Mens Rights Thread

Feathers

Macha wrote: »

so do men's rights activists acknowledge that other men are part of the problem?

Men's rights activists are few and far between and normally focused around niche issues. I think that the presence of lobby groups for women gives a weighted slant to gender issues in current politics that unnecessary. The fact that this is allowed to continue is everyone's fault, but aside from banning lobby groups from the politlcal process, I'm not sure how it could be addressed constructively. What I wouldn't like to see is for a National Men's Council be set-up to stand as a counter-weight to the NWC.

Rather I think we should be trying to depolarise issues from a gender divide and try to address them in a way that benefits all affected parties — e.g. inclusion in the political process, treatment of prisoners, home/work balance, etc, etc.

iptba

Macha wrote: »

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?

I think it's well known amongst men's rights activists that other men could be part of the problem. For example, the word "White Knight" (or occasionally "mangina") will be used about some.

There are also other discussions on the issues e.g. "conservatives" (a phrase commonly used in the US) want to protect women (recently highlighted in this thread).

Also a lot of power depends on not annoying a particular lobby group. Politicians, for example, can't really do what they like. They are constrained by what will or won't cause a rumpus. They may have striven very hard to get to the position and don't want to lose it - indeed, this is the same for most positions of power. So they will tend to act within those constraints.

Many men's rights activists would also point to the sort of issues Warren Farrell raised in "The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power .

Piliger

Macha wrote: »

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.

In that case a quick read through this thread form the beginning should comprehensively solve that question.

Piliger

Daveysil15 wrote: »

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.

Also not true it has been in my Apple OS Dictionary ever since I first started to write on this subject and that is quite a few years and correctly spell checks in my Chrome browser.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

Also not true it has been in my Apple OS Dictionary ever since I first started to write on this subject and that is quite a few years and correctly spell checks in my Chrome browser.

It's coming up as an error in Microsoft Word 2007. It is a word I imagine a lot of people don't know, who would know misogyny and misogynist.

Zulu

Macha wrote: »

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.

Seriously? This is a fallacy. "Men" as a group didn't control power for so long. In reality, some men and women did.

Sadly this lazy lie, or convenient simplification is sold by certain groups to further their own cause. The simple fact is, for "so long" men were suffering a similar oppression as women. It wasn't as if children were separated at birth; serfs were serfs, peasants peasants, and royalty royalty.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously? This is a fallacy. "Men" as a group didn't control power for so long. In reality, some men and women did.

Sadly this lazy lie, or convenient simplification is sold by certain groups to further their own cause. The simple fact is, for "so long" men were suffering a similar oppression as women. It wasn't as if children were separated at birth; serfs were serfs, peasants peasants, and royalty royalty.

Of course, but that isn't sexism ie, discrimination against a person because of their gender. That's discrimination against a person because of their poverty, social standing etc.

I'm trying to understand why sexism against men prevails while men have ruled for so long.

Zulu

Macha wrote: »

I'm trying to understand why sexism against men prevails while men have ruled for so long.

Yes, but I'm just highlighting that it'll be very difficult to come to terms with an understanding of that if your starting position is based on an untruth.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

Yes, but I'm just highlighting that it'll be very difficult to come to terms with an understanding of that if your starting position is based on an untruth.

How so?

Zulu

Macha wrote: »

How so?

Click me:

banquo

What bothers me is that when a problem disproportionately affects women, we admit that in awareness campaigns. But when it disproportionally affects men the awareness campaign tends to be gender neutral.

DamoKen

Macha wrote: »

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.


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

I think you are making the wrong connection between group and gender and trying to understand something starting off with the wrong basic conclusions as a result.

Just because this "group" happens to have been throughout history composed mainly of men does not mean this group in any way represents men as a whole. In fact for most of that time they would have seen it in their personal interests to keep any not belonging to that group under the heel so to speak, BOTH men and women.

Even today the vast vast majority of men would have in most instances no influence whatsoever over this group other than the voting booth where applicable, no lobbies etc that can influence and demand new or changed legislation. And this group I think it's safe to say would feel no natural affinity to men just because they happen to be of the same gender.

