Mens Rights Thread

GalwayGuy2

Cleavage isn't a direct example.

Abs or biceps would be.

A bulge's closest thing would be ranking camel toes.

Meh, that article doesn't bother me. It's funny and, hell, maybe I can show my penis without it being a crime :pac:

But the hypocrisy does bother me.

GalwayGuy2

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Cleavage isn't a direct example.

Abs or biceps would be.

A bulge's closest thing would be ranking camel toes.

Meh, that article doesn't bother me. It's funny and, hell, maybe I can show my penis without it being a crime :pac:

But the hypocrisy does bother me.

I think cleavage is pretty damn close. Abs aren't really sexual characteristics the way a bulge or cleavage is, so I don't see how they can be considered equivalents.

But since you feel camel toes is where it's at, heres a few.


http://acidcow.com/famous/8228-celebrity-camel-toes-40-pics.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/82152518/

http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/celeb-camel-toe/tonibraxton-42910-g-jpg/

There are thousands more results. And yet no war.

GalwayGuy2

Yeah, the original point was a bit trivial.

I'd disagree on the breasts and abs point, but, meh, they're all beautiful.

Eh, tbh, I care as much about the camel toe as I do about the penis. It doesn't really bother me, but I guess I can see how it bothers other people.

Although, do women glance at a bulge? :eek:

GalwayGuy2

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Yeah, the original point was a bit trivial.

I'd disagree on the breasts and abs point, but, meh, they're all beautiful.

Eh, tbh, I care as much about the camel toe as I do about the penis. It doesn't really bother me, but I guess I can see how it bothers other people.

Although, do women glance at a bulge? :eek:

I think it's programmed in, like men glance at cleavage, it's just one of those things. My point is there is no 'war' and it serves no purpose to pretend there is.

Neither issue is particularly nice, no one wants to be judged solely on the appeal of their body parts - unless thats what you're into and choose it. People shouldn't be reduced like that, regardless of gender.

GalwayGuy2

^^^

Meh, I'll agree to disagree. It doesn't really bother me, but I don't really believe in objectification.

iptba

The thing about cleavage is that women can choose to wear clothes that don't show part of their breasts. Men don't wear clothes that show part of their penis.

PucaMama

iptba wrote: »

The thing about cleavage is that women can choose to wear clothes that don't show part of their breasts. Men don't wear clothes that show part of their penis.

ive heard that so many times, showing a part of your body doesnt give others the right to stare. in saying that, the article about "bulges" made me very uncomfortable. i think this is because im more used to see womens bodies picked apart and looked at in magazines. and im really not into those kind of magazines.

GalwayGuy2

Meh, I don't really see a problem with staring either. :P


Cleavage is one of those things that are very, very, very (summer :P) difficult not to linger on. Penises, biceps, abs are probably the closest thing.

The amount of staring depends on social decorum, and you can usually tell when it goes past the point of politeness.

NordieSteve

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Although, do women glance at a bulge? :eek:

Yup.

py2006

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Although, do women glance at a bulge? :eek:

Of course they do, its called cock-watching! I have caught many a woman throwing a glance down at little py

St890

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

^^^

Meh, I'll agree to disagree. It doesn't really bother me, but I don't really believe in objectification.

I disagree with the objectification bit, I see nothing wrong with it, people can think whatever thoughts they want.

St890

PucaMama wrote: »

ive heard that so many times, showing a part of your body doesnt give others the right to stare. in saying that, the article about "bulges" made me very uncomfortable. i think this is because im more used to see womens bodies picked apart and looked at in magazines. and im really not into those kind of magazines.

So you think you have the right to dictate the movenents of people's eyes?

People can stare where ever they want.

Pepe LeFrits

St890 wrote: »

So you think you have the right to dictate the movenents of people's eyes?

People can stare where ever they want.

Of course they can. They're still creepy and rude though.

py2006

PucaMama wrote: »

i have visited the site plenty of times but i dont anymore because of the rubbish thats on it. although theres a poster above against the rubbish on it, they are in the minority unfortunatly,

If there is glaring rubbish on it then most people will be against it.

PucaMama

St890 wrote: »

So you think you have the right to dictate the movenents of people's eyes?

People can stare where ever they want.

How about we think what we want and look where we want without being disrespectful of other people? It's rude to keep staring at people. Makes them uncomfortable. So the decent thing is not to stare.

Pawwed Rig

PucaMama wrote: »

Makes them uncomfortable. So the decent thing is not to stare.

I'm not so sure about that. I would think the reason many people where brandnames plastered all over their clothes is so other people will notice and think more of them because of it.
Some people wear a style of clothes to get noticed. For example were I to go out in a skin tight muscle top and leather skin tight pants I am sure people would stare (and laugh at how ridiculous I look) which is why I don't do it.

