Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mens Rights Thread
Options
Comments
-
-
There are a variety of comments from women in tGC.
Yes there is, but there have been some rather questionable thread invasions from certain female members who are clearly angered by the fact that men are discussing issues relating to men (that is the only way I can describe it). It has happened on a couple occasions in tGC and in the After Hours section too.0 -
I haven´t seen that. Can you pm me the username of one or two such posters so I can try to see where you´re coming from? Atm that sounds like twisting the reality to confirm your own skewed presumptionsthere have been some rather questionable thread invasions from certain female members who are clearly angered by the fact that men are discussing issues relating to men0 -
LeeHoffmann wrote: »I haven´t seen that. Can you pm me the username of one or two such posters so I can try to see where you´re coming from? Atm that sounds like twisting the reality to confirm your own skewed presumptions
No I won't pm you any names. If I am the only person on Boards to recognise this then I will hold my hands up.0 -
I suspected you´d decline. Can I ask why? Even a couple of examples of posts that show a female member who is "clearly angered" that men are discussing issues relating to men0
-
Advertisement
-
It is certainly an important issue you raise. My memory may be selective at the moment as things don't seem too bad here at the moment (I rarely post in AH), and I may have low expectations.Yes there is, but there have been some rather questionable thread invasions from certain female members who are clearly angered by the fact that men are discussing issues relating to men (that is the only way I can describe it). It has happened on a couple occasions in tGC and in the After Hours section too.
ETA: Many guys can also play the White Knight role also, as was seen visibly with the video about tearing down the posters, so some troublesome posters could be male also. Even when people say their gender, or it's obvious from a particular post, I may not remember weeks or months later so often don't remember the gender of posters.0 -
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?
Voters are (very slightly over) 50% female & politicians chase votes. Having a male majority in the Dáil is nothing to do with it. Same reason that quotas for candidates is a rubbish idea — if this was something that affected ordinary women on the street (as opposed to those standing for election) it would already be sorted out by the way they voted.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.
This gets a bit tired. Regardless of your own personal views, I presume that you're intelligent enough to realise a lot of people via a foetus as a 'person'. From that viewpoint, it's not a matter of women having 'the right to control their own bodies'. Whether you agree with that view or not, please take it to one of the many, many threads on abortion — it's not sexism, let alone a men's rights issue.0 -
I support this position py2006; I've seen this happened many times.Yes there is, but there have been some rather questionable thread invasions from certain female members who are clearly angered by the fact that men are discussing issues relating to men (that is the only way I can describe it). It has happened on a couple occasions in tGC and in the After Hours section too.
... and don't get sucked into pm'ing usernames, aside from the fact that the guilty parties can/have reregged/renamed, if anyone is really interested they can use the search function. In fact, it's happening currently in another thread as we speak.0 -
I really don´t see the need for such secrecy. I´m interested. The search function won´t help me - what should I search? misandric post? angry female poster? If you know where it´s happening and who it is, why not share your info?0
-
Simply put - it's against the rules. That would be attacking the poster & not the post, and it would (rightly) lead to infractions & bans.LeeHoffmann wrote: »I really don´t see the need for such secrecy. I´m interested. The search function won´t help me - what should I search? misandric post? angry female poster? If you know where it´s happening and who it is, why not share your info?
You don't believe it happens, that's your concern. I see it happening, and I'm not to the only one. Not to worry though, rest assured we are clearly wrong, as evidenced by our unwillingness to engage in your naming request. Care to move along?0 -
Advertisement
-
Your tone comes across really badly and reflects poorly imo. It's not a question of belief. I don't see it happening. You can also point out some posts (rather than posters) as I previously suggested. Refusing to back up your strong claims with examples or proof undermines your position i think. We can all go around throwing out inflammatory statements and refuse to back them up, but i think you'll agree that adds nothing to debate or the forum.
Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. It seems clear nobody's going to back up those claims so we'll leave it there.0 -
Yes there is, but there have been some rather questionable thread invasions from certain female members who are clearly angered by the fact that men are discussing issues relating to men (that is the only way I can describe it). It has happened on a couple occasions in tGC and in the After Hours section too.