Women on the other hand in positions of influence, not all obviously, but a lot would and do feel a lot more empathy with their gender and in a lot of cases act as a voice for issues that concern their gender or imbalances that impact against them. I think a lot of this could be traced back to a common identity in the form of the feminist movement. i.e. In this day and age you're very unlikely to find any woman who would be ignorant of the existence of feminism, most if not all college educated women would have more than a passing knowledge, and those politically active from their college days in all likelihood a much more in-depth knowledge.

Just a thought.

Men don't have this common background, a poor substitute could be the camaraderie shared on the football pitch perhaps. One of the most pressing issues with mens rights I feel is that very definite lack of identity and empathy with other men, the failure to see the discrimination against one as discrimination against all. Nowhere is this more in evidence than that select "group".

Piliger

Macha wrote: »

I'm wondering why it's still so widespread given that men have controlled power for so long.

Demonstrating the absolute myth of this statement.

Macha

DamoKen wrote: »

I think you are making the wrong connection between group and gender and trying to understand something starting off with the wrong basic conclusions as a result.

Just because this "group" happens to have been throughout history composed mainly of men does not mean this group in any way represents men as a whole. In fact for most of that time they would have seen it in their personal interests to keep any not belonging to that group under the heel so to speak, BOTH men and women.

Even today the vast vast majority of men would have in most instances no influence whatsoever over this group other than the voting booth where applicable, no lobbies etc that can influence and demand new or changed legislation. And this group I think it's safe to say would feel no natural affinity to men just because they happen to be of the same gender.

Yes, I understand that but that's not sexism, that's social exclusion, which both men and women suffer from. I'm not questioning the premise that men don't suffer from discrimination from other men on any grounds. I'm wondering why men suffer from discrimination from other men on the basis of their gender.

DamoKen wrote: »

Women on the other hand in positions of influence, not all obviously, but a lot would and do feel a lot more empathy with their gender and in a lot of cases act as a voice for issues that concern their gender or imbalances that impact against them. I think a lot of this could be traced back to a common identity in the form of the feminist movement. i.e. In this day and age you're very unlikely to find any woman who would be ignorant of the existence of feminism, most if not all college educated women would have more than a passing knowledge, and those politically active from their college days in all likelihood a much more in-depth knowledge.

Just a thought.

I'd definitely agree with this.

DamoKen wrote: »

Men don't have this common background, a poor substitute could be the camaraderie shared on the football pitch perhaps. One of the most pressing issues with mens rights I feel is that very definite lack of identity and empathy with other men, the failure to see the discrimination against one as discrimination against all. Nowhere is this more in evidence than that select "group".

For sure.

Piliger wrote: »

Demonstrating the absolute myth of this statement.

How is it a myth that men have controlled power for centuries?

Piliger

Macha wrote: »

How is it a myth that men have controlled power for centuries?

DamoKen dealt with this silly myth above.

DamoKen

Macha wrote: »

Yes, I understand that but that's not sexism, that's social exclusion, which both men and women suffer from. I'm not questioning the premise that men don't suffer from discrimination from other men on any grounds. I'm wondering why men suffer from discrimination from other men on the basis of their gender.

Off the top of my head I think up until recently (the last century or so) it could be argued there was no legislative discrimination. That is the ruling classes treated all the same, with no rights to speak of other that the vague notion of a nobles obligation to the peasant or similar nonsense.

It's commonly argued that feminism has done it's work and is no longer necessary. However I think a counter argument to this is to just look at a group who have no such lobby and support groups, all sharing a common ancestry of group identity.

In this case men.

Through a century of struggle women have become organised. Men have not and are therefore an "easy" target, anything from media bias to family custody. Who is going to fight in our corner? Why would politicians feel in anyway obliged to go to the hassle of changing any legislation when the group it will help has no collective power?

It's not that Men are discriminated against by other men. A lot of the time I think it's one group (in this case men) is just adversely affected because they are voiceless. If a voice is raised the common reaction is one of denial i.e. how can men say they are discriminated against, contempt i.e. "whinging" or the assumption that as the majority of those in charge are men it's ok?

iptba

I think Macha is raising an interesting point. It is true that even now individual men hold more positions of power.

