will also note that even these 'concessions' are only because of the men's rights movement has managed to bring them to the fore. Had it not, Feminism would not even have thought about it - and this is much of the reason why a separate men's rights movement, Mascilism, is necessary at present.

At no point will Feminism actively support any policy that will actually work against women in any way, and this is ultimately why Feminism and Men's Rights are incompatible, because in redressing certain imbalances, it will be necessary for women to sacrifice some of those traditional privileges.

Women, on the other hand, are not the same as Feminists. Unfettered by ideological priorities people in general can practice self-sacrifice; support a cause even though it goes against self-interest, because it is ultimately just. Some, from what I can see, still identify as Feminists, but have clearly become disillusioned with the partisan nature of the movement, others reject Feminism and simply seek equality and fairness. On top of which women bring a complimentary viewpoint and, in my experience, discourage the more misogynistic extremes in men's rights groups, which is absolutely essential.

So personally, I would love to see more women involved in men's rights issues. But Feminism, no; it's like going to court and asking your opponent's lawyer to give you a hand.

I think the first thing that needs to be done is to stop Men shooting themselves in the foot. They need to learn that women aren't weak, helpless creatures. That chivalry equals sexism and to wake up to the fact that are rights are being stolen from us, in front of our face, and with our permission.

We're conditioned this way from childhood unfortunately. One of the greatest achievements of Feminism, IMHO, was to de-construct women's role in society that had pigeon-holed them as home-makers and child-carers and allowed them to begin to embrace the traditional roles of men as providers and, to a lesser extent, protectors.

Men have not done this. We have not asked whether principles such as "women and children first" makes sense any more, we have been unable to transition into traditional female roles and, ironically, this has stunted women's capacity to better adopt male roles (Feminism's answer to this is positive discrimination, so that women may choose both, BTW).

There's a lot of hostility to de-constructing men's role - mainly from other men, I may add. But unless men do this, we're really not going to make much of a dent in the present inequities that are almost all founded in these residual patriarchal principles.

iptba

"The Ten Most Powerful People in Men's Rights" http://theantifeminist.com/mens-rights-power-list/
I don't know enough about these people to comment.

iptba

James Jones wrote: »

I think the article HERE gives a good perspective on equality.

Follow-up by another woman. Great.

Madam -- I am writing to commend Eilis O'Hanlon on her excellent article entitled 'Sometimes it's not so hard to be a woman' (Sunday Independent, October 28). It is long past time that the feminist industry, which survives by perpetuating the myth that women are oppressed, was exposed for the nonsense that it is.

Ms O'Hanlon very competently demolishes the latest silly feminist claim that the recession is having a disproportionate effect on women. It is almost as ridiculous as the other feminist claim that women suffer more than men in war, repeated by Hillary Clinton among others.

The fact that it is predominantly men who are killed, crippled and maimed in war is an inconvenient truth, but feminists are expert at ignoring truth, no matter how blatantly obvious it may be.

That distortion of reality is an integral part of feminism. Its proponents selectively look up through the glass ceiling but refuse to look down into the glass cellar (ie dangerous and dirty jobs) which are almost totally dominated by men.

Central to the survival of the feminist industry are the feminist propaganda laboratories, aka women's studies or gender studies departments in third-level institutions. Apart from the damage they do to society by promoting their warped world view, one must ask what damage is being done to young women who are enticed into these institutions. By instilling in them a false sense of victimhood rather than educating them to make a useful and meaningful contribution to society, these institutions are doing more damage to women than any mythical patriarchy.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/how-feminism-distorts-reality-3281783.html

iptba

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

Women are not even in the room

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.

iptba

For what it's worth, this guy from the UK wrote the following piece on his blog - explains why he thinks we need masculists:

http://joshwatkins0508.tumblr.com/post/34097885806/masculism-feminism-fight-for-the-same-thing-why-are

Masculism & Feminism Fight For The Same Thing…Why Are They Not Seen As Equal?

[..]

I am not a sexist, I am not chauvinistic and I am not an antifeminist. I am a humanist and a masculinist.

jackofalltrades

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/le...m-3281786.html

Eoin Murray wrote:

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.