More than a couple. As in real life, it's open season on men.0 -
None whatsoever. I have never seen it claimed.
Indeed so. Except that they have an international, well funded, collection of organisations that tackle this on a daily basis.
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.
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.
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.
I think this post is incredibly sexist in its own right. You've declared women and feminism to be a monolithic entity. You're denying the right of people to be individuals and ascribing an entire viewpoint to an entire personhood.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.
It's your right not to be offended, and to not raise the issue with their managers. Just as it is anyone else's right to be offended and raise the issue with the appropriate manager. You've said you didn't mind, but you obviously did because you're using the situation to disparage someone else's reaction to the matter. You're saying your reaction is the appropriate reaction and devaluing another person's reaction.ETA: Many guys can also play the White Knight role also, as was seen visibly with the video about tearing down the posters, so some troublesome posters could be male also. Even when people say their gender, or it's obvious from a particular post, I may not remember weeks or months later so often don't remember the gender of posters.
I think this is quite a sexist reaction. You're totally devaluing a man's reaction to something by saying he is a "White Knight" and acting in a way purely to get in a woman's pants. Surely the egalitarian response is to credit the man with the ability to form his own convictions and act on them. Without presuming that there's an ulterior motive, of which there is no evidence.
My own opinion is the equality is entirely linked between men and women. For example: for women to break the glass ceiling "employers" need to stop being concerned about women taking time off to care for children. And that means they need to stop presuming that women are the primary carer. And for men to have more father's rights it needs to be understood by "employers" that they're just as much might want to look after their children as women.
To be honest, when I boil down a lot of the problems between male and female rights I see a problem with society: society as dictated by those in control of the media, those in control of the state, and those in control of big business (not that there's much difference between those three, as seen by the Leveson report.)
It's not a case of women fighting for women, or men fighting for men. It's entirely a case of people fighting for respect. A huge amount of working class men are unemployed, entirely because of the manufacturing industries being brought to the developing world. The traditional female working class employment avenues have remained, because the jobs that replaced the industrial jobs (office workers, call centres, etc.) still need cleaners. We shouldn't be concerned with why "men's" jobs are disappearing and why "women's" jobs remain. We should be concerned with how people in their forties and fifties whose jobs have disappeared are going to continue living lives as is appropriate for a first world country. And that's before you even get into the problem of people in their twenties and thirties, educated men and women who went through university on the back of a "knowledge economy" and are now without work. It seems the great equaliser is that both men and women will end up unemployed and without a voice. That's troubling.0 -
You've said you didn't mind, but you obviously did because you're using the situation to disparage someone else's reaction to the matter. You're saying your reaction is the appropriate reaction and devaluing another person's reaction.
No, I said I didn't mind because...I didn't mind. It was funny and I was mildly embarrassed but that is all. As I said, it wasn't till I was taken aside later that day that the obvious double standard was pointed out and this thread reminded me of that situation.0 -
No, I said I didn't mind because...I didn't mind. It was funny and I was mildly embarrassed but that is all. As I said, it wasn't till I was taken aside later that day that the obvious double standard was pointed out and this thread reminded me of that situation.
You're saying the other person's reaction isn't valid. Just because you don't mind doesn't mean that everyone else should be of the same opinion.0 -
You're saying the other person's reaction isn't valid. Just because you don't mind doesn't mean that everyone else should be of the same opinion.
That is not what I am saying. You are missing the point. If I made a comment about a womans top being nice and tight or low or whatever (in the workplace) and got a roar of laughter from male colleagues in front of her. I would be sh1ting myself over a complaint and rightly so. For the most part, men know to stir well clear of any kind of comments like this because the consequences could be far more severe for them.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,374 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21063
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.
A very relevant point.
Something that is not often thought of is that this ruling sex were forced into armies to go fight against other men in places many had never heard of. They had the right to be butchered and killed or left with permanent injuries. This directly lead to a social consciousness of both men and women which in Europe brought us socilaism and communism that (officially at least) made everyone equal.