That said it is easy to tell those who are attention seeking from those that are not. So I would think it rude to make a person clearly not seeking attention uncomfortable.
Also, there is a difference between staring and leering.

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Also, there is a difference between staring and leering.

And just to add, we all do it. Its a human characteristic. We may not be fully aware that we do it but we all give a prolonged glance and someone we find attractive or something that is out of the ordinary.

iptba

Probably not the most important thing but my guess is if the victim was a woman, the sentence would have been more severe:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/peeping-peter-caught-after-filming-student-in-toilet-30327172.html

Arbitrary Constants

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Of course they can. They're still creepy and rude though.

Who said it wasn't.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/04/occidental-expels-student-for-rape-under

another familiar story

laoch na mona

I would like peoples opinions on these articles

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/#ixzz33eaD27j3

i think it makes a good point about how if MRA's were about rights they would defend the rights of the gay community or black Masculinity

http://www.policymic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men
this shows how feminisms is an ideology for everyone which combats all sexism



Mods feel free to delete this post if you feel its not suitable, but as this is a thread for discussing sexism I feel it is the right place for it

PucaMama

laoch na mona wrote: »

I would like peoples opinions on these articles

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/#ixzz33eaD27j3

i think it makes a good point about how if MRA's were about rights they would defend the rights of the gay community or black Masculinity

http://www.policymic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men
this shows how feminisms is an ideology for everyone which combats all sexism



Mods feel free to delete this post if you feel its not suitable, but as this is a thread for discussing sexism I feel it is the right place for it

those cover just about all the reasons i dont go on MRA sites any more. not impressed with the homophobic bit :mad: would really hope its not common

Maguined

laoch na mona wrote: »

I would like peoples opinions on these articles

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/#ixzz33eaD27j3

i think it makes a good point about how if MRA's were about rights they would defend the rights of the gay community or black Masculinity

http://www.policymic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men
this shows how feminisms is an ideology for everyone which combats all sexism



Mods feel free to delete this post if you feel its not suitable, but as this is a thread for discussing sexism I feel it is the right place for it

Cracked is a comedy site I would read for a chuckle not for serious political debate. If the same generalisation that are applied in that article were applied to feminist organisations would the article not be lambasted itself?

The second article lists some examples (some of which are subjective) however that doesn't qualify for the claim that it is an ideaology for everyone which combats all sexism.

py2006

laoch na mona wrote: »

http://www.policymic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men
this shows how feminisms is an ideology for everyone which combats all sexism

I don't think that article can be taken seriously.

VinLieger

I think the noisiest Feminists and MRAs are as bad and as extreme as each other on "getting one over on the other side" and each have what I would describe as disgustingly one sided viewpoints. Their only defense for anything seems to be shout the loudest so nobody else can be heard.

We dont need one side fighting against the other we need one mixed group trying to iron out the inconsitencies on both sides in all social policies be they parental rights, prison sentences employment equality or whatever. Fighting each other wont get anyone anywhere and just leads to more anger hate and disparity between the sexes.

constance tench

Amen.ie Launch New Campaign to Highlight Domestic Abuse Against Men in Ireland:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Amen-Support-Services/546600098743428

http://newstalk.ie/player/shows/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/13240/10325/03rd_June_2014_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_1
[@47:50]

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10289529/
[@20:10]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN3rvV-a9m4

iptba

VinLieger wrote: »

We dont need one side fighting against the other we need one mixed group trying to iron out the inconsitencies on both sides in all social policies be they parental rights, prison sentences employment equality or whatever. Fighting each other wont get anyone anywhere and just leads to more anger hate and disparity between the sexes.

Our court system has two adversarial sides giving different points of view. It works better to have two adversarial sides pointing out different sides of the story than if simply one side, whether the defense or plaintiff, was represented, which would give more unbalanced results.

GalwayGuy2

God, that policy mic article is kind of funny.

It's giving the credits of huge movements entirely onto feminism, it gives things a very, very biased viewpoint (women find a domestic sexy...what does that have to do with anything), and it turns into a self congratulatory pat on the back. Finally, it mentions feminist movements (such as changing the way male inmates are seen), but completely ignores MRA movements of the same that, it has to be said, were largely ignored and even ridiculed and demonised.

I particularly like number 22:

One of the most important lessons in feminist theory is self-criticism. Feminism teaches us that nothing is objective, not even science. Being able to discern one's privilege and subjectivity is how humans best learn empathy. Anil Dash says that he's learned that firsthand from the feminist movement.

"At a political level, various feminist movements' pragmatic lessons about how to organize, communicate and collaborate have been profoundly educational for me in trying to be a good citizen and community member," he told PolicyMic. "The tradition of being supportive while also being self-critical, welcome while also setting high standards, practical while also being principled — those are all things I was first taught by the feminists in my life, and they've made me a better, more committed advocate for the baby issues I care about.

