Mens Rights Thread

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

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

What is the 'men's rights' angle ?

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

What is the 'men's rights' angle ?

The Men's Rights angle is how courts feel somehow that one partner (almost always the female) should be maintained in the manner "they have been accustomed indefinitely" (which often seems to ignore the fact that the person paying may not then be able to live in the manner they have been accustomed, so it's a bit partial). And in general, the whole issue of maintenance payments which almost always men pay to their ex-partners rather than vice versa.
I've heard it argued that a much fairer system might be a parachute-payment like TDs get when they lose their seats - so you get perhaps a lump sum and then maybe 5 years' maintenance if necessary but an ex-spouse shouldn't necessarily be expected to maintain the other ex-spouse indefinitely. The system seems to be based on chivalry.

Piliger

I agree with the system as is. But I agree that it should be applied equally, and that is the main thing.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

The Men's Rights angle is how courts feel somehow that one partner (almost always the female) should be maintained in the manner "they have been accustomed indefinitely" (which often seems to ignore the fact that the person paying may not then be able to live in the manner they have been accustomed, so it's a bit partial).

That's not really a men's rights issue though, it's really an issue with how we still bizarrely still see marriage as a lifelong commitment, despite it no longer being one.

Where it does become a men's rights issue is that divorce is not treated in a gender neutral fashion. Even where men will be entitled to maintenance from the ex-wife, statistically they'll tend to get less, if any at all, than were they women. Additionally, the laws and societal attitudes surrounding roles within the family are such that men will far more likely end up in the 'provider' role, which will ultimately mean they're going to end up paying out.

But things such as the lack of a 'clean break' divorce, or that claims may include assets and income pre-dating or post-dating the marriage are not gender specific in themselves - even in countries that don't have them, such as Austria, men will still be discriminated against, regardless.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

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.

I agree, but there are two ways of approaching this. Either seeking the same biases or rights enjoyed by women or removing those biases or rights enjoyed by women, so that they're on a par with men.

In the case of the above video, I personally find objections to it to be a bit silly, just as I would were the genders reversed. I'd rather that it is considered silly for either scenario to be vilified, as a result, rather than have a situation that men gain a 'right' that down deep is ridiculous for either genders to have.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

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

There is a reply to that letter today:

Madam -- I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the letter from Michelle Carroll entitled 'How feminism distorts reality' (Sunday Independent, November 4, 2012).

Could a woman really have written: "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"? If so, there must still be some honest people around who abhor the oppressive political correctness that blights society and have the courage to say so. In this, she is a true successor to Galileo. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/an-oppressive-blight-on-society-3290625.html

iptba

iptba wrote: »

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

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

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

Preparing for a fair budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've just seen they have a website for their campaign:
http://equalitybudgeting.ie/

No mention of men in Twitter feed that I can see.
Here are some posts:

@maevehiggins we love your comedy & know you support women's causes. R u interested in #equalitybudgeting? Justice for women & marginalised?

We will be talking to a representative of the Scottish Women's Budget Group on Friday about their experiences of... http://fb.me/1FWSXQ3nf

Thanks to Women's Aid for inviting us to contribute to their excellent 16 Days Blog and spreading the word about... http://fb.me/ycPfvPLT

We're holding a training day in the National Women's Council of Ireland offices on Saturday, 17th November, on... http://fb.me/1odIaqlyv

Campaign partners, Irish Feminist Network, recently did an interview with WDAR 96fm on feminism, community... http://fb.me/1FlZH6flb

---

Linked to from Twitter feed:

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/committees-gender-and-the-budget/

Noonan had left the chamber long before the above but when asked earlier in the month

With regard to budgetary matters, when focusing on the primary objectives of reducing the deficit and returning sustainability to the public finances, it has been of vital importance to the Government to spread the burden of the adjustments made in as fair and equitable a manner as possible, while also seeking to minimise their negative impact on economic growth.