In an Irish context Irish Catholic men were discriminated against just as much as women until relatively recently.
There is a relatively short period where Irish Catholic men had more rights than women legally which has mostly been corrected now (legally at least).
The continued acceptance of women as the primary carer, I believe, is more responsible for the lack of women in higher positions than any kind of Institutional sexism. Until men get equal roles and responsibilities (legally) in the care of children then this will most likely continue.0 -
It seems you may be one of these people who rush to use the word "sexist". My point was that if some people are disrupting threads, one can't assume they are female. I was pointing out what are sometimes called "White Knights".ETA: Many guys can also play the White Knight role also, as was seen visibly with the video about tearing down the posters, so some troublesome posters could be male also. Even when people say their gender, or it's obvious from a particular post, I may not remember weeks or months later so often don't remember the gender of posters.
I think this is quite a sexist reaction. You're totally devaluing a man's reaction to something by saying he is a "White Knight" and acting in a way purely to get in a woman's pants. Surely the egalitarian response is to credit the man with the ability to form his own convictions and act on them. Without presuming that there's an ulterior motive, of which there is no evidence.
I didn't make any reference to people being motivating by getting in to people's pants. People could be disrupting men's rights discussions for various reasons including genuinely believing they were doing right. Men throughout the ages have been socialised to be chivalrous and protect women in society, even agreeing to men-only conscription and compulsory military service.0 -
But you seem to be ignoring the fact that there already is a strong women's movement, acting like a union for women: feminism.It's not a case of women fighting for women, or men fighting for men. It's entirely a case of people fighting for respect. A huge amount of working class men are unemployed, entirely because of the manufacturing industries being brought to the developing world. The traditional female working class employment avenues have remained, because the jobs that replaced the industrial jobs (office workers, call centres, etc.) still need cleaners. We shouldn't be concerned with why "men's" jobs are disappearing and why "women's" jobs remain. We should be concerned with how people in their forties and fifties whose jobs have disappeared are going to continue living lives as is appropriate for a first world country. And that's before you even get into the problem of people in their twenties and thirties, educated men and women who went through university on the back of a "knowledge economy" and are now without work. It seems the great equaliser is that both men and women will end up unemployed and without a voice. That's troubling.
This is a very influential movement: particularly in third level education, many people are almost indoctrinated in it so it has a lot of followers throughout society. It gets lots of funding to research society from its perspective. It pressurises governments, corporations, etc. to act in certain ways e.g. different prison sentences for men and women, discrimination against men with gender quotas, etc. In this scenario, if men don't speak up, they will be walked all over, as has been happening in recent years/decades.0 -
Yes there is, but there have been some rather questionable thread invasions from certain female members who are clearly angered by the fact that men are discussing issues relating to men (that is the only way I can describe it). It has happened on a couple occasions in tGC and in the After Hours section too.
It's true, I have seen it happen a few times. There was a thread about gender issues posted a while ago where people were discussing the sexism in AH. Lots of examples of sexism towards women were highlighted and discussed in detail (some of which were very light hearted).
When a couple of male posters tried to show examples of sexism towards men the thread was effectively closed (by a female admin I might add). It's like women are commended for highlighting it when its aimed at them, whereas men are accused of been whingebags, trolls etc. I think a lot of men refuse to speak out about it because they know they will get that sort of reaction.0 -
Advertisement
-
then point them out. Otherwise we´re going to keep going round and round in circles, and I´m getting dizzyMore than a couple.
you seem very fond of this hyperbolic sayingAs in real life, it's open season on men.0 -
LeeHoffmann wrote: »then point them out. Otherwise we´re going to keep going round and round in circles, and I´m getting dizzy
you seem very fond of this hyperbolic saying
Yada yada yada ..... All the men here who want to stand up for mens rights are sexist according to you ... your posts contribute nothing but nonsense camouflaged as argument and poorly written disruptive irrelevances.0 -
Daveysil15 wrote: »It's true, I have seen it happen a few times. There was a thread about gender issues posted a while ago where people were discussing the sexism in AH. Lots of examples of sexism towards women were highlighted and discussed in detail (some of which were very light hearted).