However, I don't accept that, because that is the case, there is necessarily more discrimination against women than men, or that men as a group are more powerful.
But I think it is interesting to reflect on the point, as some have been doing.

How many TDs, for example, have expressed much of an interest in Fathers' Rights, something which has quite a lot of support across society.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

I think Macha is raising an interesting point. It is true that even now individual men hold more positions of power.

However, I don't accept that, because that is the case, there is necessarily more discrimination against women than men, or that men as a group are more powerful.
But I think it is interesting to reflect on the point, as some have been doing.

How many TDs, for example, have expressed much of an interest in Fathers' Rights, something which has quite a lot of support across society.

Demonstrating that the real truth is that in the modern world men as a group do not consider themselves a gender group and feminism has gained such a strong hold on the power structure that despite men making up most positions of power, men themselves have now found themselves in a position where their rights have been eroded significantly.

Daveysil15

Macha wrote: »

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

Dating sites and the dating scene in general is one example. You'll hear some women say things like, "Where have all the decent men gone?" Are there no good men out there?" Men are this that and the other. These comments seem to be acceptable. If a man made any comments like that about women it would be extremely sexist. You'll see it in the media too.

Piliger wrote: »

Also not true it has been in my Apple OS Dictionary ever since I first started to write on this subject and that is quite a few years and correctly spell checks in my Chrome browser.

Obviously you'll find it if you want to. I'm just pointing out that the word 'Misandry' is not nearly as recognised as the word 'Misogyny'.

Piliger

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Dating sites and the dating scene in general is one example. You'll hear some women say things like, "Where have all the decent men gone?" Are there no good men out there?" Men are this that and the other. These comments seem to be acceptable. If a man made any comments like that about women it would be extremely sexist. You'll see it in the media too.

It's open season on men. The Press is chock full of nasty prejudice against men, on a daily basis, by women writers who feel completely free and unfettered to attack men in whatever way they fancy when they get up that morning.

Anyone who makes any negative comment about a woman is considered the sexist devil incarnate.

Obviously you'll find it if you want to. I'm just pointing out that the word 'Misandry' is not nearly as recognised as the word 'Misogyny'.

I have absolutely no doubt you are 100% right.

Our whole media and culture has been on a "misogyny" binge for decades, in parallel with a "sexist male chauvinist" binge.

As in the above article in the Independent - many feminists go about denying the very existence of misandry ...... living in their little imaginary bubble of victimhood.

LeeHoffmann

Dating sites and the dating scene in general is one example. You'll hear some women say things like, "Where have all the decent men gone?" Are there no good men out there?" Men are this that and the other. These comments seem to be acceptable. If a man made any comments like that about women it would be extremely sexist. You'll see it in the media too.

What world are you living in? You hear the same nonsense from men on a regular basis - women are only after men for their money or their cars, women can´t drive, women are crap at maths, women all think the same, women aren´t as clever as men, women are cock-teasing biatches.

I agree that there are prejudices against men that need to be corrected, but some of you are jumping way overboard and suggesting that only men suffer from sexist prejudice. Both genders suffer from sexist prejudice and stereotypes. If you don´t keep a balanced perspective, you risk alienating half the population - instead of garnering their support. I think a lot of women would be in support of men´s rights. Setting up unnecessary opposition with them will do nothing for your cause.

Daveysil15

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

What world are you living in? You hear the same nonsense from men on a regular basis - women are only after men for their money or their cars, women can´t drive, women are crap at maths, women all think the same, women aren´t as clever as men, women are cock-teasing biatches.

I agree that there are prejudices against men that need to be corrected, but some of you are jumping way overboard and suggesting that only men suffer from sexist prejudice. Both genders suffer from sexist prejudice and stereotypes. If you don´t keep a balanced perspective, you risk alienating half the population - instead of garnering their support. I think a lot of women would be in support of men´s rights. Setting up unnecessary opposition with them will do nothing for your cause.