There are currently no plans to specifically equality and gender proof Budget 2013. That said however, the Deputies should be aware that the Programme for Government does contain a clear commitment requiring all public bodies to take due note of equality and human rights in carrying out their functions. I would also remind the Deputy that the State and its bodies must, of course, comply with all provisions of equality legislation in the development and delivery of its policies and services.

Furthermore, when proposals are put to Government there is a requirement to indicate clearly, whether there is any impact of the proposal on, amongst other things, gender equality, persons experiencing or at risk of poverty or social exclusion and people with disabilities.

The Deputies should also be aware that a distributional analysis of proposed budget measures is performed each year based on income levels.

Piliger

Fascinating post iptba.

As long as we have no Men's Rights organisation, this will be the pattern. Government being constantly lobbied by feminist groups using biased and inaccurate data to promote women's interests. They even quote that discredited study that claimed women were suffering more from the recession. No balancing lobbying for men.

FrogMarch

Are women's groups seriously claiming that women are a marginalised, discriminated against, victimised minority group? Aligning themselves with the disabled, the LGBT community, low income families, etc? REALLY? Pathetic.

FrogMarch

Piliger wrote: »

They even quote that discredited study that claimed women were suffering more from the recession.

Men don't have a similar 'Sex & The City' entitlement benchmark unfortunately.

DamoKen

Piliger wrote: »

Fascinating post iptba.

As long as we have no Men's Rights organisation, this will be the pattern. Government being constantly lobbied by feminist groups using biased and inaccurate data to promote women's interests. They even quote that discredited study that claimed women were suffering more from the recession. No balancing lobbying for men.

I agree, unfortunately articles such as these confirm it does seem to have reached the point where instead of moving toward a true egalitarian movement as has been expressed as a ideal on this thread a lobby group for Mens Rights for now at least does seem the only way to balance the skewed and often completely distorted view presented.

At the moment all that is heard is a very one sided and more often than not inaccurate summation of whatever the current issue is without properly examining cause. i.e. to paraphrase, "Women are suffering more in the recession, lets fix it" completely ignoring the other half of the equation as the male half of the population, the catastrophic job losses experienced, alarming increases in suicide, mass emigration and unemployment don't seem to matter.

This in itself wouldn't be such an issue if these were concerns that affected women alone in which case it's only natural that organisations seek to act in their groups self interests. The point is these are issues that affect us all, but the solutions presented invariably mean giving advantage to one group as a result of introducing disadvantage to the other, i.e. gender quotas.

Some of the more recent arguments have become so far removed from reality it would be funny except for the fact that opinions such as these form part of the thinking behind lobbyist groups that can and do affect legislative change.

Personally I think the way the current wave of feminism (the more extreme elements that is) are moving, not only are they alienating a lot of more moderate feminists or just women who believe as I do in fairness, they are also pushing men closer and closer to presenting a united front if for nothing else than to have a voice to balance the very one sided agenda.

For once however gender proof budgeting if it were ever introduced,could wake a lot of men from the as I think The Corinthian put it many pages back, "I'm alright Jack" attitude so depressingly common.

I've no idea how it's proposed to "gender proof" a budget but if it ever did come to pass that taxation factored in your gender, and lets face it, if you're a man based on previous feminist driven solutions this would not be good, at least the Me Fein attitude would be a thing of the past and for once men would wake up and realise that unless a common voice is heard there is the very real danger of becoming second class citizens not only as is currently the case in the family courts but in every day life.

Daveysil15

I just heard about this Hollaback thing today:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81707721

http://dublin.ihollaback.org/

Another weapon in the feminists arsenal.

Piliger

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I just heard about this Hollaback thing today:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81707721

http://dublin.ihollaback.org/

Another weapon in the feminists arsenal.

I was pleased that this received such a negative response in the Ladies' Lounge Thread.