When a couple of male posters tried to show examples of sexism towards men the thread was effectively closed (by a female admin I might add). It's like women are commended for highlighting it when its aimed at them, whereas men are accused of been whingebags, trolls etc. I think a lot of men refuse to speak out about it because they know they will get that sort of reaction.
Every thread here on men's issues is infiltrated by women show come to disrupt and undermine the thread. No one is moderated or removed from it. Every discussion gets derailed from it's intended topic by these women and nothing is ever done about it.0 -
But you seem to be ignoring the fact that there already is a strong women's movement, acting like a union for women: feminism.
This is a very influential movement: particularly in third level education, many people are almostindoctrinated in it so it has a lot of followers throughout society. It gets lots of funding to research society from its perspective. It pressurises governments, corporations, etc. to act in certain ways e.g. different prison sentences for men and women, discrimination against men with gender quotas, etc. In this scenario, if men don't speak up, they will be walked all over, as has been happening in recent years/decades.
You addressed one component of my post and didn't look at its totality at all. You are completely disingenuous in trying to say that my approach to men's rights isn't valid.0 -
How am I being "disingenuous"? I explained why I disagreed with you. I explained why I believe the approach you mention is problematic at the moment when there already exists a strong women's rights (in a general sense)/feminist movement.
You addressed one component of my post and didn't look at its totality at all. You are completely disingenuous in trying to say that my approach to men's rights isn't valid.iptba wrote:Lyaiera wrote:It's not a case of women fighting for women, or men fighting for men. It's entirely a case of people fighting for respect. A huge amount of working class men are unemployed, entirely because of the manufacturing industries being brought to the developing world. The traditional female working class employment avenues have remained, because the jobs that replaced the industrial jobs (office workers, call centres, etc.) still need cleaners. We shouldn't be concerned with why "men's" jobs are disappearing and why "women's" jobs remain. We should be concerned with how people in their forties and fifties whose jobs have disappeared are going to continue living lives as is appropriate for a first world country. And that's before you even get into the problem of people in their twenties and thirties, educated men and women who went through university on the back of a "knowledge economy" and are now without work. It seems the great equaliser is that both men and women will end up unemployed and without a voice. That's troubling.
But you seem to be ignoring the fact that there already is a strong women's movement, acting like a union for women: feminism.
This is a very influential movement: particularly in third level education, many people are almost indoctrinated in it so it has a lot of followers throughout society. It gets lots of funding to research society from its perspective. It pressurises governments, corporations, etc. to act in certain ways e.g. different prison sentences for men and women, discrimination against men with gender quotas, etc. In this scenario, if men don't speak up, they will be walked all over, as has been happening in recent years/decades.
It's like a court room where there's already a team full of lawyers speaking for one side. And the jury is already inclined to believe that side. It that scenario, you also need to people who will put forth the case for the other side.0 -
You addressed one component of my post and didn't look at its totality at all. You are completely disingenuous in trying to say that my approach to men's rights isn't valid.
On the contrary he addressed exactly what you were saying. The rest of which was nothing more than a misguided interpretation of a silly Orwellian-like future of mass unemployment. As iptba says, Women have a voice, a voice that is loud and widespread and is dominant in the Media and Power centres. Men have no such voice and need to organise and form a voice of our own.0 -
no that´s how you want to paint things. That is at best a baseless accusation and at worst an outright lie. It´s time for you to stop putting words in peoples´ mouthsAll the men here who want to stand up for mens rights are sexist according to you
wow the irony. Pot, kettle, black.your posts contribute nothing but nonsense camouflaged as argument and poorly written disruptive irrelevances.0 -
It's like a court room where there's already a team full of lawyers speaking for one side. And the jury is already inclined to believe that side. It that scenario, you also need to people who will put forth the case for the other side.