I looked into this report. It's very interesting in that it shows gender inequality, rather than inequality solely against women.

What Eoin's failed to realise is that this data shows an advantage towards women in two out of the three categories that he's mentioned. It shows that there is fairly equal participation in primary and secondary education, but that a 20% gap in favour of women opens up at third level. The health and survival gap is caused by women living on average 3 years longer than men. So it seems that even though "women are not even in the room" they're better educated, live longer and have the privileged position of have a publicly funded group to lobby for their needs.

If anyone is good at getting a letter published in a newspaper then this could be a good article to respond to. Posters from the Atheism & Agnosticism forum has had success in getting letters published and providing some kind of opposition against a largely one-sided debate.

iptba

Article title: Obama and the women’s lobby - It never occurs to them that men’s issues are matters of interest to women
by Christina Hoff Sommers

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/race-and-gender/obama-and-the-womens-lobby/

I thought this was interesting in terms of the influence of National Organization for Women (NOW) and also the approach e.g. they objected to a stimulus package to create jobs by modernizing roads, bridges, electrical grids, and dams, as most of the jobs created would be male.

Piliger

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

Women are not even in the room

Notice that the Independent did not even allow any discussion of this topic. This is consistent with previous feminist articles where the editors comply with the feminist demand to block men's opposition to their views.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/race-and-gender/obama-and-the-womens-lobby/

I thought this was interesting in terms of the influence of National Organization for Women (NOW) and also the approach e.g. they objected to a stimulus package to create jobs by modernizing roads, bridges, electrical grids, and dams, as most of the jobs created would be male.

This is what happens when Lobby Groups get out of control. They lose all sight of context or proportionality. They become obsessed with their 'mandate' and only look to justifying their mandate in a one dimensional manner.
This reflects what has happened to so many feminists over the last 25 years. Their original mandate was to correct the bias against women in society, but they lost their way and now just look stupid in their extremist demands for men to be disadvantaged in order to allow lower standards for women in society.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

Notice that the Independent did not even allow any discussion of this topic. This is consistent with previous feminist articles where the editors comply with the feminist demand to block men's opposition to their views.

There were comments in support of it under it when I posted it. After a few days, the Irish Independent turns off comments (and hides existing comments) for all letters, from what I have seen.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

There were comments in support of it under it when I posted it. After a few days, the Irish Independent turns off comments (and hides existing comments) for all letters, from what I have seen.

I have never seen that. They ALWAYS leave those comments in place.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

I have never seen that. They ALWAYS leave those comments in place.

It used to be like that but they changed it in recent months (or maybe further back than that). Anyone can check it out - no comments on any letters from Monday back at the moment: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

It used to be like that but they changed it in recent months (or maybe further back than that). Anyone can check it out - no comments on any letters from Monday back at the moment: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/.

Comments still there :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

Comments still there :rolleyes:

In fairness, comments appear to disappear automatically about two or three days after the letter's publication.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

iptba wrote:

It used to be like that but they changed it in recent months (or maybe further back than that). Anyone can check it out - no comments on any letters from Monday back at the moment: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/.

Comments still there :rolleyes:

Where are there comments on letters that are a few days old?

citytillidie

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:


(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.

Talking about female on male violence, I cant believe Maroon 5 Misery video is still allowed to be shown, just 3 minutes of a woman beating up a man

Zulu

I haven't seen the video. Does it actually promote violence towards the victim? Is this really a gender issue?

citytillidie

Zulu wrote: »

I haven't seen the video. Does it actually promote violence towards the victim? Is this really a gender issue?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g6g2mvItp4

The Corinthian

citytillidie wrote: »

Talking about female on male violence, I cant believe Maroon 5 Misery video is still allowed to be shown, just 3 minutes of a woman beating up a man

Hmmm... My gut on this is that it is from the same school of violence as 50 Shades of Grey; a bizarre, masochistic, sexual fantasy that likely originates from the mind of the 'victim' rather than the 'perpetrator'.

So it's not so much about female on male violence, but about someone who really needs to see a professional...