An absolutely gobsmacking and astonishing campaign.

iptba

Just to point out that the hollaback thing was first mentioned on this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056793764 . It might fit better there.

donfers

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I just heard about this Hollaback thing today:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81707721

http://dublin.ihollaback.org/

Another weapon in the feminists arsenal.

to be honest if this is a weapon in their arsenal then its pointed right at their own heads

they're looking less and less credible as they push and push and push to even greater almost fascist extremes - more people, especially in the media should have the courage to highlight how ill-advised this kind of stuff is, but still there is a fear there - it's incredible that posters in the ladies lounge can see through how moronic this is yet those in the media are afraid to confront it, tells you what you're up against really

iptba

I thought this article was interesting. Although it's on the US system so may not perfectly match political parties in other countries, it could perhaps match general attitudes.

BTW, I didn't know what "discourse coalition" was before reading the article but was still able to read it ok. Comments go on forever and go all over the place so possibly less important/interesting to read this than comments on other articles (I eventually got through them all). Although was interesting enough to read people debating about Republicans.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/10/17/the-discourse-coalition-of-feminists-and-conservatives/

The Discourse Coalition of Feminists and Conservatives

[..]

The big problem with the advancement of a men’s movement is the “coalition” of feminists and conservatives.

It’s hard for men’s rights activists to win by voting for democrats or republicans, because they both have the same goal: protection of women.

iptba

Monday (Nov 19) is International Men's Day. Not sure if anything is happening in Ireland?

iptba

I'm still a relative newbie to Men's Rights discussions on the internet/manosphere but this article sort of sums up different aspects "A Red Pill Message to a Blue Pill World" (April 2011 article) http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/a-red-pill-message-to-a-blue-pill-world/

I'm not convinced by some bits of it e.g. on eugenics

Red pill and blue pill refer to the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

"The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are pop culture symbols representing the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red)."

(from The Matrix)

Piliger

Sadly this topic is still one that doesn't echo with the great majority of men - who really don't realise what is going on all around them but hasn't directly affected them in a noticeable way as yet.

Read this article in the UKL Independent - this is how men are now being portrayed, and notice the comments by women who claims misandry doesn't even exist, while they post offensive anti men posts and clock up huge browny points for their posts. I commented too.

banquo

Another gem from Una Mullally in the IT. The names men and women are called in Love/Hate.

Irish Times wrote:

Even though the boys are the stars of the show, women are referred to in more, shall we say, ‘colourful’ terms than their male counterparts.

Good to see that actual serious legal and policy equality problems in Ireland are ignored in favour of facile nonsense.

Daveysil15

Piliger wrote: »

Sadly this topic is still one that doesn't echo with the great majority of men - who really don't realise what is going on all around them but hasn't directly affected them in a noticeable way as yet.

Read this article in the UKL Independent - this is how men are now being portrayed, and notice the comments by women who claims misandry doesn't even exist, while they post offensive anti men posts and clock up huge browny points for their posts. I commented too.

That's social conditioning for you. When men speak out about such an injustice they're often considered whingers for doing so. Men are not usually seen as victims. This video explains it well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oQCb4HdDCE&feature=player_embedded

FrogMarch

Daveysil15 wrote: »

That's social conditioning for you. When men speak out about such an injustice they're often considered whingers for doing so. Men are not usually seen as victims. This video explains it well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oQCb4HdDCE&feature=player_embedded

A good observation on the word misandry (<- my browser spell checker doesn't recognise it) that I noticed some time ago. It's actually not a recognised word. Incredible. I think to balance the whole ridiculous "rape culture" argument, men need to stand together and introduce "misandry culture" into the social lexicon. Because it's a lot more prevalent, and accepted, than rape.

Macha

Daveysil15 wrote: »

That's social conditioning for you. When men speak out about such an injustice they're often considered whingers for doing so. Men are not usually seen as victims. This video explains it well:

I think it's just a little hard for the traditionally discriminated against groups (women, gays, blacks etc) to understand the injustices when the group in question has dominated the institutions of power for so long. Of course men are subject to discrimination but where exactly does the cause of it lie?

I'm talking about the more serious types of discrimination here, not the gendered stereotypes that both men and women are guilty of reinforcing.

Piliger

FrogMarch wrote: »

It's actually not a recognised word.

It is - here

FrogMarch

Piliger wrote: »

It is - here

Yeah, I know it's a word and I know it does have meaning. I'm just a bit bemused as to why 1) it doesn't show up on spell checkers and 2) most feminist groups refuse to accept that it exists.