:rolleyes:

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

Our court system has two adversarial sides giving different points of view. It works better to have two adversarial sides pointing out different sides of the story than if simply one side, whether the defense or plaintiff, was represented, which would give more unbalanced results.

Yes but that is specifically for courts where a verdict has to be returned as guilty or not guilty. That is not the same situation as these social and political issues that are not simply yes or no but are many many shades of grey so the adversarial approach is not the best but it is unfortunately what we have currently.

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Our court system has two adversarial sides giving different points of view. It works better to have two adversarial sides pointing out different sides of the story than if simply one side, whether the defense or plaintiff, was represented, which would give more unbalanced results.

Yes but that is specifically for courts where a verdict has to be returned as guilty or not guilty. That is not the same situation as these social and political issues that are not simply yes or no but are many many shades of grey so the adversarial approach is not the best but it is unfortunately what we have currently.

I think the situation is quite similar: the gender public need to be presented with the different viewpoints to analyse issues. They often now aren't, whether that's in education (sociology/gender studies, etc.), political discussion, etc and instead society is presented through a feminist lens, or a lens focusing at the effects on women.

How many politicians were giving different sides to the story on gender quotas? Or on the cohabitation bill which means people (generally men) effectively get the responsibilities of marriage without ever marrying. If there are going to be advocates trying to help women (and universities are pumping out lots of people who will take this perspective), one needs other people advocating for men or one gets an imbalance and one will continue to get laws designed to help women as people will have been convinced it's a man's world, a patriarchy, that needs fixing.

In life, one needs to hear all sides, the pluses and minuses of a proposal. So for example if something is going to adversely affect a particular environment, but has other benefits, one hears from people talking about the effects on the environment, while then one also hears people promoting the beneficial aspects of a proposal. Hearing just one side would lead to imbalanced decisions.

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

I think the situation is quite similar: the gender public need to be presented with the different viewpoints to analyse issues. They often now aren't, whether that's in education (sociology/gender studies, etc.), political discussion, etc and instead society is presented through a feminist lens, or a lens focusing at the effects on women. How many politicians were giving different sides to the story on gender quotas? Or on the cohabitation bill which means people (generally men) effectively get the responsibilities of marriage without ever marrying. If there are going to be advocates trying to help women (and universities are pumping out lots of people who will take this perspective), one needs other people advocating for men or one gets an imbalance and one will continue to get laws designed to help women as people will have been convinced it's a man's world, a patriarchy, that needs fixing.

I would disagree with saying the general public need to be presented with the different viewpoints to analyse issues. For nutrional information this makes sense as it is objective, there are X grams of fat, Y grams of sugar etc.

Gender based issues are rarely objective. Objectively only 15% of our elected TD's were women however it is subjective if that is because of patriarchy/discrimination or more to the fact that only 15% of the potential candidates were women means it was representative or the fact that nothing stops women running as independants yet women are still not putting themselves forward as independants.

I can understand your argument that if one side is already represented that it is better for the other side to be also represented rather than not however I believe the original point being made is that it would be better if there was not adversial sides being represented and it would be better overall if it was just looked at as human rights as a whole and not subdivided into male and female rights.

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

I would disagree with saying the general public need to be presented with the different viewpoints to analyse issues. For nutrional information this makes sense as it is objective, there are X grams of fat, Y grams of sugar etc.

That's true, but if one was going to make a policy based on this e.g. whether to have a fat tax, ban it or whatever, one would need to consider the positive and negative aspects of doing it.

iptba

The Men’s-Rights and Feminist Movements Should Get Married

The widely mocked men's movement makes some good points.

By Christine Sisto

June 20, 2014 3:49 PM

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/380785/mens-rights-and-feminist-movements-should-get-married-christine-sisto

iptba

Wasn't sure which thread to post this in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf3AsIKjos

iptba

Possible future changes to how rape cases are dealt with in New Zealand
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11291109

I saw it summarised as:

No “right to silence,” and burden of proof shifted to the accused.

Middle Man

iptba wrote: »

Wasn't sure which thread to post this in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf3AsIKjos

When I saw the video, I seriously thought it was highlighting the fact that the woman was taking absolutely no responsibility. The captions at the end left me :eek::eek::eek:!!!

iptba

Has some extracts and short interviews from the recent first international men's rights conference in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjOAeMmp0ao

iptba

Front page of the Metro Herald today was a piece on the HSE's spending on erectile dysfunction drugs. It's not a problem I currently suffer from but think getting some support (I think one only gets a prescription for a small amount of tablets - 2 to 4 a month?) doesn't seem unreasonable for people who need it. Based on my experience in health matters, spending in this area and on research into this area, is something some women jump on as being unnecessary so I think it's an area men may need to speak up about as being worthy, eventually.

JJ

How many MRAs does it take to change a light bulb?