Zulu

hummf, hard to believe a similar video would be acceptable aright, but I'm not too irked by it for some reason. Probably because it's maroon5?

citytillidie

I was just in the gym yesterday when i seen the video not heard the song yet but just from seeing the video it was shocking

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

hummf, hard to believe a similar video would be acceptable aright, but I'm not too irked by it for some reason. Probably because it's maroon5?

I agree that were it a female singer getting the crap kicked out of her there would be uproar from Feminist circles, but in this regard I don't think this stance should be something that we should emulate but frankly deride.

As 60 Shades of Grey showed, there's quite a lot of weird stuff in the human psyche that goes against what is acceptable, not only conservative morals but other value systems, such as political correctness.

I do think that the media does appear to deem it more acceptable to have female upon male violence, and this is a bad thing, but I also think that it's more up to Feminism to loosen up on the portrayal of male on female violence (when portrayed in a consensual manner) rather than Masculism to get equally uptight.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

... rather than Masculism to get equally uptight.

Yeah, I think you're right there.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

..but I'm not too irked by it for some reason...

I think this doesn't bother me because I really, really, don't think:

• it portrays "men" poorly
• encourages "women" to assault "men"
• condones abuse

py2006

Also, there is no bruises, scrapes or blood so it is done in a comical way and he appears to enjoy it.

Morag

py2006 wrote: »

Also, there is no bruises, scrapes or blood so it is done in a comical way and he appears to enjoy it.

I get that it is a fantasy portrayal and that there are people both men and women who enjoy 'rough play' but, it was very uncomfortable to watch even more so that it is a music video.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree that were it a female singer getting the crap kicked out of her there would be uproar from Feminist circles, but in this regard I don't think this stance should be something that we should emulate but frankly deride.

But that IS the point. That it would be totally unacceptable if it were reversed. NOT that someone should make a video WITH the roles reversed.

As 60 Shades of Grey showed, there's quite a lot of weird stuff in the human psyche that goes against what is acceptable, not only conservative morals but other value systems, such as political correctness.

I hope you mean against what is accepted in 'real life' ... this is a fantasy story and fantasies should never be unacceptable, especially a not that unusual S&M fantasy. Though it would appear that some people are exceedingly sheltered....

I do think that the media does appear to deem it more acceptable to have female upon male violence, and this is a bad thing, but I also think that it's more up to Feminism to loosen up on the portrayal of male on female violence (when portrayed in a consensual manner) rather than Masculism to get equally uptight.

I don't agree. I think we need to keep our mind on the ball. The ball is the 'principle' of the issue. Not any one aspect of it. The principle is the blatant bias being applied by feminism and the media.

iptba

I have problems with the logic in this article. Note that he inherited the money - it is different from a case when he earned it when they were married.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229933/Landowner-ordered-pay-lady-manor-ex-wife-9m-divorce-settlement.html

Wife can't stoop to a £3m house in an unfashionable area like Little Venice, says judge as 'lady of the manor' gets £9m in divorce

A landowner was yesterday ordered to pay £8.7million to his ex-wife to fund her ‘lady of the manor’ lifestyle – because she could not be expected to live in a £3million house in an unfashionable area.

[..]

Lawyers for the 51-year-old wife had argued she needed at least £11.2million to maintain the privileged lifestyle she had enjoyed since birth. Her ex-husband, 53, offered her a lump sum of £7million but a judge said the offer was ‘parsimonious’ and the wife’s expectations were ‘not outlandish’.

[..]

The wife said she was used to ‘running a full house with staff and planning the social life that goes with owning an important estate’.

The judge said the family ‘wanted for nothing’. The husband ‘had what he wanted – whenever he wanted it’, including an £85,000 Porsche.

Mrs Justice Baron said it would be unfair to expect the wife to exchange her old lifestyle for a small flat and pension.

‘She was accustomed to leading a very cosseted life. She was not used to dealing with everyday matters of finance. She lived in a grand house with a housekeeper/cook; she had the use of an ironing lady and gardeners.

Pawwed Rig

This is a country that recognises inequality in law.

So he inherited money that his ancestors presumably attained through titles and land grants or military campaigns? Can't find any sympathy for this one but I see your point