Nobody here is suggesting that only men suffer from sexist prejudice. Obviously women are victims of it too. Your post is a typical response to a male that is highlighting sexism against men. Men aren't allowed to complain about it basically. 'Grow a pair of balls'. 'Man up' etc, are common responses.

It's not exactly equal either. Some things are only sexist when a man does it. Yes women are victims of sexist remarks too, but the perpetrators usually don't get off as lightly. Women can and do get away with saying things about men that would never be acceptable if it were the other way around.

We're not setting up opposition against women. It's about highlighting problems which affect men - there's a difference.

donfers

DamoKen wrote: »

Off the top of my head I think up until recently (the last century or so) it could be argued there was no legislative discrimination. That is the ruling classes treated all the same, with no rights to speak of other that the vague notion of a nobles obligation to the peasant or similar nonsense.

It's commonly argued that feminism has done it's work and is no longer necessary. However I think a counter argument to this is to just look at a group who have no such lobby and support groups, all sharing a common ancestry of group identity.

In this case men.

Through a century of struggle women have become organised. Men have not and are therefore an "easy" target, anything from media bias to family custody. Who is going to fight in our corner? Why would politicians feel in anyway obliged to go to the hassle of changing any legislation when the group it will help has no collective power?

It's not that Men are discriminated against by other men. A lot of the time I think it's one group (in this case men) is just adversely affected because they are voiceless. If a voice is raised the common reaction is one of denial i.e. how can men say they are discriminated against, contempt i.e. "whinging" or the assumption that as the majority of those in charge are men it's ok?

Indeed, I am really bored with the tired old argument that "men" hold the power/control in society. A tiny tiny tiny % of people hold any kind of significant power/influence and just because the majority of them are white men doesn't mean that all men benefit, it's lazy and stupid to say that.

It's like thinking that just because Barack Obama became president in the USA that all the issues that faced black americans would suddenly disappear, nope they still face the same issues.

The superclass, the tiny group in power don't just throw out benefits to those who share their colour or gender - they don't care about that, all they are interested in is maintaining or increasing their own power and one of the most effective ways they can do this is to divide and conquer i.e. make the 99.99% of us beneath them just bicker amongst ourselves and as expected the radicals take the bait

quite frankly I'm tired of hearing men are to blame for this and for that.....usually when these attacks are being thrown out the collective term "men" is used when the accurate term would be ".00000000000000000001%" of men who don't represent men but rather their own quest for power so i'd urge those who go for the easy generalised attack to give it a rest

LeeHoffmann

Nobody here is suggesting that only men suffer from sexist prejudice.

Really?

Men are this that and the other. These comments seem to be acceptable. If a man made any comments like that about women it would be extremely sexist

Your post is a typical response to a male that is highlighting sexism against men. Men aren't allowed to complain about it basically. 'Grow a pair of balls'. 'Man up' etc, are common responses.

Comparing my post to a response such as ´grow a pair of balls´...please. You do yourself and your cause an injustice with such ridiculous statements.

Piliger

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Nobody here is suggesting that only men suffer from sexist prejudice.

None whatsoever. I have never seen it claimed.

Obviously women are victims of it too.

Indeed so. Except that they have an international, well funded, collection of organisations that tackle this on a daily basis.

Your post is a typical response to a male that is highlighting sexism against men. Men aren't allowed to complain about it basically. 'Grow a pair of balls'. 'Man up' etc, are common responses.

feminism has climbed the mountain and is occupying the high ground so comprehensively that they are successfully managing to exclude anyone from claiming that men suffer any prejudice or sexism or any negative experience whatsoever. They deny i - thence it does not exist.

It's not exactly equal either. Some things are only sexist when a man does it. Yes women are victims of sexist remarks too, but the perpetrators usually don't get off as lightly. Women can and do get away with saying things about men that would never be acceptable if it were the other way around.

No man can make even the slightest negative comment about a woman in the media. Any slight results in sanctions and firings. Women on the other hand are writing daily sexist, abusive, offensive articles about men and doing it with impunity and alacrity.

We're not setting up opposition against women. It's about highlighting problems which affect men - there's a difference.