This is exactly the way it is. Government/Cabinet/Ministers/Committees/NGOs are making decisions every day on a thousand issues affecting our lives. But they are being lobbied at each and every stage by feminist interest groups on each and every matter. There is a constant flow of pressure and demands and disingenuous and inaccurate statistics flowing on to their desks that present one side of every case and one side only.
Decision makers may well be, numerically, mostly men but they cannot avoid listening and being influenced strongly by the incredibly one sided nature of this flow. And this has being going on for decades. So there is also a sense of false reality that has grown up in these power circles, a false reality generated by the constant stream of false data and false reports.
There is NO VOICE representing a counter balanced view. NO VOICE pointing out the lopsided demands, the lopsided reports, the lopsided 'statistics' and claims. All there is is the odd media article or blog, in the margins of the debate, a month after the decisions are made, pointing out the total nonsense of these 'reports' and 'statistics'.
We desperately need a voice for men, a voice at the top table and in the Media, that counterbalances the totally unbalanced and prejudiced views that dominate the whole discussion in the Media and in Power circles.0 -
The National Women's Council of Ireland seem very focused on getting what they want into, or out of, the Constitution.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 roomMadam -- 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.
From Nov 30 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1130/1224327302538.html :Constitution had a 'huge negative impact' on women's lives
[..]
Barrister Alan Brady, adjunct lecturer in Trinity College Dublin’s school of law, said he had been commissioned by the Women’s Council to carry out a “gender audit” of the Constitution.
ETA: Looks like I was right and quotas could be enshrined in our constitution.
https://www.constitution.ie/AboutUs.aspxThe task that the Constitutional Convention has been given is set out in the Resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas of July, 2012 and includes consideration of the following:
[..]
Amendment to the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life;
Increasing the participation of women in politics;0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think he suggested that, although there is some truth in it.I think this is quite a sexist reaction. You're totally devaluing a man's reaction to something by saying he is a "White Knight" and acting in a way purely to get in a woman's pants.
Men behaving as "White Knights" is more as a result of social conditioning that perpetuates a residual code of chivalry. Men, as children, are taught that hitting girls is always wrong (while hitting boys can be justified) or that opening doors for women, and the like, is 'good manners'. None of that is really to do with getting into a woman's pants.
Nonetheless, there is also truth in the accusation that it can be as a means to get in a woman's pants, and unfortunately this is largely encouraged by women themselves. Survay after survay still show that women will prefer men with 'chivalrous' qualities and like it or not the ability for a man to 'provide' for his future family is still remains a major factor when women choose a man.
As such, rejecting 'chivalry' or being a poor provider is going to decrease a man's chances to get into a woman's pants. Like it or not, few women will want to settle down with a man who wants to be a homemaker.
I completely agree, but employers are pretty down on the list of those who need to understand this - the courts would be a better place to start. Otherwise, all you're doing is making it easier for men to care for children they have no rights to and that's not going to see much take up, TBH.My own opinion is the equality is entirely linked between men and women. For example: for women to break the glass ceiling "employers" need to stop being concerned about women taking time off to care for children. And that means they need to stop presuming that women are the primary carer. And for men to have more father's rights it needs to be understood by "employers" that they're just as much might want to look after their children as women.
After all, why stay at home and look after the kids, when chances are that, even as primary child carer, a judge will award primary custody to the mother? Better off concentrating on your career as, if you do split with the mother, you're going to need the money.
It shouldn't be, but it unfortunately has become this. If you look at iptba's most recent post, he links to a Constitutional Convention that is considering the following topics:It's not a case of women fighting for women, or men fighting for men.- Reduction of the Presidential term of office to five years and the alignment with local and European elections;
- Reduction of the voting age to 17;
- Review of the Dáil electoral system;
- Irish citizens’ right to vote at Irish Embassies in Presidential elections;
- Provisions for same-sex marriage;
- Amendment to the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life;
- Increasing the participation of women in politics; and
- Removal of the offence of Blasphemy from the Constitution.
It was partisan before masculinists started appearing on the scene.0
Advertisement