Batteries need changing too, MAN!

JJ

How many MRAs does it take to change a light bulb?

Well...not ALL of them.

eviltwin

iptba wrote: »

Front page of the Metro Herald today was a piece on the HSE's spending on erectile dysfunction drugs. It's not a problem I currently suffer from but think getting some support (I think one only gets a prescription for a small amount of tablets - 2 to 4 a month?) doesn't seem unreasonable for people who need it. Based on my experience in health matters, spending in this area and on research into this area, is something some women jump on as being unnecessary so I think it's an area men may need to speak up about as being worthy, eventually.

As a woman if that was an issue in my relationship I would see it as vital that my husband was able to get these pills, it might not be life saving so its an easy target but from a mental health point of view its an important one for both men and their partners.

GalwayGuy2

eviltwin wrote: »

As a woman if that was an issue in my relationship I would see it as vital that my husband was able to get these pills, it might not be life saving so its an easy target but from a mental health point of view its an important one for both men and their partners.

Thank you.

A lot of people don't realize that not being able to get an erection, do to such things as old age, are tantamount to a castration. Not the physical violence part, but definitely the mental/emotional side of things.

GalwayGuy2

JJ wrote: »

How many MRAs does it take to change a light bulb?

Batteries need changing too, MAN!

How many Feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

None. The Light-bulb needs to change itself.



How many MRA's does it take to change a lightbulb?

Hey, why don't the people next door change this lightbulb! That's it, I'm staying in the dark until they come over and change it.

iptba

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

How many MRA's does it take to change a lightbulb?

Hey, why don't the people next door change this lightbulb!

If the people next door
- are employed either to change the lightbulb,
or
- say they'll highlight when lightbulbs need to be changed,

but
only do it for a particular type of household (type A),
not from the "wrong" sort of household (type ,

and
claim problems in society are often down to the people in the "B" households
and certainly not people in "A" households,

and campaign in various ways to help "A" households, which may involve taking from "B" households,

MRAs are right to highlight the people next door are not doing a very good job at dealing with broken lightbulbs, are biased in what they do and a better service needs to be provided for people in type "B" households.

The MRAs may also point out that many changes they would like to make can not solely be made by themselves but require the agreement or support of others.

iptba

(July 17 article)

Men, Power, Money, and Sex

An interview with men's advocate, Warren Farrell.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-do-life/201407/men-power-money-and-sex

Duggy747

Saw this gem posted on Facebook by a friend. Women who don't want to be associated with Feminism or are associated with men's rights are labelled as brainwashed in this article.

Linky

The growing popularity of the photo series proves why, more than ever, we need to communicate a deeper and more nuanced understanding of what it really means to be a feminist — and one alert to intersectionality at that. To borrow from the oft-quoted definition by Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a feminist is a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes (and genders).

With that definition as a lens through which to view these photos, it appears that these women are either unaware, brainwashed by MRAs or blissfully ignorant about how feminism has affected their everyday lives.

Seriously?

The whole #womenagainstfeminism has really shown up the belligerent stance of modern day feminists.

http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

py2006

Seriously? wrote: »

http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

Well that is quite refreshing to see.

There is an assumption among feminists that they speak for all women. This will be an eye opener for them.

Wibbs

Duggy747 wrote: »

Saw this gem posted on Facebook by a friend. Women who don't want to be associated with Feminism or are associated with men's rights are labelled as brainwashed in this article.

Linky

Some of the opinion pieces on that site are simply hilarious in their simplicity and daftness in equal measure.

PucaMama

'Thoughtful consideration of the medical and philosophical implications of circumcision are not without merit, but there is no equivalence in terms of harmful long-term effects between slicing off a young girl's clitoris (and in 80% of cases, the entire labia minora as well) and removing a baby's foreskin. Indeed, 15% of global FGM/C cases involve removing all external genitalia, and sewing up the vaginal opening. Unlike male circumcision, FGM/C has never been about health. Its cultural legacy runs deep, though the World Health Organization has deemed it a human rights violation that reinforces patriarchal conceptions of purity and denies women sexual agency. It has "absolutely no medical value" and can lead to prolonged bleeding, infection, cysts, childbirth complications, infertility and death.
Many studies have found male circumcision, on the other hand, to have a low complication rate, and that it may reduce the risk of getting or spreading HPV, HIV, herpes, syphilis and UTIs. A systematic review of "the highest-quality studies" on the practice also concluded that it "has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation or satisfaction."
The point here, ultimately, is not to debate the medical necessity of the practice. Those looking to contemplate the bodily autonomy of infants are not without feminist allies, but commandeering conversations about FGM/C in the name of male circumcision is seriously misguided.'


is that bit in bold true? got it from a site linked in another post



http://mic.com/articles/90131/the-8-biggest-lies-men-s-rights-activists-spread-about-women