But feminism is so obsessed with it's own victimhood that they consider the whole matter to be a zero sum game. Any validity that is acceded to on behalf of men MUST be a reduction of validity on behalf of women. This is how they see it and this is how women's comments in The Gentlemen's Club consistently go.

LeeHoffmann

Piliger wrote: »

Any validity that is acceded to on behalf of men MUST be a reduction of validity on behalf of women. This is how they see it and this is how women's comments in The Gentlemen's Club consistently go.

Its a pity you see female posters in such a negative light. Many have and continue to support mens rights in tgc and other fora on boards. This is exactly what i meant by setting up unnecessary opposition.

LeeHoffmann

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yes women are victims of sexist remarks too, but the perpetrators usually don't get off as lightly. Women can and do get away with saying things about men that would never be acceptable if it were the other way around.

If you mean in the media, then i agree. In real life, it's different. I was responding to a post about the dating scene (ie real life)

Macha

iptba wrote: »

How many TDs, for example, have expressed much of an interest in Fathers' Rights, something which has quite a lot of support across society.

This is it exactly: how many fathers are in the Dáil right now yet there is zero paternity leave in this country. A shameful situation.

Piliger wrote: »

Demonstrating that the real truth is that in the modern world men as a group do not consider themselves a gender group and feminism has gained such a strong hold on the power structure that despite men making up most positions of power, men themselves have now found themselves in a position where their rights have been eroded significantly.

I agree with your point that men don't see themselves as a gender group because historically, they maybe never felt the need. But to blame this situation on feminism is where we part ways. As for rights being "eroded", when did we ever, for example, have paternity leave in this country?

I see a lot of the discrimination today against men as a result of old-fashioned male stereotypes. So why is it that the people in power, who are overwhelmingly male, aren't interested in tackling this discrimination?

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Dating sites and the dating scene in general is one example. You'll hear some women say things like, "Where have all the decent men gone?" Are there no good men out there?" Men are this that and the other. These comments seem to be acceptable. If a man made any comments like that about women it would be extremely sexist. You'll see it in the media too.

I see that and of course it's but I also see it said about women. In fact I've lost count of the number of threads in AH about how ugly Irish women are, Irish women vs foreign women, Irish women are up themselves, wear too much make up, are fat, wear too much fake tan etc etc.

I don't agree that it's something we only see said about men.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Obviously you'll find it if you want to. I'm just pointing out that the word 'Misandry' is not nearly as recognised as the word 'Misogyny'.

Quite possibly because in historical terms and up until very recently, the latter has dwarfed the former. For example the current debate highlights that we still live in a country that denies women the right to control their own bodies. And shockingly, one of the most anti-legislation TDs is a woman: Lucinda Creighton.

py2006

I have to agree with the earlier posters comments about women getting away with sexist comments whereas a man would be vilified for something similar. I see it a lot in the work place.

Two examples:

Staff canteen, one woman had a picture of a topless male model/actor on her phone and the 3 or 4 around her were looking/giggling and making comments along the lines of "pity he isn't any of them" (nodding towards the male staff).

On another occasion one female colleague passed a remark about liking my jeans. I brought it up, as I thought it odd, in the canteen and one women said it was what was in my jeans she liked which got a roar of laughter from the other ladies around her.

None of this I found offensive, it was harmless banter. But as was pointed out to me aftewards, could you imagine a male saying or doing something similar in the workplace nowadays? All of a sudden it would be sexist, offensive and degrading to all women. All it would take would be for one woman to say the words, 'sexual harassment' and all hell would break loose. He would most likely be disciplined.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

But feminism is so obsessed with it's own victimhood that they consider the whole matter to be a zero sum game. Any validity that is acceded to on behalf of men MUST be a reduction of validity on behalf of women. This is how they see it and this is how women's comments in The Gentlemen's Club consistently go.

There are a variety of comments from women in tGC. It's hard for me to summarise them all but I wouldn't summarise them that way. Generally, but not always, discussions are fairly measured. Even if I don't agree with some points, it is useful to get a feel for different perspectives, check how hypotheses bear up under scrutiny, etc.