Piliger

Macha wrote: »

I think it's just a little hard for the traditionally discriminated against groups (women, gays, blacks etc) to understand the injustices when the group in question has dominated the institutions of power for so long. Of course men are subject to discrimination but where exactly does the cause of it lie?

This is a cop out. When a group is discriminated against, then it should be even more sensitised to 'justice' and to discrimination against any group and not simply self indulge itself in a victimisation culture, feeling justified in ignoring and indulging in it's own discrimination against others.

I'm talking about the more serious types of discrimination here, not the gendered stereotypes that both men and women are guilty of reinforcing.

I'm afraid your use of 'serious' is deeply questionable. What is serious ? Fathers being screwed by the Family Court system ... is that serious ? men being treated like pedophiles when they take part in innocent natural interaction with children ... is that serious enough ?

Macha

Piliger wrote: »

This is a cop out. When a group is discriminated against, then it should be even more sensitised to 'justice' and to discrimination against any group and not simply self indulge itself in a victimisation culture, feeling justified in ignoring and indulging in it's own discrimination against others.

That isn't anything to do with what I said. My point was about trying to understand how a group that has ruled over institutions for, well, millenia, still experiences discrimination by those very institutions.

Piliger wrote: »

I'm afraid your use of 'serious' is deeply questionable. What is serious ? Fathers being screwed by the Family Court system ... is that serious ? men being treated like pedophiles when they take part in innocent natural interaction with children ... is that serious enough ?

That's exactly the stuff I was talking about when I used the word "serious".

Daveysil15

Macha wrote: »

I think it's just a little hard for the traditionally discriminated against groups (women, gays, blacks etc) to understand the injustices when the group in question has dominated the institutions of power for so long.

That's true but it shouldn't make it anymore acceptable. It's like saying if a black person and a white person exchanged racist remarks with each other, then the black person should recieve preferential treatment because the blacks were oppressed years ago.

It's acceptable to make general slurs about men that could never be made about an ethnic group and certainly not against women.

Piliger wrote: »

It is - here

Obviously you'll find it on the internet, but as already pointed out, it doesn't come up on a spell check and any dictionary I've ever read from a book shelf doesn't have it either. It's still a word a lot of people don't recognise.

Feathers

Macha wrote: »

I think it's just a little hard for the traditionally discriminated against groups (women, gays, blacks etc) to understand the injustices when the group in question has dominated the institutions of power for so long. Of course men are subject to discrimination but where exactly does the cause of it lie?

I'm talking about the more serious types of discrimination here, not the gendered stereotypes that both men and women are guilty of reinforcing.

I think the cause of it lies in the fact that "men" haven't been a political force. The ranks of the legislature have been made up of "men", but there hasn't until very recently been any "men's voice", as there wasn't a struggle needed for (white, Protestant, upperclass) men since the time of the Magna Carter.

Slowly the categories of men that were discrimated against have been given equal access, alongside minority groups and women; but since minority groups and women had to unite to fight for their rights relatively recently, this still forms part of our political agenda.

Lobby groups for disenfranchised (white) men — working class, Catholics, etc — became irrelevant hundreds of years ago at this stage, so in the modern lobby-driven political sphere, men as a group never had a need to have a collective "voice" until recently.

Macha

Daveysil15 wrote: »

That's true but it shouldn't make it anymore acceptable. It's like saying if a black person and a white person exchanged racist remarks with each other, then the black person should recieve preferential treatment because the blacks were oppressed years ago.

No, I don't think that's it. I'm not dismissing discrimination against men, I'm wondering why it's still so widespread given that men have controlled power for so long.

I'm the first to acknowledge some women love to keep other women down (like in the current abortion debate for example) so do men's rights activists acknowledge that other men are part of the problem?

Daveysil15 wrote: »

It's acceptable to make general slurs about men that could never be made about an ethnic group and certainly not against women.

Like what? Seriously. Racism is totally unacceptable but I see tropes and stereotyping of women - and men - every single day.